Tangled Bank #71

| 9 Comments
The Tangled Bank

The latest edition, Tangled Bank #71, is set in 1771, so if you want your biology with an Enlightenment flavor, you know where to go.

9 Comments

I take objection to the comparison of the Theory of gravity compared with the theory of “evolution.” Gravity can be proved. “Evolution” has not been proved, and lacking any scientific basis for proof, over the past 50 plus years, despite multiple laboratory experiments, the “evolution” theory has been downgraded to hypothesis. The theory of “evolution” has, unfortunately been blown out of believability and credibility by individuals, who apparently choose to create a religious belief system to attack the morals of established civilization; why, because of the attacker’s own moral deficits.

There is a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution, even expressed on web site challenges. When the word “evolution” is used, this is not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). This refers to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God: 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 2. Planets and stars formed from space dust. 3. Matter created life by itself. 4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. 5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

The lack of scientific proof for the evolution hypothesis heretofore “theory” indicates the fundamental lack of scientific credibility, hence, the lingering evolution religion fervor to make such inane statements that the theory of gravity, which is provable, is the same as the theory of “evolution,” which is not provable. The psychological approach to individuals who cling to un-provable concepts such as a theory or hypothesis that is not grounded in reality, such as the evolution hypothesis or theory, is that they are seeking help through seeking attention.

If the science does not prove the “evolution” theory or hypothesis, then it is a false theory or hypothesis. Anyone who clings to the false theory or hypothesis is not scientific and follows a pseudo-religious fervor or fanaticism.

Communism failed because it did not work. Evolutionism failed because it did not have any scientific evidence to support the hypothesis or theory. Government funding for a teaching a religious concept such as “evolution” is prohibited by law. “Evolution” teaching is however permitted in evolution places of religious worship, just as atheism the un-named co-religion of evolution.

Personally, I was enamored with the evolution concept as a youth, and through undergrad and post-grad education. There were plenty of compatriots who canted and vehemently attacked conventional concepts, and forwarded the “evolution” concept; however, not one was specific on the scientific basis for “evolution.” Through reading, research and discussion with “experts” on evolution, the circular logic was initially quixotic, and then when the facts did not add up, and after numerous failed experiments to prove “evolution,” it became apparent that the only basis for “evolution” was a type of religious fervor, to attack the establishment. The “evolution” bubble grew, like a “Big Lie” approach, consistent with the teachings of Adolph Hitler, who forwarded the concept that “Aryans are superior,” an evolutionary advancement. The establishment, as I also attacked for realistic faults involving racism, sexism and human rights violations, has responded and become well rounded. “Evolutionism” has tried to become an establishmentarianism institution, though lacks the fundamental scientific basis for reality and credibility, despite repeated religious fervor by individuals who want to distance themselves from their fellow humans, for their own self-seeking purposes. The majority of individuals who seek to promote “evolution” have self-vested interests in obtaining from tax-payers money that they cannot earn through a legitimate pursuit, and the gullible, “nazi-like,” evolution religion followers who rant in their support, for their own self-seeking purposes to distance themselves from their “inferior” fellow human beings.

Write to your congressional representatives and senators to halt the flow of money to evolution religion proponents. Let the evolution religion sycophants earn their money through the private sector, through donations.

…individuals…apparently choose to create a religious belief system to attack the morals of established civilization; why, because of the attacker’s own moral deficits.

Can you prove that?

Wonderful story, and I can most certainly relate. The same thing happened to me.

Non-sequiturs and all? Damn, you two boys must lead confusing lives…

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 2. Planets and stars formed from space dust. 3. Matter created life by itself. 4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. 5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

I thought Hovind was in jail…

Dr. Martin: you can’t even write a coherent post here, and you call yourself a “peer editor?” Who do you think you’re fooling?

I’m sure you’ll enjoy Richard Dawkins upcoming projects (though I can’t reveal what they are, its the typical from him).

That sentence doesn’t even make sense. What, exactly, are you trying to insinuate?

Somebody’s ignoring a Commandment about bearing false witness.

In case you’re interested, the provables have nothing to do with evolution and contain a lot of weasel words. I would say that’s deliberate, but knowing Hovind’s grasp of the English language is a bit precarious, that would be giving him too much credit.

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Nothing to do with evolution. And who knows what “by themselves” means?

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

What, pray tell, is space dust? And what does it have to do with evolution?

3. Matter created life by itself.

Once again, what does “by itself” mean? Even better, what does “life” mean in this context?

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

What do you mean “learned?” As in, taught itself?

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Reminds me of Mr. Garrison’s caricature of evolution.

Oh, I can’t insinuate anything regarding any Scientists on here. All I can do is make vague comments, you fill in the blanks. As a Peer Review Director, my job would be terminated on the spot if someone found out I was doing that.

So where you work, a “peer editor” gets fired for making specific testable claims, but it’s perfectly okay to make vague comments and let others try to figure out what you meant? Is that what you’re saying? (Again, your sentences are so poorly constructed that your meaning is unclear. And you’re editing the works of others?)

Obviously, competence and integrity are not important where you work. And you’re getting paid how much for this sort of conduct?

Isn’t it funny how the impost er and the “victim” have exactly the same writing style? Amazing coincidence, huh?

Henry

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on January 17, 2007 9:42 AM.

The silliest thing I read last week was the previous entry in this blog.

Logarithmic Gap Costs Decrease Alignment Accuracy is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter