News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

I reposted this because it makes a fundamental point about evolution that deserves not to be buried deep in a thread.



In an above post, an evolutionist admonishes someone to believe in God if it makes them feel "good".

There is no irony here because evolution (all definitions) is nothing more than an emotional appeal to a religion, therefore, it should not be surprising that a evolutionist would justify a belief-system based on emotion alone.

This value system is contrary to science, logic and reason.

A belief in anything should be based on evidence, just as my belief in the accuracy of the Bible is based on years of study and analysis.

It is better to hurt someone's feeling with the truth than to encourage them into fantasy for the sake of comfort. The former is a process of love. The latter is seduction.

Sure, your reasoning sounds good on its face, especially when associated with freedom, but does it sound so good when the freedom empowers one class of people to spray another with poison in order to kill them for the purpose of quickening the evolutionary process?

(See "Chemtrails" and search for the justification used by Rockefeller for the reduction of global population by 90% (to 500 million).)

Ironically, millions of evolutionists sit in the gun-sights of their own most notorious mascot.


The known universe is a system based on rules. Useful science is the process of discovery of these rules.


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness (read evolution) was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

(emphasis mine)

Another post that deserves to be reposted is this one:

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42933#Post42933

(I've spared you the usual meaningless mis-quotes)

Notes:

(1) this "definition" is not used by any university teaching evolution or biology, rather it is a straw man created by RussT, and typical of the false definitions used by creationists to make arguments that are curiously not about evolution. We'll call this "RussTolution" -- and agree with RussT that it is totally absurd.

(2) Abiogenesis is a whole different field of study from evolutionary biology, one that is independent of evolutionary biology. Evolution can exist without abiogenesis, as all it needs is pre-existing life, any pre-existing life, which then evolves. Thus including abiogenesis in the definition of evolution is false, and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution really involves. The "Abiogenesis is just plain crazy" claim is just the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

(3) "Progressive Beneficial Mutation" is another false representation. Not one university teaches that evolution occurs by this process. This is also false because evolution is not "progressive" - it is opportunistic: if an organism has a beneficial mutation it will take advantage of that opportunity to survive and breed, and if it has a mutation that allows it to explore a new ecology then it has a whole opportunity to survive and breed.

(4) "the ratio of harmful mutation to beneficial mutation" on it's own is not a problem as this ignores that natural selection means that the ratio of beneficial mutations to harmful ones is higher in the next generation. Subsequent generations will continue to concentrate the beneficial mutations and eliminate the harmful ones.

(5) "symmetry" is another logical fallacy, this time the argument from incredulity. Curiously a multicellular organism can create several different kinds of symmetry just by duplicating parts. Thus we see starfish and jellyfish with several identical arms arrayed in a radial symmetrical pattern. This is simpler to do than to develop whole different patterns for each arm or tentacle. If we look at octopus we see a similar radial arrangement, but also a front to back organization caused by the simple addition of visual organs that look forward, and with this alignment established we see a differentiation between front and back legs, a differentiation that is mirrored from one side to the other for the same cause, adaptation to forward vision. Instead of being a complex problem, symmetry is a simple solution, one that occurs very soon in the fossil record after the development of multicellular life forms.

(6) "...immediately becomes mathematically absurd" is just another demonstration of not understanding the difference between mathematics and reality. Mathematics models reality, but does not control it: no mathematical equation will make a single thing occur in reality. If there is any conflict between a mathematical model and what happens in reality, the model is what is wrong. There is the old urban myth about a Boeing Aeronautical Engineer that mathematically proved that bees cannot fly. Obviously no bees fell to the earth never to fly again, and what was found was that certain assumptions in the calculations turned out to be false.

Just like each of the above assertions by RussT turn out to be based on a false understanding of evolution. Thus when RussT says:



You can make an educated guess that it really has nothing to do with evolution. Certainly it would be a correct guess in this case.

Enjoy.

RussTolution is undoubtedly absurd. Presented as it is, I would never believe such a thing and I have trouble understanding how anyone does -- except for the fact that, as far as I know, there isn't any such individual.

On a semi-unrelated note but one connected with the whole evolution of the eye debate, I'd be interested in hearing what the RussTolution school of thought says regarding such animals as Proteus anguinus, known also as the olm, proteus and literally the "human fish" when translated from other languages. This is a species which grows eyes during its larval stage which then later regress and even atrophy by full maturity. Why do they possess eyes at all if they do not use them? And why do they start to work and then eventually stop? I realize that according to RussTolution the notion that maybe, just maybe, they had operable eyes somewhere in their ancestry prior to becoming subterranean inhabitants which then became inoperable as the need was no longer present is an absurd idea. I just don't know what makes it absurd. I don't claim to be an expert in the field however.

Good eye, Russ T. And this is confirmed by the urgency with which some are seeking to change the subject.

I don't anticipate a lot of discussion on the topic of the thread. I will say that when people conclude God exists, it doesn't necessarily make them feel good.

Hey Pwwca,

Looks like we can ask CTD the same question, seeing as he is a follower of RussT and an adherent to the RussTolution school of thought.

Curious how one can conclude that demolishing the logic of an argument is somehow trying to change the subject ...

... Or that trying to apply the "RussTolution" definition in actual practice, is trying to change the subject.

Enjoy.

Another one to add to the atrophying eyes is collagen. My daugher was asking me today what feathers are made of (she'd found a pigeon feather in the garden). I told her they are made of the same material as finger and toe nails, hair, beaks and claws: collagen.

If God created every organism individually, it's curious that so many of these creatures' bodies create collagen for such similar uses. I mean, God could have chosen to use any material at all. It's sort of like homologous structures really. Why would a creator make homologous structures when creatures could have been made so very differently from each other? Like the sorting of the fossil record in the geological column, is God having a joke on us, in making it appear that organisms are related to each other?

"Homologous structures" are, by definition the result of evolution.

For anyone who ever went to school of any kind in the past 30 years—I will let them decide how true your claim is.

Unfortunately, I don't believe you to be an honest person.

This silly teaching is rampant and has been for a long time, and has been entitled "evolution" by the people teaching it, whether teachers, professors, biologists, or any number of others in various fields.

The strawman is your tactic, not mine.

Let me again post a video revealing the backpedaling of disciples of evolutionary faith.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z


"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

Thanks RussT

Curiously, anyone really interested in the truth can contact the universities that teach biological evolution for bachelor, masters and doctorate degrees -- the degrees needed to be a professional biologist.

And yet you can test my honesty by contacting those universities.

Strangely, this kind of ad hominem argument is the usual result of cognitive dissonance, when you are confronted with evidence that contradicts your pet beliefs the first rationalization is that the person presenting the evidence is lying.

Curiously, this refuge from reality doesn't make the evidence go away nor change reality.

Strangely we have already shown that debate by video is dishonest, as anyone can make a video say anything.

Curiously the only definitions that matter are the ones evolutionary biologists use while doing evolutionary biology, because they are the ones doing evolutionary biology.

Silly definitions from anyone else are not actually used to DO evolutionary biology, so they are irrelevant, and really only demonstrate ignorance of the science of evolutionary biology.

Strangely you have not demonstrated any straw man in any of my arguments, while I have demonstrated many false claims, logical fallacies, and lying (such as your quotes ascribed to Darwin). I don't need to BELIEVE you are not an honest person: you demonstrate it.

Enjoy.

What's strange is that you think you can convince folks "Some videos are dishonest, therefore all videos are dishonest" is anything other than a pathetic logical fallacy.

Of course, CTD,



And the way that you refute such fallacies is to demonstrate that the video in question is honest.

Perhaps you would like to do that? The "lecture" is full of false quotemines, and it uses the logical fallacy of appeal to authority to justify using the quotemines. It uses two different false definitions of evolution, neither of which represent any definition used in any university. He also uses the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

RussT has referenced this video before, and it has already been shown to be full of falsehoods. We've been over the Gould quotemines before.

His "new definition" of "evolution = natural selection" does not match what is really taught in evolutionary biology. That is a falsehood. He's full of malarky, not reality.

His division of change in biological traits into horizontal and vertical is also a falsehood: genes are not transmitted horizontally but vertically from parent to offspring, the same exact process that results in speciation and the diversification of populations after speciation.

The facts remain that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - has been observed, and speciation has been observed. Claiming otherwise, as this "false profiteer" does, is dishonest.

Proving a false representation of evolution to be false is not proving that the correct representation of evolution is false. It is just proving ignorance of the proper definition of evolution.

Once again you are stuck with showing that the definitions of evolution as used by evolutionary biologists to do evolutionary biology is false or all you are doing is making a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

And IF you think the definition of evolution has changed since Darwin's formulation - as claimed in this absurd video - then you need to demonstrate that his "descent by modification" is not completely covered by the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation OR that there was some OTHER element to Darwin's theory that has been removed.

If you remember, this is a previous assertion of yours that you have been challenged to support and so far you have yet to substantiate in any way, even though you have complete access to the full works of Darwin on line.

So yes, you are right that this does not prove that all videos are false, it just demonstrates that the videos that RussT has posted are false.

Enjoy.

No. Logical fallacies don't require active refutation. By definition fallacies are bogus arguments.

Nonsense! For all your purported education and knowledge, you've never heard of horizontal gene transfer?

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Get informed before you talk trash.

Now you are equivocating, CTD

Curiously this was NOT what the lecturer was talking about, so this does NOT validate the lecture in any way.

It also has not been shown to pass any heritable traits in multicellular organisms, so it's major effect is on unicellular organisms.

So your "counterargument" is a logical fallacy AND it is demonstrated to be wrong.

Curiously, we are not talking about refutation but about substantiation that the fallacy in question applies to the object of the argument.

Not so strangely you have not done that either -- typical.

Enjoy.

Duh! As you'd already departed from what the lecturer was talking about, when I showed you wrong it still had nothing to do with what the lecturer was talking about.

If your argument had been to the point, the fact that there is horizontal gene transfer would have also been on target.

Yes, as a joke, I committed the logical fallacy of accepting what RAZD said. Shame it went over your head.

Since when? You just saidCare to keep up with your own assertions?

In fact, you didn't even need to scroll up; the nested quote was right there looking you in the face. Why don't you scroll up now and take a look.

Better yet, why not discuss something on-topic?

Silly CTD

Guess you didn't watch the silly video, or you wouldn't make such a silly comment.

Enjoy.

Evolutionary Faith is Backpedaling

Evolution is redefining itself, of necessity. People are finally waking up and realizing how ridiculous it is.

Again, only recently it is being redefined as natural selection. Evolution, up until the past couple years, has been taught as primordial soup -to- man.

It's time for all of us to be intellectually honest.

Natural selection is not evolution:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z