One of the things that has enabled the mainstreaming of various idiocies, from altie woo, to creationism, to global warming denialism is mainstream corporate media's inability to accurately describe lunacy. For obvious reasons, 'family-friendly' newspapers and teevee can't call creationists, birthers, or deathers batshit lunatic or fucking morons. This is where 'civility' (beyond the basic norms of decency when dealing with the mentally ill) and pretensions of 'balance' utterly fail.
In Idiot America, Charles Pierce provides a good example of how this works:
How does it work? This is how it works. On August 21, 2005, a newspaper account of the intelligent design movement contained this remarkable sentence:"They have mounted a politically savvy challenge to evolution as the bedrock of modern biology, propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages and putting Darwin's defenders firmly on the defensive."
"A politically savvy challenge to evolution" makes as much sense as conducting a Gallup poll on gravity or running someone for president on the Alchemy party ticket. It doesn't matter what percentage of people believe that they ought to be able to flap their arms and fly: none of them can. It doesn't matter how many votes your candidate got: he's not going to be able to turn lead into gold. The sentence is so arrantly foolish that the only real news in it is where it appeared.
On the front page.
Of the New York Times.
Consider that the reporter, one Jodi Wilgoren, had to compose this sentence. Then she had to type it. Then, more than likely, several editors had to read it. Perhaps even a proofreader had to look it over after it had been placed on the page--the front page--of the Times. Did it occur to none of them that a "politically savvy challenge to evolution" is as self-evidently ridiculous as an "agriculturally savvy" challenge to Euclidean geometry would be? Within three days, there was a panel on the topic on Larry King Live, in which Larry asked the following question:
"All right, hold on, Dr. Forrest, your concept of how you can out-and-out turn down creationism, since if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"
And why, dear Lord, do so many of them host television programs?
While I think things have become better vis a vis evolution, it is instructive. Consider that someone like Republican Senator Charles Grassley can lie with impunity--or be allowed in public while suffering from delusions: the good Senator is a deather--that is, he thinks the proposed healthcare legislation could lead to forced euthanasia. To use a highly technical term, this is fucking insane. And only one newspaper--the New York Times--has written about this in unstinting terms, albeit too late in the game.
So much stupid, so little Mad Biologist...
- Log in to post comments
I find it hard to believe that he actually thinks that considering that he actually voted for a similar provision in 2003. Most likely he is simply a liar (unless you want to include willful liars in your definition of deather--then he is most certainly a deather.)
The "deathers" conveniently gloss over the fact that there are already "death panels" - organizations that condemn sick people to death. They use stock statements such as: "That's a pre-existing condition - you're not covered - you get to die." or "That particular disease is not listed - you're not covered - you get to die." or "You don't have any insurance - you get to die."
"A politically savvy challenge to evolution" makes as much sense as conducting a Gallup poll on gravity or running someone for president on the Alchemy party ticket.
Not sure I agree with that from the POV that politics is used every moment of every day to sell lines of BS, and some people sell it very well. An individual's political savviness has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever ideological or pseudoscientific product they are trying to peddle. You savvy? ;-) I guess I'm just pondering the semantics here, but it's Saturday.
You'll enjoy Dara O'Brien's take on that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo
Well, the more I live in the US, the more I think this simply comes from a bad interpretation of the 1st amendment. It tells that all opinions can be expressed freely, but I have sometimes the feeling that it is understood as if all opinions had the same value, which is obviously not the case .
In France, freedom of speech is slightly limited, e.g. it is forbidden to express nazi opinions in public. I am actually not sure this is such a good idea in principle, but one effect is that we all have somewhere in our mind the idea that some opinions are totally insane.
Jodi Wilgoren's description nailed it. The creationists absolutely cannot mount a scientific challenge, so a politically savvy challenge is all they can do, and that's exactly what we've seen. That's why real scientists have had such a hard time stemming this cult, because they've been trying to fight it with a scientifically savvy response, and that's not good enough in the religious and political climate we've been experiencing of late in the USA.
This ranting about creationism does nothing to foster legitimate discussion and debate. After all a narrow minded person on the other side could write an article titled "How evolution (and other idocies) are mainstreamed."
When some Athiest, non-believing, evolutionist, scientist, left-wing liberal can PROVE creationism did not happen then I will succumb. I have always wanted to know IF we evolved, say from other primates, why are they still here? I have never seen a mouse evolve into an elephant. And my goodness...why hasn't man sprouted wings (sorry evolved into a self propelled being) to solve the energy problem or save the earth? Oh wait..the wings would have to be GREEN to be approved. Please...
"if you are living like there is no God, you'd better be right!"
I never cease to wonder about the creationists that use their "Trump Card" and ask "If we decended from apes, why are apes still here?" Then they get that smug smile and I want to barf. A reading of Darwins Evolution of Species,(note: not the evolution of life, just of species)explains that apes came from a different branch of the tree, putting it simply. Multi-celled organisms evolved from single-celled organisms, yet there are still single-celled organisms.
The idiocy of creationism may indeed be a myth but likewise is science's "read" on how the cosmos orginated. If postmodernism has done anything it reveals how embedded our lexicon is in our small circle. In other words, your story does not trump their story. It is just different. Now for those who demand that we only follow what we know scientifically then just tell us the 20 scientific beliefs that have been altered, shifted, or debunked in the last 50 years?. Once again my point:? This rant is more about the need for your information & conclusions to control the way people see life than it is about verifiable facts. Your shot may have more data behind it but it is still your lexicon that is defining lunacy here. And..I am not a creationist just tired of scientism masquerading as a purely "logical" engagement when much of it is myth making of a poetic origins. If anything we all have come from "Story." Love yours...wiling to give them space for theirs.
Have you ever wondered why Darwin refuted his own writings in his grown years as 'his youthful thoughts on paper just to make people consider - a theory'; one which he later did not believe?
I have sometimes the feeling that it is understood as if all opinions had the same value,
[massive projectile spit take]
Show me one human being who thinks any opinion but their own has any value! The only difference between people is that, on a given topic, some are right and some are wrong*.
*And, yes, some don't care.
Thank you, David Bunker for expressing my own feelings so well....My favorite line is "This rant is more about the need for your information & conclusions to control the way people see life than it is about verifiable facts." Well said.
Jan | August 16, 2009 12:09 AM:
By the same logic, Sarah Palin cannot possibly be Bristol Palin's mother, because Sarah Palin is still alive.
The "why are monkeys still here" argument makes me laugh. Those who use it in earnest are so confident, and so sure of themselves - and yet so obviously wrong.
If people developed from single celled organisms from the ocean. Then shouldn't we be protecting our borders along the ocean in case more crawl out and really over crowd our health care system. There sure are alot of flaws in Darwins Theory. Like the person before me said if you don't believe there's a God. You better hope your right. I hear Hell is Hell!
david bunker | August 16, 2009 1:21 AM:
Ah, the ever-amusing "science advances, therefor it is always wrong" joke. Some people are professional clowns, and loved because they make people laugh. Others are equally talented, but can't seem to recognize their own gifts, and thus provide many a blog reader with free entertainment.
If someone rejects vaccines because they don't agree with the lexicon of scientific medicine, they will nonetheless put themselves, their children, and everyone around them at great risk, which in the long run, will result in loss of life.
I am not a scientist - just someone who thinks people who make dumb arguments are awfully funny.
Jan,Ginger, David Bunker,and JustWondering--what the writer is trying t say--and yes saying it outspokenly, even rudely is that he's sick of insanity being considered just as valid as logic and more likely facts.Do we know for a fact that Evolution is all there is to it?No!
But we can tell that Creationism *is* bunk.
I believe in God myself.But I don't deny the obvious.I wasn't descended from a *monkey* but from a similar creature that is unknown to us.Are there things we don't know--that may later be discovered? YES!
However--The earth is at least millions of yrs old, not 6000 yrs old--see what I mean?
There is a lot we don't know--including that the allmighty scientist don't know--yes.Agreed.
But the Creationists think the world is still flat!
See the difference now?
Jan,Ginger, David Bunker,and JustWondering--what the writer is trying to say--and yes, saying it outspokenly, even rudely-- is that he's sick of insanity being considered just as valid as logic and more likely facts.
Do we know for a fact that Evolution is all there is to it?No!
But we can tell that Creationism *is* bunk.
I believe in God myself.
But I don't deny the obvious.
I wasn't descended from a *monkey* but from a similar creature, rememebr the missing link?
Are there things we don't know--that may later be discovered? Things that may surprise evolutionists and creationists and whatever else people may believe 100 yrs from now?
YES!
However--The earth is at least millions of yrs old, not 6000 yrs old--see what I mean?
There is a lot we don't know--including what the almighty scientists don't know--yes. Agreed.
But the Creationists still think the world is flat!
See the difference now?
Wait so if I believe in evolution, I'm also a left winger, an atheist and a scientist? Huh.
Learn something new everyday.;-)
I love how this author clearly views himself as intellectually superior to anyone and everyone who disagrees with him while resorting to a slew of 4 letter words, while in his nonsensical rantings never offering up one argument or fact to support his view. Hmmmm, so anyone who has a differing opinion must have a mental illness and thus can't be treated with civility? Where have I heard this line of thought and fanatical evolutionism walk hand in hand, oh yes that's right, it was the mantra of the Nazi's and Communists used to justify the genocide of any and all dissenters.
Silly people...try looking into REALity... visit
http://videos.google.com and search for a video called Kymatica... there you'll find some FACTUAL TRUTH...which cannot be dismissed or disproved...rather proved :-)
And a politically savvy attack on gravity will lead to promotion of... yup, you guessed it, intelligent falling! :-)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n542.html
Simple! lets use Ockham's razor folks. I suggest that ockham had used logic and rational on any subject as the foundation to A hypothesis. He said that we can look at two opposing hypothesis and figure out which one is most likely true.It will be the one that uses the "Least" amount of assumptions. Now note that they must first have equally supportive facts. Can Creationism vs. Evolutionism equally support the facts presented. Creationist use archeology and a written history that is proving in time to be extremely accurate, and they make an assumption- God exists. Evolutionist make the assumption that God does not exists, and that we came from nothing via some big bang or a primordial soup theory. So both have assumptions; one calls it faith that God gave them. And the other says that they can throw out all the foundational science of energy =something from nothing. I find this an interesting subject. So who is using less assumptions??
One of the problems with the moronic facist right-wingers are only they know the facts and all others are dupes - or worse. They never noticed the $5 trillion in debt run-up by Bush & the GOP; they never noticed health-care rationed by insurance companies, let alone those without insurance (must be illegal aliens); and they never saw the lack of WMD in Iraq. Those who raise these facts must be morons because the reactionary right knows the are lies never happened. Creatism = fact; evolutionism = no way. My mother always said, you can't argue with a turnip or a madman.
I don't browse forums like this often, but occassionally one catches my eye. Since I've began looking at creationism vs. evolution, I marvel at how evolutionist consistently claim creationism has no science behind it. The fact is that evolutionists are the one who don't have any science behind their position. To call their musings science is a joke. They think they have a lock on it which is even more amazing. Evolutionists are so dumb they can't even see what they're doing. I have to laugh at them. You see this mostly among psuedo intellectuals who worship science like a god. You would think that after "Darwin's Black Box" was published, these morons would catch on, but their lack of intellect will not allow them to be objective. Their science is like theological eisegesis. They read their theory into the facts, and lack the intellect to see what they are doing. Too bad they aren't smart enough to see it. Psalm 14 says it all, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Ray
Ok, let's just start implementing Eugenics. Is that what you want?
Scripture sums it up perfectly: "The Fool has said in his heart that there is no God" . . .
Wow, mention the inanity of creationism and look at all the intellectual giants that come out of the woodwork (end of ad hominem, hehe). Specious arguments for creationism at best. Take a little time to understand actual science instead of just repeating oft refuted claims made by well known creationist propagandists. If you few who came forward to defend a non scientific view of our origin had a good grasp of science and the scientific method; you would be unable to maintain your position because it is unsupported by the reality of what we know to be true.
The facts stand behind evolution. The facts stand behind ~4 billion year old earth. The facts stand behind the big bang origin of the universe. No facts stand behind a biblical rendition of creation, if you suggest otherwise you must not be privy to the facts. Please take the time to understand science, it is a useful tool for bettering society and understanding existence.
The difference between science and religion, is that science continues to search for answers and is willing to admit they don't know everything and will change as evidence presents it self. Religion on the other hand believes it has all the answers and has closed the good book on all other ideas.
All evolution is is the study of genetic change over time. It does not directly deal with the beginning of life and certainly says nothing about the origin of the universe.
"Evolutionists" don't make the assumption that God does not exist. "Evolutionism" does not equal "atheist". Mainstream evolutionism only assumes that evolution occurs without the intervention of any god or "higher being". It is impossible to test for this.
John Michael, you are not going far enough with your assumptions. When you assume God created everything you must make more assumptions for what God is or where God came from.
Health care in this country is a disaster. The Health Insurance companies get rich while individuals get screwed. It is time for a change. All politicians LIE, but they Lie about things they want to accomplish, that they have no control over. John Boehner, Chuck Grassley, Sarah Palin, & Rudy Giuliani are LIARS about the Death Panel. The law is already on the books for Counseling about End of Life in the Medicare Bill passed in 2003 and Boehner and Grassley supported it. I have consistently voted for Republicans for Congress and State Legislators, Until Boehner and Grassley are out of positions of power in the Republican Party, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANOTHER REPUBLICAN. Dick Armey has been a slimeball and deserved to be asked to leave his position in his lobbying firm for conflict of interest. The republicans deserved to end up disgraced they way they've lied.
Ray, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is a book for public consumption and was not peer reviewed in any way before hand. Since then, the scientific community having read his conclusions have rejected them as arguments from ignorance which is creationism to a the letter...an argument that says since you cannot prove it false it must be true. That isn't scientific in any way. Behe's argument was further undermined in Kitzmiller v. Dover when his example of irreducible complexity, the famed bacterial flagellum, was shown to be false in cross-examination. In fact, all examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be incorrect. Oddly enough, what Creationists never seem to point out is that Behe agrees with the concept of common descent from primates (mostly) and the scientific community's consensus on the age of the Earth and the Universe.
By your standards, Ray, I have to ask if you've ever read a modern book on Evolution, say, something by Jerry Coyne, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, etc.? Intellect is something gained by accepting new facts as they become available and making them fit together. You can't do that if you pretend to know everything already because one book told you so.
Could it be that both sides are only half right? Could it be that the answer may be found somewhere in between? Could it be that no definitive "missing link" has been found because human beings are not indigenous to the earth? Perhaps understanding what "consciousness" is may lead to some fruitful understandings and begin to unravel the mystery of what "is" and how it all came to be. The answers are there, you just have to look! Having a mind that is akin to a steel trap is not conducive to understanding anything!
Good post, keep stirring the pot. More people thinking is better for everyone.
The "evolution vs. creationism" ridiculousness that is sailing around public forums these days - as someone who enjoys reading outside-the-box ideas, to me, this has always been a false paradigm. Take a trip to a large bookstore, and venture to the "new age" / "metaphysics" and to some extent, even the "science" sections. You will find hundreds of books purporting to examine/prove the existence of "god" in various ways, using scientific or mathematical models. There are in fact Vedic creationists who believe mankind has walked earth for 300 million years. They interpret their own archaeology/biology just as the ones in the states daftly try to do. There are authors like Frank Tipler who implement strict reductionism to attempt to use mathematics and science to insinuate divinity & resurrection. There are further hypotheses in the fringes of science, such as Sheldrake's neo-Lamarckian "morphic resonance." Or David Bohm's notions of "implicate/explicate order" and it's attendant implications for life. There is a rich arena of outside-the-box ideas if one wants to truly explore. All of this is "not accepted by science" in much the same way creationism is. Much of it is more coherent.
So, I perceive this pop-culture alleged debate on "evolution vs. creationism," as an uninformed dualistic perspective, one which is hardly an enriching or informed dichotomy in the first place-- because it is a paradigm between whatever the public is familiar with. And the public in the states clearly isn't inquisitive or worldly-minded. It's the only two positions they know.
Your very title is inflammatory! With narrow minded thinkers like you out there, Mike, there will never cease to be an end to these serious and often problemsome societal debates! I was trained extensively in the sciences, (post-doctorate), and personally find no problem with the creationist theory versus the evolutionary theory. It is in my mind, a amtter of interpretataion.
mikethemadbiologist is a shallow thinker. Name calling is not an argument. Trying to silent other theories is not science. Science is always questioning and searching. The monkey to human theory is scratching the iceberg. Where did monkeys come from? Where did the first cell (which we now know, but Darwin didn't, contains a whole universe within itself and cannot be duplicated in a lab) come from? Why is there matter in the universe if the "big bang" was an explosion of gases? Richard Dawkins himself stated that he believes some super-intelligent beings from outer space seeded the earth with life. Isn't that theory itself "intelligent design"? And where did these super-intelligent beings' life come from? The more we discover, the more we discover how little we know. Let's explore every theory and see where the evidence leads.
For all to see< the wonders of us, of the world, of the systematic order of the universe. There, for all of you to see and ignore at your Peril. God doesn't prove He is the designer by talking to and saying "I am God". But has shown us all by showing us His Designing handiwork!! Just the DNA code of life, its complexity. the Need to have both the Code and the machinery to decode it to make the proteins needed for life show a Designer GOD who is so vastly wise over all creation. To deny the design and fall for the foolishness of evolution puts your soul at Peril.
And then He has laid out His redemption plan to us in the Gospel of the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus. We all are sinners, all screw up. All need the Grace of God to take away our sins from God's sight so we might be saved. Jesus has done this at the Cross of Calvary!! Our calender signify this event!! Wake up and look unto God's creation and be in awe. Be transformed by His love to you, that He gave His only begotten Son, that if you choose to believe on Him, you will not perish (go to judgment for your sins) and have Eternal Life!! all you have to do is open your heart and let God show you your sinfulness and then call on Jesus for New life!!
one final comment, all the Great Scientist that we built our current science on: Newton, Copernicus, Pastuer, etc. were believers in God!! Even Eienstein knew there was "a designer being" behind the design of the Universe and that he deduced.
The Designer, Creator and sustainer of the universe, of your hearts beating and liver operating, and the DNA working in your body loves you and has Given Jesus to you. Please consider His handiwork and His gifting to you.
May God richly bless you all with the wonders of His Creation, and the Grace and Eternal life in His Son!!
Dave Parrish
Hisheart2yours@aol.com
Mainstream scientists haven't debated evolution since the 1950s. Evolution is only "controversial" courtesy of those wacky creationists, who take minor differences scientists have with respect to the theory and blow them out of proportion. Unlike creationists, scientists make no claim of absolute proof, though, since more is known about the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity, they operate based on "the fact of evolution."
By contrast, rather than presenting us evidence to support their notions that the earth is only 4000 years old and woman came from the rib of man, to name just two biblical examples that science disproves, creationists instead attempt to instill doubt about evolution and they have succeeded to a large extent. Why? Besides the fact that they have republicans in their back pockets, they have the help of corporate media, which depends on the republicans for lower tax rates, loose environmental controls and media consolidation.
The moral of the story: Supplement your news with noncorporate sources to get the true scoop--whether you are seeking information with respect to evolution, global warming or the health care debate.
Major flaw of Evolution, and we all see this today and every scientist today knows this: The Second law of Thermodynamics: which states that everything is winding down. And thus the universe is not getting more complex over time, but less complex. Except that a person, a being put in energy and thought to make something more organized. Case in point, does your closet get "more organized" automatically over time if you just grab clothes and put clothes in it with not thought?? No, you have to periodically put energy into reorganizing it. You, have to do this. A thinking, being, doing the organizing. It won't just happen, over time. A billion years later and your closet will still be disorganized unless you put energy into it. The false premise of Evolution: that "time" will organize the species. This is foolish and only accepted by those who do not want to ponder and consider that a God is over all, whom they must soon one day meet.
We all will meet Him and it is best to do that redeemed by the Grace of Jesus. Otherwise, you will pay the price for your sins, that Jesus already did for you on the Cross of Calvary and that you can now receive His life if you turn to Him. Otherwise you will not be able to enter Heaven.
Hope you do receive Jesus. God bless, Dave Parrish
Hisheart2yours@aol.com
Many fools have joined in here bashing evolution with their scripture. The word of goatherds 1500 years ago without a clue or care of the natural world versus 100 years of scientific endeavor which, if you can pass basic high school biology and physics, debunks all the crap about the 2nd law and abiogenesis.
Evolution is supported by fact and observation. The bible is supported by....nothing. Live your life in creationist ignorance if you like but stay out of education or you risk dropping science education to levels so low we will not compete globally. The risk to my mortal soul is bunk. Live in your own stew of fear and stupidity.
Quite a few frightened of dying types commenting today. They cripple their minds with silly myths, ridiculous magical thinking along the lines of believe this and you will be saved from an eternity of torment after life.
The fact that people believe in creationism demonstrates that populations can be persuaded to believe absolutely anything. All the subjects touched above, birthers, health lunacy whatever, expose the Achilles heel of a free society.
Demagogues can and do manipulate it to their benefit and to the detriment of everyone else.
Science is the only process we know with powerful inbuilt checks against bias, fraud and delusion. It is our bastion against collective insanity. Take a close look at those who attack it.
You creationists are misinterpreting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This misinterpretation, in and of itself, helps proves evolution:
Creationists are incapable of reasoning because they are not as evolved as other humans.
Creationists are the missing link.
I was trained extensively in the sciences, (post-doctorate), and personally find no problem with the creationist theory versus the evolutionary theory. It is in my mind, a amtter of interpretataion.
Posted by: Geneticdrift76 | August 16, 2009 10:52 AM
-- A PhD in "truthology" at Christian Tech doesn't count. Just needling...please let us know your discipline, institution and thesis subject, so we understand your "interpretation" better. After all, instruction "in the sciences" was a good enough description in the 18th Century, but not so much these days. Also, just a suggestion, but I wouldn't use the word "problemsome"...it's not a recognized word as of yet, and if used in your doctoral thesis may slightly denigrate it in the eyes of your committee.
The "Why are there still monkeys" question always amuses me as it shows the total ignorance about evolution of the person asking it. I always wonder if they would also consider "Since mammals evolved from fish, why are there still fish?" to be a valid question.
Oh goodie, an actual creationist who thinks this question makes sense. Now I can ask what I said I'd ask if I ever encountered such a person:
Huh? Why wouldn't they be?
Seriously, I want to know what you're thinking. I mean, clearly you think that the theory of evolution would predict that they wouldn't be, which of course it doesn't. But why do you think that?
And while I'm posting... man did this thread get trolled hard.
No.
No, he didn't.
Yes, it is. And that was his point. He was asked about intelligent design, and offered a non-theistic version of it. But not as something he believed in -- just as an answer to a hypothetical question. (That's as much detail as I can provide from memory, sorry.)
I like birthers, deathers and all the other right wing looney tunes. Firt of all the more ignorant right wing morons there are out there means less compitition for slots in good colleges. That translates into less compitition for the good jobs of the future. Let them stay ignorant and they can do all the crap work that needs to be done for crap wages while the educated people prosper. Any time an idiot wants to cut his own throat give him the knife..............
I am VERY alarmed by the number of Creationists who seem to think that evolutionary theory claims, argues, or is in any way based upon the notion that there is no God. THIS IS DEFINATELY NOT TRUE!!!! and anyone who has told you differently is either grossly misinformed or outright lying to you for personal reasons. Darwin believed in God and in Christianity. The VAST MAJORITY of scientists who support this theory believe in God, and, in this country, most of them ARE Christians! Forget the notion that accepting evolutionary theory requires you to deny the existence of God. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!!
Even more people trying the "ha, gotcha with your own science" gambit: The 2nd law of Thermodynamics? Why are there still monkeys? and other attempts at misrepresenting science would be funny if they weren't so commonplace. Do people bother to refute them anymore? I mean the reality is available for reading in any library or bookstore where books on basic physics, evolutionary biology and other sciences are on display. If you want to get to the real nitty gritty you could even read the peer reviewed research (not recommended unless you need to... so boring!)
#36:
#35:
Sure, a matter of interpretation... first; for a postdoc you sure can't spell and second; one interpretation is based on facts that lead to conclusions based in a reality supported by countless experiments which increase our body of scientific knowledge while the other interpretation is based on making an old book appear factual.
#32:
your half right hypothesis would be interesting if you could maybe do some experimentation to assess its validity. Until then it just sounds like uncritical or magical thinking.
C'mon people. Get real, science and the scientific method have provided you with tangible benefits like cars, modern conveniences, medical breakthroughs and even this thing called the internet. Stop looking to something for which there is absolutely no verifiable evidence, or at the very least stop holding it to be true despite real evidence to the contrary. Hell, I'd be happy if you would all just keep your fantasies to yourselves and let me and my family be educated in things that are real.
Blockquote fail on my last post, ugh! #36, the stuff outside the "" is not supposed to be in blockquotes.
Larry,
I'm with you but the problem is they keep reproducing at an alarming rate...
Note to LARRY who LIKES 'right wing looney tunes.' If you had any education in history you would not be so sanguine. Over and over again throughout the history of Western Civilization lunatic fringe groups--particularly ones with strong notions about how other people should act and think--have taken sufficient control of their society to do truly bad things. Think of the 'lunatic fringe' Nazi Party which used a combination of scare tactics, widespread misinformation, an idealistic philosophy, and the ability to take quick advantage of a rare political situation to take control of Germany, and all the mayhem and horror that resulted from that. DON'T assume that it could not happen here. It can happen in ANY country, including ours. In a democracy (which Germany was when Hitler came to power--did you know he was ELECTED?) the 'lunatic fringe' just needs the ability to lie really smoothly to an ignorant, confused, and frightened electorate facing a bad economy, a loss of military power or social prestige, and a desire to try anything which is promising them safety and security. Sound familiar?
I don't think that's strictly accurate.
@51:
lol...sigh
Conspiracy theorist playing the nazi card, it's been done a lot lately.
Oh, the allcaps was a nice touch. /sarcasm
Holy shit! This post has developed a serious loonicoccus creationae infection.
Anyone trying to indiscriminately bandy the terms "closed-minded" or "shallow-minded" about should first learn what "open-mindedness" does and does not mean. It means willingness to CONSIDER new ideas, not willingness to accept them unquestioningly. Similarly, "skepticism" does not mean rejecting certain ideas just to be contrary, it means requiring sufficient evidence of their validity and/or veracity. YouTube user QualiaSoup explains this all quite effectively: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI.
Also, @32: George, this is what's known as the "Gray Fallacy". Just because there are two competing theories or hypotheses (black and white) does not mean that it is at all likely that the answer lies in the gray area between the two. If someone wants to introduce a "gray" hypothesis, they must do so on its own merit by finding some evidence to suggest its plausibility.
George | August 16, 2009 10:03 AM:
Could it be that both sides are only half right? Could it be that the answer may be found somewhere in between? Could it be that the Earth is halfway between round and flat? Perhaps understanding what "roundness" is may lead to some fruitful understandings and begin to unravel the mystery of what "is" and how it all came to be. The answers are there, you just have to look! Having a mind that is akin to a steel trap is not conducive to understanding anything!
Dave Parrish | August 16, 2009 11:12 AM:
If you had ever gone outside during the day, you would have seen, shining brightly in the sky, a brilliant yellow-white orb we call the Sun. It continuously bombards the Earth with 174 petawatts - that's 174,000,000,000,000,000 watts - of power. If you had a double-A battery for every watt of solar power intersected by the Earth, and you built a mountain out of them, it would be more than 2000 meters taller than Everest (Qomolangma). That's enough power to power all of human civilization 12,428 times over. That's where all the energy for climate, weather, fossil fuels, evolution, chemistry, and damn near everything else on Earth comes from.
This is what makes creationist arguments so hilarious. They proudly recite arguments with flaws not merely as obvious as the nose on a person's face, but as obvious as the Sun in a cloudless sky at noon on Midsummer. And yet they deliver their lines time and time again as if their attacks were unanswerable.
llewelly,
174 Petawatts? Cool.
Creationists never seem to grasp the idea of a closed system or what that means. Competence in high school chem or physics should have been enough to show the falseness of the 2nd law claims.
I'm highly skeptical of this claim. If you are in fact scientifically trained, then your placement of "creationist theory" up against the ToE, as if they are competing scientific theories on equal footing, is heartbreaking. You should return to school, for you appear to have missed learning all of the science parts.
Michael N wrote:
"Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is a book for public consumption and was not peer reviewed in any way before hand. Since then, the scientific community having read his conclusions have rejected them as arguments from ignorance which is creationism to a the letter..."
Behe's points are well taken, and far from Creationism.
"Behe's argument was further undermined in Kitzmiller v. Dover when his example of irreducible complexity, the famed bacterial flagellum, was shown to be false in cross-examination."
Hmmm, this raises the question: Was the flagellum represented by an attorney?
"In fact, all examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be incorrect."
There is no know precursor for the flagellum. The infamous Type III Secretory System came long after the motility function. A few clotting components are removable, but the 'key' components are not, and support IC. The eye has not been shown to be evolvable, except by hand waving speculation. Let's see now, a light sensitive patch became a curved light sensitive patch ...
" ... Creationists never seem to point out is that Behe agrees with the concept of common descent from primates ... "
But you called him (implied) a Creationist!?
" ...Ray, I have to ask if you've ever read a modern book on Evolution, say, something by Jerry Coyne, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, etc."
An objective and unbiased look at evolutionary theory is always welcome. I'm waiting ...
"Intellect is something gained by accepting new facts as they become available and making them fit together. You can't do that if you pretend to know everything already because one book told you so."
No, it appears that in this case, 'intellect' is to first accept evolutionary claims as 'hard fact', then try to make the data fit the naturalistic paradigm. "If it don't fit, you must acquit!" (IOW, toss any findings supporting ID (and the gloves) into the circular file).
thanks sesli chat
I'm going to list the fallacies and debunked arguments in these comments (because I have a lot of free time). Posts with no comments either were valid arguments or did not apply to creationism & evolution (or I missed a fallacy).
#01 The Science Pundit
#02 Paul Burnett
#03 Quiet Desperation
#04 Mary
#05 Tom Roud
#06 Ian
#07 Philip
#08 Jan* Ad hominem
* Shifting the burden of proof
* There is no need for ancestor species to die out. Evoution does not mandate a change to all members of a species.
* No one has claimed that mice evolved into elephants.
* Claim CB928
* Pascal's Wager
#09 Alan
#10 david bunker* Tu quoque
* Claim CA250
* If evolution is 'myth-making', then why does it 'have more data behind it' as you say? Why should we prefer 'myths' that have less data?
* Claim CA040
#11 justwondering* Claim CG001
#12 Quiet Desperation
#13 Ginger Barrittagreement with #10
#14 llewelly
#15 SouthernRose* Claim CB910
* Pascal's Wager
#16 llewelly
#17 Karaine
#18 Karaineduplicate
#19 Caracas
#20 Danny* Claim CA012
* Godwin's argument & Claim CA006
#21 Matthew A. Combattinonsense
#22 John Michael* Claim CA240
* Claim CA230.1
#23 Fla Joe* Straw man
#24 Ray* Claim CI001
* Claim CA230.1
* Ad hominem
#25 fred* Claim CA006
#26 Lafayette Funches* Ad hominem
#27 DJ
#28 Jim* Straw man
#29 Simon M
#30 Wolf
#31 Michael N.
#32 George* Ad temperantiam
#33 mr loser
#34 abyssquick* While it's true creationism and evolution is not an either/or proposition, creationism is the stance of many people in this 'Christian nation', and its proponents fight evolution. They do not fight (much) against Vedic creationism, exogenesis, etc.
#35 Geneticdrift76* Appeal to authority
* Claim CA230.1
#36 Spin Dr.* Ad hominem
* Claim CB090
* The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Second, your question is nonsensical; gases are matter. Third, your characterization of the Big Bang is incorrect.
* Appeal to authority
#37 Dave Parrish* Appeal to authority & Claim CA114
#38 Bethany Quinn* Straw man
#39 Dave Parrish* Claim CF001
#40 MikeMa
#41 Mortimer
#42 TawnyThis humor only reinforces uninformed stereotypes about evolution.
#43 MichaelN
#44 G. Shelley
#45 Nemo
#46 Larry* Straw man
#47 A.B.Schaefer
#48 DJ
#49 DJ
#50 MikeMa
#51 A.B.Schaefer
#52 Nemo
#53 DJ
#54 The Science Pundit
#55 Dan
#56 llewelly
#57 llewelly
#58 MikeMa
#59 Josh
#60 Lee Bowman* Claim CI001.2
* Claim CB300
* Claim CB921.1
* Claim CA321
#61 magicspam
The other thing I meant to touch on, @8:
That's not how debating works, Jan. You are putting forth a proposition, a hypothesis [creationism, Genesis as literal history,] so the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it, not ME to disprove it.
Please... tell me you're not using quotation marks for emphasis. Quotation marks are used only for direct quotes and/or to imply sarcasm, not for emphasis.
Lee Bowman: I was responding to an individual posting here who cited "Darwin's Black Box" as reading material for creationist "intellectualism". Michael Behe, accepting descent with modification only slightly mitigates his use of religion in scientific research...it does not excuse him.
Hmmm, this raises the question: Was the flagellum represented by an attorney?
Since Behe decided not to go through Peer Review, I suppose his appearance in court was one of the few venues for other scientists to engage him and the veracity of his book. Also, I think Ken Miller, who testified in that same trial, can explain the issue with the bacterial flagellum and the TTSS better than Ican:
A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine.
However, in agreeing to this, one must keep in mind that the doctrine of irreducible complexity was intended to go one step beyond the claim of ignorance. It was fashioned in order to provide a rationale for claiming that the bacterial flagellum couldn't have evolved, even in principle, because it is irreducibly complex. Now that a simpler, functional system (the TTSS) has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence" that the flagellum was designed.
Since Creationism is inherently an argument out of ignorance where the only "ideas" put forward are negative arguments meant to take down scientific theory in favor of untestable supernatural explanations, I can't even begin to get into how wrong it is for you to attack my own objectivity, let alone most of the scientific community. As for that tired old saw about the eye, see "D.E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256:53â58, 1994," a peer reviewed paper.
For my part, I'm still waiting for an objective, POSITIVE claim from a creationist for an "Intelligent Creator" that doesn't point to an ancient book or made-up, cherry-picked figures that avoids peer review and heads straight to the bookshelves of predisposed fundamentalists.
Bravo Michael N.
Very nicely put at comment #64
Just a quick correction, the following paragraph was also part of Miller's quote:
However, in agreeing to this, one must keep in mind that the doctrine of irreducible complexity was intended to go one step beyond the claim of ignorance. It was fashioned in order to provide a rationale for claiming that the bacterial flagellum couldn't have evolved, even in principle, because it is irreducibly complex. Now that a simpler, functional system (the TTSS) has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence" that the flagellum was designed.
Uwielbiam wasze artykuÅy.
Pozdrawiam Michael
Tycho,
help! How do I decipher your codes? For example "Claim CI001.2"
Otherwise, good overview of the comments thus far.
Kelly @ 68,
Those codes are the numbers for the answers to each of these tired old canards, as found on the Index to Creationist Claims at talkorigins.org.
Every one of the points they've raised was either an obvious logical fallacy or something that's been debunked so many times that it's been on the List for years. Think about that. Every one.
That's a big part of what brought about MY atheism some years ago, when I discovered that all those 'unanswered questions' that my religious 'elders' trotted out *had* been answered - over and over again! - but the religious would LIE about it time after time. You could sometimes confront them with it and get them to admit that they were wrong on one specific point or another, but the very next time the subject came up, they'd trot out the very same lies they'd already been called on.
Eventually I realized that the REAL 'Truth' was a far larger and grander thing than the tiny anthropocentric fantasy I had been cocooned in since birth, and after study and soul-searching, I'm proud to be able to say that I was able to claw my way out of that stultifying cocoon, (A Mormon in Salt Lake City, if you can imagine!), dry my wings on the thin, cold winds of Reality, and launch myself into a much larger and more incredible universe than I had ever imagined before, where the light of one feeble yellow sun is lost in the rainbow of a billion billion BILLION others, and the possibilities for my race are far more incredible than in any fairy-tale ever told.
All of you creationists with your oft-debunked lists of fallacies, try checking your list against the list I linked to. If you can find something that ISN'T already on the list, -then- come back and try it on us. Otherwise, maybe you ought to look over the talk.origins list yourselves. You might just find that all your reasons for disbelieving the scientific consensus aren't as good as you think they are.
Kelly, I believe Tycho is referring to TalkOrigins: An Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Tycho,
And some people think atheists have no poetry, heh. Well put.
I sort of figure my comments would draw fire. In this case, I put out bait and the rats came in droves. Execpt that rats have more intelligence than some of these moronic responders. I also was expecting the standard ad hominem retorts. I wasn't wrong. I'm well educated with a graduate engineering education (ivy league) in EE, and yes, I've read the nonsense eisegetical pro-evolutionary literature. Why else do you think I laugh? I will ask a simple question about facts, so listen closely and try to think straight for a few seconds. Evolution requires slow gradual change that stems from genetic change and the benefit of that change giving its offspring an advantage in survival. Don't miss the word "gradual." Because of natural selection, those mutated offspring with survival advantage survive better than those without that mutation. Do I hear cheers in the background? This happens slooooooowly! While it's going on, those without the genetic advantage continue to procreate and generate like offspring that die, and leave behind bones that turn into fossils. This continues over a long period of time. Small genetic changes result in variations with the result that you see a gradual change in that species presentation. Sort of like Darwin's Finches. If you dig around on the Galapagos Islands you'll find bones and fossils that fully document this continuum of change. The evolutionary mechanism leaves evidence!!!! Since this is patently true, why then don't we have a continuum of fossils leading from one species to another? Hello! Anyone home? Open your eyes folks. That's right, there are no fossils showing this GRADUAL change from one species to another. Want to know why? Read the book of Genesis in the Bible. And, oh please; don't give the tired old, and lame explanations such as punctuated equilibrium, et al., ad nauseum. Enough for now. I can see what's coming. I only wish it were intelligent.
Ray
Damn, the stupid, it burns!
Your ignorance of the known fossil record != a problem for the Theory of Evolution.
How are we supposed to be able to tell the difference between natural variation in one species and two similar but different species from fossilized bones alone? 'Reproductive isolation' doesn't fossilize. You want a string of gradually changing fossils that show gradual changes in shape over millenia? Hey, we've got that! Take a look at the equine lineage, or some of the lines of aquatic invertebrates, where the fossils were abundant enough in an undisturbed fossil-forming environment that REAL scientists could track a 'species' and its offshoots for a 15 million years.
Taken from http://www.palaeontologie.geowissenschaften.uni-muenchen.de/pdfs/tracin… :
The fresh water snails from Steinheim (South Germany) represent a famous example for an evolutionary transition. 15 Million years ago, a meteorite impact formed a crater, which subsequently became filled with water and formed a small lake that persisted for a long period of time. This lake was colonized by a small snail species, which was common during that time. Subsequently, new species evolved from this stem species. Some of these new species differ considerably from the stem species, and all new species are known exclusively from Lake Steinheim. Shells are abundant in the lake sediments, and numerous morphological transitions are recognizable. In 1866, a few years after Darwinâs âOriginâ, the first phylogenetic tree in the history of palaeontology was published on this example. Similar radiations can be observed in recent lakes that are unusually old.
The fossil horse lineage is also a very nicely graduated series of transitions, but I'm sure you've got some sort of problem with that, too. You want finer graduations than that? Great, look at the snails. You'll note that the paper mentions other, similar lakes with the same sort of gradual lineages.
You also mention in your own post that you can dig in the Galapagos and find finely graduated records of change in the finches. You DO know that those same 'records' show that one species of finch branched out to become all the various and very different species we see there today, don't you? How does that not give you just what you said Science doesn't have?
You want even more gradual than that? Look up 'Ring Species'. We can see reproductive isolation happening right in front of our eyes today! But if I gave you the skeleton of a Herring Gull and a Lesser Black-Backed Gull, I have a sneaky suspicion that you wouldn't be able to tell which was which from just the shape of the bones alone, and that's all we get with fossils, mostly.
Not only is it not going to be at all easy to tell if two fossils are the same species or very similar but different species, but quite a lot of the time, speciation likely happens when a small subset of a population of animals is cut off from the larger population. Differing selective pressures or genetic drift from small population size cause the offshoot population to diverge from the main population in just the slow, gradual way you suggest, but the chances of us ever finding one of the fossils from the isolated population are far lower than the chances of finding fossils of the larger, widespread population.
There's nothing in evolutionary theory that has any problem with the fossil record as we know it now.
Now, why do I think that my immediate rebuttal with *exactly* what you claim science doesn't have somehow won't change your mind in the slightest anyway?
I could be wrong. Unlike some people, I'm always ready to change my mind if I'm given convincing evidence that I'm wrong. Bye bye now!
Ray@72:
1. You point to your earlier post as baiting... so you admit to being a troll.
2. Your explanation of evolution is elementary at best, leaving out either intentionally or from ignorance many aspects which explain species divergence and a lack of gradual transitional fossils for every change in every species of everything that has ever lived. You obviously don't understand fossilization, it isn't like everything is fossilized you know. Not to mention you don't seem to differentiate between genetic and phenotypic changes... sometimes these changes are not fossilized as they don't appear in bones or other organic material which may get mineralized.
3. Calling people who point and laugh at your unsubstantiated belief in an invisible being without any evidence "rats" or "dumb" or "morons" really reflects the kind of intellect you prefer to project into the public sphere: that of an incompetent fool.
4. ermine@73 has done a wonderful job of refuting your central point, which seems to be that by your understanding of what you know of evolution, it must not be true when compared to the biblical story of creation. He points out your ignorance of facts pertinent to forming an opinion on the subject and provides some evidence for you. I echo his closing sentiments, though I hope you are capable of changing your opinions based on new evidence.
I accept evolutionary theory as proven and also consider myself Christian. While I appreciate the cataloging of fallacies in post #62, I feel compelled to point out that rejecting all religion on the basis of creationist fallacy is an example of the "straw man." There are some religions, including some branches of Christianity, that have no conflict with the scientific process. This isn't "all religion" vs. "evolution," it is fallacy vs. the evidence put before your eyes (if you are religious, vs. the evidence God put before your eyes).
@75
Last I checked, christianity was based on the bible. The bible makes claims which run directly counter to the observable evidence. This is definitely in conflict with the scientific process. If you don't take the book literally, perhaps you shouldn't take it at all?
I condend that all religions must readjust themselves in the light of scientific evidence. As such, eventually all religions will disappear when enough of existence is understood and we can see clearly the natural origin of all that is. I further suggest that it is possible, even responsible, to do so at this time in history when we have a good grasp of how existence began.
At this point, adherence to religion is akin to enforced ignorance by virtue of how so many claims on reality by religion (pick whichever one you want) have proven false in the wake of scientific enquiry. I'm not advocating doing away with freedom of religion, just suggesting accepting reality over a comforting fantasy. But I guess, "how do you change a fundamentalist mindset?", is the question that needs to be answered for that to happen.
As expected, I'm getting a good dose of "perceived facts." Ermine says, "There's nothing in evolutionary theory that has any problem with the fossil record as we know it now." Key phrase in that statement is "as we know it." Being an engineer, and having worked in R&D for the last 20yrs, I've build some complex and challenging systems. What I always find interesting is how I'm convinced I'm on the right track until I find out that I had left out something very important. When I go back and examine the system function with the new facts based on a failed test, I realize my model was wrong. I modify the model, build a new test version, and it works until I expand the test inputs. Each time, I learn something new from a failed test. I change my model, retest, expand the test range of inputs, and so on until I have a system that functions in a way that can handle all the data inputs that my spec requires. When I look back and see how my understanding changed over time as new data appeared, I began to see my limitations. Of course, the things that we humans build are less than tinker toys compared to what we see in biology. What we do know is that there is much more that we don't know than we know. What marvels me is that you "evolutionist" out there with only a fraction of the facts about reality are so quick to decide there is no designer behind this marvelous universe. What a leap of faith that is! What you call fossil evidence is really observing variation among a species. You DO NOT HAVE ANY FOSSIL EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY ONE SPECIES EVOLVING INTO ANOTHER SPECIES. Why don't you admit it? Instead, you arrogantly and triumphantly declare "problem solved." Your arrogance is over the top and it shows your puerile approach to problem solving. You dismiss my understanding of evolution as elementary, but you can't answer it other than ignoring with an ad hominem argument. Your so called sophisticated understanding of the evolutionary mechanism is nothing more than a self deception that allows you ignore the basic problem that you don't have the evidence. What you have is conjecture with small amounts of evidence that can interpreted other ways. You choose to interpret it as supporting your position, but you seem unwilling to accept the fact that the jury is still out, and given the enormity of what you dont' know (and you are aware of what you don't know) you press forward with your false model while simultaneously mocking other models that you dont' and can't understand. You evolutionists fail to see that you can't deal even with the simplest issues, e.g., how did it all get started? Your big bang theory is a logical absurdity, and yet you fail to realize that your embracing it is even more absurd and lacking intelligence than the Christian embracing Genesis 1.
I'll leave you with a quote from the Bible that says your are unwise.
Romans 1:19ff
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
You guys would do well to pause and give some reflective thought on this. The bible says that rejection of God is punishable immediately, not just in eternity. The penaly is judicial blindness. If you don't wake up, you'll continue in your rejection and resulting blindness until you die. Then, the outcome for you will be nothing short of horrific. You don't want to be standing before the one who created this universe with judgement as the only option. Only then will you see how foolish you have been, how unscientific your methods and how brazenly arrogant you are, and how you have deceived yourself.
Wow. Is that really your answer? You don't want to maybe rethink any of what you just wrote? I mean, really! How did I know that you wouldn't accept any of what I just explained above?
I seem to have quite a few more facts than you, from the look of things. As I mention in my previous post, I'll be happy to change my mind if shown convincing evidence, that's how I got to my current understanding of the universe in the first place. You show me some actual empirical evidence for it and I'll line right up to sing its praises.
I notice that you have jumped from 'evolution' which deals only with life here on earth, and are now on about the designer of the universe, an event which is separated from the 'creation' of the earth by something on the order of 9 BILLION years. Are you able to keep the two separate? 'Evolutionists' have nothing whatsoever to say about the beginnings of the universe, and your claim that they do only makes it clear once again that you don't know the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang. GET AN EDUCATION and we'll talk.
Look, you've admitted already that you're a troll. You're just playing Creationist Bingo now. I've got better things to do with my time. Since your claims of ad-hominem and of me ignoring your argument are bald-faced lies that anyone can see for themselves, I don't see any real point in continuing with you.
But DO carry on, it does more for my argument than almost anything I could say. It was seeing how many avowedly-religious people act just like you that really started to open my eyes, leading directly to my abandonment of any belief in gods, magic, and the supernatural.
Anything that requires 'Faith' more than it requires actual evidence is, in my eyes, a cancer on the potential of my species, and I'd really like it if more people could see that. The Internet allows the sort of behavior that blind faith fosters to be visible to a far larger audience than ever before, and I'm really starting to entertain the hope that it'll start to make a real difference in the coming years. A lot of people who would have remained insulated in their local faiths will get a chance to see what the rest of the world sees instead of what their ecclesiastical leaders want them to, and a lot of eyes may be opened. It's already happening all around the world, but I have hope that the 'net will accelerate that process.
Maybe you are just a troll, but you're just the sort I like to see; One who makes clear claims that can be easily refuted, making their bad faith obvious to anyone from early in the exchange.
So please, do go on!
Ray @77,
Very sad. Your argument seems to have devolved to the typical reality-denying fundamentalist pov. Just because you say something in all caps doesn't make it true. You should stop lying. Have you seen the fossil transition of whales from land mammals to their current state? Pretty convincing metamorphosis there.
The fact is, evidence from multiple sciences supports the ToE. The ToE is one of the best supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Your position has absolutely no evidence, yet you continue to believe it. Think about that..
Then you trot out the crap from an old book to try and make people bow to your imaginary diety in fear. Pathetic. You shouldn't consider yourself well educated, but rather well indoctrinated.
I stick to my earlier assessment of you: incompetent fool, troll.
I'll add another; Liar for Jesus.
biber hapı
I guess I'll take the recent quotable quote from Rep. Barney Frank as good advice regarding conversations with individuals like Ray:
"Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."
No amount of evidence will convince them, magical thinking is more important to them than critical thinking.
That was EXACTLY what I was thinking, DJ! I saw that clip myself just a couple of days ago.
Hey guys, every criticism you've just thrown at me, you just did the same thing. Trouble is that you're too arrogant and impressed with your whimpy knowledge that you can't open your eyes to what else is there. Now you see why at the beginning of this fray I said I don't indulge in these forums. You run into morons who are legends in their own minds, who are simply blind. You will die some day and this very forum will be used to show you how stupid you are at your judgement.
DJ - In #76 you are trying to define terms for your own ends rather than trying to understand. You set up exactly the sort of straw man argument I was talking about. In my teens I was completely disgusted with Falwell and his ilk and wanted nothing to do with bigots like him who called themselves "Christian." But then, in my college years I discovered some of the more liberal religious traditions. It turns out not all religions are code bound and some embrace evolution not only within the natural world, but also within themselves. It appears that to you "religious" and "fundamentalist mindset" are synonyms. I see the problem as "ideologues" vs. "rational thinkers." Fundamentalists are religious ideologues, but there are other types of ideologues.
Ah yes, the everpresent threat of HELL! Stop THINKING about it and believe what I tell you, or BAAAD things will happen to you!
Blah blah blah - Not once in any post do you actually point out even one instance of your claims, while the pro-science folks in the thread have provided bulleted lists addressing each and every point raised by you godbots. Thanks, but I'll stick with the evidence I can see with my own eyes rather than blindly believing the unevidenced claims of the religious.
That shows the whole battle in a microcosm right there. Make all the claims you want, threaten me with the most gruesome imaginary punishments you can imagine, but I chose to go with the side that actually provides evidence for their claims so I can determine for myself where the truth lies.
If there really WAS a god, I'd expect to be judged on whether or not I used the mind it gave me to find the TRUTH, not how blindly I followed whoever made the best threats. Your threats and utter inability to back up even a single claim tell me that you couldn't possibly speak for any such being, so I find it incredibly easy to discount anything and everything you say. Wasn't that easy?
You're a troll and a lying git, and yet another wonderful example of the 'Christian honesty' that led directly to my atheism.
Thank you, drive through!
Edward,
I disagree. I am not redefining terms, nor setting up a strawman argument. You are mistaken. I just don't agree with accommodating magical thinking.
I did not say fundamentalism=religion. A fundamentalist mindset is one that will not change regardless of the evidence presented, because the individual doesn't want to change their position, like Ray when confronted with the evidence he claimed didn't exist. Instead of accepting the facts and reassessing his position based on new knowledge he instead denies reality and continues living in a fantasy world... This is a fundamentalist mindset.
Those who engage in religion are practicing unclear, muddled, uncritical or magical thinking, which is the opposite of critical thinking. I advocate critical thinking, which is the hallmark of good science.
By using good critical thinking skills it is possible to evaluate claims based on evidence and form conclusions. Applying critical thinking skills to the question of the supernatural will lead people to discount such things, which is as it should be.
I don't care how liberal your religion is, or any religion. The simple fact that they practice and spread the use of magical thinking is enough in my book to say they are not ok. I don't care if they accept evolution or not. Without evidence to back their claims to the supernatural, they are just liars and cheats to me.
As I said at the outset, I am amazed at your blindness which really comes from your unwillingness to look at facts objectively. Instead of addressing facts (or in your case, a lack of facts) you cite previous conclusions of "peer reviewed" work that in your eyes validates your position. Since when was peer review the final criterion. All peer review does is stop obvious falsifications. What you guys do is engineer facts. You take fossil data that can have many interpretations, force it to support your interpretation, then propagate it as validated fact because it has been "peer reviewed." The weakness in that approach is obvious to anyone who has half a brain, and it's even more obvious that the evolution theory that rests on this flawed methodology (you dare call it science) is patently false. You have condemned Behe's work because it wasn't peer reviewed, yet I've yet to see any criticism of it based on science. I see lots of conjecture, but no real science. I was heavily involved in one of the Space Shuttle payload designs which was perhaps the most complex payload ever put into orbit. We used error budgets for every system and sub-system to determine its probability of failure. If you have high uncertainty at the beginning, it propagates thru the model and shows up at the end in the predicted outcome for that particular sub-system. If I designed that payload using the kind of "science" you use, it would have been a complete failure. I notice that you still have not answered my basic charge "You DO NOT HAVE ANY FOSSIL EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY ONE SPECIES EVOLVING INTO ANOTHER SPECIES." Aren't you paying attention? You simply use the standard ploy of moving the argument away from the real issue to something else that's irrelevant such as peer review, which in this case, is simply a consensus of ignorance. You fail to see that you haven't and cannot answer this question: "Where's the continuous gradation of fossil evidence?" So far all you've done is evade the obvious fact and it's conclusion that macro-evolution is a pipe dream. Indeed, it's even less objective than Creationism. Did some cosmic comedian drop in on earth and remove the fossils that would conclusively prove your position? Why is it even a question? Your theory demands that this kind of evidence should be overwhelming. The only thing that's overwhelming is the lack of evidence, and the only thing that's more amusing than macro-evolutionary theory, is your desparate efforts to engineer facts to support it, and your absurd theories to explain why the evidence is not there. I'll keep pressing you until you provide an answer. And please, no more ad hominem arguments. That's lame. When you use that ploy, you are simply admitting defeat. Anyone who thinks can see you're simple avoiding the obvious.
I'll leave you with the question again: "Where's the evidence to support the fact that the fossil record is so lacking? Give me facts, not your lame theories. Theory's are not facts. Check your 8th grade science book. It's time to produce! We're waiting to see your evidence.
By the way, I am unapologetically a young earth creationist. One difference! There's only one creator. His name is Jesus Christ. The creator is not some unnamed cosmic designer. I have a record in science that proves I understand it and its limiations. You guys need to start practicing science and stop worhipping it. Maybe then you'll see what I see.
Ray
Ray,
You are still lying. A lying liar for a false ideology. You have no facts on your side. I don't have to show a "....continuous gradation of fossil evidence" when pretty much every scrap of what we know about our world from science supports my position. Where is your evidence for your position? Its certainly not contained in the enormous body of scientific literature. Keep on lying to yourself, I just hope no one else falls for your false claims.
... honestly, I don't know why I bother with fundies like you. It doesn't matter what is said, you will continue to miss the point.
Oh, to get back to the substance of this blog post...
Ray, you are a "..batshit lunatic fucking moron" with regard to science, as you yourself have shown, which is the subject of this blog post.
I refuse to engage your completely irrelevant incompetence anymore. YEC?.../facepalm
I need to add more argument to my last post. My models account for the uncertainty associated with all of my components and subsystems in my systems design and I assign risks to mission failure for each. I then create a probalistic model that predicts total system performance and risk of failure. I wonder if you put that kind of rigor into your theories? You model doesn't have to face reality, so you're free to play children's games, and bash those you don't agree with (like children). There's high uncertainty in your assumptions about evolution given the large and consistently missing data, i.e., pick any two species and you'll see the expected gradation of fossil evidence is missing. If you believe you have missing data for some species, then ask the question, "How many species pairs can you name where you have the expected fossil gradation?" Even better, what percentage of species pairs are missing the expected fossil record? I expect that for evolution, that percentage is very close if not equal to zero. (I'm thinking of writing a book titled, "A Systems Engieer Looks at Evolution.") When you look at this data, it shows overwhelmingly that evolution is a pipe dream. Your data is so flimsy that it's a joke. All the criticisms I've seen on Behe are completely missing his point. All they do is point to lack of peer review (those blinded by evolution.) Irreducible complexity is a brilliant concept, and should have shut you up for good, if you had the sense to understand it. I wonder why System Engineers can see it, but biologist can't. The answer is obvious. What kind of people believe things with such flimsy evidence. They are far worse than Creationists. At least Creationist have objective evidence for their faith. (Study history and how facts are validated. Christ has 100 times the validation of Aristotle.) You have only imaginary stuff that begins with something you've conjured up called the big bang. Why don't you call it what it is? Childish magic. Enough for now.
Ray
Sounds like I'm getting thru. Notice DJ says, "Keep on lying to yourself, I just hope no one else falls for your false claims." Did he say..."no one else?" I take that he has fallen into my camp. It's obvious that DJ can't read and/or understand what he's reading, let alone write. He must have qualified as a peer reviewer. No wonder evolution has spread so far. With Neandethals like DJ reviewing the literature, we will start to see peer reviewed literature on men from Mars.
Back to the evidence. Instead of producing it, he ignors it. He has no evidence so he refers back to this massive body of mumbo jumbo he calls peer reviewed science. But we all know as I said above, this is not science, but more like voodoo. I suspect that they sprinke chicken blood on their papers before they submit them for review. When the reviewers get them, they look for blood. No blood, no review.
I've made it simple for him and the other braindamaged scientists to prove evolution, so why don't they answer the simple question about the missing evidence that evolution demands? We all know the answer. They're living in delusion. I'll leave them with some scripture:
19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Hope you enjoyed this.
Ray
PS. Where's your evidence. Maybe it's you.....you seem to have sub-human intelligence. Maybe you're the missing link, and I'll have to start believing in evolution?
Ray, isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? Or do you think you get a free pass because you're Lying For Jesus™?
Ray @ 91,
I found it boring and pretentious. Was it intended to be convincing or just a con job?
I find it highly amusing that a follower of an ancient superstitious belief calling anything else "voodoo" (especially since that belief is itself part of voodoo). I gave up trying to count the fallacies as well. The last part of "sub-human" coming from a troll is also sadly amusing. Ah, well, when Great Cthulhu rises, you'll all see the truth!
I'm seeing scripture fulfilled before my very eyes. You guys are so smart that you can't even see what's in front of you. Your self delusion is egregious.
Ray
Here you go. Change of skulls over time. This was done in over some 70 years to bull terriers as they were selected for with having stronger versions of this trait. This is evolution. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/01/clinorhynchy_bull_terrier…
Phantomreader42,
Please explain why you think I'm lying, and bearing false witness. Do you normally live in a make believe world? That would explain a lot.
TheRaptor,
Bull terriers are still dogs aren't they? Big heads, little heads, square heads, round heads, but not pinheads like you and the other morons on this forum. If you think that proves specie to speci evolution, you'll need to explain that also.
Take your time. I know this is challenging for those of you with limited mental capacity.
Ray
One of the moronic accusations you have tossed in my direction is lack of peer review. I offer the article below, and would ask for your comments. But of course, you guys don't have the intellect to comprehend the paper, and thus, you'll simply trash it because it has religious implications.
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009). (PDF, 359KB)
Darwinian evolution is, at its heart, a search algorithm that uses a trial and error process of random mutation and unguided natural selection to find genotypes (i.e. DNA sequences) that lead to phenotypes (i.e. biomolecules and body plans) that have high fitness (i.e. foster survival and reproduction). This peer-reviewed scientific article in the journal IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans by William Dembski and Robert Marks explains that unless a search starts off with some information about where peaks in a fitness landscape may lie, any search -- including Darwinian search algorithms-- are on average no better than a random search. After assessing various examples of evolutionary searches, Dembski and Marks show that attempts to model Darwinian evolution via computer simulations, such Richard Dawkins famous "METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL" example, start off with, as Dembski and Marks put it, "problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure." According to the paper, such simulations only reach their evolutionary targets because there is pre-specified "accurate information to guide them," or what they call "active information." The implication, of course, is that some intelligent programmer is required to front-load a search with active information if the search is to successfully find rare functional genetic sequences. They conclude that "Active information is clearly required in even modestly sized searches."
Here's another paper to befuddle your simple minds.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
And one more paper for the road. No doubt you can discount this without even blinking an eye.
Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Even our dictionaries have something to say: "...the now discredited theorey that living organisms can arise from spontaneously from inanimate matter;" See the entry below..
abiogenesis - 5 dictionary results
aâbiâoâgenâeâsisââ/ËeɪbaɪoÊËdÊÉnÉsɪs, ËæbioÊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA
Use abiogenesis in a Sentence
See web results for abiogenesis
See images of abiogenesis
ânoun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
a- 6 + biogenesis; coined by T. H. Huxley in 1870
Related forms:
aâbiâoâgeânetâic â/ËeɪbaɪoÊdÊÉËnÉtɪk, ËæbioÊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-juh-net-ik, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA , aâbiâoâgeânetâiâcal, adjective
aâbiâoâgeânetâiâcalâly, adverb
aâbiâogâeânist â/ËeɪbaɪËÉdÊÉnɪst, Ëæbi-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oj-uh-nist, ab-ee-] Show IPA , noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source |Link To abiogenesis
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (Ä'bÄ«-Å-jÄn'Ä-sÄs)
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
a'bi·o·ge·net'ic (-jÉ-nÄt'Äk), a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal adj., a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal·ly adv., a'bi·og'e·nist (-Åj'É-nÄst) n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source