Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

What makes you think that I can be insulted and blackmailed into participating in this new topic ?The mere placement of my handle in the title is unethical. It is also a disrespectful way of trying to bait me.You must change the topic title. You must do this because if I were to participate it would lend validity to the reasons you gave for creating this new topic.Any honest observer of the previous debate knows the majority of the room was unable (for whatever reason) to argue the philosophical and ideological evidence, this deficiency became a pretext for ignorance denial. Page after page we could not get to first base because nobody would acknowledge the truth that the atheist world view is automatically included in the scientific evidence embraced by neo-Darwinism.Unless this admission is at least assumed I will not debate because the evidence is offered as proof that there is no Creator/Intelligent Designer. This is not a matter of opinion. NOBODY can separate their starting assumptions/bias from the evidence.Besides, the originator of this new topic really doesn't want to debate, because they are still seething about being called out for arbitrarily branding a man with a Ph.D. to be doing what a common drunk does with his wino buddies. Why would I waste my time giving ear to a person like this.If you want to debate then ask me with basic common courtesy.

ELDER : I am going to use your post to break my silence. I will not respond to the creator of THIS topic to protest the reasons they gave for creating this topic (which said reasons are contained in the last post of my closed topic)The evidence I offer is from a non-creationist Richard Milton. This person becomes independant corroboration of my starting assumption that evolution is not true.http://www.alternativescience.com/...origins-transitions.htmAnyone who cares needs to read this thread. It is the foundation of my evidence which also evidences my proven claim that included in the scientific evidence offered by Darwinists is the assumption of their worldview that God does not exist. NOBODY can separate (including myself) the bias contained in their worldview from their evidence.Thus if the scientific evidence is defective and suspect then so is every claim of certainty contained in the starting assumptions of their worldview.The worldview of neo-Darwinism is atheism this is not a matter of opinion. If anyone wants to change the subject and bring up theistic evolution then create another topic.

Your posts contain a lot of words but you've said nothing.I detect a lot of anger and hypocrisy. Do you know where the word "hypocrite" comes from. It comes from ancient greek drama where an actor would wear a mask and proceed to put down the audience.Your posts are text book examples of hypocrisy. Everything you said without exception is true about you and your kind in reverse.You are also massively ignorant concerning the rules of debate. Certain things must be assumed or debate cannot take place.Your stats are completely misleading and any veteran debater knows that anyone can prove anything with stats.Neo-Darwinism sits in the worldview of atheism - this is common knowledge and not in dispute. You can call yourself anything you want but in the process you have revealed your embarrassing ignorance.
The common person in this debate (pro-evolution) is an atheist and they do not have the honesty to admit what I've just pointed out.
If you cannot admit the obvious then there is no chance of you ever conceding anything in debate so what is the use.If you are a neo-Darwinist and not an atheist then this makes you a freak of miniscule proportion that all the other atheists tolerate in order to convince themselves and everyone looking as to how open minded and tolerant they are.Darwinism was created and offered as the explanation of the origin of life in place of creationism - that is a fact of history.The only thing you have done so far is to howl and fling excrement as a creationist approached, while admitting that you haven't read the thread.All I asked was for one thing to be assumed and you start acting like a fundie defending dogma. Now you need to reveal that you have a brain that can debate and come down from the trees and be civilized.

Nothing is wrong with inference. It is just when the opposite side of the debate does it you all instantly like parrots scream "prove it" - "thats an assertion" etc.etc.The point being you are not consistent, you are not even consistent for the sake of argument to say something like "I understand but disagree".I understand why you make this inference even though you lack the physical evidence in the strata.BUT, this is what the debate is about ultimately. That until this type of evidence is found you cannot claim victory.Milton claims evolution cannot be demonstrated to an intelligent person who is not a evolutionist. NOBODY had one word to say pertaining to the second paragraph of my post #112 in the other topic that has now been closed. When will evolution be demonstrated in the the exact same way that these other disciplines demonstrate their respective claims.All lot of people slammed me for not posting scientific evidence but the evidence I did post was conveniently ignored. Although you Ned are for the most part not guilty of this.If evolution is true on the scale neo-Darwinism claims it to be then there must be some strata -`come on !!!The debaters in this topic have used their "this is not evidence" card enough. It is time for someone to refute the evidence of the thread I provided and cease quitting the game when it is no fun to play.Also, it is time to stop attacking Milton, this is classic messenger asassination that has been redundantly mouthed. Persons can attack Milton but this takes the debate away from the pure scientific basis and if this continues then it is fair game for me to attack the ideology issues and biases.Milton is not credible in your views but to me he is because he is not a creationist who independently confirms my starting assumptions.If a Mensa IQ science reporter for 20 years rejects evolution and he rejects creationism then this is called independant corroboration.We part ways obviously in his rejection of creationism but this does not effect his objectivety in evolution in my opinion.What about Hunt's very unscientific use of assertion under the guise of proven fact in order to prove claims of evolution ?Milton deserves an answer to this obvious observation in his conclusions at the end of the thread.

I have been on Christmas vacation and I haven't forgot about your posts. They are still coming. Thank you.

I want to acknowledge your post.OK, you claim Milton has an ax to grind. I agree. Would you care to theorize why Milton is the way you see him to be ?Why ? He is not a creationist and in his book he clearly throws up his arms when he asks himself if he has a competing theory to explain the origin of species.In his book Milton clearly states that evolution cannot be demonstrated to a non-Darwinist in the exact same manner that other disciplines demonstrate their claims. His point is "why should evolution be given a sweetheart exemption from the norms of scientific scrutiny"Philip E. Johnson says the same thing and so do a lot of other people.There is a paucity of transitional fossil evidence proving the claims of evolution yet it has been decalared as fact. Until these things exist in abundance evoultion is a theory in the eyes of every honest intelligent observer.

"My only reply" WAS NOT to call you a country bumpkin.The bumpkin insult was directed at your blanket dismissal of all of my sources to be "pseudo".Why is any source that disagrees with your conclusions pseudo ?Like I said in the post in question, "you should of just disagreed...."Next item:Milton rejects RM&NS because it cannot be demonstrated the way other disciplines demonstrate theirs.Milton asserts that if RM&NS is to be certified as fact then where is the strata proving this sequencial evolution ?Where is the incontrovertible voluminous fossil evidence for RM&NS ?Milton does not propose an alternative explanation of the origin of species in his book.Next item:Your ignorance concerning who Daniel Harbour is makes everything you said pseudo. I will ignore these comments of yours as a courtesy.Next item:In the other closed topic, post#112, you cut and pasted my conclusion, then you concluded that this conclusion was not logical.Yes it is IF you at least understand (as opposed to agree) that the intellectual brain trusts/rank and file members who believe neo-Darwinism to be true do so because God has removed their "God sense" as a penalty for refusing to consider Him and credit Him as the ultimate Creator. This is the skeletal context that the conclusion rests in.I wholeheartedly disagree that atheists leave their worldview bias at the door when reporting their findings to the public at large. You cannot have it both ways despite the claim of rational enquiry which says that science does not take a position on the supernatural.I have also repeatedly said that everything I say is directed at the atheists of neo-Darwinism which makes every point about those who are not atheists a non-sequitor.In your recap, items #1,6,7 were incidentially covered by me in another topic (Top Ten Reasons for Evolution, post #27 I think)Item #3 : We then disagree about the defintion of scientism.
Scientism is the BRANCH of science (regardless of what is claimed ) that assumes the atheist worldview and all the evidence offered has the TWIN meaning that God is not the Creator.Next item :You quoted me as saying : "...taking the core of your theory to task.."Then you asked me what exactly I was talking about, that you would kindly refute or answer.I withdraw that statement as inaccurate. I meant to say the philosophy that precedes the theory. The core of the theory is being taken to task by Richard Milton and others.Then you ended with a respectful offer to explain anything about the scientific evidence that I do not understand.This maybe ambiguous but, tell me, when a Paleontologist like Richard Leakey uses the phrase "fossil void" is he saying that there is a paucity of fossils in whatever void he is referring to ?Would you explain to me how might migrating birds that fly thousands of miles to the exact same destinations could have evolved ?And how about a theory as to why Richard Milton cannot embrace evolution the same way you do ?Thank You.

You are right Asgara, nobody is posting content relevant to my posts.
I will cease the philosophical attack and claim victory by default.
(exemption to NosyNed)Even though I initially refused to participate in this topic, I've been prodded to reconsider.All posts in this topic from now on will be scientific evidence.Please give me until after the New Year (Jan.2 or 3).

The only thing worth responding to in this post of yours is to remind everyone for the record, that I never said the word conspiracy or used it or insinuated it. YOU DID.

No, they are available. I will continue using Milton as a source and a couple other things.I never claimed science capabilities like most of you display. I have always maintained that all of you are brilliant - its not a matter of opinion.I latched on to Milton because he is not a creationist, which makes him independant corroboration of some of my starting assumptions contained in my worldview. Milton carries enormous weight of credibility in my eyes and I hope you can at least understand that.I also have plainly declared in argument that the problem with evolution is that the ordinary person cannot understand it - that because of this a certain amount of trust is required. This is an honest observation and I am one of these ordinary persons. I believe what you don't know can be used against you.I will post the evidence that excites me and wait and read the responses. I also realize that a certain amount of knowledge is required to participate in a science debate, that the communication can only go so low to accomodate layman before error is risked.My rejection of evolution has been in the philosophical arena which in my view precedes the scientific evidence. This is well known, and I will not re-argue, but I will cite and focus on Miltonian evidence that corroborates the obvious ax that I grind : "God Sense" creationism.Even though I vehemently disagree with the reasons you cited in originating this topic, I will post my evidence as a reply to your post # 1, and I will then notify notable participants of the post.

This is from post # 59 in this topic :http://www.alternativescience.com/...origins-transitions.htmThis will explain who Hunt is.

For those of you who have followed this debate from its inception originating in the other closed topic, I want to quickly review the status of my argument.God, in the book of Romans, declares that His wrath is unleashed upon persons who deliberately exclude Him from the creation table. Contrary to the claim of contained in rational enquiry - that says no position is taken concerning the Divine - Dr. Scott interprets Romans to say you are taking a position concerning Him and God rats you off as to your true motive. Any person that claims this Divine neutrality under the disguise of the claim of rational enquiry is arbitrarily excluding God because they do not want to deal with a Creator. In response to this rejection God punishes these persons by removing their ability to see and deduce His fingerprints in creation.Persons suffering this wrath have had their hearts/mind darkened by God for refusing to include Him as a possibilty - they have no "God sense" which explains the existence of the philosophy of materialism/naturalism/evolution as a whole.One poster questioned this type of punishment by wondering why God didn't make them lepers or threaten to rain fire and brimstone down upon them ?Those judgments all involve the possibility of coming to ones senses and avoiding eternal judgment which doesn't effect your being but your well being.Whereas the removal of "God sense" is final and irrevocable. Simply stated, God wants nothing to do with you ever again. He will allow you to live out your natural life but you are essentially a walking dead man rejected by God for rejecting Him.Then in response to this argument someone would always mention evolutionists who do credit God ultimately, then I would respond by saying that I am obviously addressing those who do not as I am now.The entire argument of "God sense" is that God must be considered as the ultimate Creator and to be thanked (Romans 1:18-25)(2 things) If not He disables your ability to recognize Him.These arguments were the unique thing that my theism brought to the debate. Occasionally, when I have the opportunity to influence an impressionable agnostic, I will state the the "God sense" argument and watch their face light up when they finally ascertain the reason why so many brilliant people fail to see God in creation.I submitted a lot of posts covering the preceding philosophical arguments, which said arguments (if true) automatically make defective all scientific evidence that anyone wants to offer as proof against a Creator/Intelligent Designer. The preceding arguments also explains the defect : which is the ineligibility of a Designer being involved. Other than this the evidence is legit and brilliant.I reject theistic evolution because they fail to differentiate how exactly their theism affects the claims of evolution and its terminology. Since when does theism seek a lower seat and become subordinate to any entity and ideology ? When the pseudo-peacemakers of TE misrepresent the God of the Bible by seeking the acceptance of the atheists of neo-Darwinism through their despicable brown-nosing at the expense of genuine theism which is not compatible with the philosophy that under girds evolution.There can be no peaceful co-existence between the God sense of theism and the God senseless evolutionary claims when the origin of species is at stake.Also contained in the previous arguments was my accusation that evolution intentionally uses logidemic language to impress ordinary persons for the purpose of gaining trust and credibilty. One poster misunderstood this argument by offering to decode any "opaque jargon" that I didn't understand. My point was : What you don't know can and will be used against you. Unless evolution can be explained practidemically ordinary people will be forced to trust the veracity of the sources and their mouthpieces. Exceed an ordinary persons ability to understand - you are "logidemicizing". However, in science discussions I acknowledge that the level of intelligent communication can only go so low before error is risked.I am biased towards evidence that is consistent with my worldview (everyone is whether they admit it or not). This is why Richard Milton and his work carries an enormous weight of credibility in my eyes. He is not a creationist by his own vehement admission which makes the evidence he offers independant corroboration of my starting assumption : Evolution is not true.Previously I posted some evidence from his book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", evidence that excited me like :QUOTE : "How can a mouselike creature have evolved into two identical wolflike creatures (and two identical moles, etc.) on two different continents ? Doesn't this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations but miraculous ones ? " END QUOTENosyNed countered that he could tell the difference between the two wolf skulls.But Milton's point is intac : Virtually identical creatures evolving on two different continents via random mutation ?Then there was the evidence of Milton's claim that Darwinists cannot demonstrate to a non-Darwinist conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory the same way the National Physical Laboratory can demonstrate physical constants, the College of Surgeons can demonstrate the circulation of the blood, or the Greenwich Observatory can demonstrate the expanding universe.EvC member Quetzal was probably the only poster that took this evidence seriously.In post #81 of this topic Quetzal offered a well reasoned reply.The basis of his argument was to downgrade Milton's claim that the other disciplines actually do "demonstrate" their claims. I suspect this argument was initiated for the purpose of attempting to legitimize the reduction of the threshold of scientific scrutiny that evolution should be held to.Quetzal argued that evolutionary biology is a "historical science", which is meant to say that it is harder to demonstrate, which (if true) makes Milton's ultimate point true. Milton and I believe that no "sweetheart exemption" should be given for any reason. Catastrophism researchers are never given what Quetzal might have implied.Then there was the Leakey/Pilbeam quote. I cited Milton who offered it as evidence to his claim that the amount of evidence by volume proving the "crucial gap" "between the hypothetical apelike primate ancestor and ourselves"...."the missing link" is "meagre" according to David Pilbeam. Leakey placed Pilbeam's quote in the context of the "fossil void" which I interpret to be what Milton was just quoted as describing.In the other previous debate (now closed) EvC member Darwinsterrier, speaking in the exact same context of the Pilbeam quote said:QUOTE "You could fit the entire hominin fossil record in the boot of, well maybe a large estate. (No, I won't translate; Americans never bother!) But the question is, so what ?.....It is not sheer quanity that matters...." END QUOTEWe have Leakey/Pilbeam/Darwinsterrier (all staunch evolutionists) making an honest assessment of the amount of evidence that exists in the record in question which said record is the all important evidence which makes or brakes the entire theory as far as man evolving from an ape.Milton's ONLY point was to say that there isn't enough evidence to claim victory, regardless of the beliefs of the quoters which is not the issue. The issue is that Darwinists are giving a false impression that the theory is fact based upon a small quantity of (debatable) evidence.The single biggest delay that has prevented me from posting further evidence is because I have very recently had my beliefs concerning RM&NS be questioned by myself in light of evidence that I find in the Bible which in my view supports the skeletal basis for RM&NS.I simply do not understand RM&NS enough to post evidence against it.I do not understand Milton's objections enough and those who vehemently disagree with him.However, in the context of a thorough thrashing of Intelligent Design, Darwinsterrier made the following comment :QUOTE : "...well that's fine with me. I don't think these things were designed at all....." " Have a god involved by all means, if you wish. But it will have to be a god that has used evolution....or has made things look exactly that way." END QUOTEThe unique argument that I brought to this deabte is intac: God is involved and I do credit Him ultimately unlike Darwinsterrier who cannot see Him because he interprets the process to be "purposeless and mindless" which to him evidences that a Designer was not involved.I believe, to use Darwinsterrier words, "(God)...has made things look exactly that way "Nature is only a secondary avenue to deduce Him from, the primary avenue is the record of His word, however in either case He will not present Himself overwhelmingly as to negate the pearl of great price which He seeks : Our trust and faith.One more from Milton:QUOTE "There is ample evidence that the young of many species are born with highly specialized abilities that they cannot learn from their parents or others of their species and which therefore must be inherited.One of the most striking examples of this kind of behavior is that of the cuckoo. As is well known , the hen bird lays her egg in the nest of another species. The cuckoo's parents both migrate some 12,000 miles to South America while the cuckoo chick hatches and attempts to tip his rival chicks out of the nest.Once the young cuckoo is fledged and grown it, too, will fly 12,000 miles south to join the parents it has never met at the winter quarters it has never seen, with perfect navigational accuracy. END QUOTEAnybody care to tell me how the ToE explains this one ?Now from mainstream anti-Darwinist Phillip E. Johnson quoting Michael Behe :QUOTE "When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis retinal, which rearranges within picosecondsto trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds the transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)" END QUOTEJohnson's point is that molecular mechanisms are irreducibly complex.I qoute Johnson :QUOTE "What this means is simply that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex ways, and all the parts need to work together. Any single part has no useful function unless all the other parts are also present. There is therefore no pathway of functional intermediate stages by which a Darwinian process could build such a system step by tiny step." END QUOTEThe next thing I have is a question : If the information written in DNA is not the product of DNA, then where did the information come from ? Who or what is the author ?Johnson quoting George C. Williams :QUOTE " You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter. Information doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn't have bytes.... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms." END QUOTEI think most of you can predict where I am going with this.Johnson concludes :QUOTE "....highly complex information that is independant of matter implies an intelligent source that produced the information.... ' END QUOTEI will intensely anticpate your responses....I think I see vultures already......

I am using this post of yours to inform you that post #116 is also directed at you. If you choose to respond I will look forward to reading your reply.

I am using this post of yours to inform you that post #116 is also directed at you. If you choose to respond I will look forward to reading your reply.

I am using this post of yours to inform you that post #116 is also directed at you. If you choose to respond I will look forward to reading your reply.