YECs' Big Lie:
"Evolution isn't science"
(aka, "Evolution is just a religion")
If you've discussed evolution with creationists - especially young earth creationists - for any length of time, you'll notice that one of the "Big Lie" claims they make is that "Evolution isn't science" (or they might use the alternate phrasing of this, that "Evolution is just a religion"). Of course, such a claim is absurd. To make such a statement, the creationist making it has to be either (1) horribly ignorant about the volume of professional scientific research on evolutionary studies that is published each and every year, and/or (2) he has chosen to intentionally ignore the relevant science just to perpetuate the creationist lie.
Occasionally, people challenge me for using such a strong word - "lie" - but use this word because it is accurate. What else do you call it when you prove to a creationist that evolution is just as much a part of professional science research as any other part of science, such as physics, chemistry, or geology, and yet he purposely ignores the facts and continues to promote a claim concerning which he himself now knows the facts that show that claim to be wrong? This is the behavior of those who are out to deceive, and it is no excuse that they seek to deceive themselves as well as others. Nor is zealous adherence to any religious doctrine or any belief an excuse to purposely ignore unequivocal facts that show that a claim you have made is wrong while you obstinately insist on proclaiming your error. It's not an excuse for anyone at all, so why would (certain) Christians think that it's an excuse for them?
Proverbs 12:17 states, "A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies."
(Incidentally, I make no bones about the fact that I'm an instigator. I present science news items and make comments about specific science topics that I know run directly contrary to creationist ideology, for the very purpose of confronting creationists with the information that they routinely ignore, making them deal with it, and instigating the more hard-core creationists to turn on their fire hose of creationist rhetoric, and then I use the material that they provide as an object lesson, using their own discussion to demonstrate their manner of sophistry and the errors of their creationist beliefs.)
Also, occasionally I get a criticism about the sheer repetitiveness in my own discussion. My only response is that this has to do with the context of my discussion. I'm engaging in discussion with people who are set on completely ignoring what I'm pointing out to them, both in regard to the factual information as well as in regard to the logical points (such as when I point out a logical error in some argument they have made). Thus, I'm repetitive on purpose, because it works, because frequently I may have to repeat my point(s) 3 or 4 times, or more, before I can get the creationist to acknowledge that I've even made the point, let alone get them to actually address it. I'm working to elicit their creationist rhetoric on the issues relevant to the discussion, and often it is only my diligent persistent repetition of points to a creationist (who sometimes is even acting to purposely evade my points) to get them to even address the issue in first place.
One of my general propositions, which young earth creationists challenge all the time of course, is that young earth creationists have no interest in what the truth actually is. I'm not out to change their minds. I'm out to elicit from them actual demonstrations of how they themselves bury their heads in the sand and purposely refuse to deal with the truth. It was this readily recognizable delusional nature of creationist rhetoric that made it the easiest for me to see and realize deeply in my own mind the anti-truth attitude that lies at the core of young earth creationism today.
Note that in this particular discussion all of the participants are young earth creationists, except for Robert, Bob B., Bobby V., and of course me. Also, note that I select discussions to archive here based on two general considerations: (1) It is a good demonstration of how creationists operate, how their rhetoric is so utterly filled with distortion, misrepresentation, and factual error, and (2) in the course of discussion I had occasion to produce some good focused discussion on a particular topic along with providing a good deal of relevant and useful substantiating information. I make this accessible for others to use to better understand the nature of creationist rhetoric and to see some of the kinds of easily accessible information there is (at the click of a mouse button!) to counter their nonsense. However, note this also gives strong evidence of the fact that creationist ideology in general cannot bear the weight of the facts.
As I have stated elsewhere, prepare yourself! You're about to enter the Bizarro world of young earth creationist rhetoric, where words mean whatever the young earth creationist wants them to mean, and misrepresentation and evasion is standard procedure!
— Todd Greene (4/25/2006)
Contents
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4675 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 21, 2006 2:57 pm Subject: Re: News item - Millions of tears ago, snakes were hip! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4673): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4652): >>> --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >>>> --- In coCBanned, Hilbert wrote: >>>>> Just because [the Bible] >>>>> says nothing about a man named Todd Greene, dosen't prove >>>>> there is no Todd Greene. >>>> >>>> Hilbert, you show a meager glimmer of rationality in this one >>>> previous sentence. >>>> >>>> Just because the Bible says nothing about the fact that the >>>> Earth orbits the Sun, doesn't prove that the Earth doesn't >>>> orbit the Sun. Just because the Bible says nothing about the >>>> fact that the Earth and the Universe have not been around for >>>> billions of years, doesn't prove that they haven't been around >>>> for billions of years. Just because the Bible says nothing >>>> about evolution, doesn't prove anything whatsoever about >>>> evolution. >>> >>> Rudy writes: >>> Let's see. The Bible does indeed NOT speak of evolution. The >>> Bible DOES speak of creation. But according to Todd, that part >>> has to be cut out of the Bible becuase it is not "real." >>> >>> Man, what logic... :-( >> >> Yes, let's DO talk about logic! Anyone who seriously thinks that >> what a book says about reality trumps WHAT WE ACTUALLY OBSERVE >> ABOUT REALITY ITSELF is arguing from a completely illogical >> position. Reality itself is what determines what reality is. If >> what we observe about reality contradicts what a book says, then >> the book is wrong. Period. > > Rudy writes: > Unless, of course, the book starts froma false premise - such as > among evolutionists that there can be no such thing as creation, > as described in the Bible. It's always fascinating to observe how creationist rhetoric is based on one false premise after another. Here we observe the false premise that evolution is based on the false premise that there can be no such thing as creation. Of course - as usual - the creationist (Rudy) is just burying his head in the sand and ignoring the facts that demonstrate that his premise is false - as I've ALREADY proved with relevant information I've posted in this discussion forum relatively recently: "News item - NCC: No religious conflict with evolution" (Posted: Mar. 31, 2006) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4377 "News item - At Churches Nationwide, Good Words for Evolution" (Posted: Feb. 14, 2006) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/3924 (And I know Rudy read this one, because he posted a reply to it - so he cannot plead ignorance of it!) Note also this relevant item (which I thought I'd posted a few weeks ago, but I'm not able to track it down using the posts Search function): | http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/ | religion_science_collaboration.htm [link is line-wrapped] | | The Clergy Letter Project | An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science | | We've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. | | Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of | dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret | Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible | seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith | and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible | literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved | stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah | and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, | and the proper relationship between Creator and creation | expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths | from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different | order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey | scientific information but to transform hearts. | | We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different | traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and | the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We | believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational | scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny | and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To | reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is | to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such | ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good | gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the | failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of | our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for | humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty | of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge | school board members to preserve the integrity of the science | curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution | as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science | remain science and that religion remain religion, two very | different, but complementary, forms of truth. No doubt Rudy will continue to adamantly adhere to his erroneous creationist rhetoric and ignore the facts that disprove his rhetoric. Even after I've told you he will. Just watch! > Which, BTW, is NOT proven wrong... If the Bible teaches anything that is contradicted by the geological and astronomical facts that the Earth and the Universe have been around far, far longer than just 6,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or even 25,000 years, then the Bible has indeed been proven wrong. Every single time a young earth creationist argues that the Bible teaches young earth creationism, he is arguing that the Bible is wrong! - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4681 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 21, 2006 3:31 pm Subject: More empirical data YECs pretend doesn't exist! --- In AFEOT, Rudy wrote (post #1105): > And again, Todd, there is NO evidence proving ther age of the > earth. I always find it amusing how young earth creationists stumble all over themselves to deny the existence of the empirical data that disproves their young earth creationist timeframe. Here we are in the early 21st century, and these guys are still thinking in terms of the state of science in the early 19th century (200 years ago). I mean, how obsolete can you get??? Here's another, and recent, example of some of that empirical data that young earth creationists pretend doesn't exist: | Magellanic Gemstones in the Southern Sky | http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/ | 2006/17/image/a [link is-line-wrapped] [go to link to see the pictures] | | NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has captured the most detailed | images to date of the open star clusters NGC 265 and NGC 290 | in the Small Magellanic Cloud - two sparkling sets of | gemstones in the southern sky. | | These images, taken with Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys, | show a myriad of stars in crystal clear detail. The brilliant | open star clusters are located about 200,000 light-years away | and are roughly 65 light-years across. So here we're literally witnessing some clusters of stars as they were about 200,000 years ago. This is another example showing why, when it comes to science, young earth creationists have no credibility. Young earth creationists keep right on saying that 200,000 years never existed, even while we're looking at it! Chuckling, Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4694 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 21, 2006 10:54 pm Subject: Re: A weak God <-- Veto's heading, not mine --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4692): > --- Todd wrote: >> --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4673): >>> --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >>>> Yes, let's DO talk about logic! Anyone who seriously thinks >>>> that what a book says about reality trumps WHAT WE ACTUALLY >>>> OBSERVE ABOUT REALITY ITSELF is arguing from a completely >>>> illogical position. Reality itself is what determines what >>>> reality is. If what we observe about reality contradicts >>>> what a book says, then the book is wrong. Period. >>> >>> Unless, of course, the book starts froma false premise - such >>> as among evolutionists that there can be no such thing as >>> creation, as described in the Bible. >> >> It's always fascinating to observe how creationist rhetoric is >> based on one false premise after another. >> >> Here we observe the false premise that evolution is based on >> the false premise that there can be no such thing as creation. >> Of course - as usual - the creationist (Rudy) is just burying >> his head in the sand and ignoring the facts that demonstrate >> that his premise is false - as I've ALREADY proved with >> relevant information I've posted in this discussion forum >> relatively recently: >> >> "News item - NCC: No religious conflict with evolution" >> (Posted: Mar. 31, 2006) >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4377 >> >> "News item - At Churches Nationwide, Good Words for Evolution" >> (Posted: Feb. 14, 2006) >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/3924 >> (And I know Rudy read this one, because he posted a reply to >> it - so he cannot plead ignorance of it!) >> >> Note also this relevant item (which I thought I'd posted a few >> weeks ago, but I'm not able to track it down using the posts >> Search function): >> >>| http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/ >>| religion_science_collaboration.htm >>[link is line-wrapped] >>| >>| The Clergy Letter Project >>| An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science >>| >>| We've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. [snip] >> >> No doubt Rudy will continue to adamantly adhere to his erroneous >> creationist rhetoric and ignore the facts that disprove his >> rhetoric. Even after I've told you he will. Just watch! > > In the late 1800s, the great athesitic speaker Robert Ingersol > was scheduled to preach in St. Louis, Mo. about the fallacy of > believing in God. A group of St. Louis' elite ministers visited > Ingersol and urged him not to deny the creation story, the > flood, the virgin birth and other stories. Ingersol looked at > them and said, "But, you don't believe those things." Now this is pretty fascinating how creationists operate. You prove to them that the science that disproves their religious dogma is not just some worldwide atheistic conspiracy (because - just for example - there are a lot of scientists who are Christians who accept the scientific facts, and most Christians around the world accept the scientific facts, and they do this because they are indeed factual elements about reality), and yet - seemingly as usual - they just totally ignore the facts and come right back with the same old false rhetoric, unfazed that their rhetoric has already been blown out of the water. > Now, I am not going to get into the YEC/OEC debate, for I feel > that debate is really meaningless. Of course, young earth creationists don't think it's "meaningless" (as Rudy has testified) because they use the same rhetoric that Veto has used here, that science is part of a worldwide atheistic conspiracy, but they argue that geological science and astronomical science are just as much a part of the conspiracy as evolutionary science. The other way in which it is not meaningless is precisely because an awful lot of the creationist anti-evolution rhetoric is developed right from it's young earth creationist ancestry. (As was proved in detail in court in the 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania!) It's relevant because it demonstrates that old earth creationist anti-evolution rhetoric is based on much of the same misrepresentation of science that young earth creationist rhetoric is. > God could have > created an old earth 8,000 years or so ago in six nanoseconds, > doing so much in each nanosecond that it would take us billions > of years to describe the beginning of one of the nanoseconds. > God could have also created the earth billion of years ago and, > as skilled craftsmen are apt to do even today, take joy in > watching His creation form and become what it is today. The > power is not in the arranging of the atoms. The power is in the > creation of the atoms. And, a God who can create the atoms can > easily arrange them as He sees fit. > > We do not see a week, ineffectual, ineffective God in Genesis > 1:1. We see a God who speaks worlds into existence and Who > orders those worlds according to His pleasure. "On the contrary, > who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded > will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' > will it?" (Rom. 9:20) And, yet, we in our weakness and ignorance > suppose we can tell God He could not do what He has said He has > done. "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by > the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things > which are visible." (Heb. 11:3) Sounds nice, but apparently Veto thinks God is so incompetent that He is incapable of imbuing the Universe with sophisticated natural processes that allow for sophisticated things to develop. Howard J. Van Till, one of those Christians who's also a scientist, refers to this as a "fully gifted creation." See Theologies Of An Evolving Creation http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay07.asp where this concept is discussed further. > Some "Christian" leaders even make the godless claim that > evolution is compatible with the Bible. Right. The Christians are "Christians" (scare quotes) making godless claims. Why does the creationist Veto use such false rhetoric? Because he hates the facts, so he must manufacture a false "reality" that is more to his liking. > In making their claim, the strip Gen. 1-5 of any meaning. And, > exactly what does Gen. 1-5 tell us about God, man, and the > relationship between God and man. [snip] Of course, this is precisely what young earth creationist state that old earth creationists do when they strip the meaning from the creation account and make it figurative rather than six 24-hour days. But Veto previously told us that that argument by young earth creationists was "meaningless" (since, as he told us, the young earth creationism controversy is meaningless). Yet now we observe Veto contradicting himself and USING THE EXACT SAME RHETORIC THAT YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS USE! Then Veto proceeds to giving us straw horse misrepresentations of evolutionary science: > However, evolution does not have billions of years. Now, if we > were still producing asexually, ignoring for a second the > movie conversation between Priv. Jackie Willow and Sgt. > Maj. 'Goody' Nelson, the argument that evolution had billions > of years to perfect man would be plausible. However with > sexual reproduction, evolution's time frame shrunk to a few > days to a few years. > > Let me illustrate, what is the difference between a clysdale > and a mustang? Other than appearance, they are both horses. If > you mate a clysdale to a mustang, you would have a strange > looking horse, but it would be fertile. > > What is the difference between a horse, donkey and zebra? These > are all members of the family Equidae. You can mate these > members together and they will produce offspring -- such as the > mule. However, the offspring is infertile. Which is a beautiful demonstration of how evolution works. Increasing divergence of genetic compatibility over time between related populations. But Veto just ignores this. > What is the difference between a horse and a cow? You can mate > a horse and cow together all you want and, unless you do some > fancy gene splicing in the laboratory, they will never produce > offspring. Exactly. The common ancestor of horses and cows lived dozens of millions of years ago. Now we come to Veto's bogus representation of evolution: > This, in and of itself is a serious problem for evolution. > Animal X evolves into Animal Y. Unless there are at least two > Animal Ys present -- and one must be male and the other female > -- Animal Y dies out. If Animal Y has evolved into a different > member of the family, then it can mate with another of Animal > X. However, the strain dies there as Animal XY will be > infertile. If Animal Y has evolved into a completely different > animal than Animal X, then the mating will never produce > offspring and Animal Y will die out. [snip] This is where Veto completely loses it, with respect to science anyway. He pretends that all organisms of a species are genetically identical to each other and that they must of necessity have genetically identical offspring ("Animal X"s), and then pretends that if an offspring gets a mutation it is now an "Animal Y" and then cannot mate with any of the "Animal X" organisms. Veto's straw man portrayal is just ridiculously absurd, and has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics or biological reality, thus rendering moot the rest of his comments about evolution based on this ridiculous straw man concept. In reality, populations of organisms possess a degree of variability in their genes, and mutations sometimes occur in individual organisms which are either "neutral" or "beneficial," and are also "germline" mutations, and these genetic alterations are passed on to subsequent generations in the population. This is not conjecture, but is a matter of observational fact in biological science. Note that the anti-evolution creationist apparently doesn't even know this. - Todd Greene ---------------------------------------------------------------- References on Evolution ----------------------- Understanding Evolution http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Counterbalance Meta Library - Evolution http://www.counterbalance.net/evolution/index-frame.html PBS - Evolution http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ Synthetic Theory Of Evolution: An Introduction to Modern Evolutionary Concepts and Theories http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/ Introduction to Evolutionary Biology http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html Evolution (2005) by Douglas J. Futuyma http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0878931872 Finding Darwin's God (1999) by Kenneth R. Miller http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060175931
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4773 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 23, 2006 5:46 pm Subject: Young earth creationists' apparent age argument --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4724): > Robert, > > My statement, which is true, is directed toward the primary > argument between YEC and OEC. Old earth creationists point to > the geological evidence and say, "See here, this is evidence > that the earth is created billions of years ago." > > My argument is just as God created Adam as a fully-grown man, > and the evidence in Genesis is that Adam was created a mature > adult and not as an infant, He could have created, > 8,000-to-50,000 years ago -- do I have all the YEC dates > included? -- a mature earth. > > Robert, now do you understand my point? To Robert: I did indeed completely miss Veto's advocacy of the apparent age argument. Good catch. To Veto: Did God create Adam with a fake navel, and a fake scar on his knee from an childhood injury that never took place, and did God create Adam with fake memories of that childhood that didn't exist? Did God create fake fossils of trilobites that never lived, and did God create fake geologic marine strata of oceans that never existed, and put the fake trilobite fossils (and other fake fossils) in the fake geologic marine strata? Did God create fake impact craters of impacts that never happened by extraterrestrial bodies such as asteroids or comets that never existed? Did God create fake volcanic necks that were never produced by volcanoes that never existed and that show heavy weathering and erosion from weathering and erosion forces that never happened? Did God create a gigantic illusion of the Universe showing events that took place millions and billions of years ago, even though they never happened at all? For example, did God create an illusion of the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, and as part of that illusion create a detailed illusion of the explosion of a star (that we know as SN1987A) that never happened? And why would God create all this fake stuff? Finally, I have an epistemological question about this apparent age argument: What real world evidence would you need in order to know that your apparent age argument is wrong? Veto, I am not asking these questions rhetorically. I am asking them for you to ponder them and address them. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4776 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 23, 2006 6:16 pm Subject: Re: A weak God --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4725): > Todd, > > The subject line, btw, was written because Christians, in my > opinion, who compromise with the enemy on the point of > evolution believe in a weak, ineffectual, impotent God. Accepting the truth is no compromise. Your statement harbors more than one false premise. I also notice that you have chosen to intentionally ignore the fact that Christians accept evolutionary science, just as they accept astronomical science, and for the same reasons. And then due to you intentionally ignoring that fact, you then produce all manner of deceitful rhetoric. > No, Todd, I do not believe in a conspiracy among scientists to > discredit God. Protestant Christianity, in fact, was a great > encourager of science as it taught that Truth should be > investigated. There are many scientists today who are Christians. > > However, just as you correctly reject creationism as being a > scientific theory, I reject evolution as being a scientific > theory. Evolution can not be tested any more than creationism > can be tested. One of the Big Lie tactics of creationists is to go around claiming "Evolution is not science" or "Evolution is a religion." As usual, the truth is otherwise... There are hundreds of scientific research articles about evolution published each and every year. Here's a selection of professional science journals (in the U.S. and the U.K.) that routinely or exclusively publish professional scientific research concerning evolution: Science (published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) http://www.sciencemag.org/ Nature http://www.nature.com/ Journal of Biology (published by BioMed Central) http://jbiol.com/ Journal of Evolutionary Biology http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1010-061X view online content: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/rd.asp?code=JEB&goto=journal International Journal of Organic Evolution http://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=index- html#Evolution_Journal [link may be line-wrapped] Molecular Biology and Evolution (published by the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution) http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org Evolution & Development http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1520-541X Trends in Ecology & Evolution http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30339/de scription [link may be line-wrapped] Integrative and Comparative Biology (Journal of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; published as the American Zoologist from 1961 to 2001) http://www.sicb.org/az/ Invertebrate Biology (Journal of the American Microscopical Society) http://www.invertebratebiology.org/ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Biological Sciences http://www.pnas.org/current.shtml#BIOLOGICAL_SCIENCES Palobiology Journal of Paleontology (both published by The Paleontological Society) http://www.psjournals.org/paleoonline/?request=get-archive The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (published by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/ Paleontologia Electronica http://palaeo-electronica.org/ > Simply put, Todd, > you can not recreate the conditions of early earth in a lab, > form the first amino acids and from them form the first proteins. > From the first proteins, you can not then form a single-cell > organism -- even as simple as a virus -- and then evolve into > more complicated organisms. First you refer to evolution, and then you immediately change the subject and pretend you're talking about the same thing. Abiogenesis is certainly a related field of research, but it is not the same field as biological evolution. Also, in general logical form your argument is something like this: Scientists can't explain the biological evolution in every single detail, therefore evolution isn't science. <-- This is a ridiculous argument. Medical doctors don't understand the human body, and disease microorganisms, and the effects of medical treatments and procedures of various kinds in every single detail (which is always ongoing medical research), but it is scientific, and the results are far better than purposely ignoring scientific results and falsely pretending we don't know anything scientifically. > Evolutionism, like creationism, is supported, first by a world > view. That world view is that there is no God, that everything > around is created naturally. The evidence is, then, filtered in > light of that world view. Evolution is not a scientific theory, > but a philosophical and religious theory written in scientific > terms. False and baseless assertions are fun, aren't they? Now why don't you try dealing with the facts? > Now, there are some very committed evolutionists that are > determined to remove the curse of religious myth from the face > of the earth. If there is a conspiracy, it is among these few > ideolouges that the conspiracy lies, not among scientists as a > whole. In fact, there IS a conspiracy, but it is not a secret conspiracy. It's a very public conspiracy of anti-evolution creationists to falsely pretend that evolutionary science doesn't even exist. These people generate voluminous copious streams of false propaganda against evolutionary science, as well as against science in general. (The young earth creationists, for example, attack all kinds of different areas of science, such as geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and so on.) In fact, what I observe you doing is describe scientists and how they do science, and their scientific results, in terms that actually describe YOU and your fellow creationists and what they do. We're not all like you guys, Veto. > Secondly, Todd, you have not disproven any religious dogma, at > least by the three links that you posted. All you have shown is > that a number of liberal Christians leaders have weakened the > faith by compromising with the enemy. Some of these leaders, > like those who met with Ingersol in St. Louis, are not > believers, but members of a church. Not everyone who belongs or > who holds a leadership position in the church is a believer in > Jesus or God. Others simply do not understand the the battle. > The battle is faith, and evolution is an anti-faith belief > since it denies the reality of God's creation. What I proved is the fact that evolution is not some kind of worldwide atheist conspiracy. Of course, you have obviously chosen to intentionally ignore this fact, and to intentionally preach your falsehood. > And, no, Todd, my God is not so weak that He could not have > formed the earth through an evolutionary process. Thank you for acknowledging that God could have created a Universe with natural forces such that things could develop over time. > However, Genesis does > not reflect this. Genesis reflects an instantaneous creation. I > would expect Genesis to read differently if theistic evolution > was, in fact, true. Anyone who seriously thinks that what a book says about reality trumps WHAT WE ACTUALLY OBSERVE ABOUT REALITY ITSELF is arguing from a completely illogical position. Reality itself is what determines what reality is. If what we observe about reality contradicts what a book says, then the book is wrong. Period. Epistemology 101. For example, if the Bible teaches anything that is contradicted by the geological and astronomical facts that the Earth and the Universe have been around far, far longer than just 6,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or even 25,000 years, then the Bible has indeed been proven wrong. Every single time a young earth creationist argues that the Bible teaches young earth creationism, he is arguing that the Bible is wrong! - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4778 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 23, 2006 6:28 pm Subject: Re: To ALL THAT WOULD --- In coCBanned, Bobby C. wrote (post #4772): > --- In coCBanned, Robert B. wrote: >> Bobby C., >> >> In attempting to answer Hilbert's question, did you intend to >> admit (implicitly) that you are one to whom the question was >> addressed (i.e., "one that would mock God's word")? >> >> In any case, you wrote, in part: >> >>> There is no account of Adam having to be >>> nursed, so I think safe to assume that >>> adam never saw an infant/toddler stage. >> >> Is it safe to assume that Adam never saw his or Eve's belly >> button, since there is no account of them being born? > > No sir. I answered so that those of you who do mock God's word > and his people might get a glimpse of the truth. So here we're apparently glimpsing the truth that some people think so very highly of themselves and their own human ideas that dare you criticize some error of theirs, they turn around and proclaim that your criticism of THEIR error is nothing less that "mocking God's word." Bobby, when did Hilbert or you make Godhood status? I apparently missed the award ceremony. By the way, you completely ignored Robert's question, which was: Is it safe to assume that Adam never saw his or Eve's belly button, since there is no account of them being born? - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4779 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 23, 2006 6:34 pm Subject: Re: Nathan's God does not exist! In post #4758, Nathan wrote, "(Y)ou deny what God has already done when creating the universe that you dwell in." Nathan, actually this is exactly what young earth creationists do. For example, in this universe that we dwell in we have observed the explosion of a star that took place about 168,000 years ago (SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy). Yet you young earth creationists either deny what we have observed, or with the apparent age argument you pretend that it's just an illusion of something that never happened. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4783 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 23, 2006 7:06 pm Subject: Creationists love hoaxes (was: Evolution hoaxes) --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4726): > --- Todd wrote: >> Right. The Christians are "Christians" (scare quotes) making >> godless claims. Why does the creationist Veto use such false >> rhetoric? Because he hates the facts, so he must manufacture a >> false "reality" that is more to his liking. > > Todd, > > I always smile when an evolutionist accuses Christians of > playing fast and loose with the facts. That's okay, Veto, I always smile when a creationist who plays fast and loose with the facts makes statements like, "I always smile when an evolutionist accuses Christians of playing fast and loose with the facts," and then proceeds to play fast and loose with the facts. > So, what do you want to > discuss next: > > Piltdown man? I'm so glad you mentioned Piltdown Man! Piltdown Man is a wonderful example of how evolutionists operate, and how different evolutionists are from young earth creationists. Upon detailed examination of the Piltdown Man fossil specimens, the examiners (who were evolutionists) realized that the fossils were fakes. They immediately published the results of their analysis. And all evolutionists quickly rejected Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man by Richard Harter http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html This is the total opposite of how young earth creationists operate, where young earth creationists continue using dozens of discredited arguments decades (some of them for over a hundred years) after they have been discredited. Long-discredited arguments such as those about moon dust, moon recession, shrinking sun, Earth's magnetic field decay, ocean salt, short period comets, Paluxy River man tracks, bombardier beetles, Earth's rotation slowing down, quick frozen mammoths, Kelvin's outdated thermodynamic model of heat decay, Moon & Spencer's conjecture about light taking shortcuts through space, Setterfield's conjecture about the speed of light being over a million times faster about 6,000 years ago, claiming transitional fossils don't exist, and on and on the sad list goes. (Not too long ago here in this very discussion group we discussed the recent recent crazy claim by some young earth creationists with Ph.D.s after their names at Apologetics Press that phyllite rocks have literally formed right before our eyes at the Tellico River within the past 100 years. These guys fell for a hoax - and to this day they have yet to openly acknowledge their error.) > Cardiff man? Cardiff man has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and never did. Apparently you don't know anything about it. Cardiff Giant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant > Nebraska man? You've been fooled by young earth creationist propaganda again. "Nebraska Man" was not a hoax, nor a fraud. It was the honest misidentification of a tooth by a scientist (Henry Fairfield Osborn). Other scientists, when they examined the tooth, realized that Osborn had misidentified the tooth. And they said so. This is the way science works. Scientists do make mistakes. And other scientists examine their work, critically, and point out if and where they've screwed up. The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate by John Wolf and James S. Mellett http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html > Archaeoraptor? Again, you apparently don't know anything about this one. Archaeoraptor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor When scientists got their hands on this "fossil" (which was actually not completely fabricated but was an amalgamation of pieces from two different legitimate fossils) and studied it, they realized there was some serious problems with it. | Stephen Czerkas, owner of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, | purchased it for $80,000 and contacted paleontologist Phil Currie | and the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the | fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The | society intended to announce the find to the larger public, | immediately after a publication in Nature. During the first | investigation it already became clear to Currie that the left and | right leg mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had | been completed by using both slab and counterslab. He then sent | it to Timothy Rowe in Austin to make CAT scans. These indicated | that the bottom fragments were not part of the larger fossil. | This was confirmed through a close study by Currie's preparator, | Kevin Aulenback. | The fossil was unveiled in a press conference on October 15, | 1999, and the November 1999 National Geographic Magazine | contained an article by Christopher P. Sloan (National | Geographic's art editor). Sloan described it as a missing link | that would connect dinosaurs and birds. The original fossil was | put on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington, | DC, pending return to China. In the article Sloan used the name | Archaeoraptor liaoningensis but with a disclaimer (so that it | would not count as a nomenclatural act for the purposes of | scientific classification[2]) in anticipation of being able to | publish a peer-reviewed description simultaneously in Nature. | However, Nature and Science both rejected the paper, and | National Geographic went ahead and published without peer review. | The Archaeoraptor specimen was returned by the Czerkases to | China. Xu Xing, a member of Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate | Paleontology and Paleoanthropology had already noticed in October | after having been informed by Currie of the problems during a | visit to the USA, that the tail of Archaeoraptor strongly | resembled an unnamed Maniraptoran dinosaur - later to be named | Microraptor zhaoianus - that he was studying, but the front half | did not match. He returned to China and traveled to Liaoning | Province where he inspected the fossil site. His suspicions that | the dinosaur-like tail of the fossil did not belong to the same | species were confirmed. In December he contacted a number of | fossil dealers and eventually found the fossilized body that | corresponded to the tail on the archaeoraptor. He informed the | National Geographic Society, and CT scans funded by the society | confirmed his suspicions. The society still believed the fossil | to be important, however. | | By January 2000 the fossil had proven to be fraudulent and | National Geographic retracted their article and promised an | investigation. In the October 2000 issue, the magazine published | a retraction and an article about the case. A Chinese farmer had | created the archaeoraptor fossil by gluing two fossils together, | one of which was a Microraptor. This is how scientists are SUPPOSED TO operate. Contrast this with the behavior of how creationists operate, where they continue to espouse dozens and dozens of erroneous arguments decade after decade, long after they've been proved to be wrong. > Ernst Haeckel, his drawings and his famous saying, "ontogeny > recapitulates phylogeny"? Biologists have not used Haeckel's concept of recapitulation in several decades. > It is because I love Truth that I stand up for Genesis. And, > unlike evolutionists, I do not need to glue the top half of a > bird skeleton to the bottom half of a lizard skeleton to make my > point.... It is because I love the truth that 26 years ago I threw my own young earth creationist beliefs in the trash bin, where they belong, and quit paying attention to the false YEC propaganda against science, such as you demonstrate right here. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4794 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 8:03 am Subject: Re: Creationists love hoaxes (was: Evolutionary hoaxes) --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4784): > Todd, > > All of the examples I cited were cited by evolutionists as > prime examples of evolution -- even such obvious hoaxes as > Cardiff Man, by James Drayton, who was a professor, or should > I say, due his identification of a gypsum statue as a human, > perfesser of paleontology at the New York State Museum Veto, I don't believe you. I think some creationists have made this story up (i.e., more creationist propaganda where they get everthing wrong). What I notice is that I documented everything I stated in my previous response to your creationist claims, whereas you have documented NOTHING. I provided you with references, which you either never even looked at, or chose to intentionally ignore. Cardiff Giant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant | Newell set up a tent over the giant and charged 25 cents for | people who wanted to see it. Two days later he increased the | price to 50 cents. | | Archaeological scholars pronounced the giant as a fake, and | some geologists even noticed that there was no good reason to | try to dig a well in the exact spot the giant had been found. | Some Christian fundamentalists and preachers, however, defended | its legitimacy. | | Eventually Hull sold his part-interest for $37,500 to a | syndicate of five men headed by David Hannum. They moved it to | Syracuse, New York for exhibition. | | The giant drew such crowds that showman P.T. Barnum offered | $60,000 for a three-month lease of it (in his memoirs he said | he wanted to buy it). When the syndicate turned him down he | hired a man to covertly model the giant's shape in wax and | create a plaster replica. He put his giant on display in New | York, claiming that his was the real giant and the Cardiff Giant | was a fake. | | As the newspapers reported Barnum's version of the story, David | Hannum was quoted as saying, "There's a sucker born every | minute" in reference to the suckers paying to see Barnum's | giant. Over time, the quotation has been misattributed to P.T. | Barnum himself. | Scholars also criticized the giant. Yale palaeontologist | Othniel C. Marsh called it "a most decided humbug". On December | 10, Hull confessed to the press. I guess you missed the part where "Archaeological scholars pronounced the giant as a fake" and "Some Christian fundamentalists and preachers, however, defended its legitimacy." > and Archaeoraptor, which > was trumpted by such major science journals as Nature as the > proof of evolution. Obviously, you didn't read the information from the Wikipedia, which I cited, and which I EVEN QUOTED FOR YOU. So, again, we observe the creationist (that would be you) promoting error even after having its erroneous nature pointed out to him. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way. Archaeoraptor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor | In the [National Geographic] article | Sloan used the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis but with a | disclaimer (so that it would not count as a nomenclatural act | for the purposes of scientific classification) in anticipation | of being able to publish a peer-reviewed description | simultaneously in Nature. However, Nature and Science both | rejected the paper.... Veto, I already pointed this out to you in my previous post. Why did you ignore it? > You really make me laugh, Todd, for you seem to suggest that > Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Haeckel were immediately rejected > by science, when it took decades for scientists to only > reluctantly admit to being had. Here again we observe you making comments that are completely wrong, Veto. Why do you love error so much? What I wrote was this: >> Upon detailed examination >> of the Piltdown Man fossil specimens, the examiners (who >> were evolutionists) realized that the fossils were fakes. >> They immediately published the results of their analysis. >> And all evolutionists quickly rejected Piltdown Man. I also provided you with this online reference: Piltdown Man by Richard Harter http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html If you had actually looked up the reference, you would have read the following: | Far from being a triumph of Science the hoax points to common | and dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because | of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful | examination using the methods available at the time would have | immediately revealed the hoax. This failure to adquately | examine the fossils went unmarked and unnoticed at the time - | in large part because the hoax admirably satisfied the | theoretical expectations of the time. | | The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the | scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately | examining and challenging results that confirm the currently | accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, | once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied | upon without further reconsideration. | It is a black mark on science that it took 40 years to expose | a hoax that bore directly on human ancestry. Creationists have | not been slow in pointing to the hoax, the erroneous | reconstructions based on the hoax, and the long time it took | to expose the hoax. The point is that scientists DID expose the hoax, once they did conduct a detailed examination of the Piltdown Man specimens. They immediately published the results of their analysis. And all evolutionists quickly rejected Piltdown Man. "Nebraska Man" was not a hoax, nor a fraud. It was the honest misidentification of a tooth by a scientist (Henry Fairfield Osborn). Other scientists, when they examined the tooth, realized that Osborn had misidentified the tooth. And they said so. This is the way science works. Scientists do make mistakes. And other scientists examine their work, critically, and point out if and where they've screwed up. The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate by John Wolf and James S. Mellett http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html | In 1922, solely on the basis of a worn fossil tooth from | Nebraska, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn described | Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the first anthropoid ape from | North America. Five years later, Osborn's colleague William | King Gregory concluded that the tooth most likely came from an | extinct peccary. During its brief life, Hesperopithecus | provoked intemperate speculations about its relation to humans, | including a "reconstruction" of "Nebraska Man" by an artist in | a popular British news magazine. The Nebraska tooth also | sparked some memorable exchanges between Osborn and William | Jennings Bryan, from whose home state the tooth had come. | Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification | of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July | 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It | seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault | on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented | the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious | embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not | survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific | community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was | recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the | current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. In regard to Haeckel, his recapitulation ideas were criticized by other biologists at the time he proposed them, and his recapitulation ideas were destroyed in biological science by the widespread recognition of the genetic nature of heredity back in the 1920s. Wells and Haeckel's Embryos by P. Z. Myers http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html | One premise that [Jonathan] Wells brings up with regularity in | this chapter is that evolutionary biologists have relied on the | false doctrines of Haeckel to prop up Darwinian dogma. He claims | that Haeckelian theories "have periodically risen, phoenix-like, | from the ashes of empirical disconfirmation" throughout the 20th | century. He uses section headings like "Resurrecting | recapitulation" and "Haeckel is dead. Long live Haeckel." He | accuses biologists of a conspiracy of silence, hiding the flaws | in Haeckel's work on one hand, and using it as evidence for | evolution on the other. | | None of this is true. | | This is so patently obvious that we only need to use Wells' own | scholarship to show it. He cites a number of authors who discuss | Haeckel or the biogenetic law: | | * Adam Sedgwick, 1894 | * William Garstang, 1922 | * Gavin de Beer, 1958 | * William Ballard, 1976 | * Stephen J. Gould, 1977 | * Richard Elinson, 1987 | * Jane Oppenheimer, 1987 | * Michael Richardson, 1995 | * Stephen J. Gould, 2000 | | However, here is the surprising thing: all of these authors | condemn the idea that embryonic development follows the | evolutionary pattern in no uncertain terms! In creationist propaganda, however, we observe just the opposite. Creationists don't conduct critical detailed scientific examinations. When a creationist hoax is analyzed and its errors are pointed out in detail (by noncreationists), creationists ignore the errors, refuse to reject or retract their creationist hoaxes, and continue to promote these creationist hoaxes for decades even after their errors are clearly known. I listed several examples of these in my previous post. I notice that you, Veto, completely ignored these errors. > And, did these scientists re-examine the conclusions they had > made based on these "missing links"? NO! The facts show that your representation here is wrong. > And, because science > has still not examined the conclusions they made based on > such "evidence" as Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, science > perpetuates these frauds. The fact is that science does not perpetuate any of these. Your statement here is a blatant lie. > And, Todd, the only evidence for creation that I have given is > Gen. 1, and Heb. 11:3. This not to say that I do not believe > there is evidence for creation, for I believe strongly that the > evidence supports creation, but this is a matter of faith. Exactly. Creationism is a matter of faith, not evidence. > And, Todd, the ONLY evidence I will give you for creation is > Gen. 1. That isn't evidence. That's religious dogma. The empirical facts show that the Earth and the Universe have been around far, far longer than just a few thousand years. With astronomical observation we literally witness the fact that the Universe has been around for billions of years. Young earth creationist purposely ignore the facts, bury their heads in the sand, and then falsely pretend that the facts don't even exist. > Now, Todd, do you have faith in God sufficent to believe what > the Bible says? "By faith we understand that the worlds were > prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made > out of things which are visible." (Heb. 11:3) I don't buy religious dogma, because religious dogma is not based on real world evidence and is held on to even when the real world evidence demonstrates that the religious dogma is wrong. I expect evidence, nothing less. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4797 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 8:21 am Subject: Re: A weak God --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4785): > Todd, > > First, my faith isn't in a book. My faith is in God. Because my > faith is in God, I trust the words of His Book. Therefore what > may seem to be contradicted by my observations only means that > my observations are incorrect. Reality is what determines what reality is. Those who ignore what we observe of reality itself when we look at it because they want to believe instead in a religious dogma derived from statements made in a book - any book - are engaged in the fallacy of circular reasoning. But I do want to thank you, Veto, for acknowledging here the popular creationist attitude that you will believe in your religious dogma NO MATTER WHAT THE REAL WORLD EVIDENCE IS. This is the critical flaw that lies at the very core of the creationist "worldview." > And, Todd, my faith in God is not blind faith, but is based > primarily on an empty tomb. Now, because I believe in an empty > tomb, I believe Gen. 1:1. Twenty years ago, I was like you, > until I discovered what faith really meant. Faith doesn't mean > that I have to have all the answers, but it does mean that I > have all trust. And, if God said that He created the heavens > and the earth ex niliho, that is good enough for me. People who choose to believe in a religious dogma NO MATTER WHAT THE REAL WORLD EVIDENCE IS do in fact have a blind faith. That's exactly what blind faith is. > No, and to put it plainly, I don't ignore the fact that some who > call themselves Christians believe in evolution. I have serious > questions about the faith of anyone who holds the theory of > evolution. And, my rhetoric is not deceitful. It is > straightforward. Christians are at war (Eph. 6:12). One of the > strongest weapons in the arsenal of our enemy, Satan, is > evolutionary thought. Evolutionary thought denies God or, at > best, relegates God to of no importance. Veto, you have chosen to make whatever claims you wish to make, using whatever rhetoric you wish to use, regardless of the facts. The fact is that evolution is part of science, not some kind of atheistic or Satanic conspiracy, and there are all kinds of scientific research being conducted every year, and right now, about biological evolution, and related to evolution. Most Christians around the world accept evolution, just like they accept the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, because this is how the world is, as discovered and learned about through scientific investigation. Every time you promote the rhetoric that evolution is nothing more than some kind of atheistic conspiracy or Satanic plot, you are doing nothing more than promoting a lie. > And, Todd, you know as well as I do that abiogenesis is a valid > starting place in the discussion of evolution, since evolution > denies the existence of God. Two false statements in only one sentence. > Without God, how > did life start, Todd? Tell me, please. So, in fact, Todd, you > know as well as I do that abiogenesis is the ONLY place to > start in any discussion of evolution. You are committing the classic "God of the gaps" fallacy. We don't understand something about natural processes, Therefore God Did It. Primitive people attributed lightning to the gods. Now we know something about the physics of the natural processes involved. A logical fallacy is not the place to start any discussion. > So, Todd, what is the Prime Cause? (1) We don't even know if there is a Prime Cause. (2) Even if we assume there is one, we have no idea what it might be. > If evolution can > NOT explain the beginnings of life then it must be discarded as > a theory. Abiogenesis is a related field of research, but it is not the same field as biological evolution. Also, in general form your argument is a logical fallacy: Scientists can't explain biological evolution in every single detail, therefore evolution isn't science. And that's a ridiculous argument. Medical doctors don't understand the human body, and disease microorganisms, and the effects of medical treatments and procedures of various kinds in every single detail (which is always ongoing medical research), but it is scientific, and the results are far better than purposely ignoring scientific results and falsely pretending we don't know anything scientifically. > Evolution is not sceince. It is philosophy and religion, but not > science. I have already proved this statement to be wrong, and yet here you are again promoting the same lie. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4798 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 8:35 am Subject: Re: A weak God --- In coCBanned, Nathan wrote (post #4790): > --- Bob B. writes: >> Really? Because I believe in the reliability of science, my own >> faith in the Cross is a fraud? >> >> Ridiculous. > > Nathan here: > I believe the words were "The theory of evolution", not science. Here we observe the popular creationist insinuation that evolution is not science. Ask yourself: Why are creationists so insistent about representing the matter falsely? Just for example, when scientists refer to "the theory of evolution," they are not using the word "theory" in the popular usage as "guess" or a "hunch," but they are using it in a scientific context: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory | A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of | facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly | tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions | about natural phenomena. | Theory | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory | | Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of | knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies. In | common usage, people use the word "theory" to signify | "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." In this sense, | "theories" are opposed to "facts" - parts of the world, or | claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what | people think. | | In science, a theory is a proposed model, explanation or | description of the manner of interaction of a set of natural | phenomena, capable of predicting future occurences or | observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested | through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical | observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" | and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, | it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed | to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which | explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of | gravitation. | In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only | called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it | | 1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the | pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will | often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, | | 2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single | foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if | not totally correct, | | 3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the | theory, | | 4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes | to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting | certainty, and | | 5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed | entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing | Ockham's razor. | | This is true of such established theories as special and general | relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. I have in a previous post in just the last couple of days proved that evolution is a highly active are of current scientific research. You may not like evolution. You may even hate it. But any person who tries to pretend that evolution is not an integral part of science today, especially in biology and paleontology, is promoting a blatant lie. I state this plainly, because it is the truth. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4800 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 8:46 am Subject: Re: Young earth creationists' apparent age argument I'm noting here that Veto has ignored the specific questions I asked him in this post: Young earth creationists' apparent age argument http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4773 I asked Veto the following questions: Did God create Adam with a fake navel, and a fake scar on his knee from an childhood injury that never took place, and did God create Adam with fake memories of that childhood that didn't exist? Did God create fake fossils of trilobites that never lived, and did God create fake geologic marine strata of oceans that never existed, and put the fake trilobite fossils (and other fake fossils) in the fake geologic marine strata? Did God create fake impact craters of impacts that never happened by extraterrestrial bodies such as asteroids or comets that never existed? Did God create fake volcanic necks that were never produced by volcanoes that never existed and that show heavy weathering and erosion from weathering and erosion forces that never happened? Did God create a gigantic illusion of the Universe showing events that took place millions and billions of years ago, even though they never happened at all? For example, did God create an illusion of the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, and as part of that illusion create a detailed illusion of the explosion of a star (that we know as SN1987A) that never happened? And why would God create all this fake stuff? Finally, I have an epistemological question about this apparent age argument: What real world evidence would you need in order to know that your apparent age argument is wrong? - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4807 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 10:01 am Subject: Re: A weak God --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4801): > Todd, > > I will put it like this: the scientific veneer of evolution... Veto, there you go again making the false insinuation (with the phrase "scientific veneer") that evolution is not scientific. The FACT is that there is all kinds of professional scientific research being conducted today on evolution, and this has been the case for many, many decades. Every time you pretend otherwise, you are engaging in a delusion based on deceitful rhetoric. You need to at least acknowledge the FACTS and bring your comments into line with the facts. Your inability to do this, thus far, demonstrates that your creationist "worldview" cannot deal with reality. > ...has as much > scientific validity as intelligent design (e.g. that life was > created by an intelligent designer). Intelligent design is the > current name of the scientific argument for the theological > and philosophical argument of creationism (I note that the > theory is a 19th century response to evolution. It was then > called the watchmaker theory). If you admit that intelligent > design is science, then I will say, by your definition, that > evolution is science. But, if you say that intelligent design > is not science, then, by the same logic, evolution can not be > science... Intelligent design is not scientific. Intelligent design's big ambitions by Paul Nussbaum (Philadelphia Daily News, 10/10/05) http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12862103.htm | The John Templeton Foundation, of West Conshohocken, spends | millions each year to explore and encourage a link between | science and religion. But, except for a contribution to fund a | debate forum in 1999, the foundation has declined to give money | to the Discovery Institute. | | Charles Harper Jr., senior vice president of the Templeton | Foundation, said Discovery's involvement in "political issues" | was troublesome. | | "We want to advance real scientific research," Harper said. | "Discovery Institute has never done - has never moved forward - | any scientific research. On these deep issues, they've done | absolutely nothing." 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. Memorandum and Order by U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III http://coop.www.uscourts.gov/pamd/kitzmiller_342.pdf | We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified | as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written | extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly | explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new | scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for | the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least | Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a | syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been | a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an | intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, | Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit | that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." | Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the | same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses | Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful | arrangement of parts." | | Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God | was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and | defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their | argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" | is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); | Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. | vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent | difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument | for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and | Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge | that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, | anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately | make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is | God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People | (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly | suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent | actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). | Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich | admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and | Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading | advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 | (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)). | | Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the | designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell | biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has | been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' | expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit | concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws | of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is | Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent | was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot | answer this question. It must leave it to religion and | philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)). | | A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' | protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious | argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents | reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the | God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs' | expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism's | Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled | the history of ID in her book and other writings for her | testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which | were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID | leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural | content. | Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is | found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge | Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for | Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents | from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and | objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation | Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as | discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. | at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic | Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as | currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." | (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's | "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its | destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to | replace materialistic explanations with the theistic | understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." | Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a | program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review | of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the | document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to | scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to | change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, | specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of | Christianity. There is much, much more detailed documentation in Judge Jone's memorandum besides this regarding the fact that ID is religious, not scientific, but I have quoted his order at length here because I knew that if I just provided the online reference, you would just purposely ignore what is stated and documented in it. See also: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District _trial_documents [link is line-wrapped] The FACT is that evolution is scientific. It is an extensive part of professional scientific research today. Another FACT is the intelligent design is not scientific, and is not a part of professional scientific research today. (There's also the FACT that ID is a religious argument that was around long before Charles Darwin was even born, which contradicts your claim that ID "is a 19th century response to evolution.") - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4808 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 10:05 am Subject: Re: A weak God --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4803): > Todd, > > You know as well as I do that our current view of reality is > always changing.... Therefore, science is all wrong; geology, astronomy, biology, and paleontology are wrong about everything; there's never clear empirical evidence about anything, we never really learn anything about the real world that we observe, and maybe the Sun orbits the Earth after all. Veto, your argument does not impress me. When you get around to dealing with the facts, please let me know. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4811 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 11:08 am Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4809): > Todd, > > There is a difference between the fact of gravity and the theory > of evolution. One is testable and verifyable, the other is not. > One can be accepted on the basis of constant tests -- take an > object, drop it and it falls. The other, evolution, must be > accepted on faith. Evolution is simply not testable. Here we observe the creationist having chosen to bury his head in the sand, intentionally ignore the facts, and then promote a delusion based on his intention to ignore the facts. Creationists cannot deal with reality, as we are witnessing right now! Testable verifiable research regarding evolutionary biology, and paleontology, is being conducted, and published, all the time. There are hundreds of scientific research articles about evolution published each and every year. Here's a selection of professional science journals (in the U.S. and the U.K.) that routinely or exclusively publish professional scientific research concerning evolution: Science (published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) http://www.sciencemag.org/ Nature http://www.nature.com/ Journal of Biology (published by BioMed Central) http://jbiol.com/ Journal of Evolutionary Biology http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1010-061X view online content: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/rd.asp?code=JEB&goto=journal International Journal of Organic Evolution http://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=index- html#Evolution_Journal [link may be line-wrapped] Molecular Biology and Evolution (published by the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution) http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org Evolution & Development http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1520-541X Trends in Ecology & Evolution http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30339/de scription [link may be line-wrapped] Integrative and Comparative Biology (Journal of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; published as the American Zoologist from 1961 to 2001) http://www.sicb.org/az/ Invertebrate Biology (Journal of the American Microscopical Society) http://www.invertebratebiology.org/ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Biological Sciences http://www.pnas.org/current.shtml#BIOLOGICAL_SCIENCES Palobiology Journal of Paleontology (both published by The Paleontological Society) http://www.psjournals.org/paleoonline/?request=get-archive The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (published by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/ Paleontologia Electronica http://palaeo-electronica.org/ - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4812 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 11:09 am Subject: Re: Creationists love hoaxes (was: Evolutionary hoaxes) --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4806): > Todd, > > I followed the rise and fall of Archaeorapter. So did I. > Archaeorapter was put > forward by evolutionary scientists as the great link between > birds and reptiles. No, it was not. I have already documented this for you, and yet here you are intentionally continuing with your false rhetoric. I'm sure there were some in the press who announced the new "discovery." But the FACT is that paleontologists who actually studied the fossil were skeptical about it, they said so, they said they wanted to study it more, they did, and when they did they found out what it really was, and they immediately published their findings. I note here that you have chosen to intentionally ignore the facts, and instead promote your creationist misrepresentation. > The mere fact > that it appeared in the literature It appeared in a popular science magazine. It did not appear in any professional science journal. I see that you have chosen to lie about this matter. > shows how desparate, > over a century after Darwin first published his little book, > evolutionary scientists are for transitional forms -- of which > they have found exactly zero. As noted before, all reptile > fossils are fully reptiles. And, all bird fossils are fully > birds. Now we observe the creationist burying his head in the sand and denying the facts - as usual. There are all kinds of examples of transitional fossils, even at the species level, in paleontology. "There are no transitional fossils." <-- This argument is SO bad that even the young earth creationist group "Answers in Genesis" has been telling their fellow young earth creationists to stop using it: "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?: 'There are no transitional forms.'" Answers in Genesis group http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp At this link http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1972/JASA12-72Moore.html (go about two-thirds of the way down the web page to "The Position of Roger J. Cuffey") Paleontologist Roger Cuffey cites dozens of examples from the paleontological literature of transitional fossils at the species-to- species level. (Note that he wrote that article back in 1972.) More examples... Human Ancestry - Hominid Evolution http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm Evolutionary Relationships of our Hominid Ancestors http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html Homo heidelbergensis http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html Homo erectus http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html Homo ergaster http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html Homo rudolfensis http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html Homo habilis http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html Here's a web page about transitional fossils which has a section on the reptile/mammal transition: "Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record" by Keith B. Miller http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html A site about "early mammal-like reptiles": http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/early.htm And the sequel, "later mammal-like reptiles": http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/later.htm "Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals": http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html Another beautiful example of a transitional fossil: Acanthostega gunnari http://tolweb.org/tree? group=Acanthostega&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates [link is line-wrapped] Acanthostega gunnari http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/re-acanthostega.html Another transitional fossil, similar to Acanthostega: Ichthyostega stensioei http://tolweb.org/tree? group=Ichthyostega_stensioei&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates [link is line-wrapped] Another example of transitionals - here's an article about some dinosaurs with feathers: Feathered dinosaur fossils coming to Alberta's Royal Tyrrell Museum http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/06/01/55.asp Here's a great website about a particular fossil of a feathered dinosaur: "First Dinosaur Found With Its Body Covering Intact; Displays Primitive Feathers From Head To Tail" http://www.amnh.org/science/specials/dinobird.html You can go here and study some of the detail on the dinosaur fossil for yourself: http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/dinobird.html Also see: "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?" by Richard O. Prum and Alan H. Brush (Scientific American, March 2003) "The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence" http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ Evolution of horses: "Horse Evolution" by Kathleen Hunt http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html Here's an excellent book about the evolution of the horse: Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae (1992) by paleontologist Bruce MacFadden http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0521340411 News item - Fossil transitional between fish, tetrapods (the Tiktaalik roseae specimen) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4392 News item - Millions of tears ago, snakes were hip! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4616 That creationists continue to trot out this old canard that "there are no transitional fossils" demonstrates that they have little to no interest in dealing with science truthfully, and have instead embraced a false delusion that they have created for themselves. > As for Haeckel, if he was discredited in the 1920s, why did my > high school biology book in the 1980s refer to his drawings as > proof of evolution? They incorrectly used his fraudulent drawings. They did not teach his concept of recapitulation. A few of the biology textbooks used in high school used drawings based on Haeckel's original wrong drawings, it is an error that they needed to correct, and today I'm aware of only one high school biology textbook that uses one drawing based on Haeckel's wrong drawings. NONE of the biology textbooks then or now teach Haeckel's recapitulation concept. Haeckel's recapitulation idea was wrong, biologists know that it is wrong, and biologists have known that it is wrong for several decades. Haeckel's recapitulation concept is not part of biology today, and has not been used in biology by anyone for several decades. > Now, Cardiff Man was quickly rebuffed as a hoax -- within a > year. However, many evolutionists made the same mistake with > Cardiff Man that they made a century later with Archaeorapter. I'm still waiting for you to document your assertion. So far you have produced nothing. > If evolution truly was science, why are so many evolutionists > making statements of faith on such obvious forgeries as Cardiff > Man and Archaeorapter. You are making this statement based on an unsubstantiated assertion. But let me point out that I certainly do agree with the general principle that any person who makes a "statement of faith" is not operating according on the principles of science. That is not scientific. That is my point. Keep this in mind. This is precisely why creationism is not scientific. > And, in Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, we have the same rush to > judgment based on a need to find evidence to support the faith. False, false, false. I have proved to you that this statement is false by reference to the history, and I've provided you with reference material to back up what I've pointed out to you, and yet here you are ignoring the history and again obstinately promoting your misrepresentation. Why do you love error so much? > And both finds were used in early 20th century, and in the case > of Piltdown Man, mid-20th century, texts prooving evolution. They are not used today. They have not been used in many decades. When Piltdown man was studied properly for the first time, the scientists who studied immediately published their findings, proclaimed Piltdown man as a fraud, and all scientists took the research data into account and rejected Piltdown Man. (And the fact is that "Nebraska Man" was never widely promoted. Your statement on this is false.) Contrast this behavior to creationists, who still to this day heavily promote dozens of erroneous claims about science, claims that have been proved to be wrong for decades. I also notice that you have purposely ignored the fact that young earth creationism is built on the foundation of dozens of hoaxes, some of which I have given you specific examples of in previous posts. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4813 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 11:30 am Subject: Re: The scripture of delusion -- creationist rhetoric --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4810): > Todd, > > Your OPINION, and the opinion of others held captive by the > evolutionary lie, is that evolution is scientific. Veto, what we have been observing is that it is you who has expressed unsubstantiated OPINION that is contradicted by the facts. I, on the other hand, have been carefully substantiating the points I have made to you, because I have PURPOSELY not expected anyone to share my opinion but I DO expect people to DEAL WITH THE FACTS. > Science ONLY deals with those things that are testable, that are > verifiable through experimentation. Evolution, specifically > macroevolution, by its very nature, is NOT testable. Because of > that, evolution is NOT science. This is your opinion. And the facts demonstrate that your opinion is wrong. > Todd, it really is that simple. What is really simple is that people who intentionally ignore the facts don't know what they're talking about. > And, Todd, you can give all the quotes you want from your > fellow evolution apologists. I've been quoting from science, giving reference to factual information. All you've been doing is stating your personal opinions, which are contradicted by the facts. When you decide to actually deal with the facts, please let me know. > That does not > change the fact that intelligent design and evolution's > scientific veneer are equal in terms of being scientific > arguments. Both are attempts to make the visible evidence fit > with the grand worldview of the adhereents. Evolution is scientific. ID is not. Those are the facts. Evolution is part of science. I have proved this by giving numerous references to the professional science literature. I further backed this up by citing Judge Jone's memorandum from the specific 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania, which itself is based on voluminous testimony provided in the trial by ID advocates as well as by scientists. You have intentionally ignored all of the facts, and have chosen to promote your false opinion. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way. > Perhaps the words of Florida State professor Michael Ruse, who > is certainly no creationist, make this point better than I could > ever make it... > > "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.... Evolution is a religion. This was true > of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still > today." > > "What about Darwinism, evolution, and religion? In fact, those > most ardent to turn evolution into a religion have tended not to > be Darwinians. Herbert Spencer and Thomas Henry Huxley in the > nineteenth century and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the > twentieth. But the simple fact of the matter is that, use > language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many > evolutionists - some Darwinian and some not - evolution does > function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about > this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move > forward, not to deny it." I see that - like most creationists - you apparently enjoy quoting people out of context and distorting their meaning. Ruse was not talking about evolutionary science in general. Ruse was referring to some evolutionists who do attempt to go beyond the science and use the idea of evolution for certain agendas. I agree with Ruse then whenever someone does that they are going beyond the science. To claim that Ruse is talking about evolution in general is false. Indeed, Ruse himself has written this book which is specifically about evolution as science, discussing exactly why evolution is scientific: The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw, 2nd Ed. by Michael Ruse (1999) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226731685 > Todd, you can close your eyes and blind yourself to the obvious, > but that won't change anything. No, thank you, Veto. I'm not like you. > Evolution is a religious dogma parading in scientific clothes.... You state your creationist delusion, yet again, which - as I have documented - is contradicted by the facts. > As Dr. Ruse points out, I am correct when I call you on this. > So, you and others can deny it all you wish, it doesn't change > reality.... Yes, creationists do enjoy quoting people out of context and twisting their words. I've been a victim of this myself, very recently in fact. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4817 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 12:07 pm Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4814): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> Testable verifiable research regarding evolutionary biology, >> and paleontology, is being conducted, and published, all the >> time. There are hundreds of scientific research articles about >> evolution published each and every year. Here's a selection of >> professional science journals (in the U.S. and the U.K.) that >> routinely or exclusively publish professional scientific >> research concerning evolution: > > Rudy writes: > Back to square 1, right Todd? You seem incapable of > understanding the difference between something written about > extensively, and a verifiable, repeatable experiement which > proves evolution. Here we observe the young earth creationist Rudy back to square 0 (zero) in perpetuating the creationist lie that the professional science journals I have cited are not publishing verifiable, repeatable experiments and research that supports evolution. Here is the FACT: The research published in these professional science journals is verifiable, repeatable research that supports biological evolution. (Note also that the science journals I've cited are just a small subset of the total.) Here is the creationist lie that is being repeated ad nauseum: There is no scientific research that supports evolution. > JUST because you are able to show there is a lot of written > material in scientific journals Note the change in words. The professional science journals are publishing verifiable, repeatable research on evolution. Rudy alters his words and deceitfully insinuates that it is not scientific research with his use of the phrase "written material." Such is the nature of creationist rhetoric. > (Which to my > knowledge, no one has denied!) does not mean you have provided > a reference to a SINGLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE experiment which > proves evolution. Again we observe Rudy denying the fact that these professional science journals, among others, are publishing science research that support evolution. > It is amazing how each of us who disagree with your position is > termed "ignorant" and "being against science." What is amazing is that we are literally observing such ignorance and anti-science attitudes IN ACTION. > I guess for you to consider even the possibility that you might > be wrong is out of the question?? That must be why I'm the one providing all the references to factual information, while you creationists keep right stating personal opinions that are contradicted by the facts. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4818 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 12:15 pm Subject: Re: Creationists love hoaxes (was: Evolutionary hoaxes) --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4815): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?: 'There are >> no transitional forms.'" >> Answers in Genesis group >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp > > One more example of how Todd deals with issues. If yoou would > just take Todd's statement, you would get a certain impression. > However, reading the link he supplied (which, with Todd, is > always an interesting journey) you will see the ENTIRE > statement... "There are no transitional forms.' Since there are > candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it's better to > avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: 'While Darwin > predicted that the fossil record would show numerous > transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have > are a handful of disputable examples.'" > > Notice how the statement is phrased in a totally different > context than what Todd would like for you to see? > > "...highly dubious... disputable examples..." In other words: > There are those who CLAIM to have "transitional forms" the > EVIDENCE of such being indeed the case is "dubious" and: > disputable." The fact remains that the young earth creationist group Answers in Genesis advises fellow creationists that it is inadvisable to use the argument. That's what I pointed out. I ALSO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED THAT UP with references to NUMEROUS examples of transitional fossils (Cuffey, one of the paleontologists whose article I cited, himself references dozens of examples of transitional fossils from the paleontological literature that he knew about in 1972, which was over 30 years ago). The statement by AiG that "While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples" is just another misrepresentation of the facts. (And I note here that you ignored all of the examples that I gave you references to.) That is AiG's own "veneer" in trying to hide the facts from their creationist audience. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4828 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 1:18 pm Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4819): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4814): >>> --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >>>> Testable verifiable research regarding evolutionary biology, >>>> and paleontology, is being conducted, and published, all the >>>> time. There are hundreds of scientific research articles about >>>> evolution published each and every year. Here's a selection of >>>> professional science journals (in the U.S. and the U.K.) that >>>> routinely or exclusively publish professional scientific >>>> research concerning evolution: >>> >>> Rudy writes: >>> Back to square 1, right Todd? You seem incapable of >>> understanding the difference between something written about >>> extensively, and a verifiable, repeatable experiement which >>> proves evolution. >> >> Here we observe the young earth creationist Rudy back to square >> 0 (zero) in perpetuating the creationist lie that the >> professional science journals I have cited are not publishing >> verifiable, repeatable experiments and research that supports >> evolution. > > Please re-read what I wrote and what you erroneously concluded. With this statement we now observe Rudy admitting by implication that the professional science journals I have cited are in fact publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation and research that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is the point. > I wrote that > YOU, Todd, seemingly do not understand the DIFFERENCE between > two issues... What I understand is the fact that evolution is part of science. This is the point. >> Here is the FACT: The research published in these professional >> science journals is verifiable, repeatable research that >> supports biological evolution. >> >> (Note also that the science journals I've cited are just a small >> subset of the total.) >> >> Here is the creationist lie that is being repeated ad nauseum: >> There is no scientific research that supports evolution. > > Once again, that is NOT what I wrote, not what I have been > asking for. With this statement we observe Rudy again admitting by implication that the professional science journals I have cited are in fact publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation and research that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is the point. >>> JUST because you are able to show there is a lot of written >>> material in scientific journals >> >> Note the change in words. The professional science journals are >> publishing verifiable, repeatable research on evolution. Rudy >> alters his words and deceitfully insinuates that it is not >> scientific research with his use of the phrase "written >> material." Such is the nature of creationist rhetoric. > > Once again, Todd, you will need to re-read what I wrote. I have > no idea what you are ANSWERING, but it definitely is NOT what I > wrote! Once again we observe Rudy again admitting by implication that the professional science journals I have cited are in fact publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation and research that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is the point. >>> (Which to my >>> knowledge, no one has denied!) does not mean you have provided >>> a reference to a SINGLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE experiment >>> which proves evolution. >> >> Again we observe Rudy denying the fact that these professional >> science journals, among others, are publishing science research >> that support evolution. > > STILL not what I wrote! If you tell me where you live, I might > be able to recommend a good optomotrist, so you might get your > eyes checked. You might do well with a set of reading glasses, > perhaps? STILL we observe Rudy admitting by implication that the professional science journals I have cited are in fact publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation and research that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is the point. >>> It is amazing how each of us who disagree with your position is >>> termed "ignorant" and "being against science." >> >> What is amazing is that we are literally observing such >> ignorance and anti-science attitudes IN ACTION. >> >>> I guess for you to consider even the possibility that you might >>> be wrong is out of the question?? >> >> That must be why I'm the one providing all the references to >> factual information, while you creationists keep right stating >> personal opinions that are contradicted by the facts. > > I have seen your "factual" information" and was amazed at the > fact that scientist started from a point of "belief." They did > not start from proven facts, they started at a point of 'belief.' Now we observe Rudy displaying his lack of understanding of how scientists do scientific research, in the use of "hypotheses," and thus demonstrating the ignorance about science that I pointed out. Thank you, Rudy. > As I have mentioned before, the moment we start from a set of > parameters based on what the experimenter "believes" to be > the "facts," we have a biased experiment, and the results may > be verifiable and repeatable, but all the experiment has proven > is that the one doing the experiment was right: If I do a, b, > and c, d will be the result - time and time again. But a, b, > and c are NOT based on "facts," are they, Todd? They are based > on BIASED pre-suppositions - whether or not Todd realizes that > to be the case. What I realize is that scientists screw up sometimes. There are numerous examples of this. What I also realize is that this does not invalidate all science, and that if you think a particular conclusion is not justified based on the research and the data, then you actually have to deal with the details to show that it's all messed up, something that scientists do all the time (we frequently see articles in the professional science literature where scientists are invalidating the conclusions of previous researchers because of pointing out mistakes in data, mistakes in calculations [the math], or lack of justifiability [i.e., the data is good, and the calculations are good, but they don't unequivocally support the conclusions]). Creationists don't do this, but make the irrational argument that since scientists sometimes screw up, all science is no good, or at least the science that creationists don't like is no good. In other words, this is an argument based on creationists' feelings, based on religious, and not based on any actual flaws in data, calculation, or reasoning that creationists can point out. In other words, what I realize about science is far beyond anything Rudy can summon up. As we're observing right now. > So, once again, the SINGLE, repeatable, verifiable experiment > which proves evolution is STILL not here... This is Rudy back to ignoring all of the scientific research that supports evolution. > Something simple, along the lines maybe mentioned by Veto: The > split into male/female would be nice... I have previously provided specific references to Rudy, but he just lied about me not doing it. He even repeated his lie several times, after I kept giving him the reference several times. Anyway, here's another reference to research about evolutionary biology (but, no doubt, Rudy will lie about this one too): http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v3/n1/abs/nrg700_fs.html | Understanding Quantitative Genetic Variation | by Nicholas H. Barton & Peter D. Keightley | (Nature Reviews Genetics; 1/1/2002) | | Abstract | | Until recently, it was impracticable to identify the genes that | are responsible for variation in continuous traits, or to | directly observe the effects of their different alleles. Now, | the abundance of genetic markers has made it possible to | identify quantitative trait loci (QTL) - the regions of a | chromosome or, ideally, individual sequence variants that are | responsible for trait variation. What kind of QTL do we expect | to find and what can our observations of QTL tell us about how | organisms evolve? The key to understanding the evolutionary | significance of QTL is to understand the nature of inherited | variation, not in the immediate mechanistic sense of how genes | influence phenotype, but, rather, to know what evolutionary | forces maintain genetic variability. | | Summary | | * High levels of inherited variation are observed for most | traits and in most populations. Variation is maintained partly | by mutation and partly by a balance of selective forces; | however, we do not know the relative importance of these | alternatives. | | * This variation allows a rapid response to natural and | artificial selection. Newly arising mutations make an important | contribution to long-term selection response. Selection | response in large experimental populations often continues | steadily for many generations, indicating that many genetic | loci are involved. | | * Understanding the maintenance of variation, and the response | to selection, requires that the sequence changes that cause | trait differences be identified. This is challenging, because | variation might depend on multiple alleles that include | several interacting sites. | | * Population genetics makes predictions about the nature of | quantitative trait loci (QTL). For example, balancing selection | is expected to maintain alleles at high frequency, whereas | mutation is likely to maintain rare alleles. | | * Predictions for the way that alleles interact, and for the | size of their effects, depend on assumptions about the | relationship between genotype and phenotype. One simple model | indicates that QTL effects should be exponentially distributed. Bear in mind that access to the full research article at *Nature* journal's website is not free, but you can pay for it - here's the link: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v3/n1/full/nrg700_fs.html Keep in mind that this is just one specific example of some detailed science research on evolution from the professional science literature, out of many, many thousands. Creationists need to stop lying that evolution is not science. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4831 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 2:06 pm Subject: Re: Todd Greene's sourcing --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4820): > Boy, that was fun reading... The greatest fun was Moore rebuttal > of Cuffey's materials... > > "Hence, nothing is gained, from all of Cuffey's careful > compilation of referential citations, that counts as physical > evidence for imagined general evolutionary changes of the degree > that might have involved changes from one type, form, or kind of > organism into another type, form, or kind of organism. He has > provided only data regarding changes supposedly within kinds > which are essentially to he considered as no more than genetic > variational changes. Basically, all of his referential citations > relate to physical evidence that can be utilized better to > support the concept of "fixity of kinds". He has failed to > provide any true transitional forms between or across kinds of > organisms." > > Notice this, Todd? According to Moore, Cuffey has "failed to > provide any true transitional forms between or across kinds of > organisms..." Thank you, Rudy, for pointing out a beautiful example of how creationists lie with their claim that "there are no transitional fossils." Moore's ridiculous argument shows exactly the kind of nonsense that creationists have been promoting for decades. (Remember my point that creationists have promoted their nonsense decade after decade after decade.) Indeed, Cuffey purposely provided examples of transitional forms at different ranges of change, both at the species level, and across higher taxonomic categories (I notice that you ignored these, Rudy). What is ironic about creationist arguments on this is how creationists contradict themselves (and Moore is no exception). When you provide paleontological examples of changes at higher taxonomic categories (which Cuffey did), creationists say, "Well, those don't show changes at a fine enough level [species level]." So then you also provide them with paleontological examples of changes at the species level (which Cuffey also did), and then they turn around and say, "Well, those don't show changes across another more than within a 'baramin' [kind]" (and, of course, creationist never actually get around to defining in biological terms what a "kind" is even supposed to be). In other words, no matter what examples of transitional fossils you give to creationists, they ignore them, with contradictory lines of argument. By the way, the evolution of a new species from a previously existing species is exactly what evolution is. "Genetic variational changes" is exactly what evolution is, and is what results in new species. (Rudy, I notice that in your argumentation above, you implicitly acknowledge the evolution of species. Thank you for acknowledging this.) For example, when mammals first evolved from reptiles, what we're actually referring to is a species that possessed physical characteristics mostly that of a reptile while beginning to possess certain physical characteristics of what we associate with what we call "mammals." Over millions of years, as these species evolved, the later species showed less of the reptilian characteristics and more of the mammalian characteristics. In this transitional period, it is actually difficult to decide whether the animals should be categorized as reptile or mammal, and paleontologists have argued over which should be categorized as which precisely because they are in between. On the transitional fossils showing the evolution of mammals from reptiles, see: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html The Later Mammal-Like Reptiles http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/later.htm Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals by D. Jon Scott http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html The Gulf Between Reptiles and Mammals by Alan Feuerbacher http://www.finalkeno.freesurf.fr/temp/tj/osarsif/ce06.htm [Note that this article is written in both English and French. Feuerbacher points out all kinds of errors in creationist rhetoric on this particular example of transitional fossils, and in doing so discusses a lot of detailed information about relevant fossils.] - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4833 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 2:15 pm Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4827): > Todd, > > In my present position at work, I can find a lot of > interpretations of the evidence for evolution. I might even find > a growing body of writings that interpret the evidence for > intelligent design. The FACT is that there isn't any ID research in science in the professional science literature. No rhetoric to the contrary can change this fact. > The problem with the evolutionary writings is that the > researchers come to the evidence with a preconceived notion that > the evidence will show evolution. Am I then surprise that thier > subsequent evaluation of the evidence finds for evolution? Of > course not. I observe your unsubstantiated assertion that the scientific research on evolution is nothing more than a "preconceived notion." Creationist rhetoric is filled, indeed, it is founded upon, unsubstantiated assertions and a multitude of errors about science (not to mention the numerous logical errors found in creationist rhetoric). > What surprises me is when a researcher, such as Michael J. Behe, > Jonathan Wells or William Dembski, can overcome the > anti-supernatural, pro-evolutionary bias and start to ask > serious questions. More empty creationist rhetoric. The fact is that these guys are not asking any serious SCIENTIFIC questions. Which is precisely why they have zero scientific research for intelligent design published in the professional science literature. (At the same time, they have all kinds of material published in the religious literature!) > Todd, you present as evidence interpretations that were > pre-determined by an a priori belief system. Then you express > surprise that I reject them as being biased. Actually, Veto, presenting as "evidence" religious interpretations pre-determined by your religious dogma is all you ever seem to do. Which is why I have to chuckle when you attempt to preach to me about bias. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4835 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 2:29 pm Subject: Re: Todd Greene's sourcing --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4832): > What you provided, Todd, was a part of a debate between Cuffey > and Moore. Yes, Rudy, I know. > Moore showed Cuffey's > interpretation to be wrong, quite simple. but in YOUR brain, that > make Moore a liar. What it shows is that Moore was willing to ignore the evidence, on the basis of his adherence to his religious dogma, and that he was willing to (1) distort the meaning of evolution, (2) misrepresent the examples that Cuffey gave (because Cuffey presented examples of evolution BOTH at the species level AND at higher taxonomic categories, (3) use contradictory lines of argument to ignore the evidence, and (4) pretend that species evolution isn't evolution when in fact that is exactly what evolution is. I also notice, Rudy, that you ignored the specific examples of the transitional fossils documenting the evolution of reptiles to mammals, that Moore also ignored in his rhetoric. As always, we observe the creationist using the same false rhetoric decade after decade after decade. Thank you for proving this with your own example. > Seems to be > your standard answer for every one and everything you disagree > with? Sorry Todd, but you are about as useful as an udder on a > bull as far as "facts" is concerned, so I will, again, leave you > to your fantasies... People who ignore the facts ON PURPOSE are engaging in deceit. Call it whatever you want to call it, what you call it does not matter to me, that's what they're doing. The statement "evolution is not science" is a lie, plainly and obviously. I have already proved this extensively. And, sure, I'm so very useless, which must explain why I'm the one providing dozens of references to the relevant information that backs me up, while you guys do nothing more than express unsubstantiated and false opinions in your attack against science. - Todd Greene ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1972/JASA12-72Moore.html (Go about two-thirds of the way down the web page to "The Position of Roger J. Cuffey.") Paleontologist Roger Cuffey cites dozens of examples from the paleontological literature of transitional fossils at the species-to- species level. (Note that he wrote that article back in 1972.) ---------------------------------------------------------------- On the transitional fossils showing the evolution of mammals from reptiles, see: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html The Later Mammal-Like Reptiles http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/later.htm Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals by D. Jon Scott http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html The Gulf Between Reptiles and Mammals by Alan Feuerbacher http://www.finalkeno.freesurf.fr/temp/tj/osarsif/ce06.htm [Note that this article is written in both English and French. Feuerbacher points out all kinds of errors in creationist rhetoric on this particular example of transitional fossils, and in doing so discusses a lot of detailed information about relevant fossils.]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4836 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 2:32 pm Subject: Evolution of the first mammals (was: Todd Greene's sourcing) --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4834): > Todd, > > Every fossil of a reptile is clearly a reptile.... Every fossil > of a mammal is clearly a mammal. > > There are zero transitional forms. Veto, your claim is false. - Todd Greene ---------------------------------------------------------------- On the transitional fossils showing the evolution of mammals from reptiles, see: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html The Later Mammal-Like Reptiles http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/later.htm Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals by D. Jon Scott http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html The Gulf Between Reptiles and Mammals by Alan Feuerbacher http://www.finalkeno.freesurf.fr/temp/tj/osarsif/ce06.htm [Note that this article is written in both English and French. Feuerbacher points out all kinds of errors in creationist rhetoric on this particular example of transitional fossils, and in doing so discusses a lot of detailed information about relevant fossils.]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4845 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 3:25 pm Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4829): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> What I understand is the fact that evolution is part of science. >> This is the point. > > Well, Todd, scientists seem to disagree with you on that point... Now we observe more unsubstantiated assertions by Rudy. In this case not only does he fail to previde any relevant discussion by any such "scientists," he doesn't even name any. Just more empty rhetoric. > Todd wrote: >>>> Here is the FACT: The research published in these professional >>>> science journals is verifiable, repeatable research that >>>> supports biological evolution. >>>> >>>> (Note also that the science journals I've cited are just a >>>> small subset of the total.) >>>> >>>> Here is the creationist lie that is being repeated ad nauseum: >>>> There is no scientific research that supports evolution. > > Rudy wrote: >>> Once again, that is NOT what I wrote, not what I have been >>> asking for. > > To which Todd responded: >> With this statement we observe Rudy again admitting by >> implication that the professional science journals I have cited >> are in fact publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation >> and research that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is >> the point. > > Rudy writes: > You should go back to school and re-do you logic classes. Or > maybe you should ask your money back from those who taught you > how to read. I admitted nothing, either implicit or explicit. I > observed something: YOU stated: "Here is the creationist lie > that is being repeated ad nauseum: There is no scientific > research that supports evolution." to which I responded: "Once > again, that is NOT what I wrote, not what I have been asking > for." The fact is that evolution is an important part of scientific research today (and has been so for many decades). The research published in these professional science journals I have cited is verifiable, repeatable research that supports biological evolution. Any creationist who INTENTIONALLY IGNORES these facts when they are presented to him, and who then continues to state the falsehood that evolution is not science, is lying. This is the point. Rudy, if your statements are irrelevant to this point, then so be it. > Rudy wrote: >>>>> JUST because you are able to show there is a lot of written >>>>> material in scientific journals > > Todd responded: >>>> Note the change in words. The professional science journals >>>> are publishing verifiable, repeatable research on evolution. >>>> Rudy alters his words and deceitfully insinuates that it is >>>> not scientific research with his use of the phrase "written >>>> material." Such is the nature of creationist rhetoric. > > Rudy responded: >>> Once again, Todd, you will need to re-read what I wrote. I have >>> no idea what you are ANSWERING, but it definitely is NOT what I >>> wrote! > > Todd wrongly deduced, again: >> Once again we observe Rudy again admitting by implication that >> the professional science journals I have cited are in fact >> publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation and research >> that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is the point. > > Rudy wrote: >>>>> (Which to my >>>>> knowledge, no one has denied!) does not mean you have >>>>> provided a reference to a SINGLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE >>>>> experiment which proves evolution. > > Todd again, out of context, responded: >>>> Again we observe Rudy denying the fact that these professional >>>> science journals, among others, are publishing science >>>> research that support evolution. > > Rudy wrote: >>> STILL not what I wrote! If you tell me where you live, I might >>> be able to recommend a good optomotrist, so you might get your >>> eyes checked. You might do well with a set of reading glasses, >>> perhaps? >> >> STILL we observe Rudy admitting by implication that the >> professional science journals I have cited are in fact >> publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation and research >> that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is the point. > > Rudy writes: > (Man, this is getting complicated!) Todd, once again, I neither > explicitly nor implicitly admitted any such thing. What I STATED, > open and clearly, is that "... does not mean you have provided a > reference to a SINGLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE experiment which > proves evolution." Rudy - once again - implies that the professional science journals I have cited are in fact publishing verifiable, repeatable experimentation and research that support evolution. Thank you, Rudy. This is the point. > Rudy wrote: >>>>> It is amazing how each of us who disagree with your position is >>>>> termed "ignorant" and "being against science." > > Todd wrote: >>>> What is amazing is that we are literally observing such >>>> ignorance and anti-science attitudes IN ACTION. > > Rudy writes: > Once again, Todd, I am all for science. Some of my best friends > are scientists, and man, they sure make a lot more sense than > you do! I am against people who CLAIM evolution to be SCIENCE. Now Rudy is back to stating the creationist lie that "evolution is not science." > I am against > people who CLAIM to have provided a reference to ONE SINGLE > VERIFIABLE REPEATABLE experiment which proves evolution - and > have NEVER done any of the sort. Yes, Todd, you have sent > endless links... and note my posts re. your sourcing! Greatest > fun I have had all day! This is Rudy lying by INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the reference I gave him several times several weeks ago, and lying by INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the reference that I just gave him today (and note that I even explicity and openly predicted that this is exactly what Rudy would do - and he still went right ahead and did it!): From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4828 | Anyway, here's another reference to research about evolutionary | biology (but, no doubt, Rudy will lie about this one too): | | http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v3/n1/abs/nrg700_fs.html | || Understanding Quantitative Genetic Variation || by Nicholas H. Barton & Peter D. Keightley || (Nature Reviews Genetics; 1/1/2002) || || Abstract || || Until recently, it was impracticable to identify the genes that || are responsible for variation in continuous traits, or to || directly observe the effects of their different alleles. Now, || the abundance of genetic markers has made it possible to || identify quantitative trait loci (QTL) - the regions of a || chromosome or, ideally, individual sequence variants that are || responsible for trait variation. What kind of QTL do we expect || to find and what can our observations of QTL tell us about how || organisms evolve? The key to understanding the evolutionary || significance of QTL is to understand the nature of inherited || variation, not in the immediate mechanistic sense of how genes || influence phenotype, but, rather, to know what evolutionary || forces maintain genetic variability. || || Summary || || * High levels of inherited variation are observed for most || traits and in most populations. Variation is maintained partly || by mutation and partly by a balance of selective forces; || however, we do not know the relative importance of these || alternatives. || || * This variation allows a rapid response to natural and || artificial selection. Newly arising mutations make an important || contribution to long-term selection response. Selection || response in large experimental populations often continues || steadily for many generations, indicating that many genetic || loci are involved. || || * Understanding the maintenance of variation, and the response || to selection, requires that the sequence changes that cause || trait differences be identified. This is challenging, because || variation might depend on multiple alleles that include || several interacting sites. || || * Population genetics makes predictions about the nature of || quantitative trait loci (QTL). For example, balancing selection || is expected to maintain alleles at high frequency, whereas || mutation is likely to maintain rare alleles. || || * Predictions for the way that alleles interact, and for the || size of their effects, depend on assumptions about the || relationship between genotype and phenotype. One simple model || indicates that QTL effects should be exponentially distributed. | | Bear in mind that access to the full research article at | *Nature* journal's website is not free, but you can pay for it | - here's the link: | | http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v3/n1/full/nrg700_fs.html | | Keep in mind that this is just one specific example of some | detailed science research on evolution from the professional | science literature, out of many, many thousands. | | Creationists need to stop lying that evolution is not science. Biological evolution is a matter of factual observation of genetic variation in populations, that leads to new species. (Note that Rudy has made other statements in which he implies that accepts the evolution of species.) I have also noted, recently, that the young earth creationist Rudy has *extreme* difficulty bringing himself to state openly and clearly his antipathy for geological science and astronomical science (and the related physics and chemistry), so it certainly doesn't come as any surprise to me that he can never be clear about the fact that he also opposes biology and paleontology. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4848 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 3:32 pm Subject: Re: My take on Veto's "equivocations"! --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4843): > Robert, > > My beef with evolution is the philosophy behind it. I haven't > taken to shooting ducks on a pond -- e.g. quoting Thomas and > Julius Huxley -- in my debate with Todd, since once you bring > the Huxleys into the debate, there remains no doubt that > evolution, at its heart and root, is a religious and > philosophical system of thought that denies God. This explains why Todd, in disputing the creationist lie that "evolution is not science," has proved the fact that evolution is an important part of scientific research, by referring to the professional science literature, dozens of times, and the creationists cite... uh... well, they cite the Bible. Chuckling, Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4851 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 3:56 pm Subject: The real courtroom (was: Veto's courtroom analogy?) --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4844): > Behe appeared before a judge who had rejected his testimony > before the trial started. This is Veto admitting that he has chosen to intentionally ignore all the trial transcripts and ignore all of the facts presented in the case, and is instead going to intentionally misrepresent the judge as having made a decision based on personal bias rather than on the facts. Of course, Veto doesn't even TRY to produce evidence for his assertion, because it is not the facts, but his religious dogma, that he is concerned about. Take a look at a far more accurate description of Judge Jone's decision. - Todd Greene ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kitzmiller: An Intelligent Ruling on 'Intelligent Design' by Stephen Gey (Florida State University College of Law) (Dec. 29, 2005) http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/kitzmiller-intelligent- ruling-on.php | In Kitzmiller, Judge Jones based his decision that the Dover | ID policy was unconstitutional partly on the usual ground that | the board was motivated by religious purposes. The defendants | gave Judge Jones a great deal of material to support his | ruling on this issue. There was abundant evidence that the | Dover school board's decision to introduce ID into the science | curriculum was motivated by several board members' religious | views, and additional evidence that board members | disingenuously tried to deny their true intent. As Judge Jones | noted, several board members "would time and again lie to | cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID | Policy." | | The striking thing about Judge Jones' Kitzmiller opinion is | that the judge did not stop with the determination that the | Dover school board acted with an impermissible religious | motive. Judge Jones went on to hold that the inclusion of ID | in the science curriculum had an impermissible religious | effect and illegally conveyed the government's endorsement of | religion. These are daunting issues in ID cases because to | decide these issues a judge has to assess whether in addition | to its obvious religious components, ID has any independent | validity as science. Judge Jones undertook this task with | relish, and his detailed findings on the scientific bona fides | of ID are the second distinctive portion of his opinion. The | critique of ID and science is the most important part of the | Kitzmiller opinion, because Judge Jones' analysis and ultimate | conclusion probably drives a stake into the heart of the ID | proponents' crusade to circumvent the Establishment Clause. | | The Kitzmiller trial featured weeks of expert testimony from | some of the leading lights of the ID movement as well as | leading mainstream scientists. Ever since ID became the | primary stalking horse for the introduction of creationism | into science classrooms, the centerpiece of the ID project has | been to pass the doctrine off as an equally plausible secular | alternative to mainstream science. ID proponents frequently | try to conscript the likes of Thomas Kuhn in defense of their | cause, arguing that ID is a revolutionary paradigm shift in | the approach to biological sciences, analogous to the | development of the big bang theory in cosmology. | | The problem with this effort is that ID, by its own terms, | rejects the fundamental structure of modern scientific | practice and theory - a structure defined at every step by | methodological naturalism. In Kitzmiller, Judge Jones | meticulously described the extent to which ID proponents | reject the most basic premises of the modern scientific | enterprise by insisting that supernatural explanations must | now count for science alongside the naturalistic factual | inquiries that Kuhn and other philosophers of science assert | will periodically lead to radical shifts in the direction of | scientific research. Expanding the current conception of | science to include unquestioned and untestable supernatural | explanations for natural phenomena could be described as a | "paradigm shift," but it is hardly the sort of shift that | Thomas Kuhn had in mind. In the end, Judge Jones summed up the | expert testimony nicely: "ID is at best 'fringe science' which | has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community." | | This conclusion will come as no surprise to members of the | mainstream scientific community. ID has produced no testable | theories, no independent research, no significant discoveries, | and nothing of importance to those outside the religious | community that takes to heart ID's theological premises. Judge | Jones did everyone a great service by detailing the many | reasons that ID fails as science. | One of the most entertaining portions of the Kitzmiller trial | was when ID stalwart Michael Behe explained under | cross-examination that under the ID version of science | astrology would count as science. At this point in the | testimony, the ID claim to be treated as an authentic | scientific endeavor effectively collapsed.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4857 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 4:39 pm Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4837): > Todd, > > You write, "The FACT is that there isn't any ID research in > science in the professional science literature." This is true > once you reject the writings of scientists like Michael J. Behe, > Jonathan Wells or William Dembski as part of the scientific > literature. After all, since they have overcome the > anti-spiritual bias of true science, their writings can not be > considered part of the literature. But, I think you know > that "Darwin's Black Box" is part of the literature... Darwin's Black Box is not part of the professional science literature. Scientists who conduct science research then try to get this research published in a professional science journal that publishes research on that particular area of science. (Journals like *Science* or *Nature* are very general because they publish research in all kinds of areas of science. Other journals are more specific and only publish research in specific areas of science that they are created for, such as *Geology* published by the Geological Society of America which, as you might realize, only publishes research related to geology, or such as the *Journal of Geodynamics* which only publishes research related to certain subdisciplines of geology.) There is no ID science research by Michael J. Behe, Jonathan Wells, or William Dembski in the professional science literature. This FACT was also pointed out and discussed in detail in the 2005 Creationism Trial in Pensylvania, so it's not like I'm going on any kind of limb here. You admit that "their findings can not be considered part of the literature" because they aren't really science, and I thank you for the acknowledgment. > And, no, I don't expect that ID will find its way to many > evolutionist journals -- at least in the near future. Why? Not > because ID is unscientific, for it is scientific. Now you're back to claiming that ID is scientific, despite the FACT that ID doesn't have any scientific research. > It is because > ID challenges the text of the religion of science -- The Origin > of the Species. Until these journal editors operate from science > and not from faith in naturalism, ID will not be published. Oooo... Now ID isn't science because of the religion of SCIENCE. So it looks like now your problem is not really with evolution, per se, but with SCIENCE, because as far as you're concerned SCIENCE itself is a religion, and the religion of science doesn't support your particular religious dogma. Thank you for being open about your sentiments on this, Veto. I appreciate it. > Further, this is the greatest danger that evolutionary theory > poses to the sceintific community. For the sake of argument, > let's say that evolution was fact in the same sense that the law > of gravity is fact. Scientists should still approach evolution > with skepticism, always testing the theory. They do. Apparently you've never even looked at the professional science research related to evolution that is published. > However, those scientists that do test evolution today, and who > subsequently find it lacking, as any true test of evolution will > do, are branded as heretics by the scientific editorship and > banned from their pages. Veto, you were asserting that Judge Jones was biased and didn't make his decision based on the facts, but of course your statement here reveals that it is YOU who is biased and has already made your decision regardless of the results of the relevant scientific research. Thank you for being so open about this. > But, Todd, the scientific literature on origins does include ID, > as journals are only one part of the literature. Books are > another. No, they are not. The professional science literature consists in the publishing of science research in the professional science journals. There is in fact considerable pressure on scientists in academia in this regard. Books don't do harm, but what counts is your own scientific research in your field, and you prove your work and its quality by getting it published in the professional science journals. > You write, "I observe your unsubstantiated assertion that the > scientific research on evolution is nothing more than a > 'preconceived notion.'" It is not. I pointed out the argument in > Wikipedia that many scientists support, the argument that > supernatural forces must be left out the equation. My arguments > about the bias of science concerning origins is not > unsubstantiated, but very substantiated. You hold a contradictory position. You have previously stated that you agree that science is supposed to be about testable, verifiable research. Yet now you argue that science is supposed to include nontestable, nonverifiable claims. This is precisely why the argument for "ID is science" fell apart in the 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania. To pretend that ID is "science" you creationists have to redefine what science even is. Behe admitted this, and then admitted that according to the new religious definition you'd have to include things like astrology, and this revealed how silly the ID argument about science was in the first place. > And, I might add, Todd, you have yet to prove anything yourself. That's why I'm the one who has produced dozens of references to factual information backing me up, while you have produced NOTHING. > There is an old courtroom joke... > > An old attorney was speaking to a new hire. "Son," he said, > "when you have the law on your side, but not the facts, pound > the law. When you have the facts on your side, but not the law, > pound the facts. And, when you have neither law nor facts, pound > the table." > > Pounding the tables with opinions and speculations, even > opinions and speculations formed from long periods of studying > a philosophy that a priori rejects God, falls far short of > evidence. I am asking for something very simple. Microevolution > can be proved in a petri dish. Show me the experiment that > proves macroevolution in a petri dish.... You guys have had your day in court, both in the court of science, and in the legal courts, and you've lost them all, so all you have left is your empty rhetoric, such as this courtroom joke that ignores the fact that you guys were in court and LOST COMPLETELY. And, Veto, don't think I haven't forgotten about the fact that as an adherent of the religious doctrine of young earth creationism you oppose geological science, astronomical science, and any of the physics and chemistry that are associated with geology and astronomy, as well as evolution. In other words, when it comes to discussion of what science really is, you guys are off in some long- lost fantasy world. - Todd Greene ================================================================ 2005 Creationism Trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District | Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct | challenge brought in United States federal courts against a | public school district that required the presentation of | intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an | "explanation of the origin of life". The plaintiffs | successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of | creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated | the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District _trial_documents [link may be line-wrapped] Decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (12/20/2005) http://coop.www.uscourts.gov/pamd/kitzmiller_342.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 Creationism Trial (McLean v. Arkansas) McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/ | In 1981, a remarkable court case in Arkansas pitted creationists | against pastors, priests, teachers, and scientists. "McLean et | al. vs. Arkansas" sought relief from Arkansas' Act 590, which | mandated that evolutionary biology instruction be balanced | with "creation science". Unlike the 1925 Scopes trial in | Tennessee, the Arkansas court heard testimony from a large | number of witnesses on both sides of the case. Judge Overton | ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Act 590 was deemed | unconstitutional. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision by U.S. District Judge William R. Overton (1/5/1982) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4859 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 4:44 pm Subject: Re: My take on Rudy and Dr. Dino! --- In coCBanned, Bobby V. wrote (post #4853): > What Rudy has done is simply show that what Todd keeps claiming > to be rock solid facts are in "fact" interpretations pure and > simple. This is Bobby (who is not a young earth creationist) jumping in line behind the young earth creationist to deny the existence of the transitional fossils that show the evolution of mammals from reptiles (among other examples). > Rudy has not proved Todd wrong... but Todd has not provided his > fact yet that is uncontested. Bobby, let's just say that when it comes to science, I don't count being "contested" by a young earth creationist, who in the very fact of being a young earth creationist demonstrates a critical lack of understanding of science, as something to be seriously concerned about. On the other hand, if you yourself have something from the science literature that is relevant to the subject that you'd like to share with us, please feel free to do so. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4881 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 7:13 pm Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4854): > Todd, > > You write, "The research published in these professional science > journals I have cited is verifiable, repeatable research that > supports biological evolution." > > You then quote the Nature article on QTL. While the Nature > article makes some points about mutations, it does not then > apply those points directly to macroevolution. It DOES apply those points DIRECTLY TO EVOLUTION. That is the point. > It does not > say, for instance, give us specifics on what would be present in > macroevolution of a species of one family to a species of a > different family or order. The very words that you choose to use to discuss this subject demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of what evolution even is. The only evolution that exists is the evolution from species to species. There is no other kind of evolution. That's the only evolution that exists. > Simply, the study you show simply does not say anything about > macroevolution. That's because the study is about evolution at the detailed level of genetics, and what kinds of genetic changes are going on when species evolve. > No one has denied, Todd, that mutations do not occur. What is > denied is that mutations lead to advancements along the > evolutionary heriarchy. This article may help our understanding > of mutations, but it fails miserably in raising our > understanding of how mutations specifically advanced organisms > along the evolutionary ladder by using specific examples. Only > someone who approaches this article with a pre-determined > biased toward evolution would see a connection. The only evolution that exists is the evolution from species to species. There is no other kind of evolution. This study is just one research study - out of thousands - that demonstrates evolution at the detailed level of genetics, and concerns research to increase our understanding of the specific kinds of genetic changes that result in the evolution of species. Even you know that this research shows this. And again, the very words that you choose to use to discuss this subject demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of what evolution is. In evolutionary science THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "advancement" along some "evolutionary hierarchy" nor an "evolutionary ladder." Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution | One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that | one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that | evolution is necessarily progressive, or that its converse | is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later | generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy | than earlier generations. | In many cases evolution does involve "progression" towards | more complexity, since the earliest lifeforms were clearly much | simpler than many of the species existing today. In that sense, | there clearly has been a gradual movement over time from simple | organisms to complex - and in some cases intelligent - | lifeforms. However, there is no guarantee that any particular | organism existing today will become more intelligent, more | complex, bigger, or stronger in the future. In fact, natural | selection will only favor this kind of "progression" if it | increases chance of survival. The same mechanism can actually | favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those | traits become a selective advantage in the organism's | environment. One way of understanding the apparent | "progression" of lifeforms over time is to remember that the | earliest life began as maximally simple forms. Evolution could | only drive life towards greater complexity, since to become | more simple was impossible. Once individual lineages had | attained sufficient complexity, however, simplification was as | likely as increased complexity. This can be seen in many | parasite species, for example, which have evolved simpler forms | from more complex ancestors. "Understanding Evolution" Website http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2 | Misconception: | "Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms | are always getting better." | | Response: | It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that | are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, "good | enough" is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For | example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, | opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses | of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, | they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all | that is necessary to ensure their existence. | | Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal - but | that doesn't mean they got "better." After all, climates | change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade - and what | was "better" a million years ago, may not be "better" today. | What works "better" in one location might not work so well in | another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress. > The only thing, then, that you have proven by posting the > article is that you have a pre-determined bias toward evolution. > That is not new, but something we already knew. What I have proved with reference to that particular research article, and your elicited response, is that (1) evolution is a biological fact, (2) you don't have clear understanding of what evolution is, and (3) you have a pre-determined bias against evolution. Of course, we already knew all of these things. > Here are things that are NOT evidence for evolution: > > Evidence for microevolution. Microevolution is not disputed. > What is disputed is macroevolution. While macroevolution will > prove microevolution, microevolution, since it is limited to > evolution within a species or family, but not outside the > species or family, does not prove macroevolution. Species evolve. This is a fact. Even leading young earth creationists accept this fact. | "Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think | they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new | species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the | reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, | namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation." | - Carl Wieland, Aug. 1997 | http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp Of course, what we're really floored by is the fact that young earth creationists contradict each other all the time (which you and Carl are doing right here, Veto - thank you for the demonstration). The origin of a new species due to the genetic differentiation that occurs over time when a population becomes isolated (for whatever reason) is what evolution is. This is how evolution takes place. It is verifiable and repeatable both in the lab and through observation of populations in nature. > Evidence for mutation and investigations of mutation. Mutations > are not disputed. The notion that mutations lead to higher > organisms is very much in dispute. It's in dispute among creationists, for religious reasons, based on religious dogma. It's not in dispute in professional science. We already know that creationists dispute this. This is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that they have zero dispute on the basis of professional scientific research. Indeed, as I've just pointed out you guys can't even get your stories straight, because we have some young earth creationists on the one hand admitting that species evolve, while on the other hand we have other young earth creationists claiming that there is no science research supporting the evolution of species. Your zealous adherence to a falsified religious dogma has seriously hampered your ability to be clear about the science, as the incoherence in the young earth creationist position demonstrates. > Man's biased speculations on how such and such animal came about > in the absence of transitional forms. There are certainly a lot of hypotheses that are used in science. The problem here is not that scientists use hypotheses. The problem here concerns where scientists have produced the data to back up certain hypotheses, and then when what was *verified by the data* contradicted you creationists, you chose to bury your heads in the sand and deny the empirical facts rather than acknowledge that your religious dogma turned out to be wrong. (The associated problem is that you creationists adhere to all kinds of human speculations - and your human speculations have turned out to be wrong - but in your minds you have convinced yourself that your human words are nothing less than the words of God himself, and so you have set your own human speculations on a divine pedestal over which you refuse to allow empirical data to even matter.) > Sorry, Todd, a PhD can be wrong, and in the case of evolution, > most are. I have never stated that a Ph.D. cannot be wrong. Indeed, I know some Ph.D.s at Apologetics Press (well, one of them had to leave for some obvious reasons) who almost always get things wrong when they preach their sermons against science. However, what I note is that you keep trying to use the same silly argument that "Scientists aren't always right, therefore they're all wrong." That argument simply isn't going to fly. If you think there's a particular error, you actually have to dig into the details and show what the error is. Asserting that there's some big giant error, without showing that there's one, is a waste of time. Either show the error, or stop pretending that you have one to show. > Evolution is the key doctrine of naturalism. I am not surprised > when the speculations and guesses of someone whose bias is > naturalistic and pro-evolution interprets evidence in a > naturalistic and pro-evolutionary way. The statement "evolution is the key doctrine of naturalism" is a false statement. Naturalism has numerous key doctrines. Here are just a few examples: Boyle's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law Dine's compensation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dine%27s_compensation Nuclear force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force The chemistry of benzoic acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzoic_acid Electromagnetic radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation Naturalism has all kinds of doctrines, but these are a very different kind of doctrine from religious doctrine, precisely because they are based on empirical observation and are always subject to refinement and revision by further empirical observation. > I am asking for one of two clear pieces of evidence which you > can't supply. I am asking for an repeatable experiment where an > organism evolved from a species in one family to a species in a > different family or I am asking for an unambigious transitional > form, I already gave you examples of the transitional fossils showing the evolution of mammals from reptiles. You have obviously chosen to completely ignore this. > not a bird > that someone wants to make into a reptile or a reptile that > someone wants to make into a bird (or a fossil that has a > reptile fossil glued together with a bird fossil or an > oragatang's jawbone glued to a man's head). What I notice is that you love to refer to obsolete recognized mistakes, and then INTENTIONALLY IGNORE the legitimate examples of transitional fossils that I have already given to you. > Those two items are irrefutable evidence. And, you can't provide > them, Todd. I know you can't, because I also know they don't > exist.... I have already done so, and you have INTENTIONALLY IGNORED them. > Second point, Todd, you write, "Any creationist who > INTENTIONALLY IGNORES these facts when they are presented to > him, and who then continues to state the falsehood that > evolution is not science, is lying." > > Todd, first, no one has said that there is not a veneer of > science surrounding evolution. Evolution cloaks itself in > science and speaks the language of science. Because it is part of science. All scientific research is cloaked in science and speaks the language of science, precisely because it is science. Duh. > There are a > very few very basic elements, such as the fact mutations occur > and microevolution occurs, that can be tested. However, at it's > core, evolution is a religious and philosophical argument that > seeks to deny God and, failing that, seeks to deny His power > and purpose in the world. Here you go preaching another creationist lie. A lie that I have already proved is wrong. > So, I don't deny people can talk scientifically about evolution. > And, I don't deny if they place a few evolutionary code words > in their studies, researches can get their studies published in > some journals, even though those studies really don't speak to > the reality/non-reality of macroevolution. What we observe here, Veto, is more of your empty assertions. Lots of words. Zero substance. > But, Todd you > are mistaking the surface for the substance. Rhetoric based on your unsubstantiated and false assertion. It's amazing to me how you love to throw out all kinds of assertions left and right but never back them up with anything, and then proceed to make arguments using your false assertions as justification. It's quite an interesting demonstration of irrational argumentation. > And, the substance > of evolution is not scientific, but religious and philosophical. This apparently explains why I'm the one who keeps referring to the professional science literature, while you're the one who keeps referring to your Bible. > Further, you can > deny this all you want. You can bring up other evolutionary > apologists and copy and paste their denials as well. It doesn't > change the reality that the heart and soul of evolutionary > theory is a philosophy that denies God. The empty false rhetoric just keeps right on flowing. I have already proved that this lie is false, yet you just keep right on promoting it. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way. > It is not being dishonest to point this fact out. It is dishonest to continue to promote erroneous claims after its factually erroneous nature has been pointed out to you. It is a fact that evolution is neither an atheistic conspiracy nor a Satanic plot. Every time you pretend otherwise you are promoting a creationist lie. Now that is a fact. > It is being dishonest to not admit that evolution is the > religious basis of naturalism. That evolution is science is a fact. That science is based on what is termed "methodological naturalism" precisely because it is not religious, is a fact. Have some people gone beyond science and used some ideas from evolution in nonscientific ways. Yes, they certainly have. Many other ideas from science have also been used by people going beyond science and using them in nonscientific ways. That they do so does not in any way invalidate the science itself. This point seems obvious to me. Perhaps it's not so obvious to you. Of course, some people have used Christianity to support slavery, therefore Christianity must be completely wrong. Right? > You can tell yourself a lie so often, Todd, that you can't see > the Truth. I know. I'm watching you do it. I see other creationists who do it all the time. It's a very sad thing. <-- And this is not a statement of sarcasm. > You have told > yourself so often that evolution is science and not religious > doctrine that it is hard to see the Truth of the matter, even > when an evolutionist such as Michael Ruse admits that evolution > is religion. And, he wrote what he wrote. "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... > Evolution is a religion." (2000) and "And certainly, there's no > doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the > present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as > something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a > secular religion... And it seems to me very clear that at some > very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a > commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level > one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things > come what may." (1993) There you go twisting Michael Ruse's words again, even while you totally ignore this entire book that Ruse wrote about the SCIENCE of evolution: The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw, 2nd Ed. by Michael Ruse (2002) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226731685 Ruse wrote, "if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry" ("Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" by Michael Ruse, Science magazine, 3/7/2003, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523 ). As well as completely ignoring the huge amount of professional science literature on evolution, by merely asserting on the basis of nothing that it isn't really science, simply because you don't like it. See also: Darwinism Defended (1982) by Michael Ruse http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201062739 Interview with Michael Ruse by Greg Ross (American Scientist online, no date) http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid /46165;jsessionid=aaa4KxL1uKYE6 [link is line-wrapped] | ...an important part of my book [*The Evolution-Creation | Struggle*] is to distinguish between what I call evolution and | what I call evolutionism. At one level, it is all kinds of | evolution that are involved - today's creationists hate regular | Darwinism as is done in the biology departments of the nation. | But at another level, I distinguish the straight science from | a kind of postmillennial world picture, where the supposed | progressiveness of evolutionary change is put up front. Back in | the 18th century I don't think there was too much difference | between evolution and evolutionism, but later, THANKS TO DARWIN, | SUCH A SEPARATION BECAME POSSIBLE. I argue that even today | evolutionism flourishes, and a conclusion of my book is not that | we should eschew evolutionism, but that WE SHOULD DISTINGUISH IT | FROM STRAIGHT EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING and not do the one when we | claim to be doing the other. | | Has this conflict turned evolutionary biology into a secular | religion? You note that even Richard Dawkins calls himself a | zealot now. | | I don't think so. In a way, as you will have seen from my answer | above, I think it has always been a secular religion, and ONE OF | THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL EVOLUTIONISTS (like R. A. | Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky) WAS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO | HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY THAT WAS NOT A SECULAR RELIGION. [emphasis added] > Todd, you are blind to the obvious. While evolution has a veneer > of science, it's core is religious and philosophical. When I'm looking at a horse standing in front of me, and a blind man tells me horses don't exist, let's just say I'm not overly impressed when he waves his arms and complains to me, "You are just blind to the obvious." Believe me, Veto, I am never, never impressed when young earth creationists - who deny all kinds of science - attempt to pretend to me that their concerns actually have anything to do with science (because if they seriously had any genuine respect of scientific investigation of the real world, they wouldn't be young earth creationists). What is abundantly obvious to me - just as it has been abundantly obvious for many years (I'm a former young earth creationist) - is that creationism has nothing to do with science. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4882 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 7:20 pm Subject: Re: My take on Veto's "equivocations"! --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4865): > Todd, > > Have you not read Michael J. Behe, Jonathan Wells or William > Dembski? They cite the evidence, not the Bible.... I have read some things written by all three of these men, and have found their arguments to be seriously lacking. It's a toss-up for me whether Dembski or Wells is the worst sophist, but I would agree that Behe is not quite as bad as either of those two, though this is not saying much in Behe's favor. I also happen to be aware of the fact that they are members of a religious organization that was founded specifically for the purpose of engaging in the deceitful pretension that their religious beliefs are scientific (this is documented by their own "Wedge Document"; which I was already well aware of before the 2005 Creationism Trial, but I will point out to you here that this document was submitted into evidence in that trial and was dissected in testimony). There's also the fact that not a single one of these Ph.D.'s has published any research on ID in the professional science literature. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4883 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 7:25 pm Subject: Re: My take on Veto's "equivocations"! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4858): > I have shown in several posts today that Todds facts are NOT > facts, but pre-suppositions and guesses from those who write. As usual, the young earth creationist Rudy deceitfully pretends that he hasn't been shown anything at all. At least even the young earth creationist Veto had the decency to acknowledge the citation to a professional science research article that proved some aspect of evolution (even though he tried to argue that it wasn't really "evolution," he did agree that it was about the evolution of species which is exactly what evolution is). Rudy doesn't even have the decency to do this, but just continue to repeat his lie that I haven't referred anyone to any relevant information. Typical Rudy. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4884 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 7:46 pm Subject: Re: The difference between gravity, or real science, and evolution, or philosophy pretending to be science --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4860): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: > SNIPPED > > Todd wrote:> >> The fact is that evolution is an important part of scientific >> research today (and has been so for many decades). The research >> published in these professional science journals I have cited >> is verifiable, repeatable research that supports biological >> evolution. > > Rudy writes: > There is a lot of research into ESP and flying saucers too. Does > that make it those things true, then? Well, at least Rudy admits here, by implication, that I have indeed cited some verifiable, repeatable research that supports biological evolution. This is almost a step in the right direction. Of course, his implication is couched inside of statement in which he just decides to make stuff up. Classic Rudy. > Todd wrote: >> Any creationist who INTENTIONALLY IGNORES these facts when they >> are presented to him, and who then continues to state the >> falsehood that evolution is not science, is lying. This is the >> point. > > Rudy writes: > Todd, I do not deny the fact that a lot is written. I do deny > EVOLUTION is science. I do accept it as a THEORY. This is Rudy back to completely burying his head in the sand, and going back to promoting the popular creationist lie. Note that he also misuses the word "theory." Note that I have also already pointed out the error of this misuse of the word. Repeatedly. But he just keeps right on misusing it. Ask yourself: Why do creationists love to misuse words so much? theory http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory | A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group | of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly | tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make | predictions about natural phenomena. Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory | In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually | only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., | it | | 1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that | the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though | it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact | sense, | | 2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a | single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good | approximation if not totally correct, | | 3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove | the theory, | | 4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for | changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than | asserting certainty, and | | 5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed | entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing | Ockham's razor. | | This is true of such established theories as special and | general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, | evolution, etc. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4885 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 7:52 pm Subject: Re: My take on Rudy and Dr. Dino! --- In coCBanned, Bobby V. wrote (post #4868): > Rudy is quite right to point out that Todd's facts are nothing > more than argued interpretations and greatly contested by even > those who agree with Todd! Hi, Bobby. If you wish to jump into this discussion, please feel free. But you're going to have to do better than this. Now you, like the young earth creationists, are doing nothing more than making unsubstantiated assertions. Now you need to point out what specific facts I have discussed that you are referring to, that you claim are "greatly contested by those who agree with" me, then you need to produce the names of whoever you think you're referring to, and then you need to produce references to specifically what they have stated that you are asserting are contesting what I've stated. Until you do this, Bobby, your comments are just so much more empty rhetoric. And I know you know this. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4886 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 24, 2006 8:00 pm Subject: Re: Todd, apply this to your "facts" --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4873): > British Justice Peter Smith, who recently backed Brown against > plagiarism charges, perhaps best summed up the situation in his > decision: > > "Merely because an author describes matters as being factually > correct does not mean that they are factually correct. It is a way > of blending fact and fiction together to create that well known > model 'faction.' The lure of apparent genuineness makes the books > and the films more receptive to the readers/audiences. The danger > of course is that the faction is all that large parts of the > audience read, and they accept it as truth." First of all, I have little concern about a man accusing me, even indirectly, of making unsubstiated assertions, when I'm the guy providing references to substantive and relevant information left and right, and he is producing almost nothing at all but routinely does nothing more than make unsubstantiated assertions. Second, I also notice that you run way off into left field to find some quote from somewhere that no relevance to this discussion as you pretend, while at the same time you completely ignore the remarks make specifically and directly about the tactics that creationists use, from a court decision having to do specifically with creationists and creationism: "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, WOULD TIME AND AGAIN LIE TO COVER THEIR TRACKS AND DISGUISE THE REAL PURPOSE behind the ID Policy.... THE BREATHTAKING INANITY of the Board's decision IS EVIDENT WHEN CONSIDERED AGAINST THE FACTUAL BACKDROP which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." [emphasis added] - U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania) http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf See also: Kitzmiller: An Intelligent Ruling on 'Intelligent Design' by Stephen Gey (Florida State University College of Law) (Dec. 29, 2005) http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/kitzmiller-intelligent- ruling-on.php [link is line-wrapped] - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4910 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 8:18 am Subject: Re: My take on Rudy and Dr. Dino! --- In coCBanned, Bobby V. wrote (post #4887): > I have often said the world is older than Bishop Ussher's 6000 > years but probably a lot less than Carl Sagan's 20 billion. > > Now even the cosmologists have substantially reduced the age of > the universe to 12 to 14 billion max. Their measurements of the > Hubble Constant have drastically "corrected" Sagan (I would say > 6 to 8 billion is a substantial correction . . . wouldn't you?) Hi, Bobby, In 1997 Carl Sagan said, "The Universe - or at least its latest incarnation - began about 15 billion years ago with a Big Bang" (interview, 2/2/1997). http://www.rochesterunitarian.org/1996-97/970202.html > But as to the EXACT age of the "stuff" of the world, I do not > know. And the "fact" that the cosmologists and the geologists > can disagree by several BILLION years tell me they don't know > the EXACT age either. Cosmologists study the Universe. Geologists study the Earth. How you can manufacture a "disagreement" because they're referring to two different things demonstrates to me that you are playing fast and loose with your words. Also, they of course do not know the EXACT ages. This does not change the fact that, whatever the ages happen to be, we do know for a FACT that they are far, far greater than the 6,000 or 10,000 years of young earth creationism. Young earth creationism is a false doctrine, precisely because the real world itself shows us that young earth creationism is a false idea about the world. > Robert it does not threaten my faith on iota if the real age of > the earth is in fact three or four billion years. There still > was a BEGINNING and whenever that beginning was, God was there! Here's a further point: People who possess a faith that requires them to deny how the real world actually is and actually operates have a fraudulent faith. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4913 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 8:37 am Subject: Re: My take on Veto's "equivocations"! --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4893): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4865): >>> Have you not read Michael J. Behe, Jonathan Wells or William >>> Dembski? They cite the evidence, not the Bible.... >> >> I have read some things written by all three of these men, and >> have found their arguments to be seriously lacking. It's a >> toss-up for me whether Dembski or Wells is the worst sophist, >> but I would agree that Behe is not quite as bad as either of >> those two, though this is not saying much in Behe's favor. I >> also happen to be aware of the fact that they are members of a >> religious organization that was founded specifically for the >> purpose of engaging in the deceitful pretension that their >> religious beliefs are scientific (this is documented by their >> own "Wedge Document"; which I was already well aware of before >> the 2005 Creationism Trial, but I will point out to you here >> that this document was submitted into evidence in that trial >> and was dissected in testimony). There's also the fact that >> not a single one of these Ph.D.'s has published any research >> on ID in the professional science literature. > > Todd, > > All three have published peer-reviewed and peer-edited books.... From: http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/id_books_and_peer_review .php [link is line-wrapped] (October 20, 2005) | The ACLU-PA blog has an interesting post on a key point in the | cross examination of Michael Behe in the Dover trial. Behe was | asked whether his book, Darwin's Black Box, had gone through a | peer review process similar to the process used for articles | submitted to scholarly journal: | There you have it, folks, the ID version of rigorous peer | review. The editor of the book wonders if anyone will buy it, | and his wife knows a guy who might have an opinion. So he | spends 10 minutes on the phone with the guy, gives him a brief | overview of the book, and the guy says yeah, that sounds good | to me? The key reviewer - the one whose comments were the | deciding factor on whether the book got published - spent 10 | minutes talking to the book's editor, never even saw the book | and was so ignorant of it that he didn't even know that it was | the same book after he saw it in published form. And this, | Behe claimed under oath, constitutes peer review that is more | rigorous than the process for a normal scholarly article in a | refereed journal. Veto, looks like you didn't pay any attention to the facts brought up in the trial. (If you did, you would already have known how Behe's claim of "peer review" was torn to shreds under cross- examination.) Let's just say, I'm not at all impressed by your claim. As usual, it's just more false empty rhetoric from creationists. - Todd Greene -------------------------------- Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. Memorandum Opinion and Order (12/20/2005) U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf (PDF file, 317.8 KB) The complete text of Judge Jones' decision is also available in text at Wikipedia: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_Distric t_et._al. [link is line-wrapped] 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District _trial_documents [link is line-wrapped]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4915 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 8:44 am Subject: Re: Todd, apply this to your "facts" --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4900): > --- In coCBanned, Robert B. wrote: [snip] >> We have a certain text that proposes that everything that was >> created was created in 6, 24 hour days, and some interpret >> those facts as indicating the days are literal "facts" and that >> such happened only a few thousand years ago. In other words, >> nothing is really over a few thousand years old. > > Rudy writes: > Exactly where in the text does it state that was only a few > thousand years ago, Robert? Since there is no such indicator in > the Biblical text, ANY presumption on date is a waste of time. This is Rudy ignoring the existence of Genesis chapter 5 and Genesis chapter 11. I have pointed this out to Rudy a number of times now in the past few months, and he has completely ignored Genesis chapter 5 and Genesis chapter 11 every single time. Keep in mind that Rudy also believes that all the geologists and all the astronomers are all wrong about the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been around far, far longer than the young earth creationist timeframe! - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4929 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 11:02 am Subject: Genesis ch. 5, ch. 11 - total years --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4917): >--- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4900): >>> --- In coCBanned, Robert B. wrote: >> [snip] >>>> We have a certain text that proposes that everything that >>>> was created was created in 6, 24 hour days, and some >>>> interpret those facts as indicating the days are literal >>>> "facts" and that such happened only a few thousand years >>>> ago. In other words, nothing is really over a few thousand >>>> years old. >>> >>> Rudy writes: >>> Exactly where in the text does it state that was only a few >>> thousand years ago, Robert? Since there is no such indicator >>> in the Biblical text, ANY presumption on date is a waste of >>> time. >> >> This is Rudy ignoring the existence of Genesis chapter 5 and >> Genesis chapter 11. I have pointed this out to Rudy a number >> of times now in the past few months, and he has completely >> ignored Genesis chapter 5 and Genesis chapter 11 every single >> time. Keep in mind that Rudy also believes that all the >> geologists and all the astronomers are all wrong about the >> fact that the Earth and the Universe have been around far, >> far longer than the young earth creationist timeframe! > > Rudy writes: > Show it to me, Todd... This is what you are expected to show: > "Exactly where in the text does it state that was only a few > thousand years ago..." I am not asking for a tally. I am > asking you to show me that the TEXT (not your fantasy) states > that creation was only a few thousand years ago. > > Here is the text [snip Rudy's quotation of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11] Pretty amazing that Rudy apparently doesn't know how to do simple arithmetic. From Genesis 1-2: Adam was created a little over 5 days after the Universe and the Earth were created. From Genesis chapter 5 and Genesis chapter 11: Age of Total Patriarch At Birth Of Next Generation Adam 130 130 Seth 105 235 Enosh 90 325 Cainan 70 395 Mahalaleel 65 460 Jared 162 622 Enoch 65 687 Methuselah 187 874 Lamech 182 1,056 Noah 500 1,556 Shem 100 1,656 Arphaxad 35 1,691 Selah 30 1,721 Eber 34 1,755 Peleg 30 1,785 Reu 32 1,817 Serug 30 1,847 Nahor 29 1,876 Terah 70 1,946 Abraham 100 2,046 Isaac 60 2,106 Jacob Genesis says there are about 2,106 years from the creation of the Universe and the Earth until the birth of Jacob. Now watch Rudy continue to ignore the obvious. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4930 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 11:15 am Subject: Re: Todd and his sources - again! - Thank You, Rudy! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4918): > I KNOW I promised yesterday would be the last one, but this is > a new day, with new sources. > > Todd sent a link to Atchison's statement re. Behe's book. Of > course, the link Todd sent was less than complimentary (what > else would we expect, right?) Here is the ENTIRE article. Now, > granted, the review was seemingly not as thorough, but look at > what Atchision says at the end: > > "Mustard Seeds > Dr. Michael Atchison > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Dr. Michael Atchison is the head of biochemistry in the > department of animal biology at the University of Pennsylvania, > where he has been a faculty member since 1989. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Is it important for us to share our faith and to identify > ourselves as Christians? Does it really make a difference? I > sometimes questioned the usefulness of identifying myself as a > Christian to the first year veterinary students that I teach at > the University of Pennsylvania. Each year during a lecture on > the ethics of genetic testing for diseases, I identify myself > as a Christian. I don't really say much. All I say is, "I > approach the ethical issues from a Judeo-Christian perspective > because I am a Christian. In fact, being a Christian is the > most important thing in my life." That's it. Nothing more. At > most two-to-three students each year will say something to me > about it. > > Each Fall when I prepare to do this again, I go through a real > spiritual battle. Does it really matter? Does it really make > much difference? On a parallel topicthe speaking of God's Word > I know that the Lord promises: > > "My Word that goes out from My mouth, it will not return to me > empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the > purpose for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11) > > It was a little hard to be certain that this was really a high > impact ministry. It was gratifying that some students were > appreciative of my statements, but it was unclear how useful > were my efforts. I know that with faith as small as a "mustard > seed," I should be able to move mountains. But I didn't really > see how this was moving mountains. That was, until the Lord > gave me a peek at His power to move mountains. > > While I was identifying myself as a Christian in Philadelphia, > a Biochemist named Michael Behe at Lehigh University was > writing a book on evolution. As a Biochemist, Behe found the > evidence for Darwinian evolution to be very thin. In fact, when > he looked at the cell from a biochemical perspective, he > believed there was evidence of intelligent design. Behe sent > his completed manuscript to The Free Press publishers for > consideration. The editor was not certain that this manuscript > was a good risk for publication. There were clearly theological > issues at hand, and he was under the impression that these > issues would be poorly received by the scientific community. If > the tenets of Darwinian evolution were completely accepted by > science, who would be interested in buying the book? > > The editor shared his concerns with his wife. His wife was a > student in my class. She advised her husband to give me a call. > So, unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the > publisher in New York. We spent approximately 10 minutes on the > phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested > that the editor should seriously consider publishing the > manuscript. I told him that the origin of life issue was still > up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some > good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never > seen the manuscript. We hung up and I never thought about > it again. At least until two years later. > > A Blessing Years Later > After some time Behe's book Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, > 1996) was published. It became an instant best-seller and was > widely acclaimed in the news media. It is currently in its 15th > printing and over 40,000 copies have been sold. I heard about > it, but could not remember if this was the same book that I > received the call about from the publisher. Could it be? In > November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn > for a Faculty Outreach talk. He told me that yes, indeed, it > was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he > said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the > publisher to go ahead with the book. Interesting, I thought. > > Then it struck me. This was all the result of my identifying > myself as a Christian in class. By identifying myself as a > Christian, I played a small, but crucial part in influencing > 40,000 people. The plot unfolds. Behe's book needs to be > published. The Lord places the manuscript in the hands of an > editor. The editor's wife "just happens" to be in my class. > The editor needs advice on issues concerning science and > faith. Meanwhile, in class I identify myself as a Christian. > The editor's wife tells him, "I know someone you can call." > Suddenly, I can see how mustard seeds move mountains. > > The Lord works through a process by using his followers. > Michael Behe worked very hard on his manuscript. But his > efforts would have been wasted if it was not published. To > accomplish His will, the Lord uses His saints at strategic > points. If we respond to the challenge, the Lord blesses the > effort, because it really is His will, after all. If we fail > to respond, that opportunity is lost. The Lord will accomplish > His will in another way, but that particular opportunity is > gone. If we continually fail to respond, the Lord will > eventually send His opportunities elsewhere. But if we do > respond, we will see those opportunities continually in our > daily lives. We will be richly blessed. Sometimes, to play a > role in God's plan, it only takes a seemingly insignificant > effort like identifying yourself as a Christian." Hi, Rudy. Thank you for further backing up what Robert and I already pointed out - which was already pointed out during Behe's testimony in the 2005 Creationism Trial (why do you think that the PLAINTIFF's lawyers were so quick to bring up what Atchison wrote when Behe was doing his number with his "peer review" pretensions?) - that when creationists such as Behe, and Veto, and yourself pretend that your creationist "peer review" is anything at all like the peer review involved in the publication of research in professional science journals, either (1) you don't have a clue what you're talking about, or (2) you're using deceptive rhetoric. Either one of these destroys your claims to scientific legitimacy. Thank you again, Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4931 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 11:33 am Subject: Young earth creationists don't have a clue what is "scientific" --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4920): [snip] > So, looking at this definition, which Moore culled from a > series of others, here are some of the reasons why evolution > cannot be considered "scientific activity" > > 1. It is NOT repeatable > 2. It is NOT demonstrable > 3. It is NOT reproducable > 4. It is NOT predictable This is the young earth creationist Rudy INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the fact that we've already proved that the claim made by the young earth creationist John N. Moore against evolution is wrong, merely by citing research in the professional science literature of verifiable, repeatable research on biological evolution. Also, John N. Moore is a young earth creationist, which demonstrates that his opinions about what constitutes "scientific activity" are utterly worthless. People who seriously think that the Universe and the Earth did not exist more than several thousand years ago demonstrate by this very belief that they are clueless about science. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4932 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 11:40 am Subject: Re: Todd and his sources - again! - Thank You, Rudy! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4923): > Robert, you and Todd must have the same vision problem. My point > is that the author of the article was NOT negaitive about Behe's > book. And THAT is (one of) the problems with Todd's "references" > - he leaves stuff out, to create false impressions. > > Now as far as datesin geneis is concerned, feel free to show me > from the text of Genesis where ANY mention is made of a time > period re. creation... Rudy's problem is that he apparently doesn't have a clue what my point even was in the first place. I said nothing whatsoever about whether or not Atchison liked Behe. What I pointed out - the point that Rudy himself has carefully ignored, by the way, in order to create his false impressions of what I was even talking about - is that the creationist concept of "peer review" - as used by Behe, Veto, Rudy, and as used quite popular in creationist rhetoric in general - is completely bogus. Point made; point substantiated; and point proved thoroughly, exhaustively, in court: ID is not science. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4933 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 11:44 am Subject: Re: Todd and his sources - again! --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4928): > Robert B., > > I believe it was Paul, in his letter to the Romans, in chapter > 8, who said, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" And, in > his letter to the Corinthians, I believe Paul said that the > foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. And, Paul > also quotes the Old Covenant writer Habakkuk, "The just shall > live by faith." > > Without faith, the Bible says, it is impossible to please Him. > > So, Robert, while I believe that the evidence, such as > probability theory, basic sexual reproduction, etc., favors God, > it really doesn't matter what man says. Faith is not sight, > although it can be informed by evidence, such as an empty tomb. > By faith I choose to believe what God has communicated to us, > even if man disagrees.... There you go - there's no such thing as false faith! You can believe whatever you want to believe, on the basis of faith, regardless of the facts. Faith trumps facts! And truth has no objective meaning. Very sad, Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4992 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 26, 2006 2:51 pm Subject: Re: Todd and his sources - again! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4941): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> There you go - there's no such thing as false faith! You can >> believe whatever you want to believe, on the basis of faith, >> regardless of the facts. Faith trumps facts! >> >> And truth has no objective meaning. > > Rudy writes: > If truth has no objective meaning, why in the world are you > badgering us with all that evolution stuff? This is Rudy showing us that my point flew far over his head, the fact that I was specifically referring to a philosophical flaw in Veto's stated position (a position that Rudy shares). > If it IS > true, it has no objective meaning anyway, so why bother??? If it is true, it is true, period. This is Rudy, who shares Veto's position, demonstrating for us exactly the philosophical flaw I was referring to, that they don't really accept that truth has any objective meaning (reality). "Truth" is whatever these guys feel like they want it to be, because if they don't like something about reality they will just deny it. > Man you DO live in an alternate reality! This is a young earth creationist, who lives in a fantasy world, stating this to me! Chuckling, Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4934 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 12:03 pm Subject: Creationists pretending evolution isn't science --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4901): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> --- In coCBanned, Veto wrote (post #4854): >>> Todd, >>> >>> You write, "The research published in these professional >>> science journals I have cited is verifiable, repeatable >>> research that supports biological evolution." >>> >>> You then quote the Nature article on QTL. While the Nature >>> article makes some points about mutations, it does not then >>> apply those points directly to macroevolution. >> >> It DOES apply those points DIRECTLY TO EVOLUTION. That is the >> point. >> >>> It does not >>> say, for instance, give us specifics on what would be present >>> in macroevolution of a species of one family to a species of >>> a different family or order. >> >> The very words that you choose to use to discuss this subject >> demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of what evolution >> even is. The only evolution that exists is the evolution from >> species to species. There is no other kind of evolution. >> That's the only evolution that exists. > > Rudy writes: > So, Todd, how about defining evolution for us? That would help > the discussion MUCH more than your endless lists... See below. - Todd Greene ---------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding Evolution website http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Understanding Evolution website - Evolution 101 - An introduction to evolution http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02 | The definition | | Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. | This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in | gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) | and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species | from a common ancestor over many generations). Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, Version 2 by Chris Colby http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html | What is Evolution? | | Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over | time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on | unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of | all genes in a species or population. | Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In | order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view | populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a | different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of | an entire population unless there is no variation within that | population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain | the same genes throughout their life. When a population is | evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- | each individual organism within a population does not change. Synthetic Theory Of Evolution: An Introduction to Modern Evolutionary Concepts and Theories http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/Default.htm http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm | Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model | | The biological sciences now generally define evolution as being | the sum total of the genetically inherited changes in the | individuals who are the members of a population's gene pool. It | is clear that the effects of evolution are felt by individuals, | but it is the population as a whole that actually evolves. | Evolution is simply a change in frequencies of alleles in the | gene pool of a population. | | This definition of evolution was developed largely as a result | of independent work in the early 20th century by Godfrey Hardy, | an English mathematician, and Wilhelm Weinberg, a German | physician. Through mathematical modeling based on probability, | they concluded in 1908 that gene pool frequencies are inherently | stable but that evolution should be expected in all populations | virtually all of the time. They resolved this apparent paradox | by analyzing the net effects of potential evolutionary | mechanisms. | | Hardy, Weinberg, and the population geneticists who followed | them came to understand that evolution will not occur in a | population if seven conditions are met: | | 1. mutation is not occurring | 2. natural selection is not occurring | 3. the population is infinitely large | 4. all members of the population breed | 5. all mating is totally random | 6. everyone produces the same number of offspring | 7. there is no migration in or out of the population | | These conditions are the absence of the things that can cause | evolution. In other words, if no mechanisms of evolution are | acting on a population, evolution will not occur -- the gene | pool frequencies will remain unchanged. However, since it is | highly unlikely that any of these seven conditions, let alone | all of them, will happen in the real world, evolution is the | inevitable result.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4935 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 12:19 pm Subject: Re: My take on Veto's "equivocations"! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote: [snip] > 4. I did, however, read his references, and show him, from his > OWN sources, that the "facts" in those writings are NOT facts, > but "conjecture" and "guesses" (Not even educated ones, at that). > 5. I did, however, supply the FACT that Evolution, according to > Webster, is a THEORY - not a proven fact, as Todd would have us > believe... [snip] Here we observe Rudy playing his typical word games (aka, double talk). I know that I've pointed this out to him a number of times, and yet Rudy INTENTIONALLY IGNORES the facts and continues to use his deceitful rhetoric regarding the use of the word "theory." Here is the information for him, again: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory | theory | | A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of | facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly | tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make | predictions about natural phenomena. (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory | Theory | | Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of | knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies. In | common usage, people use the word "theory" to signify | "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." In this | sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" - parts of the world, | or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of | what people think. | | IN SCIENCE, a theory is a proposed model, explanation or | description of the manner of interaction of a set of natural | phenomena, capable of predicting future occurences or | observations of the same kind, and CAPABLE OF BEING TESTED | THROUGH EXPERIMENT OR OTHERWISE VERIFIED THROUGH EMPIRICAL | OBSERVATION. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" | and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, | it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed | to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which | explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of | gravitation. [emphasis added] | IN SCIENCE, A BODY OF DESCRIPTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE IS USUALLY ONLY | CALLED A THEORY ONCE IT HAS A FIRM EMPIRICAL BASIC, i.e., it | | 1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that | the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though | it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact | sense, | | 2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single | foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation | if not totally correct, | | 3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the | theory, | | 4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes | to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting | certainty, and | | 5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed | entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing | Ockham's razor. | | This is true of such established theories as special and general | relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, EVOLUTION, etc. [emphasis added] As usual, we observe that Rudy has INTENTIONALLY IGNORED the truth and continues to promote the errors that he loves so much. Now watch Rudy just keep right on ignoring this, and using his false rhetoric. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4951 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Creationists pretending evolution isn't science --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4943): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> Understanding Evolution website >> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ >> >> Understanding Evolution website - Evolution 101 - An introduction to >> evolution >> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02 >> >>| The definition >>| >>| Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. >>| This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in >>| gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) >>| and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species >>| from a common ancestor over many generations). > > Rudy writes: > That is one definition. > >> Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, Version 2 >> by Chris Colby >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html >> >>| What is Evolution? >>| >>| Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over >>| time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on >>| unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of >>| all genes in a species or population. >> >>| Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In >>| order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view >>| populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a >>| different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of >>| an entire population unless there is no variation within that >>| population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain >>| the same genes throughout their life. When a population is >>| evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- >>| each individual organism within a population does not change. > > Rudy writes: > That is a second defintion, but different from the first one. > >> Synthetic Theory Of Evolution: An Introduction to Modern >> Evolutionary Concepts and Theories >> http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/Default.htm >> >> http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm >> >>| Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model >>| >>| The biological sciences now generally define evolution as being >>| the sum total of the genetically inherited changes in the >>| individuals who are the members of a population's gene pool. It >>| is clear that the effects of evolution are felt by individuals, >>| but it is the population as a whole that actually evolves. >>| Evolution is simply a change in frequencies of alleles in the >>| gene pool of a population. >>| >>| This definition of evolution was developed largely as a result >>| of independent work in the early 20th century by Godfrey Hardy, >>| an English mathematician, and Wilhelm Weinberg, a German >>| physician. Through mathematical modeling based on probability, >>| they concluded in 1908 that gene pool frequencies are inherently >>| stable but that evolution should be expected in all populations >>| virtually all of the time. They resolved this apparent paradox >>| by analyzing the net effects of potential evolutionary >>| mechanisms. >>| >>| Hardy, Weinberg, and the population geneticists who followed >>| them came to understand that evolution will not occur in a >>| population if seven conditions are met: >>| >>| 1. mutation is not occurring >>| 2. natural selection is not occurring >>| 3. the population is infinitely large >>| 4. all members of the population breed >>| 5. all mating is totally random >>| 6. everyone produces the same number of offspring >>| 7. there is no migration in or out of the population >>| >>| These conditions are the absence of the things that can cause >>| evolution. In other words, if no mechanisms of evolution are >>| acting on a population, evolution will not occur -- the gene >>| pool frequencies will remain unchanged. However, since it is >>| highly unlikely that any of these seven conditions, let alone >>| all of them, will happen in the real world, evolution is the >>| inevitable result. > > Rudy writes: > And that is a third defininition, which is again different from > the first. SO, which one does Todd go with? The first is the most brief, the second is less brief, and the third is the most detailed description. Since all three of these point out the very same thing, the only difference being in how detailed the description is - which is quite obvious - Rudy's comments demonstrate that he, like most young earth creationists, is apparently unable to comprehend the actual science, and/or is far more interested in sowing confusion with bogus propaganda than in honest discussion. Of course, we already knew this, and appreciate Rudy so kindly demonstrating this for the public record. (Note, by the way, that even the Discovery Institute ID people acknowledge that evolution is part of science, so with this rhetoric pretending that "evolution is not science" coming from the creationists here we're observing another incoherent position among creationists in general.) Incidentally, here is what I wrote concerning the meaning of evolution previously (Rudy apparently couldn't understand this discussion either), which corresponds exactly to the quotations I provided later: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4881 | The only evolution | that exists is the evolution from species to species. There | is no other kind of evolution. That's the only evolution | that exists. | That's because the study [the research article I was | referring to] is about evolution at the detailed level of | genetics, and what kinds of genetic changes are going on | when species evolve. | The only evolution that exists is the evolution from | species to species. There is no other kind of evolution. | This study is just one research study - out of thousands - | that demonstrates evolution at the detailed level of | genetics, and concerns research to increase our | understanding of the specific kinds of genetic changes | that result in the evolution of species. | The origin of | a new species due to the genetic differentiation that | occurs over time when a population becomes isolated (for | whatever reason) is what evolution is. This is how | evolution takes place. It is verifiable and repeatable | both in the lab and through observation of populations in | nature. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4952 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 6:10 pm Subject: Re: Todd and his sources - again! - Thank You, Rudy! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4938): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> Hi, Rudy. >> >> Thank you for further backing up what Robert and I already >> pointed out - which was already pointed out during Behe's >> testimony in the 2005 Creationism Trial (why do you think that >> the PLAINTIFF's lawyers were so quick to bring up what >> Atchison wrote when Behe was doing his number with his "peer >> review" pretensions?) - that when creationists such as Behe, >> and Veto, and yourself pretend that your creationist "peer >> review" is anything at all like the peer review involved in >> the publication of research in professional science journals, >> either (1) you don't have a clue what you're talking about, >> or (2) you're using deceptive rhetoric. Either one of these >> destroys your claims to scientific legitimacy. > > Rudy writes: > Which part of "Now,granted, the review was seemingly not as > thorough..." do you not understand? This is Rudy hinting (pretending?) that maybe he just might admit that his and Veto's claim that Behe's book was "peer reviewed" like research in professional science journals is peer reviewed is a bogus claim. Which is the point. > Your source creates the impression that there ws such a major > mishap... But Atchison does not discuss the content of the > book being true, false or indifferent... Exactly! That's the point. Atchison never even read the book. A book cannot be "peer reviewed" when the alleged reviewer never even read it. (Note also that genuine peer review involves significantly more than just reading it.) > Yes, Todd, the Dover Board made some serious mistakes, told > lies etc. How many more times do I need to tell you that one??? This is a Rudy cooking up some red herring, which he enjoys doing sometimes, for the purpose of trying to ignore the fact that numerous serious mistakes by creationists were revealed in the trial, and not just the mistakes by the creationists on the Dover School Board. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4954 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Young earth creationists don't have a clue what is "scientific" --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4939): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> This is the young earth creationist Rudy INTENTIONALLY IGNORING >> the fact that we've already proved that the claim made by the >> young earth creationist John N. Moore against evolution is >> wrong, merely by citing research in the professional science >> literature of verifiable, repeatable research on biological >> evolution. >> >> Also, John N. Moore is a young earth creationist, which >> demonstrates that his opinions about what constitutes >> "scientific activity" are utterly worthless. People who >> seriously think that the Universe and the Earth did not exist >> more than several thousand years ago demonstrate by this very >> belief that they are clueless about science. > > Rudy writes: > Do you DISAGREE with the definition of scientific activity as > described? I really don't care to read your characterisations > of people whom you disagree with, Todd. Your constant insults > remind me of someone who has a certain disease... Which, by > the way, is controllable with the right kind of medication. > > If you DISAGREE with the definition, please provide one to > work with. And you can do so without the insults and character > references as far as I am concerned. Rudy, the way you complain about me supposedly insulting you by... uh... well, by insulting me, is pretty amusing. Nice technique! I enjoyed that one. Note how Rudy completely and utterly ignores what I have already pointed out in this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4935 and this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4884 and this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4845 and then uses one of his standard tactics of pretending by insinuation that I supposedly disagree about what constitutes science (even though it is me who has been pointing out to Rudy what science is, and the public record here proves it). Gee, and circles within circles, he uses this insinuation itself as a red herring to distract away from the fact that a young earth creationist (in this case, John Moore, though Rudy himself fits the same bill) demonstrates by the very fact of his being a young earth creationist that when it comes to science he obviously doesn't have a clue what science is or isn't, because he just arbitrarily ignores any science that he doesn't like on the basis of his RELIGIOUS dogma, not on the basis of the actual science. And many of these young earth creationists (though not all) pretend that their RELIGIOUS beliefs are scientific, when we already know for a fact that in terms of science young earth creationism is completely bogus. - Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4959 From: Todd Greene Date: Apr 25, 2006 7:11 pm Subject: Re: Todd and his sources - again! - Thank You, Rudy! --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4956): > --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >> --- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #4938): >>> --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote: >>>> Hi, Rudy. >>>> >>>> Thank you for further backing up what Robert and I already >>>> pointed out - which was already pointed out during Behe's >>>> testimony in the 2005 Creationism Trial (why do you think that >>>> the PLAINTIFF's lawyers were so quick to bring up what >>>> Atchison wrote when Behe was doing his number with his "peer >>>> review" pretensions?) - that when creationists such as Behe, >>>> and Veto, and yourself pretend that your creationist "peer >>>> review" is anything at all like the peer review involved in >>>> the publication of research in professional science journals, >>>> either (1) you don't have a clue what you're talking about, >>>> or (2) you're using deceptive rhetoric. Either one of these >>>> destroys your claims to scientific legitimacy. >>> >>> Rudy writes: >>> Which part of "Now,granted, the review was seemingly not as >>> thorough..." do you not understand? >> >> This is Rudy hinting (pretending?) that maybe he just might >> admit that his and Veto's claim that Behe's book was "peer >> reviewed" like research in professional science journals is >> peer reviewed is a bogus claim. Which is the point. > > Rudy writes: > Once again, Todd is seeing things! Now Rudy does a delightful backflip and pretends again - knowing that the facts show otherwise - that creationist "peer review," in which the reviewer has not even read the material(!), is the same thing as the genuine peer review that is involved with the professional science literature. Thank you, Rudy! I appreciate you continuing to demonstrate that (1) when it comes to science creationists generally - and young earth creationists dismally - don't know what they're talking about, and (2) even after the facts have been presented demonstrating the ludicrous nature of creationist rhetoric, creationists will cling desperately to their false propaganda. Have a good evening, Todd Greene