29 ‘Evidences’ for Macroevolution REviewed
evolutionguru
evidences for Macroevolution...
Garamond Lethe
> A very interesting critique from creationists on the so called
> evidences for Macroevolution...
How so?
evolutionguru
> On 2009-11-08, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A very interesting critique from creationists on the so called
> > evidences for Macroevolution...
>
> How so?
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Garamond Lethe
>> On 2009-11-08, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A very interesting critique from creationists on the so called
>> > evidences for Macroevolution...
>>
>> How so?
>>
> Just read it please...
I did, years ago. Doug did a really good job, but the critique (such as it is)
is from 2001 and the faq has had a lot added since then.
There was nothing original in Ashby's critique then; it was obviously
wrong at the time and time hasn't improved it at all. As a historical
document, there might be some value in seeing how creationists were
thinking right before Intelligent Design came into fashion, but other
than that I don't know of anything particularly notable about it.
Frank J
wrote:
> On 2009-11-08, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8 nov, 10:52, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-11-08, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > A very interesting critique from creationists on the so called
> >> > evidences for Macroevolution...
>
> >> How so?
>
> > Just read it please...
>
> I did, years ago. Doug did a really good job, but the critique (such as it is)
> is from 2001 and the faq has had a lot added since then.
>
> There was nothing original in Ashby's critique then; it was obviously
> wrong at the time and time hasn't improved it at all. As a historical
> document, there might be some value in seeing how creationists were
> thinking right before Intelligent Design came into fashion, but other
> than that I don't know of anything particularly notable about it.
Actually ID was well-established by 2001. That was 5 years after
Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and 10 years after Johnson's "Darwin on
Trial." Early that year, after publishing several ID books Dembski
famously admitted that IC can accommodate all the "results" of
"Darwinism."
But now that you mention it, it's interesting that a YEC group would
"critique" it - the way any pseudoscientist would, by exploiting the
fact that every piece of evidence is another opportunity to spin a
"weakness." The DI may have objected too, but probably not in as
detailed a manner as the linked YEC "critique." Besides, Behe had
already conceded common descent (though not the Darwinian mechanism),
so any DI person who challenged Theobald and not Behe has lots of
'splainin as to why the blatant double stantard.
As for a YEC "critique" one has to wonder why they wasted all those
"refutations". If the Earth is young, then life must be young, and
thus there's simply not enough time for "macroevolution." Case closed.
Might it be that YECs are not confident enough about their YEC??
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp-Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ron O
The guy that created that web site posted here for a while. He isn't
posting any longer. That should tell you about what his site is
worth. Look around TO at the anti evolution faction and you should
get some idea of how bogus "trueorigin" is.
The plain and simple fact is that if they had valid arguments we would
have seen them by now.
Put up the best arguments from the site. Tell us what you think that
the argument is and what it means to you. Give us the reference so we
can check out what the scam is and then sit back and get educated
about how the argument is bogus or misrepresented so that it doesn't
mean what you think. Just about all anti evolution arguments fall
into that category for a very simple reason. The theory of biological
evolution has been validated to a degree where only warpos and
ignorant incompetents that don't know what they are talking about have
a beef with it.
Just put up two or three arguments from trueorigin and find out.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
The AIG museum in Kentucky claims massive amounts of evolution. All
the extant species have to be derived from just a few thousand that
they could fit on the ark, not only that, but they claim that the
extinct species were on the ark like T. rex. The example that they
gave was that all dog like species evolved from one dog kind including
foxes. Foxes are over twice as genetically divergent from domestic
dogs and wolves as chimps are from humans. They also had the horse
kind and horses and donkeys are about the same or a little more
divergent from each other than chimps and humans. So they are
cramming millions of years of evolution into just a few thousand years
since the flood.
I do agree that the intelligent design scam was well established by
the turn of the century. The guy responsible for the trueorigin site
hadn't accepted the demise of scientific creationism and was still
following that party line. The obfuscation scam (teach the
controversy or something is wrong with evolution) was prevalent in
both scientific creationist junk and ID junk. It is just fluff to
make their arguments seem legit, but the primary arguments were that
there was some real science backing the Biblical interpretation of 6
day creation, young earth and Noah's flood. For the ID perps they
claimed that they had intelligent design science, and trotted out
things like irreducible complexity. When the creationist "science"
failed both scientific creationism and ID basically just went with
their secondary obfuscation scam. That is basically all they have
left.
Ron Okimioto
>
>
> > >> >http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp-Tekstuit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Louann Miller
b517-9ef...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> A very interesting critique from creationists on the so called
> evidences for Macroevolution...
>
> http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
'Trueorigin' is a sort of tribute site to our own talkorigins.org,
including copying our format. I hate to shock you, but we know all about
those guys.
Let me bring up a structural point that you can confirm right now for
yourself. If you poke around talkorigins.org you will find clearly
marked, easy to find links to both creationists and mainstream science
sites. If you want to know the creationist rebuttal to something on t.o.,
we have no worries about you finding it.
Trueorigins, on the other hand, links to other true believer sites and
ONLY other true believer sites. Can't they cope with the competition?
Steven L.
More likely, they know that a young Earth is far less likely to be
accepted by their intended audience--so they tend to keep that theory to
themselves.
Millions of Americans have trouble accepting their evolution by natural
selection.
But after years of space exploration and science fiction, I'll bet most
of them accept that the Earth is very old.
So when YECs address an audience of, say, Christians, they focus on
their critiques of the ToE. And they don't mention their other theory
that the Earth just popped into existence around 4,004 B.C., complete
with all its coal and oil deposits, etc. There could just be a
geologist from Texas or West Virginia in the audience, who might ask a
few questions!
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
wf3h
no one cares what creationist websites say about creationism. i used
to listen to radio moscow when the USSR existed. i learned about the
delusions of communists and how they saw the world...
same thing with creationist websites.
Steven L.
Actually, "trueorigin" seems to have just ONE argument, a basic theme
repeated with variations over and over:
Each of the 29 evidences is of the form:
"If universal common ancestry (C) is true, then we should expect to find
evidence E"; followed by a demonstration that E in fact exists.
To each of these, "trueorigin" has the same response:
"There is nothing about C that requires E."
And that's a true statement--because the statement "If C is true, then
we should expect E to be true" is NOT logically equivalent to saying "C
is true only if E is true."
But it's an irrelevant statement, since the author wasn't trying to
gather evidence *against* competing theories like creationism or ID.
They can't be totally mutally exclusive, since even creationists know
about DNA, the genetic code, etc. All these theories have to make
predictions that DNA will exist, the genetic code will exist, vestigials
will exist, etc.--because that's the expermental evidence E that we have.
A scientist trying to gather data in support of his theory isn't
necessarily attempting to rule out and disprove all other competing
theories. That's the logical flaw in the argument from "trueorigin."
Ron O
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.-
The level of denial increases the more they learn about what is
actually known in the sciences. There are still flat-earth
creationists, probably most of them are islamic, but the Christian
creationist flat-earth society still existed up until the president
died at the turn of this century. You can still find Christian
creationist geocentric web sites, though they are far outnumbered by
counter sites than they were just 7 or 8 years ago. Most Christians
would be embarrassed to make the mistake of claiming that the earth is
flat or that the sun orbits the earth, but there are still a lot of
young earth creationists that don't know that their view was given up
on before Darwin. The guys that knew better (you might call them the
intellectual elite) understood that the earth was much older than
Ussher's estimate, and were already dealing with multiple flood and
creation event models to explain the history of the earth that they
were discovering hundreds of years ago. Eratosthenes estimated the
circumference of the earth over 200 years BC. So ignorance seems to
be the only reason for flat-earth creationism. The Catholic chuch
didn't appologize for Galileo until the end of the 20th century, but
what real excuse is there for geocentists in an age where we have sent
space probes to the most distant planets?
YECers are just shooting themselves in the foot over something that
was pretty much known to be wrong before Darwin wrote the book they
don't like. The last hold outs ran out of gas when radio activity was
discovered and made Kelvin's calculations irrelevant.
Probably one of the reasons that there are still geocentrists and
young earth creationists is because of their dependence on the "god of
the gaps" argument to keep their theology viable. They just don't or
more likely do not want to know what gaps are already closed. They
live in a shrinking world of smaller and smaller gaps. If they can't
accept reality they have to try to enforce their ignorance on everyone
else.
There has been a retreat over time. No one can deny that. We no
longer believe that we are at the center of the universe. We know
that we are on the edge of one arm of one of billions of spiral
galaxies. This was a major blow to Christian theology. Probably
bigger than the age of the earth and biological evolution combined.
The majority of Christians have accepted that the earth is very old.
In developed countries most Christians have accepted that man has
evolved from other lifeforms. It should be a big clue when the more
education an individual has the more likely they are to accept an old
earth and biological evolution. The Catholic church supports
biological evolution, but they aren't going to excommunicate anyone or
burn them at the stake over the issue. Hopefully, we have gotten over
that phase of enlightenment or the dark ages.
It is sad, but no surprise that the guys that ran the intelligent
design creationist scam wanted to take us back to those dark times.
These guys have no argument. They know that they are cooked, and
their only means of salvaging anything is through political force.
The only scam that they have left is to try to keep the next
generation as ignorant as possible. Just try to find the positive in
the obfuscation scam that they are running in as the switch scam in
their bait and switch operation. They held out the promise of
something positive, but it was only the bait for a program of forced
ignorance.
When you rely on ignorance, you will always have an audience, so we
will have to deal with this problem for a long time. Hopefully, the
bogus scam artists will never have the political power to force the
rest of us to be as ignorant and or dishonest as they are.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
<albie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A very interesting critique from creationists on the so called
> evidences for Macroevolution...
Why should anyone care what occult-befuddled cult nutcases
believe?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Frank J
Instead of just dismissing AIG as "in our camp," maybe Ray's paper
will have a point-by-point refutation of their of their "massive
amounts of evolution" as weell as their absurd "young earth" claim.
And maybe pi will really be 3. ;-)
It wasn't just creationist "science" - generally understood as ICR/AIG
YEC - that failed, but so did "progressive" OEC and the common-descent-
accepting Behe version, which is ironically the only variant
specifically endorsed, however indirectly, by the DI. So what else
could they do but retreat to Plan B (promote unreasonable doubt of
evolution anyway you can, even if you have to invoke Godwin's Law)?
>
> Ron Okimioto
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >> >http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp-Tekstuitoorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > > >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Why would anyone keep it to themselves if they honestly thought the
evidence supported it? If, for example, they thought radiometric
dating *converged* on a different chronology, it would give them a far
simpler argument than having to address each fossil or "irreducibly
complex" biological system.
>
> Millions of Americans have trouble accepting their evolution by natural
> selection.
Agreed, especially because even the media unwittingly caricaturizes it
favorably to the anti-evolution activists.
>
> But after years of space exploration and science fiction, I'll bet most
> of them accept that the Earth is very old.
From what I have seen in the last ~12 years, most people could easily
be convinced that the Earth is only 1000s of years old. But activists
- again with the media as an unwitting accomplice - has succeded in
allowing most people, especially the math-chellenged, dismissing it
all as "a long time ago." Now it may be that a majority agrees that
humans and dinosaurs never coexisted, but I think that's because
dinosaurs get a lot of coverage. Ask them if a human ever held a live
trilobite and 90+% will say "what's a trilobite?"
>
> So when YECs address an audience of, say, Christians, they focus on
> their critiques of the ToE. And they don't mention their other theory
> that the Earth just popped into existence around 4,004 B.C., complete
> with all its coal and oil deposits, etc. There could just be a
> geologist from Texas or West Virginia in the audience, who might ask a
> few questions!
Sure. But they are a minority among the general public, if not among
scientists. Besides, if a YEC activist can stump an OEC geologist he
could get a lot of mileage with that. And on few occasions they have.
But not often *lately* AIUI.
With the usual caveat that I can't read minds, I think that even those
YEC activists who might truly believe YEC "on faith" are steadily
learning that that they can't support it. Even Henry Morris, the
"inventor" of "flood geology" hinted that in the 80s. Unfortunately
only a tiny minority will admit having fooled themselves, as Glenn
Morton did:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
The rest have either quietly gone away or chosen the "don't ask, don't
tell" strategy over admitting OEC, TE, or whatever they privately
accept.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
Steven L.
What I find interesting is that both the YECs and OECs obfuscate what
they really believe and spend more time attacking others than defending
their own theories.
We've seen plenty of that from the YECs, afraid to invite ridicule when
they talk about Earth popping into existence 6,000 years ago.
But we can also see that from the OECs. (cf. AnswersInCreation.org)
They're afraid to admit what they really believe, because they would be
forced to admitting they're not true Biblical literalists and would lose
their fundamentalist audience. (For example, they reject the flood
theory of dinosaur fossils.)
So the YECs don't admit that they're Biblical literalists--and just keep
attacking the ToE.
While the OECs don't admit that they're not Biblical literalists--and
just keep attacking the YECs!
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Steven L.
Creationism wouldn't invite so much ridicule if there were museums
devoted to OEC instead of YEC. The problem is, an OEC museum wouldn't
have any visitors. Scientifically oriented visitors would still spurn
it, and religious fundamentalists would question its adherence to the faith.
Answers In Creation (OEC) states: "Our message is that you can believe
in the Bible, and believe that the earth is billions of years old,
without any conflict."
That's why OEC can't get anywhere. It's not scientific enough for
Christian modernists, and it's not religious enough for Christian
fundamentalists.
TomS
<ueOdnT4pD8kFsWHX...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
But OEC was the conventional opinion, even among fundamentalists,
up until 1961.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Ron O
It isn't interesting, it is just what they were forced to do when they
figured out that they didn't have any valid scientific arguments
supporting their views. Look what the ID perps were forced to do when
they realized that ID was too bogus to try to support teaching it.
They ran a bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base
rather than put up the lame stuff and demonstrate with certainty that
it was bogus. The YEC scientific creationists were deluded enough to
go to court with their junk and became laughing stocks even amoung
other creationists like the ID perps. About the best evidence that
the ID scam was just a scam and known to be bogus by the guys that
were running it is the fact that they ran the bait and switch. You
don't make your supporters bend over and take a switch scam that
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed if you ever really had
anything worth talking about.
>
> We've seen plenty of that from the YECs, afraid to invite ridicule when
> they talk about Earth popping into existence 6,000 years ago.
>
> But we can also see that from the OECs. (cf. AnswersInCreation.org)
> They're afraid to admit what they really believe, because they would be
> forced to admitting they're not true Biblical literalists and would lose
> their fundamentalist audience. (For example, they reject the flood
> theory of dinosaur fossils.)
What is a true Biblical literalist and how could you tell?
>
> So the YECs don't admit that they're Biblical literalists--and just keep
> attacking the ToE.
> While the OECs don't admit that they're not Biblical literalists--and
> just keep attacking the YECs!
A lot of OECs claim to be Biblical literalists. They all go to the
Bible and trot out the verses that they claim supports their view.
Demonstrate otherwise. Just look up someone like Ross. Their literal
interpretations are just different.
Ron Okimoto
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
Ron O
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.-
I think that you want to specify that you are talking about anti-
evolution OEC. I hate to break the news to you, but theistic
evolutionists are OEC and have no real beef with any modern museum.
Ron Okimoto