The lie of evolution, part II

Thank you for the preponderence of "evidence" in a form that a modestly educated person can comprehend.

There are literally hundreds of quotations from scientists(not creationists) who have difficulty in putting faith in evolution as a source of our existence.

There is a basic impasse between paradigms, jargon and dogma which make resolution of this issue impossible.

All we can do is show a lie for what it is.
There is no way to harmonize the wisdom of God with the wisdom of man, regardless of one's pedigree.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Brother James, if you will go back and look through these debates, you'll find multiple cases in which we have found the original occurences of these "quotations" and found that they are quoted and misquoted dishonesty and without context to force them to mean something completely different from the original speaker's intent.

JWI, I still would like to get a solid answer from you regarding mutation. Do you still think that all mutations are detrimental and all result in loss of specificity? I know I've asked you this at least half a dozen times, but you seem unwilling to give me an honest yes or no.

 

UTEOTW

It is no secret that Gould was a firm believer in evolution.

But Gould and many other prominent evolutionists did recognize true problems with the theory.

I showed the quotes above by Smith and Lipson. Both said that REAL scientific evidence points to creation. And both admitted that the belief in evolution was a matter of the "will" and not scientific fact. But both remain evolutionists.

There is no dishonesty here whatsoever. You only want one point of view to be presented. Everytime someone presents any evidence contrary to what you want to hear, you shout foul.

What you do not realize is the blantant dishonesty of many evolutionists. Many know the facts are not on their side, but insist evolution is true anyway.

Apparently, you have been educated where you were presented one point of view. Or you were educated to dismiss and rationalize any evidence against evolution.

This reminds me of many religious cults. You can present them evidence from the Bible to show their doctrine wrong. They have immediate answers prepared that twist scripture and logic. The only one convinced is themselves.

I know you get tired of hearing it, but at least Gould went to great lengths to find a theory that explains the absence of transitional fossils. Yes, "punk eek" is a ridiculous theory. But even you have argued it.

But can't you see for one second that the very fact this theory exists is because there are TRULY no transitional fossils?? Gould is not the only one to recognize this. I have showed you many, many quotes by others stating the same thing.

But at least Gould tried to come up with something.

But creation needs NOTHING to explain the lack of transitionals. It already fits perfectly.

And why can't you see this? Why do you accept a theory based upon even more fantastic theories and not accept a theory that fits true scientific findings?? Obviously, you do not want to believe the creation account.

And there are even more ridiculous theories like the "Hopeful Monster" theory.

http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a14b.htm

I would be embarrassed by these idiotic theories myself.

There is one kind of evolution. The theory of evolution has evolved many times because scientific facts do not agree with it. So those who accept this theory as a matter of faith must constantly reinvent it to fit new findings.

 

I can't wait to get to heaven.The arguement will certainly be settled there.My feeling and faith while I am here go with the Bible the way it reads in the KJV,ESV,NKJV,NASB,and NIV all scolarly translations which a normal everyday person would read to believe in a 6 day creation.

I appreciate all of the time and energy in study and explanation to we who disagree with the THEORY of evolution have put forth your theory and explanations are just to much for my feeble imagination.I cannot believe it is mathematically possible to have all of the different species plant and animal that exist on earth by evolution (macro)or by chance.It would take 10 to the infinitive power by whatever the largest number of years one can possibly imagine for most of these events to have taken place.Oh I know you will tell me that's not true it would only be 10x28,000 over a period of 4 1/2 billion years for somethig to occur.If your willing to go with that I'm learning to play poker and you're the one I want to play against.The theory of evolution just takes more faith than I have.The theory needs to many strokes of good luck over to long a period of time for me to accept.If you can work with it good for you ,and if you are actually right,I will apologize to you in heaven when we all know the answer for sure.But until then I'm happy with the Biblical account the way it reads.

 

"But can't you see for one second that the very fact this theory exists is because there are TRULY no transitional fossils?? Gould is not the only one to recognize this. I have showed you many, many quotes by others stating the same thing.

But at least Gould tried to come up with something.

But creation needs NOTHING to explain the lack of transitionals. It already fits perfectly.

And why can't you see this? Why do you accept a theory based upon even more fantastic theories and not accept a theory that fits true scientific findings?? Obviously, you do not want to believe the creation account. "

That is not what he said and you know it. YOu are severely perverting the meaning to make a point.

From Gould...

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

If you want me to read a quote of yours, provide a link to read the original. You have demonstrated that you care not about the accuracy of the quote and I am making this request as a response to that observation.

 

How could I have not realized before that spamming a billion out-of-context "quotations" was an appropriate means of argumentation?? If my college professors had told me this, I could have saved a lot of time in research and composition.

You retain not the slightest shred of credibility. You are spamming these quotes as if they proved something, and you're doing it without knowing who the original speaker was and what exactly they were talking about.

See Quote #64 on this page. This man is in mathematics, not biology, geology, genetics, paleontology, archaeology, biochemistry, or any other field directly related to evolution. Moreover, he is not an evolutionist, he is anti-evolutionist. Somehow I don't find it very surprising that someone opposed to evolution doesn't think that it is a good theory.

As for Lipson, see Quote #59 on the same page. Lipson apparently does not believe in abiogenesis, but he thinks that the fossil record provides clear evidence of evolution.

He sounds like a theistic evolutionist!

So, do you think that mutation is always detrimental and always results in loss of specificity?

 

"Quote Mining", "Spamming"

Whatever.

I have showed you many quotes by notable evolutionists and scientists pointing out tremendous difficulties with evolution.

You do not like the message so you attack me.

Fine. Call me names. Call me dishonest.

But you are being dishonest if you do not admit that many have great difficulties with this theory and have said so.

I am not going to quote whole chapters of their books. Maybe they did continue to believe evolution despite these problems.

What does that say?

You have two options.

1)They either have found legitimate explanations to these problems or...

2)They choose to ignore these problems.

Well, I haven't seen any reasonable answers to these problems. Punk Eek and Hopeful Monsters are laughable theories.

More statements. You are so smart, you answer these problems.

"In a sense, the concept of 'punctuated equilibria' is tautological. In essence it submits a factual observation: since the rate of evolution is not a slow, creeping one, it is a very fast, sudden one! This concept is quite interesting from yet another aspect; it even implies the concept of creation. In the final analysis, a very sudden change is tantamount to an act of sudden creation.

"We have established that a single cell bacteria requires about 3,000,000 nucleotides so as to function and reproduce as a unicell species. A human cell contains about 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in a very specific sequence. We may assume that the cell of a trilobite was somewhere in between. Shall we extend it the benefit of the doubt and guesstimate it to have 500,000,000 meaningfully aligned nucleotides? (The argument would still be valid were it eventually established that a trilobite had, for example, as few as 20 million or as many as 920 million nucleotides). How will we get from 3 million to 500 million? What is the probability that 497 million nucleotides would align themselves—all by themselves—into a very, very specific sequence? Certainly Gould and Eldredge would agree that the probability is nil." —I. L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), pp. 98-99.

Ooh, he's quote mining again.

You better believe it.

There are two sides to an argument whether you like it or not.

It is pretty obvious you don't.

 

"I have showed you many quotes by notable evolutionists and scientists pointing out tremendous difficulties with evolution. "

No you have given us many quotes that when the context is removed may do what you say.

Numerous examples of your quotes have been shown to mean something else when put in context. Some folks that you claimed were evolutionists were not really so when it was checked out. At least one quote was made up from whole cloth.

"You do not like the message so you attack me. "

You are not being attacked but your methods certainly are. It is not because the message is disliked it is because the message is dishonest. You are misrepresenting the quotes.

That is dishonest. I was willing to give you a pass at first because you might not have known. Enough of your quotes have now been specifically shown to be dishonest that the conclusion is that you do not care about honesty in you quotes.

"I am not going to quote whole chapters of their books."

You have said this multiple times and multiple times I have said that I am not asking you to post whole chapters.

Post whatever quote you wish but provide a link where it can be read in its original context in its entirety.

"Well, I haven't seen any reasonable answers to these problems. Punk Eek and Hopeful Monsters are laughable theories."

Can you tell me of anyone who advocated hopeful monsters?

And the only thing "laughable" about PE is your continued misrepresentation of it. You do not even attempt to defend your assertions about it in the face of strong refutations.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Now. please, show how the proponents of PE advocate what you assert that they do. Or if you cannot, please quit misrepresenting their positions.

"There are two sides to an argument whether you like it or not."

I am still waiting to see if the other side of the argument has a valid argument to make.

Thus far, I have never seen one.

In fact, their position is so weak that they think that misrepresenting the opinion's of scientists is a valid way to argue.

So sad.

 

UTEOTW and Petrel

I don't understand why you two waste time here trying to convince a bunch of Bible believers about evolution.

I'm not saying I don't welcome and appreciate your opinions, but it seems a waste really.

Why don't you two write a good book and convince the scientific world.

You seem so certain.

In the meantime, I like quotes like this that show evolution mathematically impossible.

"With an average effective breeding population of 100 million individuals and an average length of generation of one day, again extremely favorable postulates, such an event [of five mutations possibly occurring in one organism] would be expected only once in about 274 billion years, a about a hundred times the probable age of the earth. Obviously . . such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." —*George Gaylord Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 96.

274 billion years for just 5 measly mutations?? That doesn't seem to support evolution very well.

 

Oh we believe there are two sides to an argument all right, that is clear any time there is an argument. And there can even be more than just two sides!

We're only mentioning that misleading and false quotations and false reasoning for one side mean that side has lesser merit, that's all.

But please, go right on misquoting. Let the whole world know what your side leans on for support.

For example, in the describing of the tremendous odds against a creature coming along based on the large number of genes that have to be present, the calculation done by creationists is always based on mathematics derived from a model of . . . get this . . . creation.

Its as if they are trying to prove creation is impossible because the odds are so great against it.

They never calculate the odds for incrementally arriving at a viable creature b from beginning a based on single mutations that are gradually assimilated into the popultation and then the next being gradually assimilated . . . the math they use is totally inappropriate for that scenario.

That's because, of course, the math would be a bit difficult to carry out. Creationist objectors as a class are notorious for taking simple easy steps instead of the harder, more difficult steps that more accurately reflect the true theory of evolution.

But evolution has been mathematically simulated and it does work out to make hash of all those "the odds are to great" declarations from creationists.

 

Paul of Eugene

I do not see why all of these quotes are misleading. I have said many times now that many of these writers continue to believe in evolution despite the very problems THEY pointed out.

In fact, I have tried to find writers that are evolutionists. You would never accept evidence from a creationist.

What is so dishonest?

How do you answer these problems?

That is what matters.

Gould came up with Punk Eek to answer the lack of true transitional forms. Maybe you disagree with him, maybe you feel there are many transitionals.

Fine, write a book like he did. Put forth your evidence.

I can find literally hundreds of quotes from credible and respected authors concerning these problems with evolution.

But you and the others dismiss them easily.

You should join the other two and write a good book that will convince all these critics.

You and the others do not like this abundance of evidence against evolution. So you attack me as quote mining, and the writers as unreliable.

Are you as famous and known in the field as these writers??

 

OK you have nicely portrayed what George Gaylord Simpson said did NOT play a part in evolution. He even said that right there in your quote!

For some reason, you think this is an argument against evolution!

Perhaps, now, you could go back to the same book and find out what George Gaylord Simpson said ACTUALLY DOES play a part in evolution, and lay THAT out on the table for analysis pro or con.

Hint: it will be something along the line of one mutation at a time making its way into the population.

 

I have been very reluctant to post this verse from the Bible.

I will admit it is taken out of context. The context is sin.

However, I do believe it applies to evolution. I believe it argues against evolution from the Bible.

I think it will be obvious why I did not want to use this verse.

But it is God's Word.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Now, I don't want to hear anything racial. That was not my intent whatsoever. In fact, I would rather talk about the leopard changing his spots, and that is all.

But this shows that the Bible does discuss genetics.

Doesn't this argue against evolution?

 

Gould believed there were transitionals. He believed evolution procedes one mutation at a time. He simply believed that the fossil record shows this process worked faster in some epochs than in others and that we are missing some of the transitional fossils simply because the transitional phase was RELATIVELY rapid and RELATIVELY isolated in space as well.

Books and web sites and etc are being written all the time.

Gould himself has already been quoted in oppostion to the use creationists make of his words. He should be famous enough to use in defending his own words.

As for my own fame or lack thereof, let the readers all note the depth to which this poster must descend to make his points, having little else to say for his side.

 

Paul of Eugene

I do not have all of Simpson's writing. Why don't you provide it in simple language.

Many writers have said that mutations (regardless of the number) could not account for evolution.

"The innumerable mutations which indicate alterations in the genome (lowest haploid number of chromosomes), whether they be loss mutations, or gain mutations, macro or micromutations, viable a non-viable, as well as chromosome changes, all have this in common, that they remain as oscillatory forms, or, at most, remarkable varieties within the species, whereas if an evolutionary value is to be attached to them they must depart from the species population." —*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung [Synthetic Speciation], (1954), p. 177.

Even I can understand that. Mutations cause varieties WITHIN THE SPECIES. But for evolution to be true, a form must DEPART FROM THE SPECIES population.

Can you name any creature that has been known and completely accepted by science to have been observed to depart from it's current species?

I'm not talking about comparing some fossil to today's creatures. I'm talking about a creature that has been observed today.

I know hundreds of thousands of experiments were performed on the fruit fly. Many mutations were artificially induced, but none changed the fruit fly into another species.

 

Paul of Eugene said,

"As for my own fame or lack thereof, let the readers all note the depth to which this poster must descend to make his points, having little else to say for his side."

You question every source. The writer is unreliable, the math is wrong, the comment was taken out of context......

You are the one who has set yourself up as judge.

Of course, all of your information is 100% accurate.

Of course.

So it is only fair to ask if you have credentials equal to the writers.

I love the way you guys make the rules on which evidence is credible and which is not.

 

"I don't understand why you two waste time here trying to convince a bunch of Bible believers about evolution."

I'll tell you one reason.

When I was YE and ran across this YE junk, it changed my mind. Not only changed it, but it made me furious that so called Christian leaders would go out of their way to lie about what scientist say. Yes, LIE.

I hope to stamp out the dishonesty of YE wherever I find it. I may not change minds, but I hope to at least eliminate some of the more atrocious methods and arguments. Occasionally, alas, you come across someone who fails to grasp the dishonesty of some of the arguments or does not care.

"
Why don't you two write a good book and convince the scientific world."

They are already convinced and write better books than I ever could.

"I do not see why all of these quotes are misleading."

Obviously.

Because the intended meaning of the original has been changed by removing the context.

"Gould came up with Punk Eek to answer the lack of true transitional forms. Maybe you disagree with him, maybe you feel there are many transitionals."

GOULD DID NO SUCH THING. PE EXPLAINS WHY RECORDS OF CHANGE ARE GENERALLY LACKING AT THE SPECIES LEVEL BUT ARE OBSERVED OVER AND OVER AND HIGHER LEVELS

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

"What is so dishonest?"

Changing the meaning by removing context.

"How do you answer these problems? "

There is nothing to answer if the quotes do not mean what the author intended.

"You question every source. The writer is unreliable, the math is wrong, the comment was taken out of context......"

Those are very often the problems and are legitimate responses.

 

Paul already answered the quote. Simpson was telling what does not happen.

But here is a larger quote to put it in perspective.

Another strike against quote mining. Not that it will make a difference to you. I predict more claims of not understanding the problem and more dishonest quotes.

 

Well, I think it proves you will take anything written by anyone out of context if you think it will help you.

Since it is talking about a leopard FWOOP becoming spotless, I would say it has absolutely nothing to do with genetics and nothing to do with evolution.

Tell me, does it bother you at all that most young earth creationists accept speciation, which you think is impossible? Most young earthers here think that all cats came from one original type of cat, which then produced cats without coat patterns, like lions, cats with stripes, like tigers, and cats with spots, like leopards. Since you seem to think that misquoting massive numbers of people so that they look like they doubt evolution is convincing, why are you not convinced by the large number of young earth creationists that accept speciation?

And, once again, I would ask you if you think that mutations are always detrimental and always result in loss of specificity. Your refusal to answer this simple question reflects badly on you and your position. In past when I've asked this you've either ignored the question, tried to distract us by bringing in red herrings, or equivocated on the meanings of mutation and evolution. So I'll ask you again: Do you think that random changes in DNA sequence are always detrimental and always result in loss of specificity?

I know that I have provided proof that this postulate is false. I would like to see if you are capable of acknowledging an error in your argument, as I did in a disagreement elsewhere with Bunyon. If your position is true and God really did make the universe 6000 years ago, he certainly does not need you attempting to protect him from inquiry by maintaining a lie. And if your position is false, well, God is a God of truth, and he would certainly want us to acknowledge the truth.

 

Too bad Jay Gould returned to the primordial ooze or was it the Cloud of Ort at such a young age. He is not around to enjoy all the fruits of his labor: the royalties generated by his science fiction books.

Is he not the father of "punctuated equilibrium", the evolutionists rationale for not enough transitional forms? Maybe we just haven't turned over enough dirt. Who gets the royalty for "Origin of Species"? The Society for Seasick Amateur Naturalists?

Selah,

Bro. James