“There is no denying”

154 Replies to ““There is no denying””

1. “hence my ridicule of people still being held slaves” (check)
   “I can go on and on but it won’t matter because you know the “truth”. (check)
   “I also have no time to wade through all your teams misunderstandings of basic science(like how carbon 14 has a strange affinity to break down at a CONSTANT rate so we can precicely date those pesky fossils) and misrepresentations of it’s findings(like ignoring everyting about a T-rex that shouts carnivor and focusing on a pair of eyes that aren’t looking perfectly straight ahead) Talk about being CLUELESS. Pot meet kettle. So once again, you have been exposed for a blowhard and I will not reply until I see some substance!” (check)
   “all your teams misunderstandings…” (?)
   “how carbon 14 has a strange affinity to break down at a CONSTANT rate” (huh?)
   Heh. It never ceases to amaze me how people like this walk into their own undoing. Proving the point made about their character and intellectual ability.
   No rational counter argument made, just more invective and ad hominem, based on anger. Running through the whole of their screed, without blinking, adding everything that wasn’t said, without considering, or replying to what was actually said. As if they are debating a monolithic conspiracy, rather than an individual.
   And then, ironically it ends:
   “I will not reply until I see some substance!”
   Hilarious.

2. Well g’bye then Gary…cuz you aren’t ready to accept what others have to say.
   Interesting that this started as a discussion about how the media twisted Tory’s statemnt…(it was putty in WK’s hands really) and has evolved into an argument on Creation vs the theory of evolution.Just to add fuel to the fire I will suggest that science (archeology, biology and chemistry and physics, and astronomy) support Creation and scripture. Chew on that for awhile…although no one here is about to be convinced otherwise.It takes faith.
   Back to the Ontario election. I foresee two clear problems with public funds going into faith based education. It opens the way for Muslim schools and their indoctrination, and there is no way I would want an unbeliving school superintendent to have any say in religious curriculum.
   Tory is Lib-lite so the next provincial election will see very little change, if any for Ontario.

3. …and Cosh made the best point.

4. Posted by: irwin daisy
   blah, blah, blah! I’m a moron blah fucking blah

5. Guess that means Gary saw substance.

6. Well g’bye then Gary…cuz you aren’t ready to accept what others have to say.
   Well if they would say SOMETHING! mr. daisy, as usual, has offered nothing of substance, just the usual blah! And science does NOT support creation. Only in your little mind. Plus, I’ll leave when I’m damn well ready, not on instruction by some anonymous internet hack!

7. The theory of evolution written out in a scientific formula:
   Dirt plus water plus time equals life.
   Uh, huh.
   So when the big bang happened, Andy the Aomeba must have been hanging on tight, never mind being heat-resistant.
   One other question.
   What did marsupials evolve from?

8. When you measure a fossil – and, can objectively determine its age, its lifestyle (carnivorous, herbivore, fish, mammal, plant etc) and the date of its existence and, can also determine when it became extinct and what types of organisms followed..these results aren’t subjective interpretations!!! They are objective measurements!
   Heh, determining “what types of organisms followed” through noting a few similarities is a subjective judgement.

9. “What did marsupials evolve from?”
   Better yet, how did they get all the way down to Australia after the great flood?
   Evolution simply means “Change over time”.

10. What did marsupials evolve from?
    And why have they stopped evolving?

11. Better yet, how did they get all the way down to Australia after the great flood?
    Biblical illiteracy is a great help to you. Makes it so much easier to construct straw men.

12. The great flood! HA HA HA.
    You guys care to explain how the ark could carry THOUSANDS of species, some of them quite large? How would they know they got ALL the animals, as the known world at that time was quite small? How about living arrangements with tight quarters having deer, cows and moose opposite lions and tigers and bears, oh my? Care to explain how you would FEED them all for over a year, as TV dinners weren’t invented yet? Any chance you could answer the time it took Noah’s family to shovel all the animal waste overboard every day to prevent disease? Once again this myth was stolen off earlier cultures, this time the Babylonians.

13. ol hoss – my apologies. I didn’t mean that you can determine what organisms follow by examining one particular fossil; I was thinking of the physical evidence, that shows one level of fossils, dated at an earlier age, and another level of fossils, that can be dated at a later age. The excavation and analysis of the multiple levels of a ‘physical dig’ will provide data showing extinct fossils – and later fossils.
    You have obviously ignored my suggestion to explore the real meanings of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. You are still misusing the terms. ‘Subjective’ does NOT mean ‘my individual thought’. It means an opinion unrelated to objective evidence. The only entities that can ‘think’ – are individuals. Using your incorrect definition of ‘subjective’, there can be no science – for to you, every thought, being done by an individual, is subjective.
    But the individual who is thinking is doing so, based on REASONING, on logic, on analysis. You are ignoring the nature and activity of REASON.
    set you free – ‘dirt plus water plus time equals life’ is – as I’m sure you know – just silly. You are ignoring organization. After all, hydrogen plus oxygen equals water – but both the hydrogen and oxygen organize themselves into a particular molecule, in order to exist as water.
    Oh- and at the time of the BigBang, there were no amoebas. I suggest you do a bit of reading on the Big Bang and the formation of the first quasi-atoms, atoms etc.
    I don’t know what marsupials evolved from; that’s not my field – but, they did evolve from something. The debate is whether the evolution was gradual and random or abrupt and non-random. I happen to focus on the latter – which is actually against the current neodarwinism.
    As to why an organism stops evolving – when it reaches a level of stability with its environment, there’s no need for further change. But, species are in an intimate networked interaction with their env’t – and adapt continuously. What can happen then, is that a species will come up with a variety of adaptations to slightly different stimuli in the env’t; these adaptations will stabilize over time – and then internal chemical barriers develop that isolate each subgroup from interbreeding – and a new species develops.

14. Gary,could you care you explain how the perfectly functioning human heart, brain or eye could have evolved since in between ‘stages’ would not function.That’s biology BTW.
    The answer to your questions are at answersingenesis.org.
    and Gary…do you live in Ontario?The original post was about Tory and the hypocritical Libs.

15. Hey, if I put a bunch of metal and glass on a table, would it evolve into a watch?
    Time starts …. right now.
    OK, so if an inanimate object cannot evolve into an inanimate object, how can a rock evolve into an aomeba?
    Gary:
    The Bible is an accumulation of wisdom based on human experience.
    Abraham travelled all over the known world and LISTENED to how all kinds of people from various backgrounds lived and coped. From those voyages sprung Abrahamic religions.
    He lived in a world in which hatred and ignorance of human beings of other human beings was prevalent and understood that this was part of human nature.
    Love and knowlege go a long way in this world, but it’s something human beings have to work at.
    BTW. Even the ancient Incas had flood stories. Were those stolen from the Babylonians?

16. I wish some of the posters here actually had some experience with Catholic schools in Ontario. My two daughters both attend a Catholic elementary school just north of Toronto. They estimate that they get about half an hour *a month* of religious education. That’s about 5 hours over the course of the school year. Wow – that’s some fearsome indoctrination schedule.
    The difference is their school doesn’t pretend that religion is only for Sunday. Unlike their friends at public schools, they are allowed to celebrate Christmas (not a “Winter Festival”), Valentine’s Day, and Easter. They don’t have to hide their religion like it’s some dirty secret.
    Some of us actually believe that following the teachings of Jesus makes us better people (and no, I don’t believe in ID or Genesis as anything but myth), and that those values should be integrated into our daily lives, not just something we indulge for an hour on Sunday morning. I pay taxes too, and I don’t want my kids taught in some secular-humanist, value-free, moral vacuum. I agree that a voucher system would probably be best, but that’s not on offer right now.

17. ET …you sound very educated but you are quoting assumptions and circular reasoning.It fills the books.You are regurgitating the stuff in the books.
    If it was that easy for water to form , why is it so hard to repeat? ( a staple of ‘scientific method’)
    There are no fossils representing ‘in between stages’.That is a fact.
    And how did fossils form? Quickly covered, high pressure. Sounds like archeology(science) proves the Flood.
    Have to agree with the possibility of the Big Bang. When God spoke things happenned….possibly with a bang.
    You don’t have to believe it…that’s the cool thing about the free will we were created with.

18. The Bible is an accumulation of wisdom based on human experience.
    The bible is an accumulation of thousands of years of human ignorance and superstition. There’s a reason why the church spent it’s first millennium of existence going around destroying scientific knowledge.

19. There are only two logical conclusions to this debate in Ontario, it is just a question of time.
    1) Extend funding to all schools of all faiths
    2) Ammendment to the constitution to remove the constitutional provision for catholic schools in Ontario which means no funding for any religous schools.
    It may not be this election but these are the only two stabl points. The funding of RC schools only is an unsustainable position over time. We will see how it plays over this election, if the RC hierarchy sense this they will swing behind the Con position to protect their priveledge.

20. Abraham was originally from Ur of the Chaldees. The place of ancient Sumer and the origin of the Gilgamesh tale, recounting the flood, which was far before the Babylonians.
    Noah’s known world was flooded. He took ‘all’ the animals into the ark, more than likely referring to necessary domestic animals in order for his family to survive.
    Jericho is said to be one of the oldest cities, dating to the Neolithic, approximately 8000 BC. Archeologists have found wild animals, such as aorochs, foxes, etc in the earliest layer of sediment. And then, all of the sudden, there are domesticated animals such as sheep, goats, oxen, etc, with no transition between.
    One of the problems with evolution is in dealing with the oomparts or anomolies that don’t fit the theory, rather than ignoring them, or burying them in the basement of the Smithsonian or British Museum.
    Michael Cremo’s work is interesting in this area. Much of it, hard to ignore.
    Another problem is dealing with the ongoing findings. The first ape was recently dated at 50 million years, which means the ape/human split can no longer be dated at 5 million years. Which means a lot of so-called ‘evidence’ is now useless.
    It appears the theory itself is the supreme ‘adaptive’ system.

21. “There’s a reason why the church spent it’s first millennium of existence going around destroying scientific knowledge.”
    Yes, it’s called power. In fact, the masses weren’t permitted access to the Bible either. Although it’s odd that the Church leaders didn’t change the NT to support their politics, greed and wars – like the Muslims and the Quran.

22. set you free – your analogies are incorrect. The metal and glass doesn’t ‘evolve’ into a watch (as you know); it’s a mechanical construction.
    And a rock doesn’t evolve into an amoeba. Never. Ever. Scientists still don’t know how the abiotic and biotic are related and how the biotic realm developed. But, because we still don’t know, doesn’t mean that we must resort to metaphysical explanations.
    vf- my knowledge is circular? Explain – and you say it’s from books. Well, where else would it come from, but the articles and books written by scientists.
    Right – there are no ‘in between’stages. I don’t accept the gradualist mode of evolution, but prefer the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ explanation (Gould)and, the complexity theories that explain formation of new organisms in a sudden reorganization of matter/energy. I’m not an advocate of neodarwinism – (gradual evolution by random mutations and natural selection).
    vf – I don’t know what you mean by ‘easy for water to form’..and ‘hard to repeat’.
    Fossils – check out how they are formed.
    irwin daisy – science requires that its theorems be open – constantly open – to further data, evidence, removing axioms that are proven invalid, coming up with new explanations. That’s the strength of science – it insists on its axioms being questioned and tested.
    Stephen – I agree; but what Tory has also done, is to open the Ontario election to questions and interest. Instead of it being a dull re-election for the corrupt McGuinty – the issues are being debated.

23. Irwin Daisy, your posts are awesome! Thanks. And ol hoss — rock solid faith. You’re reminding me of my dad (great man). You can’t argue with faith, all you atheists out there, because faith believes in the unseen and evolution is just plain matter. Faith is outside of science, and you will not convince people of faith to think your way.
    So what does it matter? Scientific paradigms themselves change overtime, and evolution will morph into some other belief about life’s origins. The Cambrian explosion is not explainable by gradual mutations over millions of years. People are coming up with panspermia and aliens and who knows what else. The paradigm will change. Faith like Irwin Daisy’s, set you free’s and ol hoss’s doesn’t change.
    People can believe the world rests on a turtle (is that a Hindu belief?) for all I care — why are evolutionists so angry that not everyone believes what they believe? I think you can believe the world is 6000 years old, or one living gigantic organism named Gaia, or rests on a turtle’s back, and still be a fantastic citizen of this country — perhaps even a better one (especially if your religion is the “do to others as you’d like done to you” type) than some social Darwinists who live by “survival of the fittest.” Yes, you can even be successful as a non-evolutionary scientist. Many inventions and discoveries, medical and otherwise, that bettered our lives were made by people in the 19th and 20th centuries who believed God created the world.
    At least creationists are consistent. If you believe in God, you believe He’s great. If you believe He’s great, you believe He can do anything. If you believe He can do anything, than you believe He could have made the whole earth and everything in it in just one second, but He chose 6 days and 1 rest day to give us a nice rhythm to our lives. And if He can make a grown-up man and grown-up trees just like that, than He can make a grown-up world. Simple. That’s faith.
    But evolutionists aren’t consistent, because every evolutionist still says “I”. Every evolutionist still thinks he/she has a personal identity apart from all the other atoms bopping around out there. Hey people, if all you are is a collection of atoms, of cells that replace themselves completely in your lifetime so you’re not even the collection of cells you started out as (so, why save for retirement 🙂 ), where did that material-less soul of yours, your identity, your “you” come from? It’s outside of matter. It’s outside of evolution. Evolutionists admit there’s more than just material matter the minute they say “I”. And if you admit that, you’re in the realm of the unseen, and you’re outside of science.
    Do you really believe that all you are is a collection of atoms bouncing around? Your brain is just energy ping-ponging off walls, responding to the laws of physics so that everything you do is predetermined? By Math? Cuz that’s what evolution tells you,ultimately.

24. ann:
    Big Bang/evolution has never stood up to any credible scientific scrutiny.
    Darwin himself never was a scientist and there is evidence he actually plagarized the writings.
    His theory also laid the groundworks for eugenics thought and its subsequent master race theories that led to wholesale slaughter of ‘inferior’ human beings in the 21st century.
    Evolutionary theory in a political form also was embraced by Karl Marx, who believed humanity could be converted into more refined beings through legislation.
    The race superiority/eugenics theory was embraced by the National Socialists.
    This history is easily tracable back to the mid-1800’s, when science itself became politicized and whose spokesmen became political figures, rather than the scientists themselves who were doing research.
    I sincerely believe the acceptance of this fraudulent theory has predictably led to the decline of western civilization and led to the bloodiest century (the 20th) in human history.
    The Muslim world can easily see this moral vaccum that’s been created.

25. set you free – I think you’ll have to substantiate your opinions – which are manifestly false – that the BigBang hasn’t stood up to scientific scrutiny; and that evolution hasn’t stood up to scientific scrutiny. Kindly provide the evidence for your conclusions.
    Darwin was most certainly a scientist – I don’t know your definition of ”scientist’, but, following the definition of his day, which was that science required careful and complete observations in the field – followed by an analytic conclusion based only on that data – he was a scientist.
    I think you’ll also have to provide proof of plagiarism!! What on earth are you talking about. Surely you aren’t referring to Wallace – who came up with a similar analysis. Darwin didn’t plagiarize Wallace; he just published it first.
    Nor can you legitimately accuse Darwin of any theories that others came up with. Most certainly, eugenics and master race have absolutely NOTHING to do with Darwin. The notion of superior peoples is ancient – heck, you’ll find that in Islam, and they never heard of Darwin.
    The Marxist notion of ‘stages of history’ has nothing to do with evolution. Same with Hitler’s National Socialism. You are making the error of assuming that any theory that considers that ‘things can get better’ in society – is akin to a Darwinian biological theory of evolution. That’s total nonsense. The notion of change and progress in societies came in about the time of the reformation in the 14th c – and that was long, long before Darwin. The Hegelian idea of change in stages – which was the basis for Marxism and also, National Socialism – was also around before Darwin.
    So- your conclusions are invalid.
    ann- no, I’m an atheist – and I also accept the theory of evolution. Not neodarwinism, with its random mutation, gradualism and natural selection, but a complex adapative networking..this is not the place to explain it. But, it IS an evolutionary theory!
    And, most certainly, what you are ignoring with your material reductionism, is the fact that those atoms are organized – and the organization remains ‘reasonably’ stable during the organism’s lifetime. We are not just a ‘bunch of atoms’ or cells. You are ignoring the mind.

26. OK ET:
    Did Darwin ever graduate from the University of Edinburgh and what degree did he allegedly earn?
    Can you enlighten us by giving us the entire title of Darwin’s first publication, which he stole?
    What kind of statement is that, saying that the work belongs to the first person who published it?
    If you had an idea and told somebody else about it and that person made money off your idea, whose idea would it be? Yours or the person who stole it off you?

27. What can happen then, is that a species will come up with a variety of adaptations to slightly different stimuli in the env’t; these adaptations will stabilize over time – and then internal chemical barriers develop that isolate each subgroup from interbreeding – and a new species develops.
    That’s a nice little story. All subjective, existing only in the evolutionist’s mind.

28. an interesting article
    http://www.yashanet.com/library/missing_link.htm
    “The idea that the universe has a beginning is actually a relatively new development to science and western thought. According to the Greek understanding there was no beginning, teachers such as Aristotle and Plato taught that the universe is eternal and unchanging (Schroeder).
    This was the view that science held, as late as the 1960’s. In a survey of leading scientists from 1959 the question was asked, ‘What is your concept of the age of the universe?’ The response to that survey was recently republished in the Scientific American – the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the answer: ‘Beginning? There was no beginning’” (Schroeder)
    In fact, for fifteen years, Albert Einstein refused to accept Edwin Hubble’s “incontrovertible proof of the expanding universe” and its implications that the universe had a beginning. Only when he met Dr. Hubble and had the opportunity to examine the evidence for himself, did Einstein concede his point (Ringler). His reluctance in accepting the implications of a universe with a beginning were evidenced in a remark to a colleague insisting that, “I still have not fallen into the hands of priests” (Jastrow 21)
    With the discovery of the expanding universe by Edwin Hubble, and the evidence of the “big bang” found in 1965 by scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson “the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning” (Calder 119) (Schroeder)”
    “Still, how do six days of creation equal fifteen billion years? According to the calculations of the 13th century Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac of Acco, the universe is precisely 15,340,500,000 years old.
    The calculation proceeds as follows: (check the link)

29. ex:
    We are in currently in the seventh day of creation.
    God’s days cannot be defined on the time the earth takes to rotate on its axis, since the earth and the universe (the firmanents) did not exist in the first two days ….
    So, I would have no basis upon which to disagree that the earth is 15.3 billion years old, since I cannot define the length of God’s day..
    In response to the suddenly-quiet ET, I did dig up the entire title of Darwin’s first book to support my assertion it laid a important groundwork for the eugenics school of thought.
    Published in November, 1859.
    Title: On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
    Favoured Races/Master Race. Not much of a stretch.
    As to his degree from the University of Edinburgh: Took two years of medical school and then dropped out. No degree earned, much less a degree which would lead to any credibility to make scientific statements.
    I’m sure Al Gore was more qualified. Interestingly enough, their techniques wehre quite similar.
    First, start with hypothetical qualifying statements like “It might have been … maybe .. probably … it is concievable that or let us take an imaginary example.”
    Then, refer back to it as a fact as in: “As we have already demonstrated previously.”
    Deceptive language which goes on to this day.

30. “what you are ignoring with your material reductionism, is the fact that those atoms are organized – and the organization remains ‘reasonably’ stable during the organism’s lifetime. We are not just a ‘bunch of atoms’ or cells. You are ignoring the mind.”
    I’m not ignoring the mind, ET. I asked: “Do you really believe that . . . your brain is just energy ping-ponging off walls, responding to the laws of physics so that everything you do is predetermined? By Math? Cuz that’s what evolution tells you,ultimately.”
    All your emotions, all your feelings — how do atoms ping-ponging around give you love, desire, yearning, sadness, etc etc?
    Where’s your soul in there? Where does it come from?

31. I think you’ll have to substantiate your opinions…that evolution hasn’t stood up to scientific scrutiny.
    While asking a negative to be proven, ET makes a slip about the “settled science” of the evolutionary tale.
    I also accept the theory of evolution. Not neodarwinism, with its random mutation, gradualism and natural selection, but a complex adapative networking.
    A lot like Gaia which also only exists in the imagination.

32. an interesting book:
    FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:
    EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
    Dustjacket blurb:
    In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary “fitness” (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.

33. I found the following to be an interesting argument for an Intelligent Designer:
    As far as I’ve learned (feel free to inform me if otherwise), no known mutation has ever INCREASED genetic information in DNA. The mutation appears to usually involve a sharing of already-present DNA between organisms, or a LOSS of genetic information. For example, a “super-bug” that evolved in a hospital would simply be a species of bacteria that LOST the genetic ability to absorb food through its cell walls, thus enabling it to block out the anti-bodies that would kill it.
    A boneless amoeba-like collection of cells would not have genetic information for bone-structure, the incredible means bones have to repair themselves, etc. (to just take one example). Yet an amoeba-like creature is supposed to have evolved into all the incredible diversity of life-forms we have today. Surely that would involve an INCREASE in genetic information. Yet, as far as I know, no known mutation increases genetic information, just shares or loses it. One DNA strand is like shelves of encyclopedias about how to do something (like bones repairing themselves).
    There needs to be observable proof that mutations can increase genetic information, not just share already existing info (or lose it). Take the debated “scales to wings” (dinosaurs to birds) evolution. Surely that would involve many mutations that increase genetic information? Wing structure to enable flight is pretty complicated compared to scales.
    Mutations that increase genetic information have so far not been observed, as far as I know (please link me to info if you know otherwise). If none has been observed, than all of evolution’s mutations over billions of years is just . . . guesswork.

34. set you free
    Your use of deceptive language leads to invalid assumptions. The ‘suddenly-quiet ET’ of your statement has an implicit hypothetical assumption of..? I went to bed.
    Science is and must always be, open to refutation. That is why it uses terms such as ‘probable’ etc. The phrase ‘as we have demonstrated previously’ isn’t a statement of proof of theory but of the data fitting the hypothesis.
    ‘Race’ in the 19th c meant species. No, you can’t move from the success of a species in an env’t to any notion of ‘human master race’. That’s an invalid jump. Nor can you rely on the title of a book to explain the whole hypothesis. I suggest you read the book.
    The fact that Darwin didn’t complete his medical degree has nothing to do with his ability to gather data and scientifically analyze it. There are lots of individuals, as I’m sure you know, with completed degrees – who make enormous errors in their work.
    I think you’ll have to prove that Darwin stole all his work from someone else; that’s quite an allegation to make. Please provide proof. Darwin didn’t steal his research or theory. But, the ‘time was ripe’ for this kind of theory – and several people came up with the notion of evolution about the same time.
    In the 19th c, with the ability to travel, and with the focus on individual research and massive collection of samples from the env’t, more and more turned to ‘naturalism’, a branch of research devoted to studying – the natural env’t. The view at the time was an eternal universe, with unchanging species and god as creator. But, the data base was contradicting this view.
    So, there was Lamarck in 1809 and his view of evolution. Lyell and Chambers, looking at geology and seeing that there had been great changes in the physical composition of the earth. Darwin in 1858 – had already spent 20 years gathering his data, writing the book, and being very disturbed by the data showing that species evolve. Wallace – the same time, and his data showed the same. Malthus – and his 1802 theory of the asymmetrical relation of plants (food) and animals – and how the animals had to struggle for food. This led both Wallace and Darwin to the notion of struggle for survival.
    Darwin had actually sent a letter to Lyell about his views, the year before he had ever heard of and read Wallace’s views. So, in 1859 – Darwin published his ‘Origin of Species’.
    Would you kindly explain and provide proof of Darwin’s plagiarism and theft? Thanks.
    ol hoss – what can I say, but you refuse to learn, you refuse to give up your utterly invalid definition of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. That’s your choice – to remain ignorant of the truth. Again, ‘subjective’ does NOT mean ‘a thought by an individual’.

35. set you free
    Your use of deceptive language leads to invalid assumptions. The ‘suddenly-quiet ET’ of your statement has an implicit hypothetical assumption of..? I went to bed.
    Science is and must always be, open to refutation. That is why it uses terms such as ‘probable’ etc. The phrase ‘as we have demonstrated previously’ isn’t a statement of proof of theory but of the data fitting the hypothesis.
    ‘Race’ in the 19th c meant species. No, you can’t move from the success of a species in an env’t to any notion of ‘human master race’. That’s an invalid jump. Nor can you rely on the title of a book to explain the whole hypothesis. I suggest you read the book.
    The fact that Darwin didn’t complete his medical degree has nothing to do with his ability to gather data and scientifically analyze it. There are lots of individuals, as I’m sure you know, with completed degrees – who make enormous errors in their work.
    I think you’ll have to prove that Darwin stole all his work from someone else; that’s quite an allegation to make. Please provide proof. Darwin didn’t steal his research or theory. But, the ‘time was ripe’ for this kind of theory – and several people came up with the notion of evolution about the same time.
    In the 19th c, with the ability to travel, and with the focus on individual research and massive collection of samples from the env’t, more and more turned to ‘naturalism’, a branch of research devoted to studying – the natural env’t. The view at the time was an eternal universe, with unchanging species and god as creator. But, the data base was contradicting this view.
    So, there was Lamarck in 1809 and his view of evolution. Lyell and Chambers, looking at geology and seeing that there had been great changes in the physical composition of the earth. Darwin in 1858 – had already spent 20 years gathering his data, writing the book, and being very disturbed by the data showing that species evolve. Wallace – the same time, and his data showed the same. Malthus – and his 1802 theory of the asymmetrical relation of plants (food) and animals – and how the animals had to struggle for food. This led both Wallace and Darwin to the notion of struggle for survival.
    Darwin had actually sent a letter to Lyell about his views, the year before he had ever heard of and read Wallace’s views. So, in 1859 – Darwin published his ‘Origin of Species’.
    Would you kindly explain and provide proof of Darwin’s plagiarism and theft? Thanks.
    ol hoss – what can I say, but you refuse to learn, you refuse to give up your utterly invalid definition of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. That’s your choice – to remain ignorant of the truth. Again, ‘subjective’ does NOT mean ‘a thought by an individual’.

36. Again, ‘subjective’ does NOT mean ‘a thought by an individual’.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective
    sub·jec·tive
    –adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
    2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

37. my apologies for the duplicate post above.
    ol hoss – I’m aware that you don’t know anything about complex adaptive systems. No, they have nothing to do with the gaia hypothesis – a hypothesis, by the way, that I view as nonsense.
    ex-liberal- the supposition that Hitler used evolutionary theory to justify his racism is hardly evidence or justification to reject the theory of evolution. That would be like someone rejecting the use of cars because someone used a car in a bank robbery.
    ann – you are using the basic creationist argument about genes and information. Your error, in my mind, is that you focus on genes as the sole site of information processing in the organism. They aren’t; the informational processing isn’t a one-to-one gene to protein, nor is it linear. Information processing is a complex network, and this informational network can be simple or increase in complexity.
    Genes mutate, as you know, and this produces a more complex ‘informational unit’ than before; they link up with other genes, and the links provide a more complex processing unit. AS I’m sure you know, the typical single gene consists of thousands of base pairs; the focus is on the relations between these smaller units with other genes and their units. That’s what makes the informational process more complex.
    There are other more complex processes, which increase in complexity within more complex organisms. There are the various RNA’s, and DNA introns and exons. Introns were known as ‘junk DNA’; they become prolific in more complex organisms and research since the 1960s shows that they seem to enable more informational variation, ie, the production of more complex protein formation.
    I suggest you look up DNA, RNA, introns, exons, proteins.

38. …research since the 1960s shows that they seem to enable more informational variation, ie, the production of more complex protein formation.
    Heh, seem to? You should join the GW folks. They use their imagination a lot as well.
    An organism evolving into another species has never been observed. The whole theory exists in the fevered imagination of folks desperate not to be held accountable for their actions.

39. “they seem to enable more informational variation”
    E.T.: I read your response all the time from people when I ask this question, and the links they give just don’t answer the basic question.
    “seem to enable more informational variation.”
    As in, do these mutations increase genetic information? Add the needed encyclopedias of information to the DNA strands? Change a scale to a wing? “Variation” — as in, variation from already existing info. Where does an amoeba get the info to develop bones? Where did the other genes come from?
    Wonderful mutations like this have never been observed. All links I’ve ever been given talk about “what ifs, perhaps, seems to” and “appears”, about genes at the microscopic level. Observed, yes, but never observed in a cohesive unit that magically finds new information to mutate into a new organism with a more advanced purpose that required more genetic information. “Shared information to increase complexity” is about the best they can manage.
    The “mutations=loss-of-information” point is always dismissed as a “basic creationist argument”, just like you did, as if the much-hissed-at creation label will just make it go away. But I’ve never received a convincing pat answer that makes it go away . . . just a lot of vague, long-winded, bewildering language that does seem to go around in circles. I admit I’m a layman, not a scientist. But many of us are laymen, and we need clear answers. We don’t think scientists are correct just because they have the label “scientist,” and they can use long-winded phrases that will make many go, “OK, OK, you must be right . . .”
    “Genes mutate, as you know, and this produces a more complex ‘informational unit’ than before; they link up with other genes, and the links provide a more complex processing unit.”
    Uh-huh. The complexity is what’s complex :-). Your genes have your whole body working as one. What was the half-way point, or the 1/3-way, etc? You’re just a collection of genes working towards . . . what end? Why are you a working unit? What for? Wouldn’t that one amoeba who started the whole thing (pretty complex already in itself – encyclopedias full about food absorption and processing, etc.) just have been content to stay put? Repeat: where does an amoeba get the info to develop bones?
    “AS I’m sure you know, the typical single gene consists of thousands of base pairs;” . . . and if a single one is out or wack the gene can’t perform its function. And those combinations of base pairs are more complicated than most machines — just ask a scientist trying to clone a mammoth from a few half-decayed DNA strands. Complexity, complexity, complexity. Good ol’ DNA. Encyclopedias worth of info, and all for a purposeful end.
    Sorry, evolution just doesn’t explain the why. I guess that brings us out of the realm of science — microscopic level to an organic whole that’s more than the sum of its parts. Also, there’s still my unanswered: “All your emotions, all your feelings — how do atoms ping-ponging around give you love, desire, yearning, sadness, etc etc?
    Where’s your soul in there? Where does it come from?”
    I respect your knowledge,ET, but I wish your response did solve the question for me once and for all. It just doesn’t. I’ve heard it before from university profs and highschool teachers, like they’ve all run to the same links and start droning back from the same “101 answers to creationist nonsense,” and it doesn’t.
    Maybe origins science should be labelled just that, “unobservable science of origins,” and everything dealing with origins also just be labelled a “theory.”

40. ol hoss – again, you misunderstand the difference between objective and subjective. A subjective analysis does not take into account objective evidence. Your dictionary definition, if you would read it, acknowledges this – that the agent does not consider the data from the ‘object of thought’ but makes his decision without that data.
    The fact that thought takes place in the individual mind – is not the point of the difference between an objective and subjective view. The point is whether that individual acknowledges the data – as it is – without changing it, or not.
    ann- I have no intention of changing your mind because I know that your commitment is to a creationist perspective. Therefore, nothing I can say will ‘solve the question’ in your mind because you are not questioning. Your mind is made up.
    Your focus on the language of ‘what ifs’, probable’, etc – ignores that this is the basic language of science, which is the opposite of dogma. Science doesn’t claim to final proofs; its hypotheses must remain open to questions, debate, more research – or, it isn’t science. That’s why that language is used.
    But, your focus on the ‘gene’ as a kind of ‘full bucket’, containing all data about an organism – is invalid. The ‘informational bucket’ of an organism is not confined to the genes, but to the genes, plus RNA, plus proteins – acting within relations (which you ignore). You seem to think it’s a one-to-one relation. That has been long disproven. It’s far more complex than you acknowledge. And, complexity does NOT mean ‘more than the sum of its parts’.
    As to the ‘why’ of evolution – in my view, it is a process of increasing complexity of organization of matter, to prevent entropic dissipation. That’s the only reason. There’s no teleological plan, no line-of-progress. Simple, a system (matter) that must devise ever more complex processes to retain itself as matter and not dissipate to the LCD (lowest common denominator).
    That won’t satisfy you. But it satisfies me.
    There’s a lot of research out there – people like D. Brooks, Stuart Kauffman, D. Griffiths.. I receive the weekly journal from the AAAS, Science – and there’s always articles on evolution, adaptation, etc. The Journal of Theoretical Biology, the journal BioSystems – those are other great sources.
    The theories of how life originated (biotic) from nonliving (abiotic) matter – are theories. Two contrasting themes are ‘replicator first’ vs ‘metabolism first’. The latter is a ‘thermodynamic process’ vs the former as a ‘gene-driven process’. I tend to be more interested in the thermodynamic process.
    Actually, new species have been observed quite frequently.

41. A subjective analysis does not take into account objective evidence.
    Hellooo, that’s exactly what evolutionists do. You even admit that being the case in the below quote.
    Your focus on the language of ‘what ifs’, probable’, etc – ignores that this is the basic language of science, which is the opposite of dogma. Science doesn’t claim to final proofs; its hypotheses must remain open to questions, debate, more research – or, it isn’t science. That’s why that language is used.
    So-called proofs resting on the foundation of “what ifs” and “probabilities” only exist in the imagination. Objective evidence becomes secondary, as you’ve just pointed out.
    Reminds me of Chretien, “da proof is da proof…”.

42. “As to the ‘why’ of evolution – in my view, it is a process of increasing complexity of organization of matter, to prevent entropic dissipation. ”
    Wow, you have fun with that, Mr. “I’m not entropically dissipated.”
    So that’s why you’re alive. Cool.
    New species have been observed? Or is it simply that one species has used already built-in characteristics to adapt over time? Evolution needs changes from amoeba to animal with backbone, reptile to bird, etc., not one bug to slightly different bug that’s still able to breed with first bug.
    You’re right that my mind is made up that evolution isn’t the answer to how we got here. There’s that Cambrian explosion, for one thing . . .
    We’ve taken up a lot of Kate’s bandwith here. I’ll enjoy your next response, but I’m moving on. The sources you point out are the basis for my profs’ teachings, so I’m sure I’ll hear once again this school term about the “simple-but-complex” “random-but-ordered” organization of all living things and how they came to be. Don’t worry, ET — everyone that counts on this planet thinks they’re just organized atoms,too, so there’s no danger that too many little ears will hear things you don’t consider scientifically valid. Snorts of derision will still be heard everytime someone is labelled “creationist.”
    And some of us will still continue to believe that we’re more than an “organization of matter, to prevent entropic dissipation.”
    Bye for now. Thanks, truly, for all your imput.

43. sheesh – ol hoss. You simply don’t get it. No, evolutionists aren’t thinking ‘subjectively’. They DO take into account objective evidence; that’s the only evidence there is. Their scientific hypotheses are based on that objective evidence – and the hypothesis is couched in probabilistic language. Because it is a scientific hypothesis. Not theistic dogma. Do you get the difference between evidence and hypothesis? The former is objectively existent; the latter is a reasoned analysis, based on that objective evidence – which is primary.
    ann- you are a student; I’d advise you to keep an open mind and don’t go into an education with your mind already made up.

44. Your mind is made up, though, isn’t it? Why do I have to be the open-minded one who opens herself to having her mind changed, while you get to close your mind because you feel you hold the truth?
    Did you start out open-minded, or were you too immersed in the evolutionary paradigm to even consider there might be something outside of matter? Or did you simply decide “there is no God” before you began to think about origins?
    Because you see, we’re all guided by our world-view, and that world-view colours how we view every little bit of evidence.
    ET, I think you believe you’re objective and so are all those scientists you trust so. Please read Kuhn’s “Structures of Scientific Revolutions.” No one’s open-minded. Everyone hangs onto something against all argument, because they’ve invested heavily into it. Even evolutionists.
    Ok, Ok, I really need to stop posting on this. I’ve got a life after all. You can have the last word . . . promise.

45. Thanks for your earlier compliment Ann.
    It seems to me that the pro-evolution crowd is becoming increasingly fanatical.
    The whole idea has gone from pure speculation to theory to outright fanatical dogma – with rhetoric bordering on Islamist and leftist radicalism.
    For example, ‘creationist’ is used with the same sense of vulgarity and hatred as ‘climate change denier’ and ‘infidel.’ Spat out of the mouth, with the utmost contempt.
    As evidenced on this thread, and the letters to newspapers over John Tory’s comments.
    My question is – if evolution is so secure in science then what is there to fear?
    Another interesting discovery to upset the evolutionary turnip truck is that so-called ‘junk’ DNA, in fact 97% of DNA corresponds to Zipf’s language law.
    Now of course, Zipf’s law will be attacked. And Zipf, falsely discredited.
    Once again, out of fear.
    It’s perverse and extremely hypocritical, to say the least.

46. No, evolutionists aren’t thinking ‘subjectively’. They DO take into account objective evidence; that’s the only evidence there is. Their scientific hypotheses are based on that objective evidence…
    There’s absolutely no observable evidence to support the hypotheses that cows can turn into horses, or anything else. Or came from anything else. There are no transitional fossils, none. So-called “transitional fossils” exist only in the evolutionist’s imagination, being a product of subjective interpretation. Each organism represented by a fossil was a distinct fully functioning organism. Not part one thing and part another. The label “transitional fossil” is just that, a label. All the rest of evilutionary thought rests on that label.
    Therefore the whole of evilutionary thought only exists in the mind of evolutionist’s, and is subjective.

47. This is still going on?
    Here’s the deal, if you reject evolution then it is imperative that you replace it with a better theory. That’s really the thing. ID does not explain the fossil record, ID doesn’t explain the numerous protohumans, ID doesn’t explain mass extinction events. Doesn’t explain the variation in current species that are similar but cannot breed. On and on.

48. Here’s the deal, if you reject evolution then it is imperative that you replace it with a better theory.
    Rejection of evilutionary theory doesn’t depend on it’s replacement. Just as rejection of AGW doesn’t depend on it’s replacement.
    …ID doesn’t explain the numerous protohumans…
    Duh, they looked like apes because they were apes.

49. “…ID doesn’t explain the numerous protohumans…”
    As I mentioned earlier, the OT has some mysterious, perhaps not well understood verses, such as Cain being banished to a land called Nod, populated as it were, by people not from Adam. Also in Genisis, a hybrid people called the Nephilim are mentioned as “the men of old, the men of reknown.”
    It’s also been postulated that between Genesis 1:1 and (I believe) verse two, or three – two creations of the world were made.

50. ET:
    Hope you had a good sleep.
    In the time that you were in a slumber, the theory of evolution still has not stood up to any scientific scrutiny.
    It’s a sham, a lie, a total fairy-tale made up by a university dropout who did not even earn a degree.
    The discovery of DNA put the lie on its final death-bed once and for all.
    No species can transform into any other species.
    When was the last time you heard a credible scientist say that any species can transform into another species?
    In fact, it’s just the opposite.
    The theory is totally discredited.