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:
- Sexual Reproduction and Mitosis
- Flight
- Birds and Eggs and Bird Nests
- Eyes and Hearts
- Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
- The Kreb’s Citric Acid Cycle
- Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
- Hemoglobin
- Insects, spiders, and their webs
- 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 evo-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.
(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.
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 its anti-flight musculoskeletal characteristics.
Leave it to evo-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.
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 experiment 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 birds 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 is 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 megapodes, 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 eggs hatch in seven weeks, and the hatchlings dig u
pward 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, and come 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 the 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 thousands 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 splat
s.
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:
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 growing 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 evo-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 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 evo-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 your eyes see, not what someone tells you 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
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.
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 the evolution of visual systems. Further, since it is single-celled, it is not comparable to a visual system that is 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 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 a 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]
Evolution: An Objective Look 
Jim Beam said,
May 10, 2009 at 3:23 am
Come to Richarddawkins.net steve!!
Spearthrower said,
May 10, 2009 at 3:41 am
Oh yes, do indeed come to richarddawkins.net Steve – evocritic used your arguments and then fled the moment someone replied. You seem to think you know what you are talking about, so feel free to come and speak to people that do know what they are talking about.
stevebee92653 said,
May 14, 2009 at 3:41 am
Love to. On vacation right now. Be back this weekend. See you in Dawkins den then. I hope it’s 20 evos at least against me. That still wouldn’t make it fair for you, but you will need at least that many.
Best Regards
Steve
yoo-tope-ee-ah said,
May 10, 2009 at 6:56 am
Yes Ssssteve, join usss…… We Evilutioisssstssss will eat your family…
(Beware the blue butterfly)
DeadMonkeys said,
May 10, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Even aside from all the insane misconceptions like localization of mutations and the whole ‘how does the DNA know” bollocks, the proclamation that evolution is simplistic by itself invalidates any notion you might have had.
Things like genetic drift, punctuted equilibrium, sympatric and allopatric speciation, allelic frequency, retroviral DNA, gene flow, hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, various types of mutations and including frame shifts, polyploidy, etc, population bottlenecks, selection parameters and pressures, and the fundamentals of common ancestry… all of these are parts of the mechanisms that drive evolution. Moreover, many of them like genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium are contextually significant, not universally significant, which by the way, invalidates your blanket statement that 1 error invalidates everything about a theory. There is no element of truth to this, though it’s a common thing for people who have deeply engrained religious tendencies which have trained to see things in black and white, and nothing in science works that way. There’s a difference between a theory that is incomplete, and the failure of the most fundamental concept of a theory.
Things like the gravitational lensing were wholly fundamental to General Relativity, which was why a failure to see gravitational lensing would have disproven General Relativity and why the eclipse test was so important. The fact that its foundational model has been shown as valid and experimentally observable means that at best, GR can only be shown to be incomplete. The same is true of Darwinian Natural Selection. Which, by the way, may be much simpler than the overall theory we have today, but is by no means simple. Indeed, aspects of what Darwin originally proposed have been shown to be wrong, but they were not at the heart of the proposed mechanism. His ideas on biogeographic distributions were wrong, for instance, and with the discoveries of plate tectonics and continental drift, we know why now. There’s little doubt that if Darwin had knowledge of this, or for that matter, had knowledge of DNA, he’d probably have accounted for it all and made a far more complete theory.
If a theory models 99% of the facts, but hits a roadblock in explaining 1% of the data or some new information that comes along (which, just so you know is a gross understatement of the real level of support that evolution has), it means that there is something more to take into account, not that this model which fits 99% of the observed data and made predictions which have come to be verified is 100% wrong. This sort of thinking is unarguably stupid. Moreover, your own misconceptions and inability to comprehend how the process can actually function is built entirely around a miserable learning of the concepts and an unarguably faulty perspective. You can’t look at point A and point B in complete isolation and say “I can’t think of a path, therefore there is not one.” This is either a product of poor teaching that you’d experienced (which is indeed a real problem in many schools) or a gullibility bias towards the sort of “fight the establishment” mentality that is espoused in travesties like Ben Stein’s Expelled.
And then we come to the core problem at which all arguments against evolution fail. Not one single one provides a feasible alternate model. There is not even a single isolated exception. That’s a real problem because, at the end of the day, that is the only means by which you can have a valid argument worth debating. If you want to say that evolution can never accumulate beyond the species level, fine. Show me why and how that limitation is imposed. Clearly, that sort of claim defines a definitive barrier, but what is the nature of that barrier? How does it work? You have no explanation. You claim Dawkin’s description of how the eye could evolve (which you seem to have taken as a simulation rather than a visual aid for explaining in layman’s terms) is impossible. Fine… show exactly what makes it impossible. Show the mechanisms and the limiting factors and how they serve to make something impossible. We can show how faster-than-light travel is impossible, but you haven’t shown any actual explanation. All I see is “it’s totally unbelievable” or “he didn’t go into that detail or that detail” in a video that was meant for the benefit of the general public, not the experienced scientist. The ID community, of course likes to pretend they have a model when they really don’t. All they do is say “this apparently unsolved problem is the result of a designer,” which is a totally vacuous statement. To be a model, you have to show exactly how it is the product of design, how the designer made X happen, how that manifested in the physical world, and how that is the one and only way it is possible. They have none of that. They come to a full stop at the proclamation of a designer, and pretend that all questions are answered at that point.
If you want to claim that Darwinian natural selection is wholly wrong, be prepared to provide a complete alternative or your claims are worth nothing.
stevebee92653 said,
May 14, 2009 at 3:50 am
“I can’t think of a path, therefore there is not one.”
You completely have this wrong, and you do what most evos do. Change the points I make so you can “explain” the unexplicable. The point is that the path from A to B is IMPOSSIBLE, and has NEVER been shown to be otherwise. It’s not that I can’t think of a path, it’s that there isn’t one, except in the massive physcholgical imaginations of evolutionauts.
More later, as I can’t spend my vacation time writing………….
Jim Beam said,
May 13, 2009 at 3:58 am
Come on Steve. We don’t bite!
My apologies if you’re already there, if you are what’s your profile name?
RichardDawkins.net/forum
stevebee92653 said,
May 14, 2009 at 3:51 am
See you in a few days. Don’t get nervous now.
Shrunk said,
May 13, 2009 at 10:25 am
Seems Dr. Steve is a little scared about taking up the challenge, I wonder why?
stevebee92653 said,
May 14, 2009 at 3:53 am
See you in a few days. Don’t get nervous now. Don’t forget to study those peer reviewed papers.
Shrunk said,
May 14, 2009 at 10:17 am
That’s a relief. The blue butterfly was getting hungry. Your fanboy, Jerry, was little more than an appetizer to him. If he doesn’t get some fresh meat soon, we’ll have to feed him one of ourselves….
evocritic said,
May 16, 2009 at 12:18 pm
i trust you had a nice vacation, steve. the evos at rdf (richard dawkins forum) have been biting their nails in anticipation of your arrival. hopefully you can make it there soon.
yours truly
evocritic
cali said,
May 16, 2009 at 4:26 pm
lucidflight loves to taste cock
theropod said,
May 17, 2009 at 12:54 am
Yes please come on over Steve, and bring your massive knowledge of plaeontology.
Jerry said,
May 17, 2009 at 7:36 am
hey steve, have you whooped those evos asses yet? haha maybe you beat them so hard they evolved back to hamsters or something. har har har!
also, theropod likes monkeysex
Shrunk said,
May 19, 2009 at 1:47 am
Steve came to the RD forum, made one rather inane and vacuous post, then fled. (IMHO, of course.) Interested parties can see for themselves here (though you may have to register first):
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=81464
Steve puts in his appearance on page 13 of the thread. Much hilarity then ensues.
ADParker said,
May 19, 2009 at 8:30 am
He made no effort whatsoever to engage. You did even did better than him!
Mach said,
July 26, 2009 at 7:56 am
If Evoluion never happened, Where did the Idoits come from?!
jan said,
October 9, 2009 at 12:08 am
From chemicals to self replicating molecules to living microorganisms to the entire animal kingdom. I dont think anybody has or could demostrate scientifically any kind of significant quantitative analysis of the scope of the requirements that must be placed upon selection processes needed to accomplish what we can materially observe regarding such a history….
Oh, I guess they say that we just need more time. With mutation rates the way they are, the human race will be extinct before any real significant comprehensive body of knowledge could accumulate that would satisfy real science if it ever could. Aw, but that’s just a minor detail.
Huge amounts of time is sooooo sweet. And then don’t forget the layers upon layers upon layers of assumptions and then years and years of a good amount of imagination built upon imagination. Evolutionary biology, even with it’s largely speculative nature, somehow has been successful in couching itself with legitimate science.
Time, imagination, funding and a lot of people who hate religion………Wow Steve, you got to hand it to them.
Sounds to me that they are chomping at the bit to tear you a new one on dawkins blog site. Good luck man. There are some highly intelligent individuals with the momentum of decades of speculation magically transformed to factual history. They have had a lot of time to perfect their stories and presentations and garnish them with plenty of “research” data. And all of this with the uncritical support of all of the major social and political institutions…….
stevebee92653 said,
October 9, 2009 at 2:30 am
Thanks for the great comment. You are right on. So nice to read. Dawkins.net did do a huge attack on me. What fun. Me against the twenty of them. Not fair. For them. (p.23 H, I, J) They threw an a-bomb at me, and it turned out to be mush.
jan said,
October 9, 2009 at 3:44 am
“I don’t think anybody has or could demonstrate scientifically any kind of significant quantitative analysis of the scope of the requirements that must be placed upon selection processes needed to accomplish what we can materially observe regarding such a history….”
Steve. don’t congratulate you or me……This is not about your contest about who is right or wrong philosophically or psuedoscietifically with your apparent foes. or so called scientifically (science, a term that mankind has been led to believe is unbiased and objective in it’s assertions and demonstrations of those assertions). I am not interested in perpetuating your blog and I do not care about proving you right or wrong.. You, I think, for the sake of real science, need to focus your criticism, in part but not totally, on the concept of “natural selection”……..which, in the evolutionary context, must cover vast, vast, vast, vast, vast amounts of ground between chemicals and even the simplest forms of life……
what that is at all the levels throughout biological history of chemical development to what is observable. Hold the so called evolutionary scientific establishment accountable for all of the conjecture, speculation, motivated by personal philosophical preferences accountable for the vastly non-demonstrated assertions that are the bulkhead of support for their beloved philosophical explanations for something that is undefinable………
Pick it up…. you are retired… I don’t have that luxury……..
stevebee92653 said,
October 9, 2009 at 4:03 am
This isn’t a contest of who is right or wrong. That connotes personal arguments. It is a battle to get rid of a faulty theory that prevents good science from moving forward. Which is why I am here. And that prevention will be the norm for a very long time. I can be no more than a drop in the bucket, but hopefully a small part of a large foundation. Pick it up? I think I have pretty well done that. And, of course, you are free to join the frey on what ever level you can or have time for. .
jan said,
October 11, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Steve,
Sorry about the above post. I think I was at a stage where I had too many beers and a hair up my butt about something . Actually I really enjoy your site and videos. You are not perfect, but who is? I admire your presence in the debates and your willingness to devote the time that you do to, what I think, is an extremely important and interesting exchange.
stevebee92653 said,
October 11, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I’m NOT perfect? Huh?
Anyway, thanks for the compliment and interest.
jan said,
October 12, 2009 at 3:36 am
Steve,
So many unverified assertions……… by the “Status Quo” So many unscientific speculations promoted as “fact” by the so called “scientific” establishment (sniff sniff …..money and beloved philosophical desires……..) that……..Do you realize how important it is that you do what you do???????
stevebee92653 said,
October 12, 2009 at 3:46 am
Thanks Jan. I hope I can grow and hit more people. Darwin needs to be stuffed so we can get on with real science.
jan said,
October 17, 2009 at 6:33 am
“theropod said,
May 17, 2009 at 12:54 am
Yes please come on over Steve, and bring your massive knowledge of plaeontology.
Reply”
Steve, I really like the way these buttholes cite some recent term invented by human imagination and not much more, that, in itself is supposed to represent unquestionable support for the vastly unsubstantiated conjecture of “evolution”. The term “evolution” of course, takes on many different meanings, some of which, no informed individual can argue against….. but then, the extrapolation of such a term………… shit, who the hell can substantiate with actual evidence the intended speculative pronouncement of that kind of magnitude???????The esoteric group that has successfully garnished, somehow, the funding in order to perpetuate the fraud has to be commended for their efforts in their “social agenda” achievements…….But that is all they are…..social achievements…. having nothing materially significant to do with the REAL QUESTIONS AT HAND…….. This institution needs to challenged and adjusted to the real place that they take…..and that is… at best….. a position in the philosophy of reality….. no more or less than “mere” religion………
but absolutely not “science” oh shit no, no more……………
Radhacharan Das` said,
November 12, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Steve your video on youtube: “The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction: Why It’s Impossible”
is amazing. Don’t know if you’ve got a link on this blog though. You have one vid on sexual reproduction on this page, but it doesn’t work for me.
Gauranga
Radhacharan Das said,
November 16, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Here is a very interesting piece on nests and behaviour of certain birds
Nature’s Thermostat
________________________
Many animal behavioral patterns do not merely consist of one single phase, but involve a range of behavioral steps that must always be present to achieve successful action. This represents a serious, if not lethal, threat against the Darwinian theory.
The East Australian mallee fowl (Leipoa ocellata) hatches its eggs in an unusual way. First, with their strong legs mallee fowl parents dig a hole fifteen feet wide and three feet deep. During winter, they gather twigs and leaves from within a radius of fifty-five yards and amass them in the hole. When the material has gotten thoroughly soaked in the rain, they cover the whole thing with a layer of sandy earth twenty inches thick. This is how the mallee builds its craterlike nest, which towers nearly five feet high.
The mallee fowl hen lays her eggs on rotting leaves in the egg chamber within the nest mound, and then the male buries the egg chamber. Starting in the spring, for three to four months the hen comes once a week to lay one egg each time, then leaves the nest. During the long nine-month period of hatching, the cock takes care of the right incubation temperature.
Most species of birds hatch their eggs with the warmth of their own body. This case is totally different. The eggs of mallee fowl hatch by the warmth of the hill, as the rotting plant matter piled up inside generates heat that hatches the eggs. From time to time the male sticks his bill into the hill to check the temperature of the soil. He is able to measure the temperature most probably with his tongue or oral cavity. He maintains the temperature of the mound functioning as an incubator at 93.2 degrees Fahrenheit (34 degrees centigrade) with incredible precision. He allows a maximum fluctuation of 1.8 degrees (1 degree centigrade) inside the mound, even though daily and yearly temperatures vary considerably in that region.
If the eggs are in danger of overheating, he assiduously removes a layer of sand from the top of the hill to emit extra heat. Alternatively, to protect the mound from excessive sunshine, he scratches more soil onto the mound. When the outside temperature turns colder, he removes the upper layers of the hill during the day so that the sun shines right on the middle of the nest. But in the evening he covers it again to retain the heat.
Nestlings hatch at different times and break the eggshell with their strong legs. Miraculously, they do not suffocate inside the mound but, keeping their bill and eyes tightly shut, dig themselves out of the hill. They struggle hard for five to ten minutes to make their way upwards a few centimeters, then they rest for about an hour and start again. It might take them two to fifteen hours to get to the surface. After getting out, they take a deep breath and open their eyes. Afterwards, they waddle or roll down the hatching mound and rush into the surrounding scrubland. They never meet their parents and learn from no one how to build a mound or how to maintain its temperature. Still, when they come of age, they behave exactly as their parents did.
Beyond Hen-witted Explanations
________________________________
The mallee fowl belongs to the family of incubator birds (Megapodiidae). All the bird species belonging to this taxonomic family are well known for using an external heat source to hatch their eggs. Evolutionary science journals assume that this hatching method evolved in small steps from the traditional “sitting on the eggs” hatching. Nevertheless, they are unable to give any kind of detailed and convincing theoretical explanation for this gradual evolvement, which would be in line with the principles of their theory.
To understand more deeply why evolutionary theory does not stand its ground regarding the origin of the mallee fowl’s hatching strategy, let us take into consideration what is needed for the successful hatching of the nestlings.
From the hen’s point of view:
Coming back regularly and laying the eggs on the appropriate spot.
From the cock’s point of view:
Knowledge about the material and structure of the hill.
Building of the hatching mound.
Specific organ to check the temperature of the soil.
Sophisticated instinct to ensure a constant temperature inside the hatching mound.
From the chicks’ point of view:
Appropriate instinctive behavior about what to do after hatching.
Adequate anatomical build to have the strength to dig themselves out from the mound and to survive on their own.
Instinctive behavioral patterns from their birth on, making them capable for breeding and nurturing.
Just think it over. Would it bepossible to omit any of these elements and still have the eggs hatched? Surely not, because all these particular anatomical characteristics and instinctive behavioral programs are needed at the very same time, so that the following generations of birds can come into existence. This is why one cannot draw a line of progressive development consisting of numerous gradual little changes leading from the “heating with body” to the “mound builder” system. By the time the eggs are laid and hid in the ground, all the other elements (physical characteristics and instincts of the mallee fowl) should be present; otherwise the temperature of eggs would not be maintained and the embryos inside would perish.
Thus the mallee fowl’s method of hatching is an irreducible system, as the process works only if each jigsaw-puzzle piece of the behavioral chain is in its proper place. The simultaneous emergence of so many coordinated elements without conscious control—merely by undirected chance mutation—is utterly impossible.
Therefore the origin of the mallee fowl is a riddle with only one solution: This bird, with all its anatomical features and instinctive behavior, was devised by a higher intelligence. Moreover, the “sitting on the eggs” and the “mound-building” incubation techniques most likely manifested at the same time as parts of a comprehensive superior plan.
From a book called Natures IQ, there are over 100 examples in this book, lots of them are good. Some of the examples are very good. Let us know what you make of this steve. thanks
stevebee92653 said,
November 17, 2009 at 12:12 am
What are you trying to do, take over my whole blog?? haha. These are really great finds. And, of course, I had to add this one to My Favorite Comments. This is just beyond fascinating. Beyond. Thanks!
Radhacharan Das said,
November 17, 2009 at 12:58 am
haha sorry steve oopsie. Got a few more. Tell u what, I’ll email them to you, if you deem them fit, you may put them up 🙂 looking into echolocation too recently, if I find something super fascinating I will let you know. your welcome and take care
stevebee92653 said,
November 17, 2009 at 5:45 am
No. I was kidding. I love the stuff you send. Feel free to log any of your stuff. It’s a wonderful addition to the blog.
ADParker said,
November 17, 2009 at 1:04 am
Hey Radhacharan Das, well done.
You managed to make (well okay – copy someone who made) the same fundamental error as Michael Behe has done with his laughable Irreducible complexity idea. And many other apologists as well.
“Would it be possible to OMIT”
The flaw? Looking at it backward! That is not how it happened, like so many things, they work in one direction but not the other.
Let’s try another example of the ‘Behe” line of thought shall we?
A (living) egg is surrounded by a shell – take away (or ‘omit’) a part of the shall and the whole things falls apart, all over the floor, and your shoes if you are not careful.
Oh noes! I can not IMAGINE how the entire perfectly shaped egg shell could have formed! No as I insist on looking at it back to front! Taking away a piece at a time.
It MUST have been MAGIC then – yeah that makes sense; answer a mystery with a mystery.
I used that example because we do know that eggs to form all the time, and ‘we’ also know how. Demonstrating that it is the way of looking at it that is at fault here. It’s arguments from Ignorance all round.
And I am in no way surprised that you found it impressive so readily stevebee9265.
And try the Mullerian Two-Step on for size, both of you.
You are far too quick to accept anything as valid, if it superficially looks like it might support your own assumptions.
stevebee92653 said,
November 17, 2009 at 6:01 am
I get so excited when you evolutionauts are going to tell us fools why IC is a fallacy, and how things really evolved. Ya know, like eggs. And you never do. You just tease us. You ramble on with your nonsense, and never say anything. Your comment is a perfect example. You yourself bring up a huge failure for evolution then don’t explain at all. And of course the reason this bird, and all others can’t have evolved is way over your head. So eggs evolve from nothing up? Wow.
ADParker said,
November 17, 2009 at 6:24 am
“Wow” indeed stevebee92653!
You got me; my example, deliberately NOT about evolution (but the formation of individual eggs) did completely fail to explain “this bird (what bird?) and all others” or eggs evolution.
How could I have failed to explain the evolution of that in my example which was not about evolution AT ALL?!
Thanks for the laugh Steve!
stevebee92653 said,
November 18, 2009 at 2:52 am
Your comment is “not about egg evolution” because evolution has no explanation at all for eggs of any kind and during any part of their existence. So, you get a good fake laugh when you should actually be embarrassed. You are laughing to hide the ignorance and complete failure of your belief system and your own indoctrination. So fake laugh away.
ADParker said,
November 18, 2009 at 5:10 am
No Steve my comment was “not about egg evolution” because it wasn’t about evolution at all. (Seriously; How hard is this to grasp!)
But as you INSIST of bringing it up; Oh yes there is a great deal of explanation of the evolution of eggs – from soft fish eggs through those of amphibians to reptiles and birds. (David Attenborough’s Life on Land set of documentaries shows some of this in a most visual manner.)
And finally; Oh I assure you, the laughs where quite genuine.
stevebee92653 said,
November 18, 2009 at 5:13 pm
You are too goddam dense to figure that David Attenborough and every person who ever lived has no idea how eggs or any bio-system formed. So, like a little giggly child, you believe his bullshit. If I were you, I would give up the fake laugh and wonder why you are such a sucker. So gullible. THAT isn’t really funny.
ADParker said,
November 19, 2009 at 1:58 am
How quickly you resort to that old standard; the Logically fallacious Ad Hominem .
David Attenborough may not (never claimed he was) as he is not a biologist, or scientist at all. His (beautifully compiled in that “Life on Land” box set) documentaries ,which are not about evolution, but nature. (although he is quoted as saying – on the DVD set – “Nothing makes sense in nature…except in the light of evolution”), simply show some of that evolutionary path in a good visual manner. It’s not the science behind it, if you want that then do the research yourself.
*And you are aware that not knowing how something formed (as is true is some cases, if not this one) means nothing right?
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2009 at 3:09 am
Not knowing how bio-systems formed means that natural selection didn’t do the job. And assigning NS the credit is fallacious “science”. You evolutionauts think you know everything. You know nothing. When you(pl) face that fact, real science can resume. Darwin has killed real science for over 150 years.
ADParker said,
November 19, 2009 at 4:06 am
No Steve, that would be to commit the Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy.
We don’t know how gravity works either (now there is a theory is crisis!) does that therefore mean that Gravity “didn’t do the job”? Intelligent Falling anyone?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Oh, and Natural Selection is just one aspect of modern evolutionary biology.
No, if there is one thing I know, it is that I don’t know everything.
Darwin killed real science over 150 years ago? So BEFORE the publication of The Origin of Species? Hmm. So that explains the complete lack of scientific progress since 1859! – Oh wait….
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2009 at 5:02 am
Oh, ya mean there is other stuff. Like non-occurring good mutations? And sexual selection? Ah. I knew there was more to it than NS. So the big three plus other stuff made four chambered hearts and complex visual systems. NOW I believe.
Glad you corrected me on the years since OOS. That is HUGE. You finally won an point.
We know gravity EXISTS. We all experience it. So please don’t insult gravity by comparing it to evo-fantasies that don’t. exist. in reality and nobody experiences.
Oh, and push the button and get the “argument from ignorance” response. You some kinda robot? Can’t you use your own writing instead of trite garbage right out of the evo-handbook?
ADParker said,
November 19, 2009 at 6:06 am
“Oh, ya mean there is other stuff. Like non-occurring good mutations?”
Uh no, there are no non-occurring good mutations occurring. That’s just silly.
There is a multitude of mutations (current Homo sapiens having an average of 128 mutations each, from the zygote stage for example.) None of them are properly good, neutral or bad, they simply are what they are (“Copying error” is an apt metaphor) and the environment in which they ‘find’ themselves essentially leading to beneficial, detrimental or neutral effects to the organisms involved (or no effect at all of course.)
“And sexual selection?”
Sure, and Genetic Drift (an as great, if not greater, aspect as NS), horizontal gene transfer, punctuated equilibrium…
“Ah. I knew there was more to it than NS. So the big three plus other stuff made four chambered hearts and complex visual systems.”
Basically yes. The Big three are Mutations, Natural Selection and Genetic Drift though.
“NOW I believe.”
Glad you corrected me on the years since OOS. That is HUGE. You finally won an point.”
Cute. (OOS?)
“We know gravity EXISTS. We all experience it. So please don’t insult gravity by comparing it to evo-fantasies that don’t. exist. in reality and nobody experiences.”
I am not comparing gravity to “evo-fantasies that don’t. exist.” but to the known observed fact of evolution.
*Mutations occur.
*Natural Selection occurs.
*Genetic Drift occurs.
*Sexual Selection occurs.
*New genetic traits occur and come to dominate genepools.
*Speciation events, resulting in entirely new species occurs.
All facts, and all combining as evolution being a fact (and more actually.)
“Oh, and push the button and get the “argument from ignorance” response. You some kinda robot? Can’t you use your own writing instead of trite garbage right out of the evo-handbook?”
Have I not already explained to you that that IS NOT anything to do with evolution. You can call it the “Formal Logic Handbook” if you want – it will make you look like a fool, but to each his own.
But can I use the “Can’t you use your own writing” line on the guy you just praised on that other page for doing a “cut & paste” job from some apologetics site?
I guess it’s time to offer the same deal I have offered others who make that same complaint:
I will promise to stop calling your arguments Logically Fallacious (and pointing out the specific logcall fallacies committed) as soon as you STOP COMMITING THEM. Deal?
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2009 at 8:28 pm
*Mutations occur.
*Natural Selection occurs.
*Genetic Drift occurs.
*Sexual Selection occurs.
*New genetic traits occur and come to dominate genepools.
*Speciation events, resulting in entirely new species occurs.
This is clearly an Argument From Ignorance! Ants and worms occur, but that doesn’t mean they built the space shuttle. That is a good parallel. No item on your list could invent and form complex bio-systems. You have enough brains to realize that but your indoctrination gets in the way of your common sense.
You leave as an indoctrinated loser. Bye Say hi to all those evo-nut cases a dawkins.net.
ADParker said,
November 20, 2009 at 12:57 am
And YET AGAIN you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of a logical fallacy, and of what evolution actually is as well.
“No item on your list could invent and form complex bio-systems.”
I leave “inventing” to the Magic Man. Evolution does not invent, it isn’t a THING, but a term for a general trend.
Combined they can and do form complex bio-systems. But the degrees of complexity formation (from no blood pump at all to a modern human four chambered heart for example) are a part of the THEORY of evolution (and well supported and documented it is) which is beside the point of the FACTS of evolutions.
All of those things on the list DO occur – they have been directly observed. And together they ARE evolution.
Just like all Creotards you harp on about insanely minuscule finer details, as if they undermine the whole. And, in the same breath almost, insist on the entire theory, and its entire scope from the very first self-replicating molecule (and often it’s formation as well – and sometimes even going back to the origins of the entire bloody universe as well!) to the current stock of organisms, be explained in full, or it be discarded as false!
All of which demonstrates your wilful ignorance of evolution and it’s theory.
No your inane ant analogy doesn’t even come close to a “good parallel”; What you are arguing (by way of analogy obviously) is that it doesn’t matter if one can multiply 2*2 and 12*13, if you can’t solve every single mathematical problem imaginable – immediately – then Clearly mathematics is a failed discipline and should be discarded.
stevebee92653 said,
November 20, 2009 at 4:55 am
Right. Ridicule math AND gravity with comparisons to evolution. I am doing the milk through the nose thing. You are so funny!
Re: your list: “Combined they can and do form complex bio-systems.”
More laughter. And you have seen or experienced this? Of course no man who ever lived has, so you are in the believer category. Not the science. Try the real category of science someday.
So you don’t think evolution invented bio-systems? Was there an entirely separate system that came up with invention?
And the “details” are HUGE. Just small in your mind. I don’t think bird flight, four chambered heart/lung systems, and the Kreb’s cycle are minute. You have to so you can support your belief.
Charlie said,
November 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm
ADParker:
> I am not comparing gravity to “evo-fantasies that don’t. exist.” but to the known observed fact of evolution.
> *Mutations occur.
> *Natural Selection occurs.
> *Genetic Drift occurs.
> *Sexual Selection occurs.
> *New genetic traits occur and come to dominate genepools.
> *Speciation events, resulting in entirely new species occurs.
I don’t have a problem with most of these being established firmly, or at the very least being observable to some degree.
But the speciation events resulting in entirely new species? Are we perhaps a bit over ambitious in our definition of species? I know that it seems overly presumptuous to me to claim that the first five support the sixth. And most especially that all of these combined can be taken as carte blanche evidence to support the entire evolutionary theory from single cell ancestor(s) to the full breadth of life that we witness today. (Never mind the fact that the origin of the first cell(s) is an enormous hurdle that is simply taken as an initial condition. It has just as much rational support as making an assumption that everything was designed intelligently instead. Why the bias?)
This is science and it should not be biased. It should rely simply on science, right? If we don’t know something and must make assumptions to bridge across unknowns, then we should pursue all of those unknowns fairly and build competing models that can be useful toward creating practical solutions. I am firmly convinced that science by its own definition is not capable of either affirming or denying God. So it should proceed without any bias concerning that initial condition and focus on the actual scientific method as its only directive.
In some cases, things can be learned scientifically from Natural Selection and Genetic Drift and so on. But in some cases, it make the utmost sense to regard the notion that something might actually have roots in engineering principles and try to work out problems from that viewpoint. We are merely hindering the advancement of science if we tie its hands around Darwin’s Bible. Leave religion to religion. Science should be science.
I am extremely frustrated that intelligent answers are never provided. Only smoke and mirrors. I keep waiting and keep being astounded at the transparency of this emperor’s clothes.
jan said,
November 19, 2009 at 6:09 am
“A (living) egg is surrounded by a shell – take away (or ‘omit’) a part of the shall and the whole things falls apart, all over the floor, and your shoes if you are not careful.
Oh noes! I can not IMAGINE how the entire perfectly shaped egg shell could have formed! No as I insist on looking at it back to front!”
Parker, you continue to demonstrate your bias and ignorance by your hypocritical comments. All ANYBODY can do is “LOOK AT IT BACK TO FRONT”. You simpleton, don’t you see the vast hypocrisy in your own claims? Are you suggesting that you, or any other human enterprise involved in REAL scientifically valid experimentation could actually claim to be able to do the following? Adequately DEMONSTRATE empirically (SCIENTIFICALLY) from the BOTTOM UP the vast array of required steps to go from chemicals to living systems by the processes that are ASSERTED (not demonstrated) to be responsible for the comprehensive sequences, and unobserved guiding of non-sympathetic chemical reactions required in your assertions? Let alone fully disclosing the probable impact all of the mitigating factors that could derail the required progressions of “historically contingent requirements” (oh, shit. S J Gould bullshit, in all due respect) from pathways to currently observed eco-systems?
Steve, can’t you attract better argumenteurs than this bonehead?
ADParker said,
November 19, 2009 at 6:19 am
I think I will just leave it and hope that others are either sufficiently menatlly competant to grasp the “LOOK AT IT BACK TO FRONT” concept, or so closed minded that nothing would convince them anyway.
And no apparantly Steve can’t attact many at all. You and he are a fine pair with the drive to leap to Ad Hominem attack at every turn though.
*Yes, sorry Steve, that WAS another from the “Formal Logic Handbook.” But you know; if they keep commiting them…
jan said,
November 20, 2009 at 4:59 am
Parker said:
“I think I will just leave it and hope that others are either sufficiently menatlly competant to grasp the “LOOK AT IT BACK TO FRONT” concept, or so closed minded that nothing would convince them anyway.
And no apparantly Steve can’t attact many at all. You and he are a fine pair with the drive to leap to Ad Hominem attack at every turn though.
*Yes, sorry Steve, that WAS another from the “Formal Logic Handbook.” But you know; if they keep commiting them…”
jan said:
Parker, you continue to support positions that slap around conjecture, vastly insufficient assumptions and incredibly unsupportable assertions…..ALL IN THE NAME OF “SCIENCE” CAN’T YOU SEE THAT? Real “science” would have dismissed this raft of shit LONG AGO. The “Ad Hominem attacks” (I can’t speak for Steve, only myself) are based upon frustration of the stubborn insistence of people like you, who, apparently, don’t have the ability to pull you head out of you collective assess and confront the true nature of the legitimate questions that finally are being presented to the (what has been for so long) the ruling promulgators of fallacious doctrine. Bring something better, get expert help, pull your head out of your philosophical mode, or step aside and encourage pertinent discussion……
(oh shit, more periods………………………………………………………………………….!!!!!!!!!!)
jan said,
November 21, 2009 at 4:05 am
Steve said to Parker:
“Re: your list: “Combined they can and do form complex bio-systems.”
More laughter. And you have seen or experienced this? Of course no man who ever lived has, so you are in the believer category. Not the science. Try the real category of science someday.
So you don’t think evolution invented bio-systems? Was there an entirely separate system that came up with invention?
And the “details” are HUGE. Just small in your mind. I don’t think bird flight, four chambered heart/lung systems, and the Kreb’s cycle are minute. You have to so you can support your belief.”
Steve, the guy sounds so indoctrinated in the ideology that he is incapable of looking at things in any kind of objective fashion. His proclamations are utterly astounding from any kind of non-philosophical point of view. The best that they can ASSERT, is that, we can’t prove all of the requirements of chemicals to sympathetic life making up observable ecosytems, but, damn it, given enough TIME, all of this would have happened. But of course “all of this” has not and will never be SUFFICIENTLY scientifically demonstrated. Hey, but these people have had the ability to skate by on the basis of their philosophical preferences for a long time. They have had pop culture’s blessings (because the concepts they purport helps to bring in huge profits at the box office) and their stupidity has been promoted as factual. But they get “recognition in their field” (regardless of the stupidly unsubtantiations) and they get tenure, in the case of the publically funded “educational” institutions. It really resembles “institutionalized perversion”.
jan
stevebee92653 said,
November 21, 2009 at 4:58 am
Roger that. And they are so indoctrinated, they have no idea how much. Or that they are. I keep hoping I will find just one who has a brain. But I am giving up hope on that. Maybe one day one of them that read my stuff (and yours) will be walking along, and a flash will hit him. Maybe just maybe he will think. For once. But I will keep on truckin’. The subject is so much fun.
jan said,
November 23, 2009 at 4:29 am
“Just like all Creotards you harp on about insanely minuscule finer details, as if they undermine the whole. And, in the same breath almost, insist on the entire theory, and its entire scope from the very first self-replicating molecule (and often it’s formation as well – and sometimes even going back to the origins of the entire bloody universe as well!) to the current stock of organisms, be explained in full, or it be discarded as false!
All of which demonstrates your wilful ignorance of evolution and it’s theory.”
Steve, again I look at this statement am astounded by the the hypocrisy of the underlying argumentative foundations of the assertions. Why wouldn’t any thinking individuals “insist” on what really are very BASIC AND FUNDAMENTALLY RELEVANT QUESTIONS required to be answered in order for the “evolutionary communities” to have the FUCKING LICENSES TO MAKE TO CLAIMS THEY DO???????? Again, the INFORMED motivation and expressions of my comments are STRONG indications that these FLAMING ASSHOLES HAVE HAD THE ABILITIES TO ESCAPE LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS FOR THE PROMOTION OF THEIR PERSONAL PHILOSOPHIES PASSED OFF AS LEGITIMATE SCIENCE. AND OH, BY THE WAY, MAY THIS BUTTHOLE HASN’T MADE MONEY OFF OF THIS SHIT. BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THERE ARE MANY MANY OTHERS THAT HAVE.
jan said,
November 28, 2009 at 5:45 am
Parker said:
“And YET AGAIN you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of a logical fallacy, and of what evolution actually is as wel”l
What the fuck????? Contrite, WHETHER, correct or incorrect intellectual capabilities of human intellect has any FUCKING QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO THE VASTLY UNVERIFIABLE, UNSUBSTANTIABLE, UNFATHOMABLE SCOPE OF THE PROCESSES OF LIVING SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE PROPER SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION? Parker, you continue to demonstrate that you are SUCH AN IGNORANT ASS….. I DONT SEE HOW ANYBODY CAN CONTINUE TO TAKE ANYTHING YOU SPOUT OUT SERIOUSLY.
jan said,
December 1, 2009 at 6:03 am
“All of those things on the list DO occur – they have been directly observed. And together they ARE evolution”
Parker, Your baligerant and ingnorant rants, in an attempt to “demonstrate” the requirements needed to bridge your preferred philosophical position to actual physical realities, just fucking continues to astound, atleast, me. And i would imagine many others. You seem to be asserting that the trivial, and miniscule observed rearrangements of the FUCKING ABSOLUTELY INADEQUATELY DESCRIBED LET ALONE DOMONSTRATED SYSTEMS COMPRISING LIVING ORGANISMS, has any kind of quantitatively demonstrated relevant correlation to THE ACTUAL BOTTOM UP DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE SYSTEMS THAT ARE RELIED UP ON FOR YOU (YOU ASSHOLE) AND OTHERS LIKE YOU TO MAKE THE NON-SCIENTIFIC AND JUST PHILOSPHICAL ASSERTIONS regarding natural processed having the capabilities to run up the chemicals to the living ecosystems we work so hard to JUST FUCKING ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE. WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!
ADParker said,
December 1, 2009 at 8:43 am
Keep going jan, this is most amusing.
“You seem to be asserting that the trivial, and miniscule observed rearrangements of the FUCKING ABSOLUTELY INADEQUATELY DESCRIBED LET ALONE DOMONSTRATED SYSTEMS COMPRISING LIVING ORGANISMS, has any kind of quantitatively demonstrated relevant correlation to THE ACTUAL BOTTOM UP DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE SYSTEMS THAT ARE RELIED UP ON FOR YOU (YOU ASSHOLE) AND OTHERS LIKE YOU TO MAKE THE NON-SCIENTIFIC AND JUST PHILOSPHICAL ASSERTIONS regarding natural processed having the capabilities to run up the chemicals to the living ecosystems we work so hard to JUST FUCKING ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE.”
Phew what a long piece of nonsense, when all I need say is:
No; I am explaining that the short list of knowns I gave IS what Evolution is.
That is the scientific concept of Evolution…Well no, actually even that is more than what evolution is; evolution is “progressive change over time ” or “progressive change in allele frequency over time” if you want to specify it to genetic biological evolution.
All the rest comes under the theory of evolution heading – on which you can read a book or three on if you actually had any interest in understanding what the primary driving science behind all modern biology is.
But of course you don’t stop there, you also throw in the origin of life as well. Which is a related, yes, but different area altogether. An interesting and important topic to be sure, but it is not of evolution. That would be like demanding that in your lesson about house building you be taught how bricks are manufactured in the first place.
But not a topic I intend to discuss here – this is claimed as an anti-evolution blog after all (well actually it is titled as an ‘Objective’ look – but really, come on!)
jan said,
December 2, 2009 at 4:13 am
Parker said:
“Phew what a long piece of nonsense, when all I need say is:
No; I am explaining that the short list of knowns I gave IS what Evolution is.
That is the scientific concept of Evolution…Well no, actually even that is more than what evolution is; evolution is “progressive change over time ” or “progressive change in allele frequency over time” if you want to specify it to genetic biological evolution.
All the rest comes under the theory of evolution heading – on which you can read a book or three on if you actually had any interest in understanding what the primary driving science behind all modern biology is.
But of course you don’t stop there, you also throw in the origin of life as well. Which is a related, yes, but different area altogether. An interesting and important topic to be sure, but it is not of evolution. That would be like demanding that in your lesson about house building you be taught how bricks are manufactured in the first place.
But not a topic I intend to discuss here – this is claimed as an anti-evolution blog after all (well actually it is titled as an ‘Objective’ look – but really, come on!)”
“Phew what a long piece of nonsense, when all I need say is:
No; I am explaining that the short list of knowns I gave IS what Evolution is”
jan said in response:
Parker, what a short piece of nonsense (fully and completely inadequate to describe, let alone, demonstrate the requirements for the vast assertions being made by your pet philosophy.
“evolution is “progressive change over time ” or “progressive change in allele frequency over time” if you want to specify it to genetic biological evolution.”
jan said in response:
Scientifically, DEMONSTRATE, that OBSERVABLE ALLELES evolved up to a “platform” or “basis” that could be required as a starting point for any kind of change in (what some might call) original alleles. You continue to spout rhetoric which has no basis in adequately demonstrated scientific verification. There are vast unrecognizable contingencies all throughout life’s histories that will never be fully understood and certainly not “describable” my mankind before mankind becomes extinct.
I gotta eat dinner now. I will try and come back later and answer the rest of your tripe, fool.
jan
jan said,
December 2, 2009 at 4:44 am
Parker said:
“All the rest comes under the theory of evolution heading – on which you can read a book or three on if you actually had any interest in understanding what the primary driving science behind all modern biology is.”
jan says:
Burp, oh, pardon, i am working my way through dinner:
Back to the topic. Evolution as the “driving” science behind all modern biology?
Parker, you gotta be kidding me. Look, regardless of whatever the forces are that are responsible for the presence of what is observable now (through us, as organisms that will never be fully scientifically explained or demonstrated) “modern biology” has tons of work to do in the “here and now” and has absolutely no contingent dependency on some half baked, unnecesary and irrelevant philosophy that current “evolutionary” proponents are desperately attempting (by the way, at HUGE SOCIAL COSTS) to perpetuate. Burp, fart…… oh excuse me please oh mighty one….for my “evolved” tendencies. (shit, god wouldn’t have made a creature that burps and farts…….)
respectfully,
jan
jan said,
December 2, 2009 at 5:35 am
Look,( PHert, damn another fart, you are lucky not to be here parker, you would be smelling the results of what you would claim evolutionary processes are the cause of , HA HA HA HA )
Back to the topic,
Parker, your and your philosophical support system (proponents of large scale evolution), going back historically, claim to have enough “scientific” evidence, theoretical support, observational data, logical continuity of supposition, conjecture that really makes sense… etc etc etc etc etc to claim that chemistry and physics are sufficient and all that is necessary to explain the progression from inorganic matter to the living diversity and the abilities to observe such, possessed by certain life forms existing today. You name it. Your philosophical gurus have a (largely publicly funded) non scientific answer to the piles of bullshit they have spouted out on the public for many years now.
You are full of something other than critical thinking. Any fool, with even a basic education regarding living organisms and systems, can realize the disparities confronting what must be a huge spatial and linear progression of multiple developments from chemicals, or no forget chemicals. Let say, the first living cell to even the simplest of mutlcellular organisms. The incredibly vast array of developmental contingencies, and the associated selection factors that would be required ARE ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ( DONT BRING THE WORN OUT TERM THAT YOU LOVE TO USE OF “PERSONAL INCREDULITY” GET BEYOND THAT TRITE BULLSHIT TACTIC) scientific demonstration or even adequate conjecture.
Prove me wrong parker………..(oh shit, more periods, Nurse, Nurse. I am running out of my meds……….)
Charlie said,
November 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm
ADParker:
>But of course you don’t stop there, you also throw in the origin of life as well. >Which is a related, yes, but different area altogether. An interesting and >important topic to be sure, but it is not of evolution. That would be like >demanding that in your lesson about house building you be taught how bricks >are manufactured in the first place.
That is extremely interesting that you use this example. As it illustrates something very telling. You claim that it is unnecessary to know how to manufacture bricks in order to learn how to build a house. Doesn’t it logically follow that it is unnecessary to know how to manufacture DNA in order to learn how to use biological processes and phenomena to provide actual practical solutions? For that matter, doesn’t it logically follow that it is completely unnecessary to know who created the bricks (or dna) in order to acknowledge that the bricks (or dna) were indeed created for a purpose?
Why must the progress of science by mired in pure speculation about how the life came about in the first place? Or Who may have done it. This is not the place of science. Especially not one that is so obviously contorted to fashion the data and its conclusions toward supporting one very religious view.
jan said,
May 2, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Parker, I think, has been enlightened Steve….don’t cha think? NOT! hahahahhahhaaa.
stevebee92653 said,
May 3, 2010 at 3:49 am
Zombies and clones cannot be enlightened.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Paul Graham? You wouldn’t happen to be THIS Paul Graham http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/paulgraham_2129_15319346
Also wrote one of my favorite essays on the practices and mindset of a good scientist titled “what you can’t say” http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
If you are, this is Kent from Ultramediacorp. You know I still reference that essay whenever talking about positive habits for investigative inquiry in my own writing or whenever discussing some of the most glaring mistakes made by Scientist’s.
One in particular is mentioned here by Stevebee in his criticism of the post beeble made where Steve say’s beeble was condescending.
I think Steve nailed him on the very reason evolution Scientist’s make such LOUSY teachers because they really are some of the most rude, pompous, therefore stupid individuals in Science education. They invariably insult their opposing interlocutors with presumptuous personal insults. Insulting a persons religion whether they have one or not.
If it isn’t that, they assume any disagreement is a “mis-understanding” of evolution which I find most interesting as it is so indicative of the typical hubris which has made scientists themselves one of thee most difficult types of students to teach interpersonal communication.
How it behooves them to deflate the egocentric image they have of themselves and the faulty assumptions they make about people of religious faith or those who like good scientist’s SHOULD,,, be challenging theory, asking questions, and above all never assume a challenge is an attack, take it personal or that the one asking is more inclined to be less intelligent merely because he disagrees.
Take the renown Prof. Richard Dawkins. I sat in on a lecture given by this man in Tempe Arizona and almost wanted to knock his teeth down his throat when he advised the students to and I quote:
“Ridicule the evolution deniers into better behavior as the creationist they are” end quote.
This idiot and he IS an idiot, would do well reading your that essay and whether or not his brand of Science is keeping itself tethered to the habits mentioned in “what you can’t say” .
I found it curious such a well known figure in the halls of Oxford Academia, would think it advantageous to use his bad behavior of ridicule would result in better behavior from those he targets to attack. Such an antithetical approach to use when the power persuasion is destroyed using such an approach in education.
That was until I understood he was using evolution to advance his religion of atheism. It is also what began to convince me that atheism and evolution were merging and evolving into a religion.
Perhaps a religion without a deity but enough evidence offered by Dawkins mannerism to compare to any born again baptist preacher.
The same overzealous fundamentalist fire and brimstone passion for preaching a philosophical ideology like most any other religion. His world view is substantiated by the Philosopher God Kings of infallible science.
So sacred is his religion that no one dare criticize it much less dis-agree with it, else to hell with you.
You, you, creationist you.
Sums it up well
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 20, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Parker said: “what the primary driving science behind all modern biology is.”
Mmmm what IS the primary driving science behind another science?
Ill tell you what the primary MOTIVE is, behind the superfluous addition of professional story tellers and excuse makers of evolution is.
It is hatred of anything that would suggest they owe their existence to someone or something, be it a master race from some other galaxy, or a prime mover, a deity of sorts. Regardless of the mountain of evidence where, every where you look, you see the unequivocally, absolute OBVIOUS intent for its being here and for its existence. That it has purpose which is interdependent on so many other systems which could not have arrived in the here and now without some third party systems and various life supporting bio systems which would have to be online and ready for every single solitary step of the most benign morphological change.
Just to keep and maintain life forms and eco systems still in development or playing catchup for what you see everywhere alive and non living. But then you have the problem of what could POSSIBLY have brought those third party systems into being? What would tell them to start and how would they customize their bio mechanical conduits and connections to those various life forms and non living matter they would need to sustain them. What could POSSIBLY coordinate the perfect timing and neccessary synchronicity required for such complex systems and life forms to manifest themselves on que having no other strategy, no plan, no timer, no knowledge what so ever.
All the allegedly evolving creatures and life forms that also had to co-exist with various other creatures and life forms too numerous to fathom moreover had to happen in concert with each other at about the exact same time. How does this happen without an intelligent dialogue going one between them? I mean, after all we KNOW is has to happen that way and their is NOTHING to suggest such third party assistance took place so we know it happened on the first try. As if it had a script it not only all recognized as an instruction set, but a complex digital code so absolutely amazing calling DNA, happenstance or merely a simple molecule would show no appreciation for DNA, much less Science, at all.
You have argued your TOE using some of the most dated arguments for information, especially when it comes to the latest data now forcing Darwinian Evolution to scramble for a revamp of the entire fable.
AGAIN…
Seems DNA is SO good at checking for copying errors that it even knows to keep a running log recorded of them and guess how many it will allow before it “reboots itself” bringing it all back to its original default morphological template, each life form has hard coded in it’s DNA.
That this fail-safe already hard-coded and to be cross checked and verified by RNA before it will continue to create another iota of proteins necessary to bring the template’s life form to fruition?
How many mutations have we actually seen get past this super accurate checker verifier and qualifier before it stops to regroup and get back to the blueprint it is to follow?
Digital remember, is how it works like 1’s and 0’s it knows how to code it D-I-G-I-T-A-L-Y-! It ain’t analogue poindexter, it starts from scratch and doesn’t make copies on top of copies but reproduces the end product by writing fresh code which is then debugged not unlike software, but more than that, it is BETA TESTED and matched up to already successfully completed tasks making DNA the smallest, most efficient, self programming, self correcting 3D biosystem facilitator and computer ever discovered.
It is made from matter and like all matter, to even suggest it and all that came following was simply a great aggregation of the many unbelievably lucky and improbable events that were required to take place, under the most well timed, and perfectly synchronized circumstances that continued to happen in lock step with all the major interdependent systems, life forces and events is one indefensible argument but I understand your motive for believing in it. But then we have even more to consider, the mechanisms are just not technically feasible to facilitate evolution to a plausible theory yet because we still have the issue of all that third party support system which now must be devolved, destroyed or atrophy as so much excess baggage.
You have maintained such an uncritical opinion of the TOE the fact you argue so in support of it when you have no skin in the game other than your precious self aggrandizing ego, tells me, this is your religion and like all religions defended with such uncritical dogma, you believe it by faith and faith alone..
The TOE zealot suggest that all this happened getting dealt a royal flush every hand for billions of years in a card game with a billion players at the table and a trillion cards in the deck shuffled a trillion trillion times, winning every hand and going all out on every bet playing blind folded.
TWO is all that usually get by and those are just the harmless mutations making those allegedly beneficial mutations that get fixed in the gene pool, a micron from impossible on a graph ten million miles long.
The suggestion is so outrageously absurd it is obnoxious you even talk about it because under the conditions I have meticulously detailed and illustrated, the fact is, what the facts are and that is so undeniable, so obvious, that NO ONE but NO ONE,,
would EVER believe it such a thing happened at all.
NO ONE.
So what makes you think any of US should?
So spare me the mundane platitudes about “facts of evidence you have interpreted through the lens of your Bias against “xtians” “fundies” hatred of Gods and Religion. Your love of sin and indulgence or the issues you have with them, while you claim you deny them. What ever the reason the TOE makes sense to you, as we both look at the same evidence, yours is just as carefully selected while the designed lookin stuff gets suppressed, covered up, stored away or destroyed.
Spare me your ecstatic utterances regarding your alleged, superior atheist grasp of science, logic and reason, because frankly son,,
you wouldn’t even have a clue, for how illogical you sound,
as illogical as you are
ADParker said,
November 20, 2010 at 10:43 pm
This is a horrible site for proper discourse, so I won’t bother (this would have been a good post from you on a forum though.)
Kent Perry said: “Your love of sin and indulgence or the issues you have with them, while you claim you deny them.”
You sounded almost rational (not correct, but rational at least) until that line.
Kent Perry said: “”How many mutations have we actually seen get past this super accurate checker verifier and qualifier before it stops to regroup and get back to the blueprint it is to follow?”
By the way. The answer (from a paper I read a while back) for humans seems to be around 128 mutations become fixed in the genome a the zygote stage, and 30 more during ones lifetime. Incredible what 4,000,000,000 years of evolution can ‘design’ (sans designer as far as I can see, it certainly explains the complexity along with the innumerable the kludges.)
Oh, and it is more aptly to be called a “Recipe” not a “Blueprint.” But that is a minor point here.
You anthropocentric bias is interesting (and explained by that first line I quoted here.) Do you realise that the universe is even more ‘fine tuned’ for black hole formation? A fine tuning which just happens to result in a by-product of life popping up here and there (how does it feel to be seen as nothing but an accidental by-product?)
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 21, 2010 at 4:41 pm
ADParker said, “This is a horrible site for proper discourse, so I won’t bother ”
Love it, Parker tells us it’s a “horrible site for discourse” and that he isn’t going to even bother, then goes right on bothering to reply a lengthy bit of dimwitism, a scandalous little bit of ad-hom sophistry and a boat load of stupid. At least Ill admit to using Dawkins own suggestion for “ridiculing them into better behavior” with this one caveat. That when I do it, it has nothing to do with improving your behavior but everything to do with giving back what they (darwits) dish out, giving them a taste of their own medicine.
Oh,, also because you’re pathetically, irrefutably and terminally stupid. Something I will undoubtedly elaborate on waxing poetic on the seemingly infinite levels of stupid, a darwit like yourself, will do here, just as sure as he will in one of those sites where the “discourse isn’t so horrible” . Well, until someone like Stevebee gets there and the darwits begin shoving their heads in their colon, a favorite place for them to gather to talk shit and share their ideas afterward
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
I believe this is a negative proof, and if so, it is a logical fallacy is the claim of some atheists like Richard Dawkins and that science has demonstrated that God does not exist.
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, then why is life in the universe so rare?
I believe this is a negative proof, and if so, it is a logical fallacy.”
Notice when ever a Darwit speaks,
-the numbers “could have been different”–although there is no way of knowing this,
-there “may be a multitude of other universes”–for which there is not one shred of actual evidence,
-the alleged other universes are “forever inaccessible to us”–making use of any of the tools that science usually employs impossible.
-the conclusion of “a huge choice of possible universes” hangs on its own without any supporting data whatsoever yet we are bombarded with statements from atheist’s saying:
” Science deals with facts and imaginary skygods have no place in science”
My question is, then, why do atheist’s believe in imaginary universes or imaginary transitional fossils or imaginary events happening billions of years ago? They criticize the book of genesis calling it some 2000 year old bronze age book never forgetting to remind us it was written by men as if EVERYONE doesn’t already know that. Yet they claim they know what happened NOT JUST 2000 years ago but millions and millions,,
of years ago.
The absolutely hysterical ideas Darwits come up with, are so ridiculously far fetched, If it wasn’t for their monumental hypocrisy and utterly unmatched stupidity, I would explain how much easier it is to believe in a sky-daddy designer over ANY of that rubbish they pass off AS fact.
The best I can call it is really BAD fiction.
If I didn’t know better, one would think L.Ron Hubbard wrote the “Origin of Species”. It is when evolutionauts try to look as if they are thinking logically, that shoving an entire shoe store in their dick smoking mouths, seems, Mmmm,, Rather the logical thing to do.
EXAMPLE: Compare the “fallacies”:
An example of negative proof is:
“X is true because there is no proof that X is false.”
This is what atheist’s heckle Christians about in debates all the time. They insist that the one making the extraordinary claim, a God exists, has the burden of proof but how does that have anything to do with the following sample they give as an example of how theist’s think:
“You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so God exists”.
Or the ever popular, “God did it” something I have never seen a Scientist who is a Christian, say but I have seen hundreds of atheists SAY, they do. http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/corner/god.html
I really don’t know where they get this stuff.
I mean Ill agree their are some that have said this however so have atheist’s every time they say “Time did it” but more than that is the idea they have, that one can not prove a negative.
The atheist’s think this because they have no common sense whatsoever. Unless they don’t think I can prove their isn’t a hand attached to my forehead.
Of course I can prove their isn’t a hand attached to my forehead and the idea I can’t is asinine but typical when dealing with the kind of conceited mentality of the new atheist.
But when it comes to the quote they most deride as a logical fallacy that goes: ” You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” like Richard Dawkins when he allegedly “Pwned” Bill Oreilly for saying it on a Fox News Interview. Dawkins is lucky it wasn’t me interviewing the snarky little metro-sexual british SOB.
I would have pointed out the double standards the feminine looking little weasel enjoys by using some of Science own examples of their faith in imaginary “sky stuff”.
Take the Multiverse.
“You can’t prove a Multiverse doesn’t exist, so the Multiverse exists”.
“You can’t prove evolution doesn’t happen, so evolution happens”.
I believe this is a negative proof, and if so, it is a logical fallacy.”
Ironically, people like the Godless wonder boy, Prof. Richard Dawkins, will assert that their isn’t any evidence for God so it is reasonable to conclude their isn’t a God and that is something one must believe by faith, which is true, I agree. However, Faith however is something which is vehemently denied when it comes to scientist’s. Yet their is not a single shred of evidence for evolution, NONE, ZIP, NOTTA, ZERO! Save for the evidence “interpreted” by Darwits who IMAGINE, it is evidence.
So why do they believe there is.
Simply because they wish it to be.
Oh yes yes, I hear all the creative adjectives they vomit frothing at the mouth while they spit out the same sophomoric comparisons over and over such as “Mountain of Evidence!” or “Thousands of peer reviewed papers” and one of the most recent and funny if you think about it:
” in fact, evolution has more evidence to support the theory than GRAVITY! ”
That last one floors me, just the idea someone would doubt their is such a force holding us down needing mountains of evidence to prove it, is a pretty damn stupid argument when used to exalt evolution. The idea their would be large groups of hobby gravity supporters arguing with the religious deniers of gravity, is a phenomena so absurd, it is a wonder why atheists believe it is even a clever comeback much less an intelligent one.
The fact is, Gravity doesn’t NEED to prove itself because if you are like most of us, Gravity, is rather SELF EVIDENT is it not?
You see TRUTH, needs no defense.
That is why their is no argument between the two camps of Atheism and Theist’s with regard to Gravity because it actually IS proven beyond, not just a reasonable doubt but ANY DOUBT whatsoever!
Can Darwinian Evolution say that?
NOPE
Not even close
Yet the bimbos go around like maggots on a carcass spreading the mantra that evolution is a FACT!
GuFaW!!! WHAT?? Which Kind? Who says so?
Well Atheists do so it must be true.
Beyond quantum cosmology and Darwinian biology, there is this arrogant, self aggrandizing, stuck up, persona, atheist’s wear like some solemn metaphysical aura of science itself. They even refer to themselves as “The Science Community” a special clique of pricks and assholes who believe their time has come and that God and Religion must die and the whole world will fart rainbows and be pissing glitter in a grandiose utopia of Darwinian group think.
Sort of like the BORG, only resistance isn’t just futile, it is absolutely mandatory, else we have the same community of criminal scientist’s that gave us the Bomb, and Global Warming running our lives. Yet It is precisely the aura to which so many scientists reverently appeal. The philosopher John Searle has seen the aura. The “universe,” he has written, “consists of matter, and systems defined by causal relations.” Does it indeed? If so, then God must be nothing more than another material object of matter. In a class that includes stars, starlets and solitons.
If not, what reason do we have to suppose that God might not exist?
We have no reason whatsoever.
If neither the sciences nor its community of yes men called atheist’s have demonstrated any conclusion of interest about the existence of God, why then is atheism valued among scientists?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why Soviet Commissars regarded themselves as atheists. They were unwilling to countenance a power higher than their own. Who knows what mischief Soviet citizens might have conceived had they imagined that the Politburo was not, after all, infallible?
By the same token, it requires no very great analytic effort to understand why the scientific community should find atheism so attractive a doctrine and evolution its orthodoxy.
At a time when otherwise sober individuals are inclined to believe that too much of science is too much like a racket, it is only sensible for Atheist Zombie Evolutionoid Scientists to guard their monopoly, and their vice grip like hold on public education by demanding aggressively,,
that no power exceeds their own.
Well, I got News for em
stevebee92653 said,
November 21, 2010 at 5:50 pm
What a fun read. Thanks!
ADParker said,
November 21, 2010 at 10:28 pm
{Sigh} As I said; this is a horrible site for proper discourse. And that is why I didn’t make the effort to respond to your previous post in the full manner I otherwise would have.
I have tried to do so in blog comment sections such as this one in the past, but they just aren’t set up for two way discussion. That is what forums are for.
If you are interested in actual discussion, why not follow stevebee92653 over to the RatSkep forum?
There are a number of misunderstandings of science, and atheism, that you should welcome being corrected on. If only to improve the validity of your arguments and position.
Charlie said,
November 22, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Very well written. Where is any of this sort of logic or reason or even-headedness in the camp of the hard-core evolutionary atheist? I don’t fault all scientists. I do fault those that have taken a dogmatic stance in supporting the unsupportable.
Science does have a huge amount of practical value. It has, however, no place in rejecting its foundations. And by its own strict directives, is at a huge disadvantage in the realm of refuting those things that belong entirely to logic, philosophy, and faith.
They belong in separate rings altogether and have no place being compared as opponents.
ADParker said,
November 22, 2010 at 11:17 pm
What are you talking about? You appeared to dodge around something there.
What dogmatic stance?
What is it that is unsupportable?
What foundations do you think are being rejected?
Don’t get me started in Faith.
Charlie said,
November 23, 2010 at 5:41 am
ADParker:
>What dogmatic stance?
>What is it that is unsupportable?
>What foundations do you think are being rejected?
I’ll assume one last time that you’re being sincere with yourself and with us. Beyond that, I must say that I don’t have time for going on and on about this without hearing you actually say something useful.
What dogmatic stance? You don’t find it curious at all that you keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if it were a mantra? Never really adding more useful information to the conversation but simply enjoying the sight of your own typing? You haven’t yet provided one shred of evidence that uncompromisingly supports macro-evolution as the logical outflow of the established micro-evolution successes. (And no one here is arguing against those.) It is not science if the theory has to try so hard to support itself in the face of so many VALID challenges and actual scientific inconsistencies. It is dogma if you must stick to your guns and assert that the theory cannot be wrong- it must be that we need another gap theory.
What is unsupportable? See the above expansion.
What foundations do I think are being rejected? Well… let’s see. Science demands that only that which can be observed, measured, repeated, falsifiable, etc… are admissable as knowledge that can then be used to further additional scientific theories and knowledge. But I’m pretty sure that mathematics, logic, reason, philosophy, etc are necessary ingredients for the foundations of science. But according to science, those ingredients don’t exist because they are not observed, measured, repeated, falsifiable, etc.
But of course, they exist. They just are not part of our material physical natural world. They are borrowed by science to provide a foundation from which science can operate and be used to investigate our world. But for science to make assertions about the nonexistence of something outside of the material physical natural world is simply a disingenuous lack of reason. Real scientists in our early history knew this.
“Science sits proudly upon itself, relentlessly stretching upward and outward, unaware of its futile attempt to touch the God it cannot see… blind to the fact that there it sits… nestled securely in His Hand.”
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 22, 2010 at 12:22 am
ADParker said: “{Sigh} As I said; this is a horrible site for proper discourse. And that is why I didn’t make the effort to respond to your previous post in the full manner I otherwise would have.”
You mean it gets worse? You could have made a smarter one, a better one? A longer one or a shorter one?
You say they aren’t setup for two way discussion? You can write one hell of a long post here buddy, sorry it doesn’t have all those emoticons flags and stars to use when ya high five your gang of forum warriors. I did visit and checked out the members, there is nothing there.
No argument or information I haven’t seen before and their sure isn’t anyone their any smarter about atheism or its religion of evolution. I mean one can only listen to some jack ass tell me I don’t understand evolution when the fact is,, NO ONE really,, understands evolution, how could they.
It is so elastic it stretches around every excuse, every alibi, every hoax, every fraud, every mouthy atheists flaw in his argument, and in the 11 years I have been debating the m, I haven’t seen but one change a thing.
NOT even an opinion I have where they got it wrong about Darwins role on the HMS Beagle. Did they say “I stand corrected”? PffffT
Did they even admit it after seeing the facts on Darwins own website by the NAS? Nope, just silenced by the facts. Then not two days later the same POS was using the same lie AGAIN.
I have seen atheist’s do that for years.
So any more, I couldn’t give a rats ass what they think and that is the same way they have been about what I think all along.
They don’t even consider for one second that I may have more peer reviewed papers or know Scientists that make anything Dawkins has to say, sound like that absolute BULLSHIT he has always been about. Nothing gets accomplished at forums son.
It’s a place to spin your wheels while you waste your time because I may be there to talk about science, but they aren’t there to listen and religion (as you know) isn’t allowed so I listen and what I get is the kind of dialogue that I have learned to let it fall off me like water off a ducks back.
It’s the time wasted that makes it a losing proposition, like those members I saw there, hehe same old players same old argument same old stalemate with both sides walking away thinking they won the argument. See I ain’t about talking to people who don’t want to believe in God.
The lord might love atheists but I sure as hell don’t.
I been at this so long and am so jaded, to me, all you atheists are just a punch in the face waiting to happen.
What amazes me is, how sweet and nice they are, when they meet me in person. Hell I’ve even put the fear of God in a few of them in my time, when I was on active duty.
You know at that moment when someone is within an inch of their life about to inhale their last breath,,, YOU’D be SURPRISED, how some call out for their Mom’s like a little kid, they would actually cry out saying “Mommy” or “I want my mommy”. Seriously guy, it is whack to see stuff like that .
but atheist’s???
I have seen a lot of them come close to dying.
A couple times in my arms, and every one of em,, called out for God. Some were SO atheist, I had to ask a buddy of mine if I was hearing right. Man it was off the charts weird, they’d be screaming words to the effect “I didn’t know I didn’t know” and the word “sorry” “I’m sorry org” what ever that is, it was kind of hard to hear em some times when they’re talking through a mouth full of their own blood. I don’t know if that changed anything but going by the sardonic contorted looks left on their faces that were frozen in time the moment the pilot light shut off and their eyes kinda glaze dull and get dim, then their faces all of a sudden look like they become wax like the kind ya see at the wax museums.
it sure didn’t look like they were at peace.
What ever it was they were seeing going on, it isn’t no place you or I would want to visit. Lotta guys seen stuff like that going on in Iraq too and when they did, even though it wasn’t they themselves that were hit, watching atheist’s go through the grim reality they got seconds left on this planet, watching em go the way we seen em cash out, it changes ya.
It changes ya Right then, right there and right now.
So thanks but no thanks, I got better things to do if I had to sit through an IRS audit, than listen to some gaggle of atheists who think they are the Philosopher Kings of Science. If stevebee couldn’t get ya to consider the that perhaps it isn’t the creationists that are so stupid, Ill go to school on his experience but I think I know what he is got himself into.
Ya know,, If their is place called Hell, who am I to derail the direction atheists are headed and worked so hard to deserve?
Way I see it, by lookin at all their atheist websites and all that nice “stuff” the talk about, all those nice things they say, in comparison to Christian websites, I know who has the intention to know truth and I know WHO, the truth is.
Shit I’d rather see em get where they don’t think they are gonna ever show up.
Won’t that be a surprise.
Charlie said,
November 22, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Kent, I am ashamed to say this but feel that I have to. Your crap just brought genuine tears to my eyes. The stories of fallen soldiers grappling with their finality. That sh*t just did to me what hasn’t been done to me in a long time. Luckily I’m at work and I held them with effort.
Ever since this summer, I can’t imagine living out my days without the hope to be with Him in the end. And though it is incredibly frustrating to deal with people like ADParker that have their minds stuck in neutral, it is so much more saddening to me to know that they are still so lost in this world. And maddening to think they are shielding others from the light of hope.
Though I am frustrated with you, ADParker, I can’t feel hatred for you or any of your compatriots. I just can’t. I feel sad. But this path is yours to take and yours alone. Your eyes are shielded now, unfortunately until and when your eyes will be opened. Man cannot do it. No man can. This site may be helpful to you if you allow it to be. But until He touches you with Grace, you are unfortunately lost.
When your eyes are finally opened to him- if it isn’t too late- you will fall down to your knees with an appreciation you have never known. The gift of faith is a gift indeed. One that we only know that we have received once we have finally sincerely accepted it. It isn’t magic. It is the meaning of life.
Charlie said,
November 22, 2010 at 4:34 pm
And I apologize if the religious commentary was inappropriate in this forum. It wasn’t meant as a point of logical argument. It was just a personal observation that I felt compelled to share.
ADParker said,
November 22, 2010 at 11:01 pm
@Charlie
“But the speciation events resulting in entirely new species? Are we perhaps a bit over ambitious in our definition of species?”
Actually no. There are now many documented cases of speciation. Some to the ‘hardest’ use of the term: “too two groups incabaple of interbreeding.”
Speciation however is something of a BONUS though, as the rest of the list you copied from me is the foundation of what evolution is.
“I know that it seems overly presumptuous to me to claim that the first five support the sixth. “
They are six independantly observed phenomena.
“And most especially that all of these combined can be taken as carte blanche evidence to support the entire evolutionary theory from single cell ancestor(s) to the full breadth of life that we witness today.”
As I said at that time, and you even included in this post of yours; I was talking of the FACTS of evolution, not the THEORY of Evolution. So who is it that is conflating here?
The Theory of Evolution is based on those known facts of evolution, plus a whole raft of evidennces in order to construct a model and explanation of the divergence of life. And it is a remarkably powerfully robust theory indeed! Becoming more so all the time.
It has been said a number of times (and without hubris as far as I can tell) that the theory can be said to be beyond reasonable doubt based on genetics alone. When that is far from the ONLY source of evidence that we have.
The only detractors (to the theory itself, not the details of course) seem to base that on a DESIRE to see some Design/intelligence behind it all; an all too human emotional desire for ultimate meaning and purpose.
“(Never mind the fact that the origin of the first cell(s) is an enormous hurdle that is simply taken as an initial condition.”
An initial condition for evolution perhaps. Although as the evidence and understanding increases this could probably be pushed back to the first Self Replicating Molecules. Once again we have a case of a grey area of ‘becoming’ instead of a cut and dried dividing line (like speciation is as well.) Which is what one should expect if models like the ToE is true.
It could be said that you are talking about abiogenesis (it is a common mistake to assume this is of the ‘creation’ of the first cell, but evidence puts it earlier and more gradual than that.) which is a different question than the one that the ToE addresses. Even though there is of course a connection.
The ToE explains (that is what theories do) the divergence of life on this planet. Abiogenesis is the origin of life itself. The work to date strongly supports that this was a matter of organic (carbon including) molecules combining to to fisrt Self Replicating, and then what we would recognise as living organisms.
Two different things. In focusing on the ToE it doesn’t really matter how life first arose; through biochemical interactions or the intentional creation of a supernatural creator (whatever that means), it matters not a whit to the theory.
Abiogenesis is indeed a fascinating and important subject. Something I enjoy reading the scientificdiscoveries being made on it – and some impressive and exciting progress has bee made in he past decade or so. Enough that I would say that the biochemical abiogenesis is pretty much a given. Learning exactly how it happened in every detail is of course an ongoing work inprogress. It is actually an exciting time to be alive for anyone interested i that question.
“It has just as much rational support as making an assumption that everything was designed intelligently instead. Why the bias?)”
Bias? No, I simply disagree with your cliam. There is practically zero ‘rational support’ for intelligent design. Just a number of apologists trying to convince people that it is the case (more often than not the general public and not the scientific community – why is that do you think?) And if anyone thinks that any of that push has no religious faith based bias, then they have been duped by those trying to pretend that. (A push that primarily only arose to any prominance AFTER the U.S. courts declared that creationism can not be taught as a science.)
“I am firmly convinced that science by its own definition is not capable of either affirming or denying God.”
1.Stevebee is trying to pretend that this has nothng to do with gods (including the one you call God of course.) Isn’t it interesting that this was supposed to be about the science, but you felt the nee dto bring up God?
2.I agree. And this is because “God” has been made into such a vague, nebulous and unfalsifibale concept.
“So it should proceed without any bias concerning that initial condition and focus on the actual scientific method as its only directive.”
Sure. What’s your point?
“In some cases, things can be learned scientifically from Natural Selection and Genetic Drift and so on. But in some cases, it make the utmost sense to regard the notion that something might actually have roots in engineering principles and try to work out problems from that viewpoint. We are merely hindering the advancement of science if we tie its hands around Darwin’s Bible. Leave religion to religion. Science should be science.”
Huh?! Why the religious rant?
Darwin’s bible?! Only creationists (and those deluded by their rhetoric) are so blinded to say such a thing. The science has progressed a long way since Darwin’s seminal work. Unlike with the Bible, many aspects of Darwin’s works have been found to be incorrect, and those are more than readily accepted as erroneous. (He had some implications harking back to Lamarkian evolution for instance, and he had no clue of genetics, for instance.)
“I am extremely frustrated that intelligent answers are never provided. Only smoke and mirrors. I keep waiting and keep being astounded at the transparency of this emperor’s clothes.”
Well this is a confused misinformed blog of pseudo intellectual rhetoric after all (His Population Paradox rant is particularly telling and amusing – based on a Young Earth Creationist attempt to refute the age of humaninity, as it does not fit in with their 6,000 year old universe.)
If you want actual full discussion on the subjects try http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ where Stevebee’s claims are discussed more fully (with Stevebee involved as well.)
ADParker said,
November 22, 2010 at 11:20 pm
It always amazes me how people say things like that without realising how incredibly insulting it is.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 23, 2010 at 12:19 am
Charlie, get a damn grip dude, I don’t get manipulated into living up to a sugary sweet Sunday faced fundie reputation to live up to.
If anything I said conjured up images you seem to blame me for (as if I knew you were comin here) and they got you all misty and melancholy, I can’t help that, but if you are going to suggest that as a reason to tell me I am not as good a Christian as YOU think I should be,, or that you have such intimate knowledge of God and you are so in the loop that he told you I am lost,, ha ha I got news for you too, Don’T CONCERN YOURSELF. and don’t be so damn presumptuous. YOU AIN’T MY JUDGE AND THE LAST THING YOU ARE THE LORD’S LIAISON
Got it ?
THAT means,, YOU don’t decide what anybody’s status is pal, everyone boils at different degrees, their walk is at their own pace and unless you have walked in my shoes using the same frame of reference, from the same experience dealing with in your face angst aggressive atheist’s with an axe to grind for as long as I have, without losing it from time to time, then then who are you to assume such a superior moral high ground? Ill tell ya who you are you silly little antagonist.
You, beloved, are no more saved than I am pal and until people start mistaking you for Jesus, what you think of me and my Christian walk is none of my business so do us a favor and mind your own okay, homicide?
Splendid
ADParker said,
November 22, 2010 at 11:14 pm
“That is extremely interesting that you use this example. As it illustrates something very telling. You claim that it is unnecessary to know how to manufacture bricks in order to learn how to build a house.”
Correct. My brother-in-law is a builder and is quite cabable of the second without having clue one about the first. Don’t you agree?!
“Doesn’t it logically follow that it is unnecessary to know how to manufacture DNA in order to learn how to use biological processes and phenomena to provide actual practical solutions?”
Sure.
Doesn’t make the orgins of DNA (or bricks) an unimportant matter thoough.
“For that matter, doesn’t it logically follow that it is completely unnecessary to know who created the bricks (or dna) in order to acknowledge that the bricks (or dna) were indeed created for a purpose?”
No That would be a complete Non Sequitur (lit: “Does not follow” for those like Stevebee who have problems with logical fallacies.)
Also a Complex Question (A logical fallacy where an assumion is included in the question) “WHO” created the bricks?! First question; Were the bricks (DNA) created? And if so was it by something that could properly be called a ‘who’?
And again no; your proposed question is about that origins, while evolution is not about the origin of life, but the divergence of that life once it had already arisen (by whatever means.)
“Why must the progress of science by mired in pure speculation about how the life came about in the first place?”
Excuse me?
“Or Who may have done it. “
Another use of the Complex question.
“This is not the place of science. Especially not one that is so obviously contorted to fashion the data and its conclusions toward supporting one very religious view.”
???
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 23, 2010 at 12:32 am
Ok Charlie, I was too rough on you and I will apologize but the “crap” you say made you sad, wasn’t mean to do that to you personally.
so if we got off on the wrong foot I’m ok with that if you are. If not, well, then I guess we got nothing more to say to each other but I admit I shouldn’t have jumped all over on ya like that.
Charlie said,
November 23, 2010 at 4:53 am
Kent, I think we did get off on the wrong foot. Maybe you reminded me too much of some old friends that I have and I took an inappropriately familiar tone with you. But we don’t know each other well enough for me to call your comment crap.
That word was used in reaction to the fact that your story moved me and it wasn’t meant to be crack on you as much as it irked me because it stirred up a soft side.
Anyhow, I appreciated your story and I didn’t convey that properly. I also appreciate the role that you played in defending our great nation. For that you have my respect.
As far as your perception that I was judging you, I don’t really know what to say. My personal desire to live and convey myself as I know He wants me to is mine. My words reflect my desire to show Him the Love that I appreciate knowing from Him. Whatever judgement that you felt coming from my words was not my judgement upon you, but perhaps your own. I don’t say that to be harsh. I, personally, was not judging you. (I didn’t really like how you responded- especially to someone that just admitted he was feeling like a big softy at the moment… but I definitely appreciate the apology- and I am sorry for my part.)
Anyhow, if you agree, then I think we’re good?
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 23, 2010 at 3:42 am
“I was talking of the FACTS of evolution, not the THEORY of Evolution. So who is it that is conflating here?
The Theory of Evolution is based on those known facts of evolution, plus a whole raft of evidence in order to construct a model and explanation of the divergence of life. And it is a remarkably powerfully robust theory indeed! Becoming more so all the time.”
Oh brother, the colorful adjectives used for this dead theory so advanced in its state of rigormortis. Hey ADParker don’t tell me about the labor pains,, SHOW ME THE BABY!!!
The Non sequiter? I don’t follow ADPorker?? I think that is what Charlie was trying say and you agreed with it.
Charlie said:” For that matter, doesn’t it logically follow that it is completely unnecessary to know who created the bricks (or dna) in order to acknowledge that the bricks (or dna) were indeed created for a purpose?””
In other words Porky, Charlie is asking whether you agree that it is a Non sequiter (un-necessary, not at issue )
Then YOU said:”No That would be a complete Non Sequitur ”
Ya Think!
If that wasn’t stupid enough, you go on some paragraph later and suggest that identifying the designer, as an imperative, is a complex question. Oh and before I go on, spare me the freshman academic protocols of logical fallacy, especially when your own posts are so saturated with them. Just because Charlie doesn’t waste time trying to impress you by displaying what looks to be in your case a noobs enthusiasm for them, might give YOU the idea we might respect your staggering intellect but doesn’t. In fact it’s a dead giveaway for the level of experience you are at in these exercises and it get old, FAST.
If you are going to insist using them to attack the argument as a fallacious one, at least be courteous enough to explain it by dissecting the actual quote in the post using an analogy that matches the definition rather that toss em out there with some cookie cutter copy pasted quote from some atheist website like “LOGICAL FALLACIES FUNDIES MAKE 101”
Try sticking to the central message and quit splitting hairs attacking the structure as if it is a construct for the premise of his argument as if it is contingent on winning the argument, It ain’t that damn important and only implies you crave importance when your need to be right is in jeopardy. It’s either that or you just want to get side tracked on small stuff like many do with spelling or grammar etc,.
The fact is, that it isn’t important WHO the designer is from a scientific standpoint but to assume in EVERY CASE their IS evidence that a sentient and intelligent being is a what or a who is and will always be IRRELEVANT and open for discovery in the initiative to move forward finding out more about the designer.
The idea it suggests a religious worldview is also a NON sequitur.
WHAT IF IT DOES? What right does science have to suspend scientific inquiry predicated on “issues” atheist’s have with religion because THAT IS the where the objection stems from and you can not deny it. I see it in your little diggs and comments referring to that end in almost every post. The fact is, it may or may not have religious implications, but I can assure you, if it IS a God being, that is the designer, then conventional wisdom would follow that you have nothing to worry about the God is a Baptist or a Muslim or Catholic and shouldn’t be dismissed via personal issues science has with the religious beliefs of others. It isn’t the Gods fault someone invented an ideology and philosophy about said God.
The convenient excuse typically given by Darwits to explain how life started is a COP OUT. and it is a lame one. I find it curious they will engage in cosmology, Mathematics, physics, bio-chemistry, quantum mechanics, etc,. but the moment we bring up the advent of life, Darwits throw out that same knee jerk programmed response.
“Evolution doesn’t talk to “abiogenesis”
You want to know the REAL reason they don’t and won’t go there?
Because they are afraid of what they will find but more specifically, what they are destined to admit because science has proven, LIFE can not come from NON LIFE and louis pasteur proved that and science knows it. So how else could it have come into existence?
You suggested his question was about origins yet clearly he was talking about sigantures suggesting intent and design or properties of the evidence. Now that is a bone of contention for atheist evo’s and something they suddenly know nothing about.
I don’t know about you porker, but design is SELF EVIDENT and if you are going to invalidate the evidence an alleged designer in this area of scientific study for say,, DNA for example, accusing it as guilty of breaking some idiotic arbitrary no God need apply rule, that isn’t science. That’s denial for the ramifications inherent for such a discovery. In other words, your fear of the truth ( in this regard anyway) blocks the very paths for that truth to ever be known, much less given a chance to even look in that direction.
Their is nothing written, nothing implied nor instructed by ANY Chain of command or head of any science, making it prohibitive to look under any rock search every inch step outside any box EXCEPT HOW LIFE STARTED. It’s BULLSHIT.
You know it and I know it
so cut the crap
ADParker said,
November 23, 2010 at 4:50 am
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “Oh brother, the colorful adjectives used for this dead theory so advanced in its state of rigormortis. Hey ADParker don’t tell me about the labor pains,, SHOW ME THE BABY!!! “
Dead theory?! So you just believe what a few religious apologists are telling you are you? Because that is about as far from the case as you could possibly get.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: ““The Non sequiter? I don’t follow ADPorker?? “
The insulting bastardisation of aliases; cute.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “In other words Porky,”
And again. Why should anyone respond to you with ANY respect when you engage in such childish behaviour?
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “If that wasn’t stupid enough, you go on some paragraph later and suggest that identifying the designer, as an imperative, is a complex question.”
No I didn’t. Work on your reading comprehension. I said that Assuming in the question that it was a “who” that designed it is a Complex Question.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “In fact it’s a dead giveaway for the level of experience you are at in these exercises and it get old, FAST. “
I doubt you have any idea of my “level of experience.”
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “If you are going to insist using them to attack the argument as a fallacious one, at least be courteous enough to explain it by dissecting the actual quote in the post using an analogy that matches the definition rather that toss em out there with some cookie cutter copy pasted quote from some atheist website like “LOGICAL FALLACIES FUNDIES MAKE 101″
I believe I did, actually.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “It’s either that or you just want to get side tracked on small stuff like many do with spelling or grammar etc,.”
It is more than mere grammar when one’s question is worded in a way that assumes a certain kind of answer. In this case “intelligent design.”
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “The fact is, that it isn’t important WHO the designer is from a scientific standpoint but to assume in EVERY CASE their IS evidence that a sentient and intelligent being is a what or a who is and will always be IRRELEVANT and open for discovery in the initiative to move forward finding out more about the designer. “
What?
And really; “ assume in EVERY CASE their [sic] IS evidence”?!
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “The idea it suggests a religious worldview is also a NON sequitur.
WHAT IF IT DOES? What right does science have to suspend scientific inquiry predicated on “issues” atheist’s have with religion because THAT IS the where the objection stems from and you can not deny it. I see it in your little diggs and comments referring to that end in almost every post. The fact is, it may or may not have religious implications, but I can assure you, if it IS a God being, that is the designer, then conventional wisdom would follow that you have nothing to worry about the God is a Baptist or a Muslim or Catholic and shouldn’t be dismissed via personal issues science has with the religious beliefs of others. It isn’t the Gods fault someone invented an ideology and philosophy about said God.:
Missing the point (deliberately?) That there are signs or religious (pre-rational/scientific) presumptions colouring and distorting one’s claims, arguments and conclusions.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “The convenient excuse typically given by Darwits”
And another little snide insult. For the record you might as well have said “Darwinists.” It is just as stupid, and I would not count myself as one. “Evolutionist” perhaps, but that is as pointless as “Gravitationist” in my opinion.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “to explain how life started is a COP OUT. and it is a lame one.”
No cop-out. Just an explanation of the distinction, which so many people can’t seem to grasp. (Some of whom because they don’t want to.)
By the way; I have come to the conclusion for instance that for Young Earth Creationism apologists they use the word “Evolution” not as a reference to the biological facts or even the theory, but to mean “All science that fails to conform to YEC doctrine.”
Kent Perry, AZ Said: ““I find it curious they will engage in cosmology, Mathematics, physics, bio-chemistry, quantum mechanics, etc,. but the moment we bring up the advent of life, Darwits throw out that same knee jerk programmed response. “
“Darwist” again. Pathetic.
I am more than happy to engage in discussion on abiogenesis as well. But just like all those other examples; the point should be made – every time until ‘they’ finally get it (some do get it of course, they just don’t care) – that we are now talking about something OTHER than evolution. And that is all that I was saying.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “ “Evolution doesn’t talk to “abiogenesis” “
No it doesn’t, does it. Not that this a a quote from me or anything.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “You want to know the REAL reason they don’t and won’t go there?”
I think I can figure out MY OWN reasons for myself thanks. I see no reason to rely on the utterances from someone who doesn’t know a damn thing about me.
Who do you think you are, to tell me what it is I am thinking?!
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “Because they are afraid of what they will find but more specifically, what they are destined to admit because science has proven, LIFE can not come from NON LIFE and louis pasteur proved that and science knows it. So how else could it have come into existence?”
Louis Pasteur?! You are joking right? You haven’t fallen for that ridiculous canard or equivocation have you?! Pasteur’s demonstration of Biogenesis was a refutation of the concept of Spontaneous Generation (a popular assumption that Charles Darwin’s work likewise conflicted with, as it happens.) It, of course, had nothing to do with the initial origins of life. But of the then common beliefs of life spontaneously (through divine means or otherwise) appearing – specifically in the fermentation processes.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “I don’t know about you porker,”
Sigh.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “but design is SELF EVIDENT”
Should be fairly easy to verify then, shouldn’t it?
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “ and if you are going to invalidate the evidence an alleged designer in this area of scientific study for say,, DNA for example, accusing it as guilty of breaking some idiotic arbitrary no God need apply rule, that isn’t science. “
What are you talking about?
Are you pretending that my complaining about an ID proponent ASSUMING design, intent or some kind of designer (such as “WHO created X?”) is in fact my denial of it as even a possibility?!
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “In other words, your fear of the truth ( in this regard anyway) blocks the very paths for that truth to ever be known, much less given a chance to even look in that direction. “
Ha ha ha! That assumption of emotional causation always amuses me.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “Their is nothing written, nothing implied nor instructed by ANY Chain of command or head of any science, making it prohibitive to look under any rock search every inch step outside any box EXCEPT HOW LIFE STARTED. It’s BULLSHIT. “
Yes that is bullshit. Why did you even suggest it?
{Sigh} Abiogenesis is a perfectly valid area of scientific research, in fact I believe I said the same thing in my previous comment; that it is an area that I find extremely interesting. But is not Evolution, or a part of the theory of evolution, that’s all.
Kent Perry, AZ Said: “so cut the crap “
Right back at you.
Charlie said,
November 23, 2010 at 4:03 pm
ADParker:
>Kent Perry, AZ Said: “but design is SELF EVIDENT”
>
>Should be fairly easy to verify then, shouldn’t it?
Something that is self-evident must be verified? You either accept that it is self-evident or you don’t accept it. It isn’t something that you ‘verify’. This is an area for philosophy- not an area for science. This should be something that good science should simply accept as a fork in the road and approach both premises fairly. (Though I cannot see for the life of me why this should NOT be self-evident, especially as we get closer and closer to seeing the immense complexity of these things in the face of the Law of Entropy.)
ADParker:
>Kent Perry, AZ Said: “ and if you are going to invalidate the evidence an >alleged designer in this area of scientific study for say,, DNA for example, >accusing it as guilty of breaking some idiotic arbitrary no God need apply >rule, that isn’t science. “
>
>What are you talking about?
>Are you pretending that my complaining about an ID proponent ASSUMING >design, intent or some kind of designer (such as “WHO created X?”) is in >fact my denial of it as even a possibility?!
This section was hard to read. But let me try to clarify. Your complaint against Kent’s accusation seems to imply that you are NOT in fact in denial that ID may be a possibility? (BTW, ID Proponents PROPOSE that the assumption of Intelligent Design should be a viable branch of science that should be pursued- not to the exclusion of the continued Science of Evolution (or even your touted ToE), but to the augmentation of it.)
Might this reflect an honest rearrangement of what you said?
“ADParker’s complaining about an ID proponent ASSUMING design or intent is NOT in fact NECESSARILY his denial of it as an unlikely possibility.”
Charlie said,
November 23, 2010 at 5:49 am
Good read.
ADParker is quite obviously on some sort of mission. Logic seems to elude him- and I feel it must be intentional and conscious. I just can’t imagine even he has that much faith in this worldview that he calls science. There must be something else driving him.
And there are more like him on these other sites- and running our schools? People out there in the general public trust these guys. This is a serious problem.
ADParker said,
November 23, 2010 at 7:36 am
Charlie said: “ADParker is quite obviously on some sort of mission.”
At least you can get my alias correct.
And yes I am: I value reason, and hat eseeing it asbused.
Charlie said: “Logic seems to elude him.”
I wonder what you are choosing to mean by “logic” in this case (another word so often abused.) My professors, when I studied the subject for my philosophy degree would disagree, giving me the highest marks in the class each time. But you are free to your own opinions.
Charlie said: “I just can’t imagine even he has that much faith in this worldview that he calls science.”
And you would be correct. I have no Faith. In fact the very idea of Faith is anathema to me. And science is not a world view either, simply a methodology of seeking knowledge.
Charlie said: “There must be something else driving him.”
Love of reason.
Charlie said: “And there are more like him on these other sites”
There are indeed. Many quite unlike me as well.
Charlie said: “- and running our schools?”
Too few I fear.
Charlie said: “People out there in the general public trust these guys.”
What guys?
Charlie said: ” This is a serious problem.”
What? People not willing to bow down to superstitious domga?!
ADParker said,
November 24, 2010 at 12:11 am
Charlie said: “Something that is self-evident must be verified? You either accept that it is self-evident or you don’t accept it. It isn’t something that you ‘verify’. This is an area for philosophy- not an area for science.”
Fair enough (I ralised the wording was lacking as I wrote it.) Perhaps It should be easy to convince me and others, if it is so self evident.
But no matter, this is just an appeal to “common sense.” And something the (ever ‘evolving’) scientific method is well known for is revealing how wrong common sense (and the “obvious” and “self-evidenet”) so often really is.
Charlie said: “This should be something that good science should simply accept as a fork in the road and approach both premises fairly.”
It does approach both (and all premises) fairly. It tests the veracity of those premises (takingthem not as premises but claims/possibilities.) And you don’tlike the fact that time and time again it comes down on the side you don’t personally believe. Personaly that is one thing I love about science: It revelas things that are so counter-intuitive. The connections between space and time first theorised by Albert Einstein for instanc, just blows my mind! I mean; we travel though time at ‘the speed of light’ when stationary in space, but slow down intime when we move in space?! No way! But all the evidence supports it to be beyond all reasonable doubt, just the same.
Charlie said: “This section was hard to read. But let me try to clarify. Your complaint against Kent’s accusation seems to imply that you are NOT in fact in denial that ID may be a possibility? “
Correct. It is “Possible” that ID is correct, that fairies, invisible dragon dwelling dragons, celestial teapots, and any and all gods exist as well. In fact strictly speaking anything is possible except for those few things within mathematics and formal logic (2+2=4 and there are no married bachelors for instance.)
But “possible” doesn’t get you very far.
Charlie said: “(BTW, ID Proponents PROPOSE that the assumption of Intelligent Design should be a viable branch of science that should be pursued- not to the exclusion of the continued Science of Evolution (or even your touted ToE), but to the augmentation of it.)”
Yes I know (although they do shift and turn a great deal) Assumption however is not a good idea.
Th eproblem is that none of them have managed to build it into a viable branch of science. They have no real strong hypotheses, No support for their assumption, no supporting evidence for their claims. Which in itself would be fine, just not yet a viable area of scientific research, still nothing more than “an interesting idea” in need of more work. Except that ID proponents, the main promoters (and those claiming to be the scientists doing the work,) have undermined heir own claimed efforts by engaing in all manner of dishonest tactics, arguments form ignorance, and the like, for them to warrant even being taken seriously anymore.
If they want to fix this; they need to close themselves away (stop it with their media efforts etc.) and get down to the science, and only voice their arguments when they actuallyhave something worth discussing.
Sadly it does not appear that this IS their intent, and this they have no interest in engaing in honest science, and ONLY honest science.
Charlie said,
November 24, 2010 at 3:16 am
ADParker,
This discussion is becoming a hydra. I apologize if I drop any threads that you are concerned with. I’ll just address the ones that are hanging that seem pertinent.
You say that you are driven by reason. If this is true, then this is good, though I hope you don’t mind that I remain suspicious.
ADParker:
>Charlie said: “Something that is self-evident must be verified? You either accept that >it is self-evident or you don’t accept it. It isn’t something that you ‘verify’. This is an >area for philosophy- not an area for science.”
>
>Fair enough (I ralised the wording was lacking as I wrote it.) Perhaps It should be >easy to convince me and others, if it is so self evident.
>But no matter, this is just an appeal to “common sense.” And something the (ever >‘evolving’) scientific method is well known for is revealing how wrong common >sense (and the “obvious” and “self-evidenet”) so often really is.
So it seems that we are at odds on whether it is self-evident that we see design. That this may be common sense- but that common sense is not reliable. Okay. Interesting enough.
ADParker:
>Charlie said: “This should be something that good science should simply accept as >a fork in the road and approach both premises fairly.”
>It does approach both (and all premises) fairly. It tests the veracity of those >premises (takingthem not as premises but claims/possibilities.) And you don’tlike >the fact that time and time again it comes down on the side you don’t personally >believe. …
So, you claim that the same level of scrutiny gets applied? Let’s come back to this…
ADParker:
>Correct. It is “Possible” that ID is correct, that fairies, invisible dragon dwelling >dragons, celestial teapots, and any and all gods exist as well. In fact strictly >speaking anything is possible except for those few things within mathematics and >formal logic (2+2=4 and there are no married bachelors for instance.)
>But “possible” doesn’t get you very far.
Fairies and invisible dragons? You equivocate defectively since God logically can exist with no dispute from science and does not fit into the same category at all with such magical creatures. Excellent. What about OORT Clouds? And Multi-verses? Or how about Ostrich egg rafts that travel thousands of miles or aliens that drop off their DNA? Wouldn’t pretty much all of those fall into the ‘possible but don’t get you very far’ category? But we do pursue those in evolutionary speculation, don’t we? Same level of scrutiny?
ADParker: (on the premise that ID Proponents PROPOSE an assumption of ID is at least viable for pursuit.)
>Yes I know (although they do shift and turn a great deal) Assumption however is not >a good idea.
>Th eproblem is that none of them have managed to build it into a viable branch of >science. They have no real strong hypotheses, No support for their assumption, no >supporting evidence for their claims. Which in itself would be fine, just not yet a >viable area of scientific research, still nothing more than “an interesting idea” in >need of more work. Except that ID proponents, the main promoters (and those >claiming to be the scientists doing the work,) have undermined heir own claimed >efforts by engaing in all manner of dishonest tactics, arguments form ignorance, >and the like, for them to warrant even being taken seriously anymore.
>If they want to fix this; they need to close themselves away (stop it with their media >efforts etc.) and get down to the science, and only voice their arguments when they >actuallyhave something worth discussing.
Wow. That sounds almost exactly what I would say about your position. Except that I would agree that you have a strong hypothesis. One that you seem to stand on at no matter what cost. You say purple, I say green. There is no resolution here, except to determine who is color blind if not both of us. Maybe we both demand that science adhere to what it can actually adhere to? (Reminding you that science is entirely incapable of affirming or denying God.)
ADParker said,
November 23, 2010 at 8:45 am
Charlie said: “I’ll assume one last time that you’re being sincere with yourself and with us.”
Always.
Charlie said: “Beyond that, I must say that I don’t have time for going on and on about this without hearing you actually say something useful.”
You are welcome to hold that opinion. I have only been responding directly to what others have been saying though, taking their lead. So it has gone where they led it.
Charlie said: “What dogmatic stance? You don’t find it curious at all that you keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if it were a mantra?”
Unreferenced accusations are of little value. Such as what for instance?
But failing that: No; I find it tiresome that I have to repeat the same basic things over and over, because people seem determined to misunderstand. Only made worse by the fact that they are asking for answer of the more complicated intricate details, while failing to grasp even those basics. It is like someone demanding a full explanation of decoherence while displaying no understanding of quantum physics whatsoever.
Charlie said: “Never really adding more useful information to the conversation but simply enjoying the sight of your own typing?”
On the contrary, as nothing is coming from ‘your side’ either, I am rapidly tiring of this.
Charlie said: “You haven’t yet provided one shred of evidence that uncompromisingly supports macro-evolution as the logical outflow of the established micro-evolution successes. (And no one here is arguing against those.)”
No one asked. Not that it is my job here. stevebee92653 is the one claiming that it (or something like it) is impossible. Not simply untrue, but impossible. The distinction is significant. There is probably mountains (if you piled it up) of evidence for the wider implications of the theory of evolution; right back to common ancestry of most if not all life on this planet. It is not something that can be summed up readily – being a multitude of lines of evidence all ‘conspiring’ to fit in with one model and one alone. The theory of evolution explains ALL of those observed facts (be they of fossils, transitional forms, homologies, anatomy (comparative and ‘internal’), developmental biology (evo-devo is an exciting new field of study), cellular/molecular evidence, distribution in time and space, chronology and geography…
A brief overview of which can be found here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/Ifossil_ev.shtml (just the most convenient example I found just now.)
Charlie said: “It is not science if the theory has to try so hard to support itself in the face of so many VALID challenges and actual scientific inconsistencies.”
Putting it is ALL CAPS doesn’t change anything. I have yet to see one valid challenge on this blog. It is chock full of arguments from ignorance, and little more.
Charlie said: “It is dogma if you must stick to your guns and assert that the theory cannot be wrong- it must be that we need another gap theory.”
Gap theory?! Is that term supposed to mean something?
There is nothing remotely wrong with theories having gaps in them. Gaps do not count as counter-evidence UNLESS one can fill those gaps with something else (something rationally supported of course, not just one’s pre-existing beliefs.)
The theory can’t be wrong – in a way. It is not that kind of theory. Instead “the Theory of Evolution” is a blanket term covering all the ‘smaller’ theories and hypotheses on the facts of evolution. Those theories can of course be proven false, a fair number have been so. Others become less or more viable as new data and experimentation etc. is applied. And it is even still possible (perhaps) that the theory could still become radically revised in some way (man; wouldn’t that be cool! – oh right; probably not for you deniers.)
Charlie said: “What is unsupportable? See the above expansion.”
Non answer.
Charlie said: “What foundations do I think are being rejected? Well… let’s see. Science demands that only that which can be observed, measured, repeated, falsifiable, etc… are admissable as knowledge that can then be used to further additional scientific theories and knowledge.”
Something like that. Science is in truth a bit more fluid than that; no set-in-stone set of rules. Even the “Scientific method” has ‘evolved’ over time. As a part of what science is, is discovering better methods of distinguishing fact from fiction, reaching better and better approximations of truth. (speaking only of that general branch of science whose aim is such understanding of course.)
Charlie said: “But I’m pretty sure that mathematics, logic, reason, philosophy, etc are necessary ingredients for the foundations of science.”
Absolutely. Philosophy in particular can be rightly called the ‘father’ of science. And science still technically a subset of what philosophy is.
I would further qualify what you said by pointing out that it is a two (or more) way street; which each discipline informing the others on their own self improvement
Charlie said: “ But according to science, those ingredients don’t exist because they are not observed, measured, repeated, falsifiable, etc.”
Not at all.
First of all: When and where has “science” EVER said that those things do not exist?! As you claim that it does? Are you equating one (major) aspect of science; the search for knowledge of what exists, with science itself?
Secondly: You are equivocating two meanings of the word “exist.” Those disciplines DO NOT exist in the same sense that stars, living organisms and atoms etc. do. They are instead ways of looking at, examining, that which exists (or has existed.) Those are not the subject of that ‘branch’ of science in which evolutionary biology is a part, but rather more to do with the more general ongoing work on what science is and how it operates. (Happy 350th anniversary Royal Society by the way; what can arguably be said to have also represented the birth of science, and the scientific method, as we know it)
Charlie said: “But of course, they exist. They just are not part of our material physical natural world.”
As above. Don’t equivocate. They are a part of our “material physical natural world” as well. They are however actions/functions/methodologies, not “material physical” OBJECTS is all.
Charlie said: “They are borrowed by science to provide a foundation from which science can operate and be used to investigate our world.”
Sure. More than simply “borrowed” of course. But that’s fine. The thing is, I think, that they are no way near as separate from one another as many would assume (and wish.) It reminds me of how the sciences of Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Geology; once all a part and parcel of philosophy with no distinction between them, became the reverse; distinct field that rarely, if ever, communicated with one another. Happily that is becoming less and less the case. The disciplines of biophysics, biochemistry, palaeontology, geophysics, geochemistry and physical chemistry highlighting this most aptly.
Charlie said: “But for science to make assertions about the nonexistence of something outside of the material physical natural world is simply a disingenuous lack of reason.”
Uh; good thing “science” does no such thing then, isn’t it. Why did you bother saying that then?
Charlie said: “Real scientists in our early history knew this.”
Still do, more so than ever probably. What’s your point.
Charlie said: “Science sits proudly upon itself, relentlessly stretching upward and outward,”
Amen.
Charlie said: “unaware of its futile attempt to touch the God it cannot see…”
Science does not reach for God (or gods). In fact it doesn’t reach for ANY previously established conclusions – that would be the worst of confirmation bias- it looks for whatever the conclusion may happen to be, whatever it is.
Charlie said: “blind to the fact that there it sits… nestled securely in His Hand.”
Any evidence or anything for this blind assertion?
Charlie said,
November 23, 2010 at 3:18 pm
ADParker:
>Charlie said: “You haven’t yet provided one shred of evidence that >uncompromisingly supports macro-evolution as the logical outflow of the >established micro-evolution successes. (And no one here is arguing against >those.)”
>
>No one asked. Not that it is my job here. stevebee92653 is the one claiming >that it (or something like it) is impossible. Not simply untrue, but impossible. >The distinction is significant. There is probably mountains (if you piled it up) of >evidence for the wider implications of the theory of evolution; right back to >common ancestry of most if not all life on this planet. It is not something that >can be summed up readily – being a multitude of lines of evidence all >‘conspiring’ to fit in with one model and one alone.
No one asked? That is exactly what this entire site does. You are elusive.
ADParker:
>Charlie said: “But for science to make assertions about the nonexistence of >something outside of the material physical natural world is simply a >disingenuous lack of reason.”
>
>Uh; good thing “science” does no such thing then, isn’t it. Why did you bother >saying that then?
Again- disingenuous. You say that science does no such thing. Yet it is an obvious theme of yours: that science asserts the nonexistence of an intelligent designer. We must be imagining intelligent design because one cannot possibly exist. Scientifically speaking.
More obviously disingenuous when the ToE is seemingly ready and able to pursue any number of other unsubstantiated postulations that can never be proven in order to stitch together the theory. It is ok to pursue those lines of thought with black box bridges across gaps… as long as they do not insinuate that there might be an answer outside of science. (Which by the way, you just said aloofly that science does no such thing as make assertions about the nonexistence of such things)
Double speak. Double speak.
According to the final analysis of the inconsistency of your logic, your logic teacher did not exist. (that is just humor)
ADParker said,
November 23, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Charlie said: “Again- disingenuous. You say that science does no such thing. Yet it is an obvious theme of yours: that science asserts the nonexistence of an intelligent designer.”
That is a lie.
Charlie said: “We must be imagining intelligent design because one cannot possibly exist. Scientifically speaking.”
Another lie.
“The evidence does not support your claim” does not equate to “Your claim is false.”
Charlie said: “More obviously disingenuous when the ToE is seemingly ready and able to pursue any number of other unsubstantiated postulations that can never be proven in order to stitch together the theory.”
Such as?
Charlie said: “According to the final analysis of the inconsistency of your logic, your logic teacher did not exist. (that is just humor)”
TeacherS actually (well technically Lecturers and/or professors.)
And in “the final analysis” of your comments on logic; you don’t even understand what “logic” really means in its strictest sense. (This is not humour.)
Charlie said,
November 24, 2010 at 3:33 am
ADParker:
>Charlie said: “Again- disingenuous. You say that science does no such >thing. Yet it is an obvious theme of yours: that science asserts the >nonexistence of an intelligent designer.”
>
>:::
>Charlie said: “We must be imagining intelligent design because one >cannot possibly exist. Scientifically speaking.”
>
>That is a lie.
>Another lie.
I apologize if I misunderstood what you said. I don’t intend to put lies in your mouth. So do you agree with the inverse statements?
– Science does not assert the nonexistence of an intelligent designer.
– We may not be imagining intelligent design because it just might exist, science notwithstanding.
>“The evidence does not support your claim” does not equate to “Your claim >is false.”
We may be moving toward level ground, ADParker, but I am not convinced. It seems to me that you are saying that a lack of evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design does not equate to the claim of ID being false. So it hinges on evidence. And I say that it is self-evident once we actually consider the depth of complexity within life structures. Which would be some level of evidence (indeed, in other areas of science, this self-evidence would be more than adequate to form a working line of research.)
ADParker:
>Charlie said: “More obviously disingenuous when the ToE is seemingly >ready and able to pursue any number of other unsubstantiated postulations >that can never be proven in order to stitch together the theory.”
>
>Such as?
Well, that would be pretty much everything that is posted on this blog. Just try one perhaps. I like the evolution of teeth. Maybe the eyes. If you actually address the things that are highlighted in the blog and not rehash the whole tired contrivance, that would be educational for us.
You have trouble with some of my logic? I’m sure that I have made mistakes. Please point them out to me specifically? (Please pick one that is on topic.)
Steveebee, this is exhausting more than it is interesting. But I wish you luck on this endeavor of holding science’s feet to the fire. I personally believe that it will point exactly where it needs to. But I don’t claim to force it. I have no problem with trusting some thing in faith. I just don’t believe that the bar is as high as some would like to believe.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL!
Charlie said,
November 23, 2010 at 3:31 pm
The attempt at visual poetry was not an assertion. It was my attempt at art and philosophical inspection. It is obviously not something that can be supported in evidence. Anyhow, none of what that statement said- including the fact that science is “unaware of its futile attempt” conflicts with anything that you have said anywhere on this blog.
If you must feel the reason to examine it as an assertion, you should note that it actually does not conflict whatsoever with anything that you have said on this site. It simply states that science does not even know that it is desperately reaching toward that which it does not acknowledge. The phrase may very well be unprovable. But that does not mean that it is false, either. You did well in your logic class? Maybe this class could have been a bit more rigorous.
ADParker said,
November 23, 2010 at 11:52 pm
More than one paper actually: “Critical Thinking” and “Logic” if I recall correctly.
In the first I earned the fifth “A+” final grade that my professor had given in his 35+ years professorship. And in the latter I topped the paper as well, quickly becoming a de facto tutor in the paper I was still taking. Much to my embarrassment – I am not a natural public speaker, so it was embarrassing to speak when my professor asked me if I could explain what she had just said, and most of the class clearly did not get, even though 9 times out of ten I could do so (and the tenth time I had to go away and do so in the nest lecture or tutorial session.)
I am also not into self promotion, so that is the last I will say on that.
Charlie said,
November 23, 2010 at 2:46 pm
ADParker:
>As I said at that time, and you even included in this post of yours; I was talking of the >FACTS of evolution, not the THEORY of Evolution. So who is it that is conflating here?
>The Theory of Evolution is based on those known facts of evolution, plus a whole >raft of evidennces in order to construct a model and explanation of the divergence of >life. And it is a remarkably powerfully robust theory indeed! Becoming more so all >the time.
>It has been said a number of times (and without hubris as far as I can tell) that the >theory can be said to be beyond reasonable doubt based on genetics alone.
Again, this is merely an attempt to pawn facts about one type of phenomenon off as being support for another that is only nominally related at best. I would illustrate but it is becoming increasingly apparent that you have no interest in actually examining logic sincerely.
ADParker:
>In focusing on the ToE it doesn’t really matter how life first arose; through >biochemical interactions or the intentional creation of a supernatural creator >(whatever that means), it matters not a whit to the theory.
I am confused. If it doesn’t matter a whit how life first arose, then why is the ToE (and you) so concerned with forcing the conclusions into supporting the premise that we should not even attempt to examine the possibility that some things may have been designed after all.
ADParker:
>Abiogenesis is indeed a fascinating and important subject. Something I enjoy >reading the scientificdiscoveries being made on it – and some impressive and >exciting progress has bee made in he past decade or so. Enough that I would say >that the biochemical abiogenesis is pretty much a given. Learning exactly how it >happened in every detail is of course an ongoing work inprogress.
It’s pretty much a given. That has me convinced. I’m with Parker now. That’s how it’s done, right? If you say something often enough and loud enough and with enough of an authoritative tone it must be true and I should believe? Ugh. How about some actual facts and scientific theories to support any of this? It is all contrived and it is a deck of cards waiting to fall.
ADParker:
>There is practically zero ‘rational support’ for intelligent design.
This insults your own intelligence. The next time that you drive to work and your car breaks down, and you want to get angry with the car manufacturer about how they screwed up when they built your car, I want you to quietly regain your composure. And remind yourself that no one actually designed that car. That your perception that it is a designed item is simply an illusion created by the fact that you are an intelligent sentient being that is built to see patterns where they may not actually exist. After all- where is the proof that anyone designed it? They aren’t right there with you while you wait for your tow truck. And whatever it says on the owners manual can’t be trusted because it is simply unreliable hubris. And even if you do finally admit that there may in fact be someone to yell at… do they really exist? After all- you can’t explain who designed them, either, right?
Anyhow, back to the point. You are being ridiculous if you think that there is zero rational evidence for the hypothesis that we are in fact designed- and not simply imagining this illusion of design. At least I am allowing that your theory can continue to be explored. It is your position that intelligent design should not even be explored. Again- that is not science. Leave that sort of mentality to religion.
ADParker:
>And if anyone thinks that any of that push has no religious faith based bias, then >they have been duped by those trying to pretend that. (A push that primarily only >arose to any prominance AFTER the U.S. courts declared that creationism can not >be taught as a science.)
Who cares where the push comes from? Granted, one should always examine the source. But not to the extent that all rational discussion comes to a halt. If the objections are valid, then they should be heard and objectively reviewed. What would be so wrong with having competing theories anyhow? That is how science works, right? People are free to work on competing theories?
ADParker:
>1.Stevebee is trying to pretend that this has nothng to do with gods (including the >one you call God of course.) Isn’t it interesting that this was supposed to be about >the science, but you felt the nee dto bring up God?
Your attempt to impugn Stevebee on this is shallow. I am talking about the science here. Valid questions that you have yet to answer in a compelling sincere manner are still waiting behind your new complaint about my bias. You don’t have a bias? I have at least admitted mine. Yet mine does not go against the scientific method- and yours does.
ADParker:
>2.I agree. And this is because “God” has been made into such a vague, nebulous >and unfalsifibale concept.
“has been made”… As if I have the power to create such a being. Silly notion- maybe man created Him… or maybe He created man. Either way, my desire to make Him exist won’t succeed if He simply does not exist. Neither will your desire to make Him not exist succeed if He simply does. Desires aside, yes- absolutely, God’s definition does leave science’s strict rigor at a disadvantage.
But you’re arguing about what the definitions are. So God has an all encompassing definition. The definition doesn’t make him exist or not exist- as long as he is consistent with his definition. Any more than science’s strict definition makes science exist or not exist- as long as it is consistent within its own definition.
ADParker:
>Well this is a confused misinformed blog of pseudo intellectual rhetoric after all (His >Population Paradox rant is particularly telling and amusing – based on a Young >Earth Creationist attempt to refute the age of humaninity, as it does not fit in with >their 6,000 year old universe.)
That’s funny that you bring that up. Because as far as I have seen, it appears that a good deal of the ‘evidence’ for macro-evolution appears to begin with the assumption that the earth is as old as it is and then work out all of the data beginning with that assumption. In many cases forcing its conclusions upon subsequent research, which then also has to begin with such an assumption in order to correlate its results. When in fact, since the age is in some controversy- albeit nonstandard, maybe it should be revisited and pursued as an unknown. At least as a parallel theory, to see where that information takes us. You said yourself you didn’t care a whit about how life started in the first place.
If this really is about science, then why should it concern itself with anything that is (or isn’t) outside of science in the first place?
And please don’t think that by tagging someone as a YEC or whatever else allows you to dismiss every other thing that that person says. That is exactly the sort of bias that you claim that science doesn’t allow.
ADParker said,
November 23, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Charlie said: “I am confused. If it doesn’t matter a whit how life first arose, then why is the ToE (and you) so concerned with forcing the conclusions into supporting the premise that we should not even attempt to examine the possibility that some things may have been designed after all.”
Try to take more care in your reading comprehension. I clearly wrote (and you quoted) that it matters not a whit TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Carl Sagan said that “in order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” But it does not follow that when explaining apple pie making one must also explain the rest of the universe first. The same is true for evolution and abiogenesis.
And not only did NOT say that “we should not even attempt to examine the possibility that some things may have been designed after all.” The problem is asserting that this is the case without sufficient justification. “Intelligent Design” could actually be an honest scientific endeavour, if those with the requisite expertise could be bothered to apply it properly. And who knows it might even provide worthwhile ‘fruit.’ But that is far from the case at the moment. Instead they try to push unscientific ideas onto high school students, and spouting off unfounded apologetics.
Charlie said: “It’s pretty much a given. That has me convinced. I’m with Parker now. That’s how it’s done, right? If you say something often enough and loud enough and with enough of an authoritative tone it must be true and I should believe? Ugh. How about some actual facts and scientific theories to support any of this? It is all contrived and it is a deck of cards waiting to fall.”
{Sigh} Do you honestly think I was even attempting to convince you that “biochemical abiogenesis” is true with that comment?!
How about, if you are an honest seeker of truth (as opposed to a defender of assumed Truth(TM)) you read up on the current research on abiogenesis yourself. I don’t pretend to be an expert, and even what little I have learned about it would probably take hours to write out, would be pages long, and would be a rehash of better writing of the actual experts anyway. If you want a start; New Scientist magazine had a good article on it a few months back, by one of the research teams who themselves made the ‘latest’ discoveries’ in their own lab.
Charlie said: “If the objections are valid, then they should be heard and objectively reviewed. What would be so wrong with having competing theories anyhow? That is how science works, right? People are free to work on competing theories?”
Sure. And as soon as the efforts of ID proponents reach anything near to the level of a scientific theory, they can and should do so.
Charlie said: “That’s funny that you bring that up. Because as far as I have seen, it appears that a good deal of the ‘evidence’ for macro-evolution appears to begin with the assumption that the earth is as old as it is and then work out all of the data beginning with that assumption.”
Perhaps you should read more on the history of the theory. Charles Darwin recognised, and noted, a number of possible problem areas where his hypothesis could be falsified. One of those is that he realised that for the most far reaching aspects of it required a great deal of time (he imagined 10s of millions of years or possible more) and the other branches of science (geology primarily) had not yet set on any real consensus on the age of the Earth except that it was at least a million years old (or some such – such age estimates were based on “X is at least this old, so the Earth is as well. So conclusions were that the world was about that old, even if it was only based on evidence of the minimum age.) And then that science advanced and “true” estimates (as opposed to minimums) could be estimated and the age was quickly established of at least 100s of millions, then billions of years. The current answer is on far more solid ground, and the effort now if to refine the age more precisely. It is now accepted as something like 4,540,000,000 years +/- 1% (about 5 million years either side.)
The two scientific endeavours are separate. Fortunately they fit within what the other concludes, further validating their veracity, at least to that level. (Reminds me of the brief period when the estimated age of the Earth [geology] was older than that of the universe [cosmology] – so they knew that one of them must be wrong, so they put in the works and solved the problem [the cosmologists estimate was far too small.)
Charlie said: “ When in fact, since the age is in some controversy- albeit nonstandard, maybe it should be revisited and pursued as an unknown.”
Not in the sciences it isn’t. Some people may have other ideas of course, but personal opinion doesn’t change the facts. People believe all kinds of contradictory things.
Charlie said: “ At least as a parallel theory, to see where that information takes us. “
That is not how it works; you don’t make up a theory then see what happens; you do the research and based on the facts and evidence formulate a hypothesis, and if it holds up it eventually becomes a theory, as it has strong explanatory power. You want to start with a hypothesis that the universe is ‘young’? Fine; now do the research and see if it works.
Charlie said: “ You said yourself you didn’t care a whit about how life started in the first place.”
NO I DID NOT. That is a lie. In fact I said the exact opposite, and you quoted me saying it!
Charlie said,
November 24, 2010 at 3:47 am
ADParker: (11/22 11:01p)
>Try to take more care in your reading comprehension. I clearly wrote (and you >quoted) that it matters not a whit TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
I’m sorry. It does not matter a whit to the ToE. Okay. Let’s forget that the origin of life isn’t addressed by that theory. Seems suspicious, though, since ID tries to say the same thing about the apple pie that you referred to. But that is not allowed an inch.
ADParker:
>And not only did NOT say that “we should not even attempt to examine the >possibility that some things may have been designed after all.” The >problem is asserting that this is the case without sufficient justification. >“Intelligent Design” could actually be an honest scientific endeavour, if >those with the requisite expertise could be bothered to apply it properly. And >who knows it might even provide worthwhile ‘fruit.’ But that is far from the >case at the moment. Instead they try to push unscientific ideas onto high >school students, and spouting off unfounded apologetics.
That might be the smartest thing that you have said in this thread. I absolutely agree. Now if we could only alot some of the same resources and level the playing field. Hmmm…
ADParker:
>That is not how it works; you don’t make up a theory then see what >happens; you do the research and based on the facts and evidence >formulate a hypothesis, and if it holds up it eventually becomes a theory, as >it has strong explanatory power. You want to start with a hypothesis that the >universe is ‘young’? Fine; now do the research and see if it works.
Isn’t that how it works with the Theory of Evolution, though? Darwin made up a theory and then everyone is sort of just seeing what happens?
ADParker:
>Charlie said: “ You said yourself you didn’t care a whit about how life started >in the first place.”
>
>NO I DID NOT. That is a lie. In fact I said the exact opposite, and you quoted >me saying it!
Again. If I misunderstood, I am sorry. The THEORY doesn’t care a whit about how life started. I get it.
ADParker said,
November 24, 2010 at 7:22 am
Charlie said: “Fairies and invisible dragons? You equivocate defectively since God logically can exist with no dispute from science and does not fit into the same category at all with such magical creatures.”
No. You confuse and conflate “they are all possible: with “equivalent.”
Charlie said: “Excellent. What about OORT Clouds?”
“Oort cloud” singular. Yes that is possible as well. I think I covered this by explaining the only things that aren’t.
Charlie said: “And Multi-verses?”
Also possible. Interesting as well. If you can get past the fabricated story that they are invoked to get around religious claims.
Charlie said: “Or how about Ostrich egg rafts that travel thousands of miles “
Sure.
Charlie said: “or aliens that drop off their DNA? “
Drop off their DNA?! Are you trying to allude to panspermia? Again possible, but unlikely.
Charlie said: “Wouldn’t pretty much all of those fall into the ‘possible but don’t get you very far’ category?”
Well certainly into the ‘possible’ category. And MERELY being possible doesn’t get you very far. Which is different from what you just said. Just because something is possible does not mean it won’t get you very far, and that is not what I said.
Charlie said: “But we do pursue those in evolutionary speculation, don’t we? Same level of scrutiny?”
Evolutionary speculation? Sure I guess. Those that offer something beyond speculation are then further scrutinised. Because there are always limited resources; so investigate that which is more likely to bear any fruit.
Charlie said: “Wow. That sounds almost exactly what I would say about your position. Except that I would agree that you have a strong hypothesis.”
Oh it is Hel of a lot more than a hypothesis. You should read some of the multitudes of literature some time. And perhaps progress to some of the quarter million or so published papers on the subject.
Charlie said: “One that you seem to stand on at no matter what cost.”
And there you would be mistaken. If the theory is truly ever shaken up, radically changed, then that would be exciting indeed. To live to see such a radical paradigm shift would be quite an experience!
Charlie said: “(Reminding you that science is entirely incapable of affirming or denying God.)”
Depends how one defines “God” of course. If it interacts with the real world then there is something to examine and test.
ADParker said,
November 24, 2010 at 9:45 am
Charlie said: “I apologize if I misunderstood what you said. I don’t intend to put lies in your mouth. So do you agree with the inverse statements?
– Science does not assert the nonexistence of an intelligent designer.
We may not be imagining intelligent design because it just might exist, science notwithstanding.”
Science isn’t a ‘thing’ to assert or not assert of course (it irritates me sometimes when people go on too mush as if science were a person or similar. Like many cases of unjustified anthropomorphising actually.)
– No, I know of no areas of science in which that claim is asserted to be false.
– Huh? Are you trying to say that there might be an intelligent designer? Then yes there might.
Charlie said: “It seems to me that you are saying that a lack of evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design does not equate to the claim of ID being false. So it hinges on evidence.”
I would say Reason, which encompasses evidence, and perhaps evidence dominates when dealing with the ontological, but yes.
Charlie said: “And I say that it is self-evident once we actually consider the depth of complexity within life structures.”
Which, as I have already said, amounts to “But it’s obvious!” A clear cut appeal to common sense. Wrongfully applied to something way beyond that which we commonly sense. More and science, that is careful critical reasoned assessment, is telling us that things are quite different than our common sense assumptions imply, especially when we look beyond the levels we are used to.
Charlie said: “Which would be some level of evidence (indeed, in other areas of science, this self-evidence would be more than adequate to form a working line of research.)”
And “Self-evident” has led to working lines of research. Charles Darwin’s original theory of evolution through Natural Selection was the product on one such line. Because so often that research leads way past the obvious. It is the ID proponents that seem stuck in that first intuitive presumption; not willing or able to progress beyond the obvious and intuitive.
Charlie said: “Well, that would be pretty much everything that is posted on this blog.”
Oh, you mean all the arguments from ignorance and so forth? Sorry, they are just plain silly. All the ones I have read anyway.
Charlie said: “Just try one perhaps.”
I have ‘tried’ a few. And the petty little snide comments in return, when I even got a response, just went to show that he has no interest in honest discussion, nor in uncovering any truth besides what he has already decided its true.
Charlie said: “I like the evolution of teeth. Maybe the eyes.”
What of them? Evolutionary biologists haven’t detailed all the most minute of scales for you and Stevebee…therefore ID wins by default?! As I said; Argument from Ignorance.
You want to cling to a belief that there exists, or existed, some incredibly complex, powerful and impressive intelligence, BEFORE the emergence of all those things he finds so troubling? Then that is your choice. I can not, not without some solid reasoning to support such an extraordinary assertion!
Charlie said: “You have trouble with some of my logic? I’m sure that I have made mistakes. Please point them out to me specifically? (Please pick one that is on topic.)”
I have yet to see any logic from you, so have no opinion on your capacity for it.
Charlie said: “I have no problem with trusting some thing in faith.”
And thus abandoning reason (and therefore science) when it suits you.
Charlie said: “HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL!’
Not for me, not a holiday or anything here, but happy thanksgiving to those of your for whom it holds some meaning.
ADParker said,
November 24, 2010 at 10:27 am
Charlie said: “I’m sorry. It does not matter a whit to the ToE. Okay. Let’s forget that the origin of life isn’t addressed by that theory.”
Finally. You wouldn’t believe how many creationists (ID creationists or otherwise) simply refuse to get that simple point.
Charlie said: “Seems suspicious, though, since ID tries to say the same thing about the apple pie that you referred to. But that is not allowed an inch.”
That is hardly the only problem with the ID movement. But it is an entirely different matter to ToE. As ID actually proposes the existence of some intelligent designing agent. It makes that claim as a foundational aspect of it’s entire ideology, yet then claims no interest in uncovering ANYTHING about it! And furthermore, unlike the ToE, it doesn’t have some other group of scientists working on that ‘other’ question. The ToE on the other hand has NEVER been about the initial origins of the first life – that is one reason why some theists (including evolutionary biologists) remain comfortable enough with it to continue to pursue the science where it leads in this regard.
If you want to talk about abiogenesis; then fine. But try not to make those silly assertions such as “Evolutionists HAVE To explain how life first arose!” Because it just isn’t true. Because the theory would not suffer it abiogenesis turned out to be a biochemical ‘natural’ occurrence, or “God Did It” or (if this is even a separate option from the previous) “It was magic!”
Charlie said: “Isn’t that how it works with the Theory of Evolution, though? Darwin made up a theory and then everyone is sort of just seeing what happens?”
No. Not even close as a matter of fact. Charles Darwin’s real claim to fame is that he finally brought all the threads together into a viable hypothesis, that quickly became recognised as a theory, due in no small part to the decades of work he had done on the subject (You do know that his “Origin” was a hurried brief synopses of his intended far larger work right?)
There is a list of ‘Natural philosophers who had already uncovered pieces of the puzzle.
Richard Dawkins put it like this (in “Seeing Further” edited by Bill Grayson):
“I want to recognise four ‘bridges of evolutionary understanding’, and I can conveniently illustrate them with four claimants to independent discovery of natural selection. Blythe crossed the first of Darwin’s four bridges, Matthew the first two, Wallace the first three and Darwin all four.”
He goes on to describe the ‘bridges’, which I will briefly summarise for you:
Bridge 1: Natural selection (INS) as a force for weeding out the unfit. Edward Blythe (1810-73) recognised INS as a stabilising selection, which preserved types or ‘kinds.’ He was correct, but only had a piece of the story.
Bridge 1: recognition that INS can also drive evolutionary change. Patrick Matthew (1790-1874) recognised this with his work with apple and pear trees.
Bridge 3: Recognising what OS’s power to explain all life. Alfred Russell Wallace(1823-1913) hit on this one – technically after C.Darwin did, but before he had published.
Bridge 4” Bridge to public understanding. Charles Darwin hit on this, at least better than Wallace did. Really getting down with is examination and exploration on the subject before publishing.
Others of course recognised some aspects even earlier, including Charles’ grandfather, going right back to the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.
Without going to any depth here, suffice it to say; Darwin hardly “made up” the theory. Like so many he was standing on the shoulders of giants. And both he and his predecessors (and contemporaries of course) ‘saw what happened’ – then put a great deal of work into seeing exactly what what was happening, and the hows and whys of it.. and THEN he devised the initial formulation of the model. And that work continues. The model changes, grows and improves, through addition, tweaking, and yes removal or errors etc.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 7:11 am
Chuck Darwin wasn’t even a scientist he was a dropout a guest on the HMS Beagle who paid is way on a voyage to report variation within species of finch’s while he busily used his fathers influence to promote some of the ideas he stole from William Russel and Lamarck, even the name Natural Selection wasn’t his idea.
His book was a disaster when it came to sales un-like the urban legends atheist’s pass off as fact and exalt this fraud to that of a legend in his own right but right he wasn’t, In fact even today and as you have demonstrated like the ignorant arrogant piss ant you are.
ADParker while you whine like some little emotional tampon you have some nerve bitching about MY ridicule while you claim your skeptical website is better equipped for more rational discourse, I have got to say, don’t EVER say something so god damn stupid again got it shit bag?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would be above board about your webite forum and your colleagues there.
What did I see?
Nothing but a gaggle of immature morons like I have always seen. The evolutionist’s using double standards pigeon holed ideas anyone disagreeing is a “creatard”, how quaint.
Then your rational and more civil discourse at the site degraded as soon as Stevebee destroyed them. They resorted to calling stevebee every name using a plethora of inane sophomoric ad-hom assaulting him in personal attacks in 90% of the posts responding to his.
I mean about everything from his funny name to his bio on this website. You guys are nothing but a bunch of self important tools and ya don’t know shit. As for your alleged stars given you for being the biggest suck up in your class and all that other jive bullshit that doesn’t even begin to match your mediocre level of understanding, how you could think that place is conducive to civil and intelligent discourse is out of the realm of human understanding. Unless you wanted to set someone up for a creationist bashing session you asshole.
Atheists like you make me sick and I’d rip your fuckin lungs out shit head if you EVER talked to me in person the way you and your colleagues there suggest creationist’s should be talked to and treated. Yeah You Go Girl, and you’ll get your teeth knocked out using that kind of logic.
No, son, you only THINK you are more rational and while your best agent provocateur over there, would think his constant barrage of personal insults, increases the temp and tempers there, It only serves to cause some to GET, irrational.
It doesn’t mean you are MORE rational. Especially if you are un-conscious getting what you ultimately deserve over there.
I am not as patient as stevebee who has summoned the patience of JOB while your cronies there rip on him 20 to 1 yet NOT ONE OF YOU SHIT STAINS have refuted a single post he has made.
NOT ONE!
Ya know the thing about evolution I find so often said are the examples for it used by brainwashed stuck up evo-pimps like YOU. Oh and by the way, ADPARKER, you don’t like my tone,,TOO FUCKIN BAD.
You got it comin just inviting me to that crap hole you call rational skeptics. It’s an oxymoron if they are any example of it.
We have seen a number of the arguments which have been used to convince people that evolution took place don’t really show evolution at all. a great deal of research has been carried out for many years on the Drosophila, a fruit fly, and on the E. coli bacteria, both of which produce new generations so rapidly that millions of generations have been studied and the mutations recorded.
In the case of the fruit flies, the mutations, when not fatal, caused visible defects like the loss of wings or eyes, but all the fruit flies remained fruit flies and the bacteria remained bacteria.
NOT ONE, of the billions of individuals studied has ever evolved into a more complex life form, or provided other evidence that would serve to prove the theory of evolution.
NOT ONE
Oh and by the way ADParker, I told you once, I didn’t come here to debate you as I have learned, your atheism is more important than your foolish belief in evolution regardless of the fact it isn’t a fact.
No,, I came here to insult you because you’re a jerk and
ya got your brains in your ass
ADParker said,
November 28, 2010 at 8:36 am
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“Chuck Darwin wasn’t even a scientist he was a dropout”
Okay; it’s the Genetic Fallacy game is it? Go ahead; use dishonest tactics when you have nothing else.
Hardly anyone was known as a “scientist” at the time. The general way in which he became one was fairly typical actually.
He did indeed flounder around a bit as a young man, also being pushed in directions that did not fit in with his interests, inclinations and skills. Reminds me of another (the details escape me at the moment) who from a university published a significant work on glaciers etc. Turned out he was the janitor with no formal higher education whatsoever. This kind of thing only makes them seem even more impressive.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“a guest on the HMS Beagle who paid is way on a voyage to report variation within species of finch’s while he busily used his fathers influence to promote some of the ideas he stole from William Russel and Lamarck, even the name Natural Selection wasn’t his idea.”
What apologetic source did you get this rubbish from?!
He was invited as more of a companion to the captain. And as a bit of a naturalist as an aside. The main ideas he promoted, at least in the early days of the voyage, was annoying the crew with his continual reciting of scripture!
And William Russel?! Who the hel is that? If you mean Alfred Russel Wallace; then I seriously doubt that Darwin promoted his ideas on the Beagle. Seeing as Wallace was 8 years old (almost 9 though) when that voyage began. Thus 13 when it ended.
But I have heard this lie before.
Darwin’s work was influenced by a number of people. Yes there is a him of Lamarckism in there, and challenges to it as well. But more from his Grandfather (Erasmus Darwin) and others.
But quickly he proved himself to be a naturally skilled (coupled with skills taught by some impressive mentors) naturalist. Resulting in his admission into the Royal Society (1939) – a group well known for spotting the brightest minds before their fame was assured.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“His book was a disaster when it came to sales un-like the urban legends”
You are confused. What you are spouting is the apologetics urban legend.
The report on his, and Wallace’s work presented in 1958 gained little interest – largely due to the wording of Wallace’s work (not the content, but how it was put.) In 1959 however his “Origin of Species” initial run of 1250 copies was sold out before the first day, due to being oversubscribed. Subsequent editions did almost as well. Almost unheard of for a scientific treatise, this wasn’t the latest Harry Potter after all.
Not that it makes any difference. Who cares how often a book sells? Does than have any effect on it’s truth-value?!
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
In fact even today and as you have demonstrated like the ignorant arrogant piss ant you are.”
Okay then; add Personal insults to the list alongside Genetic Fallacy and Red Herrings.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“ADParker while you whine like some little emotional tampon you have some nerve bitching about MY ridicule while you claim your skeptical website is better equipped for more rational discourse, I have got to say, don’t EVER say something so god damn stupid again got it shit bag? “
More worthless insults..yawn.
1.Who are you to tell me what not to say?
2.Especially when (once again) I didn’t say it in the first place.
I suggested the forum for two reasons:
1.I am already using it.
2.It is a forum, not a blog. Which is set up to cater to two-way discussions, as opposed to one-way comments.
And that was ALL I meant by the suggestion. Sheesh!
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would be above board about your webite forum and your colleagues there.”
Huh? I said nothing about it or them AT ALL. Except that it was a forum, not a blog. Thus better for discussion.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“What did I see?
Nothing but a gaggle of immature morons like I have always seen. The evolutionist’s using double standards pigeon holed ideas anyone disagreeing is a “creatard”, how quaint. “
Creotard. So you can’t take what you dish out? Personally I only use that word in a specific limited sense. Not all creationists fit within it, in fact most don’t. Creotards are people who willingly lie and distort in order to promote their dogmatic creationist beliefs.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“Then your rational and more civil discourse at the site degraded as soon as Stevebee destroyed them.”
He what now? Are you being serious?
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“They resorted to calling stevebee every name using a plethora of inane sophomoric ad-hom assaulting him in personal attacks in 90% of the posts responding to his. “
Really?! Did you report any of these gross abuses of the FUA?
I didn’t see any…well that may not be accurate I think I did see one case, which was reprimanded by the moderators.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“I mean about everything from his funny name to his bio on this website.”
Funny Name?
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“You guys are nothing but a bunch of self important tools and ya don’t know shit.”
From you, now, I take that as a compliment.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“As for your alleged stars given you for being the biggest suck up in your class and all that other jive bullshit that doesn’t even begin to match your mediocre level of understanding, how you could think that place is conducive to civil and intelligent discourse is out of the realm of human understanding. Unless you wanted to set someone up for a creationist bashing session you asshole.”
Thanks. How kind of you to say.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“Atheists like you make me sick and I’d rip your fuckin lungs out shit head if you EVER talked to me in person the way you and your colleagues there suggest creationist’s should be talked to and treated. Yeah You Go Girl, and you’ll get your teeth knocked out using that kind of logic.”
Interesting; what amounts to a Death threat. Nice.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“I am not as patient as stevebee who has summoned the patience of JOB while your cronies there rip on him 20 to 1 yet NOT ONE OF YOU SHIT STAINS have refuted a single post he has made.”
Interesting story that one of Job. On the character of YHWH and his colleague Satan etc.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“NOT ONE!”
Sigh. If you say so. Have you caught his recent exposed quote mining attempts?! Hilarious.
He made a blog entry including one of them here.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“Ya know the thing about evolution I find so often said are the examples for it used by brainwashed stuck up evo-pimps like YOU. Oh and by the way, ADPARKER, you don’t like my tone,,TOO FUCKIN BAD. “
Don’t worry, I find you tone most amusing. I think it fairly represents your content; nothing remotely reasonable, just resorts to personal insults, and ridiculous appeals. (It would make no difference if C.Darwin had been an illiterate, slave owing bigot – not to the science. I mean come on: Newton was an alchemist, his science was still freakin’ brilliant.)
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“You got it comin just inviting me to that crap hole you call rational skeptics. It’s an oxymoron if they are any example of it.”
Do you even know what “oxymoron” means? Because…damn!
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“We have seen a number of the arguments which have been used to convince people that evolution took place don’t really show evolution at all.”
Like what? Such empty assertions are worthless and pointless.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“a great deal of research has been carried out for many years on the Drosophila, a fruit fly, and on the E. coli bacteria, both of which produce new generations so rapidly that millions of generations have been studied and the mutations recorded.”
Perhaps you should try to put some effort into examining your own assertions.
1,000,000 generations of even the (carefully extracted) shortest generation timed Drosophila would take 30,000 years to occur.
And even the fastest of the bacteria (not E.coli) would take 19 years or so to reach just 1,000,000 generations. But with somewhat less expectation of variation, as they are asexual.
Those and similar studies have resulted in fully distinguished new species, novel additions of traits and phenotypes and so on. All evidence of not just evolution, but aspects of more of the theory of evolution. And despite all those generations; Not one hint of evidence challenging the overall validity of the theory.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“In the case of the fruit flies, the mutations, when not fatal, caused visible defects like the loss of wings or eyes, but all the fruit flies remained fruit flies and the bacteria remained bacteria.”
Ha ha ha. Of course they remained fruit flies and bacteria. Do you have any idea how much evolution is likely to evolve into another Family (Drosophilidae.) And Humans, Chimpanzees and Gorillas are still Great apes (Family Hominidae.)
And bacteria?! Forget about it; an entire Domain switch! That is like saying that Mushrooms and humans are still Eukaryotes!
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“NOT ONE, of the billions of individuals studied has ever evolved into a more complex life form, or provided other evidence that would serve to prove the theory of evolution.”
Not one?! Do you think that an individual evolves?!
You are only exposing your distorted wilful ignorance of what the theory of evolution is.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“NOT ONE”
Repetition doesn’t make your falsehoods any better.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“Oh and by the way ADParker, I told you once, I didn’t come here to debate you as I have learned, your atheism is more important than your foolish belief in evolution regardless of the fact it isn’t a fact.”
Shows how poor your education has been then. My atheism means nothing to me whatsoever.
Kent Perry, AZ. wrote:
“No,, I came here to insult you because you’re a jerk and
ya got your brains in your ass”
Well that is what people do when they have no real grounds to argue from. Sad really. But as I can’t do anything about it, Enjoy your slinging of petty insults, while I continue on with my search for understanding, and the defence of reason.
That was a long post from you Kent Perry, AZ, considering that you didn’t actually have anything to say.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Hey shit for brains,,
I GOT MY INFO about Darwin from his own damn letters ya goof.
Try less worship and more research of the guy. You use the same silly bullshit making up excuses why he was a REAL scientist talking as if it was something you just did by doing your own on the job training that day begging someone to be the naturist on a beagle junket when the fact is their were LOTS of formally educated honest to goodness bonafide SCIENTIST’S in Darwins day you dumb son of a bitch,
Why would I report any of that GARBAGE you and your mouthy little Godless wonder-bitches have to say to anyone. It is obviously easy for you to recognize when I insult YOU and their are dozens of them all pouncing on Stevebee who seems to be carrying any intelligent dialogue that even exists at that place for punks and their stupid religion of evolution because THAT is what it is to you moron, is a RELIGION. YOU know it and I know it so Shut your pie hole shit head. You ain’t smart, you don’t impress anyone and as I said, when you got something we can argue about that proves evolution let us know. So far all you’ve done is play silly little tit for tat games and I asked you to show me your best example of evolution and you haven’t done that. Not one example you have given stands up to scrutiny scumbag NOT ONE!
Not one item for debate hasn’t been ripped apart in this thread given by you. So hold on to your pathetic dead science and your silly delusions Prof. The fact is YOU LOST a long time ago. I am just enjoying giving you a taste of what you and your shit head shysters at rationalskeptic dish out, so spare me the platitudes about what I do when I can’t argue.
Your argumentative nature only displays a willingness not to argue while not the SKI:LL to argue much less win in a debate with anyone above the 2nd grade. Try learning something about evolution before you go off acting like you know anything about it.
I am sure it only makes it difficult for the rest of your cults members when they try to shove that religion down everyone’s throat and calling it science.
The city of Darwin was first named after Charles Darwin by his one-time shipmate Commander John Clements Wickham, who surveyed the Australian coast and named the place Darwin Harbour almost 20 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. 30 years later, a town was built on the site and called itself Palmerston. Then, in 1911, the town reverted its name to again honor the famous naturalist, and it has been known as Darwin ever since.
“The city of Darwin will need to do some soul-searching if it does not want to be associated with theft and plagiarism,”
Don’t bother with all that long crap you post because I simply don’t read comic book crap like your posts are loaded with. You got your facts wrong about Darwin again girlfriend but you go girl, lie your ass off to cover your hero like they do for the pope and pedophiles.
Hey talk about me spreading lies, did you know, all those pedophiles caught in the Catholic church were homosexual atheist evolutionists posing as religious people so they could have access to the little boys? Imagine that, yeah some even claimed their is a Gay gene and that they couldn’t help it. Sheesh I tell ya the more these bastard atheists get into out science classes the DUMBER they look. He stole his theory from Russel and that is a FACT that is undeniable dumb ass. You coming up with some straw man that he was only eight years old when Darwin was on his first trip on the beagle makes a for a lousy straw man argument. Even for you ya dumb jack ass. Letters if Darwin, READ EM and you’ll know everything I am telling you means your argument isn’t with me sweet heart, YOUR argument is with Chucky the dimwitted Darwin
So you are still
A JACK ASS
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 2:53 am
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“Hey shit for brains,,”
I take it you are referring to me. Hey Kent.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“I GOT MY INFO about Darwin from his own damn letters ya goof.”
What info specifically, what letters?
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“Try less worship and more research of the guy.”
I gave up worship years…decades now…ago.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“You use the same silly bullshit making up excuses why he was a REAL scientist talking as if it was something you just did by doing your own on the job training that day begging someone to be the naturist on a beagle junket when the fact is their were LOTS of formally educated honest to goodness bonafide SCIENTIST’S in Darwins day”
LOTS of both kinds actually. It was still common back then. When one could still become what was then well versed in the sciences as they were then known, and reach a level of expertise without formal education, and indeed do so in multiple fields. Nowadays the amount and complexity of required and available information renders this practically impossible.
And as I said; it’s irrelevant. Whatever his credentials were, he achieved what he did. Reputation wise he even achieved the Royal Society’s Copley Medal, Britians highest scientific honour. Not too shabby.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“you dumb son of a bitch,”
Nice to hear from you as well Kent.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“Why would I report any of that GARBAGE you and your mouthy little Godless wonder-bitches have to say to anyone.”
Ah yes, that olfchestnut. Funny how quick so many of you are to bitch about it though.
What truly seems odd to me is, if what you say is true; why didn’t any of us report those transgressions?! Because I know full well that we do it all the time, regardless of the identity/position of the transgressor. So on that, and my own reading of the threads, I must conclude that you are simply lying.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“their stupid religion of evolution because THAT is what it is to you moron, is a RELIGION. YOU know it and I know it so Shut your pie hole shit head. “
So you don’t understand what evolution is then. Go figure.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“You ain’t smart, you don’t impress anyone and as I said, when you got something we can argue about that proves evolution let us know.”
Your opinion on my intellect means nothing to me. I don’t care if I impress you, or anyone for that matter, or not. And I wouldn’t bother trying to prove anything to you; your mind is clearly closed tight.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“So far all you’ve done is play silly little tit for tat games and I asked you to show me your best example of evolution and you haven’t done that. “
You did? When?
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“ Not one example you have given stands up to scrutiny scumbag NOT ONE! “
I have strong suspicions that you wouldn’t recognise it if you saw it. The very structure of your question reveals that.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“ Not one item for debate hasn’t been ripped apart in this thread given by you.”
If by “ ripped apart” you mean insulted, blithely dismissed, or ignored, then okay.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“Try learning something about evolution before you go off acting like you know anything about it.”
Ha ha ha! Oh the irony!
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“The city of Darwin was first named after Charles Darwin by his one-time shipmate Commander John Clements Wickham, who surveyed the Australian coast and named the place Darwin Harbour almost 20 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. 30 years later, a town was built on the site and called itself Palmerston. Then, in 1911, the town reverted its name to again honor the famous naturalist, and it has been known as Darwin ever since.”
Um okay? What does that have to do with anything?
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“Don’t bother with all that long crap you post because I simply don’t read comic book crap like your posts are loaded with.”
Hey now, don’t dis comics. That’s not nice.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“You got your facts wrong about Darwin again girlfriend but you go girl,”
Pity you couldn’t be bothered to explain what those facts were though. Typical though; empty vague assertions are the stock and trade of some religious apologists for some odd reason.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“lie your ass off to cover your hero like they do for the pope and pedophiles.”
My hero? Who’s that now?
Oh; and the pope is a fucktard.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“He stole his theory from Russel and that is a FACT that is undeniable dumb ass.”
Russel who?
I know that Darwin’s theory did not come out of a vacuum, and Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth and Alfred Russel Wallace (your Russel?) each came up with parts of the same theory. Wallace in particular mustered one that almost reached as far as Darwin’s did, and deserves more credit than many give him. Fame is can be fickle I guess. Darwin’s real claim of superiority was how he expressed it, and the mountains of evidence and research he included with his work.
The modern theory of evolution, of course, is no longer Darwin’s theory, it has advanced significantly since then. Genetics being the most glaring example.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“You coming up with some straw man that he was only eight years old when Darwin was on his first trip on the beagle makes a for a lousy straw man argument. Even for you ya dumb jack ass. “
Do you even know what a Straw Man argument is?
So you didn’t mean Alfred Russel Wallace then? Why didn’t you just say so.
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“Letters if Darwin, READ EM and you’ll know everything I am telling you means your argument isn’t with me sweet heart, YOUR argument is with Chucky the dimwitted Darwin.”
Any letter in particular?
Kent Perry, AZ said:
“So you are still
A JACK ASS”
Pretty sure I am not even of the same order as a male donkey.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Ya know it’s no wonder atheist’s are the most dis-trusted segment of society. That’s a fact too Parker.
They are all pretty much like you ADParker and nothing you say or have said, is something anyone should have any trust in whatsoever much less believe.
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 2:54 am
One reason I am glad I don’t live in your country
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 4:55 pm
ADPJackass said:”Do you think that an individual evolves?!”
No you dumb jackass, YOU are the one that thinks that.
I know for a fact evolution is a hoax and doesn’t happen at all outside what we know as variation already written in its DNA. remember.
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 2:57 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“No you dumb jackass, YOU are the one that thinks that.”
How sad. You actually believe that don’t you?
And you know it for a fact? (glossing over how you are defining “evolution” here.) Brilliant: Type up your paper, present it to Science or Nature for publication through peer-review, and change the world (making yourself famous in the process.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 5:13 pm
In other words, ADPorkbelly,
The evolution of the eye’s teeth, heart and yes even the asshole,,
IMPOSSIBLE to have happened.
While I agree they had to have come about somehow as we know assholes exist and we have you as the evidence of that but even things like that offer incredible clues and evidence of design and only someone so deaf dumb and blinded by the junk science of evolution. A deliberate and invented alibi created to explain intelligently guided systems and inventions away, called evolution
When it comes to recognizing intelligence, leave it up to the Scientists of Intelligent Design Ok Jethro.
You darwits have a problem with anything intelligent obviously and deny it’s existence in evidence when it’s right under your nose but seem to think everything is the dumb founded illusion of design and ALL of it just “happened”. The science of lucky accidents is what you’re about slick.
Happenstance and if that is the case, you should be quite concerned that your own logic and reason is JUST as much a product of your theory and just as lacking in any intelligence what so ever.
Evolutionists = The blind leading the blind, deeper and deeper
down the rabbit hole
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 5:29 pm
ADParker said: “Ha ha ha. Of course they remained fruit flies and bacteria. Do you have any idea how much evolution is likely to evolve into another ”
Yes I do have an idea how much evolution is likely to evolve into another of anything what so ever.
The answer is NOT likely
Not likely at all
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm
ADParker said: “Newton was an alchemist, his science was still freakin’ brilliant”
I agree and that is because Newton was a Brilliant Scientist and Darwin wouldn’t even fill his Jock Strap if Brains were his balls and do you know why? Because Darwin wasn’t a scientist.
Gregor Mendel was a Scientist, Louis Pasteur was a Scientist, Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn and Nikola Tesla were Scientist’s
You know science, that thing Dawkins himself admits was born out of Religion.
The only science Darwin ever wrote about was what he could steal from someone much younger than he. Some kid who was like a young child prodigy like Mozart writing music master pieces at the age of 8 years old.
Only this guy was an intelligent young man named Russel and
Darwin’s name
is mud.
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 3:05 am
Who is this Russel guy?
And honestly who cares?
Russel came up with the theory you say? And Darwin stole it? (Can’t be Wallace then, they shared the first presentation of the theory in 1958) Okay; even if true (which you have made zero effort to establish) it changes nothing about the theory itself. Certainly not the current version of it.
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 3:07 am
Who is this Russel guy?
And honestly who cares?
Russel came up with the theory you say? And Darwin stole it? (Can’t be Wallace then, they shared the first presentation of the theory in 1958) Okay; even if true (which you have made zero effort to establish) it changes nothing about the theory itself. Certainly not the current version of it.
Why do religious apologists always get so stuck on such appeals to authority, thinking everyone worships someone or some-thing, like they do?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Now watch him go nuts making making a big deal again about names like he did for Alfred Russel Wallace, and porker,
If we’re lucky, he’ll have the BIG ONE over it complete with shooting pains down his left arm and even luckier he meets his maker and they have that talk about the birds and the bees.
Something he is arrogant enough to tell his maker, is mistaken about too ha ha ha.
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 3:11 am
Now you wish for me to die from a heart attack? How very Christian of you. (My father did die that way as it happens, thanks for dredging that all up again Kent.)
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 8:33 pm
ADParker said: “Creotards are people who willingly lie and distort ”
So that is what we call liars offering Dis-information and If I were to use YOUR logic using it as a euphemism for creationists without the disclaimer that their is any other kind of creationist such as you gave here when you said
“Creotard. So you can’t take what you dish out? Personally I only use that word in a specific limited sense. Not all creationists fit within it, in fact most don’t. Creotards are people who willingly lie and distort in order to promote their dogmatic creationist beliefs.”
Their is no such word as “creatard” jack ass and wasn’t it YOU who bitched about being called an “evolutionist” perhaps we should make such logical fallacy sweeping you all using the broad brush and start calling you an “evotard”
As for taking what I dish out? HA HA HA What you think of me is none of my business shit for brains and you don’t have the capacity to dish anything without help from your clique.
By setting someone up at some atheist run evolutionist hornets nest where your gang of pseudo intellectual thugs can overwhelm good intentioned debate participants in an ambush like you have proven is the case and proving my point is what you all engaged in with stevebee. Then using your un-scientific conclusions, ad-hom ridicule and irrational behavior.
You call that a debate?
You used situational politics and a discussion forum like a mugger uses an innocent victim in a dark alley.
ANY TIME you want to compare a Christian owned debate forum on this topic, for those owned by atheist’s,, BRING IT Parker because I can prove to you, that if anyone “Dishes” it and invariably dishes it first, it is Atheist evolutionists. Anytime you want to compare how Atheist’s talk on their websites to Christian websites, you go ahead and bring it.
Christians are the center of discussion on atheist and evolution websites and obviously because their opinions mean that much to you, conversely atheist’s don’t really have any real significance nor does their faith in evolution theology.
The difference is while atheist’s use such venomous spiteful vitriolic hate filled language to describe Christians and Creationist’s showing hatred of same, Christians on the other hand, speak in such language as showing pity for evolutionist’s.
So the conclusion, while the atheists hateful ridicule displays hatred for Christians, they aren’t hated back, by Christians.
atheists, simply aren’t that important, HOWEVER,, Christians DO feel sorry for you.
As for any capacity to tolerate what is dished,, I think creationists have ya beat there to homicide.
You see all any of us have ever done,
is Tolerate you
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 3:32 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The difference is while atheist’s use such venomous spiteful vitriolic hate filled language to describe Christians and Creationist’s showing hatred of same, Christians on the other hand, speak in such language as showing pity for evolutionist’s. “
Oh. my mistake. I got the impression that YOU were a Christian.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 29, 2010 at 4:29 pm
ADParker said:
“Oh. my mistake. I got the impression that YOU were a Christian.”
Ill never be Christian enough for a lot of people same way I don’t believe YOU are an atheist OR that you know a damn thing about evolution. You talk like most “knowitall’s” I have met and most men I have ever seen on a slab in a morgue after making uppity stuck up condescending comments just like you make and that is what got em put on the slab most of the time.
Now I don’t want you to get all hyperbolic about that parky, I mean I don’t mean talking like you do is gonna get ya killed someday but it sure might. So don’t take it as a threat because it’s not. No what it is ya see, is just
real good advice
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 28, 2010 at 8:49 pm
ADParker cried: “Interesting; what amounts to a Death threat”
You can go to anyone one of my active duty friends on facebook that know me well enough to know, that was no death threat son, Just ask em and ya know HOW, they would know?
You’re still alive
that’s how
ADParker said,
November 29, 2010 at 3:34 am
A non-serious death threat is still a death threat.
And this:
“Atheists like you make me sick and I’d rip your fuckin lungs out shit head if you EVER talked to me in person the way you and your colleagues there suggest creationist’s should be talked to and treated. ”
definitely applies.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 29, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Guess you’re right, good thing you don’t talk shit in person then eh Hoss. Goin by the things you and your friends have said to stevebee at your ambush site. I imagine you got your ass kicked a lot in school.
No one cares about what you think is a death threat shit head. You ain’t a Judge so sue me see what happens. I’d love it.
They are too busy relishing the opportunity to beat your dumb ass themselves and yeah,
you do ask for it.
Still no proof of evolution yet cowboy?
Mmmm Seems we still see sharks evolving into sharks chimps into chimps all creatures carrying ther own seed giving offspring of their own kind generation after generation after generation after generation.
The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms. This has always been done by them taking for granted that it is even true much less how they can prove it. If evolution happened as they say and their is no argument as they claim, why then, are they so busy imagining how it “might have happened” without ever once noticing after 158 years after Darwins book, that it hasn’t happened or that if it did, why must they go to such lengths to perpetrate so many many frauds and hoax’s in this pathetically stupid hypothesis called descent with modification via mutation and natural selection.
evolutionists, while rejecting miracles such as God creating life, are relegating themselves conjure up miracles of their own to even begin to make Darwin’s theory work.
in fact if we consider all the infinitesimal probabilities for not just SOME of the morphological changes but, ALL of them, have similarly improbable odds.
Ahh yes but evolution is a gambler with loaded dice in a game where it is often admitted these unlikelihood’s exist but “given enough time” one or some happen.
You see what I mean?
They don’t get it because they think time makes a difference and it doesn’t. For evolution to work whether it had all the time it needed or not, CONDITIONS have to be established, a set of coordinated steps following a very strict set of instruction sets have to be followed in an ideal source at just the right time of energy and resources for nourishment that what ever the first life form that begins must have the ability to evolve along with the aforementioned conditions, steps and various instructions.
Did you get that?
Evolutions theory must be a fact BEFORE life can even evolve in the first place which makes the argument darwinist give as an excuse to avoid an a-biogenesis debate, their OBLIGATION to explain because the fact is, if that very first life form self assembled like they claim, then it would have as a requirement the ability to evolve before any life can ignite and survive even a minute This compels us to assume that evolution starts out somewhere in the DNA itself and already has the ability to match climate and environmental pressures that the DNA would naturally anticipate happening at a given time and place where we would see fully intact life forms created to match the challenges the selected for by the DNA, would make. This then would give all DNA the ability to make all life forms we see possible and make the theory of gradualism more of a hindrance as everything required to survive would be too late in coming and Punctuated equilibrium on the other hand would be predicated on designs given in digitally coded scripts where mutations are mutations or as in software programs “bugs” and fully intact life forms large and small are just as likely to self assemble in starting out as simple one celled amoeba’s or proto cells do. If DNA had this going for it, millions of years of evolution are not required in some trial and error span of history.
The next question then would be who programmed the DNA and the RNA what gene or genes have the mouse code the rabbit code the T-rex code etc,.
Bottom line is whether we interpret evidence in ways we can come up with scenarios that might have happend this way and fossils that have similar designs, coming from a DNA that makes all life forms programmed to exist at prescibed times in history would suggest another hypothesis altoghether and I can use the fossil record just as easily to support that idea too and when I get it established as a curriculum for public schools a generation or more with many later becoming scientists who have a common enemy with an opposing argument. Perhaps then I can get a consensus on my idea and call it a FACT too.
But what I really have is an ideology and entrenched group of fixed opinions fostered nurtured and defended since grade school or a generation of educated idiots who know a lot about something they assume is true but can not prove without assuming the consequent and assuming the antecedent else they go back in a circular logical argument just like Creationists do with the “who created God” question.
Assuming the consequent is the logical fallacy evolution is founded.
Well then what do the Evolutionist’s do about that?
What they have always done and is what makes up the mountain of evidence that is in and of itself, just more of the same I have just described and it is because of that practice, the mountain of evidence for evolution is nothing more than a landfill of unsubstantiated ideas they make up as they go having no evidence to support them on top of ideas they make up as they go having no evidence to support them on top of ideas they make up as they go having no evidence to support them on top of, well,, you get the idea, and the same goes for their peer reviewed papers which are nothing more than ideas they make up as they go having no evidence to support them on top of papers written with ideas they make up as they go having no evidence to support them on top of papers written with, etc, et-cetera, et-tedious cetera.
It’s either that or, who loaded the dice or is using the magic deck of cards
but when we see that as their own misunderstanding and clarify this is a winning streak of dice thrown that requires a winning toss where the odds of a LOSING throw of the dice is as unlikely as that given for ANY changes to occur WE mean, for a winning toss.
That is to say that a game so loaded on the side of winning that the possibility for losing a game is no gamble at all, in fact it is a sure thing. If that were true, then why is their no explanation for it other than for them to at least admit Miracles do in fact happen and more often than not.
The odds given in mathematically given terms are for lack of a better explanation and in the absence of miracles to explain it, would be IMPOSSIBLE ODDS.
The original argument is that EVERY TOSS of the dice must be a winner ALL the time for the many complex morphological changes and their coordinating bio systems to all take place and about the same time also for evolution to work.
Now while they admit this when the straw man is presented, given by evolutionists, in their own response, they admit it is unlikely yet “must have happened” .right? After all,, here we are they say.
Again this is another trick.
Yes we all know we are here but that is not proof how we got here or proof we must have evolved .
The role of science, isn’t about dismissing the odds and going forward with a bad theory, the role of science in a case like this would be as obvious for a layman seeing a card trick being done that defies reality or another way explanation for it.
Like Cheating or some illusion, because we know, MAGIC POWERS didn’t do it.
Yet that is what Darwinists expect us to believe by abandoning an even more powerfully hard to deny magic event without an explanation. As if supernaturally successive royal flush’s in a card game with a billion players a deck so high you couldn’t see the top where you get the winning hand every single time for billions of years with you changing seats at the table and switching tables too, is like no big deal to keep winning is something evolutionists don’t think needs explaining. But if you are the other players losing your money,, well sorry Hoss, you ain’t leaving the science saloon without a bullet in your back thinking we should just accept your luck and odds for winning by saying, ” I mean after all, it happened that way, right”
No that isn’t luck and it isn’t probability proving the big number probability argument is a fallacy.
Magic not withstanding, there is no material reason to believe evolution happened either.
So either they explain it or Bang! The theory is dead and Supernatural is looking us square in the face by that time BUT,, Darwits don’t talk to a-biogenesis because that is the argument they built the entire theory as an excuse not to argue. They avoid it at all costs and is also why Christians don’t mind debating it, because they simply don’t have a problem facing the FACT and the ONLY REAL fact of asserted facts out there by the way,, that God, for lack of a better term, is quite logically the ONLY logical explanation for us period.
That we are obviously, life forms designed by an intelligence with purpose and intention, to live out that purpose discovering what it is and to whom we owe the pleasure of our existence, holding no grudge against it, as life was given us free, so it doesn’t owe us another dime much less an explanation to intentionally antagonistic atheists. They will always be intentionally opposed to this fact of God and in denial of the facts everywhere they look, Intelligent Design is OBVIOUS and that too, is a FACT save for ignorant atheists in wilful denial .
It is more appropriate to call life the FACT of God, or TO SAY, God is a Fact, with even more confidence and conviction than any so called fact of evolution.
It is all screaming design by God, who ever that is,
what ever that is, IT, or God,,
most certainly IS. .
Charlie said,
November 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm
I just thought I’d round up some of the points that ADParker, enthusiastic evolution supporter, seems to have made recently:
On ADParker relenting that ID may have some scientific value if its proponents improve their scientific process and avoid religious apologetics:
ADParker: 11/23/2010 11:38p
>>And not only did NOT say that “we should not even attempt to examine the >>possibility that some things may have been designed after all.” The >problem is >asserting that this is the case without sufficient justification. >“Intelligent Design” >could actually be an honest scientific endeavour, if >those with the requisite >expertise could be bothered to apply it properly. And >who knows it might even >provide worthwhile ‘fruit.’ But that is far from the >case at the moment. Instead they >try to push unscientific ideas onto high >school students, and spouting off >unfounded apologetics.
A sentiment with which I agreed. It seems as though we agree that science should restrict itself to science. I would extend the sentiment to include leaving speculation and apologetics- neoDarwinist and otherwise- to philosophy, religion, and theology classes. Let’s keep the barriers to faith honest as well, so that people’s search for Truth isn’t biased unfairly.
On ADParker allowing that science itself makes no assertion regarding the question of whether God (an Intelligent Designer) does or does not exist:
ADParker: 11/24/2010 9:45p
>Charlie said: “I apologize if I misunderstood what you said. I don’t intend to put lies >in your mouth. So do you agree with the inverse statements?
>- Science does not assert the nonexistence of an intelligent designer.
>- We may not be imagining intelligent design because it just might exist, science >notwithstanding.”
>
>Science isn’t a ‘thing’ to assert or not assert of course (it irritates me sometimes >when people go on too mush as if science were a person or similar. Like many >cases of unjustified anthropomorphising actually.)
>- No, I know of no areas of science in which that claim is asserted to be false.
>- Huh? Are you trying to say that there might be an intelligent designer? Then yes >there might.
(Condensed version: ADParker knows of no areas in science in which the claim that ‘God might exist’ is asserted to be false; and that yes, there just might be an Intelligent Designer.)
On ADParker claiming that it is a lack of Reason (and evidence as a subset) for ID does not equate to the claim that ID is false.
ADParker: 11/24/2010 9:45p
>Charlie said: “It seems to me that you are saying that a lack of evidence to support a >claim of Intelligent Design does not equate to the claim of ID being false. So it >hinges on evidence.”
>
>I would say Reason, which encompasses evidence, and perhaps evidence >dominates when dealing with the ontological, but yes.
Yet there is, he admits, no scientific objection to God- and therefore no Reason to believe that He does not exist. The ‘evidence’ he claims is lacking is dubitable, since it is self-evident evidence.
On ADParker blatantly using basic logical fallacies as arguments:
ADParker: 11/24/2010 9:45p
>Charlie said: “I like the evolution of teeth. Maybe the eyes.” [pleading for some actual evidence of how evolution has been proven to produce such developments in biology.]
>
>What of them? Evolutionary biologists haven’t detailed all the most minute of scales >for you and Stevebee…therefore ID wins by default?! As I said; Argument from >Ignorance.
>You want to cling to a belief that there exists, or existed, some incredibly complex, >powerful and impressive intelligence, BEFORE the emergence of all those things >he finds so troubling? Then that is your choice. I can not, not without some solid >reasoning to support such an extraordinary assertion!
Note clearly that he, in almost one breath, claims that ID proponents “argue from ignorance” (similar to arguing from personal incredulity) and then goes on to argue from ignorance and personal incredulity himself. Of course, the argument is null and void for both sides.
All of this seems incredibly sad, given that he all but holds the door open for God with one hand, and then with the other strains to close it by unreasonably and tenaciously allowing ToE every excuse it can conjure up to relieve Man from facing his heritage.
I assert that reason is most certainly NOT on the side of the ToE proponent. In may opinion, the denial that ID is self-evident (and increasingly more compelling day by day) is simply a denial that God (an Intelligent Designer) exists (within the bounds of scientific reason) and just may have done all that He said He did.
Moreover, I don’t blame ADParker for being so blind. His eyes have simply not been opened. What is self-evident and reason to some has become a barrier to him and so many others that are intent on denying that they may actually have been created with a purpose. (Some with a not-so-promising purpose, unfortunately.)
My trouble is with him being so fervently supportive of something that simply shields people from true knowledge. The more that one strains to deny truth and reality, the more that one gives up a grip on sanity and cohesiveness.
Nietzche, nearing his end:
“It is a mere prejudice that I am a human being. Yet I have often enough dwelled among human beings and I know the things human beings experience, from the lowest to the highest. Among the Hindus I was Buddha, in Greece Dionysus, Alexander and Caesar were incarnations of me, as well as the poet of Shakespeare, Lord Bacon. Most recently I was Voltaire and Napoleon, perhaps also Richard Wagner … However, I now come as Dionysus victorious, who will prepare a great festival on Earth … Not as though I had much time … The heavens rejoice to see me here … I also hung on the cross.”
(Often signing his last letters, “The Crucified”)
ADParker said,
November 30, 2010 at 3:02 am
Charlie said:
“Yet there is, he admits, no scientific objection to God- and therefore no Reason to believe that He does not exist. “
No Charlie. You stretched that far beyond what I said.
I said that science does not ASSERT that gods do not exist. And that it is at least POSSIBLE that such a thing might exist. This is the case with ALL things not absolutely disproved.
That does not equate to “ no scientific objection.” Victor Stenger for example has made numerous scientific objections. Some better than others, and none absolute disproof of anything except very specific definitions/qualities of a god (your god may or may not apply.)
Charlie said:
“On ADParker blatantly using basic logical fallacies as arguments:”
Oh really. Well I will give you this Charlie, you are one of the very few who makes such a claim, and actually bothers to say what the fallacy was, and where it was made. Those empty assertions are so irritating.
ADParker: 11/24/2010 9:45p
>Charlie said: “I like the evolution of teeth. Maybe the eyes.” [pleading for some actual evidence of how evolution has been proven to produce such developments in biology.]
>
>What of them? Evolutionary biologists haven’t detailed all the most minute of scales >for you and Stevebee…therefore ID wins by default?! As I said; Argument from >Ignorance.
>You want to cling to a belief that there exists, or existed, some incredibly complex, >powerful and impressive intelligence, BEFORE the emergence of all those things >he finds so troubling? Then that is your choice. I can not, not without some solid >reasoning to support such an extraordinary assertion!
Charlie said:
“Note clearly that he, in almost one breath, claims that ID proponents “argue from ignorance” “
Actually, I stated that the particular case was such a fallacy. That’s different. There does happen to be many examples of this fallacy in the ID movement however. Michael Behe’s examples of irreducible complexity (IC) being fine examples, as he claims they are IC, only to be told that no the are not, in some cases that his claim was proven wrong BEFORE he made it! So his claims were based on his ignorance of the evidence, and he used that ignorance as if it was evidence of the impossibility!
Charlie said:
“(similar to arguing from personal incredulity)”
Coined by Richard Dawkins I think. It is in actual fact a sub-set of the Argument from Ignorance. It us not uncommon for logical fallacies to overlap.
Charlie said:
“ and then goes on to argue from ignorance and personal incredulity himself. Of course, the argument is null and void for both sides.”
No I didn’t. How do you go from a statement that I can’t believe something until given sufficient supporting evidence to “argument from ignorance”? It wasn’t even an argument/claim!
An argument from ignorance basically amounts to a claim that something is true because it has not been proven false.
While all I did was that I could NOT accept that something is true without evidence.
Charlie said:
“All of this seems incredibly sad, given that he all but holds the door open for God with one hand, and then with the other strains to close it by unreasonably and tenaciously allowing ToE every excuse it can conjure up to relieve Man from facing his heritage.”
Huh?
But yes, I “open the door”, have held it open for decades now, no one has yet chosen to come in though.
I hold it open for fairies too, and in much the same fashion.
Charlie said:
“I assert that reason is most certainly NOT on the side of the ToE proponent.”
Almost every professional biologist on the planet disagrees with you. But assert away. But realise that merely asserting will get you nowhere, except perhaps to those who are impressed by empty assertions.
Charlie said:
“In may opinion, the denial that ID is self-evident (and increasingly more compelling day by day) is simply a denial that God (an Intelligent Designer) exists (within the bounds of scientific reason) and just may have done all that He said He did.”
Are you aware of the desperate attempts of the ID movement to distance themselves from the God question?
You know what; in a small way ID is self-evident. And a lot of things that aren’t true are equally self-evident.
As I have said repeatedly; “Self-evident” is an appeal to common sense. And our human intuitions, common sense, instincts, common assumption… have been built up based on what Dawkins called “Middle world.” And they are simply not equipped to reliably match reality beyond that basic level.
From our individual perspectives it is also “self-evident” that the Earth is the stationary flat(ish) centre of the universe. Self-evident but untrue.
Charlie said:
“Moreover, I don’t blame ADParker for being so blind. His eyes have simply not been opened.”
How many times have I heard that empty assertion? It is a neat little trick isn’t it? Blame THEM for not buying into YOUR empty assertions.
Charlie said:
“What is self-evident and reason to some has become a barrier to him and so many others that are intent on denying that they may actually have been created with a purpose. (Some with a not-so-promising purpose, unfortunately.)”
Not denying…just not naively accepting this assertion.
“God exists” (not even counting all the other baggage) is an incredibly extraordinary claim, and as Carl Sagan put it (possibly originally coined by Marcello Truzzi ):
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Charlie said:
“My trouble is with him being so fervently supportive of something that simply shields people from true knowledge. The more that one strains to deny truth and reality, the more that one gives up a grip on sanity and cohesiveness.”
Right back at you.
Charlie said:
“Nietzche, nearing his end: …”
Irrelevance? (you amost got his name right though, which is impressive, just missed an “s”)
Charlie said,
December 1, 2010 at 3:51 pm
ADParker:
>Charlie said:
>“Yet there is, he admits, no scientific objection to God- and therefore no >Reason to believe that He does not exist. “
>
>No Charlie. You stretched that far beyond what I said.
>I said that science does not ASSERT that gods do not exist. And that it is at >least POSSIBLE that such a thing might exist. This is the case with ALL >things not absolutely disproved.
So why all the fuss about taking that initial assumption of intelligent design as a plausible (possible) given and letting that be a legitimate line of research without all of the puffed up falsely imposed ridicule and condescending judgment?
ADParker:
>That does not equate to “ no scientific objection.” Victor Stenger for example >has made numerous scientific objections. Some better than others, and
I wouldn’t mind hearing what those might be. I won’t deny that my faith requires me to bridge across some legitimate barriers. I just don’t believe that neo-Darwinian ToE presents one. What does Victor have to say that brings legitimate scientific objections?
ADParker:
>Charlie said:
>“Note clearly that he, in almost one breath, claims that ID proponents >“argue from ignorance” “
>
>Actually, I stated that the particular case was such a fallacy. That’s different. >:::
Your response was very difficult to read and understand. It was not absolutely clear to me. You seem to claim that your argument is different than that of Intelligent Design proponents such as Behe. And that one is an argument from ignorance (IDs) and one is not (yours). The explanation for why was not clear to me.
You state that Behe’s examples of IC are a good example, since it is ‘proven’ that his examples are not actually irreducibly complex. But in fact, it was not proven- merely asserted and then waved off. There is no proof, for example, that the flagellum is merely a progression of the TTSS needle. They have some physical and protein similarities, but is there a reasonable path of DNA mutations that can be performed to ‘evolve’ the TTSS needle into the flagellum? Are the DNA even similar at all? Is the TTSS needle perhaps an even better example of IC? And would such a modification, if possible, prove that larger-scale developments are a natural progression from these- or simply that man has found a way to intentionally redirect original design? Behe’s poor performance in the face of courtroom theatrics is not proof that evolution has made its case against IC or ID. It is an empty assertion that is aggrandized to ‘proof’ by brute force intimidation.
His ‘argument from ignorance’ was not established. He should have thought ahead and been ready, but frankly, who should believe that the evolution establishment is so entrenched in denying every possibility of rational discourse?
Yet that very denial is rooted in a denial that God cannot exist- and cannot be part of an intelligent theory of origins. One which science cannot assert. (ADParker: “science does not ASSERT that gods do not exist. And that it is at least POSSIBLE that such a thing might exist.”)
So if science cannot assert that God does not exist, then we are left with the circularly self-defeating question from ADParker: “How do you go from a statement that I can’t believe something until given sufficient supporting evidence to “argument from ignorance”?”
You have stated essentially that you cannot ‘believe something’ without sufficient evidence (which is in question ONLY because you cannot believe that very something). That you cannot ‘believe something’ enough to assert that everything EXCEPT that something (IC/ID/God) must be explored as an option- no matter how far-fetched that alternate scenario might be.
Because it seems all too incredible to you that a Creator may exist, you propose that something equally as incredible (and more so in my opinion) must be an explanation for our existence. And you claim that the evidence that He has given you is not enough, because to you it is not evidence. Don’t you see that it is not self-evident to you ONLY because you have asserted in your mind that you do not know Him?
Isn’t that exactly an example of an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity? You may not have uttered it, but it is at the root of what you stand on.
You simultaneously argue that Behe is arguing from ignorance- but deny that you yourself are also doing the same. I don’t agree that you and Behe are on level ground. I don’t agree that Behe is arguing from ignorance. His assertion of IC was not properly defeated. These situations are indeed different. But I don’t believe that you are the one that is being reasonable.
ADParker:
>An argument from ignorance basically amounts to a claim that something >is true because it has not been proven false.
>While all I did was that I could NOT accept that something is true without >evidence.
Let’s try that on for size, then, shall we?
A1: The evolutionist claims that something is true (evolution is a better explanation of our origins than intelligent design) because it (evolution explanation) has not been proven false. Okay… well it doesn’t allow itself to be proven false, does it? It squirms out of the reach of any real science. A lot less like science and a lot more like dogma.
A2: The creationist claims that something is true (God is a better explanation of our origins than evolution) because it (God explanation) has not been proven false. This doesn’t allow itself to be proven false, either, does it? But then again, God is untouchable by science, so He fits logically into this role a bit better than science attempts to with ToE.
B1: ADParker cannot accept that something is true (God is a better explanation of our origins than evolution) without evidence. Yet the evidence that he denies is denied BECAUSE he refuses to accept that God MIGHT be a better explanation. And the evidence FOR ToE is exceedingly absent in almost every regard- so why is it that he can accept that to be true?
B2: Charlie cannot accept that something is true (evolution is a better explanation of our origins than intelligent design) without evidence. Evidence FOR ToE relies on my willingness to accept a strange scenario of special near-miraculous events that just happen to have caused me to be cognizant of my existence and strain against the evidence that God has presented me. And the evidence FOR God is all around us once we accept that He just MIGHT exist. Only then can begin the earnest search for Truth.
One asks you to ask questions and keep an open mind to all possibilities. The other asks you to accept answers and close your mind to possibilities.
You decide which one is which.
ADParker:
>But yes, I “open the door”, have held it open for decades now, no one has >yet chosen to come in though.
>I hold it open for fairies too, and in much the same fashion.
You kid yourself if you posit that God is on the same level as fairies. True- with God ALL things are possible. But a fairy would be a creation- not a Creator.
ADParker:
>assert away. But realise that merely asserting will get you nowhere, except >perhaps to those who are impressed by empty assertions.
I am convinced that you are indeed very impressed with empty assertions.
ADParker:
>You know what; in a small way ID is self-evident. And a lot of things that >aren’t true are equally self-evident.
>As I have said repeatedly; “Self-evident” is an appeal to common sense.
>:::
>stationary flat(ish) centre of the universe. Self-evident but untrue.
Is it self-evident to you that there is NOT a Creator- and that a belief in God is as ridiculous as a belief in fairies and unicorns? Is that an example of common sense?
ADParker:
>How many times have I heard that empty assertion? It is a neat little trick >isn’t it? Blame THEM for not buying into YOUR empty assertions.
I don’t blame you, ADParker. One might blame God. But we are each and every one of us justifiably doomed to an eternal existence of suffering and separation from God. He is Merciful to some and they find faith. But such is Mercy- we didn’t deserve what he gifted us with- we are simply grateful for it.
ADParker:
>Not denying…just not naively accepting this assertion.
>“God exists” (not even counting all the other baggage) is an incredibly >extraordinary claim, and as Carl Sagan put it (possibly originally coined by >Marcello Truzzi ): Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
This in itself is very plainly an argument from personal incredulity. This isn’t to say that it does not have some merit as the basis for some research. Common sense is not always wrong. But it isn’t an evidence that seals the deal. Look further. Extraordinary evidence is indeed available. Open your eyes to see it.
For one thing, it is indeed a miracle that one ADParker and only one ADParker was born into this world and is able to consciously examine his existence and wonder about his origin and his destiny. This has never happened before in all of known history. And it will arguably never happen again. it is a one time occurrence. Nothing short of miraculous! Yet the extraordinary evidence is completely unavailable to you. Unless you stop to believe in yourself.
It is not an accident that you are here, buddy. You just may become the brightest light in the room if you simply look for the switch. It is a wonderful gift indeed to shine on behalf of the Lord.
Charlie said,
December 1, 2010 at 4:40 pm
ADParker, I have to wonder…
Do you not ever stop to wonder what the implications are if you and other evolutionists are indeed right? (No- I am not conceding that you have evidence that is compelling- just entertaining the scenario.)
If you are right, then you are indeed simply the happenstance effect of material laws that they in turn were simply haphazard and unintentional. If all there is at the beginning of our existence is a majestic roll of the dice (time, matter, chance and consciousness self-appearing from nothing)- and perhaps an evolution-directed alien race that spread their seed here- or perhaps even an absent-minded watchmaker that just threw something at the ‘wall’ to see what might stick… If all of that is true- then you and your entire existence just doesn’t matter. Not one lick.
In fact, if everything is material, then you don’t even have the choice of whether or not to do and think as you do. Materially speaking, chaos and chance do not really exist.
They are an illusion of our human inability to understand the complexity of how everything inter-relates. We may not understand how the weather patterns behave, but that does not mean that they are chaotic and driven by chance. Knowledge of all the initial conditions and the ability to control them all would yield us with the power to repeat everything precisely over and over again. The fact that all of the electrons in your computer can be purposed to follow exactly the same patterns over and over again reliably like clockwork is a testament to our ability to depend on this materialism once we have understood how to control nearly all of the variables.
Our inability to understand the variables gives us the illusion of chaos and chance- but they do not exist. Materially.
If you are right about evolution and the absence of God, then your position in time and space within our universe is a direct and unchangeable effect of how the dice were rolled at the beginning of time. You have no ability to think on your own- it is all the product of how things were set in motion at the beginning of time. What you will think and do and how you will respond to my post is not your choice- it is simply what you were ‘programmed’ to do. You are not funny. Not wise. Not intelligent. Not creative. Not passionate.
All of these things are illusions created by the notion that you have a conscious mind. Which is also simply an illusion, since the conscious mind is not material and what you think and do is just a chemical reaction that is causing you to feel exactly how it was programmed to think and act at this point in time. Everything and everyone that has ever interacted with you is at the whim of the same mechanistic program.
We are all just bits of ones and zeroes playing methodically on a universal CD player. Play it as often as you like- it will always sound exactly the same.
You have no choice. You do not really exist. You have no purpose. You have no origin. You have no destiny. When you are gone, you are simply gone. No one that will remember you matters either, because when they are gone, they are gone. Whatever you or they leave behind is just as purposeless and is simply material that will return to stardust one day and just continue forward into whatever it was programmed to do according to the formulas that were rolled from the dice at the beginning of time.
Your existence is exactly nothing becoming nothing. It is what rocks dream of. Your nihilistic awareness of this is not even your choice but is simply an illusion of self-existence.
Sorry- that is not something that I can stomach.
ADParker said,
November 30, 2010 at 4:44 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Mmmm Seems we still see sharks evolving into sharks chimps into chimps all creatures carrying ther own seed giving offspring of their own kind generation after generation after generation after generation.”
Mmmm, and you think that we should be seeing anything else, if the theory of evolution is correct?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms.”
Darwinism refers to the old pre-genetics form of the theory. Do try to keep up.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“If evolution happened as they say and their is no argument as they claim, why then, are they so busy imagining how it “might have happened” without ever once noticing after 158 years after Darwins book, that it hasn’t happened or that if it did, why must they go to such lengths to perpetrate so many many frauds and hoax’s in this pathetically stupid hypothesis called descent with modification via mutation and natural selection.”
Wow!
1. “We” only claim what the evolutionary biologists have concluded. This is ever changing in detail, although a lot can be said in a more generalised sense (such as: The commonality of the genetics, including commonalities of genetic errors [like Great ape broken vitamin C gene] strongly suggesting, and supporting other evidence, that we all share a common ancestry.)
2. Those “might of” statements are not pure imagination, but implications based on how we know evolution works. They in the very least refute assertions that ‘it COULD not have happened without divine [magic] intervention.”
3. Darwin’s book – I guess you mean one of his books, namely “Origin of species.” It was published in 1959. That is 151 years, not 158. (sure; that is a minor point, but nothing wrong with correcting for accuracy.)
4. No we have not “noticed that it hasn’t happened. “Because there is no evidence EVER presented to establish this assertion of yours.
5. What frauds and hoax’s? Do you mean the few, so often repeated ad nauseum, that were subsequently disproved by the very evolutionary biologists that you are now insulting? Some of which led to an ADVANCE in the strength of the theory.
6. “Descent with modification via mutation and natural selection.” is an observed and proven factual phenomenon, get over it. This is why evolution deniers insist on proof of things far beyond the fact of those processes.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“evolutionists, while rejecting miracles such as God creating life,”
Any evidence for this claimed miracle?!
All I have seen so far is the God-of-the-gaps form of the argument from ignorance:
“Prove abiogenesis! You can’t (in fullest detail)? Okay, then GodDidIt, I win!!!!!!”
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“are relegating themselves conjure up miracles of their own to even begin to make Darwin’s theory work.”
Name ONE single miracle in evolutionary theory.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“in fact if we consider all the infinitesimal probabilities for not just SOME of the morphological changes but, ALL of them, have similarly improbable odds.”
Really?! Show us the math then.
Making up big numbers is easy, creationism apologists do that all the time. But that means nothing whatsoever, beyond their ability to make stuff up.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Ahh yes but evolution is a gambler with loaded dice in a game where it is often admitted these unlikelihood’s exist but “given enough time” one or some happen.”
And that folks is how one begins to errecta Straw man.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“They don’t get it because they think time makes a difference and it doesn’t.”
Oh please. Not this old “time is your god” canard.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ For evolution to work whether it had all the time it needed or not, CONDITIONS have to be established, a set of coordinated steps following a very strict set of instruction sets have to be followed in an ideal source at just the right time of energy and resources for nourishment that what ever the first life form that begins must have the ability to evolve along with the aforementioned conditions, steps and various instructions.”
ONLY if you insist on working BACK TO FRONT.
It is also practically impossible that A person fitting my precise description is sitting in this precise place at this precise time, from the initial starting conditions for life on earth (or the Big Bang…)
For starters my parents had to meet, and have me, and their parents them etc. etc. “Inconceivable!” but here I am.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Did you get that?”
Yes; you have no idea of statistical probability analysis either. No surprise there. It is one of the common distortions made by anti-evolution apologists, whose prime achievement it seems is in destroying their ‘followers’ ability to do such reasoning properly any more.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Evolutions theory must be a fact BEFORE life can even evolve in the first place which makes the argument darwinist give as an excuse to avoid an a-biogenesis debate, their OBLIGATION to explain because the fact is, if that very first life form self assembled like they claim, then it would have as a requirement the ability to evolve before any life can ignite and survive even a minute”
Gibberish.
And theories don’t become facts, theories explain facts. Learn some basic science at least.
Now claims of how life first formed (some exciting work and discoveries in that field though.) And as I have repeated; your belief that it was done by magic, even though there is absolutely nothing in support of that assertion of course, cold even be the answer; for all it matters for the evolution that follows.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“This compels us to assume that evolution starts out somewhere in the DNA itself and already has the ability to match climate and environmental pressures that the DNA would naturally anticipate happening at a given time and place where we would see fully intact life forms created to match the challenges the selected for by the DNA, would make.”
What the Hel are you talking about? Not evolutionary theory, that’s for sure.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The next question then would be who programmed the DNA and the RNA what gene or genes have the mouse code the rabbit code the T-rex code etc,. “
Well if you ASSUME that SOMEONE programmed it of course. Way to beg the question.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Bottom line is whether we interpret evidence in ways we can come up with scenarios that might have happend this way and fossils that have similar designs, coming from a DNA that makes all life forms programmed to exist at prescibed times in history would suggest another hypothesis altoghether…”
Pathetic. Are you forgetting that most life DOESN’T survive? That if it is design, then it is horribly inefficient design indeed.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“What they have always done and is…”
I tire of all these asserted lies, completely unsupported by …well anything, about what real scientists do.
Much of which doesn’t even make sense.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The odds given in mathematically given terms are for lack of a better explanation and in the absence of miracles to explain it, would be IMPOSSIBLE ODDS.”
You know what a miracle is right? It is asserting that something of “ IMPOSSIBLE ODDS” occurred. Making your entire rant ridiculous.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The original argument is that EVERY TOSS of the dice must be a winner ALL the time for the many complex morphological changes and their coordinating bio systems to all take place and about the same time also for evolution to work.”
Oh this tired old creationist lie. It forgets (or ignore) one important thing; namely what the theory actually says!
What you are doing is imagining a dice toss (of a particular ‘beneficial’ mutation occurring for instance), ignoring the thousands of failures, instead just looking at the one success (the mutation, not all the organisms that died out due to not having it etc.) and claiming that for one event to happen is too improbable. Daft.
It is like hearing of a one in a million event happen happening, and declaring that impossible, by conveniently ignoring the fact that the even occurred amongst a million other occurrences in which it didn’t!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The role of science, isn’t about dismissing the odds and going forward with a bad theory, the role of science in a case like this would be as obvious for a layman seeing a card trick being done that defies reality or another way explanation for it.”
Oh please! I have innumerable ancestors: My parents, their parents, theirs… Not one of them, NOT ONE, failed to survive long enough and successfully have children! IT’S A MIRACLE!!! DO you know how many people (let alone organisms) don’t have any viable offspring at all? (Just ignore the fact that many during that long period did suffer that exact ‘failure’, as many as we should expect in fact, and that I am only here because I happen to be the result of those few that ‘succeeded.’
Your silly little argument doesn’t make any sense Kent.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Like Cheating or some illusion, because we know, MAGIC POWERS didn’t do it.”
Sure Kent, it is the “magic trick” of picking one card out of a deck of cards, then another, and another, and another…until finally picking the chosen card. And claiming success in picking the card…await applause for a well executed trick.
To sum all this up Kent: Your rant fails to challenge evolution, because it it not about evolution, just some silly straw man devised so that you can PRETEND (perhaps even to yourself) that you have defeated the real thing.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Yet that is what Darwinists expect us to believe by abandoning an even more powerfully hard to deny magic event without an explanation.”
You lie. That or you have been deceived, and naively repeat the lies you have been indoctrinated into believing.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“As if supernaturally successive royal flush’s in a card game with a billion players”
Oh grow up. What you are doing is more like this:
I once saw a demonstration with an audience. The man on stage asked everyone to stand up and pick heads of tails as he tossed a coin. Those who ‘lost’ each toss sat down and played no more.
After six tosses (he would have done more, but he point was made) three people where left standing. And he declared (tongue in cheek) “It’s a miracle! These three people correctly guessed a coin toss six times in a row! At odds of over 45,000:1 those three, out of about only 200 hundred people, got every one correct; defying the odds!!!”
He then went on to explain that no; in fact it is almost perfectly matching the odds.
For clarification:
200 people, toss a coin, we should expect ~half to get it right, leaving;
100 people, toss again, expect half, leaving;
50…
25…
12.5…
6.25, and finally after six, count them six tosses, we should expect;
3.125 people to have won every toss.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“a deck so high you couldn’t see the top where you get the winning hand every single time for billions of years”
Just so long as you IGNORE all of those that DON’T win and “leave” the game. And those “winners” that keep on winning, are just those those few that , given the odds, we would expect to win anyway.
Again it is like marvelling that it was MY parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great great… that were the ‘winners’ of each ’round.’
OF COURSE THEY WERE! That is why it is me sitting here, and not somebody else.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Magic not withstanding, there is no material reason to believe evolution happened either.”
Except for ALL the evidence for it, and the complete lack of any against it. But you don’t want to hear that. What do the scientists actually studying it (that is; life) know anyway, right? What Hubris for the experts to claim greater understanding than you, right?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“So either they explain it or Bang! The theory is dead and Supernatural is looking us square in the face”
So Magic wins by default huh?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“by that time BUT,, Darwits don’t talk to a-biogenesis”
Some do. They just don’t make the mistake of thinking, let alone claiming, that they are doing evolutionary biology when they are.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“They avoid it at all costs”
I debate it all the time. I don’t pretend it is the same thing as evolution though. Because I am not an idiot, and I know better.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“and is also why Christians don’t mind debating it, because they simply don’t have a problem facing the FACT and the ONLY REAL fact of asserted facts out there by the way,, that God, for lack of a better term, is quite logically the ONLY logical explanation for us period.”
Logically eh? Why not show me this line of logic then?
You have a problem with me not proving evolution, but it is fine for you to claim God is a fact, without providing anything?! Gotta love the double standard.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“That we are obviously, life forms designed by an intelligence with purpose and intention, to live out that purpose discovering what it is and to whom we owe the pleasure of our existence, holding no grudge against it, as life was given us free, so it doesn’t owe us another dime much less an explanation to intentionally antagonistic atheists.”
Prove it.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“They will always be intentionally opposed to this fact of God and in denial of the facts everywhere they look, Intelligent Design is OBVIOUS and that too, is a FACT save for ignorant atheists in wilful denial .”
Don’t forget the many theistic evolutionists as well. Or do you prefer to ignore them, as they don’t in with your agenda? Because that is your methodology isn’t it? Just ignore anything that challenges your chosen fixed conclusion, and claim victory. Confirmation at its worst.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It is more appropriate to call life the FACT of God, or TO SAY, God is a Fact, with even more confidence and conviction than any so called fact of evolution.”
So you have evidence for this God character existing, and doing all you claim it did? Great; present it then.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It is all screaming design by God”
Well some apologists are certainly screaming it, anyway.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“what ever that is, IT, or God,,
most certainly IS. .”
How can you say that you believe in something, and in the same breath that you don’t even know what it is?! It is tantamount to claiming to know the unknown.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 30, 2010 at 10:42 am
ADPLiar mumbled: “And theories don’t become facts,”.
You claim yours does
ADPLiar garbled: ” theories explain facts”
But that is EXACTLY what evolutionist have done ya fuckin moron. They have given what they consider to be plausible explanations for how life evolved and invariably end up calling those explanations FACTS.
That isn’t science pal, that is broad speculation based on individual interpretatation which I might as is so subjective and so subjected to a paradigm that MUST comply with evolutions theory or be cast out, labled a creationist.
ADPLiar spewed: ” Learn some basic science at least.”
Why are you suggesting that when evolution isn’t science. IT IS A PHILOSOPHY!
ADPLiar vomited: “Well if you ASSUME that SOMEONE programmed it of course. Way to beg the question”
Regarding the DNA code? You got a problem with that or do you happen to know how else it could have happened. By cosmic coincedence too,, yeah explain that one to me please, I’d LOVE to hear your answer.
ADPLiar sputtered: “Are you forgetting that most life DOESN’T survive? That if it is design, then it is horribly inefficient design indeed.”
Hey pal, anytime you can create a universe and a sentient life from the dirt of the ground that is better designed,,, YOU GO GIRL!
Oh and don’t forget to use YOUR OWN DIRT
ADPLiar brain farted: “What frauds and hoax’s? Do you mean the few, so often repeated ad nauseum, that were subsequently disproved by the very evolutionary biologists that you are now insulting? ”
Not only are they NOT a few but fraud in science happens to be one of its most dire concerns jack ass. Or didn’t you get the memo?
Lets start where Darwins theory really ended and who saved him and his theory from the brink of where it truly still belongs. Ill try to dumb this down for ya Parkie I know how you like to split hairs on minutia like correcting my definition for Darwinian Evolution yet MY definition was exactly what Dawkins used so Ill be sure to tell him how much smarter you are than he is. Not that I think that you’re smarter. Just to make that clear, I think you lie you make shit up and are basically a punk kid with his head so far up his ass your breath probably reeks like you eat shit sandwiches for lunch everyday. You like to think you know a lot about a lost science that most atheist idiots like yourself enjoy thinking they are important for knowing something about but MOST of us have already concluded you and those of your like minded morons who continue to refer to common ancestors rather than let us know exactly what that is by name, are merely too impressed with themselves and too fond of their own opinions to consider common sense and conventional wisdom a plus. No you like far fetched fables and fictional factoids that are constantly debunked whether it is by another of your kind or not makes no difference so mentioning that as some consolation you still win the debate is quite irrelevant because the point isn’t about that. It’s about it being found untrue, AGAIN.
Usually it is found to be untrue because evolutionary science is fast become the most corrupt brood of vipers and liars, charlatans and hoax’ers that today, they are as highly esteemed as an ex-convict.
So to start, In order to come up with proof of evolution Haeckel created drawings of the embryos of such living things as human beings, chickens and fish and placed them side by side. Yet there were distortions in these images. Today the whole Scientific world recognizes these as counterfeit. The structure shown as a “gill” by Haeckel is actually the beginning of the middle ear channel, the parathyroid and the thymus glands.
In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” had this to say:
“The impression they Haeckel’s drawings give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study. Reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos “often looked surprisingly different,” Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.
Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate Similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by Neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their Appearance and developmental pathway. “It (Haeckel’s drawings) looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology, “Haeckel’s confessions on this subject were covered up from the beginning of the Last century and how the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientific fact: Haeckel’s confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts
In short, the fact that Haeckel’s drawings were falsified had already emerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceived by them for a century with many new theories spun off this one falsehood.
A CENTURY! Imagine the advances in medicine and other areas of Science this long held and dogmatic belief in just this instance of Darwinian fraud, prevented.
But Why?
To keep God dead and buried that’s why but not only that, it is the idea that we have had to listen to Atheists ridicule us for that long using fraud they themselves were so damn convinced was “evidence” when it was not and creationists were correct in challenging this so called evidence all this time as they are correct in demanding evolution be REMOVED as a theory, fact, law, what ever they claim it is this week, and kill it once and for all before it makes retards out of everyone in Medicine to Science of all fields.
The only reason it is allowed to exist is NOT because it is so steeped in Biology,
Hell it isn’t Biology, it is a HOAX! A SCAM! A Fallaciously Fabricated Fraud! PERIOD! Piltdown man took 47 years! 47! Before finally being taken for what it always was, a Fake a fraud, just one of the many created to keep this dead dumb theory alive
And another generation of students were made out to learn a lot about NOTHING! This is one of the reasons I absolutely laugh when someone suggests I need to learn more about the way evolution works.
Oh I see how it works, and it’s like telling me I need to learn a lot more about a truck load of pure concentrated industrial strength stupidity. Their isn’t an argument out there where today’s Atheist winners of debated arguments with creationists won’t be discovered to be tomorrows losers of that Same debate because EVERYTHING they know is found to be BUNK later.
Haeckel was given many posthumous awards for his work when if this type of fraud was done in most other fields of endeavor such as securities in the stock market, it would be Punishable with a jail sentence. It seems that being dishonest has its rewards regardless and that is another area of todays Science that is in need of drastic changes JUST to keep them honest.
To keep Atheism’s advancement going while making fools out of a generations of students in public schools and they say
Intelligent design will bring science back to the Stone Age?
They say intelligent design has no proof? Not if you have to manufacture it.
Evolution is the most despicable hoax ever perpetrated on Science and it is about time we call it what it is and always has
Been. I don’t know about you but from where I come from, we call it
BULLSHIT and we call YOU,, Too damn stupid to know how,
fuckin stupid you are .
“ADPLiar said: Some do. They just don’t make the mistake of thinking, let alone claiming, that they are doing evolutionary biology when they are”
When they are what? We don’t care what they call it regardless and who the hell are YOU? Are YOU an evolutionary Biologist. Don’t bother, I wouldn’t believe you if you if you said you were anyway.
“ADPLiar said:So Magic wins by default huh?”
It is either your magic or our God. All I’m saying is, what you believe is true is because you want to believe it is true regardless of the facts and what you believe is just as hard for us to accept as it would require magic and that is what you expect us to believe in if I were to agree with you.
ADPLiar said: “You have a problem with me not proving evolution
No Yes ”
Not really, I understand why you are not proving evolution and it is the same reason I wouldn’t bother proving to an atheist, a God exists. I’m ok with your not believing in what is obvious and understand your denial of it quite well actually. It is impossible to prove evolution however and I understand that.
ADPLiar said: “but it is fine for you to claim God is a fact”
Why wouldn’t it be? You claim something even more outrageous is a fact and expect me to get all ga gah over it as if saying something is a fact actually makes something not a fact a fact and I’m sorry, it just doesn’t work for me that way hoss.
ADPLiar said: “without providing anything?”
As if that would get you to change your mind ha ha. No,, sorry shit head, I have argued this with educated idiots and just plane idiots such as yourself and if you can’t get past your anti religious bigotry, I guess you’ll have to continue using science to justify your anti religious bigotry the way you have been. It’s just fortunate we don’t hold you Philosopher kings of infallible science, against the actual Science. I know that is often given as a retort when we disagree, evo’s like to suggest we have something against science when we don’t. We just have something against a philosophy masquerading as science such as evolution. It ain’t science and you ain’t no expert on it. Hell you don’t even make an effort, you just make em look like the pricks and assholes atheists have done such a bang up job establishing a reputation as.
ADPLiar said: “Don’t forget the many theistic evolutionists as well. Or do you prefer to ignore them, as they don’t in with your agenda? Because that is your methodology isn’t it? Just ignore anything that challenges your chosen fixed conclusion, and claim victory. Confirmation at its worst.”
Sounds like the consensus science of evolution but to paraphrase you, I don’t pretend it is the same thing as Christianity though. Because I am not an idiot, and I know better.
ADPLiar said: “Except for ALL the evidence for it, and the complete lack of any against it. But you don’t want to hear that.”
Not unless you actually GOT all that so called evidence for it.
So far, you got johnson pal and as far as the lack of evidence against it? Ha ha ha yeah and the fossil record has never disproven God either. Ther is a complete lack of evidence against the flying spaghetti monster existing too but only an idiot would propose that line of logic in a debate and is why I don’t explain my “line of logic” to idiots like you when you say the following:
” ADPLiar said: “Logically eh? Why not show me this line of logic then?”
Mine you won’t agree with because of the lack of understanding of logic I show as an example above. Yours isn’t logic so I won’t agree with it.
The basic difficulty in replying to “how” life arose lies within the inherent limits of human brain power. No matter how clever we are or how much advanced education we’ve absorbed, whether
theologian, scientist, philosopher, or New Age guru, we all think within the same box, a box delineated by a logic that can only envision qualities and quantities based on time-space-matter.
We can say the word “metaphysical,” meaning that which exists outside of the physical, but we cannot comprehend the metaphysical.
ADPLiar puked:” Really?! Show us the math then.”
Ok having God about God explaining it or shall I, because back in “1953, Stanley Miller, produced amino acids in a series of reactions that, started with inorganic compounds. In Miller’s experiment, the starting mixture contained those compounds that were assumed to be in the atmosphere and hydrosphere of the prebiotic earth.
The discovery by Miller that unguided reactions could yield amino acids was nothing less than sensational. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are the basic structures of life. Stanley Miller had discovered the key to the origin of life, pure and simple random reactions. Unfortunately, the hoopla was premature. Miller’s assumptions that the compounds he used were abundant on the prebiotic earth approximately four billion years ago turned out to be largely false.
But let’s be more conservative in our quest and accept that somehow life started and now we need that early form of life to mutate and climb step by step the fabled mountain of improbability. Mutations that are to be passed on to the next generation must occur in the genetic material, that is, in the DNA of the reproductive line. Such a mutation might result in a variant (mutated) protein that might produce a new effective organ, say, a system leading to a kidney or the precursor of a pump that might develop into a heart.
The neo-Darwinian concept of evolution claims the development of life resulted from random mutations in the DNA that yielded these varied organic structures. Some of the variations were beneficial, some not. The rigors of the environment selected for the beneficial changes and eliminated those that were detrimental. It’s a persuasively devised theory, but let’s look at that process rigorously, especially with the insights of molecular biology. The building blocks of all life are proteins. And proteins are precisely organized strings of amino acids. Information held in the DNA determines which and in what order the amino acids are formed to yield the end product, the protein. If the DNA mutates, we get a different amino acid and hence a different protein. And now comes the problem of random mutations in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
The genetic system of all life is totally coded. An example of a code would be the Morse code sounds “dot dot dot dash,” which look, sound, or seem nothing like the letter v for which they are code. If you didn’t know that the sequence of sounds “dot dot dot dash” represents a v, you wouldn’t have even a hint as to its meaning. That is one purpose of a code. And so it is with the information encoded on the DNA chromosomes.
The data on the strands of DNA (the chromosomes) in our cells contain that crucial amino acid and protein–building information as assorted groupings of four different nucleic acids. Nucleic acids have absolutely zero physical resemblance to either amino acids or proteins.
The information is totally coded.
In nature, this lack of similarity between code and final product ensures that there is no logical feedback from protein or amino acid to DNA. Information flow is one-way: DNA to amino acid to protein. New mutant variations of proteins arise through mutations (changes) in the sequencing order of the nucleic acids on the DNA with no physical hint of the final protein product.
These random, unguided mutations are the determining factors in gain or loss of that next generation.
In all known life, there are primarily twenty different amino acids. Stringing these twenty amino acids together in varied sequences produces varied proteins, just as intelligently stringing together the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet in varied sequences will produce varied sentences and sonnets. Scientific literature suggests that all of life is made from varied combinations of several hundred thousand proteins. Humans have in the order of eighty thousand proteins. (The estimated number of proteins in humans varies among laboratories reporting their results.) Other forms of life have different numbers of proteins.
But all life, whether animal, vegetable, microbial, or fungal, draws from the same “bag” of functional proteins.
That being the case, it is not surprising that we humans contain some of the same proteins found in plants and animals that are very different from us. Proteins, other than those within the cluster of those used by viable life, form by mutations on the DNA sequencing of nucleic acids. Cells actually have a highly sophisticated mechanism that checks for mutations early in the molecular progression that leads to protein formation. Upon discovery of a mutation, the molecule is either sent back for revamping or destroyed. But some mutations slip by the checkpoint. These may be either useful, neutral (adding no selective advantage for survival), or lethal. A painful example of a mutation leading to a lethal protein would be a mutation that becomes a precursor for cancer. So we have these few hundred thousand proteins that are viable in life. Others appear not to be. But let’s say we are off in our estimate. In place of a few hundred thousand viable proteins, let there be 100 million or a billion or even a trillion viable proteins.
And now to the crucial numbers.
An excellent review article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science compared the rates of point mutations in the genomes of forty mammal pairs with separations ranging from 5.5 to 100 million years ago. The observed rates of mutation were quite similar among all the animal pairs, averaging at 2.2 mutations per base pair per year.
This rate relates to point mutations, that is, alterations in the sequencing of the individual nucleic acids along the chromosomes of the DNA and not to sequence repetitions in which long strings of nucleic acids are replicated on the DNA. At this rate, the difference between humans and our closest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, would be approximately 30 million nucleic acids (base pair) differences, a number very similar to what is biologically measured.
Let me be transparent. I am not debating how a fin could mutate and eventually become a foot. Fins and feet have many structural elements, especially bones, in common. With a stretch of imagination, we can envision a series of changes, such as sequence repetitions, that would morph a fin into a foot. But how do random mutations initially produce the genetic information that would lead to the molecular structure of any sort of bone? Or muscles that eventually become the pumps that are prelude to a heart? Strings of proteins vary in length from a few hundred to a few thousand amino acids. Consider a relatively short protein, such as one 200 amino acids long. Into each of the 200 spaces along the protein any one of the 20 amino acids found in life can fall. That means the total number of possible combinations is 20 times 20 times 20 repeated 200 times.
The result is 20 to the power of 200, or ten to the power of 260 or a one with 260 zeros after it, or a billion billion billion repeated 29 times. From this vast biological grab bag of options, we are told that nature, by random chance mutations, has been able to form the few hundred thousand proteins useful to earthly life and upon which nature could exert its selective pressures.
Let us assume that the entire hydrosphere, all of the approximately 1.4 liters of water in all the oceans and icebergs and lakes on earth, was imbibed in biological cells each weighing a billionth of a gram. We would have had cells reproducing, mutating, actively moving this grand process of evolution. If each cell divided each and every second since the appearance of liquid water on earth some four billion years ago, the total number of mutations, or stated another way, the number of evolutionary trials, would be1050. Although vast, this number pales when compared with the 10 to the 260 power’s potential failing options for a single protein.
Hitting upon the useful combinations did not, and could not, and will not happen by chance parker
Simply put Parker, it is IMPOSSIBLE
You get that?
Here let’s reason together.
Okay, ready??
I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E
All biologists enamored with neo-Darwinian evolution know this truth.
Their hopeful reply goes along the line that, although we now have a DNA world, other worlds may have been possible, and DNA, being the first to form and survive, merely took over. Other systems might have used other types of proteins that we see as lethal or useless in today’s DNA world. There is no evidence that this is true; however, let us assume its truth.
Now we have the DNA-dominated world we know. And so we are back to the above calculations as the first form of life, a microbe, mutates and either advances or perishes as it starts to climb the mountain of improbability by random mutations on the DNA that in time will lead to kidneys, bones, liver, heart, eyes, brains, mind, sentience. It has to choose randomly from the vast hyperspace of
possible biological combinations the tiny fraction that are beneficial or at least neutral. Clearly there must be other factors that limit the types of mutations that can occur.
There are, but not as randomly as materialist biologists would have it. And that is the entire point.
Nature has the “INTENTION” to live so it DOES seem to have been “guided” and THAT unequivocally, absolutely, antithetical to Natural Selection and Mutation.
as for you silly coin toss and the process of elimination, you have to remember shit head,,
Probability doesn’t have memory
In other words shit for brains, the more tries you get, doesn’t make the odds any better, in fact they become worse when you consider what I told you before. Conditions and the right opportunity for life to happen have but a small window and chances are there is not one chance AT ALL that it could have happened without some intelligent guided influence. IE God being if you will, knowing you won’t doesn’t change the fact that is true. The only way it could happen is the way you refuse to acknowledge and that is YOUR problem,
not mine
So when people like you try explaining things in evolutionary terms, often they come off sounding more like educated morons rather than knowing simple truths that can be explained in one word
ADPLiar said: “It is tantamount to claiming to know the unknown.”
No it isn’t, it’s claiming I admit to something you can’t accept and God only knows why you’d have a problem with “claiming to know the unknown” when what you think you know is not knowable yet you call it a fact and the only fact you’ve proven,,
is that you,, don’t know DICK
That and that you’re a dumb ass and that science isn’t your forte’
Obviouosly
ADParker said,
December 1, 2010 at 7:50 am
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ADPLiar”
You realise that only makes you look like a childish tool, don’t you?
But as I always say; such petty little jibes say NOTHING about the target, but they speak volumes on the character on the ‘speaker.’
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“mumbled: “And theories don’t become facts,”.
You claim yours does “
That is a lie. I would never say such a thing. Because unlike you; I understand what ‘theory’, ‘fact’, and ‘law’ mean in the scientific context.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ADPLiar garbled: ” theories explain facts”
But that is EXACTLY what evolutionist have done ya fuckin moron. They have given what they consider to be plausible explanations for how life evolved and invariably end up calling those explanations FACTS.”
No. Try to grasp this simple point: “Theory” means “a robust explanation of certain facts (and prediction of more.)”
The theory of evolution is a set of explanations for the set of facts of evolution (Variation, mutations, changes in allele frequencies, observed genetics and morphologies of existing and extinct species etc. etc.) which also predicts what other facts should be found if it is accurate. The prediction of the future discovery of an organism with numerous very specific traits, which was confirmed perfectly by the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, being a fine example of such predictive power.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“That isn’t science pal, that is broad speculation based on individual interpretatation which I might as is so subjective and so subjected to a paradigm that MUST comply with evolutions theory or be cast out, labled a creationist. “
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Why are you suggesting that when evolution isn’t science. IT IS A PHILOSOPHY!”
You do realise that asserting that over and over doesn’t magically make it true, don’t you?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Regarding the DNA code? You got a problem with that or do you happen to know how else it could have happened. By cosmic coincedence too,, yeah explain that one to me please, I’d LOVE to hear your answer. “
False dilemma time is it?
If I can’t explain it, then it automatically follows that Magic-Man-Dun-It?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ADPLiar sputtered: “Are you forgetting that most life DOESN’T survive? That if it is design, then it is horribly inefficient design indeed.”
Hey pal, anytime you can create a universe and a sentient life from the dirt of the ground that is better designed,,, YOU GO GIRL! “
What does that wooberish have to do with anything, let alone what I said?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ADPLiar brain farted: “What frauds and hoax’s? Do you mean the few, so often repeated ad nauseum, that were subsequently disproved by the very evolutionary biologists that you are now insulting? ”
Not only are they NOT a few but fraud in science happens to be one of its most dire concerns jack ass. Or didn’t you get the memo? “
Queue you spouting THE EXACT few frauds and hoaxes that I referred to.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Lets start where Darwins theory really ended and who saved him and his theory from the brink of where it truly still belongs. Ill try to dumb this down for ya Parkie I know how you like to split hairs on minutia like correcting my definition for Darwinian Evolution yet MY definition was exactly what Dawkins used so Ill be sure to tell him how much smarter you are than he is.”
Except I never did any such thing. What are you on about? Do you even read what I write properly before ‘responding’?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ So to start, In order to come up with proof of evolution Haeckel”
Yes that one one of the few hoax canards I spoke of. You could at least have TRIED to come up with one of the many other examples you claimed existed.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ created drawings of the embryos of such living things as human beings, chickens and fish and placed them side by side. Yet there were distortions in these images. “
Yes, this is old news. In fact Haeckel himself admitted that he made a mistake and offered a corrected version – which wasn’t exactly correct either. His over-eager bias (desire to see evidence of his extreme hypothesis) causing him to distort them. Perhaps he actually remembered them that way (remember that he couldn’t just take a photograph back then, he relied on memory of seeing them,) or perhaps there was deliberate dishonesty as well.
Not that it matters any more. the claims to them being shown widespread in textbooks seems to be a gross distortion, as no evidence has been forthcoming. In fact actual photographs are often used instead. And more importantly Haeckel’s own hypothesis is NEVER espoused (except in a few texts in which it is offered as an example of an error overturned by evidence.) In fact it never really took hold – he went too far; yes there is embryonic evidence of shared ancestry etc., but not the full on development through different kinds that Haeckel imagined.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Today the whole Scientific world recognizes these as counterfeit. The structure shown as a “gill” by Haeckel is actually the beginning of the middle ear channel, the parathyroid and the thymus glands.”
Not that real scientists relied on his antiquated drawing anyway, so what’s your point/
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” had this to say:
“The impression they Haeckel’s drawings give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study. Reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos “often looked surprisingly different,” Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.
Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate Similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by Neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their Appearance and developmental pathway. “It (Haeckel’s drawings) looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology, “Haeckel’s confessions on this subject were covered up from the beginning of the Last century and how the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientific fact: Haeckel’s confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts
In short, the fact that Haeckel’s drawings were falsified had already emerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceived by them for a century with many new theories spun off this one falsehood.”
That all sounds very impressive Kent. One could be forgiven for assuming that you have really seriously studied and thought about this. Others like myself however, would sacrifice ~15seconds of their time to do a bit of a search, and find that you have just done a copy and paste from some Creationist apologetics website (like Darwinism Refuted or even that of that clown; Harun Yahya, or some such.) And then chose to plagiarise it, presenting it as if the words were your own. (Not criminal plagiarism though; because creationism apologists tend to welcome such dishonesty, just so long as it supports the spread of doctrine.)
So there is no real point in addressing all of that point by point, as you didn’t even write it. And I would not be at all surprised to find that you haven’t even read it all.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“A CENTURY! Imagine the advances in medicine and other areas of Science this long held and dogmatic belief in just this instance of Darwinian fraud, prevented.”
Non Sequitur. Even if some HIGH SCHOOL text books did continue showing them. Embryological science hardly relied on them. That is not how they operate.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“But Why?
To keep God dead and buried that’s why but not only that, it is the idea that we have had to listen to Atheists ridicule us for that long using fraud they themselves were so damn convinced was “evidence” when it was not and creationists were correct in challenging this so called evidence all this time as they are correct in demanding evolution be REMOVED as a theory, fact, law, what ever they claim it is this week, and kill it once and for all before it makes retards out of everyone in Medicine to Science of all fields. “
You really have no idea what you are talking about Kent. Haeckel’s hypothesis were NEVER a part of evolutionary theory. Such drawings may have been used as an aid to starting younger students on their first tentative steps into biological science. You would find a number of other deliberate ‘errors’ in such texts as well; as the real details are far too complex at that early stage.
High school science IS NOT the same thing as the science done by professional scientists.
And creationists never calimed that those drawings (or any other hoax/error thay love to spout off about) UNTIL real scientists discovered those faults. So don’t pretend that creationists were arguing anything of the sort BEFORE scientists had already done the works and found/fixed the problem.
And you are just being insanely naïve (or dishonest) in suggesting that the failure of Haeckel has ANY affect on the validity of the ToE (of which it was never a real part anyway) as a whole. That is just stupid.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ Piltdown man”
Oh look, your second example is YET ANOTHER of those tired old few canards, which I spoke of and you claimed there were far more. Funny that.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ took 47 years! 47! Before finally being taken for what it always was, a Fake a fraud, just one of the many created to keep this dead dumb theory alive”
41 one years actually. ‘Discovered’ in 1912, exposed as a forgery in 1953
And the REAL story is actually rather interesting:
The fossil was sold to a scientist, who sold it to a museum. Making claims about it that were challenged from the start.
That museum curator (who was not a scientist) were so over-excited to be the one to have the VERY FIRST non-human hominid fossil ever discovered. So much so that they sealed it away, and wouldn’t let ANYONE examine it properly. Only allowing, even the professional palaeontologists, viewing through the glass, from back behind a guarded rope barrier.
The palaeontologists complained, but he museum owned it, and they refused to budge. Refused to allow anyone to touch their precious exhibit – at least until a new specimen was unearthed.
Over the next few years more and more different fossils were found. So palaeontologists tried to devise a Phylogenetic tree of all those finds. There they ran into an apparently insurmountable problem; none of them could make such a tree that worked with all the data (from the fossils, their ages, morphologies etc.) Either it all went to Hel, or it worked except for that pesky Piltdown Man. What limited information they had did not fit, it’s age and/or features did not fit anywhere. So none of them published.
But finally the museum (and new curator who was a scientist this time,) what with all the new fossils etc., agreed to allow their first fossil to be examined. And IMMEDIATELY it was exposed as the hoax that it was. And suddenly all the real data (the many fossils) fitted in PERFECTLY within the theory of evolution, PERFECTLY! And the palaeontologists rejoiced.
This was a case of an eventual evolutionary biology success story:
Some kept the fossil from proper scientific examination, thus hiding the evidence of the hoax (the parts didn’t really fit as claimed, nor did they date at the same ages) leaving them with a limited set of data, which gave an impression that did not fit in with any of the subsequent evidence of other finds. When the hoax was exposed, this VALIDATED the theory of evolution, and all the other data fit in perfectly with the theory.
And all too typically creationists claim this, which validated evolutionary theory, as a win for them, somehow!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“This is one of the reasons I absolutely laugh when someone suggests I need to learn more about the way evolution works.”
And this is why you will never have the tools to challenge the theory seriously; you can’t disprove what you don’t understand.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Haeckel was given many posthumous awards for his work”
Really?
All I know of is one award that he received while alive. And well deserved; he actually did some decent science, beyond this one single instance.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“To keep Atheism’s advancement going while making fools out of a generations of students in public schools and they say”
Oh stop conflating atheism with the theory of evolution already. It only exposes your wilful ignorance.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Intelligent design will bring science back to the Stone Age? “
Nah, I doubt it will get anywhere.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“They say intelligent design has no proof? Not if you have to manufacture it. “
That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“ “ADPLiar said: Some do. They just don’t make the mistake of thinking, let alone claiming, that they are doing evolutionary biology when they are”
When they are what?”
Can you not read? When they are talking about abiogenesis.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“It is either your magic or our God.”
Magic IS your god.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Not really, I understand why you are not proving evolution and it is the same reason I wouldn’t bother proving to an atheist, a God exists. I’m ok with your not believing in what is obvious and understand your denial of it quite well actually. It is impossible to prove evolution however and I understand that.”
Oh, how many times have I heard a theist claim that they can prove their god exists, but either say that they choose not to, or avoid doing as they claimed they would in the following discussion.
Why is that? As far as I can tell it is because they are lying.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Why wouldn’t it be? You claim something even more outrageous is a fact”
No I am not.
I am not claiming that the entire theory of evolution is a fact. It isn’t; it’s a theory.
And NOTHING is more outrageous that your assertion of a complex magic-man existing before and beyond time and space, capable of creating the entire universe yadda yadda yadda…
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“As if that would get you to change your mind ha ha.”
Not if, as you lot invariably do as you have done: Avoid providing the evidence you claim you have.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“your anti religious bigotry”
That is an excellent way to avoid the difficult questions, dismiss them out of hand.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“I guess you’ll have to continue using science to justify your anti religious bigotry the way you have been.”
You are the one who keeps conflating the theory of evolution with atheism, not me.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Mine you won’t agree with because of the lack of understanding of logic I show as an example above. Yours isn’t logic so I won’t agree with it.”
Which only goes to show that you don’t even understand what logic is.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Ok having God about God explaining it or shall I, because back in “1953, Stanley Miller, produced amino acids in a series of reactions that, started with inorganic compounds. In Miller’s experiment, the starting mixture contained those compounds that were assumed to be in the atmosphere and hydrosphere of the prebiotic earth.
The discovery by Miller that unguided reactions could yield amino acids was nothing less than sensational. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are the basic structures of life. Stanley Miller had discovered the key to the origin of life, pure and simple random reactions. Unfortunately, the hoopla was premature. Miller’s assumptions that the compounds he used were abundant on the prebiotic earth approximately four billion years ago turned out to be largely false.”
What the hel was that about? Do you actually think it had anything to do with what I said?!
Don’t forget how the experiments have been repeated many times, with what now seem to be the right conditions; which has led to EVEN BETTER results.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“The neo-Darwinian concept of evolution claims the development of life resulted from random mutations in the DNA…”
Yawn. And where are you copying this apologetic piffle from (again without citation) this time? Here perhaps?”
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/64069232.html
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Hitting upon the useful combinations did not, and could not, and will not happen by chance parker”
Who said anything abut chance numbnuts?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Simply put Parker, it is IMPOSSIBLE
You get that? “
Yes I got it; you can’t think for yourself.
You post crap from apologetics sites as if it was your own work.
You have ZERO understanding of evolutionary biology or mathematics.
You uncritically anything that comes from sources that champion you religious dogmas.
…
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Here let’s reason together.”
I don’t think you have the tools to join in sorry. But hey; perhaps you can find some other creotard website to do your reasoning for you?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Okay, ready??
I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E”
You think spelling out a word (relating to complete and utter bullshit assertions) counts as reasoning?!
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“Probability doesn’t have memory”
Well duh. What does that have to do with anything?
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“In other words shit for brains, the more tries you get, doesn’t make the odds any better, in fact they become worse when you consider what I told you before.:
Dumbass.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“So when people like you try explaining things in evolutionary terms, often they come off sounding more like educated morons rather than knowing simple truths that can be explained in one word
Watched it. It’s stupid. A fine example of how religious zealots prefer easy cop-out answer, than actual explanation.
Kent Perry, AZ. said:
“No it isn’t, it’s claiming I admit to something you can’t accept and God only knows why you’d have a problem with “claiming to know the unknown” when what you think you know is not knowable yet you call it a fact and the only fact you’ve proven,”
Gibberish.