Polish MEP calls for ‘scholarly debate’ on evolution

Radio Polonia ^ | Oct 16, 2006

[ml1954]

I ... argue from a creationist perspective.

So when are you going to start doing that? You post links to AnswersinGenesis and little else. You make assertions backed up by that source and little else. You have few arguments other than from that source. So I guess the debate is not with Dave, it's with AnswerinGenesis. So why not just step aside and admit you have no idea what the h*ll you are talking about and just direct everyone to AnswersinGenesis in every post. Ooops, sorry, that's what you already do. You just fill the rest of the response in b*llsh*t.

[jennyp]

There can be disagreement on both sides about human or ape fossils in the creationist camp, just like (surprise!) in the evolutionist camp. While this is interpreted as a sign of healthy controversy in evolutionary circles, it seems to be considered a sign of division and implosion in creationist circles.

Of course the fact that you can't agree among yourselves about which mutually exclusive slots they belong in hurts your argument! How could it not?

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro is mistaken to assert I have made a definitive statement either way simply by posting a link.

Am I mistaken or are you running away from your own words? Some stinkin' Lone Ranger you are, Dave!

You cannot "debunk" evolution, or even H. erectus as a transitional, with Mehlert if you aren't offering Mehlert as correct.

Here's post 14 again. The words advise that something called "man-to-human evolution" is debunked with the link contained. While "man-to-human" is not much of a transition, either "ape-to-human" was meant or you're even dodgier than I thought.

That link goes here. Link number two is Mehlert. I could have gone after John Woodmorappe or the prestigious DannyTN, but anyone who wonders about either can Google or use the FR search.

[ml1954]

Ha ha!

Thanks for the confirmation that you are not really interested in any debate whatsoever and that you are just an AiG shill.

[Sopater]

Thanks jennyp, but as you have more correctly noted in the table below, I don't claim to have an expert opinion, but I will be happy to provide my amateur creationist opinion, provided that you can answer a couple of questions.

1. Do you post this somewhere?

2. Do all ameteur evolutionists agree with the results attributed to Mainstream scientists?

3. Do all expert/published evolutionists agree with the mainstream scientists?

4. If a previously expert/published scientist doesn't agree with the mainstream scientists, are they no longer considered an expert nor a scientist?

I just noticed that there are no results for evolutionists, amateurs or otherwise, giving the impression that all evolutionists agree, and I know that that is not true.

I'll take the survey, but I'll only provide my amateur opinions to you if you answer my questions and agree to survey some amateur and published evolutionists individually, and then tell me where the results are posted. This looks like a great idea.

[Coyoteman]

Most amateur evolutionists tend to defer in their opinions to those who have actually studied the matter more intensely than they have.

Creationists, amateur and otherwise, on the other hand, seem to have no reluctance to tell even the most experienced scientists that they know nothing about anything when it comes to evolution.

[Sopater]

Creationists, amateur and otherwise, on the other hand, seem to have no reluctance to tell even the most experienced scientists...

I can't speak for others, creationists or otherwise. The point that I have been trying to make on these threads is that you can't make a determination regarding species differentiation based on homology. DNA comparison between living animals has show that homology is not a reliable method for determining a common ancestor.

Evolutionists, amateur or otherwise, seem to have no reluctance to ignore the evidence that is counter to commonly held evolutionist beliefs. All of the evidence supports the truth. None can be ignored, and all interpretations of the evidence must be recognized for exactly what they are, or we have abandoned science and adopted ideology. Consensus to a theory or belief is not additional evidence for said belief.

[Coyoteman]

All of the evidence supports the truth. None can be ignored, and all interpretations of the evidence must be recognized for exactly what they are, or we have abandoned science and adopted ideology.

The modern creationist talking points that "all interpretations of the evidence must be recognized for exactly what they are" and "we agree on the data, we just have a different interpretation" are additional attempts to defeat the theory of evolution without knowing anything about the theory of evolution.

In science, not all interpretations are of equal merit. First, there are hypotheses, theories, and laws. There are guesses and educated guesses. The phlogiston theory of chemistry is discredited, and astrology never made the grade as a theory.

In a similar vein, creation "science" and its offspring ID have both failed at their attempts to mimic science while peddling pure religion. The "different interpretation" attempt we are seeing more of lately is also failing.

[Sopater]

The modern creationist talking points...

I didn't know that these were talking points, I was simply stating what I consider to be some obvious absolutes. However, if the merit of an interpretation is based primarily on a consensus of an ideology, i.e. creationism, evolutionism, whateverism; it is not science. Any fool can plainly see that. ;o)

[blowfish]

Consensus to a theory or belief is not additional evidence for said belief.

Absolutely! Personally, I believe that hordes of invisible, all-powerful, Undetectable Garden Gnomes are responsible for the world as we see it. Science cannot conclusively disprove my interpretation of the evidence. I demand that UGGism be presented alongside the crumbling, demolished theory of evolution.

[RunningWolf]

You make some valid points there Sopater. Labeling you as 'creationist' and your points as 'talking points' is only an attempt to put you into a box they will then paint with a broad brush.

By the way, what Mr. Coyote puts up as evidence (flow charts, skull arrangements) is not evidence or rather it is evidence but not in the manner he thinks. What do PHD's papers and other such works ultimate represent? A mans work/s. How many PHD degrees were awarded on the PiltDown Man fraud before it was discovered? 100? 500? who can say for sure without going to each University and doing the historical research. A conservative estimate would be at least 100

Evolutionists fight attacks on Darwin with the fervency of a religious zealot. Based on their faith that the mechanism of evolution is a foregone conclusion, these scientists have abandoned the scientific method articulated by Karl Popper.

[Just mythoughts]

Noah's flood happened alright, the discussion could be about the evidence of whether it was 'global' or a localized flood. There was after all a specific reason for the flood and that would set the boundaries for where it flooded.

[VadeRetro]

How many PHD degrees were awarded on the PiltDown Man fraud before it was discovered? 100? 500? who can say for sure without going to each University and doing the historical research. A conservative estimate would be at least 100

You floated this before and it sank. Got any more evidence for it this time or are you just forgetful?

[Coyoteman]

Thank you Dr. Wolf.

No evening would be complete without a true belly-laugh!

[jennyp]

1. Do you post this somewhere?

Yes, I post it on these threads periodically and keep it updated as more creationists weigh in here or as more published claims by the prominent creationist scholars are found.

2. Do all ameteur evolutionists agree with the results attributed to Mainstream scientists?

I don't know of any who don't. B thru K are all transitionals between ancient apes & modern humans. We'd positively expect there to be controversy over whether specific transitional species are more ape-like (probably walked on all fours, lived in trees, etc.) vs. more human-like (walked upright, lived on the ground, made tools, used symbolic thought, etc.) The survey states this upfront in the "Mainstream scientists" row.

3. Do all expert/published evolutionists agree with the mainstream scientists?

4. If a previously expert/published scientist doesn't agree with the mainstream scientists, are they no longer considered an expert nor a scientist?

It's unremarkable if us Frevolutionists were to disagree among ourselves on which "slot" these transitionals should be put in, since they're transitionals.

But it's you creationists who insist that there is an unbridgeable gap between the created ape-baramin and the human-baramin. So y'all should be able to agree among yourselves on just where this unbridgeable gap actually is, shouldn't you?

[Virginia-American]

... . While this is interpreted as a sign of healthy controversy in evolutionary circles, it seems to be considered a sign of division and implosion in creationist circles. ...

Not exactly. IF the "ape baramin" and the "human baramin" really were distinct, there would be no difficulty in classifying the fossils. However, there is.

This is evidence that in fact these are transitional.

[blowfish]

How many PHD degrees were awarded on the PiltDown Man fraud before it was discovered? 100? 500? who can say for sure without going to each University and doing the historical research. A conservative estimate would be at least 100

Translation: I don't have a particle of evidence for my opinions, and I can't find specific flaws in my opponent's evidence. So I'll just cast all of science into question in a desperate attempt to cloud the issue.