See what I mean, quix? You and I both explained what we were claiming and why- but Gaspode still asks, “Whatever gave you the idea that I did?” Jeez, Gaspode, if you want to know, maybe you could read quix’s post? If I provided a quote from you, maybe you could refrain from saying I would look less like a hypocrite if I provided a quote?
Just like last time, the tendrils of Gaspode’s voluminous scheissnebel start to envelop the thread…
-Ben
He was asked by several people already. He would much rather debate semantics (I wouldn’t be surprised if he used the outdated and inaccurate term “Darwinian Evolution” knowing full well that he could milk a long tangent out of it and avoid the real issue here. After all, nobody else even mentioned Darwin in this thread until he did, and there was no need for it to be mentioned at that point, especially in that manner.)
The guy has already doubled back over himself in this regard, and until he actually answers a simple question which is, as you accurately pointed out, the entire basis of his argument, his intellectual dishonesty makes him pretty worthless to talk to.
Ben, I read Gaspode’s statement as staking his education against javahead71, not Satan. So he is hair-splitting the point, not addressing the main thrust of the argument that he is claiming to be knowledgeable of the evidence, regardless of exactly whose education he considers inferior.
Satan, I am just trying to help the guy win a Nobel Prize. After all, if he has evidence which contradicts evolution, he may not realize how famous he will become. :rolleyes:
I believe the Bible…FIRST
If any Scientist discovers something that he claims he can prove, and it contradicts what the Bible says, I don’t believe him.
If any Preacher, Priest or TV Evangelist, etc., tells me something that is contradictory to what the Bible says, I don’t believe him.
If an angel from heaven would appear to me and tell me something that is contradictory to what the Bible says, I wouldn’t believe him.
If I see something with my own eyes, and it is contradictory to what the Bible says, I don’t believe my own eyes.
The theory of evolution contradicts what the Bible says, so I don’t believe it. Whether you want to label me brainwashed or just stupid, that’s your call.
One thing is for certain though, no other scientific theory has done more to turn people away from faith in God, than that one.
You’re right, Gaspode was responding to javahead71 and not to the more vociferous Satan. My mistake. The point remains, however–Gaspode did INDEED claim to have knowledge of the mountains of evidence, and it’s right there at the top of the page, in his very first post. I can’t even imagine the juevos it must take to deny something that is explicitly stated, and then quoted later on the same page!
Wow.
Quix
What if the Bible contradicts the Bible? Do you then not believe the Bible?
The theory of evolution does NOT contradict the Bible, just your misguided interpretation of it. It must take supreme arrogance to believe oneself the sole arbiter of the meaning of the word of God.
Randy, does God love everyone without exception?
-Ben
**
That would mean “brainwashed,” but you are certainly entitled to be.
**
Let me ask you then, do you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe? And that the sun revolves around the earth, and not the other way around? Do you believe that the earth is flat, in fact? Does pi=3?
Because at one time in history, a majority of Christians - because of what is said in the Bible - believed much of the above, or Literalists HAVE TO believe the above because they are all literally true. Proponents of Heliocenticity were not treated nicely by the church, and the scientists of the time were considered by many to be enemies of the church.
So, why is it that almost every Christian was able to take the Bible and not change a word of it and manage to trust that the earth is NOT the center of the universe and it does NOT revolve around the sun?
**
Fine, as long as you know that more people who believe in God with the same words as you do are able to reconcile the two things.
I’ll bet you can’t prove that statement.
In fact, I can provide evidence of the exact opposite.
Read Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God, which says that fundamentalist movements like the one you are a part of, come about when modernity encroaches their world-view. Which means that the Scopes Trial (look it up) probably did more to turn people towards Fundamentalism than if it never happened.
Furthermore, the insistance of so many Protestant Biblical literalists to try and FORCE public schools to teach dogma as science, and to lie (intentionally or not) about science to make results fit what they would like to see has turned off MANY intelligent people who don’t think that any God that needs to be LIED FOR is all that great.
Your adherance to a literal, inerrent Bible turns off people who could very well get the lessons out of it - the morality, the love, the REAL MESSAGE - but they reject everything out of hand because right off the bat, it all looks silly and wrong.
In fact, Dr. Hugh Ross, a devout Christian and scientist who has debated Creationists such as Hovind, says the following in the forward to the book A New Look at an Old Earth (What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You About Genesis):
(Emphasis mine)
So don’t blame science for people not getting the message. Look in a mirror, or at those who have to lie for your God. They are the Pharisees here. And if you chose to blindly follow them, what does that make you?
Again words are placed in my mouth. Let’s refer to what was actually posted:
Aside from this fairly major proviso that I be allowed to argue my case rather than the one you have assumed I am making then fair enough. Of course if you read this : “the very use of the term ‘mountains’ is prejudicial, subjective and damn near meaningless in context, which is why I was quite happy to contend there was mountains of evidence against it content that I could never be proved wrong.” you’d realise where I was coming from. If I can provide any evidence at all I can reasonably argue that it is a ‘mountain’ since the term is so subjective. So I’ll just refer you to the work of Dr. Spetner for my mountain of evidence. Plenty there alone to qualify for a mountain IMHO.
I read the OP somewhat differently to you. I see it as supposing that there is one theory of evolution accepted by all scientists, as implied by the use of the term “facts that support evolution”. There is of course no one universally accepted theory supported by all facts, as I have demonstrated above. My reply means in this light that there are people, perhaps including myself, who object to any given theory of evolution strictly on an evidentiary basis, or the lack thereof. I have provided references to these people that are available on the web, though I can provide direct cites that demonstrate disagreement if you wish. If these people who reject Darwinian evolution then wish to believe in intelligent creation similarly based on disputed facts and theories then I can see no way that they are obviously ignorant or brainwashed.
This is in no way analogous to claiming the Earth is flat. If one were to state that all flat earthers were either inbreds or dwarfs because they refuse to accept that the Earth is an oblate spheroid then your analogy would hold true. In this case I would simply have to demonstrate one person who rejected the proposition of a spherical Earth who was not demonstrably inbred or a dwarf to draw attention the logical flaw in your proposition. In this case the OP states that all creationists are either ignorant or brainwashed. I have simply called attention to the fact that there are those who dispute the most widely held evolutionary theory that are neither. I could then claim not to believe the Earth is spherical based on a lack of indisputable evidence without being tarred with the brush of inbred or dwarf.
I can see why you could be inclined to draw a parralel with flat earthism and it’s a legitimate parralel. But if someone chose to believe in a flat Earth and could demonstrate informed, free thinking people that rejected the concept of a spherical Earth even if they didn’t support the flat earth theory, then I couldn’t immediately call her ignorant and brainwashed until I could prove that ‘flat Earth’ is wrong. If someone informed disagrees with me and they disagree with you, then you can’t say I’m ignorant without proving why this is so.
Still trying to milk this one Satan?
I’ve provided three cites from independent, peer reviewed journals published in the last 18 months that utilise the term Darwinian evolution. I can provide plenty more.
If you wish to continue to state that the term is outdated and inaccurate I suggest you provide a cite.
If you can’t then please stop making this assertion. You’re milking a tangent that has long been demonstrated irrlevant and that I would like to let go of. It’s starting to get irritating.
Spot on Hardcore.
Feeling hypocritical yet Ben?
And no Hardcore I don’t see this as hairsplitting. Javahead’s implication that there is only one universally accepted theory of evolution made me question his depth of knowledge of and qualifications to speak on the subject. I’m still willing to hold my stake.
I see no reason to question Satan’s depth of knowledge or understanding aside from his bizarre insistence that the term ‘Darwinian evolution’ is antiquated and outdated in the face of fairly conclusive proof to the contrary.
And while I claim to be knowledgeable of the evidence this is quite different from Ben’s strawman “Gaspode’s claims to know an enormous amount about the evidence”. Of course I never made any such claims as Ben’s inability to back up his assertion with an actual quote from me demonstrates.
The difference between ‘I have more knowledge than someone who displays ignorance’ and ‘I have an enormous amount of evidence’ is fairly substantial to me and hardly the hair splitting that you dismiss it as.
And quixotic78 I hope this demonstrates to you that I have not denied anything that I have stated, explicitly or otherwise.
I am confused, what are the different theories that Gaspode keeps referring to? I am not exactly a student of the whole evolution vs. creation, but my impression that evolution had to do with natural selection over millions of years. Are there evolutionary theories that don’t incorporate the concept of natural selection?
Well, I’m sure he’d tell you, but it’s apparently some sort of secret theory. Either that or the wonder dog is just a really terrible housekeeper 
**
Let’s look at the original quote which Gaspode so tragically cut short:
**
In other words, you claim to understand mountains of evidence for and against evolution.
If the claim is so painful to you, why did you make it in the first place?
**
Super Weasel Powers activate!
**
When did I ever say you were staking your education against Satan?
Feeling hypocritical yet?
:rolleyes:
The quote from you has been quoted what- four times now? And I’ve quoted it at least twice, if you include this post.
Sorry, Gaspode, but you’re just a hypocrite and a liar. You have no evidence against evolution, and you never have- that’s why whenever you pretend to discuss evolution, you argue meaningless semantics, put words in people’s mouths, lie about your own statements, dodge, weasel, obfuscate and equivocate, and, most of all, try to drown everyone in a fetid torrent of flatulent verbiage.
I’m not inclined to waste any more time wading through the all-obscuring swamp of your posts, and I suggest that everyone else do the same.
-Ben
See, I actually went out of my way again to mention his use of the term “Darwinian Evolution” in my last post to Gaspode because I knew that would be the only part of my post that he replied to. That he would ignore the main issue - the simple question I brought up again and that others have also brought up - and continue to battle semantics and periphery issues which don’t change the simple question he is blatantly ignoring.
Seems that I was right. This makes it quite obvious what his intentions are: Intellectual dishonesty.
And until he does answer the question asked of him, he’s as useful as tits on a bull to discuss the issue with.
HEY!!! I thought I was the one with “super-weasel powers”!?! :rolleyes:
Hey gaspode- welcome to the club. Let me show you the secret handshake. 
PS, one of the conditions of membership is to never answer any of a certain posters nefarious questions. It is so much fun to watch him get red in the face, and the veins in his forehead start to throb when we do this. Try it.
Ben posted “Gaspode’s claims to know an enormous amount about the evidence”
He has been unable to support this with a quote from me. I will repeat that while I claim to be knowledgeable of the evidence this is quite different from Ben’s strawman “Gaspode’s claims to know an enormous amount about the evidence”. Of course I never made any such claims as Ben’s inability to back up his assertion with an actual quote from me demonstrates. The difference between ‘I have more knowledge than someone who displays ignorance’ and ‘I have an enormous amount of evidence’ is fairly substantial. We’re not going to agree on this so I won’t indulge him any further on this. The facts speak for themselves. Ben made an assertion and is unable to back it up.
I’m not going to try to annoy him DITWD. As much fun as it might be and as much as he may deserve it for the deliberate dissemination of erroneous information on this board it would be somewhat like mocking a cripple. The man is a psuedoscientist with an obviously limited knowledge of the facts to hand. He appears to have a massive amount of hostility towards believers in creationism as demonstrated on this thread, the one he links to earlier and several threads you were involved in. His argument in this case is a blatant strawman of the ‘do you still beat your wife’ variety that doesn’t warrant any further response. I think the teeming millions will make their own judgements on this.
Satan’s comment “Some people fall into traps so easily… See, I actually went out of my way again to mention his use of the term “Darwinian Evolution” blah blah blah” goes far further towards a demonstration of the strength of his argument than the weakness of mine.
One point though Satan. The dissemination of demonstrably false information, as in your assertion that ‘Darwinian evolution’ is an outdated term, is not looked upon kindly on this board.
Neurotik.
Your question “Are there evolutionary theories that don’t incorporate the concept of natural selection” is somewhat of a strawman in itself, although I accept unintentionally. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has even a limited experience of the facts would fail to accept natural selection. As DITWD has pointed out, few if any creation theories fail to incorporate natural selection at some level.
I of course refered only to non-darwinian evolutionary theories. I have provided a definition of Darwinian evolution taken from the ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ in my reply to Satan above if you wish to peruse it. Contrary to what Satan and Czarcasm believe this is neither a ‘fundie’ nor an outdated term, as my cites above, and the ones below demonstrate.
Darwinian evolution is not the same as natural selection by a long chalk. Dawinian evolution incorporates a form of natural selection, but you can’t use the terms interchangeably.
I’ve explained above why it is important to the OP that educated free thinking people believe in non-darwinian evolution, but what it boils down to is that if three people disagree about a theory, and one accepts one alternative theory, one accepts another and a third confesses ignorance then there is no way to determine ignorance or brainwashing on the basis of rejecting the initial theory.
Now to answer the question ‘Are there evolutionary theories that don’t incorporate Darwinian evolution’ the answer is yes. Most alternatives reject its importance as a driving force in evolution. Some say it isn’t actually responsible for speciation and the evolution and distribution of new genes, some that it is of secondary importance. A few actually say that Darwinian evolution defined as ‘the evolutionary theory that differential reproduction of different genetic stocks is the driver of evolution’ is outright untrue and propose other hypotheses. Others go still further and propose non-genetic elements to hereditary.
I’ve finally gotten tired enough of the ignorance of current evolutionary debates being demonstrated by Ben and Satan to actually do a very limited literature search since this is faster than trying to find all my old notes. I must actually thank the guys because my fairly mainstream reading since I undertook my initial review of this subject didn’t do justice to the amount of debate actually going on at the moment concerning Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution The evidence for a Lamarkina mechanism in addition to or instead of Darwinian is has grown dramatically in the past 7 years apparenltly attempts to either reconcile them or propose a completely novelle theory are far more commonplace than my statemnt about them being infrequent would suggest. To give you some idea the following were turned up with a basic search in current contents limited to the last 2 years just using the keyword ‘Darwinian evolution’.
Ayala FJ.
Neutralism and selectionism: the molecular clock
Gene. 261(1):27-33, 2000 Dec 30.
Abstract
The neutrality theory predicts that the rate of molecular evolution will be constant over time, and thus that there is a molecular clock for timing evolutionary events. It has been observed that the variance of the rate of evolution is generally larger than expected according to the neutrality theory. Several modifications of the theory have been proposed to account for the ‘overdispersion’ of the molecular clock…… An extensive investigation of two proteins, …manifests that none of these modifications can simultaneously account for the disparate patterns observed in both proteins. GPDH evolves very slowly in Drosophila species, but several times faster in mammals, other animals, plants, and fungi. SOD evolves very fast in Drosophila species and also in mammals, but much more slowly in other animals and still slower when plants and fungi are compared to one another, or to animals
True H.L.; Lindquist S.L.
A yeast prion provides a mechanism for genetic variation and phenotypic diversity
Nature
Volume 407, Issue 6803
28 September 2000
Pages 477-483
Abstract
A major enigma in evolutionary biology is that new forms or functions often require the concerted effects of several independent genetic changes. It is unclear how such changes might accumulate when they are likely to be deleterious individually and be lost by selective pressure. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae prion [PSI+] is an epigenetic modifier of the fidelity of translation termination, but its impact on yeast biology has been unclear. Here we show that [PSI+] provides the means to uncover hidden genetic variation and produce new heritable phenotypes. Moreover, in each of the seven genetic backgrounds tested, the constellation of phenotypes produced was unique. **We propose that the epigenetic arid metastable nature of [PSI+] inheritance allows yeast cells to exploit pre-existing genetic variation to thrive in fluctuating environments. Further, the capacity of [PSI+] to convert previously neutral genetic variation to a non-neutral state may facilitate the evolution of new traits. **
Evolution: The evolvability enigma
J. F. Y. Brookfield
Current Biology, Volume 11, Issue 3, 6 February 2001, Pages R106-R108
Abstract
A report that a switch of a yeast protein to a prion' state triggers diverse phenotypic changes has **prompted re-examination of the processes of evolution.** To what extent should processes of gene expression and control be interpreted in terms of their capacity to allow future evolution as well as present adaptation? For True and Lindquist [2], the simultaneous activation of genetic changes at many loci is relevant to the evolutionary enigma’ that new functions may require several independent genetic changes……
R.L. Carroll, Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 (2000), pp. 27¯32.
Abstract
New concepts and information from molecular developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis.
Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb and Eytan Avital
`Lamarckian’ mechanisms in darwinian evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 13, Issue 5, May 1998, Pages 206-210
Abstract
Since the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biologists have assumed that the genetic system is the sole provider of heritable variation, and that the generation of heritable variation is largely independent of environmental changes …… The role of induced heritable variation in evolution therefore needs to be reconsidered, and the evolution of the systems that produce induced variation needs to be studied.
For further reading I suggest the following.
Davis B.K.
A fitness principle for pre-darwinian evolution based on selection of the least action path,
Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 43, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 1-3
F Taddei, M Radman, J Maynard-Smith, B Toupance, PH Gouyon and B Godelle,
Role of mutator alleles in adaptive evolution. Nature 387 (1987), pp. 700¯702.
Partridge L, Barton NH: Evolving evolvability. Nature 407:457-458.
R. N. Tchuraev, I. V. Stupak, T. S. Tropynina and E. E. Stupak
M.T. Ghiselin, Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. SUNY Press (1997).
N.C. Stenseth, Darwinian evolution in ecosystems: the red queen view. In: P.J. Greenwod et al.Evolution: Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith Cambridge University Press (1985), pp. 55¯72.
Epigenes: design and construction of new hereditary units, FEBS Letters, Volume 486, Issue 3, 15 December 2000, Pages 200-202
So in short Neurotik, despite what Satan and Ben may want to suggest the issue of theory of Darwinian evolution is far from universally accepted in part or in whole. There are alternative theories which I won’t go into in great detail here but that actually rely not on natural selection but on inducement of pre-existing variation. They are outlined in the papers cited above, although I must confess with most of them I only read he abstract and skimmed the papers. They are also outlined in the books ‘Not by chance’ and ‘Evolution, Randomness, and Hashkafa’ by Dr. Spetner.
I will quote from Dr. Spetner who as I stated above is a legitimate mainstream scientist by any useable definition of the term.
The details aren’t important here , though when I get the time to peruse the latest papers fully it might make an interesting Great Debate in its own rights. This is not an argument about creationism rather that any given theory of evolution is not accepted in part or whole by all demonstrably educated free thinking people.
So yes, there are alternative theories to Darwinian evolution held by non-ignorant, non-brainwashed people. Yes there is a mounting mountain of evidence against Darwinian evolution There is of course a body of non-ignorant, non-brainwashed people who support the theory and a mounting mountain of evidence supporting it.
The simple fact is that disagreement with any theory cannot be held to be evidence of ignorance or brainwashing until either all non-ignorant, non-brainwashed people can be demonstrated to believe the theory or until the theory is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Any given theory of evolution fails to meet either of these criteria and as such the OP has a serious logical error and cannot be discussed objectively as it stands.
I’ll leave you with this rather interesting cite I discovered in my search.
G. Cornelis van Kooten
Environmental Science and Policy
Volume 3, Issue 1
1 February 2000
Pages 9-10
Almost everywhere I find scientists making claims that can only be considered theories at best, or speculation at worst. Such claims are made in all fields, including my own. Let me provide some examples. Let me begin with the most controversial one of all ¯¯ Darwinian evolution, or the claim that life evolved spontaneously, by chance (i.e., macro- and not micro-evolution). Is this fact or fancy? Or is this simply a useful working hypothesis? If it is the latter, then I raise no objections, but if it is touted as a “fact of science”, not open to discussion, then I must demur. The empirical evidence to support unequivocally the Darwinian claim simply does not exist; there are as many reasons to accept design as an explanation of life’s origins as chance (e.g., Johnson; Miller and Behe). As a scientist, what bothers me most about the debate is the ideological stand that some scientists take regarding any opposing views ¯¯ all opponents are labelled religious fundamentalists. I would hardly classify the highly-regarded historian Paul Johnson (1996, p. 3) as a religious fundamentalist, nor the self-proclaimed atheist Richard Miller (1992), nor Michael Behe (1996) and Phillip Johnson (1991), for that matter. Of course, the label of religious fundamentalism can easily be made to stick to anyone if it is defined narrowly enough. Thus, Stephen Gould (1999, p. 84) implicitly defines a religious fundamentalist as anyone who accepts miracles (viz., creation, virgin birth, resurrection). Gould’s attempt to reconcile the opposing views of how life came about only serves to drive a greater wedge between them. My point is simply this: we can never empirically verify that one view is correct. Therefore, why do we only accept one way of looking at issues that involve origins? Why do we let ideological matters dictate whose view is acceptable in reviewed journals?
I’ve had a very long day at church today and I’m just dead tired. I’m going to bed but I have every intention of repsonding to the posts here and in other threads. Thank you and good night.
It has become obvious that the OP left out a third option – just plain demented.
Ben, not that I really think you are psychic or anything, but do you have any stock tips?
Hardcore I’m not sure what to make of your last post so I’ll wait until it’s clarified begore I respond.
I would like to point out one thing.
I have never used the above phrase, I have never re-posted or quoted it. The original and only author is of course the ever-polite Ben.
For what reasons did you atribute it to me?
Just another way of saying that you should learn to focus your rapier-like wit if you hope to engage anyone in a productive debate on this topic.
First of all, I should’ve added in my first post up there, which was an answer to the OP, that the Bible has proven itself enough, personally, spiritually and prophetically, that I don’t sweat the small details. Most notably in the prophetic sense, all the Worldwide Attention being paid recently to a small country (the size of New Jersey) called Israel and the Middle East conflicts are ALL prophesized in the Bible. And that’s just one example.
hardcore
The Bible doesn’t “contradict” itself. I don’t have to go to your link at all, I know the Bible. Your interpretation of the Bible contradicts itself, which is the same thing you accused me of. Also, why is it that everytime a Christian claims to have some understanding of the Bible, someone like you labels him “arrogant”. I can understand the Bible just like you can understand your Science Text Book. The major difference is that some things in the Bible, we are not meant to understand. I will not argue with God about that.
Ben
That’s a loaded question, full of argument. I know that the Bible says that God “loved Jacob and hated Esau”. Whether that can be interpreted literally, I’m not sure about. But I do know this, no one loves more fairly and more strongly than God.
Satan
See above, if it contradicts the Bible, it doesn’t matter. The Bible says that God created the Heaven and Earth. It says God created animals that live in the waters and birds in ONE DAY. The Bible says that God created the beasts of the Earth and Man in ONE DAY. If Karen Armstrong or Dr. Hugh Ross or anyone else says anything contrary to that, they’re wrong. Let me also say this, no, I can’t prove the statement I made about Darwins theory being the greatest cause of turning people away from God, but there is alot of support for that statement. Also, I don’t think I have to “lie for God”. Where did I? What good would that do? What right would I have to lie for the Almighty God? Satan, not you, the real Satan, is a liar. I don’t belong to him. I think it’s interesting that you brought out that scientists used to be considered the enemy of the church. Now it’s different, anyone opposing Darwins theory is met with ridicule by most of the scientific community and considered enemies of Science. That’s one of the biggest reason that many keep quiet about their opposition to it.
I think the reason why so many people on this Board get so worked up, and so much ridicule is directed at people who disagree about the theory, is that it has never been 100% accepted by Scientists. That must be frustrating to atheists.