[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[lordkalvan]

I suppose this is another of your falsehoods. I found the site from which you cut and pasted the edited quotes. And it turns out that Gee cites evidence to support his acceptance of evolution.

But before I accuse you outright of yet another lie, I'll give you a chance to show that Gee cites faith instead of evidence. You've a a big backlog of questions to answer. When do you think you're going to be able to get to some of them?

Well, I've been waiting since Post 24 (with subsequent follow-up posts) for an explanation of the alleged 'Darwinian "horse sequence" hoax', what it proposes, why it is a hoax and where it identifies a specific fossil claimed as directly ancestral to either another specific fossil or a particular living individual. At least I've not been holding my breath....

 

[zeke]

If you can point to examples of 'flip-flopping' and 'thrashing around', I would be happy to discuss them further.

You can start by clarifying your position as you appear confused. One more time and in context Gee states that to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. I fully agree with his statement. Do you agree with me and Gee? That would be a yes or no response.

 

[zeke]

But before I accuse you outright of yet another lie, I'll give you a chance to show that Gee cites faith instead of evidence.

Do you accuse everyone who disagrees with your peculiar dogma to be a liar. You are rather sad. The fact remains--Gee believes in universal common ancestry via faith and I am not concerned with his religious beliefs including his creation myth.

 

[zeke]

There's a similar list from "Project Steve", in which people express support for evolutionary theory. To be in that one, though, you need to be more than a "assistant professor of mathematics."

Which Steve and which evolutionary theory are you referring to, exactly? Remember, biological evolution is science - Darwinian pseudoscience is religion. Stanley Salthe is an expert in Darwinian evolutionary theory and he is now an apostate from that religion. Why - because like hundreds of other PhD scientists he came to realize it was "modernism’s origination myth". You do know the difference between myth and science - right?

"Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims. ~ Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York​

Why do we see hundreds of PhD scientists rejecting Darwinism? We do not see hundreds of scientists rejecting the kinetic theory of gases - why Darwinism? Educate yourself.

Dissent from Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work." ~ Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

​

 

[zeke]

Phylogeny was created to sort life forms into easily classified groups for further study and record. When Linnaeus started sorting, he began to realize that certain traits appeared generational. With the discovery of genetics, geneticists have found that these groups are linked together by ERVs and genes.

Linnaeus noted that the "life forms" recorded on this planet were evidence for the the hand of God. Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Where does that leave you?

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon​

 

[zeke]

Originally Posted by zeke
You are the one who disagreed with Gee and you can't figure out why. All you need to do to clarify your confusion is answer the questions that begs - (1) Can you provide a lineage between man, chimp and a common ancestor? (2) Was Gee correct when he stated -- "to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested"?

Don't keep running Barbarian - show us your lineage or simply admit there is no lineage. We will consider your silence your admission that there is no lineage.

4th request for the Barbarian.

Why are you running - are you afraid?

 

[lordkalvan]

You can start by clarifying your position as you appear confused. One more time and in context Gee states that to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. I fully agree with his statement. Do you agree with me and Gee? That would be a yes or no response.

Read my various replies to the various times you have asked this question and reflect on what they mean. Perhaps you would care to address the remainder of this post you are allegedly responding to, as well as supporting the various assertions, claims and opinions you have made that, despite being requested to many times, you have simply ignored?

 

[lordkalvan]

...The fact remains--Gee believes in universal common ancestry via faith and I am not concerned with his religious beliefs including his creation myth.

You have yet to establish as fact that which you claim as fact, that 'Gee believes in universal common ancestry by faith.' Can you show where he makes any such claim? if not, you would appear to be guilty of misrepresentation.

 

[lordkalvan]

Linnaeus noted that the "life forms" recorded on this planet were evidence for the the hand of God. Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Where does that leave you?

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon​

Still quoting Gould at second hand and still unable to provide the relevant remark and its context, I see.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But before I accuse you outright of yet another lie, I'll give you a chance to show that Gee cites faith instead of evidence.

Do you accuse everyone who disagrees with your peculiar dogma to be a liar.

I do conclude that people who make up stories about what other people have said are dishonest. I gave you a chance to back down; you insisted I said something that I did not. You aren't a very honest person. And now, you've apparently done it again, since you have declined to support your accusation against Gee.

You are rather sad. The fact remains--Gee believes in universal common ancestry via faith

You're free to think so. You aren't free to say he said so. That is dishonest, unless he actually said so.

and I am not concerned with his religious beliefs including his creation myth.

It was probably a mistake for you to make that accusation, then. Now, you can either show he actually said it, or people will conclude you've done it again.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian observes:
But before I accuse you outright of yet another lie, I'll give you a chance to show that Gee cites faith instead of evidence.

Anyone who promotes universal common ancestry does so via faith - there is no science that proves that myth - your futile and silly attempt to prove that notion on this thread is proof. You are not keeping up.

Can you provide a lineage between man, chimp and a common ancestor or do you admit there is none? (5th request)

 

[zeke]

Read my various replies to the various times you have asked this question and reflect on what they mean. Perhaps you would care to address the remainder of this post you are allegedly responding to, as well as supporting the various assertions, claims and opinions you have made that, despite being requested to many times, you have simply ignored?

You just cannot quite answer that one can you? That is telling. It only requires a yes or no response.

 

[zeke]

You have yet to establish as fact that which you claim as fact, that 'Gee believes in universal common ancestry by faith.' Can you show where he makes any such claim? if not, you would appear to be guilty of misrepresentation.

All Darwinians believes in universal common ancestry by faith - that is a given.

 

[zeke]

Still quoting Gould at second hand and still unable to provide the relevant remark and its context, I see.

I cited the source of his quote - can't you find it? Was Gould in error when he said homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry? You have never proven that concept false. Are you still confused my friend?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There's a similar list from "Project Steve", in which people express support for evolutionary theory. To be in that one, though, you need to be more than a "assistant professor of mathematics."

Which Steve and which evolutionary theory are you referring to, exactly?

Any Steve with a doctorate in biology or a related field. As you see, about 0.05% of such scientists doubt evolutionary theory. This is why "see how many scientists agree with us" is such a loser for creationists.

Remember, biological evolution is science - Darwinian pseudoscience is religion.

But "Darwinian pseudoscience" is what the creationists believe.

Stanley Salthe is an expert in Darwinian evolutionary theory and he is now an apostate from that religion. Why

Because his anger against capitalism has caused him to see Darwinism as a part of capitalist thought:

Its derivation from classical capitalist economic theory
This is not just ad hominem because we live in a sociopolitical system that itself derives from classical capitalist ones. This throws suspicion on the theory, in that it may be widely supported (as it is) by folks in many fields of inquiry just because it fits so intelligibly within the world we have created around us. This obscures questions of its “truth”, so that this becomes undecidable under philosophical inspection.
http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/Critique_of_Natural_Select_.pdf

It's not uncommon for Marxists to object to evolutionary theory. It was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin, for example.

You do know the difference between myth and science - right?

Yep. Marxism is a myth, and Darwinism is a science.

Why do we see hundreds of PhD scientists rejecting Darwinism?

Because the guys who cobbled up that list you're touting let almost anyone be a "scientist." "Mathematics", "Satellite Communications and Networking" and so on. Notice your little list has exactly four Steves with some kind of knowledge in biology. Science has 1190 on their list. You lose.

We do not see hundreds of scientists rejecting the kinetic theory of gases - why Darwinism?

Because the kinetic theory of gases doesn't threaten anyone's new religion. But evolutionary theory does threaten the new religion of YE creationism.

 

[lordkalvan]

You just cannot quite answer that one can you? That is telling. It only requires a yes or no response.

As does whether you have stopped beating your wife. You are familiar with the concept of a loaded question, I am sure. And I am sure that you are also entirely capable of reading the answers I have already given and intelligent enough to understand what I have written therein. What you do not seem to understand, however, is that a discussion is a two-way street and, if you expect others to answer your questions, it is reasonable that you answer theirs. So may I refer you to the numerous unsupported assertions, claims and opinions you have offered and the questions asked arising from them and inquire as to when you are going to be able to 'quite answer' them? If you want to remark on alleged telling evasiveness, perhaps you should consider the beam in your own eye first of all.

 

[lordkalvan]

I cited the source of his quote - can't you find it?

I have already indicated no to this question. As you quoted Gould so authoritatively, I presumed that you had access to the original article and could quote the words Gould used and the context he used them in. Are you saying that you do not have such access and only quoted Gould at second-hand? If this is the case, how can you be sure that Gould said what he is alleged to have said and that the context of what he said supports what you claim it supports?

Was Gould in error when he said homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry?

How would I know, as you are unable to provide either Gould's statement to this effect or its context that shows that it supports the meaning you wish to derive from it?

You have never proven that concept false.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all you have to do to make your case is present unsupported assertions and demand that others prove them false. On the contrary, if you make a claim it is your intellectual responsibility to support it. I have previously and on more than one occasion asked you to support your claim that the evidence supports common design as well as it does common ancestry, but you never have. Why is that?

Are you still confused my friend?

Only by your lack of courtesy in declining to cease using a mode of address I have politely requested you to stop using when replying to my posts.

 

[lordkalvan]

All Darwinians believes in universal common ancestry by faith - that is a given.

Unsupported assertion, that it is a given that people called Darwinians exist and that they support universal common ancestry by faith. Do you actually have anything to offer in argument that amounts to very much more than unsupported assertions?

 

[zeke]

But "Darwinian pseudoscience" is what the creationists believe.

But Darwinian pseudoscience says dinos evolved into birds - creationists reject that fairy-tale. You are confused - aren't you?

Because his anger against capitalism has caused him to see Darwinism as a part of capitalist thought

Lol - you are not only confused but quite desperate.

It's not uncommon for Marxists to object to evolutionary theory. It was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin, for example.

Lol -you are not a historian or a scientist - are you? The late-great atheist/marxist, Stephen Gould had no problem with Darwinism. Do you get all of your odd ideas from your Magisterium?

Yep. Marxism is a myth, and Darwinism is a science.

Wrong - Darwinism is pseudoscience and Marxism and Darwinism devalue human life.

Because the kinetic theory of gases doesn't threaten anyone's new religion. But evolutionary theory does threaten the new religion of YE creationism.

You argue to ignorance once again - most of those who signed that list are not YEC - some are non-theists. David Berlinski signed and he is agnostic.

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." ~ David Berlinski​

Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
No. It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory.

 

[zeke]

Unsupported assertion, that it is a given that people called Darwinians exist and that they support universal common ancestry by faith. Do you actually have anything to offer in argument that amounts to very much more than unsupported assertions?

Are you saying Gee rejects universal common ancestry?