Carnival of Evolution!

| 52 Comments

Good news! Thanks to the pioneering efforts of Daniel Brown, there is now a Carnival of Evolution. Better news! I will be hosting the next installment over at EvolutionBlog. So send your best evolution related writing to me at rosenhjd@jmu.edu. I'm looking for good, original writing on anything related to evolution, so make sure you proofread your stuff before sending it to me. It's always nice to give a little link love to undeservedly obscure bloggers, so here's your chance to get some publicity. The deadline will be September 14.

52 Comments

I’m looking forward to the “Carnival of Intelligent Design”, where I can read about the highlights of recent research carried out by…

What? Oh.

Hi John,

I think you’d find this over at www.discovery.org:

JohnW said:

I’m looking forward to the “Carnival of Intelligent Design”, where I can read about the highlights of recent research carried out by…

What? Oh.

But wait a second, what would a real “Carnival of Intelligent Design” look like? Maybe some lines to some popular Xian websites.…

Appreciatively yours,

John

what would a real “Carnival of Intelligent Design” look like?

Lots of clown acts?

(Did I say that?)

“I’m looking forward to the “Carnival of Intelligent Design”, where I can read about the highlights of recent research carried out by… “ and “ what would a real “Carnival of Intelligent Design” look like?”

Ah yes !!!.…

I did notice the following answer from the upcoming star : the dutch creationist Dr. Peter Borger

peebee (Peter Borger ) / 04-09-2008 16:38 @ Anon, AKA Jason Rosenhouse (Associate prof Dept Mathematics, James Madison University, Virginia, USA) (quote ; ) “ …A Dutch Darwinian (atheist and naturalist) recently claimed on my blog that people outside the field of evolutionbiology are not entitled to say something about evolution. He said those people are incompetent to judge or interpret the data.

You are a mathematician, so please try to stay out of the debate. You’re incompetent an not entitled to be involved in the debate.

I can’t help it, and I don’t agree, I am only repeating what the atheist said

It’s not whether people outside the field are entitled to say something or not, it’s whether what they say should be considered reliable by anybody else, over the shared conclusions of those who are in the field.

Henry

Prove to the world how an amino acid can survive in an oxygen environment.

I am sure you and your readers know that Oxygen is a corrosive and tears amino acids (which are the basic building blocks of proteins and life) apart. So, whether the theory that life began on land where the oxygen content was more than now or at the bottom of the ocean where Oxygen is 1/3 of the base (rough numbers for simplicity), not even one amino acid could not survive. Let alone enough amino acids to combine into one protein. http://rickyg64.blogspot.com/

Where did Ricky G get the idea that the early atmosphere had a lot of free oxygen in it? The geological record supports the opposite conclusion. Indeed, it took a heck of time for photosynthetic organisms to get the oxygen content of the atmosphere up to anything like modern levels since there was a lot of unreduced iron and other materials around that tended to soak up the oxygen as it was produced. Which, by the way, is why there are such enormous red beds in old strata. The red is essentially rust.

Prove to the world how an amino acid can survive in an oxygen environment.

Oxygen is a byproduct of green plants. How would it get in the atmosphere before there were plants?

Henry

I think he may actually be counting the O in H2O.
”…the bottom of the ocean where Oxygen is 1/3 of the base”

Henry J said:

Prove to the world how an amino acid can survive in an oxygen environment.

Oxygen is a byproduct of green plants. How would it get in the atmosphere before there were plants?

Henry

Do remember that the chloroplasts of green plants, as well as those of algae are descended from cyanobacteria. Of course, as explained before, Ricky G fails to notice that life did not first evolve in an oxygen-rich atmosphere/environment, or that the oxygen in amino acids come from sources other than atmospheric oxygen.

Lord these guys are dumb. On the other hand, if Ricky G going to count the oxygen in water as oxygen in the environment, he might as well claim that water is 7/8ths oxygen, not 1/3, since the atomic weight of oxygen is 16 while the two hydrogen atoms are only 2. Of course, elements don’t act the same in compounds as they do by themselves. If they did, the sodium in table salt would react furiously whenever you put salt in water; and the oceans would be full of sodium hydroxide. Sheesh!

Not to mention what it would do to your steak and eggs.

You guys seem to be evading the evidence. Scientific Studies show the oxygen level in the old rocks have proved that the oxygen content of the earth was about 100% or more than today. And according to the scientific studies that is BEFORE plants were around, oh arrogant ones. That is why the evolutionary model had to move from the land based slime conversion to the muck and mire in the bottom of the ocean. No mater how you calculate the amount of oxygen in the water, it is still oxygen and oxygen pulls amino acids apart. With this known evidence in the evolutionary circles, the newest model of evolution is putting the start of life on another planet all together. You cannot get away from the extreme complexity of a protein. Something that Darwin had no opportunity to study. The Miller experiment proved that he could CREATE an amino acid. And he was successful in creating right handed amino acid. Which, you are smart enough to know that that is death to life. All life consists of Left Handed amino acid. The right handed amino acid develops after the life of everything ends. So, Miller has proven that he could create death not life.

So, how did the (only left handed) amino acids combine in any type of order to create life in an oxygen laden environment?

Before someone tries to get verbally violent again… Read this from the evolutionist view of early earth.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/[…]060626123030

June 26, 2006 — Smidges of primeval oil found inside grains of Canadian rocks are providing new evidence of an oxygen-rich Earth almost 2.5 billion years ago — suggesting oxygen infused Earth’s lower atmosphere 500 million years earlier than previously thought.

The clue comes from hydrocarbons, known as sterols, discovered in tiny amounts of oily water hermetically trapped inside the mineral grains. The sterol could only have gotten there in one way: from the residue of ancient algae that required oxygen to make the compound, say researchers who published their discovery in the June issue of the journal Geology.

“The (rock-forming) environment had to have O2,” said geologist Jay Kaufman of the University of Maryland.

Ricky G, if you actually bothered to read about the origins of early life, including the article you just linked, you would know that life is estimated to have arisen on Earth about 3.7/3.8 to 4 billion years ago, while the sterol fossil simply pushes the earliest date for the Oxygenation catastrophe to somewhere between 2.7 and 2.4 billion years.

Either way, you are still wrong.

Ricky G, my boy, you are out of your depth. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The oxygen level 2.1 billion years later is interesting, but it does not bear on conditions at the time when life originated.

And, once again, you must be spectacularly ignorant of chemistry to think that the atoms in a compound, especially a covalent compound, act like they do in their elementary form. On your view, I guess, we could easily solve the energy crisis by burning water. After all, it contains hydrogen, which burns, and oxygen, which supports combustion.

life is estimated to have arisen on Earth about 3.7/3.8 to 4 billion years ago, while the sterol fossil simply pushes the earliest date for the Oxygenation catastrophe to somewhere between 2.7 and 2.4 billion years.

I was about to make that point, but somebody else got a round tuit first.

“The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The oxygen level 2.1 billion years later is interesting, but it does not bear on conditions at the time when life originated.”

Key word, Estimated, you pretend it is fact. The time frame itself is not the important part, we all know that the original geologic time chart is a bunch of guesses:

“When William Smith and Sir Charles Lyell first recognized that rock strata represented successive time periods, time scales could be estimated only very imprecisely since various kinds of rates of change used in estimation were highly variable. While creationists had been proposing dates of around six or seven thousand years for the age of the Earth based on the Bible, early geologists were suggesting millions of years for geologic periods with some even suggesting a virtually infinite age for the Earth. Geologists and paleontologists constructed the geologic table based on the relative positions of different strata and fossils, and estimated the time scales based on studying rates of various kinds of weathering, erosion, sedimentation, and lithification. Until the discovery of radioactivity in 1896 and the development of its geological applications through radiometric dating during the first half of the 20th century (pioneered by such geologists as Arthur Holmes) which allowed for more precise absolute dating of rocks, the ages of various rock strata and the age of the Earth were the subject of considerable debate.”

When the carbon dating was formulated, the barometer was off of those guesses and estimations. They took a sample from the strata and the “estimated” time date, blasted the sample and put the spectrum and date together and formulated a standard. So the next time a sample was blasted and it had the similar light frequency, it was said to have been in-between such and such time frame and cataloged as such. So, it doesn’t matter if you say 10,000 years or 10,000,000,000 years, the time is based on guesses isn’t it. It is also a known fact that heat and pressure change the carbon trace of the specimen. So, one item of debate, like a rock can be dated at 15,000 years and then super heated and re-dated at 2.5m years. Your reasoning’s are developed from obscure theories. All dating sequences are based on “estimated values”, and therefore subject to opinion. With all scientific data you must have a “known” in order to formulate an opinion. Tell me what the “known” data was formed from. You have yet to explain in any intelligible way, except useless sarcasm, how life began. It had to start either with a simple amino acid in the environment it is suggested to be in which consists of oxygen or created as a whole from known earthly materials in which we know scientifically all life is made of.

Once again, Ricky G demonstrates world class ignorance. Nobody estimates the age the earth from Carbon 14. Indeed, nobody ever did since Carbon 14’s decay rate is much too fast to be of any relevance when you are talking about billions of years. The question of the age of the Earth was debated for centuries, but it died very rapidly in the 1956 when separate methods of age estimation, each based on different radioactive substances, arrived at the same age independently. After that, the issue was pretty much dead since only religious fanatics had any reason to doubt the results. Since the issue is an empirical one, it is always possible in principle that evidence could show up that would cast doubt on the 4.55 billion year figure. It hasn’t so far.

Thing is, there are people who care about the age of the Earth, how life developed, how organisms evolved. These folks have drawn conclusions, though there certainly are plenty of unanswered questions. And then there are the religious people, who don’t give a damn about geology or biology. They only enter the fray in order to defend their favorite bit of mythology.

I don’t think it’s possible to teach you anything, Ricky G, as you have made it repeatedly clear that your purpose here is not to learn anything at all.

So you are teaching without answering the primary question. No matter, it is obvious that you have bought into the old earth theory and have more faith than I. Just like the evidence of oxygen in rocks has changed by 500,000,000 years because of “new evidence”. What is the latest change in the theory, “life was formed on the backs of crystals”? You and your kind have bought into a death of life. The main variable you seem to forget is the chaos, temperature and pure act of forming the earth in the first place. I say take your evidence and put it through the chaos of extreme temperature of a molten state and see what age it dates to. Unfortunately, right now you only see evidence that panders to your ideas and you take it with the faith of a suicide bomber. In your arrogance you are smarter than a Creator and your creations are the acts of mankind. So, as long as you are willing to buy into death, there is no way you are going to ponder the idea of a Creator that is creating Everlasting People. The physical creation was just the first part of His ultimate creation of a people that will only choose good over evil all the time and be able to enjoy the universe as their playground without destroying it. I thank you for allowing me a small venue to get a point across that is not answerable. The genome is entirely too complex and different in all life to have mutated into shapes of individual life. No scientist can answer the original question of how the first amino acids combined into proteins and then to complex DNA. All you can do is have the faith that you are right and come up with theories that match your beliefs and then teach them as fact. Thank you for your time and may Jesus Bless your lives.

Can we flush all of this Jesustroll’s posts, now that he’s confessed to being nothing more than a troll and Jesusspammer?

Ricky_G said:

So you are teaching without answering the primary question. No matter, it is obvious that you have bought into the old earth theory and have more faith than I.

Why is it that you creotards rant on and on about how great faith is, but then when you wish to denigrate your opposition, you accuse them of having faith.

Try to imagine a scientist denigrating a creationist by saying “Wow, you got me there, obviously you are way more interested in evidence, parsimony, and logic than I!”

Science Avenger said:

Ricky_G said:

So you are teaching without answering the primary question. No matter, it is obvious that you have bought into the old earth theory and have more faith than I.

Why is it that you creotards rant on and on about how great faith is, but then when you wish to denigrate your opposition, you accuse them of having faith.

Try to imagine a scientist denigrating a creationist by saying “Wow, you got me there, obviously you are way more interested in evidence, parsimony, and logic than I!”

That, and what really aggravates me is how these blinded hypocrites casually use the very foundation of Christianity, “Jesus loves/blesses/cares for you,” as nothing more than cruel profanity.

Look, I am not trying to insult any of the intelligent people reading this. It is obvious that the people who read this blog are mostly left and a few right. My need to talk about this is not divisive, just a side that gives science its primary purpose. You have to provide evidence on both sides using facts of known and forming a scenario that answers or gives a summation of a theory. Outside of that it comes down to a faith or belief, whatever term you would like to use. If you think the final statement about a blessing is profanity, you are disturbed. Believe me; the verbiage that has been used against me and other people with a different view of yours is quite inflammatory. I believe that if we saw each other in a debate or conference there would be more respect of each others opinions. It is amazing to me how callous people get hiding behind a flat panel. My ending was genuine and I do care about all of us. If there is a lie then it is our duty to expose it. I am sure you can say the same about people that believe in ID, and that is where good respectful dialog comes in. Remember, up until 50 years ago most people understood creation and now a large amount of people have brought into the fabric of our society a science that is improvable theories being taught as facts causing confusion. And now it is being taught to our kids whether we want them to or not. So who is in control of our future, Creotards or Evolutionuts???

I Have to say that “creotards” is pretty funny, but mean.

Evidence on both sides?

One side:

Descriptions of evidence, explanations of relevance of that evidence, explanations of how it supports the stated premises. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Other side:

Appeals to emotion, appeals to consequences, claims that biologists are ignoring basic physics, lack of agreement among prominent anti-evolutionists on basic questions.

Which of those sounds more reliable?

Ricky_G said:

Look, I am not trying to insult any of the intelligent people reading this.

If you did not intend to insult us, then, why did you not only refuse to listen to anything we said, and then top off by claiming we were suicide bombers simply because we accept what the facts say, and not a literal interpretation of the Bible?

My need to talk about this is not divisive, just a side that gives science its primary purpose. You have to provide evidence on both sides using facts of known and forming a scenario that answers or gives a summation of a theory. Outside of that it comes down to a faith or belief, whatever term you would like to use.

The fact of the matter is that you refuse to understand science, and that you refuse to understand that you are ignorant about science, as well.

If you think the final statement about a blessing is profanity, you are disturbed. Believe me; the verbiage that has been used against me and other people with a different view of yours is quite inflammatory.

Let’s see, you continued to ignore everything we said, including the fact that we pointed out that all of your points are wrong. And yes, I said that you used “Jesus blesses {us}” as profanity because Jesus trolls like yourself always use that to annoy, agitate or insult their scientist opponents.

If I’m disturbed, then, please explain to me why I should not get upset by those Creationists who use “Jesus loves/blesses you” as a synonym of “f*ck off” to end any argument that they clearly can not win?

I believe that if we saw each other in a debate or conference there would be more respect of each others opinions. It is amazing to me how callous people get hiding behind a flat panel. My ending was genuine and I do care about all of us.

If you do genuinely care about all of us, then why did you also call us suicide bombers?

You don’t realize that you came here hollering about everything being wrong, and when we told you that all of your talking points were wrong, including the fact that you don’t understand even the basics of organic chemistry, or the fact that the sterol fossil simply pushes back the beginning of the Oxygen Catastrophe, you ignored us. You don’t care to realize that you aren’t engaging in debate, you are proselytizing at us, and we find it rude to be proselytized about science by someone who is clearly ignorant about science.

If there is a lie then it is our duty to expose it.

You can not expose a lie if you, yourself, cling to ignorance and lies.

I am sure you can say the same about people that believe in ID, and that is where good respectful dialog comes in.

It would be nice if the Intelligent Design movement wanted to engage in dialogue, however, its members have demonstrated that they not only have absolutely no intention of engaging in dialogue, but, their actual motive is to destroy Science in the name of Jesus Christ.

Remember, up until 50 years ago most people understood creation and now a large amount of people have brought into the fabric of our society a science that is improvable theories being taught as facts causing confusion. And now it is being taught to our kids whether we want them to or not. So who is in control of our future, Creotards or Evolutionuts???

I Have to say that “creotards” is pretty funny, but mean.

If you actually knew how to read, you would have realized that the scientific community has abandoned the use of a literal interpretation of the King James’ translation of the Holy Bible for use in science over 150 years ago.

If you honestly wanted to engage us in debate, then you should first educate yourself in science, rather than use the recycled lies used by Creationists to convert us. In other words, if you want to debate us, you must prove that you want to debate us, but, given as how you routinely ignore what we say, and demonstrated that you can’t be bothered to differentiate between “guess” and “estimate,” so far, you have proven that you are not at all interested in debating us. That you claim that we are suicide bombers hurts your case a lot, also.

Furthermore, Ricky G, to be honest, I think the term “Creotard” is childish: I prefer the terms “fanatic,” “fundamentalist,” or “Liar for Jesus.”

Ricky_G said:

Look, I am not trying to insult any of the intelligent people reading this. It is obvious that the people who read this blog are mostly left and a few right.

Left and right of what? This is a science forum, not a political one. I doubt you would score better than chance at making accurate political identifications of common contributors here, so please don’t insult us by pretending that’s relevant.

…gives science its primary purpose. You have to provide evidence on both sides using facts of known and forming a scenario that answers or gives a summation of a theory.

One uses evidence, period. Facts gathered in falsifiable experiments, both formal and informal, either support stated theories or they do not. That’s the only side in science.

…the verbiage that has been used against me and other people with a different view of yours is quite inflammatory. I believe that if we saw each other in a debate or conference there would be more respect of each others opinions.

That verbiage is not because of having a different view, but rather for having a moronic, intellectually dishonest view. You creotards consistently blur this important difference. Scientists disagree on issues all the time. They don’t do what you do, which is why you get treated to inflammatory rhetoric that we normally spare each other.

If there is a lie then it is our duty to expose it.

Yes, it is. Further, after that lie has been exposed, it is our duty to recognize it, and incorporate that finding into our view of the world. Those that failed to do so are often treated to inflammatory rhetoric from those of us that have.

Remember, up until 50 years ago most people understood creation and now a large amount of people have brought into the fabric of our society a science that is improvable theories being taught as facts causing confusion.

What confusion? We are fine. The science is quite solid and has gotten almost universal acceptance from independent scientists all over the world. Noy only that, it has had multiple practical applications in areas as diverse as medicine, food production, and computer sciece. What exactly are you confused about?

And now it is being taught to our kids whether we want them to or not. So who is in control of our future, Creotards or Evolutionuts???

One of the purposes of having a public education is to keep parents from locking their kids in a stagnant level of ignorance. [shrug]

I Have to say that “creotards” is pretty funny, but mean.

Science isn’t about being nice. It is about being intellectually honest. Be an idiot, get called an idiot, simple as that.

Stanton, why are you and your friends so discontent? If you are so intelligent that you know for sure, without a doubt that you are correct, that’s ok. BTW, NOBODY HAS TO BELIEVE IN CREATION. Anyone that tells you otherwise is hurting people, not helping them. We all have to make choices on our own. You also do not need to belittle people in order to get your point across. That is a sign of an underdeveloped mental state and a childish insecurity with a bully syndrome. You need to re-read my statements. I said your faith in evolution is the same as a suicide bomber, not “you are a suicide bomber”. A suicide bomber puts on a vest and walks into a crowded room and blows them self up and takes whoever is around with him. He is doing this act in full belief he is doing the right thing, like you are doing (Note: when he blows himself up, his pieces do not mutate into a bird or lizard the are pieces scattered in many places and are dead). You put on your theories like a proven fact and push them into the public square. Unfortunately, you have a good amount of followers now and your voice is a lot louder than ours, just like a cult of a false religion. There are absolutely no facts of how amino acids developed into proteins, there are no ¼, ½, ¾ or any other combination of animals or people mutating from one form to another walking on the earth right now. The evolutionary model disproves itself by its own basic definition: All thing change over time do to circumstances of climate, society, pressure, etc. The theory does not allow for a gap. Evolution is supposed to be a constant change isn’t it? And if you say that a gap is allowed, then you are manipulating the formula to fit your theory. Feed a computer with wrong information then anything that is developed from those findings is gong to be incorrect, no matter how innocent the motives. I agree with you that the people that use angry verbiage on both sides just hurt the cause. I also agree that pushing anything on anyone is repulsing not attracting. I am appalled at people that “claim” to be followers of JC and use fowl language to beat people into submission. That is not a good example of Love, and we are all guilty.

Ricky G, if you want to actually debate us, THEN DEBATE US, and stop proselytizing at us. If you want us to not regard you as another annoying religious fanatic, then a) stop using your faith to bully us into believing what you believe, and b) try telling all of the other creationists who use their faith to bully us into believing what they believe is a bad thing to do. Otherwise, you are not only no better than they are, but, you are also a hypocrite, as well.

You continue to insult us when you conflate the acceptance of proven facts with the mind-destroying fanaticism required to become a suicide bomber. You also continue to insult us by demanding that we engage you in a (scientific) debate as though you are our intellectual equal, even though you demonstrate that you are not interested interested in learning anything.

You also continue to insult us by conflating “theory” with “hypothesis,” as well as claiming that accepting a fact or theory is like a cult.

And if you do not want us to regard you as nothing more than another boorish, loudmouthed creationist, then take my advice, and take time to actually learn about science. We refuse to regard you as our intellectual equal until you take the time to learn about how scientists have already studied how amino acids form proteins, and how scientists have already replicated proteins in “cell-free” environments. You don’t know anything about Evolution, and you suggest that you have very little desire to learn about it. If you want to debate us, then DEBATE US, otherwise, go away unless you want to continue making a holy idiot out of yourself.

I am appalled at people that “claim” to be followers of JC and use fowl language to beat people into submission.

Fowl language? They cluck at people?

Ricky_G said:

Stanton, why are you and your friends so discontent?

We aren’t the slightest bit discontent, YOU are. You are unhappy that science has made discoveries that threaten your sacred beliefs, thus you attack those discoveries.

If you are so intelligent that you know for sure, without a doubt that you are correct, that’s ok.

We don’t know for sure, and our knowledge is not based on our intelligence. You display your ignorance of the scientific process with every grunt. It is designed to NOT, repeat, NOT rely on intelligence, and holds its views provisionally, ready to change as new evidence comes to light. The problem the IDers have is they want it to change without that crucial evidenciary step.

You also do not need to belittle people in order to get your point across. That is a sign of an underdeveloped mental state and a childish insecurity with a bully syndrome.

No, it is a sign of impatience with fools who plow into a situation without any understanding of it and make pompously ignorant and insulting proclamations. If you sit down to play chess with me, and on your first move, reach over, grab my king, and scream “I win!”, my reaction of “Get away from my table you fucking idiot”, is not a sign of an underdeveloped mental state. It is a sign of an unwillingness to DEAL WITH an underdeveloped mental state. Belittling someone is the only option left when they make it clear they are not interested in evidence or logic.

I said your faith in evolution is the same as a suicide bomber, not “you are a suicide bomber”.

And you are still a lying sack for saying so. Rereading your statements won’t change that. You are simply projecting your own inability to reach any conclusions other than by faith onto us. We simply don’t think like you do. Until you accept that, every statement you make about us will be insulting and inaccurate.

I’ll leave it to others to go through your inaccurate portrayel of evolution, which is flawed at each and every step. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a civil dialog. I understand your frustration when it comes to talking about this subject to someone who does not agree with it. The feeling is mutual. I find that a majority of evolutionist are very arrogant, mean and seem to bully there opinions without having the proof that they claim to possess. I also see the same mean spirit on the side of some creationists, just to be fair. Fortunately or unfortunately, only one side is going to be correct. There is either a plan to create everlasting people or this is just a bummer of a life then we die and turn back into dirt. I am glad I believe in the former. I am not a scientist and would not claim to know more than I do. But, I am neither stupid nor ignorant either. Just like in all walks of life there are truths and there are lies and manipulations. It seems like the truth usually has a small voice and the lies and manipulations are loud and boisterous.

The main reason I proposed the initial questions about the amino acid formation and then the eventual combining into a protein is because that is one of the main functions of life and you have yet to answer, just a lot of sarcasm

This is the Debate Question. Remember, the burden of proof is on the Evolution theory, not Creation: 1) What is the probability factor for a single left handed amino acid forming by itself? 2) What is the probability factor for the left handed amino acids coming together after the formation? 3) What is the probability of more than 50 left handed amino acids being formed and combining into a protein

There is either a plan to create everlasting people or this is just a bummer of a life then we die and turn back into dirt.

The theory of evolution says nothing about bummer-ness. As for turning back into dirt, well, it doesn’t take evolution to notice that’s what happens to bodies after they die. Evolution explains the visible interrelatedness of life forms; it doesn’t address the question of souls or spirits.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the Evolution theory, not Creation:

Incorrect. When a theory is and has been firmly established by those who’ve studied the relevant evidence, the burden is very much on those who want to overturn it. In order to do so, they need to provide evidence that actually contradicts the basic principles established by the current theory, in order to even have a starting point.

Listing unaswered questions (if they are unanswered) does not establish a contradiction, it merely establishes that there are areas that need research. (There will always be questions that haven’t been answered, for as long as there are people to ask questions.)

Henry

Ricky_G said: I appreciate the opportunity to have a civil dialog. I understand your frustration when it comes to talking about this subject to someone who does not agree with it.

You demonstrate that you HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION. Period. You also demonstrate that you have no desire to correct your ignorance, either. Claiming that we need need the faith of a suicide bomber demonstrates that you have no intention of holding a civil dialogue, unless you can explain exactly why examining fossils or generations of bacteria in a petri dish is tantamount to committing murder/suicide in order to broadcast a political statement of fear.

I find that a majority of evolutionist are very arrogant, mean and seem to bully there opinions without having the proof that they claim to possess.

Maybe it’s because you consistently refuse to allow the evolutionists (sic) to correct the mistakes and misconceptions you insist on repeating and clinging to, and they become sick and tired of listening to your constant demands to treat you as an intellectual equal when you consistently refuse to educate yourself on easily available information about evolution.

I also see the same mean spirit on the side of some creationists, just to be fair.

And you are a filthy, craven hypocrite for doing nothing about your fellow creationists behavior while you insist on admonishing us for our alleged arrogance.

Fortunately or unfortunately, only one side is going to be correct.

Evolution is based on observing both living organisms and fossils of living organisms: in other words, it is a series of statements and explanations about particular aspects of reality that have been drawn from the available evidence. So tell us why Creationism, which explicitly rejects the evidence provided by reality, could possibly be correct.

There is either a plan to create everlasting people or this is just a bummer of a life then we die and turn back into dirt. I am glad I believe in the former. I am not a scientist and would not claim to know more than I do.

If you insist on conflating evolution/science with atheism, then we have no choice but to recognize that you are an idiot as well as a hypocrite, as there are plenty of scientists out there who do not reject God.

You call us arrogant, and yet, you have the supreme gall to assume that all scientists are atheists.

But, I am neither stupid nor ignorant either.

The fact that you do not even have an elementary school understanding of biology, geology, chemistry or science in general, as well as the fact that you assume that all scientists are all atheists contradicts this statement.

Just like in all walks of life there are truths and there are lies and manipulations. It seems like the truth usually has a small voice and the lies and manipulations are loud and boisterous.

Information and education are freely available. The only problem is that you have put out your own eyes while accusing us of being the blind ones.

The main reason I proposed the initial questions about the amino acid formation and then the eventual combining into a protein is because that is one of the main functions of life and you have yet to answer, just a lot of sarcasm

That is because you formulated your questions from lies that have been fed to you, and due to your own ignorance. And you continue to cling to your lies and your ignorance while accusing us of being arrogant and uncivil.

This is the Debate Question. Remember, the burden of proof is on the Evolution theory, not Creation

This is not how you debate science. You have to provide evidence that the science you are challenging is wrong, and evidence that whatever it is you are proposing is right.

I’m sorry to say this to you, but, to claim that the burden of proof is on Evolution, and not Creationism, even though there is 150 years worth of evidence of Evolution easily available, and zero evidence for a literal Creation as dictated by a literal interpretation of the King James’ Translation of the Book of Genesis, is a hallmark of stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance.

I would suggest that this Ricky_G character is just another troll of the bobby genre.

Its posts are too full of barely veiled taunts and egregious elementary science errors to be taken seriously. I think it is just trying to call attention to itself and start a “debate” while it continues to taunt and spew out more bullshit.

…said the pot to the kettle.

Why, yes, there is an agenda here. It’s to defend knowledge and to refute illiterate superstition and arrogant ignorance. It’s to insist that theories compete on the basis of evidence, not on what would be nice to believe. It’s to repeat, over and over, to the point of weariness, that science goes where the weight of the evidence points, and that there is no evidence - not a scintilla, not a jot, not the faintest whisper - for any of the main points insisted upon by the various tribes of creationists. There is plenty of evidence for common descent, and not the slightest tincture of it for separate creation. There are literally mountains of evidence for an ancient earth, and none for a recent one. There is ample evidence for speciation driven by natural selection, and none for intelligent design.

Of course much is still unknown, and this will always be the case. But a rational person goes where the evidence leads. And that evidence leads, inevitably and inescapably, to the Theory of Evolution.

That’s the agenda. And you’re out of order.

Dave Luckett Wrote:

That’s the agenda. And you’re out of order.

Nice summary, Dave.

These trolls also seem to be playing another of their favorite games, namely, to appear to be persecuted martyrs. They have spent a lot of time harping about how badly they are treated, but they don’t acknowledge that it is their constant taunting and their deliberate misrepresentations of science and scientists that are responsible for their being scolded like naughty children.

One of the most common “persecution” complaints fundamentalist sectarians recite comes when they are nailed for making repeatedly stupid remarks after being given explanations or references, or when they are put on the spot by having to provide evidence for their claims.

These are the minds of children who are easily exploitable by demagogues and political correctness arguments.

As I have said before; place a real scientist in the crucible of scientific peer review, and what comes out is a better scientist and better science. Expose an ID/Creationist pseudo-scientist to even a hint of that crucible, and what comes out is a whining child with a persecution complex.

jobby said:

The anger that the Darwinists display is telling of what they are hiding.

There’s the projection expected from serial liars. They know they are always hiding something, and they get angry when called on it, so they interpret everyone else’s behavior the same way.

The fact that they dismiss, without consideration, the hypothesis that the opposition they face is angry for morally sound reasons (by their own moral standards), reveals just how morally corrupt they are. Jesus would not approve.

Ricky_G said:

I understand your frustration when it comes to talking about this subject to someone who does not agree with it.

Again, it’s not that you disagree that is the problem. It is that you misstate our views (Aquinas would not approve), pay no attention to our corrections (just like you’ll ignore this one), and clearly are way out of your depth on this subject. You do not have the biological understanding of the average nonbiology major and you are presuming to lecture professionals on the subject. “Arrogant” is too tame a word for that.

I find that a majority of evolutionist are very arrogant, mean and seem to bully there opinions without having the proof that they claim to possess.

Not unless your definition of “arrogant” is “someone who won’t buy my bullshit and identifies my ignorance”.

I am not a scientist and would not claim to know more than I do. But, I am neither stupid nor ignorant either.

Every time you presume to alert biologists to something biological of which they were unaware, you are claiming to know more than you do. And sorry, you are indeed ignorant of evolution, other topics notwithstanding.

Just like in all walks of life there are truths and there are lies and manipulations. It seems like the truth usually has a small voice and the lies and manipulations are loud and boisterous.

Nonsense. You have it exactly backwards. Go out and insist to everyone that the sky is green and see whether they all get louder than you. Go tell everyone that eating ice cream continuously will cause you to lose weight, and see what sort of reaction you get. Truth is, humanity has made tremendous intellectual progress over the centuries, and we can be pretty loud about what is clearly true.

1) What is the probability factor for a single left handed amino acid forming by itself? 2) What is the probability factor for the left handed amino acids coming together after the formation? 3) What is the probability of more than 50 left handed amino acids being formed and combining into a protein

You tell me. Exactly. Show all work and derivation of assumptions. Back of the envelope phantom calculations a la Berlinski don’t count.

jobby said:

Ricky_G said:

I appreciate the opportunity to have a civil dialog.

Ricky, I do not think you will get a civil dialogue here. The anger that the Darwinists display is telling of what they are hiding. Real scientists examine the evidence cooly and go where it tells them to go. It is obvious there is an agenda here.

That is where the frustration comes from. It is not that the evolutionist should not have the ability to question whatever they want, it is in the misinterpretations. Then you though in the media and godless agenda and see where these people want to go, not where the evidence takes them. Just the idea that you can put as many “0’s” at the end of a number, does not make the number correct. The scientific evidence has always backed up written documents provided by our ancestors, if you just eliminate the made up time frames. That is why the most important question to how life began. In fact the environment they are suggesting life began in consists of the same basic harsh acids we use today to eliminate germs and bacteria. As a side note, a virgin birth was impossible to the evolutionists up until the last 15 years, and of course they now they say; “of course it can be done, but only by MAN, not some imaginary Creator that may be bigger and smarter than us people…” That is a big miscalculation promoted by an arrogant ego. By the way, I have heard multiple points of ridicule about not being a scientist. Which of you people are actually scientists? What are your specialties?

Ricky_G said:

Just the idea that you can put as many “0’s” at the end of a number, does not make the number correct. The scientific evidence has always backed up written documents provided by our ancestors, if you just eliminate the made up time frames. That is why the most important question to how life began.

There should be some sort of award for that.

Ricky_G said:

The scientific evidence has always backed up written documents provided by our ancestors, if you just eliminate the made up time frames.

Then show us the evidence that supports a literal reading of the King Jame’s Translation of the Book of Genesis, or, you are bullshitting.

That is why the most important question to how life began. In fact the environment they are suggesting life began in consists of the same basic harsh acids we use today to eliminate germs and bacteria.

If you actually read about bacteria, you would know that many kinds of bacteria can survive and even thrive in ammonia, and even hand soap, and that there are bacteria, called “snotlings,” that can survive in hydrosulfuric acid.

As a side note, a virgin birth was impossible to the evolutionists up until the last 15 years, and of course they now they say; “of course it can be done, but only by MAN, not some imaginary Creator that may be bigger and smarter than us people…” That is a big miscalculation promoted by an arrogant ego.

The only big miscalculation promoted by an arrogant ego here has been done by you, and how you presume to lecture us, while exposing your own profound ignorance of science in general, and of biology in particular.

Speaking of profound ignorance, you are ignorant of the fact that scientists already have been using a term for virgin birth for the past several decades, called “parthenogenesis.”

By the way, I have heard multiple points of ridicule about not being a scientist. Which of you people are actually scientists? What are your specialties?

We’re not ridiculing you because you are not a scientist, we are ridiculing you because you have the supreme arrogance to think you have the right to lecture us about science and evolution, even though we are pointing out to you that you are supremely ignorant of science.

I happen to have a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology, and am working on getting a Master’s Degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine.

So, tell us, Ricky G, who or what gives you the right to lecture us about science, evolution and ethics, then?

Ricky G says that the origin of life through naturalistic processes is a pool shot so tricky and difficult that not even God can pull it off, even when using stick, table and balls of His own design and manufacture.

As I see it all the arguments in the design, irreducible complexity and God of the gaps neighborhood are arguments against the omnipotence of God.
If you claim that the universe with all its laws and properties are the product of a creator.
And you claim that natural phenomenon “X” can not be the product of purely natural processes, and requires some sort of divine intervention to exist.
Then you are necessarily claiming that the creator of those processes was not able to make them capable of bringing about “X” without His intervention. That is, these arguments are claims that the creator of the universe was constrained to intervene bring about some of the features we see in the natural world. Therefore not omnipotent.
Now theists can argue that while God could have used natural means but He didn’t. The problem is that this is a doctrinal claim, and even in principle, scientifically unverifiable.

To make things clear, I personally am materialist/monist down to the atomic level.

I think the last comment of Ricky G should be carefully preserved, indeed, studied.

This is someone for whom the very structure of language itself is a profound mystery. This is someone who cannot see the illogic of his ideas, because he cannot explain the world to himself in any terms that remain consistent.

Consider the baroque inanity of: “As a side note, a virgin birth was impossible to the evolutionists up until the last 15 years, and of course they now they say; “of course it can be done, but only by MAN, not some imaginary Creator that may be bigger and smarter than us people…””

This is simply not true, but that isn’t the point. (Parthenogenesis was observed in nature in classes as close to us as reptiles, as far back as the eighteenth century.) No, it’s that Ricky G thinks that this is any sort of argument against the Theory of Evolution, when it’s nothing more than a cry of incomprehending and agonised antipathy.

To think like that requires more than simple ignorance. It requires a profound intellectual disability. This is someone whose patterns of thought simply make no logical sense, not even to him. No wonder the world is an insoluble mystery for him, and no wonder he cannot resolve it by rational means. There are no such means, for him. The rational is as profound a mystery to him as the irrational. He can’t tell the difference between them.

Alas, he does know what he believes. He also knows that outside that little bubble of certainty, the Universe is unfathomable and terrifying. Therefore he holds to those beliefs with desperate tenacity - they are all he has, after all.

I suppose that what I’m saying is that there is no point in debating with him, for two reasons. One, because he simply can’t construct argument, nor recognise it when it’s presented to him. But secondly, because he operates on an emotional level, not a cognitive one. His resentment, pain and fear are what’s real to him. All he can do is express them.

I don’t think there’s any point in letting that happen.

I see that I have arrived just AFTER the deadline for your wonderful idea, an Evolution Carnival! Well, it so happens that I have recently published a little book available on Amazon’s Kindle, on Human Evolution, subtitled just that, with the main title being The Human Journey. It’s volume IX, although the other volumes are not out just yet. It’s going to be 10 volumes in all, a project that will describe 1000 steps in human evolution beginning with chemical evolution (volume I, which is final editing), through the development of the first cell (volume II, also in final editing), through something like a worm (volume III, which hasn’t even been written, so it’s a bit vague yet).…skip to volume VIII, which I’m in the process of writing, Primate Evolution, which will take us up to Australopithecines (which is where Vol. IX began), and then volume X tells about the last 10 thousand years, beginning with the agricultural revolution (in final editing). Robin S. Heyer is doing Volumes I, II, and X, and I have completed IX and am working on VIII. We plan to meet somewhere in the middle, rather like the continental railroad in the U.S.

So here’s hoping the Carnival was truly grand! Hurray, huzzah for evolution! And boo hiss ID and creationism! If you want a good creation story, let’s go with the old Mongolian version, where the duck dives down in the primordial soup and brings up mud from the bottom of Lake Baikal, at the beginning of the world.

Looks like we are finally getting to the truth. You guys are so impressed with yourselves that you cannot see you are making yourselves look like fools. Your ability to formulate demeaning comments is up there which doesn’t make you smart, but troubled. It does show your lack of true intellect. You are just regurgitating verbiage and proving my main point; you do not have a clue to what created life and you do not care. The fact is, I do believe if the creator of the universe wanted to create an amino acid in a toxic environment, then He is the only one that can. But the fact is, He created all life the way it is today and his creation has never changed in any substantial way. If you find a fossil that is no longer around, then it died and that’s it. If it is found fossilized then the tissue and organisms must have been alive when it was covered with water and silt and preserved from decay and the minerals absorb into the tissue hardened, just like mummification. This is easily explained in a catastrophic flood. The evidence of a world filled with water is also evident in the different layers, you say billions of years, I say thousands of years. You do not have to be scared of the plausibility of a Creator that loves life enough to see it through to eternity. Man is trying it right now as we speak, he will just not accomplish that goal though because sinful pitiful people that chose death will eventually destroy the universe if given enough time. You know that in the deepest part of your hearts, don’t you? Who is really afraid?

Ricky_G said:

Looks like we are finally getting to the truth.



No. You are still fighting it off.

The fact is, I do believe if the creator of the universe wanted to create an amino acid in a toxic environment, then He is the only one that can.



You missed the points of both Stanton’s comment about extremephiles and mine about God-of-the-gaps arguments.

But the fact is, He created all life the way it is today and his creation has never changed in any substantial way.



No it is not a fact. It is an irrationally and desperately held belief that is contradicted by all of the available evidence (which is much vaster and more substantial than you have the courage to face.)

If you find a fossil that is no longer around, then it died and that’s it. If it is found fossilized then the tissue and organisms must have been alive when it was covered with water and silt and preserved from decay and the minerals absorb into the tissue hardened, just like mummification. This is easily explained in a catastrophic flood. The evidence of a world filled with water is also evident in the different layers,…



um, wrong.

… you say billions of years, I say thousands of years.



Because your world would collapse if you stopped.

You do not have to be scared of the plausibility of a Creator that loves life enough to see it through to eternity.



You do not have to be afraid of naturalistic explanations. This is probably a good point to remind you that EVOLUTION DOES NOT EQUAL ATHEISM

Man is trying it right now as we speak, he will just not accomplish that goal though because sinful pitiful people that chose death will eventually destroy the universe if given enough time. You know that in the deepest part of your hearts, don’t you?



No.This is a typical fundamentalist canard.You just cannot grasp that other people, deep down in their hearts, really honestly disagree with your beliefs, can you? That thought just scares the hell out of you, doesn’t it?

Who is really afraid?



You.

My previous statement about Ricky G using his faith as profanity stands, especially since all he can do is preach at us about how, since we will not allow him to bully us into emulating his ignorance, we are merely hellbound sinners.

But remember kids, ID “theory” has nothing to do with fundamentalist Christianity. Nope. Not a bit of it.

Right - I.D doesn’t say anything about any branch of Christianity.

What it says is, uh, er, um…

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jason Rosenhouse published on September 2, 2008 7:05 PM.

Steve Steve in London was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #113 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