Monday, April 9, 2012

Even Evolutionists Admit It’s a Mess

Here are nine myths that, apparently, even evolutionists admit to:

1) The myth of randomness. Evolution is constrained and its biological products seem to express a “self organising principle”. The evidence of widespread evolutionary convergence suggests “navigation towards an attractor”, but what is the attractor?

2) The myth of deep homology. Predependence on certain widely distributed regulatory genes does not explain, for example, the homology of eyes in creatures as different as cephalopods and vertebrates quite as tidily as some have imagined.

3) The myth of simplicity. However far back you go in evolutionary history, things are complicated. While eschewing the notion of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum and its homologues illustrate the complexity of even the simplest organisms.

4) The myth of “Well, it will do”. Organisms are not cobbled together as a series of adequate compromises but are close to optimality. Examples of supposedly “poor design” often turn out to be “very well engineered indeed”.

5) The myth of a good fossil record. The overall history of life may be well known (Conway Morris would be horrified to find an Ordovician human!) but many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are still missing.

6) The myth of “missing links”. Convergence in fossil lineages is ubiquitous, such that, for example, theropods must have evolved flight independently multiple times. The evolution of birds (and theropods and tetrapods, etc) was, in some sense, inevitable.

7) The myth of mass extinctions. Mass extinctions made much less difference to the history of life than many have suggested. Bivalves would probably have come to dominate with or without the end-Permian event and likewise with the dominance of mammals after the end-Cretaceous event.

8) The myth of mentality. Sentience goes back much further than we tend to imagine and the molecular equipment for nervous systems evolved long before nervous systems themselves.

9) The myth of extraterrestrials. Although there are probably billions of habitable planets in our galaxy, the ETs are still elusive. The best explanation is that we really are alone.

Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

64 comments:

  1. Evidently a guest post by bornagain 77.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Pendant, other than using ridicule as your main point of establishing 'scientific' integrity, do you want to contest any particular myth Dr. Hunter has referenced with actual evidence instead of ridicule? Or is your religion mainly composed of the perceived prestige of the person instead of with the truthfulness of the scientific evidence?

      Delete
    2. Pedant

      Evidently a guest post by bornagain 77.


      Nah, not enough OT blithering and links to crappy Christian music.

      CH is a professional political propagandist. He's well paid by the DI to push this sort of ridiculous anti-science hand-waving, and he takes pride in his work.

      Delete
    3. These are not proofs ,BA. These are things to "ponder". Like,why does a piece of toast always land buttered side down? Why is it whatever line you are in at the bank is the slowest?

      Delete
    4. CH is a professional political propagandist. He's well paid by the DI to push this sort of ridiculous anti-science hand-waving, and he takes pride in his work.

      And who pays you bonobo face? You sure spend a lot of time on this forum. More than even Hunter.

      Delete
    5. Louis the fruit loop

      And who pays you bonobo face? You sure spend a lot of time on this forum. More than even Hunter.


      I come here for the entertainment value fruit loop. I find it hilarious to watch ignorant Creationist knobs like you make fools of themselves on a daily basis.

      Tell us again how an intelligent designer would never reinvent the wheel! :D

      Delete
    6. Bonobo face, you come here because, like most evolutionists, you're a pompous psychopath.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
  2. there are probably billions of habitable planets in our galaxy

    so you believe that alien life exist, even if there are not intelligent life. They are still extraterrestrials. so why call it a myth ?

    So does that mean that all those habitable planets are created by a Intelligent designer. Why would he do that ? that we can visit those planets.

    What if we find the same kind of evidence on those planet about evolution as we do on this planet ? Is it than still that the intelligent disigner did it

    if there are billions of habitable planets than we humans are not really that special. Even if there are no other ET out there. That doesn't mean evolution is not true.
    Inteligent life is not the outcome of evolution.
    If it is common or rare doesn't really matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as to: if there are billions of habitable planets than (then) we humans are not really that special.

      Yet,

      Does the Probability for ETI = 1?
      Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054.
      http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1

      Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is';
      Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1333
      dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^324
      longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^45
      Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1054
      Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ≈ 10^22

      Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
      http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf

      Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236

      Isaiah 40:28
      Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.

      Hugh Ross - Four Main Research Papers
      https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Sl5SCBtcO6xMjwgrkKysBYIOJzjZEcXX68qZ9rwh85s

      "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect."
      Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book "Principia"

      Delete
    2. Moreover:

      Let There Be Light
      Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:

      Psalm 33:13-15
      The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

      Psalm 139:7-14
      Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
      http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2012/02/let-there-be-light.html

      Delete
    3. Hugh Ross is a creationist not really great as a source.

      The kepler telescope is looking for earth like planets with life. They alread found planets inside the habitable zone.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)

      the say that in 2014 they may find a planet like earth
      http://www.space.com/15141-alien-earth-planet-2014.html

      The HARPS DATA say that 40% of all red dwarfs have super earth size planet inside the habitable zone.
      http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=22313

      we will soon see if Microorganism or Multicellular organism is common or rare

      Delete
    4. 1 link...what are the odds of intelligent life? ....the early earth lacked oxygen,therefore by Dr Ross's calculations the earth is incapable of intelligent life.

      2....bible quote... Poetry is very pretty,but not convincing

      3..... Sir Isaac Newton.....smart guy,had no scientific knowledge of modern biology or the size of the universe

      4-6....... Since I believe it is true.... Personal speculation ,and more beautiful poetic passages.

      Delete
    5. as to: The HARPS DATA say that 40% of all red dwarfs have super earth size planet inside the habitable zone.
      http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=22313

      and yet:

      New Conditions for Life On Other Planets: Tidal Effects Change 'Habitable Zone' Concept - February 2011
      Excerpt: Tides can render the so-called "habitable zone" around low-mass (red dwarf) stars uninhabitable. This is the main result of a recently published study by a team of astronomers led by René Heller of the Astrophysical Institute Potsdam (AIP).,,, Finally, tides can cause the rotational period of the planet (the planet's "day") to synchronize with the orbital period (the planet's "year"). This situation is identical to the Earth-moon setup: the moon only shows Earth one face, the other side being known as "the dark side of the moon." As a result one half of the exoplanet receives extreme radiation from the star while the other half freezes in eternal darkness.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110224091735.htm

      as well, 'tidal lock' of a planet would eliminate the rotation necessary to maintain the protective magnetic field;

      Moreover, Compositions of Extrasolar Planets - July 2010
      Excerpt: ,,,the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions.
      http://www.reasons.org/compositions-extrasolar-planets

      Delete
    6. moreover your dismissal of Dr. Ross, because he is a 'creationist' is very ironic, and even hypocritical, since it is impossible to for the atheist-materialist to justify his practice of science without 'borrowing' the Theistic presupposition that the world is rationally intelligible by the reasoning power of our minds. If anything, a person should be dismissed as a quack scientist if he holds unswervingly to atheistic materialism as his foundational view of reality! (As indeed the preeminent scientists of Darwin's day rejected him as a 'quack')

      Adam Sedgwick, leading geologist and Fellow of Trinity College, was particularly outspoken. "Darwin's theory is not inductive," he declared, "not based on a series of acknowledged facts pointing to a general conclusion, -- not a proposition evolved out of the facts, logically, and of course including them,,
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/at_the_birth_of058241.html

      The following website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

      Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website
      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      Delete
    7. Thank you Batspit77 for C&Ping more huge steaming piles of nonsensical blithering from your apparently inexhaustible supply.

      Delete
    8. Moreover, given that one could find a planet exactly like earth, that was 'perfect' in its ability to support life, there is still the problem of the probability of life 'self assembling' into a self replicating system:

      Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video
      a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175
      the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000
      a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000
      http://www.vimeo.com/11706014

      Programming of Life - Probability of a Cell Evolving - video
      http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/9/nyTUSe99z6o
      Programming of Life - video playlist:
      http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAFDF33F11E2FB840

      Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:

      DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
      Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
      http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html

      Delete
    9. there are also people that believe in Ancient Aliens . That jesus was a alien. like Giorgio A. Tsoukalos. Does that mean he is a good source. You believe that god dit it. They believe that aliens dit it.

      hugo Ross believes that UFOs and flying saucers and aliens are demonic creations.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

      Someone who claim that is not really the best guy as source


      about the red dwarf. i agree there is still a lot to learn about those stars if life can involve there, but we can not already say it is impossible.

      we still have k or g type stars that are far more likely to host planets with life. kepler is observing those kind of stars
      and in the next few years we will see if we can find a planet like earth

      there are likely 160 billion planets in our galaxie alone
      http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=21345

      Delete
    10. and henk how does referencing other people's irrational beliefs justify your irrational belief that life, consciousness, and reasoning, are reducible to a material basis? It reminds me of the reasoning of the the alcoholic who denied his problem with alcoholism just because other people drank too much also.

      the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

      What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! - APM - UD Blogger


      Here a Darwinian Psychologist has a moment of honesty facing the 'hard problem' that consciousness presents to materialism;

      Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem"
      Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.'
      David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html

      A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011
      Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain.

      Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander’s Near-Death Experience Defies Medical Model of Consciousness - audio interview
      http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-154-eben-alexander.mp3

      Delete
    11. Link 1.... Tidally locked... You reject an evolutionary theory which has significantly greater empirical basis than Heller's paper, it is based on models which you reject the validity of in evolutionary theory. The same methods. Heller's paper is provisional,as well.

      Link 2..... Chemical properties.... If the extrapolation of number of extrasolar planets in this galaxy, 100 billion, times 100 billion galaxies that leaves us with a guesstimate of 10,000 billion planets. We have identified less than 800. The probable chemical properties of less. Since you don't believe that simulations are valid as far as evolutionary theory ,how can you accept a simulation based on less information?

      Delete
    12. Okie Dokie vel, even though the conditions for a life permitting planet are extraordinarily more difficult than you are willing to let on, let's say I give you the max. possible 10^23 planets in the universe as ideally suited for life,, that still gives you absolutely no reason to presuppose that life, reasoning, or consciousness, simply 'emerges' from a material basis. i.e. What is your evidence that consciousness 'emerges' from a material basis?

      Delete
    13. I took your links as your argument, do you not wish to defend your citing them as evidence for your position,that life is too unlikely to have occurred without help? I just thought it was ironic that you use results obtained by the very same methods which you denounce as unreliable as evidence for your argument. Don't you?

      And now you have moved on to reason and consciousness and the origin of life. I agree with you, the existence of planets able to sustain life does not prove the material emergence. It would only prove that the Earth is not the only place in the universe capable of harboring life.

      What is my evidence that consciousness is a brain function? That is fair, just to be clear could you define consciousness ?

      Delete
    14. Vel, you ignore or deny clear evidence and then ask why I don't defend it? Horse, water, drink? or should I water-board you?

      Weird Orbits of Neighbors Can Make 'Habitable' Planets Not So Habitable - May 2010
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100524143419.htm

      Thank God for Jupiter - July 2010
      Excerpt: The July 16, 1994 and July 19, 2009 collision events on Jupiter demonstrate just how crucial a role the planet plays in protecting life on Earth. Without Jupiter’s gravitational shield our planet would be pummeled by frequent life-exterminating events. Yet Jupiter by itself is not an adequate shield. The best protection is achieved via a specific arrangement of several gas giant planets. The most massive gas giant must be nearest to the life support planet and the second most massive gas giant the next nearest, followed by smaller, more distant gas giants. Together Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune provide Earth with this ideal shield.
      http://www.reasons.org/thank-god-jupiter

      Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011
      Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-gaps-fine-tuning-and-newtons-solar.html

      Milankovitch Cycle Design - Hugh Ross - August 2011
      Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive.
      http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design

      Astrobiology research is revealing the high specificity and interdependence of the local parameters required for a habitable environment. These two features of the universe make it unlikely that environments significantly different from ours will be as habitable. At the same time, physicists and cosmologists have discovered that a change in a global parameter can have multiple local effects. Therefore, the high specificity and interdependence of local tuning and the multiple effects of global tuning together make it unlikely that our tiny island of habitability is part of an archipelago. Our universe is a small target indeed.
      Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez - P. 625, The Nature of Nature

      Among Darwin Advocates, Premature Celebration over Abundance of Habitable Planets - September 2011
      Excerpt: Today, such processes as planet formation details, tidal forces, plate tectonics, magnetic field evolution, and planet-planet, planet-comet, and planet-asteroid gravitational interactions are found to be relevant to habitability.,,, What's more, not only are more requirements for habitability being discovered, but they are often found to be interdependent, forming a (irreducibly) complex "web." This means that if a planetary system is found not to satisfy one of the habitability requirements, it may not be possible to compensate for this deficit by adjusting a different parameter in the system. - Guillermo Gonzalez
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/among_darwin_advocates_prematu050871.html

      Delete
    15. The Privileged Planet - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw

      Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431

      The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
      - Jay Richards

      A few videos of related 'observability correlation' interest;

      We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video
      http://vimeo.com/31940671

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      The Loneliest Planet - ALAN HIRSHFELD - December 2011
      Excerpt: While he cannot prove a galaxy-wide absence of other civilizations, he presents an array of modern, research-based evidence that renders that conclusion eminently reasonable.
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577116570107579152.html

      Exoplanet Hunters Fail Predictions – August 2010
      Excerpt: There are so many surprises in this field—almost nothing is turning out as we expected. There are Jupiter-mass planets in three-day orbits. There are planets with masses that are between those of the terrestrial planets in our solar system and the gas giants in the outer part of our solar system. There are Jupiter-mass planets with hugely inflated radii—at densities far lower than what we thought were possible for a gas-giant planet. There are giant planets with gigantic solid cores that defy models of planet formation, which say there shouldn’t be enough solids available in a protoplanetary disk to form a planet that dense. There are planets with tilted orbits. There are planets that orbit the poles of their stars, in so-called circumpolar orbits. There are planets that orbit retrograde—that is, they orbit in the opposite direction of their star’s rotation. There are systems of planets that are in configurations that are hard to describe given our understanding of planet formation. For instance, some planets are much too close to one another.
      But a lot of those surprises have to do with the fact that we have only one example of a planetary system—our solar system—to base everything on, right?
      What’s interesting is that we’ve found very little that resembles our example.
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm#20100831a

      Delete
    16. Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS
      1
      a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

      b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact

      c : awareness;

      Delete
    17. BA ,
      Again we reverse course,back to the theory that the earth is so special that it implies God. Correct? Let's take your last link, the universe is a diverse and complicated place. Theories of planet formative are constantly being evaluated with new data. We have finite knowledge. Can we draw a conclusion from this? What is it? Bearing in mind that since our technology is limited to interpreting data, it is quite similar to what biologists do.Why do you believe this science as valid and biology using the same assumptions as invalid? You have yet to give an answer .So what does this link evidence and why should we trust the data used as evidence?

      Delete
    18. Vel, you ask:

      'Why do you believe this science as valid and biology using the same assumptions as invalid?'

      Actually I am consistent in my assumptions of science and you are inconsistent, (and severely inconsistent at that):

      Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video
      http://vimeo.com/32148403

      Delete
    19. How so? I believe scienctific methods are a valid way to gain knowledge of the world. It that your belief?

      Delete
    20. Sure:

      Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

      Delete
  3. Simon Conway Morris gave a lecture at Notre Dame University about these myths in November 2, 2009:

    "Nine Evolutionary Myths: The Closing of the Darwinian Mind"

    http://reilly.nd.edu/assets/62380/darwin_program_2009.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  4. and he delivered it again at University of Cambridge on March 12, 2012:

    http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/33462

    ReplyDelete
  5. Evolutionists haven't produced a single case of observed evolution in the history of science on planet EARTH. They should focus on getting an example on earth first.

    Here's an article on Ring Species. Like we said weeks ago... Ring Species are not evidence for evolution.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/sorry_ring_spec058261.html

    Evolutionists made such a big deal out of the gulls and salamanders that they proudly posted youtube video presentations about it that included spooky social commentary (7:50)...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYpBi7HG9k

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tedford the idiot

    Evolutionists haven't produced a single case of observed evolution in the history of science on planet EARTH.


    Evolutionists haven't produced a single case of observed evolution in the history of science on planet EARTH that idiot creationists will accept.

    For the rest of us there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly acceptable well documented published examples.

    Too bad for the Creationist idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thorton:

    Atheists always say that there is no evidence for the existance of God or the veracity of the Bible. Whatever evidence is presented is deemed unacceptable for various reasons. Yet any evidence for evolution, no matter how weak is accepted, and anyone who questions it is called stupid, or in my case, a troll. There appear to be different standards. Maybe you cold clarify for me what you consider acceptable evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. natschuster

    Atheists always say that there is no evidence for the existance of God or the veracity of the Bible.


    1. Science doesn't deal with the existence or non-existence of any Gods.

    2. Having parts of the Bible be historically accurate doesn't make the whole thing literal and true.

    3. Those honestly interested in learning can ask questions about science all they want, and they'll receive honest answers. Unfortunately, all you've shown to date is a propensity to lie and troll for your Creationist beliefs. You even admitted that you were feigning interest in scientific discussion just to get a rise, remember? So keep pounding that sand little troll.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The point about convergent evolution being a problem because attractor navigation is unlikely.
    As more research was done the enormous amount of convergence has become the soft underbelly of evolutionary error.
    its just so unlikely that randon ness would produce convergence as found.
    Theres no attraction but rather common laws in the mechanics of biologfy from a common designer.
    In fact creationism should bang a gong about this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Okay, so Science doesn't deal with evidence for or against God, so atheists shouldn't say no evidence axists. Got it.

    2. So what would be aceptable evidence for something like the 10 plagues or the Exodus? We have the Bible recording the eyewitness testimony of the entire Israelite nation, that accepted both events as their authentic history. Does this count as evidence? If not, why not? Why is, lets say, antibiotic resistance in bacteria considered good evidence that bacteria can turn into blue whales, when the eyewitness testimony of an entire nation is dismissed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster

      We have the Bible recording the eyewitness testimony of the entire Israelite nation, that accepted both events as their authentic history. Does this count as evidence?


      We have H.G. Wells War Of The Worlds recording the eyewitness testimony of the entire Earth when the Martians attacked and tried to conquer our planet.

      Does that count as evidence for Martians nat? If not, why not?

      Delete
  11. My post above was a repsonse to Thorton at 2:26 PM.

    ReplyDelete
  12. natschuster, as this blog has so clearly shown through the years, evolutionists most certainly do make judgments about what "God wouldn't do". It's all part of their pseudo science rhetoric.
    As documented by the British journal of historical sciences, Darwin's Origin of Species utilized theological claims as the foundation of his theory.

    Their mountain of evidence consists of nothing better than failed arguments from Ring Species to Bird Beaks... it's all junk science struggling to cherry pick whatever it can maintain its dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tedford the idiot

    natschuster, as this blog has so clearly shown through the years, evolutionists most certainly do make judgments about what "God wouldn't do"


    Hey Pastor Tedford, speaking about what God wouldn't do: you're in Michigan, right?

    There are almost 100 priests and pastors in Michigan alone who have been accused of child molestation in the last 20 years or so

    Database of priest child molesters - Michigan

    How many were from your diocese? Did you hang out with any of them personally?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thorton:

    Did anyone ever consider "War of the Worlds" to be an authentic history? The Bible was always considered to be the authentic history of the Israelites. If H.G. Wells did claim that it was an authentic history, then it might count as evidence, just not very good evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've never seen an electron. I've got to take it on faith that scientists have seen the evidence. Why isn't the eyewitness testimony of the entire Hebrew nation as valid as the testimony of scientists?

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

    ReplyDelete
  17. natschuster

    Why isn't the eyewitness testimony of the entire Hebrew nation as valid as the testimony of scientists?


    You don't have eyewitness testimony of the entire Hebrew nation. You have a book with many demonstrably fictional parts claiming to have eyewitness testimony.

    I'll bet even trollish you can figure out why that isn't compelling evidence. Go on nat, try

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Jewish nation accepted the Bible as its authentic history. They accepted as authentic history that their ancestors all witnessed the plagues and the Exodus. Why doesn't this count as evidence?

    And have we changed the discussion fro evidence to compelling evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  19. sorry, typo "fro" should be "from."\\

    And what if I say that bactrial resistance to antibiotics isn't compelling evidence that bacteria can turn into blue whales? Does that make me a troll?

    ReplyDelete
  20. natschuster

    The Jewish nation accepted the Bible as its authentic history. They accepted as authentic history that their ancestors all witnessed the plagues and the Exodus. Why doesn't this count as evidence?


    The Mayan nation accepted the Popul Vuh as its authentic history. They accepted as authentic history that their ancestors all witnessed the heroic twin Gods Hunahpu and Xbalanque. Why doesn't this count as evidence that Mayan beliefs are true?

    And what if I say that bactrial resistance to antibiotics isn't compelling evidence that bacteria can turn into blue whales?

    Since no one in science thinks or says bacterial resistance by itself is compelling evidence, you'd appear even more ignorant and uninformed than usual.

    Does that make me a troll?

    No, the stupid and willfully dishonest things you've posted over the last year make you a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I understand that the Popul Vuh was written decades after the conquest. It ws discovered over a century later and translated. The translation as dicoverd over century later. I don't know if the May even saw it, let alone considered it their authentic history. And it isn't clear if it is an accurate recording of real the actual beliefs of the Maya.

    And the story of the brothers seems to have taken place in the prehistory of the Maya. That's the way to is with most creation myths. They differentiate beteen their prehistory, and their history. The Exodus was always considered part of the history of the Jewish people.

    ReplyDelete
  22. natschuster Apr 10, 2012 05:58 PM

    The Jewish nation accepted the Bible as its authentic history. They accepted as authentic history that their ancestors all witnessed the plagues and the Exodus. Why doesn't this count as evidence?


    Evidence of what?

    Evidence that this is what Jews believe? Yes

    Evidence that those beliefs are true? No

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why isn't it evidence that those beliefs are true?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I say I believe there is a pink unicorn in my garage and you say you don't believe it, is either statement evidence of what there is in the garage? However, if we both go and look in the garage and see it's empty, those observations are evidence that supports your belief not mine.

      Similarly, the stories in the Bible might be accounts of what the authors believed actually happened or they might be intended as metaphor and allegory or they might be a mixture of all these things. Without evidence from other sources we have no way of knowing. References to Jesus in the works of Josephus and Tacitus, for example, are evidence that there was a preacher or healer of that name in Judea at about the right time. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not they were just repeating what they had been told by other Christian sources. Yes, what they wrote is evidence but, on its own, it's not even persuasive, let alone compelling.

      Delete
  24. natschuster

    Why isn't it evidence that those beliefs are true?


    "Since I believe ABC is true, my belief is evidence that ABC is true"

    Really nat, you'll have your troll license revoked if you keep posting stuff that dumb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A whole nation believing something is a little different than one person. If someone tried to say that around 1820 extra-terrestrials visted the U.S.A and everybody saw them and it became part of the official history of the United States then, I would assume, most people would reject it. So if the miracles of the Bible didn't happen, it means that someone said that they did happen at a specific time in the nations history, everyone saw them, and it was even written down, and the whole nation accepted this without question.

      Delete
    2. If somebody told me that my grandfather saw the Nile turn to blood, I would ask why my Grandfather didn't tell me.

      Delete
  25. Thorton 

    I followed the link to  Database of priest child molesters - Michigan

    1- All molesters from Gaylord,MI should be excused. It's obvious why.
    2- Best way to solve problems is to sweep them under the rug.
    3- Does anyone keep a handy list  of doctors, teachers who molested ? How about policemen drug dealers? Corrupted politicians?  The list would be very long I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My wife used to work in the legal side of child abuse, the majority of abusers are family, people living in the same home as the children. The Catholic Church valued its institution over the needs of the children to be safe, of course they are not alone in that.

      Delete
    2. Eugen,

      you've joined Thorton in defending what you consider to be science using slander as a technique.

      It's shameful. Why imitate him?

      Thorton is a one-trick pony act. He "believes" in invisible forces, unknown to us, that somehow have "directed" evolution. That's all he's got.

      And, of course, it is all invisible, yet powerful. It's "Darwinism in the Gaps". Wow. What science!

      Delete
  26. Velikovsky


    "of course they are not alone in that."

    Thanks for being honest. Institutions like government, law enforcement, medical, education, religion etc. are run by people who make mistakes.

    Sometimes mistakes are unintentional, other times intentional.

    Certain groups like to focus only on one institution's mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Eugen,

    If I misunderstood your comment that I responded to earlier, then I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Lino

    I was trying to say there are many people in different institutions that make mistakes. Many times media will focus on mistakes of pastors or priests while doctors or teachers who molested receive minor attention.

    Media speciality is Catholic bashing for weeks while corrupted politicians are filling their pockets and ruining countries.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with your first response, institutions can't control everything their representatives do. And people who run them are human and make human mistakes.And since a child has more chance to suffer abuse from his family, the Catholic Church only accounts for a smaller percentage of abuse. I am a Catholic of the nonpracticing kind, unable to escape my early indoctrination.

    Now,Eugen,you had to ruin it with second response. If a priest is molesting someone he deserves everything he gets, whether someone else is ignored or not. If the Church takes a hit then they should say,mea culpa,mea maxima culpa and fix the problem. Not whine about how someone else did it and nobody said anything. That excuse never worked from me with the nuns and it trivalizes the abuse.

    The real issue is how the Church responded to the abuse, protection of the reputation of the Church outweighed their responsibility to protect the children, sending pedophiles to work in new parishes to compound their error. Have any Bishops been sanctioned for this,arrested for failure to report child abuse? In any other institution management which failed to " fire " a pedophile would not have a job. So I have a hard time feeling very outraged for the Church. And now the apologist say that's ancient history ,let's move on. Fine when the last child who suffered abuse is in heaven,for if there is a just God,being abused by a priest should be a get out of jail free card ,then the Catholic Church can complain fairness.

    FYI,one of the priests in the database taught at my high school when I was there,creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Velikovsky

    If abusive act is proven the abuser should be punished accordingly. Regardless if it’s a pedophile priest, policeman dealing drugs, doctor molesting patients, politician taking bribes etc Job title doesn’t guarantee person will be perfect.
    I still see some issues get blown out of proportion while others go unreported in media.

    Suspicious coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  31. First,are you saying that policeman dealing drugs and a politician taking a bribe are equally serious offenses as child abuse? Equally as abhorrent as the individual priest's actions was the neglect shown by the Church's upper management. Children's rights were sacrificed for the good of the Church. Ok,humans make mistakes, and as a society we can throw you in jail forever because of it. If the Catholic Church's feelings are hurt by justified criticism , too bad. They are getting off easier than the children abused.

    ReplyDelete