[_ Old Earth _] Stick to the point

[platos_cave]

So, a bunch of quote-mines and reference to some instances of hoaxes within the scientific field somehow discredits Evolutionary Theory?

Try again.

 

[BobRyan]

What a great way to gloss over every detail given in a dodge-all for darwinism kind of response.

Why not respond to the points raised instead of running from them?

Hint: It is a much more compelling form of discussion. ;-)

1. Notice XolotlOfMictlan's "Harder to imagine" argument regarding Osborn
2. Notice the response.
3. Notice the details in the response
4. Reply

Bob

 

[platos_cave]

What a great way to gloss over every detail given in a dodge-all for darwinism kind of response.

Why not respond to the points raised instead of running from them?

What points?

None of them have anything to do with science. Pointing out that people have tried to gain fame by creating hoaxes or that people have over-zealously claimed what turned out to be false doesn't do anything but show the weakness of your position.

The fact that you resort to quote-mining instead of focusing on the subject itself again shows the weakness of your position.

The very fact that you skew quotes with your own bolding, ignoring the actual content of the quote is very telling:

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

He's stating that the evolution of the horse isn't uniform and continuous. Not that the evolution never happened.

 

[BobRyan]

What a great way to gloss over every detail given in a dodge-all for darwinism kind of response.

Why not respond to the points raised instead of running from them?

Hint: It is a much more compelling form of discussion. ;-)

1. Notice XolotlOfMictlan's "Harder to imagine" argument regarding Osborn
2. Notice the response.
3. Notice the details in the response
4. Reply

Bob

What points?

Let me know where you are confused and I will help you find them.

None of them have anything to do with science. Pointing out that people have tried to gain fame by creating hoaxes or that people have over-zealously claimed what turned out to be false doesn't do anything but show the weakness of your position.

Wrong.

My position does not "become weak" when we observe the junk-science history and methods of Darwinists.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

He's stating that the evolution of the horse isn't uniform and continuous. Not that the evolution never happened.[/quote]

Indeed - the claim is NOT that atheist darwinists STOP being atheist darwinists as soon as they unveil one of their junk-science stories being debunked.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am no expert in the analysis of teeth myself; are you?

Bob said
I agree with the 1909 published statement from Osborn's own team regarding the shallow nature of such arguments given the TRUTH of the innability of science to clearly differentiate in those cases.

L.K.
I am not sure what you are expecting of science. Total certainty? Complete absence of doubt? An absolute end to the accumulation and refining of knowledge? Perhaps you agree with the closing remarks of the TO article that you keep referring to:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=315#p396390

What am I "expecting" from science?

Answer: "Demonstratable Details" and "honesty about the level of GUESSWORK" when guesswork is being MIXED IN instead of presenting pure fantasy as "reveale truth" with bogus claims like "irrefutable" (NEBRASKA MAN) and "incontrovertable" (PILTDOWN)

I expect science to SHOW us what it discovers IN nature you know -- like the argument SHOWN for ID SCIENCE

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Actual science is able to show us the mechanisms it discovers in nature - it is fine to animate that discovery as long as the science details being demonstrated are legit as we see in the case above.

But "making stuff up AND THEN HIDING the fuzzy nature of the guesswork" is not science -- it is the heart and soul of "junk-science"!

REAL science has NO interest in HIDING the level of GUESSWORK in it's presentation for fear of causing the public to use critical analysis instead of uncritical cheerleader like kool-aid drinking.

notice that OSBORN is commended (by the scorched-earth-for-Darwin groups in that TalkOrigins article) for finding a way to HIDE the fuzzy nature in his guesswork and AVOID the possibility of being QUESTIONED by anyone but uncritical devotees!!

Yes those are the methods of junk-science!

How sad.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. The OP "claims" to want to discuss ID but then insists on NOT using the DEFINITION for ID which as we all know -- is the "Academic FREEDOM to FOLLOW the data where it leads without having to hog-tie scientific discovery so that it will always be guaranteed to pander to the needs and dictates of atheist dogma".

I find that "instructive".

2. Secondly the OP appears to "want" to talk about the TEST for ID. I have repeatedly shown that the SAME TEST that was used in the case of ID in the field of EM Wave forms -- the test arleady SHOWN to work and to provide results -- is the one that should then ALSO BE used in the field of "applied chemistry" that we call "Biology".

The TEST consists of studying the form SEEN in nature and discriminating (filtering) out what "Rocks can do given enough time energy and mass". This is done in the case of the EM Wave form by seeing what those rocks DO produce on their own -- and IGNORING it to see what we have left.

Turns out it is pretty easy to implement a "SCAN" function under those conditions.

So -- we have the TEST. Now the next step is picking an example in Biology and applying the same proven workable test.

The first FEW examples have already been selected for us - and one of them is the case of DNA mRNA Proteiin synthesis.

We all expect science to SHOW us what it discovers IN nature -- like the argument SHOWN for ID SCIENCE

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Actual science is able to show us the mechanisms it discovers in nature - it is fine to animate that discovery as long as the science details being demonstrated are legit as we see in the case above.

But "making stuff up AND THEN HIDING the fuzzy nature of the guesswork" is not science -- it is the heart and soul of "junk-science"! Osborn, Simpson, Ernst Haeckle have been helpful in demonstrating the contrasting point, the one in favor of "making stuff up" INSTEAD of actual SCIENCE.

Bob

 

[platos_cave]

Let me know where you are confused and I will help you find them.

You stated you brought up compelling points on the subject of Evolutionary Theory, when I've seen nothing but rantings about nothing.

Wrong.
My position does not "become weak" when we observe the junk-science history and methods of Darwinists.

Except that pointing out the problems with one or two people who have claimed things that are not true and they know are not true is not damaging in the slightest to any of the scientists who actually do the science.

Indeed - the claim is NOT that atheist darwinists STOP being atheist darwinists as soon as they unveil one of their junk-science stories being debunked.

Bob

And so the nonsense continues...

 

[BobRyan]

Since you have offerred nothing of substance by way of reply we are left with this

======================================================================

1. The OP "claims" to want to discuss ID but then insists on NOT using the DEFINITION for ID which as we all know -- is the "Academic FREEDOM to FOLLOW the data where it leads without having to hog-tie scientific discovery so that it will always be guaranteed to pander to the needs and dictates of atheist dogma".

I find that "instructive".

2. Secondly the OP appears to "want" to talk about the TEST for ID. I have repeatedly shown that the SAME TEST that was used in the case of ID in the field of EM Wave forms -- the test arleady SHOWN to work and to provide results -- is the one that should then ALSO BE used in the field of "applied chemistry" that we call "Biology".

The TEST consists of studying the form SEEN in nature and discriminating (filtering) out what "Rocks can do given enough time energy and mass". This is done in the case of the EM Wave form by seeing what those rocks DO produce on their own -- and IGNORING it to see what we have left.

Turns out it is pretty easy to implement a "SCAN" function under those conditions.

So -- we have the TEST. Now the next step is picking an example in Biology and applying the same proven workable test.

The first FEW examples have already been selected for us - and one of them is the case of DNA mRNA Proteiin synthesis.

We all expect science to SHOW us what it discovers IN nature -- like the argument SHOWN for ID SCIENCE

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Actual science is able to show us the mechanisms it discovers in nature - it is fine to animate that discovery as long as the science details being demonstrated are legit as we see in the case above.

But "making stuff up AND THEN HIDING the fuzzy nature of the guesswork" is not science -- it is the heart and soul of "junk-science"! Osborn, Simpson, Ernst Haeckle have been helpful in demonstrating the contrasting point, the one in favor of "making stuff up" INSTEAD of actual SCIENCE.
==========================================================

the obvious point being that junk-science METHODS are expected in a junk-science religion like atheist darwinism. Since the view of atheist darwinism as junk-science religion PREDICTS that they would have to be using junk-science methods to prop up religious view - we then notice with some degree of satisfaction that history bears out the fact of those junk-science methods.

BY CONTRAST the link above shows the REAL instructive value in ACTUAL science.

Bo

 

[platos_cave]

Since you have offerred nothing of substance by way of reply we are left with this

Not sure how consistently misrepresenting the works of Osborn and Haeckel is a valid criticism of anything.

 

[BobRyan]

Making wild claims that I misrepresented something or someone is not the same thing as posting the "substance" necessary to show that your accusation has fact to back it up.

Click on the link -- come up with an actual fact.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33027&p=396742&hilit=osborn#p396666

Bob

 

[platos_cave]

Making wild claims that I misrepresented something or someone is not the same thing as posting the "substance" necessary to show that your accusation has fact to back it up.

I've already pointed out the misrepresentation, it was summarily ignored. Why would I post the same thing again?

You are aware that repeating your hyperbolic fallacies doesn't increase the truth value, right?

You are aware that posting quotes from people without providing the context and easily obtainable source of the information is dishonest, right?

You are aware that the personal opinions of singular scientists, even if your quotes are contextually relevant have absolutely no bearing on the truth value of the Theory of Evolution, right?

If you have a valid criticism of the Theory of Evolution, then provide it. Otherwise, stop repeating the same nonsense information as if it has more validity the more you post it.

 

[BobRyan]

Making wild claims that I misrepresented something or someone is not the same thing as posting the "substance" necessary to show that your accusation has fact to back it up.

I've already pointed out the misrepresentation, it was summarily ignored. Why would I post the same thing again?

Clearly we differ on what it means to actually "do the math" -- if you are going to make wild claims about misrepresenting something - show where something actually is misrepresented "in detail" not in general hand waiving and overall "harrumph!" as you keep doing.

You are aware that posting quotes from people without providing the context and easily obtainable source of the information is dishonest, right?

Wrong. The fact that you are not inclined to do the research does not make the fact that I admit to the statements false. Your bent to revisionism is noted.

You are aware that the personal opinions of singular scientists, even if your quotes are contextually relevant have absolutely no bearing on the truth value of the Theory of Evolution, right?

This is merely wild wishful thinking on your part.

Many of our atheist friends like to pretend that dissenting views are only "because you are a Christian" -- they are not prepared to deal with the facts that those very same salient points are admitted to by some of their leading atheist darwinist icons and it is "so much easier" to revise history and pretend that "only a bible believing Christian would come to that conclusion".

So far you have given us factless post after wildly accusing factless post rather than answering the points raised. This brings the discussion to the ad hominem level that you seem to prefer.

So I will go back to discussing the points raised by your own atheist darwinist sources -- to watch how you invent reasons to ignore THEM as well.

I like doing this because I believe It is instructive for the unbiased objective reader to see your attempts to misdirect -- in action.

Making wild claims that I misrepresented something or someone is not the same thing as posting the "substance" necessary to show that your accusation has fact to back it up.

Click on the link -- come up with an actual fact.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33027&p=396742&hilit=osborn#p396666

Apparently your defensive solution is to sincerely "believe" that the reader will not click on the link and see the evidence.

hint for the reader -- links to the sources for the quotes given there are included in that post notwithstanding the wild imagination of some here -- that they are not.


Bob

 

[platos_cave]

Clearly we differ on what it means to actually "do the math" -- if you are going to make wild claims about misrepresenting something - show where something actually is misrepresented "in detail" not in general hand waiving and overall "harrumph!" as you keep doing.

I already did, you chose to ignore it.

You quoted Simpson as saying: ""The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119."

Then ran to the wild conclusion that horse evolution never happened in nature, a misrepresentation.

You hype up the drawings of Haeckel, in which a few of his drawings in embryology were falsified (and in which he admitted himself that they had):

"A small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s sense of the word) 'falsified'  all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the drafts--man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.""

Not to mention that any embryologist could analyze the actual embryos and see that some of the drawings were "assumed". Of course, this doesn't falsify the entire concept of embryological similarities, nor does it falsify evolution itself.

In essence, your arguments on these are all-hype, no-hope.

Wrong. The fact that you are not inclined to do the research does not make the fact that I admit to the statements false. Your bent to revisionism is noted.

I have done the research, I don't use quote-mines to support my arguments in order to discredit people.

Many of our atheist friends like to pretend that dissenting views are only "because you are a Christian" -- they are not prepared to deal with the facts that those very same salient points are admitted to by some of their leading atheist darwinist icons and it is "so much easier" to revise history and pretend that "only a bible believing Christian would come to that conclusion".

Provide valid dissenting views and they'll be discussed.

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly we differ on what it means to actually "do the math" -- if you are going to make wild claims about misrepresenting something - show where something actually is misrepresented "in detail" not in general hand waiving and overall "harrumph!" as you keep doing.

I already did, you chose to ignore it.

You quoted Simpson as saying: ""The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119."

Then ran to the wild conclusion that horse evolution never happened in nature,

Wrong.

(But it would be fun to see you try and support such a wild claim with an actual reference to something)

You hype up the drawings of Haeckel, in which a few of his drawings in embryology were falsified (and in which he admitted himself that they had):

"A small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s sense of the word) 'falsified'  all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the drafts--man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.""

Not to mention that any embryologist could analyze the actual embryos and see that some of the drawings were "assumed". Of course, this doesn't falsify the entire concept of embryological similarities, nor does it falsify evolution itself.

Wrong again.

Haeckle argues based on the APPEARANCE during gestation -- then doctors the APPEARANCE of the fetus in a junk-science practice truly central to his religionist solution for darwinism. An example of a "by fabrication alone" argument if every there was one.

P-C
[quote:eksjs6rv]Bob
Wrong. The fact that you are not inclined to do the research does not make the fact that I admit to the statements false. Your bent to revisionism is noted.

I have done the research,
[/quote:eksjs6rv]

Then show something like "Fact" in backing up your wild claim that my not providing a link on the subject of C14 SPR or SDR is "Dishonest" just because it means you have to do your own homework.

P-C
[quote:eksjs6rv]Bob said
Many of our atheist friends like to pretend that dissenting views are only "because you are a Christian" -- they are not prepared to deal with the facts that those very same salient points are admitted to by some of their leading atheist darwinist icons and it is "so much easier" to revise history and pretend that "only a bible believing Christian would come to that conclusion".

Provide valid dissenting views and they'll be discussed.[/quote:eksjs6rv]

Read the posts. Respond to the details -- I am pretty good at "dissenting" as it turns out.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You hype up the drawings of Haeckel, in which a few of his drawings in embryology were falsified (and in which he admitted himself that they had):

"A small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s sense of the word) 'falsified'  all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the drafts--man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.""

Not to mention that any embryologist could analyze the actual embryos and see that some of the drawings were "assumed". Of course, this doesn't falsify the entire concept of embryological similarities,

never let it be said that I do not welcome the proclivity of atheist darwinists to climb out on a limb and "dig their feet in" as if defending fraud "is a good thing".


In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human.

So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the "Biogenetic Law": Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.

Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,†which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see†what Haeckel believed to be true.

(German scientist, Wilhelm His)
“… accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates …†(Stephen Jay Gould, 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p. 430).

“This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.†(Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997, p. 14).

“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity†(Bowden, Malcolm, 1977, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).

"To support his case [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."â€â€Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.

During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying:

“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed†(Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128).

"The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory" (G. Rager, "Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis," in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum 79 (1986), pp. 451-452. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).

"Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly….There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs" (L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," in Archiv fur Anthropologie (1868) p. 301-302. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).

Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote:

“Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny." (G.G. Simpson and W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1965), p. 241).

As early as 1932, evolutionist H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago said that Haeckel’s

works “did more harm than good to Darwinism†(Newman, H.H., 1932, 3rd edition, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 30).

"This generalization was originally called the biogenic law by Haeckel, and is often stated as `ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.' This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (Paul R. Erlich and Richard W. Holm, 1963, Process of Evolution, p. 66).

"Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution" (R. H. Dott, R. L Batten Evolution of the Earth, 1971, p.86).

Some claim that Haeckel’s fraud is history

. “Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties†(Keith S. Thomson, Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated, American Scientist, 76:May/June 1988, p. 273).

However, the embryonic fraud lives on. "Although Haeckel confessed…and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist" (New Scientist, 9/6/97, p.23). After seven decades, there is no excuse to continue this fraud in the books.

But as Haeckle argued -- "he is not alone" in this.

"The biogenetic law was widely accepted by biologists and served as the basis for the surge of embryological research that continues unabated to this day. Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Even today both subtle and overt uses of the biogenetic law are frequently encountered in the general biological literature as well as in more specialized evolutionary and systematic tudies†(W. Bock, "Book Review," Science, May 1969, pp. 684-685).

"It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny" (Simpson & Beck,1965, Introduction to Biology, p.273).


Bob

 

[platos_cave]

never let it be said that I do not welcome the proclivity of atheist darwinists to climb out on a limb and "dig their feet in" as if defending fraud "is a good thing".

Of course it's a good thing. It shows the fact that peer reviewed scientific endeavors rely on actual facts. Haeckel's theory was falsified and summarily dismissed. It is not a part of modern Evolutionary Biology nor is it even considered valid in Evolutionary Biology.