[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[lordkalvan]

Are you saying Gee rejects universal common ancestry?

Don't be so disingenuous, it doesn't do what remains of the shreds of your argument any credit at all.

 

[zeke]

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.

You don't pay attention - do you? Like Gould I have stated that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry and because of this fact neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology. You on the other hand claim (weakly) that homology only supports common ancestry. Therefore the burden is on you to prove your notion is correct. Thus far you have failed to do that. Can you do that? I think not. Your argument is anemic.

 

[zeke]

Don't be so disingenuous, it doesn't do what remains of the shreds of your argument any credit at all.

Nothing disingenuous on my part at all - it was a valid question and Darwinians are alive and well and the religion of evolutionism is what it has always been - a secular religion---a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist​

 

[MarbleShooter]

Linnaeus noted that the "life forms" recorded on this planet were evidence for the the hand of God.

I have no problems with Linnaues thinking this. I do however am aware that Linnaeus did his work well before Darwin or Mendel were even borne. Linnaeus would deeply help Both of these Scientists' theories.

Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

I'm also aware that the source you are using has Gould stating that he is aware that that statement would be quote-mined by creationists with no care to what he actually meant.

Where does that leave you?

Same position I was. An Agnostic atheist that is just stating what we have found in biology and still waiting for you to provide sourced reasoning for your asserted common designer theory.

 

[zeke]

I'm also aware that the source you are using has Gould stating that he is aware that that statement would be quote-mined by creationists with no care to what he actually meant.

I think Gould meant exactly what he stated - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Do you agree? It is true of course.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
But "Darwinian pseudoscience" is what the creationists believe.

But Darwinian pseudoscience says dinos evolved into birds

You've confused creationist fairy tales with Darwinian theory.

Barbarian observes:
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?

I have a little over 30 hours in history, so here's a bit of education for you...

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976) was an agronomist. During the reign of Lenin and Stalin years in the Soviet Union, he became the chief proponent of the work of the self-taught plant breeder Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin (1855-1935) and his brand of Lamarckism - a pre-Darwinian theory of evolution of the species proposed in the French scientist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). He was appointed as the president (1938-56) of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the director (1940-65) of the Institute of Genetics, USSR Academy of Sciences. The leadership of the USSR believed his promises to deliver rapid increases in crop yields.

Lamarck proposed that organisms can inherit traits acquired by their ancestors. The first giraffes stretched their necks to eat leaves on tall trees. Their offspring acquired this elongated neck and the desire to further stretch it. A species with long necks was born.

The Soviet leadership sought an indigenous theory to counter the "capitalistic" works of Mendel and Charles Darwin and to separate evolution from genetics.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/21228-russia

The late-great atheist/marxist, Stephen Gould had no problem with Darwinism.

Gould described himself as an agnostic and once speculated that God created intelligence so He'd have someone to share it with.
There is in Gould’s book a sort of striving after decency that one cannot help but respect. Gould badly wants the state of relations between science and religion to improve and he longs passionately and sincerely for the cohabitation of scientific skepticism and religious impulse within the same soul. And it may be that the road Gould cuts is in a sensible enough direction. It is certainly humane, it is a considerable improvement over the present state in which creationists pester scientists and scientists preach values, and it avoids many of the inanities that often accompany talk of religion by scientists.
http://bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html

Hardly sounds like an atheist. And of course, someone here dodged the last time they were challenged to show that Gould was a Marxist, so you can understand why we'd be a bit skeptical of that one showing up again, um?

Do you get all of your odd ideas from your Magisterium?

Truth matters to Christians, and you clearly think honesty is an "odd idea."

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Marxism is a myth, and Darwinism is a science.

Wrong

I'm quite right. No one has ever made Marxism work, but Darwinian evolution is directly observable.

(why don't you see people ranting against kinetic energy as they do against biology?)

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.

Show us that.

David Berlinski signed and he is agnostic.

I suppose you'd be outraged if I claimed without evidence that Berlinski is an atheist and a Marxist. :yes

"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

I can only suppose that Berlinksi never heard of agronomy or antibiotic protocols. But then, he's a mathematician, and not much into the details, is he?

Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?

Religious, it seems. Most of the signers are YE creationists, from the few I've sampled.

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.

Odd then, that they represent about 0.06% of all PhD biologists. Rather tiny minority, um?

You would think there'd be more fundamentalists in science than that. I personally knew two, and I have had a professional/personal relationship with no more than a hundred or so.

 

[Free]

If anyone makes a claim, it must be supported. Quoting of scientists, past, present or future, must have a link to the source for verification of quote and context. And no personal attacks.

Thanks.

 

[zeke]

You've confused creationist fairy tales with Darwinian theory.

Actually, it is you who presents Darwinian fairy-tales as science. Fairy-tales that you have yet to support with real science.

Gould described himself as an agnostic and once speculated that God created intelligence so He'd have someone to share it with.

Do you have documentation that Gould converted to theism or are you projecting?

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

Tell the hundreds of millions who perished under Marxism that is was a myth - they may take issue - from the grave. Darwinian lore is pseudoscience - always has been.

I suppose you'd be outraged if I claimed without evidence that Berlinski is an atheist and a Marxist.

Is that your claim?

I can only suppose that Berlinksi never heard of agronomy or antibiotic protocols.

Your supposition is wrong again - Berlinksi makes a valid point that you have yet to refute. Can you?

Most of the signers are YE creationists, from the few I've sampled.

From the 'few' you sampled which ones are YEC - names please or are you projecting again?

Odd then, that they represent about 0.06% of all PhD biologists.

Documentation please or are you pulling out of the air again?

 

[lordkalvan]

You don't pay attention - do you? Like Gould I have stated that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry and because of this fact neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology. You on the other hand claim (weakly) that homology only supports common ancestry. Therefore the burden is on you to prove your notion is correct. Thus far you have failed to do that. Can you do that? I think not. Your argument is anemic.

I am sorry, but your attempts to slope shoulders on this and shift the burden of proof to someone else only highlights your inability to support your assertions.

First of all, you have still failed to show that Gould stated what you claim he stated and that the context supports that which you claim it supports.

Secondly, if you make a positive claim, you should be able to support that positive claim. If you can't do this, simply say so and we can draw our own conclusions from that inability.

 

[lordkalvan]

Nothing disingenuous on my part at all - it was a valid question...

How is it a valid question in the context of the post to which it is supposedly a response? How can you possibly imagine that if I point out that you are making an unsupported assertion - 'that Darwinians believe in universal common ancestry by faith' - that this means I am saying that Gee rejects universal common ancestry?

...and Darwinians are alive and well and the religion of evolutionism is what it has always been - a secular religion---a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.

Simply repeating an assertion in a slightly different form does not mean that you have provided support for that assertion.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist​

And I should value Ruse's opinion why, exactly? Where is the evidence that evolution is 'promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion'? Where is the evidence that this was 'true of evolution in the beginning'? Can you tell us where you sourced the quote from and can you tell us what lies in the ellipses?

 

[lordkalvan]

I think Gould meant exactly what he stated - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Do you agree?

Given that you have failed to answer all requests to provide the full relevant quote in its context, why would anyone agree with your assertion that this is what Gould said and that your assertion that it supports what you claim it supports is correct?

It is true of course.

In which case you should have no trouble in showing how and why it is true. I can only wonder why you have proven so resistant to doing this so far, no matter how many times asked to do so?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, it is you who presents Darwinian fairy-tales as science. Fairy-tales that you have yet to support with real science.

Gould described himself as an agnostic and once speculated that God created intelligence so He'd have someone to share it with.

Do you have documentation that Gould converted to theism or are you projecting?

Actually, you're making up stories about what I and Gould said, again. He described himself as an agnostic. He once mused why God might have created intelligence.

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. Marxism is a myth, and Darwinism is a science.

Tell the hundreds of millions who perished under Marxism that is was a myth - they may take issue - from the grave.

A pernicious myth can cause much evil. YE creationism is worse. Marxism can kill your body. YE creationism, when it causes people to turn away from God, can cause them to lose eternal life.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Darwinian lore is pseudoscience - always has been.

Given your history here, unsupported claims from you aren't going to be very persuasive.

Barbarian chuckles:
I suppose you'd be outraged if I claimed without evidence that Berlinski is an atheist and a Marxist.

Is that your claim?

No, that was your claim about Gould, who was also an agnostic.

(Berlinski denies usefulness to evolutionary theory)

Barbarian chuckles:
I can only suppose that Berlinksi never heard of agronomy or antibiotic protocols.

Your supposition is wrong again

If he had, it's hard to imagine why he made such a foolish statement. Agronomists use evolutionary theory routinely to predict the hardiness of new strains, and of course, antibiotic protocols are determined by evolutionary theory.

Berlinksi makes a valid point that you have yet to refute.

It's just an argument from ignorance. Nothing more.

Barbarian observes:
Most of the signers are YE creationists, from the few I've sampled.

Odd then, that they represent about 0.06% of all PhD biologists.
Documentation please or are you pulling out of the air again?

Already showed you. Comparing them to Project Steve, which has about 1190 "steves" (you have to have a doctorate in biology or a related field and be named "Steve", and accept evolutionary theory) Your list had about six Steves, and that allowing people with no credentials in biology. Do the math.

From the 'few' you sampled which ones are YEC - names please or are you projecting again?

It's a long list. But I'll draw some randomly again for you. It's kind of instructive.

 

[zeke]

Given that you have failed to answer all requests to provide the full relevant quote in its context, why would anyone agree with your assertion that this is what Gould said and that your assertion that it supports what you claim it supports is correct?

I gave you the reference for Gould's remarks – are you saying you are incapable of looking it up? That is amusing. You still haven't answered the question – does homology support common design as well as it does common ancestry? Gould thought it did – I think it does - logic would agree.

In your mind - is it scientifically impossible for a Designer to use successful design principles over and over again? Can you demonstrate via the scientific method that the mechanism that transformed organisms from an alleged universal common ancestor to you and me did not involve design?

 

[zeke]

5th request for Barbarian.

Can you present on this thread your line of fossils that connect man, chimp and the alleged common ancestor of both species or do you admit there is no such lineage? Remember, Gee correctly stated that such a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested? Was he correct?

 

[Barbarian]

I offered you a way to test that. I'll offer again...

An easy thing, if you're right. Just tell us which of them are ape and which are human, and how you decided.

But it seems you can't tell apes from humans, since you can't figure out where in this lineage, you want to draw the line.

You're still dodging Lord Kalvan's request that you substantiate your claim that Gould said homology supports common design.

You're still dodging a request to support your claim that Gould was an atheist and a Marxist. A moderator has told you to do that. As I said, they are pretty patient people here, but not infinitely so.

If you think you're up to testing that lineage idea, step up and tell us which are apes and which are humans, and the reasons you decided. If you're not up to it, just answer some of the other questions you dodged.

Remember, Gee correctly stated that such a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested? Was he correct?

Well, let's see what we can find about testing such a hypothesis.

1. Neandertal DNA has been isolated, and it confirms that they are closely related to us, but just a bit farther than would indicate that they are the same species. The fossil record shows that early Neandertals looked more like us than later ones, so that test indicates that we both evolved from archaic H. sapiens. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals did interbreed:

It's official: Most of us are part Neanderthal. The first draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome has provided the strongest evidence yet that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and that all non-Africans today have Neanderthal gene fragments in their genetic codes.
http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.html

A similar case in SE Asia shows many populations retaining some genes from the Denesovian hominins, another paleolithic species of human. So we know human populations have changed over time. Even anatomically modern humans have changed. We are very similar to, but not identical to Cro-magnons, which appear to be of our own species.

There is the gradual change over time in lineages like H. erectus, in which the face and skull slowly changed to appear more and more like us. At one point, it's really hard to say which individuals are H. erectus and which are H. sapiens. Small anatomical markers like a particular set of muscles in the hand, show transitions from ape (clumsy and relatively weak grip) to Australopithecine (stronger, with the 3-point chuck grip), to advanced Australopithecines and humans like H. habilis (fully functional human hand) or A. sediba (also very humanlike).

As you learned, a whole suite of characteristics in hominins slowly changed over time, becoming more human-like. Feet, knees, hips, hands, skulls, dental arcades, and many other things show a gradual change.

You could suppose that God faked all the evidence. But to what end?

Meantime, if you want to be a part of this community, you might start by answering the questions you've been dodging.

 

[zeke]

I offered you a way to test that.

6th request for Barbarian.

Can you present on this thread your line of fossils that connect man, chimp and the alleged common ancestor of both species or do you admit there is no such lineage? Remember, Gee correctly stated that such a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested? Was he correct?

If you are not capable of answering just say you can't answer and I won't ask again. For the record you are allowed one phone call to your your Magisterium but remember - they have failed you before.

 

[Jman96]

Guys, grow up! Seriously with the request? Just answer each others questions and Stop turning it on each other. We're here for enjoyment and learning and discussing our views. seeing post pop up that are almost trolling flame wars Is not what we want to read.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't have any hopes that zeke will answer any of the questions, or admit that his have been answered.

But the lurkers may find the discussion of evidence worth looking at. My Mom once commented that no one is truly useless. They can always serve as a bad example.

 

[zeke]

I don't have any hopes that zeke will answer any of the questions, or admit that his have been answered.

Have you really answered the question?

 

[Jman96]

Zeke, your awfully close to trolling in my eyes.

Why don't you step up and answer his questions and maybe he will follow if he has not done so already?