Search This Blog

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Dialogue - two sides of the evolution debate

Sometimes it is fun to answer a commenter with a post, especially if it has a general relationship to other previous posts...

Darwinist commenter (Canucklehad) versus radar, with radar in italics...


Radar,I think I'm done with your blog.

I don't think I remember "Canucklehead" commenting before, but darn! How come?

Aside from being grossly uninformed and wildly ignorant on the subjects you purport to be uniquely qualified to comment on, this thing is almost completely unreadable.

But how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Gee, I detect the old "derision is not an argument" response building in my inner self. But I do think that my blog speaks for itself and I am certainly able to defend my positions on issues from an informed perspective. My qualifications, such as they are, fall short of the great scientists but are still probably located somewhere north of the qualifications of the average canucklehead. I am a trained journalist with extensive scientific experience and university training, but not as a major and not degreed. I don't claim to have a doctorate, simply an informed perspective.

Your ridiculously long and rambling posts, filled with unnecessarily long “written excerpts” and "comments" from other "choir" members, are simply stated, not very good.

Uhm, can you simply state any evidence to back that statement up, or are you just bomb-throwing? My blog is a mixture of material taken from other sources, attributed, in association with my own essays. You want me to quit attributing and quit bringing in the contributions of degreed scientists to the discussion? Why? Evidence is interesting if you aren't afraid of the evidence.

I am an individual that is quite interested in the discussion, yet I can barely make it through a single “post” without either dozing off or taking a pee-break part way through.

One word. "Avodart!"

Not to mention the fact that you make statements like this,"I grew up an agnostic with an open mind and a desire to know truth. I became a Christian and still believed in evolution. I then studied the subject and found, to my surprise, that the evidences favored Creationism!"as evidence/proof that you are some kind of unbiased researcher on the topic (which to me just means that you really need to "brush up" on your studying skills).

That is the exact order of my experience. Would it be better if I made something up instead? Oh, and you are still missing any evidences in your arguments. Maybe you should "brush up" on your researching skills?

You seem to discount the idea that the fact that you are a literalist when it comes to the bible, may have “coloured” your own conclusions. Face it Radar, your constricting "worldview" forces you to discount or ignore all "evidences" that don't line up with your faith (and scramble to find absolutely anything on the web that agrees with your position).

Wait! You are admitting that worldview colors conclusions?! I have posted often enough on that. But, as I said, I was not a literalist when I first came to faith and the Bible, since I had Biblical indoctrination in my childhood of a small dog - none, in other words! I came to the idea of evolution versus creation and literalism versus symbolism without a preordained notion. That just happens to be the truth. In any event, I certainly have a worldview (and admit it), while you seem to be unaware that yours is driving you right past any consideration of views other than your own. The difference? I came to my worldview as a result of research and a strong desire to know the truth and not just accept what either side said by default. Where'd you get yours?

The fact that you admit that you became a Christian, and then began studying evolution...

Wait, that is completely false! I studied and believed in evolution from the time I could think on my own two feet. By the time I was a teenager I had an awesome collection of fossils and had pointed towards a career as a Paleontologist. How did you miss that?

...proves my point (with your frequent request for proponents of evolution to provide you with “proof” and your subsequent disregard of the proof when provided only serves as further evidence of this point – I mean, you appear to think that as long as you keep those eyes of yours firmly shut, you can keep asking people to show you said proof and then deny it’s existence).

Not only has there been no proof presented to me at all, ever, that you make such a statement is kind of laughable. You don't think that The Life Science Prize offered for "proof of evolution" wouldn't have been claimed by now? What would be considered a valid "proof?" Allow me to share a couple of quotes from that site:

“I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation.” Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin (The Life of Ernest Chain, Ronald W. Clark, pp. 147-148).

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” Sir Arthur Keith. Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen? p. 73, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984.

I challenge you to present me with even one "proof" of Darwin's hypothesis/macroevolution...go for it!

Just because you can find a handful of other religious nuts that agree with you (and write long winded posts on the subject) doesn't mean that there is actual controversy surrounding the subject, or that you all are any less nutty. Thousands of scientists with proven academic credentials have worked on the question of evolution, and are still working on today, and none of them have come to the kinds of conclusions put forward by your selected “examples” of undoubtedly equally religious dissenters.

Again, you are completely wrong, either by choice or ignorance. I have presented long lists of scientists who doubt or reject Neo-Darwinism. "Religious nuts" is an interesting choice of words. I would say that Richard Dawkins is a religious nut, for instance. Atheism is his religion and that religion makes him run fleeing from any thought of a God. He, at least, is honest enough to admit that his worldview drives his scientific opinions. But I am probably less "religious" than Dawkins, actually.

Looking forward to see if you delete/ignore this post as you have others in the past.

I don't delete any posts unless there is completely pornographically nasty language or a spam post from a bot. I have erased a few posts offering us some form of blue pill, or great stock picks, or other spam sales information. I never delete posts because I disagree with them, ever. That is an unjust accusation and you should apologize for suggesting it.

And where the heck is creeper, he/she is one of the only reasons I was intermittently checking in on this blog in the first place! Anyway, now I’m rambling, so with that, I’m out.Canucklehead

I believe Creeper was talking back and forth with me in the hopes that he could convert me to his way of thinking. I am guessing that he gave up on the attempt and therefore decided to quit posting. Too bad, I enjoyed the give-and-take. Anyway, Canucklehead (wouldn't caknucklehead be a better spelling? Eh, maybe not) your comment was as empty of evidence as the entire "theory of evolution" seems to be, so congratulations! You have reached the level of the National Center for Science Education in one quick post!

By the way, the NCSE has a slogan, "When creationism flares up in the United States, the NCSE is there to put out the fires." OMG! So the job of science is to stifle dissent and discussion??!! Well, see ya', Canucklehead, if you don't read me you can go back to your nice, safe world where nasty and complicated facts can be conveniently ignored or explained away. Enjoy!


Taxandrian said...

Radar, just one thing:

In some cases, silence is golden. This is such a case.

joe said...

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

-- Mark Twain

Just been rather busy for the last quite-a-while. I will return shortly, however. Hey, Taxandrian, good commenting on the recent posts here, nice job.

And no, I don't think there's much hope of converting Radar, though I think that his readers should be made aware of his spectacular inanity, especially on the YEC front, a never-ending source of amusement.

There was a lengthy list of questions to which Radar, after much prodding, finally responded, though with much evasion if my memory serves correctly (this was almost a year ago, I think). I'll pick up on these shortly.

There was also that issue about Radar making up a figure of 11% of Christians in the US jail population. Not sure if he ever conceded that point, even though he made it clear he couldn't back it up at all.

And we had stopped somewhere in the middle of that whole dendrochronology/ice cores argument, where Radar's "logic" was leading to some very surprising consequences indeed.

I'll have more time in about a week or so, and I'll put up comments.

So as not to lose sight of old comments threads, I also recommend that you set yourself up with It's very handy.

See you shortly,

-- creeper

joe said...

"nice, safe world where nasty and complicated facts can be conveniently ignored or explained away"

Oh and this is rich, of course. Isn't that what this whole blog is - a "nice, safe world where nasty and complicated facts can be conveniently ignored or explained away"?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the link to the Life Science Prize, I found it pretty amusing. I can't think of a court that would entertain that argument, making the whole contest pretty moot.


radar said...

Creeper is back! He brings up a couple of rabbit trails that I abandoned because they took us away from the main point. However, suggesting that my posts are inane was a nice calling card and, gee, I am glad to see you again, too!

1) The percentage of Christians in jail, I think we concluded, is very difficult to ascertain since sources vary widely in their conclusions. I did concede that I couldn't prove 11% or, indeed, any other percent. That was a sidebar to another argument anyway and so I wonder why it makes a difference? I welcome anyone who can conclusively demonstrate just exactly what the percentage is, because I was unable to do it. Then, once you have established that figure I will listen as you explain to us what that might mean...

The ice core problems involve another rabbit trail, creeper. The evidences provided are all subject to interpretation. I did use some information from someone whose final conclusions on the matter are quite different from mine, and yet that didn't make his initial conclusions irrelevant. I don't consider ad hominem attacks on a scientist to be enough to overlook the evidences he presents. Nor do I think that the worldview of a scientist necessarily makes his evidences suspect. After all, every single scientist has a worldview. Show me someone who does not!

In any event, I am going to set you up with a nice fastball down the middle with one of my next posts and we will see if you can hit it out of the park. Hang's coming within the next seven days.