← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Blond Knight
Thread ID: 17275 | Posts: 64 | Started: 2005-03-12
2005-03-12 21:16 | User Profile
[url]http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml[/url]
An excerpt:
I once told my daughters, ââ¬ÅWhatever you most ardently believe, remember that there is another side. Try, however hard it may be, to put yourself in the shoes of those whose views you most dislike. Force yourself to make a reasoned argument for their position. Do that, think long and hard, and conclude as you will. You can do no better, and you may be surprised.ââ¬Â
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good advice for many matters.
2005-03-13 00:00 | User Profile
An excellent expose of the secular religious fundamentalists of the Darwinian confession. I'm glad old Fred noted the bizarre obsession that these people have with "Creationists". By Creationist is meant, of course, any one who doesn't subscribe to the fanciful musings of Charles Darwin and the even more deranged NEOdarwinians:
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3][left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does ââ¬â except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions ââ¬â overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.[/size][/font][/left]
[left][/left] [left]Just one question -- where did you stumble across this fine article? Cruising atheist Linder's soap box can get you excommunicated by our resident Romish fundamentalist cum Muhajeedin.[/left] [/size][/font]
2005-03-13 00:13 | User Profile
John,
Welcome to OD.
The article is on Fred's website, just click the link under my signature: Fred On Everything
2005-03-13 00:38 | User Profile
There is also the matter of implausibility. Suppose that I showed you two tiny gear wheels, such as one might find in an old watch, and said, ââ¬ÅSee? I turn this little wheel, and the other little wheel turns too. Isnââ¬â¢t that cute?ââ¬Â You would not find this surprising. Suppose I then showed you a whole mechanical watch, with thirty little gear wheels and a little lever that said tickticktick. You would have no trouble accepting that they all worked together.
If I then told you of a mechanism consisting of a hundred billion little wheels that worked for seventy years, repairing itself, wouldnââ¬â¢t you suspect either that I was smoking something really goodââ¬âor that something beyond simple mechanics must be involved?
Evolution writ large is the belief that a cloud of hydrogen will spontaneously invent extreme-ultraviolet lithography, perform Swan Lake, and write all the books in the British Museum.
If something looks implausible, it probably is.
truly entertaining piece.
2005-03-13 08:52 | User Profile
Evolution writ large is the belief that a cloud of hydrogen will spontaneously invent extreme-ultraviolet lithography, perform Swan Lake, and write all the books in the British Museum.
"Spontaneously"?
Either the word "spontaneous" has a very broad meaning in Fred's dictionary, or he -- like nearly all other critics of evolutionary theory -- is scientifically illiterate. To put it mildly, he left out quite a few intermediate steps between his cloud of hydrogen and his other phenomena.
It is a known empirical fact that higher animals evolved from lower animals. Also, human beings and chimpanzees have an ancestor in common. No one who is qualified in biology, genetics, or other relevant fields disputes this. Others who don't want to accept reality are free to "play pretend" as much as they wish, but they are simply wrong. It is fortunate for their emotional health that they are unqualified to understand the evidence.
I understand that many people find it frightening to think of the universe in naturalistic terms. It has many disturbing implications that human beings would rather not accept. For example, earlier tonight I was watching a show on Discovery Channel about a man who had damaged the frontal lobe in his brain in a car accident. The damage had changed his personality and caused him not to love his wife and young child anymore. The doctors stated that this sort of personality change is not uncommon in frontal-lobe-damaged patients. So, what's the moral? That what we call "love" is merely a physiological phenomenon in the brain, not a supernatural phenomenon ("God is Love," etc.). Damage the wrong part of your brain, and BAM -- you're incapable of love. This is very tragic, but it's also yet another strong piece of evidence that human nature is rooted firmly in the material world.
On the brighter side, the more humans seek and learn about the natural world, divorcing reality from myth, the better our lives become. Christians used to know -- not think, but KNOW -- that people who periodically fell on the ground and had uncontrollable muscle spasms were possessed by the devil. The "cure" was exorcism -- or, if that failed, burning at the stake. Over time, some people became brave enough to question such "inspired knowledge," and that's why the human race understands epilepsy today.
The analogy to evolutionary theory and its critics is obvious. The people today who are certain evolutionary theory is wrong are playing precisely the same role as those who used be certain that epileptics were possessed. Their consciences are clear, and they are absolutely confident that they're correct. But they're just as wrong as their intellectual forebears were. The only real difference is that people in the modern world have much less of an excuse for their ignorance than men of centuries past. Information and education have never been more available to those who are willing to acquire it.
2005-03-13 11:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] Damage the wrong part of your brain, and BAM -- you're incapable of love. This is very tragic, but it's also yet another strong piece of evidence that human nature is rooted firmly in the material world. [/QUOTE]
Rooted? Either the word "rooted" has a very broad meaning in your dictionary, or you -- like nearly all other anti-Christian bigots of evolutionary theory -- are logically illiterate. To put it mildly, you left out quite a few intermediate steps between your frontal lobe and the phenomenon of Love.
Human nature is not "rooted" in the material but merely subject to it in ways which suggest to others -- yourself perhaps -- the validity of seeking to precipitate humanity's next Great Leap by refining the raw materials from which random slices of perfectly predictable and manipulatable consciousness are formed.
Save where you serve as Exhibit "A" to Fred's concern over evol obsessions with Christianity, your post is intriguing. Can you point me to the irrefutable empirical evidence that "higher" animals evolved from 'lower animals"?
I'm particularly interested in some theory of human reason's appearance -- like some nefarious third arm, given its penchant for useless nonsense and rationalization of self-destruction -- courtesy of the same impersonal but progressive life force that rusts iron and ripens corn.
2005-03-13 12:09 | User Profile
This article has been posted and discussed before here:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=105667#post105667[/url]
2005-03-13 12:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]An excerpt:
I once told my daughters, “Whatever you most ardently believe, remember that there is another side. Try, however hard it may be, to put yourself in the shoes of those whose views you most dislike. Force yourself to make a reasoned argument for their position. Do that, think long and hard, and conclude as you will. You can do no better, and you may be surprised.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good advice for many matters.[/QUOTE]
OK. How about you take the advice to heart and give us your best pro-evolution argument? :D
2005-03-13 20:11 | User Profile
To deny evolution is to deny common sense and the plainly obvious in favor of superstition that has no provable basis. Oh, and before askel5 chimes in, I am not an "anti-Christian bigot. The fact that I am not a believer makes me no more or less evil than you.
2005-03-13 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] On the brighter side, the more humans seek and learn about the natural world, divorcing reality from myth, the better our lives become. Christians used to know -- not think, but KNOW -- that people who periodically fell on the ground and had uncontrollable muscle spasms were possessed by the devil. The "cure" was exorcism -- or, if that failed, burning at the stake. Over time, some people became brave enough to question such "inspired knowledge," and that's why the human race understands epilepsy today.[/QUOTE] Citation, please?
2005-03-13 20:54 | User Profile
Evolution is a religion. That's why it will always be with us. It's very hard to get people to quit believing in their religion.
2005-03-13 21:19 | User Profile
[B][I] - "To deny evolution is to deny common sense"[/I][/B]
On the contrary, even many evolutionists will admit that "common sense" is [U]not[/U] on the side of the evolution thesis (meaning the utterly spontaneous birth and development of all life), and only the elite with [I]loooong [/I] education/brainwashing on the subject can really hope to appreciate and comprehend it.
Petr
2005-03-13 21:40 | User Profile
In [url=http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_smu1992.htm]Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other [/url] Michael Behe cites two studies that, by different methods, calculated the probability that a string of 100 randomly chosen amino acids would form a functional protein: 10 exp -65.
2005-03-13 21:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]"Spontaneously"?
Either the word "spontaneous" has a very broad meaning in Fred's dictionary, or he -- like nearly all other critics of evolutionary theory -- is scientifically illiterate. To put it mildly, he left out quite a few intermediate steps between his cloud of hydrogen and his other phenomena.
spon÷ta÷ne÷ous (spün-tóââ¬Ånö-ââ¬Â¦s) adj. 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
It looks like Fred solidly nailed it. Merely accusing Fred of being ignorant doesn't show that he is ignorant. In fact, it shows that the critic lacks such evidence.
It is a known empirical fact that higher animals evolved from lower animals.
em÷pir÷i÷cal (õm-pîrââ¬Åù-kââ¬Â¦l) adj. 1.a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
Would you please point me to the documentation showing the observation of higher animals evolving from lower animals.
Also, human beings and chimpanzees have an ancestor in common. No one who is qualified in biology, genetics, or other relevant fields disputes this.
Groups like the ICR and Answers in Genesis baost of having PhD members in these fields. The Intelligent Design movement is also bolstered by experts in these fields. So, I guess what you mean by "qualified" is simply anyone who agrees with you (what are you qualifications?).
Others who don't want to accept reality are free to "play pretend" as much as they wish, but they are simply wrong.
I have asked repeatedly for just one observed example of real Evolution and none has ever been provided. If Evolution were true, this would be a trivial request. I don't have to pretend something doesn't exist when no one can show that it does exist.
I understand that many people find it frightening to think of the universe in naturalistic terms.
I would think to most people that it would be more frightening to believe that there is a Just God who rules the universe.
For example, earlier tonight I was watching a show on Discovery Channel about a man who had damaged the frontal lobe in his brain in a car accident. The damage had changed his personality and caused him not to love his wife and young child anymore.
Yes, a lot of human nature has organic roots. So?
The analogy to evolutionary theory and its critics is obvious. The people today who are certain evolutionary theory is wrong are playing precisely the same role as those who used be certain that epileptics were possessed.
Because someone is wrong about one thing they attributed to the supernational (that includes things that conflict with Christianity), then they must be wrong about all things attributed to the supernatual? What about all those material theories that have been refuted? What does that mean?
2005-03-14 02:14 | User Profile
If human beings did not evolve from lower life-forms, why does a human foetus have vestigal gills for a period during it's development?
2005-03-14 03:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]If human beings did not evolve from lower life-forms, why does a human foetus have vestigal gills for a period during it's development?[/QUOTE]
Also a tail.....
2005-03-14 03:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]If human beings did not evolve from lower life-forms, why does a human foetus have vestigal gills for a period during it's development?[/QUOTE]
That is part of a "theory" started by Ernst Haeckel, who is infamous for his use of fraud to promote it. A feotus may have folds that have a very slight superficial resemblance to gills, but it still is rather dishonest to call them gills. If Evolution were true, it would be trivial for Evolutionists to demonstrate it, rather than desperately try to present circumstantial details as evidence for Evolution.
Haeckel's observations on the link between ontogeny (development of form) and phylogeny (evolutionary descent) have been named the "recapitulation theory", summed up in the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Haeckel's efforts to prove this hypothesis were probably misguided and inaccurate... On top of picking several wrong concepts to champion, he was actually caught using doctored data in some of his papers. Most notably his drawings of embryos were known, even by contemporaries, to deliberately misrepresent the similarities between embryos of different species." [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel]Wikipedia[/URL]
Here's is an example of an Evolutionist school biology text promoting this lie. Only after Creationists challenged them on did they produce this reply:> Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours! [URL=http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch%2010/Haeckel.htm]Brown University[/URL]
How much credibility are you going to give to someone who knowingly publishes lies in school text books to promote Evolution? They still want to use cherry-picked examples of superficial similarities to preserve Haeckel's hypothesis. That's not science, that's a con job.
In fact, neither gills nor their slits are found at any stage in the embryological development of any mammal including man. The folds in the neck region of the mammalian embryo, that are erroneously called "gills", are not gills in any sense of the word and never have anything to do with breathing. They are merely flexion folds, or wrinkles, in the neck region resulting from the sharply down turned head and protruding heart of the developing embryo. These folds eventually develop into a portion of the face, inner ear, tonsils, parathyroid and thymus. No reputable medical embryology text claims that there are "gill slits" in mammals. [URL=http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/slits.htm]David Menton[/URL]
David Menton has a Ph.D. in Biology from Brown university, the prestigious university that admits to passing on lies to promote Evolution.
2005-03-14 04:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]That is part of a "theory" started by Ernst Haeckel, who is infamous for his use of fraud to promote it. A feotus may have folds that have a very slight superficial resemblance to gills, but it still is rather dishonest to call them gills.[/QUOTE]
This is a bit of a straw man an argument, because I never stated that I agreed with the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory. From Wikipedia:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_recapitulates_phylogeny[/url]
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]The fact that the strict recapitulation theory is rejected by modern biologists has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's theory was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory. See: ontogeny and phylogeny.[/QUOTE]
and from another Wikipedia page:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_and_phylogeny[/url]
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]Generally, if a structure pre-dates another structure in evolutionary terms, then it also appears earlier than the other in the embryo. Species which have an evolutionary relationship typically share the early stages of embryonal development and differ in later stages. Examples include: The backbone, the common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos. The cerebrum in humans, the most sophisticated part of the brain, develops last.
If a structure vanished in an evolutionary sequence, then one can often observe a corresponding structure appearing at one stage during embryonic development, only to disappear or become modified in a later stage. Examples include: Whales, which have evolved from land mammals, don't have legs, but tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies. During embryonal development, leg extremities first occur, then recede. Similarly, whale embryos (like all mammalian embryos) have hair at one stage, but lose most of it later. All land vertebrates, which have evolved from fish, show gill pouches at one stage of their embryonal development. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx. (Nice one Ponce! :) ) The swim bladder in fish presumably evolved from a sac connected to the gut, allowing the fish to gulp air. In most modern fish, this connection to the gut has disappeared. In the embryonal development of these fish, the swim bladder originates as an outpocketing of the gut, and the connection to the gut later disappears.
Explanation
One can explain connections between phylogeny and ontogeny if one assumes that one species changes into another by a sequence of small modifications to its developmental program (specified by the genome). Modifications that affect early steps of this program will usually require modifications in all later steps and are therefore less likely to succeed. Most of the successful changes will thus affect the latest stages of the program, and the program will retain the earlier steps. Occasionally however, a modification of an earlier step in the program does succeed: for this reason a strict correspondence between ontogeny and phylogeny, as expressed in Ernst Haeckel's discredited recapitulation law, fails.[/QUOTE]
Remember, it was you who originally cited Wikipedia as a credible source, not me
To cite another of your sources (although to be fair to you, you did question their credibility), Brown University, on Evolution and Development:
[url]http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/30.S&S.HTML[/url]
[QUOTE=Brown University]von Baer made observations about ontogeny and phylogeny that seem obvious to us today, but they are important in development and evolution as they run counter to recapitulation: 1) more general characters appear early in development, 2) less general forms develop from the more general forms, 3) embryos do not pass through other forms they diverge from them, 4) embryos of higher forms only resemble embryos of other forms (human, calf, chick and fish look similar at embryo stage but diverge quickly). See section 17.8.2, and fig. 17.11, pgs. 478-479.[/QUOTE]
Note that while they explicitly refute the "ontogency recapitulates phylogeny" theory, they do not dispute that the human foetus resembles that of a fish during it's earlier stages of development, before diverging in form. And at no stage in that article do they refute the theory of evolution generally.
2005-03-14 05:13 | User Profile
To answer a few more of your points:
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]How much credibility are you going to give to someone who knowingly publishes lies in school text books to promote Evolution? They still want to use cherry-picked examples of superficial similarities to preserve Haeckel's hypothesis. That's not science, that's a con job.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that using Haeckel's drawings as "the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology" counts as "publishing lies". If the drawings are an accurate illustration of a foetus, why shouldn't they use them? It is his theoretical inferences drawn from those drawings that are inaccurate, not the drawings themselves. Also, contrary to your claim that "they still want to use cherry-picked examples of superficial similarities to preserve Haeckel's hypothesis" (ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny), Brown University explicitly refutes it! (see link in my previous post)
[QUOTE]No reputable medical embryology text claims that there are "gill slits" in mammals.[/QUOTE]
Not slits, pouches. And the claim is that there are intermediate forms during foetal development that resemble these structures, and are evidence of previous evolutionary eras, not that these structures ever actually appear fully formed.
[QUOTE]David Menton has a Ph.D. in Biology from Brown university.[/QUOTE]
Bogus argument from authority. I could point to plenty of PhDs who agree with evolutionary theory. How does this prove anything?
2005-03-14 05:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Remember, it was you who originally cited Wikipedia as a credible source, not me
Actually, I cited Wikipedia as a hostile witness, one that could not be impeached by being accused of being a Creationist source. Besides, Encyclopedia Brittanica requires a subscription.
You quote Wikipedia saying, "Modern biology [read: Evolutionists] does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny." I pointed that out myself (when addressing Brown University's tactic's), "They still want to use cherry-picked examples of superficial similarities to preserve Haeckel's hypothesis." All you're doing is saying Evolutionists believe Evolution.
As an aside, crediting "science" ("modern biology" in this case) for something is another con tactic of Evolutionists. "Science" says nothing and recognizes nothing. Some/few/most/whatever "scientists" say something or recognize something. What really should have been said here is "Evolutionists recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny", but then it would have been obvious that the statement is worthless for discerning which side is right.
You also quote Wikipedia saying, "All land vertebrates, which have evolved from fish, show gill pouches at one stage of their embryonal development." Gill pouches? What happened to gill slits? And, what's a gill pouch; rather, what fold could you not imagine to be a gill pouch?
You say, "They do not dispute that the human foetus resembles that of a fish during it's earlier stages of development." Yes, and some clouds look like bunny rabbits, what does it prove?
Rowdy, what you should have responded to was the willingness of textbook publishers to knowingly take part in what they admit is a fraud to promote the view of "numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny." And, what you should have addressed the meaning or meaninglessness of superficial similarity between vertebrate fetuses.
BTW, our little debate here is what most Evolutionists want banned in every science classroom in America. What does that say about the strength of the evidence for Evolution?
2005-03-14 06:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]I wouldn't say that using Haeckel's drawings as "the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology" counts as "publishing lies". If the drawings are an accurate illustration of a foetus, why shouldn't they use them?
The textbook website doesn't say the published illustrations are accurate. It says the drawings "are based on the [dishonest/inaccurate] work of Ernst Haecke" and "his [dishonest/inaccurate] drawings nonetheless became the source[!] material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook." If they were accurate, why would they be revising the illistrations (they are in the "process of revising the drawings that appear on these pages of our textbook")? If they are accurate, why shouldn't they use them?
It is his theoretical inferences drawn from those drawings that are inaccurate, not the drawings themselves.
I don't know where you're getting that from. But, why would they knowingly include anything in their textbooks that they know is inaccurate? How is that not a lie?
Also, contrary to your claim that "they still want to use cherry-picked examples of superficial similarities to preserve Haeckel's hypothesis" (ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny), Brown University explicitly refutes it! (see link in my previous post)
Show me a good picture of a mollusk embryo.
Bogus argument from authority. I could point to plenty of PhDs who agree with evolutionary theory. How does this prove anything?[/QUOTE]
It proves that not all "authority" agrees with the party line. I provided the quote only to provide an alternative identification of the facts. But, you have already conceded there are no gill slits in human embryos.
2005-03-14 06:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Also a tail.....[/QUOTE]
It would be hard to be a vertebrate without a backbone. Human fetuses don't have tails, they have the end of the backbone.
2005-03-14 06:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "To deny evolution is to deny common sense"[/I][/B]
(meaning the utterly spontaneous birth and development of all life), Petr[/QUOTE] Horse hockey! How can you say that the word "evolution" carries the same meaning as "spontaneous"? Those things which [I]evolve[/I] are [I]not spontaneous[/I]. The two words are antonyms!! (sp).
2005-03-14 09:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]All you're doing is saying Evolutionists believe Evolution. [/QUOTE]
Well, they do believe it for a reason...
If I'm not allowed to cite pro-evolution sources to bolster my arguments, it's going to be kind of difficult to have this debate.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]As an aside, crediting "science" ("modern biology" in this case) for something is another con tactic of Evolutionists. "Science" says nothing and recognizes nothing. Some/few/most/whatever "scientists" say something or recognize something.[/QUOTE]
Ok then. Re-read the paragraph, substituting "the majority of modern biologists" for "modern biology". The point still stands.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]What really should have been said here is "Evolutionists recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny", but then it would have been obvious that the statement is worthless for discerning which side is right.[/QUOTE]
A statement does not become worthless just because the person saying it is openly partisan, as long as they back it up with evidence. Am I to discount all your arguments just because you are openly hostile to evolution?
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]You also quote Wikipedia saying, "All land vertebrates, which have evolved from fish, show gill pouches at one stage of their embryonal development." Gill pouches? What happened to gill slits? And, what's a gill pouch; rather, what fold could you not imagine to be a gill pouch?[/QUOTE]
Well, if you re-read my original post I said "vestigal gills" not "gill slits" or "gill pouches". After doing a bit of research on Wikipedia in response to your post I found out that "gill pouches" is a more correct term. I don't think that negates my original post, only clarifies it. I never made any claim concerning "gill slits".
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]You say, "They do not dispute that the human foetus resembles that of a fish during it's earlier stages of development." Yes, and some clouds look like bunny rabbits, what does it prove?[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't "prove" anything. Perhaps it's just a fluke (no pun intended). But the question is, which theory, Evolution or Creationism, has a better explanation at hand for this anomaly? Which does a better, more complete job of accounting for the known facts?
It's a gradual accumulation of facts that all point in the same direction, not any one fact which constitutes absolute, irreutable proof in isolation, that makes the case for evolution. The fossil record agrees with studies comparing the mitochondrial DNA of different species to determine when they diverged from a common ancestor. The timescale over which evolution is assumed to have occurred agrees with the geological estimates of the age of the earth (more than 6000 years). Embyonic development of closely related species diverges later than those with a more distant common ancestor. And so on.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Rowdy, what you should have responded to was the willingness of textbook publishers to knowingly take part in what they admit is a fraud to promote the view of "numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny." And, what you should have addressed the meaning or meaninglessness of superficial similarity between vertebrate fetuses.[/QUOTE]
The theory of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a specific (discredited) theory, that goes beyond the simple notion that the two are merely related in some way. Disproving it does not establish that ontogeny and phylogeny are completely unrelated, so if textbooks continue to imply that the are related, there is nothing wrong with that. As an analogy, Neanderthals are no longer believed to be the forbears of Homo Sapiens (they evolved alongside us from a common ancestor and then died out). Would it be wrong to continue using illustrations of Neanderthals from old books that claimed they were our ancestors in new books that claimed they weren't?
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]BTW, our little debate here is what most Evolutionists want banned in every science classroom in America. What does that say about the strength of the evidence for Evolution?[/QUOTE]
Well, I am against the banning of debates about the origins of life, since I always enjoy them (thanks, BTW :)) But that's got nothing to do with the quality of the science. In some countries it is illegal to publically advocate evolution (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). What does that tell you about the strength of the evidence for Creationism?
2005-03-14 16:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper] In some countries it is illegal to publically advocate evolution (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). [/QUOTE]
Interestingly enough, in the United States it's against the law NOT to advocate evolutionism.
Does that tell you anything?
2005-03-15 12:57 | User Profile
Let's go for broke then.
Who here believes men rode on the backs of dinosaurs? That Noah had dinosaurs brought aboard on the Ark? That men and dinosaurs even [I]coexisted [/I] at the same time?
If so, congratulations! Creationist "science" has been maintaining this for [I]years[/I].
2005-03-15 14:18 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Who here believes men rode on the backs of dinosaurs?"[/I][/B]
Straw man.
[B] [I]- "That Noah had dinosaurs brought aboard on the Ark?"[/I][/B]
They could be transported in eggs.
Petr
2005-03-15 15:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Who here believes men rode on the backs of dinosaurs? That Noah had dinosaurs brought aboard on the Ark? That men and dinosaurs even *coexisted * at the same time?[/QUOTE] I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I would like to point out that it is quite possible to reject every single one of your 'beliefs of creationism' and still believe that God created the universe and everything in it. No matter how many times this is discussed, it always seems to come down to agnostic, abiogenesis-loving, natural-process-only evolutionists vs young-earth, literal-six-days-creation, Noah-had-dinosaurs-in-the-arc creationists. I am going to go ahead and let the cat out the bag -- there is actually a whole range of other positions.
2005-03-15 16:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]That Noah had dinosaurs brought aboard on the Ark?[/QUOTE]
Based on discovered bones, the average size of a dinosaur was about the size of a sheep or small cow. No big deal for the Ark at all.
2005-03-15 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Ok then. Re-read the paragraph, substituting "the majority of modern biologists" for "modern biology". The point still stands.
You're still appealing to authority. That's a no-no by itself. It's all the more a no-no when the subject is science, where evidence should reign supreme. Then there's the fact that "authority" itself doesn't have true intellectual freedom considering that Evolution is the state's law. You haven't even shown that the claim that human fetuses have gill pouches is the majority view of modern biologists. And, the source of authority that you have provided is a confessed liar on the subject!
Instead of appealing to authority, how about if you just explain what makes any part of a human fetus a gill pouch? It's because you have nothing that you must appeal to authority.
Well, if you re-read my original post I said "vestigal gills" not "gill slits" or "gill pouches". After doing a bit of research on Wikipedia in response to your post I found out that "gill pouches" is a more correct term. I don't think that negates my original post, only clarifies it. I never made any claim concerning "gill slits".
That's right, your original post was too vague to distinguish between slits and pouches. But, 'fess up, you were thinking "slits" not "pouches" because you have been a victim of the Evolutionist's public crusade of dishonesty. "Slits" is more compelling than "pouches."
No, it doesn't "prove" anything. Perhaps it's just a fluke (no pun intended). But the question is, which theory, Evolution or Creationism, has a better explanation at hand for this anomaly? Which does a better, more complete job of accounting for the known facts?
Evolution accounts for nothing because any evidence, real or hypothetical, can be made to fit the infinitely flexable model of Evolution. On the contrary, Evolution is misleading because Evolutionists try to distort the evidence to make Evolution more compelling for public consumption. Example: Gill Slits. Oops, that's now Gill Pouches. Neither of rich is true. The second is vague enough that it's meaningless.
Here's another view, from an authority, on the helpfulness of Evolution:> I want to use it to make another point about evolution being an anti-theory that conveys anti-knowledge.
[URL=http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pattam01.html]Colen Patterson[/URL]
It's a gradual accumulation of facts that all point in the same direction, not any one fact which constitutes absolute, irreutable proof in isolation, that makes the case for evolution. The fossil record agrees with studies comparing the mitochondrial DNA of different species to determine when they diverged from a common ancestor.
You continue to confuse evolutionist conclusions with the evidence. Off the top of my head, let me point out two things about your DNA clock. It assumes a constant rate of Evolution which most Evolutionists now doubt (I don't mean to imply that Evolutionsts aren't perfectly willing to accept contradictory views). And, if you actually compare the mitochodrial DNA from groups of species, it shows genetic isolation, rather than an evolutionary trend (e.g. both a modern mammal and an "ancient" mammal are equally different from a lizard, even if a mammal is more different than a lizard from a fish).
The whole absurd thing about this debate is that it's about highly speculative interpretations of the circumstances. If Evolution were true, it would be trivial to demonstrate it so there would be no need to debate over circumstantial evidence. And, if Evolution were an emperical fact, it would have been demonstrated by definition.
Evolutionists like to compare Evolution to gravity, or to broken vases. Notice, no one ever needs to point to an Apple on the ground and an apple tree above to build a case that gravity exists. It's trivial to demonstrate gravity.
2005-03-16 03:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Who here believes men rode on the backs of dinosaurs? ... That men and dinosaurs even [I]coexisted [/I] at the same time?[/QUOTE]
My high-school biology teacher/Stalinist evo-propaganda indoctrination agent used to refer to these beliefs as "Flintstonianism".
2005-03-16 03:53 | User Profile
Creationism is hardly something that should be emphasized in traditional conservatism: there's no need to further be divided into smaller subsets with "pure" ideologies.
As far as I am concerned, Creationism in its classic definition is silly, but I am not going to compare notes on that with my natural allies.
2005-03-16 19:13 | User Profile
I'm a little tired of arguing this subject, as there is not an argument or piece of evidence in the world that will persuade hard-core creationists. To you guys, admitting you're wrong about evolution is tantamount to selling your souls.
Nevertheless, I have one final point. It needs to be stressed that "appealing to authority" is only a fallacy if the authority in question is not an expert in the subject at hand.
For example, if I say "most famous Hollywood actors believe in evolution, therefore it's probably true," then I'm committing a fallacy. But if I say "experts in biology, biochemistry, and genetics are near-unanimous in their acceptance of evolution," then I am making a perfectly valid and non-fallacious point. In the latter case, "appealing to authority" is merely appealing indirectly to the evidence. In order for it to be otherwise, there would have to be a literal conspiracy among all the experts to lie about the subject, which is preposterous.
Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains that fact extremely well, and no viable counter-theory has been proposed. Does this disprove the existence of God? No. Does it disprove Christianity? No. (I find the existence of God questionable and Christianity extremely implausible for other reasons that have nothing to do with biology whatsoever.)
2005-03-16 19:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]Interestingly enough, in the United States it's against the law NOT to advocate evolutionism.
Does that tell you anything?[/QUOTE]
Could you be kind enough to cite the law? Go ahead, I'll wait.
2005-03-16 21:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I'm a little tired of arguing this subject, as there is not an argument or piece of evidence in the world that will persuade hard-core creationists.
That reminds me of Fred's comment: "I found it pointless to tell them that I wasnââ¬â¢t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid."
Nevertheless, I have one final point. It needs to be stressed that "appealing to authority" is only a fallacy if the authority in question is not an expert in the subject at hand.
For example, if I say "most famous Hollywood actors believe in evolution, therefore it's probably true," then I'm committing a fallacy.
Certainly, there's an error in appealing to someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. But, the error of appealing to authority doesn't end there.
It is also an error to appeal to authority when there is evidence that should be appealed to instead. For example, don't tell me that so-and-so says human babies have gill pouches. Tell me what makes some part of a human baby a gill pouch. If the person is a real authority then he can support his claims so we do not need to rely on his claims themselves.
The error of appealing to authority extends to biased authorities. An evolutionist is going to be biased in favor of evolution. So, once again, let's look at the evidence rather than his claims. Else, get an unbiased authority. In the example of gill slits/pouches, the authority has confessed to lying. Does this proof of blinding bias not undermine the authority of the so-called authority?
Also, related to the error of appealing to a non-authority as an authority, is the error of thinking any authority is definitive. We can get authorities to support both sides of just about anything. And, in a land were Evolution is the law then we should expect a balance of authorties to favor Evolution (not that anyone has demonstrated that the "experts" are so in favor of Evolution as lay Evolutionists constantly claim) and thus you become guilty of what you yourself have said is the error of appeal to authority -- the lawmakers (or the law-making judges) themselves are the de facto authorities you are appealing to. You're also introrducing a another logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity. "More experts agree with me."
Incidently, what makes an ivory tower academician such an expert on the origins of species? His understanding of endocytoses and other biological functions unrelated to Evolution? Find someone who reproduces real Evolution and then I'll agree that he's an expert.
In the latter case, "appealing to authority" is merely appealing indirectly to the evidence.
That is absurd and every bit as religious as a Christian who thinks some man is speaking for God. "Darwin said it, that settles it."
Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains that fact extremely well, and no viable counter-theory has been proposed.
Evolution is not viable, as proven by the utter inability to demonstrate that nature works that way. No need for a viable counter-theory to point out that Evolution is not viable. But, I do have a viable counter-theory. My theory is that Evolution doesn't happen. That theory is very viable. Just go out and watch nature for a while.
Why are you "tired of arguing this subject." I find it invigorating, even though "there is not an argument or piece of evidence in the world that will persuade hard-core" evolutionists. :boxing:
2005-03-16 21:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96][QUOTE]Originally Posted by askel5 Interestingly enough, in the United States it's against the law NOT to advocate evolutionism.
Does that tell you anything?[/QUOTE]Could you be kind enough to cite the law? Go ahead, I'll wait.[/QUOTE]
Don't you remember the very recent court ruling forcing a school district to remove stickers that said the Theory of Evolution is a theory? The judge found the stickers to be against the law because they failed to advocate evolutionism.
I don't know where to look for that law, but judges have no problem finding that law. Perhaps you should ask one of them.
2005-03-17 11:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]It is also an error to appeal to authority when there is evidence that should be appealed to instead. For example, don't tell me that so-and-so says human babies have gill pouches. Tell me what makes some part of a human baby a gill pouch. If the person is a real authority then he can support his claims so we do not need to rely on his claims themselves. There is an enormous wealth of evidence for evolution. The problem is that creationists (1) refuse to consider it with an open mind, (2) don't understand it, or (3) both of the above.
The error of appealing to authority extends to biased authorities. An evolutionist is going to be biased in favor of evolution. So, once again, let's look at the evidence rather than his claims. Else, get an unbiased authority. In the example of gill slits/pouches, the authority has confessed to lying. Does this proof of blinding bias not undermine the authority of the so-called authority? I am not familiar with your example of "gill pouches" in human babies.
As for the charge of bias, that applies solely to creationists. They have a religious bias. Evolutionists demonstrably do not, since they come from all religions, nations, and walks of life.
The only thing all evolutionary biologists have in common is expertise in biology, genetics, and other relevant areas of science. The only thing all creationists have in common are inflexible religious beliefs (whether Christian, Muslim, or something else).
Also, related to the error of appealing to a non-authority as an authority, is the error of thinking any authority is definitive. We can get authorities to support both sides of just about anything. Yes, you can always get a crackpot or two to claim outrageous things. That's true in just about any field. But when well over 99% of scientists agree on something, and the only ones who don't all have certain religious beliefs, then that's very telling.
And, in a land were Evolution is the law then we should expect a balance of authorties to favor Evolution (not that anyone has demonstrated that the "experts" are so in favor of Evolution as lay Evolutionists constantly claim)... Of course they are. Although absolute numbers are of course elusive, one poll puts the percentage of earth and life scientists who believe in evolution at 99.85%. (Of course creationists will deny that figure, since it doesn't suit them much.) More here: [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm[/url]
...and thus you become guilty of what you yourself have said is the error of appeal to authority -- the lawmakers (or the law-making judges) themselves are the de facto authorities you are appealing to. Earth and life scientists are the authorities not because they've simply declared themselves to be authorities. They're authorities by virtue of their years of focused study and experience. I mean, how else does one acquire clout in science? C'mon. If Ph.D. scientists in biology and genetics aren't authorities in those areas of science, then no one is, and that's tantamount to saying that those fields are unknowable. That's clearly not the case. Look at the miracles of modern medicine. The same people who made all that possible are the ones you think are too stupid to know better than to believe in evolution. Do you know something they don't?
You're also introrducing a another logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity. "More experts agree with me." Appeal to popularity among genuine experts is NOT a fallacy.
By the way, does "appeal to the Bible" constitute a logical fallacy? I say it does -- and an egregious one, at that.
Incidently, what makes an ivory tower academician such an expert on the origins of species? His understanding of endocytoses and other biological functions unrelated to Evolution? His broad-based education makes him knowledgeable enough to understand the evidence, particular that relating to genetics (something all biologists must study). Just because a biologists specializes in a field unrelated to evolution doesn't mean he doesn't know a great deal about it. All biologists must take certain courses -- genetics, for example -- that are intimately related to evolution.
Find someone who reproduces real Evolution and then I'll agree that he's an expert. Evolution on its grandest scale obviously can't be reproduced, since it took billions of years. The fossils and their concomitant genetic evidence don't need to be replicated, though -- they exist and can be observed to find out how evolution happened. Furthermore, predictions of future discoveries have been made based on evolutionary theory that were later proved correct.
Furthermore, evolution on a small scale is routinely observed in laboratories around the world.
In the latter case, "appealing to authority" is merely appealing indirectly to the evidence.
That is absurd and every bit as religious as a Christian who thinks some man is speaking for God. "Darwin said it, that settles it." It's not absurd at all. The people best qualified to comment on the evidence for evolution are trained life/earth scientists. There's nothing religious about it.
It's always good to think for oneself, of course, but a little humility is also in order. Do you REALLY think that you know something about biology and genetics that all those biologists and geneticists don't? Do you REALLY think you're smarter than all of them? If so, then you must have gotten your Ph.D. at the age of 5.
Evolution is not viable, as proven by the utter inability to demonstrate that nature works that way. No need for a viable counter-theory to point out that Evolution is not viable. But, I do have a viable counter-theory. My theory is that Evolution doesn't happen. That theory is very viable. Just go out and watch nature for a while. You're capable of watching nature for millions of years at a stretch? LOL
Why are you "tired of arguing this subject." I find it invigorating, even though "there is not an argument or piece of evidence in the world that will persuade hard-core" evolutionists. :boxing:[/QUOTE]You have evidence against evolution? I'm sure the worldwide scientific community would love to hear about it.
I tire of arguing evolution with creationists because nearly all of them don't even understand what they're arguing about. It's like arguing physics (my field) with someone who doesn't even know calculus, let alone the far more difficult mathematical concepts that are an absolute prerequisite to any understanding of the real laws of nature.
Creationists constantly repeat the same arguments that have been demolished time and time again. A good archive of them is here:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url]
My personal favorites are the ones based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the related "tornado in a junkpile." These and many others are automatic proof that the person using the arguments doesn't know what he's talking about. And yet they're so sure they're right. Why? Because they've been brainwashed into believing in the absolute literal truth of the Bible, often from such a young age that it's literally hardwired into them. Their brains are incapable of registering anything contrary to that hardwired message.
What creationists fail to understand is that just because they don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense. The evidence that evolution happened is so overwhelming that there are only two possibilities:
(1) Evolution happened, either with or without God's help. (2) God created the world and all life in such a way as to deceive scientists into thinking that evolution happened.
The old cliche, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" applies in spades here. The proof for evolution is out there, but no one can make you look at it or understand its implications. It's much easier to simply tell oneself that "it's all lies" or that "all those scientists are such dummies" or whatever. That's the comfortable path that nearly all religious fundamentalists take.
2005-03-17 12:05 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Creationists constantly repeat the same arguments that have been demolished time and time again. A good archive of them is here:"
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url][/I][/B]
And you just keep on uncritically parroting TalkOrigins, that evo-propaganda website.
[B]TrueOrigins[/B] website:
[url]http://www.trueorigins.org/[/url]
[COLOR=Purple]"This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionismââ¬â¢s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the ââ¬ÅTalk.Originsââ¬Â newsgroup and website). [B]Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and mechanisticââ¬âif not humanisticââ¬âphilosophical presuppositions, attaching a ââ¬Åfundamentalistââ¬Â bias to their perspective. This fact (which they zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionistsââ¬â¢ credibility, disqualifying them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science[/B]. Much of the material published by evolutionists embodies precisely such a pseudo-scientific bias, often articulated under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced study.
The contributions posted at this site give expression to the ââ¬Åother sideââ¬Âââ¬âdispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:
[B]1. The myth that todayââ¬â¢s heavily popularized beliefs about macroevolution find ââ¬Åoverwhelmingââ¬Â or unequivocal support in the data of empirical science
The question of origins is largely a matter of historyââ¬ânot the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, oneââ¬â¢s worldview does indeed play heavily on oneââ¬â¢s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurementââ¬âthe three immutable elements of the scientific methodââ¬âmay be employed. [B]Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive ââ¬Åscientificââ¬Â status for their popularized beliefs, while curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning Darwinââ¬â¢s advice[/B]. [/COLOR]
Petr
2005-03-17 12:07 | User Profile
[B][I][I] - "Although absolute numbers are of course elusive, one poll puts the percentage of earth and life scientists who believe in evolution at 99.85%." [/I] [/I] [/B]
"There are lies, big lies, and statistics."
"Believe in evolution" in what sense? We know how rancorously orthodox Darwinists react even to theistic evolutionists.
Petr
2005-03-17 14:06 | User Profile
The Debate
Evolutionist: Evolution is a fact, like gravity. It happens.
Skeptic: Show me an example of Evolution.
Evolutionist: Uh, I can't do that. But, I can show you circumstantial evidence that Evolution has happened. For example, human fetuses have gill slits.
Skeptic: The guy who originally said human fetuses have gill slits admits he lied. Any one who ever studied a human fetus knows there are no gill slits there.
Evolutionist: OK, he lied. I lied. We lied. There are no gill slits. But, human fetuses do have gill pouches.
Skeptic: What makes any part of a human fetus a gill pouch?
Evolutionist: I don't have to tell you. I'm an authority. What I say is the same as evidence.
Skeptic: What makes you an authority? Can you reproduce Evolution? Can you identify any fact of Evolution? Can you really explain how Evolution works without appealing to just-so stories?
Evolutionist: Uh, no. But, the government pays me to teach students that Evolution is a fact. That makes me an authority.
Evolutionist #2: There is an enormous wealth of evidence for evolution. The problem is that creationists (1) refuse to consider it with an open mind, (2) don't understand it, or (3) both of the above.
Skeptic Fred: I found it pointless to tell them that I wasnââ¬â¢t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry.
2005-03-17 15:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Evolutionist: I don't have to tell you. I'm an authority. What I say is the same as evidence.[/QUOTE]
:lol: Good stuff, HH.
Each and every day the plastic banana foundation of evolution theory crumbles more and more. Soon it will cave in completely and not a day too soon.
I believe in a literal six twenty four hour day creation and will continue to do so until irrefutable evidence shows me otherwise. 'Evolution' fails the task. Badly. Non-theistic 'scientists' better go back to the drawing board to dream up new schemes to write God out of their equations.
2005-03-17 17:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]:lol: Good stuff, HH. Each and every day the plastic banana foundation of evolution theory crumbles more and more. Soon it will cave in completely and not a day too soon. [/QUOTE] It's a poor bet :D
2005-03-17 18:18 | User Profile
As for the charge of bias, that applies solely to creationists. They have a religious bias. Evolutionists demonstrably do not, since they come from all religions, nations, and walks of life.
Most of those who believe in non-theistic Evolution are atheists. Obviously, they have a bias.
When discussing the evidence, it doesn't matter what one's religious backgrounds are, if they're an Evolutionist they're going to spin the evidence in favor of Evolution. That's called bias. Peer Reviewers will reject papers when such spin is not included. College professors will give bad grades when such spin is not included. College employers won't employee natural science professors who do not give that spin. And, should some uppity school stand up for academic freedom, a judge is going to come along and insist that the school spin the evidence in favor of Evolution.
This mandatory spin makes a mockery of your efforts to show the strength of Evolution through the popularity among scientists of Evolution. To further compound your logical error of appeal to popularity among non-free authorities, you still haven't shown any of them to be authorities. As I already pointed out, the so-called authorities know essentially nothing about Evolution (their imaginative and speculative stories aside). But, even given that a biologist with a PhD is an expert on all things biology, is he also an expert on paleontology, and the sundry list of other fields that Evolutionists identify is critical to Evolution? It seems like to me he must take the word of others, with each of those others likewise being as dependent on the word of others.
You know the story of the blind men trying to identify an elephant. That's especially a problem if none of the other men are allowed to say it's an elephant.
Although absolute numbers are of course elusive, one poll puts the percentage of earth and life scientists who believe in evolution at 99.85%. (Of course creationists will deny that figure, since it doesn't suit them much.)
You know the number is bogus. At least, you couldn't possibly think that number is at all an accurate poll taken of people allowed real academic freedom. To any degree that you think the number is accurate, you should be alarmed at the oppression that would be required to reach that much of a consensus. Wasn't it 99.85% that Saddam boasted of as voting for him?
If the evidence for Evolution were really compelling enough to get practically 100% of all earth and life scientists to believe in Evolution, you wouldn't need to point to polls because the evidence itself would be so overwhelming. Evolutionists wouldn't have be so worried about earth and life scientists in classrooms criticizing Evolution.
Evolution on its grandest scale obviously can't be reproduced, since it took billions of years.
I'm not asking to see rocks turned into humans. Although, given the speed of computers, something virtual and similar shouldn't bee too much of a demand. I'm just asking for a demonstration that nature has the creative ability, even under contrived conditions, to transform species by creating new organs and more sophisticated structures.
In my estimation, it takes a stunning degree of blinding bias to call Evolution a mutation that in one generation of bacteria produces a sickly strain that happens to have some resistance to a mild antibiotic because its ability to eat the antibiotic as been damaged. And, that same bias to not appreciate that in an observed tens of thousands more generations of bacteria that you still have nothing more impressive than the original strain of sickly bacteria to point to as evolutionary progress.
To continually point to nominal authorities and resort to philosophical arguments seems to be a mental coping mechanism to avoid seeing the obvious.
Furthermore, evolution on a small scale is routinely observed in laboratories around the world.
Like what small scale evolution has been observed? The accumulation of one damaging mutation with a fortuitous side-effect? Or, the observed accumulation of dozens, or hundreds of mutations, working together to create an organism of greater fitness and sophistication? Or, do you mean that if you have two black peppered moths and two white peppered moths, and one white moth dies then the species has evolved?
My personal favorites are the ones based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the related "tornado in a junkpile."
The tornado and the junkyard was an analogy originally made by an Evolutionist, not a Creationist. But, it seems accurate. The common Evolutionist thinks merely adding energy to a system causes natural creativity. How come when the US drops a bomb on a building, it leaves a hole, not a better building? Is there anything in a physics text to explain that?
2005-03-18 01:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The Debate[/QUOTE]
Happy Hacker,
Ok, I was willing to just let this topic lie, because I don't think either of us are likely to change each other's minds on this topic, and I'm not desperate to "get the last word in". However, you are blatantly mischaracterising what I said, and I feel obliged to answer.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] Skeptic: Show me an example of Evolution.
Evolutionist: Uh, I can't do that. But, I can show you circumstantial evidence that Evolution has happened. For example, human fetuses have gill slits.[/QUOTE]
For the last time, I NEVER SAID HUMAN FETUSES HAVE GILL SLITS. I don't know why you keep saying this, when anyone who cares to check can scroll up to my original comment and see for themselves. When I pointed this out earlier, you conceded this, but then said "well, maybe you didn't say that, but that's what you were thinking, right?" Well, no.
And now you have gone back to claiming that I said gill slits. What gives? Given that this has already been a point of dispute, and I have already clarified it to you, I can only assume that you are consciously and deliberately misrepresenting what I said because it is easier for you to argue against a straw man version of my arguments.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Skeptic: The guy who originally said human fetuses have gill slits admits he lied. Any one who ever studied a human fetus knows there are no gill slits there.
Evolutionist: OK, he lied. I lied. We lied. There are no gill slits. But, human fetuses do have gill pouches.[/QUOTE]
The guy who originally said human fetuses have gill slits was Ernest Haekel (I didn't know this before this debate, but you learn something new every day I guess). I never quoted him as a "source" or as an "authority". I quoted sources that refuted his "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory but listed various similarities in the embryos of various species with a common ancestor at early stages of development. Stop trying to associate my statements with a discredited source, when I never quoted him, and have already repeatedly pointed out that his theories are discredited and that my arguments do not rely on them.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Skeptic: What makes any part of a human fetus a gill pouch?
Evolutionist: I don't have to tell you. I'm an authority. What I say is the same as evidence.[/QUOTE]
I never claimed to be an authority. I'm merely a layman who finds the advocates of one theory more convincing than another, based on the evidence presented. What makes part of a human fetus analogous to a gill pouch (or vestigal gills, as I originally said) is that in it's very early stages of development the human fetus has structures that strongly resemble those structures that in a fish, go on to become gills. What makes this supporting evidence for evolution is that the order in which fetuses (fetii?) of different species start to look significantly different during their development reflects the order in which major phylum of the evolutionary tree supposedly diverged during the history of evolution. I.e. species that are more closely related (have a recent common ancestor) diverge later on in their development. On it's own, this is not "irrefutable proof" of evolution, but as I said, it agrees with other evidence (e.g. the fossil record), and is just one more piece of corroborrating data.
This is all stuff that was explained in detail in the links I provided. If you didn't summarily dismiss them as "evo-propaganda" and "argument from authority" before reading them I wouldn't be forced to spell it out for you in the thread.
Oh yeah, something else I found out while perusing "evo-propaganda" links is that they have a record of tree rings going back 11,000 years (do a Google for "dendrochronology"). More pwnage for the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old, wouldn't you agree, Happy |-|/><0|^? Another example is the ice core samples taken from Greenland, which show annual layers of ice going back 40,000 years.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Skeptic: What makes you an authority? Can you reproduce Evolution? Can you identify any fact of Evolution? Can you really explain how Evolution works without appealing to just-so stories?
Evolutionist: Uh, no. But, the government pays me to teach students that Evolution is a fact. That makes me an authority.[/QUOTE]
Don't know what you're getting at here. It appears to be pure fantasy.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Evolutionist #2: There is an enormous wealth of evidence for evolution. The problem is that creationists (1) refuse to consider it with an open mind, (2) don't understand it, or (3) both of the above.[/QUOTE]
Very well said Evolutionist #2!
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Skeptic Fred: I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn’t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry.[/QUOTE]
I try not to be a zealot. I want to have a civil, honest discussion here without insults or invective. I am enjoying this discussion. But it's very annoying when you continuously misrepresent what I say, and continue to do so after I have pointed it out.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Evolution accounts for nothing because any evidence, real or hypothetical, can be made to fit the infinitely flexable model of Evolution.[/QUOTE]
Not the case. Evolution is a falsifiable theory, in the sense that there is plenty of evidence that could hypothetically be discovered that would seriously undermine it's credibility, if not outright disprove it. For example:
There is plenty of evidence that could discredit evolution, but so far none has been presented. All evidence so far presented that appears to discredit evolution (e.g. butterfly metamorphosis) is perfectly compatible with it on closer inspection. Of course, to the Creationist, any explanation of how supposedly incompatible evidence can be accounted for by Evolution is always dismissed as a "just-so" story.
2005-03-18 15:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Happy Hacker,
Ok, I was willing to just let this topic lie, because I don't think either of us are likely to change each other's minds on this topic, and I'm not desperate to "get the last word in". However, you are blatantly mischaracterising what I said, and I feel obliged to answer.
Sorry, my post was not specifically about your comments. Evolutionists have lied about human embryos. I documented a textbook producer that essentially admitted to lying and that correctly observed that such a lie is a common in school textbooks. That was followed by the popular Evolutionist sentiment, as expressed by Angler, that appeal to alleged authority is a good enough answer.
"Early in their development, human embryos possess gill slits like a fish." - Raven, P.H. and Johnson, G.B., Biology (3rd edition), Mosbyââ¬âYear Book, St. Louis, p.396, 1992.
What makes part of a human fetus analogous to a gill pouch (or vestigal gills, as I originally said) is that in it's very early stages of development the human fetus has structures that strongly resemble those structures that in a fish, go on to become gills.
Resemble? How's that different from cloud formations that look like bunny rabbits? Even that analogy gives the gill pouch argument far too much credit. Even a simple cloud bunny is more complex than a fold. Even gill pouches have openings that admit water. Human embryos don't have openings in those folds. Human embryos don't have any oxygen extraction mechanism in those "gill pouches." They are not at all gill pouches.
There's not even any Evolutionary reason why human embryos should have gills pouches/slits. If a structure evolved, especially as much as to turn a fish into a human, there's no Evolutionary reason the structures would stay the same in their early fetal development just to develop into very different structures. If the gills were modified into something else by Evolution, then the embryonic structures would likewise be modified.
An honest Evolutionist would conclude that there's something practical about the similiar structure that supersedes common ancestry (the Creationist might add "common designer"). If common ancestry wasn't assumed, then convergent Evolution would be assumed.
What makes this supporting evidence for evolution is that the order in which fetuses (fetii?) of different species start to look significantly different during their development reflects the order in which major phylum of the evolutionary tree supposedly diverged during the history of evolution. I.e.
"Their development reflects the order in which major phylum of the evolutionary tree supposedly diverged during the history of evolution." That's the fully discredited "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory. The modern Evolutionist argument, at least when they're prevented from pushing a know lie, drops the "order" claim.
The modern argument is no more than, "If you squint, don't those folds look a bit like gill pouches. That shows that humans evolved from fish."
Oh yeah, something else I found out while perusing "evo-propaganda" links is that they have a record of tree rings going back 11,000 years (do a Google for "dendrochronology"). More pwnage for the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old, wouldn't you agree, Happy |-|/><0|^? Another example is the ice core samples taken from Greenland, which show annual layers of ice going back 40,000 years.
I'll trust the authorities that they counted 40,000 layers of ice. I'll even accept statistical sampling, just as long as they aren't claiming that this is proof humans evolved from fish. I accept any scientist's collection of evidence, even if they're evolutionists (at least if other evolutionists have duplicated the findings), but beyond collecting evidence, they must provide sound argument for any conclusions they reach. None of this "But, I'm an authority!"
Not the case. Evolution is a falsifiable theory, in the sense that there is plenty of evidence that could hypothetically be discovered that would seriously undermine it's credibility, if not outright disprove it. For example:
Even if the Earth is a few billion years old, what reason do you have to believe that is enough time? Especially for the prerequisite origin of life? Given your test, Evolution is refuted because the evidence indicates that even a few billions years is not nearly enough time.
An honest attempt to show evolution is falsifiable would not require external "facts" to become non-facts. In other words, you believe the Earth is billions of years old, whether or not Evolution is true. Therefor, any honest test you would propose wouldn't include a young Earth.
Let me introduce you to what I call the "honesty test." Any example of a potential way to falsify evolution should not demand anything non-viable. That is, a condition that would not exist whether or not Evolution is true should not be used as an example of a potential way to show Evolution is false.
- Fossil evidence of humans co-existing with dinosaurs would discredit the evolutionists timeline. E.g. a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint, or the remains of an unfortunate caveman identified by DNA analysis of fossilised dinosaur droppings.
If Evolutionists would agree that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, it wouldn't harm Evolution anymore than the concession that woolly mammoths and humans co-existed. They would simply assume that some dinosaurs did not go extinct as early as thought.
When "living fossils", animals thought to be extinct for millions of years, are discovered still existing, Evolutionists don't stick to your test and reject Evolution.
- An observation of a creature giving birth to offspring with a major new organ, fully formed and perfectly functioning, that was not present in the parent, without any gradual intervening evolutionary steps, would discredit Evolution (although I'm not sure this would necessarily support Creationism).
On the contrary, some Evolutionists have openly hoped for such "saltation" to give Evolution a major boost. Still, this fails the "honesty test." Whether Evolution is true or not, what you suggest is not viable. Whether or not Evolution is true, it's not viable that animals would give birth to radically different babies.
- Fossil evidence could be discovered with primitive lifeforms from early evolutionary eras deposited in the same strata as later, more complex lifeforms (e.g. trilobytes and mammals in the same layer of sedimentary rock)
This seems like a repeat of your human and dinosaur example, with the one difference being the added concept of increased complexity.
Your example fails the honesty test. Trilobites lived at the bottom of bodies of water. Mammals breath air and usually live on land, therefor it is not very viable for them to share the same sedimentary layers, especially considering the early extinction of trilobites.
But, if you wish to stick to this argument, then Evolution is shown to be false. Other than trilobites, all the major marine invertebrate from the time of the trilobites is still alive and swimming around the ocean. Any human that has ever been found in a marine deposit has been found with animal kinds that existed with trilobites. There's even a handful of examples that may include trilobites.
There is plenty of evidence that could discredit evolution, but so far none has been presented. All evidence so far presented that appears to discredit evolution (e.g. butterfly metamorphosis) is perfectly compatible with it on closer inspection. Of course, to the Creationist, any explanation of how supposedly incompatible evidence can be accounted for by Evolution is always dismissed as a "just-so" story.[/QUOTE]
The trouble with those just-so stories is that they could explain away any hypothetical evidence, making Evolution untestable.
Darwin proposed some tests of evolution, such as irreducible complexity and the need for innumerable transitional fossil forms. But, modern evolutionists, out of necessity, dismiss all of Darwin's proposed tests.
My test of Evolution is: If it were true, then it could be demonstrated.
2005-03-25 04:40 | User Profile
In this thread, I've already documented a major textbook publisher essentually admitting it knowingly lied about fetuses (re: gill slits), and that this lie is common in textbooks.
I just ran across Ricahard Darwkins caught lying. He's one of the biggest stars of the pro-Evolution propaganda movement. If I followed the ongoing Creation/Evolution debate, I'd probably have heard of this a year ago. But, better late than never.
As I've said before, I don't believe in Evolution because it doesn't happen. There are no examples of species evolving over time, even among rapidly reproducing species with generations measured in minutes or days, even among artificial species that exist only in computer programs contrived to produce Evolution on computers that can perform billions of operations per second. When asked for an example of an improvement, Evolutionists invariably point to a destructive mutation with a fortuitous benefit, like sickle-cell anemia. In all the world, it's too much to ask them to come up with a single evolutionary mutation, let alone dozens or hundreds of mutations working together to produce a more sophisticated and fit species.
Dawkins was asked in an interview for "an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." As there's no such thing as Evolution, Dawkins couldn't answer the question. After 19 seconds of silence, he asked that the camera be turned off. Later, Dawkins lied about ever being asked the question. [URL=http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/02/the_richard_daw.php]See for yourself.[/URL]
I'm stunned that people believe Evolution when clearly Evolution is not the way nature works (real science studies how nature works). So, I suppose it is only slightly surprising that people would praise books like Dawkins' [I]The Blind Watchmaker[/I] which reveal nothing but a top Evolutionist's inability to be honest with the evidence or honestly represent Evolution. For example, Dawkins illistrates the blind processes of nature by demonstrating a computer program that with foresight selects randomly generated letters to form the word Evolution.
I understand why some of you would reject the biblical account of Creation. But, you should understand why I object to taxpayer dollars being used to teach children that human fetuses have gill slits or that Evolution is how nature works.
2005-03-25 14:39 | User Profile
HH,
I'm afraid arguing with you is futile. I mean no offense, but if you don't understand why a tornado in a junkpile or a bomb dropped on a building are in no way analogous to the process of evolution, then I see little point in continuing the discussion. Hence, with no hard feelings intended, this will be my last post on this thread.
Oh, by the way: A tornado is itself a fine example of order spontaneously arising from chaos. How do you think that happens? Random chance? What are the chances of all those air molecules, with all their random velocities, spontaneously forming a coherent funnel? And this happens almost daily in the central US. What are the chances, HH?
The generation of order from chaos occurs routinely in nature. Once you understand why, you'll be in a better position to understand how evolution works.
About the Dawkins incident (which, to me at least, is largely irrelevant):
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html[/url]
When discussing the evidence, it doesn't matter what one's religious backgrounds are, if they're an Evolutionist they're going to spin the evidence in favor of Evolution. Hardly. Scientists generally are very dispassionate in their interpretation of evidence, and bad conclusions based on bad evidence or shoddy reasoning are weeded out with a vengeance by colleagues and competitors. Science is a self-correcting endeavor, since scientists are rewarded not for going along with the status quo, but for shattering it whenever possible. Believe me, the way to scientific fame is NOT to repeatedly come up with findings that merely support the work of others.
As I've said before, I don't believe in Evolution because it doesn't happen. There are no examples of species evolving over time, even among rapidly reproducing species with generations measured in minutes or days, even among artificial species that exist only in computer programs contrived to produce Evolution on computers that can perform billions of operations per second. When asked for an example of an improvement, Evolutionists invariably point to a destructive mutation with a fortuitous benefit, like sickle-cell anemia. In all the world, it's too much to ask them to come up with a single evolutionary mutation, let alone dozens or hundreds of mutations working together to produce a more sophisticated and fit species. That's all nonsense.
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed Instances of Speciation[/url]
More here:
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html]Some More Observed Speciation Events[/url]
Someone writes:
This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:
** "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved." **
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
Here's a typical application of evolution in the real world (in this case, agricultural pest control):
[url=http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/specialarticles/eea_5.pdf#search='modeling%20evolution']Modeling evolution of behavioral resistance by an insect to crop rotation (PDF file)[/url]
[url=http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/transfos.htm]Transitional Fossils[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ[/url]
Regarding the related question of abiogenesis:
Today, in the journal Nature, Dr. Reza Ghadiri, of the Scripps Research Institute, California, and colleagues show that little protein chunks, called peptides, thought to be present on the primitive Earth, were capable of making copies of themselves -- a fundamental property of living things. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/08/08/nmar708.html]Link[/url]
All that evidence for evolution that you say doesn't exist is out there, HH. Your refusal to consider it won't make it go away. If you want to try to dispute the evidence, then fine, but please don't try to claim that it doesn't even exist. It does.
I understand why some of you would reject the biblical account of Creation. But, you should understand why I object to taxpayer dollars being used to teach children that human fetuses have gill slits or that Evolution is how nature works. You have a right to have your children learn what you want them to learn, even if it's false. I do not support forcing children to learn things that their parents object to.
As for the Biblical account of Creation, not only is it unscientific, it's patently silly. You can teach that stuff to kids in school, but only the most gullible will believe it. I certainly wouldn't have bought it after, say, my graduation from kindergarten.
There was never any "firmament" separating the waters above the earth from those below. Floodgates don't open when it rains. Adam didn't name all the species on earth -- some are still being discovered and named today! There was never any worldwide flood -- or if there was, the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians who were alive at that time failed to notice it. The earth is older than 6000 years by nearly four orders of magnitude, and that is so obvious anyone who claims otherwise is scientifically illiterate and hopelessly brainwashed, cult-style. Also, the Biblical account of Creation fails to mention atoms, elementary particles, electromagnetic fields, and all the most fundamental aspects of nature. What does it mention? Things that we would expect ancient goat-herders to know and believe.
Biblical creationism is a fairy-tale. Nothing has ever been more certain in the history of the world.
2005-03-25 15:12 | User Profile
Angler,
Fruit flies give rise to fruit flies. Goatsbeard gives rise to goatsbeard. That's the best that can be observed--along with strenuous efforts to stretch the concept of speciation to fundamentally identical organisms. (The EPA is quite good at this, btw). A number of the other examples involved artificial selection--intelligent design--not natural selection. And again, the result was a hybrid. Reptiles didn't turn into birds; fish didn't turn into amphibians, much less mammals.
You continue to raise the straw man of Biblical literalism, and I haven't seen anyone other than TD argue for the Biblical version of creation.
Your belief (since you refuse to be agnostic about it) in evolution is every bit as faith-based as the Christian belief in supernatural creation. No one can say how molecules can make the jump to cellular organism to multi-cellular organism to mammal. No one can say how a fish turns into a bird. The theory of evolution cannot tell us if ten million women dunking their newborns in water for the next ten million years would give us anything other than a lot of dead babies. The theory of evolution can't tell us why chimps stay chimps or why we didn't all stop at the level of unicellular organism, the most persistent and successful form of live on the planet.
No one's observed the process of evolution. No one can explain how it happens. That's why evolution remains a theory, yet it is taught as fact. Compare the discourse on evolution with the discourse on string theory or dark matter. Compare the legal consequences of a public school teaching different theories of creation and a public school teaching different theories of astrophysics.
The proponents of evolution have enlisted the law on their side, and thus expose themselves to the same attack as against proponents of the "Holocaust": what type of truth is it that requires the law for its protection?
Why can't they bring themselves to acknowledge that evolution, or for that matter, any other theory of creation, can never be empirically proven?
Another thought: it is a fallacy to think that science is dispassionate or necessarily self-correcting. Scientists are subjective human beings like everyone else. They have personal pride, financial pressures, worldviews based on life experience, etc. The AIDS orthodoxy and "global warming" are abundant evidence of scientists' ability to tailor their research towards a pre-set agenda. Another patent example is the geneticists who swear race doesn't exist, by defining the genetic code down to the near molecular level and declaring they can't find any differences.
2005-03-25 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I'm afraid arguing with you is futile. I mean no offense, but if you don't understand why a tornado in a junkpile or a bomb dropped on a building are in no way analogous to the process of evolution, then I see little point in continuing the discussion. Hence, with no hard feelings intended, this will be my last post on this thread.
The comment about a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 was by an Evolutionist pointing out the problem of the origin of life. And, the analogy still solidly stands.
My comment of a bomb leaving a hole, not a better building, was to illistrate the inadequacy of merely appealing to the addition of energy. You provided no principle or law for why added energy destroys in one example but creates in your hypothetical Evolution. All you do is throw up your hands and say the skeptics cannot be reasoned with. The answer to the bomb question is that the energy to be constructive, it has to be applied with intelligence or according to a pre-existing design. That answer rules out Evolution. You have no alternative answer.
Oh, by the way: A tornado is itself a fine example of order spontaneously arising from chaos. How do you think that happens? Random chance? What are the chances of all those air molecules, with all their random velocities, spontaneously forming a coherent funnel? And this happens almost daily in the central US. What are the chances, HH?
Dropping a bomb on a building makes a nice, round hole. A wind funal is very simple, and has no potential to be anything more sophisticated than a funnel. A tornado is like a snowflake, pre-existing design is enough to produce a snow flake or a tornado (e.g. the Coriolis effect). But, the pre-existing design provides for nothing more. In spite of the chaos in a tornado, the order there is utterly simple.
How many years do you think it would take wind to form a 747 (roughly the complexity of the simplest life)? Why not? If wind can form funals (as proof of nature's creativity), then you must be able to extrapolate on the well-known process that you point out happens almost daily in the US.
An Evolutionist should be able to defend the creativity of nature by pointing to examples from Evolution (of Evolution), not from other things, like wind.
About the Dawkins incident (which, to me at least, is largely irrelevant):
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html[/url]
1) Dawkins "had been duped about their motives." What evidence is there that Dawkins was duped? None. Dawkins indisputably lied about the incident. Then he lied again about being duped. LIE. He couldn't answer the question. Claiming he was duped should not have prevented him from answering the question. If he felt so duped, why did he continue with the interview (while still not answering the question)? Because he LIED.
2) "The question is equivalent to asking how complexity could evolve" LIE. Dawkins wasn't asked "how", he was asked for an example.
3) Dawkins' ability to answer a central question is "is largely irrelevant". The inability of Dawkins, one of the world's top authourities, to answer the most relevant question is irrelevant? You must have changed your tune on the finality of the word of authority. "The scientific literature is rife with examples of information increasing." That's a LIE, the link given by your source provides no such example.
I discovered Dawkins caught lying when I was searching for examples of Evolution provided by top evolutionist experts. He couldn't provide any. His failure to provide any example was more obvious than if he, as is typical, misrepresented evidence. That he lied later about the incident, and that others have lied on his behalf, doesn't help the case for Evolution.
Hardly. Scientists generally are very dispassionate in their interpretation of evidence, and bad conclusions based on bad evidence or shoddy reasoning are weeded out with a vengeance by colleagues and competitors. Science is a self-correcting endeavor, since scientists are rewarded not for going along with the status quo, but for shattering it whenever possible. Believe me, the way to scientific fame is NOT to repeatedly come up with findings that merely support the work of others.
Fine, then provide one example of dozens or hundreds, or just two, mutations working together to improve the overall fitness and sophistication of an organism. An example that has not been weeded out with a vengeance by colleagues and competitors.
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed Instances of Speciation[/url]
I'm not interested in an arbitrary definition of speciation along with examples. I want examples of nature's creativity. Speciation itself does not add fitness and sophistication to an organism. In fact, just the opposite. Speciation cuts off part of the gene pool, making the new species a less fit version of the original kind, even if hybrids can regain some of that lost gene pool.
Today, in the journal Nature, Dr Reza Ghadiri, of the Scripps Research Institute, California, and colleagues show that little protein chunks, called peptides, thought to be present on the primitive Earth, were capable of making copies of themselves - a fundamental property of living things.
Have these particular peptides ever been created by any contrived (let alone realistic) model of the early earth? The answer is certainly "no". It's a LIE to imply that there is scientific reason to think those peptides were present on the primvative Earth. It's a LIE to imply that there is any known natural environment were these peptides could replicate. If Dr. Ghardiri is exposed as a wanton liar, you would just waive your hand and say "It's largely irrelevant."
All that evidence for evolution that you say doesn't exist is out there, HH.
When you have a religion, a strong faith, you can interpret anything to support your belief. Evolution doesn't happen (that's not how nature works), even if you think you have a world of evidence to the contrary. You don't answer my questions.
2005-03-25 19:53 | User Profile
Okay, one more post....
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]Angler,
Fruit flies give rise to fruit flies. Goatsbeard gives rise to goatsbeard. That's the best that can be observed--along with strenuous efforts to stretch the concept of speciation to fundamentally identical organisms. (The EPA is quite good at this, btw). Of course you're not going to get a drastically new lifeform after a single instance of speciation. Evolution is a slow, SLOW process. Drastic changes will only have occurred after speciation has occurred many times over countless generations.
There is no stretch involved in the example I gave -- speciation clearly took place among those goatsbeards, since the new variety could no longer produce offspring with the old variety. That is clear proof that a new species was created. And that is only one example of speciation actually observed in nature. There are many more, and I've provided links.
A number of the other examples involved artificial selection--intelligent design--not natural selection. And again, the result was a hybrid. Reptiles didn't turn into birds; fish didn't turn into amphibians, much less mammals. No one claims that evolution occurs as abruptly as you are indicating.
You continue to raise the straw man of Biblical literalism, and I haven't seen anyone other than TD argue for the Biblical version of creation. Doesn't TD count? ;) Seriously, though, you can see that my arguments for evolution were not based on Biblical considerations -- I only got into that subject for a moment because HH mentioned Biblical Creation at the end of his last post.
Nevertheless, you know as well as I do what ALL people who reject evolution have in common. ALL are religious fundamentalists -- either Christian, Muslim, Orthodox Jewish, or some other variety. Okay, maybe there's the occasional atheist who thinks life on earth was created by Martians or something, but the general rule is: anti-evolutionist --> religious fundamentalist.
Your belief (since you refuse to be agnostic about it) in evolution is every bit as faith-based as the Christian belief in supernatural creation. Nope, it's based on the available evidence -- some of which I've already referred to and linked to -- and my own understanding of how evolution works.
No one can say how molecules can make the jump to cellular organism to multi-cellular organism to mammal. No one can say how a fish turns into a bird. Again, those things don't happen abruptly -- but they did happen. And yes, people can say how changes happen: by repeated genetic mutations against a background of dynamic environmental pressures.
The theory of evolution cannot tell us if ten million women dunking their newborns in water for the next ten million years would give us anything other than a lot of dead babies. It certainly would produce a lot of dead babies.
The theory of evolution can't tell us why chimps stay chimps... They stay that way until they go extinct. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor, but chimps did not "turn into humans."
...or why we didn't all stop at the level of unicellular organism, the most persistent and successful form of live on the planet. Unicellular organisms thrive in many environments, but in other environments multicellular organisms do better -- hence the rise of multicellular organisms (probably from colonies of single-celled organisms).
No one's observed the process of evolution. No one can explain how it happens. That's not true, as has already been pointed out.
That's why evolution remains a theory, yet it is taught as fact. Evolution IS a fact. Evolutionary theory is the title given to the scientific theory that best explains the observed fact of evolution (observed through the fossil record coupled with DNA and morphological analysis).
Compare the discourse on evolution with the discourse on string theory or dark matter. Compare the legal consequences of a public school teaching different theories of creation and a public school teaching different versions of astrophysics. Creation shouldn't be taught as science because it isn't science -- it's mythology. As for string theory and dark matter, those theories have nowhere near as much scientific support as evolution. String theory, in fact, has no direct experimental support whatsoever -- its plausibility comes from its ability to explain observations. Remember: a "theory" in science is defined as a coherent and well-supported explanation of observed facts. Do you doubt the germ theory of disease? That's a "theory" too, you know.
As to the issue of teaching evolution in public schools, I think that parents should have the right to keep their kids from those classes if they so choose. If someone wants his or her kid to get less of an education, that's not my problem.
The proponents of evolution have enlisted the law on their side, and thus expose themselves to the same attack as against proponents of the "Holocaust": what type of truth is it that requires the law for its protection? I'm not aware of anyone who has ever been arrested for denying evolution.
Why can't they bring themselves to acknowledge that evolution, or for that matter, any other theory of creation, can never be empirically proven? Nothing is ever considered completely proven in science. That's why it's the most honest of all human endeavors. Nevertheless, the evidence for evolution is as strong as that for just about any other theory in existence.
Another thought: it is a fallacy to think that science is dispassionate or necessarily self-correcting. Scientists are subjective human beings like everyone else. They have personal pride, financial pressures, worldviews based on life experience, etc. The AIDS orthodoxy and "global warming" are abundant evidence of scientists' ability to tailor their research towards a pre-set agenda. Another patent example is the geneticists who swear race doesn't exist, by defining the genetic code down to the near molecular level and declaring they can't find any differences.[/QUOTE]Such pressures on scientists do exist, but the ironic thing is that they tend to push scientists away from simply reaffirming the status quo. The best rewards in science come from making new discoveries and debunking older theories. That is a fact well-known to anyone who has ever done scientific research for a living.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "AIDS orthodoxy," but as far as global warming goes, scientists have a healthy disagreement on the subject. They don't disagree about evolution, though. In spite of all their disparate cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, and life experiences, nearly all scientists accept evolution. Among biologists and earth scientists, the agreement is nearly unanimous. That is a testimony to the strength of evolutionary theory.
2005-03-25 20:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The comment about a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 was by an Evolutionist pointing out the problem of the origin of life. And, the analogy still solidly stands. It doesn't matter where it came from; it's still a terrible analogy. Why? Among other reasons, because matter does not behave the same way on the nanoscopic and macroscopic levels. Interactions between molecules are NOTHING like the interactions between macroscopic objects. Macroscopic objects are not capable of self-assembly; nanoscopic objects most definitely are.
My comment of a bomb leaving a hole, not a better building, was to illistrate the inadequacy of merely appealing to the addition of energy. No one has ever claimed that merely adding energy willy-nilly to a system is enough to cause something to be created. An open system is, however, capable of undergoing a decrease in entropy.
You provided no principle or law for why added energy destroys in one example but creates in your hypothetical Evolution. There is no single principle or law that explains such things. It's not like all the laws of nature can be written on the back of an envelope (at least not yet). The biophysics involved in genetic mutations undoubtedly involves thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and probably even quantum mechanics. No one claims to understand all of it. We do know is that evolution has occurred, but we don't know that from ab initio calculations -- we know it from fossils and DNA sequences.
The answer to the bomb question is that the energy to be constructive, it has to be applied with intelligence or according to a pre-existing design. That answer rules out Evolution. You have no alternative answer. Wrong. Order can arise out of chaos spontaneously in accordance with the laws of physics, and this happens all the time in nature. Evolution entails the gradual modification of existing structures according to environmental demands and the laws of physics. If a little bit of order can arise out of no order, then a little bit more order can arise from that first little bit of order, and then a little more order than that, and so on.
Dropping a bomb on a building makes a nice, round hole. Agreed.
A wind funal is very simple, and has no potential to be anything more sophisticated than a funnel. And yet it's more complicated than what was there previously, isn't it? That's the point.
A tornado is like a snowflake, pre-existing design is enough to produce a snow flake or a tornado (e.g. the Coriolis effect). You're begging the question by assuming that the Coriolis effect was designed. And where is the evidence that snowflakes were designed? They (and other crystalline structures) are a perfect example of the spontaneous creation of order from disorder. If there is any design involved in them, it is the design of the laws of physics and mathematics (e.g., group theory).
In spite of the chaos in a tornado, the order there is utterly simple. That doesn't matter, since tornadoes and evolution are entirely different subjects anyway. The principle illustrated is what's important, and that principle is that order can arise spontaneously from disorder in nature.
How many years do you think it would take wind to form a 747 (roughly the complexity of the simplest life)? Why not? If wind can form funals (as proof of nature's creativity), then you must be able to extrapolate on the well-known process that you point out happens almost daily in the US. Already addressed above. The behavior of matter on the macrosopic scale is entirely different from its behavior on the nanoscopic scale.
An Evolutionist should be able to defend the creativity of nature by pointing to examples from Evolution (of Evolution), not from other things, like wind. I've already done so. Please see the posted links.
Dawkins "had been duped about their motives." What evidence is there that Dawkins was duped? None. It makes sense. If he expected to be confronted by creationists, then it makes sense that he would have anticipated such a question from past debates and had an answer ready.
In any event, Dawkins is only one scientist among many in the worldwide scientific community. The truth of evolution does not stand or fall with him or with any other single figure. The important thing is that the overwhelming majority of earth and life scientists find the evidence for evolution convincing, and I find the theory entirely plausible based on my own knowledge and understanding.
2005-03-26 00:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE]but the general rule is: anti-evolutionist --> religious fundamentalist. [/QUOTE]I would dearly love to see a poll performed. I very much doubt that Fred Reed and I are the only two non theists who recognize the theory of evolution for the crock of sh*t that it truly is.
The man who initiated the study of genetics, Roman Catholic priest Grigor Mendel, presumably a devout fellow, didn't believe in Evolution. Oddly enough, when Father Mendel submitted a paper to Darwin detailing the laws of genetics he had discovered, Darwin pronounced his conclusions to be rubbish. So much for the other dearly held dual implication of fervent evolutionists:
Evolutionist-->Scientific EvolutionSkeptic-->Antiscientific
PS As a good Catholic, Mendel didn't believe in creationism either, which is about as scientific as the evolutionist fantasy. This strawman of the rabid (Neo)Darwinists is insufferably irritating. But it so permeates the propashere that my sister-in-law once confided to me her ardent belief that it's her duty as one of the faithful to believe in the creationist nonsense. I guess the fact that her son is being indoctrinated in his parochial (i.e., Roman Catholic) school with the EVOLUTIONIST dogma isn't a strong enough hint to her that creationism is not part of church dogma.
2005-03-26 04:05 | User Profile
Whether you like it or not, anti-evolutionism isn't represented in scientific circles. Simply because it's anti-scientific.
2005-03-26 08:55 | User Profile
Scientific American Editorial:
Heh :)
[QUOTE]Okay, We Give Up
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either—so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
Okay, We Give Up
MATT COLLINS THE EDITORS [email]editors@sciam.com[/email] COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. [/QUOTE]
2005-03-30 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]I would dearly love to see a poll performed. I very much doubt that Fred Reed and I are the only two non theists who recognize the theory of evolution for the crock of sh*t that it truly is.[/QUOTE] Okay, so you don't believe in any gods, and you don't buy evolution. Would you care to share with us your idea of how all these different organisms came to populate the earth? I'm intrigued.
2005-03-30 17:47 | User Profile
Here's an excellent site about vestigial organs:
[url]http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html[/url]
A sample:
Hind Leg Bones in Whales
Biologists believe that for 100 million years the only vertebrates on Earth were water-dwelling creatures, with no arms or legs. At some point these ââ¬Åfishââ¬Â began to develop hips and legs and eventually were able to walk out of the water, giving the earth its first land lovers. Once the land-dwelling creatures evolved, there were some mammals that moved back into the water. Biologists estimate that this happened about 50 million years ago, and that this mammal was the ancestor of the modern whale. Despite the apparent uselessness, evolution left traces of hind legs behind, and these vestigial limbs can still be seen in the modern whale. There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary hind limbs in the wild, and have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these examples are of whales that had only leg bones, but there were some that included feet with complete digits. It was reported recently that whales and hippos were distantly related.
It sure seems to me that old "junk DNA" in the whales' genomes somehow got reactivated in a genetic accident of sorts, causing them to take on a characteristic of their land-dwelling ancestors. But since evolution is "only a theory," can someone here who disputes evolution kindly explain how whales could be born with hind legs along with feet and toes?
2005-03-30 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Here's an excellent site about vestigial organs:
[url]http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html[/url]
Angler, your big on posting links of alleged evidence (propaganda), but not so big on responding to challenges to that evidence.
Vestigial organs, like with all the Evolutionist's evidence for Evolution, is only circumstantial and depends on a great deal of imagination. Evolution does not exist, so Evolutionists cannot directly show it.
Vestigial organs by themselves are no evidence of Evolution, but just the opposite. The problem for Evolution is that nature is not creative. Vestigial organs are decay, not creativity. But, if a species has vestiges of an organ from a different kind of species but that has no function in the current species, then that could be evidence of Evolution.
If human fetuses really have non-useful gills, that would be evidence of Evolution. Humans don't breath water and the only reasonable way humans could have gills is if the gills were inherited from fish. But, humans don't have gills, gill slits, or gill pouches. Evolutionists lied.
How about this Top Ten list?:
10: Flightless Birds. A flightless bird is still a bird. Wings are not vestiges of pre-bird species. Occam's razor slashes Evolution away. Given a species, one can achieve highly specialized breeds that because of their specialization lose some other function. Flight is difficult enough, breeding for size can make flight impossible. No need to appeal to Evolution.
9: High leg bones in whales. Whales don't have leg bones. They have a set rear bones used in reproduction. Some other legless animals, such as snakes have the same thing. If they were merely vestiges, why not the front leg bones? Angler, you say that some whales have feet and toes. That sounds like a lie (ala the human babies with gills). Please provide a link to a photo of a whale with feet and toes. If such a ting thing really exists, photos of it would be on every pro-Evolution website (and, this example would be #1, not #7, on this list). BTW, I don't mean pictures of some bones of extinct land animals that you want to call a whale.
8: Goose bumps. As far as I know, the erector pili that cause goose bumps are part of the same system that causes contraction of blood vessels to help preserve warmth. As such, they are very important to humans to maintain constant body temperature. BTW, does the article mean to suggest that humans evolved from rabbits? The article implies that goose bumps are vestiges of rabbit organs.
7: The human tailbone. Maybe I'm making this too simple, but doesn't the human spine have to terminate someplace? The article says it has been "suggested" that the tailbone anchors minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. The Evolutionists need to talk to a scientist where they will be told that it is more than a suggestion that some muscle groups are anchored on the tailbone.
6: Blind cave fish. An example of pure decay within a species. Because there is no need of eyes in caves, there is no environmental pressure to eliminate the fish that lose eye function.
5: Human wisdom teeth. Even the article grudgingly admits that these teeth would be useful in earlier times, when adult tooth loss was common, to replace lost teeth.
4: Sex organs in Dandelions. As with several other examples within this list, this is not an example of anything that is vestigial from pre-dandelions. It's just a loss of function within a species. BTW, why did sexual repoduction evolve if asexual reproduction works so well?
3: Lizard species without males. Same as with the Dandelions, loss of sexual function within a species.
2: Male nipples. Humans very much need nipples to feed their young. Nipples are not at all vestiges from pre-human species. Maybe male nipples are vestiges of females, within the species? Actually, all babies start out females and become males during fetal development. That's why males have nipples.
1: The Human Appendix. We're back to the theory that humans evolved from rabbits? The appendix is larger in rabbits and helps these herbivores digest their food. Apes and chimps don't have these larger appendix's, so the human appendix isn't vestigial from apes and chimps (or whatever the common ancestor, which I guess you can imagine has anything you want). The function of the human appendix may not be as important in humans as in rabbits, but it still contributes to the digestion process. Humans are not as specialized/designed at being herbivores as rabbits. As if suggesting we evolved from rabbits is not enough, the article goes on to make the case about how destructive the human appendix is. If it does no good, but does much bad, then why has it not been eliminated by the time it took rabbits to evolve into humans? Did Natural Selection take a vacation?
Show me a real example of Evolution, an accumulation of mutations that increase fitness and sophistication of a species. Don't tell me lies about gills in humans and legs/feet/toes in whale, don't pass off decay within a species as Evolution, and don't subsitute imagination for evidence.
This is the TOP TEN???
2005-03-31 12:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Angler, your big on posting links of alleged evidence (propaganda), but not so big on responding to challenges to that evidence.
Vestigial organs, like with all the Evolutionist's evidence for Evolution, is only circumstantial and depends on a great deal of imagination. Evolution does not exist, so Evolutionists cannot directly show it.
Vestigial organs by themselves are no evidence of Evolution, but just the opposite. The problem for Evolution is that nature is not creative. Vestigial organs are decay, not creativity. But, if a species has vestiges of an organ from a different kind of species but that has no function in the current species, then that could be evidence of Evolution.
If human fetuses really have non-useful gills, that would be evidence of Evolution. Humans don't breath water and the only reasonable way humans could have gills is if the gills were inherited from fish. But, humans don't have gills, gill slits, or gill pouches. Evolutionists lied.
How about this Top Ten list?:
10: Flightless Birds. A flightless bird is still a bird. Wings are not vestiges of pre-bird species. Occam's razor slashes Evolution away. Given a species, one can achieve highly specialized breeds that because of their specialization lose some other function. Flight is difficult enough, breeding for size can make flight impossible. No need to appeal to Evolution.
9: High leg bones in whales. Whales don't have leg bones. They have a set rear bones used in reproduction. Some other legless animals, such as snakes have the same thing. If they were merely vestiges, why not the front leg bones? Angler, you say that some whales have feet and toes. That sounds like a lie (ala the human babies with gills). Please provide a link to a photo of a whale with feet and toes. If such a ting thing really exists, photos of it would be on every pro-Evolution website (and, this example would be #1, not #7, on this list). BTW, I don't mean pictures of some bones of extinct land animals that you want to call a whale.
8: Goose bumps. As far as I know, the erector pili that cause goose bumps are part of the same system that causes contraction of blood vessels to help preserve warmth. As such, they are very important to humans to maintain constant body temperature. BTW, does the article mean to suggest that humans evolved from rabbits? The article implies that goose bumps are vestiges of rabbit organs.
7: The human tailbone. Maybe I'm making this too simple, but doesn't the human spine have to terminate someplace? The article says it has been "suggested" that the tailbone anchors minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. The Evolutionists need to talk to a scientist where they will be told that it is more than a suggestion that some muscle groups are anchored on the tailbone.
6: Blind cave fish. An example of pure decay within a species. Because there is no need of eyes in caves, there is no environmental pressure to eliminate the fish that lose eye function.
5: Human wisdom teeth. Even the article grudgingly admits that these teeth would be useful in earlier times, when adult tooth loss was common, to replace lost teeth.
4: Sex organs in Dandelions. As with several other examples within this list, this is not an example of anything that is vestigial from pre-dandelions. It's just a loss of function within a species. BTW, why did sexual repoduction evolve if asexual reproduction works so well?
3: Lizard species without males. Same as with the Dandelions, loss of sexual function within a species.
2: Male nipples. Humans very much need nipples to feed their young. Nipples are not at all vestiges from pre-human species. Maybe male nipples are vestiges of females, within the species? Actually, all babies start out females and become males during fetal development. That's why males have nipples.
1: The Human Appendix. We're back to the theory that humans evolved from rabbits? The appendix is larger in rabbits and helps these herbivores digest their food. Apes and chimps don't have these larger appendix's, so the human appendix isn't vestigial from apes and chimps (or whatever the common ancestor, which I guess you can imagine has anything you want). The function of the human appendix may not be as important in humans as in rabbits, but it still contributes to the digestion process. Humans are not as specialized/designed at being herbivores as rabbits. As if suggesting we evolved from rabbits is not enough, the article goes on to make the case about how destructive the human appendix is. If it does no good, but does much bad, then why has it not been eliminated by the time it took rabbits to evolve into humans? Did Natural Selection take a vacation?
Show me a real example of Evolution, an accumulation of mutations that increase fitness and sophistication of a species. Don't tell me lies about gills in humans and legs/feet/toes in whale, don't pass off decay within a species as Evolution, and don't subsitute imagination for evidence.
This is the TOP TEN???[/QUOTE]
Amen! Preach it, brother!
2005-04-01 04:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Would you care to share with us your idea of how all these different organisms came to populate the earth? I'm intrigued [/QUOTE]Here's the scenario, Joe:
My client is charged with murder. I point out that he was half way around the world on the night in question in the company of several hundred witnesses of impeccable integrity, that the bloody footprints found at the murder scene do not match those of my client, ditto for the fingerprints covering the murder weapon, that the entry wound indicated a left handed attacker whereas my client is short one hand of the sinister variety. To which you reply "Weeeell, some one had to have killed him, and since you can't produce a viable alternative suspect, your client is obviously guilty!"
I will in future endeavor to save myself acute public embarrasssment by never again crossing swords with someone possessed of your formidable mastery of logic.
BTW Nice touch quoting from that eminent peer reviewed academic journal Scientific American, whose august audience consists largely of public school administrators and 'teachers' -- you know, those people who consistently scored lower on the SAT's back in the day than fruit pickers, crack whores, various people in persistent vegetative states, Patrick Ewing (Darwin's missing link?), ... In all fairness, though, it must be admitted that the upper end of its illustrious readership aced 'Physics For Poets' while pursuing their BFA's at Oberlin before migrating to Williamburg, Brooklyn. You can recognize these mighty men of science by their trucker hats, Buddy Holly glasses, and messenger bags. There are even wild, unsubstantiated rumors that some of these Brainiac's have succeeded in solving the notoriously difficult linear equation in one unknown.
2005-04-01 06:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]Here's the scenario, Joe:
My client is charged with murder. I point out that he was half way around the world on the night in question in the company of several hundred witnesses of impeccable integrity, that the bloody footprints found at the murder scene do not match those of my client, ditto for the fingerprints covering the murder weapon, that the entry wound indicated a left handed attacker whereas my client is short one hand of the sinister variety. To which you reply "Weeeell, some one had to have killed him, and since you can't produce a viable alternative suspect, your client is obviously guilty!"[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty bad analogy. Of course, to establish the innocence of a murder suspect it is not necessary to demonstrate the guilt of someone else. But evolution isn't like that. To deny evolution is essentially to deny that life could spontaneously arise on earth through purely naturalistic processes. The clear implication of your stance is that some non-naturalistic or supernatural phenomenon (e.g. God) must be responsible. So why don't you tell us what?
A better murder analogy might be this: 3 men are out hunting and spend the night snowed-in in a log cabin. Outside a snow-storm rages so fierce that it's humanly impossible for anyone else to have come in or gone out. During the night one of the men is murdered. Both of the survivors claim the other one did it. You have evidence that conclusively proves one of the men couldn't have been the murderer (e.g. boths his arms dropped off from gangrene the day before or something, use your imagination). By implication, the other man is the murderer. If you wish to claim otherwise, you must show that the armless man did it. To exonerate one is to accuse the other.
Life was either created by exclusively natural processes, through supernatural means, or by a combination of the two. How can there be any other possibilities?
[QUOTE]BTW Nice touch quoting from that eminent peer reviewed academic journal Scientific American, whose august audience consists largely of public school administrators and 'teachers' -- you know, those people who consistently scored lower on the SAT's back in the day than fruit pickers, crack whores, various people in persistent vegetative states, Patrick Ewing (Darwin's missing link?), ... In all fairness, though, it must be admitted that the upper end of its illustrious readership aced 'Physics For Poets' while pursuing their BFA's at Oberlin before migrating to Williamburg, Brooklyn. You can recognize these mighty men of science by their trucker hats, Buddy Holly glasses, and messenger bags. There are even wild, unsubstantiated rumors that some of these Brainiac's have succeeded in solving the notoriously difficult linear equation in one unknown.[/QUOTE]
That was pretty entertaining. Utter nonsense of course, but don't let that hold you back.
2005-04-01 07:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]A better murder analogy might be this: 3 men are out hunting and spend the night snowed-in in a log cabin. Outside a snow-storm rages so fierce that it's humanly impossible for anyone else to have come in or gone out. During the night one of the men is murdered. Both of the survivors claim the other one did it. You have evidence that conclusively proves one of the men couldn't have been the murderer (e.g. boths his arms dropped off from gangrene the day before or something, use your imagination). By implication, the other man is the murderer. If you wish to claim otherwise, you must show that the armless man did it. To exonerate one is to accuse the other.[/QUOTE]
That kind of reminds me of Stephen Crane's 'The Blue Hotel'.
2005-04-01 14:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]BTW Nice touch quoting from that eminent peer reviewed academic journal Scientific American, whose august audience consists largely of public school administrators and 'teachers'
Just in case there's any confusion, Scientific American is not peer-reviewed any more so than Chrsitianity Today.
2005-04-01 15:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]My client is charged with murder. I point out that he was half way around the world on the night in question in the company of several hundred witnesses of impeccable integrity, that the bloody footprints found at the murder scene do not match those of my client, ditto for the fingerprints covering the murder weapon, that the entry wound indicated a left handed attacker whereas my client is short one hand of the sinister variety. To which you reply "Weeeell, some one had to have killed him, and since you can't produce a viable alternative suspect, your client is obviously guilty!"
That correctly describes the thinking of Evolutionists. It's not the strength of the evidence, and certainly not any observation of how nature works, that makes them Evolutionists, it's a lack of anything they could consider a viable alternative to the origins of species. Three men in a boat and one is murdered during the night.
The flaw in your analagy is that it focuses on a singular past event. Evolution isn't just a belief about the past, but a belief about how nature works. Evolution doesn't happen and that's why there's a tendency for them to focus on pre-pre-history rather than on how nature works (the latter being the nature of pure science).
BTW Nice touch quoting from that eminent peer reviewed academic journal Scientific American, whose august audience consists largely of public school administrators and 'teachers'
In case there's any confusion, Scientific American is no more peer-reviewed than Christianity Today.
2005-04-01 15:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]That correctly describes the thinking of Evolutionists. It's not the strength of the evidence, and certainly not any observation of how nature works, that makes them Evolutionists, it's a lack of anything they could consider a viable alternative to the origins of species. Three men in a boat and one is murdered during the night.
The flaw in your analagy is that it focuses on a singular past event. Evolution isn't just a belief about the past, but a belief about how nature works. Evolution doesn't happen and that's why there's a tendency for them to focus on pre-pre-history rather than on how nature works (the latter being the nature of pure science).
In case there's any confusion, Scientific American is no more peer-reviewed than Christianity Today.[/QUOTE]
Facts and logic have nothing do with the religion of evolution.