What is the biggest scam in world history?

[painted wolf]

He is playing games of equivalence. Since most scientists were religious they "had to be" creationists (here is the implication that they were equivalent to todays creationists).... therefore for Darwin to draw any knowledge from Geology, paleontology, anatomy and so on... he is using "creation science" (here is the implication that any science done by someone of faith is automatically creationist science and that the work of past scientists is equivalent to the "work" of modern creationists.)

Because they can not fathom doing scientific work scientifically, they can't imagine anyone else doing it.

Therefore Darwin must have used creationist ideas.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

He is playing games of equivalence. Since most scientists were religious they "had to be" creationists (here is the implication that they were equivalent to todays creationists).... therefore for Darwin to draw any knowledge from Geology, paleontology, anatomy and so on... he is using "creation science" (here is the implication that any science done by someone of faith is automatically creationist science and that the work of past scientists is equivalent to the "work" of modern creationists.)

Because they can not fathom doing scientific work scientifically, they can't imagine anyone else doing it.

Therefore Darwin must have used creationist ideas.

wa:do

I suspect that you give him far to much credit.

 

[tumbleweed41]

True, I have seen Creationist use Galileo, Copernicus and Newton as "Creation Scientists"

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I suspect that you give him far to much credit.

I have to agree with Mestemia on this one. I think PW is projecting her extraordinarily rational mind and thought patterns onto someone that is simply spewing garbage.

 

[RedOne77]

Darwin took ideas from creationists?
Really?
Which creationist idea did Darwin take?

He is playing games of equivalence. Since most scientists were religious they "had to be" creationists (here is the implication that they were equivalent to todays creationists).... therefore for Darwin to draw any knowledge from Geology, paleontology, anatomy and so on... he is using "creation science" (here is the implication that any science done by someone of faith is automatically creationist science and that the work of past scientists is equivalent to the "work" of modern creationists.)

Because they can not fathom doing scientific work scientifically, they can't imagine anyone else doing it.

Therefore Darwin must have used creationist ideas.

wa:do

You assume much Painted Wolf, too much. I was alluding to Edward Blyth, an English zoologist who really was a creationist and lived during Darwin's time (died in 1873). He developed a primitive natural selection focusing on cultivation, thinking that cultivation would only decrease variety. He also believed that populations stay stable over time in regards to their variability. He also rejected speciation, favoring something about archetypes which I never understood completely. As best I can tell, he believed that each species had an archetype which over time they were able to change via [natural selection].

Blyth also wrote to Darwin, and Darwin to him. They exchanged ideas and it was Blyth who brought Wallace's paper to Darwin's attention. Blyth was so influential on Darwin that he wrote about him in the first chapter of 'Origins' saying that he valued his opinion highly.

No equivocation needed, just the correct facts undistorted from evo propaganda.

 

[RedOne77]

I have to agree with Mestemia on this one. I think PW is projecting her extraordinarily rational mind and thought patterns onto someone that is simply spewing garbage.

Come on Voice of Reason, surely you've seen creationists conjure up all sorts of lists about creation scientists. They even bring up Richard Owen, whom I would not classify as a creationist. While extremely religious, he believed that man evolved from fish, thus he cannot be a creationist. I would classify him as a conservative TE.

 

[painted wolf]

Darwin also took ideas from his grandfather Erasmus and a host of other people. What is your point?

Just because he exchanged ideas with a fellow naturalist doesn't mean he used "creationist ideas".

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

Darwin also took ideas from his grandfather Erasmus and a host of other people. What is your point?

My point is that many creationists understand that evolution didn't start with Darwin (which was the original claim by Mestemia), and in fact Darwin drew on the ideas of Blyth who was a creationist. I'm saying nothing at all about the validity of evolution right now, just responding to the claim about how ignorant creationists are.

Just because he exchanged ideas with a fellow naturalist doesn't mean he used "creationist ideas".

Then perhaps you might want to do a little research. Blyth wrote three articles in the 1830's on what he called artificial selection (which is really what we understand as 'natural selection'), which Darwin later read. Even Loren Eiseley (who is an evo) said that all the major components of Darwin's natural selection is present in Blyth's 1835 paper. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that Darwin used creationist ideas to formulate his model.

 

[McBell]

My point is that many creationists understand that evolution didn't start with Darwin (which was the original claim by Mestemia), and in fact Darwin drew on the ideas of Blyth who was a creationist. I'm saying nothing at all about the validity of evolution right now, just responding to the claim about how ignorant creationists are.

Really?
Please point out where I made any such claim.

Then perhaps you might want to do a little research. Blyth wrote three articles in the 1830's on what he called artificial selection (which is really what we understand as 'natural selection'), which Darwin later read. Even Loren Eiseley (who is an evo) said that all the major components of Darwin's natural selection is present in Blyth's 1835 paper. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that Darwin used creationist ideas to formulate his model.

ROTFLMAO

so your argument is that because Blyth was a creationist(alleged) and Darwin used an idea from him(alleged), that it was a creationist idea?

Talk about a stretch.

But let us assume that you are 100% correct.
So what?

I understand that you want to make the strawman that I meant with my question that all creationists are stupid, ignorant, retarded, etc.
But I will ask that you stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[painted wolf]

My point is that many creationists understand that evolution didn't start with Darwin (which was the original claim by Mestemia), and in fact Darwin drew on the ideas of Blyth who was a creationist. I'm saying nothing at all about the validity of evolution right now, just responding to the claim about how ignorant creationists are.

No one has said that evolution started with Darwin... Mesty asked what specifically "creationist" ideas Darwin used. The concept of selection (artificial or natural) is not a "creationist idea", it was common scientific thought at the time. What Darwin did was propose testable mechanisms behind selection and further it to the formation of new species.

Up until Darwin there wasn't a mechanism for the development of new species. Though it should noted that "natural selection" was common thought and can be seen in writings far older than Blyth, including [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]William Charles Wells mentioning it in 1813.[/FONT]
We now understand (thanks to the breakthroughs of Darwin and Wallace) that perfection is a mirrage, that new species evolve from ancestral species and to appreciate "endless forms most beautiful".

Then perhaps you might want to do a little research. Blyth wrote three articles in the 1830's on what he called artificial selection (which is really what we understand as 'natural selection'), which Darwin later read. Even Loren Eiseley (who is an evo) said that all the major components of Darwin's natural selection is present in Blyth's 1835 paper. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that Darwin used creationist ideas to formulate his model.

LoL I don't consider a quick scan of Wikipedia "research".
And no, all the major aspects of The Origin are not in Blyth's writings. He got the whole purpose of selection backwards... selection doesn't keep species as a static perfect form.
Even modern creationists don't agree with Blyth.

Your example is faulty at best... Wiki is only so good at providing information.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No one has said that evolution started with Darwin... Mesty asked what specifically "creationist" ideas Darwin used. The concept of selection (artificial or natural) is not a "creationist idea", it was common scientific thought at the time. What Darwin did was propose testable mechanisms behind selection and further it to the formation of new species.

Up until Darwin there wasn't a mechanism for the development of new species. Though it should noted that "natural selection" was common thought and can be seen in writings far older than Blyth, including [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]William Charles Wells mentioning it in 1813.[/FONT]
We now understand (thanks to the breakthroughs of Darwin and Wallace) that perfection is a mirrage, that new species evolve from ancestral species and to appreciate "endless forms most beautiful".


LoL I don't consider a quick scan of Wikipedia "research".
And no, all the major aspects of The Origin are not in Blyth's writings. He got the whole purpose of selection backwards... selection doesn't keep species as a static perfect form.
Even modern creationists don't agree with Blyth.

Your example is faulty at best... Wiki is only so good at providing information.

wa:do

Well said........:clap

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well said........:clap

I just can't bring myself to applaud.

Watching Painted Wolf take on Red One in a debate about evolution is like watching Dom Deluise destroy an ice cream cone.

This one was over before it started.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'd say religion, and to a larger extent christianity.

Not really. Most Christians I know, don't get paid a cent for their witness ---- which is far less then I can say concerning most evolutionists.

 

[Tristesse]

Not really. Most Christians I know, don't get paid a cent for their witness ---- which is far less then I can say concerning most evolutionists.

I'm not talking about the christians in the pew, I'm talking about the christian organizations which are tax exempt. The christians in the pews are the ones who are being scammed. And actually, I'd say that "evolutionists"(scientists) would make a lot more money disproving evolution. Do you realize how many churches would be in full support of that? not to mention that the pope would probably melt down the vatican to have that happen.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Not really. Most Christians I know, don't get paid a cent for their witness ---- which is far less then I can say concerning most evolutionists.

Yea, because those evolutionists are making about $125,000 a year.

At least, I think that's the starting pay for an evolutionist. I don't know what the signing bonus is.

 

[Danmac]

Yea, because those evolutionists are making about $125,000 a year.

At least, I think that's the starting pay for an evolutionist. I don't know what the signing bonus is.

All that paper will make good kindling.

 

[RedOne77]

No one has said that evolution started with Darwin... Mesty asked what specifically "creationist" ideas Darwin used. The concept of selection (artificial or natural) is not a "creationist idea", it was common scientific thought at the time. What Darwin did was propose testable mechanisms behind selection and further it to the formation of new species.

Mesty originally stated that "Is it just me or are creationists, at least the ones in this thread, under the mistaken impression that evolution STARTED with Darwin?

I Mean, can they really be that ignorant of evolution?"

That is what I originally responded to because of everyone's agreement that creationists just don't know anything about evolution. I never actually said that Darwin took creationist ideas, only that he got (some of) them from creationists. A subtle difference I'll admit, but it is there.

Up until Darwin there wasn't a mechanism for the development of new species. Though it should noted that "natural selection" was common thought and can be seen in writings far older than Blyth, including [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]William Charles Wells mentioning it in 1813.[/FONT]
We now understand (thanks to the breakthroughs of Darwin and Wallace) that perfection is a mirrage, that new species evolve from ancestral species and to appreciate "endless forms most beautiful".

And creationists accept all of that and more.

LoL I don't consider a quick scan of Wikipedia "research".
And no, all the major aspects of The Origin are not in Blyth's writings. He got the whole purpose of selection backwards... selection doesn't keep species as a static perfect form.
Even modern creationists don't agree with Blyth.

Your example is faulty at best... Wiki is only so good at providing information.

wa:do

My purpose in this conversation never was to formulate a viable theory. And no, I don't consider wiki research either. It is a good source for those who don't know much about the subject at hand, but it is usually good at giving a basic understanding and when it comes to hard facts (when looking a wiki's chemical structures and cross referencing them with the government's chemical databases, they are consistent). Perhaps I used "research" incorrectly given the setting. I meant to use it in a colloquial sense, not in the sense that you should go to library and read scholarly sources for hours and hours about the subject at hand.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

See, this is what happens when you engage in dialogue with Man of Faith. He started his own thread with an ambiguous question but veered off into a whine fest about evolution and that has been pretty much the theme. With so many other potential topics he stuck with that and the worst part, to me, is that he continuously shows a severe lack of understanding as to what evolution is, how it works and the scientific method that confirms it...

And for the rest of you on this kick about how much an ("evolutionist".......) Biologist makes....Don't focus to much on that because you'll quickly realize they don't really make that much...

AIBS Careers | Careers in the Biological Sciences
$33 to $103K per year (depending on geographic location)

Or try here Salary of a Biologist and you'll notice not a lot going on in the salary department.

Basically that argument put forth earlier fails.

We know that some of these evangelical organizations that are (tax exempt), executives are making, in most cases, more than twice the annual salary than most of the highest paid biologist.

Yea, organized religion, especially here in the US, is a SCAM. These tax exempt money pits are taking in millions a year and some on their staff are taking home hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't have a problem with it (per se) considering it's sheep....ehh...emmm..."members" allow themselves to be snookered....

 

[Autodidact]

My purpose in this conversation never was to formulate a viable theory.

:yes:

QFT

 

[painted wolf]

That is what I originally responded to because of everyone's agreement that creationists just don't know anything about evolution. I never actually said that Darwin took creationist ideas, only that he got (some of) them from creationists. A subtle difference I'll admit, but it is there.

subtle to the point of being confusing.

And creationists accept all of that and more.

I would say some accept some of it... there are many who refuse to accept any of it... including rudimentary speciation and decent with modification.

My purpose in this conversation never was to formulate a viable theory. And no, I don't consider wiki research either. It is a good source for those who don't know much about the subject at hand, but it is usually good at giving a basic understanding and when it comes to hard facts (when looking a wiki's chemical structures and cross referencing them with the government's chemical databases, they are consistent). Perhaps I used "research" incorrectly given the setting. I meant to use it in a colloquial sense, not in the sense that you should go to library and read scholarly sources for hours and hours about the subject at hand.

Perhaps you did... but an important part of my studies as a biologist has been the history of scientific development, including in depth study of the history of evolutionary thought.

as you said... and the implication is obvious.

Then perhaps you might want to do a little research.

I have done "a little" research beyond the "colloquial".

wa:do