More Than Meets the Eye
Carl Sagan once responded to an evolution skeptic with a response that Sagan obviously had given some thought to. You can listen to the question and Sagan’s summary beginning at the [0:24] mark:
Skeptic: How do you explain the switch from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
Sagan: First off, let me say that, that in no way challenges the validity of biological evolution, whether we’re able or unable to explain the fact that many species, by no means all, reproduce sexually today. The Darwinian concept of evolution and natural selection is profoundly verified, not just by the fossil record, not just by the clear experience of artificial selection, but by the record in the nucleic acids, which is obtained by DNA sequencing, in which we can see the similarities and differences of organisms, and trace their evolutionary past—their history.
Sagan begins by explaining that the failure to explain basic and important productions of evolution cannot challenge the validity of evolution. Philosophers call this theory-protectionism. If basic, important theoretical failures can do no harm, then the theory is not falsifiable.
Next Sagan provides three evidences for evolution: fossils, artificial selection and DNA comparisons. Even if all these evidences were as evolution predicted they would not prove evolution. In that case, Sagan’s claim that evolution is “profoundly verified” by these evidences amounts to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
But it gets worse. For in all three cases, the evidence is not even what evolution expects, but instead contradicts the evolutionary prediction. The fossils do not form an evolutionary tree, but rather reveal abrupt diversity explosions followed by a winnowing due to extinctions. The expected evolutionary tree is turned upside down.
Likewise artificial selection, and the experience of breeders, reveals that species do not simply extrapolate indefinitely as evolution expects. Breeders can be bring about change, but only so much. Darwin had to say that natural selection had something that artificial selection did not. There is no evidence for that, but for our purposes that is irrelevant. The point is that artificial selection does not provide the evidence Sagan claimed it did.
Finally, like the fossil record, the DNA sequences also do not form an evolutionary tree, but instead contradict it. Evolutionists have to prefilter the sequence data, and perform several other intellectual twists, to force fit the data into a tree.
Sagan claimed such arguments profoundly verify evolution. Instead the evidence reveals a host of problems for evolutionary theory.
I've been told for what seems like the millionth time that Intelligent Design is not science but a pseudo-science. Many seemingly intelligent people disagree with this assessment. So to clear the matter up perhaps a neo-Darwinist can be so kind as to show us 'IDiots' the exact mathematical demarcation criteria of neo-Darwinism so that we may finally learn how to properly designate real Darwinian science from the pseudo-scientific tripe that is Intelligent Design?
ReplyDelete“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
– Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
(Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:
DeleteEvolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
http://evoinfo.org/publications/
,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:
"Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved."
- Dr Behe in 1997
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
Well, do neo-Darwinists have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes?,,, I have yet to see a single novel protein arise by neo-Darwinian processes much less a entire molecular machine! Without such a demonstration and still their dogmatic insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell, the actual demarcation threshold for believing neo-Darwinism is true is this:
Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/
How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA
,, I hope neo-Darwinists can help us to designate a more rigid threshold for neo-Darwinism, since as far as I can tell, without a rigid demarcation criteria, neo-Darwinism is in actuality the pseudo-science they accuse Intelligent Design of being!
Wouldn't be a thread without batspit77 / Phil Cunningham getting his usual case of off topic religious diarrhea.
DeleteSo your demarcation criteria for believing Darwinism is true is that you don't like people who believe in God??? Or does the actual proof come later after your insults dissing anybody who does not believe your personal religion of Darwinism???
DeleteMake that batspit77 having LSD flashbacks along with his off topic religious diarrhea.
DeleteSeems like Thornton religiously opposes anyone that opposes his religious worldview. Let me take a wild guess , Thornton must be an atheist.
DeleteIt's no wonder atheists score higher on the Asperger's syndrome quotient test then theists do.
BA,
DeleteThis may be of some interest to you,
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens
WCW
Vel, shame on you! Are you trying to give Batspit77 a cerebral aneurysm?
DeleteLOL!
ReplyDeletePoor Cornelius. So desperate for any mud to sling against ToE he digs up a 30+ year old video from astronomer / cosmologist carl Sagan. Even at that all CH can do is go "nuh uh!" and post the usual Creationist lies to Sagan's examples of why evolution is verified.
What's next CH? Gonna quote from Lord Kelvin in 1895
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible"
to prove airplanes can't fly?
Was not Carl Sagan the crackpot who was searching for ET and believed in time travel? Yes, he was. LOL.
DeleteWhat's next CH? Gonna quote from Lord Kelvin in 1895
Delete"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible"
to prove airplanes can't fly?
Speaking of flying, maybe thornton can begin to explain geese flying in a V formation as the result of "random mutation". Maybe even give us a scenario of how a chaotic cause can instigate or "learn" about wing tip vortices. Or even better, cite one of those "mutations" for us. Suggestion to the contributor: why not forgo the angry, frustration engendered denunciations that leave the reader awestruck at how losers behave. Losers of a scientific debate that is.
Hey MSEE,
DeleteLet me have a go at an "explanation".
Geese evolved the ability fly in a v-formation because it allows them to fly through the air conserving resources.
How's that? Do I move to the head of the class with that answer? ;)
Doesn't fly. You need to step us through. Don't just tell us it happened, this Darwinism of the gaps thing. Tell us for example how halfway through the enumerated "random mutation" acquisition, they were selected for, even though the V formation came later. Why not tell us what the first mutation was that got the ball rolling, and how it got selected? You feel like taking it on?
DeleteMSEE:"Why not tell us what the first mutation was that got the ball rolling, and how it got selected?"
DeleteThe mutation happened in the part of the DNA where it codes for 'flying not in formation'. The mutation added new information to the genome because the birds gained a new ability. We could call this part of the DNA 'flying in formation'. After the mutation, the v formation pattern emerged because it allowed the geese to get further on the same amount of energy. The birds that used this new information, survived. See how simple that was? Of course we can't forget the original problem that this new mutation solved. Geese were not getting far enough in flight. The geese that didn't get the mutation flew not as long and had to take more breaks. To rest, they landed in areas where predators were lying in wait. In this way natural selection finds the best means to solve problems.
MSIDiot
DeleteSpeaking of flying, maybe thornton can begin to explain geese flying in a V formation as the result of "random mutation".
Birds don't consciously form a V when flying. They have evolved instinctual behavior to fly in the most energy efficient manner which means flying in the upwash vortex field of the bird in front. The net result is often a formation that resembles either a V or a J.
Energy saving in flight formation
Weimerskirch et al
Nature 413, 697-698, 18 October 2001
Abstract: Many species of large bird fly together in formation because flight power demands and energy expenditure can be reduced when the birds fly at an optimal spacing or because orientation is improved by communication within groups. We have measured heart rates as an estimate of energy expenditure in imprinted great white pelicans (Pelecanus onocrotalus) trained to fly in 'V' formation, and show that these birds save a significant amount of energy by flying in formation. This advantage is probably a principal reason for the evolution of flight formation in large birds that migrate in groups."
Formation flying also is an evolutionary advantage because it makes orientation and communication (i.e warnings of predators) easier for the whole flock.
Once again while you childish IDiots are busy with your 'neener neener' games science has been out investigating and learning.
Marcus: thx for the wink and nod
DeleteWell thornton you sure blew me away with all of the detail on how the steps were conserved by selection on the way to that energy-conservation from the V formation. You know that oh-so-smart Darwinism-of-the-gaps thing in flying colors.
DeleteOh BTW, big brownie points for the pejoratives and name calling. Shows all of the students here you really know how to debate the science. Next time you decide to post, detail one of the increments for us and how it was selected.
I understand that the first goose in the formation does not get any benefit, so they take turns flying in the lead. How did this come about? Were the first geese who flew in the front of the formation the ones without the mutations for flying in a V? Then they should have gone extinct pretty quickly. So no goose would fly in front, so no formation. Unless the instinct to take turns flying in front evolved at the same time as the formation flying instinct. just how did it happen?
DeleteMSIdiot
DeleteWell thornton you sure blew me away with all of the detail on how the steps were conserved by selection on the way to that energy-conservation from the V formation.
LOL! Don't you childish morons ever get a new writer? The Creationist idiocy "Science can't give me every last detail, so that means all that science does know about evolution is wrong!!!" was old and stale 30 years ago.
Why don't you give me all the details you know about how and when the "Intelligent Designer" did it. There are hundreds of thousands of technical papers with details about the evolution of the class Aves. What have you got besides your big mouth?
Shows all of the students here you really know how to debate the science.
Oh, now suddenly you want to debate science. OK, go ahead and read the Weimerskirch paper above, tell us all the things the authors got wrong and why. I'll await your detailed analysis.
You won't of course. You're just another immature BSing Creationist who mistakes blustering ignorance for informed discussion. But you clowns are fun to laugh at.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteI understand that the first goose in the formation does not get any benefit
I understand that you're a homophobic bigot who trolls science blogs for kicks. Have you joined the Westboro Baptists in their hate marches yet?
So you don't have an answer and must resort to insult and subject changing. Got it.
DeleteThorton:
DeleteSince we are using insults instead of arguments, why don't we just play the dozens. I'll start. Your momma is so fat that when she wears a flower dress, people think she is the botanical gardens. your turn.
"Science can't give me every last detail, so that means all that science does know about evolution is wrong!!!" - If you don't have any of the details that led to the conclusion, maybe the conclusion wasn't scientific.
Deletenatschuster the homophobic bigot
Deletewhy don't we just play the dozens
Sorry, I don't deal with homophobic bigots. Go burn a cross on your own time.
Don't you childish morons ever get a new writer?
DeleteWell now for you students following the thread consider the irony: Here we have a big-time scientist (so-called) not able to supply a single detail when asked. The irony of resorting to "childish morons" instead. How adult-like. These are the people begging you to come into the fold of Darwinism. AND how interesting the adult-like writing of the "immature" "clowns" into the narrative. What this shows you young-uns is how you will be treated in this field, should you choose it and think to be revolutionary in any way.
The Creationist idiocy "Science can't give me every last detail..."
Again you young folks: all this contributor was asking was for some big-time scientist to come up with ONE detail, not even several, much less "every last". Some big-time scientists (so-called) cannot even read my very clear challenge.
What have you got besides your big mouth?
Several big time scientists have seen and heard the mouth of this contributor. Big time scientist on this thread has not seen nor heard it. Only text appears here.
OK, go ahead and read the Weimerskirch paper above, tell us all the things the authors got wrong and why.
They likely got it right so isn't eveyone happy? Now none of the papers to which links have been posted have answered my challenges. If the above paper lays out the framework of how the incremental evolution of the V flying GOT SELECTED prior to the final success of the flying V, please someone direct me to the paragraphs by page number. If the paper documents a single step in the evolution of the phenomenon and documents the selective advantage, please indicate where in the paper.
MSIdiot
DeleteHere we have a big-time scientist (so-called) not able to supply a single detail when asked
LOL! Here we have the Creationist liar playing his childish 'gotcha' games again. Science even has a name for his kind of dishonesty - "ID Squared" or "I Demand Infinite Detail!"
He can't explain the data that was posted, he can't supply any evidence or details of his own for his "it was DESIGNED!!!" scenario, but he'll run that big mouth all day long.
Oh well. Science will laugh for a while at Creationist clowns like MSEE, then ignore him. And he'll eventually crawl back under his rock - they always do.
Thorton:
DeleteSo you concede defeat. Yay, I win.
ThortonJuly 8, 2013 at 1:39 PM
DeleteMSIdiot
Here we have a big-time scientist (so-called) not able to supply a single detail when asked
LOL! Here we have the Creationist liar playing his childish 'gotcha' games again. Science even has a name for his kind of dishonesty - "ID Squared" or "I Demand Infinite Detail!"
But evolutionists ask for details from
ID proponents all the time. And when they aren't provided, they say that ID is not a valid explanation. So why aren't evolutionists required to provide details. Sometimes we need to know the details because we need to see if evolution is even possible. For example, in the case of the Geese flying in formation and taking turns in the lead, if there is no detailed explanation, it is questionable if it is even possible to evolve via a Darwinian process.
So you don't have an answer. Got it.
DeleteAnd I don't no anyone besides bigots who call black people darkies.
should be "know anyone". My bad.
DeleteAnd don't you hate religious people? That's the impression I get form your name calling and such. What's the name for that again?
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteAnd I call black people darkies.
Fits your character, although it's not something to brag about.
Vel, Why would you call Dawkins an ass? I could understand fool, but it's no reason drag donkeys name through the mud.
Delete""natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteAnd I call black people darkies.
Fits your character, although it's not something to brag about"".
There is a name for people who deliberately, intentionally misquote people.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteThere is a name for people who deliberately, intentionally misquote people.
There is a name for a homophobic bigot who thinks LGBT folks are evil sub-humans unworthy of equality. That name is nat schuster.
Marcus,
DeleteVel, Why would you call Dawkins an ass? I could understand fool, but it's no reason drag donkeys name through the mud.
A fool would be inaccurate, still waiting for your pointing out the fallacies of your high priests.
Vel:"A fool would be inaccurate, still waiting for your pointing out the fallacies of your high priests."
DeleteI'm a little puzzled by your response Velikovskys. You did an ad-hom fallacy on Dawkins.
Why not help me through the assertion that Dr. Hunter made.
I don't want to fail at basic critical thinking.
I don't understand why by Dr. Hunter said Sagan committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Thorton says he's wrong. How can I discern who is telling the truth given I have no formal training.
Full disclosure, since Dr. Hunter believes in the Creator, I fully trust him infinitely more than Thorton. Also since Dr. Hunter always answers questions with respect to the other person, and therefore, IMHO,he has more credibility too.
You seem to like honesty so please teach me and the class about this specific logic problem I can't solve.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMarcus.
DeleteI'm a little puzzled by your response Velikovskys. You did an ad-hom fallacy on Dawkins.
Why not help me through the assertion that Dr. Hunter made.
Perhaps you should be more specific in what you request " never point out the fallacies of their high priests arguments"
While being an ass is not a logical fallacy, it is a fallacy in my opinion and one that can lead one into logical fallacies.Now you wish to specify exactly which high priest and which fallacy, affirming the consequent.
Before attempting that, given that you have yet to offer even the meekish criticism of any " fallacy of your high priest arguments" , it seems you are requiring of others that which you are unwilling to do yourself.
As a side note, nice sarcastic tone ,a little forced but coming along.
Full disclosure, since Dr. Hunter believes in the Creator, I fully trust him infinitely more than Thorton.
No kidding, the problem may be the requirements of Creator that DrHunter believes in makes him less trustworthy when it comes to science.
Also since Dr. Hunter always answers questions with respect to the other person, and therefore, IMHO,he has more credibility too.
That is reasonable, but since I do as well, that behavior lends no credibility for me. I find his educational background as more persuasive than his tone.
Let me know if your still require me to walk you thru DrHunter's assertion.
Marcus
DeleteI don't understand why by Dr. Hunter said Sagan committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Sadly it’s because Dr. Hunter works for a Christian right-wing think tank and gets paid to write such disingenuous anti-science propaganda. Apparently money is more important to him than integrity.
Thorton says he's wrong. How can I discern who is telling the truth given I have no formal training.
You can ask questions, read, and learn.
"Affirming the consequent" is a logical fallacy that happens when you start with a conclusion, then use incomplete data to ‘prove’ your case. An example is
I claim it rained last night.
I look out the window and see my driveway is wet.
Therefore my claim is correct.
This is wrong because there are other ways the driveway could be wet. You neighbor just watered his lawn for instance.
The proper way, and the way that science works is to observe the phenomenon first (my driveway is wet), form a hypothesis (it rained last night) then test the hypothesis (check other driveways in the neighborhood, look at the weather radar results, test for alternate causes like lawn sprinklers). When you gather enough positive evidence that supports your hypothesis it may be considered fact.
What science did and what Sagan described is the second, proper method. Evolution started as a hypothesis to explain the observed data, it was thoroughly tested and passed every test (although sometimes understanding of the fine details changes), it has now been confirmed well enough to be considered fact. Sagan was just listing some of the evidence that led to the conclusion.
Dr. Hunter is claiming that science used the first, incorrect way. That science decided ahead of time that evolution must be true, then cherry picked the data to support the claim. This is 100% false and Dr. Hunter knows it. It’s just a disingenuous and dishonest rhetorical ploy on his part.
Thank you Thorton.
DeleteVel:"Before attempting that, given that you have yet to offer even the meekish criticism of any " fallacy of your high priest arguments" , it seems you are requiring of others that which you are unwilling to do yourself."
DeleteI am seeking truth first. I want to evaluate arguments more from a logical perspective than intuitive perspective. I agree that there are many liars in the world, theistic and non-theistic. Since Dr. Hunter believes in the Jesus, I suspect he holds himself to the higher standard. In other words, he will be held responsible for the words he uses, not only on earth, but after he dies. That brings out the best in us I think, if we let it. I will repeat, there are many wolves in sheeps clothing so evaluation of arguments works both ways. No doubt, I prefer to find weakness in those arguments against God. Actually that is my own self righteousness there. The power of conversion is in the words written in the Bible not in my fallible ability to find fault with others arguments. Since God created a universe with laws, we should be able to understand reasons to believe vs. not to believe.
Overall, participating on this blog is forcing me to evaluate WHY I believe what I believe. No sarcasm here.
So thornton, again, I beseech you, point me to some passage in the paper you posted, that explains how a partially evolved sense of the V formation in geese provided a survival advantage for the geese. If the paper doesn't provide for such can you just state so like any honest person would? Can we dispense with the mental anguish and get through this?
DeleteMSIdiot
DeleteSo thornton, again, I beseech you, point me to some passage in the paper you posted, that explains how a partially evolved sense of the V formation in geese provided a survival advantage for the geese.
Already been done. The evolutionary advantage is in minimizing energy expenditure. Even a small energy savings over the individuals who didn't use the behavior would provide an advantage. It's differential reproductive success that gets rewarded - being more efficient than your neighbor.
I'd ask you to dispense with the usual Creationist arguments from ignorance and dishonesty but I know you're not anywhere near mature enough to even try.
No not done. My question had to do with just the first few mutations of surely many millions, which were required for the geese to even get to a V formation. What did these first few mutations confer so far as survival advantage? If not many millions of mutations were required, then how many?
DeleteMSIdiot
DeleteNo not done. My question had to do with just the first few mutations of surely many millions, which were required for the geese to even get to a V formation.
LOL! Here goes the ignorant dishonest Creationist again: "I DEMAND INFINITE DETAIL!!
Why don't you explain why anyone would be stupid enough to demand science recreate to the molecular level events that took place tens of millions of years ago?
Thorton:
DeleteI, for one, would like some details because I'm not convinced that the evolution of formation flying is even possible for the reasons I sited above.
Marcus,
DeleteI am seeking truth first. I want to evaluate arguments more from a logical perspective than intuitive perspective. I agree that there are many liars in the world, theistic and non-theistic
Very reasonable position, then why the innuendo that " atheists" aren't likewise motivated?
Since Dr. Hunter believes in the Jesus, I suspect he holds himself to the higher standard.
Even though you admitted being a theist is no guarantee for honesty, all men sin.
In other words, he will be held responsible for the words he uses, not only on earth, but after he dies
Nothing more admirable than virtue at the point of a gun.So by your logic an atheist who is honest should be far more "virtuous"
because what atheist does is not motivated by the fear of future punishment but for its own sake.
That brings out the best in us I think, if we let it. I will repeat, there are many wolves in sheeps clothing so evaluation of arguments works both ways
Fear of punishment by an all seeing diety? Obviously not enough motivation to keep some in line,they must really really want to sin.
No doubt, I prefer to find weakness in those arguments against God
Yes,I noticed.
Actually that is my own self righteousness there. The power of conversion is in the words written in the Bible not in my fallible ability to find fault with others arguments
It is good to have a critical mind. One never knows where one might end up.
Since God created a universe with laws, we should be able to understand reasons to believe vs. not to believe.
Perhaps God could care less if we believe in Him. I've always found the whole worship thing as a bit needy from an omnipotent being as well as being completely anthrocentric. Certainly appreciation for existence seems polite .
Nat,
DeleteI, for one, would like some details because I'm not convinced that the evolution of formation flying is even possible for the reasons I sited
I think Thorton doesn't want to play anymore. What were those reasons you cited, in a thumbnail version?
Formation flying in geese requires that a goose fly behind another goose. So did the first formation flying geese just sneak behind other geese? Then the other geese would become extinct, and there would be no geese to fly behind. Did they then try to maneuver to fly behind each other? That wouldn't work. So the formation flying instinct doesn't work without the instinct to take turns flying in front. But that requires that a goose not only fly in front, but that the other geese take turns, and that they trust each other to take turns. So how did it all happen?
Deletenatschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteI, for one, would like to see all the evil sinner gays thrown in jail
What's next nat? Gonna require them all to wear a pink triangle like your role models did back in the day?
velikovskys
DeleteI think Thorton doesn't want to play anymore.
Oh I'll still play with nat the bigot. I'll just play rough.
Nat schuster has always been a disingenuous trolling ass but his display of ugly bigotry last week was beyond the pale. I'm glad we finally know just the kind of sewer scum we're dealing with.
Thorton:
DeleteSo you don't have an answer, so you resort to name calling, accusations, misquoting, and subject changing. See, this is one of the many reasons I don't like evolution. It's proponents have to resort to all this. If it is so well established, then just answer the questions.
Thorton on 7/8
Delete""natschuster the homophobic bigot
why don't we just play the dozens"
Sorry, I don't deal with homophobic bigots. Go burn a cross on your own time."
I think Thorton doesn't want to play anymore.
Thorton on 7/10:
"Oh I'll still play with nat the bigot. I'll just play rough.
Nat schuster has always been a disingenuous trolling ass but his display of ugly bigotry last week was beyond the pale. I'm glad we finally know just the kind of sewer scum we're dealing with."
I'm so confused.
Thorton:
Delete"natschuster the bigot
Gays don't deserve civil rights
So what other minorities do you hate nat? How many crosses have you burned on peoples' lawns?"
You making evolution seem even less acceptable to me with each post.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteI'm so confused.
We know. You're confused by concepts like honesty, and equality, and fairness. Probably why you see nothing wrong with your despicable bigotry.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteYou making evolution seem even less acceptable to me with each post
Good. Science doesn't need dishonest racist homophobes like you to support it. Stick with Creationism, you're a natural.
So when you posted on 7/8 that you didn't want to deal with me was that a "gasp" lie?
DeleteDo other evolutionists lie?
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteNow I can raise my children as creationists and not feel guilty.
Just like you'll raise them to be lying hateful bigots the same as their father I'm sure. I feel sorry for them.
"Good. Science doesn't need dishonest racist homophobes like you to support it. Stick with Creationism, you're a natural."
DeleteWasn't Darwin a racist? So science does get supported by racists. Oh well.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteI'm a racist
So nat, you hoping your kids will be teachers so they can screw their students by skipping the evolution science chapters like you did? Maybe they'll brag about it in the same way too.
I'm having trouble understanding the evolution of migration in monarch butterflies. It requires knowledge of where they are, where they are going, and how to get there. It requires the ability to turn around and migrate in the opposite direction when the seasons change. And since the migration takes several generations, whatever mutations happened don't provide a benefit for the individual in which they happen.
Deletenatschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteI'm having trouble understanding the evolution
Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time attacking minorities with your hateful intolerance you wouldn't be such a dumbass.
I was performing an experiment. I wanted to see if every time I posted something you couldn't address, you would resort to insults, name calling, etc. That appears to be the case. It must be an evolutionist thing.
DeleteOh, and what would be your evidence that I am a racist? I might be a member of an ethnic minority group for all you know. I think I get it now. You are an evolutionist. That means you don't need evidence. Another evolutionist thing.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteI'm a bigoted homophobic troll
What are you going to tell your kids when they do a Google search on your name (and they will) and find all the hateful discrimination you've been advocating?
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with you being a bigoted jerk. You decided to wallow in the slime, why are you crying when you got all dirty?
I just did a google search and couldn't find any racism, bigotry, etc. Sorry.
DeleteI ask about science. You respond with insults. You are right. Evolution has nothing to do with science.
Vel:"Nothing more admirable than virtue at the point of a gun."
DeleteThat's not how the Gospel works. No man is good enough to work his way into heaven. That is why Jesus presented Himself as the living sacrifice to pay for all of our sins past and future. As we live our lives in a covenant relationship with Jesus, we become more and more aware of how we fall short of His glory, in addition to that, we become aware of His perfection and the profound magnitude of His sacrifice. As these truths become more apparent, the greater the love we feel,the deeper the relationship with Him, the better we want to behave.
Now,our deeds will be tested. The deeds that survive His holy fire will be rewarded. There is no gun to our head. We use our God given libertarian free will and CHOOSE to follow Jesus. Atheist choose not to and it's that simple. They make the choice not God.
Vel:"So by your logic an atheist who is honest should be far more "virtuous"
An atheist will do what an atheist will do. Since I am completely fallible and ignorant, I can make judgement mistakes like the rest of us. Atheists can make a good moral, virtuous judgments too.
Vel:"Perhaps God could care less if we believe in Him. I've always found the whole worship thing as a bit needy from an omnipotent being as well as being completely anthrocentric. Certainly appreciation for existence seems polite ."
DeleteBut what if the Creator has a specific plan for your life? What if He put you on Earth at this specific time for a specific purpose? Search deep dude! Look what happened with William Wilberforce. He started out in the Methodist way, turned away from God, then came back and changed the future! What is God's plan for you?
Marcus
DeleteThat's not how the Gospel works. No man is good enough to work his way into heaven
We were talking about the other place,man's actions are sufficent for that correct. Not the carrot,the stick.
An atheist will do what an atheist will do. Since I am completely fallible and ignorant, I can make judgement mistakes like the rest of us. Atheists can make a good moral, virtuous judgments too.
Not accusing you of anything, merely saying that "virtue" coerced is hardly virtuous in its motivation. And I am not saying that the only reason theists are virtuous is threat of damnation, but as you said" he will be held responsible for the words he uses, not only on earth, but after he dies"
But what if the Creator has a specific plan for your life?
That is a comforting thought, just assume everything is according to plan.
What if He put you on Earth at this specific time for a specific purpose?
That would make me very special.
Search deep dude!
Ok, now what? What evidence supports your conception? Mine is quite a bit less complicated, " God" allows our existence to be possible.
Look what happened with William Wilberforce. He started out in the Methodist way, turned away from God, then came back and changed the future
So god's plan was for him to help abolish slavery, what was god's plan for those slaves that died on the voyage, become a example so WW would have a purpose?
If we don't attribute the slaves horible death in the holds of those ships to God plan, then why should we attribute WW actions as God's Plan.It might have nothing to do with God,just like those slaves deaths
The reason of course is everything good is the result of God and everything we view as evil is the fallen nature of man who is God's creation.Correct?
Nat,
DeleteI was performing an experiment. I wanted to see if every time I posted something you couldn't address
So, you were being a devil's advocate, but the problem with that explanation is you didn't post anything that couldn't be addressed.
you would resort to insults, name calling, etc. That appears to be the case. It must be an evolutionist thing.
I don't believe I or Ian did anything but expose your shoddy reasoning, I guess stereotyping everyone is your thing.
Vel:”So god's plan was for him to help abolish slavery, what was god's plan for those slaves that died on the voyage, become a example so WW would have a purpose?
DeleteIf we don't attribute the slaves horible death in the holds of those ships to God plan, then why should we attribute WW actions as God's Plan.It might have nothing to do with God,just like those slaves deaths
The reason of course is everything good is the result of God and everything we view as evil is the fallen nature of man who is God's creation.Correct?”
M:I would only change that WW said he believed God was guiding his steps in life and as a result, the things he did worked in a good way. I would agree that it was God that enabled him. We can measure the good that came out of it. Ending slavery was a good thing, but it was only one complete human failure that was in effect in England during the 1700’s. It’s just a fact, God allows bad things to happen. The Bible is pretty clear about that. Every Time the Israelites turned away from God, the results were slavery, and every kind of evil.
Marcus,
Deletewould only change that WW said he believed God was guiding his steps in life and as a result, the things he did worked in a good way
A benefit for all slaves, luckily god's plan included their suffering as a necessary stimulus. God's plans seem to involve a lot of collateral damage.
We can measure the good that came out of it. Ending slavery was a good thing,
And one that could have been ended at any point by God. But that apparently also wasn't His Plan
. It’s just a fact, God allows bad things to happen. The Bible is pretty clear about that. Every Time the Israelites turned away from God
Well if it is just a fact, so just hope in God's Plan you are not one of those security guys in the red shirts in Star Trek.
Perhaps God was punishing the Africans for something and WW was opposing the actual plan of God?
Vel:"Perhaps God was punishing the Africans for something and WW was opposing the actual plan of God?"
DeleteM: Quite possible or it could be that God sets the standard and instruction about how to live and things will be easier. If you turn from that wisdom you get slavery and intensified bad stuff. Just like God set the law of gravity. If while base jumping, your wing suit fails, it's plausible you will become acquainted with high speed dirt.
velikovskysJuly 11, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Delete""Nat,
I was performing an experiment. I wanted to see if every time I posted something you couldn't address
So, you were being a devil's advocate, but the problem with that explanation is you didn't post anything that couldn't be addressed.""
Then be so kind a s to address them.
""you would resort to insults, name calling, etc. That appears to be the case. It must be an evolutionist thing."
I don't believe I or Ian did anything but expose your shoddy reasoning, I guess stereotyping everyone is your thing."
I've been called names and such by other people on other blogs. And people like Dawkins, Myers, etc. do say bad things about believers. There does seem to be a tendency. And here you are accusing me of stereotyping.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteAnd here you are accusing me of stereotyping.
Gee, how could anyone think that about goody-two-shoes nat? Just because he told us all gays are perverts and second class citizens who deserve to be punished for their "gay lifestyle", whatever that is?
Vel:"Perhaps God was punishing the Africans for something and WW was opposing the actual plan of God?"
DeleteM: Quite possible or it could be that God sets the standard and instruction about how to live and things will be easier. If you turn from that wisdom you get slavery and intensified bad stuff
Nice God you got. No only doesn't prevent evil but He doles it out as punishment on entire populations, innocent and guilty alike.
Just like God set the law of gravity. If while base jumping, your wing suit fails, it's plausible you will become acquainted with high speed dirt.
I see,if you had the bad luck to be born in Africa in the 1700's, you deserve what you get. You should have been born a rich guy in London if you wanted God's Plan to be less painful.
So how do we tell where God's punishment stops and evil begins?
Nat,
DeleteSo, you were being a devil's advocate, but the problem with that explanation is you didn't post anything that couldn't be addressed.""
Then be so kind a s to address them.
Then be so kind as to list them in descending order of importance.
I don't believe I or Ian did anything but expose your shoddy reasoning, I guess stereotyping everyone is your thing."
I've been called names and such by other people on other blogs. And people like Dawkins, Myers, etc. do say bad things about believers. There does seem to be a tendency. And here you are accusing me of stereotyping.
I am an evolutionist,at least in ch world, I didn't do any of those things. You are falsely accusing me by virtue of my membership in a group of that behavior. That is called stereotyping. And it is false as well. Explain how that is not stereotyping, Nat.
And save the victim card, don't do it ,if you don't want to be accused of it.
Okay.
DeleteHow did formation flying in geese evolve? And how did migration in monarch butterflies evolve?
Did I say all evolutionists resort to insults when they have no arguments? It just seems that that behavior seems to correlate very strongly with belong an evolutionist. Its like saying lung cancer correlates with smoking is stereotyping smokers.
And I'm fine with the insults and such. I consider it an admission of defeat.
natschuster the homophobic bigot
DeleteAnd I'm fine with attacking minorities while I troll
Most disgusting intolerant bigots like you usually are.
Nat,
DeleteDid I say all evolutionists resort to insults when they have no arguments?
No,you said"resort to insults, name calling, etc. That appears to be the case. It must be an evolutionist thing." and" That means you don't need evidence. Another evolutionist thing."
So yes it does,unless you modify it.
It just seems that that behavior seems to correlate very strongly with belong an evolutionist.
Prove it.
Its like saying lung cancer correlates with smoking is stereotyping smokers.
No it doesn't. It is more like you stereotype everyone who belongs to a group based on an incredibly small sample.
How did formation flying in geese evolve
The designer flew in an ultralight to teach the first proto- geese he designed to do it, they taught the rest. Or at least that is an ID speculation of a conception of a theory.
This sagan guy is wrong. What did he do in science anyways beyond tv shows??
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not verified by the fossil record nor by artificial selection or dna stuff.
Fossils and dNA do not in any way give comment to ideas about biological descent. They are mere data points of creatures caught in their death.
Any connection between them has nothing to do with biological investigation.
Only presuming they are in sequences of time and their differences in body are related to this time difference leads evolutionists to persuade themselves they are seeing a history of that creatures origins.
Its all just lines of reasoning.
There is no scientific verification of biological progression from fossils about evolution.
If so show it!!
byers barfed:
Delete"This sagan guy is wrong."
Wrong about what?
"What did he do in science anyways beyond tv shows??"
Why don't you use the computer in front of you and find out?
"There is no scientific verification of biological progression from fossils about evolution.
If so show it!!"
It has been shown, but you always ignore/deny it.
Isn't there a street corner somewhere that is missing an IDiotic-preacher (you)?
I wonder why none of the atheists following your informative blog never point out the fallacies of their high priests arguments? The atheists have no problem pointing out my fallacious arguments. But Sagan, he had a Ph.D. Shouldn't he have known better?
ReplyDeleteI guess the astrophysicists could say philosophy is dead if the fallacy problems get too big. And that problem would be solved.
Marcus , this is because atheism is much more of a religion then theism is . If you want to see emotional arguments based on ignorance check out the randi forum on the shroud of turin. They still doubt that there was blood on the shroud even though its been proven through peer reviewed blood chemist tests.
DeleteThe same way they deny the evidence for veridical Nde's .
Atheism is an emotional worldview and not an intellectual one as they would beg you to believe.
bob smith:"Atheism is an emotional worldview and not an intellectual one as they would beg you to believe."
DeleteYeah, I agree. You can see some of the responses to my claims about Jesus are based upon real emotions that we ALL have about evil in the world. Why would God allow evil when He has the power to do something about it.
Marcus,
DeleteI wonder why none of the atheists following your informative blog never point out the fallacies of their high priests arguments? The atheists have no problem pointing out my fallacious arguments
Not an atheist but I'll will give it a go .....Richard Dawkins is an ass, now your turn.
"the shroud of turin"
DeleteBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"They still doubt that there was blood on the shroud"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"this is because atheism is much more of a religion then theism is"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Atheism is an emotional worldview and not an intellectual one"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"But Sagan, he had a Ph.D. Shouldn't he have known better?"
ReplyDeleteKnown better about what?
Sagan should have known better than to use 'theory protectionism' or 'affirming the consequent' arguments.
DeleteMarcus
DeleteSagan should have known better than to use 'theory protectionism' or 'affirming the consequent' arguments.
Sagan didn't. That's just CH's false propaganda, the same kind of fact-free BS he posts all the time.
Hey byers, here's a start on what Sagan did in science, etc.:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
And there's this:
CARL SAGAN was the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University. He played a leading role in the American space program since its inception. He was a consultant and adviser to NASA since the 1950's, briefed the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon, and was an experimenter on the Mariner, Viking, Voyager, and Galileo expeditions to the planets. He helped solve the mysteries of the high temperatures of Venus (answer: massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on Mars (answer: windblown dust), and the reddish haze of Titan (answer: complex organic molecules).
For his work, Dr. Sagan received the NASA medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and (twice) for Distinguished Public Service, as well as the NASA Apollo Achievement Award. Asteroid 2709 Sagan is named after him. He was also awarded the John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award of the American Astronautical Society, the Explorers Club 75th Anniversary Award, the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Medal of the Soviet Cosmonauts Federation, and the Masursky Award of the American Astronomical Society, ("for his extraordinary contributions to the development of planetary science…As a scientist trained in both astronomy and biology, Dr. Sagan has made seminal contributions to the study of planetary atmospheres, planetary surfaces, the history of the Earth, and exobiology. Many of the most productive planetary scientists working today are his present and former students and associates").
He was also a recipient of the Public Welfare Medal, the highest award of the National Academy of Sciences (for "distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare…Carl Sagan has been enormously successful in communicating the wonder and importance of science. His ability to capture the imagination of millions and to explain difficult concepts in understandable terms is a magnificent achievement").
Dr. Sagan was elected Chairman of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, President of the Planetology Section of the American Geophysical Union, and Chairman of the Astronomy Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. For twelve years he was the editor-in-chief of Icarus, the leading professional journal devoted to planetary research. He was cofounder and President of the Planetary Society, a 100,000-member organization that is the largest space-interest group in the world; and Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
A Pulitzer Prize winner for the book The Dragons of Eden: Speculations of the Evolution of Human Intelligence, Dr. Sagan was the author of many bestsellers, including Cosmos, which became the bestselling science book ever published in English. The accompanying Emmy and Peabody award-winning television series has been seen by a billion people in sixty countries. He received twenty-two honorary degrees from American colleges and universities for his contributions to science, literature, education, and the preservation of the environment, and many awards for his work on the long-term consequences of nuclear war and reversing the nuclear arms race. His novel, Contact, is now a major motion picture.
In their posthumous award to Dr. Sagan of their highest honor, the National Science Foundation declared that his "research transformed planetary science… his gifts to mankind were infinite."
From here:
http://www.carlsagan.com/
I repeat what did he ever do?
DeleteJust books, ty shows, advisor about minor points in the apollo thing.
Ideas about climate on a few rocks in the sky.
This is minor stuff. Its hardly counts as contribution to science.
Certainly its minor relative to him having some authority on anything.
I'm not taking away but don't make a minor "scientist" into a important one.
He was famous for entertainment things about science. He patented nothing of much gain as I see it.
Further he did nothing in biological investigation and discovery.
He was just a celebrity .
Without the books, tv stuff he would be unknown.
So i see no reason to respect his ideas other then respect for anyone in Nasa or that building over there.
Thats the truth.
OK, Bobby boy, what have you contributed to science? Your inane ideas about hyperevolving marsupials?
DeleteTwt:"He helped solve the mysteries of the high temperatures of Venus (answer: massive greenhouse effect),"
DeleteI wonder if his insight will contribute to real answers about the change in wind speeds on Venus.
Incorrigible !!?? Is this the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
DeleteThere must be heaps of men, perhaps some women, who have achieved in biology or any science that are strong supporters of evolution.
Is there??
Why pick mere entertainment people as those worthy to listen to for creationists doubters of evolution??
Tens of thousands have contributed to science in the little way this Sagan guy did. Its not a big deal.
If one wants intellectual credibility then one needs truly achieving men in science to stake their reputation on evolution and make a great case to the people.
Not chump change people who just had famous books or tv shows.
Sorry to disagree with you the whole truth, but I would consider someone like mother teresa to have given more to mankind than someone like Carl Sagan, whose worldview has no ultimate meaning or purpose, and he is no biologist last I heard.
ReplyDeleteBut then again when your an atheist living a lie you always need to double down on that lie. The only honest atheists are nihilists. The rest of the atheists live in denial.
bob, you're obviously just another god pusher who has no clue about reality:
Deletehttp://motherteresawasafraud.blogspot.com/
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/151370
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1967.htm
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/
http://sathyavaadi.tripod.com/truthisgod/papers/020507.htm
And there is much more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrian
DeleteI'm sorry but that "explanation" is about as good as "Goddidit". How did they stumble upon this?
About 150 million years of unconscious trial and error winnowed by selection.
There's a good sized body of research on the evolution of animal behavior. Why don't you go do some reading and let us know what you learn.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to say as someone who could care less about evolution or creation theories/facts/laws that the majority of the commentary on this blog is inflammatory and rude and in no way will ever convince people to believe anything you say.
ReplyDeleteAS TO EVOLUTION, EVEN A SIMPLE MIND FACING THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WOULD ASK: WOW! - HOW COME PARTICLES AS ATOMS FORMS MOLECULES , PROTEINS AND BODIES WHICH ARE THEN SHAPED FROM FISHES TO BIRDS, WORMS, MOSQUITOES AND COCKROACHES, and BATS, along with millions of BACTERIA and VIRUSES. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ALSO MAKING THEM MALE AND FEMALE !!! AND THEN MAKES MALES AND FEMALES TO ATTRACT EACH OTHER VIA SMELLS, HORMONS AND, TO SAY THE LEAST... LOVE! WOW! JUST IMAGINE: SIMPLE PARTICLES THAT STARTED WITH ONE SINGLE ATOM OF HIDROGEN AND EVOLVED TO SOMETHING THAT ENDED ENCOMPASSING SOMETHING SO ETEREAL AS LOVE! CAN YOU IMAGINE ALL THAT WITHOUT A SUPER MIND PROJECTING IT ALL? AND THEN YOU DARE COMING OUT SAYING YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD? COME ON MAN! TRY TO MAKE A WHITE BEAR evolving FROM A WHITE MOUSE, OR VICE-VERSA, AND THEN YOU MAY GAIN SOME CREDIT. OTHERWISE, SUCH THEORY ON EVOLUTION IS JUST PLAIN BULLSHIT! GOD KNOWS! P.S.: A TIP FOR FREE - TRY AS HARD AS POSSIBLE TO LOOK INSIDE YOURSELF AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A GLIMPSE AT GOD!
ReplyDeleteTime to stop praying to imaginary god already. Get over it. He doesn't exist.
ReplyDelete