FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 06/12/2002 3:00:11 PM PDT by Gladwin
|
Claims |
|
| A. God of the Gaps/Unsolved Mystery | Assumes that if science cannot PRESENTLY explain something, there is no natural explanation. |
| B. Personal Incredulity | Assumes that their inability to comprehend or understand how something could have occurred naturally is proof that it did not. |
| C. Post-It Note God/Morris Effect | Gives a supernatural deity credit for a natural event, or "well, god CUDDA done it that way !" "There is no observational fact imaginable that cannot, one way or |
| D. Scriptural Assault | Use of bible verses as 'evidence'. Usually either as threats, or bribes. Also includes such gems as : - "Jesus Loves You" - "I'll Pray For You" - "One day you will have to answer to Jesus Christ Himself, and then it won't be so funny when he throws your unrepentant soul into Hell !" - "One day, when you're burning in Hell, you'll remember this conversation, and that I warned you !" |
| E. Discredited 'evidences', Hoaxes and errors. | Otherwise known as PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Includes such things as the moon dust argument, the vapor canopy 'hypothesis', and the decaying c-factor hypothesis. These 'evidences' have been refuted (see Talk Origins for them), but creationists keep using them anyway. Things like Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and the Lady Hope Story fit also fit in here. Somehow the FACT that scientists were the ones that figured out these were mistakes or hoaxes is always missed by creationists. Science works by correcting its errors, so hoaxes and frauds usually don't last very long. |
| F. Out of Context Quotes | THE classic creationist technique. If, at any time, you see them claim that an 'evolutionist' says that evolution is false, you can be pretty certain the words have been carefully edited (like Darwin's 'Eye Quote', his 'Transitional forms should be everywhere' quote ... ). |
| G. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Arguments | The idea that evolution somehow violates this inviolable law of nature. In truth, it doesn't (in fact, life itself works in accordance to this law). Assumes that organization/complexity cannot form unless directed by some sort of program (false). |
| H. (Mis)Information Theory | A relatively recent argument, it claims things like 'gains of genetic information are impossible', or 'mutations have never been observed'. Both statements are, of course, false. |
| I. Absolutism/Burden of Proof | Assumes: 1) if you are not 100% certain about how something happened, then you don't have a clue about how it happened, or 2) anything not proven true is automatically false (or, anything not proven false is automatically true). |
| J. Denial = Refutation ex cathedra arguments Zeppelin Ego |
The first two assume that just because the creationist has stated something, it is automatically true without the requirement for supporting evidence. ('Your statement is false. Now that I have refuted you, you MUST accept that my ideas are correct !') Zeppelin Ego - when opponent's ego is huge, bloated, full of gas, and explodes into flame with the least provocation (tends to go along with #Q - see below). |
| K. Semantic Games | Opponent will expect you to conform to HIS definition of words, not their REAL, currently accepted definitions. Example : claims that evolution MUST be only single point mutations (as in the Modern Synthesis - 1942 to 1982). Also when evidence is redefined out of existence (ie, the invention of the 'dichotomy' between 'apparent' specified complexity vs 'real' specified complexity when it was demonstrated that a computer program using mutation/selection could produce a sentence exhibiting specified complexity. Sadly, without knowing the history of a process, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell the 'difference' between 'real' and 'apparent' specified complexity.) |
| L. Number Games | Use of carefully selected growth rates to 'show' that the entire Earth's population could've been generated by 4 couples a few thousand years ago. Also the One Sided Equation - most processes on Earth are in equilibrium (there are just as many factors increasing something as decreasing it). A One Sided Equation ignores one or the other side of the equation - seen in the Helium escape argument, or erosion/build up of sediment type of arguments for a young Earth. |
| M. Transitional Form Complaints | They either claim: 1) 'There ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS !!' (false), or 2)'Those fossils are the WRONG KIND OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS, AND SO AREN'T REAL TRANSITIONALS !!' The 'fossils are fully formed whatevers' type arguments are included in here as well. |
| N. Conspiracy Theories | Two major types : - "All scientists/evolutionists KNOW that evolution is false, but they hide/distort the evidence to get people away from God !" - "Every field of science kneels before the altar of Evolutionary Theory !" - geologists must check with evolutionists so they know how old to say the Earth is, for example. |
| O. Cartoon Theory of Evolution | Evolution is just the study and explanation of how living things change over time. The Cartoon Theory of Evolution includes Cosmogony (origin of the universe), Nucleosynthesis (origin of substances heavier than hydrogen), Abiogenesis (origin of life from organic compounds) - from the Chick Tract 'Big Daddy' most likely. |
| P. Argument from Weak/Faulty Analogy | Hearkens back to Paley's Watchmaker analogy (the "irreducibly complex systems" of Behe is the modern incarnation of this). Assumes that if two things have at least one thing in common, they have all things in common (designed objects are complex. Life is complex. Therefore, life is designed), and others of this ilk. |
| Q. Argument from Insult (direct and implied) Armchair Psychology |
Assumes that you can make someone accept your claims by calling them names (direct), or questioning their mental faculties ('you can't possibly believe that fish can turn into men !!' - implying you are stupid, for example. You would have to be to fall for that olde strawman argument). Armchair psychology is when they diagnose a mental condition for you - |
| R. Argument from Misplaced Authority | When you hear someone quoting an astrophysicist who states that 'evolution is too improbable', for instance (like the olde "Tornado thru a junkyard building a 747 !" argument). Expertise in ONE field does NOT grant expertise in ALL fields. |
| S. Argument from Improbability 'Evolution is ALL chance !!'. |
Usually seen in abiogenesis arguments, this makes the assumption that a modern protein had to be made in just one attempt. But, since natural selection selects more successful variants, it can make improbable combinations occur by working sequentially (several small improvements). |
| T. Martyr Syndrome Histrionics Emotional Appeals |
Creationist will claim they are being discriminated against, or called names ONLY because they are creationist/have faith (actually, they are being called names because they are using lame arguments, and excessive use of Zeppelin Ego). Schopenhauer's Maxim fits in here as well (the 'All great truths pass through three stages - they are ridiculed, then they are violently opposed, then they are accepted as obvious'). Also includes such rancid fare as "Hitler/Lenin/Mao and other nasty |
| U. Mobile Goalposts Backpedaling |
Occurs when the creationist asks for something, you give it to him, and then he claims that's NOT what he REALLY wanted, or that it REALLY doesn't qualify as evidence for your position (without clearly explaining why). |
| V. "No Eyewitnesses !!" - type argument | Claims that since no one was there to physically observe the event, we can't REALLY be sure it happened. Or, like using spectroscopy to determine what elements are in an interstellar gas cloud is invalid because no one has gone out there to physically retrieve a sample of the interstellar gas. |
| W. Misuse and Misunderstandings of the ToE 'Evolution is RACISM/ATHEISM/RELIGION !!" |
Oddly assumes that since evolution is based on assumptions, and religion is based on assumptions, that evolution is therefore a religion (ie, accepted as true WITHOUT evidence). Also assumes that one must give up God to accept the validity of evolution (false). Since the ToE is purely a biological theory that explains how life changes over time, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about morals, ethics, theology, philosophy, or cultural development, which is why claims like "the end product of the PHILOSOPHY of evolutionISM is the erosion of morality !!" belong in this category. |
| X. Ignorance of Science and its Methods | When someone demands that science PROVE something, or that 'evolution is NOT scientific', score one in #X. Science deals with EVIDENCE, not PROOF. Evolution is scientific because it does make testable and falsifiable predictions (like, 'what would we EXPECT to find in the fossil record if descent with modification were true ?') Also claims that fly in the face of known physics, chemistry, geology, etc go in here as well. |
| Y. Fallacy of the General Rule | 'If sedimentation can occur quickly under these conditions, it therefore can occur quickly in ALL conditions !!' is the prime example. This fallacy occurs when a rule is applied too broadly (The Mount St. Helen's example of a young earth and polystrate fossil formation are other standard creationist fares). |
| Z. Radiometric and Dating Whines | Common enough to warrant separation from 'Ignorance of Science and Its Methods'. Just baseless complaints/questions about the validity of known and verified dating methods. |
| 1. Muddled logic and other fallacies | The 'miscellaneous' category. Things like Special Pleading ('all things require a cause - EXCEPT GOD'), Circular Arguments (the statement you are trying to prove is one of the assumptions - 'God created things. Things exist. Therefore, God exists !), and Non Sequitor statements (have no relevance to the topic at hand - like bible verses discussing morality when the topic was natural selection). |
| 2. Mind Games and Rhetorical Tricks | Includes Projection (you keep changing all of his definitions of words BACK to what they really are, and he accuses you of redefining words to suit your argument), White Knight (rushing to the aid of a fellow creationist just because he/she is a creationist), going on incoherent rants, and 'just plain NUTS !!'.
|
It's kind of the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 effect - by turning the 'debate' into a game, creationist arguments don't seem as monotonously painful as usual (plus the fact that everyone playing will read every single word - for the very next thing the creationist says could WIN IT ALL!!)
Burden Of Proof Fallacy:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case. There may be two problems here. First, the arguer claims priority - but why is it him who wins by default? And second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. A counter-argument is the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?" Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it. Variants are the rhetorical question, and the loaded question, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
You forgot "Yes or No?"
BTW...what the heck is this post about?
FMCDH
I agree with you there, IMO. Still, it's a huge leap to go from there to saying that he never does.
Why don’t we just put the ID card on the table.
Note: for the many who will probably not even read the link, just mark your “Dembski” spot now.
IMHO, I think God (that is not the Deity's name, you know) does intervene, sometimes in major ways. For myself, I'm not going to say that he did not directly intervene in the creation of people-kind.
Generally agree, especially in regard to cosmology and natural History.
Possible/likely exceptions (no evidence, just my gut):
- Big Bang
- End of the Planck Era
- First life
As to human History, since I believe that man is a pivotal goal of Creation, His intervention with humanity is ongoing, but usually sublime.
Miracles and unequivocal Divine interventions are rare.
W may catch as many Evos as Crevos.
What is the ‘one’ major item that causes you to doubt the existence of an ‘Intelligent Designer’?
There's another form of this: the shifting of the dividing line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". As scientists discover more and more extreme examples of genetic or morphological change within populations, creationists change the definition of "microevolution". In recent years it's gone from covering only changes in the relative frequency of brown vs. white moths, to covering the separation of closely related species. No matter how dramatically evolution progresses in the future, they'll be able to say, "oh, that's just microevolution."
No problem. As you know, I've suffered far worse than that. But you're one of the very few who has regrets about such things. You're a gentleman. I'm certain that I've been quite boorish at times too. I try to behave myself; but sometimes I don't live up to my standards.
That being said, I do have a serious question ... What is the 'one' major item that causes you to doubt the existence of an 'Intelligent Designer'?
Very simple. Lack of evidence. The only "arguments" we ever see (other than unimpressive arithmatical mumbo-jumbo about how the "odds" are against evolution) are statements like: "Golly, I don't know how X happened. Therefore no one will ever know. Therefore ..." That's nothing but a modern-day version of our ancestors' argument for a lightning god.
I never have in the Behe sense. The evolution of organisms is not the result of any conscious process. The intelligent design came about in the crafting of the conditions under which complexity could arise spontaneously...or rather, inevitably.
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
TIME CUBE .
The Earth is Not Moving!.
Earth Orbits? Moon Landings? A Fraud! .
Flat Earth Society Homepage! .
The Current State of Creation Astronomy.
THE MOON: A Propaganda Hoax .
CRANK DOT NET.
You don't seem to have compiled any of the arguments I use in your "compilation".
The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
Or maybe it's like the story about the Texas state rep who started to tell an aggie joke and, being told that there were a few Texas aggies in the audience replied "OK, I'll tell it S-L-O-W..."
Likewise if some of the evos see some of this stuff enough, some of the logic of it might start to sink in...
Let's see!! The argument will be listed below the paragraph it applies to!
The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.
Argument J
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
Argument Q
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
Argument Q
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: God hates IDIOTS, too!
Argument Q
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
Argument B
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
Argument S
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
Argument H
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Argument H (continued)
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
Argument B
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
Argument F
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Argument M
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
Argument A
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
Argument E
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
Argument E
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
Argument J
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek" They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
Argument E
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
Argument Q
Woo!! I tallied J Q B S H F M A!!! Yee haw! Score your Cretigo cards kiddos! When G3K checks in, the fight for the first Cretigo is gonna get intense.
Note, this is a personal attack on you, not your ideas, medved. (Trying to use reverse psychology...)
Argument 2, the Gish gallop
Argument H
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Argument H (continued)
Argument H - link to talk.origins BS claiming gains of information are possible, i.e. an irrelevant argument...
Question, Sadwin: You really think you're gonna prove evolutionism to anybody other than yourself by mouthing nonsense incantations?
Granted that's idiotic, Sadwin, but nonetheless you could set that minimal level of relevant argument up as a goal for yourself to try to achieve within the next year or two...
Argument Q. Face it, Ted. Between you and the Blues Brothers a lot of us will be yelling CRETIGO all night long. So, when are you going to update your theory in light of all the counter evidence? You've been spamming the www, verbatim, since 1995.
That won't represent any sort of a decrease in information content from your usual blatherings.
If you go to the right side of your internet browser, there is a scroll up button. It is usually the arrow up button. Press this button until you get to the top of the page. If you have a three button mouse, you can also use the middle button to scroll up to the top of the page. There, you will find a chart of arguments, each one denoted by a letter. Underneath each of the paragraphs in your post, I put Argument A, or B, or C, etc.
Although, I really shouldn't bother trying to educate you on how to read tables, because I doubt you even read these articles. You just do information-free text dumps into every crevo-thread, regardless of what the thread is talking about.
It is amazing that you are tolerated on FR, but that says more about FR that you.
Trying to engage him would be like trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone you've just accused of being a child-molestor. That person is already so angry and upset at being wrongly accused that he is as likely to call you an idiot or a fat head, if not something that can't be printed here.
He won't accept that intellectual criticism may be ruthless, but it is not an attempt to destroy him personally.
I read your "argument H"; you obviously haven't. Like I say, if you're gonna be a BS artist, at least try to keep your BS coherent. You clearly haven't even tried.
In fact, the discussion you link to for H doesn't mention anything remotely like the argument I make regarding features devolving while others were evolving and you are basically lying if you're trying to claim that it does.
"We've got a whole lot of these folks on this forum..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#4
"Knowing gore3000, he'll take a look at your link and claim that evolutionists say coyotes are descended from whales. Do not underestimate the power of willful ignorance..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#68
You didn't even read the freakin' article, you dolt, or you wouldn't have made the inane comment about whales evolving from coyotes, or vice versa. Do you ever read any of the stuff we give you, or do you glance at the pretty pictures, decide that nothing's going to change your mind and then post inanities on these threads?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#143
My theory has always been he's nothing more than a rather primitive computer algorythm.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#152
You are the only person I've met who suffered from Tourette's Syndrome of the keyboard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#384
Face it, gore3000, your brain (or programming) has been trained to force a cognitive disassociation between the pariticulars of evidence and the sum total of evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees. You'll pick at individual pieces of evidence given you, but fail to understand the overall picture painted by the evidence coming in from dozens of scientific disciplines. And, you show an inherent inability to actually learn anything
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#632
except by creationists who cannot see the forest for the trees and refuse to accept any evidence unless in the form of a living, breathing critter (and then they'd probably claim it was ginned up by geneticists in some secret laboratory to mislead good, God-fearing Christians in an effort to damn their souls to Hell).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#750
Gee, you get caught quote-mining red handed, and attempt to weedle out of it by bantering semantics. You haven't read any real science since that nice old guy down the street introduced you to Saturnism... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#978
Dear, dear, deluded g3k.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1073
What must God think of you that you are reduced to bantering semantics, twisting words, willful ignorance, and outright lies to support Biblical creation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1080
I never said that, you liar and twister of words. The serpent in the Garden of Eden could take tips from you.... Remember, God said, "Thou shall not bear false witness" (which means lying). Of course, you probably think lying for God makes you a saint, don't you?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1082
Ahem, Mr. "I've got to lie for God,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1088
I'm wondering if my asking gore3000 how he believed God felt about his lying for Him is what caused him to clam up. Medved, you claim God hates idiots, but not one of the commandments states "Thou shalt not be stupid." However, there is a "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Now that you know that your quotes are, at best, disengenuous, shouldn't you attempt to distance yourself from them, or is it okay to lie as long as it's "for the children?" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1209
That is why PatrickHenry keeps publishing the list - so that y'all do not keep spouting the same, discredited drivel. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a68abe52d91.htm#147
I merely said that's what the Indians claim. And shortsighted politicians are more than willing to bend over and grab their ankles for these folks.
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a68abe52d91.htm#191
Ah... the "Static Cling Theory" of life, the universe and everything. Came to you one day while cleaning out the dryer lint trap, did it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/636491/posts?q=1&&page=101#140
I figured it had to be you. Can't keep a tinfoil hatter down.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634527/posts?q=1&&page=51#55
Your beliefs can't be proven scientifically so they must be forced on the populace through deception and the courtroom. Nice. In a few centuries America will have come to resemble the Islamic world in its backwardness and you can sit back in that special Hell God reserves for people who lie in His name, and gloat at your handiwork.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634066/posts?q=1&&page=151#164
Proof positive you have absolutely no clue about that which you speak. Your creationist brethren have given up this argument as factually incorrect, but you persist in your ignorance as if it were some sort of talisman keeping the real world at bay.
The Sun does not "reverse" entropy, you muggle....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=201#203
BTW, a mutation is simply a change in the genome. It happens all the time -- usually during the creation of the sex cells from transcription errors (there is a word for this, but I cannot remember it for the life of me). Sometimes it is caused by an external influence -- a stray particle of radiation might knock part of a gene out of kilter (the biggest source of such radiation, BTW, is the Sun), or environmental chemicals might play merry hell with one's genetic coding. It's quite common and happens all the time -- which you would know if you actually read something other than the Bible once in a while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=301#346
Oh, I forgot, the scientific community is conspiring to keep you silent, so just sit in your basement and brood...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=351#356
A case could be made that you should alter your drinking...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=351#372
You are more incoherent than usual. Have they upped the dosage on your meds?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=551#556
Are you being dense, or what? A descendent species can coexist with its parent species. There is nothing precluding Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapien from occupying the planet at the same time. The fact that you cannot see this obvious situation indicates a lack of thought on your part.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts?q=1&&page=1370#1367
gore3000: God did it. I have special dispensation to lie for God. Besides, I'll ignore all your evidence so that I can complain you never give me any.
medved: God came from Saturn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts?q=1&&page=1408
Okay, Ted, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor. I really shouldn't read these threads while drinking coffee...
I am willing to open this point to the rest of the people on this thread. I interpreted your statement as saying that no gains could be made in evolution because of directionless mutations with one feature never following another in time for a fully formed animal to appear. This, to me, is a form of this argument: A relatively recent argument, it claims things like 'gains of genetic information are impossible', or 'mutations have never been observed'. Both statements are, of course, false.
I am willing to change my opinion if someone else has a better fit for your argument compared to the chart above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.