Kansas finds sanity again

[Navaros]

As my comments are not directed only to you specifically Big John, but rather all readers who have been indoctrinated by evolution.

Ian T. Taylor is not a hack, his credentials and evidences are all totally legit.

What he has stated there is a matter of historical record. Funny how pro-evolutionists get upset over someone stating the historical record of evolutionists' hoaxes, fraud and general incompetence, as if the evolutionists - who themselves created those fairy tales - should not be held responsible for their own lies.

It's totally fair game to call out pro-evolutionists on their historical BS lies. Their counter argument of "We believed that untrue BS and presented it as the truth last week, yet this week we have "new", better (BS) ideas: therefore you cannot question our shady history of evidence" is clearly unreasonable and immoral.

There is no preponderance of evidence in support of evolution. Merely "old stuff some modern men found" that is then combined with "wild speculation off the top of some guy(s)' head". All of it can and has been debunked.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As my comments are not directed only to you specifically Big John, but rather all readers who have been indoctrinated by evolution.

Ian T. Taylor is not a hack, his credentials and evidences are all totally legit.

What he has stated there is a matter of historical record. Funny how pro-evolutionists get upset over someone stating the historical record of evolutionists' hoaxes, fraud and general incompetence, as if the evolutionists - who themselves created those fairy tales - should not be held responsible for their own lies.

It's totally fair game to call out pro-evolutionists on their historical BS lies. Their counter argument of "We believed that untrue BS and presented it as the truth last week, yet this week we have "new", better (BS) ideas: therefore you cannot question our shady history of evidence" is clearly unreasonable and immoral.

There is no preponderance of evidence in support of evolution. Merely "old stuff some modern men found" that is then combined with "wild speculation off the top of some guy(s)' head". All of it can and has been debunked.

When you start applying the same standards of evidence to the Bible story as you do to 'debunking' evolution, you may have a place in the debate.

(I'd still like to know why the Bible story of creation is the only one accepted, since there are many differing creation myths from other cultures and traditions. Why yours?)

[Ice]

As my comments are not directed only to you specifically Big John, but rather all readers who have been indoctrinated by evolution.

Ian T. Taylor is not a hack, his credentials and evidences are all totally legit.

What he has stated there is a matter of historical record. Funny how pro-evolutionists get upset over someone stating the historical record of evolutionists' hoaxes, fraud and general incompetence, as if the evolutionists - who themselves created those fairy tales - should not be held responsible for their own lies.

It's totally fair game to call out pro-evolutionists on their historical BS lies. Their counter argument of "We believed that untrue BS and presented it as the truth last week, yet this week we have "new", better (BS) ideas: therefore you cannot question our shady history of evidence" is clearly unreasonable and immoral.

There is no preponderance of evidence in support of evolution. Merely "old stuff some modern men found" that is then combined with "wild speculation off the top of some guy(s)' head". All of it can and has been debunked.

If you do not believe in evolution, how do you dismiss such convincing evidence that says otherwise. A few a examples are the fossil record, homologous structures between current day animals and past animals, vestigial organs in animals (AKA your tail bone, your wisdom teeth, etc), and radio active dating. Trust me, there is plenty of hardcore evidence that points to evolution. I think you need to take an introduction to biology.

BTW, ever heard of Darwin's Finches? I advise you to look it up and explain how you can "debunk" it.

[Navaros]

BTW, ever heard of Darwin's Finches? I advise you to look it up and explain how you can "debunk" it.

No problemo my friend.

This may have been somewhat disappointing since it implied that the finches were almost certainly still a single species. Evidence that one species could become another -- that is, that the barrier of biblical fixity could be broken -- had not been provided. Writing fourteen years after the publication of the Origin Darwin confessed to his friend Bentham:


In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith?]... When we descend to details, we can [not] prove that no one species has changed... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not" (F. Darwin 1887, 3:25).

To this day, the situation is no different since much of what is offered as evidence has been provided by simply expanding the definition.

Source
http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...ylorIMMf06.htm

[Banquo's Ghost]

In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith?]... When we descend to details, we can [not] prove that no one species has changed... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not" (F. Darwin 1887, 3:25)

Who is F. Darwin? Any relation to Charles?

Your quotation simply undermines your own position that evolutionists are unquestioning fundamentalists. Charles Darwin spent a very long time analysing and arguing against his own conclusions, just as scientists have been doing all the time since, refining theories as they go.

Your author Taylor seems to suggest that all science springs perfectly formed into being with no revision of theory - oh wait, of course he would think that, since he's a creationist!

Darwin, for example, had no idea about genetics (which is why he agonised about Natural Selection in detail) yet when Mendel's ideas gained currency, they demonstrated the perfect mechanism for natural selection to work on. The gene is the basic unit of selection, not the species, and one can demonstrate evolution on genes very readily. Indeed, given a few weeks of your attention, I could demonstrate evolution of Drosophila (fruit flies) to you in the lab. Even creationists accept variation can be demonstrated that way, but dismiss this as micro-evolution. (Doesn't really work that does it - God allows us to vary organisms a little bit, just for fun and confusion, but not that little bit more. Tricky chap, God, especially with all that lovely fossil work as a red herring to mislead the bewildered. What's it all for, I wonder?)

By the way, Darwin trained as a cleric and Mendel was a monk. Heretics both, I assume.

Since biology seems to be the only target of creationism, note that the silliness about geological dating (ie that it is all wrong) is based on exactly the same physics of radioactive decay that enables nuclear power stations to work. If you want to reassure yourself that such decay does happen, pop along to a reactor facility - or are they figments of scientific fundamentalism as well?

I note that you still haven't applied the same standards of evidence to your own theories. You won't believe me, but I actually have an open mind, and if you could demonstrate to me the validity of creationist theory using the same standards of proof as you apply to evolution (ie your rules not mine) I would give it due consideration.

[Ronin]

Who is F. Darwin? Any relation to Charles?

Your quotation simply undermines your own position that evolutionists are unquestioning fundamentalists. Charles Darwin spent a very long time analysing and arguing against his own conclusions, just as scientists have been doing all the time since, refining theories as they go.

Your author Taylor seems to suggest that all science springs perfectly formed into being with no revision of theory - oh wait, of course he would think that, since he's a creationist!

Darwin, for example, had no idea about genetics (which is why he agonised about Natural Selection in detail) yet when Mendel's ideas gained currency, they demonstrated the perfect mechanism for natural selection to work on. The gene is the basic unit of selection, not the species, and one can demonstrate evolution on genes very readily. Indeed, given a few weeks of your attention, I could demonstrate evolution of Drosophila (fruit flies) to you in the lab. Even creationists accept variation can be demonstrated that way, but dismiss this as micro-evolution. (Doesn't really work that does it - God allows us to vary organisms a little bit, just for fun and confusion, but not that little bit more. Tricky chap, God, especially with all that lovely fossil work as a red herring to mislead the bewildered. What's it all for, I wonder?)

By the way, Darwin trained as a cleric and Mendel was a monk. Heretics both, I assume.

Since biology seems to be the only target of creationism, note that the silliness about geological dating (ie that it is all wrong) is based on exactly the same physics of radioactive decay that enables nuclear power stations to work. If you want to reassure yourself that such decay does happen, pop along to a reactor facility - or are they figments of scientific fundamentalism as well?

I note that you still haven't applied the same standards of evidence to your own theories. You won't believe me, but I actually have an open mind, and if you could demonstrate to me the validity of creationist theory using the same standards of proof as you apply to evolution (ie your rules not mine) I would give it due consideration.

come on man!...everyone knows god burried all those fossils to test our faith!!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5HVSlCWqHM

[Navaros]

Your author Taylor seems to suggest that all science springs perfectly formed into being with no revision of theory - oh wait, of course he would think that, since he's a creationist!

The thrust I got from Taylor's book is not that there should be no revision of theory, but rather that Darwin and his followers start out with a crap theory with the (unstated) mandate to stick to their pre-conceived idea no matter what. Only to revise the crap theory with other crap ideas after the first crap idea proves false. And so the cycle continues indefinitely; rather than Darwin and his followers ever being able to even possibly come to the logical conclusion that their whole theory is outright false and hence should be scrapped altogether.

Definitely agree with you that Darwin was a heretic.

Oh yeah, Taylor also debunks the fruit flies thing on the same page of the previous link, just a little further down.

[Redleg]

Darwin's basic premise was to use artificial selection to prove natural selection had occured, this he more then adequately demonstrated. Are there holes in parts of his theory - yes, but the basic premise was correct, because of his observations in nature and his verification through artifical selection.

If one is arguing that evolution does not exist - they must be willing to discount several things. One being that artifical selection has occured. Man has been breeding animals for years - culling out traits that were not wanted in some animals and creating traits in others. Horses, Cattle, Cats and Dogs are some of the prime exambles of this.

Then should we go into the plants that man has influenced by artifical selection. Several fruits and vegatables that we eat today are species that were brought about by such exambles.

Evolution of species happen not only through artifical means but also through natural means. Humans are another prime examble of that. Just take a close look at the way humans have developed from the same species. The differences are even present today.

[InsaneApache]

So Darwins 'crap' theory is not static, it is clearly evolving.

[Navaros]

Man I love that book, debunks so much stuff in just one Chapter - it makes me giddy with glee.

@Redleg: the stuff you mentioned is also debunked at that most recent link I posted.

For the clicking-impaired, the point is that although many variants of a particular species can be created by breeding, there is no evidence of this ever resulting in a new species.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh yeah, Taylor also debunks the fruit flies thing on the same page of the previous link, just a little further down.

Well, I decided to take the plunge and read the chapter you linked. There's an hour of my life I won't get back, and I have lost several points of IQ in the process.

If you can't see the incredible gaping holes in Mr Taylor's self-serving choices and astonishing jumps of illogic, then I pity you. I don't intend to waste time pointing out the problems - not least that the Species is NOT the unit of selection, which is the gene. Darwin didn't know this either, but he had the excuse that genes hadn't been discovered.

My favourite nonsense was this:

Since Mendel's genetics challenged the Darwinian idea of natural selection, it is just possible that any interest shown in his work was actively discouraged.

Did they have tin-foil hats in the 19th century? Actually Mendel's work was fundamental to the Theory of Natural Selection as it provided the genetic mechanism upon which selection works. It all fitted, which means the theory was good - new evidence fits the predictions.

The fruit flies experiment is not debunked, it is merely relegated to the realm of 'micro-evolution' - which again seems to be wierdly accepted by creationists.

Definitely agree with you that Darwin was a heretic.

You seem to think this is a bad thing. Heretics (in many cases) were people who were able to think more clearly than the unthinking, faithful sheep, and consequently advanced us out of the religious Dark Ages where you would return us. Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition for heresy when he showed that Copernicus' theory was right.

Hold on to your certitude and force your ignorance on as many as you can bamboozle. I, dear Navaros, shall leave you with the same words he (apocryphally) uttered when he was forced by such as you to recant the 'theory' that the earth orbited the sun:

Eppur si muove. (But still it moves).

[Big_John]

The fruit flies experiment is not debunked, it is merely relegated to the realm of 'micro-evolution' - which again seems to be wierdly accepted by creationists.

"micro-evolution", as employed by creationists, is a catch-all that allows them to put examples of evolution into a new category (which is simply a holding cell of expanding definition). creationists used to claim (and sometimes still do) that evolution has never been demonstrated, or that it wasn't demonstrable/falsifiable. when this idea was neutered like the rest of their arguments, they invented a "non-evolution evolution" category to put their shame.. i mean put examples of evolution into.

it's just a rhetorical tool. at some point, i'm sure "macro-evolution" will have to be adopted by creationists, and they'll demand that "evolutionists" must demonstrate "super-mega-macro-evolution", or some such thing.

the truth is, evolution is evolution, regardless of your baseline.

(I'd still like to know why the Bible story of creation is the only one accepted, since there are many differing creation myths from other cultures and traditions. Why yours?)

that is an interesting question, isn't it? why, for example, don't we hear about muslim fundamentalists raging against evolution? maybe they do, and we just don't hear about it. maybe they have more important things to worry about.

[Ice]

No problemo my friend.



Source
http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...ylorIMMf06.htm

It's like Banquo's Ghost said. Darwin had no idea about genetics or things such as the fossil record to an extent. This was ground breaking work, it scared him to think that the bible, that he loved in charished could be wrong. Of course he had doubts. I hardly think a short paragraph of doubt dismisses a lifetime of work.

You have also yet to address my other evidence that I have listed above.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oooh look. Some science.

Scientists Reverse Evolution.

[Earl of Sandwich]

Navaros doesn't trust facts, because the word sounds an awful lot like "fags." It must be the work of Satan!!!!!1!!11

OMG WTF don't you know that's the DEVIL MUSIC FROM HELL!!!!11!!! And yet you use such imagery as a metonymy for "cool". Have fun getting raped by the Devil in Hell.

[Shaun]

It's like Banquo's Ghost said. Darwin had no idea about genetics or things such as the fossil record to an extent. This was ground breaking work, it scared him to think that the bible, that he loved in charished could be wrong. Of course he had doubts. I hardly think a short paragraph of doubt dismisses a lifetime of work.

Exactly, Darwin spent his whole life researching his work, so I severly doubt that a small paragraph debunks his whole work.
It is really easy for us to find a paragraph that completly debunks the whole damn bible.

[wolftrapper78]

Sorry Navaros, I have been too busy to help you out, but I will do what I can.

Check out Answers in Genesis for the best and most organized examples of creationist claims.

This might be a good place to start.

And more specifically, this to counter the evolutionists, from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati a distinguished scientist and creationist.

[Ice]

And more specifically, this to counter the evolutionists, from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati a distinguished scientist and creationist.

I read about half of that then got sick because it really wasn't proving anything. All it was doing was saying how animals mutated and changed (AKA evolved) in current day creatures. All this is is microevolution.

To point one thing out towards the beginning. It says that non living chemicals organized themselves into a self reproducing being. It is very possible though, that an organic carrying comet smashed in primival earth and laid the spark that was necessary to jump the nucleotides, RNA, and amino acids present into a living organism. Another possible explanation is the Miller, Urel Experiment.

Conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey; the first experiment to test the Oparin-Haldane Theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth. A mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, to simulate the version of Earth's primitive, reducing atmosphere proposed by Oparin, was introduced into a 5-liter flask and energized by an electrical discharge apparatus to represent ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. The products were allowed to condense and collect in a lower flask which modeled a body of water on the Earth's surface. Heat supplied to this flask recycled the water vapor just as water evaporates from lakes and seas, before moving into the atmosphere and condensing again as rain. After a day of continuous operation, Miller and Urey found a thin layer of hydrocarbons on the surface of the water. After about a week of operation, a dark brown scum had collected in the lower flask and was found to contain several types of amino acids, including glycine and alanine, together with sugars, tars, and various other unidentified organic chemicals.

Finally, I can not take anything seriously that has this written in it:

Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the biblical creation model. Critics doubt that all of today’s species could have fitted on the ark. However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today.8 Darwin’s finches show that it need not take very long for new species to arise.9