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

Merged Icebear's Evolution Thread

icebear said:
That's the idea that somehow or other, God uses evolution...

God doesn't use broken tools.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet you can't explain in your own words what flaws you find in evolutionary theory... ;)
 
Evolution: What real experts called Steve have had to say about it...

icebear, is obviously ignorant about Project Steve
Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[2]
However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 51% of the listed Steves being biologists.[4]
...
The 1200th Steve was added on April 6, 2012.[19]
Click to expand...
(my highlighting added)
 
icebear said:
That's the idea that somehow or other, God uses evolution...

God doesn't use broken tools.
Click to expand...
A doubly ignorant statement, icebear, since
  1. God uses the broken tools that are called human beings all of the time - read the Bible!
  2. Evolution is not broken either as a fact or a theory.
 
Now, if you really wanted to see fruit flies evolve into something else, you ought to put them into a very large, sealed environment with different conditions than fruit flies are used to. Give them ten to one hundred years to adapt.
 
Reality Check said:
Basically this is a rather deluded statement that implies that every biologist in the world is dishonest, icebear.
Click to expand...
You're being overly generous, my friend. He's saying that every biologist, geneticist, paleontologist, paleobotanist, stratigrapher, sedimentologist, petroleum geologist, isotopic geochemist, astrobiologist (xenobiologist? whatever they're calling themselves these days), doctor, nurse, clinical researcher, herpitologist, arbologists, everyone involved in animal husbandry, the entire CDC, FDA, AMA, WHO, and numerous other people are dishonest. Every one of those groups--and more--use evolution in some way.

icebear, this is personal. You are calling ME, personally, dishoest. I am a paleontologist; I make my living studying the evolution of Quaternary mammals in North America. I have spent far more time than you can imagine studying evolutionary theory, along with the specific complications thereof. I have an IQ of 142 last it was measured, and I flatter myself that I have some talent for drawing data from the bones and teeth of dead things. I am claiming that evolution is true. I do it on a regular basis, to federal agencies.

You are calling ME, Dinwar, a liar. I invite you to support that as best you can. Let's leave aside the nonsense about attacking random people who aren't here to defend themselves: this is personal. Let's treat it as such.
 
icebear said:
That's the idea that somehow or other, God uses evolution...

God doesn't use broken tools.
Click to expand...

Yes!
That's the spirit I was looking for in your other threads. Now you've hit your stride.
 
Dinwar said:
You're being overly generous, my friend. He's saying that every biologist, geneticist, paleontologist, paleobotanist, stratigrapher, sedimentologist, petroleum geologist, isotopic geochemist, astrobiologist (xenobiologist? whatever they're calling themselves these days), doctor, nurse, clinical researcher, herpitologist, arbologists, everyone involved in animal husbandry, the entire CDC, FDA, AMA, WHO, and numerous other people are dishonest. Every one of those groups--and more--use evolution in some way.

icebear, this is personal. You are calling ME, personally, dishoest. I am a paleontologist; I make my living studying the evolution of Quaternary mammals in North America. I have spent far more time than you can imagine studying evolutionary theory, along with the specific complications thereof. I have an IQ of 142 last it was measured, and I flatter myself that I have some talent for drawing data from the bones and teeth of dead things. I am claiming that evolution is true. I do it on a regular basis, to federal agencies.

You are calling ME, Dinwar, a liar. I invite you to support that as best you can. Let's leave aside the nonsense about attacking random people who aren't here to defend themselves: this is personal. Let's treat it as such.
Click to expand...

Actually, you too are being overly kind. He's not saying you're dishonest. He's saying quite explicitly that you are stupid.
 
icebear said:
Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the academic dead wood die hards) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer:
Click to expand...

mmmmh amazing. that quote makes soo much more sense than all that evidence and experiments. you are so convincing. how could i even believe that theory. why should i take science and the evidence serious when others feel its not correct....

thank you so much for enlighting me. really
 
Dinwar said:
<respectful snip>I am a paleontologist
Click to expand...

Yeah, right.

As sure as little apples, I can tell that you are what you say. Reading your posts on various topics makes it all too clear that you really are what you say you are.

CT types don't like that much. CT types don't like it much when they stray into JREF and find that there is likely one or more subject matter expert present for whatever is the CT du jour whose knowledge exceeds their own. Oh no, they don't like that much at all.

Rock on, my friend. It is amusing to see CT's come up against reality.

Side note: You have posted some cracking links in various threads, keep it up. I have learned a bucket of stuff.
 
abaddon said:
Yeah, right.

As sure as little apples, I can tell that you are what you say. Reading your posts on various topics makes it all too clear that you really are what you say you are.

CT types don't like that much. CT types don't like it much when they stray into JREF and find that there is likely one or more subject matter expert present for whatever is the CT du jour whose knowledge exceeds their own. Oh no, they don't like that much at all.

Rock on, my friend. It is amusing to see CT's come up against reality.

Side note: You have posted some cracking links in various threads, keep it up. I have learned a bucket of stuff.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there.

In all seriousness, I agree. Dinwar has entertained me many times popping the bubble of neophyte woosters.
 
Ladewig said:
Icebear, any comment on the tens of millions of Americans who believe in the God of the Bible and evolution?
Click to expand...
Exactly. In fact what literal creationists pretend is how we came into existence is complete woo. It isn't even how the writers intended their stories to be read or understood. You simply can't take a philosophical and/or metaphorical creation story and apply literal scientific standards to it.

Job 38:1-4
Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand......

Keep in mind even the book of Job is completely metaphorical. But it teaches the principle that even "the greatest man among all the people of the East." who "is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." and in fact so much so that "There is no one on earth like him", really has no idea about creation or the nature of God and it is shear arrogance for him to pretend he does.

Job 42:1-3
Then Job replied to the Lord:

“I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

Now if the most righteous man on the earth has absolutely no understanding of the true nature of God or creation, how is it your fundamentalist preacher thousands of years and several changes of culture and translations of language later can claim he understands so surely that it must be taken literally? It is pure arrogance and exactly the opposite of the principles taught in the Bible.

Whether there actually was a historical Job or not I have no idea. What I do know is that the teachings of the book of Job indicate that NO ONE, not even the most righteous among us has the qualifications to make comments about the nature of God or creation that the creationists, literalists and/or creation scientists make based on Biblical teachings.

I also wonder why this is even in the science section of the forum? Your whole post reeks of a lame attempt to discredit science with completely flawed logic and propaganda techniques. It should be moved to the religion section where it belongs. This thread has zip zero nada to do with science.

Edit: Just to clarify, I was directing my comments to the OP, not Ladewig. I just happen to be one of those millions of Christians Ladewig refers to who thinks the whole fundamentalist Biblical creation science debate is bunk. It is neither Biblical nor scientific. Somehow they managed to get both wrong.
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment
Click to expand...

Let's assume for a moment that this is actually true. In that case, here is a list of 1281 scientists who all support evolution. And are called Steve. You see, even by putting extremely restrictive limits on our list, such as only allowing people with a single name to be on it, we can still out-do the pathetic creationist lists by orders of magnitude. I'm afraid if argument by popularity is the best you can come up with, we don't even need to point out the fallacy to utterly destroy your argument.
 
Cuddles said:
Let's assume for a moment that this is actually true. In that case, here is a list of 1281 scientists who all support evolution. And are called Steve. You see, even by putting extremely restrictive limits on our list, such as only allowing people with a single name to be on it, we can still out-do the pathetic creationist lists by orders of magnitude. I'm afraid if argument by popularity is the best you can come up with, we don't even need to point out the fallacy to utterly destroy your argument.
Click to expand...


argumentum ad Steve falacy....
 
arthwollipot said:
Methinks thou art correct and mine own grammar was at fault.
Click to expand...

Skitt’s Law: "Any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself".

Madalch said:
Now, if you really wanted to see fruit flies evolve into something else, you ought to put them into a very large, sealed environment with different conditions than fruit flies are used to. Give them ten to one hundred years to adapt.
Click to expand...
Lenski on a larger scale?
 
Madalch said:
Now, if you really wanted to see fruit flies evolve into something else, you ought to put them into a very large, sealed environment with different conditions than fruit flies are used to. Give them ten to one hundred years to adapt.
Click to expand...

That's the opposite of what Gould, Eldredge and the rest of the punc-eekers are saying, i.e. that evolution only happens in tiny, isolated areas. It's also a fact that evolution is supposed to be driven by mutations and you'd never get the huge numbers of mutations in nature that you'd get in controlled experiments DESIGNED to produce as many mutations as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom