Some Evidence Against Evolution

Willowtree!Stop babbling about punishments from god and provide evidence that Evolution is incorrect and that creationism is correct. That is the purpose of this thread and you have yet to provide the evidence needed to support your claims.Either do so now or accept that you have no evidence against evolution.BTW assertions mean nothing until you back them up with evidence.

This topic has piled up a fair number of messages pretty fast. Not going to give it a "give it a rest" temporary closure yet, but I will set this lttle marker flag. Will try to keep a closer eye on this one.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Willow - I went to some effort in this post to correct your misunderstanding of the use of jargon and/or esoteric language by science. Yet, rather than addressing the points I raised, you merely ignore the post and reiterate your erroneous conclusion. I couldn't care less about whether or not the words you (and Scott, apparently) used were legitimate - they were understandable in context, and hence the purposes of communication were satisfied.Please address the issues I raised in counterpoint to your claim that the language of science is an attempt to "sneak in" bias and deliberately mislead the uninitiated. Alternatively, you can select any specific example where you feel that such is taking place, and although it may cause the cancellation of my membership in the Vast Worldwide Evilutionist Conspiracy (tm), I will reveal the allegedly "hidden meaning" to you - in words that any "ordinary person" can understand.

Sticks and stones, old chap.But it’s strange. The thing is, the more I learn about these things, the more I realise how little I do know!Take my current reading, for example. Jenny Clack’s Gaining Ground. I’ve had to set it aside for now, because I found the second chapter too hard going. It’s well written; it’s just that it is about the anatomy of a late Devonian lobe-finned fish called Eusthenopteron. Unavoidably, in order to talk about these bits of anatomy later on, what and where they are in the critter needs explaining first. So it’s paragraph on paragraph with, not jargon, but the names of the countless bones in the animal. I still don’t know a jugal from a squamosal.Or genetics. Despite A Levels in Biology and Chemistry, and all the other stuff I’ve read, I’m still totally in the dark about restriction enzymes -- I only know the name of these things, no idea what they are.Or population biology. Can’t do the maths. Or geology. Or oriental musicology. Or cancer. Or cross-stitch.But I realise that there’s still heaps to learn, and it’s interesting finding out. I now know of the existence of a load of bones in this fish, and want to know why they matter. I know that restriction enzymes exist, I now want to know what they are and what they do.So I apologise if I’ve sounded know-it-all. But I really do not see where anything I’ve said was really that complicated.All of the words I used could be explained by a short trip to Google.None of the words I used are, I promise you, very unusual to anyone with any understanding of human evolution -- the very thing you were criticising. Surely you wouldn’t criticise something without any idea of what it is... would you?And I have given you a glossary for these non-standard words.And you have not asked me to explain any of them.Yet you are still complaining about the vocabulary I’ve used.Please could you explain why I should not conclude that you’re changing the subject so as not to have to answer my points?It looks like you’d rather let this degenerate into name-calling and nastiness. Well I’m game. One advantage of a classics degree (not, note, biology or anything like that) is that I have a ready supply of gynecological and scatalogcal words that if you translated them would make your eyes water.But personally, I’d rather discuss which of us is right in our interpretation of the evidence. Which would you prefer? Huh? Who started this thread? Who demanded answers, that have been provided? Who has not yet responded to ‘matters arising’, but instead changed the subject? Who is at odds with all of modern biology, yet has come here to argue that he’s right anyway?Sure, you’re not on trial. You’re not even under arrest. You are free to leave any time you want. Liar. Please cite examples. I have gone out of my way to explain what I’m talking about. But I happily apologise for overestimating your knowledge of a subject you were criticising.But it would logically seem difficult to insult the nonexistent. (Now that’s an insult.) Now you’re just being silly. You mean the post no.1, which I responded to with post 7... which apparently literally dropped a safe on your head - checkmate.? The one in which you said you cannot refute the evidence you presented only the conclusions?You mean the post no.112 which contains a lot of waffle, but no evidence? The conclusions of which I had already challenged back in post 81?You mean the post no.136 which is nothing more than more wittering about scientists not making everything plain for lay people? The one which several people have thoughtfully replied to you about -- see especially Quetzal’s post 160...?Okay, so you’ve set up your framework for the evidence. Now you can present it, I guess...? My inability? (deep breath... Quetzal, you’ll realise how much self-control I’m expending here... )Your inability to participate in the topic you yourself started cannot be shrugged off by your trying to shift the goalposts. I’ll dismantle your other posts piece by piece if you really want. But others have already covered these side issues... and I could’ve sworn you said you had enough to reply to already. By gosh, so you did!Let me remind you: post no.51: I am so far behind in the responses you deserve.I waited patiently (post 110). The day after your post 131 (I am studying this reply and I will respond as soon as possible), I prodded gently (post 135).Finally, I got fed up.And you have the nerve to conclude that I somehow cannot participate in your change of subject?! You cheeky little coprophagus pudenda. I have yet to see the tiniest shred of evidence from you. So I repeat: put up or shut up. Please respond to my post 81. I covered this in that. So you cannot respond then?TTFN, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-11-2003]

quote:

---

I learned of there existence and meaning from Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D.Stanford University}

---

Dr. Gene Scott got a Phd in Philosophies of Education. That's like quoting someone who got a doctorate in teaching on how to build an atomic bomb.

quote:

---

This gives opportunity for scientists to intermingle there starting bias {atheism} into their evidence which the ordinary man will take their word on because of their lofty stature in life.

---

You didn't respond to the fact that almost half of all scientists in the US (45%) are theists. How would such an atheistic conspiracy exist if half of scientists out there are theists?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Because the subject matter is not theistic evolution but the ruling body of neo-Darwinism/scientism which is presently in control of what the masses are allowed to know.Please remember that this entire debate features the two opposing worldviews of the origin of life.

Mm, interesting. And who exactly is this ruling body? How do they excercise control? Particularly in a field where persons acheve noteriety (i.e. the Nobel Prize) by overturning dominant scientific thought?

But you, on the other hand are not one of the masses. You KNOW the truth. It's just that you are completely inable to give any evidence or reasoning to support your idea of truth. We're coming up on a couple of hundred posts and all you've done is scatter unfounded assertions here and there.Still waiting for the "evidence against evolution".

The majority of the participants in this debate seem to think that the theory of evolution stands or falls on the scientific evidence.
I cited an extremely credible non-creationist {Richard Milton} who independently confirms my staring position that evolution is not true.The room has disagreed with this evidence - so be it - but I don't. We agree to disagree.Then as a creationist I next went to the heart of my argument which preceeds the scientific evidence of which I have generally accepted to be genuine and true. The ONLY challenge of this evidence I made was any interpretation or conclusion that claimed God wasn't the ultimate Creator.This preceeding argument plainly declares that the only reason evolution/neo-Darwinism exists as an explanation for the origin of life is to conclude that God is dead or He never existed.My bone chilling conclusion said that the brains behind evolution/neo-Darwinism are all persons who have had their "God-sense" removed from them for denying credit to God. {and if God didn't penalize this way then evolution/neo-Darwinism would never exist}But nobody had the arguments to go toe to toe with me in this arena. To deflect away from this deficiency - one poster after another dismissed everything I said via personal insults and rhetoric.I believe philosophy is king - not science. That preceeding argument is the philosophy/truth as to why the evidence is invalid. The indictment of scientism {the branch of science that excludes God in their starting assumptions} is the ISM which denotes religion. Most of you react like a fundie when the core of your theory is taken to task.When I dish out a little of your own medicine the excrement of every stale predictible creationist slur starts flying.Lets not lose sight of what the simple disagreement is here: Mankind was created by God - period. He did not evolve from an ape or any premordial soup. If you believe otherwise it is because your mind is wired/disconnected to believe otherwise, which is God's penalty for rejecting Him as Creator. And the hard evidence produced by your brain trusts and its explanations and conclusions are by-products of this punishment.I question your motives because I/we do not trust you. How could a person[s] who belong to the other major opposing worldview be honest and fair to their arch-rival ? The atheists of neo-Darwinism are not about to give any help to the relgionists who raged against their machine in the formative years.The only thorn in my ass is not the lack of a convert but the lack of a person simply saying that they understand my position but respectfully disagree.Like Dr. Scott says, "....the problem is that most scientists do not understand the Bible ....they don't even think it to be worthy of study....everyone thinks they are born an expert in politics and religion."Sideline: I understand that every field and discipline has their own logidemic lingo. Theologians are most guilty of hiding behind and twisting spiritual truth in order to maintain the perceived halo around their heads.The only evidence that man evolved from ape comes primarily from Paleontologist, and because it takes an extremely smart person about 20 years to become a qualified paleontologist, this means the world at large has to trust their determinations of what the evidence is and means. The logidemic terms used creates an air of credibilty and respect. {rightfully so} But it is the DUAL use of this language to also have it mean that God is not the Creator. This is the irrational dishonest leap interwoven within that I condemn.This poisons the pool of evidence which is presented in the larger context of the atheist worldview. Overall this logidemic argument was offered to evidence the fact that contrary to the claim of rational enquiry the conclusions of paleontolgists do require trust/faith which is the very thing neo-Darwinists condemn religion for.I realize I have beat this to death. Time to move on. Next stop: posting of the evidence on the scientific level.

Please give me until Saturday 12-13-03 to get caught up with you.I do not want to respond to your counterpoints and points with one-liners. Again I apologize that my snail speed ruins the satisfaction of the flow.And I will move on and post evidence on the scientific level for you to refute or counter.

Willowtree
Dr. Gene Scott earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education is what we get from his website. Unfortunately there is no way to get ahold of him as he is an apparently busy man.If you would be so kind as to reference the item of his where you found this logidemic word.

quote:

---

The majority of the participants in this debate seem to think that the theory of evolution stands or falls on the scientific evidence.

---

I certainly think the science side does.

quote:

---

The ONLY challenge of this evidence I made was any interpretation or conclusion that claimed God wasn't the ultimate Creator.

---

I certainly haven't followed this topic closely enough to make any truly grand statement, but I think most of the evolution side neither claim nor deny the claim that God was ultimately behind it all. Such considerations are outside the realm of science. What the evo side does deny, is that it all came to be through some simple, young earth scenario.

quote:

---

The indictment of scientism {the branch of science that excludes God in their starting assumptions} is the ISM which denotes religion.

---

Your saying that science excluding God from scientific investigations makes science a religion?

quote:

---

Lets not lose sight of what the simple disagreement is here: Mankind was created by God - period. He did not evolve from an ape or any premordial soup. If you believe otherwise it is because your mind is wired/disconnected to believe otherwise, which is God's penalty for rejecting Him as Creator.

---

Let me say, that looking at the creation (the Earth) indicates that man did indeed evolve from something earlier. Most prefer to look at the creation itself, to get the story, not some brief and ancient text of uncertain origin.I discard the rest of your rant.Cheers,
Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

Quetzal: Post #189 was also meant for you as a response to your posts {#160/#183} This is the way it worked out for me.For the record I never used the word "conspiracy" nor did I imply it.However, I do understand why you say that I am claiming conspiracy.Would evangelical christians ever be fair to atheists in general ?
And would their unfairness be a conspiracy ?My point is we need to define "conspiracy" . Is it understood or is it actually organized ?Your last paragraph in post #183 is a hoot - the part about your willingness to break the code of silence is real real funny !!!

I heard him say it live from the pulpit during his message about 7 or 8 months ago.It will take me about a month or so to track down which message, when this happens I will give you the message number then you can click on the real player in his archives section and listen to it yourself.The reason it will take so long is because I will have to do some tedious searching through the teaching tapes without the help of a computer because I do not recollect which message it is in.Thank you for wanting to know. I had no idea when I used these words that they were "unknown". When Dr.Scott used them I took note because I never heard of them before but I didn't take note of the message number at the time.

Willowtree I will bet you money that this word is an invention of his plain and simple. No doubt he used it in some context that allowed him to impress others. Like the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.