• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

randman said:
This is from your link.

Haeckel established and convinced the public, really more than Darwin.



This was a religious issue for him (still is for many evos today).



He even established his own evo church. This is a big part of the fabric of evo thinking, just done more informally.



http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/7/ernsthaeckel.php

Darwinism is not real science in a lot of ways. It's more a matter of faith. That's why it's considered acceptable for darwinists to use faked and doctored data and misleading arrangements to convince people. The emphasis is not so much on understanding the data, the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, but on belief, on convincing people that not only is it true but that everything shows it's true. It never phases them when they say something shows evolution to be true, when we fine out the exact opposite, to insist that is strong evidence too.

The Universal Genome was heralded as proof of evolution (Darwinism), a very stupid concept in a lot of ways. Then, as that was thrown out, the fact genetic complexity increased so that simple organisms had simpler genomes and more complex ones had more complex ones was heralded as proof too despite this being completely different than a Universal Genome.

At least, the linking of genetic complexity with morphological complexity made sense based on Darwinism. But now, we see that idea too is wrong, and as you and evos here make clear, people like you will insist evolutionism predicted it all along.....all known facts support Darwinism....kind of like Big Brother in 1984.

It's a doctrinal and religious issue with you guys. From the comments above, anyone that knows the history of the debate can see that you guys will insist that even three different and opposing sets of data must all be evidence for evolution.

I have someone on this very forum arguing that despite evos insisting pseudogenes were particularly strong evidence for evolution, that the discovery of pseudogenes being a myth, that they are functional does not change a thing......it MUST BE all evidence of evolution.

That's the real reason Haeckel's faked data was used and will be so again. It is true data in the eyes of evos. It supports Darwinism and that's the measure for evolutionism whether something is true or real or not.
Click to expand...

I hope you aren't using this ridiculous strawman argument to say that ID/Creationism is science.
 
No. I am not. This just shows how evos can be delusional, more of an ideology or pseudo-religion than true science.
 
ANTPogo said:
I think that's actually the key to why randman is so doggedly clinging to his ideas about Haeckel in evolution. To a religious literalist, finding out they're wrong about something is devastating, since it causes their whole dogmatic worldview to collapse like a house of cards (or a Jenga tower with one of the blocks yanked away). As a result, they think every worldview is like that too, so if they can just prove something is wrong about what scientists think regarding evolution, the entire concept of evolution and the Synthetic Model will likewise come crashing down.

Unfortunately for randman and his cohorts, science actually doesn't work that way. Scientists pointing out things that are wrong in our overall theory of evolution (causing a re-evaluation and revision of those ideas) is the way the process is supposed to work.

That's why the reaction in the phylogenetic community to Richardson's 1997 paper was "Huh. How about that. Well, on to the genomic evidence we've uncovered!", and not, as randman wants so desperately to believe, "NOOO! Evolution is ruined! Ruuuuuuined!!!"
Click to expand...

:bigclap

ANTPogo said:
I don't give a single crap what randman thinks about this, but do you guys want me to go back and get confirmatory pictures of the missing information?
Click to expand...

Yes! I, personally, would like it even better if you started a thread, tagged it with Haeckel and cut and pasted your posts from here to it.
 
randman said:
No. I am not. This just shows how evos can be delusional, more of an ideology or pseudo-religion than true science.
Click to expand...

You are demonstrably wrong about that, as has been shown on this thread by ANTpogo and others.

What is even more bizarre is that you want to replace the science of evolution with the faith based nonsense of creationism while saying that evolution is useless because it is faith based.

Either faith based reasoning is useless or it isn't. You can't claim that your world view is superior because it is based on faith in the bible and the TOE is inferior because it is based on faith in the evidence. Well technically, I suppose you can, but you'd look like an idiot if you did.
 
Brainache said:
You are demonstrably wrong about that, as has been shown on this thread by ANTpogo and others.

What is even more bizarre is that you want to replace the science of evolution with the faith based nonsense of creationism while saying that evolution is useless because it is faith based.

Either faith based reasoning is useless or it isn't. You can't claim that your world view is superior because it is based on faith in the bible and the TOE is inferior because it is based on faith in the evidence. Well technically, I suppose you can, but you'd look like an idiot if you did.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about replacing something? I just want evos to actually quit faking data, fabricating things, refusing to accept facts they don't like, quit making wild overstatements, relying on and teaching illogic, etc, etc,....
 
randman said:
Who said anything about replacing something?
Click to expand...

Just this guy. Has a problem with saying things and then 'forgetting' he said them.

randman said:
So I guess I'd be an old earth creationist/IDer. There is really a range. On the science, I argue things I think the data can support and as I stated, there is some elasticity in a model I would create.
Click to expand...

eta: And for the record. Good on you on not dodging your beliefs when asked. Just bad on you for pretending you aren't an advocate for another viewpoint now.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Who said anything about replacing something? I just want evos to actually quit faking data, fabricating things, refusing to accept facts they don't like, quit making wild overstatements, relying on and teaching illogic, etc, etc,....
Click to expand...

Quixotecoyote got there first, but I'd like to add: Have you told your Creationist buddies to stop doing all of those things too?

If you have, it seems like they aren't listening to you...
 
The absurd and outlandish projection is starting to numb my brain. It's as if there's not a religion at the foundation of Randman's appeals.

If only the public and common arguments creationists make were anywhere near as sophisticated and tangled up as yours Randman, they might actually fool more people into being taken seriously by all but a small percentage of fundamentalists. Odd that the Catholic Church disagrees with with Randman's assertions, you'd think they'd find the appeal in these truths. And the great many protestants that make up the Clergy Letter Project. You'd think they wouldn't be so close minded to this supposed science.

But unfortunately , all we see of creationists on television are arguments like wrist watches and airplanes assembling themselves from tornadoes, as if natural selection doesn't exist and evolution is a wild and random system. This is a dishonest analogy of course. Or that if evolution were true, animals would be able to give birth to different kinds of animals, as if they don't realize that same analogy would suggest a pure bred chihuahua could give birth to a pure bred great dane, another common dishonest analogy creationists use. And maybe creationists would not have to get busted in legal court of law for dishonestly changing a single phrase in their text books to suggest they aren't arguing for a religious theory, exposed as a lie in the court of United States law.

There should be a law of behavior named for the complexity of projection and delusion being equal to the complexity of the deluded zealot's ability to reason.
 
Last edited:
Yawn. You guys seem incapable of addressing data.

Let me put it this way: yea I think you should drop Darwinism but if you are just going to be the same way, not grasping and understanding data and theory, with something else, then no, that's not what I am talking about.

It's about understanding, not belief.

There are areas of life where faith and belief are critical. That's not what we're talking about here.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Yawn. You guys seem incapable of addressing data.
Click to expand...

If you can post the words "Genetic changes can mean the addition or deletion of genes," you will begin to start laying the groundwork of being able to eventually, someday, accuse others of not addressing data.
 
randman said:
There are areas of life where faith and belief are critical. That's not what we're talking about here.
Click to expand...

No there are not. That's what you fail to see. Of course faith and belief should have no place in science. But they should have no place in anything. The fact you do not admit this to yourself and you allow part of your mind to excuse that is at the heart of your zealous denialism.

If you were actually reasonable, you would not be coming to a forum made up of "evos" with a large population of atheists thinking you will be doing anything but announcing your beliefs and arguing. You're here for personal assertion, you clearly get off on this.
 
randman said:
Yep. So what?
Click to expand...

So I salute you. Several posts typified by #482 refused to admit it, so I'm glad you're doing so now. You went rounds insisting that "genetic changes accumulates" meant that "genes accumulate."

If you're starting to go back and address some of the weirder sticking points in thread, it makes you look a lot better.
 
randman said:
Yawn. You guys seem incapable of addressing data.

Let me put it this way: yea I think you should drop Darwinism but if you are just going to be the same way, not grasping and understanding data and theory, with something else, then no, that's not what I am talking about.

It's about understanding, not belief.

There are areas of life where faith and belief are critical. That's not what we're talking about here.
Click to expand...

I understand how evolution works. (in a non-scientist layman's kind of way)

Could you explain to me how creationism works without referencing faith, belief, or the bible?
 
Halfcentaur said:
No there are not. That's what you fail to see. Of course faith and belief should have no place in science. But they should have no place in anything. The fact you do not admit this to yourself and you allow part of your mind to excuse that is at the heart of your zealous denialism.
.
Click to expand...

your delusion

But they should have no place in anything.
Click to expand...

Your whole life is based on faith and belief whether you admit it or not.
 
Brainache said:
I understand how evolution works. (in a non-scientist layman's kind of way)

Could you explain to me how creationism works without referencing faith, belief, or the bible?
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand your own theory at all. Do you admit sequential speciation is the process of the origin of higher taxa?
 
quixotecoyote said:
I was wondering when we'd get to Humpty Dumptyism.
Click to expand...

just stating a fact......every conscious decision you make is based on faith, on what you believe is true and you have no proof it is true....science itself doesn't claim to prove anything
 
quixotecoyote said:
So I salute you. Several posts typified by #482 refused to admit it, so I'm glad you're doing so now. You went rounds insisting that "genetic changes accumulates" meant that "genes accumulate."

If you're starting to go back and address some of the weirder sticking points in thread, it makes you look a lot better.
Click to expand...
Not really....as a general pattern, evos predict an increase in genetic complexity, yes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom