randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

[randman]

"Speaks for itself, don't it?"

Whatever you're smoking Jerry...

 

[randman]

You know Jerry, let's say I saw you talking with another woman besides your wife, and then I state hey, I "observed" you committing adultery because hey, I have some indirect observations which make me think you did.
That's what TO is doing. It's pure propaganda.

 

[randman]

“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. ...We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables.” [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (evolutionist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407]

“It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.” [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]

 

[randman]

Lest there be any misunderstanding, it would behoove us at this point to establish what evolutionary advocates, such as Isaak, normally mean when they speak of “evolution.” Other definitions notwithstanding (including the redefinition of genetic variation as “microevolution”—often used in a bait-and-switch argument), the general biological meaning of “evolution” to most evolutionists is

a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.
Leaving alone the area of cosmogony, the “big bang” and its competing hypotheses, as well as some of the other details, this definition is usually adequate as a reference point from which the majority of evolutionists work.

Isaak tells us that, “...common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well).” Yet “common descent” (i.e., “all things arising from a single living source”) is indeed the larger part of the general theory of evolution, and he conspicuously fails to list any of the other “several quite different theories” which share this central theme of evolutionary doctrine."

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

 

[randman]

"Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor."

Note the sentence which purposefully misinforms.

"What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor."

The "rate" is not what critics of evolution are concerend with, but the type of change required. This is just another example of how TO confuses the issue. Note the vagueness too in claiming all reproduction as observation of evolution. So if a child isn't an exact clone, then hey, according to TO here, that is observation of evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
The "rate" is not what critics of evolution are concerend with, but the type of change required. This is just another example of how TO confuses the issue.

It is because of TO FAQ's like this and other science advocate's continual work that creationists HAVE switched over time from being "concerned" with the rate of evolution to the "type" of change required. Of course their new objections are no more valid than the ones that this FAQ successfully dealt with, but they represent a more difficult (and still moving) target for the science advocates to debunk.

#72


quote:
Originally posted by randman
Jerry here TO claims the chemical properties of carbon are sufficient to create life forms. Read it. I am telling the truth here.

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, .."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Isaak clearly states here that abiogenesis occurs "according to their (molecules) chemical properties." He goes on as to how these properties create self-replicating forms which combine with "natural selection" to create life forms, "especially" with "carbons."

(me, before)
Why are you putting words in his mouth??
He does not say that abiogenesis occurs according... he says that atoms and molecules arrange themselves according...

What kind of bait & switch are you trying to pull?

then you said:

Is he not talking about abiogenesis? The context is abiogenesis relies on the principles of matter that we have observed and not "chance." Btw, he doesn' even bother explaining what critics mean by "chance" or "randomness" but he does make it clear that the properties of physical matter is the mechanism that creates abiogenesis.

The subject of this digression of Isaac's is abiogenesis. The subject of the sentence (that you replaced with the word "abiogenesis") is atoms and molecules. This is important to understand because abiogenesis relies on the formation of atoms and molecules, because atoms and molecules do not form randomly, and because creationists sometimes claim that abiogenesis is a random process. Well it isn't not from the get-go, the formation of complex organic molecules.

The bait and switch you make explicit here is very much the tip of the iceberg. Creationists often make claims without the least care about whether they will hold up to scientific scrutiny. Then, when the science advocate calls them to task on it, giving the reasons they are wrong about their claims, or the reasons their claims are inappropriate or unsubstantiated, they get a chance to pretend that the rebuttal of their arguments is the substance of evolution, and that since the rebuttal doesn't provide good evidence of the theory, the theory must be flawed. Watch Nick do it in just about every thread he trolls. Watch AIG do it. Watch True.Origins do it.

Method:

Take the least substantive, most general rebuttals on TO, and nitpick a "will" where a "might" should probably go. Read all kinds of evil conspiracies into generic language. Never look at the substantive discussions on the SAME WEBSITE that deal with the issues only lightly touched on in the generic FAQ. Nitpick direct observation versus indirect observation. Compare observation of a man talking to someone other than his wife to indirect observation of "adultery". Do anything at all but point out even an honest-to-goodness mistake in the literature you are criticizing.

Who are you kidding?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. ...We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables.” [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (evolutionist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407]

“It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.” [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]

These Professors must be called to account for violating the doctrines of our cult! These Professors must be called to account for violating the doctrines of our cult! Exterminate them! Exterminate!!
- The Darlek evolutionists.

Seriously though, these guys are actually relating a fairly good representation of the "state of the art" in abiogenetic research. The answers aren't there, and the evidence also isn't there.

The people doing the research are hoping to change that. We will see whether they meet with any success. They seem to be setting out in some promising directions.

 

[randman]

"Who are you kidding?"

Jerry, who are you kidding? You are just wasting space and avoiding the substance of my points altogether. Isaak pulls the bait and switch. I am just calling him on it.

 

[randman]

Btw, I proved my contention of propaganda whether on fossils, abiogenesis, or evolution being observed. You have shown nada to back up your contentions of your assessment of critics of evolution.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
"Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor."

Note the sentence which purposefully misinforms.

"What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor."

The "rate" is not what critics of evolution are concerend with, but the type of change required. This is just another example of how TO confuses the issue. Note the vagueness too in claiming all reproduction as observation of evolution. So if a child isn't an exact clone, then hey, according to TO here, that is observation of evolution.

Excellent point. There are so many leaps of logic in TO articles that the primary evidence they give for evolution is that you begin to suspect frogs wrote them.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Who are you kidding?"

Jerry, who are you kidding? You are just wasting space and avoiding the substance of my points altogether. Isaak pulls the bait and switch. I am just calling him on it.

By changing the subject of his sentence to make it seem he is saying something he is not? Wow. Good call.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Btw, I proved my contention of propaganda whether on fossils, abiogenesis, or evolution being observed.

You did WHAT?? I see where there was a "will" that should have been a "might" in the misonceptions FAQ. You showed us that much. Your claim that thousands of transitionals is still pending further information. And you have expressed some kind of personal aggravation about the fact that TalkOrigins rebuts the "evolution hasn't been observed" dogma roundly.

You've gotten one minor point and may be yet to receive the thousands of transitional points. You have lost the other specific points from T.O. & the rest has just been restatement of your original characterization of them as a "propaganda" cite.

You have shown nada to back up your contentions of your assessment of critics of evolution.

Give me a for instance. I thought you were already aware of the accuracy of any criticisms of the evolution-deniers I have made. If there is one that I made that you would like to contend with, by all means, post it. I will gladly either support it or retract it.

 

[randman]

Jerry, you have the mistaken impression you are the judge here and an impartial hearer. Obviously, that is not the case. The sentence you mentioned was in a paragraph whose context was abiogenesis. I have spoken the truth.
You refuse to hear it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Randman,

If you and I are talking about space travel, and I make the statement: "rocket engines work by well understood principles of chemistry and physics," would you have any justification for changing the subject of my sentence from "rocket engines" to "space travel" just because it was space travel we were talking about? If you think so, please explain why. If you don't, then what is different about what you are doing to Isaac's plain statement?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, you have the mistaken impression you are the judge here and an impartial hearer.

That's what makes this thread rather pointless, IMO. The evolutionists are always going to think that talkorigins is impartial, scientific, and written by qualified authors. They will always think AiG and other sites are propaganda written by quacks.

Guess what, folks? Some of the AiG and creationist articles ARE propaganda and ARE written by quacks. I have no trouble admitting it because the truth is what matters. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." Jesus is my Lord and God, whom I serve.

You evolutionists can't admit that about TO articles because most of the time you don't give a rip about truth, although I don't think you realize that. You simply feel compelled to defend everything that agrees with your evolutionist and materialist viewpoint, not matter how outrageous. Almost everything you believe is based purely on speculation and imagination which you used to produce unverifiable hypotheses, yet you just can't admit it. Why? Because your intellect and your education are your god, whom you serve.

 

[Jerry Smith]

For someone with nothing new to say, you sure use an awful lot of words to say. Yeah Nick, everything you say is God's Gospel truth.
Now, instead of repeating it 10000 times everytime there is a discussion can you not just repeat "Nick has spoken", and clutter up our threads less.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
Guess what, folks? Some of the AiG and creationist articles ARE propaganda and ARE written by quacks. I have no trouble admitting it because the truth is what matters. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." Jesus is my Lord and God, whom I serve.

What does Jesus have to do with whether evolutionary biology is sound science? Furthermore, would you mind producing some AiG material that you consider to not be propaganda and written by quacks? And some that you this is? Would you also provide the resons for your opinion?

You evolutionists can't admit that about TO articles because most of the time you don't give a rip about truth, although I don't think you realize that.

Are there flaws in T.O.? Sure. I would like to see you provide evidence that we "don't give a rip about truth." It sounds like you're just spurting rhetoric to convince yourself that your position is sound.

You simply feel compelled to defend everything that agrees with your evolutionist and materialist viewpoint, not matter how outrageous.

Example please.

Almost everything you believe is based purely on speculation and imagination which you used to produce unverifiable hypotheses, yet you just can't admit it. Why?

I don't think the man, who claimed that we have a third set of teeth, is fit to determine what is speculation or not. How about you go take some college level classes in genetics and evolutionary biology. Maybe after you learn the foundations and history of evolutionary theory we can discuss what part is speculation.

Because your intellect and your education are your god, whom you serve.

Nice rhetoric. Too bad it paints the majority of your Christian brothers as polytheists. If you think that intellect and eduation are a god, no telling what you think your god is.

 

[Morat]

I don't think the man, who claimed that we have a third set of teeth, is fit to determine what is speculation or not. How about you go take some college level classes in genetics and evolutionary biology. Maybe after you learn the foundations and history of evolutionary theory we can discuss what part is speculation.

Wasn't Nick the guy who sarcastcly stated "Oh sure, and I bet girls are born with all the eggs they'll ever have too"?

On a more serious note, Randman has attempted the letter of the challenge but not the spirit.

Those issuing it where wanting him to attack a real FAQ (say that on transitional vertebrates, or the Age of the Earth) and not one of the general overview one's. Further, they were wanting him to refute it factually, not nitpick grammer.

SO how about it, Randman? You'd have a much easier time showing you were right with a FAQ that was a lot less subjective than a synopsis. Really have a chance to rub everyone's nose in it.

So that those pesky evolutionist's don't whine about you picking the right sort of FAQ, why not critique the big one?

Zeus Thibault's 29 evidence's FAQ. Really show them the heavy end of the hammer.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Zeus Thibault's 29 evidence's FAQ. Really show them the heavy end of the hammer.

I thought it was "Thor's" hammer. What's this about Zeus?

 

[randman]

If you guys cannot agree that evolution has not been observed, meaning macro-evolution, then there isn't much use moving on to bigger stuff.

If you think stating there are "thousands of transitional fossils," that they are "rare", and that there are "several superb examples" as all being congruent, then what else is there to say.