Paus verwerpt evolutieleer

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door system

Leest u eens een goed boek over evolutie. Misschien komt u tot andere inzichten. Niemand is op voorhand verloren voor de waarheid op voorwaarde dat men zich goed informeert.

Dan moet ik u alvast teleurstellen. Meerdere boeken over evolutie heb ik doorgenomen (en staan trouwens in mijn bibliotheek), zowel van evolutionisten, creationisten als theïsten. Al die informatie heeft me alleen gesterkt in de overtuiging dat de evolutieheorie een loutere theorie is gebleven.

[Pieke]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Dat is niet zo.

De wetenschap worstelt met nog ontelbare vragen, beschikt over archeologisch materiaal dat op geen enkele wijze in het geheel van de evolutionistische axioma's past en heeft tot op heden te maken met ontelbare "missing links".

Kortom, de evolutieTHEORIE blijft een theorie, een hypothese.

Jan, nu ge hier toch zijt, kunt ge eens eindelijk hier op antwoorden?

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe
Een verandering binnen een oersoort is nog steeds geen evolutie, daar evolutie juist de overstap naar een andere soort omvat. Dat was al wat Darwin door elkaar gooide toen hij bij het zien van veranderingen in insecten dacht aan evolutie.

Nu ben ik toch geïntrigeerd door die oersoorten. Dus, alle katachtigen stammen af van een van een oerkatkoppel, Noah en zijn 16000 dieren indachtig? En die evolutie vanaf die oerkat tot de huidige katachtigen vond plaats op ongeveer 6000 jaar?

[Pieke]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Dan moet ik u alvast teleurstellen. Meerdere boeken over evolutie heb ik doorgenomen (en staan trouwens in mijn bibliotheek), zowel van evolutionisten, creationisten als theïsten. Al die informatie heeft me alleen gesterkt in de overtuiging dat de evolutieheorie een loutere theorie is gebleven.

Nochthtans heeft men voor bv de walvisachtigen de gehele evolutionaire stamboom gevonden, met tussenvormen.

[system]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Dan moet ik u alvast teleurstellen. Meerdere boeken over evolutie heb ik doorgenomen (en staan trouwens in mijn bibliotheek), zowel van evolutionisten, creationisten als theïsten. Al die informatie heeft me alleen gesterkt in de overtuiging dat de evolutieheorie een loutere theorie is gebleven.

U stelt me inderdaad teleur.

[Dycore]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door system

'zien' niet zozeer in de letterlijke betekenis. Het principe van de evolutie lijkt me onbetwisbaar. Maar of de evolutietheorie van Darwin voor 100% juist is, is weer een andere kwestie.

Akkoord. Darwin's theorie is voor verfijning vatbaar. Maar de evolutietheorie is intussen al veel sterker ontwikkeld en onderbouwd met bewijzen dan in de tijd van Darwin. Het principe staat onomstotelijk vast.

[Dycore]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Dan moet ik u alvast teleurstellen. Meerdere boeken over evolutie heb ik doorgenomen (en staan trouwens in mijn bibliotheek), zowel van evolutionisten, creationisten als theïsten. Al die informatie heeft me alleen gesterkt in de overtuiging dat de evolutieheorie een loutere theorie is gebleven.

Waarom? Gewoon een gevoel?

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dycore

Waarom? Gewoon een gevoel?

Neen, het ontbreken van vele elementen, het bestaan van vele archeologische vondsten die op geen enkele wijze passen in het evolutionistisch denkbeeld en de aannemelijke verklaring van heel creationistische uiteenzettingen.

[Dycore]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Dat is niet zo.

De wetenschap worstelt met nog ontelbare vragen, beschikt over archeologisch materiaal dat op geen enkele wijze in het geheel van de evolutionistische axioma's past en heeft tot op heden te maken met ontelbare "missing links".

Kortom, de evolutieTHEORIE blijft een theorie, een hypothese.

Welke vragen? Welk archeologisch materiaal?

[Dycore]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

U verwart overduidelijk "evolutie" met "mutatie".

Leg dat eens uit ajb?

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dycore

Akkoord. Darwin's theorie is voor verfijning vatbaar. Maar de evolutietheorie is intussen al veel sterker ontwikkeld en onderbouwd met bewijzen dan in de tijd van Darwin. Het principe staat onomstotelijk vast.

"Darwin... was in verlegenheid door de fossielen... nu zijn we ongeveer 120 jaar na Darwin en de kennis van fossielen is sterk toegenomen. We hebben nu ongeveer 250.000 fossiele soorten maar toch is de situatie nog niet veel veranderd... We hebben zelfs minder voorbeelden van evolutionaire overgangsvormen dan in Darwins tijd."

David M.Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Nutural History,Vol.50, No.1 (p.22), jan. 1979

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dycore

Welke vragen? Welk archeologisch materiaal?

http://www.mcremo.com/

[Dycore]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

David M.Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Nutural History,Vol.50, No.1 (p.22), jan. 1979

Hoe kan je nu minder overgangsvormen hebben dan in de tijd van Darwin? Zijn er fossielen verloren gegaan dan? Stuur mij eens een link op met de volledige tekst van die gast. Volgens mij heb je dat volledig uit de context gerukt. Ofwel is de auteur prettig gestoord.

[Dycore]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

http://www.mcremo.com/

Wat een zever. Waar precies zie jij daar concrete tegenbewijzen op staan? Beetje serieus blijven hé. Straks ga je mij nog bewijzen dat er aliens geland zijn in je tuin met foto's van vliegende schotels.

[duncan]

en waarom niet ?!
der zen ier op deze planeet al genoeg aantal aliens ....ik wil niet zeggen of schrijven dat dit NIET zou kunnen

Leven we dan alléén in deze kosmos ?

In America denkt men anders over de materie aliens zenne ....algoe .


Ooit al van ufologen gehoort ?!
Die beston in dees landje ook hé .....t'is maar datge het weet hé .

Al is niburu.nl bezocht over maya cultuur enzo of hoofd stukjes gelezen over Phoëiniciërs die de voorloper waren van archaïsch ( oud) herbreeuws ?!

Gaatge me nu vertellen da die vrije intelligente culturen zo plots hup 123 het woord god kenden en taal en alfabetten die ongeveer +- 300 keer meer klanken bevatten dan het onze ?!

Hahahahaha kom kom kom AL de landen van deze aarde belogen en houden jaren lang geheimen in stilte ver weg van het eigen volk of het nu hier is of (h)America is ni veel verschil zenne ....ik zeg ni datge niet in aliens moogt geloven hé moh euhmmm denkt eerst goe na, leer er dan iets over & alsge sjans hebt moogtge ze misschien zien vliegen lol

Ufologie - ufoloog - ....andere wezenlijke relaties - lichtwerkers - ufo-symboliek oh jaja dit is leuk mandala's en aanverwante mantra's ( citaties ) hmmm gnostiek ( iets dichter bij huis ) sofisme - boek van de engel Ratziël ( engel vn adam & zo ) ...een boek dat origineel prop vol symbolen stond - crop circles - graancirkels en aanverwante symboliek andere engelen - jaja zelfs heiligen zagen lichtjes vliegen en landen hmmm straf hé

Moet ik verder gaan ?!

Hmmm oké ik maakte men punt

* Al het éne is het alles eeuwige en blijvende .
Hen to pan aeoon .

Slimmen paus op vele vlakken maar ni op alle vlakken ...tjah niemand is perfect en weet of kent alles ( alléssis - voorteken.. )

[drosophila]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

De wetenschap worstelt met nog ontelbare vragen

Het tegendeel zou verbazen want dan zou de wetenschap niet meer nodig zijn.

beschikt over archeologisch materiaal dat op geen enkele wijze in het geheel van de evolutionistische axioma's past

Kunt u eens heel concreet zeggen WELKE archeologica strijdig zijn met WELKE "evolutionistische axioma's" en WAAROM?

en heeft tot op heden te maken met ontelbare "missing links".

Het tegendeel zou verbazen want dan zou de paleontologie het nirvana hebben bereikt.

Kortom, de evolutieTHEORIE blijft een theorie, een hypothese.

Kijk, mijn beste VdB, er zijn zo van die wetenschappelijke begrippen waarvan je écht wel de betekenis moet kennen, wil je een beetje geloofwaardig zijn in dit soort discussie. Essentieel, Jan (in feite niveau lager middelbaar) is het onderscheid tussen 'theorie' en 'hypothese'. Om het u gemakkelijk te maken, bezorg ik u deze tekst, waarin de begrippen ineens ook toegepast worden op deze discussie:


One of the most common accusations heard from creationists is that "evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven". Such assertions are also heard from right-wing conservatives who give political support to the creationists. For instance, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience, concerning evolution, "Well, it's a theory -- it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed." (cited in Berra 1990, p. 123, Wills 1990 p. 120, and Eldredge 1982 p. 28)
This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models. The distinction between these is important in understanding and in countering ID/creationist arguments, since the word "theory" also has a popular usage that is quite different from its scientific meaning.
In the popular view, the word "theory" means simply something that is unproven -- an assertion which may or may not be true. It is this meaning which the creationists refer to when they assert that evolution is "just a theory", the implication being that, if evolution hasn't been proven, then it should have no more standing than creation "science". In science, however, the word "theory" has a very definite meaning. Under the scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered, the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data. This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean when they say "theory".
Once a hypothesis has been formed, it is compared against the data (both old and new) to see how well it fits with the established facts. If the hypothesis is contradicted by the data, then it must be either modified and tested again, or discarded completely and a new hypothesis formed. Once a hypothesis has passed the test of verification through data, it becomes a scientific theory -- i.e., it becomes an established framework within which to interpret the relationship of various bits of raw data. On the basis of this theory, new hypotheses are formed, and areas in which new data may be gathered are identified. If the theory continues to correctly explain new data (and indeed serves to correctly predict the outcome of scientific experiments), it is said to have a high degree of reliability. Such a theory is not a mere supposition or guess; it is a hypothesis that has been verified by direct experimentation and which has demonstrated a high degree of predictive ability. When it fits data well and makes accurate predictions, scientists refer to it as being "robust".
When a related group of theories are correlated to one another and demonstrate the ability to be predictive and to explain the data, they form a scientific model. Models are the intellectual framework within which vast areas of particular data are explained and described. They also serve to indicate potential new areas of research and new hypotheses which can be tested to see if they can be integrated into the model.
An example may help to illustrate these distinctions. Observational data indicates to us that we can see the masts of tall ships while they are still far out on the horizon, before we can see the deck or the hull. We can also observe that the shadow of the earth, cast upon the moon during a rare eclipse, appears to be circular. We can therefore formulate the hypothesis that the earth is round. This would explain all of our data. Using this hypothesis, we can predict that, if the earth is indeed a sphere, we should be able to sail completely around the earth without falling off or coming to an edge. And, if this experiment is performed, we find that we can indeed do so. Our hypothesis has now been verified by experimentation, shows itself capable of correlating a variety of disparate data, and shows an ability to be predictive, and is therefore established as a scientific theory, the Theory of the Round Earth.
If we combine our theory of the round earth with other theories such as the theory of a round moon and a theory of heliocentrism (the sun is at the center of the solar system), we can formulate a model -- the moon orbits around the earth, the earth orbits around the sun, and all are part of a system of planets orbiting around a central star. This is the model of the heliocentric solar system.
Please note that none of this is to be treated as an absolute fact -- all scientific models are tentative, and are valid only insofar as they continue to explain and predict new findings. It is entirely possible that some later observation or data will completely upset our model. Many times, a model must be modified and altered in order to explain new data or to expand its explanatory power. No scientific model can be viewed as an absolute proof. Perhaps at some point in time the shadow of the earth upon the moon will be seen to be a square, or perhaps one day we will see that the moon does not really revolve around the earth. However, based upon all of the data we possess currently, we can conclude that neither of these possibilities is very likely, and we are justified in having a high degree of confidence in the solar system model. Although it has not been (and cannot logically be) proven to an absolute certainty, it has been verified by every experiment we have conducted so far, and it has proven to have profound predictive power.
This model then becomes a basis on which to formulate new hypotheses and to investigate new areas of research. As various scientists produce new data and formulate new theories and hypotheses, a consensus will be reached about which theories are better suited to the data and which have a higher degree of confidence. In this manner, the model is constantly being modified, improved and expanded in order to encompass more and more data. Scientific models can never be stagnant -- they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases.
Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of all facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know.
The current theories of evolutionary mechanisms (Darwinian gradualism through natural selection, punctuated equilibria and neutralist evolution) together constitute a scientific model. This model has survived (with some modifications) every experimental test, and has not been invalidated by any data or evidence that we now possess. Evolutionary theory has demonstrated an ability to correlate and explain a wide variety of disparate data with a high degree of confidence, and has proven to have the ability to predict experimental results and to point out new areas that may be investigated for new data. As a scientific theory, the theory of evolution has the same robust standing and authority that atomic theory, germ theory, the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum physics possess.
As a complement to labeling evolution as "just a theory", the creationists also like to refer to their own particular outlook as a "model". Examination will quickly show that this is simply not true -- creationism is not a scientific model in any sense of the word. Scientific hypotheses, theories and models are all based upon several basic criteria. First, they must explain the world as it is observed, using naturalistic mechanisms which can be tested and verified by independent observation and experimentation. Although the existence of God is not necessarily denied by science, supernatural explanations which are based upon the unseen and undetectable actions of God are excluded from science as a matter of necessity. As biologist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out, science is dependent upon the assumption that the world is real and operates according to regular and predictable laws, which are not changed from moment to moment at the whim of supernatural forces: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course." (cited in Montagu, 1984, p. 241) Geologist and theologian Dr James Skehan also notes, "I undertake my scientific research with the confident assumption that the earth follows the laws of nature which God established at creation . . . . My studies are performed with the confidence that God will not capriciously confound scientific results by 'slipping in' a miracle!" (Strahler, 1987, pp. 40-41)
The creationist idea that God divinely created the universe may or may not be true, but, by postulating a supernatural event which occurs outside of the natural laws of the universe, such an idea places itself firmly outside the realm of science. There is simply no experiment which can verify any of its assertions and no predictions of future data that can be drawn from this hypothesis, and those who hold such conclusions can do so only on the basis of faith. This is fine for a religious outlook or an ideology, but it has nothing at all in common with science.
Another characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable. As we have seen, it is not possible to "prove" that any scientific model is absolutely true and correct. It is, however, quite possible to prove that any given scientific model is not correct -- that is, it can be conclusively shown to be false. The evolution model, for instance, could be falsified in any number of ways--a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly poof! into existence from nowhere, for instance. On a more realistic level, the evolution model would be conclusively falsified if any of the three basics we pointed out earlier--variation, heritability or selection, were shown by experiment to be invalid (i.e., if some genetic mechanism were to be found which made it chemically impossible for mutations to occur in the DNA, or for any such mutations to be passed down from one generation to the next). The evolutionary model would also be falsified if the fossil remains of a fully modern human being or a flowering plant were to be reliably found in strata that have been dated to the Cambrian period of earth's history, or the Devonian, or the Permian, or if it were to be conclusively shown that all fossils found to date are elaborate fakes, planted by an international conspiracy of evolution scientists to impose secular humanism upon the earth. So far, however, no evidence has been reliably presented, by the creationists or by anyone else, which falsifies the evolution model. Every experiment that has been performed and every bit of data which has been collected has tended to confirm its validity.
For legal reasons, the creationists (and their Intelligent Design successors) are insistent that their outlook is really "science", and is not merely a rehash of their fundamentalist religious beliefs. However, when pressed to tell us exactly what their scientific theory is, they usually either do not respond at all, or else they respond with a long list of inaccurate criticisms of evolutionary theory (which of course do nothing at all to demonstrate the scientific validity of the creationist outlook).
However, the creation "scientists" have published what they refer to as their "scientific model" of creation, and it is worth examining.

[drosophila]

Het spannende vervolg leest u hier

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dycore

Hoe kan je nu minder overgangsvormen hebben dan in de tijd van Darwin? Zijn er fossielen verloren gegaan dan? Stuur mij eens een link op met de volledige tekst van die gast. Volgens mij heb je dat volledig uit de context gerukt. Ofwel is de auteur prettig gestoord.

Darwin's general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one that it is full of gaps, and that we have much to learn. In effect, he was saying that if the record were complete and if we had better knowledge of it we would see the finely graduated chain that he predicted. And this was his main argument for downgrading the evidence from the fossil record. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (

http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogs...evolution.html

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/.../stasis/1.html
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/.../stasis/2.html
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/.../stasis/3.html
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/.../stasis/4.html
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/.../stasis/5.html

http://home.hetnet.nl/~genesis/deel1/bio23.htm

[drosophila]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pieke

micro-evolutie is geen bewijs voor macro-evolutie

Zie hier en hier

[drosophila]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

http://www.mcremo.com/

Kijk eens aan, onze katholieke creationist verschuilt zich achter een hindoe-creationist! Hoe is het dan wél gegaan Jan? Volgens de Rig Veda en de Upanishaden, of volgens Genesis? Ze kunnen niet allem�*�*l tegelijk waar zijn!
Bovendien is die Michael Cremo al lang naar de prullenmand verwezen, zie hier en http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html
en http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

[duncan]

lol hahaha oooh julie zen kostelijk voor men gezondheid ( in goede zin hé )