Scientific Proof of The Virgin Birth

The Virgin Birth is a governmentally sponsored program, taught in public schools.

I’m not kidding.

It isn’t just viable, it is a done deal. Scientific FACT, as it were.

Though we are told it is both theory and fact, the theory has more holes than the human body has pores. Everything enters through these pores, yet the one organism which takes in the information is led astray by The Science of Theory.

I used to sit firmly on the other side of this debate. Unfortunately, I don’t lean with a political party. This leaves me to fend for myself when it comes to the daunting task of thinking. Ultimately, we are all experts in the realm of experiencing our own lives.

The scientific explanation of organic matter evolving from nothingness just doesn’t sit well with me. Perhaps it is because entropic origins mutating into highly structured cells and organisms hasn’t been explained in a manner which my wanton feeble mindedness can easily approach. However, all is not lost.

I may yet evolve into a being capable of processing such ‘proven’ processes.

Is it possible the origin of life and the origin of species are unrelated?

There must be instances – scientifically reliable data – which proves this happened before and/or since, no?

Because ‘the origin of the species’ doesn’t explain the origin of ALL species, Darwinian evolution throws scientific method in the middle of a ‘random chance’ argument by example.

Science purports:

1.) Thermodynamics is scientifically sound.
2.) The Big Bang is scientifically sound
3.) Evolution is scientifically sound.
#1 doesn’t rule out #3. #2 gives it some problems, but doesn’t rule it out. However, #1 and #2 seem incompatible, since energy must come from somewhere.

The Resurrection is not disputed by evolutionary theory. In fact, it is like sparklers on the 4th of July. Christ rising from the dead pales in comparison to Darwinian science: a virgin cell formed, (parentless,) from nothing.

Every distinct life-form spawned from the self-procreating Virgin Cell on a lifeless planet.

Thankfully, our taxpaying dollars educate our youth that The Virgin Birth is FACT.

(BANG!)

Advertisements

138 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Morgan DeRieux
    Sep 05, 2011 @ 09:14:51

    🙂

    – Morgan

    Reply

  2. Ed Darrell
    Sep 08, 2011 @ 12:05:39

    That’s a vast area of no information to fill. Do you have specific questions? Have you ever studied the origin of matter, or how living things work today?

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Sep 08, 2011 @ 17:04:27

      Have tests been conducted confirming that an organism can survive, breed, and thrive (in a barren climate) without any other life form except itself?

      Reply

      • Ed Darrell
        Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:37:21

        Almost all life is dependent on other life forms for food — lichens can “digest” rock, but lichens are composed of two different, symbiotic life forms.

        I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking whether it’s been confirmed that parthenogenesis occurs, and that a species can propagate itself that way? Or are you asking whether any life form we know can stand completely alone, without any other life nearby?

      • arthuriandaily
        Sep 08, 2011 @ 22:07:32

        Parthenogenesis, from what I understand, needs an egg and an embryo. “parthenogenesis is a type of asexual reproduction in which the offspring develops from unfertilized eggs.” Says encyclopedia.com. It then goes on to say, “parthenogenetic reproduction occurs when environmental conditions are favourable and there is plenty of food that can sustain the generation of large numbers of individuals in a short period of time.

        So early plasmatic species were likely pre-egg, and without any other life but itself and it’s offspring, would this increase it’s chance for survival?

      • Ed Darrell
        Sep 09, 2011 @ 07:37:43

        Look up stromatolites.

  3. Ed Darrell
    Sep 08, 2011 @ 12:07:03

    P.S.: Science does confirm some virgin births. You can watch it, and replicate the observation in the wild and in the lab:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

    Reply

  4. Dan
    Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:17:02

    I read the medical science literature years ago. VBs do occur in nature. Theoretical physicist Frank Tipler has been causing trouble with his book Physics of Christianity. In it gives a scientific argument for the VB. According to his research, one in three hundred humans may have been virigin born. Nevertheless, the VB of Jesus cannot be proved any more life originated from a single primordial cell. Science makes the VB a reasonable belief.

    Reply

  5. Ed Darrell
    Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:46:05

    energy must come from somewhere.

    Energy and matter are convertible — E=mc². A lot of energy can be converted into a tiny bit of matter, and vice versa.

    Who says energy must come from somewhere? Who says there wasn’t a “where” before Big Bang? Do you understand the theory, really? Maybe you should start here and read for while: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

    Have you read Hawking’s explanations?

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Sep 08, 2011 @ 22:06:30

      If life began at the big bang, what caused the bang to begin? Perhaps you are right. Maybe energy doesn’t need to come from somewhere, though I don’t understand how it could ever change form without movement.

      Reply

      • Ed Darrell
        Sep 09, 2011 @ 07:38:32

        No one claims life began at Big Bang. That’s silly.

      • Spooni
        Sep 09, 2011 @ 08:57:19

        @ Ed: Oh really? It’s common knowledge that evolutionists believe life began at the big bang, or one of the myriad similar nebulous theories about the origin of life.

        Here’s a video clip.

        In it the host claims “we know early life began from the exploding stars” (of the big bang, or a similar catastrophic chain of events.)

      • Ed Darrell
        Sep 09, 2011 @ 14:18:13

        Life comes from materials from exploding stars — which would by necessity be a long time after Big Bang (“long time” in human terms) — no one with at least half a brain argues life started at Big Bang. It was too hot for atoms to exist then, let alone life from complex molecules.

        We are carbon-based life forms. Almost all life on Earth is carbon based (I can’t think of a contrary example off the top of my head). Carbon is formed in the hearts of stars shortly before they go nova.

        So, it would be impossible for carbon based life forms to have begun at Big Bang, before there was any matter at all, before there was even hydrogen, before stars formed, before any starts went nova, before carbon existed.

        However, if that video is saying that life consists of materials formed in stars, it is correct in that statement.

        But I repeat, no one who knows beans about it claims that life started at Big Bang.

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 16:06:38

        It’s common knowledge that evolutionists believe life began at the big bang, or one of the myriad similar nebulous theories about the origin of life..

        Common knowledge? That’s a bizarre and totally false claim. At Big Bang, temperatures were too hot for matter to exist, let alone life. See NASA’s explanation: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

        You could hit a library and look it up, really.

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 20:17:25

        Again, Ed… you are doing a great job punching holes in arguments I have not made.

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 24, 2012 @ 00:18:34

        Again, Ed… you are doing a great job punching holes in arguments I have not made.

        Actually, I was responding to Spoon, who said what I quoted in the earlier post (on a break, not noticing that I’d already said the same thing earlier, at a bit more length).

        But now that you mention it, you did say:

        If life began at the big bang, what caused the bang to begin?

        Just sayin’.

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 24, 2012 @ 11:34:28

        “If life began at the big bang, what caused the bang to begin?” This is a musing, which is many atmospheres removed from an assertion.

        Just sayin.

  6. Gabriel Hanna
    Sep 08, 2011 @ 23:29:59

    1.) Thermodynamics is scientifically sound.
    2.) The Big Bang is scientifically sound.

    However, #1 and #2 seem incompatible, since energy must come from somewhere.

    But they’re not incompatible and energy DOESN’T have to come from “somewhere”. The Second Law, or ANY of the laws of thermodynamics, doesn’t care where energy comes from, says not one word about where it comes from, and it doesn’t conflict with evolution or the Big Bang. It’s the same creationist tripe creationists been peddling for at least fifty years now.

    See, your argument seems plausible to you because you only have a Classic Comics notion of what energy, the Second Law, and the Big Bang are. There isn’t time to educate you in a comment to a blog.

    An analogy: what goes up must come down, that’s the law of gravity. If that were true rockets and balloons would be impossible. They must be incompatible. TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.

    I can address the energy point only, succinctly. The laws of energy conservation are mathematically the same as saying that the laws of physics never change. This means that IF the laws of physics do not change, the total energy in the universe MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN THE SAME. The energy CAN’T POSSIBLY have come from somewhere, because it must ALWAYS have been there.

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Sep 08, 2011 @ 23:36:17

      You are right. I thought that energy needed movement in order to change form. Obviously it can change form without movement.

      Reply

    • Louis
      Sep 11, 2011 @ 18:37:07

      I’m not a physicist. Not even educated in science. Yet I can think. If I recall, energy can’t be created or destroyed. It simply manifests itself in other forms, or, in formlessness. Take the energy of thought. I have a thought, and then another. What has happened to the energy of the thought for which I am no longer thinking? It still exists, but in another form. If I’m thinking of the subject of the thought I stopped thinking about, it has no effect on the energy of the thought, indeed the thoughts that have passsed. And that energy will always exist.

      Reply

  7. Spooni
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 09:22:17

    @ Gabriel:

    Your rather disparaging tone seems to imply that massive amount of energy existing eternally is incompatible with the theory that a massive, eternal intelligence may be the source of that energy.

    Reply

  8. Gabriel Hanna
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 10:32:25

    @Spooni: So you say I shouldn’t assume an eternally existing energy–I first have to assume an massive and intelligent “energy source”.

    But I say you have to explain now where your massive and intelligent energy source came from. If you get to assume that without explaining it, then it’s not fair for you to say I can’t assume the energy without explaining it.

    But none of that matters. Energy doesn’t need a “source”, not according to physics anyway.

    Reply

  9. Gabriel Hanna
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 10:44:55

    I suppose I do sound disparaging. And I suppose I mean to. When you spend your life studying something it is hard to hear people who haven’t making solemn and erroneous pronouncements on it.

    The confusion is coming from this. The reason you think energy must have a “source” is because in your daily life you deal with open systems. Without food, air, water, and energy provided ultimately by the sun you die. Without plugging it into the wall you vaccuum cleaner doesn’t work. Etc.

    But think of a nearly closed system: your vaccuum cleaner plus the power grid it is plugged into. The energy in that system is nearly constant. The energy that was in falling water, or uranium, or coal or whatever is changed to heat and electric potential energy which is then used by your vaccuum cleaner, ultimately ending up as heat–but adding up all those energies you would find that the total has hardly changed, energy has just moved from type to another.

    The Universe, by definition, is NOT an open system. The total energy in the universe is constant, provided the laws of physics do not change–and we can say to one part in a billion that they don’t.

    Reply

  10. Spooni
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 12:45:39

    You’re the only one on this thread who has spent their life studying these issues? What an assumption!

    All your statements about matter and energy are facts. But they are totally compatible with a studied intelligent design proponent’s view of the world. From where I stand, your statements about energy not needing a source are irrelevant. It’s entirely feasible that there IS a source. It’s just that some people are not comfortable with the implications of that. You may scoff at those who advocate a source, but don’t make that silly old argument that we’re less educated than you. Do you have any idea how many heavyweight scientists there are out there who have AGONIZED over this issue? Who have concluded that there is a source for all that energy, and braved the scoffing of their narrow minded peers in the field? If you’ve done honest research, you should have more tolerance for this fascinating and (to me) exciting possibility.

    If this concept feels oppressive to you, you are probably just someone who has gotten tweaked at “religious” people in the past, and probably with good reason. But that’s another issue, and it’s dangerous to let that bias pollute your investigation. For me, the debate is far from over, and it should not get nasty. It’s a fun and enriching experience…if you keep an open mind.

    Reply

  11. Ed Darrell
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 14:20:13

    Big Bang is not incompatible with a concept of intelligent design. However, there is not a shred of evidence for intelligent design. Natural phenomena suffice to explain what we see.

    Reply

  12. Spooni
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 14:42:40

    Absolutely. I should clarify my position here:

    I am not trying to prove intelligent design on this forum. I just have to stand up against claims that many proponents of it are uninformed nitwits.

    I am arguing for respectful debate. I do believe in intelligent design (obviously) but at least I admit that what I’m touting is a THEORY. My whole goal is to get others to accept that their arguments are also based on theory, and that our grasp of actual KNOWN scientific fact is just as comprehensive as those who believe in evolutionary theory. We intelligent designers who have done our research don’t ignore scientific facts like ostriches with their heads in the sand. THAT’S the true myth here.

    Reply

  13. arthuriandaily
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 14:43:14

    So, Ed, That still doesn’t answer the question which I asked way up at the top of this scroll: Have tests been conducted confirming that an organism can survive, breed, and thrive (in a barren climate) without any other life form except itself?

    Reply

  14. Spooni
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 14:44:17

    …and I still have questions. I’m not pushing my beliefs on anybody. I continue to investigate the origins of life, and probably will my whole life.

    Reply

  15. Gabriel Hanna
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 15:30:37

    Have tests been conducted confirming that an organism can survive, breed, and thrive (in a barren climate) without any other life form except itself?

    Why would there need to be? The very “first life” form would have been barely distinguishable from non-living matter. Even a simple bacterium would be millions of generations removed from the very first “life form” and such a test would be invalid.

    At this point, cue the hair-splitting games over how life is “defined”. The non-living precursors of life would have been chemicals capable of self-replication. And so the criterion suggested here would make absolutely no sense when applied to them.

    Reply

  16. Spooni
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 16:59:05

    @ Gabe

    If you consider defining what constitutes life-and when it begins-to be splitting hairs, you’re probably in the wrong debate! I’d consider that crucial here. LMFAO.

    Reply

  17. Gabriel Hanna
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 19:12:59

    If you consider defining what constitutes life-and when it begins-to be splitting hairs, you’re probably in the wrong debate!

    Life began as it did regardless of our definitions. However “life” is defined, it had precursors that by definition were non-living. The line between “life” and “nonlife” is as arbitrary as that between “bald” or “not bald”, or how many grains of sand define a heap. Discussion of the test suggested by arthurian is only going to end up in what I accurately called “hair-splitting”–any “organism”, however defined, capable of meeting arthurian’s test would be defined as “not-alive” by creationists.

    I know this because this is how creationists handle transitional fossils.

    We can see in the world now a spectrum from plasmids to viruses up to simple bacteria. Bacteria everyone agrees are alive, plasmids we can all agree are not, but viruses are a harder case to judge. Some seem more “alive” than others, and which ones do depend on your definition. But viruses carry on doing whatever they do regardless of whether we define them to be “alive” or not.

    what I’m touting is a THEORY. My whole goal is to get others to accept that their arguments are also based on theory, and that our grasp of actual KNOWN scientific fact is just as comprehensive

    If you talk like this, your acquantiance with science is pretty slim. Gravity, for example, is a theory as well as a fact. In science there is no hierarchy in which “theories” are promoted to “facts”. A scientific theory is a framework that explains and predicts a great many facts.

    What you are doing is speculation, you call that a “theory” because you are not very familiar with science.

    The origin of life is not known to today’s science. But today’s scientists are invoking chemistry and physics, supported by experimental evidence, to propose possible explanations. What they are not doing is invoking an unknown intelligence, of unknown abilities and motivations, whose work is never observed, to “explain” the origin of life.

    Reply

    • Louis
      Sep 11, 2011 @ 19:06:53

      Gabriel, your refutation of “two sources” confuses me. I believe the creationist would say that God created all matter, life included. Whether it be composed of DNA or another source. Whether it be here or “there”. Additionally, some evolutionist are athiests, some aren’t.

      As regards the mal-functioning car analogy, there are still only two possiblities. Two positions hold that there is a mechanical cause (origin) responsible for the car troubles and resolution, two others hold that the problem is super-natural and has a super-natural solution.

      Still, only two.

      Reply

  18. Spooni
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 21:43:07

    “Sigh.” Thanks for throwing out about six red herrings again. Yes, gravity is both a theory and a fact…an observable fact. Whereas the issue at hand was never observed, and we all interpret the signs left behind by the event of the universe coming into being slightly differently. Now let me patronize you with some more first grade level intro to science: A theory is considered a theory in science until there is a unified view among all scientists on the matter. Gravity WAS a theory, and is now referred to as “the LAW of gravity.”

    The origin of the universe isn’t one of these theory/fact cases at all. No one was there, no one observed it, no one can speak with true authority about it. It will not become a law until it can be observed. So get to work on that time machine, buddy, or recreate it in a lab.

    “How creationists handle transitional fossils” Haha, like you mean asking WHERE ARE THEY? Like demanding more compelling proof than what is offered? You don’t believe an informed scientist can look at the “evidence” and conclude that it isn’t satisfying? You wanna give me the same old pathetic song and dance about “the changes being so gradual over time that you can’t see them except in the case of these?” You wanna give me a lesson in punctuated equilibrium and vestigial organs in whales and chickens being flightless birds? I happen to be aware of pretty much all the “evidence” on your side of this, and have yet to be swayed. You seem to think that this isn’t possible. You seem to think that I can’t possibly hold much knowledge about the issue and still hold my view.

    Reply

  19. charliezero1.wordpress.com
    Sep 09, 2011 @ 22:55:06

    WOW!

    You sir, remind me of how I write but in a different perspective.
    I believe you’ve conducted your evidence well.

    I do believe that creationists couldn’t keep up with their own contradictory transitional form. If I we’re a fossil – I’d put my knowledge into figuring out how the hell we we’re all created? and why is god always being talked about involving creationism and evolution?

    Thank you for stopping by my page and leaving me a link to your blog post.
    Say, can you do me a favor? Stop by my page because theres some discussions happening on my blog post. Feel free to join in.

    I will join in on your discussions as well.
    I’m charlie Zero by the way…Nice to meet you.

    charliezero1.wordpress.com

    Spread my link to your friends please. and I will do the same with yours. if you want.

    Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

    ~Charlie Z

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Sep 09, 2011 @ 23:28:15

      Single source origin of life.

      The two prevailing theories both agree on this. The most discernible difference is how each side feels about the source.

      Reply

      • charliezero1.wordpress.com
        Sep 10, 2011 @ 13:36:41

        Thank you for spreading my link to everyone. Please let every one of your friends know to stop by my wordpress blog. Tell your friends to be a guest and be anonymous.

        Question: What are theories? and why do we need them? It seems as if we don’t know the answers to certain things to we all speculate, or assume different side to things. When really we know the answer to our question but we make it into (THEORIES)?

  20. Gabriel Hanna
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 00:21:02

    @Spooni:Now let me patronize you with some more first grade level intro to science: A theory is considered a theory in science until there is a unified view among all scientists on the matter. Gravity WAS a theory, and is now referred to as “the LAW of gravity.”

    No. A “law” is a simple mathematical relation. Snell’s Law of Refraction, Ohm’s Law, Newton’s Law of Cooling. Every single one of which, by the way, is strictly speaking FALSE. Yet they are still called “laws”.

    “First grade intro” is apt; a first grader would be excused for believing in your characterization, and a first grade teacher MIGHT be excused for teaching it. It’s what I called earlier “Classic Comics” science.

    There is no “promotion” of “theories” to “laws”. Any one who has actually learned any science knows this.

    “Haha, like you mean asking WHERE ARE THEY? “

    The creationist shows its colors, and its ignorance is exposed–you can’t pretend you have any real science education now. There are literally hundreds:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

    Enough to fill this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624

    Reply

  21. Gabriel Hanna
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 11:25:24

    @arthuriandaily:Single source origin of life.

    The two prevailing theories both agree on this. The most discernible difference is how each side feels about the source.

    This is nonsense, for two reasons:

    First, why does there have to be a single source origin of life? It seems reasonable given the evidence now that all the DNA based life on earth has a common origin, but nobody can say what other kinds of life are possible, in other solar systems, or what other kinds might have arose earlier and didn’t last. (An analogy: typewriter keyboards today are almost universally QWERTY, but other kinds are possible and some of them were once on the market.)

    If we find life elsewhere in the universe then it would seem highly improbable that life could have a common origin with Earth life, or that this other life would even be DNA based. It might not even be based on carbon.

    Second: there aren’t two “sides” to this question, not two scientific sides anyway. There aren’t two “prevailing theories”. There is scientifically informed speculation of many varieties; deep sea vents, crystals and clays, “primordial soup”, etc. And there are religious people telling us stories about mysterious designers who they can’t name, whose abilities and intentions they can’t describe, and they cannot show any mechanism by which this designer acted nor any proof that such a designer has ever acted. Some of these religious people insist the earth is only 6000 years old, and others disagree. But there are many more than two “sides”.

    Another analogy. Your car breaks down. Four mechanics give opinions. Once suggest you are out of gas and says you need to put more in. Another says your car has gas but the fuel line broke. A third says that your car has been cursed by an evil spirit and it must be propitiated with incense and a dance. The fourth agrees about the curse but says that the incense and the dance is superstition, simple prayer will work.

    They all agree that something is wrong with your car. There are almost certainly many possible explanations, grounded in science, for why your car failed–but two of the four mechanics are not doing science at all.

    Reply

  22. Ed Darrell
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 11:45:15

    Darwin didn’t postulate a single source origin, nor is one necessary. Seriously: Study Darwin some time, will you?

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Sep 10, 2011 @ 12:04:30

      Ed: You are right. Darwin didn’t actually come out and say it, that is true.

      Intelligent Design proponents do not claim they are talking about God, either.

      Either way, you just can’t get here without going there.

      Reply

  23. Spooni
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 11:45:21

    @Gabe: you seriously need to go back to school. Leave your pomposity at the door this time. List of Creationist Scientists “on the other side”:

    1) Dr. Raymond Damadian – inventor of MRI device

    2) Dr. Raymond Jones – CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
    consumption

    3) Dr. Keith Wanser – 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
    (Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)

    4) Dr. Russell Humphreys – successful planetary magnetic predictions
    (nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )

    5) Dr. Kurt Wise – Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard

    6) Jules H. Poirier – designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
    Landing Module

    7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa – discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo

    8) Dr. Saami Shaibani – “International Expert” by the US Depts of Labor and
    Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
    physics professor and researcher)

    1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III – five-time Nobel nominee
    (professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)

    2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris – $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
    scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
    Luke�s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
    Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.

    Others:

    Dr. Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
    Dr. David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
    Dr. Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Ruminant Nutrition
    Dr. Theodore P. Aufdemberge, Ph.D. Physical Geography,
    Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. Physics
    Dr. George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
    Dr. Wayne F. Frair, Ph.D. Serology
    Dr. John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology
    Dr. Robert Goette, Ph.D. Chemistry
    Dr. Lane Lester — Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University
    Dr. Andrew Snelling — Ph.D. in geology, U. of Sydney
    Dr. Don Batten, consultant plant physiologist
    Dr. Gary Parker, Ed.D. in Biology/Geology, Ball State University
    Dr. John Baumgardner, Los Alamos Laboratories
    Dr. Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Physics, Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana
    Dr. Eric Norman, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Texas A&M University
    Dr. Clifford A. Wilson – Archaeologist, Author of “Crash go the Chariots”
    Michael Oard, MS, Atmospheric Science, U. of Washington, meteorologist
    Keyoshi Takahashi, Ph.D., Botany – has had research published in Nature.
    Dr. Andy McIntosh, Reader in Combustion Theory at Leeds U., U.K.

    Dr. George Marshall, Ph.D., Ophthalmic Science, U of Glasgow, Scotland
    chartered biologist, member of the Institute of Biology
    Dr. Danny Faulkner — Ph.D. Astronomy, Indiana University, Associate
    Professor, U. of South Carolina, Lancaster
    Dr. David Menton, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University
    School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
    Prof. Maciej Giertych, Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), head of the Genetics
    Dept. of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Dendrology, Kornik,
    Poland.
    Dr. James Allan, M.Sc.Agric., PhD., retired senior lecturer in the Dept. of
    Genetics, Univ. of Stellenbosch, South Africa
    Dr. Andre Eggen, Ph.D. in animal genetics from the Federal Institute of
    Technology in Switzerland, research scientist for the French government
    Dr. Brian Stone, Ph.D., Head of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
    U. of Western Australia
    Dr. Donald Chittick, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, Oregon State U.,
    Associate Professor of Chemistry , U. of Puget Sound
    Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti, Ph.D., geneticist and microbiologist, has served as
    Professor of Genetics at U. of Palermo & U. of Perugia
    Dr. Andre Eggen, Institute Nationale de la Agrinomique of France, working
    on genetic defect in cows known as the Bulldog gene defect.
    Dave Phillips, M.S., physical anthropology, California State U., working on
    Ph.D. in paleontology
    Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. — Ph.D. in Chemistry from Victoria
    univeristy of Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand chess champion.

    Dr. Jack Cuozzo, orthodontist (DDS, University of Pennsylvania and MS in
    Oral Biology, Loyola University of Chicago) and an original researcher of
    Neanderthals, is the author of Buried Alive. This book sets forth the
    thesis that human craniofacial structures continue to change with aging and
    that Neanderthals were humans who lived to be hundreds of years old
    (post-flood). If anything, humans are devolving.

    Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, physiologist for the human engine of the Gossamer
    Condor and Gossamer Albatross man-powered flight projects (reported in the
    National Geographic), received his doctorate from the University of Iowa.
    Dr. Mastropaolo does not believe evolution qualifies as science.

    Dr. Robert A. Herrmann — Professor of Mathematics, U. S. Naval Academy
    http://mathweb.mathsci.usna.edu/faculty/herrmannra/
    http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html

    Dr. Ian Macreadie — molecular biology and microbiology researcher,
    Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of
    Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
    (CSIRO)

    Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D., FRCP, DTMH, world authority on sickle-cell
    disease, 25 years’ experience as physician, clinical geneticist and
    consultant in Ghana and subsequently in London. Visiting professor at
    Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, and honorary
    consultant to its Centre for Sickle Cell Disease. Author of 643-page
    monograph “The Sickle Cell Disease Patient”, Macmillan, 1991.

    Dr. AwSwee-Eng, Ph.D., former Associate Professor of Biochemistry, Univ. of
    Singapore, head of Dept. of Nuclear Medicine & Director of Clinical
    Research , Singapore General Hospital, Author of about 30 technical papers
    in biochemistry and nuclear medicine.

    John K. Reed � Principal Engineer, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
    (1999-present) � degrees – B.S. geology (Furman Univ.), M.S. geology (Univ.
    of Georgia), Ph.D. geology (Univ. of South Carolina) � other qualifications
    – Senior Production Geologist (Sun Exploration and Production Co., Houston,
    1982-1988); Research Asst. Prof. (Earth Sciences and Resources Institute,
    Univ. of South Carolina, 1988-1991); Exploration Manager (PetraTex, Dallas,
    1991-1992) Partner (Strata Consulting Services, Dallas, 1992); Sr.
    Scientist (Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1992-1999); ten articles in
    CRS Quarterly; 14 articles in secular scientific journals, Associate Editor
    for Geology for CRS Quarterly.

    From the past:

    Kepler — Laws of planetary motion.
    Francis Bacon — contributed to formalization of scientific method
    Linnaeus — classification
    John Ray — Founder of biological science
    Robert Boyle — Founder of modern chemistry
    Sir Isaac Newton — gravity, optics, calculus
    Blaise Pascal — mathematics, calculating machine, air pressure
    Charles Babbage — invented “difference engine,” designed computer
    Gregor Mendel — first studies of heredity
    James Joule — physics, inc. beginning of thermodynamics
    William Thomson, Lord Kelvin — Physics
    Michael Faraday — Physics
    John Dalton — chemistry
    Louis Pasteur — immunization, disproof of spontaneous generation
    Sir John Herschel — mathematician and astronomer, called the theory “the
    law of higgledy-pigglety”
    James Clerk Maxwell — physicist, developed theory of electromagnetism
    Adam Sedgwick — geologist
    Andrew Murray — entomologist
    Richard Owen — coined the term “dinosaur”
    Louis Agassiz, founder of modern glacial geology
    Werner von Braun — Leader of early US space program (Creation 16(2))
    James Irwin — astronaut, walked on the moon
    A.E. Wilder-Smith (deceased)- 3 earned doctorates, master of seven
    languages, UN advisor

    More on Humphreys (taken from “Starlight and Time” p4 ‘About the Author’):
    2 US patents;
    Co-inventor of laser-triggered “Rimfire” high-voltage switches;
    Winner of one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 award;s
    Winner of 2 awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for
    contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

    More on Raymond Jones:
    Urrbrae Award in recognition of practical significance of his work for the
    grazing industry. Described by CSIRO chief as “one of the top few CSIRO
    scientists in Australia”. Source: Creation Mag 21#1 p20ff

    John Baumgardner’s 3-D supercomputer model of plate tectonic model, reported
    in New Scientist 16/1/93 p19.

    Len Cram Ph.D. discovered way to ‘grow’ opals in a matter of months
    (Creation Mag. 17#1 pp14-17). CSIRO scientists “can’t distinguish Len’s opal
    from natural opal even under an electron microscope – they look identical!”.
    The motivation for his research was “to find out how opals form so as to
    discredit uniformitarian (slow and gradual) geological theories.”

    Dr David Pennington, plastic surgeon. The first to have successfully
    reattached a human ear. Creation Mag. 22#3 pp17-19.

    Eric Norman, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Director of Norman Clinical Laboratory,
    Inc. Pioneer researcher in Vit B12. (Creation Mag. 17#3 p28)

    Forrest Mims, inventor of atmospheric haze sensor (Scientific American May97
    p80)

    Angela Meyer, Ph.D., Horticultural Science. Awarded New Zealand Science &
    Technology bronze medal for excellence in Kiwi fruit research & service to
    science, 1994. Source: “In Six Days” p130

    John Mann, awarded M.B.E. for scientific work on controlling the spread of
    the prickly pear cactus in Australia. State representative on the Australian
    Weeds Committee, chairman of the Noxious Weeds Committe, member of the
    Interdepartmental Committee for Woody Plant Control. Source: AiG

    Ian Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular biologist. Winner of Australian Society for
    Microbiology’s top award for outstanding contributions to research, 1995.
    (Creation Mag. 21#2 p17)

    Lammerts, Walter, 1904-1996. Ph.D. genetics. Winner of 12 All-American rose
    selection awards. (CRSQ33#2 p79)

    John K G. Kramer, Ph.D., biochemistry, has identified, characterised and
    synthesised the structure of numerous food, bacterial and biological
    components. He was one of the core scientists who evaluated the
    toxicological, nutritional and biochemical properties of canola oil and
    demonstrated its safety. Associate Editor of the journal LIPIDS. Source:
    “In Six Days” p34.

    Dr. Koop, C. Everett. Surgeon General of the United States. Awarded the Ladd
    Medal by the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Dennis Brown Gold Medal
    by the British Association of Pediatric Surgeons. Source: “Scientists Who
    Believe”, ed. by Barrett & Fisher, Moody Press, 1984. pp153, 158.
    [The following quote is taken from a CRSnet posting 28/12/99 by Paul Humber:
    “C. Everett Koop, while Surgeon General of the United States, said (in a
    private letter to me) that he thought evolution was impossible on the basis
    of mathematics alone.”]

    Konotey-Ahulu, Felix. M.D. FRCP, DTMH. Clinical geneticist & consultant
    physician. World authority on sickle-cell anaemia. Author of “The Sickle
    Cell Disease Patient” Macmillan, 1991, 643pp. (Creation Mag. 16:2 p40)

    Terry Hamblin, MB, ChB, DM, FRCP, FRCPath. Professor at Southampton
    University. Described in Radio Times as “one of Britain’s leading leukaemia
    specialists”. (Radio Times entry 8 April 98 about programme ‘Counterblast’)

    John Grebe, 1900-1984. D.Sc. Case Inst. of Technology. “In 1943 he was the
    youngest man ever to receive the Chemical Industry Medal for his outstanding
    contributions.” (CRSQ 21#4 p199)

    Charles W. Harrison, Jr. Ph.D. Former Faculty member at Harvard & Princeton,
    followed by 16 years research in electromagnetics at Sandia National
    Laboratories. Co-author of ‘Antennas and Waves: A Modern Approach.’ MIT
    Press, 1969. Source: “Creation: Acts, Facts, Impacts”. Edited by Morris,
    Gish & Hillestad. Creation-Life Publishers, 1974. p178.

    Fliermans, Carl B. PhD Microbial Ecologist, Dupont Company. “In the mid 80′
    s, Dr. Fliermans led a research team of scientists in a U.S. Department of
    Energy program called ‘The Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface’, where
    microbiologists looked for microbial life hundreds and thousands of feet
    below the earth’s surface. Thousands of microorganisms previously unknown to
    the scientific world were discovered. Dr. Fliermans cochaired and coedited
    the First International Symposium on Subsurface Microbiology and received an
    ‘Outstanding Leadership in Science’ award (only four in the nation had been
    given) from the U.S. Department of Energy for his work.” Sources:
    Acts&Facts 10#1 p3 and A&F ICR Faculty Profile.

    Malcolm Cutchins, Ph.D. Prof of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn. Twice winner
    of Auburn’s Outstanding Faculty Award. Recognized by the journal ‘Industrial
    Research’ for “developing one of the 100 most significant new technical
    products of 1973.” Source: Impact86.

    Stuart Burgess, Ph.D. Lecturer in Engineering Design at Bristol U.
    Recipient of Worshipful Company of Turners Engineering Design Gold Medal.
    Source: ‘Hallmarks of Design’ by Stuart Burgess, DayOne publications, 2000.

    Ker C. Thomson, D.Sc., Geophysics. Former Director of Terrestrial Sciences
    Division, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, in charge of Air Force research
    programs in seismology, geodesy, gravity and geology. Sources: Act&Facts.

    W R. Thompson (deceased), FRS. Professor, Director, Commonwealth Inst. of
    Biological Control, Ottawa. Listed in Who’s Who.

    Dr. Ben Aaron, Prof & Chief of cardio-thoracic surgery at George Washington
    U. Medical Centre, Washington D.C. Operated on President Reagan after he was
    shot by assisin. Sources: Impact86; ‘Operation Raw Hide’ by Paul Thomsen,
    ICR.

    Reply

  24. Spooni
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 11:49:12

    …and these are just a few.

    Reply

  25. Spooni
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 11:51:14

    Gabe, you say: “Second: there aren’t two “sides” to this question, not two scientific sides anyway. There aren’t two “prevailing theories”. There is scientifically informed speculation of many varieties; deep sea vents, crystals and clays, “primordial soup”, etc. And there are religious people telling us stories about mysterious designers who they can’t name, whose abilities and intentions they can’t describe, and they cannot show any mechanism by which this designer acted nor any proof that such a designer has ever acted. Some of these religious people insist the earth is only 6000 years old, and others disagree. But there are many more than two “sides”.

    Another analogy. Your car breaks down. Four mechanics give opinions. Once suggest you are out of gas and says you need to put more in. Another says your car has gas but the fuel line broke. A third says that your car has been cursed by an evil spirit and it must be propitiated with incense and a dance. The fourth agrees about the curse but says that the incense and the dance is superstition, simple prayer will work.”

    Wow. Your prejudice is staggering.

    Reply

  26. Ed Darrell
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 12:31:53

    Spooni said:

    I am arguing for respectful debate. I do believe in intelligent design (obviously) but at least I admit that what I’m touting is a THEORY.

    Be respectful, then, if you claim to argue for respectful debate.

    Intelligent design is not a theory — it’s a hypothesis, and it’s a hypothesis with less support than the hypothesis of cold fusion in physics.

    Theory is an overarching framework that allows us to explain why things are as we observe them to be, and which allows us to predict things we have not yet observed. Theory is superior to scientific “laws,” of often incorporates laws while explaining them at the same time. If you wish to make a case that scientists and scientifically-literate people will grant credence to, you’d do well to use the language the scientists use. In that NAS book on creationism and why creationism is not science, we find these definitions of what science and theory are.

    Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

    It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words “theory” and “fact.”

    In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

    The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

    Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

    One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the Moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik (see page 2) predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

    In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

    Spooni wrote:

    My whole goal is to get others to accept that their arguments are also based on theory, and that our grasp of actual KNOWN scientific fact is just as comprehensive as those who believe in evolutionary theory. We intelligent designers who have done our research don’t ignore scientific facts like ostriches with their heads in the sand. THAT’S the true myth here.

    It appears to me that, contrary to your assertion, you don’t have a grasp on evolution theory, on what science is, on what theory is, or how and why creationism have been falsified and why intelligent design creationism is considered just another branch of religious dogma by science and the courts.

    There is a tiny handful of papers published in science journals about intelligent design. None of those papers offers any serious criticism of Darwin’s theories, none of them advances any alternative to Darwin’s theories. none of them offers a perspective on evolution based on observation in the wild or experiment in the lab. In short, there’s no science in intelligent design.

    There is no such thing as an intelligent design advocate “who have done our research and don’t ignore scientific facts like ostriches with their heads in the sand.” If you’d pull your head out of . . . the sand for a few minutes, you’d see.

    Reply

  27. Ed Darrell
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 13:09:05

    List of Creationist Scientists “on the other side”

    A list of scientists who have deluded themselves. Not one of them has published a serious, researched criticism of Darwinian theory, nor even a critique of a small part of evolution theory. None of them has offered an alternative theory, and especially none has offered a hypothesis of intelligent design.

    So, you have a petition. Big whoop. There are more serious scientists named “Steve” who support evolution. If the debate were to be decided on votes, you’d be outvoted by less than 1% of all scientists.

    Worse, you claim adherents to creationism who are not, and could not be — since creationism did not exist as a hypothesis, either untested or failed, in their lifetimes:

    Kepler — Laws of planetary motion.
    Francis Bacon — contributed to formalization of scientific method

    Not only long dead, but whose definition of science Darwin used in the frontispiece to Origin of Species — it is likely Bacon would have sided with Darwin simply for Darwin’s having advanced Bacon’s prescribed methodologies so far and so well.

    Linnaeus — classification

    No indication he’d have any qualms about Darwin’s theories. His work was a clear refutation of the old claims of special origin of each species.

    John Ray — Founder of biological science
    Robert Boyle — Founder of modern chemistry

    Neither ever spoke against evolution, nor in favor of creationism. Sort of like the Mormons baptizing the dead, your including these guys in this list is against their wishes expressed in their lifetimes.

    Sir Isaac Newton — gravity, optics, calculus

    Ah, here you fall victim to the Newton fallacy: Assuming that Newton endorsed ideas not expressed in his lifetime, because the newer knowledge also was not expressed in his lifetime. Newton was dead decades before Darwin was even born. The old alchemist — you’d be better positioned to claim he opposed the periodic table of the elements — explicitly did not endorse the religious theory of creationism. Including Newton in the list is just dishonest.

    And, that shows the moral problem of creationism: Creationism forces creationists to act contrary to Biblical principles, and rules of good citizenship. It’s impossible to argue for creationism for more than ten minutes without making some appeal to falsehood (that’s polite language for “lying”).

    On moral superiority, then, moral people would choose evolution theory.

    Blaise Pascal — mathematics, calculating machine, air pressure
    Charles Babbage — invented “difference engine,” designed computer
    Gregor Mendel — first studies of heredity
    James Joule — physics, inc. beginning of thermodynamics
    William Thomson, Lord Kelvin — Physics

    Lord Kelvin opposed evolution because, he said, the Sun and Earth are not old enough for evolution — the earth being, in Lord Kelvin’s calculations, about 200 million years old, and the Sun considerably older. Of course, Lord Kelvin based his calculations on his understanding that that Sun is made of molten iron, and so was the Earth, and Thomson measured the temperature of the Earth assuming that temperature was achieved by cooling from white hot iron temperatures. Rutherford discovered that the Earth is, instead, heated internally by radioactive decay. Rutherford understood that this vindicated Darwin and refuted Lord Kelvin — but didn’t think much of it until Lord Kelvin showed up to Rutherford’s lecture explaining his discovery. Rutherford wrote later than Thomson got more an more agitated until, late in the lecture, he noted that while his work would make Thomson appear to be in error, one had to cut slack because Thomson’s earlier calculations could not possibly have considered radioactivity.

    There is not an iota of evidence that Lord Kelvin ever opposed evolution. He did not support creationism, and his sole complaint about Darwin’s work was that there was not enough time in the Earth’s history for diversity of life as we have it now — a complaint completely dashed by Rutherford’s work.

    Another case of dishonesty in creationism.

    Michael Faraday — Physics
    John Dalton — chemistry
    Louis Pasteur — immunization, disproof of spontaneous generation

    Not so quick. Pasteur opposed Darwin because Darwin stole his thunder. Pasteur’s lab was proposed to be abolished, but Darwin wrote that Pasteur’s work was too important for the world — and France’s government continued the lab on Darwin’s argument. Pasteur, the schmuck, failed to even thank Darwin.

    It’s not fair nor accurate to include Pasteur as a creationist — he was not. But it’s telling that creationism would claim an ingrate.

    Sir John Herschel — mathematician and astronomer, called the theory “the law of higgledy-pigglety”

    . . . but never published any scientific criticism of the theory. His opposition was purely religious in nature, if not in content.

    James Clerk Maxwell — physicist, developed theory of electromagnetism
    Adam Sedgwick — geologist

    Sedgwick is a special case. Sedgwick’s work falsified flood geology, the claim that great geologic formations of the Earth were the result of Noah’s flood. Darwin spent two summers working geology with Sedgwick, and Sedgwick recommended Darwin as the naturalist/companion for the Beagle voyage. Sedgwick’s work was catalogued by Lyell, and they were regarded as apostate by early creationists. They did not endorse young earth ideas in any fashion.

    But, similar to Ernst Mach’s refusal to “believe” in atoms, neither man could make the turn from belief in God’s hand creating life in present forms, to evolution. Both men remained friendly with Darwin, and neither of them could ever present a scientific defense of creationism.

    So, neither one acted to defend creationism in the face of Darwin’s evidence.

    I think it’s unfair to the scientific work of Sedgwick to include him as a creationist, when his work upset the foundations of creationism.

    Andrew Murray — entomologist
    Richard Owen — coined the term “dinosaur”
    Louis Agassiz, founder of modern glacial geology

    Another questionable inclusion. Agassiz’s work further confirmed the death of flood geology — he discovered it was glaciers that deposited moraines across Europe, and America, and not a flood.

    Biology was out of Agassiz’s area, and league. He did not make the turn into defending evolution, but neither did he ever defend creationism as a scientific claim.

    I think it’s a distortion of history to claim Agassiz as a creationist, when his work put the nails in the coffin of Biblical-based geology.

    Werner von Braun — Leader of early US space program (Creation 16(2))

    Got any evidence the ex-Nazi actually believed in creationism? His space program did not use any creationism anywhere. I think this is a bogus claim.

    James Irwin — astronaut, walked on the moon

    Irwin was never a Scout, either — so I guess you could say he was not bound by any oath to tell the truth.

    Irwin also has never published any research that calls any aspect of evolution into question, nor which supports any aspect of creationism including intelligent design.

    What a crappy list.

    Compare it to the list of Steves who support evolution (more than 1,000, including several Nobel winners).

    And of the list of creationist scientists, how many have published research calling evolution into question? Zero.

    There is not a case for intelligent design nor any other form of creationism.

    Reply

  28. Ed Darrell
    Sep 10, 2011 @ 13:28:38

    Ed: You are right. Darwin didn’t actually come out and say it, that is true.

    Intelligent Design proponents do not claim they are talking about God, either.

    Either way, you just can’t get here without going there.

    But Darwin didn’t wink at the idea, either. It wasn’t because Darwin didn’t want to say it in court — he didn’t postulate what you claim he postulated.

    For example, read the last paragraph of On the Origin of Species (or as in this case, back up one more paragraph, to note another place Darwin explicitly did not say “one ancestor”)(emphasis added):

    Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

    It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

    Read what Darwin wrote. Stick to the facts, in science, and religion, and politics.

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Sep 10, 2011 @ 18:24:15

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Part of a series on
      Evolutionary Biology

      The statement “evolution is both a theory and a fact” is often seen in biological literature.Evolution is a “theory” in the scientific sense of the term “theory”; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences. Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena.

      When scientists say “evolution is a fact”, they are using one of two meanings of the word “fact”. One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
      Another way “fact” is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms.

      “When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.” -Charles Darwin

      Well, that ruins my theory about how each ‘side’ feels about the source of origin.

      I am hereby forced to admit I was wrong: ‘Ennobling’ gives similar grandeur to the evolutionary source that creationists give to God.

      These theories are linked more closely than I had originally perceived.

      Reply

      • charliezero1.wordpress.com
        Sep 11, 2011 @ 14:46:11

        In 1859, Darwin’s shattering work, The Origin of Species, came out (“a sell out in one day”); it is now recognized as a leading work in natural philosophy and in the history of mankind. Simply stated, Darwin’s theory is that things, and, in particular, life, evolves by a process which Darwin called “natural selection.”

        “Currently we accept the general idea that biological development can be explained by mutations in combination with natural selection. In its essential parts, therefore, Darwin’s theory of development has been accepted. In Darwin’s time mutations were not known about; their discovery has led to extensive modifications of his theory, but it has also eliminated the most important objections to it. …
        We are beginning to see that the awesome wonder of the evolution from amoeba to man – for it is without a doubt an awesome wonder – was not the result of a mighty word from a creator, but of a combination of small, apparently insignificant processes. The structural change occurring in a molecule within a chromosome, the result of a struggle over food between two animals, the reproduction and feeding of young – such are the simple elements that together, in the course of millions of years, created the great wonder. This is nothing separate from ordinary life. The wonder is in our everyday world, if only we have the ability to see it.”7 (Alfvén’s Atom, Man, and the Universe.)

        =====================================================

        The theory of god is a theory of our minds perception of pure ideas.

        Why do we all need a god? why do we need evolution?

        P.S I replied back to you on my blog post.

  29. Ed Darrell
    Sep 12, 2011 @ 12:30:06

    Have tests been conducted confirming that an organism can survive, breed, and thrive (in a barren climate) without any other life form except itself

    I’m still unsure what you’re looking for here.

    1. Why would anyone run such an experiment? What’s the hypothesis you think would be tested?

    2. How would that hypothesis be tested finding one life form?

    I should probably be droll, and point you to the yeasts that ferment champagne. They do just fine, by themselves in a relatively barren climate, until their wastes kill them off (“their wastes” meaning alcohol).

    Are you familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment and findings?

    Reply

  30. arthuriandaily
    Sep 12, 2011 @ 17:47:06

    All living things are derived from a common ancestor. Without this, Darwinian Evolution would be unable to exist: Single Source Origin.

    You don’t have to believe it, but then you might as well say, “We all came from a bunch of different ancestors a long time ago, and some of us are related.”

    Ed: Once again, you are right. Those yeast exist in a barren climate. Get rid of the alcohol, and they would still thrive, right?

    Reply

  31. roboratzki
    Sep 12, 2011 @ 21:07:38

    There is only one and only source of all this life and that is GOD. No matter what science can proved there will be still flaw on any Theories and Laws.
    There will be a day that The SOURCE, Our God will explain all of this mysteries that Science cannot explain.
    And only Him has an infinite, accurate, precise and complete knowledge of all His Creations…

    Reply

  32. Ed Darrell
    Sep 12, 2011 @ 22:31:42

    All living things are derived from a common ancestor. Without this, Darwinian Evolution would be unable to exist: Single Source Origin.

    Shorthand, yes. Literally, maybe not. Protospheres form spontaneously, but with some chemical variation, even from one individual to the next. If there were, say, five or six different large pools on the planet where these forms got going, they’d all have very much the same basic chemistry with some variations. One mystery is how DNA got involved, — but once it did, the four-chemical version that we know today quickly dominated. There are other possibilities for chemicals that could work in DNA, but we know of no lifeform that differs. So, from the advent of DNA, it’s a pretty good bet that just one form dominated.

    However, that is not to say that there were not other, competing populations at the time. And it is not to say that one life form got started, and then multiplied. More likely it was billions of cells of nearly-identical form, and some varied in reproduciton.

    If yeasts had some way to get rid of the alcohol, say in an open system, they’d do fine.

    Reply

  33. Ed Darrell
    Sep 13, 2011 @ 08:31:13

    There will be a day that The SOURCE, Our God will explain all of this mysteries that Science cannot explain.

    When that occurs, intelligent design will not be the explanation.

    Of course, to a Christian, science is the study of God’s creation — so saying a scientific answer is contrary to God is saying God is contrary to God, or God fibs.

    That’s the ultimate, Christian reason to reject intelligent design and all other forms of creationism. God doesn’t mislead, God doesn’t lie.

    Unlike creationism and creationists.

    Reply

  34. arthuriandaily
    Sep 13, 2011 @ 16:32:28

    So, Ed, are you still going with the ‘many life form’ theory – – wherein we are all related to one of many?

    Reply

  35. Ed Darrell
    Sep 13, 2011 @ 17:49:44

    I stick with Darwin in the concluding paragraph of his book.

    Common ancestry is a hallmark of evolution, but I fear you don’t quite understand what it means or why. Evolution works on populations, not just individuals. When we refer to the common ancestor of modern humans, we don’t mean “Adam.”

    Reply

  36. arthuriandaily
    Sep 13, 2011 @ 21:15:43

    Ed, you said:

    ‘I fear you don’t quite understand what it means or why. Evolution works on populations, not just individuals.’

    Once again, you got me with a zinger. When I mention Single Source Origin, obviously that refers to a process which just works on individuals, not on populations. (That should be obvious by the terminology alone.)

    When I ponder how the original plasma sustained life on a lifeless planet, then survived, thrived, procreated, and managed to propagate all life… Naturally, that too is an individual process, having no consequence or bearing on the population.

    If I could only broaden the scope of how it works, and what it means, perhaps then I could grasp THE BIGGER PICTURE.

    Reply

  37. Ed Darrell
    Sep 13, 2011 @ 21:53:16

    Once again, you got me with a zinger. When I mention Single Source Origin, obviously that refers to a process which just works on individuals, not on populations. (That should be obvious by the terminology alone.)

    Does it? I confess I don’t know what you mean by “Single Source Origin.” There’s nothing much like that in evolution theory. One encounters the phrase rarely in studying evolution nor any part of biology. Part of my wariness is your attempt to lend meaning to a phrase by capitalizing the words, when it has no great meaning, or an entirely different meaning in biology, the science you aim to critique.

    For example, I turned up this brief article in a search of the science journals for the phrase, “single source origin,” and you’ll note it bears little resemblance to what you’re discussing here:

    Single-source origin: the eyes have it
    Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, have answered a long-standing embryological question—Do both vertebrate eyes develop from a single precursor or does each eye develop from a separate structure? “This question arose long ago because some infants are born with a single, Cyclops-like eye,” says Yi Rao, assistant professor of neurobiology. He recently discovered a gene, £T, that produces a protein that activates other genes. The ET protein is concentrated in the eyes of frog embryos. Using ET as a molecular marker, Rao, graduate student Hua-shun Li, and assistant professor of pediatrics and molecular biology Jane Wu were able to locate the eye precursor region of embryos in which eyes had not yet developed. Rao and his colleagues report in the 1 February 1997 Development that £T initially is expressed in a single band. During development, an inhibitory signal shuts off ET in the middle of the band so that over the course of a few hours, the band breaks into two spots. These spots subsequently become eyes. Similar experiments found the same mechanism at work in chick embryos, “Our work shows that the embryo has a single eye field that normally separates into two,” Rao says. “If this fails to happen, cyclopia occurs.” Bioscience, May 1, 1997, p. 328

    When you mention “single source origin,” I don’t think you realize that the phrase probably doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    When I ponder how the original plasma sustained life on a lifeless planet . . .

    Plasma? You mean like blood plasma, or the plasma that lights fluorescent bulbs? You toss words around as if they had some meaning in the discussion, but I don’t think they do.

    Read the Miller-Urey paper — it wasn’t plasma, it was a warm pool of water, probably with waves and maybe tides, ringed with clay-type soils.

    . . . then survived, thrived, procreated, and managed to propagate all life… Naturally, that too is an individual process, having no consequence or bearing on the population.

    Survival is probably easiest in a group. It was a process affecting an entire population.

    Have you ever studied Darwin? I mean, seriously?

    If I could only broaden the scope of how it works, and what it means, perhaps then I could grasp THE BIGGER PICTURE.

    There’s plenty of information out there on the bigger picture. Have you looked?

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Sep 13, 2011 @ 22:14:37

      Once again Ed, you seem to be right. Here is what the page says:

      The explanation:
      Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren’t examples of biological evolution because they don’t involve descent through genetic inheritance.

      The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

      Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

      That does seem like, er, GALAXIES away from my Single Source Origin, description, doesn’t it? As unrelated as pigs and hawks you might say. Unless, of course you would say pigs and hawks are the same thing…

      Reply

  38. Ed Darrell
    Sep 13, 2011 @ 22:44:39

    That does seem like, er, GALAXIES away from my Single Source Origin, description, doesn’t it? As unrelated as pigs and hawks you might say. Unless, of course you would say pigs and hawks are the same thing…

    Maybe. Difficult to tell. You keep refusing to answer my question: What do you mean by “Single Source Origin,” and why do you capitalize it like a creationist crank? Why can’t you define it, if you are not, in fact, a creationist crank?

    Reply

  39. arthuriandaily
    Sep 14, 2011 @ 22:33:05

    Single Source Origin – – The Virgin Birth: The common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Single Source Origin means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

    Ed, I apologize for the creationist crank. It couldn’t be more different than what you purport to believe in. I’m just thankful you paid such close attention, and didn’t make assumptions.

    I am sure that many people believe there was a diversity of life alongside of the life that gave birth to all life. I am just as certain that you believe in the Virgin Birth of Life, as described succinctly in the links you sent.

    Reply

  40. Kyuuketsuki
    Feb 22, 2012 @ 02:53:56

    You got it wrong … science doesn’t teach that cells evolved from nothing, the theory of evolution is a biogenetic theory which means that it is about the development of life from pre-existing life (earlier forms) therefore your entire article is effectively a non-sequitur. Even abiogenesis (the development of the first living cell from non-living material) is not about the development from nothing, the required conditions and checmicals had to pre-exist.

    Now if you’re talking Heisenberg then that’s another story but it’s one that has nothing to do with evolution.

    Keke (Geekanology DOT com)

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Mar 06, 2012 @ 21:06:36

      Thanks for the comment. Abiogenesis is life from non-life. Therefore, it is still a virgin birth. It still needed to thrive on an otherwise lifeless planet.

      Reply

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 07, 2012 @ 02:35:55

        Not really … “virgin” (in this context) implies two sexual species, one of which is absent when it should not be. Abiogenesis is, on Earth at least, the development of asexual life in the first instance.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 09, 2012 @ 13:51:15

        Virgin – adjective
        pure; unsullied; undefiled: virgin snow.

        birth- noun
        1. an act or instance of being born: the day of his birth.
        2. lineage; extraction; descent: any coming into existence; origin; beginning

        Keke: The context was my own. Is abiogenesis anything other than a pure unsullied coming into existence; origin; beginning?

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 09, 2012 @ 16:49:41

        In the wider sense perhaps but in the context of abiogenesis no, the development of life from non -life cannot be considered virgin and ceratinly not a “virgin birth” since birth is, pretty much by defintion, a biogenetic not abiogenetic concept.

        Keke

  41. arthuriandaily
    Mar 09, 2012 @ 20:34:05

    Wider’ to include that which I have just culled from the dictionary.

    “Every distinct life-form spawned from the self-procreating Virgin Cell on a lifeless planet.”

    This is a virgin birth in the sense that nothing proceeded it, and it was ‘born’ unto this planet. Then, if you want to take it further, the original cell had to give a virgin birth to the subsequent cell or cells which needed to thrive on the (otherwise) lifeless planet.

    If biological evolution isn’t an evolutionary process, what sort of process is it? After all, as of right now biological evolution is the only known cause of life. If abiogenesis is either proven or posited, then something other than biological evolution is a viable alternative to producing life.

    Reply

    • Kyuuketsuki
      Mar 10, 2012 @ 04:51:38

      One other thing … at what point did I say that biological evolution is not an evolutionary process? I didn’t … my points are simple:

      * Abiogenesis is not evolution (a god could have started it for all that theory “cares”) … that’s why it is considered entirely acceptable to be a religious evolutionist no matter how little sense that makes to me.
      * Abiogenesis is not a “virgin birth” in the standard accepted meaning of the phrase.

      I think we’re probably done here, don’t you?

      Keke

      Reply

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 13, 2012 @ 11:37:18

        If abiogenesis – the very inception of biological evolution – is not an evolutionary process, then what kind of process is it?

        You have stated: “at what point did I say that biological evolution is not an evolutionary process? I didn’t.”

        That was immediately followed by: “Abiogenesis is not evolution”. Therefore, if biological evolution is not an evolutionary process, as you have just stated, then biological evolution is not needed for life. Abiogenesis – the non-biological producer of life – can do fine without any need for evolution.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 13, 2012 @ 17:08:38

        The theory of evolution is what it is, a biogenetic (life from life) rather than abiogenetic theory. Abiogenesis isn’t even a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis, one of a number of ideas attempting to explain how life came to be. Although there is no evidence supporting it (meaning it is neither scientific theory or hypothesis) God is another which is why it is an accepted theological position to claim a god started the whole life thing and evolution its chosen method of populating the Earth. As I’m sure you can imagine that idea is not one I subscribe to, nor will I until hard demonstrable evidence is provided.

        Evolution is more often than not described as, “the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next” (Curtis & Barnes, 1989) which, as I’m sure you can see, requires life (the gene pool) to already exist. Ultimately, whilst you may wish abiogenesis to be a part of the theory of evolution, the simple fact is that it isn’t … that’s just the way it is.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 13, 2012 @ 23:19:13

        Yes, and as long as we know that non-evolutionary life is possible, micro evolution can explain the rest.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 14, 2012 @ 02:45:23

        Er … whut?

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 15, 2012 @ 18:53:19

        What if abiogenesis happened exactly once for every life form? What would that say about evolution? Is there any evidence this did not happen?

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 15, 2012 @ 19:12:07

        First, there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest creation of new life forms for every species known to exist — there’s not an iota of evidence of a special creation for any form of life. In all of history, no one has claimed ever to witness a new species, especially a complex life form like a mouse, arise spontaneously from a deity, nor by any other process.

        Second, there’s DNA. While there are several different amino acids that could be used to code life in a molecule like DNA, only the four used in DNA have ever been found in life, strongly suggesting shared ancestry.

        Third, there’s the fossil evidence, which indicates, for example, modern armadillos are descended either directly or by cousinhood from the ancient, giant armadillos. Same with the 600 different species of pachyderms (we have three species left alive today).

        Fourth, there’s the living evidence — skinks with legs, skinks with diminished and atrophied legs, legless skinks that move like snakes; and there are those snakes with hips and vestigial legs. Both DNA and fossils suggest a line of ancestry.

        Fifth, Peter and Rosemary Grant recorded the emergence of new species, in real time, with astonishing depth of data. There’s no denying the evidence.

        Regardless how the first life forms got started, evolution has been working since then.

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 20, 2012 @ 08:21:26

        So: Do you believe abiogenesis was a complete miracle, then? A one-and-done shot deal? That the first life thrived on the lifelessness of the planet it inhabited, and flourished as a result?

        Ed, since you state there is no evidence to suggest anything other than evolution ever made any life, then life itself must be a bi-product of evolution.

        You must be claiming that ‘abby’ was so utterly unlikely that it is preposterous to think it could have happened more than once – – while at the same time concluding that it is far too unlikely for it never to have happened. Apparently, once is the only possibility.

        Each one of the pieces of evidence you supplied – armadillos from armadillos, skinks from skinks, the changing beaks of a bird – even DNA evidence don’t negate the possibility that there was an Armadillo abiogenesis, a skink abiogenesis, and a finch abiogenesis. Evolution need only provide modification, or as Darwin so aptly put it, ‘descent with modification’.

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 20, 2012 @ 09:01:06

        So: Do you believe abiogenesis was a complete miracle, then? A one-and-done shot deal? That the first life thrived on the lifelessness of the planet it inhabited, and flourished as a result?

        Go spend some time at NASA’s site reading Astrobiology Journal. Get a good stiff reading of the work of Stanley Miller, and read up on protocells.

        To the best of our knowledge, when the chemicals of life are present, they spontaneously form cells and begin what looks like respiration, consumption, and reproducing. Laws of chemistry.

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 10:15:33

        Right Ed. Every known life has been a product of evolution – – except, perhaps, one. There isn’t a single life ever known or posited which is NOT a product of evolution. How life began, (to the best of my knowledge and according to all the evolutionary crowd I have been bantering with,) has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Therefore, as I said before, there must be a non-evolutionary process which produces life. Either evolution does it ALL, or it doesn’t. There isn’t a third possibility. If abiogenesis is not an evolutionary mechanism, then Abby can produce life via non-evolutionary means.

        If I’m wrong, please point me to where abiogenesis is a scientifically accepted EVOLUTIONARY process.

        In fact, since Abby can’t be tested, it is unprovable. Explain how a laboratory would be capable of conducting ‘a hands-free experiment’ creating life from lifelessness.

        Ed, my hypothetical questions are from knowledge of the ‘evolutionary parameters’, if you will. According to evolutionary processes, life didn’t arrive with a penis, it evolved a penis, anus, and vagina. Life wasn’t given a brain, a brain evolved very slowly over time due to some selection pressure. However, non-brain life forms have always had much greater survivability, so the evolutionary pressure needed to create the mind isn’t easily explained through normal evolutionary processes.

        In order for the brain to evolve into existence we first needed the Brainless Mother of Consciousness.

        In order for the vagina/penis species to survive, they need the opposite organ, regardless of their cladistic schemata. However, according to the evolutionary paradigm, there had to be the pre-penis species. The digestive tract must have evolved slowly from a bulimic species. The penis, vagina, and the anus must have evolved slowly from this species. (Are we also to assume the womb was intact from the previous parthenogenetic species?)

        So you work your way over eons of time, hundreds and thousands and millions of years whereby the slowly evolving species finally is equipped with a penis. This is needed to excrete liquid waste from the species, a result of the finally fully evolved digestive tract. It is also the penile prerequisite to the evolutionary process of mating… which was needed to ensure the survival of it’s species.

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 12:33:24

        Evolution is a biological process. The origins of life involve chemistry. You should look at the work of Stanley Miller on pre-biotic chemistry, and Sidney Fox on spontaneous formation of protocells (as I advised earlier), and check out later discoveries in the pages of Astrobiology magazine.

        Abiogenesis appears to be a chemical mechanism, not a biological mechanism.

        Regardless how the single-celled life forms got going on the Earth, evolution took over from there. Abiogenesis of single cells, at least successful abiogenesis leading to a new life form, is probably precluded by the existence of other life that consumers and outcompetes any newcomer.

        You could look it up and read it yourself, if you cared to look it up.

        Abiogenesis can be tested in labs, and has been. So far as anyone can tell, it works. If you want to know how it’s tested, read the papers of Miller, Fox, and other researchers in astrobiology.

        Each of your supposed questions on evolution of modern organs is answered in the literature, if you cared to look. Do you have a local library? Can you get into a library at a local university that teaches biology?

        Other good sources of information that would answer your questions include Jonathan Weiner’s excellent, Pulitzer Prize winning book The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time,, and Steve Jones’s Darwin’s Ghost. There are a lot of other good books, too.

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 20, 2012 @ 11:59:35

        Since you refuse to take what I wrote at face value and insist on inserting your own, incorrect reading, I must assume you understand that you’re in the wrong, and the only way you can score a rhetorical point is to pretend to miss the point of discussion and set up a straw man argument.

        The evidence of evolution — since the beginning of life — is really overwhelming. It’s written in the rocks (Jesus warned us truths are so important that the rocks would speak out, and they do. You must not be a religious person.)

        All the evidence for evolution does not negate the possibility that we have a nefarious, dishonest deity running the universe who created everything last Tuesday morning, and left us all with memories and evidence that things are much older, solely to deceive us. That’s not the way any major religion looks at it, but some college sophomore philosophy students do, and you’re free to join them.

        The evidence is quite clear that there were ancestors of armadillos. There is no evidence of a special creation of armadillos. DNA indicates a tree of life that includes all chordates, all the way back to one-celled critters. Now, all of that evidence may be falsified by your sophomore God — but there’s no evidence to suggest that.

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 10:19:47

        Ed: You claim I have a sophmoric God. However, I fail to see the reference for which you stake such a claim.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 16, 2012 @ 09:50:40

        Ah! The old, “You can’t prove a negative” rubbish … the usual excuse of people (usually theists) who’ve basically lost the evidence argument.

        Outside of inviting you to let me know when you actually have some validatable evidence there’s not much else I can say … have fun with it anyway!

        [Keke leaves shaking his head in utter disbelief]

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 20, 2012 @ 08:27:34

        Evidence can’t ‘prove a negative’, but it always helps science.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 21, 2012 @ 02:48:45

        Lack of evidence will help (or rather not oppose) any theory but, unlike religious ideas, NO scientific theory can be formed on zero evidence and EVERY scientific theory has a huge amount of evidence backing it up.

        I repeat that abiogenesis has NOT achieved the vaunted status of scientific theory.

        You seem to believe that a scientific “theory” equates to something of a guess or a hunch … please reassure us that you are not that scientifically illiterate.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 10:34:28

        Thanks, Keke. I assure you that your take is a comprehension problem, not related to the words themselves.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 14:42:57

        >> Thanks, Keke. I assure you that your take is a comprehension problem,
        >> not related to the words themselves.

        Way to go in answer avoidance … I will repeat:

        1. Lack of evidence will help (or rather not oppose) any theory but, unlike religious ideas, NO scientific theory can be formed on zero evidence and EVERY scientific theory has a huge amount of evidence backing it up.

        IOW the ONLY philosophy currently capable of explaining the universe around us is science; the theory of evolution is, at present, the only theory that fully explains (by which I mean outlines with complete mechanisms and evidences but am not claiming that there is nothing left to investigate or explain) the diversity of life we observe around us and it does so as a complete and fully paid up member of the scientific database. No religious idea comes even close; indeed no essential religious claim is supported by a shred of validatable evidence.

        2. I repeat that abiogenesis has NOT achieved the vaunted status of scientific theory.

        IOW it is NOT a scientific theory as such, it is considered an hypothesis. I repeat that abiogenesis is NOT a component part of the theory of evolution no matter how much you would like it to be so. A theory is what a theory states it is and nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that it is an abiogenetic theory indeed I believe I am correct in saying that Darwin, who originally defined the theory, said that life evolved from a single common ancestor.

        3. You seem to believe that a scientific “theory” equates to something of a guess or a hunch … please reassure us that you are not that scientifically illiterate.

        IOW you DO seem to be equating scientific theories with guess or hunches and not as they are actually defined within science. In science a “theory” is “a system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained (e.g. atomic theory or the theory of evolution); the exposition of the principles of a science etc.; a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject (e.g. probability theory or the theory of equations).”

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 23, 2012 @ 19:37:31

        Okay, Keke. You got me. Rather than trying to defend positions I didn’t make, please point to (or cut and paste) the sections where I dispute your claim that: “No religious idea comes even close; indeed no essential religious claim is supported by a shred of validatable evidence.” Where have I offered a religious ‘idea’ as an ‘answer’ to anything in this post?

        You said: “IOW it is NOT a scientific theory as such, it is considered an hypothesis. I repeat that abiogenesis is NOT a component part of the theory of evolution no matter how much you would like it to be so. A theory is what a theory states it is and nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that it is an abiogenetic theory indeed I believe I am correct in saying that Darwin, who originally defined the theory, said that life evolved from a single common ancestor.”

        Again, you seem to be arguing against

        1.) a statement I never made, or
        2.) a statement you mistook to mean something else. I will allow you to specify, so as to negate the need to defend everyone who you might be opposing.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 24, 2012 @ 08:42:31

        OK, let’s clarify … please consider the following statements:

        1. The Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life we can observe in the universe around us (both directly and indirectly).
        2. The Theory of Evolution is more often than not described as, “the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next” (Curtis & Barnes, 1989) and, as such, an existing gene pool (life) to pre-exist … as such the Theory of Evolution is a wholly biogenetic (life from life) theory.
        3. Abiogenesis is a field covering several different hypotheses as to how first life cam to exist without pre-existing life and is therefore a wholly abiogenetic field of work.
        4. The Theory of Evolution is compatible with a modified version of Christianity where one accepts that 6 day creation of the universe (including life) is allegorical in nature.
        5. Humans are simply one end-branch of what is referred to as “the evolutionary tree” and no more special than any other species (except, of course, to us).

        Do you agree with the above statements?

        If you agree with all of them my job is done. If you disagree with any of them then please state succinctly what you believe to be so … some cited evidence to support the stated view would be nice.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 24, 2012 @ 11:44:46

        My assertion was that:

        A.) Abiogenesis is not an evolutionary process. If proven, then
        B.) A non-evolutionary process is capable of producing life.

        In response to the following:

        5.) “Humans are simply one end-branch of what is referred to as “the evolutionary tree” and no more special than any other species (except, of course, to us).”

        If you do not believe in the intrinsic value of ‘personhood’, that would be true. If you believe this, then you must believe ethics is based on human’s misconception that every human life has intrinsic value.

        You do run into a problem, though. You are saying this ‘as if’ what you say has value and merit.

        If you are no more than chemistry in motion, what you are, what you say, and what you do have no meaning whatsoever.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        Mar 25, 2012 @ 04:15:08

        Er … did you actually answer any of those questions? Even the ones that seem to be answers don’t seeme to really answer them!

        How about just saying AGREE or DISAGREE … it would be a lot clearer and stop me thinking waht I am now which is that you are trying to dodge the questions.

        Keke

  42. arthuriandaily
    Mar 23, 2012 @ 13:14:29

    I have read a lot of literature, though admittedly none of the ones you mentioned. (At least that I am aware of).

    One of the problems I consistently run into is this: My adversaries insist that -something I never said – is wrong. Happens here, happens all over the place. I do not ‘represent’ the theologically inclined. I do not ‘represent’ evolution. I do not ‘represent’ the Democratic, or Republican parties. I don’t represent the current thoughts, or lines of thinking. I do not represent intelligence, and anyone that believes in the evolutionary process which formulated a brain cannot lay claim on such representation, either.

    My queries about the slow formulation of a brain: This doesn’t posit something which evolution would dismiss – – as ‘an argument from incredulity’. While incredulity is present in such a query, the query embraces evolution to explain the transition. I have yet to see much with real explanatory merit.

    The slowly evolving digestive tract? Never seen an article on this, but species must have endured such an evolutionary process. The pre-digestive tract species must have been a bulimic species, no?

    The penis & vagina? Same related query. The pre-penile species must have been bulimic, as well, no?

    In reality, these are such easy questions, you should be able to answer them in a few sentences without doing any research. After all, who do I think I am for asking such an easy question which the good scientists have answered hundreds of times over already, right?

    Is there any evidence that a penis-laden species procreated without sex? If not, we must assume it is a prerequisite. If it is a prerequisite, then how did the mandate come into existence?

    These questions have an easy answer, I just haven’t experienced anyone being able to answer them. I must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

    Reply

  43. Ed Darrell
    Mar 23, 2012 @ 14:51:04

    You need to hang out with people who read and actually study science. Pick up the Tuesday New York Times for a few months, you’ll be much better informed (the science section — you can read it online).

    The pre-digestive tract species must have been a bulimic species, no?

    No. The formation of a simple tubular organism that ingests at one end and expels waste at the other end replaced single-celled creatures and colonies of single-cell creatures. None was ill-fed beyond the normal limits prior to the development of a gut tube.

    The penis & vagina? Same related query. The pre-penile species must have been bulimic, as well, no?

    You assume human apparatus necessary for sexual reproduction. Even in some relatively advanced complex species, there are no such organs. Squid, for example, mate with the male simply inserting a sperm packet somewhere in the mantle of the female. Sexual dimorphism appears rather early in sexually reproducing species, in very simple form — they do not need to be re-evolved every time there is speciation. In reality, much of the change that we later take as key indicators of speciation occur after the actual speciation.

    Here’s a primer on sexual reproduction and its origin, a site you should probably study rather intently if you have not already done so:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/index.html

    In reality, these are such easy questions, you should be able to answer them in a few sentences without doing any research.

    You’re right, you’re hanging with the wrong group. A simple explanation can’t do justice to a very complex topic, and if you think this is a simple explanation, I fear you wouldn’t have the background to follow a simple explanation.

    There’s a lot written on the topic, and a lot more to come. You might do well to pick up a good botany text and study the sexual organs of plants. You assume a penis is required, but no grass, no flower, no gymnosperm, no fungus, has exactly that structure. Sexual reproduction takes an astonishing variety of forms among living things on Earth, many more than could be described in a simple sentence or two. You expect an explanation for the evolution of each form in a short paragraph?

    After all, who do I think I am for asking such an easy question which the good scientists have answered hundreds of times over already, right? Is there any evidence that a penis-laden species procreated without sex?

    You assume a penis, where in many cases these is none. You assume copulation, too, if I infer correctly from your question. You’d do well to study life on Earth, how various forms reproduce, and why they are successful or not, before getting into the evolution of the specific methods, let alone the specific organs involved.

    If not, we must assume it is a prerequisite. If it is a prerequisite, then how did the mandate come into existence. These questions have an easy answer, I just haven’t experienced anyone being able to answer them. I must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

    Hang out at a library. Watch PBS. Visit the American Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of Natural History, the Field Museum, the Museum of the Rockies, the geology museum at the University of Utah, the Berkeley site on evolution, and get some good books.

    You’ve a right to ask questions. But no one else has a duty to tutor you in the subject.

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Mar 23, 2012 @ 20:12:44

      My query was: The pre-digestive tract species must have been a bulimic species, no?

      You replied: “No. The formation of a simple tubular organism that ingests at one end and expels waste at the other end replaced single-celled creatures and colonies of single-cell creatures…” So are you suggesting the ingestion hole, digestive tract, and expulsion hole were all formed simultaneously, all at once?

      BAD: The penis & vagina? Same related query. The pre-penile species must have been bulimic, as well, no?

      Ed: “You assume human apparatus necessary for sexual reproduction. Even in some relatively advanced complex species, there are no such organs. Squid, for example…”

      BAD: When did I say that the penis was necessary for sexual reproduction? Please, give me the reference. Oh, how I loathe defending things I never said. The pre-penis species – which later became the ‘first’ penis species – would have needed to evolve a penis. Please don’t tell me you are going to argue against this prerequisite process of evolution.

      ED: “You’re right, you’re hanging with the wrong group. A simple explanation can’t do justice to a very complex topic, and if you think this is a simple explanation, I fear you wouldn’t have the background to follow a simple explanation.”

      Albert Einstein: If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

      ED: “There’s a lot written on the topic, and a lot more to come. You might do well to pick up a good botany text and study the sexual organs of plants. You assume a penis is required, but no grass, no flower, no gymnosperm, no fungus, has exactly that structure. Sexual reproduction takes an astonishing variety of forms among living things on Earth, many more than could be described in a simple sentence or two. You expect an explanation for the evolution of each form in a short paragraph?”

      BAD: Again, Ed, where are you getting this? Where did I say a sexual organ, specifically the penis, is needed for reproduction? I know of no penis species who reproduce otherwise, do you? After all, who do I think I am for asking such an easy question which the good scientists have answered hundreds of times over already, right? Is there any evidence that a penis-laden species procreated without sex?

      ED: “You assume a penis, where in many cases these is none. You assume copulation, too, if I infer correctly from your question. You’d do well to study life on Earth, how various forms reproduce, and why they are successful or not, before getting into the evolution of the specific methods, let alone the specific organs involved.”

      BAD: At the risk of repeating myself… If there is non-penis species or plant, does that mean the penis didn’t evolve? If not, we must assume it is a prerequisite. If it is a prerequisite, then how did the mandate come into existence. These questions have an easy answer, I just haven’t experienced anyone being able to answer them. I must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

      ED: “Hang out at a library. Watch PBS. Visit the American Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of Natural History, the Field Museum, the Museum of the Rockies, the geology museum at the University of Utah, the Berkeley site on evolution, and get some good books. You’ve a right to ask questions. But no one else has a duty to tutor you in the subject.”

      BAD: You are right. There is no need to tutor. I am sure you can point me to dozens of websites which explain the evolution of the digestive tract – – and the penis, anus, and vagina. What I expect is websites which refer to non-sexual mating and how, over time, the organs evolved to become sexually reproducing. On many such sites, there is much made of parthenogenesis, showing how these species reproduced without sexual organs.

      I am interested in these questions because they deserve an explanation which is an evolutionary process, not an explanation of prior versus now, or how things didn’t need a penis to reproduce.

      Ed: You purport to know tons of information on these specific topics. Since you are so well-versed in your knowledge, I would venture to guess you would be able to answer it without touching your mouse or moving from your seat.

      Reply

  44. Ed Darrell
    Mar 24, 2012 @ 15:17:32

    The pre-penis species – which later became the ‘first’ penis species – would have needed to evolve a penis. Please don’t tell me you are going to argue against this prerequisite process of evolution.

    I can’t figure out what it is you claim to have said and not said.

    A sexually-reproducing species needs a way to move “sperm” (or pollen) to egg (or ova). You seem to think there is some huge barrier to evolution of a penis. Why do you think that? I don’t see a barrier that you propose.

    Now, will you say you don’t propose a barrier? Then what is your question?

    Reply

  45. Ed Darrell
    Mar 24, 2012 @ 15:32:34

    Again, Ed, where are you getting this? Where did I say a sexual organ, specifically the penis, is needed for reproduction?

    Where did you ask about any other form of sexual reproduction? Nowhere.

    Is your question solely about the evolutionary origins of a penis? Or are you asking about sexual reproduction? Just trying to figure out what you claim is not known is a complex undertaking that requires volumes.

    I know of no penis species who reproduce otherwise, do you?

    There are several I can think of off the top of my head — if I understand what you mean by “penis species.” Do I understand that? How can I know?

    There are a variety of lizards that reproduce through parthenogenesis, when there are no males about. Some fish have something like a penis, some don’t. Which ones lost it? I’m no icthyologist, and I don’t know. Some birds mate successfully with just a deposit of semen within range of the female’s cloaca — it’s difficult to know whether the males still have something like a penis.

    So, again, I wonder just what your question is. Have you bothered to look at any of the information I offered? It appears not.

    Did you try to see whether your questions have been answered in literature? It appears not, to me.

    After all, who do I think I am for asking such an easy question which the good scientists have answered hundreds of times over already, right? Is there any evidence that a penis-laden species procreated without sex?

    Have the “good scientists” answered it hundreds of times? How do you know?

    Ever bothered to ponder the penis of a duck? Why not? Don’t you think that issue should have been settled long ago? Why not?

    “See Mr. Yong’s post here, “Ballistic penises and corkscrew vaginas – the sexual battles of ducks”, or see Carl Zimmer’s take, “Kinkiness beyond kinky” — why don’t you try to follow five or six of the references offered in that story?

    Perhaps that will aid you in forming your question so it can be answered better, or at least to your satisfaction.

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Mar 25, 2012 @ 07:52:43

      I’ll break it down:

      1.) Is there currently any species which has a penis?
      2.) Has there ever been a previous species with a penis?

      As complicated as these first two might seem, let’s take it one step further:

      How does a penis evolve from a non-penis species? When it does evolve, does it need a fully formed digestive tract?

      What seems to be the common response to these sort of things is to answer ‘as an aside’, or ‘look how fascinating it is’… Both of these are seen in the links you provide.

      How did the digestive tract evolve in the original (the first one on this planet) penis species? Did the pre-digestive tract species start as bulimic, giving the digestive tract years to meander it’s way down to the excretory glands which were being simultaneously developed, finally forming an excretion hole as an anus, while simultaneously developing a penis?

      At this point – did the ‘urinary penis’ also become the sperm supply for the vaginal female of the same species?

      Once again… this is NOT a question about whether sperm is needed to procreate, or whether sex is needed to provide offspring, or whether penis’s are different among species. It is about the evolution of the penis from the (immediate predecessor) pre-penis species, and the evolution of the digestive tract from the (immediate predecessor) pre-digestive tract species.

      I have yet to see an in-depth analysis of such processes, and according to the workings of evolution, this hypothetical isn’t hypothetical at all. It happened.

      Reply

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 25, 2012 @ 11:14:44

        1.) Is there currently any species which has a penis?
        2.) Has there ever been a previous species with a penis?

        Yes and yes.

        How does a penis evolve from a non-penis species? When it does evolve, does it need a fully formed digestive tract?

        In several different ways. No, a digestive tract is not necessary — which is one way we can tell no intelligence drove that part of human evolution, by the way — there are obviously more sanitary ways to do it, etc., etc. — the old “you don’t run the sewer pipe through the playground and nursery” argument.

        What in the hell have you been reading that didn’t cover this to your satisfaction? List all of it.

      • arthuriandaily
        Mar 31, 2012 @ 11:20:29

        Ed: You said: “a digestive tract is not necessary…” Which I find fascinating. So the digestive tract never formed? Was there never a ‘first’ digestive tract species, which had a penis? Were the penis and digestive tract(s) formed separately? Which was formed first? Did the pre-penis species – the one which was the immediate predecessor to the penis species – have a digestive tract? Where did this digestive tract excrete liquid prior to the formation of the penis?

        I have read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould… none of them spend any time answering these questions.

        You seem to want to talk about the ‘necessity’ of each, rather than how each became the necessity for the functions they serve. A penis is needed for excretion of liquid. It isn’t the only possibility among any species, but among penis species it sure seems to be.

        The digestive tract isn’t needed among all species, but among those with a penis, it moves liquid through to come out the penis.

        Obviously you are well versed, and can therefore answer it easily without even needing a reference. But up until now you simply haven’t chosen to do so.

      • Ed Darrell
        Mar 31, 2012 @ 18:05:19

        Again, you insist on reading stuff into what I write that isn’t there.

        Were the penis and digestive tract(s) formed separately? Which was formed first?

        In some species, they formed separately, yes. I haven’t bothered to figure out which came first, but I suspect that male fertilizing organ arose in species simple enough that there was no digestive tube.

        Can you offer a definition of “penis species” that makes it clear what the devil you’re talking about?

        Here’s a discussion of the evolution of digestion, with and without digestive tracts: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about636.html

        Someone named Fransis wrote:

        The evolution of body cavities within the kingdom Animalia has a very interesting history. In fact, the increasing complexity of animal form and function during the evolution of the group can be directly linked to the evolution of ever-more-sophisticated body cavities.
        The most primitive animal phyla possess only a single body cavity, which typically has either digestive or circulatory functions, or both. There is no secondary body cavity, or coelom, and consequently these phyla are referred to as the acoelomates.
        Most animal phyla, however, have evolved a second body cavity of one form or another. The pseudocoelomates, which include a number of worm-like phyla, are characterized by a secondary body cavity known as the pseudocoelom. The pseudocoelom has some but not all of the characteristics of true coeloms. Finally, several animal phyla, including those that possess the most complex body plans in the kingdom, are characterized by a body cavity known as a true coelom. These phyla are known as the eucoelomates.

        here are some links:
        Biology: Visualizing Life. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1998.

        Gilbert, Scott F. Developmental Biology, 5th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1997.

        Gould, James L., and William T. Keeton. Biological Science, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.

        Hildebrand, Milton, and Viola Hildebrand. Analysis of Vertebrate Structure. New York: John Wiley, 1994.

        Karp, Gerald, and N. J. Berrill. Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.

        Larson, William J. Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.

        Moore, Janet. An Introduction to the Invertebrates. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

        Several sources for you to consult there.

      • arthuriandaily
        Apr 24, 2012 @ 17:02:02

        Ed: Pretty simple really. The Penis species to which I refer is the FIRST species on the earth to have a penis. (They evolved from a pre-penis species.)

        Since it wasn’t like the pre-penis species gave birth to a species with a penis, the penis must have, (through requisite Darwinian evolutionary processes,) formed slowly, over time. Therefore, it must have been a useless nub, which, over time, formed a slit. This slit in the nub which might now be officially called a penis, allowed it to pass sperm into the vaginal opening of the existing female model (of the pre-vaginal species).

        The moment the first penis arrived it became a requisite for the proliferation of the species. The prior (penile-nub species) had absolutely no need for this implement.

        Can there possibly be an evolutionary dispute to this?

      • Ed Darrell
        Apr 24, 2012 @ 17:43:01

        Sure there can be a dispute. You assume that the first penis was a part of the ailimentary tract. Why do you assume that? You assume that prior to a penis, there was no sexual reproduction (you say “no need for this implement,” ignoring the astonishing gyrations necessary for insemination without a penis . . .). Why do you assume that?

        In the end, I can’t imagine why you’re so fascinated with penises. No matter. I’m sure you can find something in the literature, if you bother to visit a library with a good section on chordate evolution, or evolution of sexual reproduction (even a few non-chordates have similar appendages, though it may be that the appendage thing arose several times, no puns intended).

        You might do well simply to study the issue of insemination in birds. I know in some of the smaller, European songbirds there is often not even penetration by the male — in contrast to the recently elucidated astonishing apparatus of ducks.

      • arthuriandaily
        May 05, 2012 @ 11:33:07

        Ed: Stellar job of ignoring everything. Kudos to you for making sure the track you are on is different than the evolutionary one I have evoked.

      • Ed Darrell
        May 05, 2012 @ 11:57:07

        You’re sitting on no fewer than six posts that you’ve not let through moderation. Before we discuss whatever it is you think I am ignoring, can we get you to stop ignoring those posts?

      • arthuriandaily
        May 08, 2012 @ 17:05:07

        I would, but these all ignore the issues. I say: The ‘pre-penile species’, and you say:
        1.) A penis isn’t needed for reproduction.
        2.) A vagina is better. (Or can suit the needs of the post-pre-penis species just fine).

        I say: How did the digestive tract form? Would it have slowly formed – over a great deal of time – as is the evolutionary mandate?

        You send some links which explain the gut, and how it works. You also send links which have the word ‘evolution in it, but the explanation of HOW is missing. They do touch on how wonderfully the systems HAVE evolved. This touches on the net result but fails to assess the process. These sites are necessitated by foregone conclusions. ‘We know evolution did it, and because we know that, we know how amazing the process of evolution is’. This is not a quote, but a foregone-conclusion-bias indicated in every single thing you have sent.

        When I do research, I like to see where it is coming from. When it is a creationist site, I understand that the information is intentionally leaning towards creation. When I look at ‘talk origins’, I realize that bias. There is truth all over the place, but you have to be wary of the source. Non-evolution as well as non-creation sites are the best places for verifying information. I like not to be told what to think, but to think for myself.

        Thanks for your efforts. They are appreciated, nonetheless.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 09, 2012 @ 01:57:44

        So you are, ultmately, jyst another disingenuous person who uses censorship as a means of attempting to win his argument! Very poor show, very poor indeed.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        May 09, 2012 @ 18:02:31

        Why thank you!

        I evolved into this state and you can’t deny that… the same way you can’t deny that The Church is the net result of human evolution.

        If evolution is The Truth, religion is it’s bi-product.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 12, 2012 @ 11:36:59

        No thanks! I want to see you address the censorship issue first.

        Besides, as I recall you never fully addressed my posts when I was making them so what incentive do I have?

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        May 15, 2012 @ 19:16:13

        There is no censorship issue. I didn’t include links to websites which didn’t answer the questions I posed to Ed. Ed has bowed out, apparently, because the best stuff he has got falls way short of answering my inquiries.

      • Ed Darrell
        May 15, 2012 @ 23:32:04

        I didn’t include links to websites which didn’t answer the questions I posed to Ed. Ed has bowed out, apparently, because the best stuff he has got falls way short of answering my inquiries.

        Sez you. There are a couple still in moderation that you haven’t deleted. Why not let them through?

        If they don’t rebut your claims, what’s the harm to you? It’s not like people are busting down the doors to answer stuff here, you know.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 16, 2012 @ 02:01:03

        I would be very surprised if Ed has backed out or, if he has, has backed out for the reasons you give (implicit cowardice or an inability to answer your points) as I have been following his and your arguments reasonably closely.

        Ed’s arguments struck me as to the point, as attempting to answer the points made and basically well reasoned … few (if any) of your points strike me as such and my best guess, if in fact Ed has left, is that he has done so out of frustration rather than any superiority on your part that you care to claim. Such frustration, as a long time religion vs. science debater, is something I can I can identify with and indeed is why I gave up here some time back.

        Keke

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 12, 2012 @ 11:54:34

        >> Why thank you!

        No worries, I just say it as I see it!

        >> I evolved into this state and you can’t deny that… the same way
        >> you can’t deny that The Church is the net result of human evolution.

        Not really, you evolved (as did we all) the capability to think, your views are more likely the result of your cultural influences than anything specific that evolution threw into the pot.

        I suppose there is some more justification the church claim inasmuch as we’re almost certainly hard-coded for religion because there is some cultural and evolutionary advantage for groups of humans that have religious beliefs. That, however, neither demonstrates the correctness of any specific belief system nor acts as supporting evidence for any claim to the existence of deity indeed, in my opinion, it acts to support the idea of cultural spread memes somehow influencing human evolution.

        >> If evolution is The Truth, religion is it’s bi-product.

        The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and as such is considered our best current understanding of how the awesome variety of life we see around us came to be. However it is not “the truth” because “truth” implies an absolute and the fundamental basis of science (all science) is that every single theory, every hypothesis, every law remains challengeable in the face of potential new evidence. Nothing in science (math excepted) is held to be so correct that it is beyond challenge.

        As for religion being its by-product (as opposed to “it’s bi-product”) see above.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        May 15, 2012 @ 19:21:28

        Yes, Keke, we evolved religion. We even evolved a man named Jesus, then evolved an entire culture based on sheer fantasy.

        We evolved into fantasy. Not me, not you, but our species, as a whole. Religion isn’t the problem. The problem is evolution – – which spawned religion among sapiens.

        If evolution is a science, then religion is it’s ‘byproduct’.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 16, 2012 @ 01:54:12

        You see this is precisely what I am on about … you never actually answered all of my previous post. That is typical of apologists like you.

        > Yes, Keke, we evolved religion. We even evolved a man named
        > Jesus, then evolved an entire culture based on sheer fantasy.

        I’m not contesting that and I’m certainly not contesting there was a man called Jesus after all it was, as I understand it, a very common name in those times but the son of some deity? Methinks not.

        >> We evolved into fantasy. Not me, not you, but our species, as a whole.
        >> Religion isn’t the problem. The problem is evolution – – which spawned
        >> religion among sapiens.

        Sorry but the only word that springs to mind here (and please excuse my French) is “Bollocks!”

        >> If evolution is a science, then religion is it’s ‘byproduct’.

        Not sure what your point is but, making a wild stab in the dark, religion isn’t science.

        Keke

      • Ed Darrell
        May 05, 2012 @ 12:14:43

        How are we doing in cleaning up the moderation queue?

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 18, 2012 @ 01:38:07

        >> How are we doing in cleaning up the moderation queue?

        As badly as most evangelists?

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        May 18, 2012 @ 12:10:44

        Done. But thanks for the non-sequitur, Keke.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 18, 2012 @ 13:26:30

        >> Done. But thanks for the non-sequitor, Keke.

        I think you must have meant a it’s a “non-sequitur” …. perhaps though I think your recent censorship & point avoidance actions suggest otherwise.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        May 18, 2012 @ 19:57:39

        There has been no censorship. The avoidance actions aren’t mine. You seem quite adept at attacking me, so kudos on that one. What is missing is simply a scientific basis, but that’s ok. I know how cumbersome those can be.

      • Kyuuketsuki
        May 19, 2012 @ 04:50:58

        >> There has been no censorship.

        See Ed Darrell’s comments.

        >> The avoidance actions aren’t mine.

        Check my clarification (Mar 24, 2012), your response (same date) and my final reply (Mar 25, 2012 to which you never replied!

        >> You seem quite adept at attacking me, so kudos on that one.

        You’re an evangelist … ’nuff said.

        >> What is missing is simply a scientific basis, but that’s ok. I know how cumbersome those can be.

        You know little about science and what you do know you seem to use in some twisted fashion to beat down others and support your warped religious worldview.

        Keke

      • Ed Darrell
        Apr 28, 2012 @ 23:00:44

  46. Ed Darrell
    Mar 31, 2012 @ 19:14:37

    Reply

  47. Ed Darrell
    Mar 31, 2012 @ 19:18:47

    You’ll probably want to know why human males have one fewer bone than other mammals — no penis bone: http://www.livescience.com/13148-men-lost-penis-spines-human-evolution.html

    Reply

  48. Ed Darrell
    Mar 31, 2012 @ 19:20:17

    And you may find this of interest:

    Reply

    • Kyuuketsuki
      May 20, 2012 @ 08:38:17

      Thanks for posting that video link Ed … being a Brit I’m not a huge fan of American narrators (though I love American drama especially science fiction) but that, particularly the last bit, was an eye-opener.

      Keke

      Reply

  49. Ed Darrell
    Mar 31, 2012 @ 19:23:57

    A penis is needed for excretion of liquid.

    No, that’s not correct. Most mammalian females don’t have a penis. All that is necessary for excretion of waste liquids is an opening, most of the time.

    Kangaroo rates don’t urinate, but I’m not familiar enough with their anatomy to tell you whether they have a urinary tract. In any case, in kangaroo rates, no penis is needed to excrete liquid.

    Reply

  50. Dornier Pfeil
    May 17, 2012 @ 16:00:56

    arthuriandaily May 09, 2012 @ 18:02:31
    Why thank you!
    I evolved into this state and you can’t deny that… the same way you can’t deny that The Church is the net result of human evolution.
    If evolution is The Truth, religion is it’s bi-product.

    Actually Arthuriandaily, you and your ilk are far better explained by the Theory Of Abominable Befuddlement.

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Oct 29, 2012 @ 01:57:53

      Dornier: My ilk? All ilk are evolutionarily equivalents. We all evolved from the same ilk. Yours is no better than mine, and mine is no better than a cockroach. We are all arrived here from the same evolutionary process. It is impossible for any species to be superior or inferior to another.

      Since all thoughts are a natural by-product of an evolutionary process we have no control over, it is not possible to have superior thoughts. If you think differently, you do not truly believe in evolution.

      Reply

      • Kekerusey
        Oct 30, 2012 @ 02:33:27

        That’s a bit of a strawman argument … I don’t think any evolutionary biologist will claim humans (or any other other perceived “higher branch” species) is *better* than a cockroach (or any other perceived “lower branch” species) just different. Better in the sense of “more flexible” sure but that’s really just our human perception of things. Better (more fit) for our specific environment possibly though I think cockroaches (ugh!) are doing quite well.

        Ultimately “better” is just a relative thing and unless you pick on a specific characteristic that can be measured empirically no one species is truly “better” than any other.

        Keke (UK Atheist)

      • arthuriandaily
        Dec 01, 2012 @ 12:16:17

        Keke: First you claim I made a strawman argument, then proceeded to agree with every point I made.

        In an atheistic world, better is, of course, relative. So is truth, from an evolutionary perspective. Your truth isn’t right, while mine is wrong. Atheism is merely the biological mechanism that you have chosen to help your survival. While you might want to convince theists that they are wrong, it can’t be done, and this has nothing to do with truth. Truth is pliable in an atheistic world. Your atheism is simply an evolutionary belief system, in place to help you survive, nothing more and nothing less. Under the tenets of your belief system, belief in God is an equally viable belief system, since it is a survival mechanism which assists the theist. In your world view, neither is more true, simply different adaptive strategies for survival.

        That is why any attempt to convince a believer that atheism is true, when truth is subjective, is preposterous. What is true for our species surely wasn’t true for the species that predicated our predicament. As evolution marches onward, today’s truth will be laughably ludicrous to the evolutionary species sapiens will become a million years from now. To doubt this, is to doubt evolution itself.

      • Kekerusey
        Dec 02, 2012 @ 12:57:38

        AD: First you claim I made a strawman argument, then proceeded to agree with every point I made.

        I think perhaps you did since you appeared to be, as all creationists do, trying to hammer in logical nails to try and drive home a given point.

        AD: In an atheistic world, better is, of course, relative. So is truth, from an evolutionary perspective. Your truth isn’t right, while mine is wrong.

        There is no such thing as an atheistic world … perhaps you meant in a secular world?

        AD: Atheism is merely the biological mechanism that you have chosen to help your survival.

        No: Atheism is not a mechanism, it carries no philosophical components. It is merely a label.

        AD: While you might want to convince theists that they are wrong, it can’t be done, and this has nothing to do with truth.

        Rationally I cannot claim there is no god it is true however I can point quite easily to the fact that of all the scientific explanations so far given and accepted as generally valid none request or require the intervention of deity.

        AD: Truth is pliable in an atheistic world. Your atheism is simply an evolutionary belief system, in place to help you survive, nothing more and nothing less.

        Again no … atheism is not a philosophy, it is a label which tells you one (and only one) thing about me. That I do not accept any current claim to the existence of deity.

        AD: Under the tenets of your belief system, belief in God is an equally viable belief system, since it is a survival mechanism which assists the theist. In your world view, neither is more true, simply different adaptive strategies for survival.

        No … atheism is not a belief system. It is a label. My personal belief system is a variation on humanism and it is because of that that I am an atheist.

        AD: That is why any attempt to convince a believer that atheism is true, when truth is subjective, is preposterous. What is true for our species surely wasn’t true for the species that predicated our predicament. As evolution marches onward, today’s truth will be laughably ludicrous to the evolutionary species sapiens will become a million years from now. To doubt this, is to doubt evolution itself.

        Atheism can be neither true nor false … both atheism and theism and labels that can be applied once that person’s relationship to claims to the existence of deity is clear. I am an atheist because I do not believe any of the current claims to the existence of deity. I do not reject such claims because I am an atheist, I reject them because of science and humanism.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Dec 10, 2012 @ 21:08:22

        Keke: If I said, ‘I am making no political statements,’ have I divorced myself from making a political statement?

        Atheism isn’t merely a ‘lack of belief’, it is a belief that the world as we know it did not involve any dieties. One cannot inactively disbelieve. That is only possible when you are unaware of what you don’t believe in. I believe you could write thousands of pages on what a deistic disbeliefs you hold.

        This isn’t like the Higgs Boson – which many people have never been aware of and therefore don’t believe in it’s existence – theism is a world view which you reject. Passivity has nothing to do with it.


      • Kekerusey Skxe'itan
        Dec 12, 2012 @ 11:52:39

        AD: Keke: If I said, ‘I am making no political statements,’ have I divorced myself from making a political statement?

        Please don’t write things in that format, it makes it look like I said it, I did not 😦

        AD: Atheism isn’t merely a ‘lack of belief’, it is a belief that the world as we know it did not involve any dieties. One cannot inactively disbelieve. That is only possible when you are unaware of what you don’t believe in. I believe you could write thousands of pages on what a deistic disbeliefs you hold.

        In which case you disagree with just about every atheist who has ever stated what atheism is … in addition English grammar says you are wrong. Take the word “moral”, if you are amoral it means you have no morals, if you immoral you act against accepted morality. A Gnostic is someone who has knowledge (of a given god in most uses of the word), agnostic means does not have such knowledge. The “a” prefix in standard English grammar reverses the sense of a pre-existing word to mean the opposite so, where “theist” is someone who is “with god”, “atheist” is someone “without god” … there is no sense in that of active disbelief, simply of not believing. It is, of course, in a theist’s interest to claim otherwise so it’s a good thing you are wrong isn’t it?

        AD: This isn’t like the Higgs Boson – which many people have never been aware of and therefore don’t believe in it’s existence – theism is a world view which you reject. Passivity has nothing to do with it.


        Even if it wasn’t a[nother] strawman it would be wrong for reasons already stated.

        Keke

      • arthuriandaily
        Dec 15, 2012 @ 13:06:59

        Those who believe in Intelligent Design, believe design is the reason that there is order. Without order, every scientific endeavor would be fruitless. Theists believe things make sense because they are part of an ordered universe. Non-theists believe things make sense for no reason at all.

      • Ed Darrell
        Dec 15, 2012 @ 15:25:46

        Those who believe in Intelligent Design, believe design is the reason that there is order. Without order, every scientific endeavor would be fruitless. Theists believe things make sense because they are part of an ordered universe. Non-theists believe things make sense for no reason at all.

        Non-theists don’t disbelieve in gravity, which provides most of the order you want (the strong force and the weak force provide much of the rest); theists don’t really believe that gravity doesn’t exist, but the Earth sucks.

        Interesting how in one short paragraph you can savage understandings of both theists and non-theists, and make it appear you don’t have much understanding of anything at all.

        Intelligent design wasn’t intended by its inventor Phillip Johnson to extend into physics, nor even chemistry. You shouldn’t promote Johnson to deity like that. He was just a lawyer, after all.

      • arthuriandaily
        Dec 15, 2012 @ 22:58:18

        Ed, you said: “Non-theists don’t disbelieve in gravity, which provides most of the order you want (the strong force and the weak force provide much of the rest…)”

        I said, Theists believe the reason that there is order is because of design. What is the reason that the laws of gravity, the laws of nature, or any other laws even exist? I am not asking you to explain the how it works… (i.e… you turn the key in the ignition, and this starts the engine which consists of pistons… etc.) I am stating that you have no BASIS for your belief in an ordered universe. It isn’t that you don’t believe the universe is ordered, or that laws exist, but physical laws came from randomness, order came from nothing, and there is no basis to believe that nothing isn’t where all this order is headed.

        If I am wrong, please tell me why an atheist believes that physical laws exist. (not how it works, mind you.) Then tell me if you think these laws are permanent – acting the same way today, tomorrow, 50 billion years from now, ad infinitum – and what is the basis for their permanence?

      • Ed Darrell
        Dec 16, 2012 @ 00:22:37

        I can’t speak for atheists, even though you deign to do that without their consent. I’m not puffed up enough to think I know what anyone else believes.

        An unbelieving philosopher might call your attention to your assumption that an atheist must have faith in order to note that gravity exists. That’s not logical, and not in evidence.

        Consequently, no atheist must “believe” that physical laws exist. Even I, as a theist, simply take note that they are there. At best I could be a fulfilled agnostic.

        How do you propose that any of us should give you credence that you could “believe” that gravity would not exist but for God? How is that testable in any way?

        Your error is in assuming the world cannot exist but for belief.

      • UK Atheist
        Dec 16, 2012 @ 05:29:45

        AD: I said, Theists believe the reason that there is order is because of design. What is the reason that the laws of gravity, the laws of nature, or any other laws even exist? I am not asking you to explain the how it works… (i.e… you turn the key in the ignition, and this starts the engine which consists of pistons… etc.) I am stating that you have no BASIS for your belief in an ordered universe. It isn’t that you don’t believe the universe is ordered, or that laws exist, but physical laws came from randomness, order came from nothing, and there is no basis to believe that nothing isn’t where all this order is headed.

        Keke: The problem with the above is that you assume there has to be creator (an intelligent design agency) yet, of all the explanations currently accepted in science, none request or require the action of deity. Until we find a reason to so require such action we continue to assume there is no need for such agency … this is entirely proper for scientific explanations.

        Also, if such deity were actually found, it would create more problems for science and rational explanations than it solves. If you were (as you would apparently prefer) to accept magic (i.e. “god done it”) as the explanation for ANYTHING in science you could no longer rule that out as a valid answer if it were ever given … imagine a group of scientists interested in the fundamental workings of gravity, they pose the required questions and someone says, “god done it” … might as well go home now! The use of magic to explain anything in what we believe to be an inherently ordered and explicable universe would destroy science utterly as a philosophical tool for finding things out.

        AD: If I am wrong, please tell me why an atheist believes that physical laws exist. (not how it works, mind you.) Then tell me if you think these laws are permanent – acting the same way today, tomorrow, 50 billion years from now, ad infinitum – and what is the basis for their permanence?

        Keke: Who says there has to be a “why” that exists beyond the “how”? You? Who died and made you god? Why does there have to be a “why” (implicitly with a deeper philosophical meaning)? There are many people who believe we are here for a reason and maybe that’s true even if we haven’t discovered that reason … but equally it is entirely possible we are the chance products of an uncaring universe in which case there is no “why?” beyond the level of “how”? With that in mind I ask you very simply why there must be a “why” of the kind you are demanding?

        Keke

      • UK Atheist
        Dec 16, 2012 @ 05:17:24

        As a humanist I believe the universe to be governed by an ordered set of laws yes, where they come from may be an innate property of our universe but as yet that has to be explained … as a humanist I adopt the philosophy that just because we don’t know is no good reason to invent something to explain it which is exactly what theists do.

        As a humanist I believe the universe to be inherently explicable without the need to invoke idiotic deities like the Christian god.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: