More pearls of wisdom from @Starchasr

I first spotted this guy’s tweets a few weeks back. Rather than taking himself to a quiet corner to find out if the torrent of links people sent him, pointing out his mistakes, actually contained anything he might find interesting, he just came back with yet more received opinion and the usual stuff about being “evolved from” and “believing in”.

You honestly can’t make this stuff up. It’s both comedy genius and utterly terrifying. Think about it. This guy is actually entitled to vote!

Starchasr: @MovingToMontana Cmon?!?! Listen to what evolution claims…How can you seriously question my sanity for not believing it?

Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/Starchasr/statuses/6667263721

Yeah, because magic man impregnating his own mother before he was born to save us from sins he created us with is so much more appealing in the credibility stakes.

Starchasr: @MovingToMontana I do I read the bible…..Evolution is a confusing theory I expect much more from a “proven fact.”

Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/Starchasr/statuses/6665347486

Can you IMAGINE the response I might have solicited from him had I asked to which “proven facts” in the bible he was referring?

Starchasr: @MovingToMontana But at least we dont think our ancestors were potatoes….Evolution vegetables in every way…

Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/Starchasr/statuses/6662595187

This is one of those, “I know how evilooshun works because I once watched a creation science ministries video about it on my Alpha course” non-argument that could only come from someone who has exactly zero clue what taxonomy is. In a way it actually serves as a useful reminder that we’re not always dealing with people who have all the necessary information at their disposal. It’s actually a very sad indictment of the education system, in certain parts of the world. It’s also a commentary on the kinds of TV and radio media which passes for science programming these days. A far cry indeed from the days of Jacob Bronowski’s ‘The Accent of Man’ and the embarrassment of riches contained in David Attenborough’s BBC wildlife programmes.

Of course, you can’t simply blame the media for a general lack of intellectual curiosity among the gabbling masses. There will always be a certain percentage of the population who would prefer to take their opinions intravenously.

I’d love to think @Starchasr might give himself at least another string to his bow, if he is serious about debating the evidence for evolution with people. In that light I’ve suggested this reading list to him, but I rather suspect his only retort will be to assume I didn’t read any Christian literature in the 14 years I was an evangelical. Such is life. Sigh.

The Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Relics-Eden-Powerful-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1591025648/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260816061&sr=8-5

Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-Evolution-Logic-Behind-Science/dp/0521692741/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260816061&sr=8-6

The Geological Evidence of Evolution
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Geological-Evidence-Evolution-Angelo-Heilprin/dp/1113735449/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260816061&sr=8-8

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260816061&sr=8-10

38 comments on “More pearls of wisdom from @Starchasr

  1. “Yeah, because magic man impregnating his own mother”

    Not true…..

    Thats a pagan trinity teaching and not taught in the bible….

    “before he was born to save us from sins he created us with”

    No wrong again….

    We were created perfect and he sent his son to the earth to die for our sins….

    Read your bible…

    “is so much more appealing in the credibility stakes.”

    The truth is always more appealing in the credibility stakes…

    I dont take credibility lessons from someone who thinks we are distantly related to potatoes and the universe just popped into existence from nothing.

  2. “Can you IMAGINE the response I might have solicited from him had I asked to which “proven facts” in the bible he was referring?”

    Yes,well I’m not the one calling anyone who doesn’t believe stupid and opening discussions how ridiculous you are for not believing in creation….

    Big claims need big proof….

    Evolution makes big claims but relies more on psychology than proof to keep its believers in line…

  3. I’m here…..

    Psychology section?

    I’ve been looking in the science fiction section….

    Seriuously though I haven’t had chance to look for them yet give me chance the universe wasn’t created in a day…..

  4. Here’s something to mull over while you come to terms with the idiocy of your first reply and attempt to claw back some degree of credibility.

    You are the Creator of the universe. Your chosen people are a tribe of nomadic herdsmen, presently in bondage on one of the millions of planets you created. Keeping in mind that you possess not only infinite power but also infinite love, your best course of action would be to…

  5. Hi Jim,

    If you wanna save your credibility save the insults I’m not impressed…..

    Just to get this clear are we talking now or during bible times?

    Are we talking bondage that resulted from their disobedience or from something that was not their fault?

    These are factors to be taken into consideration before I can answer….

  6. No, we’re talking about the fact that it’s been a week since you said you have to be insane to believe evolution and so far you haven’t cited a single reason for this.

    You say via twitter that you are busy answering other people’s questions, but you seem to spend your entire time regurgitating the same thing we already knew you were thinking, before you were directly challenged. So I say again, how many books on evolution have you read and which parts didn’t you understand?

  7. Starchasr: @MovingToMontana Evolution is a myth because it is all specious science and conjecture there is no proof beyond that…

    Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/Starchasr/statuses/6803954793

    Starchasr: @MovingToMontana If you want a more detailed version you will have to wait till tomorrow but I will post it…..

    Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/Starchasr/statuses/6803986241

    MovingToMontana: @Starchasr Is that a promise to answer the specific question or a promise to restate what you’ve already said before?

    Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/MovingToMontana/statuses/6804021420

  8. Please note the date and time this comment and the comment above was posted. Starchasr has been given a chance to list the “specious science and conjecture” which disproves evolution.

  9. This could be interesting,

    Firstly though, Jim are you suggesting that evolution is indeed a falsifiable hypothesis? What would constitute sufficient proof, in your view, to render it untenable?

  10. Well lets keep it simple shall we Jim……

    Why do scientists use fossils unrelated to mans evolution as proof that it took place?

    Why was the much touted Ardi used to show how man evolved opposable fingers,when man is not supposed to have evolved those features for another million years?

    Why do Apes continue to thrive while higher form Apemen died out?

    Why do scientists insist that mans ancestors came out of the sea but dont actually seem to know what form they had in the sea?

    Why do scientists ignore the impossible odds that preclude Abiogenesis because it suits their theory to do so?

    Why do evolutionists think we share a common ancestor with potatoes and then think they have the intellectual highground?

    Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?

    If evolution was so necessary when animals left the sea why is it still teeming with life,some of it at the most basic level of evolution…

    Where do insects come from? Are they a piece of backwards evolution?

    Do you want more? I have plenty…..

  11. You know its pathetic to watch atheists saying that I’m running from the debate in an attempt to add to their own arguments credibility.

    Michael Crook used to do that before he gave up debating me….

    I dont run or dodge any argument,I can keep this up as long as you like….It doesn’t bother me…

  12. Paul

    “I dont run or dodge any argument,I can keep this up as long as you like….It doesn’t bother me…”

    At the essence of every single one of your ‘arguments’ is the argument from personal incredulity. You simply fail to believe that there is any other explanation for the universe, life and biodiversity than your Magic Man(“God” or whatever the f*ck you call him)waving his magic wand and it all springing into existence. It’s very easy to think you are making good arguments when you simply stick your fingers in your ears and shout “goddunnit goddunnit goddunnit”

    Btw, lets clear up one thing right now that you confuse alot. The origin of life (abiogenesis) and the diversity of life (evolution) are two sepearte things. Evolution says nothing about Abiogenesis and vice versa. Sure we’d like to know how both worked.

    Lets look at your little canards and strawmen shall we?

    “Why do scientists use fossils unrelated to mans evolution as proof that it took place?” Because evolution applies to all life of earth. What are you driving at here? Are you suggesting that humans are special and a different prtocess works for them.

    “Why was the much touted Ardi used to show how man evolved opposable fingers,when man is not supposed to have evolved those features for another million years?” I assume you mean opposable thumbs here. I apologise – I dont know much about Ardipethcus. However, I still don’t see what your argument is? If you can give me some more detail I’ll try and answer. Looks to me like some rectally abstracted nonsense you have regurgitated from answers in genesis or some other pit of despond – however, unlike you I’ll keep an open mind.

    “Why do Apes continue to thrive while higher form Apemen died out?” Apes continue to thrive in habitats where they are well adapted to survive. Which higher form Apemen are you talking about? What is the argument you are trying to make?

    “Why do scientists insist that mans ancestors came out of the sea but dont actually seem to know what form they had in the sea?” So because we dont have a step by step skeletal history of every species that formed human ancestory, evolution is false? Is that what you are saying here? You do realise how lucky we are to have fossils in the first place do you not? However, there is a colossal amount of evidence from other branches of science other than paleontology that provide evidence for evolution. (Note use of word evidence, not “proof”)

    “Why do scientists ignore the impossible odds that preclude Abiogenesis because it suits their theory to do so?” Ok, abiogensis now. Note that this is seperate from evolution, just in case you missed that point the first time round. You argument here is “Impossible Odds! Therefore Goddunnit”. First the positive argument – the earth was a mighty big test tube and also had millions of years. Lots can happen in millions of years. Panspermia is another option. And it only had to happen once. Now the negative – So my answer to the origin of life is “we are working on it” Your answer is – without, might I add, a shred of evidence – Goddunit. Your answer simply shifts the problem and you also then have the difficulty that you need to explain what created “God” or simply be subject to special pleading. God of gaps and personal incredulity. You show me evidence then I’ll accept your hypothesis that God created life.

    “Why do evolutionists think we share a common ancestor with potatoes and then think they have the intellectual highground?” Well we do altho it was a few billion years ago and a very ‘simple’ form of life.

    “Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?” What’s your source for this because I’m confident that this is BS? Of course, this is a silly argument because if we were designed by God, then why has god given man a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?? Or is he just a shit designer?

    “If evolution was so necessary when animals left the sea why is it still teeming with life,some of it at the most basic level of evolution…” This just shows how poor your understanding of evolution is. Why wouldn’t the sea still be “teeming with life” (which actually it isnt – less than a tenth of the ocean is naturally productive)if some organisms made the transition to be land based? Organisms “at the most basic level of evolution” are simply well adpated to their environment and have been for a long time. What organisms are you thinking of? But more importantly, this observation is entirely consistent with evolution.

    “Where do insects come from? Are they a piece of backwards evolution?” Why would insects be a backward piece of evolution? Insects evolved. What’s your point caller?

    So what you have done is not to point out where the “specious science” but instead demonstrate that your knowledge of evolution is woeful. I don’t mind you criticising evolution. In fact it’s a good thing because that is how science works. Although you wont believe me, there are scientists all over the world trying to tear down evolution, and indeed every other scientific theory [btw, dont start down the ‘its just a theory road’]. The fact of the matter is that evolution has survived the test and a enormous mountain of evidence exists that makes evolution tantamount to a fact.

    Mike

  13. Paul:

    I’ve lost count of how many times each of your above points have come up in these kinds of debates. I would be a little insulted that you didn’t take the time to read the rest of the site to see my answers to each of them for yourself, if I didn’t already have a pretty good idea of how concerned you are with simply honesty, let alone with common courtesy or for that matter your own lack of intellectual curiosity, and if I didn’t already have a fair idea of the level on which you are operating.

    Nevertheless, Mike has done a sterling job in answering many of your initial comments here, so I won’t repeat what he has said, except to remind you that the actual challenge presented to you was to describe the compelling evidence you have repeatedly claimed you are in possession of, which shows current thinking on biology, palaeontology, archeology and genetics are flawed. In other words to present positive evidence, as opposed to negative conjecture.

    For a clearer break down on what this means and why it marks an important difference between how we rule in radical ideas in order to find new areas of understanding and how we rule out ideas that simply are not based in fact, I can not recommend Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery highly enough. His work defined what we call deductive logic; and while deduction alone has, since the book’s original publication, been shown to be insufficient for number of reasons—not least being the reliance upon falsifiability over irrefutability—Popper remains a most accessible and lucid writer on the testability principal—which remains to this day a vital component in the formation of any scientific working proof.

    So, assuming we’re not going to let ourselves get carried away with the idea that simply because someone (i.e. you) doesn’t understand something, that this doesn’t automatically make their “alternative idea” just as credible as the one which they, by definition, fail to understand—let me again invite you to present evidence which would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that evolution faces the kind of problem you insist it does.

    You have repeatedly asserted, both to me and many others, via Twitter, that those of us who have reviewed the abundance of corroborative yet independently obtained evidence which supports evolution are, quote, “squirming because you know how ridiculous it is” [to believe that we are] “distantly related to potatoes”. Can I again invite you to present the evidence, which you clearly place a great deal of faith in, that would prove, when properly reviewed against sound scientific principals, that common genetic ancestry from species to species is false. I would also welcome any links or book titles you have read which germinated in you the childish notion that Solanum have any direct common ancestry with the Hominids whatsoever.

    To show generosity in this regard (knowing as I do how busy you are regurgitating your vile hatred of the facts beyond the borders of this blog alone) let me make the challenge you face as simple as it can possibly be.

    Part one: Find a gene without an evolutionary heritage. Over 180 species have been sequenced thus far and that data is publicly available. Point to one single gene which could not have evolved by means of natural selection. It’s as simple as that. This challenge has been presented publicly to the anti-evolution cabal on a number of occasions. If you can be the first to respond to it, without merely running away from this incredibly simple request, by arguing instead that the challenge is not an honest one, I think at the very least there’s a Nobel prize in it for you. And I’m not being cute. That really is all you have to do. Find ONE non-evolved gene and the prize is yours.

    Part two: I would genuinely appreciate any information you might have on any independent scientists, i.e., any individual efforts you know of which are not funded by American evangelical church groups, whose work is openly published for peer review in Nature, or any other well respected scientific journal, which seriously challenges the basic principals of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. All I need is a name and round one goes to you.

    One gene. One independent scientist. I can not make things any simpler or fairer than that.

  14. Aware as I am of how people like @Starchasr think—and how many of you out there enjoy reading rather than commenting, on these stories, I didn’t want anyone to think I ducked answering @Starchasr’s questions, by seeding my direct reply to Mike Tovell’s excellent response. So here goes:

    Q. Why do scientists use fossils unrelated to mans evolution as proof that it took place?

    A. Which fossils in particular are you referring to? Which scientific study in particular do you struggle with?

    Q. Why was the much touted Ardi used to show how man evolved opposable fingers,when man is not supposed to have evolved those features for another million years?

    A. I do not know what you mean by this. Do you realise how short an amount of time 1 million years is?

    Q. Why do Apes continue to thrive while higher form Apemen died out?

    A. Please rephrase this question. I don’t understand what you are asking for. What is an “Apeman”?

    Q. Why do scientists insist that mans ancestors came out of the sea but dont actually seem to know what form they had in the sea?

    A. Again I can’t decipher what your actual question is here. Which scientists “insist” what about whom? Do you mean, which of the precambrian proto-creatures of which we have sufficient evidence of have we been able to include in the taxonomy of mammalian ancestry? If so, the answer is all of them.

    Q. Why do scientists ignore the impossible odds that preclude Abiogenesis because it suits their theory to do so?

    A. I’m not sure, again, I think you understand this question, but I wasn’t aware of any serious scientific study anywhere in the world that does this. Please feel free to illuminate us if this is incorrect. Please also explain what you understand abiogenesis to be and what it has to do with Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection.

    Q. Why do evolutionists think we share a common ancestor with potatoes and then think they have the intellectual highground?

    A. I wasn’t aware of any direct common ancestry between Solanum and Hominids or any serious person who suggests any such thing. If you think that this is what evolution is about, I might suggest that this is where your confusion has arisen. Which books have you read on evolution? Who authored them? Who published them? What is an “evolutionist”?

    Q. Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?

    A. The “we don’t use 90% of our brain” meme is an urban myth. We, in fact, use all of our brain all of the time. Some areas more than others, depending on the situation. If you ever decide to read some non-fiction on these topics, you might find the work of Dr. Richard Leakey particularly fascinating, in regard to the development of group reciprocity and altruism in large brained hominids.

    Q. If evolution was so necessary when animals left the sea why is it still teeming with life,some of it at the most basic level of evolution…

    A. Again, I don’t know what you mean by that or why you would think that this is what evolution says about the development of life on Earth. All living creatures on Earth are the modern descendant of their ancient ancestor—in the genus to which they belong—modified by means of natural selection over hundreds of millions of years. Evolution does not stop for some species and start for others, it is a continuous process, driven only by genetic mutation. What you’re asking is essentially a reworking of the old “why are there still monkeys if we are evolved from monkeys” argument. But this is rather like saying, “why are people still driving Ford Pick-ups, when they’ve invented the Bugatti Veyron”. The fact is, both the common-or-garden run-about and the super-car exist side by side. One is derived from the other. But that doesn’t make one redundant or surplus to requirements, simply because one is better at some things than the other. You wouldn’t do the weekly family run to the supermarket in a super-car any more than you would compete in the Le Mans 24 hour endurance race in a 1.6 litre Nissan Primera. Similarly, monkeys didn’t cease to be a species capable of surviving, just because their environment, availability of food or exposure to predators changed over time. On the contrary, the fact that there is still so much abundant diversity of life on this planet, despite that 99% of all life which has ever existed is now extinct, is testament to the resilience of evolution—not proof that things in fact work the other way around, as you seem to be suggesting.

    Q. Where do insects come from? Are they a piece of backwards evolution?

    A. Again, I simply don’t understand the premise of this question. What do you want to know about insects that can not be found out by a simple Google search or half an hour in front of wikipedia?

  15. From Starchasr:

    I dont take credibility lessons from someone who thinks we are distantly related to potatoes and the universe just popped into existence from nothing.

    Yet this is an assertion of your own teachings. Apparently god created us and potatoes from the same substance (nothingness), although its not clear which came first, and god willed the universe into existence from nothing.

    I agree it is all pretty crazy. Its much more of a common sense approach to adopt the athesitic ideas of evolution and the “big bang” theory (which doesnt posit the universe appeared out of nothing). Also, evolution is not dependent on the “big bang” theory being true, and vice versa. You should learn more about them before you wave the stawman in the wind.

  16. Starchasr:

    Why do scientists insist that mans ancestors came out of the sea but dont actually seem to know what form they had in the sea?

    This is an argument from personal incredulity. You dont know what form it had, so you assume its unknown. You seem to be conflating a few theories here, so its hard to work out how to respond.

    The early ancestors of all life on Earth came from the see and we have a very good understanding of what form these creatures took. Even popular science articles can explain this. You really need to get a TV and watch some documentaries.

    Why do scientists ignore the impossible odds that preclude Abiogenesis because it suits their theory to do so?

    What “impossible” odds?

    What does this have to do with evolution?

    Why do evolutionists think we share a common ancestor with potatoes and then think they have the intellectual highground?

    Because its true and supported by the evidence – for example DNA – but there is more. Christian teaching is that god created all life, so there is a common ancestor.

    They take the intellectual highground because you surrender it to them on a regular basis.

    Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?

    I am not sure where you got this from, so a citation would be useful. you may want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

    Evolution does not evolve towards something so there are always going to be things that remain as long as they dont impair the creatures ability to survive.

    If evolution was so necessary when animals left the sea why is it still teeming with life,some of it at the most basic level of evolution…

    This shows fundamentally flawed understanding of evolution. There is no “basic level” of evolution. All life on Earth now is equally evolved. Life evolves to survive in its ecological niche. If you want to “debunk” evolution please try to learn at least the basics.

    Where do insects come from? Are they a piece of backwards evolution?

    Ditto. What is backwards about an insect? They are very well suited to survival.

  17. Hi Mike….

    I have to say from the start that my mind is as open as anyone else here…..

    You keep telling me to study evolution and it will all become clear to me,,,,,So clearly you dont consider anything but evolution as the explanation for life on earth.

    Your minds just as closed as mine……

    “Evolution and abiogenesis are seperate.”

    Yes but without abiogenesis there would be no evolution,so they are linked.

    My Ardi objection was something that occured to me while reading though the website about her,something just didn’t seem right about the timing of her opposable thumbs so I asked someone on twitter when we were supposed to develop them and he said about 250.000 years ago and that doesn’t add up.

    What apemen?

    I’m talking about the intermediate forms between man and lower form apes,you cant tell me they all died out while apes continue to thrive…

    God gave us a brain that was meant to contain knowledge acquired from living forever,a life we lost but the brain is still capable of retaining it.

    “””at the most basic level of evolution” are simply well adpated to their environment and have been for a long time.”””

    So why do they differ from those that need to evolve?

    “””What organisms are you thinking of?”””

    None in particular….

    “””Insects evolved.”””

    How have insects evolved from life in the sea then?

    “””the earth was a mighty big test tube and also had millions of years. Lots can happen in millions of years.”””

    Nice conjecture but no proof is there?

    “Well it might have happened that way,”wont do

    “””You show me evidence then I’ll accept your hypothesis that God created life.”””

    Take a look around you……

    Theres a whole universe of evidence of a creator…

    “””Well we do altho it was a few billion years ago and a very ’simple’ form of life.”””

    If you think that fine just stay off the intellectual highground you dont belong there…

    The whole theory of evolution is one silly idea after another….

    “””So what you have done is not to point out where the “specious science” but instead demonstrate that your knowledge of evolution is woeful.”””

    And all youv’e done is offer conjecture without proof and more questions than answers…

    “””Although you wont believe me, there are scientists all over the world trying to tear down evolution”””

    And if they did they would come back with a different version of evolution instead….Any theory as long as its evolution right?

    “””The fact of the matter is that evolution has survived the test and a enormous mountain of evidence exists that makes evolution tantamount to a fact.”””

    Strange how I keep missing it then isn’t it….Must be hidden under that heap of conjecture I keep seeing…

  18. “””I’ve lost count of how many times each of your above points have come up in these kinds of debates.”””

    I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked and got an unsatisfactory answer to them…

    “””I would be a little insulted that you didn’t take the time to read the rest of the site to see my answers to each of them for yourself,”””

    No problem…

    “””if I didn’t already have a pretty good idea of how concerned you are with simply honesty, let alone with common courtesy or for that matter your own lack of intellectual curiosity, and if I didn’t already have a fair idea of the level on which you are operating.”””

    I dont think you have any idea what I am about…..

    “””Mike has done a sterling job in answering many of your initial comments here,”””

    He gave it a go I will give him that….

    “””except to remind you that the actual challenge presented to you was to describe the compelling evidence you have repeatedly claimed you are in possession of,”””

    The evidence is compelling enough for me to rubbish the idea….

    “””which shows current thinking on biology, palaeontology, archeology and genetics are flawed. In other words to present positive evidence, as opposed to negative conjecture.”””

    As opposed to the positive conjecture and spurious science used to support evolution you mean….

    “””why it marks an important difference between how we rule in radical ideas in order to find new areas of understanding and how we rule out ideas that simply are not based in fact,”””

    The facts are fine its their application that is way off base…

    “””So, assuming we’re not going to let ourselves get carried away with the idea that simply because someone (i.e. you) doesn’t understand something,”””

    I understand enough thank you…..

    “””that this doesn’t automatically make their “alternative idea” just as credible as the one which they, by definition, fail to understand—”””

    So if you dont understand creation that means evolution isn’t made more credible by your ignorance?

    That seems fair enough…

    “””let me again invite you to present evidence which would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that evolution faces the kind of problem you insist it does.”””

    What more when you haven’t given a reasonable answer to my 1st round of questions?

    “””You have repeatedly asserted, both to me and many others, via Twitter, that those of us who have reviewed the abundance of corroborative yet independently obtained evidence which supports evolution are,”””

    You haven’t corroberated it to me,so the evidence cant be that good….

    Guess some of us aren’t so easily conned….

    “”“squirming because you know how ridiculous it is” [to believe that we are] “distantly related to potatoes”””

    Well it is…

    Think for yourself man…..

    “””Can I again invite you to present the evidence, which you clearly place a great deal of faith in, that would prove, when properly reviewed against sound scientific principals, that common genetic ancestry from species to species is false.”””

    Sorry but you have to show me the “sound scientific principals, that common genetic ancestry from species to species” first before I can show you why thats nonsence…

    “””I would also welcome any links or book titles you have read which germinated in you the childish notion that Solanum have any direct common ancestry with the Hominids whatsoever.”””

    Your squirming…..

    Potatoes are supposed to be distantly related to us through evolution….

    Squirm as much as you like thats still ridiculous…

    “””To show generosity in this regard”””

    Thanks;-)

    “””let me make the challenge you face as simple as it can”””

    I’m listening…

    “””Part one: Find a gene without an evolutionary heritage. Over 180 species have been sequenced thus far and that data is publicly available. Point to one single gene which could not have evolved by means of natural selection”””

    First tell me something….

    Have they actually proven these links or is it all conjecture based on similarities in DNA?

    “””I would genuinely appreciate any information you might have on any independent scientists, i.e., any individual efforts you know of which are not funded by American evangelical church groups, whose work is openly published for peer review in Nature, or any other well respected scientific journal, which seriously challenges the basic principals of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. All I need is a name and round one goes to you.”””

    Yes well you wont get it because like I keep saying……I do my own research and my own thinking…

    I dont believe just because the scientists say it is so….

  19. Aware as I am of how people like @Starchasr think—and how many of you out there enjoy reading rather than commenting, on these stories, I didn’t want anyone to think I ducked answering @Starchasr’s questions, by seeding my direct reply to Mike Tovell’s excellent response.

    No actually its you who keeps accusing me of ducking questions and not replying at all to your posts…

    Not my style….

    “”” Which fossils in particular are you referring to? Which scientific study in particular do you struggle with?”””

    See next question…

    I dont struggle with “science” but some parts of evolution boggle my mind…

    “””I do not know what you mean by this. Do you realise how short an amount of time 1 million years is?”””

    I dont know I’m only 43….

    Ardi cannot be linked to mans evolution if she had opposable thumbs 1 million years before man “evolved” them…So why is she used to prove mans evolution?

    “””Please rephrase this question. I don’t understand what you are asking for. What is an “Apeman”?”””

    The mid-form between man and lower form Ape…

    “”” Again I can’t decipher what your actual question is here. Which scientists “insist” what about whom?”””

    All life came from the sea right?

    So what where our ancestors before transition to land animals?

    “””Do you mean, which of the precambrian proto-creatures of which we have sufficient evidence of have we been able to include in the taxonomy of mammalian ancestry?”””

    You really have evidence that man came from the sea?

    Lets see it and answer the question…

    “””If so, the answer is all of them.”””

    We evolved from all the animals in the sea? Is this more silliness or didn’t you understand the question?

    Q. Why do scientists ignore the impossible odds that preclude Abiogenesis because it suits their theory to do so?

    “””I’m not sure, again, I think you understand this question, but I wasn’t aware of any serious scientific study anywhere in the world that does this.”””

    Well lets put it this way Fred Hoyle gave odds of 10 to the power of 40.000 against…

    Even allowing a massive amount of leeway thats well beyond the laws of probability which give 10 to the power of 52 as impossible..

    “””Please also explain what you understand abiogenesis to be and what it has to do with Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection.”””

    Abiogenesis is the theory that amino acids the so called building blocks of life where formed by chance in a primordial soup which in time gave rise to the simple life forms that began life on earth….

    Without this there would be no life and no evolution…(So we are told)

    Q. Why do evolutionists think we share a common ancestor with potatoes and then think they have the intellectual highground?

    “””I wasn’t aware of any direct common ancestry between Solanum and Hominids or any serious person who suggests any such thing.”””

    Well thats what I was told on twitter while someone was squirming over my “We are distantly related to potatoes” comment…

    “””If you think that this is what evolution is about,”””

    Its just one of many silly ideas(Probably the silliest though)that evolution asserts..

    “””Which books have you read on evolution?”””

    None I do all my reading on line….I dont even read books on the bible….

    “””What is an “evolutionist”?”””

    Apart from the obvious?

    Just tell me what your point is…

    Q. Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?

    “””The “we don’t use 90% of our brain” meme is an urban myth.”””

    Well you would say that…Any proof?

    “””We, in fact, use all of our brain all of the time.”””

    Now I know thats rubbish because we would be overloaded with information we dont need right now…

    “””If you ever decide to read some non-fiction on these topics,”””

    I dont read fiction or non fiction I dont need to its all online…

    “””you might find the work of Dr. Richard Leakey particularly fascinating, in regard to the development of group reciprocity and altruism in large brained hominids.”””

    Can I read it online?

    “”” I don’t know what you mean by that or why you would think that this is what evolution says about the development of life on Earth.”””

    No it wouldn’t because it has to change around the evidence even if the evidence is anti-evolution..

    “””All living creatures on Earth are the modern descendant of their ancient ancestor—in the genus to which they belong—modified by means of natural selection over hundreds of millions of years.”””

    Well thats the theory wheres the proof?

    “””Evolution does not stop for some species and start for others, it is a continuous process,”””

    So why do single celled animals still exist why aren’t they further along if its continuous evolution?

    “””What you’re asking is essentially a reworking of the old “why are there still monkeys if we are evolved from monkeys” argument.”””

    No its not because I’ve never used that argument….

    “””But this is rather like saying, “why are people still driving Ford Pick-ups, when they’ve invented the Bugatti Veyron”””

    Top gear fan?

    “””The fact is, both the common-or-garden run-about and the super-car exist side by side. One is derived from the other. But that doesn’t make one redundant or surplus to requirements, simply because one is better at some things than the other. You wouldn’t do the weekly family run to the supermarket in a super-car any more than you would compete in the Le Mans 24 hour endurance race in a 1.6 litre Nissan Primera.”””

    To start with you cant compare nature with man made machines,If I did that you would shout me down…

    “””Similarly, monkeys didn’t cease to be a species capable of surviving, just because their environment, availability of food or exposure to predators changed over time.”””

    Sounds just like what I have always said you are molding evolution to fit the evidence instead of looking for a theory based on the evidence.

    “””On the contrary, the fact that there is still so much abundant diversity of life on this planet, despite that 99% of all life which has ever existed is now extinct, is testament to the resilience of evolution—”””

    Now your clutching at straws…

    “””not proof that things in fact work the other way around, as you seem to be suggesting.”””

    Not suggesting….

    Stating…

    “”” What do you want to know about insects that can not be found out by a simple Google search or half an hour in front of wikipedia?”””

    I can and you can look up objections to evolution on the google search….I’m talking to you and Mike not google…

  20. Paul

    I have read both your posts here.

    Firstly, we need to get away from this constant search of yours for ‘proof’. Science doesnt talk about ‘proof’ – that is for mathematics and law courts. You need to work through this which gives you a basic grounding in what science is all about: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml. Please understand that science doesnt generally do silver bullets – in fact I can think of one of the top of my head – but science is a process by which knowledge is laid down.

    Open mindedness – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI Watch this and tell me what you disagree with. Science is a process that readily considers new ideas. If you are saying that I am being closed minded about evolution being the cause of the diversity of species on the planet, then you need to consider that every bit of peer reviewed, objectively measured evidence ever provided agrees with evolution. If someone showed me conlcusions based on evidence (peer reviewed, independantly verified, objectively measured) that flatly falsified evolution then I would abandon evolution as would the scientific community and we would work out what the new model looked like.

    N.B. IMPORTANT – falisfying evolution DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL Goddunnit

    This comment of yours is very revealing: “And if they did they would come back with a different version of evolution instead….Any theory as long as its evolution right?” This just provides extremely good evidence (note avoidance of word ‘proof’) that you don’t understand the theory of evolution or science in general. Evolution consists of a myriad of ideas and concepts, the central tenants of which were proposed by Darwin. It’s not “any theory as long as it’s evolution” because that is like saying “any theory as long as its Gravitation/Boyle’s Law etc etc etc”. Science will always adapt as we learn more. Always. It doesn’t cling to ideas like they are personal, or say it has to be that way because this book says so. Science ISNT DOGMATIC however Adam4004 wants to define dogma. However, Evolution has survived the assault. And will until it doesn’t.

    Which leads me onto your “rubbishing” of evolution above.

    All of your arguments are strawmen. Every single one. You misrepresent at every turn, apply personal incredulity everywhere and even base one argument on something you “asked someone on twitter”. Wow. Just wow. The latter is PARTICULARLY dangerous because it shows that you simply accept what you want to accept – what YOU deem as a reasonable answer without any demonstrable rigour. Science and scientists (indeed, rational thinkers in general) don’t work that way. They design experiments so that they rule out emotion and ensure that ALL possibilities for their results are considered and weighed up. They are then parsimonious with their explanations. AND THEN they subject their conclusions to peer review, for others to point out flaws in their method, analysis, conclusions etc etc etc.

    Because THEN YOU CAN DO AND REPEAT THEIR EXPERIMENT. You really can. You can spend time, like I have in a lab, or digging up rocks, or looking at fossils or in the numerous other ways. Don’t like their results? Fine – write a paper, tell people what YOU have found. If it brings down evolution you win a Nobel Prize.

    Unless of course you think this is one giant conspiracy to have a go at god. I wont go down this rabbit hole but I am suspicious. Ill just say this. Evolution says NOTHING about God. NOT A THING. Get used to that idea because that is a FACT.

    “I dont believe just because the scientists say it is so….” NEITHER DO I! But I have the ability to READ CRITICALLY what they have written, make up my own mind, redo the experiment etc etc etc.

    HOWEVER, you believe that God put us all here based on trusting someone/something/some source? A vicar/priest? The bible? What? Who do you trust? What makes this source better than conclusions based on evidence obtained scientifically (see process outlined above or http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml)? Where is this source that trumps all those nasty lieing scientists? This is stinking of woeful double standards. You say you do your own research – where is it? Lets read the essays.

    Lastly – you cant throw statements like “Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?” or “Why do Apes continue to thrive while higher form Apemen died out?” around without forming an argument as to why these are relavant, reasonable objections, backed up with a reasoned argument. You must because otherwise we end up in a realm where we are answering questions like “why are there no monkeyfishfrogs?”. Its laughable that you say “Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?” and when challenged on the point say “Well you would say that…Any proof?”. That is naughty – YOU MADE THE CLAIM – you have to justify it. Please get back to me if you think this is :an unfair burden/evil scientists trick/don’t understand what I am talking about.

    So please go and learn some science – at least know what you are talking about and stop erecting strawmen. Lets leave behind talk of ‘proof’ because it has no place in a rational discussion. You can still believe in God. And science really is the most wonderful thing- and it belongs to all of us.

    Mike

  21. Paul,

    I want you to read what I am about to say in a calm voice, because I would genuinely like to try and explain some things to you. I know that might sound condescending and rich coming from the guy who has essentially ridiculed you in front of however many hundred Tweeters and the 900+ people who have so far read this one blog entry alone. But let me be as honest as I can with you for a moment—man to man—all jokes and jibes aside.

    I honestly don’t think you’re a bad guy. Confused, certainly. But the approach you are taking to this isn’t having the effect you think it is—in fact quite the opposite. I don’t mean that in a small way and I don’t just mean your comments on this thread of this blog—I mean the whole thing of getting out there on-line, preaching denial at people who, unlike myself, CuriousGuru and Mike, don’t give you the time to explain the problems you have had finding and understanding the actual science; the hard evidence of evolution having taken place.

    You have chosen, rather unfortunately, to fill this void in your knowledge with bits and pieces of misinformation about evolution, easily found on various right-wing evangelical agenda websites and mixed them all together into a confusing mess. There is little wonder you have arrived at some of the conclusions you have about science, when—by your own admission—you haven’t actually read any books on evolution, nor shown any curiosity about the ones I have recommended to you.

    This has the effect of making you seem dishonest and disinterested in debating the facts. If that is how you want to come across to people, carry on as you are—but I would argue there are far easier ways of preaching your message to people than by attacking the fundamental principals of mathematics, genetics, palaeontology and procedural data analysis whilst openly admitting you don’t actually understand what they are.

    If you genuinely want to understand more about the scientific method and how we know what we know, you will find a whole world of people on-line who are more than happy to meet you half way. That’s what the public understanding of science is all about. However, such information, as a general rule, isn’t usually found on neoconservative propaganda websites, dressed up as Christian information portals. It is found on science websites and in peer-reviewed journals, like http://www.sciencemag.org/ http://www.nature.com/ and the Natural History Museum’s website http://www.nhm.ac.uk/

    You are far from alone in finding some science confusing and incredible. You don’t just pick up a Karl Popper book for five minutes on the loo or on the train for your morning commute to work. It is hard going stuff which demands focus and intellectual curiosity. But that doesn’t mean all science is deliberately made inaccessible by highbrow elitists in order to foist harebrained ideas on credulous people. That’s what religion is for.

    Which brings me to a tricky question I must ask you in all sincerity. When I asked you to answer two very simple questions, I didn’t for one moment think you would even attempt to do so. But what I did not expect was the rambling reply you have given above. This is why I must ask you, without wanting to appear callous in any way shape or form, if it might be that you have any physical or mental impairment to learning? Let me be clear why I ask. I do not pick on people who can’t stand on their own two feet. And your answers—such as they are—suggest to me that you have tried to understand the evidence, but still for some reason found it confusing.

    So, by way of a genuine attempt to wipe the slate clean with you here, let me leave you with the excerpt below, taken from my soon-to-be-available book, which you might like to read before commenting further. Enjoy—and have a happy and peaceful holidays.

    In 1874, Ernst Haeckel published drawings which he claimed to show stark similarities between early embryonic development in completely different species of animal. Later Haeckel was compelled to clarify that some of the drawings were projections and not, in fact, based upon actual observations. However this and this alone is cited to this day as proof that Darwin based his work upon fraudulent evidence. But this popular myth, spread by the anti-evolution movement, completely fails to acknowledge some very important facts. Not only were both of Darwin’s works, The Descent of Man and On the Origin of Species published before the works of Haeckel, but both these books used only two embryonic drawings and neither of them were drawn by Haeckel. Indeed it is not known if Darwin even knew of Haeckel’s work, before he died in 1882.

    Faced with this matter of simple fact, the creationist movement simply ignores it. As of writing this paragraph, November 20th, 2009, Google is returning over 228,000 pages on “Haeckel’s embryos”. After wikipedia.org, the most popular search result points to the notorious anti-science propaganda website, answersingenesis.org. *Please note, when this comment was originally posted, the link I quoted previously was talkorigins.org. This was a mistake. I originally intended to phrase this paragraph slightly differently, as an edit to the version I have drafted for my book and the talkorigins link was accidentally cut and paste. talkorigins.org is in fact a very interesting site.

    These hugely profitable cabals, lead by individuals like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort and institutions with impressive sounding names like The Discovery Institute and AnswersInGenesis.org, have released a vast wave of barefaced lies into the public sphere about Darwin himself and his breakthrough theory for decades.

    Despite Haeckel’s clear admission that certain of his works were artistic interpretations, rather than direct observations, it is the fact that he was able to later prove early stage embryonic development shared cross-species characteristics which remains his greatest contribution; that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Haeckel’s recapitulation theory shows a link between development of form and evolutionary descent. That this staggering breakthrough is never once mentioned by the anti-Haeckel brigade—who choose instead to propagate a falsehood about his drawings—says everything about the level of dishonesty they’re prepared to show towards their own readers, as much as it says about what Haeckel’s theory did to solidify that of Darwin’s.

    Moreover, Haeckel did this without having to rely upon the fossil record alone or indeed the work of Darwin. “The embryo”, Haeckel said, “is Ariadne’s thread”, when he discovered that in a stage of development known as Gastrulation, before Organogenesis occurs, forming the internal organs and later still the limbs and features of each distinct species, all life shares a similar transitory path. “Here”, at this early stage of zygote, Haeckel wrote, “is a recapitulation of the very first animal”, a hypothetical animal which he named Gastraeaden.

    His detractors howled with condemnation of this idea; calling the tree of life model which Haeckel built upwards from this hypothetical creature, a “most outrageous invention”. But unlike the amorphous tree of life which Darwin had used as a metaphor, Haeckel’s tree was actually the first scientific attempt at devising a taxonomy of every living thing on Earth which had so-far been discovered and studied. As with his postulate on embryo development, we now know just how close Haeckel’s Gastraeaden was to the truth.

    Ever since Haeckel’s time, Precambrian proto-creatures have begun to emerge in the fossil record—showing the incredible accuracy with which Haeckel had based his predictions. But still creation “science” continues to insist that Haeckel is a fraud awaiting exposition; that others of his hypothetical transitory creatures, such as pithecanthropus, are deliberately being covered up by the scientific community, scared of what it might mean for science if it was known by the general public that his work was predictive, rather than strictly empirical.

    Of course the natural sciences do not rest on the work of just one or two men. Darwin’s simple idea, in the modern world of supercomputers and scanning electron microscopes, reveals the incredible complexity upon which his theory rests. Undoubtedly though the final nail in the coffin of creationism, which was not even dreamed of in Darwins time—and which even the most doggedly determined anti-evolutionist can not fail to acknowledge makes their case all the harder to prove—is DNA.

    Whether it be an antelope or a zebra, Mormon or Catholic, Sunni or Shia, bonobo or trilobite. By sequencing the genetic codes of living creatures, we can date the age of animals in the tree of life with incredible accuracy.

    Let’s take Trichoplax, for example. Discovered in 1883 by the German zoologist Franz Eilhard Schulze. It is a multi-cellular animal of around a millimetre in width, lacking in any organs or internal structure, containing about 98 million base pairs in their DNA. Of the 11,514 predicted protein coding genes in Trichoplax, almost 87% of them are identical to the genes found in all animals on Earth, humans included. Because of this, we know that Trichoplax’s ancestors diverged from the main evolutionary trunk over 1 billion years ago—perfectly corroborating Darwin’s assumption that there must have been abundant life in the Precambrian seas.

    What’s more, Trichoplax is but one of a long list of animals in the phyla taxonomic grouping, each of which diversify into separate species. Thorny head Acanthocephala has around 750 species. Little ring Annelida is described in around 15,300 different species. Spiny skin Echinodermata found in over 13,000 extinct species and around 7000 still in existence. Thread like Nematoda has between 80,000 and 1 million distinct species.

    Not content, however, with the evidence contained within the hundreds and thousands of other taxonomic groupings, each of those containing hundreds of thousands of species, creationism anti-science continues to attack the so-called “incomplete fossil record”.

    Despite the Victorian-age origins of myths such as that of the so-called “Missing Link”, for example and endless essays and explanations of why the discovery of such a link in the fossil record alone wouldn’t actually be sufficient proof that descent by modification occurs, creationists nevertheless continue to call for its discovery and continue to ignore the evidence which ultimately provides exactly what they ask for.

    An example of this is found in the study of Ungulates like cows and pigs. They have an ankle bone remarkably similar to those found in the fossilised remains of cetacean whales. Not proof alone of the common ancestry between sheep and llamas, until we look at the genetic evidence. When we do that, we see that cetacean whales and hippopotamuses are descended from a common ancestor that lived over 55 Million years ago.

    And what does creation “science” have to say about this? The same thing it has always said about the evidence. “There is no link” and “it’s just a theory”. Their “logic” behind these statements is clear:

    “According to scripture the Earth didn’t exist 55 Million years ago and therefore the Precambrian explosion is proof that before sin there was no death and therefore nothing was dead to become a fossil in the first place.” – Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism Ministry, currently serving time in prison for tax evasion

  22. “””Firstly, we need to get away from this constant search of yours for ‘proof’. Science doesnt talk about ‘proof’”””

    So if you cant offer proof how am I supposed to accept evolution….

    Conjecture and spurious science will never be enough to accept it…

    “””You need to work through this which gives you a basic grounding in what science is all about: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml.”””

    Yes I am……

    “””Please understand that science doesnt generally do silver bullets – in fact I can think of one of the top of my head – but science is a process by which knowledge is laid down.”””

    There is where we have the problem I dont disagree with the science involved only the conclusions drawn fom them…

    “”” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI Watch this and tell me what you disagree with.”””

    Cant watch the video right now…..

    If its important I will watch it later….

    “””Sorry cant watch th Science is a process that readily considers new ideas.”””

    Sorry I find that very hard to believe when I have to put up with the tirade of abuse I do for questioning evolution.

    No scientists have decided the answer is evolution they are just arguing over how we evolved…..Thats not open minded…

    “””If you are saying that I am being closed minded about evolution being the cause of the diversity of species on the planet, then you need to consider that every bit of peer reviewed, objectively measured evidence ever provided agrees with evolution”””

    Really I must have missed it because I dont see it…

    Say what you like,it cant be that clear……

    “””If someone showed me conlcusions based on evidence (peer reviewed, independantly verified, objectively measured) that flatly falsified evolution then I would abandon evolution as would the scientific community and we would work out what the new model looked like.”””

    Exactly my point,there isn’t an alternative and the best you have is evolution….Thats why I know we were created…

    “””N.B. IMPORTANT – falisfying evolution DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL Goddunnit”””

    No but like we agree there isn’t any reasonable alternative…

    “””Evolution consists of a myriad of ideas and concepts, the central tenants of which were proposed by Darwin. It’s not “any theory as long as it’s evolution” because that is like saying “any theory as long as its Gravitation/Boyle’s Law etc etc etc”””

    So your not open minded afterall,it is any theory as long as its evolution,with or without the proof,,,,you can always dig that up later….Thats what Darwin relied on and nothings changed…

    “””Science will always adapt as we learn more.”””

    Adapt a pre-set idea called evolution…

    “””Always. It doesn’t cling to ideas like they are personal, or say it has to be that way because this book says so. Science ISNT DOGMATIC””2

    No it isn’t but its followers are they cling to evolution like its their own little theory chasing off anyone who dares to question it or suggest that evolution is a pile of rubbish.

    I know trust me…..

    “””Evolution has survived the assault. And will until it doesn’t.”””

    It doesn’t make it true though does it?

    “””All of your arguments are strawmen.”””

    Now your beginning to sound like a scratched record….

    Saying a valid argument is a strawmen argument like it lends strength to your side….

    “””You misrepresent at every turn, apply personal incredulity everywhere and even base one argument on something you “asked someone on twitter”. Wow. Just wow. The latter is PARTICULARLY dangerous because it shows that you simply accept what you want to accept –”””

    No you are wrong…

    I asked Jodecorrer for confirmation of something I had already concluded on my own.Even before I asked him I thought the timelines didn’t seem right to me..

    “””Science and scientists (indeed, rational thinkers in general) don’t work that way. They design experiments so that they rule out emotion and ensure that ALL possibilities for their results are considered and weighed up.”””

    I’m sorry but that sounds more like sales patter to me…

    How do you know what every scientist thinks when they are doing their experiments? Oh you dont…..

    “””They are then parsimonious with their explanations. AND THEN they subject their conclusions to peer review,”””

    More evolutionary scientists with evolution on their minds…

    “””Because THEN YOU CAN DO AND REPEAT THEIR EXPERIMENT.”””

    No I cant….

    “””You really can.”””

    No I cant…

    “””You can spend time, like I have in a lab, or digging up rocks, or looking at fossils or in the numerous other ways.”””

    I have spent time looking at fossils and I dont see what the scientists tell us is there…

    “””Don’t like their results? Fine – write a paper, tell people what YOU have found. If it brings down evolution you win a Nobel Prize.”””

    No I dont have the intellect to do that…

    That doesn’t mean I am just gonna accept blindly because the scientists say it is so…If you cant explain it to me in terms I can accept as truth,I dont believe….

    “””Unless of course you think this is one giant conspiracy to have a go at god.”””

    No,have I ever said that?

    “””I wont go down this rabbit hole but I am suspicious. Ill just say this. Evolution says NOTHING about God. NOT A THING. Get used to that idea because that is a FACT.”””

    Your shooting in the wrong direction I know evolution says nothing about God but you need to accept that yourself because I dont believe in evolution because there is no evidence only conjecture and spurious science it has nothing to do with my belief in God…

    “””I dont believe just because the scientists say it is so….” NEITHER DO I! “””

    But many more do….

    Partly because its easier than thinking for themselves and partly because they dont want to be thought of as stupid for not believing…

    “””But I have the ability to READ CRITICALLY what they have written, make up my own mind,”””

    Me too…

    Strange we have come to different conclusions…

    “””HOWEVER, you believe that God put us all here based on trusting someone/something/some source?”””

    No trusting common sense and evidence…

    “””A vicar/priest?”””

    Errrr no…

    “””The bible?”””

    No belief in a creator comes before belief in the bible…

    You can believe in God without the bible but you cant believe in the bible without believing in God…

    “””Who do you trust?”””

    God….

    “””What makes this source better than conclusions based on evidence obtained scientifically”””

    Theres nothing common sense about evolution Mike….

    Scientists can spin it any way they like,it really is a silly idea….

    “””Where is this source that trumps all those nasty lieing scientists?”””

    I’m here…

    Its my knowledge,my common sense and my life….

    And in the end I decide what I believe not the scientists…

    “””This is stinking of woeful double standards.”””

    Sorry?

    What do you mean?

    “””You say you do your own research – where is it?”””

    Well this is the latest site I’ve been reading….

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=howgoodisthat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.berkeley.edu%2Fevosite%2Fnature%2Findex.shtml)%3F

    “”“Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?” or “Why do Apes continue to thrive while higher form Apemen died out?”””

    Untill I get an answer yes and it doesn’t look like you are gonna give me one are you Mike?

    “””around without forming an argument as to why these are relavant, reasonable objections, backed up with a reasoned argument.”””

    Well they are relevant because science and evolution doesn’t have an answer and neither do you apparently…

    “””You must because otherwise we end up in a realm where we are answering questions like “why are there no monkeyfishfrogs?”””

    If you cant answer the questions just say so….

    “””Its laughable that you say “Why has man evolved a brain the biggest part of which he doesn’t use?” and when challenged on the point say “Well you would say that…Any proof?”.”””

    Okay just answer the other questions then….

    “””That is naughty – YOU MADE THE CLAIM – you have to justify it. Please get back to me if you think this is :an unfair burden/evil scientists trick/don’t understand what I am talking about.”””

    No fair enough I will drop that one then,now are you gonna answer my other questions or not?

    “””So please go and learn some science –”””

    Science I know,evolution isn’t science….

    “””at least know what you are talking about and stop erecting strawmen.”””

    Now your making assertions without proof…

    Either show me why they are strawmen or answer the questions and stop trying to wriggle out of it…

    “””Lets leave behind talk of ‘proof’ because it has no place in a rational discussion.”””

    Sounds like your making excuses to me…

    Theres a saying “Big claims,need big proof”

    Why should I believe in evolution without proof or at least something resembling it?

    “””You can still believe in God.”””

    I can think aliens brought us to earth and still believe in God but that doesn’t mean I’m going to do that..

    “””And science really is the most wonderful thing-“””

    Yes it is…

    Evolution is silly though…

  23. Hi Jim…

    “””I didn’t for one moment think you would even attempt to do so. But what I did not expect was the rambling reply you have given above. This is why I must ask you, without wanting to appear callous in any way shape or form, if it might be that you have any physical or mental impairment to learning?”””

    And you was doing so well untill you reached this paragraph….

    I thought you wanted me to show you why I dont believe in evolution and I have replied by showing you just some of the objections I have to the whole theory.

    I submitted 11 questions and you failed to answer any of them to my satisfaction…

    Your every answer seems to be check this website or that website…

    You call me a moron but at least I dont point you to someone else to ask my questions and answer you objections…

    I do my own thinking,,,you should try it yourself its very enlightening…

  24. Hi C.G

    “””Yet this is an assertion of your own teachings. Apparently god created us and potatoes from the same substance (nothingness),”””

    Yes,he also created the earth but that doen’t mean we are related to our planet….

    “””although its not clear which came first,”””

    Potatoes…

    Man was his last creation…..

    “””and god willed the universe into existence from nothing.”””

    Yes he can do that….

    “””I agree it is all pretty crazy.”””

    Evolution?

    “””Its much more of a common sense approach to adopt the athesitic ideas of evolution and the “big bang” theory”””

    What common sense are you using?

    “””(which doesnt posit the universe appeared out of nothing).”””

    So what did it come from? And where did that come from?

    “””Also, evolution is not dependent on the “big bang” theory being true, and vice versa.”””

    No,but they are dependant on evidence to be true…

    “””You should learn more about them before you wave the stawman in the wind.”””

    First you need to explain why they are strawman and you haven’t….

  25. Curiousguru…

    “””Wow. Did you really use why are there still monkeys argument? Seriously? Wonderful.”””

    No,never have,never will…

    “””This is an argument from personal incredulity. You dont know what form it had, so you assume its unknown.”””

    Yes,because no one will say….

    “””You seem to be conflating a few theories here, so its hard to work out how to respond.”””

    Simple,tell me what our ancestors where in the sea….

    “””The early ancestors of all life on Earth came from the see and we have a very good understanding of what form these creatures took.”””

    So what where we then?

    “””Even popular science articles can explain this. You really need to get a TV and watch some documentaries.”””

    I’m not asking them I’m asking you…..

    Why do evolutionists think we share a common ancestor with potatoes and then think they have the intellectual highground?

    “””Because its true and supported by the evidence – for example DNA –”””

    Potatoes have DNA? Well we must be related….

    Please listen to yourself….

    “””but there is more. Christian teaching is that god created all life, so there is a common ancestor.”””

    God created rocks does that mean we are related to rocks aswell?

    “””They take the intellectual highground because you surrender it to them on a regular basis.”””

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..

    Do yourself a favour,drop evolution before you even try to take it….

    “””Evolution does not evolve towards something so there are always going to be things that remain as long as they dont impair the creatures ability to survive.”””

    So man needed more brain power at one time? When was that?

    “””This shows fundamentally flawed understanding of evolution. There is no “basic level” of evolution. All life on Earth now is equally evolved.”””

    Even the single celled organisms?

    “””Life evolves to survive in its ecological niche.”””

    So why are species still dying out then?

    “””If you want to “debunk” evolution please try to learn at least the basics.”””

    I have thanks……

    “””Ditto. What is backwards about an insect? They are very well suited to survival.”””

    So they all came out of the sea? What form did they have there?

  26. “And you was doing so well untill you reached this paragraph….”

    I was trying to ascertain your capacity for learning. No joke. I am finding it extremely difficult to believe you are as genuinely ignorant as you want people to believe you are.

    “I thought you wanted me to show you why I dont believe in evolution and I have replied by showing you just some of the objections I have to the whole theory.”

    No, you are perfectly free to believe or disbelieve in anything you want. What I asked for was the evidence to support your truth-claims. You haven’t provided that. What you have effectively done, is walk into a room of people, declared yourself capable of unaided flight and reacted with push-the-button-hear-the-voice incredulity when someone has the nerve to ask you to leap into the air and prove it.

    “I submitted 11 questions and you failed to answer any of them to my satisfaction”

    It is unfortunate you feel that way, but in reality you didn’t actually ask any questions at all. You asserted falsehoods and demanded we account for your misunderstandings. There is no way to reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into. But if you want to rephrase the questions so they better demonstrate what your objections actually are I am more than happy to help.

    “You call me a moron but at least I dont point you to someone else to ask my questions and answer you objections…”

    You would seem far less stupid if you did. It’s called mutually corroborative, independently acquired evidence for a very good reason. The fact that this escapes you is not a particularly big shock, in comparison to the fact you actually appear to genuinely believe the last 150 years of science rest on what individual scientists believe as opposed to what they can objectively prove to be so. A better example of how fundamentalist religious brainwashing affects the mind you could not hope to find. I genuinely lament your loss of perspective—even if you don’t.

    “I do my own thinking,,,you should try it yourself its very enlightening…”

    Written with forethought, this would be one of the cleverest satirical side-swipes at a creationists worldview in the history of modern literature. Written by a creationist, it’s a chilling reminder of how deeply lost you people really are—and how far down the path of idiocy you want our schoolchildren to follow. Over my dead bloggy.

    Incidentally, commas vary from fullstops in that people who do aspire to a free thinking life, generally don’t chain them three in a row, when they think they’re being witty. This tends to have the rather nasty habit of revealing your level of intelligence and care for detail.

    Out of interest, how many other areas of reality have you imaginarily reshaped? What are your thoughts on quantum mechanics? Hawking radiation? Super-massive black holes perhaps? Anything you want to share on general relativity, maybe? What are black holes made of? OH! I KNOW! What happens to gravity at the centre of a black hole? PLEASE tell me you’ve got a theory on this. PLEASE!! It’d make my Xmas, it really would! Oh go on! Please have a stab at the single most complicated question in mathematics! PRETTY PLEASE WITH A CHERRY ON TOP!!!!!!!!! I promise to say evolution is a joke if you explain the infinity equation. P-L-E-A-SSSSEEEE!!!!!

  27. You asserted falsehoods and demanded we account for your misunderstandings.

    Jim, I really love the way you put this. I never saw it before, at that angle, but I see now people do this all the time, with all kinds of subjects.

    A classic example would be someone saying, “The sky is blue,” and another person saying, “No, its yellow.”

    And you say, “No, clearly, the sky is blue, I mean, look…” and the person saying, “No, No! The sky is yellow because it has to be! I read it in a book. You tell me why the sky ISN’T yellow and I’ll believe you then.”

    And you say, “Um… It isn’t yellow because it just isn’t. That doesn’t make any sense. Its clearly blue.”

    “Ahhh! Ahh! You can’t explain WHY its NOT yellow. You’re wrong! See, the sky is still yellow.”

    *thunks head on wall*

  28. Pingback: RCimT: First Sunday of the decade! « Lousy Canuck

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s