In my previous post I noted that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are handing out free copies of On the Origins of Species, which features an introduction filled with creationist trash, and that the book is published right here in Florida. Yea us.
The creationist duo’s targets for these giveaways are college campuses nationwide. The only one we know of so far in Florida is the University of Florida. NCSE has jumped on this by launching a Don’t Diss Darwin site with all sorts of cool helpful information and downloads.
The chatter among Florida Citizens for Science members is that some folks on and near UF might organize to counter the misinformation. No, there won’t be protests or book burnings. Rather, the objective is to clean up after the book introduction’s lies with a hefty dose of facts, truth and reality. Want to join in the fun? Let us know! The giveaway is scheduled for Nov. 19. I’ll pass along more information as it becomes available.
Not sure who I need to contact in order to participate in an organizing to counter the misinformation. I assume you will post something more concrete as it becomes available/planned?
Sorry, scratch the an in the above comment. Proofread, proofread, proofread…
Yep lets get the gestapo out so we can prohibit free speech. Ooops that would look bad. So let’s counter the truth with confusion.
Are you sure you aren’t quoting Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on that one?
So Johnny would you like to present your “truth” I’m sure we would all like to read it. What confusion? again please explain,don’t just place a meaningless statement then run. It never ceases to amaze me how creationists without doing any real science, try to force their ideas into the school classroom, with politcal and social pressure. Then have the nerve to accuse others of gestapo tatics, unreal.
IR: Yes, I will post more information as it is passed along to me. Keep in mind that I threw the word “might” in my post because I’m not sure if anything actually will be organized. I think there is some interest, but I don’t know if these folks desire to do anything other than show up to take a few of the books off the streets. We’ll see.
Ivory the truth is in print – the Bible. No one has yet disproved it. Its because it convicts mankind of it’s error that it is rejected – not on intellectual grounds but on moral grounds. It shows that all mankind is under sin and pride refuses to admit to it. But for those who realize their condition, it is a book of hope – but to those who don’t, it is a book of doom.
Johnny,
So your 2000 year old book written by a bunch of illiterate desert goat herders is the absolute truth about all things past, present and future and is binding to all mankind,like it or not? Statements like these can only come from a person who must be considered to have reached the hight of arrogance. Being bound to the concept of original sin and the need for a human sacrifice for redemption is a insult to human dignity.
Now if you have any other scientific points to make (this is a SCIENCE blog) please do so, otherwise go away and preach to those who are more incline to listen, you know those low life worthless sinners that your god loves so much
The word science comes from the word knowledge. Lets talk of knowledge then. You must admit that you have to infer your end (conclusions) by the result of human observation correct ? What faculties do you use to make these observations ? Do you limit them or do you admit that there are some things that are true before you can prove them. Another words just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean that it is not true does it ? So the biases we bring to an observation should be laid to the side or can they be ? We preconceive a theory then look for evidence to support it. You say that life evolved yet you don’t know at what point it started. You rule out anything supernatural because you don’t have the knowledge to explain it with the intellect alone. But because you don’t have the knowledge doesn’t preclude the fact that life may have been created by things which we don’t see. So you cannot rule it out unless you don’t want to believe in such possibilities. You cannot rule it out because you have no “observable”evidenceto do so. If you were intellectually honest you would agree. An honest answer would be that you don’t know if its true or not. If that is your answer then we can have a rational discussion. If not then you are not being honest and such discussion would be fruitless.
I think you are confusing evolution theory with abiogenesis. If you were intellectually informed on the differences between these two topics and the amount of observable evidence which supports each side, you’d probably realize the absurdity of this whole conflict between evolution and creationism.
Well at least your statement are some what to the point albeit very misplaced; your arguments are old and have been addressed so many times I feel to cover them again would be a waste of my time.
Science ONLY deals in the natural world and to invoke the supernatural is simple not science, Sure I can not say for certain that there is no supernatural creator but where is the evidence for one, Absence of evidence is usually evidence of absence, Not only that, how can you rationalize that your particular deity is the creator and not some other god or gods? Where is your intellectual honesty?
Your “don’t know how life started†statement is nothing less than the tired old “god of the gaps†mantra, where will your god hide next when science answers this?
Lastly we do not have to observe any event to know what occurred, (ask police detectives) we have (in evolutions case) a wealth of empirical evidence to support the theory. You said “You rule out anything supernatural because you don’t have the knowledge to explain it with the intellect alone†Well let’s change that a little.
You rule out elves, unicorns and fairies because you don’t have the knowledge to explain it with the intellect alone. Sounds absurd doesn’t it? But what’s the difference?
Show me your rational evidence for the supernatural then we can have a honest discussion, or better still put down your bible and go buy Richard Dawkins book “The Greatest Show on Earth
Can you define honesty so at least we can be on the same page ?
Sure, Honesty will be me saying that that there is no absolute truth so I can not say 100% that there is no supernatural (elves, unicorns and fairies) If there was enough evidence to prove me wrong I would admit I was wrong.
Can you say the same? I think not, because your mindset is subordinate to your religious ideologies.My holy book is true,because the book says so and the circle reasoning goes on. I have been down this road so many times before I see no point in going down it again.
So would you say that your statement “… there is no absolute truth” is an absolute ?
Absolutly not. Anything that we take to be true is revisable and all truths are a matter of opinion. My truths are subject to an open mind, yours it would seem are subject to a closed one.
So truth is what you want it to be ? Can change when you feel like it ?
So we can have our own opinion about science ?
Johnny: “Yep lets get the gestapo out so we can prohibit free speech.”
Not sure which post and/or comment you were reading, but there was no mention of prohibition/violence toward an opinion or demonstration being planned by Comfort and his ilk–that would, I assume, be you. What is being proposed, is an organized effort to be present when said demonstration/giveaway takes place, in order to present a counter viewpoint to what we on the pro-science side see as complete misrepresentation, if not outright falsehoods. No suppression, merely counter demonstration.
As to your “honesty” point, that has been addressed elsewhere (on the net). Pointedly, the issue of probability. While I cannot say that unicorns/pixies/or a supernatural force of some vague description does NOT exist, I can say, honestly, that the probability is low. So again , no, I cannot say that life wasn’t formed by some means of which we don’t see (specifically something supernatural), but that does not automatically give the argument an equal footing with an argument which relies on natural explanations.
Yes, you can, and obviously do, have your opinion about science. You know the old saying about a——s being like opinions? Well, no one is saying you can’t have an opposing opinion. We just think your opinion is misinformed. Just as you would argue the same about ours. The difference is, you seem to be remarkably ignorant about the subject at hand. This does not prevent you from having an opinion about it, but it affects how others view that opinion.
And quickly, for full disclosure, I am an atheist, and evolution by natural selection does not address the question of a supernatural deity. I think it makes it less probable, but there is no mention of god or gods. So I’m still not sure how the subject of god is, once again, being confused with Darwin’s evolution by natural selection.
It all boils down to power.
How that is germane to any of the points you raised and I addressed, no idea. I assume this means you are taking your metaphorical toys and going home?
IR
You must have a lot of faith believing nothing made every thing or everything made itself. I know, I know that’s abiogenesis and we don’t talk about that. Because it’s not evolution but if we did talk about it, it would sound something like this, science has came a long way with the origins of life issue, but we are still searching for answers or we don’t know yet. In other words they have no clue. The problem is, there is no foundation for your molecule to man theory. So you start with an assumption and build. Now that takes allot of faith.
There does exist some evidence for abiogenesis, but not enough to form a solid theory as to how it all happened. Despite proving that amino acids, membranes, and other cellular components can be spontaneously synthesized in chemical mixtures subjected to primordial-earth conditions, most biologists would acknowledge that this by itself is definitely NOT confirmation of a molecule to cell process. There’s a reason why Darwin’s book was called “Origin of Species” and not “Origin of Life”. This is the major flaw with the creationist’s argument. They are banging pots and hollering over something that really isn’t even an issue.
On the other hand, there’s no competition to faith involved with evolution. The mechanisms are observed, repeatedly testable, and have been documented and scrutinized for decades. New species have even been created experimentally in controlled laboratory settings. As a theory, it simply works, as much as the math behind the theory of gravity too, makes it “work.” I don’t know if you realize just how damaging it was in the history of humankind when large groups of people sat around and went “durrr we’ve got it all figured out, let’s all just slouch around feeling smug and full of ourselves, and beat the crap out of anyone who doesn’t agree” is. Realizing that we do not yet have all the answers but continuing to search for them based on the directions pointed out through scientific experimentation is NOT the same as “durr we don’t know nothin and don’t gotta clue.”
So Chris,What you are saying is,because we do not as yet, have a full undestanding of abiogenesis, it must follow that evolution is completly false? So all the evidence individually gained over the last 200 years from all the verious scientific studies ( genetics,biology,astro physics) is also false? Well lets say that it is,I can go for that. Now all you have to do is show us the evidence for an alternative theory. ########## That’s right you don’t have any do you, not a single shred,nothing, nada, keine,ninguno. Just because theory A Evolution has not answered every question it does not follow that theory B Creationism is true by default.
You need evidence and there is none for creationism, you know it and that is the reason why you and those like minded will never present it. Not any foundation for mud to man and rib to woman theory,just the primitive writings of illiterate nomads. Now that really does take faith.
Karl
The pot banging is not over evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin or atheism , it’s over the forced indoctrination of a belief system which excludes all other possibilities.
Evolution in the example you presented does work, but you are referring to speciation and adaptation, not a major change to a new creature. Nothing has ever been observed or tested which has made the step in evolutionary change claimed by faithful evolutionest. There is not faith in evolution, but it requires faith to believe in it to the extent imagined. Evolutionist must leave known science behind to propose the unscientific claims of molecule to man evolution.
Jonathan Smith
I haven’t said I had a theory at all. As far as evidence I’m looking for yours. Evolution is a big word, to say you don’t believe in evolution is like saying you don’t believe in air. So just what are you referring to.
Okay, I get what you are pointing at. If such a practice does exist, many of us here would probably consider it inappropriate as well since there’s simply not enough evidence to assert this link as a fact. Now by all means, please outline the sections of the recent revision of the Florida science curriculum that presents this supposed link between evolution theory and abiogenesis as some sort of absolute truth.
Fact of the matter is, the majority of the pot banging IS about these common misconceptions about evolution theory, due to the creationist morons in charge repeating the same sensationalized lies and misinformation over and over again to stir up emotions. Lies such as the ones being spouted by Johnny here make up the majority of the anti-evolution chatter.
In my opinion, people who use evolution to justify atheism as the truth of things are making the same mistake as the creationists. Hardcore atheist Dawkins himself even noted that given the evidence, the existence of God is just really really really unlikely. Even he doesn’t say with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist. In the spirit of disclosure, this is one of the reason’s why I’m agnostic.
Karl
You’re mistaken about Dawkins. He’s an atheist first then an evolutionist. He has no problem with aliens bringing life to earth, but there can be no God or creator.
I don’t know of any Florida science curriculum the presents evolutionary theory and abiogenesis as some sort of absolute truth. Such references are always stated as could have, may have or we think. To compare these explanations with truth let alone absolute truth is simply absurd What’s funny is that this indescribable event is cluttered with the Miller Urey experiment that produced a toxic goo.
What is anti evolution?
Wow, leave for a couple of hours and things only got crazier.
I will behave like a fool and pretend that Chris wants an honest discussion about the topic at hand. Which, as I said before, is about Darwin’s Origins of Species and Comfort’s mangled (mis)understanding of it.
In the interest of disclosure, I felt that it was important to let you know I myself am an atheist in the Dawkins sense. That is, while I cannot say for absolute certain there is no supernatural sky fairy, I think the explanation is extremely unlikely. I addressed this because, as Chris has done, Johnny incorrectly linked atheism and evolution. As I said, and now others as well, evolution and faith are not mutualy exclusive, and evolutionary theory says nothing about ultimate beginnings.
In your first comment you even state that you know none of this has anything to do with evolution, which is why I’m not sure what your purpose is? It seems, and maybe I’m reading too much into it, that you want to fight about something, namely atheism, which this blog post has nothing to do with.
I’m going to bed but will be sure to check back tomorrow to see if there is anything worth responding to. It seems like this thread is straining to get off the point, so unless there is something relating specifically to evolution and/or Comfort’s planned giveaway of Origins, I probably won’t respond.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Comfort is distributing the redacted version of TOOS, or is it the full edition?
My point with Dawkins is that despite being a self-declared atheist and using evolution as supporting material for his choice of beliefs, he has not and would probably never say that an atheist worldview as the absolute truth of all things is supported by scientific evidence. I’d also bet he’d be open to the possibility that aliens did it, but you certainly won’t catch him claiming that there are scientific evidence which confirms this. I was simply driving home the point that evolution theory doesn’t challenge one’s belief in God, and cannot be used to do so.
This is tied with your claims of indoctrination under a belief system that excludes all others. When God told man he made the earth fixed and immovable, are we now guilty of “indoctrination” when we teach that the earth does in fact move, orbiting around the sun through space, spinning on an axis, occasionally experiencing seismic activity, with movement being altered by the gravity of the moon, etc, etc, and exclude the previous explanation? When God told man He made the world as a flat plane with four corners that He can grab by the edges and tip over, are we now guilty of “indoctrination” when we teach that the earth is in fact spherical and exclude the previous explanation? When God claimed to set the earth as the center of the known universe and sent the sun into orbit around it, are we now guilty of “indoctrination” when we now teach the model of the solar system and it’s somewhat insignificant place in the milky way galaxy and exclude the previous explanation?
The probability of the events mentioned in Genesis occurring as interpreted literally is exactly 0.0000%, the same percentage for the probability that the sun still orbits the earth, or that the empty diet coke can on my desk will grow a arms, legs, a top hat, and cane, and do a dance on my LCD display. This is why literal creationism(and its poorly-disguised derivatives) are excluded from the biological sciences, and this is why it is NOT indoctrination when we do so. If you want to take the events of Genesis metaphorically, that’s all fine, but it still has no place in science. Maybe in church or a religious studies class, but not science, simply cuz it isn’t science.
I feel this discussion has gone off topic from what was originally supposed to be on Comfort’s and Cameron’s moron edition of Origin of Species. Every single one of their assertions on the supposed evils that were the result of evolution theory/Darwin were ironically the direct result of their own brand of religious extremism or from literature and philosophies that predate Darwin (and in many cases, goes against evolution theory entirely). I suppose this would make Ray and Kirk liars or idiots.
IR
Fight about something? No not me, if you want to believe there is no deity or deities thats your business.
I was able to find Comfort’s introduction to Origins and skim through it. I can see where it might be offensive to you belief system but other than that what’s the problem.
Well, I’m sure that as a Christian, you would be opposed to lying to others.
The connection that Comfort makes between Darwin and Hitler is factually incorrect. If one were to read Hitler’s own words from Mein Kampf, transcripts of his speeches, and high-level Nazi internal documents concerning their Final Solution as recovered by the Allies, you would find that the justification for Nazi anti-antisemitism, genocide, and the concept of the master race were drawn from twisted interpretations of biblical source material and Norse mythology. Also, keep in mind that social Darwinism used to rationalize the Nazi eugenics program was based on philosophies that predate Darwin’s theories on evolution, and that eugenics itself was ultimately damaging to the survival of a species under evolution theory due to its limiting of variation within the species. Darwin wrote extensive criticism on eugenics because of this, condemning it on both moral and scientific grounds.
Darwin’s supposed racism is also misinformation. If you want to make the case that an average Englishman living in the mid 1800’s had racist tendencies by today’s standard, then yeah, Darwin was racist. What makes this sort of judgment impractical is that practically every white male living in the Western world at the time would be considered racist. Darwin’s supposed racism amounted to his belief that western culture was superior to the native tribal cultures he encountered on his research trips. He vehemently campaigned against slavery and the destruction of native cultures through rampant colonialism, and objected the racial categorizing of people, preferring to recognize all humans as part of the same species. Extremely progressive then, maybe so even today given what we saw during the 2008 presidential election.
I do find Comforts assertions to be offensive, not just because of my belief system, but also because they are factually incorrect and that it was intentional.
Karl
I think you’re mistaken again here. Evolution as taught does challenge one’s belief in God. Thats a well established fact with evidence going back to the Scopes Monkey Trial and the Butler Act. The law was enacted because evolution as taught did challenge or dilute ones faith in God.
You might freshen up on your Bible. Using talk origins or pro atheist sights for Biblical interpretations is like asking a monkey how to speak spanish. As far as moving the earth, can you move it? I suppose that North, South, East and West doesn’t exist in you thinking, but thats ok.
You apparently have a great deal of information no one else has. The 0.0000% is amazing, could you fill us in on this.
You mentioned that Comfort’s and Cameron’s supposed evil insertions were the result of their brand of religious extremism. I’m not sure I can follow you on this one. So are you saying Darwin’s honest recognition that if numerous species of the same genera or family started all at once it would be fatal to his theory is somehow Comforts fault? When Gould said,”You can’t fly with 2% of a wing” I can’t see how you can get religious extremism out of that.
Surly you’re not referring to racism as coming from Comfort or Cameron, Everybody knows that that is the theory, some species are better or just consider themselves better. Racism may precede Darwin but molecule to man evolution precedes Christ. And Hitler’s love for Darwin has nothing to do with either one of these guys.
Evolution as it is taught doesn’t challenge everyone’s belief in God, even among all who can call themselves Christian. Just a select (~18% combined YEC/OE/ID) minority whose belief in God depends entirely on taking Genesis as literal occurrence. This is why the literal creationists like to whip up lies such as “it’s either evolution or God” and other nonsense to try and get that ~35% who were originally fine with both evolution and faith in God coexisting to pump up their gallup poll numbers.
Using the same logic, literal creationism also challenges one’s belief in God. It dilutes one’s faith by limiting Gods power to what written, declares that man “knows” God’s power and how it works, and declares that there are no other possibilities. In a way, it’s the ultimate act of arrogance: holding God to man’s words.
Perhaps you should read more carefully as to what point I was trying to make with the flat earth example. It’s all metaphorical. The 0.000% figure stands because we don’t find rabbits and coyotes fossilized in the same strata layer as a T-Rex, and the fossilized stomach contents of said T-Rex consists of smaller dinosaurs and not the coconuts that AIG would like us to believe. At this point, radiometric dating and all the other scientific tests we do to check and double-check our findings are just procedure to confirm what is widely known.
Regarding Comfort’s prologue, my problem is that his assertions on Darwin and evolution are factually false. In a time where information is so widely accessible, any sort of basic attempt at fact-checking would disprove his allegations. He can’t even state that they are simply opinions without conceding that he just didn’t bother to check his sources. This is why I think that there is a strong possibility he is being willfully and maliciously deceptive. But this is just MY opinion. The fact that Comfort’s allegations are factually bogus still stands.
I assert that Comfort and Cameron are religious extremists because fundamentalism IS a kind of religious extremism. And like the Taliban, who fund their war efforts through the sale of haraam products like opium and commit atrocities and other reprehensible conduct explicitly forbidden by the Qu’ran as a means to promote Wahabist Islam, I consider Comfort and Cameron to be religious extremists, who violate the very laws of their fundamentalist Christian faith as a means to promote it. But that too is an opinion.
To clear up that confusing trainwreck of a response near the end, evolution theory doesn’t specify “better” as an absolute, just why variety (the presence of better and worse traits) is good for overall survival. Both organisms and environments change, and what may be better today could be worse tomorrow. Darwin wasn’t a racist by 19th century standards, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Hitler didn’t love Darwin nor followed his theories but he sure loved biblical scriptures and Norse mythology.
I can agree that if the Bible is man’s word it is the ultimate act of arrogance. The problem here is not that man has determined the book was inspired by man but that evaluation is presented by people who don’t read it. If there is a word of man it must be called molecule to man evolution. A theory based on imagination. A belief founded on arrogance and ignorance along with gullibility.
You’re funny. If Comfort and Cameron were chopping off the heads of women who have been raped, I would say you’re correct. It appears they have more information than you do. But the problem seems to have nothing to do with science but rather a challenge to your religion.
Babbling the same old junk nobody believes like a flat earth does not provide any reasonable information for your doctrine. Each of the methods and examples you have provided in the 0.0000% reply have nothing to do with man’s accent from pond scum and they each have an assumption as there foundation.
So far for promoting fallacies, you win.
Chris,
As I have read these posts and thought about the arguments, I find a re-occurring theme. I believe you would be presented with a more open minded debate with the regulars of this site if you criticized Evolution with factual evidence to dispute it. I know this is not the first time you have heard this, but I felt I needed to remind you as it is probably the most important part of debate. I see a lot of biblical references and philosophical ideas, but nothing that can be reproduced and displayed unlike most the claims of Evolution which can be. Examples would include micro and macro evolutionary changes in microscopic organisms, whose life spans are days, that help to represent larger creatures if one could stay alive long enough to study them. I can show you studies and results again and again to support my claims. What evidence can you provide to support yours? Seriously, not trying to be insulting, please provide examples that can be duplicated and studied. I think I have displayed my point enough, will be looking forward to your reply.
Dear Guest
Thanks for you thoughts. Criticizing evolution is not my goal, but it would be nice to get some idea of how this theory to the extent it has been driven can be believed.
Once upon a time micro and macro evolution were terms which defined small changes within species, speciation, variations etc. and macro being large changes between families of taxa. Macro is of course is a process which has never been seen or duplicated. But today the terms are irrelevant in that macro is just the accumulation of micro over millions of undocumented years.
So pointing out any creature is fruitless in that the theory predicts all creatures are in a constant state of change to become something else, with the exception of those animals which have been found unchanged after millions of years and classified as living fossils. And of course the only way to verify these assertions is to compare todays creatures with creatures a few million years from now. No one was around millions of years ago to take photos or compile phylogenetic relationships to provide evidence that we are not just looking at dead monkeys.
To my knowledge there are no examples of living organisms which cannot be explained away with evolutions imaginary doctrine. But by the same token there are no creatures which are not fully formed to solidify evolutions transitional claims. To put it quite accurately scientist have not moved the theory beyond it being a matter of faith.
Chris / Johnny / other socket puppets –
Continually, you claim that your holy book is absolute truth. You then criticize science because the rigorous process it uses to discover truth excludes some of your narrow interpretations of your holy book. You contend that your book is true, yet any other system of knowledge developed by man can never discover truth. If this is the case, then how can you possibly know that your holy book is true, and not an elaborate hoax? To follow your fallacy to conclusion, if science itself is flawed, then so would any method of divination or voodoo that you use to determine that your book is true. Your claim that your holy book is internally consistent still relies on man to check the consistency. Yet, you claim that man is not to be trusted for this sort of measurement.
As with most Creationist psycho-babble, you are talking yourselves in circles.
Getting back to topic, the forward written by Cameron and Comfort are chock full of the same sorts of fallacies, stemmed from a desperate need to confront a system of knowledge that shows that some things that people believed to be true, two thousand years ago, simply aren’t. Of course, that is the difference between science and your holy book. The former can be adjusted when new evidence is discovered. The latter can’t.
Quick check back and surprise, surprise, nothing worth responding to for me. Others–Karl, Guest, zygosporangia have eloquently attempted to make a cogent argument for the (apparent) fundamentalists with no success.
As many times as I encounter this phenomenon, I admit to being a bit puzzled by it.
I guess no one knows which edition Comfort is handing out, his redacted version or the unredacted version?
It’s actually a fairly consistent and repeatable phenomenon if you’ve been here long enough. It starts with the odd creationist posting one of like the ~5 widely repeated and baseless argument against evolution. From there, if we immediately make fun of him/her, they lose all cognitive abilities with rants on hellfire/eternal damnation and get banned.. If we concisely counter-argue their points, the less intelligent ones will… wait for it… lose all cognitive abilities with rants on hellfire/eternal damnation and get banned. The one’s who are better prepared (as much prepared as one can when presenting arguments using factually incorrect source material) attempt to defend their points, get confronted with the indisputable physical evidence, immediately change topics to another anti-evolution argument when it looks like they are about to contradict themselves, repeat the counter-argument cycle, until they run out of things to say, and… appear to lose all cognitive abilities with rants on hellfire/eternal damnation and get banned. Sick sad cycle… confronting them with their own biblical source materials does get interesting though…
Karl, there’s also the time-honored switching the topic immediately to abiogenesis….
Ha! Thanks for the heads up Karl. Truism no matter which science blog you happen to be reading.
OT, but I vacillate between hoping there are a few people who can be presented with the data and will realize they have been misinformed if not outright lied to, and thinking there really is no point even attempting to rationalize with people such as Chris or Johnny. I will admit I have never met someone who was antagonistic toward evolution yet open to any of the evidence or data. A hope, but one that has never been realized. Is this one of those issues that we simply write off the willfully ignorant and work toward preventing the next generation from reveling in the same ignorance?
I’ve figured out where some of these trolls are coming from.
http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm
Yep folks… that’s right. Class credit for trolling creationism on websites.
The “theory” of evolution can be an interesting tale as in the story of Lord of the Rings. Can be couched in an enchanting tale. This could be classified as a good fiction read at the most. But that is all that it is. A man’s philosophy dictates his observations of the physical world. The materialistic and inordinate affectionists are held to only the physical sense doctrine – we only belive what we can feel, touch, see and hear with our physical sense. So they limit their intake in the field of observation to bolster their preconceived notions. They do no look outside the possibility that there are things that we cannot observe with the physical senses, but can be observed with the inner senses such as intuiton, conscience etc. So they make a box for themselves and limit their observable abilities. This is fine if that is what you would like to do – that would be your choice. But to force your self imposed limited criteria upon others is dictitorial and not only that we are told that this is it and there is no other explanation then this is anarchy. The ones being closed minded are the devout evolutionists and not the true seekers of the bigger picture.
Oh by the way thanks for the link to the website ! I didn’t know it existed. A lot of great resources there – thanks !
Johnny –
So… you think that the world should be observed with “inner” senses such as intuition and faith? People have different intuitions and different faiths. Some believe that the god that you worship created the world. Others believe that human sacrifice is the only way to appease gods. Which intuition is correct? Your intuition? Your neighbor’s?
Science can be independently verified. Everyone’s intuitions are different. Yet, you call science anarchy. I think you are a bit confused.
I find it kinda ironic that Johnny would use a Lord of the Rings analogy on evolution when it’s widely known that J.R.R. Tolkien used a number of biblical references for his storyline and created many of his characters as personifications of different Christian virtues and biblical characters…
Well, that… and LOTR is far more internally consistent than his holy book. You know, the one that’s supposed to teach this “intuition” that is far more accurate than the scientific method. 😀
Johnny,
You are so right! I have been trying for years to get my religious views taught in the classroom either instead of, or right beside silly Evilution! My belief that the world was created by a Giant kind Flying Spaghetti Monster usually only gets laughs at best, but as a true believer and understanding that scientific research, fossils and facts were actually just placed there by the FSM for fools to find and relish in their own disbelief usually gets me through. The complete lack of evidence for my and other faiths only strenghtens my resolve that if the FSM wanted me to know the truth he would reveal it to me. I’m satisfied with not knowing until then. Please help me to spread the word of our religious persecution and hopefully all of our religious beliefs will find an equal place in the world of science and classrooms. I get dibs on participating in the first witch burning practiced by one of our cousin religions in Africa. Nasty witches!
RAmen!
Kyle
Does molecule to man evolution fit the scientific method?
“There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it.”
http://www.webexhibits.org/bogus/
Interesting. Each of those seven warning signs fits “Intelligent” design perfectly.
Yeah, molecule to man as a scientific theory is lacking when scientific scrutiny is applied. This is why all the scenarios of molecules forming the first living organisms proposed by abiogenesis are presented as hypothesis at most. We know this already. BUT WAIT!!! Does evolution theory present an explanation on how molecules “evolved” into man (or any other living organisms for that matter)??? NO!!! So what sort of reference to abiogenesis/molecule to man does evolution theory contain?!?! NOTHING!!!! No one here is making a case for abiogenesis as a valid scientific theory.
I asked you before to find evidence of this preposterous practice in Florida’s science curriculum (or hell, any sort of education guideline/standard that presents any abiogenesis hypothesis as an established scientific theory linked to evolution) and you conceded that you are unaware of any. If, as you say, this problem is not present, then why are you griping about it?
Out of curiosity, around what grade is your reading level? Any problems with reading comprehension? Is English your first language?
Karl
I stand corrected. I was under the impression that cosmic evolution. chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution and macro evolution were part of science. You are correct none of these can fit within the parameters of the scientific method.
Karl
So you’re convinced me that your theory or the theory of biological evolution has no viable foundation. No purpose, no reason, nothing came from nowhere and by chance has changed into everything by killing and mutating parts of itself.
So the beginning of this magical journey starts with life, one organism or billions are present in possibly less than a moment, along with all the necessary life support systems.
Again I must concede, it’s easy to see why any form of intelligence would not fit in this scenario.
Chris –
You have really taken a “leap of faith” with Karl’s responses. You must belong to Johnny’s school of ‘intuition”.
Let’s break it down. Evolution, as explained as a part of biology, shows how species evolved over time from common ancestors. This is a scientific theory, meaning that it has gone through rigorous testing. It is as close to a fact as science can deliver. While it may be possible that our understanding of evolution itself may change slightly, the theory will likely never be disproved. The evidence for evolution is simply too strong.
You are attempting to equate evolution in biology with other types of evolution, from cosmic evolution (which has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution), to abiogenesis (which is merely a hypothesis of how life began). None of these are remotely related, which makes your argument quite obtuse.
Biological evolution has a scope. Life evolves. It does not explain where this life came from, nor how the universe began, ad nauseum. Everything else, including how life began, how the universe began, or even morality or anything else you want to discuss is out of scope. Sorry.
Chris,
Seriously? Do you have learning difficulties, no reading comprehension ability, or something? Evolution theory doesn’t answer the question of how life appeared on earth. It does provide and answer to how that the most simple and primordial of lifeforms developed into what we see today. Does the previous sentence not register with the part of your brain which processes the visual data from you get from reading it? Any history of cognitive disorders in your family?
But in reality I suppose that sometimes, things are not always so simple. You can try your little topic switching diversion tactic all you want, but I will tell you, this latest tactic has a flaw. If you want to lump evolution with all other scientific theories, hypothesis, and the odd bits of scientific evidence that don’t seem to fit anywhere, then by your own twisted logic I could hold your own faith accountable for all the persecution, oppression, violence, xenophobia, and other crimes against humanity committed by the collective pool of Christian denominations.
Duh hey, I heard there was this one Christian cult who molested all those kids and I hear that Chris’s merry band of creationists are also Christians too! Guess all creationists are child molesters? Or ya hear about that one Christian Identity group which painted swastikas on that synagogue and dragged some black guy to death behind a pickup? Creationists must also be down with the hate crimes too cuz I hear they’re Christians as well durrrr!!!
See how stupid that would be?
IR, you probably know this by now but
Eugenie Scott says:
“…
It’s still missing a crucial diagram from Chapter 4 as well as the epigraphs from Bacon and Whewell, which Darwin chose with care, but it’s more complete than the first version, which was also missing four chapters and Darwin’s original introduction.
“
I should have known better. 10X replies to a post is a sure sign I will be more frustrated than uplifted upon reading.
Though I am sure it has been linked to before, a bit of levity here might be in order
dNorrisM:
Yes, that was kind of what I was wondering. I know a great many copies of Comfort’s version (the redacted version he first came out with) are available and I couldn’t see them being put aside in favor of the more complete (but still incomplete) version he has decided to issue. I was curious as whether he would try and distribute at random both copies, or if the plan was to only hand out the second version.
zygosporangla
I can agree with you 100% with exception to the rigorous testing. Inserting unknown creatures into predetermined positions to establish a line of ancestry doest’ sound like rigorous testing.
I’m not sure where the leap of faith comes in, that’s your department.
You’ve mistake my comments I understand completely. Biological evolution stands or falls on it’s own.
One of the best phylogenetic trees I’ve seen is the one below showing much of the imagined branching of evolution. It is clearly understandable why Gould described such trees the way he did. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
http://evogeneao.com/images/Evolution_poster_lg.gif
Well, it’s a good thing that biologists don’t do that then, isn’t it?
You keep trying to equate biological evolution with abiogenesis, theoretical physics, and other nonsense that have nothing to do with it.
What is your alternate theory that explains all of the variability of species we see today, along with all of the genetic similarities? I’m real curious here.
Oh, and nice quote mine of Gould. Care to provide us with the context of that quote, in which Gould says something totally different?
No?
That’s okay. I’ll provide it for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
So, now we’ve come to quote mining. I love how you picked that one quote (re-edited courtesy of AIG) from Gould while omitting that big chunk of text in between second and third sentences explaining how transitions were rare, but in no way absent entirely, and that whole paragraph after on how these points were making a case against Darwin’s commitment gradualism, and NOT evolution theory overall.
How about you read the original article (Gould, S. J. 1977. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace” in Natural History 86(5):12-16. and tell us again if/how Gould’s observations on the fossil record disproves evolution?
As I recall, the only unknown creatures being used to (incorrectly) establish lines of ancestry were the croco-duck and the bear-shark. I also recall that these particular creatures were made up by the creationists…
I wonder if these creationists ever get tired of lying for their beliefs. You know, violating that pesky commandment about bearing false witness.
zygosporangia
Without fabricating fossil evidence one is actually stuck with what exist. The fact that numerous scientist have recognized that major transitional fossils are simply non existent, presents problems for common ancestry from a single ancestor. It’s quit obvious that variations within our own species are common. But the development of caristics uncommon to our species has never been seen and neither has the genetic information been found present to form uncommon features. Ernst Mayr,” All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed.”
If the supposed transitional creatures did exist we shouldn’t have to to look for them, we should be looking for places to dump them. In Origin of Species, Darwin stated that his theory of evolution predicted that “[t]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must] be truly enormous.†This is not the case.
The problem here is that species which do appear, appear fully formed and not in transition. Perhaps fossils of extinct creatures, but nothing that can be unquestionably called transitional.
The fossil record does point to common ancestry, but not from a single living filament as Darwin’s grand father imagined. In fact the record shows that each major groups has evolved independently and for the most part unchanged.
Again, the fact that varying species do have such genetic similarities stands as a real problem in that transitions from one to the other are not found. But species appear to be separated by a genetic lock.
There is a huge amount of evidence for transitional fossils for whales,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans, this is well documented.
Along with the fossil records we have DNA sequencing to trace the phylogenetic tree of cetaceans back to their link to land mammals.
Some modern whales (because of gene code malfuction) develop miniature legs. We have a feature known as “nasel drift” where earlier fossils had nasel openings at the end of the snout,in later species the nasel openings had drifted to the top of the skull,just as one would expect.
The modern whale has no ability to smell,how ever they do still posses over 115 olfactory pseudogenes which are non functioning vestigial remnents from their early land dwelling ancestors.
Does none of this evidence make creationists think just for a second?
Chris –
More quote mining does not an argument make. We’ll just skip the quote mines, they are nothing more than lying for Jebus.
As for the existence of transitional fossils, literally thousands have been found. You have to keep in mind that fossils are an extremely rare event. It takes a perfect combination of factors to preserve a fossil for millions of years. it takes only a few seconds to destroy a fossil. That’s why you see paleontologists with their little brushes. Fossils are rare, and they are very fragile. This has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with chemistry, geology, and physics.
Huh? Might I recommend that you buy a Biology 101 book?
These similarities are not coincidence. They are not a common re-use pattern by an “intelligent” designer. Genetic mistakes are found in related species that point to a common ancestor. Other genetic markers match genera, yet others match families, etc. Your argument holds no water.
The fossil record is incomplete yes. This is a valid point. While major transitional forms are RARE (not non-existent as you say, several major amphibian-reptile and reptile-avian forms have been found) the fact that these gaps exist in the record do not disprove the validity of evolution, but the fossil evidence we do have (even taking into account the numerous transitional gaps) proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the events documented Genesis could not have occurred in reality exactly as written. Why bother continuing to entertain the possibility that literal creationism/ID is probable?
To play devils advocate here: If evolution was based on nothing but the incomplete fossil records we have, then yeah, we may have problems, and incidentally this is where Gould makes the case that the pace of evolution is not always gradual as affirmed by Darwin. But of course, other scientific evidence pretty much confirms evolution. Embryology, genetics, the fact that we share ~20% DNA with all other living organisms confirms this.
Back to the fossils, to state that the absence of the numerous transitional forms makes a case against evolution is a flawed argument. If you haven’t noticed, the formation of fossils requires specialized conditions that may not always be present at the time of an organism’s death. And some types of organisms, especially the soft squishy kinds, just don’t fossilize well period. I assume you want to make the case that the fact that we haven’t found so many transitional forms as predicted by evolution somehow makes it untrue. But to do so, you’d have to ignore the fact that the fossilization process itself is very rare, some creatures just don’t fossilize, and the fossils we HAVE found confirm what is predicted by evolution theory.
I would like to hear your elaboration on how this genetic lock between species somehow disproves evolution. Do enlighten us…
I guess the moral law evolved from monkeys ? 🙂
Johnny –
I don’t see what morality has to do with evolutionary biology.
Just like Christianity evolved from Judaism. Seriously Johnny/Chris, it’s pretty clear by now that you never intended to start any sort of rational debate on evolution. Many others have tried what you are doing and it always ends up the same way, with the creationist troll realizing that he has made a mockery of all Christ stood for and retreats to parts unknown.
I will warn you now, trying to steer the debate towards morality is THE step before realizing what a hypocritical moron you’ve been. There’s a lot of morally reprehensible conduct that Christianity has to answer for, and due to some ironic twist of fate, much of the moral case against evolution made by the creationists are actually problems caused by Christian extremism.
I want to know, Johnny, what exactly are you trying to “get” from this sort of self-destructive behavior? Some sort of persecution complex? Ya get some sort of self-gratification with people insulting your intelligence? Just want to get back that smug and in-control feeling while living in a reality which doesn’t conform to your fairytale worldview? Or perhaps you have some sort of deep loathing for Christianity/organized religion that makes you just want to see it dragged through the mud, portraying it’s most extreme followers as the ignorant slobbering inbred sheep you’ve done a fine job of impersonating so far?
Jonathan Smith
Attempting prove that the 115 olfactory pseudogene are vestigial is pretty funny. Claiming to completely understand the functional ability or lack thereof, genes are thought to be vestigial or junk. Claiming a gene malfunction has occurred is only wishful thinking.
A cave man might call a cell phone junk, it doesn’t taste good, you can’t break coconuts with it and they make irritating noises. The problem could be the cave man doesn’t’ have a clue what he is looking at. Given the past history of evolutionist vestigial claims it is more reasonable to assume evolutionist have much in common with our caveman.
I think you’re mistaken, you don’t have fossil evidence to trace whales to or back to land mammals. What you have is artist renderings of the standard evolutionist doctrine attempting to establish the belief that cetaceans were once land animals. The supposed vestigial hind limbs hidden under the flesh have been shown often to have purpose in reproduction.
So what you’re telling us is that we still don’t know how genes work at all, whether they are functional or render inert(junked as you say) despite ALL the work we’ve been doing in genetics, turning genes on and off, controlling its expression, cutting, splicing, and even sequencing gene sequences, documenting the exact mechanisms of how genes are expressed and all the problems that that can go wrong with this process and it’s effects, etc, etc? And you have the audacity to claim that we don’t know how genes function?
Did you know we have found and re-created several retroviruses that comprised some of this junk DNA, and have found several examples of vestigial genes such as our own non-functioning pseudogene for an enzyme needed for vitamin C synthesis through comparative genetic studies, and you want to say we have no idea what is junk or vestigial? No clue at all?
A caveman might call a cellphone junk, but a sales rep at an AT&T wireless store might beg to differ. Congratulations! You’re a caveman sitting a cellphone store.
Fossils are rare, with 95% being marine invertebrates mainly shellfish. Of the remaining 5% 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.75%) 95% of the remaining .25% are invertebrates including insects (.2375%) The remaining .0125% include all vertebrates mostly fish. 95% of the very few land vertebrates found consist of less than one bone.
It’s quite obvious that most land animals would have rapidly disappeared in a flood situation. Having clung to floating debris, running to higher ground and eventually bloating and floating before decomposition.
You may be the devils advocate, but not entertaining the events documented in Genesis is rather unsound. Flood history is recorded all around the world among particularly every culture and people. Nowhere has the tale of transitional apelike creatures been passed down from generation to generation.
Fossilization is a process that requires special conditions, such as raped burial. The organism must be kept from normal decay and buried in mineral rich water where carbonates are precipitating. However the process can be accomplished in a relatively short time nothing close to millions of years. A good example is the North Yorkshire town of Knaresborough where waters have petrified some objects in jest a few months.
http://www.digicam69.co.uk/knaresboro.htm The need for millions of years for petrification is a belief, not a science.
The 20% DNA similarity claim for all living organisms shows nothing for evolution, but rather imformationanl data necessary for existence in a common enviremont. Scientist have vertically no understanding at all of life itself. Life can be observed but not duplicated, to suggest genetic mistakes exist is ridiculous when scientist don’t even know what is correct.
Chris don’t confuse them with the facts. A man’s morality dictates his worldview which skews the mindset. Their minds are blinded from seeing the overall picture. Truth is spiritually discerned. Since they are of the spirit of disobedience they will never admit they are wrong. You could have a video tape of God speaking the world into existence and they would desperately try to explain it away. That’s why it says when God does finally show Himself to the world they will cry out for the rocks to fall on them.
So we basically have two Trollz-4-Jeezus who have come to squeeze out their tired old fire n’brimstone horsepucky on our science board. They give each other backslaps and high fives for spewing the same old, tired nonsense we’ve heard a million times before as if it’s something new and earthshaking, believing, as the ignorant religionuts do, that any perceived “flaw” with science (and not just ANY science, mind you, but biology) automatically equates to “therefor Jesus”. Which is, of course, incredibly stupid. Even dumber than a run-of-the-mill creationist, we have the batpoop insane young earth idiocy on display! Yee-haw!
And, predictably, the looneytunes can’t resist throwing in their death cult’s “You’ll be sorry” threats of divine retribution because they take great sadistic delight in the suffering and punishment of those who don’t subscribe to their particular brand of mythology. How charitable and Christian of them.
Seriously, guys, you’re boring and really depressing. Seeing the depths of such proud and willful ignorance, which is impervious to education, makes me weep for my country.
“I think you’re mistaken, you don’t have fossil evidence to trace whales to or back to land mammals. What you have is artist renderings of the standard evolutionist doctrine attempting to establish the belief that cetaceans were once land animals. The supposed vestigial hind limbs hidden under the flesh have been shown often to have purpose in reproduction.”
This is why I think there is generally no hope in reasoned argument. It doesn’t matter that these fossils have been found, not merely drawn. As to the vestigial limbs, I notice he provides no evidence that these have been shown to have any function in reproduction. Perhaps they serve an internal masturbatory function? Of course, that can’t be, since we all know god hates masturbation. If this is an aid to reproduction, why is it not uniform in any single species? This is ridiculous. I know there is no use in trying to use reason and logic with these people, and yet here I am, attempting it anyway.
Johnny
I know, you’re absolutely correct. It’s amazing just how blinded and deceived some people are. By insulting non believers and those with conflicting information evolutionist elevate themselves to a higher plato looking over the facts, not at them.
My wife say’s I’m wasting my time talking to people who think their monkeys. But I’ve found out allot about the religion of evolution and how convincing it can be to someone who is spiritually dead. What is amazing is they don’t even know it’s a religion. They laugh at the thought of being snowed by a talking snake and then get suckered by dead monkeys. I always think of Romans 1:28 And even as thy did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. And now here we have a global industry looking for monkey parts, how convenient, ha ha.
Johnny
It’s amazing! Absolutely no compression. You can’t beat the Book.
Johnny/Chris/sockpuppets: Perhaps you would prefer witnessing elsewhere? I mean, it’s not like any scientists are trolling your church’s blog and posting facts there yet here you are trolling our science blog and posting fairy stories. Not very polite, you know, and you’re not going to win any converts with such stupidity.
PS: I’d elevate Socrates to a higher Plato and only then because of the compression.
And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
Mathew 6:5
I hope you enjoyed whatever uplifting sensation you got from doing the fist-bump with your fellow ignoramus. It must feel SOOOOO good to rile up a bunch of biologists and other scientists with your childish antics and for what? You certainly aren’t looking for converts or promoting your faith in a positive light. Your arguments don’t make any logical sense and use factually incorrect source material. You’ve outright lied and got called on it many times. There’s only one logical reason for you to do this.
Chris, you can tell your “wife” that you need to do this because after years of devout faith, spirituality, and working the best crappy low-skilled job available to people with your particular skill set, you see people who are “spiritually dead” but better educated, move up to levels you could only dream out, even in these hard economic times. So, feeling inadequate, you go on the internet and rile up some biologists and other scientists with your ignorance just to feel a little better about yourself. If you were truly honest to your wife about why you really here and doing the things you do, I’d bet she’d tell you to quit wasting time and find a better hobby.
Heh… I leave for the night, and I come back to a full-blown witness attempt.
These trolls are so predictable. They regurgitate the same tired old “flaws” in evolution that have been discredited. They repeat these over and over again, believing that a lie repeated enough will become truth…
Then, when they get frustrated, when all of their points have been shown to be garbage… they turn to “morality” and quoting scripture, ad nauseum.
I hope they are getting class credit for this nonsense. If I were their teacher, I’d fail them. 🙂
So what you are saying is that while your lips are preaching to us about the evils of evolution and how we must renounce it to save our souls, God will not see you for all your pious words, but for all the fearful hatred and deceitfulness which has filled your heart every time you repeat the same lies over and over again?
Sometimes, I think that the people who hate and despise Christianity the most are the people who use it in the manner in which these two clowns are doing. People like Johnny/Chris use their faith to incite anger, frustration, hatred, and other negative emotions, present the impression that it’s followers are ignorant lying scumbags, and seem to get some sort of glee from watching the all hypocrisies and other dirty little secrets of their religion strewn out into the open time and time again. Kinda like a fireman who is a closet pyromaniac. Even most atheists don’t go this far.
Karl
One things for sure, nobody can say you don’t have a good imagination. How you can get all that misinformation out of a few simple comments is amazing.
Haven’t you ever wondered why the faithful believers in Darwinian evolution have such a fit over the possibility some one could pose questions contrary the evolutionary doctrine. It appears the frazzled evolutionist knows down deep inside this issue has nothing to do with science, but rather with the possibility that the suppositions, imaginations and all the unconvincing high minded claims could be wrong.
The simple message is, Christ pays for your sin or you do. Call it a lie, call it nonsense or call it what ever you want. The bottom line is, the message is either true or false. Whether you believe or not is irrelevant. But regardless of your interpretations of science or the bible we will all be finding out for sure who is right and who is wrong soon enough.
Chris –
None of the questions posed by you or any other Creationists are new. All of them have been thoroughly debunked time and time again. You are simply regurgitating them.
Alright, I’ll call it both. 🙂
zygosporangia
So what are the questions that are ask over and over again?
Chris,
It’s really simple if you think about it. Just as you keep claiming that genetics, transitional fossils, and the rest of the scientific evidence supporting evolution are wrong without any sort of justification other than an opinion, I was merely following your example and making the claim that you are a hateful and envious sack of crap with too much time on your hands based on my opinion of your comments.
We biologists and other scientific-minded people who “believe” in evolution don’t throw a fit because we are afraid of the possibility that we are wrong. Have you ever noticed that we only get indignant upon hearing the specific “alternatives” presented by the creationists. The real reason is that frankly, we are sick of hearing the same alternative over and over again, seeing it fail against the same scientific scrutiny that was used against evolution’s supporting evidence over and over again, and hearing the creationists throw a fit with all that salvation and eternal damnation crap, over and over again. You’d throw a fit too if some moron kept shouting “2+2=5” over and over again.
But know this: Christ’s message has nothing to do with evolution. Christ dying and paying for our sins or not has nothing to do with how the earliest organisms on earth developed into what we see today. Recognizing evolution does not make you deny such a simple message. In a way, Chris, you and Johnny here are a lot like those who would conspire to arrest and crucify Christ. Christ repudiated a lot of the rigid laws and customs of the old testament that were used by religious leaders to keep themselves in power, not unlike evolution causing some faithful Christians to recognize the possibility that the events in Genesis may have been metaphors to help man recognize the greatness of God’s powers even if man does not (and maybe will never) have the capacity to understand it. Of course, for the creationists, this is an attack on their power base so cue the crosses, wood nails, and crown of thorns. In fact Johnny got it right when he said it was all about power. It was never about faith, just so creationists can stop hemorrhaging away its faithful and keep one swinging around that moral authority we’ve all grown to love.
I do have a rhetorical question for you, Chris: Why do you spread Christ’s message in a way that demeans and induces ridicule for all He stood for.
Meanwhile, back in the reality-based world: Panda’s Thumb has a story that perhaps the promised giveaway of Comfort’s edition of Darwin’s book is yet another faith-based hoax.
Pierce:
Awesome. I hadn’t seen that yet.
Karl you seem to want the ‘best’ of both worlds – James calls that double mindedness. You can believe all you want about evolution, but to force the young children to be taught this fallacy causes them to doubt their faith. Even your leader Dawkins says that Christ and evolution are not compatible. I give him credit for at least a little honesty. You can’t seem to do that Karl. Truth is based on the moral law – if your justify immorality then you will no doubt believe in evolution. If you believe in good morals you will undoubtly believe in creation. Your scientific method rules out spiritual goodness and spiritual evil. The moral laws come forth from the heart. Those who reject the moral law are blinded by their limited ability to detect the truth. There is no rest for the wicked only through faith can a man attain rest. You have that choice Karl but you must avail yourself of it. Remember a mans morality dictates his ‘scientific’ evaluation. Test this hypothesis and you will find it to be true.
It is all about power. God’s power verses the powers of evil. The power of God will rule out in the end. Christ did die for you Karl, you got that right, but are you not bothered that little children are caused to stumble by a false ‘science’. A guilty conscience blinds the mind – only a pure conscience can make one see the truth clearly. That can be only done when guilt is taken away and peace is restored to the heart. There is no rest for the wicked. No evolutionist has rest. This is a truth and you know it whether you deny it outwardly or not. We both know it to be true. I have no anomosity towards anyone here. Yet there seems to be a swelling up of anger towards those who tell you the truth. We have no anger towards you but good thoughts pointing out the truth with concern.
I love the whole “we have no anomosity[sic] towards anyone here…We have no anger towards you but good thoughts pointing out the truth with concern.”
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any more hilarious or disingenuous, Johnny serves up a whopper.
Apparently, we have reached the limit of Johnny’s ability to “debate” evolution. He is now completely lost in the realm of religion.
It’s interesting how he went from questioning evolution to espousing “intelligent” design, straight to talking about religion and creationism. This is the same nonsense that would occur in the classroom if one of these ridiculous academic “freedom” bills were passed.
Johnny,
You really want to turn this into a morality debate? Really? After all the morally dubious events in the entire history of Christianity past and present that basically sh*ts on your idealistic assertions of moral absolution?
Last chance to to tuck tail and run.
Durr stupid autocorrect… meant to say moral absolutism
‘Quote’ Karl “It’s really simple if you think about it. Just as you keep claiming that genetics, transitional fossils, and the rest of the scientific evidence supporting evolution are wrong without any sort of justification other than an opinion, I was merely following your example and making the claim that you are a hateful and envious sack of crap with too much time on your hands based on my opinion of your comments.”
My question was “So what are the questions that are ask over and over again?”
Are you making the claim that following my example is making you a hateful envious sack of crap? That may be true, but that wasn’t my question.
From what incoherent ramblings you have provided I can see why you’re are ask the same questions over and over and over again.
The scientific evidence which you so confidently have faith in leaves wide holes in reason. If you are of the opinion that you have no value beyond three dollars worth of fertilizer, I won’t argue with you. But to be convincing you’ll have to connect the dots for those of us don’t have your faith. You’re not doing that, with the psycho babble.
Let’s play a game, shall we? Let’s see if Chris can provide just one example of one of these wide holes that hasn’t been covered by TalkOrigins. Good luck, Chris, you’ll have to get beyond your creationism talking points.
No problem. The advertisement for Nova’s Becoming Human three part series says , “How to become human in six million simple steps.”
Four are listed
1. Get out of trees
2 Grow big brain
3 Flee animals
4 Make tools
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-bumps-no-obstacle-for-light.html
It would be nice if you could point out each of the 5,999,996 missing simple steps to become human, they were left out in this series. I’m sure your informed answer will most likely settle this issue and satisfy all doubters.
It looks like this add left out #4 Make tools. It’s ok you can leave that one off the list.
zygosporangia
Arizona’s Kartchner Caverns is a amazing place, this is a living cave. I visited this cave in 2008 it was a good experience I did however ask one of the rangers a question they could not answer, I’m sure you can. With the age of the cave being perhaps 320,000,000 years old how many millions of years old are the staligtights growing in the concrete tunnel passage to the caverns?
http://azstateparks.com/Parks/KACA/
zygosporangla
Something else you can help me out with. I live in Sebring near Highlands Hammock State Park. I worked there at age 15. Now there is a turtle there that was discovered wile putting in some grove irrigation around 1935. It was found along with some mastodon tusk and was dated to be at least 35,000 years old. Today it’s gotten a little younger and now dated at 10,000 years old. Most of the rangers say it’s just old. The problem I’m having is not the assigned ages of this large reptile, the problem is it was unearthed in strata below the nearby swamp that is said to be around a million years old. Could you just tell me how this million year old swamp got on top of this 10,000 year old turtle and mastodon tusk. Thanks
zygosporngla
I just happened to be at the Grand Canyon a few years back and wile I was there it was rather noticeable that the entire area has been under water and the sedimentary layers were noticeably level. This fact was also acknowledged by several of the rangers I talked with. One of the ranges I spoke to had a sea shell in his pocket found on top of the north rim. I ask him why they trusted him with this multi million year old artifact and he said he was wondering that himself.
With the Colorado River cutting through the bottom of the canyon and it supposedly forming the entire canyon over millions of years, it is said that the area rose or uplifted.Something that would had to have happened because the river inters the canyon around a mile lower than the top of the canyon. The water would have had to run uphill for a mile to do the job if the entire area didn’t rise.
This is a great story and all and I’m sure it’s part of your religions doctrine. But I’ve just got a question. Which is stupider to believe that this area of 1,218,375 acres and 277 miles in length could rise and have it’s sedimentary layers stay level or that the Colorado River ran uphill a mile for millions of years?
To our Gish-Galloping creotrolls: Please go here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ for answers (authored primarily by experts in the related fields of study) to your pratts. It’s even nicely laid out by category so that the mentally impaired can easily find whatever canard is currently buzzing around in their bonnets. I know it’s not as satisfactory but a link is all the effort you are worth.
Now, since you obviously have no interest in, you know, SCIENCE, do toddle on along now.
Chris –
Perhaps you didn’t listen. I said find one of these wide gaps not covered by Talk Origins. Everything you have posted here has been thoroughly debunked by that site. If you would bother to read and educate yourself, you wouldn’t look like such a fool posting these talking points.
Thanks.
zygosporangla
I had great hopes for you, and you just pass me off to the religious secular huminest site Talk Origins. I could have refered you to the Bible for answers to your questions. None of my questions are answered at Talk Orgins, I’m asking you.
Seriously, Chris, you did not come here in good faith (heh!), but to annoy. The simple fact that you view science as a religion really does tell us everything we need to know about you. You are not at all interested in educating youself and I dare say you are truly ineducable as no answer will ever be good enough to you. “My deity of choice did it” is good enough for you. And that’s fine. It ain’t science but it makes you feel good about yourself. That’s fine, too. Your poor, intellectually benighted offspring, however, I do feel pity for. Feel free to shackle them to ignorance if you feel the need but keep your bronze aged nonsense out of my kids’ schools. Pretty simple, really.
Now, do toddle off. You’ll win no souls here.
Chris –
If you are going to label something as “secular humanist”, it would help if you could spell it correctly.
Talk Origins is nothing of the sort. It sticks to facts. You may not recognize this term, since most of the talking points you spew are very creative about the facts they include and the ones they ignore.
I refuse to answer your questions because I have answered them time and time again on this site and others. Why should I repeat myself, just because the current incarnation of troll is repeating the same garbage spewed by the previous trolls?
Even basic geology knowledge, like the knowledge that can be obtained by reading a middle-school level Earth Science book, would explain away your questions about the Grand Canyon. Of course, in your mind, you believe that the Grand Canyon was formed during some mythological flood event. I’m not quite sure how I can argue against someone who believes in such fantastic fantasy. It is impossible to argue rationally against irrational creationists. Sorry.
If you are truly interested in learning, then visit Talk Origins. If you are interested in merely trolling here, then eventually people will get bored with you and disemvowel you. At least then you’ll make slightly more sense.
I would like to extend an invitation to Chris, Johnnie, and whatever other trolling sockpuppets are present to visit http://www.talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23 This is the Talk Rational “Evolution & Origins” board. On it they will find real, working geologists, biologists, chemists, physicists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and even one of the foremost paleontologists in the world who are willing to discuss any and all “issues” said theists have with real-world science. Best of all, these professionals actually know what they talking about since they, you know, hold degrees in and work in these fields of study.
You guys are wasting time trolling a general information blog with your innanities, so why not spend your day more productively by engaging with genuine, certified, credentialed experts? Double dog dare ya’!
Damn Johnny, you seem to be jumping all over the place. Stay off the caffeine or go back on your meds. You may judge us all as sinners and foam at the mouth with the mere mention of “evolution”, but remember, Jesus loves everyone and kept company with saints and sinners alike. The words of God states that there will be no heavenly rewards at the end of this path that you are walking now.
The wonderful anecdotes you decided to share with us only reveals you as a simpleton or a gigantic man-child. By the spectacular examples of specious reasoning demonstrated in your stories (especially the one about the stalactites in the tunnels) a dog, cat, and a horse are all the same animal by virtue of them all having four legs. Do a lot of people like to sell you things like magic beans or mystical tiger-repelling rocks? Do you always end up buying them?
Well, I haven’t seen a tiger in Florida in many years… I think we can thank the mystical tiger-repelling rock. I forgot it once when I went to Busch Gardens. Sure enough, there were tigers. 😀
I think Chris and Johnny should both buy some of my rocks, I sell them for $50 a piece. They are guaranteed to keep tigers away, or you get your money back. You just pay shipping and handling.
zygosporangia
I played your silly game and gave you several questionable examples and all you have provided is BS. You can’t answer my questions because you have no answers.
If we say “God Did It” do we win? 🙂
Okay, I’ll play your silly game:
The NOVA thing is basically a summary that focuses on the major revolutionary anatomical and behavior changes that made our present human species possible. If you want to evidence of every single change(lengthening/shortening of bones, increases in brain size, the moment when the first tool was made, etc) that occurred within our evolutionary history, you are parroting the gaps-in-fossil-record-means-evolution-is-wrong fallacy. It’s true that a complete documented history of every single physical or behavioral change is unavailable. Fossils don’t always form, the world’s first sharpened stick didn’t get preserved, etc. However, the changes we have been able to document from fossils, remnants of human ancestor activities and living spaces, are all consistent with the principles of evolution. We have yet to find evidence to the contrary.
Your cave example would assume that geology would not be able to tell the difference between a stalactite formed over millions of years in a limestone cavern to a stalactite formed from water leaking through concrete walls. There are key differences can be found in the presence calcium oxide in the concrete that allows the formation of calcium hydroxide, which precipitates into… oh hell, here’s a wiki for the actual chemical formulas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalactite
(Pay close attention to the section on concrete stalactites)
Check the sources too if you remain unconvinced. Any geologist can tell the difference between a stalactite formed from limestone and one formed from concrete. Or a rock and a chunk of cement for that matter. The formation rates of each have even been measured. Pure specious reasoning on your part. I don’t even have to go to Talkorigins to answer that one.
The swamp/turtle example could be caused by a localized thrust fault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_fault
You seem to be vague about the tectonic history of that region along with a lot of other details. No Talkorigins here either, but as always, check the sources.
The Grand Canyon example only hammers home the point that you fail at geology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area
As you can see, significant portions of the layers are hardly what you call “level.” I totally agree that it is stupid to assume that the all layers will stay uniform given the type of geological activities which have affected the region. Good thing that’s not the case right? I seem to have omitted the link to Talkorigins on this one too… probably didn’t need it though.
Could your examples hint at an even more epic battle to come? Could creationists at war with geology be the next controversy? YEC’s like yourself are laughed at by old-earth creationists as well, mostly for having your head stuck a full 6 inches further up your ass than the rest of the creationists glut.
Chris –
I did even better than answering your questions here. I provided you with a link to a website that not only debunks your questions as meaningless drivel, but provides tons of quotes, citations, and even pictures. You won’t bother following the link, because you don’t want answers. You want to find all of your answers in your mythology, because your mind is closed to the reality around you. I cannot help irrational people until they are willing to accept that their world view is flawed. Sorry.
Who knows if they’ll show up at UF, but check out the post over at Pharyngula regarding Comfort’s planned giveaway:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/ray_has_a_change_in_plans.php
Wolfhound
If you don’t know how evolution did it you lose.
Chris –
That’s an asinine argument.
Chris
Do you honestly expect us to believe that you “do not blindly accept anything you holy book demands. You condemned evolution, without addressing many other points that were made; without giving clear, unmuddled responses to the problems you chose to discuss, and without acknowledging your own limitations with respect to science. You have not examined all “facts” but only examined some facts, very few, in fact. Moreover, confounding religion is not the purpose of this blog or the posters here. We only ask that you examine all the evidence before accepting the Bible as “absolute truth.” But you have acted in precisely the opposite manner. You accepted the bible as the ultimate truth long ago and have been judging all evidence accordingly. That which corroborates your belief has been retained; that which doesn’t has been discarded,such is your mindset
If God can’t (or won’t) explain his powers and intentions, does He lose as well?
Well, the creationists don’t want to mosey on over to Talkorigins, but here’s a decent video lecture all they need to do is sit and watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig&feature=PlayList&p=D62809AD452EDB98&index=4
I know, that will require too much effort/time/intelligence, but it’s worth a shot.
IR
Great video. I wasn’t familiar with Jerry Coyne before, but there can be no doubt he is a true missionary for the faith. A well done explanation for evolution and presentation of its circular reasoning. He makes a good case for attacking religion, but he brought nothing new to the table for evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig&feature=PlayList&p=D62809AD452EDB98&index=4
Jonathan Smith, acknowledged the characteristics of our group, ” confounding religion is not the purpose of this blog or the posters her.” Confronting religion may not be desired but ridiculing it is. A simple search will show the majority of all the conversation here and on other citizens for science sites has little to do with science but rather to straighten the faith among evolutionist and atheist by ridiculing anyone or anything which might question the doctrine of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
The kid at the end there brought up the origin of life (not evolution) and of course Coyne muddled a bit before he recited the religions stand on the issue, “we don’t know how it happened but we do know it only happened once.” What a riot.
Thanks, I’ll save this one.
I shouldn’t be surprised you aren’t familiar with Coyne, as you have demonstrated you are not familiar with evolution either.
I think PZ is correct in saying more kids need to be taught philosophy, i.e. how to engage in logical thinking and spot fallacies. It’s obvious that many of the faithful–Chris/Johnny/other random creationist–are too far gone to benefit from this.
I have to call into question either that you watched the video at all, or if you hit play, were actually in the room to listen. I would ask that you address one simple point that you attempted to make earlier regarding:
“…The supposed vestigial hind limbs hidden under the flesh have been shown often to have purpose in reproduction.”
This very point was addressed in the talk, and shown to be nonsense. How do you gloss over/ignore that? Coyne showed photos from a dolphin with vestigial back limbs, bones taken from whales that had these vestigial limbs which correspond to the anatomical structure of hind limbs–tibia, fibula, metatarsal. He spoke a bit about this phenomenon in other species as well–in our DNA are genes (degraded now) for making an egg yolk. Were you watching the screen all the while yelling “la la la” with your fingers in your ears?
Ya know, you can’t even carry on a conversation without pretending you know what the other person is thinking. What’s funny is you’re always wrong.
Logical thinking? It takes a lot of imagination to make a fish out of a dog. It would be more logical to assume that we are looking a several different extinct creatures.
It’s hard to talk about vestigial organs or degraded genes with a straight face. With the 180 or so human vestigial organs in 1890 being reduced to 0 by 1999 you can be pretty sure that what ever is declared vestigial, junk or transitional scientist just don’t know how it works or what it is.
I’m not familiar with all the religious iconic preachers for evolution like Coyne, but I’m learning.
Thanks for the video.
Chris,
You mind pulling out the source for these outlandish claims on vestigial organs and genes? Or are you just making it up as is with the rest of your pro-creationist “evidence”? You’re style seems to be making a lot of baseless and outright made-up claims on much of evolution theory’s supporting evidence, some which aren’t even heard of within mainstream creationist circles. You also use arguments, especially the ones which contradict plate tectonics, geology, and basic chemistry, which are flagged by AIG as being undeniably flawed, baseless, and ultimately detrimental to giving creationism any sort of legitimacy. At least AIG twists and edits existing evidence in ways that support their flawed explanations. Is this how you think a “debate” is conducted? Are you still bewildered as to why we call you moron?
The amount of cognitive dissonance you’ve displayed here is staggering, even among the entire spectrum of creationists. Do you mind telling us just what denomination of Christianity you follow? I’m getting a real strong Kent Hovind-esque vibe from you…
Oh, on another note, did you get your flu shots this year, Chris? What about the H1N1 vaccine they rolled out in Tampa back in October? According to creationism, H1N1 shouldn’t be possible…
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57456
It appears that most of the “comfort” found in those fifty pages was simply torn out. Do it right, and the rest of the book remains pretty nice.
How is it that whenever “Chris” writes himself into a corner with some bizarre obviously made up assertion or some childish display of ignorance, you, “Johnny”, show up with some non-sequitur or some other really transparent attempt to derail the discussion?
zygosporangia-
I wasn’t able to obtain a copy myself, but I’ve heard reports that the typeface is uncomfortably small and offset. Like I said, I don’t have a copy myself so I’m not certain if this is an accurate criticism or not. The typeface would have to be small though, if Comfort did indeed hand out unabridged copies. Some report a mix of the redacted version and the unabridged version being given away. Again, we’ll have to wait for confirmation.
Chris-
not certain where you got the part about carrying on a conversation without pretending to know what the other person is thinking. Either you were addressing another commentator or you can point to an example? Anyway, I like how you ignore my request to defend your claim that the vestigial organs in whales (hind limbs) that occasionally appear have a purpose in reproduction. Also unaddressed by you is the example of degraded egg yolk genes in our own DNA. They express incompletely, as shown in the video, and we get, voila an (empty) yolk sac.
I suggest you go back and watch the video (again?) regarding these particular points. Specifically, at around 28 minutes. Made it easy for you. The whale limbs and the yolk sac question are addressed in this embryology section together, so no need to sit through the whole thing again. Not that it might not do you some good, but that’s probably too much to hope for.
edit—–it would need to be small if he handed out unabridged copies because apparently his version is not quite 300 pages (I’ve seen reports of 298) and that includes his bullshit introduction. The regular unabridged version runs to 500 pages give or take depending on your publisher.
Well, I’m sure that he creatively edited it. I mean, if he needs to add lies to the introduction, then he probably isn’t above creatively editing the content to better fit his lies.
Karl
There is no problem, I’ve never been bewildered from being called a moron by clowns it just doesn’t matter.
Do your use your own imagination to come up with your misinformation or the imagination of orthodox evolutionist?
Ah… look… now Chris has been reduced to turning around arguments.
You’re finished, Chris. Admit it and go away.
IR
You would think someone with the approval of the Grand Wizard Richard Dawkins would have his propaganda down pat. Gill slits, tails and your cherished yolk sac have all been shot down by real science years ago.
Deciding what something is just because it has visual similarities to something else is the hallmark of evolutionary theory. By this suppositional process you can make fish out of dogs and men out of monkeys.
Unlike birds in which the “yolk sac” contains much of the food for the unhatched creature during development . Humans are attached to their mother and receive food thorough the umbilical cord, there is no stock pile of food in a sac.
The so called vestigial (empty) yolk sac has a vital purpose and without it the baby can not develop and will die. This organ produces the first blood cells for the child. A extremely well thought out design.
zygosporangia
Having all the advanced attributes of an ape like creature you must consider yourself a genius. Could you tell us which one of Comforts comments are lies?
Chris, that would be pretty much all of them since the man is a deluded moron with no understanding of science. Duh.
Wolfhound
Let’s see, moron, no understanding, Duh, all lies. Sounds like typical religious humanist indoctrination providing no answers to reasonable questions, only garbage.
I take it form your comments you can’t pinpoint anything which might be a lie.
Hmmm, lets see, which of Comfort’s comment’s are lies? BTW, this was repeated before, but I’ll repost it here with consideration to your apparent learning disability.
Okay, where to begin… how about the stuff about evolution and Hitler, especially related to the Holocaust? Isn’t it bizarre that Comfort would repeatedly assert that Hitler was largely influenced by Darwin, when his obvious hatred of Jews and desire for their elimination was pretty much present in what he wrote Mein Kampf,almost a decade before the Nazi’s came to power and began the wholesale slaughter of Jews? Even more puzzling was the lack of any reference to Darwin for the entirety of the book.
This in turn leads to social Darwinism and and Nazi eugenics, two philosophies that directly contradict several aspects of evolution, mainly how survival of a species is helped by variation within that species. Why did the Nazis primarily use biblical scripture (claiming that the Aryan race was the chosen people of God) and Norse mythology to portray themselves as the master race? On an unrelated but absurd note, if Nazis saw themselves as the master race, why the hell were they so fearful of the untermensch that they would implement selective breeding programs and systems of oppression to out-compete supposedly inferior races? If they actually followed social Darwinism to the letter, they would have nothing to fear or lose by letting the lesser races go about their business. Back to the original accusation by Comfort, social Darwinism itself actually predates Darwin and evolution theory by several decades, so how is Darwin responsible for it? Herbert Spencer, the one of the most notable social Darwinist, published Progress: Its Law and Cause two years before Darwin’s Origin of Species? Regarding eugenics, since all that inbreeding and loss of genetic variation required to implement such a practice would hurt a species’ survivability according to evolution, why would Darwin support such a practice, especially since he went on to write said criticisms about it?
Now we come to Comfort’s assertion of Darwin’s racism. Darwin’s supposed racism amounted to his belief that western culture was superior to the native tribal cultures he encountered on his research trips. He vehemently campaigned against slavery and the destruction of native cultures through rampant colonialism, and objected the racial categorizing of people, preferring to recognize all humans as part of the same species. I wrote this already, but you probably didn’t read it. The main point is, if you want to call this type of thinking racist, then every white male living in the industrialized world during the 19th century was a racist. And even if Darwin was a racist, alcoholic, kills kittens, and pushes old ladies down stairs, it does not affect the scientific validity of his theories.
I’m betting you’ll try to be clever and ignore this for a second time. Maybe have “Johnny” come in with a snappy remark or two.
Oh yeah, Chris, I’m still waiting for evidence on your claims that our scientific understanding of vestigial organs and genes are flawed.
Boring troll is boring.
Karl
Why yes, racism existed before Darwin. But Darwin gave validity to the (fact) that some species are more highly evolved than others. There can be no doubt that Hitlers master race was the result of an attempt to produce what Hitler considered, the hight of humanity.
After Darwin’s book the belief that different races were genetically lower than other was taught in school text books in America before Hitler. The so called knowledge of racial superiority was widespread and used as justification around the world for eugenics an racial cleansing.
You can pretend that Hitler lived in another world if you like and dreamed up the ability to recognize genetic superiority , but not everyone has that view.
“Scientific racism became popular at the end of the 19th century in Europe, and had a direct influence on the pan-Germanism movement, including the Alldeutscher Verband (Pangermanic League)”————–“The aim of the Alldeutscher Verband was to protest against government decisions which they believed could weaken Germany. A strong element of its ideology included social Darwinism.” Wikipedia.
Karl
Why yes, racism existed before Darwin. But Darwin gave validity to the (fact) that some species are more highly evolved than others. There can be no doubt that Hitlers master race was the result of an attempt to produce what Hitler considered, the hight of humanity.
The belief that different races were genetically lower than other was taught in school text books in America before Hitler. The so called knowledge of racial superiority was widespread and used as justification around the world for eugenics and racial cleansing.
You can pretend that Hitler lived in another world if you like and dreamed up the ability to recognize genetic superiority , but not everyone has that view.
“Scientific racism became popular at the end of the 19th century in Europe, and had a direct influence on the pan-Germanism movement, including the Alldeutscher Verband (Pangermanic League)”————–“The aim of the Alldeutscher Verband was to protest against government decisions which they believed could weaken Germany. A strong element of its ideology included social Darwinism.” Wikipedia.
No one is saying that Darwin’s theories weren’t considered valid on the contrary, most people believed they were. Darwin’ personal racism or lack thereof probably had nothing to do with Hitler’s decision to implement his interpretation of natural selection.
Oppps
Wolfhound
Boring troll is boring.
A well thought out explanation for my question. So we can surmise you have no answer.
Chris –
Victorian Racism existed long before Darwin. People perverted Darwin’s words to support their beliefs, just like how people like you pervert the teachings of your bible to support your YEC nutjob beliefs.
zygosporangia
A good example of perverting Darwin’s words is what you just said. The implication that Hitler had no influence by evolutionary theory is a mater of faith. A faith that has developed in an effort to preserve the sanctity of Darwinism’s holy text. Your religious ideology has little to do with reality.
Funny… because I’m not the one insistent on the world being six thousand years old. That doesn’t even make logical sense.
z man
You’ve got remember you’re view is not into or supported by logical or common sense. It’s about the physical evidence as interpreted by people who believe dirt made itself.
Really? My view doesn’t make logical sense. Your view consists of talking snakes, men who walk on water and part seas, burning bushes, people turning to salt, magic horns that bring down walls, manna, laying of hands, and anti-homosexual propaganda.
Go away, troll. You’ve ceased being entertaining.
Yawn. This is getting very tedious.
Your answer to the yolk sac question doesn’t fly. If you could provide me a link to one scientific study that shows this, I’d appreciate it. Note: AIG doesn’t count, in case you had difficulty with the “scientific” portion of that request. And please no quote mining either.
I also see you are still ignoring the occasional appearance of hind limbs in whales question.
This is a mere curiosity question for Chris, but are you a YEC, or more along the lines of Hugh Ross?
Your quote from Wikipedia was awesome, BTW. Social Darwinism and Darwinism are two separate issues. Here’s a link for you:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=272
which deals with one fallacy (of the many) in ID’ers trying to link Natural Selection to Hitler. That’s leaving aside all the other historical fallacies about this claim.
ZYG: you forgot to include these gems of scientific wisdom
(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
(b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
(c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
(d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
(e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
(f) Camels don’t divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
(g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
(h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
(i) The earth won’t be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
(j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
(k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
(l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
(m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
(n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
(o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
(p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
(q) The world’s language didn’t evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
(r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
cockatrices (Jer. 8:17, Isa. 11:8 59:5),
unicorns (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),
satyrs (Isa. 34:14, 13:21)
fiery serpents (Num. 21:6),
and flying serpents (Isa. 14:29, 30:6).
Logic and common sense uh Chris?
Chris/Moron,
What part of “social Darwinism has little to do with Darwin or evolution” do you not understand? The concept of genetically inferior races, is a purely social Darwinistic concept that predates Origin of Species, Darwin, and goes against the principles of evolution as it is presented in Origin of Species altogether. In fact, seeing how you’ve claimed to have read the wiki on social Darwinism, why are you intentionally ignoring section where it states that overall, social Darwinism’s links to Darwin are in name only, and instead draws heavily from the writings of Spencer, Malthus, Lamarck, and others who predate Darwin?
People like you and Johnny are the ones who live in a dream world, where evil people exist and do evil things solely as a result of not believing in your Christian God. Wake up or grow up, kid. And when you do, drive this concept in to your head:
“Faith in the absence of evidence is faith. Faith in contradiction with existing evidence is delusion.”
Repeat until cured of stupid.
IR
This is really comical you think making a whale out of a dog is science and ivorygirl freaks out at a Biblical foul with four legs. I can show you a fowl with four legs can you show me a whale that has four legs?
This article might make you happy because it refers to the yolk sac as the extraembryonic yolk sac. However if it’s removed early on you got a dead kid, there is nothing extra about it.
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/12/4474
Ivorygirl
You should take a little time to check out these claims before you just cut an paste. Misinterpretations, meanings taken out of context. Ignorance of Hebrew language and culture, Just because 25th century BC Hebrew animal identifications doesn’t completely match up with present day 21st century AD biological classifications based on evolutionary propaganda, doesn’t mean they are wrong.
I suppose all that geocentricism, flat earth, space being filled with water, and the non-existence of other stars and planets shouldn’t be considered wrong as well. Misinterpretations? Meanings taken out of context? Ignorance of ancient Hebrew? What makes you so sure that these all can apply to the numerous absurd cosmological and biological explanations made by the bible, but Genesis happened exactly as it was written? Dirt transmuting into a fully-formed, living, breathing human after being exposed to the magical divine energy of God? How can you even claim this with a straight face after conceding to the fallacious nature of man’s interpretation of the Bible?
Karl
I could ask you the same question. How could you except the elusive magical game of chance to produce all there is out of nothing, with a straight face. That takes a volume of faith I don’t have. I could call you a moron and all the other stuff.
So what’s the difference ? Is it that you have peer review? A group of knowledgeable people who are experts in their fields and give substance to a claim. However the peer review group is composed of people who already except and believe that the foundation for the claim is concert and anything which moves far from it will fail. This is no different than establishing a religious doctrine by missionaries of any given faith.
And you are correct. A simple look at most of the claims made by atheist and humanist about a Book they don’t believe in are biased with their own religious views.
I can definitely say that evolution works because it’s mechanisms work. Natural selection can be tested. Mutations can be induced. Probabilities in this so-called “game of chance” have been mathematically calculated. Science does not work like faith. BTW, that “producing everything out of nothing” crap has nothing to do with evolution for the nth time. We keep telling you that it’s related to abiogenesis hypothesis but you just don’t listen do ya?
For a self-proclaimed religious person, you surprise me with your behavior because from you’ve demonstrated, you have NO IDEA what faith is. That driving force behind all the idiocy you’ve posted here? Not faith! What I do see fear, hatred, and self-delusion. You also don’t seem to realize that this sorry attempt at proselytizing appears to generate a lot of negative attitudes towards Christianity in general. Intentional? Hate God but too chicken to outright say it so you make his institution look as bad as possible through these indirect means? Think he won’t see through your bullshit when you stand before him in judgment?
Do you think you’re being witty posting that dog’s-to-whale crap? It only shows that you don’t know what evolution is or how it works. What you know about evolution appears to solely be limited to the lies and misinformation cooked up by AIG/Discovery Institute or just plain pulled out of nowhere. However, my calling them lies and misinformation is NOT an opinion. Their assertions and conclusions flat out ignore or contradict most available physical evidence and do nothing to refute the scientifically established interpretations of evidence. Overall, it would be like me getting all my information about Christianity from militant atheists, or some non-Abrahamic religion. You arbitrarily dismiss scientific examples from genetics, geology, and basic chemistry as being flawed or outright wrong. Wrong to who? You maybe? But that would make it an opinion, not a fact. And you conveniently leave out any sort of justification for it. Fine for an opinion but useless in a debate about the facts.
***Still waiting on your evidence that our understanding of vestigial organs and genes are flawed***
On a different note, you never answered whether you’ve gotten the H1N1 vaccine, Chris. Anyone in your family use recombinant insulin? Ever taken an antibiotic? How does it feel to take the gifts borne from the blood of the beast within your body? Does it tickle? Or squirm inside you?
Chris, speaking of misinterpretation, I read the paper you linked to and nowhere in the research does it support your claim of “…if it’s removed early on you got a dead kid, there is nothing extra about it.”
In fact, this paper deals with aborted fetus’, and nowhere is the abortion performed by removing the yolk sac to see if this works. I’m not sure where you get this from, but I’d love to see the written proposal behind this idea. A woman comes in to terminate her pregnancy and you offer her the blind trial where, you remove the yolk sac of her fetus in order to see if the fetus aborts.
“I can show you a fowl with four legs can you show me a whale that has four legs”
Anyhow, regarding the tiresome point on whales, there are examples of whales born with four limbs. That’s the point. Occasionally these hind limbs appear, go back and look at the video which has the dolphin with two hind limbs. Or the whale that developed these hind limbs in which the leg bones are clearly identifiable.
Is it just me, or is engaging in honest debate with someone who is not an honest debater a huge waste of time?
IR
Early human nutrition and chorionic villous vascularization.
Babette A.M. Lisman, M.D.*, Niek Exalto, M.D., Ph.D. â€
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Spaarne Ziekenhuis Haarlem and Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam
ABSTRACT
The yolk sac plays an active and important role in embryonic nutrition and organogenesis, and therefore can not be considered a vestigial organ. Since the last decade the functional significance of the placental circulation during the first trimester is discussed because of an absent maternal intervillous circulation during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The development of the embryo takes place in an oxygen poor environment and the yolk sac turned out to be important for the intercession of embryonic nutrition during the developmental period. Furthermore, the human yolk sac is the main source of numerous proteins and its biosynthetic activity plays an important role in haematopoiesis. Experiments on animals have demonstrated that the yolk sac can be damaged by various substances resulting in embryonic malformations. Ultrasonic studies examining the secondary yolk sac size do not appear to be a sensitive predictor of embryonic integrity and pregnancy outcome. Apart from implantation and organogenesis the development of the placenta tales place during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy but will not be functional until thereafter. The development of the chorionic villous vascular system in first trimester pregnancies is characterized by maturation of luminized vessels from primitive hemangioblastic cords and margination to a situation of peripherally located vessels. Normal chorionic villous vascularization is essential for the undisturbed development of pregnancy. Deficient vasculogenesis may play a role in pathological pregnancy. More clinical studies in this field should be performed to investigate chorionic villous vascularization in complicated pregnancy and its consequences.
I’d like to read the actual paper, but the abstract you have placed in the comments still doesn’t say what you are claiming, ie, damaged yolk sac equals DEAD kids. Even so, I’ll assume the actual paper indicates some support for your claim that the yolk sac is not vestigial.
This still leaves half a dozen other points which you either fail to address (still waiting for support on the whole “thoze arnt leg bones, they r penis strut!!1!” claim for whales) or misinterpret.
I feel like things are going in an endless circle. It’s been over two weeks since this entry was first posted and not only have things gone horribly astray from the actual topic—I think we science minded are at fault as well for engaging the creationist crowd in the tangents they go off on—but I frankly don’t think we will make any headway with the faith-based crowd. At least the ones who have shown up here. I’m sure I’ll encounter this again at some point in the future when I post to another topic, but I’m done with this one.
Have a happy Thanksgiving and good luck with the creatards. See you all on some future entry!
Overall, it’s like arguing with a kid who has ADD. Fun at first but gets nauseating afterward. Kinda sad when you see what religious extremism does to the human mind…
Here’s a little info about whale ancestry.
Andrewsarchus
Andrewsarchus is known only from an enormous skull (32.8 in/83Â cm long and 22/56Â cm wide)[1] and pieces of bone. Nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrewsarchus
Pakicetus
Complete skeletons were discovered in 2001, revealing that Pakicetus was primarily a land animal, about the size of a wolf, and very similar in form to the related mesonychids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus
Mesonychid
The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial resemblance to wolves. Mesonychians were ONCE long considered to be creodonts but have now been REMOVED from that order and placed in three families (Mesonychidae, Hapalodectidae, Triisodontidae), either within their own order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychid
Basilosaurus
Basilosaurus averaged about 18 meters (60 ft) in length, and is believed to have been the largest animal to have lived in its time. The were fully aquatic – not a part time land dweller.
The creature had two back limbs which are believed to have been used for grasping in reproduction. The were of no value at all for walking, Basilosaurus was a sea creature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrarchos.jpg
In 1845, “Dr.†Albert Koch heard stories of giant bones in Alabama, and went down to cobble together a full skeleton. He eventually created a huge 114-foot (35 m) skeleton of a “sea serpent†he called “Hydrarchos”, which he displayed in New York City, and later Europe. It was eventually shown to have come from 5 different individuals, some of which were not Basilosaurus. The remains were eventually destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire.
Some possible recent accounts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_serpent
If you can suck this up all I can say is you got faith.
A few more things to consider. An unidentified sea creature became an land animal, then possibly became a mammal a then became a sea creature again. The creature would have to lose its shaggy hair, its backbone flexibility and its waggly little tail; its nostrils would have had to move from the end of the snout to the top of the head, the long front legs would have had to change into flippers, the back legs would have had to disappear, and the external ears would have had to become internal for the shape to become streamlined. They would have to develop hearing changes. The ability to have babies underwater. Whale babies are born tail first and then they imminently swim to the surface for their first breath. Babies would have to develop new ways to feed. http://blog.tepapa.govt.nz/2008/05/08/how-baby-whales-feed/
Major breathing adjustments, some whale can stay under water for 1 1/2 hours. Some can dive over three thousand feet. When an animal or a person dives, the increased pressure causes more nitrogen from the air to dissolve into the body’s fluids and tissues. As they return to the surface, bubbles of nitrogen may re-form in the tissues and blood, causing what is known as the ‘bends’. Dolphins and whales have a different air exchange system which allows them to avoid the bends. Their lungs are also supplied with very fine capillaries which allow the dissolved nitrogen to return rapidly from the blood to the lungs without causing bubbles. Another amazing difference between whales and land mammals is that when they are at the surface they can exchange 90 per cent of the lungs’ stale air with fresh air in less than a second. Compare this with humans, who can only exchange 30 per cent in one breath.
Whales and dolphins make clicking and whistling sounds which give information about their surroundings by the returning echoes. To do this, they need special structures for making and focusing the sounds, plus they need special oil-filled sinuses in the lower jaw which pass the echo to the inner ear.
Most echo-locating dolphins and small whales possess a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sophisticated structure designed to focus sound waves (originally emitted by the animal) to form a clear sound ‘picture’. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves travelling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to sharply focus the returning sound from echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes. For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed exactly the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been no use. Therefore natural selection would not have favoured incomplete intermediate forms.
Of course science can ignore all these facts in the sacred name of evolution to protect and promote the fantasy that the two mysterious bones assigned a rear leg position are evidence that the whale once was a wolf.
Happy Thanksgiving to you also. But who do you thank?
IR
Sense you’re into penises.
Since you are so into religious extremism and indoctrination of children.
Also, consider this a rude awakening from your little Hitler-Darwin dreamworld.
http://www.alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html
Karl
Wow those people are nuts.
The Catholic Church has little problem with evolutionary fantasies and making up their own doctrines. They might have done well with Hitler.
Sure the Phelps clan are a nutty bunch, but why do creationists such as yourself aspire to reach their level of lunacy and hatred?
So, we have photos of high level Nazis being all chummy with various members of the Catholic church, Hitler’s own words and literally thousands of pages of Nazi documents on the religious source of inspiration for the Nazi antisemitic and genocidal policies, and you still want to equate Hitler to Darwin? Hell, why not equate Hitler to Catholicism? I’d probably even cheer for you guys seeing how big a mess their missionaries made in Africa regarding contraceptives and HIV infections…
Tell ya what, if you can find even a reference to Darwin from Hitler’s speeches, books, Nazi documents, etc, or maybe photo of Hitler with some Darwin memorabilia, like a picture of Darwin on his desk or an actual copy of Origin of Species in his possession/personal library (and not being thrown into a bonfire as was the fate of most non-German literature at the time. Also the Bronn “translation” doesn’t count because all that “perfect race” crap and other social Darwinistic implications were added by Bronn himself, and were not present in the original English text). Hell, a picture of Hitler standing next to a memorial of Darwin would probably do it. Oh, and in case your ADD kicks in again, please look at the wiki for “social Darwinism” for a refresher on just how different and contradictory it is to Darwin’s actual ideas. You seem so sure of this Hitler-Darwin link. Why you holdin’ out on the evidence?
Karl
There you go with your twisted imagination, try to stay focused on reality, I’m not a Catholic, don’t hate anybody and you’re not a monkey.
Now getting back to Hitler. Did Hitler have a centerfold of Darwin hanging in the bathroom? I doubt it.
So we are to assume that Hitler was not influenced by the tenets of the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life or natural selection coined by Darwin.
Having independently applied the science and being possibly the first to propagate a favored human race through natural and artificial selection, shouldn’t he be honored no less than Darwin? The elimination of the weaker species through superiority shows Hitler saw biological evolution positively induced as a beneficial advancement for the human race.
This independent example should be used as conformation for Darwin’s observations.
IR
It is tiring to think that fish became dogs and then the dogs became whales. But I was wondering if the so called leg bones still have the same meaning as the did before whale ancestry was reclassified? Does this mean that whales have no ancestor?
The problem here is that the interpretation of “favored races” and “natural selection” shared by yourself and Hitler is remarkably different to how Darwin was using these terms to describe the mechanisms of evolution. By race, Darwin was specifically referring to the entire human race as a species, not the multitudes of different ethnic groups that we culturally perceive as different “races” within the human population. Darwin elaborates on this concept in his second book, Descent of Man, and specifically made a case against the classification and ranking of different “races” within the human species. But I’m sure you (and Hitler) conveniently ignore this fact.
The only thing that Hitler’s eugenics program demonstrates is how institutionalized inbreeding and reducing the genetic variation within a population through sterilization/execution of undesirables can reduce the overall survivability of said population. Darwin mentioned this in Oirin of Species and in his critics on eugenics. If Hitler was such a fan of his work (and literate in the English language), wouldn’t he have paid attention to this little caveat and realized that a eugenics program would cripple his idea for a so-called superior Aryan master race. Guess he forgot the science on that little detail.
I am happy someone was willing to finally clear things up on this. I have contemplated it many times before. 🙂
Here’s a funny quote to make you smile 🙂
Could crop circles be the work of a cereal killer? 🙂