[Note: If you comment or trackback and you misquote me or it is clear you did not read this (and think about my point) you will be deleted. I’m tired of the wingnuts.]
I left the computer yesterday after I stirred up the Evolutionary Zealots and I missed the brain implosion. When I got back on the computer, it was amazing to see, frankly, how these people became walking talking caricatures of themselves.
Even after I mocked them they didn’t get that they were the butt of a cruel joke. They are so predictable in their zealotry. I often say that the “oozers” are more religiously fanatic than the religious people. They continue to prove it.
But to get to the point. The Commissar (of all people) called me a flat earther and asked me two questions.
I never avoid a question so let’s go.
I have two questions for Paul:
1) Are the millions of fossils in museums and universities real or frauds? Not their age, just their provenance. Were they dug out of the earth honestly; are they the remains of creature now extinct? Or are they frauds and fakes?This is where I just scratch my head. The “oozers” want us to believe (as a matter of religious doctrine) that lightning hit inorganic primordial ooze and it became life. From that humble beginning all life on earth evolved. I’ve written this many times on Wizbang but….
Where in there exactly did I imply that fossils in museums were fake? He may as well ask me my favorite color. It is a completely disjointed question that bears no relevance to the discussion. But for the record, no I never said they were fake and I do not believe that they are.
Now, how exactly does that prove all life came from ooze?
2) If you accept the fossils as real, do you believe that the diversity and change represented in them was accomplished A) unaided and strictly by genetic change, or B) guided by a higher power, either through Intelligent Design or by instantaneous Creation?…
What do YOU believe, Paul?Lemme type it REAL slow.
I don’t believe either. (Is that so hard to wrap your brain around?)
To believe A, you have to believe a whole string of improbable events happened — all in a row. (to digress a bit) It is sort of like believing that Hillary really did turn 1000 bucks in 100,000 in the cattle futures market honestly… Sure she could have done it (mathematically) but she also could have gotten the right number on a roulette table 15 times in row. I’m just not buying it.
There are massive gaping holes in the whole theory. Massive. (google is your friend)
But what annoys me the most, and why I make fun of them, is that to the zealots, saying you don’t believe a flawed theory is heresy. I might be actually thinking for myself and not repeating “The Gospel According to Oozer” (hey i like that) and we can’t have any of that.
And they are sooo intellectually dishonest. Not a one of them will actually say:
“You’re right Paul. There are some major holes in the theory. BUT it is the best theory we have today. History may prove us to be fools, but for today I believe it is the most probable way to answer all the questions surrounding the diversity of life on earth. But I do understand that there are enough problems still in the theory that you are not convinced yet.”
Is it that hard?
Instead they resort to insulting their critics and lecturing people that THEY are scientists… Bull Shit. A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.
You zealots can choose to believe a (presently) flawed theory. Hip hip hooray for you. But my skepticism (believe it or not) is based on the quality of the theory and is not a sign of lower intelligence or life form. (pun intended)
Now if you believe B, you believe something with a strong historical record but quite short on scientific data. Like believing A, you have taken a leap of faith… The difference of course being that you will admit it.
The EZ’s love to say that their theory elegantly explains the diversity of life. I hate to point out their denial of reality, but there is no more elegant theory than “God made it that way.” If we are scoring on elegance, religion wins… by definition.
So Commissar… that’s what I believe.
Update The religious Zealots have a new tactic. I expose it below the fold.
]]>< 
as long as somebody is getting the jokes.
“Life evolves enough to explain all the diversity of life including man” How is this laughable, oh enlightened one?
Where your rights end is when you support individuals who would attempt to strip science and insert your peculiar mythology in its stead, and ram that down the throats of children in public schools.
Holy crap on a stick. Did I accidentally hit the button labelled “PRESS HERE FOR POMPOUS ASS” again?
Don’t start speaking to me of what my rights are and are not you pompous ass. I disagree that evolution is so all-fired rock-solid as you’d like to believe and like everyone else to believe. I’m quite certain that principles of biology serve you well in your work as a biologist, including areas of genes and hereditary traits and what-not.
I don’t advocate stripping science from schools. I’m a big fan of and believer in science. Like Paul, I find it laughable that so-called scientists look at evolution, which has not and cannot be proven, with all its holes and gigantic logical gaps (sciencists still use logic, don’t they?) and cannot admit that, well, we have some problems with the theory, I guess its understandable that some rational people don’t quite buy it.
Paul said:
“It is one bad theory vs another one that has no proof.”
I am confused here… the bad theory (which has proof) is evolution and the other one (presumable good?) that has no proof is creationism?
If a theory that has proof is ‘bad’ what the hell makes a good theory?
I’ve been making the same sort of argument for years. When the left can produce someone who can recreate the “tide pool” theory in a lab, then I’ll believe there is no god.
Paul… Let me see if I can modify this a bit to clue certain people in:
“This is getting funny:
The Commissar: Do you believe A or B?
Paul: Neither
The Commissar: Do you believe B?
Paul: No.
The Commissar: So you believe in A?
Paul: No”
Commissar: What Paul is trying to say, that you have failed to understand is that he doesn’t believe in A or B.
This means he doesn’t believe in A.
This means he doesn’t believe in B.
So in answer to your question. Doe you believe in A or B, the answer is None of the above.
Commissar: Do you believe that you are an idiot by choice, or by design?
Neither. Because you feel you are not an idiot, even though you’re doing a wonderful job of proving otherwise.
“I never avoid a question.” … except when you don’t want to be called a bible-thumper?
Do you believe God aided the diversity of life on Earth, or not?
Or would you prefer to avoid the question?
Darby,
The choice between “A” and “not A” is not the same as the choice between “A” and “B.”
I personally like how Paul rejects the current theory because it isn’t complete. I guess Paul rejects things like macroeconomic theory, the theory of gravity, and other theories because there aren’t complete (at least in every tiny detail).
To quote John Tukey:
All the laws of physics are wrong, at least in some ultimate detail, though many are awfully good approximations.
Or Lakatos:
All theories are born refuted.
Face it Paul, you are an unscientific whiner.
Since you have trouble with this I’ll explain. The unscientific part is obvious, the whiner part comes from you long screeds where you whine about being called on your unscientific stance. Or to put it this way.
Okay, you think there are problem with the current Theory of Evolution. Fine. But when you reject it what takes its place? You clearly don’t have a better theory. So, what do you do? Opperate in a nihilistic void when it comes to evolution?
Ok, Commissar, I’m gonna play your little play on words.
“Do you believe God aided the diversity of life, or not?”
The Answer is No.
Next question?
Paul, I’ll take care of your light work(I understnad where you are coming from) 😛
From the beginning, in my post, if you read, you’ll see very clearly that the question is all about “aided vs. unaided.”
It has always been an “A” versus “not A” question. Any fair-minded reader, whatever their view, can see that in my post, and in Comments here.
Paul finally admitted that he wanted to avoid answering, because he fears I’ll call him a bible-thumper.
How about you Darby, “Did God aid life’s diversity, or NOT?”
Posted by: Mac Lorry
Without the vulnerability of the theory of Evolution to be falsified, it wouldn’t be considered science, but theology (and it could then be kick out of public schools). Knowing this, Darwin stated in The Origin of Species that:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Therefore, the search for irreducible complexity is a valid scientific pursuit. Michael J. Behe offers a number of examples of what he feels are irreducibly complex systems, such as bacterial flagellum, cilium, the ATP syntheses molecule and others.
While there has been lots of heated debate about irreducible complexity, no professional critic openly claims Dr. Behe is a quack or an ignorant armature. Dr. Behe has raised real questions and pointed out glaring holes in the scientific knowledge about his examples of irreducible complexity. If you google “irreducible complexity” you’ll find articles claiming to have debunked various examples of irreducible complexity, only to see that Dr. Behe has successfully debunked the debunkers (science in action).
The most prophetic statement I have seen by a critic of irreducible complexity is that you can never know if something is really irreducibly complex. The irony is that this truism cuts both ways. Evolution will always remain an unproven theory as long as there’s even one example of irreducible complexity that has not been explained away.
For Christians, read 1 Corinthians chapter 1 starting with verse 18 and you’ll find that God left humankind in the same dilemma. God cannot be found by human wisdom, only by faith. Why you ask? You may need to read the whole book to understand that mystery.
Darby, okay then, since God did not intervene, it happened … naturally? unaided?
… please use your word, or your description.
“Abiogenesis is the whole lightning bolt hitting ooze concept. Evolution requires reproducing life forms as a pre-requisite.”
In a lot of ways, this is somewhat misleading though.
Because the facts are that the particles to people evolution is based on the evolution that most “Bible Thumpers” and other evolution doubters don’t argue with.
I think most people fully understand that all dogs have a common dog ancester, all cats have a common cat ancestor, but where there isn’t any proof, and where doubters of the theory converge is at the dogs to cats/cats to dogs and whatever is in the middle evolution. There are certainly theories, but there isn’t anything observable on this one, and it is one huge gaping hole in the theory.
Did God Aid Life’s Diversity, or NOT?
Yes, and No.
From the beginning of your post, if you read, the question is A or B.
The answer is in that hidden column C.
Perhaps he believes that Faires came and spread life about.
Perhaps he believes that Aliens came and spread the diversity of life.
His beliefs would then be neither A or B, but C instead.
Which is what makes you such a source of entertainment.
Let’s call “God aiding life” as “A.”
Fairies are NOT God. Then Fairies aiding life is “Not A”
Aliens are NOT God. Then Aliens aiding life is “not A”
Natural, unaided evolution is also “not A.”
>>I guess Paul rejects things like macroeconomic theory
There is only one?????
But to answer your question if macroeconomic theory [sic] were perfect we would have no debate over when to raise interest rates or cut taxes. Are you saying YOU know the right answer to all those questions… Quick somebody call George Bush, Steve can be his lead economic advisor.
——-
>>>Okay, you think there are problem with the current Theory of Evolution. Fine. But when you reject it what takes its place? You clearly don’t have a better theory. So, what do you do? Opperate in a nihilistic void when it comes to evolution?
HAHA! That one had be drying the tears from my eyes. Is there something wrong with that?
(Ok to keep the terms straight left you be a jerk and claim I confused them) EVOLUTION — No I pretty much accept that while it is a theory it is fairly sound. (as defined by #2) above…
#1 and #3 from above? Major Major Flaws. So no, I don’t believe it. That is not to say I never will… but it does not cross my burden of proof. If it crosses yours, more power to you.
Now- here is the kicker… I think they ARE the most probable. But that in a relative term. (see Hillary example) Having said that (unlike you) I’m AM a scientist and I can accept they are flawed.
You claim to be a scientist but refuse to accept your holy grail of a theory might be wrong… That’s called religion Steven and you are smart enough to know that.
sssshhh Darby, I’m having fun.
“Do you believe God aided life on earth?” is not a hard question to answer.
Nor am I the one playing semantic games with it.
Paul admitted that he avoids it because he doesn’t want to be called a ‘bible-thumper.” Darcy introduces fairies and aliens.
My question to Paul is sincere, not tricky, nor a matter of semantics.
“Do you believe God was involved?”
The simple fact of the matter is the answer that you recieved did not fir the mold in which you live your life in. A or B? I don’t believe in either. That doesn’t fit the little box you live in, so you keep pushing the issue about A or B.
God created life a LONG LONG time ago. Did he create it as we know it? No. Has there been mutation? Has there been Evolution since then? Yes.
>Paul finally admitted that he wanted to avoid answering, because he fears I’ll call him a bible-thumper.
Where? That’s not what I said.
Darby:
Dammit! You’re going to wreck the fun.
Fine, Darby. Dozens of comments later, you offer a clear, English answer. “God started it; evolutionary mutations picked up since.”
Not sure why you can answer directly, but he who “never avoids a question” cannot.
Did He create one uni-cellular thing? Or several? Or a whole bunch of slightly complex things? A general answer is good enough. “I don’t know to that level” works too.
P.S. Check your email. You got one from Paul warning you “DONT ANSWER. HE’S GONNA CALL YOU A THUMPER!!!!”
Paul:
You don’t have to say it. You were thinking it. We can tell.
>Paul finally admitted that he wanted to avoid answering, because he fears I’ll call him a bible-thumper.
MY, MY you do a have an imagination. Where EXACTLY did I say that?
==============
>It has always been an “A” versus “not A” question.
It has?
————-
If you accept the fossils as real, do you believe that the diversity and change represented in them was accomplished A) unaided and strictly by genetic change, or B) guided by a higher power,
————-
Then why the hell did you ask an A-B question?
==============
Commissar you are all over the map just inventing things.
OK OK OK I’m bored. (sorry to those of you enjoying the floor show)
NO, FOR THE LOVE OF THE PETRI DISH, I DON’T BELIEVE B!!!!
Now what the hell is your point?!?!?
Darby,
Your answer is clearly “A,” in that God was involved, as I noted before, even slightly or indirectly or by spiritual actuation.
“Okay, you think there are problem with the current Theory of Evolution. Fine. But when you reject it what takes its place?”
So your only objection to anyone doubting evolution is that we don’t have a scientific model to take its place? Please, that is just insane.
The answer is that, I think there are too many holes in the particles to people theory of evolution to believe it, and we may not have the answers to “what else could it be?”
Science is extremely useful, but science doesn’t provide the answers to everything, and science sometimes gets things wrong, and has to change what it believed.
I figure outside of a “God did it” explaination, that there will likely be an alternative learned as we learn it isn’t fact.
I admit my theology allows me to be more than comfortable with the holes, I don’t have to have an alternative explaination, apparantly you do. Although please don’t give me any tripe about there being holes, because there are huge holes, when it comes to explaining how species A became species B, and later species C, D, E, etc.
Ok, Those last 2 postings of mine were kind of spaced out, and not very well said.
Do I believe that God was involved in the diversity of life?
My answer to your question is in that “C” category that you are unwilling to accept(Answer at the bottom of the post).
Regarding Paul and his beliefs(Whatever they may be).
You’ve put the question in a black and white world. You have set it up to choose A or B. You can’t choose anything else.
Whatever Paul believes in, is obviously in the grey scale. I don’t know how many more times this needs to be said, or in how many different ways it needs to be said.
Do I believe that lifes diversity was aided by God?
No.
Do I believe that God created life?
Yes.
BTW I don’t believe A either — for the record.
“You don’t have to say it. You were thinking it. We can tell.”
ROFLMAO
I’ll say it again… I’m glad somebody gets the jokes. I’d hate to think I’m laughing my fool head off all by myself.
Okay, Paul, God was not involved, in your belief, not in any way, however slight or indirect.
Not sure why you took so many replies to answer that, but it’s your site. Fine.
Evolution and mutation is a ‘flawed theory’ in your view. (That’s clear.)
But it all happened here on Earth, unaided by The Deity, but not by mutation, evolution, or natural selection. … Oh wait … Evolution is possible, but less likely than some other explanation, which is not Creation, but which you refuse to describe.
I am confused.
I find this entire thread a riot. Last time I laughed this hard on wizbang was during Jay’s Blogging of the Conventions… Oh the humanity.
Commissar;
So far you have ignored my answering your question.
You’ve claimed I was afraid to be called a bible thumper even though I never said anything of the kind.
You’ve claimed you asked an AA question when (duh) it was clearly an AB question.
I hope and trust that after wasting my afternoon doing little more than playing straight man for Michael, you have something profound to say.
I don’t believe B (or A) and I’ve said it for hours. Now do you have a freaking point?
“You keep pummeling my to find out if I’m one of them “bible thumpers” because after all if you can call me a bible thumper, you don’t have to admit that your theory is flawed.”
aided or unaided?
BTW, I actually am a Bible-thumper. The diversity of life was not “aided” by God. HE DID THE WHOLE THING.
I guess if I were more sophisticated I wouldn’t be having so much fun.
God was involved (even a little bit, or at the start, or by indirection), OR He was not.
That choice does not admit ‘neither.’
“You can’t be a little bit pregnant.” Yes/No questions are not hard to answer.
Was God involved in life on Earth, or NOT?
Michael,
You gotta address the fossil record question in my post.
>>>But it all happened here on Earth, unaided by The Deity, but not by mutation, evolution, or natural selection. … Oh wait … Evolution is possible, but less likely than some other explanation, which is not Creation, but which you refuse to describe.
HEH- I don’t have to know the answer to know that your theory is full of shit. If tell me the moon is made of cream cheese I don’t have to have a soil sample to tell you that you are full of it.
You (and steve both) have now moved the bars so that unless I can give you another theory then I must accept yours as reality.
I looked in my “Handy Dandy Guide to the Scientific Method” (I made that up) and I did not see that anywhere. Can you give me a page number?
“You keep pummeling my to find out if I’m one of them “bible thumpers” because after all if you can call me a bible thumper, you don’t have to admit that your theory is flawed.”
You missed my point by miles… That was discussing your motivation, not mine.
Nice quoting out of context there Marc Lorry. Care to post the next sentence? Didn’t think so. The quote with the next sentence is,
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
So Marc Lorry is using selective quoting. Nice job there Marc.
For those of you who are interested you can find the entire chapter here.
Therefore, the search for irreducible complexity is a valid scientific pursuit. Michael J. Behe offers a number of examples of what he feels are irreducibly complex systems, such as bacterial flagellum, cilium, the ATP syntheses molecule and others.
And all of them have been shown to have evolved via natural means.
But to answer your question if macroeconomic theory [sic] were perfect we would have no debate over when to raise interest rates or cut taxes. Are you saying YOU know the right answer to all those questions… Quick somebody call George Bush, Steve can be his lead economic advisor.
Boy that point went right over your head didn’t it. Of course, macroeconomic theory is imperfect. That was the point of my bringing it up. You seem to be saying you reject the Theory of Evolution because it has problems. Fine. So to all those macroeconomic theories. They all have problems. Do you reject them all?
HAHA! That one had be drying the tears from my eyes. Is there something wrong with that?
(Ok to keep the terms straight left you be a jerk and claim I confused them) EVOLUTION — No I pretty much accept that while it is a theory it is fairly sound. (as defined by #2) above…
Well rejecting all theories because they are imperfect means you should reject all of them. Right on down to the theory of gravity. Second of all, the driver for microevolution is theorized to be the same driver for macroevolution. Hence rejection seems just a tad irrational.
Now- here is the kicker… I think they ARE the most probable. But that in a relative term. (see Hillary example) Having said that (unlike you) I’m AM a scientist and I can accept they are flawed.
Accepting the best theory, even though flawed is what scientists of all stripes do. The reason is that science without a theory grounding it is just junk. I don’t want to go into the correlation/causation thing here and other potential problems of not having a theory to work form, but having a theory is imperative.
For the record, you have constructed a strawman in your post. I don’t know of any biologist or scientist who says their theories are perfect or are not flawed. Read the Lakatos and Tukey quote again please. I am quite comfortable with the notion that theories are flawed. They are flawed because we don’t know everything. I have no problem with it at all. I freely admit it. The current Theory of Evolution has flaws. Not everything can be explained. There are problems. Are there major devastating problems that neccesitate major re-working of the theory? Not that I know of, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist.
Now, if you think the current Theory of Evolution is the “best” we have right now. Then what is the problem with teaching it and not teaching hoodoo crap like ID?
Commissar:
The fossil record is not fake. God created the fossil record. He created the organisms captured in the fossil record. He created you.
When I die and go to heaven, I will ask God to give me a better explanation of how exactly how he does all this cool stuff. I’ll send you a message and share what I find out.
Paul,
You don’t want to answer so you can score debating points. Or prevent me from scoring.
I haven’t lowered the bar or moved the goalposts or changed the subject, or played word games.
“Was God involved in life on Earth or not?” That was my question in the original post, and in these Comments.
Your only answer is “No, He wasn’t. But your theory is full of shit.”
Okay, you have no view, at least not that you’ll offer, but mine is full of shit. I can’t argue with that.
>Read my update. I know what it is and how to spell it.
It still has nothing to do with Evolution, and including it as an objection to ‘Evolution’ is disingenious. Refining gas out of oil has nothing to do with building a car — the process of building the car assumes that the gas just happens to be there. I think I also spelled it correctly, too, if we are now scoring ‘victory’ on spelling. Also, the update was not there when I started to respond. I have since read it.
>Never said it was… I said if it were true, it served to show how little we know.
And that’s fine. Anyone who assumes we know everything is an idiot.
>Good luck putting words in my mouth.
Did I say you? Did I reference any assumptions about your personal beliefs (with which I am completely unfamiliar, btw)? My point was that the scientific consensus has changed and does change and will change. Religion, generally, does not — not peacefully, at least.
>Which you added to with the Bible comment. Nice job hypocrite.
Sadly, I’ll have to add this to that 90%. I don’t know if you believe the Bible or not. I don’t care if you believe the Bible or not. My point is how science (real science, not lay-people-discussing-science) differs from religion.
For lay people, there is a certain degree of faith involved in the process. There is a certain degree of faith when you get into a car, too. That it would actually do anything, that it wouldn’t explode or catch fire, that the air-bag won’t blow up in your face because it was installed wrong, etc. None of this ‘faith’ makes car mechanics ‘high priests.’ It’s a different kind of faith, just an assumption that other people understand things that you may not.
> A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.
This is absolutely 100% true.
>1) Lightning hits ooze and it becomes life. (yes Steve that is spelled, abiogenesis)
>2) Life changes over time (proper definition of Evolution)
>3) Life evolves enough to explain all the diversity of life including man. (oozer theory)
>#1 Is a tough sell scientifically.
This is true, there is no conclusive 100% answer on this; however, there has been a lot of work done on it, and it has been demonstrated, so far, that ‘organic’ compounds can certainly be formed from inorganic mechanisms. There is still room for a lot of work to be done here.
>#2 is Pretty Solid
More or less, but there is still work to be done even here. How do things change, why do things stay the same, etc. The concept of DNA is still less than 100 years old. There are volumes of things we don’t yet know.
>#3 Is (scientifically) near laughable. (today)
This is where I would disagree. We have fossil evidence of times when there was apparently not the same degree of diversity as we have now. Actually, we have a couple examples of apparent mass-extinctions, where during the aftermath there was apparently not the same degree of diversity that had been before or since.
Note, there are a lot of ‘apparentlies’ in what I have written. Is what I wrote certain to an absolute degree of certitude? No. Is it certain to a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ certitude? Some of it, yes; some of it, no. Is it certain to a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ degree of certitude? Again, for some of it yes, but not all. Hell, I may have even gotten something wrong. It happens.
However, for you to assume that the science is ‘laughable’ is just as arrogant as those who assume that your (apparent) disdain for science in this case is ‘laughable’ (or as one comment said ‘the joke is on you.’). Neither position is correct. (I will not post the link to the definition of ‘neither’ since you seem to already be aware of it.)
Michael,
Thanks for your answer. You’re honest enough to admit it.
No matter what the fossil record shows, or might show in the future, even the allegedly missing cat/dog ancestor, you will hold that God created those creatures.
It’s a ‘bullet-proof’ position, that permits no debate. I don’t mean that in an insulting way. But if your position is that all possibly explanatory fossils, of any character, were created by God, that ends it. Fair enough.
As to why God would create and permit extinctions of his creations … such an apparent contradiction is merely one of His mysteries that we can’t know. I respect that belief.
Commissar:
Still not getting it. NOTHING is preventing you from arguing about whether your views on evolution are full of shit. Paul is just demonstrating that this is the last thing you want to do.
Repent of your sins, Commissar. There is still time to save your soul.
Commissar:
Your welcome. And your right, my position is bullet proof. And unprovable. And, frankly, superstitious if you don’t agree with me.
I asked “he who never avoids a question,” a simple one —
“Was God involved at all, in any way, in the creation and diversity of life on Earth?”
He finally answered “No.” In the same breath, he dismissed evolution. And he refuses to offer any other explanation.
Makes it tough to discuss things.
>>Boy that point went right over your head didn’t it. Of course, macroeconomic theory is imperfect. That was the point of my bringing it up. You seem to be saying you reject the Theory of Evolution because it has problems. Fine. So to all those macroeconomic theories. They all have problems. Do you reject them all?
No, not at all… I believe in the whole trickle down thing… But NEWS FLASH! I might be wrong. Why is it that “Evolution Zealots” (abio zealots, you pick the term) can’t say the same thing….
STOP THE PRESSES
Steve finally said:
“The current Theory of Evolution has flaws”
WOW! That’s all I’ve asked for…
You know Steve… What has annoyed me on a personal level with you is that you are one of the smarter ones. My point has always been that the people who believe this theory(ies) are religious like in their refusing to accept other possibilities. If someone says there are flaws in the theory they get attacked as a freak of nature…. What has always pissed me off about you is that I knew that you were enough of a scientist to know better. “You just acted like a jerk on the internet”
Lemme quote myself:
——–
And they are sooo intellectually dishonest. Not a one of them will actually say:
“You’re right Paul. There are some major holes in the theory. BUT it is the best theory we have today. History may prove us to be fools, but for today I believe it is the most probable way to answer all the questions surrounding the diversity of life on earth. But I do understand that there are enough problems still in the theory that you are not convinced yet.”
Is it that hard?
Instead they resort to insulting their critics and lecturing people that THEY are scientists… Bull Shit. A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.
——–
Reasonable people can disagree over the merits of one theory or the other. I believe in some theories which today have flaws. But I ALSO believe that THIS theory is so flawed, I can’t say I believe it. (yet)
But I admit I was worn out about you trying to score a political point and ignoring everything I said.
BTW for the record the whole “What do we teach in schools?” thing… DUDE I never once said a word about that!
You keep accusing my of demanding we teach ID. You are projecting your last internet fight on me. I never said anything like that. (go look)
By beef is the people who claim to be scientists who refuse to accept a theory might be wrong. Up until a few posts ago that included you.
Like I said several comments up, you’re lying. It’s not worth the effort to discuss the subject with someone so patently dishonest.
“You’re right, Paul. There are some major holes in the theory. BUT it is the best theory we have today. History may prove us to be fools, but for today I believe it is the most probable way to answer all the questions surrounding the diversity of life on earth. But I do understand that there are enough problems still in the theory that you are not convinced yet.”
Thanks, Paul. That’s a statement worth discussing.
It’s tempting to be agreeable and say “okay.”
But I disagree. We don’t make that kind of qualification about gravitational theory. We (or most people, I think you included) go ballistic when Holocaust deniers offer similar statements. And, no, no, no, I’m NOT calling you “as bad as a Holocaust denier.”
I am saying that there’s enough evidence to support evolution as there is to support gravity and fact of the Holocaust.
Are there really enough “major problems” with evolution to justify that paragraph? Not to me.
I called you a flat-earther. And I won’t retract it or apologize. But I will explain. Willful refusal to accept facts (among which I include evolution) drives me crazy. Especially from those “on my side” of the political fence. It’s like, “Sure it’s a big tent, and we have our disagreements, but we’re happy to count in our ranks Joe over there who believes the Sun goes around the Earth.”
We need a chronosynclasticinfundibulum.