Scientific Challenge To Darwinists

[exchemist]

1.  The Left controls academia in the United States.  For that reason, we have claims of "climate change" and paranoia to a high degree.

2. Also because the Left controls academia, the archaic *theory* of Darwin is worshiped as a religion, and no dissent is tolerated.  This is because the Left DEMANDS an explanation, and if Darwinism is discarded, then WHAT, the Left demands, will "take  its place!"

 

In point of fact, NOTHING need "take its  place."  The simple answer is, "We don't know."  Same answer as in so many other questions, not the least of which is why do masses attract, and with ultimate precision, as if all masses "know" the distance and mass of the others.  What do we know about gravity waves?  Pretty much nothing.

Ah OK, so it is the Left that demands answers when the evidence does not - in your view - support an answer. 

 

Presumably this also applies to the creationists who are so keen to demand an answer to unsolved issues in biology that they insist on attributing anything unknown to God, rather than being content to say we don't yet know.  

 

I had no idea: I had always thought creationists tended to be on the Religious Right. But we don't really have them much on this side of the pond, so I have to admit to not being an expert on their politics.

[TooMuchFun]

Stop giving your simplistic "Ah okay" commentaries. 

 

What you "always thought" is the same thing atheists everywhere "always thought."

Anyone who does not genuflect to Charles Darwin and your terms is a "creationist" or in more hostile terms, a "Creo."

They're so far beneath you intellectually  and scientifically that you can hardly bear to speak to them, and when you do, 

it is always in condescending terms.

 

The science, as countless biologists, biochemists, mathematicians, and other experts over a wide variety of fields of study have stated emphatically and repeatedly, does NOT support the Darwinian tautology.

Edited September 30, 2018 by TooMuchFun

[exchemist]

Stop giving your simplistic "Ah okay" commentaries. 

 

What you "always thought" is the same thing atheists everywhere "always thought."

Anyone who does not genuflect to Charles Darwin and your terms is a "creationist" or in more hostile terms, a "Creo."

They're so far beneath you intellectually  and scientifically that you can hardly bear to speak to them, and when you do, 

it is always in condescending terms.

 

The science, as countless biologists, biochemists, mathematicians, and other experts over a wide variety of fields of study have stated emphatically and repeatedly, does NOT support the Darwinian tautology.

Ah OK. 

 

What I don't quite follow is how "the science" can be opposed to one of the main theories of biology.

 

One might have thought that, if that were so, somebody in science would have spotted it by now. After all, biology is practised worldwide, not just in allegedly Left-dominated US academia. Or is it that all science, worldwide , has been infiltrated by The Left? But hang on a minute, if that were true, then "the science" that opposes Darwinian evolution must also have been dreamt up by The Left.  

 

All very baffling. But perhaps that's the intention of the Illuminati/lizard people? 

Edited October 1, 2018 by exchemist

[TooMuchFun]

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.”  (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

“The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation.”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

[exchemist]

 

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.”  (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

“The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation.”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

 

This is interesting stuff, if only for what it shows about the sources of propaganda used by creationists.

 

To take these people in order,

 

1) Richard Bliss is a figure of no account from a prejudiced institution. It would be astonishing if he were not a creationist. He also has something close to a fake degree: 

"Bliss claimed to earn a D.Ed. from the University of Sarasota in 1978. A previous version of this article described the university as a "diploma mill operating out of a Florida motel" as late as 1984. However, the university's status has since improved. The University of Sarasota was accredited in 1990 by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to grant masters and doctoral degrees. According to the 1997 edition of Bears' Guide to Earning College Degrees Nontraditionally [1], a student's total residency at the University of Sarasota can be as short as six weeks.

 

2) William Fix is a Dr of behavioural science and known nutcase, who thinks humans were originally spirits and slowly descended into matter. Enough said.

 

3) Arthur Koestler was an author and polymath who was interested in philosophy and science but was without any science qualifications and had a number of controversial ideas. He died (by his own hand) in 1983, before the sequencing of the genome. 

 

4) Patterson complained bitterly about creationists taking his words out of context:

 

"Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.^[8]

 

In fact, his statement that the only explanation competing with evolution is creationism is intended to show how compelling the evolutionary account is, as there is only one (ridiculous) alternative. 

 

5) Wolfgang Smith is by far the most interesting character in the list: a mathematician and philosopher, who has ended up, at the age of 88, supporting ID. I have not had time to research his rationale for that, nor for the background to the quote reported here. He may I suppose be referring to the fairly significant number of mechanisms of variation that have been discovered since the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was put forward. But I'm speculating.

 

6) Ager was someone else who got fed up with being quote-mined by creationists, commenting: "  That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')."

 

So there we have it. One charlatan, one crank, one well-read layman, one unusual philosopher/mathematician with no biology qualifications, and only two scientists with expertise in relevant disciplines (palaeontology, geology), both of whom have been misrepresented. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by exchemist

[A-wal]

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

It would take a miracle (as in something outside of known natural laws) for evolution not to occur. Genes will randomly mutate, some of those mutations will be beneficial, beneficial mutations will be preferentially passed down to future generations over detrimental or useless changes and this will lead to a better adaptation to the environment over time.

 

What unknown processes of nature are you advocating to prevent mutation and/or natural selection?

Edited October 1, 2018 by A-wal

[Super Polymath]

If you watch the show Castle Rock there's a deaf man in the woods who describes the ringing in one's ears as "the schismo" synchronizing consciousnesses. The vibrational frequency has been compared to "the voice of God" in several mythologies, in Twin Peaks even. Like the static electricity, or "white noise" or when you get static on an old fashioned TV when the channel goes out, it's apart of the CMBR Artifact. In fact you can say information panspermia via quantum entanglement is potentially several orders of magnitude faster than Warp Factor 9 in Star Trek or c^9, when selecting potentialities for Goldilocks planet alien abiogeneses via probability manipulation in the simulated microverses harvested by matrioshka brains of kugelblitz driven partial dyson swarms...

 

 

Long range, low propagation rate

 

There will be kugelblitz engines to provide all the energy needed by a Type III for googols of years, reducing the need for propagating to other systems other than to network a greater amount of collective processing power.  QE information panspermia is very long range, several decillion light years, due to how rarely Goldilocks worlds are conducive for remotely evolving civilizations via QE & probability manipulation:

 

 

 

Considering the fact that one of the first things a solar quantum memrister (Matrioshka Brain) is going to do once fully operational is start running simulations, than they probably know the future. 

 

The inverse of a particles spin, that is, it's anti-particle, are synchronized at a rate that has to be at least 4 orders of magnitude or ten thousane faster than the speed of light if not instantaneous as the standard quantum interpretation assumes. My interpretation calculated entanglement to occur non-instantaneously, the calculation was 7 times faster than speed of light assuming particles are entangled by micro gravitational waves: Relativistic anti particles will produce superluminal gravitational waves in the photon aether opposite to the direction they're going, positive charge relativistic particles will produce superluminal gravitational waves in the photon aether congruent to the direction they're moving. That's the addition of velocities in a displacement esque domino effect with the relativistic particle & the photons phasing it, which alone does not account for 4 orders of magnitude faster than light. Time dilation means the speed of light is faster relative to the increased mass of relativistic particles as all mass begins in the photon aether in my interpretation, any increased density will compress time, in order for c to remain constant when time is longer the speed of light has to increase, that combined with the addition of velocities did add up to over 7 times faster than light.

 

Entanglement under that notion can send information about something as well as effect, via gravity - albeit on an infinitesimal scale, matter and energy. Information systems can alter the chemistry in, say, organic molecules - the information can be sent & impacted with the organic molecules on a world a thousand galaxies away and arrange them into nucleotide sequences causing abiogenesis starting a chain reaction that can lead to an extension of your Type III civilization (information panspermia) given you have already accounted for all the variables, which are contained within the set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a).

 

So, because these gravitational entanglement of these particles is non-instantaneous in this theory, there actually is a way to send superluminal signals out into space this way. Even set up a remote computer made of these signals, of pure information, that can receive & send ftl signals all on its own. I call it the boltzmann brain astronaut. 

 

However, for a network with that kind of complexity (basically making us Gods capable of creating intelligent life that can do our bidding on very rare exoplanets in the goldilocks zones of remote star systems) you'd have to first be capable of time travel. Miniaturization of computer technology would need to be staggeringly more advanced for such communication that it would have to rely on such communication but on much smaller scales that our calculations can handle. You'd need to run googolplexes of simulations based on this model until you get a universe that looks exactly like ours, once just happen upon such a simulation & have proven that it acts just like our universe we can assume that the location of all the particles & their trajectories will match those in the real universe - giving us omniscience of the past present & future. Then we will be able to tell exactly how moving this electron or this proton will effect entangled particles across the entire universe. 

 

That whomever may stumble upon some insightful equations, will naturally learn from applying that unclouded physics, that quantum jumps are not instantaneous, but law-breakingly fast, that any matter form can be replicated or transformed into any other matter form freely through nature's own cellular automation. It's a simple matter of plugging the right code into nature & nature will carry out whatever operation that makes fluctuations in the medium of reality a crystal, or a precious metal, or a stable repeating process that always results in a release of energy, & finally a process that can carry out computations on it's own, & even perform self assigned tasks dependent on those operational parameters. Nature is math btw

[TooMuchFun]

It would take a miracle (as in something outside of known natural laws) for evolution not to occur. Genes will randomly mutate, some of those mutations will be beneficial, beneficial mutations will be preferentially passed down to future generations over detrimental or useless changes and this will lead to a better adaptation to the environment over time.

 

What unknown processes of nature are you advocating to prevent mutation and/or natural selection?

 

 

You are confusing adaptation with your claims of Darwinian evolution.  Yes, organisms adapt. These are trivial changes that do NOT create hopeful monsters.   Extrapolation as you propose it has been examined for 150 years and the evidence remains sorely wanting, otherwise there would not be volumes and volumes written to contradict it.

 

You engage in petty ad hominem attacks, viz.  the fallacy of the ad hominem argument.

You combine this with the fallacy of the argument from authority, "we're smarter than you, so we're right and you're wrong."

You also are confused as to the intricacies of science. It does not do "proofs."  So said Carl Sagan and many other scientists.

You are also confused as to the value of "consensus." It doesn't matter.

At one time, everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth. They were still wrong.

 

The trivial nature of "it survives because it's better and it's better because it survives is a meaningless tautology which does nothing to advance science or knowledge.  Now I am done arguing with you. 

[TooMuchFun]

The Evolution Fraud

Truth never lost ground by enquiry.- WILLIAM PENN, Some Fruits of Solitude

 

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

 

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

 

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

 

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

 

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

 

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Millikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

 

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

 

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

 

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”  (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

 

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.”  (Dr. T.H Morgan)

 

 

“Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.”  (Dr. R. Kirk, “The Rediscovery of Creation,” in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)

“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.”  (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Pobabilities (1985)

 

“For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution….But there was not one thing I knew about it… So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, “Can you tell me any one thing that is true?” I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”  (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)

Edited October 1, 2018 by TooMuchFun

[A-wal]

You are confusing adaptation with your claims of Darwinian evolution.  Yes, organisms adapt. These are trivial changes that do NOT create hopeful monsters.   Extrapolation as you propose it has been examined for 150 years and the evidence remains sorely wanting, otherwise there would not be volumes and volumes written to contradict it.

I'm not confusing anything. Adaptation is the natural result of mutation and natural selection. You still haven't come up with a mechanism for how random mutation could somehow be prevented from leading to survival and flourishing of beneficial mutations.

 

The "volumes and volumes" you speak of seem to be nothing but a collection of creationist bullshit along with misunderstandings of simple premises that they either refuse to accept or are simply too stupid to grasp and arguments that make no logical sense, like claiming that survival of the fittest is somehow circular reasoning when it very clearly isn't.

 

You engage in petty ad hominem attacks, viz.  the fallacy of the ad hominem argument.

You combine this with the fallacy of the argument from authority, "we're smarter than you, so we're right and you're wrong."

You also are confused as to the intricacies of science. It does not do "proofs."  So said Carl Sagan and many other scientists.

You are also confused as to the value of "consensus." It doesn't matter.

At one time, everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth. They were still wrong.

Who are you talking to? Exchemist I presume? There's no ad homs, arguments from authority or mentions of the words 'proof' or 'consensus' in my post.

 

The trivial nature of "it survives because it's better and it's better because it survives is a meaningless tautology which does nothing to advance science or knowledge.  Now I am done arguing with you. 

Natural selection is in no way a tautology. You must be very disparate to try that one. It's better (fitter for survival) because its random mutation has given it some kind of advantage over its competitors. Obviously if it has an advantage then that mutation will stand a better chance of survival and over time this will lead to an ever greater divergence from the staring point and gradual adaptation to the environment.

Edited October 1, 2018 by A-wal

[TooMuchFun]

I'm not confusing anything. Adaptation is the natural result of mutation and natural selection. You still haven't come up with a mechanism for how random mutation could somehow be prevented from leading to survival and flourishing of beneficial mutations.

 

The "volumes and volumes" you speak of seem to be nothing but a collection of creationist bullshit along with misunderstandings of simple premises that they either refuse to accept or are simply too stupid to grasp and arguments that make no logical sense by claiming that survival of the fittest is somehow circular reasoning when it very clearly isn't.

 

Who are you talking to? Exchemist I presume? There's no ad homs, arguments from authority or mentions of the words 'proof' or 'consensus' in my post.

 

Natural selection is in no way a tautology. You must be very disparate to try that one. It's better (fitter for survival) because its random mutation has given it some kind of advantage over it's competitors. Obviously if it has an advantage then that mutation will stand a better chance of survival and over time this will lead to an ever greater divergence from the staring point and gradual adaptation to the environment.

 

"There's (sic) no ad homs..."    "You must be very disparate  (sic)..."  "it's (sic) competitors."  "from the staring (sic)..."

 

 

"known nutcase" isn't ad hominem attack?  Your logic is as poor as your grammar.

 

2) William Fix is a Dr of behavioural science and known nutcase, who thinks humans were originally spirits and slowly descended into matter. Enough said.

[A-wal]

"There's (sic) no ad homs..."    "You must be very disparate  (sic)..."  "it's (sic) competitors."  "from the staring (sic)..."

 

 

"known nutcase" isn't ad hominem attack?  Your logic is as poor as your grammar.

 

2) William Fix is a Dr of behavioural science and known nutcase, who thinks humans were originally spirits and slowly descended into matter. Enough said.

That wasn't me, that was Exchemist!

 

I did say "You must be very disparate" and "nothing but a collection of creationist bullshit" and "are simply too stupid to grasp", I thought I might as well do it if I'm going to get accused of it anyway. But that was all in my last post, the same one where I said "There's no ad homs, arguments from authority or mentions of the words 'proof' or 'consensus' in my post.", obviously referring to the one before it.

[exchemist]

 

The Evolution Fraud

Truth never lost ground by enquiry.- WILLIAM PENN, Some Fruits of Solitude

 

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

 

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

 

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

 

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

 

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

 

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Millikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

 

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

 

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

 

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”  (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

 

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.”  (Dr. T.H Morgan)

 

 

“Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.”  (Dr. R. Kirk, “The Rediscovery of Creation,” in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)

“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.”  (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Pobabilities (1985)

 

“For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution….But there was not one thing I knew about it… So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, “Can you tell me any one thing that is true?” I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”  (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)

 

More of the same quote-mined rubbish, largely from the same sources (some creationist website or book I expect.) 

 

What is amusing about this collection is that irrelevant quotes on other topics are blended in to pad it out (e.g. the one about fine-tuning from Polkinghorne), plus of course yet more quotes from non-biologists. 

[billvon]

You are confusing adaptation with your claims of Darwinian evolution.  Yes, organisms adapt. These are trivial changes that do NOT create hopeful monsters. 

Adaptation is evolution.  They are the same thing.  In 1000 years it can change an arm into a longer arm.  In 10 million years it can change that arm into a wing.  Exactly the same process, just longer timescale.

 

Erosion creates little tiny gullies in your yard after a rain.  The exact same process created the Grand Canyon.  Imagine how silly you would sound if you claimed that one was micro erosion and the other macro erosion, and they had nothing to do with each other.

 

 

At one time, everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth. They were still wrong.

Agreed!

 

And at one time, almost everyone believed that all humanity came from Adam and Eve.  They were wrong.

At one time, almost everyone believed that God created the universe in seven days about 6000 years ago.  They were wrong too.

 

 

 

The trivial nature of "it survives because it's better and it's better because it survives" is a meaningless tautology

Agreed.  Nor does evolution claim that.  Organisms that are fitter for their environment survive better than organisms that are less fit.  (Elementary.)  Organisms that survive can reproduce (also elementary.)  Organisms that reproduce carry their genes into the next generation (just as simple.)  Nothing about "better" in there.  "Better" is a purely human concept.  From an evolutionary perspective, cockroaches are in most ways a better fit for their environment than bald eagles - even if you find bald eagles "better" than cockroaches.

 

 

which does nothing to advance science or knowledge.  Now I am done arguing with you.

Good!  Perhaps you can find a creationist site rather than a science site; it would be far more suited for you.

[billvon]

More of the same quote-mined rubbish, largely from the same sources (some creationist website or book I expect.) 

 

What is amusing about this collection is that irrelevant quotes on other topics are blended in to pad it out (e.g. the one about fine-tuning from Polkinghorne), plus of course yet more quotes from non-biologists. 

The common term for this is "Gish Gallop":

 

"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort."

[Vmedvil2]

Evolution happens all the time in microbiology viruses and bacteria mutate to become immune to antibiotics as in the case of MRSA or the next strain of the cold that happens every year, just in more complex organisms the change is so subtle that we do not notice it unless it happens many times.

 

In virii and bacteria evolution happens in two forms, one being genetic mutation being Antigenic Drift another being caused from "microbe Sex" being Antigenic Shift, which can have a infinite amount of parties that contribute the new genetic material "Microbe Sex" can be much more complex than two party sexual encounters having much more variation. It seems the major causes of evolution is "Sex" and Genetic Mistakes when proteins are improperly coded being "Mutation".

 

 

In the history of the Flu virus for the last 100 years, we find may times of Antigenic drift or "Mutation" and Antigenic shift or "Reassortment"

 

 

Eventually, Adapted Microbes  like MRSA can be generated via Natural Selection which is induced upon the bacteria or virus by changes in environment which selects the versions superior for that environment which generally to survive the modern healthcare system antibiotic resistance is the "Superior" trait as that is usually the first measure taken against hostile microbes. The Modern Healthcare system's usage of antibiotics is artificially doing the process of natural selection on Microbes, we find.

 

 

It really happens..... MRSA on a foot which has been artificially natural selected to be immune to antibiotics by usage of antibiotics on bacteria.

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[exchemist]

The common term for this is "Gish Gallop":

 

"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort."

Yes I know the Gish Gallop - and you're right, this is one of those in written form. 

 

But I got something out of yesterday's gallop. I always try to keep a mental note of the cranks or charlatans these people quote, so that I can spot them if they crop up again elsewhere. They often do, as creationists are forced to rely on a small handful of very similar propaganda sources.

 

I was also intrigued by this Wolfgang Smith fellow, who I had not previously heard of. It's almost unheard of for a philosopher to go in for ID - though, thinking about it, Karl Popper at one brief stage thought evolution was not a scientific theory (I learned that from a creationist, too, by the way. Of course he kept jolly quiet about Popper's later acknowledgement that this had been a mistake, so I had to research that for myself and then point it out to him!).  If I have time, I'll read up a bit on Smith and see if I can understand what the hell he is on about. He seems interested in reviving a number of Aristotelean concepts, for instance distinguishing between potency and act as a way to think of the relation between the quantum mechanical wave function and a measurement.  

Edited October 2, 2018 by exchemist