RedNeckoBlogger

Another ranting, raving post, without a single statement of fact. Why can't the creationists who post here -- including the Blog owner -- actually present information rather than streams of "I just don't believe it!" over and over again?


Search and research IS NOT the same!

That's why I said "research", not "search". Would you like me to elaborate, or would you like to continue misrepresenting me again?


"Proof" of evolution

Science doesn't deal in "proof". Absolutely nothing in any scientific field is considered "proven".


is in the (appearance of design but not designed) eye of the beholder…

So if you wish to take issue with the evidence presented for evolution, single out some of the evidence and address it. Thus far you've just shouted "I think it's nonsense" without actually trying to address a single bit of the information that biologists believe supports the theory.


Evolution is accepted by some,

Including the vast majority of biologists on the planet. But what would they know? They only study these things as a matter of it being their field of expertise. Obviously people with no scientific training whatsoever must know better.


(who wish to enforce this acceptance on all),

This is a lie. The goal amongst the more vocal is to prevent dishonest creationists from lying about it in public schools. I don't care what you believe, but if you're going to spout lies about evolution, I will step in and point them out.


and it serves as the nonbeliever's "garden" myth.

And yet another creationist dishonestly claims that all who accept evolution are "nonbelievers". The majority of those who accept the theory of evolution in the US are Christians.


IS NOT even the appearance of logic!!!

Yet another argument from incredulity. Can you actually address the fossil record (other than saying -- without evidence -- that it "disproves evolution") or ERV insertion similarities across related species? What about actual observed instances of speciation?


In the same post Mr. Anoymous wrote: "The problem with presenting the quote as you did is that ignores (evolutionary biologist Richard) Dawkins's point, which is that appearance of design (from a glance) does not necessarily imply design. One of the results of biological science is a demonstration that things that "appear" designed could actually have easily come about without design.."

And your counter to this?


Ok I’m dumb and ignorant BUT… I’m expected to believe something with a specific purpose and design (say... your digestive system or Darwin’s fave, the eye) can "easily come without design"(????!!!???) when the purpose is obvious to the most casual observer. (Ask the wino on the street what eyes are for).

The point is that biological research has concluded that the various organs could have come about without design, and in fact upon close, in-depth study, appear to have come about without any apparent or obvious design. The illusion of the parts being "designed" come about as a result of them being useful to the organism, however what biologiy has discovered (not assumed as many dishonest creationists will claim) through research is that these parts actually exist because they were useful to the organism, they weren't "created" to be useful for the organism.


Does not true biology study JUST the opposite, how organs and systems ARE designed,

No. Science makes no initial assumptions apart from "the fundamental properties of the universe do not change". Analysis goes on from there, and conclusions are drawn. There is no initial assumption that organs are "designed" or "not designed", just an objective anaylsis of the organs and how they operate. The "not designed" conclusion came about as a result of study.


how they work within the whole organism… and how to fix them when they malfunction? (i.e. heart surgery).

That's more of a practice of medicine. Biology is far more in-depth than that.


Who has the burden of proof here?

Those making a claim. Thus far biologists have presented a mountain of evidence for evolution, but -- in typical creationist fashion -- you've decided to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout "I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING!"


“Could actually have easily come about without design?????” (Are we sure we want to use the word EASILY so easily!) I would assert NOT!

Yes, but your assertion in no way invalidates any of the evidence presented for the statement that your disputing. Now, if you have actual evidence to present, biologists would love to examine it.


"World renowned" evolutionist Richard Dawkins admitted he "sorta had faith" (in a BBC Interview) when discussing how things that "appear" designed could actually have come about without design."

And you might understand that he was referring to having "faith" in a methodology that has proven itself time and again, not blind faith in unsupported assertions, if you'd bothered to check the context of the statement. But creationists tend to prefer taking snippets without any context, because they can make better arguments if they pull small snippets ouf of context.


This somewhat odd assertion gives the appearance of a design (but not designed) to eliminate the concept of an intelligent purposeful creator…

Again the creationist assumption that evolution has as a "goal" of eliminating the concept of an "intelligent purposeful creator". That's not how evolution came about. Darwin did not sit and think "hmm, how can I eliminate the need of a Creator for all life...". He studied existing life and drew conclusions from his observations. That's it. He wasn't out to destroy Christianity and bring down all of Western Civilization. The theory of evolution stands as one of the best supported theories in science because the evidence supports it, not because of a vast conspiracy to destroy belief in an intelligent creator.


that some (like me) would assume...

But the problem is that your assumptions have no evidence supporting them.


based on a structure that looks to be designed for a specific purpose (say a wing for flying), but IS NOT designed, just appears to be, but somehow works just like it was designed. (Whew!)

Nice oversimplification. Now would you care to address the evidence, or is your specialty playing semantic games to lead in to an argument from incredulity?


This has (to me and some others) the “appearance of illogic”!

It's not my fault that you would rather stay ignorant and shout "I don't understnad it, therefore it's false!" rather than actually doing any research.

Please, tell me what kind of evidence you'd like me to present. I'll give you links to detailed and extensive information. JUST PRESENT AN ACTUAL STATEMENT OF SUBSTANCE FOR ME TO ADDRESS RATHER THAN RANTING ABOUT HOW YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT.


This dogma of Darwinism

Another lie.


(to me) has more the appearance of the stuff that comes out of the end of our digestive systems (that weren't designed... only appear to be) than anything resembling science!

Good for you. Do you have an actual argument against the theory, or do you just have a talent for stretching the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity out to too many paragraphs?


Darwinism, not biology, would crash.

When looking beyond microbiology, quite a bit rests upon the theory of evolution (which has long since moved past "Darwinism").


(A little secret): evolution is not necessary to study any organism…

Individual organisms? Perhaps not. But when studying organisms within an environment evolution helps make a lot of sense out of what is observed. Sure, we could ignore evidence that leads to implications that some people don't like and assume that each organism is a unique "creation", but suddenly we're left with a lot of data points that have no relation. When doing medical studies, we have absolutely no means of knowing if we have test animals that are suitable subjects? How can we, when we assume that no species of animal has any relation to humans? We'd have to study each animal organ individually rather than assuming that they have parts in common with minor variations.


we study how the organism works, its purposes and design.

You're assuming that organisms have "purposes and design". You need to justify this assumption beyond "I can't imagine otherwise".


Then (some) draw conclusions that what we observe and study… IS NOT what we observed and studied!

This is a dishonest misrepresentation. When creationists run out of arguments -- and you don't seem to have started with any -- they resort to lies.


It would be easier to find oceanfront property in Tibet!

Meaningless assertion. You've not presented a single argument against the theory of evolution. You've simply stood and shouted "I don't find it credible!" without making any demonstration that you've actually studied the theory to know what it says. And if you've not studied the theory, then you have zero credibility when speaking on why it is false.

But I've found that creationists tend to prefer ranting and raving from a position of total ignorance rather than sitting down and learning something. Actually trying to explain why evolution is false is much, much harder than simply shouting that it is false without supporting the claim.

As for name, you can call me Dimensio.
 

Another ranting, raving post...

Please! Dimensio, you rant with the best!

The point is that biological research has concluded that the various organs could have come about without design, and in fact upon close, in-depth study, appear to have come about without any apparent or obvious design. The illusion of the parts being "designed" come about as a result of them being useful to the organism, however what biologiy has discovered (not assumed as many dishonest
creationists will claim) through research is that these parts actually exist because they were useful to the organism, they weren't "created" to be useful for the organism.

Useful? The critter makes this decision? Useful, isn't that a VALUE judgement?

You can't understand why logical thinking people have trouble with this! That we might be incredulous when told no there is no designer but the design does exactly what it's designed to do? You gotta do better than that.

"Yet another argument from incredulity... What about actual observed instances of speciation?
"

I'm waiting for an example of "actual observed instance of speciation".

"So if you wish to take issue with the evidence presented for evolution..."

One man's evidence... We just look at the same bones... (ya know) different stories. Any fossil can be concluded to have the same ancestry or architect why is your conclusion fact and mine not fact?

"That's more of a practice of medicine. Biology is far more in-depth than that.

MAJOR cop out!

You're assuming that organisms have "purposes and design". You need to justify this assumption beyond "I can't imagine otherwise".


It ain't about imagination! Why do I have to imagine anything with these "facts" around? Why if it "appears" to work exactly as designed, I have to imagine the exact opposite (no designer)? Again WHO has the burden of proof here?

You imagination beats the hell outta mine Dimensio! God bless you!
 

"And yet another creationist dishonestly claims that all who accept evolution are 'nonbelievers'. The majority of those who accept the theory of evolution in the US are Christians."

True but, I don't think it was asserted ALL Darwinists are unbelievers... just that many are. Otherwise, Why would Dawkins say...

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986)

Hence the term: "nonbeliever's garden myth"
 

Useful? The critter makes this decision?

No. "Useful" as in the trait allows the organism to survive. Playing semantic games won't falsify evolution.


Useful, isn't that a VALUE judgement?

It's more of labelling a trait. It can be "useful", "neutral" or "harmful". These labels are based upon how the trait affects the organism's ability to survive.

But that you jumped on it as though I was trying to imply some kind of conscious decision suggests to me that you're not really interested in facts.


You can't understand why logical thinking people have trouble with this!

Oh, I do understand. They construct a cartoon strawman of what evolution states and knock it down with arguments that may be logical, but are founded upon false premises. Airtight logical arguments against evolution are meaningless if they are made against something that isn't really evolution.


That we might be incredulous when told no there is no designer but the design does exactly what it's designed to do?

You are again misrepresenting what I said. I never said that there's a "design" that "does exactly what it's designed to do."


You gotta do better than that.

I am doing better than that. It's not my fault that you decided to attack something that I did not say since you can't actually counter what I did say.


I'm waiting for an example of "actual observed instance of speciation".

Didn't I provide a link to that earlier? If you don't like that, some more.


One man's evidence... We just look at the same bones... (ya know) different stories. Any fossil can be concluded to have the same ancestry or architect why is your conclusion fact and mine not fact?

So explain Archaeoptryx. So explain "Lucy" -- and if you're going to claim that it's a chimpanzee, provide credible sources to back up the claim rather than the common creatnist assertion without evidence or references. Explain why ERV insertion points in genomes is in the exact same position across species previosuly already thought to be related, further strengthening the "related" conclusion? Explain why most mammals can synthesize vitamin C on their own but most primates can't; primates (including humans) have the gene, but the gene is "broken". Moreover, the gene is "broken" in the same way across primate species. Explain how common descent is not a rational conclusion in light of that (and in light of the fact that other, unrelated, species that cannot synthesize vitamin C have the gene broken in a different fashion)? Explain why fossils appear in the geologic record in a pattern consistent with species existing for a time, dying out, and new species emerging in the future.

If you think that common descent is just an "assumption" with no real rational basis more logical than "common design", then you have not examined the evidence or, if you had, you would be able to explain more thorougly what is wrong with the conclusion. You don't seem to have that level of information, however, instead you're repeating the same tired old creationist talking points ad nauseum.


MAJOR cop out!

Why is it that when creationists run into a situation where they're wrong, they resort to excuses like "COP OUT" rather than admit a mistake?


It ain't about imagination! Why do I have to imagine anything with these "facts" around?

What "facts"?!?


Why if it "appears" to work exactly as designed, I have to imagine the exact opposite (no designer)? Again WHO has the burden of proof here?

Mountains of evidence have been presented to show that the features that you say "appear" to be designed not only could have come about without design, but also that close examination shows that they likely were not designed. I already explained this. That you completely ignore my explanation is typical creationist dishonesty.


You imagination beats the hell outta mine Dimensio! God bless you!

Your deliberate disregard of comments that prove you wrong and obvious willfull ignorance of biology is sadly typical of creationists.
 

True but, I don't think it was asserted ALL Darwinists are unbelievers... just that many are.

And "many" is also unsubstantiated.


Otherwise, Why would Dawkins say...

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986)

Because Dawkins's thinking in the realm of theology is extremely limited and narrow.
 

"Mountains of evidence have been presented to show that the features that you say "appear" to be designed not only could have come about without design, but also that close examination shows that they likely were not designed."

This so circular(#)... we got words here like "could have" and "likely" (which are speculations, like you think it's true but you're hedging just a little...odd for one who claims the "facts"!). As an evolutionist you MUST make this conclusion, it's the ONLY option, for (whether you admit it or not) the possibilty of a designer has been eliminated BEFORE the "research" was done. Any "facts" you present all go to support no designer, authough initial observations are 180 degrees the other way! You have to work hard construct the no designer senario.

In your zeal to call those who disagree "dishonest" you miss the biggest dishonesty of all. That there was no possibility a designer would ever be "found". Dawkins' thinking in the realm of theology may be extremely limited and narrow, but his embrace of evolution is precisely because the whole exercise eliminates the need for the designer. Why else would he say what he said?

(#)Web Definitions:
Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed.

In evolutionary theory the geological dating position is circular... fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in, while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it. Works every time it's tried!
 

"So explain Archaeoptryx. So explain "Lucy" -- and if you're going to claim that it's a chimpanzee, provide credible sources to back up the claim."

Shouldn't YOU be the one that provides credible sources to back up the claim that Lucy's NOT a chimpanzee?

We're 180 outta phase here!
 

Shouldn't YOU be the one that provides credible sources to back up the claim that Lucy's NOT a chimpanzee?

Its bone structure isn't like that of any known chimpanzee.
 

This so circular(#)...

No, it isn't. That's another creationist falsehood.


we got words here like "could have" and "likely" (which are speculations, like you think it's true but you're hedging just a little...

That's how ALL of science works. NOTHING IN SCIENCE, NOTHING AT ALL, IS PRESENTED AS DEFINITIVE. Everything in every field of science is considered tentative, from physics to chemistry to biology. Evolution is no different in that regard. I would use the same language in explaining how gravity works.


odd for one who claims the "facts"!).

And you've presented, what, meaningful information?


As an evolutionist you MUST make this conclusion, it's the ONLY option,

"Maybe" and "possibly" are the ONLY option for everything in science, not just evolution.


for (whether you admit it or not) the possibilty of a designer has been eliminated BEFORE the "research" was done.

This is a lie. If the evidence pointed to a designer, then a designer would be concluded.


Any "facts" you present all go to support no designer,

It's not the fault of reality that it doesn't provide the conclusions that you want.


authough initial observations are 180 degrees the other way!

That's why scientists do actual research instead of basing conclusions on "initial observations". Initial observations, without further study, could be completely wrong.


You have to work hard construct the no designer senario.

As opposed to those presenting the "designer" scenario, who do absolutely no research at all. You're presenting this as some kind of point in your favor? That you've not done nearly the same amount of work as those on the side of evolution is somehow evidence your position?


In your zeal to call those who disagree "dishonest"

Another lie. I don't call those who disagree dishonest. I call those who disagree and make false claims dishonest.


you miss the biggest dishonesty of all. That there was no possibility a designer would ever be "found".

Why not? Justify this claim.


Dawkins' thinking in the realm of theology may be extremely limited and narrow, but his embrace of evolution is precisely because the whole exercise eliminates the need for the designer.

Again, it's not our fault that reality doesn't give you the conclusions that you want.


Why else would he say what he said?

Because apparently Dawkins is unable to use the phrase "I don't know". And it's not like the theory of evolution "eliminates a designer". It doesn't. It doesn't explain the ultimate origin of life and it doesn't explain anything about the formation of the solar system or the origination of the cosmos. As such, a "designer" could still be involved at some point without having any effect on the validity of evolution.

You're using Dawkins's limited thinking as though it somehow falsifies evolution. It doesn't.


In evolutionary theory the geological dating position is circular... fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in, while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it. Works every time it's tried!

This is another creationist lie.
 

I think I understand!

"That's how ALL of science works. NOTHING IN SCIENCE, NOTHING AT ALL, IS PRESENTED AS DEFINITIVE."

Except of course design... but no designer! You appear to be pretty damn definitive to me!

Let's review:
It's the appearance of
circularity, but no circularity!
It's the appearance! of
design, but no design

Maybe we have the...
appearance of another evolutionist denial... or we're just too damn stupid to realize we not seeing what we're seeing!
 

Except of course design... but no designer!

Another lie. Processes absent a designer (rather than the positive assertion "no designer") is the current conclusion based upon the evidence. Should new evidence suggest a designer then a designer will be considered. Rather than present positive evidence for a designer, you'd rather bitch and whine about a position that science simply does not take. That's because you don't actually have any evidence for your position, so your only hope is to throw rocks at the most accepted position in biology.


Let's review:
It's the appearance of
circularity, but no circularity!

There's no "appearance" of circularity or any circularity at all.


It's the appearance! of
design, but no design

And I've already explained that the "appearance" of design goes away when the structures are more closely studied and compared to other structures, but because that much doesn't sit well with your strawman arguments, you've ignored them rather than try and dispute them.
 

Quotes from Dimensio:

That you completely ignore my explanation is typical creationist dishonesty.
Your deliberate disregard of comments that prove you wrong and obvious willfull ignorance of biology is sadly typical of creationists.
No, it isn't. That's another
creationist falsehood.
Another lie. I don't call those who disagree dishonest. I call those who disagree and make false claims dishonest.

… in spite of your protestations you continue with same ole circular arguments… if someone disagrees with Darwinism they are liars. How do you know they’re lying, because they disagree with Darwinism. How do you know their facts are wrong? Because their facts don't support Darwinism.

I visited your recommended website The Talk.Origins Archive, the whale page… it is a whale of a story and circular as heck. The very first sentence starts with an insulting premise: “How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it.” Before any “evidence” is presented, a cynical attempt is made to prejudice the reader against any counter opinion. Like the quote countering whale evolution by Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Which is right on!

” There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like...”

Then they confess he has a point: ” Of course, for many years the fossil record for the whales was quite spotty… Then they go circular AGAIN ”Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.”

If you’re not convinced, you’re not honest! Another circular and cynical move to prejudice the reader.

Survival of the fittest: How do you know they’re the fittest? Because they survive! Why did they survive? Cause they are the fittest!

Your last response I believe was “another creationist lie.”
I expect the same… for that’s all I find on The Talk.Origins Archive.
 

if someone disagrees with Darwinism they are liars. How do you know they’re lying, because they disagree with Darwinism.

I have never said that you are lying simply because you are disagreeing with Darwinism. That would be another lie from you. The fact that you have lied about my claims is one of the reasons that I call you a liar.

I've met a few "honest" creationists, ones who do not misrepresent what evolution is or what those who accept evolution claims even though they themselves do not accept the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, I've not met very many.


Survival of the fittest: How do you know they’re the fittest? Because they survive! Why did they survive? Cause they are the fittest!

Another creationist misrepresentaiton. "Survival of the fittest" is an oversimplified and not entirely correct view of evolution, as explained here. Of course, you'll come back dismissing the whole thing without actually attempting to dispute the logic or evidence involved.
 

Dimensio, while I honestly and humbly disagree with most of your positions... it’s neato how you imbed links in the text! I’m trying to learn. This is my first try. Are you in some way associated with Talk.Origins Archive?

Just wondering.
 

No affiliation with TO. I simply know how to spot creationist misinformation readily -- in part because I've come to assume that any claims made by creationists are incorrect and I automatically research any new ones that I see to first ascertain their truth value and, should I find the claim to be incorrect, learn whether the claim is an outright lie or an out-of-context misrepresentation.
 

A couple of quotes from the participants:

"Evolution is the BIGGEST lie EVER perpetrated on the human race!"

“I simply know how to spot creationist misinformation readily”

Caution: Arrogance is always accompanied by ignorance.(1)

30 years ago I heard nothing about Creationism or "ID" in my high school biology class, it was all Darwinism/evolution. What has emboldened IDers these days? Could it be discoveries that evolution has trouble explaining? But "a biological theory that has endured for nearly 150 years" won't go away with the first volleys opposing it. It must be discredited doorframe by doorframe, and wall by wall.

I remember in my text book of the 1970s, the embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel, were confidently displayed along with the "horses". I now understand Haekel’s drawings (and the horses) have now come under question for their accuracy, but still reside in some science textbooks. (these things give IDers much of their ammo)

Recent discoveries, especially at the cell and molecular level, has made it more difficult (for some) to buy the Darwin model (as least as generally presented), and sent true Darwin believers scurrying to address them, sometimes with interesting conjectures.(2)

But the monkey’s out of the cage (so to speak), like other areas (such as media) the blogasphere has made it nearly impossible to suppress opposing points of view. Courts and lawyers can keep, for the time being , the debate out of the classroom (which I think works in favor if ID types)(3), but that's about the only place!



footnotes:
(1) One must be ignorant they’re a fool, before they can possibly be arrogant.
(Some wise dude, from the distant past)

(2) a discussion for later (file under “hopeful monster”)
(3) it looks like censorship, it may not be, but we’re dealing with these “appearances”
again.
 

30 years ago I heard nothing about Creationism or "ID" in my high school biology class, it was all Darwinism/evolution.

You shouldn't be hearing about creationism or ID in a proper biology class today. Neither are science.

If you think that the creationist movement is something new, then you haven't been paying attention.


What has emboldened IDers these days?

An inability to detach themselves from a worldview when reality directly contradicts it.


Could it be discoveries that evolution has trouble explaining?

Given that there are no such discoveries, not likely.


But "a biological theory that has endured for nearly 150 years" won't go away with the first volleys opposing it.

True. You have to provide "facts" and "evidence". Thus far the ID pushers haven't done so.


It must be discredited doorframe by doorframe, and wall by wall.

So present something for crying out loud! Well over 50 posts have been made here on the subject, without one single attempt to present factual information that throws evolution into question.


I remember in my text book of the 1970s,

What textbook was this?


the embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel, were confidently displayed along with the "horses". I now understand Haekel’s drawings (and the horses) have now come under question for their accuracy, but still reside in some science textbooks.

I'm not quite sure what issues there are with horse evolution. Could you perhaps elaborate?

Haeckel's drawings have been presented in biology textbooks until fairly recently. They shouldn't be, because Haeckel's drawings aren't the most accurate source of information for embryology. HOWEVER, the real fraud that Haecekel pushed was exposed during his own lifetime. This requires some explanation.

Ernest Haeckel speculated that during the embryonic development of an organism it would, at various stages, show anatomical features not posessed by the organism but that were once part of "ancestral" organisms. Even when he proposed this hypothesis it was not widely accepted by contemporary biologists (who accepted evolution). To help support his claim, Haeckel created a series of drawings of various organisms, supposedly of their embryonic development. Except that he committed fraud. He 'fudged' the drawings to show features that aren't really there. His fraud was exposed by his contemporaries, and his hypothesis -- already rejected at the time -- never gained any ground for it.

The fraud that he used to support his hypothesis was never a major cornerstone of evolution because his hypothesis was never a major cornerstone of evolution. It's a footnote at best.

Now, despite the "fudging" of his drawings, they were the most detailed embryonic illustrations available for some time. As such, many biology books used his drawings as a reference guide for the appearance of embryos. However, the distinction here is that they were not using his drawings as evidence for his failed hypothesis. That is to say that they were not claiming his fraudulent statements to be true.

Now, it's come to light that 1) his drawings are far too removed from reality to be considered acceptable for a professional reference guide and 2) there are now techniques for getting accurate photographs of embryonic states of organisms. You can learn a bit about that at this site put up by the publishers of a textbook that once included Haeckel's drawings and have since replaced them. Note that they never presented Haeckel's false hypothesis as fact, nor did they use his drawings as evidence for his false hypothesis.

(these things give IDers much of their ammo)

I'm aware that misrepresenting claims regarding established lines of descent and blowing the few frauds from evolutionary scientists out of proportion are the ammo of IDers.


Recent discoveries, especially at the cell and molecular level, has made it more difficult (for some) to buy the Darwin model (as least as generally presented), and sent true Darwin believers scurrying to address them, sometimes with interesting conjectures.(2)

Oh do please elaborate on this rather than just asserting it and saying "discussion for later".


But the monkey’s out of the cage (so to speak), like other areas (such as media) the blogasphere has made it nearly impossible to suppress opposing points of view.

Yes, I'm aware that mass media now makes it easy to share "opposing points of view". However, the fact that opposing points of view exist and are now heavily propigated does not give them equal validity to the theory of evolution.


Courts and lawyers can keep, for the time being , the debate out of the classroom (which I think works in favor if ID types)(3), but that's about the only place!

Science classes are not about "debate". In fact, public high school classes in general are not about "debate", they are about teaching the best established information on the pertinent subject. In the case of biology, that happens to be evolution. In fact, in the case of biology the only scientific explanation for the diversity of species is evolution. We don't have discussions about "alternative" viewpoints of history in history classes, even though there are a number of people who dispute well-accepted historical events. For some reason I strongly suspect that many ID-pushers would not be so welcoming of an "alternative" view of the Holocaust in history lessons.

Moreover, while there may be "debate" in the mainstream media and on various Internet forums, amongst biologists there is no debate. There is currently no evidence whatsoever that has led to any serious doubt over the theory of evolution. Thus far the theory has stood strong in light of every observation made in the fossil record, in DNA and in existing life forms within their own environments, despite ample possibilities for an observation somewhere to bring the whole thing crashing down. Also, there's absolutely no positive evidence for any other explanation -- ID pushers often try to knock down evolution while forgetting that falsifying evolution would not, in any way, amount to evidence FOR ID. ID must stand or fall on its own merits. Attacking evolution -- and IDers do it with a poor understanding of what evolution is -- will not score the ID movement any additional credibility. If you want ID to be considered valid science, then come up with a coherent set of statements that defines what ID explains, come up with evidence for which ID is the best explanation and come up with a means of testing claims and predictions whose results can either lend further support to ID or prove that ID is false.


it looks like censorship, it may not be, but we’re dealing with these “appearances”
again.

No one is trying to "censor" ID pushers from making their claims. The resistance is to pushing a non-scientific claim into science classrooms and doing an end-run around the proper method of establishing what is taught as science.
 

We're in a circle! Don't think any minds are going to get changed.

"...biologists have presented a mountain of evidence for evolution."

But it is unimpressive and fails to convince. The "evidence" only convinces those already convinced.

Learn about "specified complexity"
and "irreducible complexity"
these words terrify and anger evolutionists. Start here.
 

Sadly the National Academy of Sciences is now on league with the ACLU (Athestic Criminal Lovers United). It much more about politics than science.
 

But it is unimpressive and fails to convince. The "evidence" only convinces those already convinced.

So what's wrong with it? So you say that you're not convinced -- can you even demonstrate that you understand the evidence that you've so casually dismissed? What credibility does your lack of acceptance of the evidence have if you make no indication that you've even tried to comprehend the information available before deciding that it isn't credible.
 

Sadly the National Academy of Sciences is now on league with the ACLU (Athestic Criminal Lovers United). It much more about politics than science.

So do you have a rational argument against the theory of evolution?
 

"So do you have a rational argument against the theory of evolution?"

Rational? Evolution is not rational it's anti-rational!
Did the early bird/insect/bat determine the wings to be "useful" before or after it flew?
Why did all creatures that fly evolve multiple wings?
What determined one wing was not "useful" so two or more had to evolve?
How did the wings know the law of aerodynamics?
Many species of birds successfully navigate thousands of miles in their migrations,
why? Why and when were massive migrations over thousands of miles, deemed “useful” or not since not all birds migrate?
When did the early bird get the worm?

This is just tip of the iceberg of questions evolutionists have to dodge, to maintain their fantasy!
 

Assuming evolution could make wings, it seems wings are only the beginning of the flying process. I would like an explanation as to what alerted some of the first creatures that evolved wings to know they could fly? Did they have to learn? How did they learn?

You can give me an airplane... but I still have to learn how to fly it.

Did the same evolutionary process that "knew" how to do wings also know they could fly, and how to fly, and why flying is a useful thing?
 

Rational? Evolution is not rational it's anti-rational!

Argument from incredulity.


Did the early bird/insect/bat determine the wings to be "useful" before or after it flew?

The animals didn't "determine" anything. They just continued to survive and reproduce with the help of their physical traits.


Why did all creatures that fly evolve multiple wings?

Why should they?


What determined one wing was not "useful" so two or more had to evolve?

Two more? I'm not aware of any organisms that have three wings.


How did the wings know the law of aerodynamics?

They didn't "know" anything. You're making assumptions about wing evolution that are founded in a false presumption about how evolution in general works.


Many species of birds successfully navigate thousands of miles in their migrations,

And?


why? Why and when were massive migrations over thousands of miles, deemed “useful” or not since not all birds migrate?

Why not start here if you want information on evolution of bird migration?


When did the early bird get the worm?

Meaningless hyperbole.


This is just tip of the iceberg of questions evolutionists have to dodge, to maintain their fantasy!

Pretending that biologists don't have answers to your inane "questions" when in fact your objections are either 1) easily answered despite your claim that no information exists on the matter or 2) based upon a total lack of understanding of how evolution works does not, in any way, demonstrate a problem with the theory.
 

Assuming evolution could make wings, it seems wings are only the beginning of the flying process. I would like an explanation as to what alerted some of the first creatures that evolved wings to know they could fly? Did they have to learn? How did they learn?

Have you actually tried to do any research on the subject before presenting your questions as though they are unanswered challenges to the theory?
 

The Evolution of Flight

"Bird migration is a behavior that has evolved over many thousands of years. Scientists believe...

"This suggests, though it can't prove, the stonefly flight began with skimming..."

“Now a team led by zoologist Matthew Wilkinson of the animal flight group at the University of Cambridge, UK, thinks the pterosaurs used a moveable forewing….”

“To see how Wilkinson’s group believe the pterosaur flew…


Very little to help here… mostly speculation… (but at least they're honest!) and it's how not why the fly (I want to know WHY!) Is speculation science? I believe they’re stumped!

It takes a lot of intelligent design to conjure up scenarios about how no intelligent design happened. Evolutionists' research and evidence is only convincing if one already accepts their presuppositions. Just like presupposing God leads to accepting the Bible. Evolution's ultimate foundations are religious.

I believe... but can't prove that evidence clearly points to an intricate and detailed designed plan that shows every piece in place needed for flight and the skill to fly and navigate. Suggesting outside intelligent input is necessary for the beast to get off the ground, much less go anywhere.
 

Personal note to Dimensio... it was NO ACCIDENT you found this blog. It was meant to be! Understand that for me God shouts at us from every twig and grain of sand in His creation, if we just take time to listen. Evidence I see screams that we do not live in a mechanistic purposeless universe. We may have to agree to disagree. But I wish you only the best! God Bless and may you have peace and happiness!
 

Yes, you've demonstrated admirably that nothing, absolutley nothing in science is presented as an absolute. All explanations in every field of science are subject to change should contrary evidence arise. Evolution is no different than any other scientific field of study in that way.

Now, do you want to actually argue the evidence, or are you just going to continue playing dishonest semantic games and try to cast doubt on evolution by showing that it is just like every other explanation in science?
 

Personal note to Dimensio... it was NO ACCIDENT you found this blog.

No, I'm reasonably certain that the person who posted the link wanted it to be seen.


It was meant to be!

By the person who posted the link as a general reference for people watching a particular discussion, yes.


Understand that for me God shouts at us from every twig and grain of sand in His creation, if we just take time to listen.

1) That's great, but it's your assertion and has no evidence and more importantly
2) That has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution.


Evidence I see screams that we do not live in a mechanistic purposeless universe.

Which, in addition to being unsubstantiated, is totally irrelevant to the discussion of the theory of evolution as the theory explains only the emergence of biodiversity from common ancestry. It makes no statements whatsoever regarding any purpose -- or lack thererof -- in the universe. I do not understand why you bring up this red herring.


We may have to agree to disagree.

On what? Nothing you've said above has any bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.
 

It takes a lot of intelligent design to conjure up scenarios about how no intelligent design happened. Evolutionists' research and evidence is only convincing if one already accepts their presuppositions.

Which begs the question of how anyone could have come up with it. If you have to believe it to accept it, how could anyone have come up with the idea before it existed? You're asserting that evolution is a paradox.


Just like presupposing God leads to accepting the Bible. Evolution's ultimate foundations are religious.

Nice to see that you have absolutely no means whatsoever of countering the evidence except for dismissive semantic games, false analogies and outright lies (by calling evolution "religious")
 

I feel the love, Dimensio!

Semantic games???? (Why do you begin every post with condescending insults?). I can't equal the statement below in all my semantic efforts!

"Which begs the question of how anyone could have come up with it. If you have to believe it to accept it, how could anyone have come up with the idea before it existed? You're asserting that evolution is a paradox.
."

You summed it up quite well... BUT...I'm stunned! Did you just proclaim, that just because someone could dream it up, it's has to be true? Are you sure you want to stand on that statement???

"Nice to see that you have absolutely no means whatsoever of countering the evidence except for dismissive semantic games, false analogies and outright lies (by calling evolution "religious")"

Evolution's grand assertions are ultimately taken on faith. You admitted it!

"That's how ALL of science works. NOTHING IN SCIENCE, NOTHING AT ALL, IS PRESENTED AS DEFINITIVE. Everything in every field of science is considered tentative, from physics to chemistry to biology. Evolution is no different in that regard. I would use the same language in explaining how gravity works."

Sounds like faith to me... When pushed in to reality corner, evolution’s claims are ultimately a matter of faith!

So… I stand by my contention:

Like a bunch on Communists refusing to consider democracy because they contend democracy is "not a political system"... evolutionists demand to define the terms of “science” to fit their narrow understanding, thus eliminating having to defend the weaknesses of their theory.

In my small brain I thought "science" was about free inquiry and open challenges to established "fact" (at least that's what my 8th science teacher told me). "Science" as you and the evolution "cartel" define it, is just dogma! True Science... may it RIP!


Hebrews 11:1-3
“…faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
 

You summed it up quite well... BUT...I'm stunned! Did you just proclaim, that just because someone could dream it up, it's has to be true? Are you sure you want to stand on that statement???

No. I did not say that at all. I cannot possibly imagine the twisted crime of logic you had to commit to conclude that I meant anything like that.

I was responding to a claim that the only reason people accept the evidence for evolution is that they already presuppose evolution. My point is that this claim is absurd, because if true then evolution could not exist as a concept, because no one could have initially thought up a concept that requires a presupposition of its own truth.


Evolution's grand assertions are ultimately taken on faith. You admitted it!

No, I didn't.


Sounds like faith to me... When pushed in to reality corner, evolution’s claims are ultimately a matter of faith!

Wrong again. Evolution -- and all explanations in science -- are supported by evidence. You are once more playing semantic games.


So… I stand by my contention:

Not surprising, given that you're open to blatantly misrepresenting any statement with which you do not agree. It's clear that you're willing to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to avoid having to consider that you might possibly be mistaken.


Like a bunch on Communists refusing to consider democracy because they contend democracy is "not a political system"... evolutionists demand to define the terms of “science” to fit their narrow understanding, thus eliminating having to defend the weaknesses of their theory.

No "weaknesses" have been demonstrated, and the only ones trying to redefine scientists are the ones pushing ID. That would be ID advocates like Michael Behe who admitted under oath that the existing definition of science would have to be changed to accomidate Intelligent Design, and he said that the same redefinition would also allow astrology to be considered "science".

Stop blaming the evolution side for trying to redefine science. It's the people on ID who are trying to do it, and they openly admit as much.


In my small brain I thought "science" was about free inquiry and open challenges to established "fact" (at least that's what my 8th science teacher told me).

Challenges are fine, so long as they're based upon rationality and evidence. ID, however, is not challenging evolution with anything except for faulty premises and arguments from incredulity. That is not science, no matter how much you complain about it.


"Science" as you and the evolution "cartel" define it, is just dogma! True Science... may it RIP!

If you honestly think that I define science any differently than any other professional physicist, chemist or biologist then you are woefully ignorant as to the nature of science.

Also, why did you completely ignore my comments regarding evolution saying nothing regarding the nature or purpose of the universe? Are you too afraid to admit that you were mistaken about what evolution is? Are you concerned that if you admit that you were wrong about the implications that evolution has about the universe you might have to open yourself up to the possibility that you might also be wrong about other things that you have said about evolution?
 

"Wrong again. Evolution -- and all explanations in science -- are supported by evidence. You are once more playing semantic games."

You are accusing others of what you are doing! (Typical). Upon investigating your recommended Pro-evolution websites I find the "evidence" and arguments much more circular than I could imagine! There's no there there!

That IMHO is why evolution's defenders, you included, are so condescending. You refuse to consider any explanation that does not come from a pure materialistic worldview. That’s why you must assert we are not seeing what we are seeing, a marvelous designed universe… the designer is still around if you will just talk to Him!
 

You are accusing others of what you are doing! (Typical). Upon investigating your recommended Pro-evolution websites I find the "evidence" and arguments much more circular than I could imagine! There's no there there!

Yet you don't actually explain how it is circular. I suppose that's understandable; saying that it's circular is far easier than explaining how it is circular. Why, the latter actually requires that you demonstrate that you did study and attempt to understand the evidence rather than scan the site (at best) and dismiss it with a wave of your hand.


That IMHO is why evolution's defenders, you included, are so condescending. You refuse to consider any explanation that does not come from a pure materialistic worldview.

Actually, science refuses to entertain explanations that are not materialistic. That's because science can't entertain such explanations and rational scientists know that people who attempt to push supernatural explanations as science are lying.

There's also the fact that there simply is no evidence for a non-materialistic explanation. There may be a truthful non-materialistic explanation, but without any evidence to support the claim the explanation is fundamentally meaningless.


That’s why you must assert we are not seeing what we are seeing, a marvelous designed universe…

No, we "assert" that we don't see what you claim that we see because you provide no evidence beyond "it's obvious!" Science -- and rational thought in general -- does not operate on the principle that grandiose conclusions regarding "supernatural design" are simply "obvious" inferences of observation. You need to present evidence that can be studied, and you need to present claims that could potentially be falsified if you happen to be wrong. Otherwise you're just waving your hands about and demanding that what amounts to pure, baseless conjecture be given "equal time" to well-established science backed by 150 years of research and observation on the grounds that 1) you want to dismiss the currently established theory because 2) you don't like the alleged implications of the established theory and think that your conjecture has "better" implications.


the designer is still around if you will just talk to Him!

Your assertion does not amount to evidence for your claim, nor does it demonstrate in any way that the theory of evolution is not sound science.

Again, why did you completely ignore my statements regarding any alleged "purpose" inherent in the universe? Evolution says nothing whatsoever about whether or not our universe has "purpose", so why did you act as though the theory denies "purpose"? Are you too arrogant to admit that you were mistaken on that point? Do you think that I'll forget that you made such a fundamentally false claim about evolution, which throws all that you claim to know about the theory into question?
 

'Actually, science refuses to entertain explanations that are not materialistic.

Only "your" science! Your statement is given from absolute denial of all you see and know in your heart! (and betrays your agenda to eliminate the creator in spite of your half-hearted protests!) There is massive evidence for design... yet you and other religious evolutionists refuse to see! (Refuse is the operative word here!)

Again you and most of your persuasion demand we only play in your ballpark. It's not that you don't get it… you can't get it. (in you current mindset).

I have met the blind... and he (so far) demands not to see! But somehow I think we've made progress... you didn't land here by accident. God loves you, has His hand on you and wants you to know Him. We are all sovereign souls (as sovereign as God). Therefore you can't be forced to accept Him, only persuaded. I have great confidence in you!

My blog says: overtly Christian libertarian… I believe in Jesus and I understand you don’t have to… but I highly recommend it! You won’t be the same after.

1 Corinthians 2:14
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
 

Only "your" science!

So you employ a science different than that actually used by professional scientists? I admit, I'm not a professional scientist. I get my knowledge of science not addressing the supernatural from scientists. The last scientist who told me that is a devout Christian who keeps a Bible in her office along with the books relevant to her field of study.


Your statement is given from absolute denial of all you see and know in your heart!

Assertion without evidence noted.


(and betrays your agenda to eliminate the creator in spite of your half-hearted protests!)

How am I trying to "eliminate" a creator? If a creator exists, I'd hardly think myself powerful enough to "eliminate" it. Acknowledging the overwhelming evidence for common descent is not attempting to "eliminate" a creator no matter how much you scream, rant and rave.


There is massive evidence for design...

That you refuse to present.


yet you and other religious evolutionists refuse to see!

I'm not a "religious evolutionist". I've met a few religious evolutionists. Some were religiousy Catholic, some were religiously non-Catholic Christian, some were religiously Jewish but I personally am not religious.


(Refuse is the operative word here!)

Cop-out. You are the one who has "refused" to present evidence for your claims. Stating that your claims are "obvious" and then throwing a tantrum when other people don't accept them without evidence reflects poorly on you, not me.


Again you and most of your persuasion demand we only play in your ballpark.

Yes, how dare we suggest that you actually present evidence for your claims rather than elevating your unsubstantiated assertions to the same level as established science that has actually made verifiable claims, fulfilled predictions and has a chance of being falsified should contrary information come to light. It's just so mean of us to not give you special treatment and assume you correct without even examining the merits of your claims, unlike everything else considered in science.


It's not that you don't get it… you can't get it. (in you current mindset).

Yes, I "can't get" that something that isn't science should be treated as science. Funny, no other rational science can "get it" either. But you want to overthrow science, not because its methods are faulty, but because it doesn't give the answers that you want to hear.


I have met the blind... and he (so far) demands not to see!

I had corrective surgery, but I hardly see how my eyesight has relevance to the fact that thus far you have refused to provide evidence for your claims. Asserting that the universe or elements in it merely "scream" for the existence of a creator is not evidence for your claims, and it certainly doesn't falsify evolution in any way.


But somehow I think we've made progress... you didn't land here by accident.

I already conceded that point. Someone posted a link with the clear intention of directing people here.


God loves you, has His hand on you and wants you to know Him. We are all sovereign souls (as sovereign as God).

This is totally irrelevant to the subject of evolution.


Therefore you can't be forced to accept Him, only persuaded. I have great confidence in you!

I see that you've decided that you have absolutely nothing meaningful to say regarding the subject of evolution. This is a frequent turn in discussions with creationists -- when they realise that they don't have a leg to stand on with respect to the actual evidence, they change the subject to one of religious preaching, completely abandoning their illogical ranting against a sound scientific theory.


My blog says: overtly Christian libertarian… I believe in Jesus and I understand you don’t have to… but I highly recommend it! You won’t be the same after.

Good for you. None of that is relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. Given that there are a good number of Christians who accept the theory of evolution, I cannot understand why you bring this up. The original discussion was about the theory of evolution. Your religious discussion is completely irrelevant and indicates strongly that you realised that you were losing on the topic of evolution, so you switched to a totally unrelated topic.
 

There is NO real evidence for evolution, it can't get to the first cell through any scientific method or observation, only wild speculation of how this or that might have, could have, happened. Pure dogma!

Evolution is an angry dogma that sends it defenders into hysterics (as so well demonstrated in this blog) anytime the sacred speculations are questioned.

As for Christians that buy evolution... they're the best audience for counter-evidence showing how foolish evolution ultimate claims are. I’ve seen many after ID-creation presentations come and express with relief : “I’m so happy I don’t have to believe that anymore!”

As said in an earlier blog you can’t damn up truth forever.

Rave on!
 

There is NO real evidence for evolution,

So provide explanations as to why all of the information currently presented as evidence for evolution is wrong. Be specific regarding DNA sequencing -- including (and especially) ERV insertions, the fossil record and existing observations of alelle frequency change including speciation.


it can't get to the first cell through any scientific method or observation,

This statement makes no sense.


only wild speculation of how this or that might have, could have, happened. Pure dogma!

Pure lies. But then I expect as much from creationists. It's much easier to assert that evolution is nothing more than "wild speculation" than it is to attempt to understand why biologists accept it as a valid theory.


Evolution is an angry dogma that sends it defenders into hysterics (as so well demonstrated in this blog) anytime the sacred speculations are questioned.

Yet not a single person here has actually provide a "question" for evolution that I've not answered. Typical of a creationist to blatantly ignore reality.


As for Christians that buy evolution... they're the best audience for counter-evidence showing how foolish evolution ultimate claims are.

Why is that?


I’ve seen many after ID-creation presentations come and express with relief : “I’m so happy I don’t have to believe that anymore!”

Why would they be happy not believing it? Why would they be unhappy accepting it as valid science?


As said in an earlier blog you can’t damn up truth forever.

No, but as RNB has demonstrated, quite a few creationists can cover up the truth with a heavy coating of creationist lies.
 

"So provide explanations as to why all of the information currently presented as evidence for evolution is wrong. Be specific regarding DNA sequencing -- including (and especially) ERV insertions, the fossil record and existing observations of alelle frequency change including speciation."

There is NO evidence in DNA or the fossil record for evolution, in fact it does just the opposite (which is why evolutionists work so hard so suppress or ridicule any non-conforming research). The dogma of evolution forces, sometimes with great creativity, (go back to PE) this data into its explanations! DNA sequencing has revealed HUGE amounts of critically organized data... far more complex than any man-made technology … this is evidence for design. Evolutionists have had to manufacture a tortured logic fairy-tale notion of somehow-someway it all got self-organized by biyuns of perfect accidents, over biyuns and biyuns of years (it gets a little harder each time).

This is beyond nonsense! Friend it appears you DO believe the biggest lie EVER perpetrated on the human race! And then you call all who don’t buy the snake-oil, liars. You are not dishonest, you’re delusional!
 

There is NO evidence in DNA or the fossil record for evolution,

So why are fossils buried in sequental layers rather than all of them scattered about in no particular order? Why is the human genome far more similar to the genome of any ape than to any other type of animal? Why is the human genome more similar to the chimpanzee genome than to any other species of ape? Why do humans and other primates have the SAME "broken" vitamin C synthesis gene when most mammals can produce vitamin C on their own? Primates and humans have the gene for it, but it's "broken". Moreover, it's "broken" in the same way. How is this not evidence for common descent? Keep in mind that it is possible for the gene to be broken in a different fashion, as guinea pigs have a different kind of defect in the Vitamin C synthesis gene.

What about ERV insertions? Occasionally a virus inserts code into non-coding regions of a genome. Sometimes this happens in sex cells. This is an exceedingly rare event, but the result is viral code (which is harmless, since it's in a non-coding part of the DNA and thus doesn't change any features of the organism) in every descendant from the organism in which the insertion occured. The event is rare, and it's a virtual impossibility for it to occur in two organisms at the same insertion point. Yet, if common descent didn't occur, then this must have happened because ERV insertion sequences are found at the same points in both human and ape genomes. Moreover, you'll find such insertions that are exclusive to human/chimp pair comparisons that don't appear in other ape species. This was found after it was theorized that humans and chimps split from common ancestry after every other species of ape.

How is this not evidence for common descent? Explain ERV insertion without common descent.


in fact it does just the opposite (which is why evolutionists work so hard so suppress or ridicule any non-conforming research).

Explain how ERV insertions at the same point in the genome across ape species shows the "opposite" of common descent. Explain how the fossil record shows the "opposite" of common descent.

Have you even studied the relevant fields or are you just repeating shallow creationist talking points? Can you even demonstrate that you understand why those who accept evolution as valid science do so? If not, then you have no credibility in claiming that it is false.


The dogma of evolution forces, sometimes with great creativity, (go back to PE) this data into its explanations!

This is simply a lie. PE is not a "creative" explanation. It was suggested at the time of Darwin.


DNA sequencing has revealed HUGE amounts of critically organized data...

Justify this claim.


far more complex than any man-made technology … this is evidence for design.

Justify the claim that DNA is "organized" in such a way as to demonstrate "design".

Why do you think that merely asserting a claim amounts to countering the references that I've provided? I actually try to support my claims by linking to relevant websites which themselves have extensive references. You simply assert and pretend that you've destroyed hundreds of man-hours of research. Why are you so arrogant?


Evolutionists have had to manufacture a tortured logic fairy-tale notion of somehow-someway it all got self-organized by biyuns of perfect accidents, over biyuns and biyuns of years (it gets a little harder each time).

Nice strawman representation of the theory of evolution. Let me know when you want to address the actual science.


This is beyond nonsense!

Argument from ridicule noted. Looks like you don't have a single factual reference to support your claims.


Friend it appears you DO believe the biggest lie EVER perpetrated on the human race!

Yet you've not provided any evidence to show that evolution is a lie. WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU, WHEN YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS?


And then you call all who don’t buy the snake-oil, liars. You are not dishonest, you’re delusional!

Another lie. I have not called "all" who do not accept evolution liars. I only call those who use lies -- such as claiming that those who accept evolution use circular reasoning when dating rocks and fossils -- liars because they are repeating lies.
 

"Why do humans and other primates have the SAME "broken" vitamin C synthesis gene when most mammals can produce vitamin C on their own? Primates and humans have the gene for it, but it's "broken". Moreover, it's "broken" in the same way. How is this not evidence for common descent?

Why is it not evidence for the same architect? Primates and humans also have five digit hands and feet. Related yes, decended speculation. Same architect.
 

Why is it not evidence for the same architect?

So you're positing an incompetent architect who resued the same defective gene? Why include a nonfunctional gene in the first place? If this architect didn't intend for primates to have the ability to synthesize vitamin C, why give them a gene for it and simply break it beforehand?


Primates and humans also have five digit hands and feet. Related yes, decended speculation.

"Speculation" backed by a mountain of physical evidence.


Same architect.

Of course, there's a problem in that you've failed to demonstrate the existence of an "architect" who individually crafted each species on its own, much less establish the methods that this "architect" used to build the various species of life forms currently living on the planet. With evolution, we actually have a mechanism that explains the similarities across DNA -- descent through a directly observable process known as "reproduction". What is the process that you assert this "architect" used?

If you can't demonstrate the existence of a common "architect" and explain the method used in "crafting" species then you have no basis for claiming an equally probable scenario.

Also, how does this "architect" hypothesis fit with the fossil record? Why do organisms appear to die out after certain periods of geologic history? Why do new organisms appear where they were not present before? Did this architect continue to "build" new species and put them on the planet throughout its history? Why did this architect include the same ERV sequences in the same insertion points in the genome when making primates? What would be the purpose of putting non-functional viral DNA at the same locations across primate species? Why would an architect include such similarities -- which essentially do nothing to benefit (or harm) the organism -- in such a specific pattern across species that leads so many biologists to reaffirm acceptance of already established lineages of common descent?

Is there any hypothetical scenario that would not be consistent with a common "artchitect" for all species? With evolution, I can name a number of hypothetical scenarios that would, if discovered, show that the theory of evolution is false (note that none of these hypothetical observations have ever occured). What would hypothetically falsify your "architect" hypotheis?
 

"Speculation" backed by a mountain of physical evidence."

Examples please, where the "changed" species is reproductively isolated from the "parent" species, remember any human intervention would constitute “intelligent design” and invalidate the experiment/observation. Thanks.
 

Examples please, where the "changed" species is reproductively isolated from the "parent" species,

You want examples of speciation? How about ring species?


remember any human intervention would constitute “intelligent design” and invalidate the experiment/observation.

No it wouldn't. Humans are part of a natural environment, thus human 'intervention' is no less natural than a lack of human intervention. It might affect the results, but it doesn't invalidate the outcome.
 

From Ring Species:

"Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii."

From what I read these are not different species, but at best sub-species, most likely just variants. The salamanders are basically unchanged. The authors crow about speciation and then essentially take it back in the last paragraph.

As solid as a New Orleans levee!

From this you assume “amoeba to man”. Fairy tails (er tales).
No wonder the precious theory has to be "enforced"!

"No it wouldn't. Humans are part of a natural environment, thus human 'intervention' is no less natural than a lack of human intervention. It might affect the results, but it doesn't invalidate the outcome."

How about space aliens?
 

From what I read these are not different species, but at best sub-species, most likely just variants. The salamanders are basically unchanged.

Apparently you missed the part about two groups of salamanders not being able to interbreed amongst one another, but being able to interbreed with members of a single other group. Either that or you decided to ignore it.


The authors crow about speciation and then essentially take it back in the last paragraph.

Did you not pay attention to the article?


From this you assume “amoeba to man”.

You are dishonestly misrepresenting the article. I never said that the article directly implies "amoeba to man", nor does the article claim such an implication.


Fairy tails (er tales).

Argument from incredulity noted.


No wonder the precious theory has to be "enforced"!

Your inane strawman is noted.
 

"Apparently you missed the part about two groups of salamanders not being able to interbreed amongst one another, but being able to interbreed with members of a single other group. Either that or you decided to ignore it."

You need to read the article more carefully. The article says they "do not interbreed" it doesn't say the can't. It states "They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii."

Again evolutionists are making macro statements from the tiny micro observations. Typical.
 

We miss you Dimensio... hope you're doing OK.
 

I'm still trying to figure out why I was getting demands for observed instances of speciation when I've already provided as much.

I also have to wonder how many people here know what "Intelligent Design" really states. How many people here are aware that Intelligent Design actually accepts common descent through evolution as a given?
 

Good to hear from you, Dimensio!

Observed speciation? Or minor changes based on isolated gene pools. Please don’t use these “examples” to draw macro conclusions. The plants are still plants the mouse is still a mouse, the fish is still a fish! Show me where and how the fish became us… this assertion (or its first cousin) are all part of the media presentations of evolution. But where’s the evidence? The “difficulties” are glossed over or not addressed. Thus evolutionists have to assert a multi-billion year universe to cover the shortcomings not found in the fossil record. Intelligent Design, does not strike me as monolithic… there are numerous versions: old Earth, young Earth, etc. But the bottom line is the conclusion that life is too complicated to have occurred by accident. That seems to be the rub that dusts up many an evolutionist, to the point of trying to outlaw any opposition!

That alone takes evolution/ID out of science and into politics, not a good place for either to be, if the truth is what we pursue!
 

Observed speciation? Or minor changes based on isolated gene pools.

It's speciation. Your attempt to move the goalposts after the fact is noted.


Please don’t use these “examples” to draw macro conclusions. The plants are still plants the mouse is still a mouse, the fish is still a fish!

Yep. You've moved the goalposts. Now you're demanding a demonstration of change across classes and even kingdoms!


Show me where and how the fish became us…

Fish didn't become "us", at least not directly.


this assertion (or its first cousin) are all part of the media presentations of evolution. But where’s the evidence?

The evidence is in the extensive fossil record and, as has been recently discovered, in DNA sequencing. Now, if you want to assert that the fossil and DNA records are actually evidence against evolution, then please explain 1) how the current conclusions that the majority of biologists have drawn from the fossil record and DNA are wrong and 2) how the fossil record and DNA evidence actually contradict evolution. Be specific. I'd really like you to explain away ERV insertions.

But I suspect you won't answer that. It would require that you actually know something about the subject, and thus far not a single anti-evo who has posted here has demonstrated even the slightest level of knowledge regarding biology whatsoever. Hell, most of you don't even seem to understand how science operates and want to redefine it to suit your whims.

Feel free to prove me wrong by actually showing that you understand why evolution is accepted amongst the vast majority of biologists. You can do that by addressing what evolution really states and what evidence is actually used to support it when you attempt to show why that evidence does not logically lead to the conclusion of evolution and common descent, rather than making up strawmen regarding why biologists accept it as valid.


The “difficulties” are glossed over or not addressed.

What "difficulties"? You keep talking about "difficulties" but you have yet to spell a single one out.


Thus evolutionists have to assert a multi-billion year universe to cover the shortcomings not found in the fossil record.

This is a lie. The age of the universe is inferred from observations within cosmology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. You have once again demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge and education regarding science in general by trying to claim that biology has led to the conclusion of a billions of years old universe.

The age of the universe has been established by observing the cosmos, not biological life forms or remains thereof. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with it. But, since you don't actually know anything whatsoever about the history of biology or cosmology, you've decided that you can just make things up as you go along and pretend to make a point.


Intelligent Design, does not strike me as monolithic… there are numerous versions: old Earth, young Earth, etc.

There's no "young Earth" Intelligent Design, but I'm not surprised that you don't know that. Most people who push for teaching "ID" in public schools are unaware of what ID actually states. I'll go ahead and spell it out for you:

All life on earth originated from common descent starting from an ancestor life form that came into existence approximately 4.6 billion years ago, and reproduced into divergent populations thanks to mutation and natural selection. During certain points in the histories of various subpopulations, an intelligent designer intervened in the development of the organisms and added on features that could not have come about through random mutation combined with natural selection.

That's ID in a nutshell. Believe something else? Then you don't believe ID. Don't blame me for that definition, that's the definition as given by the people who have been promoting the "ID movement", which would include Michael Behe -- the man who essentially spearheaded the ID movement -- as well as another major supporter, Michael Denton.

It doesn't surprise me that many "ID supporters" don't have the slightest clue of what they support. They clearly don't want to learn anything about evolution, so it's not hard to believe that they don't want to learn anything about anything else, either, including their own supposed "beliefs".


But the bottom line is the conclusion that life is too complicated to have occurred by accident.

Actually, the conclusion is that certain specific features of various life forms are too "complex" to have occured through mutations gradually "adding" components of the features. This is called "Irreducable Complexity", and it's the main and really only foundation behind ID. If you want, I can also explain what's wrong with it.

ID, like the theory of evolution, says nothing whatsoever about how the first life forms came to exist, much less about their "complexity" in general.


That seems to be the rub that dusts up many an evolutionist, to the point of trying to outlaw any opposition!

This is another lie. No one is trying to outlaw ID.


That alone takes evolution/ID out of science and into politics, not a good place for either to be, if the truth is what we pursue!

Not our fault that the ID pushers have decided to politicize valid science because they can't produce any real research.
 

Good day Dimensio, I assume your gloves are on tight!
However, I humbly question some of your assertions about ID… (among all the other stuff we have agreed to disagree about.)

"There's no "young Earth" Intelligent Design, but I'm not surprised that you don't know that. Most people who push for teaching "ID" in public schools are unaware of what ID actually states. I'll go ahead and spell it out for you"

There you go again... IMHO you could resist the temptation for condescending remarks (but then maybe you wouldn’t be you), and it does demonstrate your disdain for opposers (is that a word… is now) of evolution, which I assume you find important… as you seem to want to pigeonhole opposing arguments by creating such a straw man... (your ID definition).

Again IMHO, ID is a concept that includes Genesis literalists to theistic evolutionists. The bottom line is... an intelligent creator has to be involved. The ID you describe is just one version. I assume they’re still some gradualists in the evolutionary family… although many have abandoned this school for lack of fossil evidence, and gone to the whiz-bang "punctuated equilibrium" which does not require any real evidence.

"The age of the universe has been established by observing the cosmos, not biological life forms or remains thereof. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with it. But, since you don't actually know anything whatsoever about the history of biology or cosmology, you've decided that you can just make things up as you go along and pretend to make a point."

I take issue with the above statement... the conclusion that the age Earth and universe is based on "observation" is backwards... modern evolutionary ideology is much more than biology ... it's a world view, that cannot exist without "bilyons' and "bilyons" of years.

So therefore the billions or years is the beginning presumption... then the "evidence" is forced into that presumption! Yup, we’re back to circular again!
 

There you go again... IMHO you could resist the temptation for condescending remarks (but then maybe you wouldn’t be you), and it does demonstrate your disdain for opposers (is that a word… is now) of evolution, which I assume you find important… as you seem to want to pigeonhole opposing arguments by creating such a straw man... (your ID definition).

My definition of ID is not a strawman. It is how Michael Behe, Michael Denton and all other "professional" advocates of ID define it. Got a professional ID reference that defines it differently? Please reference it. If you're telling me that ID is so incoherent that there's no single general explanation for it, then there is no argument at all, because that means that ID hasn't the coherence to be compared to not only science, but any established body of knowledge, and as such it has zero place being discussed in high school.


gain IMHO, ID is a concept that includes Genesis literalists to theistic evolutionists.

And according to professional ID advocates, you are wrong. ID is not Biblical Creationism. ID was invented to avoid accusations of religious intrusion.


The bottom line is... an intelligent creator has to be involved.

This is too simplistic to qualify as anything remotely like "science". It can't even be used to make predictions. Nothing this vague has any place in schools.



The ID you describe is just one version.

As defined by the professional advocates of ID. But you seem to see fit to make up definitions as you go along. Not surprising.


I assume they’re still some gradualists in the evolutionary family… although many have abandoned this school for lack of fossil evidence, and gone to the whiz-bang "punctuated equilibrium" which does not require any real evidence.

Now you're lying about the nature of evolution. There is ample fossil evidence. Punctuated Equilibrium was mentioned in Darwin's time by his contemporaries, it was not invented recently "for lack of evidence". It's also not an "either or" proposition for punctuated equlibrium vs. gradualism. But, since you've made it clear that you have no intention whatosever of actually understanding evolution, I see why you failed to grasp this point.



I take issue with the above statement... the conclusion that the age Earth and universe is based on "observation" is backwards... modern evolutionary ideology is much more than biology ... it's a world view, that cannot exist without "bilyons' and "bilyons" of years.

Then please, explain how biology was used to derive the age of the universe. Explain how an age of the earth that exceeded Biblical literalist chronology came about as a result of attempting to support evolution even though such ages were established in the late 1700s, before Darwin was even born. Stop telling me that the current estimates for the ages of the earth and universe are a direct result of evolutionary influence and demonstrate your damned claims for once.

Here's a starting point for the age of the universe. Note that before the universe was determined to have an age, the prevailing belief was that it had always existed (steady state), meaning that attempting to put an age on the universe could have potentially created problems for evolution. Why would cosmologists try to put an age on the universe when the preexisting belief would have easily accomidated evolution? If it really is all an attempt to support evolution, why not simply stick with a claim that the universe had always been there? Also, be sure to explain how evolution is factored into age of the universe estimates. Show all your work.

And here's a look at age of the earth calculations. Note that while accurate figures weren't around, geologists were getting estimates far over the 10,000 maximum put forth by young earth creationists before Darwin was even born. Please explain how evolutionary biology is factored into current estimates for the age of the earth. Be specific in showing just where and how "assumptions that evolution is correct" go into altering the numbers.


So therefore the billions or years is the beginning presumption... then the "evidence" is forced into that presumption! Yup, we’re back to circular again!

Yup, you're lying again. Not surprisng: you don't know a single thing about how the ages of the earth or universe are derived, but since you've already assumed that evolution is part of a conspiracy, you simply assume that the ages of the earth and universe are part of that conspiracy. That way you don't have to do any research, which is good, because if you did research you'd find out that you are flat-out wrong, and that the age of the universe is derived independently of any concerns for the theory of evolution and that the age of the earth was established as more than 10,000 years well before Darwin ever published anything.

Why should a creationist do research when they don't want to know how much they are lying?
 

Now you're lying about the nature of evolution. There is ample fossil evidence. Punctuated Equilibrium was mentioned in Darwin's time by his contemporaries..."

OK, I'll grant you that... Darwin's contemporaries could see the fossil evidence was lame... so they dreamed up PE way back then!
 

OK, I'll grant you that... Darwin's contemporaries could see the fossil evidence was lame... so they dreamed up PE way back then!

Nice way of not dealing with evidence.
 

"Nice way of not dealing with evidence."

First, the "evidence" is the sudden appearance in the fossil record of "new" complete life forms... this is the same for evolutionists and non-evolutionists.

The kicker is the interpretation of what it means... those who hold to a "naturalistic" view had to create the PE angle, because the gradualist model was in trouble.

Non-evolutionists (ID, creationists, etc.) look at the same evidence and see a designer (aka: God).

It’s not about the “evidence”… it’s about the interpretation, because ultimately both models depend of some degree of faith.

Guday!
 

First, the "evidence" is the sudden appearance in the fossil record of "new" complete life forms...

What would an "incomplete" life form look like?


this is the same for evolutionists and non-evolutionists.

So what is Archeopteryx? What are these?


The kicker is the interpretation of what it means...

No, the kicker is that actual biologists look at the fossil record and creationists and ID-pushers don't bother to look, they just take the word from creationist shills like Hovind that it really is "complete" -- no need to examine the evidence!


those who hold to a "naturalistic" view had to create the PE angle, because the gradualist model was in trouble.

No, PE came about because some scientists realised that if an environment is stagnant, there's little cause for evolution to occur, thus they hypothesized at the time that evolution may be the result of drastic environmental shifts forcing populations to either evolve out of their previous niche or face extintion.

But, in typical creationist fashion, you've decided to make up an explanation of your own without examining the underlying history behind PE. Just like creationists make up false reasons for an age of the earth that exceeds 10,000 years.


Non-evolutionists (ID, creationists, etc.) look at the same evidence and see a designer (aka: God).

How have you inferred this "designer" or "God"? What attributes does this designer have? What mechanism did this designer employ to "design" life forms?


It’s not about the “evidence”…

That's true in the case of creationists. Not only do they have no evidence of their own, but they refuse to examine the evidence for evolution.


it’s about the interpretation, because ultimately both models depend of some degree of faith.

Evolution only depends on the same axiom that all other sciences use: the fundamental properties of the universe do not change. I know that it's hard for you to believe, but the theory of evolution is not mere conjecture based upon looking at old bones. You're going to have to accept that the "professional" creationists who have told you as much were lying. I know that, as a creationist, you don't want to do any research but honestly if you don't do any research then you have no credibility whtsoever when speaking on evolution. It really does have experimental verification behind it. Predictions as to things that should be observed were made, and then those things were later observed, establishing further confidence in the theory. That's how science operates. ID, however, has thus far not made a single prediction whatsoever.
 

"So what is Archeopteryx? What are these?"

Archeopteryx is one hope for a "transitional" critter... maybe a PE example? Only six specimens exist, with a couple of other claims... probably hand made???

"These" are skulls, with which evolutionists make up wonderful stories.
 

Archeopteryx is one hope for a "transitional" critter... maybe a PE example? Only six specimens exist, with a couple of other claims... probably hand made???

Do you have justification for your "hand made" claim, or are you just reaching for excuses?


"These" are skulls, with which evolutionists make up wonderful stories.

So explain them -- including the context of where they were found -- without invoking common descent. Explain ERV insertions across primates without invoking common descent.

Stop claiming that the evidence is invalid and actually show that it's invalid. Or is that too hard, because it would require that you actually know what you are talking about?
 

"Do you have justification for your "hand made" claim, or are you just reaching for excuses?

Excuses? Shouldn't there should be thousands of examples if such a creature existed?

"So explain them -- including the context of where they were found -- without invoking common descent. Explain ERV insertions across primates without invoking common descent.

I did! Skulls, with which evolutionists make up wonderful stories... like, my uncle's a monkey.

"Stop claiming that the evidence is invalid and actually show that it's invalid. Or is that too hard, because it would require that you actually know what you are talking about?"

Why stop? I did not say the evidence was invalid! (It's just bones for God's sake!) The burden of proof (IMHO) is on those making the claims using this "evidence". Again you're 180 out of whack...

I love ya man... you're a true (evolution) fundamentalist, with bulldog tendencies! I enjoy our "discussions".
 

Excuses? Shouldn't there should be thousands of examples if such a creature existed?

That depends on the organism's environment. Fossilization is not a common process, especially with avian subjects.

Now, do you have evidence that the fossils were "probably hand made", or are all of your claims based upon empty conjecture?


I did!

No, you didn't.


Skulls, with which evolutionists make up wonderful stories... like, my uncle's a monkey.

Meaningless hyperbole. Explain why the bones are found where they are found, or do you even know enough about palaentology to understand as much?

What about ERV insertions in non-coding gentic regions? You didn't address that at all. Why do we find ERV insertions across primate species in patterns completely consistent with established evolutionary lineages? Note that this is not a matter of "interpretation" -- an ERV insertion found at the same point in orangutangs and chimpanzees but NOT in gorillas and humans would demolish common descent, yet thus far every time an ERV insertion is found in the first two species, it pops up in the latter two as well. Are you going to address that or just run away from it again?



Why stop? I did not say the evidence was invalid! (It's just bones for God's sake!) The burden of proof (IMHO) is on those making the claims using this "evidence".

So dispute the claims. Explain what is wrong with the conclusions drawn. Or do you just not want to understand the arguments for fear of confronting the possiblity that you might be wrong?
 

"What about ERV insertions in non-coding gentic regions? You didn't address that at all. Why do we find ERV insertions across primate species in patterns completely consistent with established evolutionary lineages? Note that this is not a matter of 'interpretation'"

Absolutely a matter of "interpretation"! You are demanding I accept your presuppositions, to play in your ballpark as it were... I refuse.
 

Absolutely a matter of "interpretation"!

How so? Be specific (note that this requires that you demonstrate an understanding of what ERV insertions are in the first place). Or are you doing what ID pushers do with respect to science classes: insist that you are right but refuse to support your claims at all?
 

I think you have stumbled on to something here. good job.
 

>>Or are you doing what ID pushers do with respect to science classes: insist that you are right but refuse to support your claims at all?<<

I find this accusation highly amusing considering that Darwinian Evolutionists have been getting away with this very same thing for over one hundred years.