Comments on Ambassador Watch: The Missing Link

Finally Bob T has posted something about evolution...

2009-02-27T10:58:00.000+13:00

Finally Bob T has posted something about evolution, but like others, he has claimed evolution can't explain abiogenesis.

As far as GTA goes, his schtick was using emotion-...

2009-02-20T04:27:00.000+13:00

As far as GTA goes, his schtick was using emotion-based ridicule to put down knowledge, of which he was actually quite ignorant.

He used childish kindergarten tactics, even though he vehemently denied doing so.

It's a bit like him prancing about naked, pulling his pud, and then later declaring, "I didn't do it!"

"I don't "believe" in evolution, just as I do not ...

2009-02-19T03:08:00.000+13:00

"I don't "believe" in evolution, just as I do not "believe" in gravity."

Sure you do. You just don't understand either.

Paul Ray --Good point. Evolution does deal with ba...

2009-02-19T00:54:00.000+13:00

Paul Ray --

Good point. Evolution does deal with banging, but not with the big bang. And I believe Dave Pack's science writer made some crack about how the study has been divided into specialized fields. Astrophysics at one end, biology at the other. Again expecting one size to fit all...

"Here's the thing. I "believe" in evolution like m...

2009-02-18T17:42:00.000+13:00

"Here's the thing. I "believe" in evolution like most of the rest of you do..."

I don't "believe" in evolution, just as I do not "believe" in gravity.

"Even with the science, evolutionists cannot tell us where the primordial slime came from... Evolution, therefore, can only take you so far."

Since when did evolution encompass abiogenesis? It doesn't. They are two different theories. This is like trying to disprove the combustion engine by finding faults with the process of ore mining. Kreatard Myth # 450

Paul Ray

Paul Ray

"Sorry Russell, evolution is still VERY much debat...

2009-02-18T17:28:00.000+13:00

"Sorry Russell, evolution is still VERY much debatable."

No it isn't. That evolution occurred is accepted. No debate, other than people who believe in imaginary beings. What is debated is exactly how it occurred. If you are a scientist then you will know that there is continual debate in almost every field of science on "the details." For example, I study an iron binding protein. We know that it exists, and that it binds iron. But there is a whole lot we don't know. I have my own hypothesis about the function of this protein, how the cell causes it to release iron, and exactly how the subunits of this protein are transcriptionally regulated in various cell types. My ideas may conflict with others. We argue. The ideas that stand up to scrutiny, via confirmation by experimentation, will live. Those ideas that have no evidence to suppor them will fall by the wayside (until they can be supported by evidence). It's a harsh world, science. It's very dog eat dog. When a scientist puts forth an idea, we attack him. In peer reviewed journals. In journal club. In public seminars. We pry, poke, and prod. We hem and haw and shake our heads until we are shown sufficient data that supports the hypothesis. We are ruthless with one another. This is how science works. As opposed to religion, and Kreationism. But to the point- debate over a theory is at the very core of science. It is how we weed out the true from the false. But again, whether evolution occurred is only debated by Kreationists/IDiots.

"As a scientist, I know a great deal about the intracacies of biochemistry."

Really? What is it you do? What is your degree in? And as far as the complexity of biochemistry, so what? Please tell me you have some original ideas supported by evidence, and not just re-hashed Behe. Flagelum anyone?

"...tion to be absolutely true, and without any divine guidance, requires an INCREDIBLE amount of serendipity."

Try expation.

And why "divine" guidance? What led you to this theory? Why not alien intelligence?

Paul Ray

Why is it so difficult to look int other face and ...

2009-02-17T13:24:00.000+13:00

Why is it so difficult to look int other face and look at the hands of a chimp to see we share a common ancestor?

I can understand not understanding that your ear bones (as all mammals) evolved from the jaw bones of amphibians and reptiles and the fossils show the progressin clearly, but not that one cannot see the connection between us and apes.

Here's the thing. I "believe" in evolution like mo...

2009-02-17T09:35:00.000+13:00

Here's the thing. I "believe" in evolution like most of the rest of you do because I (and you) are not smart scientists, but accept the the scientists' viewpoints because they are smarter than you (yes, there are also many that say the same thing). You have to have a certain amount of faith in the people that you read and their scientific research.

Even with the science, evolutionists cannot tell us where the primordial slime came from. They can tell us that humans evolved, but I contend that you need a God to create matter out of nothing. Scientists stop short of explaining the concept of something out of nothing. They can't. They take it on "faith" that it happened, without a God to create. Evolution, therefore, can only take you so far.

Jethro said... "Isn't odd that no one denies the t...

2009-02-17T04:57:00.000+13:00

Jethro said...
"Isn't odd that no one denies the theory of relativity?"

While a student or an employee in Pasadena, I remember hearing Garner Ted Armstrong talk about relativity on the radio program one day. He used it as an example of scientists letting their intellects carry them to conclusions that were "just stupid" and "contrary to common sense" or words to that effect.

I also remember thinking at the time that Ted was speaking "with authority" on a subject in which he was almost totally ignorant.

I have to admit that for awhile in the late 1960's I thought the Gap Theory might explain some things by allowing the Earth to be as old as science says it is. I finally gave up on "church science" when Dr. Hoeh felt the need to voice the possibility of "pre-Adamic humanoids" in bible study one night. It was, in my opinion, his way of admitting that the fossil record, palentology and archeology had been closer to the truth than the church all along, at least when it came to the origins of human beings.

Would jethro elaborate, please, on: 'if time and s...

2009-02-17T00:43:00.000+13:00

Would jethro elaborate, please, on: 'if time and space are relative, then why can't morality be relative?'

Do you mean: Why can't each of us do what pleases us?

Do any of the responders here have a degree in evo...

2009-02-16T11:33:00.000+13:00

Do any of the responders here have a degree in evolutionary biology?
It certainly doesn't read as if that is so.

Jethro, dear boy, relativity has been questioned b...

2009-02-16T11:26:00.000+13:00

Jethro, dear boy, relativity has been questioned by none other than the encarcerated young Earter, Dr Kent Hovind.

In one of his videos, he had a graph showing how the speed of light has been changing. He needed to tamper with relativity to show how the universe could appear to be billions of light years across.

Someone once told me his son "disproved Einstein", but that was in a bar one night...

Doctor who?

"Wow, and the stupid comes out to play."hmmm, when...

2009-02-16T10:09:00.000+13:00

"Wow, and the stupid comes out to play."

hmmm, when you can't counter with an intelligent argument, just go with the personal attacks/insults because that will further your position ;-)

Russell Miller said,"Amazing how people check thei...

2009-02-16T09:42:00.000+13:00

Russell Miller said,
"Amazing how people check their brains at the door when it comes to this subject. The facts are simple. Evolution is as close to a fact as it's possible to come without actually having experienced it. That's the end of the story. It's simply not up for debate. If you do, you just prove yourself stupid. Period."

Sorry Russell, evolution is still VERY much debatable. As a scientist, I know a great deal about the intracacies of biochemistry. For evolution to be absolutely true, and without any divine guidance, requires an INCREDIBLE amount of serendipity.

"radio-carbon dating as an instrument of Satan".Re...

2009-02-16T03:40:00.000+13:00

"radio-carbon dating as an instrument of Satan".

Reminds me of when in the middle ages, people claimed that the printing press was an instrument of satan and when Gutenberg's accomplice in creating the printing press went to a town with a wagonload of bibles, they accused him of black magic and being under the influence of satan.

Wow, and the stupid comes out to play.Amazing how ...

2009-02-16T02:29:00.000+13:00

Wow, and the stupid comes out to play.

Amazing how people check their brains at the door when it comes to this subject. The facts are simple. Evolution is as close to a fact as it's possible to come without actually having experienced it. That's the end of the story. It's simply not up for debate. If you do, you just prove yourself stupid. Period.

Isn't odd that no one denies the theory of relativ...

2009-02-16T01:11:00.000+13:00

Isn't odd that no one denies the theory of relativity? The same arguments used to deny evolution could be used against relativity. Like evolution, relativity is "only a theory." Like evolution, relativity cannot really be "proven" by the average person who is not a specialist on the subject. Like evolution, relativity seems to be random: the apparent random motion of subatomic particles gave rise to Einstein's famous remark that "God does not play dice with the universe." Like evolution, relativity can be used to deny absolute values and defend situational ethics: if time and space are relative, then why can't morality be relative? But no religionist or creationist makes such claims about the theory of relativity. Why not? Simply because relativity does not address the issue of human origins. As human beings, we think we are so special and so unique that we cannot possibly be related genetically to animals and even plants. And yet we are. I believe that God is the great intelligence behind the process, but I also believe that human arrogance and ego leads many people to deny what we are and the process that God used to bring us to this point.

"1) Would you care to dispute the evidence for evo...

2009-02-15T20:12:00.000+13:00

"1) Would you care to dispute the evidence for evolution?? Start anywhere. Take your pick."

ummm, there isn't any.

"Nice, observable, repeatable facts that can be ob...

2009-02-15T18:23:00.000+13:00

"Nice, observable, repeatable facts that can be observed in reproducible experiments in laboratories around the world."

Well, as far as reproducing millions of years of evolution in a lab, science is still trying to work that out. Perhaps Allah or Jehovah could lend some of their magic powder(the kind they used to create everything) to speed up the process.

Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is supported by well over a hundred years of nice, repeated observations. I challenge you to dispute the evidence. Take your pick. Go ahead. If you are right, then you are right.

"Evolution is a religion that has to change with the times."

Can you explain how evolution is a religion? Saying it doesn't make it so.

"One does not have to carelessly accept unproven theories like evolution."

Evolution is proven. Can you dispute the evidence? No. Probably not. I would guess that you haven't even studied evolution with any seriousness. At best, maybe a Kreationist website, video, or even (dare I dream?) a book. I doubt you have read textbooks on evolution with any consideration, and attempted to refute the evidence. No- like all Kreationists, this is a religious matter, not a scientific one, despite the protestations I can imgagine. Biblegod used his hoo-doo voodoo to create everything from thin air, and everything else is a lie. End of story. You don't need any more reason than that.

"Also, if this helps, understand that believing in God and the Bible does NOT mean that one has to carelessly accept such complete frauds as Gerald Flurry and his PCG..."

In regards to science and reality, there is no difference between the Pope, Ron Dart, and Flurry. Don't try to elevate yourself. You're still delusional.

Paul Ray

"Evolution is just a religion."No it isn't. It is ...

2009-02-15T17:36:00.000+13:00

"Evolution is just a religion."

No it isn't. It is a scientic theory, solidly supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from various scientific fields, from geology to genetics. If evolution is a religion, then chemistry is a religion. Physics is a religion. Biochemistry is a religion.

Paul Ray

Paul,

You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Chemistry is "science." Physics is "science." Biochemistry is "science." Nice, observable, repeatable facts that can be observed in reproducible experiments in laboratories around the world. (Of course, newer knowledge can add to some of the details--like Einstein's equations for relativity that better explain things at very high speeds but that also reduce down to Newton's old equations at slow speeds.)

Evolution, in stark contrast, is simply nonsense that people made up and have to continue to change to try to keep up with the latest findings of true "science." Evolution is a religion that has to change with the times. One does not have to carelessly accept unproven theories like evolution.

Also, if this helps, understand that believing in God and the Bible does NOT mean that one has to carelessly accept such complete frauds as Gerald Flurry and his PCG. Jesus said to beware of false prophets.

Neo-Your argument is based on erroneous assumption...

2009-02-15T16:45:00.000+13:00

Neo-

Your argument is based on erroneous assumptions, or at least a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of what evolution is. As is usual with Kreationists of all stripe. A bit of humor:

Q: What is the difference between a Young Earth Kreationist and an Old Earth Kreationist?

A: A couple billion years.

"An important feature
of this idea is that mutations occur gradually over great spans of time."

First, what you call "Darwinian evolution" or gradualism, is not the sole mechanism of evolution. Yes, random mutations occur and natural selection (if "pressure" exists) will favor the existence of those organisms whose mutations have given them an adaptive advantage; they survive, that is all. But evolution is not limited to eon-spanning natural selection. There is allopatric speciation, punctuated equilibrium, and sympatric speciation, which of course involve random mutations, but also rely heavily upon geographical factors, reproductive habits, ect.

I simply don't know which evolutionist proposed that speciation occurs after a "sufficient accumulation of traits." Surely you must have read that out of context. Do you remember where you read that?

"But there is a fatal flaw in this view. It does not describe reality."

This is an equally gross misunderstanding of evolution. Even if we assume (incorrectly) that evolution consists solely of "Darwinian evolution/strict gradualism" (which it is not) your argument about ancestral humans is incorrect, and as an argument against evolution in general, irrelevant.

Evolution produces survival. That's all. It only allows an organism to adapt to whatever pressures exist at the moment. Evolution is not about "perfecting" an organism, but only providing a survival advantage. And if no pressure exists, then there very well may be no natural selection and evolution.

Think about it. If a certain branch of the bush that is human evolution had no pressure put upon them to necessitate the formation of higher intelligence, then why would we wonder why some didn't evolve higher intelligence? If their environment did not call for focused thinking skills, then those who didn't develop them would not be "culled"- and those who had them would breed into the background with the rest.

"And I believe that Darwinian evolution is as much of a fantasy as the creationist museum located in Kentucky."

Don't try to distance yourself from them. You are all the same. You believe in imaginary beings, and this belief mainly comes from an old book. This book weaves a fantastical tale of a supernatural being who created everything by magic. Any idea, or evidence, that is contrary to this fairy tale is a direct assault on your religious beliefs. So, because of this, like all Kreationists, you have to throw evolution out the window, all the while claiming (with innocence and upturned palms) that your rejection of evolution is based on logic and reason and careful consideration of the evidence.

And you can go on "believing" than evolution is a fantasy and I will go on KNOWING that Kreation is a fantasy, and KNOWING that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur.

Good day to you sir. *tips hat*

Paul Ray

misc posters "they hate God's law"Thomas Huxley's ...

2009-02-15T12:02:00.000+13:00

misc posters "they hate God's law"

Thomas Huxley's views on morality and religion have been misquoted, by GTA on air, and perhaps in PT articles. It was only later when I realised I should extend the "don't believe what I say" to include more than just Bible verses.

"Evolution" is just a religion."No it isn't. It is...

2009-02-15T11:34:00.000+13:00

"Evolution" is just a religion."

No it isn't. It is a scientic theory, solidly supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from various scientific fields, from geology to genetics. If evolution is a religion, then chemistry is a religion. Physics is a religion. Biochemistry is a religion. But I don't believe you put any thought into your statement- you are just parroting meaningless, false Kreationist talking points gathered from church literature or Kreationist websites.

"There is no proof that it's true, (actually, all evidence points the other way )"

1) Would you care to dispute the evidence for evolution?? Start anywhere. Take your pick.

2) Using your choice of evidence, can you show how it "points the other way?"

Waiting with bated breath from lungs which are the product of evolution,

Paul Ray

Darwinian evolution conjectures that beneficial mu...

2009-02-15T10:48:00.000+13:00

Darwinian evolution conjectures that beneficial mutations occur and that natural selection will cause the proliferation of those traits. After a sufficient accumulation of traits, speciation occurs. An important feature
of this idea is that mutations occur gradually over great spans of time. That is why we cannot identify this kind of activity in the present. This gradualism is based on uniformitarianism, natural mechanisms and stable rates of change.

But there is a fatal flaw in this view. It does not describe reality. We find, for instance, that Homo Ergaster lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. I read some years ago that some paleontologists had
found Ergaster or Erectus bones in Southeast Asia that were only about 12,000 years old. Neanderthal lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Ergaster is associated with a certain tool assemblage as is
Neanderthal. Ergaster appeared, lived on earth for eons and then became extinct. During this vast span of time, Ergaster did not change. His tool assemblage was essentially the same. The same is true of Neanderthal. These homonids exhibited no progressive
development. We can say the same for Cro-Magnon.

But during the Holocene, man experienced a sudden and precipitate rise to civilization. The high cultures of the Middle East developed swiftly. The model based on gradualism does not explain the stasis in the case of
Ergaster and Neanderthal nor does it account for the explosive development of modern man.

I, too, disavow creationism if you mean that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago and man co-existed with dinosaurs. But that is choosing the worst of the lot. I wholeheartedly accept the idea that God created all things. And I believe that Darwinian evolution is as much of a fantasy as the creationist museum located in Kentucky.

-- Neo

Anon wrote:"For anyone who is interested, the Livi...

2009-02-15T07:55:00.000+13:00

Anon wrote:
"For anyone who is interested, the Living Church of God has a Tomorrow's World broadcast by John H. Ogwyn called
Was Darwin Wrong?

It tells the truth about the "missing links" and how evolutionists really operate."

POPPYCOCK!