Can Evolution be Described as a Religion?

Bob, we would really like for you to give a citation proving your archy conference claims or to admit that it is a false claim and to quit making it.

"UTEOTW takes a complete failure to respond to an argument and "settles" for simply declaring victory over himself instead of showing a compelling response."

Uh...No. I point out that his best example of fraud are not such. One fraud which was not widely accepted and eventually shown by science to be false. One misidentification that was never widely accepted and was shown by science to be something else. One exaggeration fro mthe 19th century that had some basis in fact. And two good scientific find. None of which are currently used, or have been used in a very long time, to support evolution.

I then counter that by giving seven current frauds used to prop up YE that no one seems able to justify or answer. You give us more examples with your constant misquoting.

"Notice that he admits it was immediately incorporated into many text books as junk-science fact - but then adds the curious "low regard" spin "as if" he is solving the problem or the claim that it is a hoax."

No Bob, this is true objectivity. I can admit when there was a problem. (Have you admitted the problem with your archy conference claims yet!) I do not need to hide things. I can deal honestly with the facts. I do not need to resort to lies and trickery as exemplified by your misquoting and by the unaswered still in use frauds by the YE leaders.

"He said it is a clear undeniable example of hoax and fraud perpetuated in the temples of evolutionism and UTEOTW in his response has to confess that yes it IS an example of a hoax - a fraud -- indeed - junk-science rampaging through the temple of evolutionism."

I'll make the same challenge to you that I did to James. Give us a few example of frauds in current use to support evolution. He could only drag up long discredited ideas from before my grandfather was born. Nothing recent. Nothing current. I, on the other hand, was able to quickly give several examples of current YE frauds. You give us several more examples with you misquotes.

 

The "facts" of science may be defined as that part of religious belief and faith which everyone agrees on.

After all, the act of defining and classifying phenomena is a religious occupation which requires belief and faith in one's intellect and senses.

 

Fallacy of equivocation. You are taking two different defintions of faith and equating them. You cannot do that. (Well you can, but it becaome a fallacious argument.)

Religion requires a faith of the unseen. From Hebrews, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That is the kind of religious fatih we have.

Science is based on the observable. We can directly detect genetic material and see what is is. We can look directly at stars in the sky and trace their history. We can hold the fossils in our hands. These are not unseen things. These are direct observations.

The faith that we can do it correctly is not a religious faith. Your fallacy requires my patent response. If you think that sceince is getting it wrong, then choose somewhere you think is wrong, tell us what is wrong specifically with how sceince views it, and then give us a young earth interpretation that better fits the data, it based on empirical data and logic, and is falsifiable.

I'll give you an example. Look at this link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9839455

Explain it in terms of a young earth. There are two classes of olfactory genes. Those useful in detecting odors in water and those for detecting odors in the air. Fish, for example, have those for water exclusively and land animals exclusively have those for air. Cetaceans only have deactivated versions of those useful for detecting airborne odors. Common descent expects this since whale evolved from a land dwelling animal that had on the sence of smell for airborne scents. How do you explain this in a recently created kinds scenario? Would an intelligent designer give a whale the genes for water born scents if they were to receive any at all? And why non-functional versions of the gens from smelling things in the air? Better explain this paradox in a young earth giving a logical, fact based line of reasoning that can be falsified. Tell us what you think would falsify your hypothesis.

 

"Let God be found true--and every man a liar"

Some can look through microscopes and telescopes and declare: "My God--how great thou art".

Others look through the same instruments and declare: "mother nature, what marvels thou hast evolved".

Which ones are worshipping a false God???

Then there are those who dig in "Mother Earth" to find tidbits of "evidence" for the artists to portray as robust examples--complete with soft tissue. (another post)

Selah,

Bro. James

 

No excuses yet for the dishonesty of the YE leaders?

I have no problem in praising God for His creation no matter the means which He used to accomplish His will. It turned out as He had ordained.

 

Indeed you love to dodge the point rather than answering it and your response above is easily a demonstration of that fact.

#1. Isaac Asimov was not misquoted by me - you have repeatedly "confessed" that my quote is EXACT.

His quote is so devastating to evolutionism's needs that YOU even claim ASimov "is wrong".

Your claim that my EXACT quote is also wrong - is simply an example of you running from pillar to post looking for an inch of ground to stand on.

#2. YOU claimed Asimov "Was wrong" to admit to the truth of the good science fact that the law of entropy is fully exposed in the local human biological systems as they exhibit INCREASED entropy rather than the DECREASE so desperately needed.

#3. ASIMOV HIMSELF admitted that evolutionism NEEDED the massive DECREASE in entropy for molecule-to-human-brain evolution to have occured. Your repeated rabbit trail of "show me why the atheist evolutionist Asimov is correct in his clear statement on evolution NEEDING the massive DECREASE in entropy" - is a hollow attempt to DODGE the fact that YOUR OWN atheist evolutionist - is admitting this blatant and obvious fact!

Your duplicity and zealous religious fevor in ignoring this glaring fact - should get you some high marks among evolutionism's devotees. But it does not make for a compelling argument in your favor.

#4. Your repeated complaint that Asimov IS STILL an atheist and STILL and evolutionist EVEN though he is fully exposing the flaw in evolutionism - does not make your argument at all. IN FACT it simply shows your need to propl up evolutionism no matter what the cost to logic and reason.

#5. Asimov ADMITS that we SEE INCREASED entropy in the local human biological systems -- and he admits that evolutionism NEEDS us to SEE massive DECREASES in entropy in those SAME systems for eovlutionism to be true.

The is so devastating to your case that your only response to this atheist evolutionist source is "why is he right??? Show me why evolutionists embrace good science!!??". And in so doing you expose the weakness of your religious zeal in this case.

#6. Asimov argues "a fix" for a problem that he does not have - but this is to be expected since evolutionists live in a fairytale land of factless voids. Asimov provides the "burning sun" answer to the PROBLEM of seeing a massive DECREASE in entropy in the local system and STILL preserving the overall principle of entropy. The problem is that he already admitted that we DON'T SEE the massive DECREASE in entropy in the local system - rather we see consistent ubiguitous INCREASED entropy in the VERY local systems that evolutionism NEEDS us to SEE the "massive decrease" so that we can get the mythical molecule-to-brain evolution story to hold water.

Imagine if you will that INSTEAD of Asimov confessing the obvious science-fact of INCREASED entropy OBSERVED in the local system - he had said

Imagine how evolutionists would have loved it IF that were science FACT instead of pure science fiction! Imagine how your life would be so much easier IF Asimov has said that INSTEAD of admitting to the science FACT - that we SEE entropy INCREASED at BOTH the local level of human biological systems AND at the solar system level due to the sun.

Indeed you would be well to imagine it - since evolutionism is junk-science plus massive increases in imagination. i.e. - bad religion.

As for my not "butchering words" -- have you been able to see the salient points listed here? Yet?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Notice that Asimov gives these LOCAL examples of increased entropy as his example of what “the 2nd law is all about”. This is “Good science”!

Also Evolutionist desperate to embrace any-old contradiction with good science in the hopes of salvaging the doctrines of evolutionism will quickly leap to another statement of Asimov in the above document to a more junk-science approach that denies the local entropy examples above – that we actually SEE in nature..

Particularly when we consider that Asimov already stated that EVERYTHING we see is exhibiting the expected INCREASE in entropy EVEN at the local level.

Here Asimov contrasts the massive DECREASE in entropy “needed” by evolutionism’s “stories” -- with that INCREASE in entropy in the LOCAL systems that he just admitted to.


Asimov then gives us some detail on the junk-science proposals needed to prop up evolution in light of the contrast between what we SEE in nature, in local human biological systems and what evolutionism NEEDS us to see.

But here again Asimov holds the line insisting that increasing order in biological systems IS in fact only possible if the result of all the observations is a massive DECREASE in entropy.

How awful for evolutionism’s faithful! This argument that evolutionism NEEDS a MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy was supposed to be for “stupid Christians” – but Asimov freely admits it!!

Even worse! Asimov’s “fix” is a fix to a problem he does not have. His fix is directed to the mythical fairyland “result” of SEEING a mythical INCREASE in entropy at the local human biological level instead of the OBSERVED and factual DECREASE in entropy at the local level that Asimov admits to. How sad that evolutionists would desperately cling to a confused “solution” to a problem they don’t have!

To illustrate the fix – we need the mythical scenario of Asimov SEEING the much-needed massive DECREASE in entropy in the local system (human biology) and then his “fix” would show how the law regarding entropy is preserved EVEN with that observed “massive decrease” in entropy in the local system. Unfortunately – since Asimov says we don’t HAVE that problem – the fix is meaningless.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Where is the citation for your dishonest claims about the archy conference?

"#1. Isaac Asimov was not misquoted by me - you have repeatedly "confessed" that my quote is EXACT.

His quote is so devastating to evolutionism's needs that YOU even claim ASimov "is wrong".

Your claim that my EXACT quote is also wrong - is simply an example of you running from pillar to post looking for an inch of ground to stand on."

Do you have any ethical beliefs when it comes to quoting others?

You are the one who disagrees with Asimov. Don't you get that!

You take his statement out of context. You are like the atheist who quotes the Bible as saying "There is no God." I am the one who comes along and points out that the verse actually says "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."

You may quote Asimov word for word, but by not quoting him completely, you quote him untruthfully!

It is one thing to leave out part of a quote that is not germane tot he subject. But you quote him to support a certain position. His quote, taken in full, shows that he does not agree with your conclusion. Therefore you have no choice but to take him out of context if you wish to use the quote to advance your position. By taking him out of context, you are making him appear to hold a position which he EXPLICITLY does not hold. You are LYING about what he says.

It takes more than putting the words in the right order to quote truthfully. You have shown you cannot quote truthfully. Or do you thing "There is no God" is a truthful quote of the Bible?

 

Notice that in each reference to the blunders gaffs and flaws of the myths and doctrines of the religion we know as evolutionism as they regard Agiogenesis and entropy and the horse series -- UTEOTW always asks for a REPEAT of quotes on BIRDS???

Is that kind of illogical approach to an argument something you would expect of a true devotee to his religion of evolutionism?

Maybe so.

But to address UTEOTW's zeal on this point - I will provide a little something here showing the blunders, gaffs and flaws of evolutionism when it comes to birds. (As ALREADY posted in the ARCHY threads).


Examples of Evolutionists making junk-science grandiose claims for smooth transistions.

This was posted on the Baptist board by UTEOTW –
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000044

Hmm – we have the clear “claim” that B is a perfect link BETWEEN A and C. The claim that Archy is an exquisite link BETWEEN reptiles and birds.

But wait! There is more to UTEOTW’s post

So is Archy really a species-B that is intermediate BETWEEN true A and True C. Between True Bird and True Reptile --?

________________________________________

If evolutionists are willing to reduce their own argument to claiming that “TRUE C should be considered as a transitions between A and C “ -- then NO WONDER evolutionism’s devotees claim to have "transitions". The wonder is that they don’t claim to have even more.

In an article published several years ago in Paleobiology, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote concerning Archaeopteryx:

In Christ,

Bob

 

It's interesting you should mention feathers. There has been some development in the knowledge of feather evolution since 1985. Check this out:

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mtk4m/Prum%201999.pdf

 

It seems that Bob made the same post on two different threads. So I here repeat my response.

First a joke that seems germane.

A man is on a business trip to a small town out west. One day he decides to stop into one of the local watering holes before heading back to his hotel. He sits down at the bar and orders a drink. Startling him, the guy next to him jumps up and yells "Four!" Everybody dies laughing. A few minutes later another guy stands up and yells "Sixteen!" There are a few snickers. Later, another person stands up and yells "Seven!" Again, a complete uproar. So the man asks the bartender what is going on. The bartender answers that they have all been hanging out together for so long that everyone already knows everyone's jokes so they have just numbered them. When you want to tell a joke, you just stand up and yell the number of the one you want to tell and people will laugh if they thought that one was funny. After a few more drinks, the visitor decides to join in. He gets up and yells "Eight!" Dead silence. The bartender leans in and says "Some people just don't know how to tell a joke."

That is kind of where we are with Bob, here. Arguing the facts is hard so he argues with quotes. But we have all seen them before. We know that when he quotes Asimov that he is going to leave out the part of the quote where Asimov disagrees with Bob's conclusion. When he makes his bird claims, he is not going to bother to support them. When he quotes Simpson, he is going to butcher the quote and claim that Simpson was saying something other than what he intended. By the same toke, when Bob starts quoting, I am going to dig out the full quotes and show where Bob did not treat the quote truthfully. Bob will then claim that the quotes where nothing more the atheists admitting defeat and then turning right around and defending what they just admitted was wrong because they have no other choice. We all know that the context denies this claim. But Bob's misquotes must be dealt with each time in case we have a lurker who is seeing them for the first time. Why he continues to post the misquotes we will never know I suppose. People usually give up once they are exposed. It is tiresome but necessary to have to do this everytime. So, on to the last post.

First, he gives three quote that he claims are from me. I think they are actually quotes of others I have used in some of my posts. These quotes speak truthfully about the nature of Archeopteryx.

Bob then goes back to one of his old statements. He says.

This is the claim that I have been asking Bob to support for months and which he refuses to support. He has been shown repeatedly that it is false. But know factual support of the claim has ever been forthcoming nor has he admitted an error, nor has he (as seen by the last post) stopped using the claim.

You cited Dodson and Howgate. I asked you for evidence that these guys thought that archy was only a bird and not a transitional to support your assertion. I say that to not do so shows that you know what they were really saying and chose to assert that they were saying something else regardless. You did not support your assertion and instead choose to merely repeat yourself. So I'll do your work for you. But you will not like the results.

Why do we not first make a direct quote from Howgate?

Howgate, M. E. 1984. "The teeth of Archaeopteryx and a reinterpretation of the Eichstätt specimen." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82: 159-175.

"However, these authors present a decidedly ambiguous reconstruction of the Archaeopteryx ankle; it shows the ascending process associated equally with the astragalus and calcaneum. The Archaeopteryx ankle depicted by Martin et al. (1990, fig. 1G) seems, in fact, to be structurally intermediate between the theropod ankle and the neornithiform bird ankle."

Well, it seems that he may have thought it was a transitional after all.

Then I came across your very reference.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

In here, Dodson lists over 20 specific shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and specifically coelurosaur theropods. I think he was making a case for archy being a transitional, don't you?

Let me give you another reference from Dodson.

Barsbold, R.; Maryanska, T. & Osmolska, H. 1990. Oviraptorosauria. In: Weishampel, D. B.; Dodson, P. & Osmolska, H. (eds.), The Dinosauria. 249-258. University of California Press, Berkeley.

In this reference, the gentleman you cite discusses how some dinosaurs, such as Oviraptor and Ingenia, have furculas like birds as further evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You might want to see this reference of his.

CHINSAMY A., CHIAPPE L. & DODSON P. (1994): "Growth rings in mesozoic avian bones: physiological implications for basal birds." J.Vert.Paleont. 14(3, Suppl.): 21A

You will notice the word "basal" in the title. This means that he is studying the first birds and recognizes and accepts that they evolved.

One more reference for you.

Smith, J.B., You H., and P. Dodson. 1998. "The age of the Sihetun quarry in Liaoning Province, China and its implications for early bird evolution." Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, 30(7):38A.

See the phrase "bird evolution" in the title? You still assert that he thinks archy is just a bird and not a transitional? This paper ties the specimens found in Liaoning with other bird transitionals.

Then we move on to the infamous Patterson quote about no transitionals. Again, this is something that has been pointed out to Bob in the past. Dr. Patterson also said:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

Dr. Patterson "Evolution" 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

But even better is his response to the quote in a personal letter.

"Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson"

It should be obvious by now that he was not saying that there are not transitional forms but that you cannot tell for sure whether a given specimen is on the direct line to another or if it is a side branch. That is a far cry from saying that there are no transitionals or that archy is not a wonderful find intermediate between birds and reptiles.

Bob then quotes Gould in a seemingly damaging statement. I think it is best answered by another Gould statement that addresses both the issue and quote mining.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York.

Then a Stahl quote about the lack of feather intermediates. Alas it is an old quote and we have since discovered feathers in many forms of intermediate development and some of the genetic basis for how feathers developed. See Paul's post above.

But I think Bob has used all these quotes before and should have read the responses given in the past that show that the quotes are not being used correctly. Yet we see them over and over.

"Twelve!"

 

Let's give a few more quotes for you, Bob. The interested reader should be able to use these to clear the air on the archy / bird issue.

Let's give some Gould quotes for you. Let's first give the rest of your Gould quote from above. Same source.

Now you should be able to see that the quote is a quote about puncuated equilibrium and not against the fossil record as you presented it. It is, once again, ,erely a quote about how the fossil record is bushy and jerky.

Gould also said

Gould, S. J. 1991. Bully for Brontosaurus. Penguin, London. pg 144-145

You should now see that Gould really does view archy as a transitional form. He says so himself.

Since you have quoted Raup recently, let's move on and see what he has to say. This should help clear up just what Gould means when he calls Archaeopteryx both an intermediate and a bird.

Raup, D. M. 1983. The geological and paleontological arguments of creationism. p. 157. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed), Scientist Confront Creationism. Norton & Co, New York.

 

I know I keep pointing out this blatant blunder in UTEOTW's argument but here we find him using the same old tired tactic of using patently false claims to prop up his failing argument.

Clearly this is just a false statement. UTEOTW argues that my EXACT quote is "untruthful" SINCE Isaac Asimov IS after all AN ATHEIST and not a Christian - and evolutionist and not in agreement with Genesis - so HOW could ANYTHING he says about what we SEE in science - help a creationist argument?? SURELY an atheist would NEVER have a self-conflicted POV where he must confess to GOOD SCIENCE facts that don't support his religious devotion to evolutionism! Surely NOT!

What kind of argument is that UTEOTW??!!

You have gone into the sublimely silly realm of non-reason on that one.

And then to claim that MY using HIS clear statements on the science FACTs of entropy is "untruthful" since that exposes a challenge to his faith in evolutionism - (and surely he would never admit to a fact that can be SEEN by me as disconfirming his beliefs - - would he?? Surely not - for he is after all an evolutionist ).

You YOURSELF argued that "Asimov was WRONG" on the very point that I quote him and show that his statement exposes a blunder in evolutionism!!

Then you claim that I am "untruthful" to QUOTE that???

UTEOTW - you are drinking so much of your own koolaid that you can't see the forest for the trees. Come back to the light, to science, to truth.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"UTEOTW argues that my EXACT quote is "untruthful" SINCE Isaac Asimov IS after all AN ATHEIST and not a Christian - and evolutionist and not in agreement with Genesis - so HOW could ANYTHING he says about what we SEE in science - help a creationist argument?? "

You really don't get it!!!

I say it is dishonest because you selectively edit the quote to make it say something the author did not intend. Just like the atheist who selectively edits the Bible to say "There is no God." Tell me, just how would you respond to such a claim if not by adding the context to show that it is a dishonest quote even if word for word?