Posts by Gedanken

184

Questions for Creationists

by IronGland in

jw
friends

what does creationism explain?.

what does it predict?.

what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

It is amazing how emotional Creationists get on this issue. I don't believe in evolution the same way that people, or how I for that matter used to, believe in Creationism. If evolution were somehow disproved tomorrow it wouldn't bother me in the slightest - in fact it would be incredibly interesting. Most evolutionists feel the same was as far as I can tell - they have not invested any emotional energy into believing it. Religious fanatics of the Creationist variety, on the other hand, have essentially grounded their entire lives in the validity of Creationism - remove that and their religion is gone. That's why they will lie and miquote all and sundry to reassure themselves that they are right.

The irritation that evolutionists often express towards Creationist arguments is directed towards their tendency to be dishonest and to the fcat that Creationists almost always avoid dealing with actual data or confronting rational arguments. For example, the fact that the fossil record demonstrates that different species have existed at different times: in itself that doesn't prove or disprove evolution or creationism (although it does rule out the New Earth variety). But only evolution provides a credible, nonmiraculous explanation for the data; the idea that God made species and then after they went extinct, or were destroyed, He created new ones is possible but not palatable to most religious types. The list that Iron Gland has pot forth will not be seriously addressed by Creationists since they - like you - have no answers and so the responses tend to be ostrich like and stupid (monkeys for relatives - a very JW like argument indeed.)

I'd suggest that you do start reading some serious books on the subject since your comments are pretty simplistic - which is not surprising since, apparently, you claim to have no interest in this subject. It certainly shows.

Gedanken

Edited by - Gedanken on 1 November 2002 18:4:58

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

pomegranate,

What about the salamanders? Please explain carefully how the observational evidence that Ridley provides regarding living, non interbreeding salamnders is "pure speculation."

For example, Ridley argues that the ring species of salamanders surrounds the San Joaquim Valley. The change between neighbours is gradual, but in San Diego county the two ends of the ring are distinct species.

Does that come under the heading of "pure speculation" when it is based on direct observation?

But you still misunderstand Ridley; the fossil record supports evolution but evolution does not depend on the fossil record - Ridley provides the salamanders but you have done nothing to disprove his argument beyond just stating that it is nonsense.

Can you, for once provde a specific explanation why Ridley's article is "pure speculation" even though Creationists like to quote from it since it appears to give credence to the nonsense that evolutions think that the fossil record undermines evolution.

You didn't quote Ridley originally because you though he was an idiot, you quoted him to add weigth to your argument that the fossil record does not support evolution; here is what your post consisted of:

Here is how a professor of zoology at Oxford University, puts it:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

You didn't say Ridley was an idiot then, did you; you said that he was a professor of zoologogy at Oxford. Now why say that, to show he is a nutcase or to show that he is a legitimate authority? Also, he wasn't a professor at Oxford - the Creationists promoted him to that for obvious reasons. He's actually now a Professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

And what about Prof. Salisbury whom you treated similarly.

Come on prmegranate, you are claiming the man you loved to quote is now an idiot because his article supports evolution and you claim it is pure speculation - tell me what is spculative about his photographs of living salamanders which prove that ring species exist.

Gedanken

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

link,

What do you make of misquoting evolutionists?

Nothing can be proved beyond doubt - in fact the main difference between scientific thinking and creationism is the concept of falsifiability. That is, unless a theory or idea can, in principle, be falsified, then it is rejected as being meaningless. If I postulate that sugared donuts grow on trees on Pluto then that is a falsifiable assertion and so a legitimate (if ridiculous) hypothesis. However, if I claim that God talks to me and me alone and that I am never to reveal what he says, then that is not falsifiable. Science must deal with evidence that any person can observe and detect and measure. In that sense evolution is falsifiable just as the case of the peppered moth shows.

So, to argue that neither creationism nor evolution can be proved beyond doubt is true but useless. It is like saying that because we cannot prove beyond doubt that the chair I am sitting on was not created by God 10 seconds ago, along with the rest of the universe, and our memories, that we should not accept the existence of the chair as a fact. All of such philosophical arguments against evolution could be applied to physics and electronics - but I don't see people not buying the latest electronic gadgets because the theory of them cannot be proved beyond doubt.

How many creationists will reject new treatments for diseases even though those treatments may be (and increasingly are) a result of applying the theory of evolution by evolutionists. Puts one rather in mind of JWs and blood. That's because the basic root causes of the WTS and other fundamentalist Christian groups or individuals is the same; ignorance combined with "true belief."

There is abundant factual evidence for evolution, including the ability to engineer new species in the laboratory through "artificial selection" as well as examples in nature. Life is a continuum with a single common origin; most creationists don't even understand what a species is though.

Gedanken

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

pomegranate,

Flatly I don't believe you have read the article.

You say everything that he has written in the article is pure speculation. Give me a concrete example. What about ring species? And, if it is ALL speculation, then isn't the bit you quoted also pure speculation?

(added: so do you think that Ridley's comments on the California Salamnder are based on faulty data - he shows that they consist of several different non-interbreeding species),

But, what I meant by "having nothing to do with evolution" is the following:

You quoted Ridley as an "Oxford Zoologist" who, so you thought, was saying that evolution was not supported by the fossil record. That is you quoted him as an authority to make your point.

But now you no longer see his article as being meaningful, in fact, you say it's full of contradictions. That's because you misquoted him. So whether he is right or wrong in what he says, or even if he is a total loon, nevertheless you misquoted him and misrepresented the conclusion of his article which was stated right at the beginning in the abstract.

So, I ask you again - why quote someone who you believe is an idiot and who contradicts himself? Had you criticized Ridley as contyracdicting himself from the start then fair enough - but you dishonestly presented him as an authority who seemed to back you up. That is, you didn't know what his article was about - and I'd guess you still don't.

That's what makes you dishonest. You will misquote a person to advance your own ends which is just plain old fashioned lying.

It really is as simple as that.

Gedanken

Edited by - Gedanken on 30 October 2002 9:28:16

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

pomegranate,

So, to conclude you originally quoted Ridley to prove that evolution has no basis in the fossil record and now you are saying that he should never have referenced the fossil record at all. So why did you quote him?

You stand condemned as a liar for (a) misquoting someone to prove a point that was actually opposite to what he was saying and (b) being too arrogant to accept that you did that.

This has nothing to do with evolution - it would be equally reprehensible were I to deliberately misquote a Creationist.

All the histrionics in the world from you and the brothers rizo won't change the fact that not only are your arguments in this area inane, they rely on dishonest methods.

As for species - explain to JoRizo what a ring species is - take the California salamander as an example. After all, you have read Ridley's article? Right?

Gedanken

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

Iron Gland,

Apologies - yes you did and I stand corrected. Good points btw.

Gedanken

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

pomegranate,

You seem to have no comprehension abilities whatsoever. Your reply to rem shows that. Does belief in God and Creation necessarily involve an inability to read? Or is it just you?

When rem says

: The fact that they may believe in some sort of God has nothing to do with evolution

He's not saying that it's a fact that all evolutionists believe in God. He is saying that just because they may believe in God has nothing to do with evolution. Basic high school English.

I am happy to leave you to your idiocy - in fact, I doubt you could survive in the real world.

Gedanken

Edited by - Gedanken on 29 October 2002 22:5:46

Edited by - Gedanken on 29 October 2002 22:6:47

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

pomegranate,

Of course discussions always end up like this - when confronted with total irrationality then frustration sets in.

The trouble is that you haven't read Ridley's article. Do you really think that a person could contradict themselves so blatantly in an article and get away with it? Do you have any idea how hard it is to publish a scientific article? In fact, do must think that evolutionary biologists as a class are all insane; claiming that their evidence for evolution doesn't exist but that they believe it anyway. These people live in universities where they interact with physicists etc. Are they all insane?

I am re-reading Ridley's book and he does not attempt to use the fossil record to discredit special creation (so you again misrepresent the issue.) That's because it is impossible to do so. No matter how complete the fossil record is, a creationist could argue that God had created every gradation. In other words, any physical evidence whatsoever can be explained by resort to miracles.

Evolution does not depend on the fossil record. If you have read Ridley's article as you say then please comment on the three areas that he puts forth as compelling evidence for evolution - do you know what a ring species is? Let's start there.

Let me ask you this, does your faith depend on the particular English translation of the Bible that you use? Yes or no?

If no, does that mean that your Bible provides no support for your beliefs?

I also noet that you have no comment on the total demolition of your argument that evolution is false because people have faked data. How can you go through life like this - ignoring anything that upsets your world view and ruhjing on to the next "proof" of what you just "know" is true. Is that not somewhat lunatic behavior?

Finally, I wasn't insulting you - no more than charging a man with a crime is insulting. It might insult _you_ because you don't like it - but you are, intentionally or not, a liar and the type of "true believer" who gets cults started. Or did you think that evil geniuses started cults.

Face it pomegranate, you are totally out of your depth and too arrogant to learn why. Listen to your buddy Francois - you really are far gone.

Can't you calm done and consider the possibility that you are wrong - after all, you were wrong about religion once already. That your fundy friends misquote scientists should be a warning signal. I don't care if you agree or disagree with evolutionary scientists, but to misquote them because you imagine a conspiracy theory of evolution is nothing short of insanity.

As for belief in God, Ridley himsef points out that evolution should not be inconsistent with anyone's religious beliefs. But then again, you haven't read his stuff have you?

Gedanken

Edited by - Gedanken on 29 October 2002 21:56:29

Edited by - Gedanken on 29 October 2002 22:0:4

63

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken in

jw
friends

jrizo in a thread of mine on kangaroos and that seems to have vanished posted these remarks in response to points made by alanf:.

alanf: pomegranate's mind is a fine example of the intellectual desert in which almost all creationists live.

evidence is presented and they discount it with a few inanities and misquotations.

Gedanken

Why don't you stick to the issue - you have misquoted two evolutionary biologists - and in the case of Mark Ridley totally misunderstood (possibly intentionally) what he was saying. The issue, pomegranate, is your dishonesty. Only you can rectify that.

Either you believe that the people you quote are insane - for they appear to contradict themselves at every turn, and in print or you haven't a clue what they are saying because you haven't read their articles. You have read misquotations in a slanted, emotional environment and it has caught you just like the WTS caught you.

Po,egranate, it is people like you who are ultimately responsible fo rthe emergence of religions lik ethe WTS. I'd rather face God as an evolutionist (since that does not contradict belief in God) than as someone like you who will lie to prove that their way is the only way. Your concept of creation - and your argumentfrom ignorance - is very Watchtower-like by the way.

Gedanken

35

Kangaroos and the Fossil Record

by Gedanken in

creationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.

so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.

we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.

Gedanken

pom - thanks.