Evolution proven wrong...by Paul/Quine

[mrtruth]

Paul Manata recently posted an essay that deals with evolution, and why it has been destroyed by the presuppositional view. Read on at:

 

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/

[Caretaker]

What can I say? The guy's a loser.

[MrSpooky]

Wow... the Greek's concept of evolution had NOTHING to do with Darwinian science.

 

And I think he misspelled Cornelius Van Til's name.

[Mr. Neil]

"From one basic type of thing many types of things came" sound familiar? Sound like evolutionism.

Sounds like?! SOUNDS LIKE!?!? This from the great Paul Manata? That's the best he could do? He says it "sounds like" evolutionism?!

 

Paul's right, though. It sounds like "evolutionism". And by "evolutionism", I'm referring to the poor caricature of evolution that idiots like Paul Manata have to use in order to make an argument. Nice try, Paul. Now try to address evolution as it is presented.

 

Evolution is a theory about changes and selection in traits, or, as more recent biology labels it, changes in gene frequencies. It has nothing to do with getting one kind of creature from another. In fact, that's a strawman in itself. One type of animal changing into another would never happen under the circumstances which evolution predicts. Rather, it's the change of gene frequencies over many generations which eventually produces a creature that is significantly different from one many generations before it.

 

But if Paul acknowledged that, it'd ruin his argument!

 

 

Forget those philosophers, say evolutionists, we have Darwin.

We say that? No we don't.

 

First of all, Paul's little imaginary connection between Greek philosophers and modern biology is destroyed by simply looking at something written by someone who actually knows a thing or two about modern biology. Because, as I've pointed out in my rant above, biologists don't say the things that Paul thinks they do. Paul (or one of his heroes) made that up.

 

Second, fuck Darwin! Yes, we appreciate Darwin's work as it opened the doors to modern biology, but Darwin is not, himself, a modern biologist. Darwin is about as relevent to modern biology as Einstein is to modern physics. We can thank Einstein for E=MC², but his work has nothing to do with the quantum theory or string theory. In the same way, Darwin gave biologic science a wonderful blueprint, but he had nothing to do with the discovery of DNA or observations of changes in gene sequences.

 

 

Take the bird's one way lung. It is the only animal to have one. How a two-way lung evolved into a one way lung boggles the mind. But hey, isn't Mother Nature creative? Give me a break!

Start with a tough question. Answer with a strawman. Appeal to the argument from ignorance. Way to go, Paul! Nothing you've said has any relevence to anyone who is even remotely scientifically literate.

[Guest yoshi]

Both Creationism and Evolution have inherent problems with their arguments. I think the only 100% solid argument goes along the lines of... "I don't know"

[MrSpooky]

If by "know," you mean "have a belief that is absolutely certain to be true," sure.

 

While evolution may have a few loose ends here and there, it's quite true given all the biological premises and observations we have... and that's a HUGE body of data that evolutionary biology has been supported by and been consistent with.

[Mr. Neil]

I think it is absolutely ahborant and irresponsible to even remotely suggest that evolution and creation are on equal footing.

 

Evolution may have "problems", but those problems are limited to perhaps how evolution occurs and from which line each species originates from. There is absolutely no problem in the proposition that evolution happens, because there is a consistantly observed relationship between morphological and genetic similarities between species, as well as known cases of positive genetic mutation. It's not simply a matter of saying, "I think evolution happens, but I'm not sure." The fact is that it happens. Whether people like Paul Manata want to admit it or not.

 

The problem with creationism, on the other hand, is much more apparant, because creationism doesn't have anything useful to say. It's absolutely worthless. When it's falsified, it relies on ad hoc explanations to survive. It's vacuous conjecture.

[SmallStone]

If evolution were true it would necessarily be false.

[Mr. Neil]

Paul Manata

 

The world's most intelligent idiot

[Guest yoshi]

While evolution may have a few loose ends here and there, it's quite true given all the biological premises and observations we have... and that's a HUGE body of data that evolutionary biology has been supported by and been consistent with.

 

Not entirely accurate. Much research has been ignored. Perhaps sometime I'll bring up the evidence to show why I don't think evolution is 100% correct. I think it's about 60% correct. But, I really don't care if a person agrees or disagrees with my opinion on this matter, and I don't want to start a huge evolution vs. creationism vs. whatever war, as they really seem stupid to me.

 

The problem with creationism, on the other hand, is much more apparant, because creationism doesn't have anything useful to say.  It's absolutely worthless.  When it's falsified, it relies on ad hoc explanations to survive.  It's vacuous conjecture.

 

Yes and No. There are skeptics out there who believe in Creationism.

 

 

Again, I think neither theory is correct, but I don't want to get into it right now because (IMO) people get to emotionally invovled in this debate (no matter what their position)

[MrSpooky]

By all means, go ahead, Yoshi. If you present a rational, scientific approach, we'll happily address your points with respect.

[white_raven23]

"Sunday, May 01, 2005

Some Thoughts On Evolution As A Religious Presupposition...

First and foremost, it must be remembered that evolution is not a scientific theory. " - from the blog in question.

 

 

I'm sorry. I couldn't read past that point. I can't be laughing that hard when I'm at work.

 

I guess he never read the studies on moths during the industrial revolution in england. The adaptations that proved Darwin correct that took a mere what 20-50 years? ("white" moths turned black to match the soot covering the surfaces they rested on)

 

And why do whales have hip bones?

And some snakes still possess rudimentary feet?

 

Using this guys logic, there are NO scientific theories

[Mr. Neil]

Well, it's not just those things. I don't like making creationists answer questions like, "How else do you explain hip bones in whales?" I prefer to use the predictive power of evolution as an argument.

 

Over a hundred years ago, Thomas Huxley knew that the birds had to be direct descendants of therapod dinosaurs, due to the morphological evidence. A hundred years later, guys like Mark Norell are discovering therapod dinosaur fossils with irrefutable evidence of feathers, right where evolution predicted they'd be.

 

And that is a pretty elementary example. But still, you'd have to be utterly stupid not to see that as strong evidence.

 

What this forces them to do is to concoct extremely ad hoc explanations, which any intellectually honest spectator could indentify. Forcing creationists to make buffoons out of themselves is nice way of making your point.

[Mr. Neil]

Again, I think neither theory is correct...

I don't mind if you don't agree with evolution. Skepticism is healthy.

 

But to correct your statement, creationism has no theory. Intelligent Design is not a theory. There's nothing remotely scientific about it, because it doesn't even attempt to argue in favor of itself.

 

Creationism/Intelligent Design is nothing more than a carefully worded negation based on insufficient evidence. It's worthless conjecture and a blatant anti-evolution campaign.

[Nihil]

I don't mind if you don't agree with evolution.  Skepticism is healthy.

 

But to correct your statement, creationism has no theory.  Intelligent Design is not a theory.  There's nothing remotely scientific about it, because it doesn't even attempt to argue in favor of itself.

 

Creationism/Intelligent Design is nothing more than a carefully worded negation based on insufficient evidence.  It's worthless conjecture and a blatant anti-evolution campaign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

C'mon, Neil, don't hold back: Tell us what you really think.

[Mr. Neil]

Okay... It's bullshit?

[♦ ficino ♦]

I don't understand TAG types. They get all excited about how only Calvinisit presuppositions allow for scientific knowledge and research. Then, when scientists over time across the world in a myriad of experimental and research contexts come up with stuff that is not compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis, they say that Calvinist presuppositions do not allow scientists to pursue their methods where they lead.

[Guest marktaylor]

"Sunday, May 01, 2005

Some Thoughts On Evolution As A Religious Presupposition...

First and foremost, it must be remembered that evolution is not a scientific theory. " - from the blog in question.

 

   

 

I'm sorry. I couldn't read past that point. I can't be laughing that hard when I'm at work.

 

I guess he never read the studies on moths during the industrial revolution in england. The adaptations that proved Darwin correct that took a mere what 20-50 years? ("white" moths turned black to match the soot covering the surfaces they rested on)

 

And why do whales have hip bones?

And some snakes still possess rudimentary feet?

 

Using this guys logic, there are NO scientific theories

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And what about the bacteria found in Japan that had evolved to process polyester?