News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well.

This distraction—in order to be effective—must be so overwhelming in quantity so as to cause the one being deceived (the target) to completely forget the basic facts of the lie—the fundamentals. The target must be continuously distracted from the obvious fundamental truth because if they were allowed to think about it for enough time, they would realize how obvious it is that they are being lied to. Of course, this is much easier to accomplish if the target is a willing subject, in which case you only need to appeal to the predispositions of the victim, and these predispositions themselves can be shaped through youthful conditioning.

This tactic of "distraction" is what I call "magic" because it is the same tactic used my magicians.

Magicians (illusionists) make you look over "there" so you don't consider the obvious thing that must be going on over "here". They do this to create an illusion. The marketing of evolution uses this very tactic to promote it's wares for the ultimate profit of its promoters (covered in another thread).

With this in mind, let's reexamine is the fundamental truth in this entire discussion about evolution.

Here is the distraction:

We have been told about about butterflies and moths and cosmic molecules and signaling molecules and transitional forms and mutations over and over again, but the simple, fundamental problem with the logic behind both rock-to-cell and cell-to-man evolution is this:

Science—being at its core, the discovery of the rules of nature—has not discovered rules that would facilitate the formation of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines from known matter. In fact, science has not even begun to approach the level of discovery that would be required to facilitate even the smallest steps of evolution.

Let me give you an example and attempt to make this concept clear.

There are rules that exist in nature that consistently cause hydrogen and oxygen molecules to bond. These rules are well-known and act very consistently. (See Hydrogen Bond)

They are relatively simple rules (to the chemist anyway) that cause many known reactions to occur between hydrogen and other compounds. These rules are so well known that it is possible to predict how hydrogen will react in a given chemical environment.

Now, we also know the resulting condition brought about by these rules, and that is—these rules that cause these simple bonds do not cause the formation of complex machines. We know this because our level of understanding of these rules—which is so thorough that it allows us to make accurate predictions about hydrogen bonding—understands what their limits are.

To attempt to simplify this concept even further, lets say you have a lego set, and in this set there are only 20 types of blocks. Now there are most certainly rules associated with each type of block that dictate how these blocks join together.

With these rules in place, there are many wonderful things that you can make, but you will never be able to make a book with turning pages and intelligible type on each page. It's impossible to do because you are limited by the rules that govern how each type of block can fit together, and by the block shape, size, and color itself.

Now, we have to bring this example into a more biological scope.

We would all agree that the pieces of matter that are the building blocks of a human body can be fit together to make a human body. We all would agree that this is so because we can see human bodies and we can see that they are made of of all these natural "lego" blocks.

But then, when we translate this example from the realm of the lego to the realm of biological life, we are no longer asking the question:

Can these building blocks be put together to create a human body?

Instead, we are asking the question:

What is the process that put these building blocks together?

And so, that is the subject of evolution: the process.

In our example about the lego blocks, there was clearly an intelligent being assembling the parts together and anyone who would see a small toy house built out of lego blocks would have to agree that this house did not form in the lego shipping container while the container was being delivered to someone's house. It was assembled by an external intelligence—an intelligence external to the house itself.

We would all agree that no matter how much the shipping container was shaken, even if it was shaken for decades, a beautiful toy house will never self-assemble.

Now, the really interesting part to consider is this following idea:

The rules that allow a house to assemble are already in place, they do exist.. In other words, we know that you can create a toy house from the parts, and we know this because the rules that allow the pieces to come together will allow this (we've tried it and seen the house we've built), but what we learn when we shake the shipping container for decades and never see a house form teaches us that these rules which cause the pieces to come together are simply not enough in-and-of-themselves to form the house. This process—shaking—just doesn't do it. There must be something more.

So we have to ask ourselves:

What kind of rules would have to exist in order for this shaking process (a "random" process) to form something complex, like a toy house?

Well, we might need to make legos that have some kind of special snapping hinge on them so that certain types of the 20 lego blocks only join together a certain way. Of course, this hinge would have to be perfectly designed to work and join and not break under the conditions of the shaking. There might also need to be another kind of connector on another kind of lego block that allows a different kind of block to join together a certain way, again, carefully designed so it will work in the particular environment it is in but without breaking.

Now this process of developing these hinges and connectors in just the right places and at just the right angles to allow lego blocks to join together to form a toy house when they are all put into a shipping container and shaken together would be a daunting task, in fact, it may be very nearly impossible because not only do the legos have to fit together the right way to make a house, with the random process of shaking their container, there is no guarantee that they will join in just the right places, in the right order, with the right force to form the toy house, and all this without breaking.

However, you say, with all these hinges and connectors, you would certainly end up with something that has some degree of complexity, and this is most certainly the case. You would likely end up with something that is agreeably complex to some degree, but you would virtually never end up with something that is complex and symmetrical. Yes, you may end up with 3 or 4 parts (simple) that join together in a symmetrical fashion, but the probability that the 5th or 6th part is going to join together in just the right fashion so as to make the resulting structure symmetrical diminishes exponentially with each new part.

Now, lets say we were really smart and wanted to join parts together using random processes (shaking) that would end up with a structure that would be able to reproduce new items just like itself. Well, this would be no easy task.

We should be able to see that one approach to solving this reproduction problem would be to build a toy house that contains a device that shakes a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house that contains a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house; and so on.

Now, using this demonstration using simple lego blocks that have a few associated rules, any intelligent person can see that accomplishing the task described above is virtually impossible. But even while we view the impossibility of this task, we have to consider one thing that was necessary to make this valiant effort possible:

We have to consider the fact that, throughout this entire process, there was an intelligence outside the device that was designing and then building the whole thing, and even with all this intelligence, this was a virtually impossible task.

At this point, an evolutionist would likely say that increasing the number of the types (or shapes) of lego blocks and increasing the number of hinges (rules governing processes) would increase the likelihood of producing a complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine.

The fundamental problem with this assumption is this:

Increasing the number of hinges actually decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now lego blocks can be joined at many more angles than before. This makes naturally-occurring symmetry far less likely.

But what if we increased the number and types of lego blocks that are in the shipping container. That would surely increase the likelihood of symmetry, right?

No. In fact, this also dramatically decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now there are even more chances that each block will be joined in a non-symmetrical way, and on top of this, each new block that is joined creates more opportunity for asymmetry (non-symmetry).

So, if you follow this example to the biological level and apply many types of elements and many type bonding rules for these small parts, the chance of symmetry occurring decreases exponentially and rapidly fades into oblivion.

The clear and simple conclusion is that it takes a very intelligent being to take building blocks that have numerous and flexible connection options to make complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

But now for the fun part: Magic.

The countless arguments that attempt to pull us away from these basic, fundamental truths—as contrived and inaccurate as so many of them are in reality—don't matter because of this simple premise of logic:

If it takes 3 steps to get from A to D (A->B, B->C, C->D) and if you can never take the first step (A->B), then all the other steps you dream about, wish for, or imagine don't matter one bit. The fact is, you're never going to get to B, much less D.

Because of the lack of bonding rules that support those that would be required for self-assembly, evolution could never even get off the ground. The only explanation is an intelligence that is external to the machine.

People who fall into the trap of evolutionary thinking are generally what are called emotionally-based—that is, they make a higher ratio of decisions based on emotions or emotional predispositions than do intellectually-based people. These emotionally-based people are just the kind of people who are able to be distracted by the magic of evolution's so-called details, and this causes them to forget the fundamentals.

Ironically, emotionalism knows no occupational boundaries. Scientists and doctors are just as likely to be influenced by emotional predisposition as are those of other occupations.

So the important point is:

Don't forget the fundamentals.

Now, there are so many other fundamental problems with evolution that people don't often talk about because they're caught up in the magic. One of them is transitional forms.

Fossils clearly show an abrupt appearance of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines. This is clear evidence of intelligent design.

If evolution is occurring, then all fossils are transitional forms, and if this is the case, and if symmetry formed over time, why is there an ominous lack of non-symmetrical complex animals. How on Earth can you explain all this amazing and abrupt symmetry.

You certainly cannot because there is no natural explanation. There is only extremely frail speculation by emotionally-based evolutionists who continue to attempt to drown themselves in the magic to help themselves forget about the logic and reason staring them bluntly in the face.


"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
—Luke 10:21


Children often see logic that evades the aged soul.

In science we say that when our understanding of the issue (usually a stated theory) is contradicted by the evidence that the conclusion, the understanding is falsified.

Logically all fossils are transitional (due to the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation), but also (logically) symmetry is not necessary. There are many kinds of symmetry, and you can find examples of bilateral symmetry and pentagonal radial symmetry to name two. To claim that symmetry is necessary would mean that you would need to have both kinds, unless I am missing something.


How do you reach this conclusion. You say clearly, but I don't see any logical development of your argument or anything but a lack of evidence on way or the other. How does this support a conclusion of design?

Enjoy.

I think your buried in magic here.

The core of the post is simple. There are no baseline rules that support the processes necessary for the development of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

Why did I focus on symmetry?

I particularly focused on the symmetry because it's very easy to see and understand because symmetry is clearly visible.

Here is another example that may help illustrate.

You can grow crystals from salt that form 3 dimensionally symmetrical objects (cubes). This does not surprise us because we know and understand that the reason these crystals form is because there are bonding rules (processes) that support their formation.

Simple enough.

On the other hand, the bonding rules (processes) that we are aware of don't (even come close to) facilitate the formation of complex symmetry. They are simply absent, and this is therefore strong evidence that evolution cannot occur.

How is this strong evidence that evolution cannot occur?

In the same way (using the same logic) that if you get in your car and notice that the windshield is missing, based on what the everyday person know about physics, this would be strong evidence that the driver of the car would get wet while driving in the rain.

Simple.

It's all about rules. The whole universe is built on rules.

We have observed genetics on different levels for some time and know that information is lost or degraded in efficiency—not gained—through mutations. Therefore, it is simple to understand that "design" does not improve, it degrades.

An good example of this is racehorse breeding which spends enormous resources to make a better racehorse, yet there is still a decline in performance in the long-term.

Small changes over time... Yes.

Improvements in efficiency, increases in complexity, or new parts ... No.



OK, let me put it this way.

You are strolling along the beach. You watch the waves rolling up on the shore. All is well.

The next day, you visit the same beach and see an eloquent sandcastle in the sand. You know that it was not there yesterday.

Logic concludes that some intelligence outside the realm of the sand itself created this formation.

How do you know this?

You can logically conclude this because you understand how waves interact with sand on a beach.

To put it another way, you understand the consistent rules (processes) involving the interaction between the waves and the sand, and because you understand this interaction, you know that the waves are not capable of creating this type of formation.

Evolutionists may argue that give enough time—perhaps millions of years—this formation could form by itself, (but really, that is quite silly) but we'd probably agree that it surely could not form overnight.

Simple.

Does that make sense?

[color:"brown"]Yes, abrupt timing is everything.[/color]

Yes, even evolutionists understand this because they keep adding millions of years on the age of the Earth to facilitate the processes they claim occur.

It's all about timing.

Thanks Russ, to me it's common sense. I can't see how anybody can imagine in their wildest dreams that any amount of time additions can make the impossible seem suddenly "possible" or even logical.

Surely the way the universe works and everything contained demands design? I don't know of anything I use or rely upon that doesn't have an author/maker behind it.....myself included <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps Mum and Dad just relied on chance random processes and a lot of time and...<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" /> and here <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/funnyfaces.gif" alt="" /> here I am! afterall, that's the rule of our origins, just cross your fingers and who knows, it might get lucky and give birth to another world through a big bang, or lots of other imagined probabilities <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> with billions of years worth of evolution bearing its fruits in lots of other people debating on creation/evolution forums <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/computerhammer.gif" alt="" /> on complicated computers designed by "chance random processes" about how it all happened.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> "hmmm".............

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smilieworship.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/graduation.gif" alt="" /> "uh huh"!!

Ah. You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. When it comes to abiogenesis, the origin of life, the evidence is that the oldest fossil bearing rocks found already show life, 3.5 billion years ago. This means that the jury is out: it could be created, it could be a chemical process. Science will say “we don't know” in this case.

That doesn't affect the evolution of life after that point.

Which has nothing to do with life forms. I thought we were discussing life, not automechanics 101.

Actually that has not been proven that I am aware of and I am disappointed that you would make such an assertion without having some evidence to substantiate it as being factual.

It has not been proven as far as I am aware, for the simple reason that it has not even been tested. To test it you need a metric that can measure the amount of “information” in the DNA of different organisms and quantify the changes, and I am not aware of any such metric. Of course you can prove me wrong by providing a metric that has been used and the scientific article (journal reference the whole bit) documenting actual measurement of “information” in DNA of different species.

But even with that small technical problem aside there is the problem of Barry Hall's experiment with e. coli where he disabled a mechanism to metabolize lactose and the bacteria re-evolved the same ability with a different chemical process. You can read about it on: A true acid test by Ken Miller:

Now, I would think that the destruction of an existing gene would qualify as a “loss” of “information” seeing as mutations can cause a loss, right? Logically then the evolution of a replacement system must increase information to replace what was lost, or the loss of information is irrelevant to the evolution of this process.

Then there is the issue of wings in walkingsticks. This picture from an article in Nature about the evolutionary history of walkingsticks shows wings evolving, wings being lost and wings evolving. Look at Lopaphus parakensis for example: winged, wingless, winged, wingless. Now please explain to me how this can happen if “information” is only lost by mutations: logically either information was added in at least one of those changes, or the loss of information is irrelevant to the evolution or loss of wings.

Conclusion: either information has been added by evolution - the change in hereditary traits in a population from one generation to another - or the concept of information is useless in discussing what can and cannot evolve. In either case the concept of “information loss only” is falsified as a barrier to evolution.

Or you are not looking at the full picture. Small changes over small time, yes. Longer time not evaluated.

When we look at the ancestor of the horse, back to what is commonly called “eohippus,” we see a small dog-sized animal with paws and toes in front and back similar to those of a dog. In the 55 million years since then it evolved the unique hoof of the modern horse, a hoof that also incorporates a supplementary pump to assist in blood flow in the legs while running:

The fossil record of the evolution of the horse is pretty complete and shows the gradual change in hereditary traits in populations from one period to the next over those 55 million years - evolution. By any rational person's measure that is an increase in complexity and the evolution of a new part, or the definition you use does not apply to or limit what can happen with evolution.

Logical seeing as sand is not alive or capable of evolving. Also irrelevant to life evolving. Do you ever use an example of a living system?

Evolutionists would not argue that because it doesn't involve life, reproduction and an evolving system. You argued this and put it in “evolutionists” mouths so you could then attack this straw man argument instead of real evolution. This is a logical fallacy, another disappointment.

No, evolutionary biologists just use the information, the evidence that is there. The evidence says the earth is 4.55 billion years old, and it comes from geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy, but not from evolutionary biology.

Meanwhile, we have the already discussed evidence of e. coli, the wings on walkingstick insects, and the hooves of horses, evidence that does show the addition of features not present in ancestors. This evidence of the real world proves your argument to be false.

Enjoy.

Russ this is the exact same post you answered me with on the Turkey thread. You and Bex seem to be making the point that human beings could not have evolved by chance. That there must be a God "building" all the life we see.

What is wrong with the idea that evolution is God's way of doing the building?

Let me make two point here. First, the theory of abiogenesis is separate from the theory of evolution. I've made this clear a number of times. Evolution does not attempt to explain how life began, but what happened to it once it did. Mutation and natural selection are fundamental ways in which this works. Life on earth was nothing more than unicellular organisms for a few billion years, before more complex life arose. That is a lot of time for mutation and natural selection to be working on those simple organisms at a basic level. Think of how many organisms there would have been in the seas, in which these prcesses were working for so much time that it's difficult to imagine.

As for you idea of building houses from 20 kinds of bricks, you only need 4 letters: A,G,C,T.

What's more, you seem to be looking at the "ladder" idea of evolution again -- that the goal of evolution was to produce us, and that this is statistically impossible. 2 ideas here. One, evolution is a random process and we happened to be a result of that. Much science fiction has been written on speculations about what future intelligent species on earth could be like. Two, as I said, maybe we're not so random. Evolution could be God's will in action.

Either way, the universe is the universe no matter what one's belief system is. Why should our interpretations of it somehow change or threaten what God is, if God is timeless, omnipotent and omniscient? Surely looking at the evidence and interpreting it is better than trying to explain it away?

Why are evolutionists slow to give up their beliefs in light of compelling creationist science?

[color:"brown"]"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."[/color]

Tolstoy 1828-1910
As quoted in "Chaos: Making A New Science", James Gleick

You see, ironically, to believe evolution is to misunderstand human nature.



Whether or not I believed in God, I would not accept the myth of evolution. It is astounding that people actually accept that small machines (cells) self-assemble into complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines (humans).

It is on par with believing that a computer, left on for a long enough time will acquire more complex software. There is nothing I've ever encountered that is as ridiculous and more against true science, which I happen to love.


Remember the fundamentals.


That depends on which "brand" of evolution you are having faith in.

Have you ever heard of chemical evolution?

You told me that you believe that rocks can turn into mankind given enough time.


True, but there is no evidence for cell-to-man evolution. Neither is there for rock-to-cell evolution.

Believing either of these religions requires a level of delusion that I cannot attain.

I believe RAZD explained to you, as I have probably 10 times, that rocks turning into people is a strawman. Yet you persist in making this rhetorical point. To whom?

RAZD also told you, regarding your sandcaste example as well as the windscreen one, that evolution deals with reproducing life. These examples of inanimate objects built by humans are non sequiturs.

I don't understand why you see this as a 'strawman' argument Linda. The idea of abiogenisis (sp?) that Russ has made it quite clear he's referring to was taught for quite some time as valid evolutionary theory and still exerts it's influence in the minds of many people. Not everyone is a scientist, and they don't all run to keep up on the most recent and ever changing evolutionary theories, most don't. If it was taught as valid theory just 25 or 30 years ago, then, in the minds of many living people, it still exists and influences their thinking in this regard, you can be sure.

RAZD described his defintion of evolution basically as 'phylogeny'., the tree theory essentially.

fact is, that is how life, mankind in particular since the bible is a record of a certain group of people and those that they encounter, is essentially described in the bible as well. The bible describes this tree or that tree, this branch that branch etc. It doesn't go into all the fine minute macro details of course but the basics are all there. the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the branch of david, etc.

Russ makes an argument for the creator of the design. Whether or not that is applied to living organism or organic , even inorganic matter isn't really important, they all apply. Because in order for the tree to exist it must first have a place to exist. It had to begin somewhere. Phylogenics simply presents a form of the idea of encoded DNA, not sure if it's offically described that way, but biologists have been looking at this for years., encoded DNA. DNA of particular species of any sort that is encoded in part with what appear to be the essential code of life/biology/intelligence of or very similar to, all species. Where the 'code' came from is not being addressed by phylogenics.

Again, the bible has presented that idea from the outset, the tree of life, even if in vague terms. Evolution has theorized more complicated terms and intricate relationships not mentioned in the bible, but has yet to prove any of them in regard to contrasting species. God still holds the key.

The important point about this, though, is that abiogenesis is a separate theory from evolution. Evolution describes what happened to life once it existed. There is little evidence for how life actually began and there is much uncertainty about abiogenesis and how it theoretically could work. At the moment it would not be inconsistent with the existing evidence to say that God created the first life on earth. But we're not going to learn anything about that if we don't study it.

You can read an excellent article about abiogenesis here. It is quite accessible and makes no pretenses that we are anywhere close to finding answers. But you can read about current theories, as well as theories competing with abiogenesis (it mentions life possible arriving here on meteors from other planets, which is called panspermia).

What makes Russ' rocks-into-people mantra misleading is the fact that evolution explains what happened to life when it began, not how it began. And absolutely no one thinks that "rocks" sprang to life and evolved, though "primordial soup" is a term most people are familiar with.

Peronally, I play my agnostic card here. There isn't much evidence and so I'm happy to say we just don't know. I'm keen to hear about what discoveries are made in this area.

I'm sure the theories are as endless as the human imagination itself. I'm really not interested in it all though. Digging digging digging in theoretric holes seems rather futile to me. Some people have made themselves names with very creative ideas concerning it, and that's nice, but there isn't any real proof of anything. they have proven the futility of it more than anything.

serious, I think what all the digging digging digging only proves, is that we know much less about life on this planet than a lot of self-respecting scientists want to admit. But they make a nice living digging so what the heck.

some people dig in other areas, like faith. they come up with answers too. imagine that. imagine searching for God and actually encountering him. That would probably get your attention and change your perspective in a heartbeat.

it's been known to happen.

There's really only one truth as regards a lot of things... and that is, that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

far as sciences are concerned, and evolution attempting to fit in as a science, that statement is probably more true for it than any other branch of science.

I said there was a lack of evidence for how life began on earth. I did not say there was a lack of evidence for evolution. The evidence is there across many different scientific disciplines, including geology, archaeology, biology and genetics, to name a few.

------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the (religions) are as endless as the human imagination itself. I'm really not interested in it all though. Digging digging digging in (religious) holes seems rather futile to me. Some people have made themselves names with very creative ideas concerning it, and that's nice, but there isn't any real proof of anything. they have proven the futility of it more than anything.

serious, I think what all the digging digging digging only proves, is that we know much less about (God) than a lot of self-respecting (religious leaders) want to admit. But they make a nice living digging so what the heck.

some people dig in other areas, like (truth). they come up with answers too. imagine that. imagine searching for (truth) and actually encountering (evidence). That would probably get your attention and change your perspective in a heartbeat.

it's been known to happen.
-----------------------------------------------------
Tell me...if seeking God means you will encounter him, then why are there so many different religions in the world?

I realize that investigating the biological past of this planet is not something you are interested in, and that's ok. However, your statement has portrayed the life's work of many scientists as an irrelevant waste of time, done only to make money and purposely obscure the truth.

My modification of your statement was meant to give you an inkling of what it is like to have something important to you treated in that manner.

I apologize if it caused you any discomfort.

Nope, don't mind at all, I'm in perfect agreement with you. Futile is futile. doesn't matter if it's a non-existent science or god.

well truly linda, geology and archeology have about as much to do with evolution as a ferris wheel has to do with pickles.

Evolution is not the same as history, sorry and in a previous post you made just this morning you argued against evolution having anything to with anything outside of living creatures so why are you sticking geology in there now? are you getting ready to argue abiogenises again?.

Biology and genetics clip along quite well without the influence of evolutionary theories. Evolutuion hasn't taught those fields anything, it learns from them.

Evidence for evolution comes from them. A lot of hard evidence. Archaeology tells us about the kinds of organisms that have lived on the earth all the way back to the earliest fossil, and geology helps us to date those organisms and to learn more about the conditions in which they lived and died. These fields obviously encompass much more but these are some of their major contributions to evolutionary theory.

And one of the major ways we date things in geology is by looking at radioactive decay. I explained in another thread how Henry Morris' claims about radiometric and isochron dating being useless, are flawed. If you have fresh evidence about how they are flawed then you are welcome to present it.



You're almost there with this I think SoSick; it's one of the most sensible things I've read from you. Yes evolutionary theory is informed by biology and genetics, but in all science there is a flow of information back and forth. No scientific field stands in isolation without being aware of what other fields have been discovering. That's one way our whole body of knowledge moves forward.

I can't see how I can suddenly be almost anywhere since I haven't changed my position on these things an iota in years.

Yes Linda, evolution draws it's information and ideas from many sources, even some you haven't included here. But it's not a back and forth thing. It's just evolution sucking from other fields all the time but never contributing anything. Evolutionary theories change over the years as other fields of science, genetics/biology especially, undoubteldly prove that currently held ideas about evolution are undoubtedly wrong. Evolution never proves itself wrong. In itself, it's infalliable, you cannot prove something wrong if it's never been proven right to begin with. It's just always a big 'IF'.

All other fields of science exist quite well without the theory of evolution. There is some question as to whether or not evolutionary theories are actually beneficial to progress in other fields however. It's actually often a stumbling block to truth.... for instance... if the theories that we know today that have been proven undoubtedly wrong in the past half century had never existed then people would had never been taught them, possibly wasting decades of their lives on the wrong paths.

I think the misconception here is in separating evolution from different sciences, as if it is some kind of vampire sucking its life from them while contributing nothing itself.

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." By that time, the theory of evolution was firmly established through one confirming discovery after another, in every single biological discipline from anthropology, through molecular biology and paleontology (filling in the “missing” intermediate forms of life, for example), to zoology.

There is always a wealth of creative arguments among scientists about technical details to be resolved, but the basic framework of evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It is as solidly based as the heliocentric theory of our planetary universe, because there exists no meaningful falsifiable evidence to contradict it. If the theory of evolution turns out to be wrong, a very unlikely proposition, it could only be replaced by another and better scientific theory—not by spurious special pleadings for which no scientific evidence exists.


I haven't seen any scientific evidence that proves creationism to be right, but I can explain why the scientific claims of its leaders are wrong.


Only in the minds of creationists.


Which major false theories are these, that had scientists so bamboozled in the last 50 years that scientific progress was held up by decades?

Y'all a jus' so much fuuun!

Note that my description of evolution here has consistently been:

[color:"blue"] Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. [/color]

That definition is in my very first post on this forum: it was to you on your thread.

Now we were talking on that thread about ethics: is this another example of christian ethics? To misrepresent what I said? Phylogeny - the tree of life - is a result of evolution, the “macro” effect if you will, but it is not the process nor the theory nor the science of evolution.

Or is it just basic incomprehension of concepts? Delusion? Professor Dawkins talked about the possible reasons for misunderstanding or misrepresenting evolution when he said:

[color:"purple"]"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."[/color]

Once you've been told the truth you can no longer be ignorant, so that would leave the other three. Now, I find him a little heavy on the antitheist side of the issues, but I have to wonder if there are any other reasons that can make people (a) make false statements about evolution and (b) about what other people say. Particularly any valid reasons.

Um, because it is?

A straw man is defined as
Russ' “definition” does not even begin to describe what evolution is as a process, as a theory or as a science, therefore it is a straw man. It's a slogan that helps define his argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy (and one that's a different issue).

With another logical fallacy. It's an invalid construction this time:

All {A} is {B}
{B} exists
Therefore {A} exists

All designers make designs
Design exists
Therefore a designer must exist.

The problem is that there is {C} that is also {B} and that is not{A}, and the existence of {C} means you have {B} but cannot conclude {A}. The construction is invalid and it leads to an invalid conclusion.

Design happens naturally, in snow flakes, in crystals, in the orbits of planets around stars, all occurring by natural processes with no designer needed to explain them. Therefore {C} exists and you cannot conclude {A} from the existence of {B}.

I hope that helps.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

Linda, the opinion of one or even a few remote people of reknown are not all that valuable given the enormity of the deception and false science concerned.

One example. .. I for instance. was taught through high school that man decended from apes. I remember well the little drawings in textbooks presented to show how man made this transition.

Is that still the same theory of evolution that is being taught today? How is that one idea actually beneficial to biology or any other branch of science? Or, has the idea, planted as a concrete unarguable scientific fact in the minds of many people, actually caused them to stumble repeatedly looking for clues to answers to questions about life in many of the wrong places?

As a comparison, lets say you needed some money. Would it be more effective to go and get a job or would it be more effective trying to convince yourself that somewhere in your house there must be a bag containing a million dollars and so spend your time trying to find it instead of going out and simply earning a paycheck in a manner that is well known to succeed?

because that essentially is what evolutionists have done... claimed for years and years to have all the answers... the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow... but when you actually get there, the pot is empty. Until that point you don't realize that your years and years of learning and hearing about the pot of gold you were seeking were all in vain.

That is what evolution has done to many people engaging in scientific pursuits. When new discoveries are actually made, they are made independently or simply suddenly show up because someone was observing in the right place at the right time, causing evolution to be rewritten and re-theorized over and over.

That is exactly why theory should not be taught as scientific fact. No other field of science allows that.

I hope you have taken note of some of RAZD's comments above? I don't see evidence here that you've read them.



More empty bluster, unless you can back this up with evidence, which no one here has been able to do so far. I have been showing how creationist leaders deceive by disseminating scientific inaccuracies. Can you show me what your perceived deceptions are about evolution?[/quote]

The rest of this post seems to be a rant about how evolutionary ideas have misled people. Again, where is your evidence for this? Can you explain to me how the fossil record and genetics are wrong about the evolution of humans?

Evolution is a fundamental fact underpinning biology and genetics. They all complement each other. Mutation and natural selection are processes essential to all three. Why don't you have a browse of Talk Origins, where there's a wealth of information about science and evolution to answer your questions.

Yes, it is deceptive to use drawings in high school textbooks (not known for scientific accuracy in any science btw, as they are not written by scientists but editors working for a book company that wants to turn a profit), especially when there is actual evidence you can use (drawings aren't evidence are they?)

The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree, Copyright © 1999-2002 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.(1999-2002):

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Note that (A) is a modern chimpanzee and than (J), (K) and (L) are neanderthals - another branch on the hominid tree.

Of course there is some discussion these days whether chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, and bonobos, Pan paniscus, (the homosexual\bisexual chimp), should be classified as Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus due to their genetic and morphological similarities.

And then there is recent finds since that article\picture\list, like the finds of Homo sapiens fossils in Ethiopia: 160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans, Robert Sanders, 11 June 2003
Note the concordance between the genetic information and the fossil information, and that the skull pictured fits to the right of (I) and the left of (M) in the first picture - just where it should if evolution were correct, and just where it should if the dating were correct eh? Remarkable that such a predictable find actually validates the concept eh?

The clear but relatively minor changes in hereditary traits between these fossils (less in each step than the variation seen in modern human skulls) is another reason why I use my definition for evolution as "[color:"blue"]the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation[/color]" rather than the genetic "change in frequency of alleles" (which are difficult to measure from fossils). This is even more clear when you consider that the major difference between human and chimp is in the skull, that changes to other bones (hips, fingers, feet, etc) are smaller in scale.

Basically yes, that is being taught today (at least where science is allowed), but that is not the "theory of evolution" - it is just the evidence of evolution. It is taught, and it is beneficial because it is true, that is what the evidence shows. No theory needed.

Ideas don't create "unarguable scientific fact" no matter how sound and tested the ideas are, the "unarguable scientific fact" exists independent of those ideas. The evidence in those pictures is real, solid, objective reality. The skulls are facts not ideas. They show\demonstrate\illustrate evolution in the human lineage. That is fact. What can be wrong about teaching things that are fact? Things that are true?

People "looking for clues to answers to questions about life" are also using philosophy and faith in addition to scientific fact and theory, but the question is whether they should use known truths, validated scientific truths as a basis for building that search that extends beyond evidence and logic, beyond deduction to faith and belief. Shouldn't you start on a sound foundation? Shouldn't you start with truth? Tested truth?

But this is just a wild idea analogy, and does not relate to life or even science in general, science that is based first on evidence, then on logical deduction of theory from the evidence, prediction made by the theory, and then testing of it for validity and soundness. You analogy misses several necessary steps and so it is a straw man (remember the definition above for this logical fallacy?), and does not in any way represent evolution or any other science.

And this too is false, not just because it is based on your really weird analogy, but because evolution does not claim to "have all the answers" - no science does. Science is tentative and the conclusions (theories) only relate to the evidence and predicted results IF the theory is sound.

But more than that, science in general and evolution in particular are not philosophies that even attempt to find "all the answers" all they study is natural phenomena and the objective evidence of objective reality. If that happens to include rocks, then science will study rocks (geology), if that happens to include chemicals, then science will study chemicals (chemistry), if that happens to include stars, then science will study stars (astronomy), if that happens to include sub-atomic particles, then science will study sub-atomic particles (physics), and if that happens to include life, then science will study life (biology), and finally, if that happens to include changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, then science will study changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation (evolutionary biology).

That study will include reviewing all the evidence looking for trends and tendencies, build theories on those trends and tendencies, and then develop tests for those theories - predictions that should occur if the theory is true and should NOT occur if the theory is false (ie - either A or notA should happen, one IF the theory is true the other IF it is false). That is what the scientific method is - the method by which science is done.

Those theories, predictions and tests will involve the area of study, the rocks, the chemicals, the stars, the sub-atomic particles, the life and the changes in life. They will not "pretend" to "have all the answers" to the questions of "life, the universe, and oh, everything" (DNAdams, the "Hitchiker's Guide" series, original BBC radio version).

You are conflating evolution (a science) with all science, then with naturalism (a philosophy) and then with metaphysical naturalism, which is why you also likely (like all creationists) come to the false conclusion that evolution is atheism or necessarily atheistic. It's that "A results in B, here is B, therefore A must be true" invalid logical construction again. Once again we see that C also results in B, and therefore A cannot be concluded from B alone:

Science in general, and evolution in particular, are also parts of the philosophy of methodological naturalism:
Sounds like the creationist conflations I know from experience.

Ah yes the old creationist PRATT that "evolution is not science" because it keeps changes theories when new evidence invalidates old theories ... when that is actually a critical and necessary element of actually doing real actual science, and it is what makes evolutionary biology a science based on evidence and sound conclusions (theories).

No science teaches theory as fact, they all do teach that all scientific theories are based on fact and what those facts are, the evidence of objective reality. The science of biological evolution in particular talks about the "theory of evolution" because it is a theory.

Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of evolution in particular and science in general, make several logically invalid statements and reach conclusions that were invalid before you started.

Haven't you learned anything yet?

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

Thanks for the hominid evolution article RAZD. I was particularly interested in the sorts of funerary rites that the evidence points to. In the late neolithic, people in Britain were placing ancestral skulls in special chambers within long barrows. I got to touch one once -- a pretty amazing experience for someone who normally just sees these things in a museum.

PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times

I've been in one of those barrows, back in the '60's, with a skeleton and some artifacts and red ocher. Gave me chills. Just like when I put my foot inside a dinosaur footprint in the Paluxy river.

... <img src="http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/Slide6.JPG">

Enjoy

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

I took my daughter to the city museum today. She's very keen on dinosaurs. I was touching fossil ammonites and clams that looked like little sculptures, and they were 210 million years old. There were fossil frond-like animals from the carboniferous period that were even older. It blows me away every time. You don't need to be religious to feel awe at the nature of life and the immensity of time.

Human and Dinosaur fossils are commonly found together and in the same strata.

This is interesting in light of the fact that modern textbooks attempt to teach children that they lived millions of years apart.


Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Creation vs. Evolution Video

You are just so much fun, Russ, posting all these PRATTs. Always good for a laugh eh? Some people are just soooo gullible! You must welcome them here eh?
Only since human fossils appeared in the fossil record some 6 million to 200,000 years ago ... depending on your definitions of "human" and "dinosaur" ... by one common definition I had dinosaur thigh for dinner.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/070412_dino_tissues.html
So, one wonders, does it taste like chicken?

Referring to large dinosaurs that died out in the K-T extinction event:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html
I have been to Paluxy and put my foot in a dinosaur footprint that I cleaned out with my own hands:

<img src="http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/Slide6.JPG">

There are not even any footprints at Paluxy small enough to fit the biggest human, to say nothing about the shapes being all wrong.

There were no human footprints there. There have been hoax footprints (admitted by the perpetrator), hoaxes that keep getting perpetuated by creationist sites ... and now we get to play the "who keeps using hoaxes" game.

Hint #1:
Hoaxes uncovered by creationists = 0
Hoaxes uncovered by scientists = most
Hoaxes uncovered by media reporters, etc. = some

The textbooks teach that most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago and that humans appeared in the fossil record some 6 million to 200,000 years ago, depending on your definition of "human". This is true, as most but not all died out. We are fairly certain that all the BIG dinosaurs died out at that time, but birds are dinosaurs, chickens are dinosaurs.

Surprisingly public school textbooks, ie up to high school, are not written by scientists, but by lay people working for an editor that wants to please parents in order to sell the most textbooks.

Surprisingly public school textbooks, ie up to high school, are not selected or even evaluated by scientists for accuracy or use, they are predominantly selected by parent groups that help set the curriculum with the teachers.

NOT surprisingly there are a lot of errors and misinformation in textbooks.

Here's a group that perpetuates such errors
http://www.textbookaccuracy.org/

Here's a review of public school textbooks
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/sciencebookerror.html

So if you want to blame the textbooks for a bad education, then you need to blame the people that make the textbooks and the people that choose them, especially the people that know little about the actual science in question that are involved in those decisions. Like most parents (even those with science PhDs are not experts in all branches of science, dentists are not biologists).

Bullfrog.

A good source of creationist lies. You should have stopped with the second word. Fact: Hovind is in jail for fraud, why should he be trusted?

Fact: Hovind has lied about evolution and several other things, why should he be trusted?
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/
http://www.kent-hovind.com/statistics.htm
That is just the beginning.

The real question - relates to that hoax issue above - is why creationists need to lie at all if creationism is true?

Related to that is why do creation websites never remove lies (or hoaxes) from their websites once they have been shown to be lies (or hoaxes)?

Seriously people -- why do creationists need to lie and repeat lies and perpetuate lies if creationism is true?

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

I've invited Russ several times to read Buddika's creationist lies index and discover the myriad ways that Hovind is an idiot and a fraud. Strangely, the creationists here don't seem to be interested in how he is mistaken in his "science." As you can see, we are simply invited time and time again ourselves to watch more of his inaccuracies and logical fallacies on video.

Hovind is an idiot and a fraud.

HOWEVER... I will say that being incarcerated does not a fraudulant person make (nor an idiot for that matter). As far as I understand it, he wasn't paying his taxes. I don't pay taxes either - I refuse to on the grounds that I will no longer help support and fund United States Terrorism (the U.S. is the world's largest and most successful terrorist group after all).

By the way, did you know that according to the Constitution, you don't even have to pay taxes? Don't believe me? Check it out. No joke. No smokescreen. No exaggeration.

Anyway, Hovind's reasons for not paying taxes are clearly greed oriented, as the fortune he had been amassing through income tax evasion was ... well, a fortune. Me on the other hand, well let's just say I'm probably not nickeling and dime-ing the government to death <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

If you want to poke fun at Hovind you needn't discuss his criminal record. Did you know the guy put that he is a PhD bearer in the phonebook directory? Supposedly he is not concerned with credentials. Yeah. Did you know most REAL PhD bearers do NOT put this in the phonebook directory? Then there's his "thesis". That's definitely worth a read. I think you're supposed to take English 101 before you enter a graduate program last I checked.

We had a whole discussion somewhere about Hovind's credentials, I have no idea what thread. Once I pointed out that his degree is from a diploma mill, I was told that a doctorate is a doctorate and just because certain people don't approve of it (i.e. the entire educational accreditation system), it's as good as or even superior to other degrees because it's "Christian." It's interesting to examine the sorts of standards some people go by.

Yeah, he definitely should have gone to Moody or something.

But he didn't. A lot of people go to cheap and easy to get into colleges in unknown places like Nebraska and think they're ready to take on the world too.

just goes to show ya I guess.

Wasn't Hovind mainly a high school science teacher or something like that, Linda? It's not exactly genius league is it?

I thought he was in jail for tax evasion or tax ignorance or something like that. He's probably spending his tax subsidized days writing books, almost makes you jealous huh, Linda?

It was aways my impression he writes for kids and did a pretty decent job at that. It's not exactly like the theory of evolution is so full of facts that one cannot daydream answers all day to it. It's coloring book material. I don't understand why you all get so hyperventilated over it.

Here's a real question.

How much money does the IRS say Ken Hovind owes them?

How much money is it costing taxpayers to keep him jail?

go figure how the world works.

Taking lessons from Jill again are you? My qualifications are not in question here, nor am I making false claims about them. Hovind claimed in a video that he had been a high school physics teacher who had got fed up with teaching "lies in the textbooks." He also calls himself "doctor" in order to add to his scientific aura. This is all smoke and mirrors and therefore he deserves to be outed for the fraud he is. He never taught what he says are "lies in the textbooks" because his whole education has been in fundamentalist schools, and that's where he taught. He was not qualified to teach in a mainstream school. And he is also not qualified to call himself a doctor because no accreditation board recognises this qualification. By his own standards, you could copy one of those cartoons, send it in for $10, and get a certificate back saying you have an art degree.

All you need to do to see how little "Dr." Hovind, high school physics teacher, actually knows about science, is visit Buddika's creationist lies index. The idiot thinks the sun burns by combustion.