Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Speedwell]

but they are different genera. so how they can interbreed if by definition they are different species?

I'm telling you that those things sometimes happen because the diffencence between species is not an absolute. The differences between species are quantitative, not qualitative. Consider, for example, horses and donkeys; no one doubts that they are different species, but they can mate to produce sterile offspring. All that shows is that they are relatively closely related, not that donkeys are evolving into horses. The most that evolution could do is to evolve donkeys into more horse-like creatures, but they would still be the descendants of donkeys and no matter how superficially horse-like they became, they would never be horses.

 

[dmmesdale]

No, I can understand it fine. It's just you who can't. Show me exactly where Darwin says "the white man MUST wipe out the other races".

Show where Darwin forbids it? It does not as far as i know. Moving the goalposts. There is certainly enuf there to apply a war where one race will wipe out another by various means including killing them off.

And the definition of 'savage' as used in Victorian England is highly nuanced,

We all know what it means. You are doing damage control.

Let alone that your first quote is an obvious misquote:
"Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,--such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility.
If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct. (32. Gerland (ibid. s. 12) gives facts in support of this statement.)"
Disingenuous much?

Not a misquote. Here is the full.

The Idea of Race - Google Books

Including the native rat of New Zealand being exterminated by the Euro rat. In the middle of 71... extinction.... the inroads of increasing and conquering tribes. So you really do not have much of a case. Simply an immunity to actual written evidence.
The scars of a nation - creation.com

But after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, their treatment took a dramatic turn for the worse.1 For one thing, they were regarded as doomed to die out in the ‘struggle with the superior white races’. So it was widely promoted as a kindness to hasten their extinction in ‘humane’ ways. One such way was by ‘breeding them out’. Any half-caste children were forcibly removed from Aboriginal society as a matter of policy, leading to the so-called ‘lost generation’.2

His people have a Flood story, too, which has clearly become modified to the conditions of Australia’s tropical north. He said, ‘Our story says that people were breaking the laws of our ancestor spirit (the one who created everything and gave life), which made him angry and he sent a huge cyclone which just rained and rained and gradually flooded the whole area except for the top of a hill. The few that made it there were saved; the rest were drowned or eaten by crocodiles as they tried to swim to this safe place.’

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show where Darwin forbids it? It does not as far as i know. Moving the goalposts. There is certainly enuf there to apply a war where one race will wipe out another by various means including killing them off.

Do you lack the ability to read basic English? I said: Show me exactly where Darwin says "the white man MUST wipe out the other races".

We all know what it means. You are doing damage control.

No, I'm stating a basic fact. During the First World War, the English called the Germans a 'race', and the Germans said the same of the French. But genetically, they're all Europeans, Caucasian and white.

Not a misquote. Here is the full.

The Idea of Race - Google Books

Including the native rat of New Zealand being exterminated by the Euro rat. In the middle of 71... the inroads of increasing and conquering tribes. So you really do not have much of a case. Simply an immunity to actual written evidence.

... you basically posted a link TO THE EXACT SAME THING I QUOTED! What was the point of that?
Things go extinct. IT'S NATURE.
Although you are right, it wasn't a misquote. It was an obvious quote mine to try and make Darwin, and anyone who follows the theory of evolution, out to be a racist.
The obvious hallmark of a troll.

 

[dmmesdale]

... you basically posted a link TO THE EXACT SAME THING I QUOTED! What was the point of that?
Things go extinct. IT'S NATURE.
Although you are right, it wasn't a misquote. It was an obvious quote mine to try and make Darwin, and anyone who follows the theory of evolution, out to be a racist.
The obvious hallmark of a troll.

Not responsible for your emotional reaction. Suggest a more detached approach. It probably clashes with your PC attitude. That whole racism bad thing is unique to our culture. Earlier times racism was far more normalized. That is the history. If indeed we are all accidents then what is really wrong with one group of accidents enslaving another group of accidents? Ideas have consequences.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not responsible for your emotional reaction. Suggest a more detached approach. It probably clashes with your PC attitude. That whole racism bad thing is unique to our culture. Earlier times racism was far more normalized. That is the history. If indeed we are all accidents then what is really wrong with one group of accidents enslaving another group of accidents? Ideas have consequences.

Oh! So you're one of those types. The ones that are so scared by their own emotions that you think you need an external force to control it rather than your own God-given freewill and intelligence.
Not really surprising to see that really.

And why is it so bad to think that treating a man differently and horribly than yourself because he has a darker skin than yourself such a bad thing?

 

[OzSpen]

You denied that USincognito gave you evidence. He clearly did. You denied his evidence. Denial.

I've provided more evidence to refute one of his pieces of misinformation at #1475.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've provided more evidence to refute one of his pieces of mis information at #1475.

Claims from incredibly biased and also misleading sources (Michael Denton is an avowed intelligent design proponent, so not really the best person to go with for science on evolution) is worth bupkis.

 

[pitabread]

Claims from incredibly biased and also misleading sources (Michael Denton is an avowed intelligent design proponent, so not really the best person to go with for science on evolution) is worth bupkis.

It's probably worth noting that Michael Denton accepts common ancestry of organisms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's probably worth noting that Michael Denton accepts common ancestry of organisms.

Yeah, but being an intelligent design proponent does kind of fudge it a bit. Plus, he only accepts natural selection insofar as 'microevolution', so it gets a bit weird.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah, but being an intelligent design proponent does kind of fudge it a bit. Plus, he only accepts natural selection insofar as 'microevolution', so it gets a bit weird.

I'm just wondering if OzSpen knows that, since he continues to reference Denton but doesn't appear to fully share Denton's views of evolution. I could be mistaken though.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm just wondering if OzSpen knows that, since he continues to reference Denton but doesn't appear to fully share Denton's views of evolution. I could be mistaken though.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[OzSpen]

Posts 1447 and 1450 are exactly the posts I'm talking about. They show your own incredulity because of the fact that you can't understand the difference between natural speciation and artificial manmade speciation ALONG with your own insipid attempt to try and compare evolution to the Holocaust. A BLATANT attempt at moving the goalpost and appeal to emotion that is used time and again by people who try and say that the theory of evolution is wrong, without understanding what evolution is about.
And also: using a book that was written by a proponent for intelligent design and flat-out rejected by ACTUAL scientists? Maybe try and use an ACTUAL scientific book about evolution next time.

Warden,

My 'insipid attempt to try and compare evolution to the Holocaust' (your language) is refuted by verifiable historical evidence that is articulated in Professor of history, Dr Richard Weikart's (California State University) article, Was Hitler Influenced by Darwinism?

Professor Weikart supports the Darwinian influence on Hitler and Nazism from an historical perspective.

You have the audacity to continue your fallacious reasoning with a genetic logical fallacy when you state:

And also: using a book that was written by a proponent for intelligent design and flat-out rejected by ACTUAL scientists? Maybe try and use an ACTUAL scientific book about evolution next time.

A genetic fallacy or fallacy of origins is 'basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises'. It's form is like this:

The origin of the claim is presented.
Therefore, the claim is true/false (source: genetic fallacy).

This is the form of your use of a genetic fallacy:

• 'try and use an ACTUAL scientific book about evolution';
• Therefore, a claim would be true if it was supported by a proponent of evolutionary science.

We cannot have a rational conversation when you continue to use logical fallacies.

Oz

​

 

[pitabread]

My incredulity about ToE. Molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton, provides lots of evidence that caused him to write 368pp, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985). Thirty years after that publication the evolutionary crisis continues and he has documented it in, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2016, 354pp).

Out of curiosity, but do you share Denton's views that life is related via common ancestry?

 

[OzSpen]

Claims from incredibly biased and also misleading sources (Michael Denton is an avowed intelligent design proponent, so not really the best person to go with for science on evolution) is worth bupkis.

You don't seem to understand what your committing this genetic fallacy AGAIN does to reasonable conversation.

genetic
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.​

It is erroneous reasoning and you are using this irrationality against me. You can try it with someone else. In future, I'll do one of two things if you do this again to me:

1. Report you to moderators, and
2. Place you on ignore.

Please quit your shenanigans with me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yeah, but being an intelligent design proponent does kind of fudge it a bit. Plus, he only accepts natural selection insofar as 'microevolution', so it gets a bit weird.

So being an evolutionary proponent doesn't 'fudge' it?

Oz

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Warden,

My 'insipid attempt to try and compare evolution to the Holocaust' (your language) is refuted by verifiable historical evidence that is articulated in Professor of history, Dr Richard Weikart's (California State University) article, Was Hitler Influenced by Darwinism?

Professor Weikart supports the Darwinian influence on Hitler and Nazism from an historical perspective.

so, pardon me for pointing out that Dr Richard Weikart is an outlier on this and the majority of the historical community go against him (Professor Robert J Richards points out quite a number of show-stopping disconnects in his work http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf - which includes references, btw.... but will you even follow them up?). I started out on the first point raised that Dr Richard Weikart made a mistranslation of "development" or "developing" in the layman sense for "Evolution" in the scientific sense, and based an entire argument around it - I struggled with some translations for a little while until I realised a german student was staying with a friend of mine this month, after speaking with him, he confirmed Weikart does indeed have it wrong. As is typical of German language, it has a specific word that means "Theory of Evolution" (it is "Evolutionstheorie") and the word he had translated is used in context of developmental (as in "Entwicklung"), meaning to improve, or develop, or (yes, even) evolve (but not as in the scientific context of evolution).

Professor Robert J Richards also brings up a number of points that are equally pertinent to the discussion too, such as Hitler used chemicals and gas to great effect in sterilising the fatherland of the "Jewish" problem, but would this mean Chemistry and Chemists are evil and lead to lawlessness and anarchy?

Hitler's Table Talk also spoke at times about how Hitler saw himself in the same light as Moses in that he can see the promised land, but the work he started may take a 100 or 200 years or more before it comes to fruition. ( see Carrier-tabletalk-1432747.pdf | Religion And Belief | Philosophical Science and the discussion Hitler's Table Talk - Wikipedia regarding the (in)convenient translations ) - Anyway, the discrepancies and one-sidedness of Professor Weikart's work is pretty plain.

Another of Hitler's direct quotes on the topic of evolution is discussed here at Was Hitler a Darwinian? No! No! No! :

"In addition, the claim that Hitler was influenced by Darwin, either directly or indirectly, can be authoritatively rejected. In one of the only direct references to evolution by Hitler that can be found, he wrote “nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state.” As Richards remarks, “Could any statement [rejecting Darwinism] be more explicit?”
​

In any case, let's say for a hypothetical moment that all the evidence against you didn't exist and Hitler did in fact have and refer regularly to his own bedside copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species by Natural Selection" - Could this in any way disprove Evolution?

 

[OzSpen]

so, pardon me for pointing out that Dr Richard Weikart is an outlier on this and the majority of the historical community go against him (Professor Robert J Richards points out quite a number of show-stopping disconnects in his work http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf - which includes references, btw.... but will you even follow them up?). I started out on the first point raised that Dr Richard Weikart made a mistranslation of "development" or "developing" in the layman sense for "Evolution" in the scientific sense, and based an entire argument around it - I struggled with some translations for a little while until I realised a german student was staying with a friend of mine this month, after speaking with him, he confirmed Weikart does indeed have it wrong. As is typical of German language, it has a specific word that means "Theory of Evolution" (it is "Evolutionstheorie") and the word he had translated is used in context of developmental (as in "Entwicklung"), meaning to improve, or develop, or (yes, even) evolve (but not as in the scientific context of evolution).

Professor Robert J Richards also brings up a number of points that are equally pertinent to the discussion too, such as Hitler used chemicals and gas to great effect in sterilising the fatherland of the "Jewish" problem, but would this mean Chemistry and Chemists are evil and lead to lawlessness and anarchy?

Hitler's Table Talk also spoke at times about how Hitler saw himself in the same light as Moses in that he can see the promised land, but the work he started may take a 100 or 200 years or more before it comes to fruition. ( see Carrier-tabletalk-1432747.pdf | Religion And Belief | Philosophical Science and the discussion Hitler's Table Talk - Wikipedia regarding the (in)convenient translations ) - Anyway, the discrepancies and one-sidedness of Professor Weikart's work is pretty plain.

Another of Hitler's direct quotes on the topic of evolution is discussed here at Was Hitler a Darwinian? No! No! No! :

"In addition, the claim that Hitler was influenced by Darwin, either directly or indirectly, can be authoritatively rejected. In one of the only direct references to evolution by Hitler that can be found, he wrote “nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state.” As Richards remarks, “Could any statement [rejecting Darwinism] be more explicit?”
​

In any case, let's say for a hypothetical moment that all the evidence against you didn't exist and Hitler did in fact have and refer regularly to his own bedside copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species by Natural Selection" - Could this in any way disprove Evolution?

Bugeyed,

If you had read the first paragraph of Professor Weikart carefully, you would have noted:

This is a reply to Robert J. Richards' essays, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" and "The German Reception of Darwin's Theory, 1860-1945," accessed on October 12, 2011.​

Weikart was exposing Richards' errors and you don't seem to like that.

Then you present another logical fallacy to support your view: 'pardon me for pointing out that Dr Richard Weikart is an outlier on this and the majority of the historical community go against him'.

That's an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. This fallacy is:

Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

Logical Form:

Everybody is doing X.

Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.
​

The logical form of this fallacy you have used is:

'the majority of the historical community go against him [Weikart] in showing the association between Hitler/Nazism and Darwinianism.

Therefore, the correct conclusion is that there was no Darwinianism influence on Hitler/Nazism.​

Rational discussion has come to an end because of your use of a fallacy like this.

Oz

 

[USincognito]

I'll comment on one example only: Nebraska Man. Your claim is that it 'was never claimed to be a human or human ancestor'. This is a false statement as it was used by Clarence Darrow in defense of evolution at the Scopes Monkey Trial, Dayton TN, 1925.{snip}

...Clarence Darrow was the lawyer who defended him, using Nebraska Man as an example of scientific evidence for descent of human beings.

William Jennings Bryan, a creationist, was faced with this plethora of 'scientific experts who used the 'facts' of Nebraska Man.{snip}

one piece being Nebraska Man.

I don't know where you copy and pasted that from, but none of it it factual. Nebraska "man" was never mentioned by anyone during the trial.
The role of Nebraska man in the creation-evolution debate

Hesperopithecus was not mentioned by anyone during the course of the Scopes trial, although other major discoveries of fossil hominids were discussed from the stand and in written testimony. Recent claims by Hitching that "the Hesperopithecus tooth was proudly displayed [at the trial] as evidence that man had a long evolutionary past" (1982, p. 211) are simply untrue;​

I won't be kidded

..into believing your statement that 'Nebraska "man" was never claimed to be a human or human ancestor'. The Scopes Monkey Trial disproves your statement.

Except for the fact that H. harolcookii was never mentioned during the trial. The source you copy and pasted from has an active imagination, but nothing you got from them is true.

Molecular biologist, Dr Michael Denton, concludes his exposẻ of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis with:

1. Denton has nothing to do with the fact that H. haroldcookii was never proposed to be a human ancestor.
2. Nothing to do with the fact that H. haroldcookii was never mentioned during the Scopes Trial.
3. Denton is an outlier and his opinions in "Evolution" are rightfully ignored by other scientists.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - Wikipedia

​

 

[dmmesdale]

"There is only one sane and logical thing to be done with a really inferior race, and that is to exterminate it". H. G. Wells

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Bugeyed,

If you had read the first paragraph of Professor Weikart carefully, you would have noted:

This is a reply to Robert J. Richards' essays, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" and "The German Reception of Darwin's Theory, 1860-1945," accessed on October 12, 2011.
Weikart was exposing Richards' errors and you don't seem to like that.

Yeah, thanks, I read it perfectly fine - if YOU had read his entire rebuttal and compared it to the documents he thinks he was rebutting, you'll notice Weikart hasn't provided much in the way of substance at all aside restatements of his failed arguments, and this is more of an issue than .... well ... whatever it is you think the issue is.

Then you present another logical fallacy to support your view: 'pardon me for pointing out that Dr Richard Weikart is an outlier on this and the majority of the historical community go against him'.

*another* logical fallacy? what was the first one??

I'm not sure how you think rational discussion actually occurs, but whatever is going on in your mind when you imagine rational discussion, it doesn't seem to correlate with how rational discussion actually occurs for real. At no stage did I say he has to be wrong because he isn't following all the other lemmings, but as with any scientific view that goes against the trend, it's on him to support his views with an appropriate amount of evidence which he simply hasn't done in the slightest - he literally just restated the original arguments as if they were effectively new and improved arguments, which they just aren't! What new info can be gleaned from the same old argument he resummarises in response? I beg you to fill me in.

I also couldn't help but notice you avoided addressing the arguments provided from those documents for your convenience?

That's an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. This fallacy is:

Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

Logical Form:

Everybody is doing X.

Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.
The logical form of this fallacy you have used is:

'the majority of the historical community go against him [Weikart] in showing the association between Hitler/Nazism and Darwinianism.

I'm not going to accept that you're as dishonest as you're making yourself out here by calling my pointing out deficiencies in his arguments as an "appeal to popularity fallacy" while completely avoiding the points I made regarding his arguments (incidentally that show your dishonesty here).

I'll reiterate in summary, just in case there were too many big words - So for info, he needs to try putting forth an argument defending his position using supporting evidence, not restating the old arguments as new ones again. He hasn't addressed the issues spoken about in the documents he addressed, namely the translation of what he thinks is a word referring to Scientific Evolution as opposed to just development, nor the table talk references to seeing himself as a Martyr doing God's work like Moses, looking to the Promised Land, knowing he wouldn't make it there himself.

Therefore, the correct conclusion is that there was no Darwinianism influence on Hitler/Nazism.

Where was that ever said? For the Third Time (because I know you won't get it) - Anyone proposing something that isn't the consensus view in their field of pursuit is OBLIGED to SUPPORT THEIR POSITION APPROPRIATELY! and your horse in this race has failed to adequately do so, and it is YOU who doesn't like that one bit.

Rational discussion has come to an end because of your use of a fallacy like this.

Oz

Rational discussion has indeed gone by the wayside, and it went long before I allegedly made any fallacy - your method of debating is somewhat suspect and dishonest. I'm even embarrassed you're Australian. I have no idea how you fell through the gaps in our education system to be so devoid of critical thought and honesty, but there you have it.

Is this how you choose represent Christianity? You Lie and twist what truth you do acknowledge into something it isn't to prop yourself and/or your belief system up as if you're effective in rational discourse? Let me point out your misgivings:

1. You start with a condescending prompt on my even having read the title let alone the article at all
2. You accuse me of an Appeal to Popularity fallacy and apparently stopped reading my post right before I go on to both 'not' argue that everyone else is right because of popularity AND I actually provide legitimate reasons why your Professor's arguments fail.
3. You lie about me stating that he was wrong because he didn't have the same views as the majority of Historians and Scholars on the subject (straw man much??)
4. You completely ignored the actual arguments that debunk your Professor's paper without addressing any of it.
5. You claim in a fit of obnoxious hubris that rational discourse has come to an end because of my use of said fallacy, possibly as a redirect so you didn't have to address the arguments provided.

Have I missed anything?

p.s. I hope you haven't forgotten about the repost I made for you to address? Post 1452 of this thread:- Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?