To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is fact and fiction. Truth and error mixed together.

... Well stated!

 

[AV1611VET]

Incorrect. One is the variation of an animal, the other is the complete change to another animal. Call me when you find the fossil record that proves 100% that all life came from the same single cell billions of years ago. So far, that record is so full of gaping holes I could drive 10 trucks through them side by side. *yawn*

Another well-stated post!

 

[AV1611VET]

OP: If that quote is from Dr Cornelius Hunter, then you have to take it with an enormous pinch of salt.

Here is his quote from the OP again:

Dr. Cornelius Hunter is right: “In the life sciences one's alternatives are to be a Darwinist or to be a Darwinist. Passing grades, letters of recommendation, graduate school admission, doctorate exams, faculty hiring, and tenure promotion all require adherence to the theory of evolution. The lists are long of otherwise qualified candidates who could not take that next career step because they did not conform to the Darwinian paradigm. Academia, and the life sciences in particular, have undergone a long period of in-breeding and it is hardly surprising that, as the National Academy of Sciences' booklet triumphantly declares, ‘The overwhelming majority of scientists no longer question whether evolution has occurred.’”

Please highlight in red for me the word or words that are wrong.

 

[RickG]

Incorrect. One is the variation of an animal, the other is the complete change to another animal. Call me when you find the fossil record that proves 100% that all life came from the same single cell billions of years ago. So far, that record is so full of gaping holes I could drive 10 trucks through them side by side. *yawn*

Then perhaps you have another explanation to explain why the oldest fossils are single celled organisms, with the fossil record becoming more and more diversified and complex throughout geologic history , especially in relation to extinction events, and why the fossil record is laid down in a way that can only be explained by evolution. BTW, evolution theory does not say all life came from the "same" single cell billions of years ago.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Incorrect. One is the variation of an animal, the other is the complete change to another animal. Call me when you find the fossil record that proves 100% that all life came from the same single cell billions of years ago. So far, that record is so full of gaping holes I could drive 10 trucks through them side by side. *yawn*

Absolute garbage, as per usual.

Firstly, there is not a single evolutionary biologist on the planet who says macroevolution is one animal 'changing into' another animal. That is a cartoon straw-man fabricated by creationists.

In fact, it would disprove the theory of evolution if that were to happen.

Secondly, fossils are extremely rare. No one who has a clue what they're talking about would expect to find a 100% perfect fossil record of every organism that ever lived.

Of course, 100% of the fossils that we do have support the evolutionary model.

Furthermore, if there were no fossils at all, the body of critically robust evidence in support of evolution from other areas - especially genetics - would still be enormous.

It's 2012. You're literate. You're on the internet. There are free scientific resources literally seconds away. What is your excuse for making such horrendously ignorant assertions?

For anyone who cares to educate themselves: Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

 

[Jro]

Yeah I'd be surprised if a professor would write me a letter of recommendation if I were a vocal creationist. I certainly wouldn't write one for a student; I doubt any astronomers would write a LoR for an outspoken heliocentrist either. Grad school admission is also likely a problem because you have to come up with a project to work on, and you have to find someone to fund you - unfortunately creationism doesn't have many testable hypotheses besides "Did God Do It? HECK YEAH HE DID." These projects have proven fruitless in the past, so I'd be surprised if a school or professor would be willing to fund a venture with a dubious track record. Much research is done across the country using public funds, and many students in public universities are supported by tax payers - I think it would be a disservice to use that money to produce poor research.

I think one of the most interesting threads to come along recently was the Geological History of Creationism - many arguments against evolution were brought forward in the past hundred and sixty years or so and found wanting. I don't think scientists are under any obligation to throw funding into a well that ran dry a century ago.

 

[Giberoo]

Incorrect. One is the variation of an animal, the other is the complete change to another animal.

I assume you mean the variation of an animal SPECIES? And that is precisely what precedes speciation.

Call me when you find the fossil record that proves 100% that all life came from the same single cell billions of years ago. So far, that record is so full of gaping holes I could drive 10 trucks through them side by side. *yawn*

The fossil record will always have 'gaping holes' in it. That is the nature of the fossil record. Fossils are being destroyed all the time by the very geological processes which form them in the first place. We will never have a fossilised record of every species that has ever existed. That's just the way it is, and it is silly to demand otherwise.

A far better source of evidence for universal common descent is our genetic record. It is this which forms the basis of our tree of life - one which is corroborated by the fossil record, and species distribution.

 

[Giberoo]

Here is his quote from the OP again:

Please highlight in red for me the word or words that are wrong.

Not wanting to be facetious, but pretty much all of it.

In the life sciences one's alternatives are to be a Darwinist or to be a Darwinist. Passing grades, letters of recommendation, graduate school admission, doctorate exams, faculty hiring, and tenure promotion all require adherence to the theory of evolution.

No, they require you understand it. This alone is often enough to dismiss most ID/Creationists whose claims are based on misrepresentations or fallacies of ToE.

The lists are long of otherwise qualified candidates who could not take that next career step because they did not conform to the Darwinian paradigm.

Where are these 'long lists' of people who were denied tenure because they refused to accept the theory of evolution? Who exactly are these people? I expect, if he can come up with any names at all, they will be ID-ers/Creationists who were denied tenure because they were trying to pass off religion as science, in the usual manner of ID/Creationists.

Practically the only line that was right was the one he himself quoted :"The overwhelming majority of scientists no longer question whether evolution has occurred." But that isn't, as he appears to suggest, because it has become an article of faith - it is because the evidence in support of it is so staggeringly overwhelming.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then perhaps you have another explanation to explain why the oldest fossils are single celled organisms, with the fossil record becoming more and more diversified and complex throughout geologic history , especially in relation to extinction events, and why the fossil record is laid down in a way that can only be explained by evolution. BTW, evolution theory does not say all life came from the "same" single cell billions of years ago.

Because you date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils found in them?

 

[RickG]

Because you date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils found in them?

No AV, I have told you several times that the "Kent Hovind" method of dating rocks and fossils is not only ridiculous, it is just plain stupid. You know better, get your head out of the sand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolute garbage, as per usual.

Which is the kind of remark we would expect, if the two sides are dichotomous.

Firstly, there is not a single evolutionary biologist on the planet who says macroevolution is one animal 'changing into' another animal. That is a cartoon straw-man fabricated by creationists.

Really? cyanobacteria didn't live alone at one time?

In fact, it would disprove the theory of evolution if that were to happen.

Ya ... like rabbits in the Precambrian would?

I think not.

Secondly, fossils are extremely rare.

Why wouldn't they be? Contrasting 700 million years of fossils to 6015 should make the fossil record look rare.

No one who has a clue what they're talking about would expect to find a 100% perfect fossil record of every organism that ever lived.

Especially if there are missing links.

Of course, 100% of the fossils that we do have support the evolutionary model.

Only on paper.

Furthermore, if there were no fossils at all, the body of critically robust evidence in support of evolution from other areas - especially genetics - would still be enormous.

Right ... science validates science, doesn't it? what's that called when you apply it to the Bible? circular logic?

It's 2012.

You're literate.

Indeed he is.

You're on the internet.

Indeed he is.

There are free scientific resources literally seconds away.

Indeed he ... indeed there are.

What is your excuse for making such horrendously ignorant assertions?

Perspective?

For anyone who cares to educate themselves: Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

Ditto for them as well:

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah I'd be surprised if a professor would write me a letter of recommendation if I were a vocal creationist. I certainly wouldn't write one for a student; I doubt any astronomers would write a LoR for an outspoken heliocentrist either. Grad school admission is also likely a problem because you have to come up with a project to work on, and you have to find someone to fund you - unfortunately creationism doesn't have many testable hypotheses besides "Did God Do It? HECK YEAH HE DID." These projects have proven fruitless in the past, so I'd be surprised if a school or professor would be willing to fund a venture with a dubious track record. Much research is done across the country using public funds, and many students in public universities are supported by tax payers - I think it would be a disservice to use that money to produce poor research.

I think one of the most interesting threads to come along recently was the Geological History of Creationism - many arguments against evolution were brought forward in the past hundred and sixty years or so and found wanting. I don't think scientists are under any obligation to throw funding into a well that ran dry a century ago.

That's fine.

Voting day is coming up, and schools will be asking us for a tax levy.

We'll let'em know what we think then ...

 

[Jro]

That's fine.

Voting day is coming up, and schools will be asking us for a tax levy.

We'll let'em know what we think then ...

If you really want something to be upset about try this:

Research Works Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

I assume you mean the variation of an animal SPECIES?

What's the difference between an animal, and an animal species? one is alive, the other is just the name given it?

The fossil record will always have 'gaping holes' in it.

As it should.

 

[AV1611VET]

No AV, I have told you several times...

I know what you told me, and I'm not obligated to believe you, am I?

Just like you handwaved that video away with an accusation that it was staged or something.

 

[JustMeSee]

You ask the same questions (as statements) over and over, but refuse to acknowledge or accept the answers.

It is an interesting Hovind-esque tactic. Very disingenuous.

 

[chilehed]

Incorrect. One is the variation of an animal, the other is the complete change to another animal. Call me when you find the fossil record that proves 100% that all life came from the same single cell billions of years ago. So far, that record is so full of gaping holes I could drive 10 trucks through them side by side. *yawn*

This is like complaining that the Zapruder film doesn't prove that Kennedy was shot, on the grounds that there's a lot of time that isn't recorded between the frames and so we don't see the bullet entering his head.

 

[KimberlyAA]

The Darwinists make it sound as if ID scientists are involved in some backdoor attempt to get religion into schools. What is really going on behind all this “smoke” is that they’re really scared of the hypothesis of design itself. As long as religious people stay in their churches, that’s OK, they don’t mind. But as soon as ID supporters get into the science arena, the atheists and materialists get very upset because they see this as their exclusive domain. It’s an elitist, arrogant position, and it’s the opposite of what science ought to be.

For example, denial of tenure to the astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez. The Iowa State University Board of Regents officially confirmed its denial of that tenure, despite the smoking gun email evidence that it was solely his ID work that caused this denial. This indicates the boldness of the scientific/Darwinist establishment, that they don’t care about all the public outcry, pressure, etc. and are prepared to make this eminently qualified astronomer unemployed when his contract expires.

The NOVA special by PBS on the Dover ID trial broadcast an analysis that was not only heavily slanted in favour of Darwinism, they then brought out a resource teaching guide, downloadable free, for teachers to use, to add to the pro-Darwinist effect. It uses this technique of equivocation, where evolution is defined as the “fact” of genetic change over time. Then a bit further down, it is switched to an atheistic, naturalistic definition in which evolution suddenly becomes the belief that random mutations and selection account for everything we see in biology.

Intelligent design is a strictly scientific hypothesis that says that there is detectable evidence of design in the universe. It doesn’t say who the designer is, that’s something for the home and the church.

ID scientists are being accused of trying to get their religion into the schools—but in fact the opponents of ID are doing exactly that—getting their religion into schools. The religion of atheism is being taught in schools, by way of naturalism and materialism. By teaching that everything we see around us came to be by way of mutation and selection, and shows no evidence of intelligence behind the process, that religion is promoted.

The Darwinists talk about ID not being science, because it’s not testable—but the only aspects of Darwinism that are testable, such things as adaptation and so forth, neither confirm Darwinism nor refute the design hypothesis.

Michael Egnor, a brain surgeon, says that the Darwinists called him “unprintable names that were printed”.

 

[RickG]

I know what you told me, and I'm not obligated to believe you, am I?

No, you are not. I only ask you to understand what the science says, and understand that you should reject what misrepresented science says. There is a significant difference between "another opinion" and misrepresentation.

However, we are told by the 9th commandment not to bare false witness. Let's not misrepresent what the science says about dating sedimentary strata. Sedimentary rock layers are dated by dating neighboring layers of igneous rock, especially volcanic ash which is inclusive of the formation, not intrusive which would be younger. The use of index fossils is a relative dating method, not an absolute one. It is by no means using circular reasoning.

Just like you handwaved that video away with an accusation that it was staged or something.

AV, to anyone who has studied geologic processes in detail from an accredited institution can watch that video and see that Hovind is making stuff up. Geology does not work that way nor are credible geologist are gullible as hovind make them out to be. The man is a convicted felon serving hard-time, specifically for his practices of lying and deceit. Hovind has claimed many times in his videos that he has taught high school science for 15 years. To this day he will not tell anyone where he says he taught nor has anyone come forward to corroborate his claim. The man is not a what I would consider a roll model for the Christian faith.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Really?

Yes, really.

I dare you to find a primary scientific source that defines macroevolution as an animal 'changing into' another animal.

Ya ... like rabbits in the Precambrian would?

I think not.

Reality doesn't care what you think.

science validates science, doesn't it? what's that called when you apply it to the Bible? circular logic?

No. 'The Bible is right because The Bible says The Bibles is right' is circular logic. It's a naked assertion that gleans zero information.

Science is right because its methodology - experimentation, prediction, and numerous converging lines of critically robust evidence - is put to use in the real world, where it yields actual results and gleans actual information.