So apparently this happened...

[Looncall]

I know what he asked. If you care to start a thread about this, I will be happy to respond. This thread is Evolution vs. Creationism.
The fact that you don't accept what the scientists said about the cambrian "explosion" doesn't make them or me dishonest. The facts are that life appears suddenly without ancestors, and this fits the Bible account that God created them. The fossil record supports creation, not evolution. As John Moore commented: "Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record...Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor."
While your attempts at discrediting are somewhat more subtle than Krok's, they are nonetheless just as dishonorable.

What a strange way the religious use to argue. They seem to think that finding some author, any author, who agrees with them makes them right. Bizarre!

 

[Krok]

His name is actually John McCampbell. He is a geology professor in Louisiana. It is embarrassing for rusra02 that McCampbell happens to be a theistic evolutionist, not a creationist.

Oh, thanks. Is he very special for some reason? I admit that I've never heard of him before.

In my country we have hundreds of geology professors. Quite a few of them really discovered novel phenonema in areas related to their expertise, but for some reason Rusra02 never quotes or quote mines any of them. I wonder why (OK, I don't really wonder why. I know why).

 

[Krok]

What a strange way the religious use to argue. They seem to think that finding some author, any author, who agrees with them makes them right. Bizarre!

They are convinced that science works with "verses". That's why they think that quote mining is a good argument!

 

[Krok]

They are convinced that science works with "verses". That's why they think that quote mining is a good argument!

I apologise for this. The overwhelming majority of religious scientists certainly do not work this way. The overwhelming majority of religious scientists accept the Big Bang, an old earth and the ToE. Sorry to all the wonderful people I insulted!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The tone of your criticism of those who do not share your belief is consistent with the propaganda common to ToE believers. Expressions such as "you pretend to know it all", "you are not telling the truth", "you are deluded. Crazy." 'You belong in some institution." "Or in gaol" are all meant to intimidate anyone who doesn't drink the ToE Kool-Aid, or dares question this theory. Such abusive personal attacks are contemptible and do you no credit.

But you are dismissing everything from observation to the findings of doctors and scientists as a mere conspiracy. Dogs are a very fine example of how evolution occurs to both mental and physical characteristics, as humans have domesticated an animal and turned it into a species that is not only thousands of different ones, they are also quite adept at understanding human communication and can even communicate with us to a degree. There is also an ongoing Russian experiment that started with wild foxes, and today have become one group of domesticated foxes and another group of highly aggressive foxes. There are no conspiracies within these two examples, only facts. It is also a fact that bacteria are becoming resistant and even immune to our antibiotics. To say evolution is a conspiracy is to say threats of bacterium immunity to anti-biotics is to a conspiracy.

 

[johnhanks]

They are convinced that science works with "verses". That's why they think that quote mining is a good argument!

I apologise for this. The overwhelming majority of religious scientists certainly do not work this way. The overwhelming majority of religious scientists accept the Big Bang, an old earth and the ToE. Sorry to all the wonderful people I insulted!

Your apology to religious colleagues does you credit, but should not distract us from the insight in your first post.

It is the case that religious people tend to see truth and authority vested in revelatory scripture rather than in empirical evidence, and many creationists have projected this attitude onto their evolutionary opponents. Not so long ago much creationist rhetoric was aimed at discrediting Darwin and his writings, as though the entire present-day status of evolution as biology's central paradigm would crumble into dust if the author of Origin of Species were shown to be fallible: hence the old 'Darwin-recanted-on-his-deathbed' chestnut, and the more scurrilous 'Darwin-was-mentally-ill' slur.

Most creationists seem now to have realised that these tactics don't work: Answers in Genesis has even included the 'Darwin-recanted' notion in its 'Arguments Christians shouldn't use' section. But the habit dies hard, and posters such as rusra02 still seek that elusive killer quote whose unquestionable authority will settle the argument once and for all.

 

[rusra02]

But you are dismissing everything from observation to the findings of doctors and scientists as a mere conspiracy. Dogs are a very fine example of how evolution occurs to both mental and physical characteristics, as humans have domesticated an animal and turned it into a species that is not only thousands of different ones, they are also quite adept at understanding human communication and can even communicate with us to a degree. There is also an ongoing Russian experiment that started with wild foxes, and today have become one group of domesticated foxes and another group of highly aggressive foxes. There are no conspiracies within these two examples, only facts. It is also a fact that bacteria are becoming resistant and even immune to our antibiotics. To say evolution is a conspiracy is to say threats of bacterium immunity to anti-biotics is to a conspiracy.

The trouble with the word "evolution" is that it means different things to different people. I subscribe to this definition: "The theory that the first living thing developed from lifeless matter, then reproduced and changed into different kinds of living things, producing all the forms of plant and animal life that ever existed."
What is NOT included in this definition is that animals and plants have the ability to produce a great variety of characteristics and to adapt to new conditions in their environment. Thus, what you describe is not my definition of evolution.
As to whether evolutionists conspire to damp down any dissent from their theory, I invite you to view Ben Stein's excellent documentary "Expelled". Or simply ask yourself when was the last time you heard a reasoned discussion, in the news or a scientific journal, as to the structural weaknesses of this theory. Or the last time you heard even a hint that evolution is anything other than an established and unquestionable truth. Or the last time you heard the evidence for an Intelligent Creator versus evolution.

 

[camanintx]

As to whether evolutionists conspire to damp down any dissent from their theory, I invite you to view Ben Stein's excellent documentary "Expelled".

I invite you to learn the truth behind "Expelled".

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » The Truth behind the Fiction

Do you think creationists should not be criticized when they make false statements?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The trouble with the word "evolution" is that it means different things to different people.

Except in science, where it has a very precise definition. And since the crux of this whole debate is about the scientific validity of evolution, the scientific definition is obviously the one people here are working from.

I subscribe to this definition: "The theory that the first living thing developed from lifeless matter, then reproduced and changed into different kinds of living things, producing all the forms of plant and animal life that ever existed."

Then you're using the wrong definition. That's not evolution. It's more similar to with abiogenesis, which is a different theory.

What is NOT included in this definition is that animals and plants have the ability to produce a great variety of characteristics and to adapt to new conditions in their environment. Thus, what you describe is not my definition of evolution.

Then "your definition" is redundant. If you want to be involved in scientific debate, use the scientific definition.

As to whether evolutionists conspire to damp down any dissent from their theory, I invite you to view Ben Stein's excellent documentary "Expelled".

Excellent? Really? That movies was a dishonest, manipulative piece of crap compiled almost entirely of lies. Most creationists even disown it nowadays due to how nakedly dishonest it is.

Or simply ask yourself when was the last time you heard a reasoned discussion, in the news or a scientific journal, as to the structural weaknesses of this theory.

When was the last time ou heard a reasoned discussion about the structural weaknesses of the theory of gravity? Is that a conspiracy as well?

Or the last time you heard even a hint that evolution is anything other than an established and unquestionable truth.

All the time - but always from people who either don't understand it or are demonstrably dishonest. For example, you and the bilge you produced about the Cambrian explosion.

Or the last time you heard the evidence for an Intelligent Creator versus evolution.

When was the last time you heard the evidence of slimy-pants the magical bridge troll? Is that also a conspiracy?

 

[rusra02]

I invite you to learn the truth behind "Expelled".

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » The Truth behind the Fiction

Do you think creationists should not be criticized when they make false statements?

I would expect nothing less than the assault made upon "Expelled" by the ToE community. That is why no one should take their word or mine, but examine the facts for themselves.

 

[rusra02]

Except in science, where it has a very precise definition. And since the crux of this whole debate is about the scientific validity of evolution, the scientific definition is obviously the one people here are working from.


Then you're using the wrong definition. That's not evolution. It's more similar to with abiogenesis, which is a different theory.

So the ToE crowd gets to define what "evolution" means? If the ToE cannot explain how life began, but then claims that life somehow then evolved, it is a theory without a foundation. Calling the beginning of life some other theory is a cop out.

Then "your definition" is redundant. If you want to be involved in scientific debate, use the scientific definition.



Excellent? Really? That movies was a dishonest, manipulative piece of crap compiled almost entirely of lies. Most creationists even disown it nowadays due to how nakedly dishonest it is.

Of course, the ToE crowd are going to call such a stinging expose "a dishonest, manipulative piece of crap..etc" I would expect nothing less.

When was the last time ou heard a reasoned discussion about the structural weaknesses of the theory of gravity? Is that a conspiracy as well?

Your comparing the ToE to gravity is a not-so subtle attempt to propagandize this theory as being an irrefutable fact. The ToE is nothing of the sort.

All the time - but always from people who either don't understand it or are demonstrably dishonest. For example, you and the bilge you produced about the Cambrian explosion.


When was the last time you heard the evidence of slimy-pants the magical bridge troll? Is that also a conspiracy?

I produced statements of the Cambrian explosion? No, scientists produced those statements.

Your last statement is not worthy of a reply, other than to state the obvious: It reflects the sneering, arrogant attitude of many ToE propagandists.

 

[Father Heathen]

So the ToE crowd gets to define what "evolution" means? If the ToE cannot explain how life began, but then claims that life somehow then evolved, it is a theory without a foundation. Calling the beginning of life some other theory is a cop out.

Evolution has always been defined as how life adapts genetically. It's not a cop out, as both are completely different and unrelated processes. And it's scientists who define scientific terms. It's dishonest creationists who try to misrepresent evolution via straw men fallacies. Didn't Jesus tell you not to bear false witness?

our comparing the ToE to gravity is a not-so subtle attempt to propagandize this theory as being an irrefutable fact. The ToE is nothing of the sort.

Aside of an insurmountable mountain of evidence (ever heard of the fossil record?), evolution can be observed in nature right now, today.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So the ToE crowd gets to define what "evolution" means?

No, science gets to define what the scientific definition of evolution is. If you can just come up with your own definition of "evolution" and argue against it, it's just pointless and arbitrary, since you can decide for yourself that "evolution" means whatever the hell you want it to. That's why things have definitions.

If the ToE cannot explain how life began, but then claims that life somehow then evolved, it is a theory without a foundation. Calling the beginning of life some other theory is a cop out.

That's no different to saying "because gravity cannot explain how matter first appeared, it is a theory without foundation". That's ludicrous. Evolution explains how life changes over time, not how life originated. It makes no assumption about the origin of life, it's just an explanation of how life speciates naturally over time. To draw another analogy, you don't need to know how a ball is made in order to measure, analyze and explain how a ball rolls down a hill. It's the exact same logic.

Of course, the ToE crowd are going to call such a stinging expose "a dishonest, manipulative piece of crap..etc" I would expect nothing less.

And, of course, the anti-evolution crowd is going to call such a dishonest, manipulative piece of crap a "stinging expose". I would expect nothing less.

Actually, I would, since most of the creationists I've met agree with me that the movie is terrible and does a disservice to everyone involved in what they see as the debate.

Your comparing the ToE to gravity is a not-so subtle attempt to propagandize this theory as being an irrefutable fact. The ToE is nothing of the sort.

It's called a logical analogy. Using your logic, you can justify the exact same claims about the theory of gravity, correct? Seriously, when was the last time you heard anyone questioning the theory of gravity? Why is it that when nobody questions evolution (in spite of the fact that it is constantly tested anyway) it's a conspiracy, but the absence of questioning gravity goes without comment? Could it be that you argument isn't really with undue reverence given to the theory, but just with your personal inability to reconcile the theory of evolution with your own personal beliefs? Gee, I wonder.

I produced statements of the Cambrian explosion? No, scientists produced those statements.

No, they did not. No scientist has ever claimed that the Cambrian explosion was a sudden appearance of life that contradicts evolution, and you presented no references to that effect either. I already explained how you were completely misunderstanding what the Cambrian explosion actually was, and you continue to remain ignorant of the fact.

Your last statement is not worthy of a reply, other than to state the obvious: It reflects the sneering, arrogant attitude of many ToE propagandists.

Yep, I'm sneery and arrogant, but that's because I actually have the facts on my side. I have a right to be arrogant, because I'm right and you're wrong.

Unless, of course, you can make good on your claims and present just a single fact that contradicts evolution. And no, the Cambrian explosion is definitely not one of them.

 

[johnhanks]

... simply ask yourself when was the last time you heard a reasoned discussion, in the news or a scientific journal, as to the structural weaknesses of this theory ... Or the last time you heard the evidence for an Intelligent Creator versus evolution.

Well, most of us come here for 'reasoned discussion'; so, rather than wait for the news or journals to come up with such material, why don't you do the job for them?

Specifically, why don't you take a break from posting poorly understood quotes from other people's writings and explain to us in your own words these structural weaknesses we're all missing (and while you're at it itemise for us all those pieces of evidence that point to divine creation)?

You never know, rusra - post some salient arguments and it may even lead to a reasoned discussion. (Though I suspect if rusra responds we will not read any arguments, just more mined quotes and railing against the great ToE conspiracy.)

 

[camanintx]

I would expect nothing less than the assault made upon "Expelled" by the ToE community. That is why no one should take their word or mine, but examine the facts for themselves.

These are the facts, rusra02. Denying them won't change that. Besides, you didn't bother answering my question. Do you think creationists should not be criticized when they make false statements?

 

[Hawkins]

Evolution has always been defined as how life adapts genetically. It's not a cop out, as both are completely different and unrelated processes. And it's scientists who define scientific terms. It's dishonest creationists who try to misrepresent evolution via straw men fallacies. Didn't Jesus tell you not to bear false witness?

Aside of an insurmountable mountain of evidence (ever heard of the fossil record?), evolution can be observed in nature right now, today.

On the hand, ToE is full of falsehood and deceptions which can never be found in any other science. Say, for a period of time, all evolutionists spread the message that the prediction of common ancestry reflects the "predictability of science" while it's not. It's a misconception, the prediction of common ancestry has nothing to do with the "predictability of science". It is worth doubting why such a kind of falsehood can exist in a so called "scientific theory".

Another example, when evolutionists all yell "evolution exists" (with the implication that evolution exists in all species) when using the macro evolution of bacteria as an example. Now let's take a look what implication this could mean.

"Because bacteria evolved, so humans must have evolved"

Does the above implication a valid implication? To list more,

"Because bacteria evolution is found, such that monkeys must have evolved"
"Because bacteria evolved, such that crocodiles must have evolved" (they didn't in last couple million years)
...
...
...
"Because bacteria evolved, such that cockroaches must have been evolved" (perhaps they didn't in the past couple million years as I last heard)
...

Just list all the species you know of here, you may notice that "the evolution of bacteria" proves nothing but "the evolution of bacteria" itself.

Yet the evolutionists all yelled "evolution exists" using the "evolution of bacteria" as an example. This is almost a deception. Again, why fallacies of this kind can exist in a so-called scientific theory, and when is the last when falsehoods and fallacies exist in a scientific theory other than the ToE?!

 

[Looncall]

On the hand, ToE is full of falsehood and deceptions which can never be found in any other science. Say, for a period of time, all evolutionists spread the message that the prediction of common ancestry reflects the "predictability of science" while it's not. It's a misconception, the prediction of common ancestry has nothing to do with the "predictability of science". It is worth doubting why such a kind of falsehood can exist in a so called "scientific theory".

Another example, when evolutionists all yell "evolution exists" (with the implication that evolution exists in all species) when using the macro evolution of bacteria as an example. Now let's take a look what implication this could mean.

"Because bacteria evolved, so humans must have evolved"

Does the above implication a valid implication? To list more,

"Because bacteria evolution is found, such that monkeys must have evolved"
"Because bacteria evolved, such that crocodiles must have evolved" (they didn't in last couple million years)
...
...
...
"Because bacteria evolved, such that cockroaches must have been evolved" (perhaps they didn't in the past couple million years as I last heard)
...

Just list all the species you know of here, you may notice that "the evolution of bacteria" proves nothing but "the evolution of bacteria" itself.

Yet the evolutionists all yelled "evolution exists" using the "evolution of bacteria" as an example. This is almost a deception. Again, why fallacies of this kind can exist in a so-called scientific theory, and when is the last when falsehoods and fallacies exist in a scientific theory other than the ToE?!

What little of this makes any sense is inaccurate. You need to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, then educate yourself about the actual evidence for evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Well, most of us come here for 'reasoned discussion'; so, rather than wait for the news or journals to come up with such material, why don't you do the job for them?

Specifically, why don't you take a break from posting poorly understood quotes from other people's writings and explain to us in your own words these structural weaknesses we're all missing (and while you're at it itemise for us all those pieces of evidence that point to divine creation)?

You never know, rusra - post some salient arguments and it may even lead to a reasoned discussion. (Though I suspect if rusra responds we will not read any arguments, just more mined quotes and railing against the great ToE conspiracy.)

I have explained the structural weaknesses of this theory in other quotes. Perhaps you missed them. I perceive that anything said in support of evolution is termed "scientific" by the ToE apologists, while anything said or quoted contrary to the ToE propaganda is labeled "quote mining" and "poorly understood." I do appreciate your implicit acknowledgement about the lack of balance in the news and scientific publications regarding the ToE.

 

[johnhanks]

I have explained the structural weaknesses of this theory in other quotes.

Rusra, old chum, you have explained nothing: what you have done is mine quotes from other people's writings. When you have quoted the views of evolutionary biologists, you have made it very clear that you do not understand what they have written.

I perceive that anything said in support of evolution is termed "scientific" by the ToE apologists...

Only if it has scientific evidence supporting it; but you have shown repeatedly that that too is a concept you do not understand.

... while anything said or quoted contrary to the ToE propaganda is labeled "quote mining" and "poorly understood."

If you insist on mining quotes from sources that oppose your position, and demonstrate time after time that you do not understand what they are saying, what other labels are we to use?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The trouble with the word "evolution" is that it means different things to different people. I subscribe to this definition: "The theory that the first living thing developed from lifeless matter, then reproduced and changed into different kinds of living things, producing all the forms of plant and animal life that ever existed."

Evolution is indeed very specifically defined. So well defined in fact some have tried to hypothesis an evolution of society, and even the evolution of technology. But it terms of biology the definition is very clear.
It is also very clear the theory has nothing to do with the origins of life.

Another example, when evolutionists all yell "evolution exists" (with the implication that evolution exists in all species) when using the macro evolution of bacteria as an example. Now let's take a look what implication this could mean.

What? Saying someone is an "evolutionist" is like saying someone is a "cellularist" because they accept cell theory to be true or "plate tectonicist" because they accept plate tectonic shifts cause earth quakes.
What MICRO (in the case of bacteria acquiring immunity to anti-biotics) evolution demonstrates is that genetic changes occur from one generation to the next within the same species. Now if you knew the real definition of evolution you would know where it fits into macro evolution. Is a sense, micro-evolution is a stroke of a brush, the directions it took and the colors it was blended with, and macro-evolution is the entire painting, which started with a single stroke and grew into a complex variety of patterns of many strokes.

So the ToE crowd gets to define what "evolution" means? If the ToE cannot explain how life began, but then claims that life somehow then evolved, it is a theory without a foundation. Calling the beginning of life some other theory is a cop out.

No, biologist who study living organisms down to the genetic and even molecular level are the ones who define it. Saying the "evolutionist" crowd defines evolution would be like saying the "Freudian crowd" defines psychodynamics. Or that a group of rock collectors have an authoritative decision in defining what a rock is.

I have explained the structural weaknesses of this theory in other quotes. Perhaps you missed them. I perceive that anything said in support of evolution is termed "scientific" by the ToE apologists, while anything said or quoted contrary to the ToE propaganda is labeled "quote mining" and "poorly understood."

But you have demonstrated you do not understand evolution. That in itself is nothing to be ashamed of, and you can learn. The problem with challenging evolution is that it challenges what we know about cellular reproduction, including changes that can occur within a living organism (cancer or a viral infection for example) and the changes that occur from one generation to the next (such as humans getting progressively taller). We also know that mathematically given the number of genes involved, a perfect replication each and every time is not a realistic expectation. But then again a perfect replication is not possible for the existence of a species that reproduces sexually. It could be with asexual species, but again the fact is the odds are not in favor of a perfect replication.
It is these small changes, over the course of billions of years, that is the product of what we have labeled as evolution. But

"Because bacteria evolution is found, such that monkeys must have evolved"
"Because bacteria evolved, such that crocodiles must have evolved" (they didn't in last couple million years)

That is because all living things are broken down into two groups, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, the difference being the cells of prokaryotes do not have a nucleus and eukaryotes do. From there are are very few differences between cellular structures of different species, such as the difference between plant and animal cells being one has chloroplast, and one has a cell wall instead of membrane. We can say that because one species has evolved another one has because of the similarities in cellular structure, and because DNA is always composed of the same sugar, phosphate, and amino acids to form the same structures all formed by the same hydrogen bonds that we can say because one organism evolved another one can.