Date: Unknown
> Hi Frederic,
Greetings!
> Thanks for taking the time to reply.
No problem. Your local library, however, should be where
you should be going to get your questions answered. All
of your questions are addressed in popularized text books
that should be in probably any local library. Indeed, all
of the claims you forward later have been debubunked in
popularized text books for the past 40 years.
> To exclude spontaneous generation, abiogenesis or biopoesis
Evolution doesn't address the origins of life. Evolution
only addresses the advent of species. One may understand and
describe the behavior and attributes of complex storms and
tornadoes -- meterology -- without understanding the hadrons
and leptons -- particle physics -- which comprise the atoms.
Avenues of scientific inquiry may overlap but they're still
different arenas.
> Without a beginning of life, volution would have
True yet the origins of life have nothing to do with the
advent of species.
> If it can be shown that this concept of life originating
You've left the arena of evolution and have entered a
whole new arena. The theories which attempt to describe
the origins of life have nothing to do with the theories
which attempt to describe the advent of species.
> You can't consider it proven because of the necessity
Evolution is a directly observed phenomena which requires
no validation -- unless you wish to get Zen and suggest
that reality isn't real or that the universe disappears
when one turns its back on reality.
> The simple formation of very basic chemicals necessary
Theories don't attempt to prove anything unless they're
mathematical models. What theories do is provide a set of
hypothesis and predictions which -- when applied -- test
against observed phenomena. If the hypothesis match the
observations and if the predictions match observations,
the theories _remain_ unproven however the body of
_evidence_ which suggests that the theories are correct
grows.
Most theories become so well evidenced true that it becomes
an absurdity to ignore them however no theory is ever
proven. Science seeks to acquire the closest approximation
of truth possible; it never seeks to prove things, only to
disprove.
> The whole concept of volution falls by this single point.
Evolution is a directly observed phenomena. There are a
spectrum of closely-related theories which attempt to
explain the observed phenomemna. While any or all of the
theories may be inaccurate or even in error, the observed
fact of evolution remains an observed fact.
> Also, if the concept of evolution only was concerning
It is. Evolution is the label for the observed phenomena
of speciation. There are a number of closely-related
theories of evolution which seek to explain that observed
phenomena.
Your local library has text books which discuss what evolution
is and what evolution is not. Surely you have a library
soewhere near you, I'm sure.
> I would have no problem with that. That's called
There's no such thing as "micro evolution" or "macro
evolution." There is only evolution. Fundamentalist
Christian cults were eventually forced to accept evolution
-- after centuries of denial -- but they amusingly persist
in trying to deny it by coming up with a bifurcation that
has no meaning in biology. Unfortunately there are some
scientists out in the real world which fell for the ploy
and figure it's only a matter of time before cultists
finally accept _all_ the truth.
> However, it is the leap to the conclusion that this
Evolution is evolution. There is no notion that it only
happens to some species of plants and animals and not on
other plants and animals. Indeed, were evolution to not
be observed for some plants and animals but is observed
for others, the theories developed to explain how evolution
happens would encompass explanations to describe why it's
observed in some but not all plants and animals.
> This has not been observed and the fossil record
Evolution is a directly observed phenomena. The fossil
record is filled with examples of well documented
speciation events. You local library will have references
for you however I can provide references for observed
speciation events if you wish; as many as you would like.
> If macro-evolution were true the fossil records would
There's no such thing as "macro evolution." There is only
evolution. And yes, the fossil record is filled with
"transitional species." Indeed, all fossils are "transitional
species." Indeed, you yourself is a "transitional species."
Science doesn't have the concept that species evolve to
some point and then stop. Humans aren't the last word in
bipedal primates on this planet; it would be conceited to
think so.
> Millions and millions of fossils have been found and
Which isn't surprising given the fact that fossilization is
a rare phenomena. The fossil record shows exactly what the
theories of evolution say the fossil record should show.
Gaps in the record are no different than the gaps in a
family photograph album however one can point at a man and
-- after noting that the photo album doesn't contain
pictures of the boy -- claim the man doesn't exist.
> Also, it's not just the creationists that find serious
There are a lot of hydrolic engineers out there that think
they're scientists. And there are a lot of scientists who
like to pontificate their religious notions in arenas they
are untrained.
In fact the only people who deny observed phenomena are
those who don't wish to accept what their own senses tell
them. Regardless, the observed phenomena still lives;
the real world doesn't disappear just because some people
want it to go away. Gravitation doesn't stop just because
a bunch of people vote to ignore it.
Science doesn't care what people believe or disbelieve.
Evolution isn't subject to belief or disbelief. Certainly
it's subject to denial or acceptance.
> Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they
Most scientists accept gravity without bothering to see
what gravitation theories have to say about how the
phenomena of gravitation works.
> They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists
Ignorance runs rampant, huh? Geology isn't evolution and
evolution isn't geology. Species can become geologically
divided and thus isolate a parent species which then gives
advent to a speciation event, but geologists who pontificate
upon evolution do so at their own risk.
> The geologists know their field does not prove evolution,
But then nobody needs to prove observed phenomena. No one
goes out and tries to prove that gravity exists. To be
sure people come up with scientific theories which attempt
to explain _why_ and _how_ gravity exists however that
doesn't detract in the least the fact that gravity exists.
And when scientists speaking within their field debate the
theories of gravitation, that doesn't mean that gravity
will some how stop existing.
> Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the
What? What facts are these? Who?
> But they do write articles in their own professional
No peer reviewed journal speaking in the biological
sciences ever suggests that evolution doesn't happen. If
you know of any such references, do be sure to provide them.
> There are scientists all over the world who know that
Darwin is dead and knew nothing about genes. Additionally
Charles Darwin was a staunchly religious man who suffered
under the religiously-mandated willful ignorances of his
day. He lived in a society where Christians felt that a
women's place was in the home and that it was acceptable to
treat Negroes and women as property.
In any event, no scientist speaking within his or her
venue suggests that "evolutionary theory is bankrupt." In
fact what we always find are cultists speaking from ignorance
outside of their field of study, offering opinions on things
they don't wish to understand because they mistakenly think
that accepting science some how adverly impacts their faith
in their deity constructs.
Additionally if one doesn't like some aspect of one of the
theories which attempts to explain evolution, one needs to
explain _which_ theory one's having problems with. And,
of course, a failing in a theory about how something works
doesn't detract one iota from the fact that the something
continues to work.
> *Thomas and *Julian Huxley,
People speaking outside of their arena of education offering
their unevidenced opinions.
> and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it.
References for this claim would be welcome. A reference wherein
Mr. Gould suggests that evolution doesn't happen some how
would be quite amusing at this point. }:-} It would have
all the classical fun that was attained when cultists tried
to claim Charles Darwin made a "deathbed confession." }:-}
> But you will not find these statements in the popular
It would seem there's some kind of Satanic conspiracy.
<smile> And yet some how _you_ found out, thank the gods,
and were allowed to live to tell the poor enslaved masses
who actually accept science.
> Here are just a few quotes: (keep in mind these scientists
<laughing> This should prove amusing.
What usually happens is that the cultist cut-and-pastes
dozens of claims and comments by others that have been
debunked for decades -- if not centuries. The cultist
takes 30 seconds to forward his or her notions he or she
believes is some how evident in the mistaken notions of
others and then fully expects the scientist to expend the
hours it takes to explain why the cultist he or she is
quoting was mistaken.
Let's see if you do that, too.
> "I have often thought how little I should like to
Not surprising given the gross ignorance of the populace
in all things scientific. One would be hard pressed to
explain lightening in a court of law -- even in the United
States in the 21'st Century, leave alone in 1966 London.
A populace jury as ignorant as London in 1966 would be just
as difficult to teach as a populace jury in the year 2002.
I wouldn't want to try to explain things to a jury, either,
even if given all the time in the world.
> "I doubt if there is any single individual within the
Of course not given the broad spectrum of bizarre claims
that Creationist cultists make. Creationists take ten minutes
to speak a hundred unevidenced claims -- it's easy to claim
that the speed of light isn't constant or that there's
evidence for a "world wide global flood." Indeed, the
phenomena of laying down lie after lie quickly in succesasion
is known as the "Gish Gallop" after the profoundly insane
cultist from the euphemistically named "Institute for
Creation Research,"
At the same time science is a body of knowledge built upon
evidence and theories which require lengthy periods of time
to explain. It's why we have four year colleges. The
cultist can take 15 seconds to speak a lie and it takes the
scientist an hour to explain the physics underlying the
physical impossibility of the lie, another half hour to
explain the methodology of experimentation which debunked
the lie a century ago, and another half hour to describe the
contemporary debunkings given the improvement of technology
since then.
Few serious scientists even bother to "debate" cultists
due to the ease with which outrageous and unevidenced claims
can be made and given the amount of time and effort needed
to debunk the cultist.
> "The evolutionary establishment fears creation science
And for all the reasons described above. Whether one wins
or loses an argument or a debate, what remains is the
observed phenomena. Debate doesn't determine whether
something happens or whether something doesn't happen.
Reality isn't a matter of popularity, nor a matter of
how much time and effort is expended to explain it.
> "No one has ever found an organism that is known not
My guess is that the author has never heard about
mononucleosis. <heh> Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
> "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms
Science had yet to discover DNA or the genetics which were
based upon DNA. And in fact every fossil is a "transitional
life form" and every currently living plant and animal one
can point to today is also a "transitional life form."
You yourself are a "transitional life form." Your ancestors
won't look anything like you. Your own parents don't look
exactly like you, in fact.
> "Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
And in fact science has nothing to do with religion. And of
course scientists also accept the observed fact of gravity
and for all the same reasons. One wonders whether the author
also wishes to suggest that everyone who accepts gravity is
also some how religious.
> "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact
Speaking outside of his or her area of education -- and
also ignoring the evidence to the contrary.
> "It is almost invariably assumed that animals with
Science doesn't have notions of "primitive" or "superior"
life forms. No plant or animal species is considered to be
"primitive" or "superior" in reference to any other life
form.
Likewise the author ignores the extant evidence.
> "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic
The origins of life are a different subject from evolution.
The fact that life occured on the Earth is hardly a matter
of faith inasmuch as one can quite easily observe it.
> "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life?
There's a good peer-reviewed scientific journal. <smile>
The author apparently has never heard of where babies come
from.
> " `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain
Evolution has nothing to do with "the inorganic world." The
author should look at physics, geology, astronomy, and all
the other arenas of science if he or she wishes to learn
about "the inorganic world."
> "I think, however, that we must go further than this
Yes, we know that the religious hold unevidenced religious
notions. The fact that evolution is a directly observed
phenomemna discounts any unevidenced notiosn of "creation"
-- as it does unevidenced notions involving pixies, fairies,
werewolves, and vampires. And for all the same reasons.
> "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or
It hardly matters what an author believes or doesn't believe.
Science doesn't care what someone believes or doesn't
believe about something.
And in fact biological sciences makes no sense without a
theory designed to explain evolution. Zoological clasification
would be impossbile without in innate understanding of the
biological sciences.
> "One of the determining forces of scientism was a
Interesting religious notions yet unevidenced in science.
There's nothing about the Solar System which can not be
explains and described by science. There are no "gaps" in
"the atomic series" which needs to be explained since there
is no evidence that "gaps" exist. The gaps in the fossil
record are _predicted_ by contemporary theories of evolution
which point out the fact that fossilization is rare and
-- more to the point -- point out that one doesn't need
to have a series of one-second photographs of a growing
child to prove that a man exists.
> "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education.
Science has repeatedly debunked astrology ever since it was
first contrived by the superstitious -- just as creationism
has been routinely debunked by science ever since people
started trying to claim they had gods and goddesses.
In any event, evolution is a directly observed phenomena
which is not subject to belief or disbelief.
> "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
Welcome to the scientific process. The fact that scientists
speaking within their arena of education discuss evolutionary
theories is because the theories need to be developed. No
scientist speaking within his or her venue ever suggested
that evolution doesn't happen some how.
What we find more of, however, are cultists who have no
training in biological sciences pontificating with pretend
authority.
> "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
None of Darwin's theories addressed theology. Indeed, Darwin
was a staunch Creationist cultist who died thinking he had
discovered something about his Christanic pantheon.
> "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning,
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
Here is why we find cultists not wishing to accept what
their own senses tell them about reality. Because there
are no grand answers, no magical solutions, no reason behind
things that happen, cultists created gods to explain them.
When the river flooded and drowned one's children, a reason
had to be created to make the death some how reasonable. A
river goddess was created. When the volcanoe exploded and
choked the life out of an entire village, volcanoe gods
were created to explain the "anger" -- and the priesthood
was created to exploit the fear.
Thus we find why a small percentage of an otherwise
reasonable populace are unwilling to accept the fact of
evolution. Huxley summarized why superstitious cultists
cling to their superstitions even in light of the advent
of science, public libraries, computers, the Internet,
and the free access to information which should have
erased their ignorance long ago -- were it not willful.
> "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions. In fact the
author doesn't even seem to know that there are a number
of theories which attempt to explain evolution.
> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the
The lack of evidence for any "creation," of course, adds
to the fact that science doesn't address religious notions.
In any event, the origins of life have nothing to do
with evolution or the theories which attempt to
describe and explain the observed phenomena of evolution.
> "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
Scientists accept the fact of evolution for the same
reasons they accept the fact of gravitation.
> "With the failure of these many efforts, science was
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
All of the extant evolutionary theories make predictions
which are not only testable yet which pass every test.
> "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
And in fact evolution was observed long before Charles
Darwin codified and classified what was already known,
> "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
And in fact science doesn't address religious notions. And
in fact Charles Darwin was a staunch cultist until the day
he died.
Still, here we see the author unknowingly expressing what
his or her reasons are for trying to deny the observed
phenomena of evolution. There remains a small percentage
of cultists around the world that cling to the mistaken
notion that having to accept science some how detracts
from their religious beliefs.
It used to be that faith was enough to continue to cling to
a religious notion. Creationists fear science because they
mistakenly think that science some how negates their gods.
Evolution, gravitation, nuclear physics, or any other
science other than human psychology -- the sciences don't
address religious notions yet some cultists believe that
they some how threaten their gods and goddesses.
The irony is that these cultists see themselves as being
some how stronger than their more honest fellow cultists
when in fact Creationists exhibit the behavior they do
because their faith is weak; they feel that their religious
beliefs and their gods are threatened by science so they
must refuse to accept science.
> "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution,
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
One wonders whether this cultist is also going to start
attacking mathematics, geology, astronomy, cosmology,
planetology, nuclear physics, and all the other sciences.
There's considerably irony in cultists claiming they
wish to re-establish reality, of course. <heh> Amusing.
> "The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as
Which evolution theory? There are several.
> but that it is a serious obstruction to biological
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
The author doesn't even note which theory he's having
difficulty understanding.
> "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists
And while cultists attempt to deny science, science will
continue to progress just fine leaving the cultists behind.
No problem.
> The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century
Here ths author states his or her reason for not accepting
the fact of evolution. The belief that science some how
has anything to say either for or against religious
occultism is silly. But at least the cultist is telling us
what his or her problem with science actually is.
> has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn,
Oh? What "fresh ideas?" The occult superstitious occultism
that cultists express to try to deny evolution are older
than the cults the cult followers belong to. Indeed, the
notion that gods and goddesses created life go back 10,000
years -- before the last ice age.
> The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the
No scientist speaking within his or her venue suggests
that evolution doesn't happen.
> The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
> "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment
The author sought to duplicate in 40 years what it took
physics one billion years. Golly, wonder why he failed.
And in fact speciation events have occured within the
life times of humans and references are available upon
request; any number you wish, in fact.
> "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
And in fact Darwin was a Christian cultist.
> "Throughout the past century there has always existed
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
There's always going to be religious cultists who won't
accept science when they mistakenly feel that accepting
science adversely impacts their occult superstitions.
Belief or disbelief, however, doesn't negate observed
phenomena.
> "I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
And in fact evolution remains evidenced while the theories
which attempt to explain evolution change as new evidence
is fitted into place.
> "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
The author talks about classical Summerian mythology and
about science in the same sentence -- a logical absurdity.
Science doesn't address the occult.
Additionally science doesn't have a notion of "primitive"
or "more complex" or "superior;" science has only life
forms; evolution has only life forms that are better
fitted to exist in a certain environment than other given
life forms.
> "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
Not all organisms fossilize. Fossilization is a rare
phenomena. Regardless, evolution is a directly observed
phenomena which doesn't care whether the fossil record
is complete or incomplete. Additionally contemporary
theories which attempt to explain and describe the fact
of evolution _predict_ the fact that the fossil record
will have gaps.
> "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
In fact the mechanics, method, mode, and frequency of
evolution are well documented and described. The author
apparently doesn't have access to a library.
What's also telling is that the author accidentally
explains why he or she doesn't accept the fact of
evolution: he or she mistakenly believes that Darwin is a
god the equal to his own pantheon.
> "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
Presumably this author doesn't have access to a library.
> "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
And the fact that embryology shows multiple stages of
foetus development whichcan only be described as
including fish-like traits further makes this cultist's
religious notions something of an irony.
> "Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an
Welcome to the Scientific Method. Any good theory needs
to be held in contempt by scientists otherwise it's not
a good theory. Atheory which can't stand up to rigorous
testing must be discarded and yet what we find is that
the contemporary set of closely-related theories designed
to explain the directly observed fact of evolution stand
up to tests very well.
> "The problem of the origin of species has not advanced
The author apparently doesn't have access to a library. At
least the author acknowledges the fact that evolution is a
directly observed phenomena. That the author is unaware
of the theories which attempt to explain and describe the
phenomena is unfortunate but would be understandable if the
author is religiouslly willfully ignorant.
> "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible
<laughing> What an utterly bizarre notion. About the equal
to gods and goddesses, wouldn't you say?
> "The theories of evolution, with which our studious
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
> "Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
> "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
The author doesn't explain _which_ theory of evolution
he or she has difficulty understanding. In any event if
there's a problem with any of the aspects of any of the
theories which attempt to explain and describe the fact
of evolution, that lacking doesn't impact the fact of
said observed phenomena.
> "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."-*John
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
> "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
> "It is not the duty of science to defend the theory
Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education
offering his or her unevidenced opinions.
The author also doesn't explain _which_ theory of evolution
he or she doesn't understand.
-=-
> If you want more there are many, many more!
Yes, I already knew that the religious believed in a lot of
bizarre unevidenced notions. I also already knew that a lot
of said cultists love to speak outside of their venue,
expresasing their willful ignorance about things they simply
don't want to accept.
> Now, I won't say that there are still not questions
"Creation" is religion so you've changed the subject.
You were talking about evolution.
> but the decision on which concept to embrace must be
Creationism is religion. You're mixing religious occultism
with science for some reason.
> Just like in a court of law where jurors are asked to
Scientific truth doesn't care whether a jury finds something
to exit or not. Observed phenomena don't care whether a
majority or a minority of people hold opinions or beliefs
about it. Evolution is a directly observed phenomena not
subject to belief or disbelief. Evolution is a directly
observed phenomena which doesn't care if a majority or a
minority vote to ignore or accept it.
> The truth is, and I will be the first to admit it, is
That's absurd. Gravity exists just fine regardless of the fact
that there are a number of closely-related theories which attempt
to explain and describe gravitation.
Also science doesn't deal in "absolute proof." Science works
with evidence and theories attempt to acquire a description
and explanation for an observed phenomena knowing well in
advance that one can never acquire a 100% "absolute proof"
truth. Science shoots for as close an approximation of truth
as is possible.
> However, evolution can't be proven beyond reasonable
Any scientist who claims that anything both mathematics can be
proven is a scientist who is ignorant.
In any event no scientist speaking within his or her venue
ever suggests that evolution doesn't happen some how.
> So, what do we beleive.
Science doesn't care what you believe or disbelieve. Fact
remains fact without being approved or disapproved.
> If I believe that there is a God and choose to follow Him
Pascal's Wager was debunked the same day he contrived it --
as were all of the creation mythologies which came before
and after him.
You picked one set of gods and goddesses out of an available
pantheon of millions -- billions if you include ancestor
worship. Woops! If you want to play Pascal's game, you have
to believe in all the gods and goddesses to win. If you pick
one set of gods and goddesses -- say from the Christian
pantheon -- you have to explain why you picked those and
not all of the others. And in fact any other cultist can
point at their own gods and goddesses and make the same
faulty argument.
Finally if one looks at the history of the world one finds
that belief in the gods and goddesses bring inhuman tyranny
upon the world. Christianity's history is the worse, in
fact, with Islan and Judism coming in behind a close second
and third.
On the flip side, atheists are grossly under-represented in
the American prison system. The evidence suggests that the
lack of deity belief leads to either a more ethical and
moral life than a belief in deities, or the lack of deity
beliefs makes people smarter than theists since atheists
manage to pull off crimes while avoiding getting caught.
> If you are correct then at the end of your life you
You express your reason for willfully not understanding
what evolution is and what evolution is not. You mistakenly
think that science some how negates your gods. You can't
have your gods negated because you fear the unavoidable
eventuality of your own death. Most theists accept the
fact of evolution because they don't mistakenly believe
that science will exterminate their gods.
Atheists manage to live with the reality of their own death
and as such don't feel the need to deny the reality of what
their own senses tell them.
> Keep in mind I am not making this up. It is clearly stated
The classical Christanic mythologies make a lot of unevidenced
and contradictory claims. That you feel the mythologies are
some how meaningful in light of the scientific progress and
education contemporary humans have achieved over the ignorant
savages who penned the Christanic mythologies over the past
7,000 years is utterly irrelevant. Science doesn't care
what you believe or disbelieve.
> I did not make the rules!
Nobody did. That's why you don't wish to know what evolution
is and what evolution is not.
> So you had better be very sure of your position.
Science doesn't deal with "sure." Science only deals with
evidence, with what's demonstrable, and theories which work
to detract from the aspects of said theories.
> Also, I have yet to have any Christian claim belief in
You should probably read the classical Christanic mythologies
once, I guess. When you visit your local library to start
finding out what evolution actually is, you might also do a
little research into the origins of the classical Christanic
mythologies. You may be surprised to note that the "Adam
and Eve" mythology was originally penned to include the
goddess Lilith. Indeed, reseach the origins of the goddess
Lilith and Isis and, in so doing, find the origins of the
Christan cult.
> I absolutly agree with you in saying that science
The scientific method isn't a matter of agreement or
disagreement. Whether you agree with the scientific method
or not is what's at issue when it comes to evolution,
gravitation, pixies, werewolves, vampires, gods, and
goddesses.
> However, after the gathering of this knowledge it can
The origin or origins of the Universe is a matter of
cosmology and nuclear physics, not evolution. The origin
or origins of life are a matter of abiogenisys. The
advent of species is the venue of evolution.
> Otherwise science is just the gathering of useless
You're using a computer, I note, and not a charcol stick
scraped on birch tree bark.
> The truth is that creationists embrace science!
Some Creationists don't know what scientific method is, and the
rest don't care what scientific method is.
> It's the hidden agenda of many evolutionists to
Science doesn't address gods and goddesses either for or
against. Additionally science doesn't care about what
people do or why they do it -- unless it's human psychology
being the science discussed.
In any event it's always atheists that evidence the superior
ethic and morality.
In any event most theists accept science -- which includes
the fact of evolution -- because they understand that science
doesn't detract from their occult beliefs.
> Everything becomes OK since without God we are just
Let's hope that your neighbors aren't in any danger on the
day that you finally discard your occult superstitions. If
you need to believe in deity constructs to avoid murdering
your neighbors and rapeing their dogs, you're a danger.
Atheists, on the other hand, understand that they're
responsible for their own actions and can't blame their
problems and their actions on their gods. Unfortunately
the world's bloody history is the result of theists trying
to justify their inhumanity as the will of their gods.
> It is the hatred of God by a few men that was the
Darwin was a staunch Christian. One has to wonder whether
you think the theories which attempt to explain and
describe gravitation are also some how hate against your
gods.
> The hidden agendas that these men had was certainly
Fortunately we have uneducated inbred morons who have no
idea what science is to come in and save the day by telling
us they have invisible gods to offer humanity instead of
science.
> Also, calling others "inbread morons" is an
Science doesn't care what one believes or doesn't believe.
Either Creationist cultists are inbred morons else they're
_willfully_ ignorant and pathological liars. One would think
that they would perfer to be recognized as inbred morons
than as pathological liars.
> It is an attempt to discredit others by attacking them
Science "discredits" mistaken notions quite nicely.
> Thanks for your time, and I hope this helps you
What we found once again was another insane inbred moron who
sent e-mail to a scientist pretending to be asking questions
about an artifact of science, pathologically lying about
wanting to know the answers to questions he -- meaning you --
could have easily looked in at your local library.
What we further found was that said scientist -- meaning me
-- answered the cultist's rhetorical questions easily,
noting that the cultist could have simply gone to his local
library.
When the cultist -- meaning you -- read the response, you --
like any other Creationist cultist -- ignored it entirely and
did the ole' cut-and-paste to unthinkingly forward your
freakishly bizarre occult notions without a shred of thought
and without any desire to have your occultism debunked. This
is typical of cultists: they spend a few minutes offering lie
after lie knowing that it takes scientists hours to address
each lie and knowing that the cultist -- meaning you -- is not
in the least bit interested in the debunking.
Not we get to the point where your notions were -- as is
always the case -- soundly debunked. You won't bother reading
yor debunking. You won't even _think_ about going to your
local library to find out what evolution actually is and what
evolution is not, and you won't even _think_ about finding out
what scientific method is.
Instead you'll persist in your grand delusion, ignorantly
convinced that scientific fact some how threatens your gods
and goddesses, your pixies and fairies, your vampires and
werewolves.
Those who do not employ reason can't be reasoned with. But in
the end, science wins again. Science always wins.
Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this
criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to
U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
"You can lie about ICR all you want." --
Jason Daniel Henderson
"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need
to. Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." --
Fredric L. Rice
From: "WHATSUPDOC" <WHATSUPDOC@prodigy.net>
Subject: Your website
> (or any other term you want to assign to the concept) from
> the oncept of evolution is just not possible.
> nothing to modify.
> from no life can be proven, then prove it. In all my
> research it I have found it has not been proven and is
> considered only a hypothesis.
> of the concept to validate evolution.
> for life in very controlled labratory conditions does
> not in any way prove that life can originate by this
> method.
> Please state your sources.
> the variation of traits within a species,
> micro-evolution and has ben observed.
> explains macro-evolution or the variation across
> species that I find fault with.
> clearly does not support it.
> be littered with transitional species.
> it appears that species appeared out of nowhere and
> in a fully developed form.
> faults with the concept of evolution. There are a
> considerable number of scientists (although a minority)
> who are not creationists who seriously question or wish
> to abolish the thought of evolution because they feel
> it just does not follow the laws of science.
> do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though
> their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other
> areas of science probably vindicate it.
> know their facts, and research does not prove evolution,
> but assume that geology does.
> but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven
> it.
> general public, lest they be fired.
> journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
> evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles
> Darwin,
> press. Such admissions are only made to fellow
> professionals.
> are not trying to push the hidden agenda of God and I did
> not write a single one of these quotes)
> have to prove organic evolution in a court of law."
> -*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society,
> London (1966) [an ichthyologist (expert on fish) in
> a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society
> in London].
> scientific community who could cope with the full range
> of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army
> of consultants in special fields."-*David M. Raup,
> "Geology and Creation," Bulletin of the Field Museum
> of Natural History, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 18.
> because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by
> evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public
> debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists
> and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding
> victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists
> will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the
> late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism,
> all declined to debate."-James Perloff, Tornado in a
> Junkyard (1999), p. 241.
> to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest
> evidence on behalf of evolution."-*Tom Bethell, "Agnostic
> Evolutionists," Harper's, February 1985, p. 61.
> must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded
> in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in
> confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined
> species?"-*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch,
> Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.
> all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
> bend their observations to fit in with it."-*H. Lipson,
> "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31
> (1980), p. 138
> to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the
> result of scientific research, but purely the product
> of imagination."-*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
> bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive
> animals from which all others derived. They are commonly
> supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their
> appearance. There is not the slightest basis for
> this assumption."-*Austin Clark, The New Evolution
> (1930), pp. 235-236.
> matter is, at present, still an article of faith."-*J.W.N.
> Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
> We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have
> not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth,
> nothing of life."-*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery
> of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
> the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir
> John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution
> or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic
> valve].
> and admit that the only acceptable explanation is
> creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
> as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory
> that we do not like if the experimental evidence
> supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at
> Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
> that his influence in scientific and public thinking
> has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was
> accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
> -*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's,
> Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
> fantastic accidental imagination which could explain
> every irregularity in the solar system without explanation,
> leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a
> gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the
> discovery of fossils which have never been discovered,
> and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which
> have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might
> truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.'
> "-*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
> system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like
> a principle of medieval astrology than a serious
> twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality
> for evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution:
> A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular
> biologist].
> evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find
> qualified professional arguments for any group being the
> descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book Review,"
> American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
> and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that
> its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual
> revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected
> the way men viewed themselves and their place in the
> universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in
> Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
> consequently assumed it had none, and was able without
> any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this
> assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in
> the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem
> in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there
> is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he
> wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my
> contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was
> essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation
> we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain
> political and economic system and liberation from a
> certain system of morality. We objected to the morality
> because it interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous
> Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report:
> Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson
> of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend
> and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley.
> Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal
> writers of the 20th century].
> theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.
> It is useless."-*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October
> 1963) [Director of Research at the National center
> of Scientific Research in France].
> result of an act of creation."-*Robert Jastrow, The
> Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
> religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and
> many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit
> in with it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution,"
> Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
> left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having
> to postulate theories of living origins which it could
> not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian
> for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found
> itself in the unenviable position of having to create
> a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that
> what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
> place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval
> past."-*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
> widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was
> all but proved one hundred years ago and that all
> subsequent biological research-paleontological,
> zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and
> molecular biology-has provided ever-increasing evidence
> for Darwinian ideas."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A
> Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
> was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from
> biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more
> incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak,
> Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
> considered as a simple, understood and explained
> phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
> Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
> weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians
> put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit
> is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some
> people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook
> reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and
> falsity of their beliefs."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse,
> Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
> an innocuous natural philosophy,
> research. It obstructs-as has been repeatedly shown-the
> attainment of consistent results, even from uniform
> experimental material. For everything must ultimately
> be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot,
> therefore, be built up."-*H. Neilsson, Synthetische
> Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
> and layman that Darwinism is under attack.
> religion
> is being threatened by fresh ideas.
> creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny
> Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main
> thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself.
> from within rather than a siege from without."-*B. Leith,
> The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
> Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
> carried on for more than 40 years have completely
> failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having
> started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary
> standpoint."-*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
> people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-
> Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose
> faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen
> their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the
> gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But
> it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very
> little impact on the actual progress of the work in
> biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism
> and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the
> progress of science."-Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior
> paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
> London].
> a significant minority of first-rate biologists who
> have never been able to bring themselves to accept the
> validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of
> biologists who have expressed some degree of
> disillusionment is practically endless."-*Michael Denton,
> Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
> lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates
> are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems
> of the evolution theory. These problems will not be
> solved unless we bring them to the attention of students.
> Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing
> link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges
> to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and
> many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate
> our basic assumptions."-*Director of a large graduate
> program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge
> (1982), p. 26.
> evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right
> and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed
> with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did
> not find a series of fossils covering the gradual
> changes from the most primitive creatures to developed
> forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species
> suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a
> complete absence of intermediate fossils."-*D.B.
> Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times,
> England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
> relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that
> any explanation of the mechanism in the creative
> evolution of the fundamental structural plans is
> heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear
> as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack
> of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure
> conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not
> even have a basis to determine the extent to which
> these opinions are correct."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse,
> Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
> spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters,
> nor are we likely to make further progress in this by
> the classical methods of paleontology or biology;
> and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping
> up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so,
> am his prophet.' "-*Errol White, Proceedings of the
> Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
> ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring,
> not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been
> positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about
> evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge,
> but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the
> question I have been putting to people, `Is there
> one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of
> answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution
> does not convey any knowledge."-*Colin Patterson,
> Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of
> Natural History (November 5, 1981).
> whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of
> the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be
> produced, belief in the embryological experiments
> that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified
> by works."-*Arthur N. Field.
> exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy
> ourselves as the only true students of life's history,
> yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by
> natural selection we view our data as so bad that we
> almost never see the very process we profess to
> study."-*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982),
> pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading
> evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the
> twentieth century].
> in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have
> already passed during which it has been said that the
> evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving
> real proofs of it and without even a principle of
> explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty
> years of research that has been carried out along this
> line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no
> discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in
> different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack
> of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular
> biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery
> of reproduction and heredity .. .
> as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that
> intelligence comes before life. Many people will say
> this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing
> I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes
> out of an analysis and observation of the facts."-*G.
> Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant
> la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
> youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma
> that all the world continues to teach; but each, in
> his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains
> that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . .
> It results from this summary, that the theory of
> evolution is impossible."-*P. Lemoine, "Introduction:
> De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937),
> p. 6.
> 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."-*R. Kirk, "The
> Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May
> 27, 1983), p. 641.
> of evolution because of its ability to account for
> any property of living beings (the long neck of the
> giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see
> whether biological discoveries over the last thirty
> years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not
> think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not
> stand up at all."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at
> Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
> Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for
> Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary
> Thought.
> explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they
> hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are
> suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of
> being called hypotheses."-*Norman Macbeth, Darwin
> Retried (1971), p. 147.
> 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."-I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in
> Probabilities (1985).
> that we can't explain in creation,
> based on examination of the evidence of the truth of
> both and the scientific evidence certainly favors
> creationism.
> make a decision of someone's guilt or innocence without
> being present at the scene of the crime, we must examine
> the evidences to come up with a verdict which is proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt.
> that we will never have absolute proof while we are
> here in this life as to the absolute proof of either
> concept.
> doubt as evidenced above by all the quotes from scientists
> questioning it's shortcommings.
> in this life and I am wrong, at the end of my life I will
> simply cease to exist. The worst thing that will happen
> is that I will live a life adhearing to principles that
> promote love for others and a desire to live a rightous life
> free from commiting crime, adultry, murder, sexual immorality
> etc. If I am correct, however, I am assured that if I follow
> Him I will receive a reward in the afterlife.
> will simply cease to exist also, just like me if there
> is no God. However, if you are incorrect it is clear
> that there will be a punishment awaiting you upon your
> demise.
> in the Bible!
> any goddesses, pixies, fairies, or werewolves. Only in
> one God described in the Bible. This is just not a true
> statement and you know it.
> should be about the gathering of knowledge with no
> pre-existing bias.
> be applied to explain the nature of our universe and
> the life within it.
> facts and does us no good.
> drive God out of the picture to free themselves
> to do whatever they want without any consequence.
> animals decended from slime and therefore we can
> behave just as we want to without regard to what is
> right and wrong.
> catylyst for the formation of the evolutionary theory.
> not based on anything that is scientific!
> unjustified attack against someone because you don't
> beleive in what they do.
> personally and not on the basis of the facts.
> understand the truth of just what is going on out
> there in the world.
> Steve
This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank