|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Calling Von Cullen - Anti Evolution Molecular Biologist!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Here is a really intelligent remark from our esteemed Von Cullen"
Von Cullen writes: Eat shit, you Nazi douchebag. and
Von Cullen writes: Surely theres a tree somewhere that needs a hug. also
Von Cullen writes: It'd be sad just how fuckin' stupid you are, if it werent so funny. Von Cullen writes: C'mon, Goobshit...Quite jack-hammering your cornhole with your thumb and give us one of those pre-teen responses which your so well known for..... Von Cullen writes: Listen, you drooling moron.... Need I quote more golden quotes from this Christian "professional scientist"? found here:
The Raving Atheist Forum Hmm, Von Cullen sounds like your typical drive by internet troll and enraged against the evils of science & evolution creationist aka Bertot and the like; not your typical professional and intelligent field scientist. I may be wrong but if it walks like a duck... For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarawak Member (Idle past 5477 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
If our esteemed Von Cullen really is a Ph.D. Molecular Biologist, then he should be able to supply us with a couple of nice, juicy, detailed, well-reasoned and published bits of research backing up his claim.
After all, we can't expect an ichthyological example from him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Darwin convinced most of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simple structure, but he didnt even try to explain where the starting point - The light sensitive spot - came from. Well, Darwin knew nothing of what we know about genetics, so couldn't have discussed mutations. Once we do know about these, it's not as if light sensitive materials are particularly unusual or hard to synthesise in nature. Light sensitive cells aren't found only in eyes - they can be found in many plants including, for example, the guard cells of onions; and in the animal kingdom we come across them in butterfly genitalia. Light-sensitive cells can perform important functions in the absence of a central nervous system - some jellyfish and worms have simple eyes which send impulses directly to its muscles, causing the animal to instinctively move away from predators or, in the case of at least one type of rag worm, to prompt migrations in response to the rising and setting of the sun. If your complaint is that we should not be allowed to come to any conclusion about the origin of a structure, however tentative, unless we can identify the exact mutation responsible for every step in its development, this seems unnessecarily restrictive to me. Should we just give up on all scientific endeavour because it's all pointless before we reach some grand, unifying Theory of Everything? Edited by caffeine, : To correct bad links - why must every forum on the internet have slightly different conventions for tags? Thanks for pointing this out Jack
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Your links aren't working. I think you've got spurious quote marks in your URL tags?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Here is an example provided by a member in the "Evolution of Creationism" thread. Except that it isn't an example of what you claimed to be able to provide. You said that 99% of the arguments used by the evolutionists on this board are refuted in the scientific literature. The example that you provide is that of a poster countering an "Argument from Ignorance" by pointing out that existing living organisms provide analogs which might give insight to the stages of the evolving vertebrate eye. He's not providing an argument for evolution as much as he's countering an argument against it. And you haven't met the challenge that you have set for yourself by providing citations from the scientific literature that explains how examples from living species do not give useful analogs in understand the evolution of the vertebrate eye. To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, a poster claimed that Darwin wrote a certain passage in the Origin of Species.
You have yet to demonstrate that the "scientific literature consistently refutes" the claim that he was indeed the author of that passage, which is the claim that the poster in question made. You have also failed to show that the "scientific literature consistently refutes" what Darwin wrote. Indeed, the only scientific literature you have referred to so far is Darwin's own writings. Let me remind you again of what he wrote:
In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. . . With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class. Please refer us to anything at all in the scientific literature refuting any claim made in that passage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Once we do know about these, it's not as if light sensitive materials are particularly unusual or hard to synthesise in nature. One mistake is to consider that the first light sensitive patches were sensitive to what we regard as visible light. Instead we should consider that you are looking for an energy sensitive patch of skin. Now when I go outside I can tell - without using my eyes - whether I am in sunshine or shade, because I can feel the heat on my skin. It is also not difficult to see that cells react to energy, with input from one side being different from the other side: there are many many many single cell life forms, animal, protist or plant, that sense and react to the presence of sunshine, and thus the whole organism is an energy sensitive patch. Molecules react to energy flow, and thus the ability to "sense" the source of energy is just a difference in behavior of molecules. Mutation and selection from that point makes the ability to use wavelengths that have the ability to provide a finer image will evolve as the development of the eye patch into a cup etc selects for the need for finer focus. This also explains how such patches can evolve independently many times for many different applications. It's simple molecular biology. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarawak Member (Idle past 5477 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
chirp, chirp, chirp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Sarawak writes:
Yeah, I don't think he's coming back, we saw through his ruse after all. chirp, chirp, chirp I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Sorry, I know I am kicking a man when he is down but thought I would do some internet research on this so called S&H Solutions company that Mr. "Von Cullen" belongs to.
S&H Solutions according to there website is located in Suches, GA, an unincorporated town of a little less than 800 people, about 1 hour north of Atlanta, Georgia. The website for S&H Solutions is a mere 6 pages (home page, contact page, service page, about us, links to OSHA and other safety related websites, and in the news which has no references to anything to do with S& solutions) with 0 outside references or credentials to there credibility. I also conducted an extensive search on the internet for any references to this so-called company and came up with zilch. I looked at the list of businesses at the Suches, GA website. Guess what? You would think that a construction safety and health consulting company would be listed along side the Parks Builders & Construction, High Valley Construction or even the Kountry Kurls Beauty Shop and Davey's Bar BQ. Guess what? Not a trace of it there. Also looked on Georgia's Secretary of State list of registered and incorporated businesses (which S&H Solutions claims to be i.e. a LLC). Guess what S&H Solutions is not on this list. Also this was interesting to note from the Suches website:
Today Suches (The Valley Above the Clouds) is primarily a retirement and farming community with no large stores. Suches is the home of the Wood Gap High School, the smallest public school in Georgia. Also, this was listed in the Wikipedia entry for Suches, GA:
The current businesses in Suches include Budget Propane, the general store, two motorcycle resorts, Mountain Property Limited (the local realtor) and the U.S. Post Office. Hmm. No construction safety consulting company! To me if this company really exists, based on its lack of external references and certifications, it is at most a small office with a few of OSHA certified safety consultants serving a couple of the local construction companies. In no way would a practicing molecular biologist be an employee. My real suspicion is that Mr. "Von Cullen" is a perhaps a teenager who created this website and is claiming things that he isn't. Mr. "Von Cullen", you may think this a personal attack, and perhaps it is, but there is a clear and poignant reason I am doing this aka truth and honesty. I am sorry but if one thing that peeves me off, it is liars and hypocrites, religious or otherwise. Please prove me wrong on this and I will graciously apologize and retract these accusations. BTW, this is a beautiful area up in the southern Appalachian Mountains. I just got back from my grandmother's funeral in Atlanta, GA and drove back along the Blue Ridge Parkway in NC and VA just north of this area. It is absolutely gorgeous year round and great for hiking, camping and mountain biking. Yes, I was a little bored today It is amazing what you can find on there internet! To protect Mr. "Von Cullen"s identity, I will not disclose the search resources I have used to reveal his identity (and no I did not pay anything to do this). For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Back on Wednesday when I posted about his participation at the Raving Atheists Forum I also used Google Maps in satellite mode to look at his place of business. The address is on an empty country road with no buildings in sight, take a look: 10651 Wolf Pen Gap Rd, GA 30572
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I think it's pretty well established, then, that Mr. Von Cullen's credibility is nil, and that he is demonstrable a fraud and a liar.
Why do Creationists feel the need to resort to such dishonesty? I understand lack of knowledge, especially considering the disgustingly poor quality of education surrounding evolution in the US. I understand that, while many PRATTS are easily recognizable as false arguments to those of us who have participated in evolution debates for a significant amount of time, they can appear to be credible attacks for those who lack sufficient knowledge in science. I even understand acknowledging that scientists have good reasons to believe that the Theory of Evolution is an accurate model, but choosing to side with the Bible instead. What I don't understand is the idea that posing as a molecular biologist who questions evolution gives some sort of credulity to the Creationist argument. Did he think we wouldn't figure it out? Did he think that the whole debate relies on various appeals to authority, and so he figured he'd just manufacture some authority for himself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarawak Member (Idle past 5477 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
If you did the same searches concerning me, you'd come up with much the same info, but I am not pretending to be something I am not. But having said that, it appears our Ph.D. Molecular Biologist Von Cullen is likely a fraud.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024