4a. Ten Impossibilities of Evolution


 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Ten examples are:

  1. Sexual Reproduction and Mitosis
  2. Flight
  3. Birds and Eggs and Bird Nests
  4. Eyes and Hearts
  5. Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
  6. The Kreb’s Citric Acid Cycle
  7. Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
  8. Hemoglobin
  9. Insects, spiders, and their webs
  10. Bird teeth and boney jaws evolving then dis-evolving, forming beaks

(1) Sexual reproduction is an all or none event. Would an evolutionist say that one multi-cellular animal grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a species? What microsteps to sexual reproduction could possibly have occurred? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The mutations and NS of one gender would have to “know” what mutations and NS were taking place for the other gender. And since there is no intelligence involved, according to evolutionists, this scenario is not possible.

On March 13, 2008 I attended a lecture on Darwin and the TOE at the Ayn Rand institute in Costa Mesa, California. The lecturer discussed how Darwin was concerned that it may have been impossible for two separate vertebrate sexual beings to evolve, since one set of mutations would have to know what the other was forming,which would require intelligence. In the ensuing years a great deal of study was done on barnacles. It was found that the male barnacle was flea sized and attached itself to the large female, and somehow that explained the M and NS of vertebrate sexuality. I don’t get it, but that was the explanation. More ev-illusion.

The same is true with cell mitosis (cell splitting for reproduction). Mitosis is an all or none event. Cells cannot split .00001, then .00002…….Mitosis cannot evolve in small steps. Period.  It’s a split or no split deal.  The other major problem is the fact that for evolution to occur, cells must go through mitosis so that traits and mutations can be passed on the future generations and be improved upon. In other words, mitosis can’t evolve unless there is mitosis!

The fertilization of the female egg by a sperm is also all-or-none. So is copulation.  

Below is a video that I made on the subject of sexual reproduction. To watch, press the lower left arrow so you won’t leave the page.

bird-flight.jpg

(2) Birds and Flight: Evo-illusionists explain flight by saying that insects were the first to fly. Somehow because insects are small, evolutionists think that they will provide an acceptable explanation for the beginnings of flight evolution. However big or small a species might be, evolution cannot in any way explain flight.

Did a bird grow appendages over the millennia that eventually flapped up and down, causing the bird, to fly? Just think what a heckuva surprise that must have been for the first individual that flew! There simply is no possible scenario that would explain the origins of bird flight that would include mutations and natural selection. Of course, there are absolutely no fossils that help evolution along here, as usual. The beginnings of insect flight also remain  obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. And there is no known imaginable  and reasonable path to flight that could be developed by random mutations and natural selection.

Microraptor Fossil

A Nova program on this fascinating species “The Four Winged Dinosaur” (Feb. 6, 2008 PBS) was dedicated to the remarkable discovery of A. Microraptor, pictured at left, a newly found dinosaur flier.  A large portion of the program was devoted to the evolution of flight. This was certainly another in the amazing list of evolution science programs which try to make the absolutely impossible seem like it could be possible. The part on the evolution of bird flight was nothing short of unbelievable. According to the program, “The origin of flight in birds is a puzzle that seems to defy solution. The fossil record provides few clues as to how it happened. The aerial skills of modern fliers evolved in small steps over millions of years.” (How do they know, since there is absolutely zero fossil evidence showing how it happened?) They then went on to describe the three most accepted theories of how it did happen, all equally impossible but believed by many in the world of evolution:

(A) Flight started from the “ground up”. The running leaps of dinosaurs evolved into the powered flight of birds. Nova explains that this theory “works” against gravity, and therefore is the most difficult of the three theories and very unlikely. A video cartoon of a running raptor was shown. With every few steps, the raptor would leap forward. The raptor gradually got smaller and smaller, and it began sprouting wings! (Why would it get smaller? So it can be more easily digested by its predators?) And, bingo, it evolved into a bird and flew off! (I wonder if the offspring of an animal today, who ran from predators and leaped, would sprout wings and fly. Oh, I forgot, that only happened “a long long time ago” when nobody could view the process.)

(B) The “arboreal origin of flight”. Supposedly the dinosaur would climb a tree and fall/fly out, creating the birth of flight. The only problem with this scenario says Nova is that dinosaurs could not climb trees.

(C) A new theory was presented by Ken Dial, a well known dinosaur biologist. He says, “Birds tell us how they did it.” He used baby birds of a variety he called “chuckers” to show his thinking. When he put the baby chuckers on a very steep inclined plane, the birds would try to run up, and flap their not yet fully grown wings to help them get to the top. They would then power fly down, using their wings the whole way, with no gliding. Dial says this is the evidence of how bird evolution took place. (Only an evolution scientist would take a birdie exercise board and turn it into the solution for one of the most amazing puzzles in nature: the origin of flight! Most people would think the way the baby bird struggled up that board was just cute! Again, dinosaurs couldn’t climb. And, why would they have wings that were useless in the first place, which they were until they were formed enough so the dinosaur could fly? I know, I know; they mutated and were “selected.)

Another interesting feature of bird fliers is the fact that their bones are hollow, which reduces their weight. This, of course makes them more capable fliers. Were early fliers, which haven’t been found, capable of only getting a few feet off the ground until they evolved hollow bones?

The bottom line is that there is absolutely zero evidence for how birds evolved flight. Birds showed up in the fossil record suddenly, with no reasonable precursors in earlier strata. Ev-illusionists list theropod dinosaurs as precursors, but this is beyond preposterous.  Bipedal dinosaurs with ultra-tiny arms, immense boney tails, a vicious set of teeth, and scales, had to dis-evolve those tails, dis-evolve the teeth then evolve beaks, get tiny and light, evolve large aerodynamic wings, evolve feathers, and learn flight.  Ev-illusionists couldn’t have picked a more illogical and preposterous precursor than theropods.  Why did they? Which animal would you pick from over 150 million years ago that was a bird precursor? The pickin’s are thin. There simply aren’t any animals to choose from other than dinosaurs. Remember, fish begat amphibians begat dinosaurs, which begat mammals.  Where would birds fit in? Evo-illusionists HAD to select a dinosaur species as a bird precursor. That’s all there was, so they are stuck. They couldn’t pick fish, or frogs, or worms, or insects… Archeopteryx was supposedly the first true bird, but it also had a large boney tail, sharp teeth (no beak), and we don’t even know if it was capable of flight due to it’s anti-flight musculo-skeletal characteristics.

Leave it to ev-illusionists to make up three impossible scenarios for how flight  “might” have evolved. The best scenario would be that flight could not and was not caused by naturally selected mutations, and we actually have no idea what did cause it.

dragonfly2.jpgfirstinsect1.jpg

Above are two of the earliest insects: the dragonfly, and palaeoptera

The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, estimated at 396-407 million years old.This species possessed dicondylic mandibles, a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings were already present at this time. Ev-illusionists think the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period.  Of course there is no fossil evidence showing that fact, so they have to make it up to allow enough time for the thousands of microsteps to evolve insect flight.
The origin of insect flight remains obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. So where is the evolution? Evo-illusionists think the wings themselves are highly modified tracheal gills, since the tracheal gills of the mayfly nymph in many species “look like” wings, they therefore must have evolved into them. Evo-illusionists say that by  comparing a well developed pair of gill blades in the naiads and a reduced pair of hind wings on the adults, “it is not hard to imagine that” the mayfly gills (tergaliae) and insect wings have a common origin.  Actually it is not hard for any evo-illusionist to imagine anything as long as it fits the needs for their “proof”. And anything that looks the slightest bit like anything else must have evolved into it.

A note about Birds: Birds have completely unusual lung systems due to their high demand for oxygen during flight. They are made up of nine air sacks which fill with fresh air.  The air goes into the lung from the sacks when  birds exhale.  These specialized lungs and their sacks need support from bird femurs, which are fixed.  Bird knees are buried within the soft feather/skin covering of the bird and cannot be seen. What looks like their lower leg (tibia/fibula) is part of their foot. What looks like our knee joint is their ankle.  Birds are “knee runners”.  Below are the skeletons of  two non-flying birds, an emu (left) and an ostrich.  Even though they don’t fly, you can see how the femurs would be buried under their feather/skin.

Below are two videos that I made on the evolution of flight. Press the lower left arrow to view so you won’t leave the page.


(3) Birds, eggs, and arboreal nests cannot have possibly originated through the “wonders” of evolution. Not much explanation is required here. Do your own mental nestsexperiment and you would have to come to the same conclusion. Of course there cannot be birds without eggs, or eggs without birds to hatch them.

In reality, the old adage about “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” has many more nuances than first meets the fully evolved eye. A chicken egg has over 10,000 pores that allow air into the egg. If there were no pores, the chick would suffocate before it could even get started. As the chick forms, it is nourished by the yolk. And, as the chick grows, it has to displace liquid that is present and forms in the egg. The pores act as miniature drains to eliminate the fluid. The chick attaches blood vessels to the thin membrane, that we are all familiar with, that forms just inside of the shell. This membrane helps to oxygenate the chick embryo. Other vessels attach to the yolk for nourishment. The small void that we see in the egg is actually an air pocket. When the chick is nearly ready to hatch, it needs an extra dose of air, and this small void gives it six hours of air so that it can begin the process of breaking out of the egg. The chick has a small tooth that forms on the outside of its beak. On the 19th day the chick breaks a hole in the shell to allow air in. It breathes through this hole for two days. On day 21 it completes the job of breaking the shell, and hatching occurs. So, the “Which came first…………” adage is far more complex than we could even imagine. The idea that mutations and natural selection brought about this process is unimaginable, and simply not possible.

And what scenario could there possibly be for arboreal “branch” bird nests to evolve? Or really any bird nest? Bird nests are beyond fascinating.  They are feats of engineering beyond our own ability to construct.  Try it yourself.  See if you can weave those tiny twigs and straw into anything that looks nest-like; with your hands.  You will fail quickly.  Now try it  with your teeth.  Remember, birds weave their incredible artistry with their beaks! They have no fingers to help them along.  There are an immense number of incredible designs for bird nests. Evo-illusionists say birds first made nests in tree-holes.  Then the tree-hole nesting birds gradually move out to the branches.  But if you compare the two pictures above, you will quickly see the differences in engineering required for both. Try to imagine the branch nest evolving from the tree hole nest.  What adventurist bird had the “guts” to try moving its nest out to those thin branches, then laying eggs on the first prototype nest? Was that first prototype a few twigs with eggs? Did the eggs splat? Did the twigs fall?  Were those first courageous inventive birds observed by other birds who tried to copy the nest building of the first few birds that gave branch nest building a try? If the eggs fell, why would an intelligent bird capable of thinking and copying, if there was such a bird, try to copy the first birds?  Did a bird that saw the first few failures think it could make a better branch nest? Do birds think to that degree?  Maybe millions of years ago there were highly intelligent “Sir Isaac Newton” birds that were thinkers.  Actually, any scenario is ridiculous.

The Megapode bird of New Guinea, north of Australia, makes a 12-foot-high pile of vegetation. The bird is about a foot tall, so this is like a six-foot-tall person building a seventy foot tall building.  A smaller megapode nest is at left. •The mallee fowl, the best known of the group of mgapodes, is about two feet  long and has white-spotted, light brown plumage.  The male builds a mound of decaying vegetation, which may require 11 months to construct. The result is a low mound, about three  feet in the ground and up to five feet across, made up of  twigs and leaves soaked with rain and covered with a foot and half  of sandy soil. When the heat of fermentation inside the mound reaches 91° F, the female lays the first of about 35 eggs in a central chamber. The male maintains a nest temperature amazingly close to 91° F even when there is daily and seasonal weather variation. Mallee ggs hatch in seven weeks, and the hatchlings dig upward through the mound and run off on their own. They can fly one or two days after hatching.

The South American ovenbird, which may take months to construct one nest from clay or mud mixed with bits of straw, hair, and fibers. The tropical sun bakes the walls and makes them hard as concrete.  The American bald eagle uses sticks, some two inches thick and several feet long, to make nests strong enough to support a human adult. They may look like an unorganized mix of  building materials, but the sticks are usually placed in layers, beginning with a triangle, followed by more rotated, triangular layers. Their nests are five feet in diameter. 

Birds are capable of marvelous engineering feats. But they are not engineers; not in the way you might think anyway. They don’t train and study engineering or nest building.  They don’t have teachers.  Parents don’t teach them.  They don’t even learn how to build by watching their parents or each other.  Just as birds know how to fly, they know how to build a nest without the teaching and instruction from parent birds. Nest building is a matter of instinct, and not learned, according to scientists.  “They are ‘hard-wired,’ Douglas Causey of Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, says, “sort of like robots.” Birds construct their nests without consciously thinking about it.  How then did some species of birds develop such well-engineered, elaborate nests? Books have been written on the subject without providing a single clue, says Jeremiah Trimble, an assistant in the Harvard museum’s bird department.

Here is a tongue in cheek example of what good science should try to determine, search out, andcome up with.  A step by step description of how arboreal branch bird nests came about:

1, Millions of years ago, birds placed their eggs on the ground; on dirt and grasses.

2. Eventually some birds found that a solid base on higher elevations was safer for their clutch. They began laying the eggs in small “caves” high on cliffs. That way fewer predators could eat their eggs and young.

3. Due to the lack of room and low number of small caves, some found holes in trees worked well. They laid their eggs on the solid “floor” of holes high up in trees. The hard surface caused the breakage of many eggs. The birds that lost their eggs had to start all over.

4. Some birds found it advantageous to add small straw and twig mats as cushions on the floor of the caves and holes. The cushions were selected for because eggs were far less likely to break. The cushions were embedded in the DNA of the birds that made the cushions. The idea spread to other birds. Their DNA was also altered to favor the cushions.

5. Some “cushion” birds began weaving the straw and twigs into more complex cushions which helped them stay together and give better cushioning.

6. The number of birds greatly exceeded the number of caves and tree holes. As a last resort, some birds had to lay eggs on the “Y” of tree branches. Many held, but many also fell and went “splat”. Birds with multiple-egg clutches lost many eggs.

7. Some bird mutations formed “super-glue” in their saliva.  The glue was found to be an advantage, and was selected for, and coded in their DNA. The glue was used by the glue-birds to attach their eggs to a tree branch “Y” and prevented many splats.

8. Due to a low number of “Y” tree branches that were capable of holding eggs, and due to the great number of “splats”, some birds began moving their eggs farther out on the branches. But to their dismay, more eggs fell. Few eggs held on those round branches.

9. Some birds that had learned nest weaving on solid surfaces began weaving a few twigs and straws on a branch. Placing the eggs on these few straws and twigs caused many more splats, but at least they had a place to lay their eggs. Out of pure unadulterated luck, those early nests were able to hold SOME eggs.

10. Over time some birds began adding and weaving more and more straws and twigs, making larger and larger branch cushions. The large cushions were selected for because they were advantageous.

11. Over thousand of generations, just enough “branch cushion birds” were left to improve the cushions and form them into cupped nests.  The cups were selected for because they held the eggs much more efficiently.

12.  Some birds began weaving the cupped cushions right onto the tree branch, which made them very stable. Other birds saw, and followed suit. Bird nests became very stable and secure, greatly reducing the number of splats.

13. Some bird species did go extinct due to the large number of splats, but the smarter species did survive due to the fact that they were able to invent new and better ways to weave their nests into the tree branches. The birds whose nests didn’t cause the eggs to fall were selected for. The result of this trial and error nest invention saga is the wonderful bird nests we have today.

Does this sound like an absurd series of events? It is, of course. But it’s all I could come up with in trying my level best to help evolution along and figure out how bird nests came about. So, as silly as this story is, it’s told from the perspective of how an evolutionaut might see the formation of bird nests.  Whatever story they might come up with would be so ridiculous that they really don’t want to think about it.  So what they will do is preemptively demean the question and try (and fail) to make the questioner look as stupid and silly as they possibly can.  That’s their best strategy for sure. Because any attempt they might make at explaining bird nests would look as silly as this scenario.

As always, evolutionauts never like to think about the reality of their scenario. No plausible evolution scenario  can be penciled out.  The details must be ignored, as with all the details of the evolution of all bio-systems. “They started simpler, then got more complex because that’s an advantage…..” And that’s it.

If we bring up arboreal bird nests, why not beaver dams?  Did a beaver place a twig in a river/stream that slowed up some edible vegetation, which allowed for the vegetation to be caught by the beaver? Then, next generation two twigs? Why wouldn’t the first twigs get swept away? Were the first twig placing beavers so adept at placing twigs that they remained in place? Did the advantages of a few twigs slowing rivers and streams then spur the formation of larger and larger dams? Then, thousands of years later, finally, fully formed dams like the one at left? ? Is this scenario imaginable? Arboreal bird nests actually bring up all kinds of other “nesting/living/hunting” entities in nature that simply could not have come about if evolution was the source of all of nature.

An interesting note on beaver dams: Beavers are most famous, and infamous, for their dam-building. They maintain their pond-habitat by reacting quickly to the sound of running water, and damming it up with tree branches and mud. Early ecologists believed that this dam-building was an amazing feat of architectural planning, indicative of the beaver’s high intellect. This theory was questioned when a recording of running water was played in a field near a beaver pond. Despite the fact that it was on dry land, the beavers covered the tape player with branches and mud. The largest beaver dam is 2,790 ft (850 m) in length—more than half a mile long—and was discovered via satellite imagery in 2007.It is located on the southern edge of Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta and is twice the width of the Hoover dam which spans 1,244 ft (379 m). (Wikipedia)


Chicken Teeth are the Whoopee Cushion of Evolution:  

I’ve had numerous evolutionauts challenge my thinking with chicken teeth.  I thought it would be helpful if I addresses chicken teeth here where I can write enough to give a more thorough accounting of why chicken teeth are an awful choice for their defense of evolution.  What could be more humorous than an argument over chicken teeth!  Can you imagine if Einstein needed chicken teeth to support the Theory of Relativity?  This is nothing but a great shtick for a standup
comedian.  Chicken teeth are studied and written about by respected evolution scientists.  So, as absurd as they are, I will try to address chicken teeth on a serious vein. 

Working late in the developmental biology lab one night, Matthew Harris of the University of Wisconsin noticed that the beak of a mutant chicken embryo he was examining had fallen off. Harris closely examined the broken beak and found tiny bumps along its edge that looked like teeth.  Harris thought they closely resembled alligator teeth.  Upper left, encircled, are the chicken teeth that Harris discovered.  Below left are alligator teeth.  One wonders if Harris forgot his glasses that night.  Do Harris’s “chicken teeth” look like alligator teeth?  The skeptic in me wonders why alligators were the comparison in the first place when there are millions of toothed animal species on the planet.  Anyway, Harris did think the “teeth” resembled alligator teeth.  According to evolution science, the accidental discovery revealed that chickens retain the ability to grow teeth, even though birds lost this feature long ago. 

Alligators have a unique set of teeth.  Like human teeth, and unlike chicken “teeth”, alligators have teeth set in bony sockets.  They are able to replace their teeth throughout their life.  Wouldn’t it be nice if humans had the same talent?  The ability of an alligator to replace their teeth deteriorates as they age.  As young alligators grow in physical size, they can replace teeth with larger ones every thirty days or so.  . After reaching adult size in a few years, however, tooth replacement rates can slow to several years and even longer. Very old members of some species have been seen in an almost toothless state, after teeth have been broken and replacement slowed or ceased. Alligators can go through over 3,000 teeth in their lifetime. Each tooth is hollow, and the new one is grows inside the old. When an old tooth breaks away, a new one is set to take its place.  Interestingly, alligators don’t use their teeth to chew.  They capture their prey with their teeth, swallow the prey whole.  Alligator teeth have roots that hold them in the jawbone.  They are covered by enamel much like human teeth.  Their tooth body is made of dentin, just like in humans.  Alligator teeth are not like chicken teeth. Or should I say chicken beak bumps. 

My first question which evolutionauts never consider, is why did a predator with sharp vicious teeth get rid of those teeth, one of its main sources of predation and defense? And, of course why did the theropod that lead to chickens get rid of its claws so it could eventually develop useless wings that would never even give it the advantage of flight?  What could be more awkward and defenseless than a chicken?  The notion is absurd, and not at all what evolution describes.  Survival of the fittest and selected advantage is what drives evolution.  Did the pre-chicken eliminate its teeth and claws so it could eventually move to the bottom of the food chain, and be completely defenseless?  So it could make eggs and meat for all of mankind?  Is this evolution in action?  The survival of the weakest? 

The mutant chickens Harris studied bear a recessive trait dubbed talpid2. This trait is lethal, meaning that such mutants are never hatched.  Some incubate for as long as 18 days inside of their eggs.  But they all die before hatching.  Evolution celebrated another great discovery that certainly piles more evidence on top of the “mountains of evidence” they already have.  The bumps on the beak of a mutant chick embryo that can’t even hatch and are labeled chicken teeth is certainly a great example of how weak their mountain really is.  The celebrations are still ongoing.  Ev-illusionists take this information and run with it.  To ev-illusionists, there is no doubt that those tiny spikes are teeth.  Everything moves on as if they are teeth.  There is no doubt.  No ev-illusionist questions.  All discussions and research are done with complete surety that Harris found chicken teeth and another cog in the wheel of evidence that proves ancestry to theropods.  According to ev-illusionists, chicken teeth are a fact!

These chicken teeth have no enamel, no dentin, no root, pulp chamber, periodontal ligament, gingiva (gum tissue) surrounding them like alligator and human teeth do. To classify these mutant bumps as teeth, and then to go on to add them to evidence that shows theropods evolved into chickens is, well, more standup comedy material, nothing more. 

The first thing that comes to mind is, if mutant chick beak bumps are really teeth, why don’t ev-illusionists discuss all of the possibilities for the existence of those teeth?  Is the only possibility that chickens evolved from theropod dinosaurs?  Other possibilities need to be examined and proffered.  Here are some other possibilities that need to be addressed as possibilities:

If evolution is truly valid, chickens may be in the process of evolving teeth.  Instead of chicken teeth being a remnant of a past ancestor, it may be a beginning.  They may be getting rid of their beaks and substituting a set of a vicious teeth through the wonders of natural selection.  After all, aren’t mutations such as these teeth the way evolution works?  Chickens, could be in the process of evolving into predators again!  Million of years from now who knows how dangerous they could become. If they are evolving new teeth, I certainly hope they get rid of the “buck buck buck”.  Just doesn’t go with vicious teeth.  Can you imagine a vicious predator attacking you whilst howling “buck buck buck”?  What is truly amazing is that evolution is devoid of examples of biological systems evolving themselves into existence today.  Why was the idea that chickens might be evolving instead of eliminating teeth not considered?  They may have a plan for survival and revenge on humans (tic) for which they are now such an amazing food supply. Why would a species that so badly needs a defense mechanism to survive get rid of its greatest weapon for survival in the first place?  So they could be food for humans?  Did survival of the fittest work in reverse for chickens so they could be at the bottom of the food chain?  Is this selected mutations in action?  Chickens didn’t evolve the ability to fly, and they got rid of their teeth.  My gawd, what on Earth was natural selection doing to the vicious theropods that supposedly caused them to become chickens?  According to evolution, chickens went from a vicious predator, to the weakest of prey.  Methinks natural selection goofed here.

Chicken teeth may be a constant.  Chickens may have come from some scientifically unknown source, appeared in some unknown way, and the mutation that supposedly forms chicken teeth may be a constant in chickens.  Ev-illusionists will decry the notion that chickens first appeared on Earth as they are as a complete absurdity.  Their choice for you is to believe their own version of an absurdity: that chickens came from theropod dinosaurs.  Which choice is more absurd?  Neither choice seems scientifically possible.  But one choice follows what the fossil record shows: the sudden appearance of species at very different times.  To believe evolution, you must believe what your eyes they do not see.  Evolutionauts have to believe and ev-illusionists must teach that species morphed into other species.  But your eyes see the fossil record which shows the sudden appearance of species, not the gradual morphing.  When your eyes see design, you must believe there is no design.  Your eyes see species that appeared at very different times, remained rather constant, and then either became extinct, or still exist as modern species.  That is what you should go with if you are truly interested in objective science. You should go with what you eyes see, not what someone tells your they should see. 

(4) Eye and heart/lung systems are two excellent examples of organs that cannot have possibly evolved, as any pre-functioning steps to a fully functioning organ

eyeballca659l4x.jpg

 would be completely useless. Evolutionists poo poo this eye/heart challenge, however they never answer it with more than made up fables. Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors.

heart-11.gif

 Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to 


evolve into the 

incredibly complex organs represented by heart/lung and eye systems? In the case of the heart: over 800 million years ago there were no pumps on the entire earth of any kind. Evolution would have to start knitting a few cells together with each generation, with the end result, hundreds of thousands of years later, being a sealed pump and valve capable of moving blood. Of course, the blood couldn’t exist until there was a heart to pump it. Add to that, there were no lungs to oxygenate the blood, and no vessels to get oxygenated blood to the needy cells. It is not even imaginable that a heart and 

all systems required to run it could be produced by mutations and natural selection. Evolutionists make note that there are “simple” and “complex” heart/lung systems in different species today. They ignore that fact that even “simple” heart/lung systems are immensely complex, and that any complexity of heart would be useless until it was evolved into a fully sealed pump.

I was debating website participants from Pharyngula, a University of Minnesota connected website. They wrote a paper describing the evolution of the vertebrate eyes, which they think happened like the drawing at left. I posed the challenge of how could hundreds of thousands of mutations form a binocular vision system when there was no model on the face of the earth. How did the mutations “know” where they were going? Stanton, a commenter there, angrily said that “didn’t I know that protozoans had opsins (vision biochemicals) to use as the model?” Biochemicals in a protozoan were models for a binocular vision system? Absurd. Stanton’s other problem was that admitting to the use of a model admits to intelligence, which copying a model would require.

Evolutionists use placoderms and flatworms as examples of steps in the evolution of eyes. They think that because there are some “simpler” eyes in existence today, that proves evolution. The only problem is placoderms had binocular and possibly color vision. They also had two bony eye sockets. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/basalfish/placodermi.html Flatworms have two eyespots that help them sense light. But this means that they must have optic nerves, and a visual cortex to translate a coded nerve signal into light and some sort of image. Both systems would be immensely complex, and not the simple vision systems required to prove Darwin. http://www.mcwdn.org/Animals/Flatworm.html Out of a billion species that have inhabited the earth, these examples are pathetic anyway. If binocular vision systems evolved by M and NS, there would be overwhelming evidence . And, of course, the question arises, why didn’t  “simple eyed” creatures cited by evolutionauts  fully evolve complex visual systems? Why are they here as “simple” eyes when they have had 2,000 times longer than  evolutionauts say it took eyes to evolve in the first place? Euglena is a single celled species that evolutionauts cite as an example of “simple” visual systems. For one thing, euglena NEVER evolved into a multi -celled species. It’s light sensitive spot isn’t any kind of eye. It reacts to heat or electromagnetic waves, and makes no images. The spot isn’t “light sensitive”, and it  never evolved into anything more than what it is. Euglena had 2,000 times longer than eyes supposedly took to evolve, but it did nothing. That is bent evidence.  Euglena didn’t evolve into multi-celled, the spot didn’t, yet it is used as evidence for evolution of visual systems. Further, since it is single celled, it is not comparable to a visual systems that are COMPOSED of individual cells. It’s EMR sensitive spot is intracellular, so it couldn’t be a building block.

Other factors:

Mutation CPA’s: According to evolutionists, a huge majority of mutations are not “good”. Therefore each selected mutation would have to be accompanied by many “bad” mutations, which would mean one step forward and many steps back. The finish line would never be reached. Did a single mutation cause the same eye parts to form in the right and left eyes? If a mutation caused the formation of 100 retinal cells, did it perform the exact same feat bilaterally? If not, did a later mutation make the 100 retinal cells on one side after an earlier mutation made 100 on the other? Of course the number of cells would have to be exact on each side. What a “bookkeeping” job that must have been for natural selection!

Mutation Location: Why couldn’t a species mutate the wrong type of cells and place them where the retina should be? For example, could mutations have added cartilage cells to the iris, since mutations had no intelligence, which means anything could be possible? If mutations did that, does that mean the host would not have survived? Couldn’t retinal cells be just as easily added to the knee or stomach as to the eye? The complexities for M and NS are so astronomically enormous, logic should tell us they are beyond the world of possibility.

One Species or Many: Did eye and heart systems evolve in just one species, which then spread the miracles to other species? Or, did eye and heart/lung systems evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time, kind of like a huge choir singing? The thought that they evolved in only one animal population is unimaginable, since species can only procreate with their own kind. Even if the population with these organs as a trait was split by geological events numerous times over eons causing the formation of additional species, the result would be that few species today would have eye or heart/lung systems. The reason? Eye and heart/lung systems formed 3.4 billion years after the first living species, and 2.9 billion years after the oldest common ancestor of all of modern life. Between 2.9 BYA and 500 MYA millions of species had to have evolved. There would just be too many species that would not get eyes or hearts from the original single species that evolved them 500 MYA. That scenario just could not produce eye and heart/lung systems in the vast majority of all of modern species that have them today. Also, the thought that vision or heart/lung systems evolved in unison in millions of animals at the same time is completely preposterous.

Evolutionauts, when discussing eye evolution, say that seeing “light and dark” confers a survival/predatory advantage on the species that other species didn’t have. Therefore, it would be “selected for”. They isolate vision as if were the only “advantage” and that it should be considered isolated from other possible advantages. When they discuss vision, notice that other characteristics are never mentioned.  In reality, many “advantages” were evolving, and the food chain would have been complex beyond imagination.  Olfactory systems (smell), teeth, and hearing could well have trumped “light and dark” vision. If a toothless species moved toward a “dark” object, and that object turned out to be a species with teeth, the species with the early vision would be nothing more than a tasty treat for the toothed species. Or how about the case where a two pound eyed species ran into fifty pound blind species.The eyes wouldn’t trump the size. It’s pretty hard to imagine how most multicelled species with very modest size are all equipped with all five senses. One would think that if these senses came about by evolution, the picture wouldn’t be so neat. But it is.

Cornea Retina and Iris: Eyes are capable of auto-adjusting their “f-stops”. The iris consists of pigmented fibrovascular tissue known as a stroma. The stroma connects a sphincter muscle (sphincter pupillae), which contracts the pupil, and a set of dilator muscles (dilator pupillae) which open it. If the retina is overstimulated with too much light, it sends a signal to the brain which then sends a signal back to the muscles that control the iris. The f-stops are then auto-adjusted by the iris, and the light on the retina is reduced to a comfortable level. This all takes place because of an unbelievable series of biochemical reactions that simply could not be evolved in small steps.

The retina is composed of about 120 million cells. These cells combine to connect with the optic nerve which has about 1,200,000 neurons (nerve cells).  The visual cortex has 538,000,000 cells.  An astounding thought is how these all connect up.  The varying numbers of cells of each part must have made an incredibly tough job for evolution.  Think of trying to organize 120,000,000 cells to connect to 1,200,000 cells which then must connect to 538,000,000 cells.  The dumb luck connections and trial and error must have been endless for the organisms that owned the trial visual systems until natural selection got it right. There must have been thousand of generations of nearly blind species until the trial and error ended.  What a thought!

The cornea is the only living tissue in the body that doesn’t have blood supply.  Think of what vision would be like if the cornea had bunches of blood vessels running through it.  We would be nearly blind!  Evolutionauts like to cite the fact that the optic nerve exits the retina toward the front, then makes a turn to go to the back of the eye and on to the visual cortex as horrible design.  Since this design does little to affect our vision, I don’t think evolution has a case.  And my bet is that there is some reason for that design that we are unaware of and cannot test.  Of course scientists cannot take human eyes and redirect the nerve fibers without blinding the test victim.  What evolutionauts don’t mention is the fact that of all of the tissues in the human body, the only one without blood supply is the cornea.  The cornea receives its nourishment from tears and the aqueous humor.  Just imagine if the cornea did have blood vessels and a blood supply.  We humans would be blind.  But somehow, in its immensely intelligent way, natural selection saw to it that there was one and only one tissue in the body without blood supply.  The one we humans NEED to not have a blood supply.

This video shows how Richard Dawkins visualizes the evolution of the eye. This is nothing more than an amazing sham; another pseudo-scientific cartoon with no connection to reality at all. Dawkins doesn’t mention that (1) The “light sensitive cells” have no connection to the brain so the species would not be able to react to light, only the cells may. (2) How does the visual cortex evolve to translate the chemical signal received from the “light cells”. (3) What causes the “indentation”? Why would that occur? (4) How does the chemical signal that travels to the brain form. Is this something mutations can do? I think not. It’s no use even commenting farther on this sham. It’s interesting to read the comments on YouTube. The viewers are almost universally wowed by this Dawkins video.

Evolutionists say that eyes evolved using 100,000 to 500,000 mutations (generations). Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 130 million cells? Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what its job was and what the last mutation accomplished in making retinal cells? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here also? How did the mutations “know” where the cells should be placed. Did some place their cells on the back of the neck? After all, these are mutations!

Evolution likes to claim that the optic nerve evolved from the more “simple” sensory neurons. The big problem here is the fact that the optic nerve is ensheathed in all three meningeal layers (dura, arachnoid, and pia mater) rather than the epineurium, perineurium, and endoneurium found in peripheral nerves. Which means the it could not have evolved from sensory nerves, unless an amazingly large change evolved. This is an important issue, as fiber tracks of the mammalian central nervous system (as opposed to the peripheral nervous system) are incapable of regeneration and hence optic nerve damage produces irreversible blindness. Would this fact fit in with the “survival of the fittest” model?

The really interesting thing about eye and heart evolution is the fact that it supposedly stopped when pretty good perfection was achieved. What would suddenly cause the cessation of mutations, whose frequency should be constant?

Below are three videos that I made on eye evolution. Press the lower left arrow to view so you won’t leave the page.

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9M]

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9KQecDfn_o&feature=channel_page]


Advertisements

484 Comments

  1. ADParker said,

    Whoops, screwed up one of my bold tags in my last (to charlie) there. Oh well, that is what comes of forums on which one can not preview or edit posts I guess.

    • Kent A. Perry said,

      That IS a bothersome issue on this board and I know there are board hacks and various widgets that would make editing like that, a lot easier

  2. ADParker said,

    Charlie said:
    ”We’ll just have to agree to disagree here, ADP.”

    I so dislike that little turn of phrase. Obviously I agree that we don’t agree on this question. Although your own words are saying, although through twists and turns, essentially the same thing I am, the only disagreement is that you are trying to claim it as something that even your own words imply it is not. But “agreeing to disagree” is just a cop-out way of quitting an argument, while avoiding admitting that you no longer feel willing or capable of defending your position.

    Charlie said:
    ”What I will concede is that perhaps it is difficult to defend the Reason line. I will reflect on this point some more.”

    Indeed. Good for you. If you do come up with what you think is a good defence, or realise that it is an abandonment of reason after all (which you all but admitted already, albeit unwittingly) – either or, I would appreciate you letting me know; especially if you come to the former. I am eager to hear any new/viable argument on this issue. (I would prefer it on the Rational Skepticism forum, as this blog is on a different topic, and the forum is better suited for two way discussion, but whatever.)

    Charlie said:
    ”But I do see that you have missed the boat on the Bias line. It is exactly your excess of bias- toward insisting that only materialistic explanations are justified- that prevents you from seeing that Reason is not absent. Albeit at some point a leap is made, which in your eyes is an absolute abandonment of it.”

    What else is this “leap” then, but a leap away from Reason?!
    You just don’t seem to realise that this is precisely the abandonment of reason that I am talking about. Perhaps it is because is this new glommed on “absolute abandonment of it” you just made, and have probably been assuming this whole time. This too is a common problem with apologists, the biggest example being that of their anti-evolution arguments that assumes that any challenge to any aspect of evolutionary biology is a refutation of the ENTIRE theory top to bottom.
    Abandoning reason at any step (no matter how small the ‘leap’) means undermining the entire exercise. Just like adding in some dreamed up number/variable into a mathematical equation undermines and ruins the value of it’s result. Anything that follows after that leap becomes the stuff of that castles built on the sand analogy (the ‘leap’ is the sand, the weak point, the area where reason is abandoned.)

    I am immediately drawn to this well known image, which neatly points out your “leap of Faith”:

    Charlie said:
    ”That I may ‘trust my instincts’ in your jungle scenario and still arrive at my destination does not mean that I will have abandoned all Reason to get there.”

    It means that you abandoned reason (the path) at that point, and attempt at reasoning beyond that is devalued due to that point of abandonment. The point is that now you are wandering around without a path to follow, oh you an try to reason from that point on, but as long as you remain of the defined path (the original line of reasoning) then you are still floundering around, and have put your chances of successfully reaching your destination (the truth) in serious jeopardy.

    Charlie said:
    ”Especially if ‘tracking back’ is simply not an option. Just that Reason alone was not enough. Reason is not absent. Just not enough. You want to call it all or nothing- and primarily because of the Bias toward Materialism- I can’t help that.”

    This has nothing to do with materialism Charlie. But reason itself. I agree that sometimes reason is not enough to find the truth of a matter. But that does not mean that there MUST be something else that is enough to do the job. Perhaps it just means that one can not at this point in time (with the data and reasoning we have available to us) we can not fully solve the puzzle. What you are instead claiming is that there IS something else, something more, that can be added to (or replace) reason in order to reliably reach the truth, to truly KNOW. And this too I have heard many a time. But what is it?! What works better than reason? What transcends the limits of reason to ascertain the truth of a problem?! And how can one assess that this new way of knowing actually works?!
    All I have seen so far is recommendations to “take a leap of Faith”, a clear cut case of abandoning reason and just “going for it”, involving an equally clear cut case of Confirmation Bias, as you are suggesting one ‘leap’ toward a chosen conclusion, namely “God is real.”
    That MAY be a ‘good’ way to latch onto what one WANTS to believe is “The Truth”, and be comforted by the fallacious belief that one now knows, is justified in their conviction, but it is not merely a horribly way to assess the REAL truth-value of a thing, but not a way to do so at all. Instead it is a way to delude yourself into believing that you have.
    And this is the foundational point of Logical Fallacy recognition; One is making an argument, which has a rational flaw, rendering the value of the argument (and thus reliability of the conclusion) as worthless. No more or less reason to think it true than false.
    You “leap of Faith” is an admission of the Non Sequitur (the technical?Latin term for the general Logical Fallacy, which literally means “does not follow”) You recognise that you can’t reason from here to there (what we know to the conclusion of a god existing for instance), can not follow a path of reasoned assessment of data etc., the desired conclusion does not rationally “Follow” from the available data, so you feel the need (out of an overwhelming desire to reach that cherished conclusion even if it is not rationally justified) to make a “leap”, this leap representing the fact that it does not in fact follow.

    Charlie said:
    ”So maybe making a leap of faith is not necessarily logical. But I do not think that making that leap of faith is necessarily an absence of logic either. It may simply be an unrelated concept. I will give this some thought- perhaps another term will fit here better.”

    Good, do think on that.
    Because it sounds a lot like you may be (or dangerously close to the) commission of the worst breach of logic: Breaking the very LAWS of logic; Being a claim that something is both p (using logic) and not-p (not using logic). A breach of the law of non-contradiction (aka. the second law of logic.)

    Charlie said:
    ”ADP: “How about the clear leap from “possible” to “reasonable.”?” Don’t Darwinian evolutionists do this all the time? But I do want to set a higher bar for myself. ”

    As opposed to non-Darwinian evolutionists?! Huh?
    Charles Darwin only got the ball rolling by forming the collected data into the first coherent, workable, and reader friendly, theory. the science has come a long long way since then. So get over the “Darwin this Darwin that” nonsense, including “Darwinian…”

    Anyway, assuming you are trying to use a slur to refer to evolutionary biologists, then no charlie that is not what they do at all.
    For example: “It is found that it is possible that the Bacterial flagellum evolved through this path…or perhaps this path” DOES NOT mean that it is reasonable to assume that it evolved through one of those specifically defined paths. But it DOES show that it is quite possible that it did evolve through natural means (and perhaps that those are the best guesses from which further investigation could do well to work on/from,) meaning there is no basis to assert that it could not have evolved (therefore requiring a new explanation,) and it also shows how unreasonable it is to claim that an EXTRA mysterious designing intelligence, somehow existing prior to that development, is a more viable possibility.

    Charlie said:
    ”Your ‘evidences’ against the existence of God are weak.”

    Where did that come from Charlie?!
    I haven’t offered any, haven’t even tried!
    And I feel no need to do so, the burden is not mine, I am not the one claiming the existence of this oh so mysterious entity.

    Charlie said:
    ”God is sovereign.”
    God is a ham sandwich. See how useless such blanket statements are? You are free to believe that this God character is the supreme boss or whatever, but so far I have seen no reason to think that he/she/it is even real. Making your assertion utterly useless to me. You might as well have told me that Mickey mouse is the King of the world.

    Charlie said:
    ”Our prayers- and their ‘failure’ can never be evidence against God, because He will only answer our prayers according to His Will and His Timing.”

    So one excuse for why you can not justify your assertion. Even if true, it offers NOTHING to your claim that he is anything more than a fairy tale character.

    Charlie said:
    ”The Christian God is, by definition, beyond any criticism that you will ever create for Him.”

    Um no; Nothing is beyond criticism, I can criticise it and claims of its existence, therefore refuting your claim that it is beyond criticism. I don’t think you are using that word as it is meant to be used.

    Charlie said:
    ”But that is just what He is- beyond your reach. Period.”

    If you say so. In that case he (real or not as it happens) is beyond any reason for ANYONE to believe in his existence.
    I have heard this (what amounts to an appeal to mystery) many times before as well, of course. I just wish those that make it could take that to it’s rational conclusion: That therefore there is no reason to believe it. Because that really is where it leads.

    Charlie said:
    ”I find that ‘He Exists’ is not only possible, but reasonable, in light of the multitude of corroborating evidences that support the claims in the Bible- and none that refute it conclusively.”

    And now after so long claiming and admitting the it is beyond reason somehow, you claim there ARE reasons?! Well what are they then? And why all this “leap of Faith” stuff if what you now claim is true?!

    Charlie said:
    ”But if one begins with a closed mind that diminishes God by equating Him to unicorns and teapots and FSMs and other such non-equals right at the starting gate, then a fair examination of the Bible’s claims will be difficult to conduct.”

    Oh, so sad. Still stuck in this inability to assess the use of analogy properly are you?
    The point of all of those is that the inability to prove those things false IN NO WAY adds any value to any claims that they are real. EXACTLY the same with God, or indeed ANYTHING claimed to be real.
    That’s all, no “equating” one with the other, beyond that simple point. This is a problem of excessive emotional attachment, not to God, but to the maintained BELIEF in God. Rendering you incapable, or at least unwilling, to apply the same levels of reasoning to the question of God’s existence that you would probably apply to anything else, that is not itself a “Cherished” belief of yours.

    Charlie said:
    ”On Love, without God, what is Love, if anything at all? A biological chemical response?”

    Somewhat excessively reductionist, but at its core yes. Mental processes are not fully understood, but their biological foundations pretty much are. Emotions, like “love”, are functions of biological systems in action. Your personal desire for it to me more “mystical” or whatever, or distaste in seeing it as a natural property of biological organisms, does not change that. To think it does would once again to be to commit the Appeal to emotion/consequences logical fallacy.

    Charlie said:
    ”An ‘emotion’ that has no cohesive origin according to any other religion? We Love, ADP, because God gave us the Gift to do so.”

    Evidence?
    And “because God gave us the ability” is in no way, shape or form a “Cohesive” answer/origin, it is just an empty blanket assertion. It also doesn’t even begin to answer what love IS.
    Just as “Lightening is something Thor throws at us when he is mad at as!” In no way answers what lightening IS.

    Charlie said:
    ”We Love, because God Loves Us and desires our Love for Him. The highest Love that we can pursue for another is to Love that person as much as God Loves us.”

    Your empty preaching carries no weight with me. In fact it can ONLY appeal to those who already have an emotional (not rational) attachment. Because all you are trying to do is play on emotions. It is quite frankly just insulting.

    Charlie said:
    ”Your opinion that this description of Love cheapens Love is unsupportable.”

    Another empty assertion. You might as well have just said “You are wrong, nah nah boo boo” and poked your tongue out at me. I mean seriously!

    Charlie said:
    ”As an atheist what grounds do you even have to claim that such an emotion exists at all?”

    The same way everybody else does. How do you know that they exist? Observation. We observe things that we have come to describe as emotions; love, hate, fear, lust… They are observable functions of conscious organisms, most notable BY humans IN humans (for obvious reasons; they are most like us.) They are the observed facts on which all else is derived. That is the attempts to explain what they really are, and where they come from. I don’t have to pretend to know any of those deeper answers to know that they exist (and have them myself) any more than we have to understand the nature and origin of the atmosphere in order to breath it in and for our cells to use what it needs and expel what it does not.
    This truly is a silly (but again all too common) question charlie.

    Charlie said:
    ”My Christian Faith poem was not intended to prove anything to you or provide further evidence for ‘Truth’. It is a short description of how I see the faith. ”

    I know. And as Faith is a topic I have some interest in (because I see it so misused, so often) I chose to address it, To describe how I see Faith, and How I see your (not uncommon) interpretation of it.

    Charlie said:
    ”The only thing I may change is to find a replacement for the term ‘Logic’. Though I am not sufficiently convinced that it should be replaced.”

    Well, hopefully I have given you some food for thought.

    Charlie said:
    ”The biggest theme that I saw in your response, ADP, is that you seem to think that I am trying to convince you to believe. I am not.”

    And that too is interesting, as that was not a part of my response AT ALL. So the “biggest theme” you saw, was not a theme in any way, shape or form.

    Charlie said:
    ”That is not up to me.”

    Who is it up to then? Someone who actually cares about my immortal soul (whatever that is), or that of any others, perhaps?

    Charlie said:
    ”I am simply trying to ensure that you keep your mind and your heart open.”

    Interesting that you felt the need to add “heart” in there, no?
    Why is it that the assessment of the truth-value of this claim is always so tied up in emotion?

    Charlie said:
    ”What I was providing was my personal conviction and an example of what the faith means to me. (It’s not a competition)”

    And I in return responded with what it, and your own description of it, means to me. Note for instance how I noted how so many of your claims actually boil down to what I think, as opposed to what you seem/seek to interpret them as!

    I note that I haven’t provided my little Catch phrase definition of Faith yet, so here it is:
    Faith: Belief through the (wilful) abandonment of reason.

    • Charlie said,

      ADP: [regarding Charlie’s illustration of the Christian God]
      “If you say so. In that case he (real or not as it happens) is beyond any reason for ANYONE to believe in his existence.”

      YES! You will not find Him through Reason alone. It is impossible and hopeless. It is Love that is God’s transcendent objective. It requires two parties: Him to reach down to you and you to let Him take you up. And that Love can only be discovered in that leap of faith.

      ADP: “What works better than reason? What transcends the limits of reason to ascertain the truth of a problem?! And how can one assess that this new way of knowing actually works?!”
      Jesus and His Love for You. And you may not ever know until you come to Him at the right time.

      [Yes- you will claim that that is an empty assertion. Yours would also be an empty assertion. The fact is that neither you nor I can say anything declarative about the truth value of that statement. I take it on faith. You reject it based on an insistence upon a biased version of Reason. We stand on either side of a great divide.]

      ADP: “Because it sounds a lot like you may be (or dangerously close to the) commission of the worst breach of logic: Breaking the very LAWS of logic;”

      Which you may also be guilty of. You yourself come dangerously close to asserting that ALL there IS is the material (matter and energy and time) and nothing exists outside of that. But the very LOGIC that you claim to uphold exists independently and outside of that material. How can one use logic to assert that material is the only things that exists when logic is a prime example that material is not alone?

      You then go on to talk about evidences that you claim you didn’t bring up against God, but they do sound an awful lot like objections to the possibility of His existence. I address them by bringing up evidences that the Bible is archaeologically supported and that there is no Reason to believe God (Christian definition- not your dilluted/deluded one) does NOT exist. And then you seem surprised that there ARE reasons to believe. Of course there are. Try reading “A Case for Christ”, Lee Strobel. Or “I don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist”, Geisler and Turek . Or listening to Ravi Zacharias- rzim.org (for some potent philosophical treatments). There are plenty more- those are just the first that come to mind.

      Reason ALONE will not get you to a faith in Jesus. But by no means is Reason absent. It will get you close. But evidence alone will NEVER get you there.

      ADP:
      “Somewhat excessively reductionist, but at its core yes. Mental processes are not fully understood, but their biological foundations pretty much are. Emotions, like “love”, are functions of biological systems in action. Your personal desire for it to me more “mystical” or whatever, or distaste in seeing it as a natural property of biological organisms, does not change that. To think it does would once again to be to commit the Appeal to emotion/consequences logical fallacy.”

      But then you have the audacity to claim that *I* cheapen [the concept of] Love? This, I’m sorry, is absolutely hilarious. (ADP: “To me religions like the many versions of Christianity, which bow down to one (or a few) ultimate being, cheapen such concepts as love, not the reverse.”)

      An ‘appeal to emotion/consequences’… Well- yeah- I’m talking ABOUT Love. Wow.

      I won’t deny that you have indeed given me food for thought, ADP. These discussions are always thought-provoking. I learn a lot about my own faith as well as gain an appreciation for how incredibly fortunate I am to have it- though I have done absolutely Nothing to deserve it- except to accept it.

      ADP: “And that too is interesting, as that was not a part of my response AT ALL. So the “biggest theme” you saw, was not a theme in any way, shape or form.”

      I must have been mistaken. You just seemed to use a lot of ‘lack of evidence’ and ’empty assertion’ and ‘no reason to believe’ phrases.

      ADP: “Why is it that the assessment of the truth-value of this claim is always so tied up in emotion?”

      Because it is ALL ABOUT Love. At the root of it, that is What God IS.

      Back to the topic that matches this blog, though…

      ADP
      “For example: “It is found that it is possible that the Bacterial flagellum evolved through this path…or perhaps this path” DOES NOT mean that it is reasonable to assume that it evolved through one of those specifically defined paths. But it DOES show that it is quite possible that it did evolve through natural means (and perhaps that those are the best guesses from which further investigation could do well to work on/from,) meaning there is no basis to assert that it could not have evolved

      But it has NOT been found possible by ANY natural means. Nothing of the sort was ever ‘proven’ except to a miseducated activist judge who was presented theatrical evidence. (Well, anything is ‘possible’, but it has never been observed, and no reasonable path has ever been proven.)
      Where is your evidence to the contrary?

      (You might try reading “Five Years Later, Evolutionary Immunology and other Icons of Kitzmiller v. Dover Not Holding Up Well” at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/ before you respond to this.)

      • ADParker said,

        Charlie said:
        “ADP: [regarding Charlie’s illustration of the Christian God]
        “If you say so. In that case he (real or not as it happens) is beyond any reason for ANYONE to believe in his existence.”

        YES! You will not find Him through Reason alone. It is impossible and hopeless. It is Love that is God’s transcendent objective. It requires two parties: Him to reach down to you and you to let Him take you up. And that Love can only be discovered in that leap of faith.”

        And as you can’t actually find anything that is “beyond” reason, that is you know; rational (kind of tautologically the case, no?) belief in God is Irrational. Thank you and good night!
        And Love God’s transcendent objective?! That is some impressive Word Salad you got going there.
        And as your Leap of Faith is an abandonment of reason, no thank you.

        Charlie said:
        “ADP: “What works better than reason? What transcends the limits of reason to ascertain the truth of a problem?! And how can one assess that this new way of knowing actually works?!”
        Jesus and His Love for You. And you may not ever know until you come to Him at the right time”.

        That is a non answer.
        Jesus? You mean one should believe in Jesus (as the son of God who may or may not also be God [thus being his own father/son!!]) FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Just abandon all reason and just choose to believe it.
        And then yet again just abandon ones rational faculties and just choose to believe that this being which one believes in only through abandoning reason to begin with also loves me, without any evidence whatsoever?!
        Yeah, that sounds..what’s the word?…Insane.

        You are probably right, for those so capable of distorting their minds like that, to believe something just because they want to, it would then lead them to a belief in your god. Of course through the same means one could get themselves to believe ANY piece of nonsense and gibberish that they wanted to, no matter how crazy or even impossible.

        Charlie said:
        “[Yes- you will claim that that is an empty assertion. Yours would also be an empty assertion. The fact is that neither you nor I can say anything declarative about the truth value of that statement. I take it on faith. You reject it based on an insistence upon a biased version of Reason. We stand on either side of a great divide.]”.

        Not n empty assertion: a hopelessly irrational, just plain crazy suggestion. You are suggesting that one give up any grasp of reality and just believe whatever the Hel they want to. That what they want to believe in true. That is just Confirmation Bias. One could as a result become convinced that whatever it is is true, but that conviction would be based on abandonment of rationality and wishful thinking.
        So see; I CAN say something “declarative” on that statement. Even if, some way some how, that did in fact lead to somehow coming to that knowledge, it is just a stupid thing to do.

        My only “Bias” is toward reason, to using reason, and not abandoning it whenever you think it suits you. And all you (and anyone I have ever used this line of argument) have suggested in replacement (it is not supplement) is nothing but the abandonment of reason. You may fool yourself by calling it “Faith” but it is nothing but an abandonment of Reason.
        Adding Faith to the mix is like adding negative two (-2) to an equation. You are really subtracting something. Not picking up a new tool (Faith), but setting aside one you already have (reason.)

        “I take it on Faith” just means “I just believe it.” Nothing more, no hint of justification, and thus no foundation for that belief whatsoever.

        Charlie said:
        “ADP: “Because it sounds a lot like you may be (or dangerously close to the) commission of the worst breach of logic: Breaking the very LAWS of logic;”

        Which you may also be guilty of. You yourself come dangerously close to asserting that ALL there IS is the material (matter and energy and time) and nothing exists outside of that. But the very LOGIC that you claim to uphold exists independently and outside of that material. How can one use logic to assert that material is the only things that exists when logic is a prime example that material is not alone?”.

        Oh nice, an attempt to pass the buck! Avoid addressing your error, by instead claiming that I made one.
        1. This in no way gets you off he hook for yours. And it is your claims about Faith we are discussing here after all.
        2. This is that Teleological Argument fro God (TAG) crap. It is so horrendously flawed that it just hurts.

        I have made NO arguments at all about materialism, in any way. Just like (previous post of yours) I made no arguments for the non-existence of God. You are just reading – or just slapping in from nowhere – things who happen to believe that we atheists believe. Whatever it is, it is certainly not from ANYWHERE within these posts!
        Logic and the laws of logic aren’t THINGS, and thus don’t ‘exist’, not in the same sense of the material world you allude to. You are making a category mistake, and engaging in equivocation. Not to get into a long discussion on it; they can roughly be describe as “functions” of things (material or otherwise, if the latter even makes any sense.)

        Charlie said:
        “You then go on to talk about evidences that you claim you didn’t bring up against God, but they do sound an awful lot like objections to the possibility of His existence.”.

        Without you detailing what these claims are, this means nothing to me. What from me did you interpret as an argument against the possibility of his existence. (The way some theists capitalise words like “His” for God does make me laugh though – it’s just so silly!)

        Charlie said:
        “I address them by bringing up evidences that the Bible is archaeologically supported and that there is no Reason to believe God (Christian definition- not your dilluted/deluded one) does NOT exist.

        You did? Did I miss those? I don’t recall them.

        What archaeological evidence? I have heard of none that has stood up to even basic scrutiny. I know that the Ark has been “discovered” numerous times for instance. The only generally considered reliable such evidence I am aware of is from the Husband and wife team (they being the leaders of a larger team) of, well respected in the field, Jewish (by birth and belief) archaeologists who established that the whole Moses and the Exodus thing (40 years in the desert – How lost can one get, seriously?!) Never happened. It started as no supporting evidence, but over years of examination it became too clear, even for those believing Jews, that the evidence stacked up to the reasonable judgement that it was nothing more than a myth.

        And I gave no definition of you God (nor did you for that matter) so what are you talking about with “{my] your diluted/deluded one”?!

        And there is most definitely Reason to believe your God does not exist: no evidence or reason to think that it does.
        This is likewise the reason to believe that the Loch Ness Monster, Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Winged Horses (Pegasus was a particular such horse – Offspring of Medusa the Gorgon, not the term for all such horses! {Pet peeve – a minor one though})

        You claim it does, then it is up to you to back up that assertion. The rest of us are only right to be of the position “I don’t believe you” until, if or when, you do so. You have however pretty much admitted that your are wholly incapable of doing so. Oh well.

        Charlie said:
        “And then you seem surprised that there ARE reasons to believe.”

        No really surprised. I wouldn’t truly be surprised until some of these, oh so often, claimed reasons is actually presented. I have yet to see any of it. Many attempts of course, but no actual evidence or reasoning.

        Charlie said:
        “Of course there are. Try reading “A Case for Christ”, Lee Strobel.”

        That grossly dishonest little hack? Ugh!
        I have read snippets, and heard a fair bit about it. He pretends to be the objective journalist, but really all he does is pave the way to repeat tired old apologetics from believers, asking soft-ball questions aimed NOT to challenge the theologian, but to aid them in making the points they want to (much like the ‘questions’ asked on infomercials in that regard.) No real critics are interviewed which is a telling hint to his “journalistic integrity” – i.e. he has none.
        Are you telling me that somewhere within all that rehash of common apologetics there is actually a grain of something worthwhile?!

        It’s actually “THE case for Christ” by the way.

        Charlie said:
        ”There are plenty more- those are just the first that come to mind.”
        Apologetics is not even close to the same thing as reasoning or evidence charlie. I expect (because I have seen it before, and heard it from ex-theists) that you are only impressed by such apologetics because they are telling you what you already believe.

        Charlie said:
        ”Reason ALONE will not get you to a faith in Jesus.”

        Well no. Because Faith is beliefe through the abandonment of reason.

        Charlie said:
        ”But by no means is Reason absent. It will get you close. But evidence alone will NEVER get you there.”

        So then what charlie? (you may not eve n realise it, but you keep skirting around this) When reason only gest you sao far, just CHOOSE to believe what you want to believe anyway?! Because as far as I can tell, that is ALL you are advocating here: Believe first for no reason, then “we promise you, go on just trust us on this” the evidence will be given?! That makes no sense, making it nonsense.

        This is one way to become convincved of something that no sane, rational, sensible, person SHOULD believe.

        Charlie said:
        ”An ‘appeal to emotion/consequences’… Well- yeah- I’m talking ABOUT Love. Wow.”

        That one just flew right over your head didn’t it? I foget that some people can’t be bothered to actually try to understand, look something up, before ranting against being ‘accused’ of it.
        The Appeal to emotion/consequences is the logical fallacy (fundamental error in resoning) in which one claims that one should accept a truth claim based on ones emotions or the consequences of that belief.
        For example: I believe in God and heaven because I think it would be horrible if this finite life was the only life we got! (oh how I wish Iit was that I had to make that one up!)

        Charlie said:
        ”I won’t deny that you have indeed given me food for thought, ADP. These discussions are always thought-provoking.”

        I wish I could believe that you were thinking about it, you above comments appear to refute that. But perhaps in time it may sink in a bit more, who knows.

        Charlie said:
        ”I learn a lot about my own faith as well as gain an appreciation for how incredibly fortunate I am to have it- though I have done absolutely Nothing to deserve it- except to accept it.”

        This highlights one of the problems, again a commonly noted one: the appearance that you CHERISH having the belief you have. In other words a strong EMOTIONAL attachment to those beliefs. This makes it difficult to really honestly examine the truth-value of those beliefs (even when you think you are) because you love believing them so much.

        Charlie said:
        ”ADP: “And that too is interesting, as that was not a part of my response AT ALL. So the “biggest theme” you saw, was not a theme in any way, shape or form.”

        I must have been mistaken. You just seemed to use a lot of ‘lack of evidence’ and ‘empty assertion’ and ‘no reason to believe’ phrases.”

        Because I have seen no evidence. And sadly a whole lot of travesties claimed as evidence. This givse me good reason not to believe in any gods (or those argued for) in that they give me no reason to believe, and those bad arguments implying that those (who make those lousy arguments) have no good reason to believe either.
        That does not entail an argument against the existence of God (or any gods) but a reason for not believing in any such thing(s), whether it (they) actually exist or not. I am of the opinion that if there is no good reason to believe something, then one shouldn’t. Better to be wrong for good reasons than to be right just by dumb luck. Because then even those beliefs that just happen to be correct, are still baseless (not to mention probably coupled with innumerable beliefs that are just plain wrong.)

        Charlie said:
        ”ADP: “Why is it that the assessment of the truth-value of this claim is always so tied up in emotion?””

        Because it is ALL ABOUT Love. At the root of it, that is What God IS.”

        “God is Love”?! Oh brother. Seriously Charlie?! You can be better than that, I know you can.

        Appeal to Emotion Logical Fallacy
        Think about it, think hard.
        All this “God is Love” is just a dishonest tactic to get people to rely on their (irrational) emotions, to the detriment of their ability to think and apply reason. Because the emotions are FAR FAR easier to fool.
        This is is why Plato (2,500 years ago!) argued that emotion and imagination (well he used somethin more like “will” and “appetite” but the translations mean something of a corelation of both sets – not one-to-one translations from ancient Greek to English) are useful and powerful aspects of the soul/mind, but are like Wild horses (his actual analogy) that will rush in all kinds of directions (like…well.. wild horses) UNLESS goverened by…you guessed it: REASON. In his analogy Reason is like the charioteer guiding the horses, not ignoring their natural drives but guiding (as opposed to forcing) them to generally better ends.

        Charlie said:
        ”But it has NOT been found possible by ANY natural means. Nothing of the sort was ever ‘proven’ except to a miseducated activist judge who was presented theatrical evidence. (Well, anything is ‘possible’, but it has never been observed, and no reasonable path has ever been proven.)
        Where is your evidence to the contrary?”

        The research is out there, look it up. And as I recall it was Kenneth Miller who demonstrated some of it (not sure if it was his own research that he was talking about though.) Why did you bring up the Dover v. Kitzmiller court case anyway? Who said anything about legal decisions?

        Oh, and you want “Proof”? Try Mathematics, Formal Logic or Alcohol. Not science.

        I do love that “activist Judge” canard though: Hilariously ridiculous. Especially considering that the ID creationists were jumping up and down with glee when they heard that it was this conservative Bush appointed judge that was taking the case. That is of course until they lost, and suddenly he was vilified as a Liberal activist! On apsolutely nothing but this single judgement not going their way. HA!
        You believe ANYTHING that come from creationist apologists, don’t you? I mean come on, think for yourself. DO NOT just accept anything that comes out of the mouths of people who seem to be supporting something you happen to already believe. That is a most dangerous path to tread! Don’t tell me that anything that comes out of Kent Hovind’s mouth is “golden” as well?!

        Charlie said:
        ”(You might try reading “Five Years Later, Evolutionary Immunology and other Icons of Kitzmiller v. Dover Not Holding Up Well” at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/ before you respond to this.)”

        That linked to the Discovery Institute (their dishonesty in the trial, and elsewhere, was just atrocious! I did love Behe’s open admission that ID wasn’t science though – and yes admitting that one would have to redefine “science” to make ID fit [which would also make astrology ‘science’] IS admitting that ID is not science.) It “almost” baffles me that ANYONE could take anything they say seriously any more.

        Read it. Same old spin, nothing to see there folks.
        It did remind me of that “literature dump” tactic in the trial (from the court transcripts which I read ages ago) which while being a common lawyer trick, did bring up a neat little example of IDC (intelligent Design Creationist) dishonesty, where Behe admitted that he had not read any of it, but that it was “not good enough”! How could anyone with an ounce of integrity declare, under oath in court no less, that work they had not even read was not good enough?! How could they possibly know that?!

        You are doing yourself no favours demonstrating that you just buy their rhetoric uncritically like that.

  3. ADParker said,

    Charlie said:
    “Anyhow, I’ll take it as an indication of your God-given sense of humor that you care to point out the color schemes in the creationist websites as something worth talking about.”

    Just an off the cuff thought that I have had from time to time (as have others I know.) To the point that I sometime dread clinking on a link that I know is for a creationist website, expecting an assault on by senses – even before reading anything there.

    And you are free to assume that my sense of humour is “God given” (Or Cthulhu or whatever.)

    Charlie said:
    “ All I can say is that if you keep your mind open to all reasonable possibilities,”

    Always do my utmost to do so. Kind of my thing; expanding the bounds of my understood ignorance. (there is so much more now that I realise I don’t understand than I did as a child.)

    Charlie said:
    “the Cross is the only Truth that looms large and tall and provides a cohesive explanation for anything and everything we experience as a human race on this earth.”

    Can’t say that that makes any sense to me, but I get the assertion beneath it. The cross is a rather horrendous execution device, often slow and painful. Some think that the time it took for Jesus to die (according to the stories) was impressive (even miraculous.) Sad to say it wasn’t.

    By the way; ever think about the comment I have heard a few times, as to how Jesus would feel if/when he comes back, and sees so many people walking around with little versions of the device that killed him around his neck? Would you want to be reminded of that at every turn? Heh!

    Charlie said:
    “I have looked at other claims and just don’t find them satisfying.”

    While I prefer to look for what has reliable truth-value over mere (self-serving) personal satisfaction.
    Brings to my mind the quote:
    The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
    – George Bernard Shaw

    Charlie said:
    “You appear to find your view satisfying.”

    In a sense yes. I actually enjoy getting a firmer grasp on Reality. The good and the bad. But I loathe false certainty, conviction based on poor foundations. I would rather not know that THINK that I know something without good reason.
    As Matt Dillahunty likes to say: I I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. And that matters far far more to me than by beliefs being personally satisfying to me; their truth-value, and their rational-value as well.

    Charlie said:
    “But I sense that you are insistently here on this site because you are striving desperately to find your own purpose in life. I hope you find it, ADP.”

    Then you are mistaken. I have plenty of purposes in my life, we make our own. A provided/dictated purpose is not YOUR purpose, but someone/thing else using you as a tool for theirs.
    I am primarily here because I see things that I feel should be addressed and corrected. initially it was due to finding it through someone presenting some of Stevebee’s rhetoric (as if his own., and him running back here when people actually countered him!) Then I addressed some of Stevebee’s stuff for a while. But it is now quite apparent that he has no interest in what anybody who disagrees with him says (only a few minutes ago I commented on things he is still saying on the RatSkep forum.) But now all I respond to is comments that I get through my E-Mail (due to having commented on that blog page once before.)

    Charlie said:
    “To which I added a reference to http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/ so that we can hold a well-rounded conversation.”

    You want me to explain the (basic) flaws in that little DI article? (by the way, do you find it ‘interesting’ that the Discovery Institute takes the web address called “evolutionnews.org”? Do any astronomy sites take up web addresses like “AstrologyNews” etc.?!

    • ADParker said,

      Whoops, missed the last bit of that comment, here you go:

      Charlie said:
      “I hope you find your purpose, ADP. I truly do.”

      Uh yeah, thanks for that little back-handed condescending gesture Charlie.

  4. Kent A. Perry said,

    “As for Tall Tales, you might see where I’m coming from as far as not wanting to just read more tall tales: – Charlie
    “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbuQwdsDRc8&feature=related


    Applause

  5. mallorca urlaub said,

    I’ve been following your blog since you started. You have made amazing progress. This site is an inspiration for all pursuing a long transition versus the big chop.

    – Rob

  6. Kent A. Perry said,

    Here ya go Charlie

    This explains it to a tee

    From The Nebulous Hypothesis:
    A Study of the Philosophical and
    Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory
    © 1996 by James M. Foard

    “Evolutionists, like their shell artist counterparts at carnival booths, will manipulate the facts, frequently using misleading arguments to define evolution that only cloud over the real deficiencies of their case. One of their favorite techniques is to misuse or abuse our understanding of certain universal absolutes in their definition of evolution. A typical example would be when they state quite blithely that evolution is simply “change over time”. Well, nobody can argue that change definitely does take place over time. The earth spins on its axis and revolves around the sun, and this is certainly change over time. I walk or ride from my house to the store and back, and this is certainly change over time. I get up in the morning and go to sleep at night, and this is certainly change over time.

    The entire creation is an example of change over time, unless it were to be frozen in a permanent instant of time with no past, present or future. So yes, any reasonable person would have to admit that change indeed does occur over time. But does this really provide any evidence for evolution? After all, even for a creationist, the first six chapters of Genesis taken literally are an example of change over time. The literal creation and fall of man was change over time. The descendants of Adam and Eve populating the earth was change over time. The universal Flood of Noah in the Bible was change over time. The consummation of the age in the book of Revelation will be “change over time”. So change over time is a universal constant, even within a creationist model. This is nothing that the evolutionists can lay exclusive claim to.

    What we need to do is ask ourselves what is the extent of this change over time, and is there any factual data provided by the evolutionist’s that this “change over time” lends any credibility to their case?

    The evolutionist’s definition of change over time involves an unproven assumption, that bacteria became metazoa that changed into fish that changed into amphibians that changed into reptiles that changed into mammals that turned into humans. We have seen in previous chapters, and will see later on in this one, that this is an entire fantasy – no actual evidence has ever occurred to substantiate this claim.

    Darwin’s theory of evolution is change over time only in the same manner that “The Lord of the Rings” is change over time: They both are works of fiction. Evolution glorifies destruction, extinction, selfish pride and the trampling of the weak under the ongoing progress of the strong, which has born bitter fruit in the 20th century, and if it continues to be our official academic Weltanschauung will produce a horrific future for mankind in the new century.
    Evolutionists try to masquerade their fiction as science, but there is nothing scientific about it at all. Thus we have to be extremely watchful, as our Lord said, “Wise as serpents and harmless as doves” on order to be on our guard against the duplicitous arguments of men who have set themselves against the truth, who have rebelled against the Word of God and seek to lead others astray in their rebellion.

    Another amazing argument used by evolutionists, based mind you on the absolute lack of any kind of fossil evidence of evolution for proof of the evolutionary theory, would be Steven Jay Gould’s astounding concept of “punctuated equilibrium.” It is the theory that a bird can hatch from a lizard’s egg, like Cinderella’s mice turning into coachmen, and has also been called the “hopeful monster” theory by evolutionists.

    Actually Gould’s version is a bit slower than this, but essentially he is saying that evolution does not happen in a slow, gradual process, but in sudden spurts, and that is why there is not any fossil evidence of it having occurred.

    This shows the desperate lengths that evolutionists will go to bolster support for their theory, since punctuated equilibrium states that the lack of transitional fossil forms is still evidence for evolution! It is like the two headed coin used by con artists that always comes up heads: If evolutionists had fossil evidence for evolution, they could say “We have fossil evidence for evolution, therefore it occurred.” But because they have no fossil evidence for evolution, they say “We don’t have fossil evidence for evolution, therefore it occurred.” Since evolution must have occurred, if there’s no evidence of it, this is taken as evidence for evolution by evolutionists!

    This is one of the boldest, most bald-faced evolutionary charades ever conducted in the history of science, and the fact that it has become the subject of intense scrutiny in scientific papers over the past twenty-five years shows the utter bankruptcy of evolutionary theory!

    One has to wonder why Gould ever cooked up this theory in the first place and advance an argument so deficient in fact and logic. Perhaps to avoid the creationists’ principle argument: the scant evidence for evolution?

    There actually are a couple of possibilities. Perhaps Gould was beginning to realize that the evidence for evolution was so inadequate that the genie was going to pop out of the bottle sooner or later. Perhaps the lack of evidence for evolution had produced the same change of mind that other scientists had experienced when they converted from evolution to creationism, but Gould simply didn’t have the fortitude to come out and admit it. After all, no one would relish being an academic pariah, or of being some over-the-hill reactionary against the unquestioned dogma of evolution. After all, Gould’s career and reputation is staked on maintaining the legend of Charles Darwin and his theory on center stage.

    The other possibility is that Gould simply ignored the implications of the lack of evidence for evolution because he was too steeped in his beliefs to honestly evaluate the facts presented before his very eyes. This explanation has profound and sadly evocative tones of certain of the false beliefs during the middle ages which people clung to, despite new scientific discoveries that contradicted their beliefs, simply because they were swayed by the overpowering psychological effects of the herd instinct.

    As then, even today, despite their education and training, many academics are unable to divorce themselves from a mistaken scientific hypothesis that they were taught was true in the early days of their careers when their minds were impressionable by men whom they respected and to some degree adulated as nearly infallible. Thus from one generation to the next the evolution myth has been passed on by believing academics to students, who in turn become the next generation of academics, using the same flawed logic with unquestioning faith.”

    Oh and anyone suggesting how stupid we are for not knowing Darwins theory has changed, need not post such a *BLOCK BUSTER!* News event.

    We are well aware of it and the purported mountain of evidence they claim there is to support it., when examined critically, is nothing but a land fill of debunked hoax after hoax after hoax, a cornucopia of lies and a semantics database of cookie cutter copy paste quotes to ridicule their opposing interlocutors arguments, with extreme prejudice.

    They act out this behavior not unlike a religious zealot, behind a terminally self righteous attitude of supreme arrogance and foolish pride. Evolution will soon be kicked to the curb like the garbage it is and as part of the mountain of bullshit it has become.

    Count on it.

    • Charlie said,

      Good read. I can’t find fault in that summary.

    • Dane said,

      That is one of the absolute worst criticisms of evolutionary theory I have ever read.

      Apparently, the author seems to think that the entire fossil record is a long, fabricated lie and is completely ignorant of Gould’s claims.

      If this is the best that the ID movement can do, then it’s no wonder that it is relegated to the backburner of society and is completely discounted as any sort of credible scientific inquiry.

      • ADParker said,

        I know! Ridiculous isn’t it?

        This is my favourite, and most telling part:

        “Steven Jay Gould’s astounding concept of “punctuated equilibrium.” It is the theory that a bird can hatch from a lizard’s egg, like Cinderella’s mice turning into coachmen,”

        I mean come on; that’s just Stupid! Not to mention wilfully ignorant. If someone is that woefully ignorant of the science they are critiquing, then they have no business saying anything about it.

  7. Kent A. Perry said,

    I bust a gut when people whose intellect ain’t a pimple on the authors intellectual ass, just come in and say how ignorant he is.

    Well the following people and organizations have another opinion and this may be why.

    James M. Foard
    Professional Positions
    1989-91 Intern and Resident, Internal Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center
    1991-94 Clinical Fellow, Medical Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center
    1993-97 Research Fellow, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Stanford University (with Prof. Phil Hanawalt)
    1998-06 Assistant Professor of Medicine (Oncology) and Genetics, Stanford Univ. Medical School
    1999- Director, Stanford Cancer Genetics Program and Clinic
    2002- Director, Stanford Medical Oncology Fellowship Training Program
    2003-06 Assistant Professor of Pediatrics (by courtesy), Division of Medical Genetics
    2006- Associate Professor of Medicine (Oncology), Pediatrics (Medical Genetics) and Genetics (tenured)
    Other Experience and Professional Activities
    2001-05 ASCO Annual Meeting Human Genetics/Tumor Biology Scientific Program Committee
    2002-03 ASCO Working Committee for Clinical Cancer Genetics Workshop
    2003- Council Member, California Breast Cancer Research Program (Chair, 2009 – 10)
    2003- V Foundation Scientific Review Committee
    2005 Chair, AACR Program Committee, DNA Damage and Repair Section
    2005 Co-Chair, AACR Annual Meeting Mini-Symposium, “DNA Repair and Genomic Instability”
    2006-08 ASCO Education Committee, Tumor Biology Track Leader
    2007-08 AACR/NCI/EORTC Annual Meeting Scientific Advisory Board
    2002-07 Reviewer, DOD Breast Cancer Research Program
    2002-07 Reviewer, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Research Grant Program
    2008-11 Chair, Komen Research Grant Review Section, Diagnostic & Prognostic Biomarkers
    2006-07 NIH/NCI Molecular Biology PPG Special Emphasis Panel Study Section
    2008 NIH/NCI Sub-Committee E – Epidemiology Program Project Grant Study Section
    2009 NIH/NCI Sub-Committee I – Career Development Grant Study Section
    2003- Editorial Board, Cancer Research
    2004- Editorial Board, DNA Repair
    2008- Associate Editor, PLoS Genetics
    2005- NCCN Guidelines Committees: Colorectal Cancer Screening; Genetics/Familial High Risk Assessment
    Honors and Awards
    1984 B.A., Magna Cum Laude, Yale University
    1995 NIH K08 Clinical Investigator Award
    1999 Sidney Kimmel Foundation for Cancer Research Scholar Award
    1999 Doris Duke Foundation Clinical Scientist Award in Cancer Etiology and Pathogenesis
    2000 Burroughs Wellcome Fund New Investigator Award in Toxicological Sciences
    2002 V Foundation Translational Research Award
    2005 Evelyn Lauder Breast Cancer Research Foundation Scholar
    2007 Member, Western Society for Clinical Investigation

  8. Kent A. Perry said,

    Doubt your man Gould can match half Foards accomplishments much less his IQ. So Dane, next time you want to make an ass of yourself. Do it at Ratshit Septic where at least you’ll blend in with the others there making asses of themselves.

    You won’t stand out like such fool

    • ADParker said,

      Appeal to authority {yawn.}

      Isaac Newton would kick your guy’s ass in terms of intellect (the man invented calculus in 18 months while in his early twenties for goodness sake!) And he believed strongly in alchemy (and specific aspects therein), and despite his undoubted brilliance he was wrong.

      • Kent Perry said,

        “Isaac Newton would kick your guy’s ass in terms of intellect (the man invented calculus in 18 months while in his early twenties for goodness sake!) And he believed strongly in alchemy (and specific aspects therein), and despite his undoubted brilliance he was wrong.”

        So what’s your point Parker?

        I mean other than your suggestion that had Newton been an atheist he would have been like you.

        “Perfect”

    • Dane said,

      Your tired appeal to authority does nothing to make Foards look any more respectable or credible.

      The only making an ass out of himself here, Kent, is you. If the best you and the ID movement is post half-witted diatribes and personal insults, then the ID movement doesn’t have long to last.

      You said, and I quote: “When someone like James M. Foards thinks the theory is JUST a bad Hypothesis, it’s because IT IS”. So, if one person who has some credentials believes the same thing you do, he MUST be right. If someone who has credentials that equal or exceed your chosen person’s, but believes differently from you, he must be wrong.

      What an absolutely asinine way to view science. This is why the ID movement is destined to fail. Not only does it fail to be anywhere near a workable-predicated by the fact that it ultimately rests on unprovable existence of a supernatural designer-but it has people like you supporting it.

      ID Movement=fail.

      • Charlie said,

        Keep it coming, guys. All you have is hot air.. Does anyone yet have any evidence to support that micro-evolution can be repeated enough times to generate anything resembling macro-evolution (the beginnings/stubs for new organs, limbs, feathers, sensory organs, anything?)

        I say roll a pair of dice three trillion times. Every time you roll more than a 12 on a pair of dice, add it to a running total. The pair of dice is micro. The running total is macro. Let me know how it goes.

        (You’ve got to prove that somehow those dice will roll more than a 12… ever.)

        RM and NS do nothing for you except to rove around a nice average stasis. In fact, they have a tendency to do nothing but degenerate the species over time. Nothing degenerative has ever been found to add something useful to the gene information toward the advent of a new species. Ever.

        I mean- prove me wrong. Where is the evidence?

        (And no- don’t try to prove to me that ‘because of evolution, we have seen such and such, and that is evidence for your micro to macro-evolution’. Science doesn’t work that way. You can’t prove your assertion by begging the question and affirming that a dependent assertion proves your initial assertion.)

        As much as you’d like science to work that way, it just doesn’t. If you lower the standards, all you will get is gibberish, and you may as well include astrology and palm reading within your definition of science.

        Where’s the beef? Plain and simple. Where is the evidence for just that one key piece of necessary phenomenon? Micro to Macro. (And test it for logical fallacies before you bring it forth- don’t think that we won’t examine it critically. Expect your critical thinking skills to be on the judgment seat here… if you bring something stupid, expect someone to call you on your stupidity. But if you’re sincere, then hopefully you’ll find that we’ll detect that, too, and judge you with kid gloves.)

        Put up or shut up. That’s the jist of it, right? I’ve heard plenty of hot air, and when you come at the legitimate critical thinkers on this site and others with nothing but more rhetoric, it just gets irritating. Put up or shut up.

        And know this- that I personally do hope you sincerely bring forward the best EVIDENCE to support your case… but I don’t believe that this hope will lend you any success.

      • Kent Perry said,

        “Your tired appeal to authority does nothing to make Foards look any more respectable or credible.

        The only making an ass out of himself here, Kent, is you. If the best you and the ID movement is post half-witted diatribes and personal insults, then the ID movement doesn’t have long to last.”

        Call to authority? No Dame, all I was trying to do is prove a point. That it doesn’t matter what anyone says, if he is someone that disagrees with that silly old draconian theory of yours, they are the most ignorant, the worst what ever who the hell gives a shit.

        You say it was the worst criticism of gould’s PE you have ever read, as if you had the kind of science minded skepticism to do anything more than swing from any Darwits nut sack because you simply don’t have the first clue how to THINK for yourself. You come in here with your butt lover Parker, and all you do is whine and bitch as if you think you know better. Well homicide, EXPLAIN GOULD’S PE. Lets see how smart you really are Dame.

        You’re getting a little ahead of yourself here AREN’T YA Son,? “if one person who has some credentials believes the same thing you do, he MUST be right. If someone who has credentials that equal or exceed your chosen person’s, but believes differently from you, he must be wrong” – Dame

        No you see, Both of you make the same mistake, while your salivating like rabid bitches concentrating on ANYTHING you can ridicule, you both find it sooo stupid of me that as Parker seems to imply, I think the opinion of ONE scientist is enough and he asks if I know anything about Science. Then you come in talking about a call yo authority AFTER you refer to a posted article like some hack from funky town wrote it. Do you know what a call to authority is when made as a logical fallacy? I don’t think so and BOTH of you have made calls to authority PLENTY of times. Now I realize that posting an article written by just one author giving his opinion may seem strange to you as Godless atheists typically need a dozen or more just to sharpen the number two pencils the wear out. Never mind the fact that ONE person can upset the consensus and many a great Scientist have done just that and ya know why they were worthy of giving that consideration to prove my poiint?

        Well, ya see Dame, UNLIKE YOU AND SUZY Q PARKER there, THEY WERE RIGHT when the consensus was WRONG!

        But that isn’t even the point I need to make with you two morons, you see, when you post your condescending mouthy whiney bitchy little diatribes, It gives me a perfectly good reason to be rude and disrespectful, other than all the other things I’m sitting here laughing about thinking I’d do to you in person but no need to describe any further what a cunt you are as a person or how UN-scientific you BOTH look complaining about someone neither of you can match with both your mediocre IQ’s multiplied ten times and combined.

        So Dame, when you say’ “if one person who has some credentials believes the same thing you do, he MUST be right. If someone who has credentials that equal or exceed your chosen person’s, but believes differently from you, he must be wrong.”
        /end quote

        That sounds kind of silly coming from you in light of the fact you ain’t a pimple on a 5th graders intellectual ass but you in your aboriginal arrogance have the necessary narcissism to give me advice how science is done by condemnation before investigation.

        I mean if you don’t like the article Dame, OK, WE GET THAT,, SO FUCKING WHAT!

        I just find it funny you’ve appointed yourself as the blogosphere’s answer to Roger Ebert.

        I didn’t think it required numerous other reports that apparently have to be “Peer reviewed” before you and your elite, Berkley Graduate Pretending, stuck up sidekick, Parker would approve.

        But just so you know,,

        in the future you two,, BE ADVISED: I don’t, SEEK, YOUR, FUCKIN, APPROVAL!

        GOT IT HOSS

        Now, having said that while taking your tender sensitivities into as much consideration as you have mine, I must apologize to Parker for not mentioning other great writer critics and skeptics of the science community but I didn’t really feel that was necessary you see I was talking to Charlie, NOT YOU TWO.

        Furthermore, the reason there is only one guy I make mention of at all, isn’t because that is how I “do science” and adopt the opinion of one guy who agrees with me but it’s more complicated than that.

        See,, PsssT Parker, C’mere,,

        Ready?

        It’s because the article has

        ONLY ONE GOD DAMN AUTHOR YA DUMB BITCH

  9. Kent A. Perry said,

    His “Peer Reviewed” work as follows boys.

    Selected peer-reviewed publications (Out of a total of 90)
    Ford JM, Prozialeck WC, and Hait WN. Structural features that determine activity for phenothiazines and related drugs
    for inhibition of cell growth and reversal of multidrug resistance. Mol. Pharmacol. 35: 105 – 115 (1989).
    Ford JM and Hait WN. Pharmacology of drugs that alter multidrug resistance in cancer. Pharmacol. Rev. 42:155 (1990).
    Ford JM and Hanawalt PC. Li-Fraumeni syndrome human skin fibroblasts homozygous for p53 mutations are deficient
    in global nucleotide excision repair, but exhibit normal transcription-coupled repair and UV resistance. Proc. Natl.
    Acad. Sci. 92: 8876-8880 (1995).
    Ford JM and Hanawalt PC. Role of DNA excision repair gene defects in the etiology of cancer. Current Topics in
    Microbiology and Immunology 221:47-70 (1997).
    Ford JM and Hanawalt PC. Expression of wild-type p53 is required for efficient nucleotide excision repair in UVirradiated
    human fibroblasts. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272: 28073-28080 (1997).
    Hwang BJ, Ford JM, Hanawalt PC and Chu G. Expression of the p48 xeroderma pigmentosum gene is p53-dependent
    and is involved in global genomic repair. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 96:424-428 (1999).
    Smith ML, Ford JM, Hollander MC, Bortnick RA, Amundson SA, Seo YR, Deng C, Hanawalt PC and Fornace AJ. p53-
    mediated DNA repair responses to UV radiation: studies of mouse cells lacking p53, p21, and/or gadd45 genes.
    Molecular and Cellular Biology 20: 3705-3714 (2000).
    Tang JY, Hwang BJ, Ford JM, Hanawalt PC and Chu G. Xeroderma pigmentosum p48 gene enhances global genomic
    repair and suppresses UV-induced mutagenesis. Molecular Cell 5: 737-744 (2000).
    Hartman AR and Ford JM. BRCA1 induces DNA damage recognition factors and enhances nucleotide excision repair.
    Nature Genetics 32:180 – 184 (2002).
    Adimoolam S and Ford JM. p53 and DNA damage inducible expression of the xeroderma pigmentosum group C gene.
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99: 12985-12990 (2002).
    Fitch ME, Cross I and Ford JM. p53 responsive nucleotide excision repair gene products p48 and XPC, but not p53,
    localize to sites of UV-irradiation induced DNA damage. Carcinogenesis 24: 843 – 850 (2003).
    Fitch ME, Cross I, Turner S, Adimoolam S, Lin CX, Williams K, Ford JM. The DDB2 nucleotide excision repair gene
    product p48 enhances global genomic repair in p53 deficient human fibroblasts. DNA Repair 2: 819 – 826 (2003).
    Fitch ME, Nakajima S, Yasui A and Ford JM. In vivo stimulation of XPC protein binding to UV-induced cyclobutane
    pyrimidine dimers by the DDB2 gene product. J. Biol. Chem., 278: 46906 – 46910 (2003).
    Hartman AR, Daniel BL, Kurian AW, Mills MA, Nowels KW, Dirbas FM, Kingham KE, Chun NM, Herfkens RJ, Ford JM
    and Plevritis SK. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for
    breast carcinoma. Cancer, 100: 479 – 489 (2004).
    Brooks-Wilson AR, Ford J, Huntsman D, et al. Germline E-cadherin mutations in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer:
    Assessment of 42 new families and review of genetic screening criteria. J. Medical Genetics 41: 508 – 517 (2004).
    Kurian AW, Mills MM, Jaffee M, Sigal BM, Chun NM, Kingham KE, Collins LC, Nowels KW, Plevritis SK, Garber JE,
    Ford JM, AR Hartman. Ductal lavage of fluid-yielding and nonfluid-yielding ducts in BRCA1 and 2 mutation carriers
    and other women at high inherited breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14: 1082 – 1089 (2005).
    Suriano G, Ford JM, Longacre TA, Norton JA, Chun N, Lynch H, Huntsman DG, et al. Characterization of a recurrent
    germ line mutation of the E-cadherin gene: implications for genetic testing and clinical management. Clin Cancer
    Res 11: 5401-5409 (2005).
    Bomgarden RD, Lupardus PJ, Yee MC, Ford JM and Cimprich KA. Opposing roles of UV lesion repair protein XPA and
    UV bypass polymerase h on ATR checkpoint activation. EMBO J. 7: 2605 – 2614 (2006).
    Chen X, Zhang J, Lee J, Lin P, Ford JM, Zheng N and Zhou P. A kinase-independent function of c-Abl in promoting
    proteolytic destruction of damaged DNA binding proteins. Mol. Cell. 22: 489-499 (2006).
    Ji H, Kumm J, Zhang M, Farnam K, Salari K, Faham M, Ford JM, Davis RW. Molecular inversion probe analysis of gene
    copy alterations reveals distinct categories of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Research 66: 7910-7919 (2006).
    Ford JM and Whittemore A. Prediction and prevention of hereditary colorectal cancer. JAMA 296:1521-1523 (2006).
    Norton JA, Van Dam J, Jeffrey RB, Longacre TA, Huntsman DG, Kurian AW, Chun N and Ford JM. CDH1 truncating
    mutations in the E-cadherin gene: an indication for total gastrectomy to treat hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. Annals
    of Surgery 245: 873 – 879 (2007).
    Kaurah P, Ford J, Pharoah P, Fernandez B, Huntsman D. et al. Founder and recurrent CDH1 mutations in hereditary
    diffuse gastric cancer families. JAMA 297: 2360 – 2372 (2007).
    Ghataorhe P, Kurian AW, Pickart A, Trapane P, Norton JA, Kingham K and Ford JM. A carrier of both MEN1 and BRCA2
    mutations: case report and review of the literature. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics 179: 89 – 92 (2007).
    Adimoolam S, Sirisawad M, Chen J, Thiemman P, Ford JM and Buggy JJ. HDAC inhibitor PCI-24781 decreases
    RAD51 expression and inhibits homologous recombination. 104: 19482 – 87, PNAS (2007).
    Kwong A, Wong LP, Chan KYK, Ma ESK, Khoo US and Ford JM. Characterization of the pathogenic mechanism of a
    novel BRCA2 variant in a Chinese family. Familial Cancer 7: 125-33 (2008).

    • ADParker said,

      Ninety you say! So he has a ways to go to top Carl Sagan’s 600 then?

  10. Kent A. Perry said,

    You Darwits think he has all the fireworks in his background as the school custodian

    When someone like James M. Foards thinks the theory is JUST a bad Hypothesis, it’s because IT IS and I doubt you two clowns could explain it any better than Gould failed to make sense with it

    • ADParker said,

      Do you even know how science works Kent?!
      The opinion of just one man doesn’t count for much at all, no matter who he is, or what qualifications and references he might have.

      • Kent Perry said,

        “Do you even know how science works Kent?!” – AdParker

        Do I “EVEN” ? ,,, know how science works?

        Well gee there Sugar n Spice, that all depends who’s askin.

        Now it it was Einstein, well I doubt he would have tried to humiliate me publicly like that just to get the folks at home to laugh at the dumb guy dum de doh doh. But to answer that question if he asked, I’d say “No Mr Einstein” I don’t know that much but I sure love science.

        Now IF YOU were to ask me,, I’d just say, watch and learn son,, watch, listen, and learn.

        Then you said this Parker: “The opinion of just one man doesn’t count for much at all, no matter who he is, or what qualifications and references he might have.”

        Well you’re wrong again son. you see Parker the opinion of one man is as more important that hundreds if the one man is right

  11. Kent A. Perry said,

    Now watch what happens next.

    You’ll see what I mean Doc It’ll be like they struck gold

    • ADParker said,

      Oh, so you already knew from the start how flawed your assertions were? So why did you go ahead and make them anyway?

  12. ADParker said,

    Charlie said:
    “Does anyone yet have any evidence to support that micro-evolution can be repeated enough times to generate anything resembling macro-evolution (the beginnings/stubs for new organs, limbs, feathers, sensory organs, anything?)”
    You don’t understand what “macroevolution” means.

    Charlie said:
    “I say roll a pair of dice three trillion times. Every time you roll more than a 12 on a pair of dice, add it to a running total.”

    That’s just stupid

    Charlie said:
    “RM and NS do nothing for you except to rove around a nice average stasis.”

    As it happens that IS one of the known consequences of evolution. As proposed by someone (whose name escapes me at the moment) prior to Charles Darwin.

    Charlie said:
    “In fact, they have a tendency to do nothing but degenerate the species over time. “

    That certainly is a well travelled LIE.

    Charlie said:
    “I mean- prove me wrong. Where is the evidence?”

    Read Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish. And just perhaps we will have something to discuss.

    Charlie said:
    “As much as you’d like science to work that way, it just doesn’t. If you lower the standards, all you will get is gibberish, and you may as well include astrology and palm reading within your definition of science.”

    Hey! Just like Michael Behe (the only one who at least resembles a real scientist in the Discovery Institute) admits “Science” would have to be redefined in order for Intelligent Design to fit under the label! Coincidence?!

    Charlie said:
    “Where’s the beef? Plain and simple. Where is the evidence for just that one key piece of necessary phenomenon? Micro to Macro.”

    Look up Observed instances of Speciation. THAT is the dividing line of the (now antiquated) areas of evolutionary study. (You DO know that Micro- and Macro- were actually focuses of study of the same phenomenon, right? One the finer details and mechanisms, the other the broader consequences of those mechanisms and processes.)

    Charlie said:
    “And know this- that I personally do hope you sincerely bring forward the best EVIDENCE to support your case… but I don’t believe that this hope will lend you any success.”

    It’s all out there, do your own research. Over a quarter of a million published papers for a start. But I wouldn’t recommend them as your starting point.

  13. ADParker said,

    Kent Perry said:
    ” “Isaac Newton would kick your guy’s ass in terms of intellect (the man invented calculus in 18 months while in his early twenties for goodness sake!) And he believed strongly in alchemy (and specific aspects therein), and despite his undoubted brilliance he was wrong.”

    So what’s your point Parker? “

    One would have thought that my point was obvious. Went straight over your head apparently.
    The Appeal to Authority of an individual IS STUPID.

    Your boast that this guy Foard was so brilliant in no way means that his opinion on this one thing is accurate. As my Isaac Newton example illustrated.

    Kent Perry said:
    “I mean other than your suggestion that had Newton been an atheist he would have been like you.

    “Perfect”

    WTF?! How on earth could ANYONE get THAT from what I wrote? Do you have mental health issues Kent?

    • Kent Perry said,

      WTF?! “How on earth could ANYONE get THAT from what I “wrote?”

      “Do you have mental health issues Kent?”

      No and again Parker, what is your point. I mean besides your incessant tactic of sugar coating your personal insults like some militant feminist whose pms’ing and didn’t get the self esteem boost you so desperately needed at your latest power lunch meeting with the rest of your rat shit septic bitches. You think your do God Damn smart and right all the time Parker you can suggest, what? I’m retarded now?

      I’ve about had enough of your instigating pussy pals and incorrect understanding of logical fallacy.

      So forgive me for serving up a big ole cup of STFU but between you and Charlie who BTW has handily foisted you on his trophy rack of road killed and debated, disemboweled deaf dumb and delusional darwits.

      So look Jack ass, this is how it is,

      Dane comes in offers his unsolicited, amateur opinion about one of the great aggregation of the many educated individuals out there who have got that marxist god hating commie, Gould, pegged for the desperate bullshitter he is .

      The fact you all can’t seem to explain punctuated equilibrium is no surprise either. Sort of like that quote of Behe’s you can’t seem to repeat without mis-representing him and dis-contextualizing statements in what can only be acknowledged as your own intentional and dis-honest attempt to disparage him.

      The call to authority is as DUMB an accusation as you can make because it has nothing to do with the argument about whether Gould is as as the author claims, but to you two ass hats opinion the author doesn’t understand science.

      AS IF YOU, DO!

      But you don’t Parker. you are a compete RETARD when it comes to this topic, The logical choice for me as to who would have more standing as an authority is pretty damn clear you fucking pencil neck bitch. It’s either the author or you two morons with your tawdry little taunts, snide sarcastic remarks wrapped up in that vindictive jealous cheerleader.bitch act

      You want more authority Girlfriend?

      “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”—*James Shapiro, in National Review,

      Physicians Dissent from neo-Darwinism

      According to a 2005 poll, 112,500 or 15% of licensed physicians in the US reject neo-Darwinism. An even greater number, 315,000 believe that “God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings.” There are 750,000 licensed physicians in the US.

      When asked to select between two choices, 1) Evolution

      or

      2) Intelligent Design, a full one third of physicians polled selected Intelligent Design. That extrapolates to 250,000 physicians accept Intelligent Design rather than neo-Darwinian Evolution. The press release is here.

      “evolution is a pseudo-intellectual rationalization for those who want to avoid the idea that they are accountable to their Creator, so they can thus live their lives as they please. And it’s not just creationists who think so” — Hawaiid

      observations of extensive multi-cellular collaboration among most of bacterial species.

      requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and leading the way is Intelligent Design you fuckin retard, you got NO, NOT THE SLIGHTEST IDEA how far behind you are parker, you are still offering asinine and totally irrelevant arguments against ID that most REAL scientists don’t have the time to listen to. The reason is simple, you’re too God Damn stupid and too arrogant and too conceited to not only, NOT see, the elephant in the room but that same elephant has been wiping its ass every time it takes a dump using your face, shit head and YOU STILL think you got something with meat in it, ranting about your piss ant call to authority bullshit.

      You morons are so stuck in the past still using that old debunked garbage at talk origins, your tantrums and Job Discrimination tactics your insistence on calling people names because they attend a church or that whiny little metro sexual lunatic old man Dawkin’s gets his butt hurt because People like Shapiro have punkT his ass for good and no one has time to waste time listening to his little army of parrots sounding off in unison like immature little punks saying

      “GoD Did it” HA HA DOH!

      With the help of atheists and their manure of manic reaction to even the slightest clue some scientist might have donated to the Salvation Army, it was their own fucking stupidity that has ID shoving shoe store after shoe store down your big fuckin mouths. It was an atheist who went to court and got atheism, recogjzed as a religion, but it has been your angst aggression towards relgion every time science is brought up you tell creationists to keep Religion out of it yet Thanks to you retards, their is a lot of talk going on where even supreme court justices are sick and fuckin tired of listening to you fuckin ignorant atheist assholes.

      Me on the other hand I’d a knocked your fuckin teeth out just to keep the stupid on your breath from stinking up the room.

      That is all you seem to be good at because YOU SURE DON’T KNOW JACK SHIT about science. I know YOU THINK you do but that is your problem, you think you’re so perfect in contrast to those of us who are in this for the advances in science and not to protect the public from those evil religious folk, The Fact is you dumb son of a bitch, if Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, to even begin to substantiate all that BULLSHIT you morons continue to make up as you go then many of us would give up on ID.

      Not since the Sokal Affair were we so UN-impressed with your silly science “peer refute ” process where a day doesn’t go by that relativist moralist dis-honest atheists are lying and cheating about their alleged science.

      So much so that all you have done is get your stupid assine theory in coordination with your venemous vapid and intellectually vacant, dead theory you call a fact, being seriously considered so inextricably linked with your fuckin atheism, It’s comments by the dimwit for darwit, dick dawkins, saying things like this his “stated his goal is to kill religion” that WE are starting to win law suits getting Evolution KICKED out of public schools like the atheist recruiting tool it has been since Darwin came up with the fantasy.

      We are seeing it in more and more courts where Judges perusing the internet run into the biggest pricks and assholes in the universe. The terminally self righteous “scienatheist” and their religion of scientism called Neo Darwinian evolution.

      Yeah Bitch, be looking out for what us coming because your comeuppance is in such Karmic receivership, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near an atheist when that karmic train wreck you call a theory, finally gets what it justly deserves.

      Did you know, a TAX payer who is constantly being insulted for his religion by groups of evolution atheist’s have a legal standing for refusing to contribute any more money the competitive religion of Darwin? Yeah TRUE, and we are not going to stop till you mouthy mother fuckers are DUST! The in face militant atheists are about to find out that their face runs into for being so god damn pushy proselytizing their FAKE PHONY BULLSHIT Science and the mountain of lies they have to support it.

      religion on the basis of separation of Church and state. Something you idiots are not even aware of is the MASSIVE investment and lobby to prove that in FACT is all your science is, A Godless Religion

      So you and Dahmer can shove your unscientific opinions

      where Darwin got his Idea for evolution

      UP HIS ASS

      • ADParker said,

        Heh. I think poor ol’ Kent’s mind has slipped off the rails!
        Do you think he was ACTUALLY frothing at the mouth when he wrote that?

  14. Kent Perry said,

    “One would have thought that my point was obvious. Went straight over your head apparently.
    The Appeal to Authority of an individual IS STUPID.

    Your boast that this guy Foard was so brilliant in no way means that his opinion on this one thing is accurate. As my Isaac Newton example illustrated.” – ad parker

    The difference is, DAME didn’t illustrate WHY it is inaccurate and neither did you! YOU used an example of Newtons that was incorrect as an example for why I am about this guy but that doesn’t mean because NEWTON was wrong in that example, that listening to you two tards calling that article “the worst thing” blah blah blah” means YOU are right either. You proving Newton was wrong only proves Newton was wrong you moron.

    It’s a straw man you asshole and YOU KNOW IT.

    So my missing the point didn’t go over my head, it is that your point (if you want to call it one) has no relevance. I wasn’t appealing to his authority NOR do I think he is necessarily correct.

    I was merely pointing out the FACT that it doesn’t MATTER WHAT KIND OF BACKGROUND they have EVEN when it far exceeds that of you and Dumb ass dame, you label them as incorrect anyway. You did it without so much as investigating the background no matter how much more reason one would have, MOST would agree, it is a wiser choice between the two to think the more educated and noteworthy guy who is recognized as an authority by his peers in the science community, HAS more authority than some jack ass at rat shit septic who thinks he is just an idiot. I showed DAME is incorrect about that. It was NOT an appeal to authority that his article is right but that Dame is wrong about the guy that wrote it. So if anyone is missing the point, if anyone is having anything pass over their numb skulls,,,

    it is YOU TWO.

    So if I am going to listen to ANYONE, why on earth would I believe YOU TWO MORONS.

    Unless YOU can explain how he is wrong about Gould, your criticism of him and me is moot. It means NOTHING because you are NO BODY, YOU are NO ONE and the LAST thing you are,,

    is right.

    Just another brainwashed dimwit like dawkins thinking we evolved from non living matter to this.

    That our common ancestor

    was a rock.

    • ADParker said,

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “The difference is, DAME didn’t illustrate WHY it is inaccurate and neither did you!”

      I wasn’t responding to the article, but your waffle about the author’s qualifications etc.
      You WANT me to critique the article now?! Well okay then. But, Sheesh, I comment on a post not directed directly at me and you BITCH about me doing so. I don’t comment on another post not directed at me, and you bitch about me NOT doing so!

      But first the rest of this post:

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “YOU used an example of Newtons that was incorrect as an example”

      What was incorrect? Empty accusations are a waste of everyone’s fucking time.

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “It’s a straw man you asshole and YOU KNOW IT.”

      ‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.’

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “You did it without so much as investigating the background”

      Look Dumbass, I didn’t say one fucking thing about the article, or the author of the article. I only comment on your pointless spewing out of his qualifications, like that means something.

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “Unless YOU can explain how he is wrong about Gould, your criticism of him and me is moot.”

      Point out ONE instance when I made ANY criticism of the man (before the rest of this post of course) or man up and take back that accusation.

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “It means NOTHING because you are NO BODY, YOU are NO ONE and the LAST thing you are,,

      is right.”,/i>

      Heh. You have NO IDEA who I am Kent.
      I
      could be some complete uneducated boob, or one of the world’s foremost experts on the subject.

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “Just another brainwashed dimwit like dawkins thinking we evolved from non living matter to this.

      That our common ancestor

      was a rock.”

      Don’t do that Kent, it makes you look like a fool.

      Okay to the post with the quoted article:

      Kent A. Perry said:
      “From The Nebulous Hypothesis:
      A Study of the Philosophical and
      Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory
      © 1996 by James M. Foard

      “Evolutionists, like their shell artist counterparts at carnival booths, will manipulate the facts, frequently using misleading arguments to define evolution that only cloud over the real deficiencies of their case. One of their favorite techniques is to misuse or abuse our understanding of certain universal absolutes in their definition of evolution.”

      Okay, a number of broad and serious accusations there. Let’s see if he can back any of them up.

      James M. Foard said:
      “A typical example would be when they state quite blithely that evolution is simply “change over time”.”

      (And he goes on and on about this, doesn’t he?)
      Okay, this guy IS an idiot.*

      *Note that such insults refer, not to the overall nature of the individual (how would I know that?) but about is nature in this SPECIFIC case at this specific time (we are ALL idiots from time to time [If you think that your NEVER are, then you are doing it now.])

      the WORD “evolution” does mean (when pared down to its simplest form) “Change over time.” The use of that word differs, becomes more precise depending on the context. The ‘evolution of an idea (of the concept of Justice for example) is the “change over time” of the idea. How that idea has changed over some period of time. “cosmic evolution” is how the universe (and parts therein) have “changed over time.”
      Likewise the “Evolution of the Automobile” is a perfectly valid, recognised and readily understood phrase, IN ITS Context: The “change over time” of the Automobile (from the Model T Ford to modern Ferraris, Porches, Voltswagon Beetles, Honda Civics etc…)

      Biological evolution is the “change over time” of species, organisms, or as modern genetics has taught us “Change in allele frequency over time.”
      The “Theory of Evolution” is the Explanation of that biological evolution. (like all science, that theory is a work in progress.)

      Aside: Actually to be more accurate, that which we call the theory of evolution is a broad sweeping term that encompasses a (growing and shifting) number of ‘finer’ theories and hypotheses on various aspects of the whole of the diversity of life. 😉
      This is the case whether the current theory is correct , approximately correct, or not. And whether you BELIEVE it or not.

      James M. Foard said:
      “Well, nobody can argue that change definitely does take place over time.”

      I would suggest not being too firm on that “nobody” claim. But that is neither hear nor there. You may be surprised to find what SOME people believe!

      James M. Foard said:
      “The earth spins on its axis and revolves around the sun, and this is certainly change over time.”

      Indeed. And this could be referred to using the WORD “evolution.” Although it is more commonly used when the change is cumulative and progressive, where the later states differ from the earlier, where ‘the earth’ would be different, or it’s rotation would be, as a result of that change over time. As a general rule anyway.

      OF COURSE it is not the same thing as the Biological facts or theory of evolution. To make that mistake would be to fall into the Equivocation fallacy. Where one mistakenly equates two different (subtlety or significantly) usages of the same word.
      For example, did you know that “Theism” is a medical condition caused by drinking too much tea?

      James M. Foard said:
      “I walk or ride from my house to the store and back, and this is certainly change over time. I get up in the morning and go to sleep at night, and this is certainly change over time.

      Right again, again and again. But what is his point? The most general form of the word can be used in different contexts, so what?

      Kent Hovind, as you should know full well, plays this equivocation game to it’s fullest with his “six types of evolution” bullshit:
      1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time space an matter.
      2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of all the elements we have today.
      3. Stellar Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
      4. Organic Evolution: The origin of life from non-life.
      5. Macro Evolution: The origin of the major kinds of animals and plants.
      6. Micro Evolution: subtle variation within the kinds.

      James M. Foard said:
      “The entire creation is an example of change over time,”

      “Creation”; Now THERE is a obvious Clobber word.
      “Evolution” is a commonly used word for all kinds of “change over time”, but who but Creationists refer to the universe, everything and whatever as “Creation”? Who but those who presuppose that it all WAS created by some mysterious intelligent force?

      James M. Foard said:
      “unless it were to be frozen in a permanent instant of time with no past, present or future. So yes, any reasonable person would have to admit that change indeed does occur over time. But does this really provide any evidence for evolution? After all, even for a creationist, the first six chapters of Genesis taken literally are an example of change over time. The literal creation and fall of man was change over time. The descendants of Adam and Eve populating the earth was change over time. The universal Flood of Noah in the Bible was change over time. The consummation of the age in the book of Revelation will be “change over time”. So change over time is a universal constant, even within a creationist model. This is nothing that the evolutionists can lay exclusive claim to.

      What we need to do is ask ourselves what is the extent of this change over time, and is there any factual data provided by the evolutionist’s that this “change over time” lends any credibility to their case?”

      Blah blah blah…yes we get it James; you can’t grasp (or deliberately conflate) the distinction between a word and a singular context in which that word is used, between the word and the scientific discipline, facts and theory that uses the word.

      James M. Foard said:
      “The evolutionist’s definition of change over time involves an unproven assumption, that bacteria became metazoa that changed into fish that changed into amphibians that changed into reptiles that changed into mammals that turned into humans.”

      Now that’s just stupid, come on now!
      So now he not only conflates the general definition of the word “evolution” with the biological phenomenon, but ALSO conflates the broadest consequence of the theory of evolution with an assumption! The conclusion of a theory is an assumption now?! Where the Hel did this clown study science?!

      In his warped mind the biological theory of the evolution of organisms becomes “The assumption of change over time”!
      That’s not an assumption Numb Nuts (Foard I mean, of course) It’s a conclusion of evidence and scientific theory!
      Is the conclusion that Germs cause disease an “unproven assumption” of the germ theory of disease?!

      James M. Foard said:
      “We have seen in previous chapters, and will see later on in this one, that this is an entire fantasy – no actual evidence has ever occurred to substantiate this claim.”

      Yeah right, bring it on.

      James M. Foard said:
      “Darwin’s theory of evolution is change over time only in the same manner that “The Lord of the Rings” is change over time: They both are works of fiction.”

      {sigh} an petty insult along side of his simply ridiculous “Change over time” fixation.
      And while we are at it: DARWIN’S theory?! It was his once, and he started the modern theory off, but it has gone a hel of a long way in the last 150 years or so. In his day Palaeontology was a fledging enterprise, and genetics (while originated around the same time by Gregor Mendel) was almost entirely unknown, awaiting its rediscovery in the twentieth century.

      James M. Foard said:
      “Evolution glorifies destruction, extinction, selfish pride and the trampling of the weak under the ongoing progress of the strong, which has born bitter fruit in the 20th century, and if it continues to be our official academic Weltanschauung will produce a horrific future for mankind in the new century.”

      Wow! Yet again I must say this man is an idiot, a fool (and/or possibly a dishonest apologist for doctrine.)
      How tired is this crap, I mean honestly!

      Okay where to even begin in this wall of bullshit? The start I guess:

      1. “Evolution”
      I take it he means the theory of evolution this time? Not the observed facts of evolution (known about for millennia) or the general form of the word.

      2. “glorifies”
      WTF?! Seriously WTF?! Explaining the facts, in a cohesive theory (which is what an explanation of the observed facts is in science) does not “glorify”, nor promote, or anything of the sort. It simply explains the data. All this is, is evidence that the theory of evolution UPSETS his PASSIONATELY held and CHERISHED BELIEFS, he feels EMOTIONALLY AFFRONTED by it, and therefore reacts in an EMOTIVE manner. This is not, for him, about the truth, facts or science; it is about how it makes him FEEL.
      If the facts lead to conclusions that you don’t like; that imply things that offends you, then tough shit; the facts are the facts. Your personal feelings on the conclusions have nothing to do with it!

      3. “destruction”
      NO dipshit! It may include cases things dying off. Because WE KNOW that kind of stuff happens. It doesn’t “glorify” that (it couldn’t; it’s science!) it simply explains it. No ethical, emotional interpretation is involved!

      4. “extinction”
      Again; extinctions happen, we know this. So OF COURSE this has to be included in the theory, what use is a theory that explains the diversity of life, if it ignores the bits of life that people find unsettling?!
      Show us one freakin’ place where the theory GLORIFIES extinction. I mean come on!

      5. “selfish pride”
      Oh that’s just pathetic. It neither glorifies of claims any such thing! In fact there is NOTHING in the theory specifically about selfishness or pride, or indeed ANY emotional state! It may in a way EXPLAIN what such emotions might exist, as efforts have been made to examine/explain how OTHER states such as Altruism and community spirit ALSO arise!

      6. “ the trampling of the weak under the ongoing progress of the strong”
      Ha ha ha HA!! What a maroon!
      Another play on the old desperate distortion of the “Survival of the fittest” line. A line, by the way, coined by a philosopher to make an analogy between Darwin’s theory (it was his this time, between the first and second printing of his seminal work) and economics!
      It DOESN’T PROMOTE or GLORIFY it either!
      {sigh} Okay let’s spell this out;
      Survival of the fittest, as relevant to the ToE; what exactly does “fittest” mean in that context? Strongest? No
      Trampling the weak? No.
      All it means is those that happen to be the ‘fittest’ at surviving and producing viable young that also survive to procreate. That may mean the strongest, fastest, best predator, best at avoiding predators, but most of all it means ‘best’ suited to perform what is needed to promote survival and successful procreation within the certain niche they find themselves in. In other words: survival of those best able to survive (through generational time.) And that little cliché only covers a fraction (albeit a significant one) of what the theory covers.

      7. “which has born bitter fruit in the 20th century”
      Ah, how both tiresome and predictable. And practically an example of Godwin’s Law: Hitler, Stalin and Mao.. {Yawn}
      The ToE does not promote. It is not what a scientific theory does. If people did take the theory of evolution and claim that, or use it as if, it PROMOTES “survival of the fittest” (“fittest” as defined by the ones making the claim of course) then is so doing they are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy. Conflating as “is” with an “Ought.”
      Once again; the theory aims to explain what is, and how it came to be what it is. It promotes NOTHING, it makes no ethical stance on the moral value of what it finds.
      By way of example, Richard Dawkins (the atheistic evolutionary biologist the creationist movement most loves to hate) has said on many occasions from a scientific standpoint he is a staunch ‘evolutionist’ – he really really thinks it happened as the theory predicts. BUT from an ethical standpoint he is equally an ‘Anti-evolutionist’ – he doesn’t think that the moral imperative taken directly from the theory (that the ‘strongest’ should dominate and even wipe out the weak, if it can be seen as competing for the same resources…) it an good, or ethical idea AT ALL.

      The ethics and facts/theory, the truth and morality are two completely distinct issues. So why does this clown conflate them so horribly?!

      8. “and if it continues to be our official academic Weltanschauung will produce a horrific future for mankind in the new century.”
      Ooo Scaremongering. how pathetically predictable. And oh surprise surprise (sarcasm) an Appeal to EMOTION. And also an example of the appeal to consequences logical fallacy! “If this is true then this bad stuff will happen, therefore why not just assume that it isn’t true?” Sorry James, the real world doesn’t work like that. Your personal fear of the consequences doesn’t mean that the source of those consequences ain’t true. And in fact PRETENDING that it does only means that you will then FAIL to face the facts and have any hope of avoiding those consequences. you can’t just wish it away by pretending that it just ain’t true, merely because it scares you.

      And the ONLY weltanschauung is that the theory of evolution is accurate, NOT that it represents a good model to follow. What kind of idiot would think it was?!

      James M. Foard said:
      “Evolutionists try to masquerade their fiction as science, but there is nothing scientific about it at all.”

      Another, thus far empty, bold assertion. Does he in any way support this assertion with…well anything more than this empty rhetoric?

      James M. Foard said:
      “Thus we have to be extremely watchful, as our Lord said, “Wise as serpents and harmless as doves” on order to be on our guard against the duplicitous arguments of men who have set themselves against the truth, who have rebelled against the Word of God and seek to lead others astray in their rebellion.”

      Ah, a religious, in fact Christian quote and reference. Now that’s good science. Oh brother.

      James M. Foard said:
      “Another amazing argument used by evolutionists,”

      Another one? So that’s a “no” on supporting or backing up those empty insulting assertions? Okay then, expected nothing better to be honest.

      James M. Foard said:
      “based mind you on the absolute lack of any kind of fossil evidence of evolution for proof of the evolutionary theory,”

      So we can take it that Foard doesn’t understand how “proof” is not the purview of scientific theory then?
      You want proof? Try Mathematics, Formal Logic or Alcohol James.

      James M. Foard said:
      “would be Steven Jay Gould’s astounding concept of “punctuated equilibrium.” “

      Oh here we go. Poor old Gould. How the creationists love to misuse and abuse the words of this man. Not surprising as a result that it was he that first argued that scientists like him should not debate creationists.

      James M. Foard said:
      “It is the theory that a bird can hatch from a lizard’s egg, like Cinderella’s mice turning into coachmen, and has also been called the “hopeful monster” theory by evolutionists.”

      Oh you have GOT to be kidding me! “a bird can hatch from a lizard’s egg”?! Okay then, no way is this guy a mere fool. He is clearly a dishonest Lying for Jesus ASSHAT!
      This old canard exists NOWHERE in Prof. Gould’s hypothesis. It’s true source is dishonest creationist apologetic rhetoric. It is a STRAW MAN and a bald-faced LIE.

      James M. Foard said:
      “Actually Gould’s version is a bit slower than this,”

      In other words, he quickly takes back his LIE, in order to try to pretend he never made such an insulting piece of apologetic wankery! Too late! It can’t be unsaid.
      This is like the lawyer who says something that he KNOWS will be challenged immediately, because he knows it is not proper in the case, and therefore “retracts” it AS SOON as the challenge is raised. Because he knows that although it is now ‘technically’ stricken from the official record, it CAN NOT be unheard from the jury, and the intended effect is made. But in a way that he believes skirts around the rule of law. (“Yes I said that, but I retracted the statement, not my fault the the jury took heed of it just the same!”) And the aim here is obvious: to plant in the mind of the (largely believing) audience the sense of absurdity. So that every time from here on out one read “punctuated equilibrium” (or anything related to it) some part of one mind one equates this with the silly notion of lizards giving birth to birds.
      It’s dishonest, it’s manipulative, and it is quite frankly a disgusting vile practice of deceit! The only proper response to such a comment is therefore; FUCK YOU.

      James M. Foard said:
      “but essentially he is saying that evolution does not happen in a slow, gradual process, but in sudden spurts, and that is why there is not any fossil evidence of it having occurred.”

      And this is what you get when you get your ‘science’ from religious, scientifically illiterate, anti-evolution, creationist sources, instead of the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
      Gould argued that evolution often, in the specific clades he was actually taking about, at certain locations on the tree of life, is dominated by the processes of evolution (Natural Selection primarily) acting as a stabilising factor, resisting change, causing those organisms to remain relatively unchanged for extended periods. Which can (and in some cases are) followed by periods where this changes. The environment changes in some way (“environment” meaning pretty much anything that affects the survival and promulgation/procreation success of the species involved) resulting in relatively rapid change.
      Why this occurs is relatively simple to understand. Let’s use Temperature as an example environmental factor:
      Say for a long time the temperature remains basically stable. The species living in that habitat, as a result come to be suited for that climate. And from there any mutations and variations that will crop us (as they are wont to do) add no benefit (are deleterious or neutral) so tend to disappear. Meaning that over all the species will change little, as there is no emphasis to do so, no advantage in such change. Now image the temperature changes (rapidly when seen from a more ‘geological’ perspective), warmer or colder, it doesn’t really matter. All of a sudden some of the variations that continue to occur WILL result in ‘beneficial’ forms. ‘Suddenly’ change, and adaptation to the new environment, is something than can be called “beneficial.” Change (evolutionary diversification) becomes something that is to be positively “selected” for, when once Stability, the status quo, was the thing best selected for.

      James M. Foard said:
      “This shows the desperate lengths that evolutionists will go to bolster support for their theory,”

      He says, demonstrating complete ignorance (or wilfully distortion and dismissal of) the history of the hypothesis. There was quite a bit of heated debate WITHIN the theory. It flew against the dominant “Gradualist” concept of the theory of evolution.
      And as a result Gould’s ‘PE’ hypothesis has been played by creationists, as a “desperate attempt to save the ToE” and “A competing theory, challenging and refuting the ToE.” All borne out of a willful ignorance of what the hypothesis actually is!

      Interestingly, although Richard Dawkins was the prime challenger to Gould when he first proposed the hypothesis (largely because both took their preferred concept, Gradualism and PE respectively, a bit too far) he now finds a great deal of merit in what he (and others) calls the “evolution of evolvability”, which is in many ways similar, even a form of, punctuated equilibrium, in which species develop features that spark of a flurry or evolutionary diversification. Examples of which include Multicellularity and Segmentation.

      James M. Foard said:
      “since punctuated equilibrium states that the lack of transitional fossil forms is still evidence for evolution!”

      No it doesn’t. You have no clue James!

      It explains why, in certain clades (identified by Gould in his works) we see long periods in which all fossils show little signs of change, at least ‘significant’ change in form. Followed by relatively rapid periods of significant diversification. Alongside OTHER clades in which a more gradual “change over time” is clearly present. It is one explanation of the particular ‘shape’ of the “tree of life.” Why some branches seem to shift (evolve) at different rates than others. It shows evolution as a vast array of differing and dynamic changes in the diversity of life, with different clades shifting and changing in many and varied ways and patterns. As opposed to a simple progression of steady gradual, measurable, change.

      James M. Foard said:
      “It is like the two headed coin used by con artists that always comes up heads: If evolutionists had fossil evidence for evolution, they could say “We have fossil evidence for evolution, therefore it occurred.” But because they have no fossil evidence for evolution, they say “We don’t have fossil evidence for evolution, therefore it occurred.” Since evolution must have occurred, if there’s no evidence of it, this is taken as evidence for evolution by evolutionists!”

      Idiot. Punctuated Equilibrium IS NOT simply an explanation for the poverty of fossil evidence is certain areas of the fossil record. It is an attempt to explain why in some cases there appear more radically different forms in that record, too close together for anyone to expect any signs of any gradual record of change. There is more to it than that as well, but Neither Foard or you Kent display any signs of having any interest in learning anything that is not a part of your cherished doctrine.

      James M. Foard said:
      This is one of the boldest, most bald-faced evolutionary charades ever conducted in the history of science, and the fact that it has become the subject of intense scrutiny in scientific papers over the past twenty-five years shows the utter bankruptcy of evolutionary theory!”

      Did you read this Kent?! Intense scrutiny is evidence that it has no scientific merit?! HA!
      That scrutiny, by the way, has established that PE is indeed a part, although not a terribly significant once, of the history of the evolution of life on Earth.

      James M. Foard said:
      ”One has to wonder why Gould ever cooked up this theory in the first place and advance an argument so deficient in fact and logic. Perhaps to avoid the creationists’ principle argument: the scant evidence for evolution?”

      Oh the projection.
      It is the creationists that have the evolution fixation, not the other way around. Often to the point that many a claimed “lecture of the truth of creationism” amounts to nothing but an attack on evolution. Or rather a confused distorted caricature of what the creationist apologists THINKS is evolution. People like Kent Hovind I have concluded, have in their minds a definition of “Evolution” that amounts to “Any and all science that does not conform to Young Earth Creationist doctrine.”

      Gould came up with the hypothesis because the evidence of certain clades in the fossil record suggested it to him. I don’t think he was the first either. But like Darwin before him, was the first to formalise it is to a definitive hypothesis. Ultimately true or false, that is often how science works.

      James M. Foard said:
      ”There actually are a couple of possibilities. Perhaps Gould was beginning to realize that the evidence for evolution was so inadequate that the genie was going to pop out of the bottle sooner or later.”

      This is wishful thinking from someone who already presupposes a preferred conclusion.
      PE was never about any imagined problem with the ToE itself, but just certain perceived discrepancies WITHIN it. A matter of fleshing out the details, of exactly how evolution occurred/occurs.

      James M. Foard said:
      ”Perhaps the lack of evidence for evolution had produced the same change of mind that other scientists had experienced when they converted from evolution to creationism, but Gould simply didn’t have the fortitude to come out and admit it.”

      More wishful thinking. He just WANTS the answer to be that his religious dogma is true and evolution is not, and therefore for THAT to be the reason for any shifts within the ToE. Note the complete lack of any attempt to offer anything remotely scientific to support this personal belief. Instead all we get is personal conjecture and wishful thinking.
      Perhaps it was the lack of evidence for evolution (which Gould would have been the first to tell you, in no uncertain terms, is complete and utter unadulterated nonsense; what freakin’ lack?!) or perhaps it was Gus the magical purple transcendental Hippopotamus that lives in his lower Colon that told him that changed his mind. Hel, it’s as good a reason as the one James gave here. That is an entirely empty postulation, without ANY attempt made to validate it in the slightest.

      This is more evidence that believing creationists are his target audience here. Who else would be convinced by this empty rhetoric, but those who ALREADY believe as he does?

      James M. Foard said:
      ”After all, no one would relish being an academic pariah, or of being some over-the-hill reactionary against the unquestioned dogma of evolution. After all, Gould’s career and reputation is staked on maintaining the legend of Charles Darwin and his theory on center stage.”

      Oh you must have loved this part Kent; James likes to resort to childish personal attacks as well. And it is just laughable when you consider that to a large extent Prof. Gould was going AGAINST the then established evolutionary paradigm. He was rocking the boat, NOT “maintaining the legend.”

      James M. Foard said:
      ”The other possibility is that Gould simply ignored the implications of the lack of evidence for evolution because he was too steeped in his beliefs to honestly evaluate the facts presented before his very eyes.”

      Which is just ridiculous isn’t it? Gould Noted the differences in the fossil records between different clades, and in examining those differences formulated a hypothesis to explain those differences. And to a certain extent that hypothesis bore fruit. Certain predictions that came out of it were realised and so forth. Does that mean the hypothesis is necessarily true? No, of course not. What it does do however is establish it as a viable hypothesis, a plausible explanation of the observed facts.

      James M. Foard said:
      ”This explanation has profound and sadly evocative tones of certain of the false beliefs during the middle ages which people clung to, despite new scientific discoveries that contradicted their beliefs, simply because they were swayed by the overpowering psychological effects of the herd instinct.”

      And here we have a pathetic attempt to equate this hypothesis to earlier failed ones. A pathetic attempt at (fallacious) guilt by (imagined, fabricated, unsupported) association.

      James M. Foard said:
      ”As then, even today, despite their education and training, many academics are unable to divorce themselves from a mistaken scientific hypothesis that they were taught was true in the early days of their careers when their minds were impressionable by men whom they respected and to some degree adulated as nearly infallible. Thus from one generation to the next the evolution myth has been passed on by believing academics to students, who in turn become the next generation of academics, using the same flawed logic with unquestioning faith.” “

      {Sigh} How pathetic can this guy get?! Encouraging people to just ASSUME (as he does presumably) that the ToE (and PE) is false without any real attempt to demonstrate this assertion, by trying to connect it to unspecified earlier hypotheses and beliefs that have fallen by the wayside.

      It is really nothing more than “Just trust me on this (empty assertion of mine); the ToE is wrong, and although I can not, and have no real interest in explaining how, I assure you it will eventually be proven to be so.” This guy is a scientist? So why does he demonstrate no scientific rigour here whatsoever?

      • Charlie said,

        How fun…

        I used to think you might actually be intelligent, ADP. I really did. I could barely read your last post and not want to just bust out laughing. I actually read about half way through and just couldn’t go on.

        So I jumped to the end…

        I can’t… I tried… I’ll have to try again later…

        Holy funnies!!!

    • Dane said,

      Amazing.

      That was one of the best rants I’ve ever read. Seriously, you could be a poster boy for the I’m-A-Christian-That-Believes-In-God-Not-Evolution crowd.

      You see, what you fail to realize is that Foards never really explains WHY Gould’s theory of PE is wrong nor does he explain why the ToE is wrong…he just assaults it with colorful metaphors and personal attacks.

      His entire argument boils down to the same tactic used by people who support ID, namely they look at the ToE, look at the mechanics that are not 100% defined and understood and use that to say “see?? They don’t know anything, so it must be wrong!!” It’s complete intellectual dishonesty.

      But I tell you what, Bible-thumper…you want to prove ID is right? All you have to is one thing: produce the designer for me or at least show me where the designer can be found…and don’t hand me any of those metaphysical inferences that IDer’s love so well. I’m talking about an actual physical, observable, verifiable designer. Oh….wait…..ID can’t do that. Shucks and other comments. I guess this is why, during the Dover trial, Michael Behe said that ID is “about as scientific as astrology”.

      Your statistics about what the public believes is meaningless. The general public is so ill-informed when it comes to scientific awareness and understanding that such polls can’t be taken seriously. In addition, it’s just another fallacy to make an appeal to the masses; after all, the majority once believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that sickness was brought on by evil spirits, so what does that tell you?

      The funny thing is that the religious minded like yourself consistently claim that atheists and those people who accept the ToE just make excuses to believe it…they’ll make up any reason not to believe in any kind of intelligent designer or god because they have too much pride or are too self-centered,etc. etc. However, that’s really not the case. All they ask for is clarification and substantiation of the existence of some designer or god…and no one, NO ONE, has ever produced any.

      Meanwhile, science has produced completely empirical, observable, rationally objective evidence that the ToE IS valid, but no matter what you put in front of IDer’s or the religious minded, they ALWAYS look for a reason NOT to accept it.

      And that’s why I’m done with you. Go ahead and post another rant, call me Dame, curse at me and sink to a new low. That’s all you got. I’ve got the validity of scientific truth on my side. I should have known it was a mistake to try and bring it to another crazed fundie.

      • Charlie said,

        Okay, Dane, how are you today?

        Please allow me to jump right in here…

        Dane: “All you have to is one thing: produce the designer for me or at least show me where the designer can be found…and don’t hand me any of those metaphysical inferences that IDer’s love so well. I’m talking about an actual physical, observable, verifiable designer. ”

        Not God, bud. Nice try. You can reduce Him in your mind all you want. He is irreducible. (That is- for your benefit alone- IF He exists) You cannot point at YOUR definition of God, point out how YOUR God has to abide by YOUR rules, and then cast him away as though He is nonsense. I mean… you can… but it is gibberish.

        It’s like me calling you Dane and then just ‘proving’ to others that you don’t exist in true reality because Dane is just too silly a name to every be given to a person. And how can those letters really be a person- after all- I can’t see you beyond them! Obviously, you are more than your name, and for me to reduce you to a single four letter representation and then cast you away with no further consideration would be ridiculous, don’t you think? That is what you have done above. (And actually, I kinda like the name. It fits you, I’m sure.)

        (I’m just funnin’ here, but I really just want to call you Great Dane… just so I can call you GD… I just know it’s wrong to play that name game… but we can have fun here on this forum, too, right? Don’t read too much into that- I don’t know you well enough to fun like that. But I really am just playing… Okay, done. Back to serious…)

        Try all of your logic out against the God of the Christian Bible if you like. But I thought this was a site about evolution, anyhow.

        Why does every objection to Evolution have to end up in an equally passionate rejection against God? We’re talking about science. Science should follow certain rules and logic and reason. Faith does not require the same level of scrutiny. Your shadow-boxing here. Deal with the actual stuff that we CAN know… science, right? And understand that if you abuse science often enough and continue to call it science… that science will no longer have any rational authority.

        Dane: “All they [atheists/evolutionists] ask for is clarification and substantiation of the existence of some designer or god…and no one, NO ONE, has ever produced any.”
        And you’ll never get any ‘substantiation’, bud. Not the kind that you think you deserve. Not until you actually do, and by then, well, you ‘know’ and I know… But then again you don’t expect any for the ToE, either, so I suppose that’s a dead argument.

        “Meanwhile, science has produced completely empirical, observable, rationally objective evidence that the ToE IS valid”
        Name just ONE! (Just a single one that does not rely upon an endless chain of other ‘evidences’ that all assume the ‘fact’ of evolution to begin with!)

        “but no matter what you put in front of IDer’s or the religious minded, they ALWAYS look for a reason NOT to accept it.”
        OR… maybe we keep finding NO reason to accept it. (Gee whiz, I don’t know WHY you keep rejecting each lie I tell you… You just are always looking for a reason not to accept my faulty assertions!)

        The way I see it is Put up or Shut up. If you put up a stupid argument, believe that others will look upon you as stupid. Put up an intelligent argument and you’ll find some respect. Look over the material that you want to post… and READ IT carefully and critically FOR YOURSELF. If you think that WE might find a flaw with it… then don’t post it! (Or at least post it and point out the flaws yourself.) You will only make yourself look stupid because YOU didn’t catch it. I won’t call out your intelligence. What you post will stand on its own as witness for or against you.

        Good luck. (Please don’t come back without EVIDENCE.)
        EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE! (Keep repeating until it sets into your mind that what we desire here is EVIDENCE.)

        Thank you, and have a nice day now.

      • Dane said,

        Well, that’s just the problem, isn’t Charlie? You jump in here with claims of some designer or god that you claim can’t be reduced, that “it” is irreducible. However, I’m not asking you to reduce it…I’m asking you to show it.

        Sorry, bud, but god or the designer or whatever you want to call it doesn’t get a pass because you think it has to exist beyond the bounds of rationally objective and demonstrative evidence. If that’s the case, dialogue with you is useless because while I will produce actually observable, empirical, verifiable, rationally objective evidence and data, you will never do the same.

        As for your criticism to show you one bit of evidence that doesn’t rely on other evidences that are “assumed” to be fact…well that is demonstrative of the fact that you are already predisposed to thinking a certain way. For example if I throw up: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html, then your response would be something like :

        “That doesn’t prove anything because of all that just assumes whatever came before it is right. Just one unproved assumption after another.”

        Unfortunately, that’s not how science works. It works based on what is observed with consistency…and the ToE consistently works. While there are indeed mechanics of evolution that are not 100% understood, that in no way invalidates the theory.

        ID and religious ideology work in the exact opposite. They do not change or grow…they are not self-correcting. They ultimately do nothing more than serve the human desire for their to be some sort of supernatural answer; after all, life becomes more tolerable when you believe there is some omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent designer/god/being that not only made you but has a vested interest in your welfare.

        Even if all the criticisms that you and others direct at evolution were accurate, you won’t even acknowledge that the ToE, in it’s entirety, at least makes a strong enough case to be considered as a viable explanation. You simply reject it outright.

        The alternative is impossible to consider as fact without also considering the metaphysical and the supernatural as fact, as that is where ID ultimately leads. Religious ideology begins there. You chastise ‘evolutionists’ for not considering your alternative, but you never give a REASON to consider your alternative. All you do is try and poke holes in the ToE and attempt to use that to substantiate your claims as being correct.

        Unfortunately, that never works because science acknowledges that it doesn’t have all the answers and that data and evidence need to be continually gathered…that’s why it’s called SCIENCE.

        When that route fails, your ilk attempts the supernatural and metaphysical route. ‘If you’d just open your eyes’ or ‘open yourself to the wonders around you’ or ‘just let your heart guide you’ or other equally ambiguous nonsense is what we get. We always get the claim that ‘god/the designer is all around you for you to see, you just have to look the right way’ coming out on side of your mouth while the other side attempts to employ pseudo-science to satisfy the other side.

        I could make the same claim about the evidence for the ToE…the problem here is that evidence I have is real, observable, and verifiable. A designer/god is NOT NOR HAS ONE EVER BEEN observed, verified, measured, realized or otherwise shown to exist. EVERYTHING about this supposed is built on inference, NOT evidence.

        So, if you want to talk EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE Charlie, you come up with some that provides a rationale basis as to why one would consider ID as viable. I’m not talking about inferences or intuitions or just looking for where the ToE isn’t complete…I’m talking about actual evidence that demonstrates the viability of ID on it’s own…that it can be observed, verified and tested…that a designer is present and can be shown to exist in an observable, rationally objective fashion. Don’t bother replying to me until you can do that.

  15. ADParker said,

    Charlie said:
    “… I really did. I could barely read your last post and not want to just bust out laughing. I actually read about half way through and just couldn’t go on.

    So I jumped to the end…

    I can’t… I tried… I’ll have to try again later…
    …”

    Well thanks for the detailed explanations of all the errors I made anyway. I am sure that will be most helpful in my improving of my position etc. {sigh}

  16. Kent Perry said,

    “Creation”; Now THERE is a obvious Clobber word.”
    “Evolution” is a commonly used word for all kinds of “change over time”, but who but Creationists refer to the universe, everything and whatever as “Creation”? Who but those who presuppose that it all WAS created by some mysterious intelligent force?”- Parker

    Well the fact of creation is FACT there is no argument that CREATION HAPPENED!

    Sound Familiar asshole?

    The idea that a creaTOR must be identified ID doesn’t talk about that, that is another science. Try reading about ABIOGENESIS.

    Sound Familar Asshole!

    Kent A. Perry said:
    “YOU used an example of Newtons that was incorrect as an example”

    “What was incorrect? Empty accusations are a waste of everyone’s fucking time.”-Adparker

    Look Shit for brains, THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID NEWTON WAS INCORRECT ABOUT !

    Parker talking about Isaac Newton “believed strongly in alchemy (and specific aspects therein), and despite his undoubted brilliance he was wrong.” – Adparker

    Then I SAID , just because Newton was incorrect only proves NEWTON was incorrect. Take your Head out of your ass parker and try to keep up. I realize you and Dame go to Science class on the short bus but that isn’t our problem hoss.

    Next Quote:
    “Blah blah blah…yes we get it James; you can’t grasp (or deliberately conflate) the distinction between a word and a singular context in which that word is used, between the word and the scientific discipline, facts and theory that uses the word.” – Parker

    That where you said he can’t grasp the distinction? Well NONE of us can unless you want to ASSUME you know and can prove it but you only THINK you know and so far the questions stevebee has given that put those assumptions in serious doubt is why A LOT of scientists don’t buy your bullshit religion parker. It’s A RECRUITING TOOL FOR YOUR GODLESS MARXIST WORLDVIEW.

    “4. “extinction”
    Again; extinctions happen, we know this. So OF COURSE this has to be included in the theory, what use is a theory that explains the diversity of life, if it ignores the bits of life that people find unsettling?!
    Show us one freakin’ place where the theory GLORIFIES extinction. I mean come on!” – Ad Parker

    Wouldn’t be the first time Parker, and since you don’t know jack shit about the HUGE fan of Communism amd Marxism Gould is to this day, it stands to reason why he glorifies DEATH and Destruction. Most atheist regimes (those lucky enough to lead state Governments) invariably become killing machines for the state. That isn’t what is so surprising to most but HOW FAST they become genocidal. The fact is, atheist regimes have caused more death an destruction than all the religious wars combined. Many times they had justified these mass murders, citing Darwin and his TOE.

    I know you will disagree but it doesn’t matter, I know history and showing me a bunch of belt buckles that say God is with us in German, doesn’t mean anything about the atheistic Nazi Party. You got coins in your pocket saying in God we trust and that never stops YOU from using them to buy your meds when you need them.

    “Once again; the theory aims to explain what is, and how it came to be what it is. It promotes NOTHING, it makes no ethical stance on the moral value of what it finds.
    By way of example, Richard Dawkins (the atheistic evolutionary biologist the creationist movement most loves to hate) has said on many occasions from a scientific standpoint he is a staunch ‘evolutionist’ – he really really thinks it happened as the theory predicts. BUT from an ethical standpoint he is equally an ‘Anti-evolutionist’ – he doesn’t think that the moral imperative taken directly from the theory (that the ‘strongest’ should dominate and even wipe out the weak, if it can be seen as competing for the same resources…) it an good, or ethical idea AT ALL” Ad Parker

    He doesn’t say it promostes it Parker so don’t get your pink panties in a bunch. He is saying it INSPIRES it and their is no denying Marx and Hitler referred to Darwins TOE many times

    As for Dawkin’s you don’t know the man very well then do you girlfriend, Dawkins would trash a human being after a later term abortion that survived as fast as Obama. They are BOTH heartless gutless and brainless morons.

    Atheists are silly By Kent Perry

    “And while we are at it: DARWIN’S theory?! It was his once, and he started the modern theory off, but it has gone a hel of a long way in the last 150 years or so”.- ADPARKER

    Oh yes I understand the changes it has gone through what with all the lies that have been said even the famous Brontosaurus never really existed. ( and I really liked that Dino too “sniffle”)

    Yes even today your beloved pope of the TOE that old raving maniac whats his name? You know the silly little faggot with the effeminate british accent you all adore and swoon over, the silly little zoo keeper, oh yeah, Dick, That’s his name, Dick Dawkins, that guy that claims he got tricked or “set up” every damn time he gets painted into a corner and bitches like a little pussy. Even SHE, refers to it as what again? That’s right, parker even DICK calls it “Darwinian evolution” and natural selection.

    Maybe you ought to respond to Dawkins saying Darwin’s what?

    It was his once, and he started the modern theory off, but it has gone a hell of a long way in the last 150 years or so

    Sound Familiar Asshole!

    “Wow! Yet again I must say this man is an idiot, a fool (and/or possibly a dishonest apologist for doctrine.) How tired is this crap, I mean honestly!” – Ad Parker

    Yes I am OUTRAGED! HOW DARE ANYONE be so confused and try to pass that confusion off as if they really didn’t grasp it Evolution is so elegant like a sinewy expansion bridge. Pfft How tired your bullshit is Parker *Yawn*

    ““Evolution”
    I take it he means the theory of evolution this time? Not the observed facts of evolution (known about for millennia) or the general form of the word.”

    Get this straight Parker EVERYONE I know believes evolution happens. What KIND of evolution happens is where we differ and not because of any equivocation of ours, but if anyone is to be blamed for using that tactic, I think YOUR side of the argument invented it. This next statement of yours is hysterical the MONUMENTAL hypocrisy you are about. You said like the little brainwashed, Bong smokin Bimbo you are, ::

    “WTF?! Seriously WTF?! ” Parker

    LOFUCKING-L, “WTF!” say it again to really show us how “OUTRAGED” you are, you pedantic little piss ant. Then Parker continues his melodramatic, over embellished yet completely incorrect assessment when he garbled the following spittle and drool from his foolishly filled full of fables big mouth. .

    “Explaining the facts, in a cohesive theory (which is what an explanation of the observed facts is in science) does not “glorify”, nor promote, or anything of the sort. It simply explains the data”.- Ad Parker

    No it doesn’t pusscake, and that is why the only way it can be seen is to glorify the religious construct you have all been defending and making shit up as you go. You keep throwing that word “observed facts” in there and I am suspicious of your motives as to WHAT observed facts you think we have all seen.

    Then there is the issue of explaining them which isn’t science at all but a pack of plausible imaginings many of which became the physical equivalent of Frankenstein like faux fossil’s glued together in what I call that pile of pathetic “Pilt down paleontology and fraud” something this area of science has been busted for committing so much and so often, no one even listens to them anymore.

    They come out to celebrate one of the dead lemurs they claim we shared a “common ancestor” with. While the common ancestor is usually assumed and isn’t that common. In fact most of the time, that have to manufacture that one too.

    It isn’t OUR fault they have made that science the joke that it is Parker and the ONLY reason you defend it is because it is YOUR religion. It is what gives you stuck atheist’s the unmitigated audacity to think of yourselves as “intellectually fulfilled” atheists and it gives US a perfectly good reason to pity you fools. I believe the Book of Romans says something to that effect, maybe Charlie or John Matrix can share verse.

    “All this is, is evidence that the theory of evolution UPSETS his PASSIONATELY held and CHERISHED BELIEFS, he feels EMOTIONALLY AFFRONTED by it, and therefore reacts in an EMOTIVE manner. This is not, for him, about the truth, facts or science;

    it is about how it makes him FEEL” -ad parker

    And we see how that makes YOU feel too you whining crybaby! Geez dude, get a grip for pete’s sake, it’s just one mans opinion and you go on and on like the guy burned down your house and kidnapped your family and killed all your friends and I mean both of them. Whaaaa Whaaa! Someone is criticizing my Philosophy of Evolution,, Whaaaa Whaaaaaaaaaaaa ah ah ah.
    That is why it makes us feel too Parker.

    Yeah, IT MAKES US FEEL SORRY.

    FOR YOU!

    James M. Foard said:
    “Evolutionists try to masquerade their fiction as science, but there is nothing scientific about it at all.”

    “Another, thus far empty, bold assertion. Does he in any way support this assertion with…well anything more than this empty rhetoric?” – Parker

    Yes we have YOUR empty Rhetoric,

    YOUR unsupported bold assertions

    YOUR Ignorance of Science

    YOUR Dogmatically held belief

    YOUR Fake Science,

    YOUR lack of proof

    YOUR Bullshit

    YOUR LIES

    James M. Foard said:
    “Thus we have to be extremely watchful, as our Lord said, “Wise as serpents and harmless as doves” on order to be on our guard against the duplicitous arguments of men who have set themselves against the truth, who have rebelled against the Word of God and seek to lead others astray in their rebellion.”

    “Ah, a religious, in fact Christian quote and reference. Now that’s good science. Oh brother.” – Ad Parker

    You want to know how many times YOU brought Religion into the discussion smart guy?

    You think every time you shit heads start talking about flying spaghetti monsters or your presumptuous conditioned response when ever you feel the need to act like some condescending little bitch saying “God did it” when the only people I ever see saying that is atheists the pricks and the assholes of the universe.

    This one has me wondering whether or not Parker is schizophrenic. Read what he says after the foard quote.

    “James M. Foard said:
    “Another amazing argument used by evolutionists,”

    Another one? So that’s a “no” on supporting or backing up those empty insulting assertions? Okay then, expected nothing better to be honest.” – Parker

    Umm Parker, does Foard even KNOW you made such a request? No he doesn’t you MORON, IT IS A TEXT from an article, Parker, IT isn’t like Natural Selection where it can think and decide that four legs put in symmetrically located and balanced areas of a lizards body would be the most logical place for them to accidentally occur to develop.

    James M. Foard said:
    “would be Steven Jay Gould’s astounding concept of “punctuated equilibrium.”

    “Oh here we go. Poor old Gould. How the creationists love to misuse and abuse the words of this man. Not surprising as a result that it was he that first argued that scientists like him should not debate creationists.” – Parker

    Yes calling it “astounding” is a bit of a stretch I agree and I also agree people like you should NOT debate Creationist’s. untill you gets some practice and have a better grasp of thinking critical rather than display your thinking is in critical condition. A Seasoned Creationist would mop up the floor with you Parker. We have seen how Stevebee did and he isn’t even a creationist

    Now watch what happens when someone attempts a little sarcasm, facetiously describing Goulds PE this way:

    “James M. Foard said:
    “It is the theory that a bird can hatch from a lizard’s egg, like Cinderella’s mice turning into coachmen, and has also been called the “hopeful monster” theory by evolutionists.”

    “Oh you have GOT to be kidding me! “a bird can hatch from a lizard’s egg”?! Okay then, no way is this guy a mere fool. He is clearly a dishonest Lying for Jesus ASSHAT!
    This old canard exists NOWHERE in Prof. Gould’s hypothesis. It’s true source is dishonest creationist apologetic rhetoric. It is a STRAW MAN and a bald-faced LIE.” – Parker.

    No Parker, YOU got to be kidding US. Jeeziz shut your pie hole man you are blowin a gasket. It isn’t like he is insulting your religion or something.

    Or, is it?

    “Did you read this Kent?! Intense scrutiny is evidence that it has no scientific merit?! HA! That scrutiny, by the way, has established that PE is indeed a part, although not a terribly significant once, of the history of the evolution of life on Earth.” – Parker

    No it isn’t. It’s as putrid from the stench of rotting corpse that a dead theory can be. Evolution is dead dude, Everyone is jumping that stupid ass ship because it is going nowhere just like the place it came from, the gaseous bowels of Chuck Darwin’s colon. Nothing more than the brain farted idea of an insignificant seminary school dropout who paid his way on the HMS Beagle to pretend he was a scientist and told everyone he was but he was merely a steward who shined shoes in the bilge at the bottom of that boat. Then he plagiarized the work of several others, used his daddy’s influence to get a book published. Had it not been for that freakin nut case Huxley, Darwin would have never been able to sell it just like you and your dying breed of has been wannabe science buff’s, can’t sell it,

    It isn’t a fact, Parker, it’s

    a fairytale

    • ADParker said,

      Kent Perry said:
      “ “Creation”; Now THERE is a obvious Clobber word.”
      “Evolution” is a commonly used word for all kinds of “change over time”, but who but Creationists refer to the universe, everything and whatever as “Creation”? Who but those who presuppose that it all WAS created by some mysterious intelligent force?”- Parker

      Well the fact of creation is FACT there is no argument that CREATION HAPPENED! “

      Bullshit.
      Unless by “creation” you only mean “the origin of the universe” (then you are at least closer to being accurate, without getting into the physics.) But if so, why use the word “creation”? UNLESS as a ‘Clobber word’ in order to bring in the baggage that comes with that word through the ‘back door’ (bypassing the conscious mind.)

      Kent Perry said:
      “Sound Familiar asshole?”

      Well, your petty insults sure do.

      Kent Perry said:
      “The idea that a creaTOR must be identified ID doesn’t talk about that, that is another science. Try reading about ABIOGENESIS.”

      What is that supposed to mean?!

      Kent Perry said:
      “ Kent A. Perry said:
      “YOU used an example of Newtons that was incorrect as an example”

      “What was incorrect? Empty accusations are a waste of everyone’s fucking time.”-Adparker

      Look Shit for brains, THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID NEWTON WAS INCORRECT ABOUT !

      Parker talking about Isaac Newton “believed strongly in alchemy (and specific aspects therein), and despite his undoubted brilliance he was wrong.” – Adparker

      Then I SAID , just because Newton was incorrect only proves NEWTON was incorrect. Take your Head out of your ass parker and try to keep up. I realize you and Dame go to Science class on the short bus but that isn’t our problem hoss. “
      Oh I see, it was your sloppy use of language getting in the way again. You meant that Newton was incorrect, not that I was incorrect about Newton.

      Kent Perry said:
      “ Next Quote:
      “Blah blah blah…yes we get it James; you can’t grasp (or deliberately conflate) the distinction between a word and a singular context in which that word is used, between the word and the scientific discipline, facts and theory that uses the word.” – Parker

      That where you said he can’t grasp the distinction? Well NONE of us can unless you want to ASSUME you know and can prove it but you only THINK you know and so far the questions stevebee has given that put those assumptions in serious doubt is why A LOT of scientists don’t buy your bullshit religion parker. It’s A RECRUITING TOOL FOR YOUR GODLESS MARXIST WORLDVIEW.”

      I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

      Kent Perry said:
      “ “4. “extinction”
      Again; extinctions happen, we know this. So OF COURSE this has to be included in the theory, what use is a theory that explains the diversity of life, if it ignores the bits of life that people find unsettling?!
      Show us one freakin’ place where the theory GLORIFIES extinction. I mean come on!” – Ad Parker

      Wouldn’t be the first time Parker, and since you don’t know jack shit about the HUGE fan of Communism amd Marxism Gould is to this day,”

      Um what?! How can Gould be a “ HUGE fan of Communism amd Marxism…to this day” as he is dead?!

      By and by; ACTUAL communism and Marxism [that is the works of Karl Marx himself] aren’t nearly as bad as the poor attempts to enact them (which prompted Marx to declare “I am not a Marxist!”) Still flawed though.

      Kent Perry said:
      “it stands to reason why he glorifies DEATH and Destruction.

      Foard said that “Evolution glorifies…extinction” NOT That Gould does. You are attacking the wrong target. Perhaps you need to read your own quoted article again, and more carefully this time. You are tilting at windmills.

      Kent Perry said:
      “ Most atheist regimes (those lucky enough to lead state Governments) invariably become killing machines for the state.”

      {Sigh}
      1. The article was about Evolution, NOT atheism. SO your point is irrelevant and another case of tilting at windmills.
      2. There is no such thing as an “atheist regime” anyway. The regimes you are hinting at were based on certain ideologies. Particular forms of Communism or whatever, not atheism. Even those that were non-religious (even anti-religious) in their execution.
      3. What the Hel does “Atheism” and political “regimes” have to do with “evolution”?!

      The problem Kent is that your arguments aren’t even ABOUT the subject of the article!

      Kent Perry said:
      “ That isn’t what is so surprising to most but HOW FAST they become genocidal. The fact is, atheist regimes have caused more death an destruction than all the religious wars combined. Many times they had justified these mass murders, citing Darwin and his TOE.”

      Oh please.
      This is largely a complete and utter lie. Which too many creationists just blindly repeat, with no clue. And even if/when it were true, it is just an example of those idiots committing the Naturalistic Fallacy, mistakenly assuming that the Descriptions or the ToE are instead (or also) a Prescriptions. And therefore there poor reasoning that was at fault, not the theory.

      Kent Perry said:
      “I know you will disagree but it doesn’t matter, I know history and showing me a bunch of belt buckles that say God is with us in German, doesn’t mean anything about the atheistic Nazi Party. You got coins in your pocket saying in God we trust and that never stops YOU from using them to buy your meds when you need them.

      Not that it matters, as you are about as far from the subject or the article as you could possibly get. (“Atheism glorifies extinction” suddenly becomes “atheistic regimes kill people”?! WTF?!)
      But there is evidence (from his own words) that Adolph Hitler was not only a Christian (twisted by paganistic ideas and his own instabilities of course, but certainly a theist) but also a Creationist and anti-evolutionist.

      And NONE of the coins in my pocket (if I had any, I don’t at the moment) have “In God we trust” on them. My country didn’t quite go through the “Red Scare” to the same extreme the U.S. did in the 1950s. Which was when those religious – more directly anti “Godless communist” – changes were added (although in the case of coins it did exist in a limited sense for quite some time before that.) And that was nothing but a childish snap fear reaction on the part of those who made those changes. Pathetic really.

      Kent Perry said:
      “ “Once again; the theory aims to explain what is, and how it came to be what it is. It promotes NOTHING, it makes no ethical stance on the moral value of what it finds.
      By way of example, Richard Dawkins (the atheistic evolutionary biologist the creationist movement most loves to hate) has said on many occasions from a scientific standpoint he is a staunch ‘evolutionist’ – he really really thinks it happened as the theory predicts. BUT from an ethical standpoint he is equally an ‘Anti-evolutionist’ – he doesn’t think that the moral imperative taken directly from the theory (that the ‘strongest’ should dominate and even wipe out the weak, if it can be seen as competing for the same resources…) it an good, or ethical idea AT ALL” Ad Parker

      He doesn’t say it promostes it Parker so don’t get your pink panties in a bunch. He is saying it INSPIRES it and their is no denying Marx and Hitler referred to Darwins TOE many times.”

      No. He says that it “GLORIFIES destruction, extinction, selfish pride and the trampling of the weak under the ongoing progress of the strong.” And then implies that it is therefore It’s fault for the atrocities of the 20th century. As do you. And that is pure and unadulterated BULLSHIT.

      And your are just plain wrong. There IS cause to dent that Marx and Hitler referred to Darwin’s TOE many times.” And what does Marx have to do with anything?! He was horrified by the actions of those who USED and manipulated his works (primarily in The Communist Manifesto) and would have been even more so if he had seen how that progressed after his death! Because they screwed it up royally. Hitler referred to “Evolution” a few times, but hardly ever the theory of evolution, and invariably is scorn and/or through erroneous straw manning.

      And even if (in some bizarre alternative universe) evolution was true AND the monsters did use the theory PROPERLY to do, and justify, the things they did. That would have NO BEARING on the theory’s truth-value. Some things can be, and are, both true and the cause of bad consequences.
      Or are you promoting the denial of truth, the hiding of uncomfortable truths and facts of reality, if anyone can use them to bad ends?

      Kent Perry said:
      “As for Dawkin’s you don’t know the man very well then do you girlfriend, Dawkins would trash a human being after a later term abortion that survived as fast as Obama. They are BOTH heartless gutless and brainless morons.”

      Obama now?! You are an idiot.

      Kent Perry said:

      http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/junesoft/atheisthate-1.jpg?t=1296321961”

      Was there any point to the inclusion of that image?! (other than to show us the idiocy of the person who wrote that rubbish around the image?)

      Kent Perry said:
      “Oh yes I understand the changes it has gone through what with all the lies that have been said even the famous Brontosaurus never really existed. ( and I really liked that Dino too “sniffle”)”

      The brontosaurus existed. It is just labelled Apatosaurus due to naming right conventions.
      The REALLY sad thing is that Triceratops probably didn’t exist (as a separate species,) but was just the juvenile form of Taurosaurus. (I think my personal fave, the Ankylosaurus, still retains it’s status.)

      Kent Perry said:
      “Yes even today your beloved pope of the TOE that old raving maniac whats his name? You know the silly little faggot with the effeminate british accent you all adore and swoon over, the silly little zoo keeper, oh yeah, Dick, That’s his name, Dick Dawkins, that guy that claims he got tricked or “set up” every damn time he gets painted into a corner and bitches like a little pussy. Even SHE, refers to it as what again? That’s right, parker even DICK calls it “Darwinian evolution” and natural selection.”

      I don’t care. And it has nothing to do with the article I was critiquing. You are just trying to garner an emotional response. A typical tactic of those with no argument. (Dawkins made yet another mistake relatively recently – he really should take more care in what he agrees to etc.)

      Kent Perry said:
      “Maybe you ought to respond to Dawkins saying Darwin’s what? “
      I have done just that before. On his own forum (when it still existed.) No idea if he read it, but I was one of many who disagreed with him referring to it as that. As well as his calling himself an “evolutionist” (not that I got into that much, it bothers some others far more than it does me.) A part of the problem however is NOT the phrase or words themselves, but how some use them. Dawkins tends to uses “Darwinian” as a sort of homage to the instigator of the theory. Too many creationist apologists use it as a means to pretend that it is a dogmatic doctrine written down by Darwin, and adhered to ever since.

      Kent Perry said:
      “It was his once, and he started the modern theory off, but it has gone a hell of a long way in the last 150 years or so

      Sound Familiar Asshole!”

      That makes no sense. I see what you are probably trying to do. But it comes off as laughable, as you clearly have no idea what you are doing.

      Kent Perry said:
      “ “Wow! Yet again I must say this man is an idiot, a fool (and/or possibly a dishonest apologist for doctrine.) How tired is this crap, I mean honestly!” – Ad Parker

      Yes I am OUTRAGED! HOW DARE ANYONE be so confused and try to pass that confusion off as if they really didn’t grasp it Evolution is so elegant like a sinewy expansion bridge. Pfft How tired your bullshit is Parker *Yawn* “

      What? You are all over the place. And making no sense.

      Kent Perry said:
      “No it doesn’t pusscake, and that is why the only way it can be seen is to glorify the religious construct you have all been defending and making shit up as you go. You keep throwing that word “observed facts” in there and I am suspicious of your motives as to WHAT observed facts you think we have all seen.”

      Probably the same facts you just got past claiming that EVERYONE you know accepts.

      And “No it doesn’t” (adding whatever petty little personal insults you prefer if you are of such a childish mindset) adds nothing to the discussion Bent.

      Kent Perry said:
      “They come out to celebrate one of the dead lemurs they claim we shared a “common ancestor” with. While the common ancestor is usually assumed and isn’t that common.”

      “And isn’t that common”?! Ha HA HA!

      Kent Perry said:
      “ “All this is, is evidence that the theory of evolution UPSETS his PASSIONATELY held and CHERISHED BELIEFS, he feels EMOTIONALLY AFFRONTED by it, and therefore reacts in an EMOTIVE manner. This is not, for him, about the truth, facts or science;

      it is about how it makes him FEEL” -ad parker

      And we see how that makes YOU feel too you whining crybaby! Geez dude, get a grip for pete’s sake, it’s just one mans opinion and you go on and on like the guy burned down your house and kidnapped your family and killed all your friends and I mean both of them. Whaaaa Whaaa! Someone is criticizing my Philosophy of Evolution,, Whaaaa Whaaaaaaaaaaaa ah ah ah.
      That is why it makes us feel too Parker. “

      Why am I not surprised? So what do we have now:
      1. You Bitch if I dare respond to a comment not directed directly to me.
      2. You Bitch if I DON’T respond to a particular comment that was not directed directly to me.
      3. And NOW you bitch at me for making the effort to respond (in detail) to that comment that you previously bitched at me for not responding to, even though it was not directed directly to me.

      Kent Perry said:
      “James M. Foard said:
      “Evolutionists try to masquerade their fiction as science, but there is nothing scientific about it at all.”

      “Another, thus far empty, bold assertion. Does he in any way support this assertion with…well anything more than this empty rhetoric?” – Parker

      Yes we have YOUR empty Rhetoric,
      YOUR unsupported bold assertions
      YOUR Ignorance of Science
      YOUR Dogmatically held belief
      YOUR Fake Science,
      YOUR lack of proof
      YOUR Bullshit
      YOUR LIES “

      No Kent I don’t think that counts as Foard supporting his assertions. Do you?!

      Kent Perry said:
      “No it isn’t. It’s as putrid from the stench of rotting corpse that a dead theory can be. Evolution is dead dude,”

      Okay <Kent. This is clearly a waste of time. You are a rude pig headed asshat, quite incapable and unwilling to engage in rational discussion. All you have is insults and personal slurs. You are a child.

    • Dane said,

      Kent said:

      “The idea that a creaTOR must be identified ID doesn’t talk about that, that is another science. Try reading about ABIOGENESIS.”

      This is truly one of the most foolish things I’ve ever read.

      If ID makes no progress or any attempts to identify the designer that it insists exists, why call it INTELLIGENT DESIGN? ID posits the assertion that there is some intelligent entity that has overseen the formation and function of all biological life. This entity is constantly referred to as “an intelligent designer”.

      So what you’re telling me is that this supposed science does not have to nor should it have to make the effort to identify, reveal and establish the existence of the thing upon which the entirety of ID hinges?

      If that’s the case, then the ToE doesn’t have to prove anything either…scientists just get to say something and BAM! It’s right! It’s a damn good thing real science doesn’t work like that.

      And you might want to brush up on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis says NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING about any intelligent designer, creator or any such entity. It doesn’t even posit the existence of one. Abiogenesis concerns solely with one idea: the generation of living organic matter from non-living organic matter via a NATURAL PROCESS. The concept of any intelligence in the abiogenesis question DOES NOT EXIST.

      This is why it’s impossible to talk religious fundamentalists. They so seldom understand the very things they try to argue for and against.

  17. zanthopsis said,

    stevebee, you said:

    “Ev-illusionists think the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period. Of course there is no fossil evidence showing that fact, so they have to make it up to allow enough time for the thousands of microsteps to evolve insect flight.
    The origin of insect flight remains obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. So where is the evolution?”

    It’s remarks like those that get you so much flack from what you call “Ev-illusionists”. Do you really think that fossils of every creature that ever lived are just lying around on the surface in plain sight and are easy to find? Do you really think that Silurian sediments are all exposed and are filled with easy to find, perfectly preserved, early insects? Do you think that all sediments laid down during the Silurian are still intact, unaltered, and accessible? Do you think that no erosion (instead of sedimentation) occurred anywhere during the Silurian? Do you really think that insects are easily and commonly fossilized? Do you really think that all Silurian sediments that were ever laid down had lots of insects flying over them, dropping into them, crawling on them, and fossilizing in them, and especially in fully intact, well preserved condition?

    Just because the fossils that would satisfy YOU as to the earliest appearance of insects and their evolution haven’t been found doesn’t mean that scientists “make it up” that other insects preceded the ones that have been found. Have you ever found an insect fossil from any time period? How about from the Silurian or Devonian? Have you ever found any fossils of any kind from any time period? How much time have you spent in the field looking for fossils, how many have you found, what are they, where did you find them, and how much time have you spent preparing and studying fossils directly? Oh, and will you please list the publications where I can find your articles on the fossils you’ve found and/or studied (especially insects)?

    Notice that you said “currently known”. Those are important words. I hope you don’t think that science hasn’t figured out anything since you wrote the stuff on your site or that science will never find and figure out anything else. Science is an ongoing process and you should think twice before spouting so many assertions of certainty lest you be shown to be a fool if or when things are discovered that crush your beliefs.

    By the way, miracles are a religious fantasy. Don’t you say you’re not religious? For someone who claims to not be religious you sure do use a lot of religious sounding terminology. And you speak as though you’re absolutely certain of your non-evidential beliefs and assertions, just like religious zealots do.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Here is the best way for science to work. Find the evidence. THEN make the theory. Making up imaginary evidence, then a theory on what hasn’t been found makes this science a fantasy. One that you believe with great zeal. Evolution is a religion just like any religion with miracles. The notion hat RM and NS can put together a heart/lung system, consciousness, visual systems, IS a miracle. Particularly when evolution can’t even come up with a way to evolve a simple tube. So “miracle” is the word, evolution is the religion.

  18. zanthopsis said,

    steve said: More bald assertions and irrelevant remarks.

    I didn’t ask you about how you think science should work. You’re evading my points and questions, that are relevant to your own words.

  19. Ryan Dyal said,

    Video link no longer working. Please update. Interesting stuff 🙂

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi Ryan. Thanks for the heads up, and the visit. The video now works.
      Steve

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: