Dawkins book does not prove anything. It actually creates more problems. Comparative molecular biology actually supports the Creation model.The fact is that humans have 250 unique genes. The ladder that Darwinians was looking for does not exist.In addition, human DNA only has 113 genes in common with bacteria. Darwinians were disappointed to see that similar genes from bacteria are merely a drop in the bucket.The Creation model would anticipate skips in the genome record and this is what they found. The Genes also confirmed that fact that the famed missing links are indeed missing.
Comparative molecular biology actually supports the Creation model.And those ERV markers sitting in the same place on the human and chimpanzee genomes? And the fused chromosome pair? Yep, supports the creation model. We aren't related to no stinkin' ape, the fossil record and genetic code be damned. Next they are going to tell us that galaxies have been observed 13 billion light years away and that solar entities like the sun, earth and meteorites all date to around 4.5 billion years...On a serious note, I finally started reading the book today. Like all Dawkins' books, it's incredibly well written. So far though the content is a bit basic, but that's to be expected given what the aim of the book is.
Maybe your and your sources interpretation of comparative molecular biology supports the creation model.How much medicine can be made or done using the creation model? When you can use your model to build technology, you might have a case.go poke around on this websiteThe Evolution and Medicine Network
ZDenny,This is the second time that I have seen you make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.First, have you read Dawkins book yet? If not then you cannot claim that it doesn't prove anything.Second, backup your claims about DNA, genes and the genome with some hard evidence and documentation. Otherwise you are just another creationist crackpot who hasn't seriously examined the evidence in favor of evolution.And by the way, I was a convinced creationist for more than 25 years of my life. I was totally convinced that since the Bible was god's word then evolution could not have happened. So it was easy to read creationist and intelligent design material (books, articles, websites, etc.) and to accept their claims. It was only after deciding to actually read what evolutionists have to say and to see what supposed evidence that they had that I realized that I was wrong for all those years and found that the evidence for evolution is actually overwhelming.
ZDENNY,Thanks.You continue to help me comfortably deconvert. Your ignorant bluster is further evidence that the "in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit" is just magical-thinking that allows humans to rationalize away their self-centeredness and fear.Christianity looks more and more like any other superstition.
If Dawkin's garbage is the best that atheists have YOU'VE got nothing but a NATURALISTIC FAITH STATEMENT.Dog breeding???Is that cross-speciation of evolution?...What a FARCE...John your review and dawkin's video doesn't even attempt to make any kind of a case...so what about the fossil record...let's give the account of creation all that time and what do you have? Still...NO cross-speciation that evolution says occurs...no MACRO-evolution where dogs turn into birds or vice-versa...then if this is a supposedly "blind" process, we'd see all kinds of things randomly turning into other things but we don't see any of that even in what fossil records we do have...Darwin's evolution has long debunked itself and this attempt to ressurect it as factual is nothing more than naturalistic FAITH in something that at least Dawkins admits that we can't see...That was too good!
Superintendent,I think I will trust the biologist to discuss biology and will relegate your comments in the trash heap of superstition. You have no credibility to discuss any of this.
District: no MACRO-evolution where dogs turn into birds or vice-versaLOL, wow Harvey, you really show your ignorance here. You and Kirk Cameron with his "crocoduck." You know it would be just wonderful if you would at least try to educate yourself in the matter and do something radical like actually reading Dawkin's book "The Greatest Show on Earth" which I just received in the mail yesterday and will begin reading it myself today.
Anthony,So let me get this right...you don't know ANYTHING and yet you tell me what I don't know???Yea riiiight!Please read because you need more atheistic apologetic material to defend your faith or should I just say FANTASY!
Harvey,The only FARCE associated with evolutionary theory here is your dumb-as-a-post, Keystone Cop, and Three Stooges depiction of it. If you were legitimately knowledgeable about evolutionary theory and had a dispute about it, you could always do as knowledgeable scientists do: submit your work for peer reviewed publication. That path would reach a wider audience and gain you some respectability.Just for your information, evolutionary theory does not support the notion that "dogs turn into birds or vice-versa," and evolution is not a random process. Yet, I'm sure the sort of ignorant thought you've displayed here forms the basis for how you depict evolutionary theory to your similarly uninformed church audiences. You fail them miserably by heaping lies and misinformation on ignorance. By my lights, evolution is the single greatest idea ever conceived by man, and by seeking to keep your congregations from it, you diminish their experience of life and the world. You obstruct their path to true knowledge and understanding of their own origins.It makes no difference that you find detestable that you and all of humanity are all-natural products of the biosphere. You are. All the lines of evidence point in exactly one direction: evolution is a fact; evolutionary theory is sound and incredibly well-established. Deny it for religious reasons all you like, but realize that as you spew your ignorant misrepresentations of it, people working to defend you, your children, and your congregation from the likes of swine flu, don't ask for your help tracking its mutations that might make it airborne or more virulent. They rely instead on real, all-natural 100 percent supernatural-free science, specifically, subdisciplines of evolutionary theory. It's the same principle that makes ambulances drive past all churches as they head for hospitals: naturalistic science works; churches don't.You talked about "Darwin's evolution," Harvey, which means that you do not understand today's evolutionary theory at all. Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, enzymes, or any atom or molecule, for that matter. You use "Darwin's evolution" as a tagline for your ideological opposition to evolutionary theory. While he knew that particles of inheritance probably existed Darwin would not readily connect the modern synthesis with his seminal conception. Relative to a modern researcher, Darwin was rather uninformed.Real genius distinguishes itself, as did Charles Darwin, by carefully, meticulously, extending inferences to the point where they run out, but no further."Darwin's evolution," as you called it, Harvey, does not exist. You simply conjure up the name of Darwin as a focal point for the hatred harbored by you and your followers for a common enemy.You said, Darwin's evolution has long debunked itself and this attempt to ressurect it as factual is nothing more than naturalistic FAITH in something that at least Dawkins admits that we can't see...That was too good!Evolutionary theory is called a 'theory' because it has proved itself worthy of that class of insightful ideas. It is not FAITH because it is actually useful. It does not rely on post hoc errors, tradition, revelation, authority, medical misdiagnoses and the like. Also, I find it strange that you would use FAITH as a term of derogation. Here, again, you intentionally misrepresent Dawkins to make yourself feel better. The idea that we can't watch evolution happen merely refers to the fact that significant change is observed only over evolutionarily and geologically significant time frames and that we do not observe the true mark of evolution, changes in gene frequencies in populations, with the naked eye.Do your congregations and the rest of us a favor, Harvey. Get a book on evolution, read it, study it, ask those who are more knowledgeable than you to answer questions; in short, try to understand it.Evolution is great. Your depiction of it is a lie.
Russ,Yo' commedic behind said this:The only FARCE associated with evolutionary theory here is your dumb-as-a-post, Keystone Cop, and Three Stooges depiction of it.The depiction I give of evolutionary theory is totally accurate...I mention cyclical change and you write it off as if I don't know what I'm talking about only I do and you DON'T by your response. In fact neither you or Anthony know what I said, because this is supposed to be such a 'deep' subject right???Then you further idiotically say this garbage:submit your work for peer reviewed publication. That path would reach a wider audience and gain you some respectability.What the HECK? Where's your peer reviewed publication on the subject? Seems that we b in the same boat so what makes you better qualified to answer than me? Ooh, I forgot, it's only because you don't know JACK!This is one you got rightJust for your information, evolutionary theory does not support the notion that "dogs turn into birds or vice-versa," and evolution is not a random process.That's what I said "Sherlock". In order for evolution to be TRUE there would have to be MACROevolution which is what the whole theory is about...radicals like you lump MICROevolution in with MACROevolution (usually even further manipulated by science) and claim that 'evolution' is at work without defining or pointing out what EVERYONE and their grandma knows that MICRO evolution exists...but that's not the theory is it Bubba??? You believe in cross-speciation and THAT DOESN'T EXIST. So the ignorance is on you and evidently you could learn a lot by becoming a member of my church. Any assistance would put you further ahead than your delinquint behind is now...Then you said:You talked about "Darwin's evolution," Harvey, which means that you do not understand today's evolutionary theory at all. Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, enzymes, or any atom or molecule, for that matter.NO KIDDING??? maybe that's why Michael Behe's rendering of irreducible complexity is so fascinating huh??? by the way, neither you or your god dawkins have refuted IC so don't even try it for a minute...Last joke you told:Evolutionary theory is called a 'theory' because it has proved itself worthy of that class of insightful ideasWho are you Dean Martin? Don Rickles? Maybe Chriss Rock right? you CRACK me up! An insightful wishful thinking fantasy that caters to your hatred of god...that's all it is fo you. My depiction of this LIE is 100% on point. You may not like it, but as the atheists say when confronted with truth, "SO WHAT!"
Russ said…If you were legitimately knowledgeable about evolutionary theory and had a dispute about it, you could always do as knowledgeable scientists do: submit your work for peer reviewed publication. That path would reach a wider audience and gain you some respectability.District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...Darwin's evolution has long debunked itself and this attempt to ressurect it as factual is nothing more than naturalistic FAITH in something that at least Dawkins admits that we can't see...That was too good! Then you said…What the HECK? Where's your peer reviewed publication on the subject? Seems that we b in the same boat so what makes you better qualified to answer than me? Ooh, I forgot, it's only because you don't know JACK! Jonathan said…* You make a claim that “Darwin evolution has long debunked itself” What source other than your own opinion can you cite?* Russ doesn’t have to produce a paper on his own it has been already done, but you claim its been debunked, but there isn’t any evidence, so you would have to do the work, produce a paper, and support your theory otherwise your just talking “bunk”. * If Dawkin's garbage is the best that atheists have YOU'VE got nothing but a NATURALISTIC FAITH STATEMENT. Do you know how ridiculous this statement is? Russ is quite correct regarding mocking faith, if you call evolution mockingly as a faith based statement, and you claim to be a man of faith, then Christianity is also a “faith based statement”, using your logic, your position can’t stand either. Science has nothing to do with faith, but with facts. Does Christianity use the same standards? * Evolution and Catholics Pope John Paul the 22nd Message delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 22 October 1996Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTMOh, dude, I am so sorry, your not a Catholic, your Pentecostal. The pope doesn’t have any authority with you. Is this an example of consistency in Christian thinking?* Scientific Revolution in Europe and ChristiansDid Christians create the revolution of science in Europe or was the revolution started by those who just happened to be Christian? The very foundation of the theory of evolution is based on the transformation during this time. The science disciplines of physics, astronomy, biology, human anatomy, chemistry and others let to the rejection of theological doctrines that conflicted with scientific facts. You wish to reject science that you personally don’t agree with. The very fabric of science investigations is on the backs of those Christians who shown courage to investigate the facts no matter where they lead. You already have the answer and make up the facts to prove your case which is not science. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolutionHappy Sunday. District Supt. Harvey Burnett
Harvey,Evolutionary theory is not like the Christianities wherein the practitioners just make up a new one when they don't like what they hear. It's clear that that is how you conceive of evolutionary theory. You said, "The depiction I give of evolutionary theory is totally accurate...," and yet your depiction is entirely wrong.You said, this is supposed to be such a 'deep' subject right???It is a deep subject, but it is simple to understand. That's how we can tell you don't understand it. Both of my kids have understood evolutionary theory since before they were in school. Fact is, it's so easy to understand that frauds never fail to expose themselves. You are a fraud. Your ignorance harms all you encounter.As I've mentioned before, there is no Christianity Clearinghouse, so you are free to call yourself "Harvey Christian" while others can call themselves "Mormon Christian" or "Eastern Orthodox Christian" or "Seventh Day Adventist Christian" or "New Age Christian" or "Process Theology Christian." There is no standard to measure them against. There is no version of a god overseeing the process. In fact, no one cares enough about religious beliefs to even check how or if they fit with reality.This lack of a standard, metric, or reality check led to the Christianities, and the theocracies they controlled, making no progress at all in understanding the world for more than a thousand years. While Christian thought reigned - you know, witch hunts, inquisitions, crusades, bloodletting, people chained for epilepsy, diabetes and food allergies - it truly was a Dark Age for humanity. Another result of this lack of a standard is that even among people in the same congregation, there are lots of different gods, lots of different jesuses, lots of differing ideas about heaven, hell, morality, and lots of chaos and confusion concerning which parts, if any, of the Bible are to be used and how. Christian thought is so incoherent, so scattered that it is useless for naught but intellectual gamesmanship with the game being played differently at different seminaries, churches, and Bible study groups.Today, nothing useful comes from any group of Christians that is specific to Christianity. Being human is not unique with Christians. In general, all people give humanitarian aid. All people love and show compassion. All people give of themselves and care for others.When science rejected gods as a standard for knowing(and apriori explanation of all things), and adopted the natural world as its new standard, reliable knowledge began to grow at an exponential rate. Reliable information, as opposed to superstitions, provided a foundation for progress. Ignoring holy books and gods while relying on observation and experimental hypothesis testing gave tangible progress. Unencumbered by gods, mankind could, at last, achieve great things, including understanding his own relationship to the rest of the animal world and knowing his own origin. With nature as science's standard mankind discovered the natural elements and has even made some that don't exist naturally. We've found that man is made of the same things that the rest of the natural world is made of and that man is related to all living things past and present. We've determined that humans are apes, that our closest relatives among the other animals are chimpanzees, and that our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees lived around 6,000,000 years ago. We know the solar system is around 5,000,000,000 years old, that the earth formed about 4,500,000,000 years ago, and that the earliest evidence for life on earth is from about 3,600,000,000 years ago.Minus the superstitious assumptions that are religion, man has come a long way in his understanding of the world, and as long as we never revert to those asinine assumptions we can face the future with the hope that we can reasonably confront our most challenging problems.
Harvey: So let me get this right...you don't know ANYTHING and yet you tell me what I don't know???Umm, where did you get that I don't know "ANYTHING"? You lost me here.Please read because you need more atheistic apologetic material to defend your faith or should I just say FANTASY!No Harvey, I read what different people have to say. I actually have a couple of creationist books on my reading list such as Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe by Kurt P. Wise that I plan on reading soon. Wise is an interesting fellow because he studied under Stephen Jay Gould.
Harvey: I mention cyclical change and you write it off as if I don't know what I'm talking about only I do and you DON'T by your response. In fact neither you or Anthony know what I said, because this is supposed to be such a 'deep' subject right???Well, what did you say? I must have missed something. What context were you discussing "cyclical change"?
Reading Harvey on evolution reminds me of the banker in the Hunting of the Snark.”Down he sank in a chair--ran his hands through his hair--And chanted in mimsiest tonesWords whose utter inanity proved his insanity,While he rattled a couple of bones.”It seems that Harvey’s understanding of the ToE comes straight from Kent Hovind whose favourite banality is “I’ll believe in evolution when a dog gives birth to a non-dog” which, of course, is the opposite of what the theory actually predicts. Dogs will always give (and always have given) birth to dogs for the rest of time (or until the species becomes extinct) but whether we would genetically recognise whatever will be the dog species in a million years time as the present species is another matter. It isn’t a difficult concept to understand so why does Harvey have such difficulty with it?And what is Harvey talking about when he mentions “cross-speciation”? It is a term of which I have never come across outside of creationist literature. Does he really believe that evolutionists believe that, say, a dog might mate with a cat to make a bed for a baby, a gear for an engine or a full stop? If he cannot correctly construe a simple theory how can we pay respect to his religious ramblings.
Jonathan,You said:Did Christians create the revolution of science in Europe or was the revolution started by those who just happened to be Christian?Christians were the progenerators of scientific theory because what they were looking for was discovery of what God had created and made. It was already understood that God created, and science was about the discovery of what God had made. The very foundation of the theory of evolution is based on the rejection of God, from a disgrunlted person who thought to explain God away. The foundation of what you believe is a religious premise not a mere naturalistic one...that's the problem I have with you and your theories...it's a sham and a pretense that you don't do religion when the truth is you do...scientific religion and because you admittedly can't observe evolution you establish a FAITH based construct and dogma and call it science...say what you will but you have been duped by the greatest religious LIAR of all time Charles Darwin, and yet you criticize religion, but you belong to the Church of Darwin.
Sampfire,You said:Does he really believe that evolutionists believe that, say, a dog might mate with a cat to make a bed for a baby, a gear for an engine or a full stop?Since you came from the OTHER side of the boat last night and can't seem to follow a simple argument like yo boy Anthony, let me say it like this:Evolution believes, that species become other species...is that not correct?If it's not correct, then Apes cannot possibly be human or have the genome from which man descends. Correct?If I am right, then you believe that Apes (mokeys or whatever) at some point became another species to produce man...Correct? In other words, you believe that changes within the genome of one species over time changed what we identify today as two different species?Is that right? Qualify it.
Anthony,You said:Well, what did you say? I must have missed something. What context were you discussing "cyclical change"?You're true to your fudamentalist roots because I GUESS you look for the specific prase in ordert to knwo what I'm talking about...this is what I said "NO cross-speciation that evolution says occurs...no MACRO-evolution where dogs turn into birds or vice-versa...then if this is a supposedly "blind" process, we'd see all kinds of things randomly turning into other things but we don't see any of that even in what fossil records we do have...In other words evolution only shows cyclical change which indicates that things DO NOT change into other or new things, changes only occurs within things not creating something new...that's what I describe that is missing from the evidence. evolution as you hold requires macroevolutionary changes that DO NOT EXIST. You look for a phrase "cyclical change" and can't identify the description of it...THAT'S silly and that's what I'm talking about that is the fault of the religious evolutionists such as yourself.
Sampfire,Here's something that summarizes what I'm saying probably better than I can:When people tell you that evolution is a proven fact, they are really only appealing to microevolution. Of course there are mutations and adaptation of species, but have we any proof of macroevolution? Can one species transform into an entirely different one? The honest evolutionist must sadly reply “no.” So while you might be able to breed a Chihuahua with a Great Dane and get a new species of dog, you can’t breed two dogs and get a cat, a mouse, or a whale. There is simply no sufficient evidence for macroevolution.~ Hank Hanegraaf www.equip.org.Further these sort of changes DO NOT happen naturally even when there are adaptation within the same species they yet REMAIN the same species. I think you got it when I said it but I hope that makes it more clear. So I see quite a few issues that evolution cannot, does not and will not overcome anytime soon. i also see the staple of evolution as you guys display..."intellectual bullying" to try to convince others that evolution is such a deep premise that Christians simply don't understand when we understand well and the facts don't support the assumptions necessary to solidify evolution as a scientific fact in no way, shape or form.
Ugh! Harvey, trying to communicate with you is very frustrating. Expressions such as "cross speciation" and "cyclic change" are your own (or those used by creationists) but they are not used in the scientific literature. So, if you are going to use different terminology then you need to let your listening audience know. You're true to your fudamentalist roots because I GUESS you look for the specific prase in ordert to knwo what I'm talking about...This is laughable, your are the young earth creationist, holding to biblical inerrancy, your are the fundamentalist. I have no problem with using various terminology and understanding certain concepts. But as I (and others) have pointed out you are not using standard terminology so you need to explain this.Regarding the whole discussion about macro-evolutionary change, you refuse to critically examine the evidence that are presented in several books on the topic, let alone the hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic.Here are a couple of books for anyone interested on the topic of speciation (which results in macroevoltuionary changes):Speciation by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen OrrSpeciation and Patterns of Diversity by Roger Butlin, Jon Bridle and Dolph SchluterAnd of course as I listed in another thread the recent works supporting evolution by Jerry Coyne, Donald Prothero and Richard Dawkins all demonstrate the evidence of macroevolutionary change.
Harvey: So I see quite a few issues that evolution cannot, does not and will not overcome anytime soon.First of all, no one has said that scientists have explained everything. There are aspects of natural history (read evolutionary history) that we just may never know.Secondly, until you have at least acknowledged (and demonstrated) being familiar with some of the leading works on the theory and evidences of evolution, you only show your ignorance. Quoting creationists and IDers isn't sufficient. i also see the staple of evolution as you guys display..."intellectual bullying"This is not true. What you will find is that many of us have grown frustrated at the lack of intellectual honesty on your true knowledge of the theory of evolution and its evidence. If you could read the works that I have referred you to several times (Coyne, Prothero, Dawkins) and could answer their arguments with evidence you might gain some respectability (and maybe some new church members) from some of us.to try to convince others that evolution is such a deep premise that Christians simply don't understand when we understand well and the facts don't support the assumptions necessary to solidify evolution as a scientific fact in no way, shape or form.This may sound all good and pious but is easily refuted by the fact that there are many Christians arguing in favor of evolution. As I had stated before it was through the writings of Darrel Falk (Christian biologist and scholar) and others like him that convinced me that evolution is true.
Anthony,You said:"First of all, no one has said that scientists have explained everything. There are aspects of natural history (read evolutionary history) that we just may never know."Now that's probably the FAIREST thing I've heard you say on the board, however IF Christians say the same thing about God you reject Christianity and god the same way I reject evolution...the fact is this...For the sake of argument I simply submit this...What you DON'T know you are willing to take on the basis of FAITH. That's plain and simple.
Harv said....."For the sake of argument I simply submit this...What you DON'T know you are willing to take on the basis of FAITH. That's plain and simple."Oh yes its too true,we non believers are simply faithful fellows thats plain and simple for sure.Why only last week a black and white couple past me in the street holding the hand of their brown skinned child.And no i didnt need to ask myself any questions...I simply closed my eyes and relied completely on my religious faith in evolution.I quickly fell to the pavement lifting both my hands in the air paying homage to the likes of Darwin and Dawkins etc,even though passers by looked at me strangely like i was speaking in tounges.No just like the religious faithful we non believers dont ever bother needing any evidence or good reason.
Part 1”Since you came from the OTHER side of the boat last night and can't seem to follow a simple argument like yo boy Anthony, let me say it like this:”Harvey, you don’t have an argument, only a position. Until you can define “species”, “kind”, “cross-speciation”, “information” or even “dog” you will never have an argument.”Evolution believes, that species become other species...is that not correct?”No, it isn’t. Species do not evolve into other species. Yours is a meaningless statement. The word “species” is just a human confection to try to categorise a a group of animals with near identical morphology; it is a snapshot in time. There is no absolute definition of the word amongst scientists. Indeed, because life is so mobile and fluid in its ability to change and adapt it has proved impossible to derive an exact definition (see “ring-species”, for instance). Your DNA is different to that of your grandparents and their offspring and, despite your grasping at “cyclical change” as a phrase conveying some sense of species boundary over time, in fact, there will never ever be anybody else with the identical genomes to those of your grandparents. Evolution is a one way street and there is no saying ahead of time where it will lead. If I am wrong in this then please give me a mechanism which will reverse the changes in your own DNA compared to that of your grandparents which has been wrought over the last three generations through mutation, insertion and fertilisation such that it will produce “cyclical change”.
”If it's not correct, then Apes cannot possibly be human or have the genome from which man descends. Correct?”.By definition of “Apes”, we are apes. And other apes such as chimpanzees, orang-utans and gorillas certainly have large sections of their DNA which are identical to human DNA. Harvey, we “have seen it and bear witness”. 1 John 1:2 (part of)
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...Darwin's evolution has long debunked itself and this attempt to ressurect it as factual is nothing more than naturalistic FAITH in something that at least Dawkins admits that we can't see...That was too good!Here is your statement. What do you mean Darwin's evolution has longed debunked itself? Where can you site this information to prove your statement?How do you define "debunked"? What is "naturalistic faith" can you provide evidence that it actually is practiced and by whom?What universities or colleges teach alternatives to Evolution? Can you cite links? Do you think the theory of evolution is not a valid scientific theory and why?Can you give a example(s) of valid scientific theories?Do you support an old age creationism, young earth creationism or neither? Do you support intelligent design? Do you think its possible to separate evolution and religion from the conversation?The problem with our conversation(s) is it is not directed it is going everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It would be great if you can draw your position in one area, discuss it then either come to some conclusion or move on. We need to use the same language as well. If you think evolution is based on faith then the conversation is over. You are defining faith that doesn't fit with its known meaning. If you mock evolution as a faith then are you not mocking all faiths including your own? If you think evolution is debunked or it has debunked itself, would it be fair for you to explain that statement before moving on to anything else?Thanks
Gandolf,You said:Why only last week a black and white couple past me in the street holding the hand of their brown skinned child.According to Sampfire you were wrong...the child like all children was an Ape...So I guess we need more faith to believe that than about anything and i guess you can't obviously rely on even what you SEE to determine the difference.
Sampfire,Your arguments are about the most curious and IF they properly represent evolution display about the most bankrupt rendering of science that I've ever seen...So for you've said:The word "species" is just a human confection to try to categorise a a group of animals with near identical morphology; it is a snapshot in time. There is no absolute definition of the word amongst scientists."Which indicates there is NO DIFFERENCE (in your opinion) among any animals, at least vertibrates I suppose???you said this:"some sense of species boundary over time, in fact, there will never ever be anybody else with the identical genomes to those of your grandparents.This was to indicate that because we all have different DNA that somehow we do not belong to the same "species" because 1- species is only a "snapshot" with no meaningful definition and because we change over time...(I guess) So IF that's teh case we ill get to the point where a hiuman gives birth to something that at least has such a variation or mutation that's it's not what we consider to be currently human...Is that what you're saying?Then you render this:Evolution is a one way street and there is no saying ahead of time where it will lead. If I am wrong in this then please give me a mechanism which will reverse the changes in your own DNA compared to that of your grandparents which has been wrought over the last three generations through mutation, insertion and fertilisation such that it will produce "cyclical change".Ok now if I understand this correctly, you're saying that 3 dgenerations of "morphology" leads to another of what we could classify as "species"? Correct that if I'm wrong please. I've got somethign to say, but I may be wrong about my interpretation of what you're saying so do me a favor. Thanks.
Samphire, I like your "snapshot in time" analogy.The primary reason creationists don't buy into the concept that "new" species can develop over time is they don't live for millions of years to see it with their own eyes. Our collective "eyes" right now are the fossil record as well as morphology, genetics, etc. These "eyes" are consistent and repeatably testable. Creationists have pieces of paper with ink on them that have "evolved" over time with the whims of Christianity.In 10 million years, if our recordings from today are still around, whatever intelligent species is around (maybe humans like us) will have a distinctly different "slice of time" to compare with what we see today. And they WILL see different species that don't exist today and there WON'T be a valid argument from creationists because:1. Jesus still hasn't returned.2. The rapture still hasn't happened.3. They have records of all the known species on earth in whatever time slices they want to look at and they will be able to actually SEE the effect of gradual gene frequency changes over time. The only argument that will be left for creationists will be that GOD is the one "slowly making changes" in alleles over hundreds of thousands of years instead of natural selection operating on random mutations.
Jim,I'll be brief but you said this:The primary reason creationists don't buy into the concept that "new" species can develop over time is they don't live for millions of years to see it with their own eyes.OK, well we are now living millions of years from millions of years ago right? shouldn't we see the process of evolution going on now if it is true? What is the determining factor or trigger that makes the "millions of years" cycle suddenly begin a process that we can observe?Address that if you would. Thanks.
Jim,by the way, you also said this:These "eyes" are consistent and repeatably testable.No, not all science is repeatable or testable. You hail the big bang as a scientific fact also right? Where has it been repeated or tested? There are thousands more like this, but repetition as a standard is only good for certain types of science. That's science 101.You also said:"Creationists have pieces of paper with ink on them that have "evolved" over time with the whims of Christianity."What we have are records that are much superior to parallel accounts in both secular and religious historical studies, and a host of data most of which is indirectly confirmed by both friendly and hostile sources, and a host of embarrassing facts in the record that lend credibility to the narratives themselves because myths seldomly if at any time contain embarassments for the heroes...so what we have so far as historical studies go is highly convincing, but you reject it...I say SO WHAT?
Russ,You said:"Did the idea of evolution leap from minds possessed of demons intent on destroying Christianity?"Although it's done a poor job, IF that were the aim, probably so. Since I am aware of human spirituality it is cerrainlt a possibility. For a radical metaphysical naturalist such as yourself, the mind can't quite wrap itself around the concept that there more to life than what's seen or observed,although you can't se and observe thoughts but yet hold them to be real...it's kind like being blind to one's own reflection in the mirror.You said:"But, conspiracy theorists need a common enemy, a tangible target for their unified hatred, so you pick an innocent long-dead man who just like the rest of us was trying to make sense of world."ARE YOU serious? As many conspiracy theories as atheists have...it's PATHETIC. There a conspiracy about all things pertaing to God with you guys lasting over 4000 years of time...how do you even have the nerve to mention something like that?-LOL!!!You said this: It makes no sense to use the construction "evolutionary theory ends this way."OK, tell me how the evolutionists life ends? Please be SPECIFIC. You said this and it REALLY cracks me up:"You tear at people emotionally. You try to inflict pain and suffering. And, then, with your casual overbearing impudence, you exalt yourself, you arrogantly hold up Harvey Burnett as a shining moral paragon, by saying:Man I bring HOPE, HELP, and PEACE to someone EVERDAY of my life...in many cases just me being there is what someone needs to carry on with MEANINGFUL tasks and events of their existence...That's what I do.You bring all-caps HOPE? You bring all-caps PEACE? I don't think so, Harvey. I see you as exemplifying the worst that religion has to offer.That was too funny Russ, you ALWAYS manage to come up with the most emotional renderings of anything Christian...I LOVE it!!! You said: I'm convinced that you're among that religious ilk which, without enforcible secular protections, you'd be cutting throats, hanging, burning, torturing, and otherwise exterminating anyone who doesn't share your particular version of Christian delusion.So atheists have never done this and even wors and more? When did I or anyone indicate that was ever and intent...In fact give me one scripture where God commands me or any other Christian to do those things...You're really a JOKE! I'm so sorry to ruin you little atheist blogging experience by challenging your ideas and the ideas of your gods that are human like you. see pt. 2
Pt. 2Russ,Obviously as faluted as you are, you can see what I question anything they say also. They make no divine claims and as we observe faults, they could be wrong too (just like you)...You do confirm it by saying this: "Trained experts, Christian or not, are wrong.So thanks for the pass for me to differ, "o king Russ",...In fact, I say they (the evolutionists) are wrong because there is too much evidence to the contrary of what they communicate and every SENSIBLE atheist agrees that there is much missing information and much of what they think is up to various interpretation such as theis little though on what a "species" really is:Here are anturalists all LOOKING at the same thing...nothing spiritual about it at all and this is what they say:"There is no general agreement among biologists on what species are,” says Jonathon Marshall, a biologist at Southern Utah University. At last count, there were at least 26 published concepts in circulation. What makes this disagreement all the more remarkable is that scientists now know vastly more about how life evolves into new forms than when the species debate first started." Scientific American, "What Is A Species?" 6/2008.Even though the article goes on to suggest a new way to define species, it only presents another "attempt" to define the concept. 26 variations on the basic premise of what a "species" is? You chide Christianity for it's variations much of which includes concepts that are unseen, specifically faith...but here we have SCIENTISTS (your gods) who even with what they SEE physicall don't know what you are...What are you Russ?
Again, Harvey, evolutionary theory is not like your religion where the masters like yourself just make shit up and you end up with 40000 variants most of which have a clear eye for all the others of that 40000 who are hellbound. There is a significant difference between discussing speciation which is based largely on the idea of allele frequencies in populations, and telling someone that how one get's baptized determines whether they can get to heaven.The speciation question is an important one, including the notion of scraping the idea. Every species is a transitional form from its parent species to its descendent species. With humans, for instance, there are so many transitional fossils from our progenitors to us, that paleontologists continually argue about where to draw the line that delineates Homo Sapiens. Because there is no hard and fast rule for speciation from a morphological standpoint, a genetic approach to defining species makes some sense given our modern capacity to efficiently sequence DNA.Again, your ignorance keeps you from understanding. You beat the article with your ideological club while you fail to understand why the question is important and how a genetic approach to defining species, one that relies on observed genetic differences rather than purely morphological considerations, might bring the idea into better focus and more clearly defined the semantics of the word 'species.'
Harvey, you obviously don't see the irony in this statement:26 variations on the basic premise of what a "species" is? You chide Christianity for it's variations much of which includes concepts that are unseen, specifically faith...but here we have SCIENTISTS (your gods) who even with what they SEE physicall don't know what you are...So I'll just make it clear. Where was your god each and every time the Christian religion split over some random doctrine? Why didn't he guide the leaders of your churches in such a way to prevent such splintering? Heck, if Christianity where one coherent religion, you might just be able to make a point that we would take seriously. Instead, you compare scientists(men) to gods! Perhaps that comparison is more appropriate than you meant to let on. A Freudian slip perhaps?More to the point, the splintering of the christian religion, indeed the splintering of all religions is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to see if they are all the invention of man.
Harv,I am not a theologist nor a scientist but, the reasoned approach provided as defense by Russ versus your defensive arguments makes me think he has information that could be useful to me.I fail to see how any of your opinions operate as independent facts seperate from your ego.Sorry man but you don't seem all that sane or reliable.And I'm coming from a place of equal theological and scientific ignorance. If given a chance I'd put my tuition dollars behind Russ' curriculum.
Russ,You said:Every species is a transitional form from its parent species to its descendent species. With humans, for instance, there are so many transitional fossils from our progenitors to us, that paleontologists continually argue about where to draw the line that delineates Homo Sapiens."So now the new standard since there is NO transitional forms in the archaeological record to claim that EVERY species is a transitional form now???So get this humans are merely a TRANSITIONAL FORM according to Russ. I told ya Russ, you gotta take this to hollywood...Bill Mayer's next STUPID movie...in fact that should be the title...Bill Mayer's Next Stupid Movie featuring Russ "The Living And Breathing Transitional Human Form"WOW!
Steven,You asked:"Where was your god each and every time the Christian religion split over some random doctrine?"Right there allowing people to exercise their free-will as he always is saying that no matter how much they mess up what he does he'll sting bring it out allright like he always does...So What???You said:"Heck, if Christianity where one coherent religion, you might just be able to make a point that we would take seriously."So really tell me what does that have to do wiith evolution? seriously what does that mean and what pertinence do you think it has to any of the argument?Then you said:"Instead, you compare scientists(men) to gods! Perhaps that comparison is more appropriate than you meant to let on. A Freudian slip perhaps?"Pherhaps you don't understand allegory, contrast and rhetorical skills...your gods are men as you believe and hope for them to find the next discovery to affirm your faith...you can't see it can you?You concluded:"the splintering of the christian religion, indeed the splintering of all religions is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to see if they are all the invention of man."OK you shed some light on what I asked earlier...so "inventions" of men are things that we "expect" to see splintered? OK, I'm beginning to suspect that ye may insert yonder foot into younder mouth, as I was the one who introduced the SPLINTERING of science over the concept of species by the scientists own renderings and differences over the subject...and yet ye don't see that as an "invention of man"...What is that the double standard fallacy, or just silliness? I say BOTH!
Look, I'll put it to you like this...DNA is code right? I'm sure we all agree with that.One thing we know about DNA is that thecode isn't at all random...The computer you're typing on or reading this on is coded right? in other words your computer doesn't operate because the code is random..it is orderly...can i get an Amen?OK, science says that the code of the human DNA is infinately more complicated than any compute code, no matter how great the "supercomputer" may be...What I want ANY atheist to explain to me is how in the holy Jesus do we rationalize that the complicated coding of the human DNA is merely random...I mean first cause all together destroys any argument but let's do a minimal fact on this one...Let's just assume that there IS a way to get past first cause...How do any of you think that that the complicated code that it takes to make humans function can be a random process of blind chance, when on every level of our existence we recognize that code MUST be input by an intelligence equal to or greater than the code which it inputs in order to make anything, even a computer, function properly?
Harvey,OK, well we are now living millions of years from millions of years ago right? shouldn't we see the process of evolution going on now if it is true? What is the determining factor or trigger that makes the "millions of years" cycle suddenly begin a process that we can observe?I think you're confusing the "process of evolution" (the term you use above) with "a noticeable EFFECT of macroevolution" such as a new species. We are ALWAYS witnessing the "process of evolution." YOU are a process of evolution since your genes are different than your parents. Let's fast forward 1 million years and watch the human species. After enough generations, perhaps the human species of 1 million years from now will not be recognizable to us as we sit here today. At each generation in the future, all the humans will be able to reproduce with all the other humans (we are one species). But the humans of today and the humans of 1 million years from now will perhaps NOT be able to reproduce with each other because the collective gene pool has drifted so far that we are no longer compatible. At each "slice in time" the "process of evolution" DURING each humans lifetime will be unnoticeable. However, with adequate records, the EFFECTS of evolution will be noticeable by comparing current characteristics with past characteristics. The differences are unnoticeable at first . . . then more marked as hundreds of thousands of years are tagged on.Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The species change is so gradual that it is NEVER noticed in one person's lifetime.If humans HAD been around with record-keeping ability for the last several million years, then we (the human species) WOULD HAVE witnessed the extremely slow process of new species being formed over time as some small subset of a population changes their allele frequency to either avoid threats or more prolifically reproduce. As I understand it, you as a creationist simply don't trust the record-keeping apparatus (the fossil record) together with DNA, morphology, etc. as sufficient evidence. Also there is no "determining factor or trigger that makes the 'millions of years' cycle suddenly begin . . . " because there is no "suddenly" in macroevolutionary timescales.Hope that helps.
Harvey,by the way, you also said this:These "eyes" are consistent and repeatably testable.No, not all science is repeatable or testable. You hail the big bang as a scientific fact also right? Where has it been repeated or tested?Have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? It basically says that all threads on the internet eventually get around to including Hitler in some way.I want to make a new law, but I don't know what to call it. The Law basically states "In any internet discussion with creationists about evolution, the longer the series of posts, the closer the probability gets to 1 that the Big Bang will be brought up." (And, of course, the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution)But to answer your question above, you're confusing scientific "theories" with scientific "facts."Theories can be repeatably tested, but facts cannot necessarily be repeated. We can repeatedly test for the "effects" of the Big Bang based on the "Big Bang Theory." We cannot repeat the "fact" of the Big Bang.An example of a repeatable test of the "Big Bang Theory" would be the Microwave Background Radiation. It was predicted from the Big Bang Theory and it was measured. This test can be reliably repeated with ever more accurate results with better and better equipment.There are some theories which are difficult to develop tests for. An example would be string theory. It seems to work (repeatably) in the world of mathematics, but developing a real world test may be difficult. It's still a Theory, but not as robust as the Theory of Evolution, say.Regards,Jim
Harvey,So now the new standard since there is NO transitional forms in the archaeological record to claim that EVERY species is a transitional form now???So get this humans are merely a TRANSITIONAL FORM according to Russ. Congratulations! You're finally beginning to understand evolution. Even though you don't accept it . . . yet!
Jim,You said:"I think you're confusing the "process of evolution" (the term you use above) with "a noticeable EFFECT of macroevolution" such as a new species. We are ALWAYS witnessing the "process of evolution." YOU are a process of evolution since your genes are different than your parents"Jim, my friend, I haven't confused that at all...I AFFIRM microevolution and change and adaptation within a species. I don't know of any reasonable people who don't affirm this. But what gets the dig is the macroevolutionary changes here. IF atheists can get past the fact that a Christian has something to say they will hear that Christians agree with microevolutionary changes, BUT the macroevolution is the problem...Since I have commented here it's been one loop after another to get me to agree with evolution and that's not an issue with me or anyone I know...The creation or development of a NEW SPECIES by evolution or natural descent is most difficult here...so I'm not being ignorant as the claim is, I see no basis is science, except for a bunch of bullying, that macroevolution happens...a dog is ALWAYS a dog, no matter how short, fat, tall, or big, the offspring are or are not over time. That's my contention and it's only wishful thinking that science has an inability to prove otherwise.Then you said:Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The species change is so gradual that it is NEVER noticed in one person's lifetime.Now that's where the difference is for reasons i've already stated. No matter how many changes and adaptations and species undergoes, "they are who we think they are!"-LOLNow you mentioned genetic incompatability and the drifting of the gene pool. I have noticed those are the arguments and contentions dealing with identifying "species". I see that there is a question over how and what basis that "species" is classified, so i understand what you're saying here and I guess you analogy and suggestions are just as good as what is being talked about so I won't harass you here.And YES, your commentary does shed a whole lot more light on the subject than these who simply hate God and Christians...So i appreciate that...Anthony's not so bad either for all the trouble i give him...why heck Russ is ok too.....SOMEtimes...
Harvey, how's it going man?Questions for you:Is a wolf a dog?Is a coyote a dog?Is a fox a dog?Is a hyena a dog?Thanks in advance for your answers.
Harvey, Are there any other scientific theories that you think are blatantly false, despite being overwhelming accepted by the scientific community?
Harvey,You said: Right there allowing people to exercise their free-will as he always is saying that no matter how much they mess up what he does he'll sting bring it out allright like he always does...So What???Nice attempt at a deflection Harvey. Unfortunately, my point has nothing to do with free will and everything to do with your god simply communicating clearly and unambiguously with us. Having a coherent and consistent dogma would not impact free will at all, it would just prevent all you theologians from acting like a bunch of fleas on a dog squabbling about which flea owns the dog.So really tell me what does that have to do wiith evolution? seriously what does that mean and what pertinence do you think it has to any of the argument?Nothing, but technically none of your posts in these threads about evolution have anything to do with evolution either, they are red herrings that obfuscate the real reasons you reject evolution and science more generally. It's off topic, sure, but I'm just cutting to the chase.Pherhaps you don't understand allegory, contrast and rhetorical skills...your gods are men as you believe and hope for them to find the next discovery to affirm your faith...you can't see it can you?I question your skill on this score as well. You've unwittingly admitted that your gods are men. and then you projected that assumption on me. Either god is totally unable to communicate in an unambiguous fashion, or the authors of the bible merely wrote down their folk tales, superstitions, and folk wisdom, and you've made the mistake of thinking that this is a great work of insight into the human condition. Sadly, this mistake has lead you to reject reason, logic, and the rules of evidence and replaced them with conjecture and group think, and when that doesn't work, outright lies.You need to clean up your own house before you have any credibility talking to a non-believer about theirs.
I too think Anthonys not so bad, but I'm afraid to comment on anything he has said because he expects me to read three different books and take a night class on whatever it is we are talking about before he'll even listen to me.Also Harvey likes Russ, Thats because Russ says funny things. Like this: "Harvey, evolutionary theory is not like your religion where the masters like yourself just make shit up..." Harvey is the best, but that did make me laugh. Anyways I had a nice long chat with a real Atheist last week at work,(real in the sense that he wasn't behind a computer, not like real like Pinniochio.) But I discovered something really strange about his beliefs. I was telling him how I didn't think we could all have life on Earth based upon all we know about science. Things like the Earth being tilted on it's axis, the speed of the Earth as it not only revolves but also spins with small degrees of wobbles, the size of the Earth compared to the sun the tempature of the sun how far we are away from the sun etc etc etc. (these are just a few of hundrends of things that have to be just right to make it perfect to have life).What he said shocked me, He actually agreed with me and said the odds could very well be one in a gazillion, but since the universe is infinite we are the one in a gazillion. To be fair he actually called himself an Agnostic .....ism.(?) He said it means it's not his job to prove there is a God? Anyways is that what you Atheists here at DC think, all of those things just happened by chance? If so Anthony will be happy to know the Bengals just might win a Super Bowl? Who Dey?Peace be with you all, feeno
Evan,This is my questions for you:Does a wolf ever become a dog?Does a coyote ever become a dog?Does a fox ever become a dog?Does a hyena ever become a dog?Thyen IF this is a blind process, why doesn't it work in reverse:Does a dog ever become a wolf?Does a dog ever become a coyote?Does a dog ever become a fox?Does a dog ever become a hyena?
Scott,I'd have to think about that one for a minute...I'm sure there are some however.Only problem I have is "pretenders" who claim that naturalism is so settled until they have the answers without them being questioned. As we can see based on what is supposedly tangeable, the answers and interpretations are wholly diverse...
feeno,No one really knows what the probabilities are for life arising on its own purely by the action of the physical laws of the universe. We obviously have some idea of what these numbers are, but there are many unknowns.We do know quite a bit about the requirements for life on Earth, but even then, we continue to be surprised by finding life thriving in places that we would never have expected to find it. These surprises alone, strongly indicate that the habitable zones around stars, and the physical properties of planets needed for life to survive are a lot more flexible than it would seem at first glance, and this just accounts for life that we know about.In addition, we don't know, for example, all the different conditions under which life could come about that might be very different from the sort of life forms that we are familiar with, and in this case, all bets are pretty much off.In short, we really don't know how unusual or how unique the Earth really is in this respect to be able to say that the odds are impossibly low for life to arise elsewhere (or even the earth). So your friend's guess is really as good as anybody's. But it is important to keep in mind that it is just a guess that shouldn't be used to draw too many conclusions from.
Feeno,Help me out will you? Can you connect the dots between "I don't know" and "Jesus rose from the dead." In a coherent way. I just don't get how the incomprehensibility of the Universe automatically assumes "God made it." I'm being sincere. I'd love to hear your logic flow. And I wouldn't rag on Anthony for wanting you to read 3 books when you want non-believers to read 66 (or 72 depending on your Christian denomination).
Harvey wrote: I'd have to think about that one for a minute...I'm sure there are some however.I'd invite you to do just that, as I'm guessing there are others that you object to. While we're waiting, I'd note that science doesn't claim to have each and every single answer about how evolution works down the very last detail. Instead, the theory of evolution is an overarching theory explains a wide range of facts we observe. And it is updated as we learn more. For example, we used to think that over 98% of DNA was non-coding (had no function in deterring how a organism eventually takes form). However, we recently discovered that junk-DNA really isn't junk, as it has subtle influence over coding DNA. We've also learned that, in addition to random mutation of DNA sequences during the copy process, a single existing sequence of DNA is sometimes written multiple times. This either causes the replacement of other DNA sequences or a duplicate sequence is appended at some point in the chain. While we originally missed these connections, it dose not invalidate the overarching theory that life evolved from simpler organisms via natural selection and random mutation. Only problem I have is "pretenders" who claim that naturalism is so settled until they have the answers without them being questioned. As we can see based on what is supposedly tangeable, the answers and interpretations are wholly diverse… As I've illustrated above, there is much for us to learn and many questions to be answered. But this does not mean the overall theory of evolution itself is incorrect. These people do not "pretend" to know that the theory of evolution is true anymore than they "pretend" to know about a wide variety of other subjects, such as biology, engineering, geology, paleontology, etc. What I find confusing is that you seem willing to accept their "pretend" claims when it suites your needs.
Harvey,I'm disappointed you didn't answer my questions.Were they too difficult?I'll be happy to answer yours;Does a wolf ever become a dog?Yes. Modern domestic dogs are all descended from wolves. In fact, most biologists consider them the same species.Does a coyote ever become a dog?Again, yes. Coyotes and dogs can interbreed and form hybrids.Does a fox ever become a dog?This is unconfirmed but there are reports of hybridization, however I am skeptical and doubt that it could occur.Does a hyena ever become a dog?No. Hyenas are actually only distantly related to dogs. They are more closely related to meerkats.Additionally you asked:Does a dog ever become a wolf?Again, yes. Dogs and wolves are the same species using DNA evidence.Does a dog ever become a coyote?Yes, sometimes when they hybridize. If a fertile dog/coyote hybrid became socialized into a coyote region and mated with coyotes its offspring would become more coyote-like and its offspring would eventually be indistinguishable from coyotes.Does a dog ever become a fox?I doubt it.Does a dog ever become a hyena?No. Now that I've answered your hypothetical questions, can you answer my real-world, definitional questions?Here they are again if you've forgotten them:Is a wolf a dog?Is a coyote a dog?Is a fox a dog?Is a hyena a dog?
evan,You've answered your rhetoric quite handsomely and as I would have expected:Evan asked:Is a wolf a dog?Evan said: Yes. Modern domestic dogs are all descended from wolves. In fact, most biologists consider them the same species.About the reversal Evan said"Again, yes. Dogs and wolves are the same species using DNA evidence.I guess a wolf is a dog??? That's what i thought too evan, like a collie is a dog and a german sheperd is a dog etc...Evan asked: Is a coyote a dog?Evan said: Again, yes. Coyotes and dogs can interbreed and form hybrids.then you said:"Yes, sometimes when they hybridize. If a fertile dog/coyote hybrid became socialized into a coyote region and mated with coyotes its offspring would become more coyote-like and its offspring would eventually be indistinguishable from coyotesAlthough NEITHER answer quite answers your own questioning if it suits you, who am I?...I guess interbreeding makes things the same in your world...well that's just ONE of those 26 ways to distinguish a species huh?Evan asked:Is a fox a dog?Evan said:This is unconfirmed but there are reports of hybridization, however I am skeptical and doubt that it could occur.But then so far as a fox's ability to be what is currently considered to be a dog you said:I doubt it. So I guess at least your answer is NO...it could be maybe???Evan asked:Is a hyena a dog?Evan said:No. Hyenas are actually only distantly related to dogs. They are more closely related to meerkats.Does that answer your questions Evan?
Harvey you're having a lot of trouble answering my questions and I wonder why that is.These are really easy questions for most people.I already know what my answers are. Why don't you enlighten us with yours?
Evan,STUPID questions deserve STUPID answers...YOUR'S are sufficient.
Harvey your reticence is sort of shocking. You claim to be such an expert that you know more about biology than someone with a PhD in Ethology (Prof. Dawkins), yet you can't answer simple questions.There is something wrong with your theoretical framework if the questions I'm asking you are upsetting you so much.
Evan,I'm not upset my friend, I'm PERFECTLY happy...4-real!Now do you have anything to ADD to the conversation? I'd be glad to hear it.
Ooh Evan,BTW, who is Louis Pasteur? Maybe you would care to share his contribution and importance to this conversation.
Harvey, I have another question for you. Many Christians claim that the Bible is NOT a book about science. Therefore, Biblical depictions which conflict with indisputable facts, such as the shape of the earth, the incorrect order in which the earth and sun were created, the sky as a firm dome with waters above, etc., does not make the Bible "false." It just wasn't a priority for God.Yet, before these facts were indisputable, many people held these false depictions to be true and claimed who disagreed were heretics. In fact, there was a time that you would have been labeled a heretic for your belief that the earth orbits the sun.So my question is, why do you think the current-day rejection of Evolution by Christian fundamentalists is any different?If the Bible isn't a book about science, then why is evolution one of the many things that the Bible got wrong because it wasn't trying to get it right? And if the Bible is right about science in the case of evolution (it's really false) then we must exist in a world where our current state-of-affairs supports the Bible's depictions scientifically, and we completely got it completely wrong. When will science as a whole "come to it's senses" and discover this?In other words, do you think that, one thousand years from now, history will show the theory of Evolution was completely and totally wrong and that we really didn't have a clue?Will the current 150 year trend of science learning more of the details about how life evolved eventually stop and, instead, point to God as the creator of all life in final form? Millions of years from now, will the ongoing effects of microevolution will result in something other than macroevolution? If so, what *will* be the result be instead?
Scott,You asked:"So my question is, why do you think the current-day rejection of Evolution by Christian fundamentalists is any different?"First of all the passages in Genesis to which you refer serves the purposes for which it was intended...1- it is a memorable way to remember oral narratives in an oral culture and 2- it provides the sharp contrast necessary against the backdrop of competing pagan religions providing sharp and clear distinctions of who we know as teh biblical God. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't approach Genesis in a strict literal sense but I do approach the origin of man in such fashion because if God made man in his "image" and "likeness" those things are rather specific.In my review there are many reasons SCIENTIFIC ones, to reject evolution. ANOTHER includes the lack of transitional forms in the fossil records...IF evolution has been the predominant form of speciation for BILLIONS of years as evolutionists claim...we would find many more transitional forms...finding just ANY would be good but that's not the case scientifically...and don't pull this that scientist say otherwise, because MANY say transitions DO NOT exist.Now so far at least one of you claim that ALL fossils are transitional forms and that man is to...that's a ridiculous notion just in case you needed my opinion on it. I'll get with the rest of your proposition later...This dinosaur gotta eat.Later.
Scott,You said:If the Bible isn't a book about science, then why is evolution one of the many things that the Bible got wrong because it wasn't trying to get it right?Evolution isn't mentioned in the bible neither is it suggested how can something be wrong on a subject that it doesn't address?Then you said as a part of asseting how God got it worng: When will science as a whole "come to it's senses" and discover this?What metaphysical naturalists don't want to admit is that what science discovers is merely the footprint of God. Science discovers the "how" of God not the "who" of God. I propose that all you find and affirm scientifically (as good science) is the effect of what God has done. This is consistent with scientific theory as science creates nothing, it only discovers what already there. Origin of men is unique. the amount of code necessary to make man what he is could not possibly be argued by any reasonable person to be random chance...That's like busting your computer into a billion pieces, throwingthe pieces up in the air and expecting it to be a super computer when it hits the ground.Further even if the pieces land in something that looks like a computer how does it gain power? Human consciousness is data...INPUT data. There is no metaphysical necessity for human consciousness within human beings whos make up is merely patterened after rocks. What makes you so special that you have any distinguishment from the rock or dirt under your feet? the ONLY difference is the hand of God...I recognize that...you don't.Finally you asked: Will the current 150 year trend of science learning more of the details about how life evolved eventually stop and, instead, point to God as the creator of all life in final form?There will be a day when EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is Lord...so that's quite possible. With scripture aside, It won't be because of the failure of science, it will be because of the succes of understanding what science really is.
Harvey come on. Name-calling aside, you are the one who threw down the dog gauntlet.First you said;(there is)no MACRO-evolution where dogs turn into birds or vice-versa.Of course nobody who accepts evolution would suggest such a thing would happen, but you kept on the dog idea, as if you were an expert on dogs and their evolution.Then you said;.a dog is ALWAYS a dog, no matter how short, fat, tall, or big, the offspring are or are not over timeSo I'm asking you a simple question, one that should be pretty easy. Where do you draw that dog line, what animals are always dogs and which aren't?The fact that you won't answer such a simple question is making it quite obvious you aren't comfortable doing it. The reason for that is that the boundaries between wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingoes, jackals and foxes are a bit more narrow than you might like to imagine. This may make you nervous about making a statement that would require further explanation given your beliefs, but any reasonably complete system of thought should be able to define what a dog is.I think this is exposing flaws in your system of thought. You can name-call me all you want. The questions remain unanswered.
I've been extremely busy today and I see you guys have been at it. I kind of was feeling left out. :-)Getting back to Harvey's discussion of species. Harvey writes the following:The creation or development of a NEW SPECIES by evolution or natural descent is most difficult here...so I'm not being ignorant as the claim is, I see no basis is science, except for a bunch of bullying, that macroevolution happens...a dog is ALWAYS a dog, no matter how short, fat, tall, or big, the offspring are or are not over time. That's my contention and it's only wishful thinking that science has an inability to prove otherwise.Evan had a pretty good discussion on the topic but I want to approach it from a different angle.So Harvey, you say that dogs will always produce dogs and that no new species can evolve, that is, there is no natural descent from one species to another. Am I correct?Are you familiar with the contemporary creationist concept of baraminology? You see modern creationists do not believe that God created at the species level, but at the level of the "kind" or the baramin. And according to this perspective wolves, foxes, dogs, coyotes, hyenas, jackals all had a common ancestor.Here is what one creationist writes:"The canine baramin (Biblical kind) likely speciated rapidly following the flood of Noah during geographic radiation, and each new population was then naturally selected until varieties such as the wolf, fox, hyena, jackal, etc., each became purebred."Source: Genetic Variability by Design by Christopher W. Ashcraft.The author later writes in his conclusion:"Unfortunately, the creation science community has been denying the existence of new alleles rather than looking to cellular mechanisms for the source [of the new alleles which result in variation]. Before the rapid production of diversity can be understood from an intelligent design standpoint, we must first acknowledge that new alleles are accumulating within recognized baramin, and closely investigate these changes."I reject the author's thesis in the end but I think that he provides an interesting corrective to your view that there is no speciation. According to him the dog, fox, hyena, wolf, etc. all have a common ancestor. And contrary to you he says that the evidence points to the fact that new alleles (i.e. new information) can be generated to form new species.
Harvey,One other thing: what is a species? How do you scientifically, from a creationist perspective, define it?
Feeno,I too think Anthonys not so bad, but I'm afraid to comment on anything he has said because he expects me to read three different books and take a night class on whatever it is we are talking about before he'll even listen to me.Ah Feeno, you don't have to feel that way, you can ask me anything. Although the 3 books isn't too much to ask is it? :-)If so Anthony will be happy to know the Bengals just might win a Super Bowl? Who Dey?No Feeno, it would in fact take divine providence for the Bengals to win!! Ha!
Anthony,That was good and more in the line of my belief on the subject as a whole, but I think you got me wrong...I believe that there IS speciation...only not cross speciation...Now Evan thinks he makes some great point but I don't see any point to what he says because a DOG is a DOG all day. Of course there are certain TYPES of dogs but it's still a dog...if a hyena is a large muskrat then why call it a dog or assume the descent is from a dog just because of how it looks? Creationist believe certain things were made the way they are and man manipulates cetain things...When man manipulates genes to create waht he wants guess what that's called? INTELLIGENT design. Not natural selection. So, at either rate it seems that only MICRO-evolution exists, which I've said from the beginning occurs and that microevolution DOES NOT create new species or further, new kinds...don't see that it does and as stated we should see billions in the fossil record IF these sort of "transactions" of nature were so apripos to nature. Breeding spotted cows to produce other spotted cows still only creates COWS not pigs, dogs or otherwise no matter how many years it happens. So I guess those around here do not major in coding, consciousness, or anything that has to do with first cause, which are the more specific elements that evolution can't explain...Look I hated Zoology, so what, but I know that there is no metaphysical necessity for any living thing especially humans, and God creating man is the best explaination that accounts for all the data. how that happened is the job of science in my book and that as we all see can be a lifelong pursuit...that's what I would expect from God, a creator because it would be beyond us as in we would never discover it all.
Harvey wrote: So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't approach Genesis in a strict literal sense but I do approach the origin of man in such fashion because if God made man in his "image" and "likeness" those things are rather specific.I can see how you might approach Genesis this way, given what we now know. However, history indicates people felt the Bible was rather specific about how the earth was created, etc. As such, they approached these aspects of Genesis in a more literal way. Furthermore, I can't help but notice how these fundamentalists were essentially dragged kicking and screaming into a metaphorical interpretation by being presented with indisputable facts. It was only then did they start to suggest God really wasn't trying to get the order right. However, when it comes to the evolution of life on earth, there is no telescope we can look though to observe what happened millions of years ago. And this is one of the very things you've decided to hold as literal in Genesis. Do you think this is merely a coincidence? Again, it's unclear why you think your current level of literal interpretation is more accrete than these early fundamentalists. In my review there are many reasons SCIENTIFIC ones, to reject evolution. Yet the scientific consensus is that, when we tally up the pros and cons, the evidence overwhelmingly points to evolution as being true. Clearly, there's a huge disconnect between your interpretation of the evidence and the interpretation of the majority of experts in their fields. Why would this be the case?Now so far at least one of you claim that ALL fossils are transitional forms and that man is to...that's a ridiculous notion just in case you needed my opinion on it. And I'm sure that early fundamentalists though that the earth orbiting the sun was ridiculous notion as well.
Harvey wrote: Evolution isn't mentioned in the bible neither is it suggested how can something be wrong on a subject that it doesn't address?Harvey, the Bible gives an alternative description of how life was formed, which occurred over two days. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.In this excerpt, God is depicted as creating animals according to their kind, which at face value excludes the process of evolution.What metaphysical naturalists don't want to admit is that what science discovers is merely the footprint of God. Science discovers the "how" of God not the "who" of God. I propose that all you find and affirm scientifically (as good science) is the effect of what God has done. This is consistent with scientific theory as science creates nothing, it only discovers what already there. The problem with this theory is that when we study God supposed "footprint" we see what overwhelmingly looks like the natural process of evolution. Again, it's unclear why science would reach this conclusion if this actually isn't the case. Is God trying to trick us? Are we complete idiots?Origin of men is unique. the amount of code necessary to make man what he is could not possibly be argued by any reasonable person to be random chance…What makes you so special that you have any distinguishment from the rock or dirt under your feet? the ONLY difference is the hand of God...I recognize that...you don't.Harvey, I'm aware of all of the arguments creationists employ. What I'm asking you is how do you explain the radically different interpretations? Obviously, only one of these positions can be right. What might be the reason why one is so utterly and completely wrong? What does history tell us about the outcome of these kinds of discrepancies? There will be a day when EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. If this actually occurs this will NOT be a scientific discovery. With scripture aside, It won't be because of the failure of science, it will be because of the success of understanding what science really is.Just so I'm clear here, you're suggesting two scientists could both discover that the universe works works exactly the same way, yet only one would be "right" if they assume God was ultimately behind it? Again, the problem is that facts do not indicate God created human beings in final form. To use your logic, one would need to assume God somehow caused the big bang to occur in just the right way to cause human beings to eventually form in the exact way God wanted over a period of 13 billion years. Otherwise, these two scientists would have to discover a radically different set of facts. So, we're back at square one with a huge discrepancy, which you seem unable to account for.
Chuck O'Connor said... "Harv,I am not a theologist nor a scientist but, the reasoned approach provided as defense by Russ versus your defensive arguments makes me think he has information that could be useful to me."then later "Chuck O'Connor said... "Feeno,Help me out will you? Can you connect the dots between "I don't know" and "Jesus rose from the dead." In a coherent way. I just don't get how the incomprehensibility of the Universe automatically assumes "God made it." I'm being sincere. I'd love to hear your logic flow"I find myself tending to agree with what Chuck says though im a bit wary about admitting it.Hell ive already been delegated the position as obviously simply just being a Darwin and Dawkins worshipper by faithful folks so in the know about what religion actually is,my knees will soon be red raw and worn ragged at this rate if simply agreeing with people has now become mandatory for a need to also faithfully pay homage.One is left in great awe watching the holy spirit guide all these modern day prophets as they carefully impose such fine unquestionable arguments upon us.Harv said to me "According to Sampfire you were wrong...the child like all children was an Ape..."Thinking back about how some folks have even suggested, concurrence between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99.Got me thinking about a friend of mine who looks alot like some type of throw back , as for some strange reason or other he`s hairy as hell.Thankfully he mostly wears clothes, or somebody in NZ might have reported seeing a bigfoot or yeti I was going to ask John to please agree to post a pic,but was afraid Harv & feeno might then both angrily complain im just now simply also a bloody worshipper of monkeys.My friend was maybe ok with the pic being posted,however told me he really wasnt very interested in becoming anybodies messiah.Ahhh the many dilemma`s of life we all face!.....Still like Chuck i still also wonder how and why the "dont knows" all seem to must have to automatically = god/s did it etcOne wonders in awe at the amazing intelligence of men who can start at a point of really "not understanding" and with such abundance of wisdom go straight to "oh then it must have been this for sure".Still the comparisons made between faith in science & people etc and faith in faiths soon become very obvious,as we watch scientists change their minds just as quickly as bible beliefs have also changed their minds over the last thousands of years.
GandyI think I dated your friends sister? You could have weaved a blanket from her back hair alone?To Sir Charles and Big G. I'm not suggesting that because Jesus was trekking around Galilee 2000 years ago that means he's God.Just like The improbabilities of the Earth somehow making it perfect for life doesn't mean God created it. I get that. I was just trying to let dude know that there are reasons why Christians have faith. Ultimately to please God we need to have faith. But it doesn't have to be a blind faith. Plato put it best when he said "God has provided just enough evidence so that those who are looking for him will find him and those who want to reject him will not be able to find him accidentally".Hello Steven,I'd agree with most of what you say except the part about "the physical properties of planets need for life to survive are a lot more flexible than it would seem at first glance." If it is true that the radius of the Earth is about 4,000 miles and if the Earth was just 10 feet thicker life couldn't exist, those aren't to flexible? Anyways I see your in the Science field so you might be able to explain the error of my ways. Thanks.AnthonyThe Bengals winning a Super Bowl or converting you back to Christianity..... with man things seem to be impossible, but with God.....Late, feeno
feeno said... "GandyI think I dated your friends sister? You could have weaved a blanket from her back hair alone?"Careful careful feeno my friend easily does it watch out or next thing you know, somebody might take real issue with your percieved personal level of empathy etc,and start a special blog for debunking feeno.
feeno,For the sake of brevity, I just said "physical properties" without being very explicit about what I meant by that, and I admit that is pretty vague.So to be a little more clear, you mentioned a number of things like the Earth's distance from the Sun, the axial tilt of the planet, others have talked about the influence of the moon, etc. I don't deny that these properties have significantly impacted the development of life on Earth, however, I think we have to be careful about assuming that all these things that we know have had a significant influence here are necessary conditions for life in general. Essentially, I was attempting to address your thought that it seems unlikely that life could've arisen on Earth based on what we know from science, and my point is that I don't think science has taught us enough about that to draw any conclusions about that. Based on the findings that I've been keeping up with over the last couple of decades, it could really go either way, and we may never really know for sure if that is really true for the Earth.
Harvey,You say:So, at either rate it seems that only MICRO-evolution exists, which I've said from the beginning occurs and that microevolution DOES NOT create new species or further, new kinds...So what animals were on the ark? Was there just one dog-like creature that has since evolved into dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes and foxes?Was there a meerkat and a hyena? Or was there just one creature that looked like neither that has since evolved into meerkats and hyenas?Please Harvey, if you have a viable theory, you should be able to answer these questions.(I)...don't see that it does and as stated we should see billions in the fossil record IF these sort of "transactions" of nature were so apripos to nature.Harvey, I'm going to ask you another simple question.Given your belief about the age of the earth, how many fossils would you expect to find total, given how fossilization takes place?
Evan,Since you like to ask questions and answer your own answer this one:Given YOUR belief about the age of the earth, WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT TO FIND many TRANSITIONAL fossils given how fossilization takes place?It doesn't matter what I believe in this case because you don't know whether I'm an old or young earther...you make assumptions, but you don't know. However one thing is for sure, if you are convinced in evolution and common descent you are also convinced that the earth is billions of years old...Where are the transitions?
Harvey: or assume the descent is from a dog just because of how it looks?No, no, no, no! You are not listening. Evolution is not based just on morphology ("how it looks"). That is just one piece of the puzzle. The evidence of the fossil record is also another piece of the puzzle. DNA yet another.Where are the transitions?The principle issue is common descent and you just refuse to look at the evidence. Instead you continue to parrot the falsified claims of creationists and IDers.This is why I keep mentioning the books by Prothero (he devotes most of his book to the fossil record and the countless transitions found there), Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins.If you don't want to read books then there are many websites that demonstrate the evidence for common descent and specifically deal with the fossil record.The TalkOrigins website deals with these, and with the many problems with creationism and intelligent design. And believe me the mock site TrueOrigins by creationists just simply does not compare to TalkOrigins.The National Center for Science Education has a lot of good resources.Ken Miller has some really good resources as well.PBS also has a great section of resources on the evidence for evolution. Included there are sections on speciation as well.You see Harvey and other creationists reading, you keep saying there's no evidence, but then you refuse to examine the resources that show that evidence.
I think blogger Julie Clawson expresses well Harvey's approach to science while commenting on Banned Book Week(9/26/09-10/3/09). She says:Instead of thoughtfully engaging issues some people made the issues disappear by simply pretending they didn’t exist. And the church as a whole has done a good job at it too. Whole sections of the church don’t know that any theology exists apart from the last 50 years of evangelical thought or that Dispensational theology isn’t the way the church has always believe. There’s good reason why people lose their faith in college – when confronted with the messiness of religion, or theology, or textual studies their sheltered minds are taken by surprise and they feel lied to and betrayed by the church that did it’s best to keep them from encountering reality. But some still think it’s better (or at least easier) to pretend than to deal with the messiness that is reality. Instead of wrestling with church history or helping our kids respond with love to all the people they encounter, the very discussion gets banned. So kudos to Banned Books Week for forcing us to face those fears instead of hiding from them. For not letting ideologies be used as silencing weapons of oppression. [http://julieclawson.com/2009/09/29/banned-books-week-2009/]
Harvey you keep avoiding what should be easy questions. It suggests to me you aren't serious about getting to the truth.
Russ posted....."There’s good reason why people lose their faith in college"Yeah well the faithful folk i came from understood this problem,so they made a rule thats been enforced now for 40-50 years.That anybody daring to go to a university,was to be quickly excommunicated.They have progressed further lately to running their own schools from the time when kids first start school also.They now have people who even first pre read (every book),before its said to be ok for the schools library.L.o.L......And yet these folk are still the type who feel Hitler etc,were extremely terrible.Not so much that i disagree,but more that i wonder how they can think they are much better.
Russ,Now you guys seem to think that you can level a criticism at Christianity because Christians have either misinterpreted or misapplied scipture at times...I say so what...that's no worse than anything man has done and that evolution has done since it has been promoted. For example:Evolution taught women to be inferior because their brain size was smaller. Here is your god Darwin himself to this:[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, history, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages... [that] the average mental power in man must be above that of women." ~ Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex" (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896), 564Here is Gould 115 years aafter darwin's bogus theory trying to clear up what Lebon (another famous evolutionist) taught by way of Darwin:"Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and...are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt, there exists some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads. Consequently, we may neglect them entirely." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105Gould was trying to clear it up sure enough but that was SCIENTIFIC FACT to these guys for a long time.Now need I mention what Darwinian evolution taught about Black inferiority? The same thing that Blacks were all inferior and lesser beings, no capacity to learn etc...Clear and rank STUPIDITY!Now this wasn't people trying to "interpret" what was said. These the idiotic teachings that the FOUNDER of evolutionary theory taught.You'll find my additional thoughts here: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/search?q=women+and+evolutionLet's conclude, since Evan doesn't have the nerve to tell why Loius Pasterur was so important.What was so special about him and his impact on evolutionary theory that was so preciously "peer reviewed" and settled? Louis Pasteur wiped out the then-prevalent evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation with the establishment of the germ theory of disease. It was Dr. Pasteur (a Christian)that compelled most biological and medical scientists to give up their ideas of the naturalistic origin of life and their treatment of disease as based on this notion.Argue with me all day, but these are the facts. As I said evolution has been debunked and as a complete theory that is pretends to be over and over. Only die hards and those who take pieces of it to keep it alive do so and claim that's it's fully in tact but it's not.Now to be fair most of you have admitted that evolution doesn't answer it all and we agree on microevolution and changes within species, but to the others who are sincerely that there is no failure in evolution, you should be as ashamed as I am for you.
Feeno wrote: Plato put it best when he said "God has provided just enough evidence so that those who are looking for him will find him and those who want to reject him will not be able to find him accidentally".Feeno, in Mark 4:11, Jesus isn't just being leaving evidence in inconspicuous locations. When the twelve disciples ask him about a parable he had just used, he supposedly said… And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.So, apparently Jesus purposely encodes his messages so most people won't understand it and their sins will NOT be forgiven.
Another thing...back to this fossil record thing which the only worthwile retort has been Anthony with:"This is why I keep mentioning the books by Prothero (he devotes most of his book to the fossil record and the countless transitions found there), Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins...If you don't want to read books then there are many websites that demonstrate the evidence for common descent and specifically deal with the fossil record."The problem is not in the reading Anthony. the problem is with the honest handling of fact and the best possible interpretations.Darwin himself knew the records were short in his day and that he was waiting on new science to prove him right. He said,Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."~[Charles Darwin, On the Origin Of Species p.280]Remember Stephen Jay Gould? the father of punctuated equilibria (PE)...why did he create thsi theory? Because the fossil record IS and YET REMAINS an embarassment to evolutionary theory. This is what he said:The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism (the type of evolution to which SOME of you are still convinced of)1) stasis. most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2)Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'~Stephen Jay Gould, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace' Natural History 86(1977) pg. 13-14...Robert B. Carroll reaffirmed this position in 2000. What makes that significant? he was the curator of vertebrate palentology at the Redpath Museum at McGill University...Someone who undoubtedly knows what he's looking at and how to interpret what he finds...These are evolutionists convinced that what many of you say is fact is nothing but modern garbage for the heap. So we've got 26 differnt ways to interpret what a species is, many of them at direct odds with one another...no archaeological record in the vast amount of time for transitional forms indicating gradualism and a bunch of peoiple who told me..."I think I will trust the biologist to discuss biology and will relegate your comments in the trash heap of superstition. You have no credibility to discuss any of this."Well why don't we trust what the best scientist say that are even on your side? Sum up what they say and evolution is bankrupt!There's more, but I'm tired right now...LOL!
Even wrote: Harvey you keep avoiding what should be easy questions. It suggests to me you aren't serious about getting to the truth.Can't help but notice Harvey hasn't told us what other scientific theories he thinks are blatantly false, despite being overwhelming accepted by the scientific community. Nor has he answered…In other words, do you think that, one thousand years from now, history will show the theory of Evolution was completely and totally wrong and that we really didn't have a clue?or... Millions of years from now, will the ongoing effects of microevolution will result in something other than macroevolution? If so, what *will* be the result be instead?Which leads me to the same conclusion. Should Harvey be as knowledgeable as he suggests, these would be easy questions.
Hey Harvey,Remind me about what St Paul thought of women in churches.As for transitional forms, quote Darwin and misquote Gould all you like but until you have read Prothero you are wasting your time here arguing white is black. When it comes to kicking against the pricks you must have the sorest heels in Christendom. The rest of us have long moved on.As for the great Pasteur, he discovered germ theory not because he was a (catholic) christian but because he was a scientist. Now, remind me again, where in the New Testament is germ theory mentioned?
Harvey said”“Evolution taught women to be inferior because their brain size was smaller. Here is your god Darwin himself to this:”Women were given the right to vote in the US 1920 and Great Briton in 1928. So, from day one Jews and Christians were big supporters of women’s rights? Christians never supported women’s rights, and the idea that evolution was for or against women’s suffrage is lunacy. Christians had used the bible to prohibit women from voting or having any rights at all, it sure wasn’t evolution. Here is your God Darwin himself to this” People do not think Darwin is a god. You would have to be a complete fool to believe this. But then again, you believe God forced God self upon a young girl to have God self in the flesh only to sacrificed to God self for a system of sin that God created in the first place. Okay. Sounds reasonable, not!Even if Darwin hated women it wouldn’t have any effect anything on his theories. Ray comfort school of debate tactics attacks the person not the theories. Example would be Ted Haggard does his confusion over his sexuality disproves Christianity, I wouldn’t think so. People as you always claiming they debunked Darwin, that’s a great idea attack a dead guy who clearly cannot defend himself. Clearly with knowledge in biology and the fossil record which you causally dismiss, try taking a stab at someone living. I don’t mean Dawkins either, how about a local college professor of biology in your area. Have a one – one discussion with him/her. See how you fare. You attack a dead guy who had lived 150 years ago, nice. Darwin doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t Darwin it would have been Alfred Russel Wallace or someone else. The evidence and discovers were heading that direction anyway Darwin just got their first. If you think you can debunk the theory of evolution by all means do. If you have the data collected all you need to publish your work. Science is fought with data and evidence. Books on the best seller list do not change scientific theories, papers do. Science is not a based on a person’s opinion you need to have evidence that can be examined but others. I know others and I suggested this course but you are in the end just spinning your wheels here.
Hello ScottIt doesn't have to be a mystery (something unknown) at all. JC was explaining about those who aren't ready or willing to believe. All are welcome to God and his word however only a few are willing to receive it. There should no longer be a mystery really, what was unknown was Christ and what he came to fulfill. Rom. 16:25-26If we read the parable of the sower it's simply telling us that our hearts have to be ready to receive the word. Some would rather indulge in the pleasures that the world offers, some get tripped up by the Devil, some have had bad things happen to them and get discouraged and some actually accept it and go on to produce some fruit.Although I say it should no longer be a mystery, that doesn't mean I got all this stuff figured out. The Bible is filled with complicated issues that I may never figure out, or until it's revealed to me in the next life?I could never prove to you there is a God, I wish I could, but you don't need me to find him.Peace be with you, feeno
Jonathan,You said:"Christians had used the bible to prohibit women from voting or having any rights at all, it sure wasn't evolution." LIE, it was good ole Darwinian evolution that had control of the law and any preferential treatment of men over women was promoted by IT, as they did with legislation on blacks. Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle. That was the scientific background on the issue...Women in the bible were always regarded highly and even women captured and taken into slavery had rights and they WERE NOT raped and rape was not ok. The biblical standard even in the NT was high for women as women folled Jesus, witnessed the resurrection, were given the first message to preach, and were prophetesses and evangelists within a patriarchal society which was unheard of in any other religious system or society in general at that time. So as usual, you're a sensationalist that doesn't know what you're talking about when it comes to this part a least. Another of your naive statements:"Science is fought with data and evidence"I don't know how old you are but obviously you're too young to make a contribution to this. Science is a convention politically controlled like every thing in life. Similar to healthcare. There are cures to certain diseases that have been found, speculated and can be further developed but it is not politically expedient to do certain things or bring certain advances at particular times...kinda like Darfur...there is a beneficial interest for inaction...If you believe that science is merely presented and endorsed on the facts you're outta the box and the only thing I can tell you is in time you'll learn. Believe me. Thanks.
Harv,I think I am getting what you are trying to argue. Or rather, from where your argument stems. It seems to me you are operating under a false analogy and therefore are getting trapped in a logical fallacy. Your disagreements with evolutioniary biology have nothing to do with its current practice or useful technologies that have been built on it but rather in the imperfections of its supposed founder. I can understand your bias. Your worldview operates under the premise that your founder is perfect therefore your doctrine is perfect. You then apply this pressure test to evolutionary biology and see it wanting. Evolutionary biology however does not worship or revere Darwin. It leverages his thoughts on the theory of adaptation through natural selection as an organizing premise to experiment with natural observation. Olivia Judson, a female evolutionary biologist and someone who respects Darwin's theories (despite the quote-mining misogynism you accuse him of) wrote a very good piece representing this thought here: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/lets-get-rid-of-darwinism/Some of her more salient ideas relative to your strawman argument, "In short, Darwin did more in one lifetime than most of us could hope to accomplish in two. But his giantism has had an odd and problematic consequence. It’s a tendency for everyone to refer back to him. “Why Darwin was wrong about X”; “Was Darwin wrong about Y?”; “What Darwin didn’t know about Z” — these are common headlines in newspapers and magazines, in both the biological and the general literature. Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix “neo”), Darwinist (ditto), Darwinian.Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin. He wasn’t, and it has. Although several of his ideas — natural and sexual selection among them — remain cornerstones of modern evolutionary biology, the field as a whole has been transformed. If we were to go back in a time machine and fetch him to the present day, he’d find much of evolutionary biology unintelligible — at least until he’d had time to study genetics, statistics and computer science."Now I know you want us all to believe your superstition is the true Alpha and Omega of reality and we should all bow down to your unchallenged myth but, it is that very essence that I find annoying and threatening. No scientist demands I bow to Darwin but they do offer challenges to his theories as a means of uncovering and discovering testable facts. Your worldview demands obedience to authority not empowerment of the individual. And Dr. Judson goes further which I think would be a good proposal we all can accept and one which should end your blathering strawmen about the insufficiency of evolutionary theory, "I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today." Enjoy Harvey. I stand on the assertion you know nothing about evolutionary biology and your superstitions should be not only resigned to the scrap heap but seen as dangerous to both free thought and free people.
You fail everyone Harvey. Your stupid glows with an eerie horror-movie irridescence. This is not an insult; this is an observation.While you fortify your ignorance through incessantly repeating the same stupid notions, you continue to underscore how you fail all those you touch. I hear your prayer: Oh! Sacred Ignorance, you are real in that I assert you as truth over and over again.You didn't bother to actually check Julie Clawson's link did you? She's some sort of devout Christian, just like you.Then, you did what? You googles for quotes to mine, from a long-dead historical figure, Charles Darwin. Here again, you seek to hurt people, and, again you parade your ignorance of how Darwin relates to today's evolutionary theory. You provide a link to more of your nonsense. Why would I bother with it when you've demonstrated that you lack any understanding of evolutionary theory, while you think that you can demonstrate some sort of insight or gain some respect or credibility by hand-picking irrelevant strings of words that you feel you can easily attack. An honorable man doesn't do that, but Harvey Burnett does it at every opportunity. That's the Burnett modus operandi.I know you can't understand this, but modern evolutionary theory is not "Darwinian evolution." As I said before, it's clear that your personal willingness to vilify and dehumanize people knows no bounds. Here, you attack people over a scientific discipline you are obviously completely ignorant of. Unfortunately, your religiously induced malignancy of ignorance is irremedial. You can never admit to being wrong. You can never admit that you don't know. Trained experts, Christian or not, are wrong. You have abandoned the path to knowledge. By doing so, you have forever shackled yourself to ignorance, no doubt, for you, a self-satisfying and soothing ignorance. Your ignorance defines you, Harvey. Your mind is screwed up. You are no longer educable.I'm comforted that you don't speak for all or even a significant number of the Christianities.You deepen your demonstration of your own ignorance by your depiction of Pasteur's contribution to science. You do not understand that evolution theory does not deal with origin of life. Spontaneous generation never was a concept in evolutionary theory.You said,Louis Pasteur wiped out the then-prevalent evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation with the establishment of the germ theory of disease. It was Dr. Pasteur (a Christian)that compelled most biological and medical scientists to give up their ideas of the naturalistic origin of life and their treatment of disease as based on this notion.You point to Pasteur wearing the Christian brand name, but again it is your lack of integrity that leaves you feeling content to omit that professing Christian allegiance was manditory in Pasteur's nineteenth century world. Had he not claimed to be Christian, he would not have been permitted to pursue his education.Harvey, again your non-understanding defines you and how you see the world. You fail to understand that your conception of your hero, pieced together from googled quote fragments and wikipedia snippets, is terribly inadequate. In your unthinking attempt to use Pasteur as a weapon against those who understand the factual basis of modern evolutionary theory, including your fellow same-labelled Christians, you overlook both his deep love of science and his important contribution to evolutionary theory.Writing things like, Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world. Science is the highest personification of the nation because that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest the works of thought and intelligence. Pasteur illustrated his love of science.
Look at that, Harvey. Pasteur, your exemplary Christian, said "Science[...]is the torch which illuminates the world," and "Science is the highest personification of the nation."You said,Let's conclude, since Evan doesn't have the nerve to tell why Loius Pasterur was so important,yet, you've demonstrated that you have no idea why Pasteur was important. Sure, your search engine gave you something to write in insulting Evan, but you obviously don't understand what you wrote.You've unfailingly proven yourself ignorant of evolutionary theory and yet you've said things like, I need no special scientific qualifications, only good information, which i have.I am not hampered from looking at good evidence and evaluating it on best principles.So I god against evolution because primarily it's bad scinece...The depiction I give of evolutionary theory is totally accurate.I mention cyclical change and you write it off as if I don't know what I'm talking about only I do and you DON'T by your response.Now, in your ignorance you hammered Evan about Pasteur while clearly not knowing his scientific relevance. Though you are willfully ignorant I will let you redeem yourself. I am your savior, Harvey. Your salvation hinges on you answering this question: what was Pasteur's contribution to science that added to evolutionary theory? You did say, "The depiction I give of evolutionary theory is totally accurate." So, this should be easy to answer for one so self-assuredly knowledgeable.You said,The problem is not in the reading Anthony. the problem is with the honest handling of fact and the best possible interpretations.Harvey, you've shown yourself incapable of handling simple notions like those from Pasteur honestly. You don't understand and you can't admit it. Again, you quote mine Darwin. Then, you, with your flare for ignorance and your lack of integrity, misrepresent Gould and puncuated equilibrium. You said, why did he create thsi theory? Because the fossil record IS and YET REMAINS an embarassment to evolutionary theory.(If you want your lack of understanding to be even more clearly understood, you really should proofread what you write, Harvey. "Because the fossil record IS and YET REMAINS"? Proofread.)Your ignorance is irremedial, but I'll say it anyway: the fossil record, far from being an embarrassment to evolutionary theory - except, of course, as an embarrassment of riches - is by itself sufficient evidence for the fact that is evolutionary theory.But, here again, we run into your professional area of specialty: relying entirely on your ignorance to misread, distort and misrepresent another human being's words for your own perverse objectives. Puncuated equilibrium is an evolutionary idea addressing observed rates of morphological change. Compared to the millions of years that a species might exist, it's appearance in the fossil record over fifty to one hundred thousand years seems very sudden. What's more, sudden appearance in the fossil record in a local area would often result from migration. Finding ancestral species in the fossil record requires locating the geographic region where the species first arose which might be a great distance from where the "sudden appearance" was made.You appear even more stupid by quoting Dr. Robert Carroll, Harvey, when we consider that his latest book is The Rise of Amphibians: 365 Million Years of Evolution(Carroll, R. L. The Rise of Amphibians: 365 Million Years of Evolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 544 pages, 2009.) I'm sure you'll truly appreciate this part of its press description:
Synthesizing findings from the rich and highly diverse fossil record of amphibians, Robert Carroll traces their origin back 365 million years, when particular species of fish traveled down an evolutionary pathway of fin modification that gave rise to legs. This period of dramatic radiation was followed by a cataclysmic extinction 250 million years ago. After a long gap, modern amphibian groups gradually emerged. Now the number of amphibian species and individuals throughout the tropical and temperate regions of the earth exceeds that of mammals.Wow. Rich and highly diverse fossil record. Hmmm...still want to quote mine Dr. Carroll? Write him. Ask him if he thinks you understand what he said.You said,Well why don't we trust what the best scientist say that are even on your side? Sum up what they say and evolution is bankrupt!We do trust what the best scientists have to say. At the same time, we here know that you have no capacity to understand and accurately represent their work.It's fortunate for you that modern science provides a safe environment in which persons like you, Harvey, can be disconnected from the real world, as in the quote of Julie Clawson above. But, it's deeply disheartening and unfortunate for the rest of us that from your bully pulpit you will instill hatred in children and others uninformed for the human undertaking of science on which their lives are dependent.Religious ideas don't have to compete for the right to exist. They don't apply to everyone and they are accepted for reasons of tradition, revelation, or authority. Unlike science no one asks that religious ideas be true, or verifiable, or supported by evidence. The Christianities showcase the fact that having no standard or metric of correctness, the ideas that make them up are free to vary widely from person to person, congregation to congregation and Christian religion to Christian religion.It appears that you have no respect whatsoever for the fact that science is completely constrained by the natural world. If the ideas and conceptions of science don't measure up to the uncompromising guage of nature, they are abandoned.Your interactions here suggest that you think that if you can only find the right Fox News type soundbite, or if you misrepresent just the right esteemed scientist like you did here with Carroll and Gould, or if you can find a string of words to attack when you quote them out of context, then you can make all of science bend to your misshapen vision of reality. You can twist the minds of those who allow themselves to be subjected to you, but you still don't affect the science.What really comes of you doing these things is that you look ever more stupid. You aren't shaking the foundations of science. You're not chipping away at the evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Real scientists - Gould and Robert Carroll, for instance - have been diligently working to capsize the ship of evolutionary theory for 150 years, Harvey, but with every passing day that ship becomes more stable, more seaworthy.I can see you now with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed while you hop from foot to foot screaming your tantrum at the top of your lungs: Nanna, nanna, nah, nah. I can't hear you. I can't hear. Nanna, nanna, nah, nah.You do a disservice to all mankind.
What has evolution learned again that it got wrong?Maybe it has to rethink the whole theory of common descent:4.4 million–year–old skeleton of a likely human ancestor known as Ardipithecus ramidus (abbreviated Ar. ramidus)."Ardi is the earliest and best-documented descendant of that common ancestor. But despite being "so close to the split," says White, the surprising thing is that she bears little resemblance to chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives. The elusive common ancestor's bones have never been found, but scientists, working from the evidence available — especially analyses of Australopithecus and modern African apes — envisioned Great-Great-Grandpa to have looked most nearly like a knuckle-walking, tree-swinging ape. But "[Ardi is] not chimplike," according to White, which means that the last common ancestor probably wasn't either. "This skeleton flips our understanding of human evolution," says Kent State University anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy, a member of the Middle Awash team. "It's clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity."So what does that mean? Based on Ardi's anatomy, it appears that chimpanzees may actually have evolved more than humans — in the scientific sense of having changed more over the past 7 million years or so.http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1927200,00.html?cnn=yesWell, well, well, amazing things happen every day. Why can't people belive that things (these creatures0 were just made that way from their beginning? It would be so much simpler, especially since their NO LINKING EVIDENCE.I know there's much more to know but the more we see, what was once hailed as fact turns into a strange brand of fiction.
Feeno, I'm not referring to the message of parable itself. I'm referring to the explanation Jesus gives for using a parables to teach this message. ...all these things are done in parables:That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.First, Jesus says that some were given knowledge of the mystery of God. The use of parables was purposely designed to prevent those that were without (were not given) would NOT understand, NOT be converted and NOT have their sins forgiven.You're interpreting this passage in the context that Jesus represented a radical leap by including gentiles in his message. However, there are a significant number of passages that indicate his acceptance of those outside Judaism was greatly exaggerated.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...LIE, it was good ole Darwinian evolution that had control of the law and any preferential treatment of men over women was promoted by IT, as they did with legislation on blacks. Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.In 1619 Slavery in the Americas began. In 1667 The Virginia Assembly passes a bill which denied that a Christian baptism grants freedom to slaves.In 1833 Great Briton abolished salver in her coloniesIn 1859 Darwin’s book the Origin of species was published In 1865 the 13th amendment was passed that abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. In 1868 the 14th amendment was passed regarding civil rights and citizenshipIn 1870 the 15th amendment was passed denying a citizen the right to vote based on race / color. In 1872 Darwin’s book Origin of species 6th edition. In 1920 19th amendment granting women right to vote in the USIn 1954 the last all-black military unit in the US army abolished.The list goes on and on. Can you give examples of how “Darwinian evolution” controlled the laws giving preferential treatment of men over women?* what country, when and the name of the specific legislation. Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.* what country, when and the name of the specific legislation.I have to be one of the dumbest ducks in universe to think what you are saying is factual. It boggles the mind of your revisionist view of history. If you could answer those questions I would most appreciative. Thanks.
Harvey, How do you explain the trend that, as we learn more about evolution, we discover specific assumptions about exactly how we evolved were incorrect, but the data still ends up supporting the theory? If evolution is such a farce, wouldn't we discover that we're not only wrong about specific details but also find that we're completely wrong about the entire theory?For example, take the 4.4 million year old fossil from the Ethiopian desert.Previously, we thought that the ancestors of humans and apes were more like chimpanzees. Instead, it suggest that our ancestors were more primitive creature that shared few traits with modern-day members of either group.So, here's an example of how scientists revise their theory when new discoveries suggest they were wrong. Should evolution a elaborate hoax, why would this occur?
Harv,What do you make of this?http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
Jonathan said... "Christians had used the bible to prohibit women from voting or having any rights at all, it sure wasn’t evolution."Maybe evolution did have a little to do with it,in the sense that even faith beliefs etc were also part of the evolution of humans thoughts?.But anyway Harvey seems to me to be clapping his hands in great joy that he`s found people like Darwin or Dawkins or who ever else can really be shown to maybe have been wrong at some stage/s. Like its such a wonderful extra new revelation or something.Something that will suddenly make our world all fall apart.Im thinking holy cow our friend Harv really is so stuck fast in a religious absolute type mode of thinking,he must honestly believe these are people who we worship like phophets or gods.And that if he can manage to show us what we already know (ie that humans can be wrong sometimes)it will really be a deathly blow to us all.Harv personally i really couldnt give a rats arse if humans are wrong at times,its really not like we are actually trying to suggest humans thinking is divine or passed on by some freaking supernatural force like is suggested in faith writings that faithful folk believe.That if honestly true of being divine having had some supernatural input, we should have some good reason to expect would then be very unlikely to be found wrong.Do you understand this very big difference at all Harv?,or am i listening to you and getting some more real understanding of just why many people say faith believers are idiots.Personally i dont much like nasty taunts specially if simply done without any merit,but if you honestly see absolutely no difference between Darwins thought and that of the supposedly divinely inspired faith books what am i left to think.You say here to the effect that Darwin and others thoughts were that females etc were lower beings etc blah blah.Even if so so what?.Are you telling us these peoples thoughts came before any thoughts from faith beliefs came along.And telling us its (unlikely) these peoples thoughts were ever effected by religious type thinking in any way what so ever.Sure im sure maybe you and others can sieve through faith books and find certain special writings to support good treatment of women etc.But the fact is there must surely also be much else there that also suggests otherwise?,or how else did it happen that women took back seats in faith meetings for so very very long.How come its only happened lately that some women can become priests.Hell you must also (really have great faith) Darwin etc must have been thought to be something very supernaturally divine,how else could you never imagine some of their thinking might have been also influenced by thoughts of faith that was so widespread and influential having already been around for so very very long.
Harvey writes speaking of Ardi: Well, well, well, amazing things happen every day. Why can't people belive that things (these creatures0 were just made that way from their beginning? It would be so much simpler, especially since their NO LINKING EVIDENCE.Here we go again, you continue to show your ignorance of the theory of evolution. Evidence, Harvey, can and often does require us to reexamine and sometimes update our views of how things happened. The theories surrounding human evolution are not set in stone and are often updated or modified based upon the evidence. Ardi could in fact be in the line of human evolution, or, it just could be a branch that went extinct. The many mosaic and transitional features of fossils such as Ardi continue to support evolution.It was interesting, on Jerry Coyne's blog Ardi was being discussed and the question was brought up, how will the creationists respond to the evidence. And you know what Harv? You are true to form.By the way, Russ's response to you regarding women and racism was excellent and spot on. I was going to write my own response but found his analysis so well done that I didn't feel the need. Although I did want to make one suggestion regarding the Darwin and racism issue, and that is, I challenge you to contact Neil deGrasse Tyson and ask him about his thoughts on it. Tyson is a well respected scientist and an evolutionist.
Chuck O,You said:"Your disagreements with evolutioniary biology have nothing to do with its current practice or useful technologies that have been built on it but rather in the imperfections of its supposed founder."So the questions you have to answer for me are this:WERE the founders of evolutionary theory wrong about their assessments?If they were on what basis? Is it on the science or the political basis? You may say on the science, but Dawinian evolution has never been seperated from it's founder Charles Darwin...So either he was right or wrong and if you say he was wrong in certain things where is the credibility that we can accept him and other champions of this dastardly scheme up until now? You may say this is the genetic fallacy at work, but these are the founders and chief proponents of this garbage...then on what basis is the scientific evidence to overturn their postulations? Criticize all you want but those are the questions that should be answered by proponents of evolution.
Russ,you said:"You googles for quotes to mine, from a long-dead historical figure, Charles Darwin"No my friend you don't know what I know...I already knew these things check the date of my blog on the subject...it was last year...you don't know what additionally I know also...A fool telleth all that he knows...so please keep lookin' you MIGHT learn something...You also said:"You do not understand that evolution theory does not deal with origin of life. Spontaneous generation never was a concept in evolutionary theory."You don't understand that when there is no spontaneous generation there IS no evolutionary theory as Darwin set forth and as you continue to evangelize in his name.1+1 still equals 2...in most cases anyway...So that part doesn't matter...what matters is that Pasteur debunked certain elements of evolutionary theory in the process of his discovery.Was this simply a growth of evolution and was it WRONG prior to his discovery? Yes or No???
Russ,You blew a gasket didn't you?...I LOVE IT!You guys are tooo funny...Look, NONE of my statement have been out of context by the authors...russ you quote Carroll on a point that has nothing to do with what my point was...we were talking TRANSITIONALS which Carroll says are MISSING...you say we're all transtionals, but the palentologists say your're CRAZY and don't know jack...then to see you guys run from Darwin is absolutely HILLARIOUS! You don't want to be on a sinking ship...that's ok...it's human nature, but the sad thing is you don't have the common sense to get off the boat...that's what called flesh, pride and arrogance...Just in case you'll notice Christians avoid your evangelism in this area becaus eyou become totally unreasonable as many of you have been when your god is under fire...but that's ok too...I really don't care and this is good practice for me even IF you turn coat on the founders of your belief system...yes Darwin started it with help of course but his word was gold for as long as he could talk and the modern efforts have done little to exorcise itself of his demons...Scott,You like a youngester present dates etc becaus eyou STUPID...you fail to understand what actually happend when it comes to liberation of blacks in particular...In my case I know this because I'm not only Black but I'm Native American also... you are oblivious to the fact that the early form of "civil rights" or black freedoms were serverely limited...there were clauses such as the "grandfather clause" that prohibited blacks from voting unless ther grandafther was a free man...well in 1800 not too many people had living grandfathers yet alone records that any of them were free, because none of them were at least legally. yet alone were able to vote...America has always had it's remorse over certain things and not everyone had evil hearts but the practice and law and it's application were controlled by the powers that be that believe in SEGREGATION and racial principles of Darwin...Take a course on Black and Native American history and you'll get through those literalist interpretations of "ther was nothing wrong" garbage that you believe...I can tell you're a young white guy with little experience in ethnic issues...that's ok, but please don't be offensive any longer in this. People went to their graves because SOMETHING was wrong. In addition, I have a a long family history to recite in these regards...Simply admit Darwin was wrong and you move on...refer to what I wrote Churck O, answer those questions, that'll be sufficient for me...Thanks.
So that part doesn't matter...what matters is that Pasteur debunked certain elements of evolutionary theory in the process of his discovery."Actually, Harvey, spontaneous generation would falsify evolutionary theory.You seem very hung up about Darwin. But whatever neuroses you have about him it doesn't alter the truth of his discoveries. Unlike Darwin, Isaac Newton was not a nice man who you would be right to dislike but the planets still orbit the sun in close compliance with his theory of gravity.But lets get real, Harvey. You object to the man Darwin not because you have any knowledge of the life of the man but because you don't like his basic theory that all life is interconnected. That's as stoopid as disliking Michael Faraday because your granddad died in the electric chair.
Anthony,You said:"The theories surrounding human evolution are not set in stone and are often updated or modified based upon the evidence."Then HOW could common descent be a FACT as evolution claims? I'm not talking about MICROevolution of change and adaptations within a species...I'm talking about MACROevolution or one species becoming another?If things aren's "set in stone" then they can only be theoretical and not proclaimed as FACT...is that right?
Harv,Thanks for your response but, I think you don't understand what I am suggesting. Your emphasis on the limitations of Darwin in relation to the theory of evolutionary biology are not germane to the practice of the theory or its continued development. Your passion is kind of silly. Just because you think it is important to show where Darwin was wrong as some sort of proof that evolution is false does not mean evolution is false. Your operating under an availability bias. Your religion can garner power by claiming original perfection with its founder but, science doesn't operate under the same pretense. I suggest you read the Olivia Judson piece I posted. Thanks.
Harv,You said, "You like a youngester present dates etc becaus eyou STUPID..."This made me giggle.Did Frankenstein write that sentence?Just saying . . . pot meet kettle.
Continued (I hate blogger)4. “I can explain it and you can’t therefore I’m right”. The inability of science to give an answer to a question that a religion (supposedly) has an answer for is considered a weakness (example: origin of the universe). In reality it is normal for there to be unanswered scientific questions. These represent opportunities for discovery. In addition the religious answer for the phenomena tends to be either a pure assertion or badly supported. 5. The first way was the best way. You see lots of references and reverence to the founders of a religion when one is exposed to religious belief. There is a tendency to think that they old way was the best and only way and one should strive to be like the founders. This is why you see constant references to Darwin. They ignore 99%+ of what has occurred in evolutionary theory since Darwin except to point out recent discoveries that lead to a minor revision to a small detail of HOW evolution has occurred, not support that evolution ever even happened.In reality science is nothing like a religion. We may have certain people who are respected more than others but this is because of the discoveries that they made, not because they keep pushing a dusty dogma. What a scientist is respected for is change, not stasis. Our “holy books” are subject to constant revision. We point out errors and move forward. We are not content with a supernatural answer for life’s mysteries; we tackle the unknowns with glee! A scientist who does not come up with something new is not a scientist for long.The result of this mind set is that creationists never talk about the data that supports evolutionary theory; instead they engage in religious conversion tactics. They have an abysmal grasp of what science is, evolutionary theory says, what the data that supports it means, and even what the motivations of scientists are. District Supt. Harvey Burnett fits this profile exactly. I have seen him say nothing accurate when it comes to science in general, or the theory of evolution specifically. Instead he just engages in the useless conversion tactics I outlined above. I long for the day that I encounter a creationist who can properly understand and describe the data that supports a particular scientific argument, and provide a testable, observation based counter explanation.
Even more on District Supt. Harvey Burnett This is followed by claims that we are “running from Darwin” because in his mind it would be silly if a religious person would run from the words of the religions founder. He can’t conceive of any authority system other than a religious one. He just can’t accept that fact that Darwin does not matter that much anymore because we have a huge amount of data that we have been collecting since Darwin’s time. If you erased all of Charles Darwins’ contributions to science from history we would still have the theory of evolution because the remaining data is good enough. The genetic code is good enough evidence alone.Then follows another paragraph directly saying evolution is religious and Darwin is like a god. I think I have said enough about thisThen a big screed about race and history that is supposed to be a response to a comment showing that Darwin and race problems in the US are not connected, except that his screed does not even show anything about how Darwin could have had an impact on race in the US. Just saying it does not make it so. This is even more interesting because earlier on he seems to enjoy thinking that he made someone “blow a gasket” but here it seems emotion has made him completely unhinged. I would suggest not even trying to have a discussion with this guy. He has no views about any of this that in any way reflect reality and shows no sign of being open to correction. I find this is common among those who insist that evolution is like a religion and can’t respond to arguments that show that to be incorrect. It would be easy if it were just dishonesty. Guys like this do not even have the basic respect respect of trying to understand your argument and responding to it. They just want to rant at you. They will ignore the substance of your responses and keep repeating what you have already responded to. They will not even try because the have religious truth they have bought into, not an argument they were convinced of.
Joshua,You said:"I long for the day that I encounter a creationist who can properly understand and describe the data that supports a particular scientific argument, and provide a testable, observation based counter explanation"No, what it is that you long for the day when you'll get a SUCKER to agree with your garbage...that's all...I AIN'T the one...
Harvey wrote: Scott,You like a youngester present dates etc becaus eyou STUPID...you fail to understand what actually happend when it comes to liberation of blacks in particular..Harvey, is this directed at me? I'm asking because this response seems to be irrelevant to the comments and questions I've asked.
Harv you said,"No, what it is that you long for the day when you'll get a SUCKER to agree with your garbage...that's all...I AIN'T the one..."Yet you admit to not investigating any of the sources people suggest.You might want to follow the advice of a fellow creationist who said, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination." (William Paley)
Joshua said...."I would suggest not even trying to have a discussion with this guy."Maybe it is rather pointless with regards to Harv and his type of band of elderly merry men all stone cold drunk on old religious wine.That in reality has never been anything more than stagnant water with hallucinative properties.With that point,yes i think maybe ill have to agree.But i dont think all the youth in the U.S.A have yet become old religious alcoholic street kids,without any chance of finding another home.And im pretty sure some of Harveys youthful first nation kindred will find it interesting to see the Geronimo of today.Need not be so worried about those who might speak with forked toung, but need to now worry more about those who have claimed religious rights to endless retention of muddled minds.Who have long thrown away past tradition of careful sporadic participation indulgence of the odd peyote cactus here and there.For full blown daily consumption of religious LSD. Harv may feel his obvious deluded tunnel vision thoughts of all people likely being actually stuck in modes of faith,(goes unnoticed) to these wiser and more educated kids of today.But is that such a bad thing if we want to see future change?.Personally i think our Harv is kindly being very beneficial to us in furthering non belief.
Scott,I'm sorry my friend...it was to Jonathan...my apologies.
Get off it Gandy...you guys just mad because I and MANY don't buy into your beliefs of science that keeps changing and updating itself because of political correctness...Now was Darwin wrong when he held what he said about racism and the inferiority of women? If he was wrong based on the science, what discoveries of science made him wrong and why was his scientific method flawed? Was it simply because he didn't know enough? That's ok if so, I can understand that, but he made scientific postulations and everyone bought into his dogma...All of you seem to be reluctant to even admit that he was wrong in his SCIENCE and method, if in no other way on that point...I honestly wonder why?Secondly, since Dawkins claims evolution to be a FACT, as Darwin did, what would make his FACTS wrong? Would that be new science or political correctness?I'm doin a post and leveling much more information than I am here, I'm sure you'll love it!
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...LIE, it was good ole Darwinian evolution that had control of the law and any preferential treatment of men over women was promoted by IT, as they did with legislation on blacks. Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.Can you give examples of how “Darwinian evolution” controlled the laws giving preferential treatment of men over women?What laws were enacted? What years are we taking about? What states? Where did this happen? Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.Can you give an example? Who used evolution to support blacks were property like cattle? How did they use evolution, when, where?Harvey at least you could do is to add some reference just saying it doesn’t make it so. I need historical examples dates, times, places, and people. The statement you offer, offers nothing.Thanks
Harvey: Then HOW could common descent be a FACT as evolution claims? I'm not talking about MICROevolution of change and adaptations within a species...I'm talking about MACROevolution or one species becoming another?If things aren's "set in stone" then they can only be theoretical and not proclaimed as FACT...is that right?Of course you would know the answers to your questions if you would take the time to read of few of the resources that I and others have recommended to you.First, evolution is a scientific theory (which means it is well supported by multiple lines of evidence). Whatever errors Darwin may have had does not change the status of evolution. Chuck pointed this out to you but you refuse to listen.Second, evolution as a theory is distinct from the specific pathways that evolution may have taken along the way. So, Ardi could be on the line that led to modern humans or may have gone extinct.
Harv,I once again recommend the Olivia Judson piece.Science is not theology. They are two different systems of knowing.Do you understand that?
Harv you said.... "Now was Darwin wrong when he held what he said about racism and the inferiority of women?"Hi i havent studied enough to know exactly what Darwin did or didnt say about these things Harvey,but i personally dont see coloured skin people or women as inferior.Faithful folks i was born to didnt really want us to learn about these things remember,you`ll need to discuss it with others here who from watching seems to have been trying real hard to.But like everything its not going to be learning if its not done with honesty.We get no where.Whats worse is it catches up with us anyway sooner or later.As more and more new imformation comes to the surface.Keep betting on a lame duck and you are bound to win the wooden spoon.But hey people were wrong about some things with genetics,but you would still use genetic science to help catch a crim if your sweet daughter got raped right?.You dont say hey this genetics thingy,Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a real boo boo! and only idiots would try to catch crims with use of genetics.Silly idiots they still follow it cause Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is their god.You would likely use genetics this way because its proven to work right?,and yet maybe years back some faithful folks thought hell bugger that! those people must be using blinking voodoo..Chicken blood and rattling knuckle bones!you said.."Secondly, since Dawkins claims evolution to be a FACT, as Darwin did, what would make his FACTS wrong? Would that be new science or political correctness?"Speaking for myself it would likely be science.And more than one scientists agreement.To be honest (not being a expert) im not totally convinced of total evolution yet either,should i be?hell scientists (the experts) still discuss many aspects of it.But im more convinced of evolution than i am of inteligent design of some supernatural god force,why? because even little ol i see a lot more evidence of evolution stuff happening around me.You said...."Get off it Gandy...you guys just mad because I and MANY don't buy into your beliefs of science that keeps changing and updating itself because of political correctness."Who me?? ....yeah im mad as a meat axe hell i grew up with crazy buggers ....i needed to see the funny side to survive.But no not angry mad Harv.You suggesting its our god only stands to good reason if we hold on to it while having the little evidence like you have for your gods.Why should it make me mad when i know youth will see we really hold onto scientific evidence?.Sure i get a little mad sometimes because these faith beliefs have effected my family life so much.But im sure much of the youth of today understand that part too.
DSHB: I dare you to read the book. Or just read Pp. 364 and 365.
Harvey wrote: If things aren's "set in stone" then they can only be theoretical and not proclaimed as FACT...is that right?Harvey, I don't think you have complete understanding of how scientific theories work. Theories are formed to explain a series of facts. They are not claims about each fact that supports the theory. Let's take a theory that a particular group of people traveled by car from the west coast to the east coast over the period of a specific week. Currently, we can observe these individuals in New York City. Since theories are designed to explain a number of facts, we don't start out by asserting that these individuals traveled from the east to west coast and try to dig up facts that support the idea. Instead, the theory would come after the discovery many different traces left by these individuals as they traveled across the country. This might include credit card payments, ATM withdraws, security camera footage, car rentals, gas purchases, rental of hotel rooms, cell phone calls, etc. We might assume the first trace of these individuals in a particular city on the west coast was their point of origin. However, since the claim is that people started on the west coast and travel east, knowing this exact location is not necessary. As these individuals travel east, they may not leave traces on each and every step of their journey. However, we can make educated guesses as to the actual path they took between each of these locations. Eventually the trail leads us to NYC. Should we eventually discover a slightly different starting point on the west coast or additional traces of these individuals which indicate the exact path between points we estimated earlier was incorrect, this does not invalidate the overall theory. Nor would a single false positive trace left by an individual during their journey. Again the theory does not make claims made about each and every fact. As such, our estimation of exactly where these people started and the exact path they took is not set in stone. But the theory of these individuals traveling from the west coast to the east coast via car has overwhelming evidence that supports it as a true. We can look at the theory of evolution in the same way. That Ardi turned out to be less like either modern human beings or modern apes that we originally thought does not invalidate the theory that life evolved from simpler forms via random mutation and natural selection. In my earlier analogy, you can think of our knowledge before Ardi's discovery as guessing that these individuals passed though Indianapolis Indiana on their way from St. Louis Missouri to Columbus Ohio. After Ardi's discovery, we found out that, in reality, they actually passed though Louisville Kentucky instead. Again, this discovery does not invalidate the theory. Nor must the facts that support it need to be set in stone for the theory to be true.
I had a part one to my first comment that I have tried to post twice now, and another separate comment. They do not seem to be showing up. I am going to try one more time below. Am I getting caught in a filter of some kind?
I had to chime in even though this is really late. Since I am a scientist this is the first time that I felt I had something to contribute.Throughout this whole debate with District Supt. Harvey Burnett I see him engaging in projection on a massive scale. He badly needs the science of evolution to be like religion because all he can do is use conversion tactics. 1. Obsession with people, not data. He refers to evolutions discoverers as founders. Religions and religious sects get founded. Aspects of reality like evolution get DISCOVERED.2. Flawless leader. He has to constantly point out flaws that the discoverers of evolution had. Religion is very dependent on charismatic leaders that tend have to be correct about everything because this reflects on the fact that they are supposedly close to god. If a religious leader is found to have flaws by members of another religion/sect, they try to use this to show that they really don’t have the “true faith” in conversion attempts. In reality it does not matter what flaws a scientific discoverer has, it only matters if the data demonstrating his discovery is sound. Evolution would still have been discovered if Darwin never existed. The fact that Lamark existed is evidence of this.3. Flawless dogma. Similar to the above, religion must be flawless (as opposed to the followers or leaders). If it can be shown that a religion or religious belief has a logical problem, or contradicts reality (or the prosthelytizers holy book) in some obvious way, a conversion attempt will focus on this. All scientific explanations are imperfect. All scientific explanations start out as rough hypotheses with flaws, or even completely wrong. As experiments are carried out mistakes are corrected and the explanations are improved to better reflect reality. It is COMPLETELY NORMAL to find that scientific explanations need to change to take into account new data. Religion on the other hand is not supposed to change to reflect a better understanding of reality (at least the most common understanding of religion).
Aiight,I want you all to just "come into the light" I got a little something that may interest you...I'll be glad to field your comments and discuss it there as I'm outta this thread...http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2009/10/rottweiler-who-lost-his-teeth-his-mind.htmlTake a stab if you will, you're welcome...
Post a Comment