Likewise, attempting to knock down evolution as so many creationists make a very nice living trying to do – even if they were eventually successful – does not support creationism. That is not an illogical point, defendtheword. It is not a childish point. It is not an irrelevant point. It is a CENTRAL point you continue to fail to address with anything other than more assertions. But we know that assertion alone does make something true. To spell it out one last time for you, the essential criticism in this thread that you keep missing over and over again is that belief in creationism is not bolstered by pretending that evolution is somehow lacking.

Actually, to be honest, it cannot be a question of you somehow missing this point repeatedly because both I and Harry have brought it to your attention several times in different ways hoping (in my case) to break through your obtuseness. To remain that dense must be an act, an intentional avoidance tactic you are using while claiming that I and others who fail to believe in evidence-free assertions ‘berry’ (sic) our collective heads in the sand.

Now here’s a post you’ve made about a particular fossil being recategorized in the record. Woo hoo. You have used this report as if it somehow disproves or draws into question the theory of evolution itself which it clearly doesn’t and is in fact evidence that somehow weakens the case for humanity evolving from an earlier species which it doesn’t and brings into disrepute the notion of interpreting common ancestry by so-called ‘experts’ which it doesn’t, and you do all this to supposedly bolster the proposition that therefore we should consider a belief in creationism to be at least as true, as credible, as our ‘belief’ in evolution. That’s complete nonesense, of course, because your argument is based on a very poor understanding of what the post actually reveals: the self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry. That’s actually a great strength of the scientific method of inquiry, Defendtheword.

So here’s my challenge to you once again: prove that if evolution were ever to be found utterly misguided and completely false, then how would this supposed failure of evolution support the assertion that creationism is true?

And if your response is some kind of empty headed godidit or godsaiditwasso assertion, then I shall with great relief bid you adieu.

Even if evolution was destructive, it would have no bearing on if was true.

Adn what if your ‘observer’ is that virus, then its a very positive thing

Thanks for your support, I have bookmarked your web page and will like wise check it. What I find especially exciting about your blog is that it is full of scripture. Often we wonder of to left and right thinking that we have the answer and all along we find God has provided us so richly with his good book. Thanks very much and please keep it going it is easy to give up under the burden of everything else we may have to deal with in our lives.

May God bless you and your family and give you his peace and joy. In Christ Jesus

D

D

That is not an argument I can say same about you but I choose to be nicer to you.

[“No modern critter’s ancestor is another modern critter. Neither chimps nor monkeys are the ancestor of humans. You say either the chimp is the ancestor or god must be, as if that and nothing else were the choice. That’s a really stupid choice. Nor are humans the ancestors of chimps. Both notions are absurd. The common ancestor must be something else, neither human nor chimp but a critter to whom both lineages can be traced. You think that that critter must be god going Poof! and both chimps and humans suddenly appear. The evidence does not back this up. How we determine what is evidence is by a variety of mutually supportive means, the nuts and bolts of evolutionary biology. Suffice to say, that pursuit is not open to debate because the evidence is completely one-sided and supportive. But the evidence didn’t have to be this way and it was not aligned by scientists to be this way. It just is this way because it is true. Sure, there are many who disagree, but they have no evidence, nothing… NOTHING… to back up their claims.”]

If you share common ancestry with different species at some point in the past you have the same species or did you not know that? Also according to evolutionary process some species have reached their fool potential and therefore stopped evolving good example of this would be sharks or did you not know that? So based on what I just said how can your claim above make much sense? Atheists often accuse Christians using God of the gaps theory, but when Christians point out that same is true of the Evolution of the Gaps they claim that we must use different criteria when we judge one but not the other, why is that? This kind of reasoning sounds very inconsistent to me and very intellectually dishonest.

[“Behe is an excellent example: his idea of irreducible complexity was a serious scientific claim, which was taken seriously and thoroughly discredited over time by his peers. He had no evidence. That’s what the Dover trial was all about. Intelligent Design (that relies on irreducible complexity as the cornerstone for its ’science’) was shown to be without scientific merit. So if you’re reading Behe to support your criticisms against evolutionary theory, you’re going to a source already discredited because it has no evidence to back it up. It has belief, pure and simple. It has supposition, it has assumption and assertion, but it has no evidence.”]

What you are saying is just as Reminiscing of evolution in my opinion. Just because one court case dismissed evidence given does not make things correct or incorrect, this again shows twisted logic on your part. Have you heard of a miscarriage of justice? This primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime he or she did not commit. The term can also apply to errors in the other direction—”errors of impunity”, and to civil case. Most criminal justice systems have some means to overturn, or “quash”, a wrongful conviction, but this is often difficult to achieve. Yes I still think that his argument is stronger not weaker as result of this debate in my opinion it shows wilful blindness to the evidence presented. Fact that some other bacteria functions at the lower complexity is not an issue. What is interesting is that when you have mutation for flagellum it does not do what is supposed to do. And fact that timing is crucial in that process is also overlooked which is mind boggling for someone who claims to be scientifically minded. Lastly this is Behe’s area of expertise and as so often atheists tend to tell me you should use people who have expertise in that area, yet when this is provided they attack one single side of the argument. I strongly believe that if Dr Behe was better at his rhetoric’s than his opponents at that particular case he would have won the argument.

[“And let us recall that evolution to be true does not require the fossil record.”]

Oh really so now anything you say will be acceptable, right?

[“The fossil record is just one of the many lines of inquiry that directly supports evolutionary theory as a framework of understanding from where life as we know it today came from. It works, it works consistently well, it is explanatory, it is predictive, it is falsifiable. Irreducible complexity offers us none of these elements.”]

Complexity of life and likelihood of design is just as falsifiable but you refuse to except that why do you think this is?

[“You keep referring to a sudden explosion of life, as if this indicated a divine intervention. The phrase ’sudden explosion’ is misleading because its meaning is in geologic time and the Earth is very old. To compete in time scales, for example, we would need 4,000 complete units of time similar to the building of the pyramids to today to equal the very lowest of estimates over which the length of the ‘explosion’ occurred. That’s a very slow explosion to thee and me. In human generations, that’s about 25,000 full and rich lifetimes one after another to cover the bare minimum ‘explosion’. A lot can happen over that length of ’sudden’ time. There is a growing body of evidence that the ‘explosion’ actually occurred over a much longer time, somewhere around 100,000 – 200,000 human generations, one following another. ‘Sudden explosion’ is a very relative term and in no way, shape, or fashion, lends any kind of credence to some instantaneous Poof! creation of anything.”]

This is not my saying my friend this is what you find to be bone of contention amongst many scientist, you should know better than that. You are comparing bananas to apples and are expecting me to agree with you. I am saying that according to Theory of evolution this proved to be a serious problem, people who believe in it are still puzzled by it. And rather than tree of life what we see is something different more in the shape of comb laying flat many offshoots starting at the same time. Seal with it, yes there are some time differences between some of them but such multiple burst of life can not be explained away with your argument you still need time. Fact that we lack much of data does not disprove this theory it only strengthens it as what we have points in the direction of new life arising very quickly in the history of earth.

[“As for punctuated equilibrium, so what? Remember the time scales we are using here. There is no make or break problem between phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. One will probably be the better model for certain kinds of speciations than others.”]

Right, you pick one over the other whenever you get stuck, well done.

[“There is no evidence-based uncertainty whatsoever in the scientific community that evolution is true. I know that’s really hard for you to get your head around but that’s your challenge. Granted, there are those who disagree with aspects of the current consensus within the framework, and that’s a good thing, but very few who will categorically deny evolution as a framework that always works. And those that do deny it have no meaningful and credible evidence for their stance. Again, all it would take is a rabbit fossil from the pre-cambrian to provide meaningful evidence to the contrary. Again, I know you don’t like it, you don’t want it to be so, but evolution is a fact. Now how are going to cope?”]

All I will say at this is that you need to understand human psychology, if you value your intellect and hate to be ridiculed will you put your neck on the line by saying you have reservation about evolution. Just look at some of the web sights I have included here by recognised scientists and you will see how much ridicule they have to put up with. Don’t be deceived, your statement about evolution being fact is as much of a fact as me being King of England. Look at the complexity of DNA why are we still debating such density of data in such small place and, why we are constantly having to say, (even amongst evolutionist) it looks designed but it is not. I am sorry for disagreeing with you, but to agree with you would be to lie to both of us. Evidence is just not that strong and data that is “explained” is always used by the minds that are governed by different world views. Until you understand these basic principles of workings of human mind we will always be disagreeing on this issue.

O man your thinking is so not scientific, just think about it, you don’t know but you make your judgement to be contrary to what others are saying because you think it may be according to your thinking.

[“You toss around the notion that your worldview has as much merit as any other. It doesn’t. You flip a coin when we disagree and assume that because there is disagreement, there is merit in both. You say you are human, I say you are a squid. Both positions do not have merit. One is right, one is wrong. There is no middle ground. Evolution is either right or wrong. There is no middle ground. It is right. Design by a supernatural critter is wrong. Why? Because there is nothing but evidence for the former and no evidence for the latter.”]

First let me tell you there is no tossing, if you read this blog closely you will find much information that can prove useful to you. Your refusal to accept that there could be a middle ground is also not scientific but I guess you should know that.

[“I try repeatedly to engage your curiosity to explain in naturalistic terms why things are the way they are and attempt to show you how evolutionary theory does exactly that. I challenge the message of the various videos you pose to show you why they are lacking in critical thinking, that their message is badly skewed, that the thinking behind it is broken. I challenge the message that religion is any way of knowing anything about anything.”]

What I was getting at is, if you believe in the world view you claim you stand for why bother? This just does not make any logical or philosophical sense. And on the contrary when comparing what I stand for there is plenty of reason for me to go on. Do you think I will simply go away because you bring well known argument which have been worn out long time ago?

[“Your beliefs and the religious beliefs of other like-minded people are an impediment to critical inquiry in general, an impediment to rationally engaging in bettering the human condition, an impediment to attaining knowledge, an impediment to solving some of the most pressing issues of our times. The active discourse attempting to discredit evolution is a single example of how the religious mindset is opposed to actually learning and substitutes nothing of value in its place except willful ignorance. This is a travesty.”]

You make me smile, you are not telling me much a bout anything but you do show loads about your personality, I wish that you are as honest as you claim to be, note that I have kept this debate going, why do you think that is?

[“Your lines of reasoning are not substantiated by what’s probably true, correct, or accurate. That’s not just a matter of opinion or a subtle disagreement on a worldview; the evidence is here in our discussions. You have revealed the thinking that informs your beliefs and they are lacking. You are promoting ignorance. You need to be challenged. The fact that your counter-arguments are so poorly informed reveals to other readers why your position is so inherently weak. Religious belief like yours is no basis on which to come to know anything; it is a way to avoid coming to understand what is, a means to avoid having to justify cherry-picked data that lends even the resemblance of support, and is in fact an impediment to honest inquiry.”]

If any of what you say is true would I be allowing this kind of response on your behalf?

[“The proof is in the pudding. You may think your responses have refuted my challenges adequately but they have not. They instead reveal how religious belief pollutes the intellectual merit of holding justified beliefs.”]

Thank, now you are using my argument but that is not too bad, at least I know you are listening even if it is just partially.

Actually your assertion is just too blinkered, whilst it may not, there is still scope that when compared to the model of designer theory it may prove a valid help in understanding our progress of understanding the subject.

[“Failing to prove adequately that cabbages are the source of human morality in no way supports those who believe that carrots are the source of human morality. What is the possibility that either cabbages or carrots is the source? Equally improbable. Without any evidence for either? Highly improbable approaching zero. How about cabbages or god? Highly improbable approaching zero for both.”]

I am not going to bother with this part as I believe that I have adequately answered this straw man argument on many previous occasions when dealing with your one dimensional understanding of evidence, which is very lacking as you keep on accusing me of the same problem. You should read my answers slowly and take note.

[“Cabbages versus humanity itself? Lots of evidence for humanity, still nothing for cabbages or god, highly improbable for cabbages and god, a much higher probability for humanity. Throw in evidence from a dozen different avenues of inquiry that all lead back to humanity as the source for human morality (I know! What were the chances?), then the probability approaches 1. Case closed, defendtheword, unless and until equally valid and supportive evidence for either cabbages or god is brought forth, or unless one is so personally invested not in knowing what’s probably true, correct, or accurate, but maintaining one’s belief in the power of cabbages or god that all other considerations and evidence is equally meaningless.”]

This is very childish and I don’t wont to go any further with this kind of argument, please be warned unless you change your approach I do not feel compelled to repeat same argumentation with you. Once is enough especially if I continue to show you respect, despite your continuous ignorant attitude. There is so much good staff here but you choose to ignore it. I believe I have given you plenty to think about but you choose to dismiss it simply because your group of favourite scientist don’t like the argument put forward by those who oppose their world view.

[“That seems to be the case here.”]

Let me just say if you look closely at what I said you should find plenty to challenge you, your choice to find flimsy explanation and then accuse me of not giving decent answer is typical of those who berry their heads in the sand. I maintain that none of your answers have been satisfactory as you keep on changing your story according to the needs you find when confronted with challenging questions.

However, for you to state we have never seen it happen is not pointing out a fallacy of evolution. We have seen plenty of evolution in action, but the odds of us seeing this particular aspect of it is infenticamely small.

Consider how long the earth only had single celled organisms, it was literally billions of years. Multi-celled organisms have been around for a fraction of that time. We would have to be incredibly lucky to see it happen.

However we do have a very good model for how we think it could have happened, and we do have a chain of fossils that fit the hypothesis.

There are some aspects of evolution, that are hypothesis, we are not sure how it happened. The are other aspects of it that are practically un-debatable.

I would agree with you that, from this point of view (as much as i know about it anyway) attacking evolution from a single celled, to multi celled standpoint maybe a valid line of attack. However, i doubt much research has been done on it for you to be able to assert a valid hypothesis for this transistion, due to the near total lack of information we have on how it might happen.

We can view evolution now, and extrapolate into deep time, (i am not just talking about extrapolating micro into macro, but also the mechanisms of mutation etc). We can link this extrapolation with fossil evidence and genetic trees so that we have a good picture. We have very little to base single to multi celled organisms on to found a theory, either pro or anti evolution.

The site is at:

http://discovermagazine.com/contests/evolution-in-two-minutes-or-less/

Failing to prove adequately that cabbages are the source of human morality in no way supports those who believe that carrots are the source of human morality. What is the possibility that either cabbages or carrots is the source? Equally improbable. Without any evidence for either? Highly improbable approaching zero.

How about cabbages or god? Highly improbable approaching zero for both.

Cabbages versus humanity itself? Lots of evidence for humanity, still nothing for cabbages or god, highly improbable for cabbages and god, a much higher probability for humanity. Throw in evidence from a dozen different avenues of inquiry that all lead back to humanity as the source for human morality (I know! What were the chances?), then the probability approaches 1. Case closed, defendtheword, unless and until equally valid and supportive evidence for either cabbages or god is brought forth, or unless one is so personally invested not in knowing what’s probably true, correct, or accurate, but maintaining one’s belief in the power of cabbages or god that all other considerations and evidence is equally meaningless.

That seems to be the case here.

I hold to an evidence-based method of inquiry because it works. It reveals what is probably true, probably correct, probably accurate. Revelation is for the superstitious.

You toss around the notion that your worldview has as much merit as any other. It doesn’t. You flip a coin when we disagree and assume that because there is disagreement, there is merit in both. You say you are human, I say you are a squid. Both positions do not have merit. One is right, one is wrong. There is no middle ground. Evolution is either right or wrong. There is no middle ground. It is right. Design by a supernatural critter is wrong. Why? Because there is nothing but evidence for the former and no evidence for the latter.

I try repeatedly to engage your curiosity to explain in naturalistic terms why things are the way they are and attempt to show you how evolutionary theory does exactly that. I challenge the message of the various videos you pose to show you why they are lacking in critical thinking, that their message is badly skewed, that the thinking behind it is broken. I challenge the message that religion is any way of knowing anything about anything.

Your beliefs and the religious beliefs of other like-minded people are an impediment to critical inquiry in general, an impediment to rationally engaging in bettering the human condition, an impediment to attaining knowledge, an impediment to solving some of the most pressing issues of our times. The active discourse attempting to discredit evolution is a single example of how the religious mindset is opposed to actually learning and substitutes nothing of value in its place except willful ignorance. This is a travesty.

Your lines of reasoning are not substantiated by what’s probably true, correct, or accurate. That’s not just a matter of opinion or a subtle disagreement on a worldview; the evidence is here in our discussions. You have revealed the thinking that informs your beliefs and they are lacking. You are promoting ignorance. You need to be challenged. The fact that your counter-arguments are so poorly informed reveals to other readers why your position is so inherently weak. Religious belief like yours is no basis on which to come to know anything; it is a way to avoid coming to understand what is, a means to avoid having to justify cherry-picked data that lends even the resemblance of support, and is in fact an impediment to honest inquiry.

The proof is in the pudding. You may think your responses have refuted my challenges adequately but they have not. They instead reveal how religious belief pollutes the intellectual merit of holding justified beliefs.