Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@edgarblythe,

You made me laugh out loud......a butt rope hahahahahahahaha glorious

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Creationist quote mining of the "Hopeful Monster"
Creationists are known for notoriously quote mining Goldschmidt, misrepresenting his views on purpose and for setting up a straw man definition of the hopeful monster. Thousands of creationist books since the 1960's have described the hopeful monster hypothesis as a bird hatching from a dinosaur egg or a reptile laying an egg with a bird popping out. The creationist Duane Gish was known for promoting this misrepresentation thoughout his books which he described as believing in a miracle.

In Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1983) Philip Kitcher has discussed this issue, and wrote:

“”So far as I know, nobody is currently defending the idea that the birds evolved through the emergence of a single individual bird from a reptilian egg. The principal suggestion has been that some mutations - perhaps mutations in regulatory genes - might produce large effects by altering the timing of developmental events. By modifying the pattern of development, they could produce organisms with a different form from that of the parents.[25]
Unfortunately creationists out of dishonesty never choose to really study what Goldschmidt actually said and continue to peddle the lie that he promoted the view that birds popped out of reptile eggs. According to Stephen Jay Gould the scientist who speculated that the first bird may have hatched from a reptile's egg was Otto Schindewolf who linked cosmic radiation to mutational rates from supernova explosions.[26] Creationists have obviously confused the ideas of Goldschmidt with Schindewolf.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Creationist quote mining of the "Hopeful Monster"
Creationists are known for notoriously quote mining Goldschmidt, misrepresenting his views on purpose and for setting up a straw man definition of the hopeful monster. Thousands of creationist books since the 1960's have described the hopeful monster hypothesis as a bird hatching from a dinosaur egg or a reptile laying an egg with a bird popping out. The creationist Duane Gish was known for promoting this misrepresentation thoughout his books which he described as believing in a miracle.

In Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1983) Philip Kitcher has discussed this issue, and wrote:

“”So far as I know, nobody is currently defending the idea that the birds evolved through the emergence of a single individual bird from a reptilian egg. The principal suggestion has been that some mutations - perhaps mutations in regulatory genes - might produce large effects by altering the timing of developmental events. By modifying the pattern of development, they could produce organisms with a different form from that of the parents.[25]
Unfortunately creationists out of dishonesty never choose to really study what Goldschmidt actually said and continue to peddle the lie that he promoted the view that birds popped out of reptile eggs. According to Stephen Jay Gould the scientist who speculated that the first bird may have hatched from a reptile's egg was Otto Schindewolf who linked cosmic radiation to mutational rates from supernova explosions.[26] Creationists have obviously confused the ideas of Goldschmidt with Schindewolf.

Source: Wikipedia

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Sorry, my computer burped and I accidently posted this about 5 times. By the time I could delete them, A2K timed me out for making "deletes" So, you have 2 clips.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Sorry, my computer burped

Are you sure it's a computer?

0 Replies

copied from another site:
Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, andBart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I intended this post for another thread. Sorry about that.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

“”So far as I know, nobody is currently defending the idea that the birds evolved through the emergence of a single individual bird from a reptilian egg.

That's virtually true so why is it relevant?

It still seems like ID is being painted with an unrealistically wide brush.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

because it is the basis of the "Hopeful Monster" story wherein all DNA is in existence on an ancient genome until it gets turned on and/or disposed.
Its the background to Irreducible Complexity {quote}:
"Suppose that nearly 4 billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems (discussed there) and many others One can postulate that the design for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but "not turned on". In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while(sometimes for generations) only to be turned on at a later time" (Darwin's Black Box.{1st ed 1996} )

Behe got his lunch handed back on this hypothesis during the Dover trial (realize that Dover's decision in gonna be 13 years old and IDers are still arguing the technical points among themselves.

What Behe fails to mention is that he denies that these biochemical systems are "BUILT UP" not viewed in restrospect and "believed to have been there all along". Evidence does not support that. Thats why the big brew-ha developed re: the mouse trap, and the tie clip. It was NOT an example of ID but an example of where the mouse trap may have come from. Chemstry usually starts very simply.(blood clotting in a horshoe crab contains just a few of Behe's enzymes (and these are true "fossil species or Lazarus species" as EB posted a few days ago). mammals have a base of the same enzymes as a horseshoe crab but many many more that obviously had to be ADDED to the mix to clot a Haem based mammalian blood rather than the copper based blood of a horshoe crab.

I hope we are finally through with the "SO WHAT"S Unless you can provide rel evidence that shows Behe was correct. Hint: Dont start, youll see its ground well tred by Canadian BIO-Geochem grad students who proves the "Built-Up" enzyme evolution

Behe still touts his story but its all in "self published stuff" or Discovery Institute propaganda.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Do you believe in a designer out of an emotional need for a god, or do you receive some of your income from believers in your so called god and thus financial needs and a lust for power drives your belief in him.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

or said more directly

1 Are you still able to beat your wife soundly

2 Or have you given up wife beating and substituted it with imprisonment?

Not too many reasonable choices there bub

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

or said more directly

1 Are you still able to beat your wife soundly

2 Or have you given up wife beating and substituted it with imprisonment?

Not too many reasonable choices there bub

I was trolling for an answer but, Leadfoot is to damn slow at answering. I have been following his posts for some time and I feel his answer might go something like this, "I believe in an IDer because one possible interpretation of the scientific evidence could lead a reasonable person to assume that intelligence is necessary to plan and order the information as it is introduced into the DNA as mutations to cause macroevolution so natural selection can pick the winners and losers in a way that gives us the end result we are observing in living organisms and the fossil record. So Fresco, let's quit talking about religion, until we feel the need to use religion to identify the Intelligence. Maybe that won't even be necessary. (using religion in science is a scary thought though, isn't)

Sorry for nosing in. I might have OCD.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Do you believe in a designer out of an emotional need for a god, or do you receive some of your income from believers in your so called god and thus financial needs and a lust for power drives your belief in him.

Ha! Pretty funny. No Brian, if you mean do I arrive at income from people who have the same beliefs about God as I, then no. For two reasons.

I don’t belong to any religion, cult or ID organization. Not sure how you could profit if you aren’t.

I don’t even know a single individual who shares all my personal beliefs about God.

Ok, a bonus reason - I couldn’t sell water to a man dying of thirst. My powers of persuasion are apparently nil.

I was a theist long before I ever heard of ID. I never expected to find any kind of scientific proof for a creator. I stumbled onto Meyers book (Signature In The Cell) around 2004 and was fascinated. Started studying cellular biology then and haven’t stopped. I find it to be compelling evidence of design.

I would never recommend anyone basing their belief in God on ID though. I do all I can to keep these subjects separate but as you can see, most will not let you do that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The concept of a 'genetic library' is one i learned about from mainstream evolution sources. They of course attribute it to natural causes and skip over all the contradictions it dredges up.

I still haven’t had a chance to look into the K vs Dover case so I don’t know the details. I just don’t find it compelling. A judge accepts the mainstream opinion on evolution - that to me is kind of a - no big surprise. There was a time when teaching the Big Bang would have lost the same kind of trial.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

"Suppose that nearly 4 billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems (discussed there) and many others One can postulate that the design for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but "not turned on". In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while(sometimes for generations) only to be turned on at a later time" (Darwin's Black Box.{1st ed 1996} )

The only reason For Behe to make this supposition is, he has a preconceived bias that puts his interpretation of the bible's description about the origins of life, above what he sees in the fossil record and bio genetics.

Quote:

What Behe fails to mention is that he denies that these biochemical systems are "BUILT UP" not viewed in restrospect and "believed to have been there all along". Evidence does not support that. Thats why the big brew-ha developed

You are exactly right! Behe (and all other young earthers), that believe God made every animal separately and physically perfect are not adhereing to the process revealed by science through natural selection. Their interpretation has enough holes in it that reasonable people can see that their theory "as it stands" does not match the scientific evidence.

Well the scientific evidence isn't going to change. So, this leaves them with two choices:

1. Throw the bible in the garbage. (Absolutely not a possibility for a fundamentalist.)

2. Totally review and change your interpretation of the bible. (Highly unlikely if you are a fundamentalist.)

The same can be said about evolutionists that interpret the scientific data in a way that requires all intelligence be left out of any interpretation.

Both are pig headed fundamentalists that refuse to even attempt to interpret the scientific data in a way that might cause them to fundamentally change their world view, or their view of a so called god.

I think they need to:
1. Quit calling each other names. (Excuse my pigheaded remark, I am only human)
2. Quit talking about religion.
3. And just interpret the philosophical, historical and scientific data in an open, honest and reasonable way.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

You are exactly right! Behe (and all other young earthers)

Et Tu. Brute'?

He’s not a young earth-er AFAIK. Never read anything to indicate that.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Behe's own interests are derived from his research as a molecular biologist (hes faculty at Lehigh University besides being a boqrd member at Discovery. ) Hes stipulated to the evience that upholds nat selection , and hes NOT a YEC.

The basic flaw in his reasoning is as bold as the basic flaw in Darwin's .

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I would never recommend anyone basing their belief in God on ID though. I do all I can to keep these subjects separate but as you can see, most will not let you do that.

Quote:

I stumbled onto Meyers book (Signature In The Cell) around 2004 and was fascinated. Started studying cellular biology then and haven’t stopped. I find it to be compelling evidence of design

What if Meyers book would have revealed the opposite conclusion to you? Would you have become a secular humanist? Or,(with all due respect) are you as pigheaded as everyone else in these two camps. Why do you believe these two areas of study should be kept separate?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You are exactly right! Behe (and all other young earthers)

Et Tu. Brute'?

He’s not a young earth-er AFAIK. Never read anything to indicate that.

I knew that, maybe I was showing a my prejudices(I think Behe is a closet funamentalist beleiver in God) when I lumped them all together. (alt right, neo nazis. What's the diff huh?)

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

You don't seem to have realized that, 'intelligence', design' and 'laws of nature' are all human concepts rooted in our unique linguistic and associated 'control' abilities.The fact that control is always limited by the bounds of current epistemological progress paves the way for 'religion' to fill the control gap which constitues the 'as yet unknown' beyond the boundary. All 'beyond' is attributed to the actions of an anthropomorphic 'Big Controller '. ID is merely a shorthand cognitive place holder for that position whether you acknowledge the vested interests of established 'religion' in it or not. And note that attempts to evoke some form of 'holistic consciousness' in place of 'established religion' is merely a form of word-play.

1 Reply

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know