Interview with an evolutionist

[Xyph]

Well' date=' let's remember again, ID does not point to any specific religion.

 

[...']

 

ID stands up to logic, and there's millions of things that prove it. After all, there are millions of species, of which are complex and organized.

That's utter nonsense. You haven't answered the question at all. Look, let me simplify it for you:

 

If Creationism is science, then why is science applied only to the created (albeit very badly) and not the creator?

 

 

If a fish with an elephant's head is the sort of thing you would class as a transitional form, I recommend you learn more about evolution.

[Hellbender]

*sigh*....okay. I meant transitional forms that weren't lies like Archaeopteryx.

To come back to this again, Archaeopteryx mis not a hoax. I have seen one of the actual fossils, and I believe it wouldn't take you very long to take a taxi to the Museum of Natural History to see it either. You might or might not be thinking of "Archaeoraptor" which is a bonafied hoax. It was published in National Geographic (I have the issue) as genuine, although it was soon after discovered to be a clever composite hoax perpetrated by a Chinese farmer to make a quick buck. Just thought I'd beat you to mentioning it since you love to throw out names of known hoaxes thinking you are on to us or something.

 

here's an article on it: http://skepdic.com/archaeoraptor.html

[swansont]

Would something that went extinct before it could produce any ancestors count? Like a dodo? Or a Tyrannosaurus rex?

 

 

How does one "produce" ancestors? Not even Oedipus could do that...

 

It was previously mentioned, correctly, that all species are either transitional or terminal. Others have been omitting the latter part, which is sloppy.

[insane_alien]

i believe Azure meant decendants.

[AzurePhoenix]

i believe Azure meant decendants.

God Dammit, I can't believe I friggin' wrote that. Descendents! Descendents!!!! DESCENDENTS!!! KILL ME NOW!!!!!!!! I always swap those two words for some freakish reason. Meh, Sky knew what I meant

[Hellbender]

I knew what you meant too, don't sweat it. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Hellbender]

He figured that maybe the reason modern birds lack teeth is that some trigger located on the epithelium would cause tooth growth, and if he grafted tissue of a mouse onto the jays of an embryonic chick, it's grow teeth. He tested his hypothesis (you know, what *real* science does), and found several teeth, all of which were conical and suspiciously similar to the teeth of theropod dinosaurs.

That has to be one of the coolest experiements ever. Got any links or sources where I can read more about it?

[Mokele]

Not off the top of my head, but Gould mentions it in one of his essays. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, iirc, in a collection of his essays by the same title. I'm pretty sure he mentions who did it in there, an then you could find the original source. I think he also includes pictures.

 

Mokele

[shinbits]

You wake up, lying on your mattress, created and designed for you to be comfortable. You get up and walk to your bathroom, built with a shower, sink, and toilette, spaced out to look as nice as possible.

 

You turn on your sink, which is part of an intricate system of pipes, that lead to sewers which then drain into a lake.

Then you turn on your water and squeeze grab a plastic tube, which was created in a factory, full of organized workers with complex machines, which themselves were created in a factory by intelligent people.

 

You squeeze the plastic tube, and out comes this substance, which which was created by people with degrees in the field of dentistry, who spent years studying the field.

You start brushing with an aparatus made with bristles made from synthetic fibers.

 

After showering with soap designed with perfumes to keep you smelling good, you leave your house and drive to work or school, in a vehicle assembly-lined in a factory. You drive down the road, which is designed to withstand all types of weather, which is connected to other roads, in an intertwining system, which allows you to drive to any spot in the country.

 

After a few hours in a building, which was designed by an architect, then built with the aid of hundreds of people who painstakingly labored for many hours, and heavy machines created for this sort of work--you then get into your car and drive home.

 

You get on your computer, meticulously detailed and crafted with software and programming, that allows you to get onto something called, "The Internet".

While on this "Information Superhighway", full of hundreds of thousands of web pages designed by people, you make the choice to stop and visit a science forum.

 

While on this science forum, also meticulously planned out, you sit in your chair, which was made for you to comfortably sit in, wearing cloths with processed materials and dies to look fashonable---

You look at all the different posts people thought up. Then you, who is on this earth, by the concious will of people who chose to enjoy the act of sex and concieved you---

who then willed to carry you for nine months, and made the concious decision to not abort you---

 

Then you, using your intellect, type that everything in the universe is an accident.

 

 

Now, why in the world would anyone do that?

 

Sir Arthur Keith--an evolutionist--, who wrote the forward to Darwin's "Origin of Species" 100th aniversary edition,

wrote this:

 

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable. - Sir Authur Keith, famous British evolutionist

[mezarashi]

Then you' date=' using your intellect, type that everything in the universe is an accident.

 

Now, why in the world would anyone do that?

[/quote']

 

Well, thank you for your hard work. I have to admit that you must be indeed a strong believer in creationism. That was admittingly alot to type out. Nonetheless, that you have typed has illustrated but one point, that is the argument of Irreducible Complexity. Because the way things are now are so complex, you reason there must be an Intelligent Designer. If you are willing to read, please do:

 

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

[bascule]

shinbits, this Darwinism Refuted site is really cracking me up:

 

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html

 

WHEN we ask how life on Earth emerged, we find two different answers:

 

One is that living things emerged by evolution. According to the theory of evolution, which makes this claim, life began with the first cell, which itself emerged by chance or by some hypothetical natural laws of "self-organization." Again as a result of chance and natural laws, this living cell developed and evolved, and by taking on different forms gave rise to the millions of species of life on Earth.

 

The second answer is "Creation." All living things came into existence by being created by an intelligent Creator. When life and the millions of forms it takes, which could not possibly have come into existence by chance, were first created, they had the same complete, flawless, and superior design that they possess today. The fact that even the simplest-looking forms of life possess such complex structures and systems that could never have come about by chance and natural conditions is a clear proof of this.

 

Outside these two alternatives, there is no third claim or hypothesis today regarding how life emerged. According to the rules of logic, if one answer to a question with two alternative possible answers is proved to be false, then the other must be true. This rule, one of the most fundamental in logic, is called disjunctive inference (modus tollendo ponens).

 

In other words, if it is demonstrated that living species on Earth did not evolve by chance, as the theory of evolution claims, then that is clear proof that they were formed by a Creator

 

Notice the pathetic attempt to use "logic" to prove their point, the enormous irony being that this is pretty much a textbook example of a False Dilemma.

[Xyph]

Now, why in the world would anyone do that?

Because the same science that has led to all the modern comforts you mentioned also points to such a conclusion.

 

Why in the world would you, who rely on, and realise you rely on, the achievements of science every day of your life, decide that that same science is invalid when it comes to matters of theological significance?

[mezarashi]

Why in the world would you, who rely on, and realise you rely on, the achievements of science every day of your life, decide that that same science is invalid when it comes to matters of theological significance?

 

Irrelevant rhetorics answered by irrelevant rhetorics. That's the way to go.

 

bascule, that site there is awesome. I'm starting to understand why creationists believe so strongly. In addition to the ubiquitous fallacies present in their presentation (like the False Dilemma you just mentioned), creationism sites tend to present contradicting facts! Now, it's really hard to tell who's right and who's wrong. Fallacies are one thing and can easily be rebuted, but incorrect facts are rather difficult to resolve. A game of who can source more sources?

 

"Bacteria, protozoa, worms, molluscs, and other invertebrate sea creatures, arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all appeared suddenly, with complex organs and systems. There are no fossils that show any so-called "transition" between them."

 

This is a fact that most of us on this side of the house think is false. There is fossil evidence, except just not enough to make some people happy. Another element I find used throughout the presentation is a strong rousing of emotions although the point itself may be only a weak argument or no argument at all. Senteces like:

 

"Living things did not evolve, but were created. As a result, while evolutionists were trying to prove their unrealistic theory, they by their own hands produced proof of creation."

 

"THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION TEARS UP THE EVOLUTIONARY "TREE OF LIFE""

 

use many language devices to appeal to the audience. The kind of stuff I'm learning in my Speech and Presentation class. While it is important, it has limited use if you're in the debate club. Also, there is alot of material that will really impress you, making you forget to even think logically while reading it. Most of this impressive stuff is not directly relevant to the argument of course. Lastly I just love how they quote the opinions of famous people, particularly of "evolutionists". If science was based entirely on quotes from famous people, my would it be an easy subject. I'll just become famous and start dictating the laws of the universe. Using opinions of others doesn't substantiate anything at all. This adds to the impressive stuff element.

[shinbits]

Sorry about the link I put up earlier that didn't work!

 

ARCHAEOPTERYX-is a lie.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

 

And mezarashi, thank you so much for responding so respectfully. You disagreed, but were nice about. Thanx.

 

and Xyph

 

This same science used to make all our comforts actually prove ID.

 

The more that science discovers, the more intricate we realize our world and our universe is.

And the more we discover, the more unlikely it is that all things came about by chance.

 

Does that make sense?

[Mokele]

Sir Arthur Keith--an evolutionist--, who wrote the forward to Darwin's "Origin of Species" 100th aniversary edition,

wrote this:

 

404 errors are not references. I tried a bit of googling, and come up with *nothing* linking that quote to that individual, except on creationist websites. Given that they have been know to flat-out *lie* about what people have said (like the myth of Darwin's deathbed conversion), their word is worthless.

 

ARCHAEOPTERYX-is a lie.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

 

The entire link is worthless. First, they assume a conspiracy and treat *everything*, no matter how innocuous, as evidence for it.

 

Second, they claim Archaeopteryx was actually a forged compsognathus. Unlike the author of that page, however, I actually have knowledge of both comparative anatomy and paleobiology, and am familiar with *both* genera. There is *no* possible was to turn a compy into an Archaeoptery. Why? Becuase in the latter, several bones are *longer* than in compys, notably the radius, ulana, carpals, phylanges, tibia, fibula, metatarsals and tarsals. It's *easy* to shorten a bone in forger, but impossible to lengthen it, especially while preserving the articulations.

 

How about a link that *isn't* bullshit?

 

Or how about actually responding to my posts?

 

Tell me how ID explains the pelvis and leg bones of modern whales. Or will you keep avoid the question because you *know* you can't answer it?

 

Mokele

[mezarashi]

Your welcome shinbits. I'd like to believe that you would also want to believe in science, given that you are so impressed by it. We've been able to venture into outer space, produce nanoscopic structures, and clone living mammals! Isn't that all an amazing feat? All of this because of science, and so when it comes to the topic of evolution, there is no reason why you should back out. If you would like to believe that God created the world today through evolution, then you may, as that statement is impossible to disprove and well, not part of the debate at all. Evolution isn't a theory here to TAKE DOWN creationism. It's based on the evidence gathered over the years. It is the process in which living things change. If you keep that in mind, I think things will be easier on you.

 

The more that science discovers' date=' the more intricate we realize our world and our universe is.

And the more we discover, the more unlikely it is that all things came about by chance.

 

Does that make sense?

[/quote']

 

I think that your being impressed by the complexities of the world is putting you on a different frequency from most people here. As I've mentioned, clarify yourself on the Irreducible Complexity Fallacy. There is so much literature on it on the web. If you can understand that this "random" isn't so random after all then you might be in better light. I know this isn't the best example, but I'm saving you from having to read a ton of literature which apparently you are not very willing to do (noting how you respond to previous posts).

 

Imagine 1 billion people in a race. The chances of you winning are one in a billion. Is it a miracle for you to win? But someone's got to win. That means it's a miracle for that person? It seems random, but evolution selects the best of this randomness. Now that makes it sound as if evolution is an intelligent entity. Better stated, may the strongest and fastest runner win.

 

Sorry about the link I put up earlier that didn't work!

ARCHAEOPTERYX-is a lie.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

 

The unfortunate truth is that for every link to a creationism website, 5 links to an evolutionist website can be made. As I've noted earlier, the major problem here is that creationism believers and evolution believers are being exposed to contradicting literature and contradicting facts. This game is difficult to end

[Mokele]

Ok, a few pics will show what I mean about archaeopteryx.

 

Here's a Compsognathus fossil, on slab:

 

And here's an Archaeopteryx fossil, the Berlin specimen:

 

Look at the arms, look at the legs. In *both*, Archaeopteryx displays more length than compsognathus. Furthermore, both are articulated, indicating that the Archaeopteryx fossil could not have been made from a Compsognathus fossil. And a 100% forgery would have been easily detected.

 

Look, it's called "evidence".

 

Mokele

[solidsquid]

Sir Arthur Keith--an evolutionist--' date=' who [u']wrote the forward to Darwin's "Origin of Species" 100th aniversary edition[/u],

wrote this:

 

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable. - Sir Authur Keith, famous British evolutionist

 

Quote #81

 

The quote that is attributed to Sir Arthur Keith is a figment of the creationists imagination. I researched that quote a month or two ago and could not find a trace of it. No library in the Atlanta metro area has this particular edition and neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble has this edition. I am in nine newsgroups and no one in these NGs had a copy or had ever seen one. A search of the internet showed many references for this quote but every one of them was from a creationist site. It is also amazing because that Sir Arthur died in 1955 and the 100th anniversary edition would not have been issued until 1959. Tell me, did "God" write this for Sir Arthur from heaven? - Tom

 

As Tom points out this quote is indeed a figment of the creationists' imagination.

 

However, Sir Arthur Keith did indeed write an introduction to the Origin of Species (Keith, 1928), although he did so over 30 years before any centennial edition would have been printed. And considering that Keith died in 1955, he wouldn't have been in a position to write one had he wanted to. Did Keith write another introduction later in his life? This is doubtful as well, since the author of a later introduction to the Origin, W. R. Thompson, states right at the beginning of his own effort:

 

"When I was asked by the publishers of this new edition of The Origin of Species to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Arthur Keith, I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation." (Thompson 1958)

 

Does the supposedly quoted material reflect Keith's views? Describing Darwin's arrival at the Galapagos Islands, Keith writes:

 

"And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."

 

We see that Keith doesn't believe that that special creation is an alternative at all, since he doesn't feel that it can explain the fauna of the Galapagos. And later on he writes:

 

"The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."

 

It's obvious that Keith believes in evolution not because he doesn't like the alternatives, but because he believes evolution to be true.

 

REFERENCES

 

Keith, Arthur. Introduction to "The origin of species by means of natural selection", by Charles Darwin. London: J.M. Dent, 1928.

 

Thompson, William Robin. Introduction to "The origin of species", by Charles Darwin. London: J.M. Dent, 1958.

 

- Jon (Augray) Barber

 

Source - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

 

Quote mining is an intellectually dishonest pursuit, you should avoid it. Yet to use outright fabricated material is to destroy your credibility to be taken seriously.

[The Peon]

Sorry about the link I put up earlier that didn't work!

 

ARCHAEOPTERYX-is a lie.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

 

And mezarashi' date=' thank you so much for responding so respectfully. You disagreed, but were nice about. Thanx.

 

and Xyph

 

This same science used to make all our comforts actually prove ID.

 

The more that science discovers, the more intricate we realize our world and our universe is.

And the more we discover, the more unlikely it is that all things came about by chance.

 

Does that make sense? [/quote']

 

Yes scientists only want to lie to you. DAMNIT!!! You got us!

 

Look dude, do me a favor, and study cosmology and astronomy. When you can even slightly comprehend the vastness of the universe, and the fact that we can detect planets around almost every single star our there, imagine the chances that planets like earth can exist, and then imagine the chances of abiogenesis happening. You will realize its quite a usual thing to happen. Just give up your imaginary friend, real friends await you that care much more about you then "God" does.

 

Oh, and if you think Archeopetrix is a hoax, what about microraptor? Guess we made that up too.

[Mokele]

Oh, and if you think Archeopetrix is a hoax, what about microraptor? Guess we made that up too.

 

Not to mention the *dozens* of other fossil primitive birds, and *hundreds* of fossils of a group called the Enantiornithines, a group of toothed birds (a sister taxon to modern birds, Neornithines) that did very well during the cretaceous (their name reflects an unusual aspect of ankle morphology, iirc).

 

Mokele

[mezarashi]

Oh' date=' and if you think Archeopetrix is a hoax, what about microraptor? Guess we made that up too.[/quote']

 

So they demand evidence of "transitional species" and when you do give them an example, they say it's a hoax? *Sigh*, we're certainly on the losing side of the battle. My little brain doesn't have any more ideas.

[ydoaPs]

This same science used to make all our comforts actually prove ID.

how so? you keep saying this yet you don't give even one example and you ignore it when people call you on it.

[swansont]

(blather deleted)

 

Then you' date=' using your intellect, type that everything in the universe is an accident.

 

 

Now, why in the world would anyone do that?

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

Perhaps because

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Galileo Galilei

[shinbits]

404 errors are not references. I tried a bit of googling' date=' and come up with *nothing* linking that quote to that individual, except on creationist websites.

[/quote']

You should know by now--never challange my credibility! NEVAAAR!

 

Here's that Arthur Keith quote put out by Mississippi State Universersity:

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/quotes.html

 

And Mazarashi: Chiyo-chan rocks!

[The Peon]

You should know by now--never challange my credibility! NEVAAAR!

 

Here's that Arthur Keith quote put out by Mississippi State Universersity:

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/quotes.html

 

And Mazarashi: Chiyo-chan rocks!

 

You are becomming redundant and boring due to your neglect of others comments and then pressing your own down our throats. *walks away shaking his head*