Thursday, July 8, 2010

Whitewashing Evolution

The Understanding Evolution for Teachers website makes the usual claim that evolution is a fact, but because that is undefendable it is first careful to redefine evolution.

Evolutionists face a dilemma. They cannot forfeit their dogma that evolution is a fact, but when confronted with even a Biology 101 student's questions the claim quickly is shown to be false. Of that there is absolutely no question.

Readers may wonder how I can know it is false. Is this not yet more dogma? The evolutionist spouts his dogma, and the skeptic retorts with his counter dogma. Isn't this the same old he said she said of the origins debate?

No, we need to be careful. I am not saying evolution is absolutely false, I am saying the claim it is a fact is absolutely false. Whether or not evolution (and in what flavor) occurred is a question of distant history. Whether or not evolution is a fact is a question of our current level of knowledge.

I try not to be dogmatic about ancient history, especially when dealing with underdetermined questions. But it is not dogmatic to point out that evolution is not a fact. In fact, it would be dishonest to say otherwise.

The consensus, indeed overwhelming, position within evolutionary thought is that evolution is a fact, or beyond a shadow of a doubt, or highly compelling, or ... well, pick your favorite superlative, it probably has been used by evolutionists.

But evolution is not a fact, and that is a fact, no question about it. Evolutionists attempts to support their claim are, frankly, downright silly. Evolution may be true, but it is not true that we know it is true--far from it.

And so increasingly evolutionists are resorting to whitewashing their claim. They cannot admit it is not a fact, so they quietly switch shells. Suddenly evolution is not the idea that the species have evolved one from another. It is no longer mutations and other happenstance mechanisms creating incredibly complex designs.

Instead, evolution is now merely change over time. Over eons of time life has changed, that's it, that's evolution these days. As the Understanding Evolution for Teachers website put it:

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

Of course once the new convert is won, then the definition quickly reverts to what we all know evolution really to mean. Call it an equivocation, an obfuscation, or whatever, this is simply a dishonest whitewash. It is a debating trick that evolutionists are increasingly using to avoid their own absurdity.

The website is ostensibly a pedagogical tool, but in fact it is a lie.

170 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the other hand, we do know of one overwhelming historical fact (for those of us who do not dogmatically adhere to a naturalistic worldview): the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Author of History of Rome and former appointee to the chair of Modern History at Oxford, Thomas Arnold, and others, concur:

    "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

    http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

    Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius,

    It seems that you are talking about the Berkeley site on evolution. Predictably, you fail to provide a link, so here it is. Anyone can go there and see that the site goes into a comprehensive discussion of evolution.

    For example, the page An introduction to evolution directly contradicts your straw man:

    The definition
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

    The explanation
    Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

    The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.


    Quote mining is a bad habit, Cornelius. For shame.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OK, I take it back that you failed to link to the site. The charge of quote mining stays.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius -

    Again, 'evolution' means several different things. In a biological sense it can just mean 'change in inherited traits of a population through successive generations over time' or it can be shorthand for 'the theory of evolution through natural selection'.

    I hope you would agree that using the first definition, it is in fact the case that evolution IS a fact. Alleles DO, in fat, change over time.

    However, the theory of evolution through natural selection is indeed, 'just a theory'. And theories themselves are not facts. However, the point that you are missing is that this is a titanically well-supported theory (according to some, one of the best supported theory in science). And, let's be honest here - the reason you rage against it so much is because you don't want it to be true!

    The reason so many people in America are so deeply entrenched on this issue is because of the pernicious influence of ID institutions (such as the Discovery Institute, of which, I notice, you are a Fellow) which insists that their utterly religious and dogmatic account of the natural world be treated as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution though natural selection, which does not (shock, horror) necessitate, or suggest evidence for, a God.

    It is perfectly reasonable to critically analyse and re-examine theories. That's science just for you. But it is also science to do so objectively and with a sound understanding of what it is you are actually studying - neither of which you really demonstrate.

    Bryan -

    Haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

    Good one!

    If there is so much evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then perhaps you would like to present some? Because as far as I know, this 'evidence' consists entirely of a few anonymous accounts written in the third person by people who do not even claim to be eye-witnesses, which were built on each other, contain magical events, and are utterly unsupported by external historical evidence, even (or perhaps 'especially) where such evidence might be expected...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bryan,

    The resurrection is not a fact. A wonderful and fair scholar like R. Joseph Hoffmann lays out the real deal, which is:

    [T]he sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus.

    I don't want to de-rail this thread, so if you want to discuss feel free to visit: http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/06/historical-jesus-man-who-was-buried.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.


    Strange that they didn't put anything about blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Why are tney hiding that?

    The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

    ID does argue against Universal Common Descent.

    IOW the definition is meaningless.

    And that is part of the problem...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ritchie:
    However, the point that you are missing is that this is a titanically well-supported theory (according to some, one of the best supported theory in science).

    How can it be supported when it cannot even produce a testable hypothesis?

    ID and YEC accept that allele frequency can change over time.

    So that must mean that they can also be taught in schools' biology classes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joe G


    How can it be supported when it cannot even produce a testable hypothesis?


    It produces many. What specific mechanism of evolutionary change would you like a testable hypothesis for?


    ID and YEC accept that allele frequency can change over time.

    So that must mean that they can also be taught in schools' biology classes.


    The proposition that alleles are changed by invisible imps toying around with DNA in the womb explains the change in alleles over time.

    The proposition that alleles are changed by the wishful thinking of the parents explains the change in alleles over time.

    The proposition that alleles are changed according to the previous life of the soul of the developing foetus in the womb explains the change in alleles over time.

    The proposition that alleles are changed deliberately by a God deliberately intervening in nature explains the change in alleles over time.

    The proposition that alleles are changed deliberately by a Flying Spaghetti Monster deliberately intervening in nature explains the change in alleles over time.

    Should all these be taught in schools' biology classes?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The website is ostensibly a pedagogical tool, but in fact it is a lie.

    Ah - like this one?

    ReplyDelete
  11. How can it be supported when it cannot even produce a testable hypothesis?

    Ritchie:
    It produces many.

    Not one based on blind, undirected chemical processes- the proposed mechanism.

    ID and YEC accept that allele frequency can change over time.

    So that must mean that they can also be taught in schools' biology classes.


    Ritchie:
    The proposition that alleles are changed by invisible imps toying around with DNA in the womb explains the change in alleles over time.

    Nice strawman.

    Is that all you have?

    Geez Rtitchie why do you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan Dennet tells us there is no way to predict what will be selected at any point in time.

    And it is a given that we cannot predict what mutation will occur at any point in time.

    IOW all "evolution" can produce are general "predeictions" which could also be used to support alternative scenarios.

    The same goes for testable hypotheses- not one produced by the ToE excludes all alternatives.

    I can take any "evolutionary" hypothesis and use it to support ID and/ or convergence...

    ReplyDelete
  13. The proposition that alleles are changed via blind, undirected chemical processes cannot be tested Ritchie.

    So we should remove that part from all biology discussions in school classrooms, right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ritchie:
    The reason so many people in America are so deeply entrenched on this issue is because of the pernicious influence of ID institutions (such as the Discovery Institute, of which, I notice, you are a Fellow) which insists that their utterly religious and dogmatic account of the natural world be treated as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution though natural selection, which does not (shock, horror) necessitate, or suggest evidence for, a God.

    Just how is ID a religious account?

    ID does not say who/ how/ when/ where to worship.

    ID is not about any "God".

    ID is not based on any religious text.

    So Ritchie why do you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

    ReplyDelete
  15. ID and YEC allows for chamges in genes via random mutations after creation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. oleg:

    "It seems that you are talking about the Berkeley site on evolution. Predictably, you fail to provide a link, so here it is. Anyone can go there and see that the site goes into a comprehensive discussion of evolution. [...] Quote mining is a bad habit, Cornelius. For shame."

    No Oleg, what is predictable is your false assertions. Why would you say "Predictably" I failed to provide a link? You seem to be in search of blame rather than thinking objectively about the topic. Aside from the fact that I did provide a link, my posts normally do provide links. So why would you say "Predictably"? Even if there was no link, it would not be typical. Unfortunately this is all too typical of evolutionists. It's difficult to have a reasoned discussion. The reason, of course, is that we're not merely talking about a dry scientific theory with nothing at stake for evolutionists. This is not science, and I hope no one out there measures the state of the evidence according to evolutionsist's knee jerks.

    Your other point about quote mining is equally erroneous. My point was not that evolutioinsts have changed the fundamental definition of their theory--I explicitly said they have not. My point is that when it comes to the absurd claim that evolution is a fact, the definition is mysteriously whitewashed. It is a lie that evolution is a fact--you are living a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Larry,

    Just a point about the resurrection. The New Testament is historically sound and dates back to the first century. To deny that and the existence of Jesus is nonsense. Why? Because the evidence and confirmation of it is right out there for an honest inquirer. Being a literary man perhaps you have read CS Lewis?

    Back to evolution...

    Honest evolutionists should be troubled by contradictions to its theory in the fossil record. The Avalon and Cambrian explosion to start with. But they would prefer to fall back to saying the fossil record is incomplete or punctuated equilibrium did it. So its always have a just so story no matter how far fetched because other evidence is so compelling. Then you look at the "other" evidence and it too is based on another just so story or speculation.

    I found that the theory of evolution is like a huge onion. The size of the onion is somewhat intimidating at first. However, as the honest inquirer begins to peel the layers in search of the compelling evidence for evolution you eventually peel the last layer off and find you are left with empty rhetoric and tautology.

    It is a whitewash as CH said.

    That living cells possess complex digital information is a fact. It has never been shown that natural chemical processes can originate this complex information. Naturalists hold out that some bizarre twist of nature has converged in an infinitely improbably magic moment to do it. More likely that lightning strikes and earthquakes would produce an exact replica of Mount Rushmore.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neal Tedford: The New Testament is historically sound and dates back to the first century. To deny that and the existence of Jesus is nonsense.

    Evidence of the Gospels dates to the late 1st century, but analysis of the text indicates an even earlier common source for at least some of the material. Positing a historical Jesus is not unreasonable. Criticism of this position is hardly nonsense, though.

    Neal Tedford: Honest evolutionists should be troubled by contradictions to its theory in the fossil record.

    You've criticized Common Descent, but never seem to want to discuss the evidence that the vast majority of scientists considered conclusive, the nested hierarchy of morphology, genomics, embryonics, biogeography, and fossils in time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joe G


    Nice strawman.

    Is that all you have?


    The point I was making which apparently you missed, is that not every 'explanation of the facts' is equally valid to be taught in science classes. These explanations have to be SCIENTIFIC - which disqualifies ID right there, but not evolution.


    The proposition that alleles are changed via blind, undirected chemical processes cannot be tested Ritchie.

    So we should remove that part from all biology discussions in school classrooms, right?


    No, not at all. Apparently the specific part of the theory of evolution which you want a testable hypothesis for is that random mutations are caused by 'blind undirected processes'. But in real terms you are asking us to prove a negative - you are asking for evidence that these mutations are NOT deliberately caused.

    You do not prove a negative - it is all but impossible. Nevertheless, it is the reasonable DEFAULT position unless there is evidence of intelligent direction (which you have claimed there is, but have produced none).


    Just how is ID a religious account?

    ID does not say who/ how/ when/ where to worship.

    ID is not about any "God".

    ID is not based on any religious text.


    You can say that as often as you like, and Lord knows, ID proponents like to trumpet it. But let's be honest for a moment - no-one's ACTUALLY buying it. ID is an attempt to read evidence for a deity in nature, and it's a pretty feeble one at that. The insistence that this 'designer' ISN'T God, but some OTHER totally anonymous supremely powerful, supremely knowledgable, benevolent, creative being capable of miracles is rather comical, but let's face it, it's fooling no-one.

    Neal Tedford -


    The New Testament is historically sound and dates back to the first century. To deny that and the existence of Jesus is nonsense.


    I flatter myself I'm pretty well read on the historical evidence for Jesus, and it wouldn't stand up to a slight breeze. There are NO first-hand testimonials (except, allegedly, the gospels, which are historically unsound for a whole heap of reasons). The evidence (such as it is, for it is often extremely poor) only starts decades after Jesus' supposed death and much better follows the pattern of a myth that came to be believed. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt the existence of Jesus completely - but especially the miracle-performing son-of-God version.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zachriel,

    You've criticized Common Descent, but never seem to want to discuss the evidence that the vast majority of scientists considered conclusive, the nested hierarchy of morphology, genomics, embryonics, biogeography, and fossils in time"

    Sure I have. The nested hierarchy of species seems to be pretty popular with the evolutionists here and I have discussed it. Theobald in his 29 evidences said that cusped teeth in fish would be a falsification of nested hierarchy. I brought out the pacu fish as a example. It was pointed out by Thorton that Theobald made a error but that doesn't falsify his evidence.

    A theory that cannot make accurate predictions is not a good theory. You guys keep drawing target circles after the observation is accommodated and erasing the target circles if a falsification is made.

    CH is right, it is a shell game with you guys. It is like playing a hammer heads game. You hit one with falsification and another pops up. You hit that one and the first one pops up again.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ritchie,

    Your last post would convince even the most hardened skeptic that religion does not drive evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry, Cornelius, but that excuse won't work. Here is what you wrote in the opening post:

    Instead, evolution is now merely change over time. Over eons of time life has changed, that's it, that's evolution these days. As the Understanding Evolution for Teachers website put it:

    You then provided a quote from Understanding Evolution and continued:

    Of course once the new convert is won, then the definition quickly reverts to what we all know evolution really to mean. Call it an equivocation, an obfuscation, or whatever, this is simply a dishonest whitewash. It is a debating trick that evolutionists are increasingly using to avoid their own absurdity.

    This is completely made up. The Berkeley website does no such bait and switch. It explains in no uncertain terms that

    Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

    Admit that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Neal Tedford -


    Your last post would convince even the most hardened skeptic that religion does not drive evolution.


    Why thanks, Neal! Not that I really need to make the point. It is obvious enough to anyone not fooling themselves for the sake of their own RELIGIOUS beliefs (a bit like the evidence for a historical Jesus on that score, then).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Neal Tedford: The nested hierarchy of species seems to be pretty popular with the evolutionists here and I have discussed it. Theobald in his 29 evidences said that cusped teeth in fish would be a falsification of nested hierarchy. I brought out the pacu fish as a example. It was pointed out by Thorton that Theobald made a error but that doesn't falsify his evidence.

    Are you denying that the nested hierarchy is strongly supported for most taxa?

    The correlation is not 100% — nor is it posited to be—, and it usually takes a number of traits to form a valid hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm a little confused about this nested hierarchy thing. We classify organisms into groups based on characteristics. But the groups are put into larger groups that had a common ancestor. That common ancestor straddled the border between groups. For example we put dogs into one group because of their doglike traits. Cats are put in another group. Yet dogs and cats are both carnivores, so they had a common ancestor at some point. That common ancestor had both dog and cat like traits, so it would cross boundaries. Alternatively it had traits of neither cats nor dogs, so where would we put it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. natschuster:

    A good starting point would be to look for some infos on Miacids.

    Have fun!

    ReplyDelete
  28. natschuster: That common ancestor had both dog and cat like traits, so it would cross boundaries. Alternatively it had traits of neither cats nor dogs, so where would we put it?

    Not quite. Dogs and cats have *derived* traits. In other words, they inherited a set of traits from their common carnivoran ancestor, then diverged into their present forms.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Nat, you're really confused, and I appreciate your honesty in admitting to it.

    Given your confusion, how can you reach any strong conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  30. More epic failures from the evolution website:

    //Randomness and evolution
    Variation is random, selection usually is not.//

    Yet Shapiro writes:

    "hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering;"

    And b), it's irrelevant if selection [preservation] was non-random, [if evolution was true] it means that the processes that have to produce what is then later selected is still random mutation. Selection does nothing to change this randomness.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ritchie:
    Apparently the specific part of the theory of evolution which you want a testable hypothesis for is that random mutations are caused by 'blind undirected processes'. But in real terms you are asking us to prove a negative - you are asking for evidence that these mutations are NOT deliberately caused.

    Wrong again, as usual.

    I am asking you for POSITIVE evidence for your position.

    Just how is ID a religious account?

    ID does not say who/ how/ when/ where to worship.

    ID is not about any "God".

    ID is not based on any religious text.



    You can say that as often as you like, and Lord knows, ID proponents like to trumpet it. But let's be honest for a moment - no-one's ACTUALLY buying it.

    No one on a fact-free anti-ID agenda anyway.

    ID is an attempt to read evidence for a deity in nature, and it's a pretty feeble one at that.

    No it isn't.

    The insistence that this 'designer' ISN'T God, but some OTHER totally anonymous supremely powerful, supremely knowledgable, benevolent, creative being capable of miracles is rather comical, but let's face it, it's fooling no-one.

    It doesn't have to be and even it is is then science has to deal with it.

    However ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer.

    IOW you are nothing but a fool with an agenda...

    ReplyDelete
  32. oleg you are wrong my friend, the website says:

    "At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

    Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

    The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

    lol oh my sack! I cannot believe this is actually university material!! :P

    ReplyDelete
  33. Page 34 The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49


    Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura,
    the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex
    than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic
    systematization or Linnaean classification.


    Evolution does NOT predict a nested hierarchy

    ReplyDelete
  34. smokey:
    Nat, you're really confused, and I appreciate your honesty in admitting to it.

    The confusion is due to your continued lies...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Zachriel:
    You've criticized Common Descent, but never seem to want to discuss the evidence that the vast majority of scientists considered conclusive, the nested hierarchy of morphology, genomics, embryonics, biogeography, and fossils in time.

    Seeing that a nested hierarchy of morphology is not expected from evolutionary processes it cannot be used as evidence for them.

    Embryonics- well what scientists still use that?

    Fossils? They can only tell us what died and was fossilized.

    IOW your "evidence" is pretty weak....

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Cornelius Hunter

    Maybe you could clarify. Do you only take objection if scientist say “the theory of evolution is a fact” or already if the portray the theory of evolution to be a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  37. johan:

    "And b), it's irrelevant if selection [preservation] was non-random, [if evolution was true] it means that the processes that have to produce what is then later selected is still random mutation. Selection does nothing to change this randomness."

    I suppose every process can be regarded as a random process, deterministic processes being special limiting cases. However, if I randomly toss coins and deterministically select only the heads, I dare say the resulting sequence of heads will not be regarded as random by too many observers.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ritchie,

    Do you think that your religious views have strongly prejudiced you towards evolution? That is certainly the impression I get from your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ritchie,

    The men who formed Nazi ideology "weren't reading the Gospels, they were reading Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Father Tedford,

    The Nazis singled out the Jewish "Christ-killers" for destruction because Jew-killing had been a favorite Christian hobby for hundreds of years, since way before Darwin. The Nazis just scaled it up a bit, being such efficient industrialists. Christianity is >99% to blame for the holocaust. How can you still believe your imaginary God is so "good", if he allowed that to happen?

    ReplyDelete
  41. So how would we classify the common ancestor of dogs and cats? Would it form another group, separate from dogs and cats? And what if it somehow survived as a living fossil?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Troy:

    Please don't make me cut a paste passages from "Mein Kampf" where Hitler spelled out his believe in evolution and his approach to conventional Christianity. He took a purely utilitarian approach towards religion.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Vol 1, Chapter XI. and Vol. 2, Chapters IV and V are the relevant chapters.

    And the first chapter of Hitler's second book is pretty conventional evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  44. natschuster:

    "So how would we classify the common ancestor of dogs and cats? Would it form another group, separate from dogs and cats? And what if it somehow survived as a living fossil?"

    A common ancestor of dogs and cats would be a single species, but it is unlikely that this particular species would have left fossils. However, in theory it is possible that a common ancestor X of dogs and cats gave rise to a lineage that eventually split into dogs and cats while X survived quite unchanged to this day. Probably didn't happen though.

    ReplyDelete
  45. troy,

    Richard Dawkins said "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

    I contend that mass murder might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled mass murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nat:

    "Please don't make me cut a paste passages from "Mein Kampf" where Hitler spelled out his believe in evolution and his approach to conventional Christianity. He took a purely utilitarian approach towards religion. "

    Please do cut a passage where Hitler refers to Darwin's work.

    Sure, Hitler utilized Christian antisemitism quite effectively. And this has what to do with the scientific support for evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Neal,
    So were the crusaders intellectually fulfilled mass murderers? including the ones that massacred Jews?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hitler didn't reference Darwin by name, but he does use fairly conventional evolutionary.

    And this, of course does not invalidate evolution as a scientific theory. I was responding to the point made above that Hitler was motivated by Christianity. I disagree. I feel that the evidence shows that Hitler's core belief system was evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Father Tedford:

    "I contend that mass murder might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled mass murderer."

    Mass murder was more than just logically tenable before Darwin, it actually happened a lot before Darwin. Mostly inspired by religion. Few if any wars have managed to kill a greater proportion of the populace as the religious wars in Europe. Catholics vs protestants. Perpetrated by "intellectually fulfilled" Christians.

    Mass murder of Jews has always been a spiel of Christians. cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nat:

    "Hitler didn't reference Darwin by name, but he does use fairly conventional evolutionary."

    He just forgot to mention his main source of inspiration in his "magnum opus". That makes sense.

    "And this, of course does not invalidate evolution as a scientific theory."

    I'm glad we agree on this.

    "I was responding to the point made above that Hitler was motivated by Christianity. I disagree. I feel that the evidence shows that Hitler's core belief system was evolution."

    Feel what you like. I guess it's just a lucky coincidence that Hitler's hatred of Jews was shared by so many Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  51. For most of history Christians who persecuted Jews did so because of the Jew's beliefs. They were happy to accept Jews who converted to Christianity. Hitler's hatred was based on race, or genetics. This did not allow for conversion.

    ReplyDelete
  52. nat,
    "They were happy to [not kill] Jews who converted to Christianity."
    well that was certainly nice of them.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nat:

    "For most of history Christians who persecuted Jews did so because of the Jew's beliefs. They were happy to accept Jews who converted to Christianity. Hitler's hatred was based on race, or genetics. This did not allow for conversion."

    Sorry, I forgot that killing based on religious beliefs is morally superior to killing based on unfounded racial beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  54. You wind up killing less, since you don't kill those who convert.

    And motives are often taken into account in making moral judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Neal Tedford, on another thread you claimed this

    Neal Tedford said...

    Are you aware of the fact that genetic testing validates the premise for Noah and his family?


    But you bailed out when several people asked to to provide this genetic evidence.

    You also bailed out on your claim to have proof that evolution was mathematically impossible.

    Why do you tell these blatant lies then run away? Do you think you're serving your God by lying for Him? Do you think you're setting a good example for other Christians who may be reading this with your blatant lying?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Joe G -


    Wrong again, as usual.

    I am asking you for POSITIVE evidence for your position.


    Positive evidence to test a negative hypothesis. Still doesn't work!


    It doesn't have to be and even it is is then science has to deal with it.


    The thing is, there's really not a lot for science to deal WITH, is there? Where are the scientific articles supporting ID?


    However ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer.


    You cannot have design without a designer.


    IOW you are nothing but a fool with an agenda...


    Takes one to know one, as they say.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Neal Tedford -


    Do you think that your religious views have strongly prejudiced you towards evolution?


    I don't think so. I accepted evolution even when I was a Christian. There are theistic biologists about. The thory of evolution does not stem from an atheistic worldview. However I find it hard to see how ID can stem from anything other than a theistic worldview...


    The men who formed Nazi ideology "weren't reading the Gospels, they were reading Darwin.


    Eugenics is an extension of artificial selection, which has been accepted for centuries. Eugenics goes hand-in-hand with colonialsim, racism, and ideas of 'superior races' and racial purity. Natural selection shows us that 'superior races' are a misnoma and 'racial purity' is all but impossible and in any case undesirable.

    Though I find it hard to see how you so roundly condemn genocide when it is explicitly sanctioned in the Bible. If you are so outraged by the genocide the Nazis committed, are you equally outraged by the ones directly ordered, or at least sanctioned, by Yahweh?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ritchie said...

    Though I find it hard to see how you so roundly condemn genocide when it is explicitly sanctioned in the Bible. If you are so outraged by the genocide the Nazis committed, are you equally outraged by the ones directly ordered, or at least sanctioned, by Yahweh?


    Roger that. Did you ever see this list? Someone counted up all the people killed by God in the Bible.

    How many has God killed?

    The total not even counting Noah's Flood is almost 2.4 million.

    Toss in the several hundred thousand men, women, children, and babies who died a painful death by drowning in Da Flud due to the mercy of the Benevolent All-Loving One and you get around 3 million

    Man, that's a lot of dead bodies to bloat and decay! I bet the OT earth must have stunk to high heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Nat wrote:
    "Hitler didn't reference Darwin by name, but he does use fairly conventional evolutionary. "

    How would you know, Nat? You clearly don't have a clue about conventional evolutionary theory. He mentions God infinitely more often.

    Tell me how this is conventional evolutionary whatever:
    "But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today."

    That's conventional creationist hooey. Hitler was one of you.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Eugenics is an extension of artificial selection, which has been accepted for centuries.

    Eugenicists did not view themselves as doing anything artificial anymore than "naturalists" ever view their science as unnatural. It is all natural and they are the most natural of all. Whatever is natural is generally said to come about as a result of natural selection by the sort of congenital imbeciles who want to crawl back into the womb of Mother Nature. Your assertion that eugenics is or was viewed as "artificial" instead of a perfectly natural result of evolution and progress is ignorant. That's why eugenics was generally supported by naturalists who had a fetish for what they thought was "natural" based on Darwinian pseudo-science.

    Eugenics goes hand-in-hand with colonialsim, racism, and ideas of 'superior races'...

    Historically Darwinism went hand-in-hand with colonialism because it was a pseudo-scientific projection of Malthusian economics onto biology.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You pointed out that evolution's position as changed overtime. So it isn't dogma then? Dogma refers to an inerrant, entrenched, unchangeable belief. So if what we say about evolution changes as our knowledge changes then that's just good science.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I do wish the IDiots here would realize that no matter what Hitler used for personal motivations, whether he prayed to Jesus every night or wore Darwin pajamas and slept with a copy of OOS under his pillow, wouldn't have one teeny iota of bearing on the scientifically established validity of the theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Roger that. Did you ever see this list? Someone counted up all the people killed by God in the Bible.

    How many has God killed?

    The total not even counting Noah's Flood is almost 2.4 million.

    Toss in the several hundred thousand men, women, children, and babies who died a painful death by drowning in Da Flud due to the mercy of the Benevolent All-Loving One and you get around 3 million

    Man, that's a lot of dead bodies to bloat and decay! I bet the OT earth must have stunk to high heaven.


    Is that it? Wow, he killed less in thousands of years than modern 'civilized' countries did in World War II in 4 years. I guess he's not as good as killing as we are.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I do wish the IDiots here would realize that no matter what Hitler used for personal motivations, whether he prayed to Jesus every night or wore Darwin pajamas and slept with a copy of OOS under his pillow, wouldn't have one teeny iota of bearing on the scientifically established validity of the theory of evolution.

    I would agree that what one person(or many) believes has no bearing on what is true.... and I can't picture him in Darwin pyjamas.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Fil said...

    Is that it? Wow, he killed less in thousands of years than modern 'civilized' countries did in World War II in 4 years. I guess he's not as good as killing as we are.


    But percentage-wise his score was the top of the charts. He brutally murdered everyone on the planet - children, babies, pregnant women - except for a lucky eight, right? That's batting .999999

    Good thing he's a "loving, caring" God, or else he would have offed everyone. No wonder you guys are scared spitless of him.

    ReplyDelete
  66. No wonder you guys are scared spitless of him.

    Who's scared? I love him. You saying those peole during the Flood had no chance? Try reading the account again. I'll be back tomorrow to see if you actually did or are just reciting hatred from memory.

    ReplyDelete
  67. 當一個人內心能容納兩樣相互衝突的東西,這個人便開始變得有價值了。............................................................

    ReplyDelete
  68. I do wish the IDiots here would realize that no matter what Hitler used for personal motivations, whether he prayed to Jesus every night or wore Darwin pajamas and slept with a copy of OOS under his pillow, wouldn't have one teeny iota of bearing on the scientifically established validity of the theory of evolution.

    There is no singular theory of evolution that has been specified and then falsified or verified.

    Your argument seems to make use of the myth of purely objective knowledge (the divorce of subject and object) typical to psychopaths and Nazis themselves.

    Yet what great physicist was also a serial killer?

    It seems that the reason that biologists/"scientists" have always reacted with outrage whenever the clear historical connections between Darwinism and Nazism are pointed out is because everyone knows that knowledge is unified. Advancing science relies on civilization so it should come as no surprise that the decline of civilization is linked to pseudo-science and ignorance. After all, if you seek to separate the individual subject from objective reality in the name of pure "science" then you have the same goal as psychopaths, serial killers and other enemies of civilization.

    E.g.
    If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance.
    (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
    Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
    by Max Weinreich
    (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)


    The Darwinian mind cannot even begin to grasp its own mendacity. The reality of sentience and language and their link to and impact on the physical world are the equivalent of an illusion or "magic" to it, so it cannot begin to have knowledge of its own ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Fil said...

    No wonder you guys are scared spitless of him.

    Who's scared? I love him. You saying those peole during the Flood had no chance? Try reading the account again. I'll be back tomorrow to see if you actually did or are just reciting hatred from memory


    What chance did the little children and babies have Fil? What chance did the unborn still in their mother's womb have? Were they evil and wicked and deserved to die?

    BTW, I was raised in a Southern Baptist literal Creation/literal Flood/literal Babel family, have read the Bible all the way through many times. Do you realize that many Biblical scholars think there are actually two different accounts of the Flood in Genesis, just like there are two Creation accounts? It is thought the two accounts were written by two different authors (J and P), and later woven together into one narrative. That's why Noah is introduced twice, and why so many passages have details that contradict themselves.

    Two Flood stories

    I bet I know the Bible a heck of a lot better than the IDC clowns here know the evolutionary sciences.

    ReplyDelete
  71. mynym said...

    Your argument seems to make use of the myth of purely objective knowledge (the divorce of subject and object) typical to psychopaths and Nazis themselves.


    I take it that means you also think chemistry is evil and shouldn't be taught because the Nazis use chemical gas in their chambers.

    You wouldn't want to be a flaming hypocrite, now would you?

    ReplyDelete
  72. It seems that the reason that "Christians" have always reacted with outrage whenever the clear historical connections between Christianity and religiously motivated mass slaughters like the Spanish Inquisition are pointed out is because everyone knows that knowledge is unified. Advancing religious ideas rely on civilization so it should come as no surprise that the decline of civilization is linked to religious intolerance and ignorance. After all, if you seek to separate the individual subject from objective reality in the name of pure "Christianity" then you have the same goal as psychopaths, serial killers, child molester priests and other enemies of civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Smokey:

    This is from Hitler's second book:


    "Countless are the species of all the Earth's organisms, unlimited at any moment in individuals is their instinct for self preservation as well as the longing for continuance, yet the space in which the whole life process takes place is limited. The struggle for existence and continuance in life waged by billions upon billions of organisms takes place on the surface of an exactly measured sphere. The compulsion to engage in the struggle for existence lies in the limitation of the living space; but in the life struggle for this living space lies also the basis for evolution

    In the times before man, world history was primarily a presentation of geological events: the struggle of natural forces with one another, the creation of an inhabitable surface on this planet, the separation of water from land, the formation of mountains, of plains, and of the seas. This is the world history of this time. Later, with the emergence of organic life, man's interest concentrated on the process of becoming and the passing away of its thousandfold forms. And only very late did man finally become visible to himself, and thus by the concept of world history he began to understand first and foremost only the history of his own becoming, that is, the presentation of his own evolution. This evolution is characterised by an eternal struggle of men against beasts and against men themselves. From the invisible confusion of the organisms there finally emerged formations: Clans, Tribes, Folks, States. The description of their origins and their passing away is but the representation of an eternal struggle for existence.

    If, however, politics is history in the making, and history itself the presentation of the struggle of men and nations for self preservation and continuance, then politics is, in truth, the execution of a nation's struggle for existence. But politics is not only the struggle of a nation for its existence as such; for us men it is rather the art of carrying out this struggle"


    I do believe that the quote you sited was from his table talks, which where written from memory by his inner circle from what they heard at the dinner table. Its accuracy may be suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  74. natschuster said...

    This is from Hitler's second book:

    (snip)


    I do wish the IDiots here would realize that no matter what Hitler used for personal motivations, whether he prayed to Jesus every night or wore Darwin pajamas and slept with a copy of OOS under his pillow, wouldn't have one teeny iota of bearing on the scientifically established validity of the theory of evolution.

    Bolded for effect.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Thornton

    You obviously do not understand. If something is morally wrong, then it is necessarily factually wrong. For example, I think everyone here can agree that child molestation is morally wrong. That means it is factually wrong as well and doesn't actually happen. Just ask the Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  76. ChrisEB said...
    "You pointed out that evolution's position as changed overtime. So it isn't dogma then? Dogma refers to an inerrant, entrenched, unchangeable belief. So if what we say about evolution changes as our knowledge changes then that's just good science."

    Just to correct your misreading. Evolution's position is "change over time", as in a process of genetic / biological change over time IS the cause of all life forms. That process - "change over time caused all life forms" - is the unchanging dogma. Even before Darwin no amount of evidence against the basic evolutionary dogma could shake the faith in the inerrancy of Darwinian dogma.

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Wrong again, as usual.

    I am asking you for POSITIVE evidence for your position.


    Ritchie:
    Positive evidence to test a negative hypothesis.

    It would be a positive hypothesis you cluele3ss twit.

    Positive evidence for a positive hypothesis.

    However it is clear that you cannot produce one.

    The thing is, there's really not a lot for science to deal WITH, is there? Where are the scientific articles supporting ID?

    Where are the scientific articles supporting blind, undirected processes?

    They don't exist!


    However ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer.

    Ritchie:
    You cannot have design without a designer.

    ID is about the design not the designer.

    No amount of whining will ever change that.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Michael said...

    Even before Darwin no amount of evidence against the basic evolutionary dogma could shake the faith in the inerrancy of Darwinian dogma


    That's a pretty interesting claim, since evolution as a written, described theory didn't exist before Darwin.

    Think about how stupid your statement is.

    Actually, it's on par with most of the other stupid things you say about the science you don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Michael said...

    Evolution Before Darwin


    LOL! The article says the same thing I did, that before Darwin evolution as a written, described theory didn't exist.

    Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Nat posted more Hitler quotes.

    Nat, none of those references Darwin.

    None of them speak of sexual selection.

    None of them speak of inherited variation.

    They ALL represent the evolution that garden-variety creationists accept.

    Hitler was a garden-variety creationist who accepts "microevolution" but not "macroevolution":
    "The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed." (Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi)

    Simple question, Nat: do you agree or disagree with that statement?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Michael:
    "Even before Darwin no amount of evidence against the basic evolutionary dogma could shake the faith in the inerrancy of Darwinian dogma."

    Wow. That might top Joe G for the dumbest comment I've seen here, and that's saying something.

    Michael, how could Darwinian dogma exist before Darwin? Do you realize that you just revealed the underlying sophistry of the creationist position?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Whitewashing of Darwinism has been done to minimize its false concepts of black people being just a little more evolved than gorillas (as early Darwinists taught). Contrary to Darwinism, the Bible speaks of all nations as being of "one blood" and is thus more accurate in its understanding of the similarity of all of mankind.

    A good theory should point science and civilization in the right direction. Darwinism has failed repeated to make accurate predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  83. The late evolutionist, Steven Gould, who often spoke straightforwardly about evolution said, "

    “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850 but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”

    ReplyDelete
  84. Here's the whole Fox quote:


    Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
    The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.


    It is obvious from the context above that he means that species don't readily interbreed, pretty standard evolutionary stuff, and that they don't show mercy if that is not their instinct.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Thorton said, "What chance did the little children and babies have Fil?"

    You ask a religious question and here is the answer: Christ died for their sins too, so looking at it from eternity, they had a chance to enter heaven.

    Let's be clear, God is just and loving. He showed his love by condescending down to a humble servant and dying on the cross. There is another side of God and that is holiness. His patience with sin is not eternal and those that play around too long will have to answer for it.

    It seems like in many category 5 hurricanes we hear of the holdouts that were warned by their neighbors, radio, TV, police, etc to get out, get out, get out. Whose fault is it if they stay and perish? President Bush? President Obama? Whose fault if God provides a way of escape, gives plenty of warning and they don't budge? Whatever happened to individual responsibility, or is subbornness in some people due to evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  86. What chance did the little children and babies have Fil? What chance did the unborn still in their mother's womb have? Were they evil and wicked and deserved to die?

    If you use the Bible to condemn God then the Bible must be accepted as the source for an explanation. As Neal said they were given warning decades ahead of time. Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and their wives had time to build a massive ark as described in the Bible. The others could have does so as well, Noah preached to them regarding it. The parents bear responsibility for their inaction, and as was mentioned sometimes the children suffer due to their parents.

    I have a sister-in-law who is a paramedic. She attended an accident scene were both parents were alive but both their children had died. The parents were hysterical but why did the children die? The parents had not forced them to wear their seatbelts and they were literally thrown out of the car. Should they have blamed the car manufacturer for not making it impossible to drive the car with seatbelts not done up?

    To blame God for the death of children when their parents are to blame is an error.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I take it that means you also think chemistry is evil and shouldn't be taught because the Nazis use chemical gas in their chambers.

    You wouldn't want to be a flaming hypocrite, now would you?


    Unlike Darwinism chemistry generally is not based on charlatanism and illusions of knowledge. You don't want to compare and conflate pseudo-science with actual science, do you?

    Also note that chemistry is not amoral anymore than any other form of science is. It relies on researchers being moral and honest, as well as the rise of civilization/language as a whole. There is no historical evidence that alchemy and other forms of pseudo-science would have been reformed into chemistry as we know it if this was not the case. Yet Darwinism dissolves things like language, meaning and design and so undermines civilization. No one should be surprised at its links to pseudo-science and the effect that it has had on the sort of "science" typical to biologists.

    E.g.
    …the anthropological fable is a work of imagination, a historical scenario, yet offered as an explanation of one or another social phenomenon of either that time or our own. It is a kind of reverse science fiction, situated in the past rather than in the future. …

    What claim can this kind of historical fiction make to be scientific? It simply cannot, even in the loosest sense of science. It is just that the anthropological fable appeals to ideas of competition, struggle, selection, etc., ideas of Darwinian biology–or rather, socio-economic ideas that Darwinism borrowed and naturalized, thus giving them scientific backing. Returned to the sociology from whence they came, they are endowed with a kind of scientific aura, and their use in anthropological fables confers on the latter a dignity to which they have no right.

    The problem is that Darwinism, properly speaking, resorts to just this kind of historical scenario in its explanation of the origin of species. The simplest of these scenarios, in its modern form, sees a certain characteristic as appearing by chance mutation and, once shown to be favourable to its individual bearer, being preserved by natural selection. This basic model can be given added sophistication, mathematical for example, but the fact remains that the Darwinian explanation still consists in imagining a historical scenario… To criticize the explanatory principle that the anthropological model provides in social Darwinism is equally to criticize the Darwinian principle that explains the evolution of species by reconstructing historical scenarios. It thus amounts to an attack on science (since Darwinism is deemed scientific, at least among biologists)….
    (The Pure Society: from Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot :47-49)

    ReplyDelete
  88. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  89. It seems that the reason that "Christians" have always reacted with outrage whenever the clear historical connections between Christianity and religiously motivated mass slaughters like the Spanish Inquisition are pointed out is because everyone knows that knowledge is unified.

    Everyone knows that knowledge is unified and must have integrity, that is why such arguments are made. Darwin's idea that a race would inevitably arise which would exterminate other races was based on his pseudo-science while Christ's advice to care for "the least of these" was equally unified with his worldview.

    Advancing religious ideas rely on civilization so it should come as no surprise that the decline of civilization is linked to religious intolerance and ignorance.

    Religion is like language and the rise of civilization and technology in general which can be used to make bigger nuclear bombs or more nuclear energy. It can lead to progress or destruction. It can be correct or incorrect. On the other hand, those who dissolve religion or undermine language itself are always wrong because they have nothing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  90. OL! The article says the same thing I did, that before Darwin evolution as a written, described theory didn't exist.

    A rigorously specified and falsifiable theory did not exist after Darwin. Darwin himself was a zealous defender of leaving evolution open to the same old unfalsifiable hypothetical goo which gave rise to hypotheses of evolution in the first place:
    Charles Darwin surely ranks as the most genial of history’s geniuses-possessing none of those bristling quirks and arrogance that usually mark the type. Yet, one subject invariably aroused his closest approach to fury-the strawman claim, so often advanced by his adversaries, that he regarded natural selection as an exclusive mode of change in evolution.
    (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen J. Gould :147)


    Evolution, whatever it is, seems to include many things. Indeed, some seem to think that it describes all change that has ever happened in the entire Cosmos. Others, who more rigorously "specify" the theory to be biological claim that it explains every single organism that has ever been observed. Indeed, it would also seem to explain every single change in any organism that will ever be observed. Apparently it's also just like the theory of gravity according to many biologists, yet they generally have not specified trajectories of adaptation in groups of organisms based on their supposed theory which can then be verified or falsified.

    Evolution, however it is specified, seems to be a good theory for predicting everything that has already happened.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "Evolution, however it is specified, seems to be a good theory for predicting everything that has already happened. "

    Nice summary. I might add that it will accommodate anything that might be discovered in the future even if it contradicts what they already said.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Neal
    I might add that it will accommodate anything that might be discovered in the future even if it contradicts what they already said.

    It's called science. Not dogma.

    Why don't you give us an example of such a historical contradiction Neal? Explain why it's a bad thing that as new information comes to light "they" change their theory?

    The thing is, and I know you know this, is that we're as likely to discover that "evolution" as currently understood is significantly wrong the next time that "they" change the theory as we are to discover that in fact gravity makes things fall up.

    The only development (evolution if you will!) this change over time causes is that the theory gets better and better, discarding internal contradictions over time and becoming more and more accurate and useful.

    The dogma, well, tell us about how the dogma Neal....

    Whose fault if God provides a way of escape, gives plenty of warning and they don't budge? Whatever happened to individual responsibility, or is subbornness in some people due to evolution?

    But if evolution never happened then the only explanation for the stubbornness of 99.9999999% of the worlds population is that your god is crazy.

    Given that you think that evolution never happened, what's your explanation that 99.9999999% didn't build an ark? They can't all have been crazy!

    Also, out of interest how many people would you say were alive in 2500 BC? Which is what, about 2000 years after the global flood? Please correct my dates if in significant error.

    ReplyDelete
  93. mynym
    Evolution, however it is specified, seems to be a good theory for predicting everything that has already happened.

    Unlike ID of course, which has many predictions regarding things which have yet to happen.

    Perhaps you could give us an example?

    ReplyDelete
  94. smokey:\
    That might top Joe G for the dumbest comment I've seen here, and that's saying something.

    Actually the dumbest comments belong to you, oleg, Zachriel, troym, thorton and OM- Ritchie too...

    All of you are intellectual cowards and known evotards...

    ReplyDelete
  95. Pastor Neal "liar for God" Tedford, please back up this claim you made or retract.

    Neal Tedford said...

    Are you aware of the fact that genetic testing validates the premise for Noah and his family?

    ReplyDelete
  96. mynym said...

    "T: I take it that means you also think chemistry is evil and shouldn't be taught because the Nazis use chemical gas in their chambers.

    You wouldn't want to be a flaming hypocrite, now would you?"

    Unlike Darwinism chemistry generally is not based on charlatanism and illusions of knowledge. You don't want to compare and conflate pseudo-science with actual science, do you?


    I've never heard of any science called "Darwinism". I've heard of biology, is that a pseudo-science? How about Genetics? Biochemistry? Geology? Ichthyology? Paleontology? Zoology? Ecology? Anatomy? Bacteriology? Botany? Embryology?

    All those sciences and more have supplied independent cross-correlating positive evidence for the theory of evolution.

    All they all evil and should be banned from schools too?

    ReplyDelete
  97. mynym
    Unlike Darwinism chemistry generally is not based on charlatanism and illusions of knowledge.

    Here is a selection of books, journals and papers regarding evolution. Could you point out one or two that are based on charlatanism and illusions of knowledge?
    Query for "evolution" at springerlink

    ReplyDelete
  98. mynym -


    Eugenicists did not view themselves as doing anything artificial anymore than "naturalists" ever view their science as unnatural. It is all natural and they are the most natural of all. Whatever is natural is generally said to come about as a result of natural selection by the sort of congenital imbeciles who want to crawl back into the womb of Mother Nature. Your assertion that eugenics is or was viewed as "artificial" instead of a perfectly natural result of evolution and progress is ignorant.


    I'm afraid it is your position that is ignorant.

    You appear not to know he difference between artificial selection and natural selection. Artificial selection is taking a population of creatures and a sentient overriding being actively choosing which individuals will mate with each other and which will not. Such as a farmer choosing the biggest bulls and the biggest cows to hopefully produce the biggest calves possible.

    Natural selection is the view that nature acts as this 'selecter' too - by weeding out the ones that will not survive to reproduce by having them die, or fail to attract a mate in light of stiff competition.

    Eugenics is thus derived from artificial selection - the conscious decision as to who will survive to reproduce and who will die. This is not natural selection.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Joe G -


    It would be a positive hypothesis you cluele3ss twit.

    Positive evidence for a positive hypothesis.


    No, it would be a negative hypothesis. What you want is for scientists to prove conclusively that the process of natural selection is NOT driven by intelligence.


    Where are the scientific articles supporting blind, undirected processes?

    They don't exist!


    There are plenty of scientific articles regarding the theory of evolution. There are entire journals based on this very topic.

    Once again, merely an argument from ignorance, then.


    ID is about the design not the designer.

    No amount of whining will ever change that.


    You keep saying that. Presumably hoping that you can infer a designer. But you cannot. The idea of nature as being 'designed' simply will not stand if there is not a reasonable candidate to do the designing.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "Eugenicists did not view themselves as doing anything artificial anymore than "naturalists" ever view their science as unnatural. It is all natural and they are the most natural of all."

    Actually, many viewed themselves as countering the natural and doing work of the supernatural. Eugenics and evangelical fervor were tightly linked in the US and Canada. Evangelical churches promoted eugenics through the "Correspondence School of Gospel and Scientific Eugenics" and the position of "National Purity Evangelist." Somehow this gets left out of the Darwin naturalist atheist fairy tale of eugenics.

    This reflects the dangers of taking parts of science and trying to weave them into a fundamentalist worldview. The idea of blood purity predates Darwin by thousands of years. Indeed, the focus of the eugenicists on passing desirable traits to progeny was closer to Lamarckism: the evangelical eugenicist focus on race poisons, health in life, limited sex, drinking and tobacco, hard work, prenatal culture and maternal impressions woven together with eugenic sterilization demonstrates this. There's hardly a mention or need for Darwin!

    Hilariously, many Churches were anti-evolution and pro-eugenics at the same time. Explain that.

    In parallel, some scientists and mainstream Churches at the time protested Eugenics. "Maier cited geneticist H. S. Jennings of Johns Hopkins University, as well as other scientists such as Dr. Caswell Grave, a zoologist at Washington University in St. Louis and Sir Arthur Keith, a British biologist. All had panned the simplistic views of heredity endemic to popular eugenics."

    http://ethicsandmedicine.com/archive/18/summer02_commentary3.php

    http://books.google.com/books?id=KF1DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA558&lpg=PA558&dq=Correspondence+School+of+Gospel+and+Scientific+Eugenics&source=bl&ots=E2R5WuiPwn&sig=96Z7euTnH2YFDTuSxPqmB1RDmAk&hl=en&ei=1_43TKv7JIa8lQen8MjSBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Correspondence%20School%20of%20Gospel%20and%20Scientific%20Eugenics&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  101. It would be a positive hypothesis you cluele3ss twit.

    Positive evidence for a positive hypothesis.


    Ritchie:
    No, it would be a negative hypothesis. What you want is for scientists to prove conclusively that the process of natural selection is NOT driven by intelligence.

    It would be a positive hypothesis because what I want is for scientists to produce POSITIVE evidence that blind, undirected processes can do the things you say they can and did.

    But if you are admitting yours is a negative position then you are proving it ain't science.


    Where are the scientific articles supporting blind, undirected processes?

    They don't exist!


    Ritchie:
    There are plenty of scientific articles regarding the theory of evolution.

    That is not what I am asking for.

    IOW your equivocation and deception are duly noted.

    ID is about the design not the designer.

    No amount of whining will ever change that.


    You keep saying that.

    It is true.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation.

    Presumably hoping that you can infer a designer. But you cannot. The idea of nature as being 'designed' simply will not stand if there is not a reasonable candidate to do the designing.

    You get to the designer through the design.

    If we knew the designer then we wouldn't have a design inference- design would be a given.

    IOW thank you for continuing to prove you don't understand science.

    ReplyDelete
  102. OM:
    Here is a selection of books, journals and papers regarding evolution.

    You are quite the equivocating little baby.

    Does it make you feel good to misrepresent things to make a point?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Ritchie:
    Natural selection is the view that nature acts as this 'selecter' too - by weeding out the ones that will not survive to reproduce by having them die, or fail to attract a mate in light of stiff competition.

    Unfortunately for you NS isn't a good filter, behaviour can trump genetics and cooperation is wide-spread and those who fall to competition find another mate.

    ReplyDelete
  104. thorton:
    All those sciences and more have supplied independent cross-correlating positive evidence for the theory of evolution.

    Yet not one of those science has produced any data which demonstrates universal common descent is possible.

    And not one has produced positive evidence for blind, undirected chemical processes producing biological systems.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Neal Tedford: I might add that it will accommodate anything that might be discovered in the future even if it contradicts what they already said.

    Noted that you have still to defend your repeated criticism of the Theory of Common Descent.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Joe G right on schedule for his Saturday morning tardgasm I see.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Joe G -


    It would be a positive hypothesis because what I want is for scientists to produce POSITIVE evidence that blind, undirected processes can do the things you say they can and did.


    That's like asking for positive evidence that volcanoes are the product of unemotive forces. It is a negative hypothesis - as is the idea that evolution is driven by blind forces.

    That doesn't make these positions unscientific - they are perfectly rational default positions. The volcano is presumed incapable of anger until shown otherwise. Evolution is presumed blind until shown otherwise.

    Claims that the volcano feels anger, or that life has been deliberately designed/tinkered with are the positive claims. They are the ones that need the positive evidence. And should not be merely assumed without it.


    That is not what I am asking for.

    IOW your equivocation and deception are duly noted.


    For cryin' out loud, get off your high horse for once. It really doesn't have any legs.


    It is true.


    It is not. Let's face reality here. ID is all a big song and dance around making Creationism seem plausible.Creationim in a cheap tuxedo.


    You get to the designer through the design.


    There is no evidence of anything designed in nature. And thus, no evidence for a designer. The only way you are reading design into things is to presume a designer - with unlimited abilites, apparently.

    This is not science!


    Unfortunately for you NS isn't a good filter, behaviour can trump genetics and cooperation is wide-spread and those who fall to competition find another mate.


    Behaviour CAN trump genetics, it's true. But often behaviour is the result of genetics. Co-operation is no argument at all against natural selection. And not all animals mate - in nature resources are finite and competition is fierce. Some animals are going to die young or mateless - usually the ones least able to stay alive. That is natural selection.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Dr. Hunter:

    Has anyone clicked on the anonymous link in the Chinese(?) post besides curious me?

    It appears to be a porn site and I think the post should be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Thorton: Joe G right on schedule for his Saturday morning tardgasm I see.

    [Zachriel puts ear to clock, taps mechanism, then makes a small adjustment.]

    ReplyDelete
  110. Nat wrote:

    "It is obvious from the context above that he means that species don't readily interbreed, pretty standard evolutionary stuff…"

    How would that be "standard evolutionary stuff," Nat? Do creationists not realize that species don't readily interbreed? Do they go around mating with apes expecting progeny?

    You are trying to connect Hitler with Darwin, someone whom he never even bothered to mention.

    You quoted this:

    "Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents."

    This is FALSE.

    You keep running away from my question. Do you agree with Hitler's statements I quoted, or not?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Pastor Neal wrote:
    "Sure I have. The nested hierarchy of species seems to be pretty popular with the evolutionists here and I have discussed it."

    No, Pastor Neal, you have not engaged in anything resembling discussion. You regurgitate without understanding.

    "A theory that cannot make accurate predictions is not a good theory."

    I agree. What's YOUR theory and what are its predictions?

    "CH is right, it is a shell game with you guys."

    You are projecting your rank dishonesty onto us.

    "It is like playing a hammer heads game. You hit one with falsification and another pops up. You hit that one and the first one pops up again."

    You are referring to your own false claims:
    1) Evolution is mathematically impossible.
    2) Genetic testing confirms the Ark fable.

    When challenged, you run away. Where's your faith, Pastor Neal?

    Do you take the Bible literally?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Joe
    It would be a positive hypothesis because what I want is for scientists to produce POSITIVE evidence that blind, undirected processes can do the things you say they can and did.

    I don't think you've been taking a very careful look at the links I've been giving you.

    The Chemistry of Life's Origin

    The now recognized extensive existence of life on earth very shortly after the destructive bombardment of the earth's surface by early solar system debris has stimulated inquiry into possible exogenous sources of prebiotic molecules from space as well as intensified studies of the early earth's atmosphere.
    The chapters in this book cover the possible sources of prebiotic molecules and avenues by which life could have evolved, starting from the birth and evolution of the solar system. The relevance of the classic experiments by Stanley Miller on the formation of life's building blocks on an early earth is reexamined. The role of chemistry in space is covered by chapters on interstellar dust, and meteorites to which experimental as well as theoretical investigations have been directed. In various chapters the existence of amino acids as well as other prebiotic molecules in meteorites is clearly established and inferred for interstellar dust and comets. Theories of molecular synthesis in the solar nebula are considered. Extensive coverage is given to the physical conditions and to prebiotic systems on the early earth. Possible pathways to life on an early Mars and the possible messages to be obtained by space exploration are discussed. Questions of effects of clays and of chirality on early chemical evolution are discussed. Recent ideas on the RNA world as the precursor to life are reviewed. The open-endedness of the study of life's origins and the need to investigate whether the prebiotic building blocks formed in outer space or on the earth is emphasized.


    Topics covered:

    Preface. Interstellar dust evolution: a reservoir of prebiotic molecules; J.M. Greenberg, C.X. Mendoza-Gómez. Laboratory simulations of grain icy mantles processing by cosmic rays; V. Pirronello. Physics and chemistry of protoplanetary accretion disks; W.J. Duschl. Chemistry of the solar nebula; B. Fegley, Jr. Early evolution of the atmosphere and ocean; J.F. Kasting. Origin and evolution of Martian atmosphere and climate and possible exobiological experiments; L.M. Mukhin. The possible pathways of the synthesis of precursors on the early earth; L.M. Mukhin, M.V. Gerasimov. Physical and chemical composition of comets - from interstellar space to the earth; J.M. Greenberg. Organic matter in meteorites: molecular and isotopic analyses of the Murchison meteorite; J.R. Cronin, S. Chang. Prebiotic synthesis in planetary environments; S. Chang. Prebiotic synthesis on minerals: RNA oligomer formation; J.P. Ferris. Biology and theory: RNA and the origin of life; A.W. Schwartz. Chirality and the origins of life; A. Brack. Early proteins; A. Brack. The beginnings of life on earth: evidence from the geological record; M. Schidlowski. Index.

    I'm sure we can club together and get a copy for you Joe! Unless of course you've read and dismissed it already?

    ReplyDelete
  113. It would be a positive hypothesis because what I want is for scientists to produce POSITIVE evidence that blind, undirected processes can do the things you say they can and did.

    Ritchie:
    That's like asking for positive evidence that volcanoes are the product of unemotive forces.

    No it isn't- not even close.

    It is aksing you to provide positive evidence for your position.

    Ya see we no longer think that lightning is an act of the "gods" because we now know what causes it.

    It is a negative hypothesis - as is the idea that evolution is driven by blind forces.

    That is the claim of the theory- that it is driven by blind, undirected processes.

    I have supported that.

    That is not what I am asking for.

    IOW your equivocation and deception are duly noted.



    For cryin' out loud, get off your high horse for once.

    Pull your head out of your ass for once.

    It is true.


    It is not.

    Unfortunately for you I can support my claim and you cannot support yours.

    You get to the designer through the design.


    There is no evidence of anything designed in nature.

    Yes there is- you choke on it every day.

    Unfortunately for you NS isn't a good filter, behaviour can trump genetics and cooperation is wide-spread and those who fall to competition find another mate.


    Behaviour CAN trump genetics, it's true. But often behaviour is the result of genetics

    Evidence please.

    Co-operation is no argument at all against natural selection.

    Yes it is- the strong helping the weak survive which enables the weak to reproduce.

    ReplyDelete
  114. OM:
    I don't think you've been taking a very careful look at the links I've been giving you.

    Neither speculation nor imagination are evidence.

    The book does not have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can give rise to living organisms from non-living matter.

    If it did then Dean Kenyon, Dr Behe, Dr Minnich, Dr Meyer- well ID would not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Throton is right on schedule for his weekend stroke job I see...

    ReplyDelete
  116. Ritchie:

    "Co-operation is no argument at all against natural selection."

    Joe G:

    "Yes it is- the strong helping the weak survive which enables the weak to reproduce."

    So there would be no selection against a mutation that causes mothers to abandon their helpless offspring? Got it, knucklehead.

    Evolution of cooperation link. Go ahead and point out the errors.

    ReplyDelete
  117. troy,

    Just-so stories are not evidence.

    And just saying "it evolved" says nothing about how...

    ReplyDelete
  118. Joe G:

    "Just-so stories are not evidence."

    Indeed. That's precisely why ID is ignored by science.

    Still think cooperation is an argument against natural selection?

    ReplyDelete
  119. troy:
    Still think cooperation is an argument against natural selection?

    It is an argument against the competetion weeds out the weak crap.

    As for natural selection- if it does anything it conserves.

    Also any one saying natural selection predicts cooperation is FoS.

    That you think that wikipedia is a valid reference containing scientific data is laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Design explains cooperation better than "it just happened and the behaviour caught on".

    Design requires cooperation...

    ReplyDelete
  121. "It is an argument against the competetion weeds out the weak crap."

    Then it's an argument against a strawman creationist caricature of natural selection. Crap indeed.

    "As for natural selection- if it does anything it conserves"

    Ignorant rubbish, but par for the course for Joe G. There's stabilizing or purifying selection (which conserves), there's directional or positive selection (which is anti-conservative), and then there's disruptive selection (which causes splitting, also anti-conservative). All of them observed and documented in the scientific literature. What was the title again of that evolution textbook you read in university?

    ReplyDelete
  122. "Design explains cooperation better than "it just happened and the behaviour caught on".

    Design requires cooperation... "

    Haha. So with whom did the Lard cooperate when he designed Adam & Eve?

    ReplyDelete
  123. "As for natural selection- if it does anything it conserves"

    troy:
    Ignorant rubbish, but par for the course for Joe G.

    So you say but you are an ignorant wanker.

    There's stabilizing or purifying selection (which conserves), there's directional or positive selection (which is anti-conservative), and then there's disruptive selection (which causes splitting, also anti-conservative). All of them observed and documented in the scientific literature.

    There isn't anything observed that demonstrates natural selection can do anything beyond providing a wobbling stability.

    Heck the limits demonstrated by artificial selection should give you a clue...

    ReplyDelete
  124. Design explains cooperation better than "it just happened and the behaviour caught on".

    Design requires cooperation... "


    troy:
    So with whom did the Lard cooperate when he designed Adam & Eve?

    Haha- you just don't know what the heck you are talking about, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Zacho: Noted that you have still to defend your repeated criticism of the Theory of Common Descent.

    The onus is on the Darwinists to demonstrate common descent is nothing more than a fairytale.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Joe G: It would be a positive hypothesis because what I want is for scientists to produce POSITIVE evidence that blind, undirected processes can do the things you say they can and did.

    Ritchie:
    That's like asking for positive evidence that volcanoes are the product of unemotive forces.

    troy:
    There's stabilizing or purifying selection (which conserves), there's directional or positive selection (which is anti-conservative), and then there's disruptive selection (which causes splitting, also anti-conservative). All of them observed and documented in the scientific literature.

    Joe G: No it isn't- not even close.


    Joe, sometimes Darwinists are just pretending to be this stupid because they lack the evidence to support their losing argument.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Smokey:

    If Hitler got some of the details about evolution wrong, all that means is that Hitler was not a very good evolutionist.

    And I agree with the fox statement that means that foxes don't reasily interbreed with geese. Why is this relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  128. teleological blog said...

    Zacho: Noted that you have still to defend your repeated criticism of the Theory of Common Descent.

    The onus is on the Darwinists to demonstrate common descent is nothing more than a fairytale.


    scientific evidence for common descent: overview

    scientific evidence for common descent: the unique universal phylogenetic tree

    scientific evidence for common descent: vestigial features and atavisms

    scientific evidence for common descent: evolutionary opportunism

    scientific evidence for common descent: molecular evidence

    scientific evidence for common descent: change and mutability

    Would you like to discuss any of the technical details? None of the other ID blowhards - pastor Neal "liar for Jesus" Tedford, armchair philosopher Michael, JoeTard, Gary, CH - seem willing or able.

    Catch is, you have to actually read and learn about it first. That may damage one or both of your working brain cells.

    ReplyDelete
  129. thort: Would you like to discuss any of the technical details?

    I would, but unfortunately it would be beyond your comprehension level. I’ve suspected your ignorance in science and you’ve just proved your ignorance by your list of links as evidence to support your fairytales. Only a rube would believe anything that comes out of those irrational atheists pimping for their amoral religion.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Well, if nothing else, t-blog has got ad hominem down cold. However, that very perfection of fallacious form is rather suspicious. Alas, Poe's Law prevents any definitive judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Joe G -


    No it isn't- not even close.

    It is aksing you to provide positive evidence for your position.


    My analagy stood up perfectly. You do not prove a negative. And proving that something is 'blind' is like proving that something is 'unemotive'. It is the absense of certain qualities - deliberate guidance in the first case and emotions in the second. How do you test for the absence of these things?

    On the other hand, it is a rational and scientific default position to assume these things do not exist until shown otherwise. In short, the scientific thing to do is assume nature is unguided/undesigned until shown evidence of guidance/design, which despite you claims you have not shown.


    Ya see we no longer think that lightning is an act of the "gods" because we now know what causes it.


    Well, we have an explanation that perfectly fits tyhe facts - an explanation that is built on the assumption of materialism and naturalism. But you seem to think science should encompass non-miraculous explanations as well. So why not just say lightening is a miracle and that our sceintific account of lightening is flawed because it does not allow for the possibility of miracles? That's what you're doing with ToE...


    That is the claim of the theory- that it is driven by blind, undirected processes.


    It is the rational, scientific default position in light of the lack of evidence to the contrary.


    Unfortunately for you I can support my claim and you cannot support yours.


    Well that's all kinds of nonsense. You have shown no evidence that life is designed.


    - There is no evidence of anything designed in nature.

    Yes there is- you choke on it every day.


    Again, unsubtantialed rubbish. Bluster and arrogance rhetoric. Not that I expected you to be capable of much else.


    Behaviour CAN trump genetics, it's true. But often behaviour is the result of genetics

    Evidence please.


    Read The Extended Phenotype.


    - Co-operation is no argument at all against natural selection.

    Yes it is- the strong helping the weak survive which enables the weak to reproduce.


    Co-operation brings many evolutionary benefits. Working together, carnivores can bring down prey many times their own size. Sharing some food when I have plenty means someone owes me a favour - something I can cash in when I am hungry.

    There are many swings and roundabouts. Concluding that cooperation is evolutionarily undesirable is just stoopid.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Ritchie,

    I am not asking you tom prove a negative.

    You need POSITIVE evidence for your position.

    You cannot provide any.

    That is the claim of the theory- that it is driven by blind, undirected processes.


    It is the rational, scientific default position in light of the lack of evidence to the contrary.

    It ain't rational if it cannot be objectively tested and there is evidence to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Thorton,

    Talk origins is not a valid scientific resoursce.

    As a matter of fact I can take their "evidence" and use it as evidence for common design.

    Would you like to discuss any of the technical details?

    I would love to however your position is completely void of technical details.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Unfortunately for you I can support my claim and you cannot support yours.

    Ritchie:
    Well that's all kinds of nonsense. You have shown no evidence that life is designed.

    I have provided plenty.

    All you can do is handwave it away...

    ReplyDelete
  135. Ritchie:
    And proving that something is 'blind' is like proving that something is 'unemotive'

    No it isn't.

    We have already demonstrated that lightning does not require a designer.

    We have demonstrated many things on Earth do not require designers and that chance and necessity- blind, undirected processes, can account for them.

    IOW Ritchie all you are is a bloviating imbecile...

    ReplyDelete
  136. T-Blog: " Only a rube would believe anything that comes out of those irrational atheists pimping for their amoral religion."

    Oh, I get it. 'Evidence' doesn't count if it's presented by someone with a different opinion than you.

    And if it's presented by someone with a different worldview, then you don't even have to read it!

    I'll tell you what t-blog, If you present me with a set of arguments for your position like Thorton did for his, I'll honestly read them and evaluate them, no matter what their source. I personally believe that we are all here because of God's intention and providence, so It's hard to accuse me of being an 'atheist rube pimping my religion." (and by the way, for the 100th time, atheism isn't a religion anymore than 'not playing soccer' is a sport.) But I simply don't see any evidence to suggest that God created us 6,000 years ago, or that evolutionary theory isn't a fairly accurate description of how He brought us about. I don't have any preconceptions that evolution must be true, and in fact I thought it wasn't for most of my life. When I was presented with compelling evidence that it was true, I changed my mind. If you can present compelling evidence that it isn't, I'll change it back. Simple as that.

    And one last, unrelated question. Teleological blog, are you the same person as Joe G? a simple yes/no will suffice.

    ReplyDelete
  137. TB
    I would, but unfortunately it would be beyond your comprehension level.

    If you would like to discuss the technical details of evolution with some people who are actually working scientists in the field then why not drop over to ATBC?

    I've even made you your own thread:

    A thread for TB to discuss the technical details of evolution

    As I know there are many actual biologists here who'll be able to comprehend TB's points I thought I'd extend an invitation to TB to discuss evolution with some experts, as he obviously wants to.


    See you there! That is assuming that you were not lying when you said you wanted a technical discussion of the issues with people who could comprehend them.

    I look forwards to reading your excuse why you could not possible enter into such a discussion, a discussion which you claim you want to have.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Joe
    We have already demonstrated that lightning does not require a designer.

    In fact, you are incorrect. Lightning does require a designer. The fact that you think it does not simply shows how much of an excellent designer the designer in fact was.

    But the fact remains that you have not *proven* that lightning does not have a designer.

    If you have, please repeat that proof here.

    Until you do, I'm afraid that lightning *does* require a designer and the naturalistic "explanations" are only correct at one level, at a deeper level the only cause could possibly be a designer.

    We have demonstrated many things on Earth do not require designers and that chance and necessity- blind, undirected processes, can account for them.

    I'm afraid that chance and necessity cannot account for lightning strikes.

    For example. If T is the total surface area of the planet, and P is the probability of any given 1 square meter being struck by lightning then I believe you'll find that the numbers add up to "design". As the surface area of the earth is 5.1 × 10^8 km2 we're already way out of the arena of "chance" when we look at any individual lightning strike at a particular location.

    So, on the surface to ignorant rubes like yourself it seems as if "science" has proven that lightning is not designed. Yet when you run the numbers it becomes obvious that a designer is involved with determining the individual placement of individual lightning strikes.

    Unless of course you can prove me wrong! Prove that lightning is in fact not designed.

    ReplyDelete
  139. OM, don't hold your breath. TB belongs to a rather nasty subspecies of YEC. Like small dogs they bark and snarl at first, but when challenged they run away with their tail between their legs. I hope I'm wrong about TB, but he has coward written all over him.

    ReplyDelete
  140. TB
    Only a rube would believe anything that comes out of those irrational atheists pimping for their amoral religion.

    All those Talk Origin articles were written by Douglas Theobald, a theist.

    Don't believe me? Ask him yourself

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/contact.html

    ReplyDelete
  141. PS: just like Pastor Neal, who so far has run away from requests to back up his claims that

    - evolution by natural selection is mathematically impossible

    - genetic studies confirm the Ark fairy tale

    ReplyDelete
  142. I think lightning strikes are a little different than evolution. First of all, it makes no difference if lighting strikes one spot or another. Lighting has to strike somewhere. But an organism has to be arrainged just so if it is to survive. Very few, out of all the possible outcomes, will actually work.

    And lighting stikes are not completely random. The electroconductivity of the atmosphere and the things it on the ground effect where it strikes.

    ReplyDelete
  143. natschuster: I think lightning strikes are a little different than evolution. First of all, it makes no difference if lighting strikes one spot or another.

    You're letting your sciency education get in the way of True Thinking™. Each and every lightning bolt is hurled by Zeus for his own inscrutable purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  144. natschuster: And lighting stikes are not completely random. The electroconductivity of the atmosphere and the things it on the ground effect where it strikes.

    As any lightning hurler can tell you, you have to account for ion drift.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Joe G -


    I am not asking you tom prove a negative.

    You need POSITIVE evidence for your position.


    POSITIVE evidence for a NEGATIVE position. Seriously, why can't you grasp this?


    It ain't rational if it cannot be objectively tested and there is evidence to the contrary.


    What evidence to the contrary? You keep saying there is some, but you keep tripping up when it comes to actually PROVIDING any. You keep saying you have, but all you have come up with is a couple of posts on your own blog site mangling science and demonstrating your own tenuous grasp of the subject. No scientific articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or anything of the sort...


    We have already demonstrated that lightning does not require a designer.


    I completely echo OM. We have not demonstrated any such thing.

    We have come up with an explanation for the existence of lightening - an explanation based (like everything else in science) on the presumption that miracles don't happen!

    What evidence can you put forward which demonstrates lightening is NOT designed?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Ritchie said: "What evidence can you put forward which demonstrates lightening is NOT designed?"

    *crickets chirping*

    ReplyDelete
  147. teleological blog said...

    thort: Would you like to discuss any of the technical details?

    I would, but unfortunately it would be beyond your comprehension level. I’ve suspected your ignorance in science and you’ve just proved your ignorance by your list of links as evidence to support your fairytales. Only a rube would believe anything that comes out of those irrational atheists pimping for their amoral religion.


    TRANSLATION: "I, teleological blog, am another YEC spineless, gutless, brainless wonder. I've got the blustering insults down cold, but ask me anything technical about the sciences that support ToE and I put skid marks in my tighty whiteys."

    Pity you're too much of a coward to discuss the actual data. Here is a recent paper on canid evolution

    Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog

    I tried to get Neal "liar for Jesus" Tedford to discuss the details but he ran away screaming. I wanted him to explain the SNP distribution that gives the following tree of common descent for canidae

    Phylogeny of canid species.

    Maybe you could explain the observed pattern for me, the one that correlates well with the paleontological fossil evidence of canid populations.

    If that's too much for you, maybe you could explain why the fossil evidence shows cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals, and why cetaceans have the unexpressed tbx4 gene for legs.

    BTW, the IDiot's theme song of "common design' is NOT an explanation unless you have some positive evidence the SNPs and tbx4 genes were actually placed there as a result of conscious design.

    Over to you TB, but I don't expect anything but more insults and empty bluster.

    ReplyDelete
  148. 149 comments in and we get to the point where the anti-evolutionists need to pony up with either some evidence or some understanding and they go silent.

    How very odd. Whatever could it mean?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Ritchie said: "What evidence can you put forward which demonstrates lightening is NOT designed?"

    Seriously guys, 24 hours and no response? That's a long time for these threads. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Nat? Cornelius? Even Joe?

    It's essentially the same thing you ask us to demonstrate in every single blog post. Surely you can demonstrate why lightning isn't designed. I mean unless your belief that lightning isn't designed is based solely on your metaphysical bias towards naturalism, and therefore lightning can't be the product of intelligence. Religion drives meteorology and it matters.

    funny that this post was tagged 'hypocrisy"

    ReplyDelete
  150. om: If you would like to discuss the technical details of evolution with some people who are actually working scientists in the field then why not drop over to ATBC?

    Why? Do atheists become deaf and dumb outside of their own forums? Well I have news for you they already are when it comes to Darwinism. Responding to “challenges” such as given above falls cleanly into the category of “dogwash”.

    How about this, I’ve opened a thread for all your buddies to come and spew their fairytales on cladistics.

    ReplyDelete
  151. om: Whatever could it mean?

    It means you are clueless even when evidence hits you in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  152. TB: "It means you are clueless even when evidence hits you in the face."

    Care to actually answer the question, TB?

    "What evidence can you put forward which demonstrates lightening is NOT designed?"

    Joe G?

    Nat?

    Bueller?

    ReplyDelete
  153. teleological blog said...

    om: If you would like to discuss the technical details of evolution with some people who are actually working scientists in the field then why not drop over to ATBC?

    Why? Do atheists become deaf and dumb outside of their own forums? Well I have news for you they already are when it comes to Darwinism.


    Funny though, we're the ones who keep providing papers and results from the primary scientific literature to discuss, and you're the one who keep crying and running away. I didn't realize you were so "testicularly challenged".

    ReplyDelete
  154. Thorton, all Pro-ID clogs censor, ban and delete. I'd suggest checking your own 'testicular position' and venture out from Mommy's apron.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Rich Hughes said...

    Thorton, all Pro-ID clogs censor, ban and delete. I'd suggest checking your own 'testicular position' and venture out from Mommy's apron.


    I assume that post was directed at teleological blog's comments, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  156. My comment to you Thorton is that scanning scientific papers for the words "design" and "purpose" isn't really "providing papers and results from the primary scientific literature to discuss" and these papers aren't ever discussing design but are hopefully offered as anti-evolution support, because that's all ID has. Like this blog, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Rich Hughes said...

    My comment to you Thorton is that scanning scientific papers for the words "design" and "purpose" isn't really "providing papers and results from the primary scientific literature to discuss" and these papers aren't ever discussing design but are hopefully offered as anti-evolution support, because that's all ID has. Like this blog, for example.


    Er RH...go back and read some of the threads. I'm arguing and providing scientific research papers in support of ToE against the IDC stupidity.

    Take a deep breath and start reading for comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  158. The comments are still true, but apologies for misunderstanding / representing your position.

    ReplyDelete
  159. You need POSITIVE evidence for your position.

    Ritchie:
    POSITIVE evidence for a NEGATIVE position.

    Are you admitting your position is an unscientific negative position?

    We have already demonstrated that lightning does not require a designer.


    I completely echo OM. We have not demonstrated any such thing.

    You echo an imbecile as if it means something.

    Scientists have demonstrated that lightning does not require a designer- all that is required are just the correct conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  160. thorton:
    I'm arguing and providing scientific research papers in support of ToE

    Unfortunately not one of those papers supprt the premise of blind, undirected chemical processes.

    And that is what you need to provide...

    ReplyDelete
  161. We have already demonstrated that lightning does not require a designer.

    OM:
    In fact, you are incorrect. Lightning does require a designer.

    Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  162. thortard:
    BTW, the IDiot's theme song of "common design' is NOT an explanation unless you have some positive evidence the SNPs and tbx4 genes were actually placed there as a result of conscious design.

    BTW evotards' theme song of "common ancestry" is NOT an explanation unless you have some positive evidence that the anatomical and physiological changes required are even possible via changes to the genome.

    IOW all you have is "it looks like common ancestry to me".

    And evidence for common ancestry is NOT evidence for a mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  163. thortard:
    If that's too much for you, maybe you could explain why the fossil evidence shows cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals,

    It doesn't.

    Ya see there hould be thousands of transitional forms and all the fossil record has is a skimpy handful of speculative forms.


    and why cetaceans have the unexpressed tbx4 gene for legs.

    Ya see with a common design you have to deal with things like that- you don't re-invent something you just modify what already works.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Wow, imagine that.

    OM has time to complain that I had the audacity to take a vacation and yet it doesn't have the nads to actually ante up and support its claims.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  165. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Joe, I'm still curious as to your answer to the question posted above:

    Ritchie said: "What evidence can you put forward which demonstrates lightening is NOT designed?"

    Can you present any POSITIVE evidence that lightning is only the result of blind, undirected atmospheric processes, and that intelligence has no part in it? (you seem to be so certain that this is the case)

    ReplyDelete
  167. Joe
    Ya see there hould be thousands of transitional forms and all the fossil record has is a skimpy handful of speculative forms.

    Just one is sufficient. And there are many more then one.

    ReplyDelete
  168. The question asked repeatedly here: "What evidence can you put forward which demonstrates lightening is NOT designed?" Is the most powerful ID-Away™ I've ever seen. Doesn't anyone want to take a crack at it?

    Isn't ID all about design detection?

    ReplyDelete