The Evolution Myth

[Robert Newman]

Thank you Sunwaiter,

Glad to hear from you again. And thanks for writing this to me -

Robert, it is true that the text i copy/pasted was not virgin of weaknesses. i won't discuss anything about the bible, since i don't know anything about it. that's why i always try to give my sources, in order to make distinction between what i agree with and the rest. maybe i should have made some editing! but i prefered it raw. anyway, i'm still looking for interesting things and i'm sorryt to say that the net places that are the most interesting are the forums such as this one. the following, if it can be posted correctly (quite long, once more...sorry), is a answering post. its author, a paleontologist, it seems, took quite a bit of time to write it, and, as an excuse of the time you might spend on reading it, thinking i'm a lazy dude (just a pinch of truth...), this post that i have read, most importantly, does not quote the bible the way the other did.

In reply to which (and very respectfully) -

You are interested in evolution theory because (you say) you are interested in facts related to life and its history. But you admit to being unaware of what the bible actually teaches on the same subject.

Here are some gentle facts -

1. The bible provides a history of living things. That doesn't prove it's accurate or reliable, of course. In fact, it even provides dates for these events if we carefully study it, chronologically.

2. The version of life's history provided by the bible is truly ancient. In fact, it's the version used and trusted by most men and women who have made major achievements in the historical sciences over the centuries. Once again, this fact is remarkable but it does not make its contents accurate or reliable. But the very fact of its existence, globally, is hugely relevant to its credibility.

3. Egyptology is of course one of the many historical sciences. And yet secular sources on ancient Egypt (e.g. publications from the British Library throughout the 20th century) have been completely confusing about the start date of Egyptian Dynastic History. For example, in the late 19th century 'experts' at the British Museum were telling us the 1st Dynasty of Egypt probably began around 4,500 BC. This amazingly early date flatly contradicts the version of the bible. But it was believed and widely taught, for decades. Students believed it. By the early 20th century lots of evidence had been found to reduce that date by almost 1,000 years, to around 3,500 BC !!! And then, following this amazing change, later in the 20th century, further revisions on this new date were admitted to be correct, so that, today, the same British Museum Egypt Department tells us the 1st Dynasty probably began around 3,100 BC !! (And still they are wrong by almost 1,000 years !!!).

And so, in less than a century students of Egyptology have witnessed the most amazingly elastic dates on ancient Egypt. With the biblical version (suggesting a 1st Dyasty of around 2,100 BC) still saying the same today as it has always said. And even recognised to be highly accurate by various archaeologists themselves (such as Sir Leonard Wolley, excavator of the ancient city of Ur and expert in Middle Eastern Studies).

4. There is of course nothing smart or clever about believing the bible to be amazingly accurate in matters of history. But there's nothing clever or smart in being completely unaware of what it teaches, and has always taught on these issues.

For these and thousands of other reasons I recommend you make the time at some point in your life to become at least familiar with its version of history, so that you can at least form a fair judgement on critics of the bible and on the actual version which it offers.

Anyway, very best wishes

Robert

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

I appreciate your efforts and all what you have inputted above very much - however, there is a big Blackhole in the bloke's outlay which you have shared:

http://www.solarvoyager.com/images/w...arity_1280.jpg

There is this void I see because he cannot account for the presence of the very earth he walks on and the very heavens he gazes up into.

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know."

"Do you understand the band of the Pleiades, And have you opened the fence of Orion?"

"Do you know the movements of heaven or the events which take place together under heaven?"

Humbly,

CD

[Pista Gyerek]

We say simply that 'the supposed evolution of species' (so-called) is bogus, not even a scientific theory, whose exponents are completely unable to produce verifiable/scientific evidence when asked for it, despite their dominance of classrooms for over a century. This fact is shown over and over again throughout our own lifetime by scientific enquiry. And here repeated. Dozens of other examples of this incompetence and academic dishonesty can be presented. The claims of evolutionists and their propagandists are today massively contradicted by the facts and discoveries of honest scientific enquiry. The supposed evolution of new species is truly nothing but a baseless fairy story for grownups and it's time to end this nonsense for the sake of honesty and integrity.

Creationism appeals to something in people that’s neither rational nor religious. It’s the siege mentality that all conspiracy theories try to promote and reinforce. By making its adherents feel like virtuous warriors against entrenched evil, creationism taps into their limitless reserves of arrogance and self-delusion.

The Internet has been a major factor in expanding creationism’s library of misinformation. The same misconceptions, canards, and half-truths circulate freely throughout the Internet, appearing afresh even after countless attempts to debunk them. The mass of factoids that constitutes creationism gets more incoherent all the time, never adding up to a serious alternative to Darwinian evolution for anyone who seriously examines it.

The facts of the matter, however, have always been irrelevant. Creationism, like all conspiracy theories, panders to the paranoia of an audience with no patience for rational inquiry or critical thinking. The less its audience understands about history and philosophy, and the less actual contact they have with scientists and experts, the easier it is for them to swallow the unlikely notion that there’s a vast conspiracy to suppress the Truth. And the more they play on the Internet, the easier it is for them to get validation for their prejudices: whether through contact with like-minded thinkers or scorn from people trying to correct their folly, creationists get reinforcement for their self-image as dissident heroes. In this way, they retreat further from reality into their silly alt-media fantasy.

Regards,

Pistike

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Pista,

Wouldn't it be wonderful if your post contained evidence of 'the evolution of species' instead of empty rhetoric ? But you took the effort to write, and this with such venom that, at the very least, you deserve a detailed reply.

It has been said here (over, and over again on this thread) that creation cannot be scientifically proved. Creation is an act of faith. I know the truth of this because I myself have said so repeatedly. You never have. Nor can creation be scientifically disproved. Have you learned such basic facts yet ? But the theory of evolution (so-called) CAN be proved or disproved precisely because it claims to be a theory of science and is not a matter of faith. Please stop and read this all important point, so that you might not confuse yourself or other people any more.

You write -

Creationism appeals to something in people that’s neither rational nor religious. It’s the siege mentality that all conspiracy theories try to promote and reinforce. By making its adherents feel like virtuous warriors against entrenched evil, creationism taps into their limitless reserves of arrogance and self-delusion.

In reply -

The 'evolutionist' has of course made up his mind from the outset that 'evolution' has happened. He learned it from others as incompetent as himself. How's that for a circular argument if, in fact, the theory is really science ? A more obvious example of dogmatism and close mindedness could hardly be invented. The 'evolutionist' does not question whether 'evolution' has happened. He/she has already been convinced of it !! His 'teacher's says so and he doesn't doubt it. He/she sets out not to discover the truth or falsehood of evolution theory but merely to 'find out how it happened' ! And this bankrupt, circular and dogmatic approach is even described as 'science' !!! Really, it's laughable. It's nonsense. On these grounds alone he/she is in kindergarten and remains there.

Creationism, however, is entirely consistent with the discoveries of science BECAUSE the discoveries of science are consistent with orderly laws that govern nature, and not with randomness, arbitrary and imaginary processes which nobody can demonstrate and which, in plain fact, contradict everything we already know of species and their history. The evolutionist does not understand that order and the discovery of order, are the very foundations and reason for science. Let's transfer him and his desk to the nearest philosophy department and leave science to those who base their views on orderly discoveries, not fantasies.

You next say -

The Internet has been a major factor in expanding creationism’s library of misinformation. The same misconceptions, canards, and half-truths circulate freely throughout the Internet, appearing afresh even after countless attempts to debunk them. The mass of factoids that constitutes creationism gets more incoherent all the time, never adding up to a serious alternative to Darwinian evolution for anyone who seriously examines it.

In reply -

Textbooks, television, and ignorant teachers have a long record of expanding the 'evolutionary' library of misinformation, fraud, and downright falsehood. As for the alternative to Darwinism, this consists in the view that species are permanent entities in living nature and are integral parts of the genus to which they naturally belong. Such a simple reality has been said here also, several times, and can be understood, even by evolutionists such as your goodself. But the permanence of species is almost never discussed in textbooks, television programmes or by 'teachers'. Now who is being honest with the facts ? In point of fact, for example, in the 70 years or so of television and radio broacasting not a single programme has been made against Darwinism despite repeated requests by eminently qualified scientists. Such a blatant bias speaks for itself. And so 'professing themselves to be wise they truly became fools'.

And finally, you write -

The facts of the matter, however, have always been irrelevant. Creationism, like all conspiracy theories, panders to the paranoia of an audience with no patience for rational inquiry or critical thinking. The less its audience understands about history and philosophy, and the less actual contact they have with scientists and experts, the easier it is for them to swallow the unlikely notion that there’s a vast conspiracy to suppress the Truth. And the more they play on the Internet, the easier it is for them to get validation for their prejudices: whether through contact with like-minded thinkers or scorn from people trying to correct their folly, creationists get reinforcement for their self-image as dissident heroes. In this way, they retreat further from reality into their silly alt-media fantasy.

In reply -

What 'facts' do you refer to ? Your letter provides none as already said. Perhaps you can produce some in your reply ? If not, we won't be surprised.

You say creationism (the belief in creation) 'panders to the paranoia of an audience with no patience for rational enquiry or criticical thinking'. !!! What !!!!! Rational enquiry is a feature of great achievements throughout the entire history of science. Whose greatest contributors in all ages have been men and women who believed in creation. Men such as Newton, Pascale, Pasteur, Kepler, Mendel and literally hundreds of others. The list could be exapanded, almost without end. Can you name us a single scientist who has done more for scientific discovery than they ? The track record of science demonstrates clearly that your views on this issue are sheer humbug and nonsense. The theory of evolution and those who teach it has produced not a single fact of any value to mankind.

Retreating from reality is the stuff of evolutionists. They've retreated from reality over and over again throughout the entire history of biology, botany, palaeontology, genetics, zoology, and countless other studies and are STILL retreating from reality. In the early 20th century science finally punished them for their retreat by them grudgingly accepting the Laws of Heredity, and, from these, the science of Genetics was established, this decades after Darwinism had proved itself incompetent and unable to even read Mendel. It took another half century before evolutionists elsewhere finally accepted the Laws of Heredity, all of which time Darwinism was taught.

Such is the true and indisputable record so let's not deceive readers or ourselves. Today Darwinism is in total and terminal decline. It's exponents are still unable to define species nor to admit to their countless frauds, their highly subjective evidence, their false claims and their baseless inventions.

Let's get back to reality, rather than continue to entertain the philosophical fantasies of evolutionists. Better still, why not see the academic honesty of those who are NOT 'evolutionists' ?

Regards

Robert

[Pista Gyerek]

Today Darwinism is in total and terminal decline.

I'm so impressed that you could fit so many gross caricatures in such a brief post. This bizarre conspiracy theory of yours is based on the belief that the vast majority of scientists are biased, closed-minded deceivers, and that anyone of the millions upon millions who affirm the evolution of species is a brainwashed dupe of the Great Evolutionist Conspiracy.

Are we supposed to believe that you are an eminent expert in "biology, botany, palaeontology, genetics, zoology, and countless other studies," or that you're in constant contact with experts in these areas? Because it seems obvious that all you know about the history and philosophy of empirical evidential inquiry is what you've learned from creationist websites, Discovery Institute screeds, and the work of mendacious hucksters such as Phillip E. Johnson. Why else, for example, would you make such a nebulous distinction between 'evolutionists' and 'real scientists'?

Pray tell, how willing would you be to talk to researchers in these fields, impartial professionals with no stake in the creationism/evolution debate, and air your views about the evolution of species? How willing would you be to talk to paleontologists and discuss your opinions concerning the fossil record? Could it be that you're not interested in actual inquiry, just in reinforcing your prejudices about scientists and their baseless philosophical biases?

In point of fact, Darwinism is not even remotely in decline. Though scientists still debate issues concerning the rate of evolution or the details of evolutionary transitions, they do not debate the fact that modern species have evolved from one or a few common ancestors. Even the poster boy for Intelligent Design creationism, biochemist Michael Behe, concedes that the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that there's no point in disputing the issue. Although he speculates that intelligent agency was necessary to catalyze life itself and significant evolutionary transitions, he does not dispute Darwin's Tree of Life, the notion of common ancestry of all living organisms on Earth:

The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; (Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p. 71-72.)

The inescapable fact is that pointing out perceived anomalies or contradictions in evolutionary theory (as well as accusing its proponents of bias) is no substitute for proposing a coherent, verifiable, testable alternative theory. Conspiracy theorists seem to believe that merely criticizing the conventional scenario in and of itself constitutes an alternative scenario as well as the support for the alternative scenario. The truth is just the opposite: any alternative to Darwinian evolution must stand on its own. No such alternative has yet been proposed.

Regards,

Pistike

[Robert Newman]

I'm so impressed that you could fit so many gross caricatures in such a brief post. This bizarre conspiracy theory of yours is based on the belief that the vast majority of scientists are biased, closed-minded deceivers, and that anyone of the millions upon millions who affirm the evolution of species is a brainwashed dupe of the Great Evolutionist Conspiracy.

Are we supposed to believe that you are an eminent expert in "biology, botany, palaeontology, genetics, zoology, and countless other studies," or that you're in constant contact with experts in these areas? Because it seems obvious that all you know about the history and philosophy of empirical evidential inquiry is what you've learned from creationist websites, Discovery Institute screeds, and the work of mendacious hucksters such as Phillip E. Johnson. Why else, for example, would you make such a nebulous distinction between 'evolutionists' and 'real scientists'?

Pray tell, how willing would you be to talk to researchers in these fields, impartial professionals with no stake in the creationism/evolution debate, and air your views about the evolution of species? How willing would you be to talk to paleontologists and discuss your opinions concerning the fossil record? Could it be that you're not interested in actual inquiry, just in reinforcing your prejudices about scientists and their baseless philosophical biases?

In point of fact, Darwinism is not even remotely in decline. Though scientists still debate issues concerning the rate of evolution or the details of evolutionary transitions, they do not debate the fact that modern species have evolved from one or a few common ancestors. Even the poster boy for Intelligent Design creationism, biochemist Michael Behe, concedes that the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that there's no point in disputing the issue. Although he speculates that intelligent agency was necessary to catalyze life itself and significant evolutionary transitions, he does not dispute Darwin's Tree of Life, the notion of common ancestry of all living organisms on Earth:

The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; (Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p. 71-72.)

The inescapable fact is that pointing out perceived anomalies or contradictions in evolutionary theory (as well as accusing its proponents of bias) is no substitute for proposing a coherent, verifiable, testable alternative theory. Conspiracy theorists seem to believe that merely criticizing the conventional scenario in and of itself constitutes an alternative scenario as well as the support for the alternative scenario. The truth is just the opposite: any alternative to Darwinian evolution must stand on its own. No such alternative has yet been proposed.

Regards,

Pistike

Pistike,

I have the distinct impression that your evolutionary education has robbed you even of the ability to read what people actually write. So I will come quickly to your rescue. After all, who would like a man to be stuck in quicksand holding in his hand Darwin's 'Origin of Species' ? Perhaps you've 'evolved' to the point where you don't need to digest anything but views which confirm your own circular paradigm.

Well, contrary to your post, the alternative to evolution theory is not some mystical and unproven dogma. Nor is it complicated. Having said this its simplicity may well escape you. It's the permanence of all species. This despite the ability of each and every species to exist in sometimes many different (morphological) forms. A fact so massively true, so indisputably correct, that children can understand it, and do. Will you now in fairness change the last sentence of your post where you say -

''any alternative to Darwinian evolution must stand on its own. No such alternative has yet been proposed''.

Will you please stop misrepresenting what has been said here, over and over again here on this very thread ? The alternative to Darwinian evolution exists in the permanence of all species. Now it's been said again, for perhaps the 5th time on this thread. It's the immutability of all species. Please tell us you understand this alternative, even if you don't agree with it. So that we don't need to misrepresent each other.

As far as meeting professionals in palaeontology, geology, genetics and so on are concerned, these exist in sufficient numbers on both sides of this argument. So please don't give the impression that expertise is the monopoly of yourself and your Darwinist colleagues. It isn't. Some of the greatest scientists of our times and of the 20th century were not supporters of evolution theory. And if you want names I'll happily supply some. In fact, non-evolutionists have made most of the major discoveries in science over the centuries, as already stated - a fact which you have so far not acknowledged also. So it seems you are in minority company. Furthermore, you have still not told us why Darwinism is allowed to go unchallenged in books, documentaries and in lectures.

Anyway, please confirm (or otherwise) that you, personally, assume 'evolution' must have happened. That this question is not even asked by you. That you accept it as if it is a plain and demonstrated fact. Isn't this true ? But since your theory of evolution is not proved how do you avoid being exposed of arguing in circles if its proof is still not demonstratable and replicable in science ? We want to see some evidence for the evolution of new species. For the arrival in nature of entirely new species from a 'common ancestor'. But, so far, we've had no shred of such evidence from you. So you believe it and teach it, though you've nothing to provide in its support.

Tell us, if possible, of the 'evolutionary history' of the algae. What can you tell us, dear evolutionist, of the 'evolutionary history' of oak trees ? Or roses ? How about fir trees etc. etc. All of which exist already in the fossil record. What IS the 'evolutionary history' of the plant kingdom ? And why are no books available on the subject if the fossil evidence really exists ? What is the 'evolutionary history' of those forms we call 'dinosaurs' ? Once again, the evolutionist is amazingly silent. And what, exactly, is the 'evolutionary history' of mankind, leaving aside the thousand false ideas taught by Darwin, Haeckel and others for the past 150 years ? Isn't it time that those who define species are most entitled to tell us of them ? But the evolutionist cannot define what he means by that term. Darwin himself said it was a waste of time to try !! In such an elastic and subjective universe anything at all is 'presented' as evolutionary evidence.

Well, the truth is species are phenomenally STABLE organisms in living nature. They do not produce 'new species'. Nor is there any evidence from fossil or living nature to the contrary.

Isn't it about time that honesty, evidence, and a fair, open appreciation of the discoveries of science forms part of education to students these days, rather than your own assumptions and of others who taught you such stuff ?

Regards

Robert

[Pista Gyerek]

I have the distinct impression that your evolutionary education has robbed you even of the ability to read what people actually write.

Wow. So much for civil discourse.

As far as meeting professionals in palaeontology, geology, genetics and so on are concerned, these exist in sufficient numbers on both sides of this argument. So please don't give the impression that expertise is the monopoly of yourself and your Darwinist colleagues. It isn't.

Let's not be disingenuous. It's safe to say the overwhelming majority of biologists and paleontologists affirm the evolution of species. You might handwave away this unanimity as being due to Darwinist brainwashing, but you can't conceivably be deluded enough to deny it outright. And incidentally, are you saying Intelligent Design creationist Michael Behe is similarly brainwashed, since he affirms the evolution of all living species from a common ancestor?

Tell us, if possible, of the 'evolutionary history' of the algae. What can you tell us, dear evolutionist, of the 'evolutionary history' of oak trees ? Or roses ? How about fir trees etc. etc. All of which exist already in the fossil record. What IS the 'evolutionary history' of the plant kingdom ? And why are no books available on the subject if the fossil evidence really exists ? What is the 'evolutionary history' of those forms we call 'dinosaurs' ?

As I asked in my last post, why don't you ask an impartial expert (or a few) with no stake in the debate? Are you sure you've learned all you need to know by digesting creationist screeds? Why don't you ask biologists about the evolutionary legacy of algae, plants, and bacteria? Why not ask paleontologists what the fossil record tells us about extinct species such as trilobites or Tyrannosaurus rex?

Maybe some real contact with actual experts might dispel your illusions about their motives for affirming evolutionary theory. You might realize that they have arrived at their conclusions about the evolution of species through their research, not through brainwashed obedience to their evil overlords in the Evolutionist Conspiracy.

Of course, if you feel that no everyday expert in biology, botany, genetics, or paleontology could tell you anything useful, perhaps that speaks volumes about your commitment to rational inquiry.

Regards,

Pistike

[Robert Newman]

Still no evidence of organic 'evolution' from you, Pistike ? Won't you at least confirm you assume from the outset that the 'evolution of species' must have happened (as requested in my last post) ? But you avoid answering this question, once again.

I'm not responsible for the views of Intelligent Design creationist Michael Behe. I think he is wrong. The same as Darwin is wrong. The same as Haeckel is wrong. And the same as 'evolutionists' are wrong. Nor am I a believer in speciation of any kind. Nor of the extinction of any species. As already said. You asked for the alternative to evolution theory and even said there was none. Now you've had your answer to show differently. We look forward in your reply to some evidence for the 'evolution of species'. Ideally in your next post ? Your views are becoming more mysterious than the last secret of Fatima at this speed, aren't they ?

Evolution theory is definitely not a conspiracy. But it's another of your inventions. I didn't say evolution theory is a conspiracy. Did I ? Evolutionists are people who, from the very outset, are taught and believe that the evolution of species MUST have happened. The rest is the sorry story of their delusion.

I believe 'everyday experts' in biology, botany, genetics and paelontology can tell us very useful things. Many of which were NOT 'evolutionists' also.

Can we stop going round in circles ? Please provide some evidence for the 'evolution of species'. And please admit you are committed to believe in it, regardless of whether it has happened or not.

The ability of species to adapt, to survive in changing environments is, of course, indisputable. But this ability is of course the preservation of these same species. Not the 'evolution' of 'new species'.

See how fair, how reasonable, civil discourse can be ? Why, I dare to suggest that even a child can understand it ! Simplicity does that, of course.

[Pista Gyerek]

I'm not responsible for the views of Intelligent Design creationist Michael Behe. I think he is wrong. The same as Darwin is wrong. The same as Haeckel is wrong. And the same as 'evolutionists' are wrong. Nor am I a believer in speciation of any kind. Nor of the extinction of any species.

The thing that most consistently characterizes conspiracy theorists is their presumption of expertise in areas in which they display a comical lack of said expertise. Despite your handwaving it away, I actually did provide, in the quote from Behe, a piece of evidence strongly supporting common descent: the identical pseudogene shared by chimps and humans. The reason you deny it is because such evidence is only persuasive to people who have a realistic grounding in genetics, and don't ignorantly tout "The Law of Heredity" as if it refutes the evolution of species. Would you care to ask a geneticist from the nearest university to verify the significance of the shared pseudogene? How about also asking the geneticist whether Mendel's research truly falsifies Darwin's theory?

Throughout this thread, you have made much out of the fact that evolutionists can't define a species. Obviously people like Phillip E. Johnson have convinced you that this is yet another instance of the smoke-and-mirrors nature of the theory of evolution, the nail in the coffin of this intellectually obsolete myth. The truth is that difficulty in defining a species is just what we'd expect when populations are constantly in flux. It's been hundreds of years since people believed there's a magic line of demarcation dividing species, or that populations, species, and subspecies are anything but a matter of degree. Contemporary species are nothing more than the latest buds on the Tree of Life that has been developing and branching for billions of years.

If you were honestly engaged in the study of biology, you'd at least know this. It's the very basis of life science today. You could walk into the office of any taxonomist or biologist and they would tell you the exact same thing. That you dispute the point in such an amateurish manner tells us that you're not interested in the facts of the matter.

Of course, your unfamiliarity with the overwhelming unanimity of opinion regarding the evolution of species makes perfect sense if you just want to argue and fling abuse. The fact that you started this thread with claims that the evolution of species is a 'fairy story' should have demonstrated that your commitment to civil dialogue is just as strong as your commitment to rational inquiry.

[Robert Newman]

Thanks for your latest letter.

May I repeat (for the third time) there's no conspiracy involved. Why do you keep making the same sorts of mistakes, over and over again ? Please tell us. The theory of evolution is taught without criticism by ignorant men and women. It pays their mortgages. And yet it's moonshine. That's not abuse against you. It's just plain fact. The plain fact is that critics of the theory of evolution are never given air time. Not a single programme has appeared on television or radio which exposes the long list of bogus claims and errors by the disciples of evolution theory. As already said. That's an indisputable example of how this paradigm of philosophy postures as being 'science'.

Yes, evolutionists can't define species. And that too is plain fact. A fact you admit yourself. Nor can you even tell us what you mean by 'evolution'. Thus, the 'evolution of species' is, from the very start of the conversation, a contradiction in terms, meaning neither less nor more than you wish it to mean. That's not science. It's hocus pocus.

You write -

It's been hundreds of years since people believed there's a magic line of demarcation dividing species, or that populations, species, and subspecies are anything but a matter of degree. Contemporary species are nothing more than the latest buds on the Tree of Life that has been developing and branching for billions of years.

What nonsense ! Do you know a farmer, a breeder, or anyone involved in animal or plant propagation who denies the existence of species ? A species is a specific living organism which belongs to a genus. It's an integral part of the genus to which it belongs and is defined as such. Thus 'every seed brings forth only of its own kind' - limited by that fact. Why, a milkmaid or a ploughman knows this better than you do !!! Why don't you know this ?

I am well aware of modern opinion on this issue. But I don't base my views on their popularity or unpopularity. I base them on verifiable, demonstratable reality. The existence of species is a plain fact of nature. The 'evolution of species' is NOT a plain fact of nature and nor can it be replicated.

When will you be transfering your table and chair to the Philosophy Department ?

Regards

[Pista Gyerek]

What nonsense !

Thanks for chatting, Robert. Best of luck.

Regards,

Pistike

[Robert Newman]

Thanks for chatting, Robert. Best of luck.

Regards,

Pistike

Thanks for chatting Pistike. Must do so again sometime.

Regards

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

Back home from CA to Germany, hi there!

I see some new posts in this thread, wow! The battle evolution vs. creation rages on)

Now, to the views of Pista Gyerek ( in case he/she is still there ) -

I don't see why anybody should mention the conpiracy theories here. Why not simply discuss the essence? One can see it in the light of philosophy, if you so necessary want it -

the views of all people can be generally divided into materialistic and idealistic. The materialists say, "the truth is only what I see ( hear, feel ...)". So, materialism simply must explain the world "from itself". The matter was eternal or had somehow popped into existence - like Big Bang . The reasons for Big Bang? No answer. Then, life had somehow spontaneously arisen from chemicals ( due to an actually impossible accident, or due to panspermia, or due to the mysterious life law - no distinct answer once again ). Then, life had to evolve to higher forms. For a materialistic views, there can be NO ALTERNATIVE here. Logically, evolution MUST HAVE BEEN be the only possible way in this light. That's what the evolutionists are actually constantly saying - in spite of all evident problems the theory has, it MUST HAVE HAPPENED this way. The doctrine of Marx-Engels-Lenin is all-powerful, because the communism has no alternative. Sounds familiar? How wonderful.

Furthermore, if your point is, one can't get evolution theory without being an expert in the field of genetics/ molecular biology etc., then why the ET is being so extensively promoted exactly in the pop-science literature? Why trying to explain to the housewives the facts they can never get anyway? You can find a popular article on the life of Darwin and the basics of ET in any newspaper booth ( due to Darwin's 200th B-Day ). Well, the relativity theory is a pretty hard thing too - when have you read a pop article on it last time? It is still unclear how the gravitation works. But it is obvious that it works, so no one disputes the gravitation theory.

And, you have the buses in London carrying the slogan on them, "There is possibly no God - enjoy the life! " with Richard Dawkins as one of the main sponsors behind this action. So, maybe this is the real answer?

Well, have vented off a bit) So dear Pistike, you are still willing to discuss ET, please leave the conspiracy theories alone, it will not work. Try to kill us with the facts...

Regards
Andrew

[Corno Dolce]

Welcome Home Dear Brother Andrew,

So good to hear from you again. I trust your trip to *Frisco* was fruitful and enjoyable. Yes, the battle has raged on and some feel that their feathers have been burnt off their back. Pity that it so quickly becomes a *personal issue* - emotions and passions then run high and all pretense for reason is then suddenly pitched out the window, like the baby with the bathwater.

Humbly,

CD

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi CD,

thanks! Yeah, the trip to SF was sooooo wonderful, in spite of the bad weather. But, the Church of The Holy Virgin ( thank you, personally, for the hint!! ), SF Museum Of The Modern Arts, Fisherman's Wharf, Botanic Garden, USS Pampanito, Cable Cars, The Golden Gate Bridge, Pier 39, Chinatown...and and and... IT WAS SIMPLY MORE THAN WORTH IT!!!! I luv SF!

For your post -

Pity that it so quickly becomes a *personal issue* - emotions and passions then run high and all pretense for reason is then suddenly pitched out the window, like the baby with the bathwater.

I second that, quite a pity. The subject is itself really interesting, I believe as always one should better consider the facts without being personal.

Regards,
Andrew