Darwinists Say the Darndest Things

Posted: November 1, 2010 in Evolution

Here is a comment I received from a fan.  I don’t really feel a response is necessary inasmuch as I don’t care about responding to anonymous posters, and more importantly, there’s no money in it.  However, it does provide a specimen of the sort of rants W. J. Bryan had to endure at the hands of Mencken and other spawn of Satan during the 1920s.  Nothing much has changed since then.

________________________

The Scopes trial?  Way to be current.  Have you heard of the Dover trial?

“What creationists object to is not change but a certain type of change. Change is a necessary condition for Darwinian evolution, but not a sufficient condition. Creationists insist that the change from an organism with less information content to an organism with greater information content is what is needed, and that has never been shown to happen, except maybe in fairy tales.”

That has never been shown to happen?  What are you, a molecular biologist?

Google “gene duplication”.  You have a lot to learn before you can competently write about evolutionary biology.

You call evolution “Darwinian evolution”.  Evolution is called “evolution”.   Evolution does not need any adjectives.

“If you assume in advance that similarity of structure is due to common ancestry, and you assume in advance that modifications in structure over time are by random, naturalistic processes, you’d have to say cars came about by random, naturalistic processes.”

This shows you don’t even understand natural selection which is a very simple concept.  If you knew anything about biology you would at least know natural selection is NOT random.

And what do cars have to do with the diversity of life?

Your total ignorance of science is not evidence for anything.  If you want to defend your childish magical creationism, you got to provide evidence for it.  Your imaginary evidence AGAINST evolution (as if there was evidence against reality), is not evidence FOR your idiotic religious belief in supernatural magic.

So describe the magic wand your fairy uses, and provide evidence for this magical wand.  Until you can do that, you need to shut up about science.

Here’s another comment for you to censor.

I noticed your blog invokes the anti-science Christian organization “Answers in Genesis” so probably you’re a Christian and probably you’re ashamed to admit it.

Since you don’t have a shred of evidence for your insane magical creationism, how about some powerful scientific evidence for the Resurrection of your dead Jeebus into a zombie.  I mean besides the dead gullible witnesses.  Of course you don’t have a shred of real evidence for that disgusting belief or any other Christian belief.  You live in the Christian fantasy world only because you’re a coward, not because you have any evidence for it.

To defend your ridiculous Christian death cult you write long articles full of lies about science.  You know science is the greatest possible threat to your fantasies, and that’s why you attack it.

Why don’t you try growing up and educating yourself.  You’re not going to learn anything if you depend on the idiots who work for Answers in Stupidity.  Try reading a book written by a real scientist.  Or are you afraid that would make your dead Jeebus cry?

I’m not surprised you love censorship.  Fuck off Christian retard.

________________________

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Richard says:

    “If you want to defend your childish magical creationism, you got to provide evidence for it.”

    How about YOU provide evidence to disprove creationism, tuff guy!

    “I’m not surprised you love censorship”

    Censorship? Are we reading the same blog? What are you talking about?

    “F*** off Christian retard” (oh my, a censored word)

    Yeah, you’re a true intellectual. Still in high school, I see.

  2. Vern Crisler says:

    Hi Richard,

    It’s pointless to reason with the unreasonable. Better to save your energy and only engage with thoughtful people. There’s just not enough time in the day to waste, so I don’t even try.

    Vern

  3. Joe Agnost says:

    Vern wrote: “It’s pointless to reason with the unreasonable.”

    While I agree with this, I have to wonder why you’re giving Richard a free pass…

    Richard wrote: “How about YOU provide evidence to disprove creationism, tuff guy!”

    That’s some weapon’s grade unreasonable you have there Richard!

    With your logic, I can posit ANYTHING and it’s up to ~you~ to disprove it – right? That’s what you’re saying here.

    You make a fantastic claim (creationism – you can’t even show evidence for god, let alone what god did and how) and you think it’s up to us to DISprove it?

    You really need a lesson on logic.

    • Vern Crisler says:

      Hello Joe,

      Whether or not one can prove creationism, that has nothing to do with whether Darwinian evolution is, or even can be, proven. IOW, Darwinism isn’t off the hook, so to speak, just because a creationist cannot prove beyond doubt that a serpent spoke to Eve.

      Also, proof can only go so far when it comes to ultimate metaphysical issues. Creationism and Darwinism are ultimately metaphysical positions — both of which require faith — and neither can be proven or disproven by operational science.

      There is no more fantastic a claim than the one where nothingness just happened to fizzle for a while then pop up into a bag of universe. This is what atheist Stephen Hawking claimed:

      “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

      So is it really up to creationists to disprove THAT?

      Vern

      • Joe Agnost says:

        Wow Vern – you really did miss my point completely!!

        Vern wrote: “Whether or not one can prove creationism, that has nothing to do with whether Darwinian evolution is, or even can be, proven.”

        Of course this is true. Why would you think I thought differently.

        If I posit the theory of evolution then it is up to me to provide evidence for it! That’s how it works – I can’t expect others to disprove my theory because the burden of proof is on ME!

        That’s why Richard’s comment was so illogical – he wanted anon to DISprove creationism, like the burden of proof isn’t on Richard (or creationists in general.)

        Also – there are no “proofs” in science, only mathematics. You don’t “prove” a theory – you present as much evidence as you can to ~support~ the theory. So far the theory of evolution (ToE) has mountains of said evidence from geology, physics, chemistry, genetics… it ALL supports the ToE while NONE OF IT refutes it.

        Oh – the ToE has been shown in the lab many times. Fruit flies have a short enough lifespan that we can actually witness the ToE in action. It’s the same thing with bacteria – and this helps us develope medicine.

        Vern wrote: “There is no more fantastic a claim than the one where nothingness just happened to fizzle for a while then pop up into a bag of universe.”

        This has NOTHING to do with the ToE – but you’re wrong here anyway. You need to investigate Quantum Theory – they have been able to show (in the lab) that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and this is the basis for the start of the big bang (which has nothing to do with the ToE incidentally).

        Vern finishes with: “So is it really up to creationists to disprove THAT?”

        It still surprises me when people don’t understand something as simple as the burden of proof. So… NO – it isn’t up to you to DISprove ANYTHING! It’s up to the person (or group) making the claim to provide the evidence for the claim. That’s how logic works.

        Otherwise – if I posit a green unicorn living in a hole in the sun would it be logical for me to claim: ‘you can’t DISprove it – therefore it’s true!’.
        Of course not! It would be up to me to provide evidence for this unicorn.

  4. Vern Crisler says:

    Joe: “That’s why Richard’s comment was so illogical – he wanted anon to DISprove creationism, like the burden of proof isn’t on Richard (or creationists in general.)

    Vern: Richard can speak for himself. I was making the same point the anonymous atheist was making. He had said: “If you want to defend your childish magical creationism, you got to provide evidence for it. Your imaginary evidence AGAINST evolution (as if there was evidence against reality), is not evidence FOR your idiotic religious belief in supernatural magic.”

    The atheist is apparently unaware that putative evidence against biblical creation is not evidence for his irrational theory of evolution. And yet, evolutionists seem to think they’ve won the case if they spend all their time attacking biblical creation — Darrow’s main strategy in his interrogation of Bryan.

    Joe: “Also – there are no “proofs” in science, only mathematics. You don’t “prove” a theory – you present as much evidence as you can to ~support~ the theory. So far the theory of evolution (ToE) has mountains of said evidence from geology, physics, chemistry, genetics… it ALL supports the ToE while NONE OF IT refutes it.”

    Vern: I disagree with this. First, I don’t agree with Popper that one cannot prove a theory; that just reflects his Humean skepticism about truth. Second, there is no real evidence for the theory of evolution and almost everything we know about the way the world works refutes it. Still, since it’s ultimately a metaphysical viewpoint, no amount of evidence can refute it enough for Darwinists to dispense with it and accept creation.

    Joe: “Oh – the ToE has been shown in the lab many times. Fruit flies have a short enough lifespan that we can actually witness the ToE in action. It’s the same thing with bacteria – and this helps us develope medicine.”

    Vern: Experiments with fruit flies have shown no evolution. Remember, I said change is one thing, evolution is another. Change is necessary, but not sufficient for evolution. Creating mutations in fruit flies may lead to change, but it doesn’t lead to net increases in complexity, which is what evolution requires. (Neither does gene duplication for that matter.)

    Joe: ‘Vern wrote: “There is no more fantastic a claim than the one where nothingness just happened to fizzle for a while then pop up into a bag of universe.”’
    Joe: “This has NOTHING to do with the ToE – but you’re wrong here anyway. You need to investigate Quantum Theory – they have been able to show (in the lab) that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and this is the basis for the start of the big bang (which has nothing to do with the ToE incidentally).”

    Vern: If you’re talking about virtual particles, they do not last long enough to be of any relevance to evolution, not unless you combine them with other speculative theories. In addition, the idea of quantum acausality is not a scientific view; it’s a metaphysical position.

    Joe: “Otherwise – if I posit a green unicorn living in a hole in the sun would it be logical for me to claim: ‘you can’t DISprove it – therefore it’s true!’. Of course not! It would be up to me to provide evidence for this unicorn.”

    Vern: If I posit an exclusive disjunction between creation simpliciter and evolution (and it doesn’t seem as though there are any other alternatives); and if evolution turns out to be not only false but absurd, then this leaves creation as the only true and logical alternative. This would be a case where proving creation is based on a disproof of evolution.

    The idea that nothingness fizzed into existence as a universe without the agency of God’s creative power is completely absurd. Atheists who deny God as creator are thus fools, and agnostics who say they don’t know are self-admitted fools. This disjunction may not be enough to prove biblical creation, but it’s enough to prove creation per se.

    That’s a lesson in logic that might be of some help to you.

  5. Joe Agnost says:

    Vern wrote: “I was making the same point the anonymous atheist was making.”

    Not even close. Anon said that the burden of evidence is on the person making the claim – in this case Richard. It’s not up to anybody to have to DISprove someone else’s outrageous claim.

    Vern cont’d: “He had said: ‘If you want to defend your childish magical creationism, you got to provide evidence for it. Your imaginary evidence AGAINST evolution (as if there was evidence against reality), is not evidence FOR your idiotic religious belief in supernatural magic.'”

    It’s right there in his words. Nowhere does he make the claim that disproving creationism has any relevance to the Theory of Evolution (ToE). I don’t know where you’re getting that from – it’s a lie.

    Vern cont’d: “…there is no real evidence for the theory of evolution…”

    There are mountains of evidence for the ToE. Every discipline – from genetics to chemistry, geology – literally every one SUPPORTS the theory! I’m not sure if you allow URLs in your comments – but if you want to see evidence I can point you to several excellent sites which discuss the evidence.

    Vern cont’d: “…and almost everything we know about the way the world works refutes it.”

    Literally NOTHING we know about the way the world works “refutes it”. Nothing. This should be easy for you since you claim that “everything” shows this. Provide a few examples from “the way the world works” which refutes the ToE.

    Are you even aware that modern medicine would be NOWHERE without the ToE. They develope new drugs using the ToE – and the drugs work!

    Vern cont’d: “no amount of evidence can refute it enough for Darwinists…”

    All it would take is one piece of evidence refuting the ToE and scientists would look for a replacement theory. One piece – that’s it. It hasn’t happened yet, in over 150 years of testing and investigating, support for the ToE gets stronger every day.

    Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the word “evidence”… we’ll see.

    Vern wrote: “I said change is one thing, evolution is another.”

    You can say whatever you want – but you’re still wrong. Change IS evolution. All the ToE tells us is how life evolves over time. That’s it – changes over time. There is nothing else to the theory.

    Vern cont’d: “Creating mutations in fruit flies may lead to change…”

    They aren’t “creating mutations in fruit flies” – they are providing different selection criteria and the mutations happen on their own. This shows how animals survive in the wild when changes to the environment happen.

    But that’s just specifics – the real problem you have is that you seem to accept changes within a species but not evolution (which is odd since they’re the same thing).
    You’re basically saying something like:

    I can walk across the street. I can walk across the city. But there is NO WAY I could walk across the whole country.

    It’s an absurd position to take – it’s all walking! It’s the exact same act to walk across the street as it is to walk across the country. It would just take a LOT more time to walk across the country. It’s still walking though.

    Vern wrote: “If you’re talking about virtual particles, they do not last long enough to be of any relevance to evolution…”

    You’re dragging evolution into something that has no relevance to it AGAIN! The ToE describes (very well I might add) how life evolves over time. It does NOT matter ~where~ the life came from – that isn’t a part of the ToE. This is why so many theists (of all religions) accept the ToE – by assuming that god put the first life here on earth. THAT is compatible with evolution (although I personally think it’s wrong).

    Vern cont’d: “If I posit an exclusive disjunction between creation simpliciter and evolution…”

    You’d have to show this first. You jump from this premise to your conclusion without providing evidence for this premise. I don’t agree with this – thus your conclusion is meaningless to me… however it does show how illogical you can be – here let me show you:

    Vern originally wrote: “The atheist is apparently unaware that putative evidence against biblical creation is not evidence for his irrational theory of evolution.”

    And: “Whether or not one can prove creationism, that has nothing to do with whether Darwinian evolution is, or even can be, proven.”

    I agree with both statements – and the only person that seemed to disagree is Richard. These are 2 logical statements… but then Vern goes and types: “This would be a case where proving creation is based on a disproof of evolution.”

    Say WHAT?!? So you believe that it’s possible to prove creationism by disproving the ToE? It’s because you missed the step where you show your premise is true (creationism OR ToE with no other alternatives). But also the converse must also be true (if your statement were true – which it isn’t) – thus refuting what you stated before (about disproving creationism NOT being a proof for the ToE).

    So you spend a couple of comments stating that a disproof of one theory doesn’t prove a different theory – and then finish by positing an (illogical of course) way you can prove creationism by disproving the ToE.

    To top off this little exercise in faulty logic you actually wrote:

    “That’s a lesson in logic that might be of some help to you.”

    Oh dear… you don’t ~really~ believe this do you? Yikes if you do!

    Also in that comment Vern wrote: “The idea that nothingness fizzed into existence as a universe without the agency of God’s creative power is completely absurd.”

    And yet you give God a free pass in all this! It’s absurd to think it could all happen without god, and yet how did god happen? You’re just shifting the problem when you bring god into it – it really is a useless answer, it doesn’t solve a damn thing!

    A Universe out of nothingness is absurd – but a god out of nothingness isn’t?? And you want to school ME on logic?? Wow.

    • Vern Crisler says:

      Joe: There are mountains of evidence for the ToE. Every discipline – from genetics to chemistry, geology – literally every one SUPPORTS the theory! I’m not sure if you allow URLs in your comments – but if you want to see evidence I can point you to several excellent sites which discuss the evidence.

      Vern: No, there isn’t a shred of real evidence for the theory of evolution. I can multiply URLS too if need be, but I think Google searches are enough.

      Joe: Literally NOTHING we know about the way the world works “refutes it”. Nothing. This should be easy for you since you claim that “everything” shows this. Provide a few examples from “the way the world works” which refutes the ToE.

      Vern: We know that something doesn’t come out of nothing (without an external agent). We know that complexity doesn’t appear without a designer. Etc. These are things we know. But we have no experience of scaler complexity happening by chance.

      Joe: Are you even aware that modern medicine would be NOWHERE without the ToE. They develope new drugs using the ToE – and the drugs work!

      Vern: Nonsense. Modern medicine has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

      Joe: All it would take is one piece of evidence refuting the ToE and scientists would look for a replacement theory. One piece – that’s it. It hasn’t happened yet, in over 150 years of testing and investigating, support for the ToE gets stronger every day.

      Vern: The biggest piece of evidence refuting the theory of evolution is the fossil record. That’s why Darwin had to explain it away.

      Joe: You can say whatever you want – but you’re still wrong. Change IS evolution. All the ToE tells us is how life evolves over time. That’s it – changes over time. There is nothing else to the theory.

      Vern: Change is evolution? Evolution is change over time? No wonder you believe in evolution. You don’t understand the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. Evolution is not about change per se. It’s about change toward greater complexity. THAT is what you have to defend, not mere change.

      Joe: They aren’t “creating mutations in fruit flies” – they are providing different selection criteria and the mutations happen on their own. This shows how animals survive in the wild when changes to the environment happen.

      Vern: You seem to think creationists deny adaptation. We don’t. We deny that adaptation can lead to viable macro-changes toward greater complexity. Drosophila melanogaster did not provide any proof that mutations could lead to greater complexity; quite the opposite. Almost all mutations were lethal or impaired function. For a critique of this common “proof” for the theory of evolution see, Jonathan Wells, *Icons of Evolution*, pp. 177ff. (I cite Wells, because he writes clearly and simply.)

      Joe: But that’s just specifics – the real problem you have is that you seem to accept changes within a species but not evolution (which is odd since they’re the same thing).
      You’re basically saying something like:

      Vern: You do not understand the issues here Joe. Give it up already. Speciation is not the same thing as evolution.

      Joe: I can walk across the street. I can walk across the city. But there is NO WAY I could walk across the whole country.
      It’s an absurd position to take – it’s all walking! It’s the exact same act to walk across the street as it is to walk across the country. It would just take a LOT more time to walk across the country. It’s still walking though.

      Vern: You are really arguing that micro-evolution is ultimately the same thing as macro-evolution. But it isn’t. It does not follow that because you can walk across the street, that given enough time, you can flap your arms and fly across the country. For the same reason it doesn’t follow that because micro-evolution is true, that macro-evolution is true also.

      Joe: Vern wrote: “If you’re talking about virtual particles, they do not last long enough to be of any relevance to evolution…”
      You’re dragging evolution into something that has no relevance to it AGAIN! The ToE describes (very well I might add) how life evolves over time. It does NOT matter ~where~ the life came from – that isn’t a part of the ToE. This is why so many theists (of all religions) accept the ToE – by assuming that god put the first life here on earth. THAT is compatible with evolution (although I personally think it’s wrong).

      Vern: You are the one who brought up the subject of the creation of particles. BTW, atheists are quite within their rights to claim that if everything evolved, including the universe, then God is an unnecessary hypothesis. I think atheists are right that theistic evolution is mainly the position taken by useful idiots.

      Joe: Vern cont’d: “If I posit an exclusive disjunction between creation simpliciter and evolution…”
      You’d have to show this first. You jump from this premise to your conclusion without providing evidence for this premise. I don’t agree with this – thus your conclusion is meaningless to me… however it does show how illogical you can be – here let me show you:

      Vern: What other alternatives can there be? Just give me one example.

      Joe: Vern originally wrote: “The atheist is apparently unaware that putative evidence against biblical creation is not evidence for his irrational theory of evolution.”
      And: “Whether or not one can prove creationism, that has nothing to do with whether Darwinian evolution is, or even can be, proven.”
      I agree with both statements – and the only person that seemed to disagree is Richard. These are 2 logical statements… but then Vern goes and types: “This would be a case where proving creation is based on a disproof of evolution.”
      Say WHAT?!? So you believe that it’s possible to prove creationism by disproving the ToE? It’s because you missed the step where you show your premise is true (creationism OR ToE with no other alternatives). But also the converse must also be true (if your statement were true – which it isn’t) – thus refuting what you stated before (about disproving creationism NOT being a proof for the ToE).

      Vern: I am talking about creation simpliciter, not biblical creation. And I still don’t see what other alternatives there could be.

      Joe: So you spend a couple of comments stating that a disproof of one theory doesn’t prove a different theory – and then finish by positing an (illogical of course) way you can prove creationism by disproving the ToE.

      Vern: I distinguished biblical creationism from creationism simpliciter. I cannot put biblical creationism into an exclusive disjunction with evolution, i.e., it is possible that the creator was a god named Elvis rather than Yahweh. But I can do that with creationism per se since the name and character of the creator are not specified in creationism simpliciter.

      Joe: To top off this little exercise in faulty logic you actually wrote:
      “That’s a lesson in logic that might be of some help to you.”
      Oh dear… you don’t ~really~ believe this do you? Yikes if you do!
      Also in that comment Vern wrote: “The idea that nothingness fizzed into existence as a universe without the agency of God’s creative power is completely absurd.”
      And yet you give God a free pass in all this! It’s absurd to think it could all happen without god, and yet how did god happen? You’re just shifting the problem when you bring god into it – it really is a useless answer, it doesn’t solve a damn thing!
      A Universe out of nothingness is absurd – but a god out of nothingness isn’t?? And you want to school ME on logic?? Wow.

      Vern: In the nature of the case, God is uncreated and eternal; therefore there is no issue about how God came into existence. Perhaps a course in philosophy might be helpful to you as well.

      Vern

  6. Joe Agnost says:

    Vern wrote: “We know that something doesn’t come out of nothing (without an external agent). We know that complexity doesn’t appear without a designer.”

    Quantum theory explains particles popping into and out of existence.

    Snowflakes are incredibly complex and are not designed.

    So you’re 0/2 (zero for 2) so far… not a good start!

    Vern worte: “The biggest piece of evidence refuting the theory of evolution is the fossil record. That’s why Darwin had to explain it away.”

    Darwin did nothing of the sort. In fact – he stated that without fossil evidence his theory would fall apart (which is wrong – but he didn’t know about DNA). Every fossil found to-date has supported the theory.

    Since you claim that there are fossils which refute the ToE it should be easy for you to provide examples.

    Vern wrote: “Evolution is not about change per se. It’s about change toward greater complexity.”

    Absolutely false. It doesn’t make any claims about complexity – only “change”. Like the origin of the first life, complexity isn’t a part of the theory.

    Vern wrote: “You are really arguing that micro-evolution is ultimately the same thing as macro-evolution. But it isn’t.”

    Wow. You’re really wracking up the mistakes with this latest comment! There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except for scale. They are the same thing – using the same means to change.

    Vern wrote: “You are the one who brought up the subject of the creation of particles.”

    Don’t you know that the record is above us in the comments? Why would you say something so demonstrably untrue?

    You start the ball rolling when you write: “There is no more fantastic a claim than the one where nothingness just happened to fizzle for a while then pop up into a bag of universe… So is it really up to creationists to disprove THAT?”

    How am I supposed to take a statement like that? We’re talking about evolution and you start talking about the big bang or abiogenesis – and end it with “is it really up to creationists to disprove THAT?”

    Why bring something-from-nothing into it if you knew it had nothing to do with the ToE?

    Vern wrote: “I think atheists are right that theistic evolution is mainly the position taken by useful idiots.”

    As long as you understand that when talking about creationists/IDers we use the same term – without the “useful”.

    Vern wrote (regarding creationism vs ToE): “What other alternatives can there be? Just give me one example.”

    It’s been done famously by Richard Dawkins in “Expelled” – he gave hypothetical examples (which he explained he didn’t personally believe) and creationists have spent much time claiming he holds these beliefs (aliens seeded the earth was one).

    The potentials are almost limitless… while they’re all as likely as god-did-it (read exceedingly unlikely). Perhaps there is a rare weather event which causes animals DNA to change – pretty fantastic eh? Not likely at all – but it has as much evidence as creationism!

    Vern finishes with: “God is uncreated and eternal; therefore there is no issue about how God came into existence.”

    This is the very definition of “absurd”… but it’s what I’d say if I invented a god/religion. What an easy way out!! 🙂

    • Vern Crisler says:

      Joe: Quantum theory explains particles popping into and out of existence.

      Vern: No, it does not. Such particles pop into and out of existence as part of a quantum field, not out of nothingness. A sea of particles is not non-existence or nothingness. What we’re talking about here is the leap into being from non-being. The task is to explain how evolution could bring nothingness into existence as ANYTHING.

      Joe: Snowflakes are incredibly complex and are not designed.

      Vern: Snowflakes are not a movement from a state of less information to a state of greater information. The information in the ice crystal is already in the atoms that form into molecules and already in the physical laws that govern the universe. The snowflake is simply a rearranged of this information (in terms of thermodynamic properties). In fact, it’s a movement toward greater entropy, and a crystal is ultimately an informational dead-end. No new information can possible arise from a crystal once it has formed.

      Don’t confuse an increase in aesthetic complexity with an increase in informational complexity.

      Joe: Vern worte: “The biggest piece of evidence refuting the theory of evolution is the fossil record. That’s why Darwin had to explain it away.”
      Darwin did nothing of the sort. In fact – he stated that without fossil evidence his theory would fall apart (which is wrong – but he didn’t know about DNA). Every fossil found to-date has supported the theory.
      Since you claim that there are fossils which refute the ToE it should be easy for you to provide examples.

      Vern: Yes, Darwin did something of the sort. He used the excuse that the fossil record was incomplete. In fact, the gaps between basic types are systematic, and Darwinists such as Gould have concocted “punctuated equilibria” as a way to account for this. No single fossil can refute the theory of evolution since every fossil is already interpreted in advance as having evolved. However, on the whole the fossil record shows just the opposite of what Darwin wanted, an uninterrupted progression from the simplest to the complex.

      Joe: Vern wrote: “Evolution is not about change per se. It’s about change toward greater complexity.”
      Absolutely false. It doesn’t make any claims about complexity – only “change”. Like the origin of the first life, complexity isn’t a part of the theory.

      Vern: This is complete nonsense. Scaler complexity is precisely what Darwinism is supposed to explain. You can’t evade this.

      Joe: Vern wrote: “You are really arguing that micro-evolution is ultimately the same thing as macro-evolution. But it isn’t.”
      Wow. You’re really wracking up the mistakes with this latest comment! There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except for scale. They are the same thing – using the same means to change.

      Vern: You provided the illustration of walking, and said there was no difference between a short walk and a long walk except time. Here the “scale” is distance. I argue instead that the more apt comparison is between walking and flying. Just increasing the time of walking does not provide one with the ability to flap ones arms and fly. Your use of walking is woefully inadequate as an analogue of the difference between species adaptation and scaler morphological evolution.

      Joe: Vern wrote: “You are the one who brought up the subject of the creation of particles.”
      Don’t you know that the record is above us in the comments? Why would you say something so demonstrably untrue?

      Vern: here is what you said: “You need to investigate Quantum Theory – they have been able to show (in the lab) that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and this is the basis for the start of the big bang (which has nothing to do with the ToE incidentally).

      So, again, you are the one who brought up the idea of particles popping in and out of existence all the time. And the Big Bang has everything to do with the theory of evolution. Where do you get this stuff?

      Joe: You start the ball rolling when you write: “There is no more fantastic a claim than the one where nothingness just happened to fizzle for a while then pop up into a bag of universe… So is it really up to creationists to disprove THAT?”
      How am I supposed to take a statement like that? We’re talking about evolution and you start talking about the big bang or abiogenesis – and end it with “is it really up to creationists to disprove THAT?”

      Vern: I don’t accept your claim that the theory of evolution does not involve the origin of the universe. It is simply a rhetorical evasion on your part.

      Joe: Why bring something-from-nothing into it if you knew it had nothing to do with the ToE?

      Vern: Because the idea of bringing something-from-nothing has everything to do with the theory of evolution. You seem to think that Darwinists are only interested in explaining changes in the beaks of finches. I’ve never heard Darwinists before trying to limit their claims to trivial matters. Why are you doing that?

      Joe: Vern wrote: “I think atheists are right that theistic evolution is mainly the position taken by useful idiots.”
      As long as you understand that when talking about creationists/IDers we use the same term – without the “useful”.

      Vern: The term “useful idiots” was purportedly invented by Lenin to describe capitalists and others in the West who gave aid and comfort to the Communists. Once their “usefulness” is done and Communism has won the day, they will be dismissed as the “idiots” they are.

      I follow the Bible in regarding atheists as fools. Agnostics who claim they don’t know, are self-admitted fools. Creationism is the only rational viewpoint.

      Joe: Vern wrote (regarding creationism vs ToE): “What other alternatives can there be? Just give me one example.”
      It’s been done famously by Richard Dawkins in “Expelled” – he gave hypothetical examples (which he explained he didn’t personally believe) and creationists have spent much time claiming he holds these beliefs (aliens seeded the earth was one).
      The potentials are almost limitless… while they’re all as likely as god-did-it (read exceedingly unlikely). Perhaps there is a rare weather event which causes animals DNA to change – pretty fantastic eh? Not likely at all – but it has as much evidence as creationism!

      Vern: The idea that aliens seeded the earth would be a “creationist” explanation in that an “agent” was involved. In the formation of the universe, evolution is an agent-less explanation. The exclusivity of the disjunction still holds between creation and evolution. Pointing to examples of “agents” is merely to specify creation in the exclusive disjunction, not to replace it.

      Rare weather events acting on DNA is an example of adaptation. Again you continue to confuse change (adaptation) with evolution, necessary condition with sufficient condition, increase in functional value with increase in information content.

      Joe: Vern finishes with: “God is uncreated and eternal; therefore there is no issue about how God came into existence.”
      This is the very definition of “absurd”… but it’s what I’d say if I invented a god/religion. What an easy way out!!

      Vern: God is by definition uncreated so he did not evolve into existence. Perhaps you are confusing the definition of God with the demonstration of his existence. But again, a philosophy lesson would be of some help to you in understanding these things.

  7. Joe Agnost says:

    You wear your creationist label with pride… I tried, though I don’t really know why, to discuss the ToE with you but you don’t seem able to discuss in good faith.

    Vern wrote: “The task is to explain how evolution could bring nothingness into existence as ANYTHING.”

    Ugh. This is where I stop reading… you can claim the ToE is ~anything~ you want – hell, I’m sure that’s the only way you can refute it in your own mind… by making it something it’s not.

    The ToE does not make ANY claims on where/how/why the first life appears on earth. It only explains ~how~ life changes over time. Yes, “changes” – not ‘gets more complex’, just “changes”. Your repeated attempts at making the ToE something that it isn’t just makes this discussion impossible.

    Oh – and a fossil that would falsify the ToE? Finding a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambriam strata would do nicely… finding an ape fossil from 300 million years ago – that would do it too!
    There are many different fossils that could falsify the ToE – but to date every fossil has supported the theory.

    Not that you’d care… clearly you’re more interested in clinging to your religion than worrying about the truth – and that is truly sad.

    • Vern Crisler says:

      Joe: Vern wrote: “The task is to explain how evolution could bring nothingness into existence as ANYTHING.”
      Ugh. This is where I stop reading… you can claim the ToE is ~anything~ you want – hell, I’m sure that’s the only way you can refute it in your own mind… by making it something it’s not.
      The ToE does not make ANY claims on where/how/why the first life appears on earth. It only explains ~how~ life changes over time. Yes, “changes” – not ‘gets more complex’, just “changes”. Your repeated attempts at making the ToE something that it isn’t just makes this discussion impossible.

      Vern: I just do not understand this restriction of the theory of evolution to how life started on earth. It sounds like an evasion. All the Darwinists I’ve read deny supernatural creation all the way down the line — all the way back to the origin of the universe. They don’t limit evolution, unless they’re trying to evade hard questions.

      Joe: Oh – and a fossil that would falsify the ToE? Finding a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambriam strata would do nicely… finding an ape fossil from 300 million years ago – that would do it too!
      There are many different fossils that could falsify the ToE – but to date every fossil has supported the theory.

      Vern: No, Darwinists would merely say such fossils have been “reworked,” that they are “intrusive.” Creationists regard the strata as making up an ecological column rather than an evolutionary column. Hence, it’s not likely that mammals are going to be found in strata that were laid down as part of an undersea environment.

      Fossils do not support the theory of evolution. Darwin and some of his more honest successors have realized that and either sought to explain it away (Darwin, Huxley), or explain it within the framework of evolutionary dogma (Gould).

      Joe: Not that you’d care… clearly you’re more interested in clinging to your religion than worrying about the truth – and that is truly sad.

      Vern: Your continued attempts to reduce Darwinism to a mere explanation of change rather than change toward greater complexity shows that you do not even understand what Darwinism is, or why it was concocted in the first place. It is a religion for you that you cling to no matter what.

      Sorry, but you’re not going to come to truth if you evade the difficult issues — the origin of the universe or the increase in complexity over time. These difficulties in the theory of evolution aren’t going away simply because you try to redefine the theory.

      What is truly sad is that I would even have to explain this to defenders of Darwinism.

      Vern

  8. Joe Agnost says:

    Vern wrote: “I just do not understand this restriction of the theory of evolution to how life started on earth.”

    It’s becoming quite obvious that there is a lot you don’t understand Vern.

    Should the theory of gravity encompass how the matter (that gravity acts on) got there in the first place?? Of course not. That’s not within the scope of gravitational theory. In the same way the ToE does not attempt to explain how the life (that evolution works on) got there – it’s not within the scope of the theory.

    Vern wrote: “All the Darwinists I’ve read deny supernatural creation all the way down the line…”

    As do I.
    But this says nothing about the ToE. I, and other “darwinists”, don’t believe in Santa Claus – but this coincidence has nothing to do with the ToE either.

    Vern wrote: “Your continued attempts to reduce Darwinism to a mere explanation of change…”

    Have you ever been to an actual science site or read a science book/text? What is ~your~ definition of the ToE?

    Here are a couple of defs. from around the web (ask for the links if you want them):

    From UC Berkeley – “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.” (NOTE – “history of life” not how life FIRST developed!)

    From talkOrigins.org – “Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”

    Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 – “Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

    Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 – “In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

    From wikipedia – “Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common.”

    You will notice that they all agree that the ToE works on living organisms – and does not care where/how/when the life first started. It only describes how life changes (not “get’s more complex”) over time.

    It’s typical creationist propoganda – creating a ‘straw-man’ of the ToE and then tearing it down. You MISdefine the theory and spend all your time fighting against this MISdefinition.
    While it’s bad enough that you deny basic science – but at least have the honesty to properly understand what you’re denying…

    • Vern Crisler says:

      Joe: Should the theory of gravity encompass how the matter (that gravity acts on) got there in the first place?? Of course not. That’s not within the scope of gravitational theory. In the same way the ToE does not attempt to explain how the life (that evolution works on) got there – it’s not within the scope of the theory.

      Vern: Huh? The theory of evolution “does not attempt to explain how the life…got there”? I believe you are desperate to restrict the theory of evolution to small fry matters, because it’s a way you can avoid the big problems.

      Joe: Vern wrote: “All the Darwinists I’ve read deny supernatural creation all the way down the line…”
      As do I.
      But this says nothing about the ToE. I, and other “darwinists”, don’t believe in Santa Claus – but this coincidence has nothing to do with the ToE either.

      Vern: Huh? The theory of evolution has nothing to do with denying creation all down the line? You have a very restricted view of the theory of evolution. You limit it to the theory of BIOLOGICAL evolution. But if I were to ask you whether you believe in COSMIC evolution what would be your answer? Yes? No? Yes?

      Joe: Vern wrote: “Your continued attempts to reduce Darwinism to a mere explanation of change…”
      Have you ever been to an actual science site or read a science book/text? What is ~your~ definition of the ToE?

      Vern: Have you? The theory of evolution is the belief that the universe, the earth, all of life, and man himself were the products of naturalistic, materialistic causes with no intervention from a creator. The theory of evolution can be divided into the general theory of cosmic evolution on the one hand, and the special theory of biological evolution on the other hand.

      To quote the Wikipedia entry on cosmic evolution: “Accordingly, biological evolution is a small, albeit important, subset of a more extensive evolutionary scheme stretching across all of space and all of time.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_evolution

      Joe: Here are a couple of defs. from around the web (ask for the links if you want them):
      From UC Berkeley – “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification….

      Vern: UC Berkeley is talking only about BIOLOGICAL evolution.

      Joe: From talkOrigins.org – “Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”

      Vern: Of course, this is a vapid definition since creationists also believe in heritable changes in populations over many generations.

      Joe: Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 – “Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

      Vern: Again, creationists agree with this.

      Joe: Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 – “In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

      Vern: I see “galaxies” in there. Did you miss that? He contrasts this “broadest sense” of evolution with “biological evolution.” Did you miss that too? Unlike you, he does not restrict the theory of evolution just to the biological aspect of the theory.

      Moreover, Futuyma’s claim that evolution is merely change is preposterous, as creationists could agree with everything in his definition accept the spectacular non-sequitur of his last sentence — “that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.” Like you, Futuyma confuses necessary condition with sufficient condition, and makes an absurd leap from one to the other.

      Joe: From wikipedia – “Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common.”

      Vern: Again, this is just talking about biological evolution. Moreover, the definition fails to distinguish what evolutionists believe from what creationists believe.

      Joe: You will notice that they all agree that the ToE works on living organisms – and does not care where/how/when the life first started. It only describes how life changes (not “get’s more complex”) over time.

      Vern: To define evolution without including the origin of life is to provide either a restricted, or depending upon motive, an evasive definition. It is to examine a room minutely and extensively and thereby to pronounce it empty and devoid of all objects, while failing entirely to see the elephant in the room.

      In any case, Darwinists have not shied away from attempting to explain how life came about. Ever heard of Oparin, Urey, Miller?

      Joe: It’s typical creationist propoganda – creating a ‘straw-man’ of the ToE and then tearing it down. You MISdefine the theory and spend all your time fighting against this MISdefinition.

      Vern: What exactly is “typical creationist propaganda”? And where is the straw man? You define your theory in such a way that even creationists could believe it, and then you accuse ME of misdefining the theory.

      Joe: While it’s bad enough that you deny basic science – but at least have the honesty to properly understand what you’re denying…

      Vern: I do not deny basic science because I don’t equate the theory of evolution with science. Nor do I define the theory of evolution in such an innocuous way that it would fail to distinguish what creationists believe from what evolutionists believe.

      The fundamental problem with the theory of evolution (both cosmic and biological) is that it has no adequate explanation of scaler complexity. Since the scale of being is a reality, the main thing is to explain it. Creationists believe the complexity in the universe was brought about by a rational God, who designed the universe (even though it is now marred by sin).

      For my critique of Darwinist attempts to explain or avoid explaining the formation of complexity, see section 2 “Endless Forms Most Complex” in my essay “Antiquity of Man.”

      https://vernerable.wordpress.com/creation-evolution/the-antiquity-of-man/

      I think we need to wind this down, as the discussion has degenerated into a mere debate about words, and I’d prefer to leave such debates to the linguistic philosophers who know how to waste everyone’s time better than just about anybody — maybe even Darwinists.

      Vern

  9. Jerry Bridge says:

    Vern,

    Thanks much for the time you put into this.

    This is very valuable as you deal with Social Darwinism & evolution here.

    Thanks also for the hard work you’ve put into your site.

    It is a valuable resource for me.

    Jerry

  10. Vern Crisler says:

    Thank you Jerry.

    Vern

  11. Joe Agnost says:

    OMG… from straw men to shifting the goal posts. So now you aren’t talking about the (biological) Theory of Evolution – but cosmological evolution and everything in between.

    You know what Vern? If you hadn’t spent so much time using the term “darwinist” and “darwinism” you might be able to weasel your way out of this losing argument of yours… but you couldn’t resist using these terms could you? Do you really think Darwin was concerned with anything other than biology?

    So tell me Vern – how is “darwinism” anything other than biological evolution?

    Aside – I (almost) cannot believe that you’re denying that this discussion was about anything OTHER than biological evolution. Darwin’s theory (which has evolved itself since Darwin’s time) is about BIOLOGICAL evolution only. That’s what the theory explains and that’s what I ( and I presumed you) were discussing here.

    • Vern Crisler says:

      Joe: OMG… from straw men to shifting the goal posts. So now you aren’t talking about the (biological) Theory of Evolution – but cosmological evolution and everything in between.
      You know what Vern? If you hadn’t spent so much time using the term “darwinist” and “darwinism” you might be able to weasel your way out of this losing argument of yours… but you couldn’t resist using these terms could you? Do you really think Darwin was concerned with anything other than biology?
      So tell me Vern – how is “darwinism” anything other than biological evolution?

      Vern: Here is what I said in an earlier post: “There is no more fantastic a claim than the one where nothingness just happened to fizzle for a while then pop up into a bag of universe.”

      You Joe responded: “This has NOTHING to do with the ToE – but you’re wrong here anyway. You need to investigate Quantum Theory – they have been able to show (in the lab) that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, and this is the basis for the start of the big bang (which has nothing to do with the ToE incidentally).”

      I Vern respond: My statement above did not say anything about Darwin. I was discussing Hawking’s “spontaneous creation” nonsense. Also, as I showed earlier, your claim that the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the universe was simply false. The theory of biological evolution is only a small part of the general theory of cosmic evolution.

      I also said in response to your appeal to QT: “If you’re talking about virtual particles, they do not last long enough to be of any relevance to evolution…” You’ll notice that I didn’t say “Darwinian” or “biological” in front of “evolution.”

      You Joe followed with this: “You’re dragging evolution into something that has no relevance to it AGAIN! The ToE describes (very well I might add) how life evolves over time. It does NOT matter ~where~ the life came from – that isn’t a part of the ToE. This is why so many theists (of all religions) accept the ToE – by assuming that god put the first life here on earth. THAT is compatible with evolution (although I personally think it’s wrong).”

      As can be seen, I was talking about evolution per se and you adopted the odd rhetorical tick of attempting to restrict the domain of discourse to biological evolution. Given that I was talking about nothingness popping into a bag of universe, I think it’s pretty obvious I was talking about cosmic evolution. Your restriction of the discussion to “biological” evolution was little more than a verbal distraction.

      Joe: Aside – I (almost) cannot believe that you’re denying that this discussion was about anything OTHER than biological evolution. Darwin’s theory (which has evolved itself since Darwin’s time) is about BIOLOGICAL evolution only. That’s what the theory explains and that’s what I ( and I presumed you) were discussing here.

      Vern: I was making an exclusive disjunction between creation and evolution. I take creation and evolution to be comprehensive world-views, encompassing the only alternatives to the origin of the cosmos and of man. I was not restricting the definition of evolution in that disjunction. What would be the point of that?

      Again, this has degenerated into strife over the meaning of words, so the discussion needs to stop.

      Vern

  12. Joe Agnost says:

    It occured to me that it doesn’t matter ~what~ form of evolution you’re discussing. The origin of life on earth isn’t covered by ~any~ of them.

    Abiogenesis is the theory of how life started on earth. There is nothing regarding ANY form of evolution in it. Nothing.

    So it really doesn’t matter which form (cosmic or biological) of evolution you’re discussing – the beginning of life isn’t covered by either.

    It was a nice try on your part though Vern – you sure know how to kill a discussion. I guess (to you) it’s better than losing…

    • Joe; If evolution is to be proven accurate then abiogenesis must be proven also. Otherwise there’s no explanation for how the first sing cell organism was capable of achieving sustenance and meaningful reproduction(as in an ability to lend both of these very traits to a second generation). If you can’t explain how the first cell survived and created the second generation of cells then the theory of evolution is already debunked, or at the very least incomplete; even if you claim the latter that still clarifies that the evolutionary model requires faith in abiogenesis. Without survival and reproduction there is no’ survival of the fittest’ to facilitate the progressive biological process of evolution. If you admit that the first life was created rather than occurred randomly then you’re technically a creationist.

      In regards to the dialogue you’ve been having with Vern you haven’t once sought to understand what he means by the distinction between adaptation and progressive mutation. The point he’s making is simply as follows; though there are different species of a particular genus this does nothing to prove that new genetic information is ever generated. The Theory of Evolution that you’re arguing for necessitates that mutation can lead to the creation of new genetic information across one or more generations – and that this process is capable of creating complex, interdependent systems – which simply hasn’t been observed or replicated, so don’t pretend to be defending ‘science’, which as a process of discovery is in no way dependent on the belief in evolution(as clearly indicated by the fact that contemporary science was created in a theist society).
      Until genetic development between a life-form and it’s offspring is shown to be anything beyond a copy-error or benign mutation the Darwinistic notion of evolution(that all ‘kinds’ of animals stem from a progenitor) remains unproven. Perhaps gene science will reveal some support for it in the future(though that seems unlikely given the current understanding), but in the present the most reasonable perspective is that every species on the planet today can be traced to a genetically similar ancestor which already had genetic complexity and was in no way derived from a simpler life-form or earlier ancestor which it had in common with all genus’s. With this comes the belief that adaption to varying environmental factors is the only form of genetic change, with this occurring on the basis of genetic information being lost, or regained via breeding. You’re entitled to disagree with that, but don’t pretend like it’s the same as what the Theory of Evolution claims or that because this can happen it proves that a single common ancestor could evolve into progressively more complex lifeforms.

  13. Jerry Bridge says:

    Thank you again Vern

    There is much here for me to learn

    Jerry

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