Why Evolution is True (2)

[Subduction Zone]

And yet another bucketful.

How so?

It looks to me like you are afraid. In fact if you weren't afraid you would take me up on my offer so that you could make your claims legitimately. From the start I told you that you had to learn what evidence is before you could demand any or even ask for any from me.

The only one piling up buckets is you.

 

[justlookinla]

How so?

It looks to me like you are afraid. In fact if you weren't afraid you would take me up on my offer so that you could make your claims legitimately. From the start I told you that you had to learn what evidence is before you could demand any or even ask for any from me.

The only one piling up buckets is you.

You've dug a Grand Canyon of nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no, you have been posting numerous, one liners and not doing research into the posts. As can be evidenced by your lack of citation to any official works or papers.

I have been working too. I will need to do it when I have some free time and also when I feel like it. You have not been too forthcoming when reasonable demands were made of you. Give me time.

Or pick out your one favorite quote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've dug a Grand Canyon of nothing.

You are projecting again. I am still here to help you learn. But knowing you you will simply:

 

[Subduction Zone]

<Sigh>

I have being shown to be right. When I offer to look at gradyll's best quote he runs away. When I offer to help justlookinla with his inability to understand what evidence is, he runs away too.

I am not interested in putting anyone down. I merely want a good honest debate.

Of course we all know the Catch-22 that creationists work under.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your request will take some time. I have time for quick response.

Plus you ran away when I offered to work on your one best quote when I had time. Why did you do that?

because for one, you say you are too busy in your last post. Yet you post here every three seconds. So your too busy for somethings and not others, we can all see it.

If I give you another quote it will fall on deaf ears, just pick two or three out of the list. You say you have time for a quick response. (but you are posting here every few minutes). Why not just decide to forfeit two or three posts, and give yourself 10 minutes to study?

 

[createdtoworship]

Boy either you are being incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant.

Natural selection is only part of the evolutionary process and it is either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant to ignore the roll that random variation plays.

In case you did not know random variation is how new traits enter the genome. Natural selection is the one the keeps the good traits and gets rid of the bad traits.

apparently you forgot that random variation happens through mutation, already addressed in the dissent doc:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php

again, these are the only two mechanisms or engines of so called darwinian evolutionary (macro evolution). And at this point you have failed to address your point, and yourself are being "incredibly ignorant" of your said theory.

see this link for enlightening:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

anyway there are in fact other types of variation other than mutation, outbreeding, genetic drift etc. However all variation happens within an animal kind, in no way has variation crossed from one genus into another genus. And this is what they refer to .

 

[dad]

Then how can man know if God's word is right or wrong? You are saying that we are nothing more than amoral robots who are forced to follow instructions.

We have plenty of proofs all through the ages. We can know it is right. That is the way God communicated with mankind. There is no other way to know right from wrong, good from bad. Nothing to do with robots.

 

[dad]

Your so called God's word is a terrible source for morality.

Your opinion is noted. God's word happens to be of more value.

You can legally own slaves.

Jesus did that?? He set us free actually. You are slinging poop.

The penalty for many petty crimes was death.

That beats modern society, they kill literally hundreds of millions of innocent babies for no crimes. God had to have a people, and He wanted to make them as pure as possible.

Even a smart mouthed kid was supposed to be stoned to death by his parents.

You are outside looking in on God's family of long ago, and pretending the house rules are supposed to apply everywhere. No.

None of that sounds to moral to me.

That is a good sign. Blessed is the man that walks the opposite way of the ungodly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

because for one, you say you are too busy in your last post. Yet you post here every three seconds. So your too busy for somethings and not others, we can all see it.

If I give you another quote it will fall on deaf ears, just pick two or three out of the list. You say you have time for a quick response. (but you are posting here every few minutes). Why not just decide to forfeit two or three posts, and give yourself 10 minutes to study?

You have no patience. That may be why you have such a huge learning problem. Two it will be. Maybe even three.

 

[Subduction Zone]

apparently you forgot that random variation happens through mutation, already addressed in the dissent doc:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Sign - Dissent from Darwin

I was responding to your dishonest post where you left off random variation (mutation is not the only source of variation and that shows another error from the writers of that petition). The fault was yours, it was not my fault or even the fault of the D.I. for once.

again, these are the only two mechanisms or engines of so called darwinian evolutionary (macro evolution). And at this point you have failed to address your point, and yourself are being "incredibly ignorant" of your said theory.

see this link for enlightening:

Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

anyway there are in fact other types of variation other than mutation, outbreeding, genetic drift etc. However all variation happens within an animal kind, in no way has variation crossed from one genus into another genus. And this is what they refer to .

Wow!

Double if not triple fail on your part. You were the one that ignorantly left off random variation. I pointed that out to you. Second as I said your site was in error when it said "random mutation" instead of "random variation". Third you messed up again by thinking your source supported your errant claim. Your source was only describing one of the mechanism of random variation, not the only source of random variation. You even alluded to the others in your post while trying to correct me, I guess that could be called error number four. From the link you provided:

Evolution 101: Genetic Variation

"Genetic Variation

Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.

There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.

Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.

Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation."

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have plenty of proofs all through the ages. We can know it is right. That is the way God communicated with mankind. There is no other way to know right from wrong, good from bad. Nothing to do with robots.

Wrong. If you had any "proof" you would have posted them. In fact there is no "proof" for the Bible. People have been realizing that now that information flows so much more easily thanks to the internet. That is why atheism has been growing at such a rapid pace recently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinion is noted. God's word happens to be of more value.

Perhaps. Too bad you don't have it. All you have is a book written by men that is full of value. Please don't make the Bible a false idol.

Jesus did that?? He set us free actually. You are slinging poop.
That beats modern society, they kill literally hundreds of millions of innocent babies for no crimes. God had to have a people, and He wanted to make them as pure as possible.

No, not Jesus. According to your Bible your God did that. And there was no changing of the law. Even in the New Testament slaves are told to obey their masters

You are outside looking in on God's family of long ago, and pretending the house rules are supposed to apply everywhere. No.
That is a good sign. Blessed is the man that walks the opposite way of the ungodly.

But I am not walking opposite of the way of the godly. I knew that slavery was wrong when I was a Christian and I still know it is wrong.

Or wait, since the ungodly thing that slavery is wrong are you saying that slavery is correct?

Since the Bible only supports and does not oppose slavery I suppose that could be your claim


As usual I can support my claims by using the Bible. Can you support your claim with proper support from the Bible? That means no insane unjustified interpretation of verses after the fact.

 

[Dizredux]

The statement under discussion: "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" from the Discovery Institute

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Dizredux

Good grief, anybody who knows anything about evolution as it is currently seen would agree with this statement. Of course random mutation and natural selection alone do not account for the complexity of life. There are other mechanisms involved such as genetic drift which some think is just as powerful as natural selection especially in speciation.

Grady

okay then lets start with this: what are three skeptical items regarding natural selection's inability to provide genetic variablity of modern organisms?

You do understand that natural selection does not provide genetic variability, it reduces variability. If you do not understand this that I can see where some of your problems are. You are fighting against a TOE that does not exist in reality.

I await your response. And note, this should not take too long seeing that "anybody who knows anything about evolution....would agree" with this skepticism.

Diz

(Referring to the "careful examination of the evidence" section) Well "duh" what do you think biologists and scientists in related fields do? Do you think that in their training scientists are taught not to examine the evidence? You never know, you might indeed think that.

Grady

but they don't examine the evidence, they presuppose it exists based on microevolutionary proof, and carry that truth on to macroevolution which has yet to be observed.

That concept only exists in you mind, not in reality. Macroevolution has been shown to you a number of times but you reject all that does not agree with you.

What they are saying is that the evidence should be reinvestigated. Thats the context IMO.

No, they are saying that "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". Do you really think that the evidence has not and is not being carefully examined and reexamined?

Diz

Neither does any other knowledgeable person.

Grady

explain evolution and how it works in your mind, because the typical evolutionist believes from the goo-to you- via the zoo. with natural selection and mutation as the only engines pushing the train.

Are you really and truly unaware that mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms involved with evolution? You couldn't possibly be so the only thing I can think of is strongly selective willful denial.

Diz

Because that is what the evidence shows. What on earth is your problem with this?

Grady

I adressed this above

Diz

One can easily deny that these are the only mechanisms involved in evolution. If fact if someone says that these two mechanisms are adequate to explain evolution then they have a rather serious case of ignorance about the subject.

You will, as usual reject this as you reject anything else that doesn't agree with you but readers can figure out what is going on.

And you did just what I predicted. At least you didn't disappoint.

Grady

then you reject darwinian evolution, and one what basis? Speculation. Because I doubt as with the other posters that you will not address the facts of the matter but dodge, once again, my request to back up what you say with examples.

You have been given examples of macroevolution over and over and you, with great determination, find ways of rejecting them all.

Sigh, Grady continues to be often wrong but never in doubt.

Grady

addressing the post to me, and then talking to me in the third person is a bit rude, for a christian, that is. So please refrain.

What on earth does this have to do with Christianity?

Grady

On the other hand, creating a post for the general public and labeling someone in the third person is fine, and I do that all the time. But not like what you did here.

OK, I don't see much of a problem here but since you do I will try hard not to do it in responses to you in the future.

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

All right gradyll, I have pulled up a copy of "The Evolution Handbook" and I see that quite a few of his quote are of other creationists. The problem is that those are bogus quotes on the face of them. Always go to the source. The fact that your lying sources openly quotes other liars only buries the ultimate sources of their misquoted works another layer deeper.

But here is a start. On page 16 he claims:

Stellar evolution is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce all of the stars and worlds.

This is a freebie for you. Obviously this is a reference to the Big Bang. The problem is that it was not nothing, and there was no explosion. Second more properly that should be called the beginning of the universe as we know it. Stellar evolution covers the formation and growth of stars. It is simply an idiotic mistake by the author.

He starts with that lie and builds upon it. Do you need links to sites that accurately describe the Big Bang or are you willing to admit that the author of that work has already been shown to be a liar?

What is amazing as I scan down the pdf is that the writer got almost everything about science wrong. Second, he loves to use the appeal to emotion fallacy also known as "poisoning the well". As you know you falsely tried to tie evolution with Nazism, even though Hitler banned the work of Darwin. You went out found invalid sources that supported you. In fact you went out of your way to use invalid rather than valid sources, or did you forget how you linked to an author who was paid by the D.I.? That could not have been a coincidence.

And when I looked back at your post that was what you mainly had. I got so used to you quote mining that when ever I see a quote of yours I assume that is what you have. But in the post in question you did much worse:

""He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].
"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488."

This is an unsupported claim by your post that was based upon Haeckel joining a conservative German party in 1918. In that post your hero quoted another bogus work, the "Encyclopedia of Evolution". You can't support a bogus work by quoting from another bogus work. That is a false appeal to authority. The writer of that pieced of garbage had no authority either.

So that's one, unless you want to go into it more. Here is the link to your extremely messed up post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-84/#post66197513

I am ending this one here since it may get too long if I continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just got back from a rather long Google search. I was wondering about the claims of gradyll through his sources about Haeckel. I could find only two possible sources for the claim that Haeckel had ever joined the Thule society. They were both from anti-evolution history professors. Not the best of sources. One has been totally discredited since he took money from the Discovery Institute an extremely dishonest anti-evolution group that has been shown to be behind the formation of ID by making it creationism with a cheap suite on.

At any rate the claim is very poorly supported and fairly well debunked in this article:

http://home.uchicago.edu/rjr6/articles/Haeckel--antiSemitism.pdf

Where the author points out among other things that Haeckel was sick and bed ridden the year that he supposedly joined Thule according to Daniel Gasman (And I am sorry but the juvenile in me cannot help but laugh at that extremely appropriate and rather anal retentive name):

However, in late 1918, Haeckel was an invalid and could not leave the second floor of
his home; thus, he was hardly in a position to join this Bavarian group.

The work as a whole dissects and debunks the false claims against Haeckel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, back to gradyll's post his second quote from that piece of dreck:

"Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl Marx, December 12, 1859, ‘Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 85.
"Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, December 19, 1860, ‘Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.

The logical fallacy here is again an appeal to emotion. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If Engels said that he loved the color blue would that mean you would have to get rid of all of your blue jeans? There is nothing of substance there and nothing to really debunk. It was a waste of print as best and a severe attempt to smear someone with guilt by association. It had nothing to do with whether evolution was true or not.

That is two quotes debunked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was an avid, self-appointed spokesman for Darwinism in Germany . . Haeckel professed a mystical belief in the forces of nature and a literal transfer of the laws of biology to the social realm. The movement he founded in Germany was proto-Nazi in character; romantic Volkism and theMonist League (established 1906), along with evolution and science, laid the ideological foundations of [German] National Socialism.

Oh look, I already debunked this two. Your book only quoted authors that were false. They had no support for their claims. Haeckel was too sick and bed ridden to have joined that group.

That's three. Should I keep going?

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[justlookinla]

because for one, you say you are too busy in your last post. Yet you post here every three seconds. So your too busy for somethings and not others, we can all see it.

Yep, this is true. Notice the frequent 'liar' references instead of actual discussion.

Been going on for quite a while now.