Search This Blog

Friday, July 30, 2010

Science versus Pseudoscience, or, Creationism versus Darwinism

(alternate title) The tan strepsipteran ran in haste to leap into space lest it lose its place in the larval nest of the insect pest in which it is a guest but at Whose behest?


I am going to give us a nice piece of meat to gnaw on here.  First I will give you a secular science article concerning "strepsipteran", that world-famous parasitical insect.  I may reach out to Karl Priest to comment later on this.  For now, as oftentimes I do, my words will be in this color when I comment within an article.  The article itself in both cases will be normal copy.

We begin with a News in Science article:

Raspberry eye looks like living fossil

Monday, 8 November 1999 

eyes

A highly unusual type of multi-faceted eye - resembling a tiny raspberry and not seen since trilobites disappeared hundreds of millions of years ago - has been discovered in a tiny parasitic insect.

Scanning electron micrographs show a) head of the strepsipteran b) eye of a fruit fly c) eye of the strepsipteran Pic: Cornell University
picture credit (notice that a mantis shrimp has a structural resemblance to a strepsipteran?  Design template? The mantis shrimp picture is mine and not from the article).

I could be unkind like Jon Woolf and label the opening statement a "lie", since the author certainly cannot prove that trilobites disappeared hundreds of millions of years ago.  The evidence that they perished in the Noahic Flood is better supported by the evidence in my opinion but certainly this author cannot make this claim with any authority!

Cornell University biologists report, in the latest edition of Science, their discovery that the composite eyes of the parasitic insect, strepsipteran, have only 50 facets compared with the compound eyes of most insects which have many hundreds of lens facets, each sampling only one small point in the insect's visual field.

"No other insect that we know of has eyes quite like this," said Ron Hoy, professor of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell and co-author, with Elke Buschbeck and Birgit Ehmer, of the report. "The only place one may see a comparable eye structure is in the fossils of some kinds of trilobites," he says, referring to the extinct arthropods that lived in shallow seas during the Paleozoic era.
I hope you noticed the second assumption.  Ron Hoy has no proof that there ever was a "Paleozoic era" but rather is presenting someone's educated-in-the-1800's guess.  Typical Darwinist thinking.

Fewer facets does not mean poorer vision, the Cornell biologists believe. The strepsipteran lenses are larger, and each has about 100 receptors, forming an individual retina behind each lens. According to the investigators, this kind of eye is well equipped to sample not points but "chunks" of the visual field, greatly improving visual capability.

"This composite lens arrangement allows the insect to have many more photoreceptors in a given area than would be possible with a compound eye. If you only have so much space on your head for eyes and you want to gather the most light, you want a composite lens eye," says Buschbeck. "The larger lenses of the strepsipteran insects are similar to a large lens of a camera, large insect lenses admit more light, support more photoreceptors and permit higher resolution."
I have previously pointed out that the trilobite eye is/was highly sophisticated, which in and of itself tends to falsify the upward myth of evolution.  But here is a massive problem for Darwinists which is no problem for creationists.  Suppose this eye was passed from trilobite to insect according to Darwinism.  How did a parasitic insect evolve from a bottom-dwelling sea creature and why are there no transitional forms along the way?  Did trilobites just decide to "hopeful monster" themselves from lying in the mud to burrowing into abdomens?  How did such a sophisticated eye appear in such "primitive" arthropods, then reappear in a parasitic insect?   

Actually, we will discover that the parasitic insect has had the same kind of sophisticated eye for "millions of years" in Darwinspeak or "both before and after the Flood" in actual science based on best evidence.  Therefore it is logical that neither organism is primitive at all or an ancestor to the other.  One of the untold lies of Darwinism is the idea that creatures like a trilobite are primitive.  But from what we can tell from the fossil record, the trilobite would be right at home in the ocean today and is simply an organism that got buried by the Flood to the point that none have survived (as far as we know).  Perhaps, like many other "lazarus" organisms, a population of trilobites will be found off the coast of Indonesia or Suriname?  If so, it is unlikely to be much different from the fossilized version. Living strepsipteran specimens resemble those preserved in amber so no evolution there, either.

The seldom-seen parasites are hidden in the bodies of common paper wasp. Females never leave their host. When males do, they are on a specific, hurried mission. In the approximately two hours before they die, the males have to find another wasp that is parasitised by a female, mate and depart.

"Sex pheromones from females probably help males to locate the general neighborhood of a wasp with a female parasite," Ehmer says, "but the male presumably relies on his vision once he is close to the wasp." She said that the importance to the insect of the visual system also is apparent from the volume of optic lobes dedicated to processing visual information, which Ehmer estimates to be 75 percent of the insect's brain.
How could such a process evolve?  There is much more to this, as the next article will point out.  These creatures are highly specialized and the entire process is complex and exacting. 

An insect viewing the world in fewer but larger chunks of the visual field would have an inverted, mirror-image problem. Like any simple lens, each facet inverts or reverses its individual portion of the overall image.

The correction comes about, the Cornell biologists believe, because of chiasmata, X-shaped nerve crossings. The biologists found that behind each of the facets is a nerve that connects it to the brain. The nerve exhibits a chiasma, rotating the nerve 180° around its own axis and re-inverting each portion of the image.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Poor Radar. Jon Woolf and creeper really have you hammered to the point that you're sitting behind your computer, crying...

How did it ever come to this? I feel for you man, I really do....

Jon Woolf said...

And I was hoping for something interesting from you, Radar. Too bad, so sad, all you have is this, apparently. Let's see, how many foolish misstatements can I quickly find ...

* Trilobites are indeed extinct. You've tried many times to poke holes in the old-Earth geologic record, and failed in all cases. Large Igneous Provinces alone suffice to falsify the YEC model.

* People who know what they're talking about don't call trilobites "primitive." Trilobites were an ancient group, going all the way back to the Cambrian, but trilobite species were often highly derived and specialized.

* Nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that because this insect's eye and the trilobite's eye look similar, they actually are similar.

* The suggestion that any scientist would claim that this insect evolved from a trilobite, based only on a superficial similarity in the eye, is so stupid that I can hardly believe you wrote it. No reputable scientist would even think such a thing, much less say it. That level of ignorance is reserved for creationists and other pseudoscientists.

* Do you have any idea how many different orders, families, genera, and species of trilobites have been described? "A living trilobite would be unlikely to be much different from the fossilized version", indeed! [snort]

* Surprise, surprise -- a quick bit of research shows that strepsipteran females are not as unique as you claim. Some are not parasitic, but free-living. Those that are parasitic are clearly neotenous. They parasitize many different species of flying insects. In the parasitic forms, the female apparently contains a modified version of a standard insectoid reproductive system, including a "brood canal" tube that starts at the genital area at the rear and bends around to the front; the male creates the brood canal opening during the act of mating.

* Many insects and other arthropods have larval stages that resemble the "triungulinid."

* Most if not all of your cutesy little questions betray a miserable ignorance of how evolution actually works. Yes, it's possible for symbioses to evolve. Yes, it's possible for host and parasite to evolve in tandem. Yes, it's possible for the adult of an insect to resemble a larva. Yes, it's possible for male and female to have such drastically different body shapes. No, none of these things require either any kind of magic or any conscious intent on the part of any of the organisms involved.

* Regarding the fossilized strepsipteran Bohartilla joachimscheveni: as usual, you completely miss the possibility of stabilizing selection.

It's sad. It really is. There's so much wonder and grandeur to be found in Nature, and all you can do is scrounge around for evidence of your cosmic magic-trickster.

radar said...

Woolf you couldn't find science if it was painted white in an all black room. You have nothing tangible so you make all these statements that either do not really relate or that are complete assumptions. You have no idea whether trilobites are extinct because we have only explored a small portion of the ocean floor. Gladiator Flies and Lazarus Rats and Coelecants were extinct, too. Until they weren't.

You are even saying things that discredit the Darwinist article. You are in such a hurry to barf up a reply you are not paying close attention.

Since Darwinists claim that trilobites are amongst the earliest animals, if that does not fit the definition of primitive then what you mean is that Darwinism is a joke. The lowest sedimentary layers have very complex life, such as trilobites, and they came with many varieties of eyes and even some with no eyes. They appear from nowhere with all sorts of variety and it was either "poof" or flood. I vote flood.

Jon Woolf said...

Woolf you couldn't find science if it was painted white in an all black room.

Tsk, tsk, Radar. Beware the dark side...

Since Darwinists claim that trilobites are amongst the earliest animals,

No, we don't. They aren't.

The lowest sedimentary layers have very complex life,

Also wrong. The oldest known sedimentary strata preserve no traces of life at all. Then for a long time, the only known lifeforms are bacteria of various sorts. Definite evidence of unicellular eukaryotes appears about 1.8 billion years ago. Multicelled eukaryotes, about 800 million years ago. The first metazoans, about 600 million. Trilobites, about 525 million. In other words, the timespan from first known metazoans to first known trilobites is about the same as the span from Tyrannosaurus rex to us.

Oh, and don't forget that these numbers are the first known appearances. They may actually be older.

radar said...

Jon, you and I both know the "Cambrian Explosion" is the bottom layers of the Noahic Flood sedimentary layers. From that point forward we have sudden appearances of fully developed animals and plants with no transitional forms. That is what anyone who is not a Darwinist religious zealot would believe if they knew all the evidence. All the propaganda in the world will not cover up the paucity of your actual evidence and the clock is ticking on how long you can fool the people. I guess that is what makes you apoplectic sometimes.

You have no way to prove these so-called millions of years. As to the base rocks, there is evidence that they are closer to six thousand years old than millions. There is also excellent evidence that around four thousand some years ago the continental crust of Pangea began a rapid subduction event and the temperatures of the submerged crust have made portions of the mantle cooler than the surrounding material.

Real scientists are studying the cell and the Earth and the Universe and finding more evidence that supports creation as time goes forward. All Darwinists have left is the ridiculous amounts of mythology and lots of brainwashed believers. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it cannot last too long. Truth finds a way out. The rulers of the Old Holy Roman Empire and the Inquisition were eventually defeated and it wasn't by swords. In fact Gutenberg's press did more to free mankind than any five hundred self-involved upper class artists and philosophers drinking absinthe in Paris or fine wine in Vienna.

The Bridge of Sighs awaits, Darwinism. Prepare for the crossing.

Human Ape said...

You wrote: "The evidence that they perished in the Noahic Flood is better supported by the evidence in my opinion but certainly this author cannot make this claim with any authority!"

I had to stop reading right there because I knew immediately you're a waste of time. You actually believe in the ridiculous childish disgusting genocide story about Noah's Ark? Wow! How can anyone possibly think you're qualified to write about science, when you think there's scientific evidence for a children's fairy tale?

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Interesting how you term the Paleozoic era - a term used by geologist to classify a certain age - an "assumption", and at the same time try to spin a debunked refutation of one particular dating method (which is all you have so far in trying to tackle dating methods) into "evidence".

Radar, if the evidence for a young Earth is so strong that "Darwinism" will inevitably crumble, as you keep telling us, then there wouldn't have been wave after wave of geologists (not all dirty atheists either) who concluded over the course of the past two centuries that the Earth is much older than that. Ice core layers would either neatly stop around 4,000 years ago or show evidence of a flood occurring at that time, radiometric dating would point to a single oldest age of around 6,000 years, plate tectonics would indicate the continents being much closer together, fossils wouldn't be sorted in rock layers as they are, animals wouldn't be sorted in continents as they are, genetic markers wouldn't be placed in the genome as they are, and so on.

You can't win this without superior evidence, and simply shouting "Assumption" at things that are not assumptions and touting as evidence what is actually no more than an unsuccessful rebuttal isn't going to get you there.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Jon, you and I both know the "Cambrian Explosion" is the bottom layers of the Noahic Flood sedimentary layers."

I guess we can put aside the "Noahic Flood sedimantary layers" then. Back in the real world, there are older strata with older fossilized life. The "Cambrian Explosion" did not constitute the sudden appearance of all life, just the "sudden" (in geological terms) appearance of most major forms of life. Big difference.

I can see how you might get that impression from creationist websites, but you'll have to do more careful reading than that. You're only coming across as uninformed or dishonest. Just sayin'.

That is what anyone who is not a Darwinist religious zealot would believe if they knew all the evidence."

If knowing all the evidence in some kind of Orwellian pretzel logic means ignoring some of the evidence, then you may have a point. But if "knowing all the evidence" means "knowing all the evidence", then no, you don't have a point.

"You have no way to prove these so-called millions of years."

... except for the various dating methods that all confirm each other. IIRC, this article also debunks one of the refutations that you attempted of dating methods.

And no, it's not just "using fossils to date rock layers and using rock layers to date fossils". You clearly haven't read up on this outside of creationist websites, even though you've been "led to water" many times on this issue.

"As to the base rocks, there is evidence that they are closer to six thousand years old than millions."

If there is, you've kept it a secret so far. As it is, you've only gotten as far as trying to refute one of the dating methods, unsuccessfully.

"There is also excellent evidence that around four thousand some years ago the continental crust of Pangea began a rapid subduction event and the temperatures of the submerged crust have made portions of the mantle cooler than the surrounding material."

Suuure. Let's see this excellent "evidence" then. Will it negate all the geological evidence for an old Earth?

"All Darwinists have left is the ridiculous amounts of mythology and lots of brainwashed believers. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it cannot last too long. Truth finds a way out. The rulers of the Old Holy Roman Empire and the Inquisition were eventually defeated and it wasn't by swords."

Yep, and young Earth creationism was defeated back in the 19th century, in multiple fields of science. And you still can't get over it.

"In fact Gutenberg's press did more to free mankind than any five hundred self-involved upper class artists and philosophers drinking absinthe in Paris or fine wine in Vienna."

Ah yes, you're the oppressed, railing against the elite. Sorry, but it's not about a class struggle, it's about supportable ideas vs. non-supportable ideas, and no amount of hysterical trash-talking on your part is going to make a stronger case for YEC - and FYI, it actually makes you look weaker as an ambassador.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

[sigh] [shakes head sadly]

Radar, you're really kinda embarrassing yourself here. Over and over you throw out these illogical pseudo-arguments, proclaim doom for my side and victory for yours, lash out desperately, mindlessly repeat your mantras over and over, and yet you never actually address the arguments being used against you. The sum total of your position is "I say this couldn't have evolved, therefore evolution loses and I win." To anyone who really knows the evidence, you just come across as a naif, an unfortunate victim of the dark side of superstition.

From that point forward we have sudden appearances of fully developed animals and plants with no transitional forms.

Anyone who really knows the fossil record knows that's not true. Anyone who really knows the fossil record also knows that the base of the Cambrian is not the first appearance of complex metazoa, either.

You have no way to prove these so-called millions of years.

Except for radiometric dating, sedimentation rates, continental-plate movement rates, racemization dating, electron-luminescence dating, and probably a few others I don't know about.

Even beyond that, though, there's a whole stack of evidence that just buries the Noahic Flood and the whole young-Earth scenario. Here are just a few bits to chew on:

* The no-young-isotopes phenomenon

* Fossiliferous layers in Large Igneous Provinces

* Paleosols

* Fossiliferous sedimentary rocks intruded and deformed by igneous sills and dikes

* Preserved bolide-impact craters

* Pressure-metamorphosed rocks like slate, still with fossils in it

* Heat-metamorphosed rocks like marble, still with fossils in it

* Scavenged fossils

* Weathered fossils

* Organisms killed in one event and buried in another, and exposed to air in-between

* Ecological ghosts

I could go on for kilobytes. None of these things make any sense under YEC. They all make perfect sense under conventional geology. That's why it still is conventional geology.

Anonymous said...

There's this constant refrain of claiming that established science, based on many observations, experiments, testable predictions etc. just amounts to "mythologies", "assumptions" etc., while any hint of casting doubt on some part of established science is shown as "evidence" of creation and/or a young Earth.

"As to the base rocks, there is evidence that they are closer to six thousand years old than millions."

Radar, please provide objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years. Not some vague sprinkling of doubt on some detail in established mainstream science, but actual, objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years.

Can you do it?

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Yuck. I hate insects.

radar said...

Oh, okay. We will close the book on the present conversations with the summary - Darwinists cannot provide objective evidence on the current subjects. Now we finally get back to dating methods...Sunday/Monday/Tuesday depending upon work requirements.

Anonymous said...

Brave Sir Radar ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When Knowledge reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Radar turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Radar!

Jon Woolf said...

Although in recent days, he's been sounding more like the Black Knight...

Anonymous said...

"We will close the book on the present conversations with the summary - Darwinists cannot provide objective evidence on the current subjects."

... thus ignoring the 35+ pieces of evidence that actually were clearly presented.

Doublethink at its finest. Your fellow creationists must be so proud of you.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

So to sum up:

Radar asks for objective evidence of macroevolution, "asserting" that there is none.

Radar is promptly presented with same.

Radar evades, claiming that the evidence presented is "mythologies", "assumptions", "not germane", uses a massive ad hominem to not have to deal with the evidence and lies clearly and repeatedly that no actual evidence was presented.

Radar continues these tactics to evade the evidence over successive posts.

Radar utterly fails to address the evidence, despite being given numerous occasions to do so.

Radar declares the discussion closed and himself the victor.

So noted.

Better creationists please.

Anonymous said...

"Although in recent days, he's been sounding more like the Black Knight..."

Radar's got the Black Knight beat. At least the Black Knight never declared victory.

WomanHonorThyself said...

thanks again Radar..always a pleasure to learn from u..Have a super Sunday my friend!!!:)

Karl Priest said...

It appears that Jon wants to be the Big Bad Wolf as he mocks Radar:

“Most if not all of your cutesy little questions betray a miserable ignorance of how evolution actually works. Yes, it's possible for symbioses to evolve. Yes, it's possible for host and parasite to evolve in tandem. Yes, it's possible for the adult of an insect to resemble a larva. Yes, it's possible for male and female to have such drastically different body shapes. No, none of these things require either any kind of magic or any conscious intent on the part of any of the organisms involved.”

Creationists understand the beliefs of evolutionism quite well. What Woolf claims is “possible” is really not mathematically and observationally. Evos can make up all kinds of just-so stories about what could “possibly” happen. Kipling did not corner the market. One of the best evo fairy tales I have seen is how the bombardier beetle "possibly" evolved (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html).

As Dr. Mastropaolo says, (with my paraphrase) it is possible for the cow to jump over the moon, but in evolutionist's psychotic minds the moon could jump over the cow.

Evolutionism is squashed by the Life Science Prize (http://www.lifescienceprize.org/). The Life Science Prize determines who has science and who has possibilities. That really bugs true believers in evolutionism.

Anonymous said...

"Evolutionism is squashed by the Life Science Prize (http://www.lifescienceprize.org/). The Life Science Prize determines who has science and who has possibilities. That really bugs true believers in evolutionism."

We're still waiting for Joseph "Godspeed" Mastropaolo to explain the strawman argument that is at the center of his "prize". What makes him think that the theory of evolution would predict "two or more living things that are identical"? He was challenged on this and has failed to come up with an explanation. I guess that means he's defaulting.

The fact that his claim has nothing to do with evolution (and in fact runs counter to the theory of evolution and current understanding of modern biology, which of course predicts that no two living things are completely identical) is why he hasn't found any takers for his prize.

And what sane person would take him up on his ill-conceived challenge? It's a cheap trick so he can create a long list of people who wisely saw fit not to engage him.

Keep in mind that Mastropaolo also claims there is no such thing as micro-evolution. Are you willing to stand by him? Are you willing to assert that Mastropaolo has science on his side?

It's claims and misinformation like Mastropaolo's that makes it highly unlikely, if not impossible, that he and other creationists (present company included) "understand the beliefs of evolutionism quite well". We should draw up a list sometime of all the misstatements and strawman arguments about evolution that Radar has presented; they can, purely logically speaking, not have originated from a person who knows the theory of evolution (and who is honest, of course).

Since you've chosen to disparage Jon but offer no factual counterclaim, could you please clarify the following:

Are you saying that it is not possible for symbioses to evolve?

Are you saying that it is not possible for host and parasite to evolve in tandem?

Are you saying that it is not possible for the adult of an insect to resemble a larva?

Are you saying that it is not possible for male and female to have such drastically different body shapes?

BTW, your "take-down" of the possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle is, as you might imagine, highly unimpressive due to your unwillingness or inability to present a factual rebuttal. For complexity (irreducible or otherwise) to be a problem for the theory of evolution, something must exist to prevent development in gradual steps. Which step(s) do you think is/are impossible and why?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Wow, one of the biggest names in creationism comes into an obscure weblog's comments area just to take down a no-name amateur naturalist like me?

Dunno which is funnier: that you thought I might believe that name, or that your "take-down" was such a miserably bad job.

Creationists understand the beliefs of evolutionism quite well.

But not those of actual evolutionary theory.

And Mastro's "Life Science Prize" is a scam.

Anonymous said...

I dunno, is Karl Priest such a big name?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-1-10
This is a test to see if my browser will work on this system.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Joseph,
It does.
Looks like you picked the right browser.

highboy said...

As I've proven to be somewhat objective in the battle between yec and oec, let me just say one thing: I understand Radar's arguments and the counter-arguments, but between this post and the last, Mastrowhathisass isn't making an ounce of sense. At all. His comments are right up there with some of the anonymousnonnames posts.

radar said...

Despite the protestations of Darwinists, it remains true that they have not one piece of objective evidence to present. I gave them a chance and they buried us with subjective conjecture-based BS.

Go ahead, Woolf or Chaos or creeper or lava or Canucklehead, give me even one fact that supports evolution. So far nothing...

Anonymous said...

Poor Radar...

Anonymous said...

Whatever Radar. Maybe you've been so busy proclaiming victory that you didn't notice that you were given dozens of pieces of evidence that you were unable to refute.

Not only that, but your buddy Joseph Mastropaolo (if that is actually him posting) has simply imploded into babbling inanities in the thread two posts before this one. Go check it out if you haven't been following that "conversation". It's really quite shocking.

Karl Priest is shy some answers to pretty basic questions in this thread right here as well.

Where do you find these people? Somebody tells me these guys are "big name" creationists. Is that true?

Oh, and of course you still owe an answer to this question:

Radar, please provide objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years. Not some vague sprinkling of doubt on some detail in established mainstream science, but actual, objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Go ahead, Woolf or Chaos or creeper or lava or Canucklehead, give me even one fact that supports evolution. So far nothing...

It is to laugh, it really is.

Anatomical patterns such as aortic arches are evidence for evolution (which, let us all remember, is not logically the same thing as "evidence against creationism").

Transitional forms such as Diarthrognathus and Archaeopteryx are evidence for evolution.

Patterns of descent in DNA are evidence for evolution.

Ecological ghosts are evidence for evolution.

And, of course, all the known examples of micro-evolution are evidence for evolution.

Karl said...

Bugs are braver than evos.

Below is what I said elsewhere on this blog. It also applies to here.

Well, boys, I am reminded why Dr. Mastropaolo set up the LSP in the first place.

Evos are all hot air and endless argument on websites.

They worship their own egos. i.e. They are gods in their won minds.

I sat (with a nationally recognized atheist and other witnesses) and watched Dr. Mastropaolo debate the best NCSE has. We all heard the atheist proclaim, "Evolution is silly, but I will not accept creation because no god would allow all of the bad things that there are."

That is the bottom line of most (such as the late S. J. Gould) evolutionist's religious fervor.
Let's talk man-to-man. When you get called out, you come out and act like a man or you hide behind mommy's dress tail.

All the evos on the LSP list and in this blog have been called out. There are enough of you to chip in $q0 bucks and send your best to take on Dr. Mastropaolo.
Do it or continue to be the cowards that you are. All you have got is kid tripe like, "If we won Mastropaolo would say the judge was unfair."

Your chickenhearedness is comical!

Anonymous said...

"Evos are all hot air and endless argument on websites. "

Strange, since Mr. Mastropaolo has displayed a LOT of hot air and NO answers to some pretty straightforward questions in this thread. Mastropaolo can't provide answers to the simplest of questions about his beliefs and about one of his prizes, which in its current formulation makes little to no sense:

"1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?"

All he and you have managed to bring to the table so far are some long-debunked creationist claims auch as:

1. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (It doesn't.)

2. Scientists disproved abiogenesis centuries ago. (They didn't.)

We'll gladly debunk those claims for you again, right here, if you'd like.

"I sat (with a nationally recognized atheist and other witnesses) and watched Dr. Mastropaolo debate the best NCSE has. We all heard the atheist proclaim, "Evolution is silly, but I will not accept creation because no god would allow all of the bad things that there are.""

Since you put that in quotes, you're implying a direct quotation. Who was the atheist in question, when did he say it, and could you provide evidence please? Or, in the interest of politeness, shall we just term this claim as not being operative and save ourselves the hassle of watching you squirm and evade for days?

"Let's talk man-to-man. When you get called out, you come out and act like a man or you hide behind mommy's dress tail."

Let's. Can you guys answer the questions or can't you? You're both hiding behind this challenge and a lot of mumbo-jumbo while shying away from actual debate. And Mastropaolo keeps hiding behind a bizarre logical fallacy, which frankly does not leave a good taste in anyone's mouth regarding his ability to debate. You might have noticed that even one of the regular creationists here (representing half of the 2 creationists that regularly comment here aside from Radar) is distinctly unimpressed with Mastropaolo's behavior.

"All the evos on the LSP list and in this blog have been called out."

Yes, and we're piling on the evidence all the time, Radar's lies to the contrary notwithstanding. He can't address it, and judging from the outdated talking points that you and Mastropaolo are stuck on (see above), neither can you.

As for the challenge, the terms of it are so vague and nonsensical (e.g. "If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion") that any sane person will of course steer clear of it. That by itself does not indicate anything about the relative scientific merit of the theory of evolution and creationism.

-- creeper

Chaos Engineer said...

Do it or continue to be the cowards that you are.

It's done more out of compassion than cowardice. We all saw the kind of disconnected ranting that Poor Dr. Mastropaolo was doing back on the last thread. No matter which side of the Creation vs. Evolution argument you're on, I think we have to agree that the years haven't been kind to him.

Is it really worth taking advantage of his weakness just to collect a lousy few thousand dollars? Wouldn't it be kinder to let him keep the money to pay for retirement expenses or leave to his grandchildren?

If I were so heartless as to want his money, I wouldn't waste time taking him to court. I'd just make up a bunch of wild stories about how I was fighting the "gay agenda" or the communists or whatever and e-mail them to him along with a request for a contribution.


Anyway, I see you're very concerned about "cowardice". When you were in junior high school, did your peers play the "cowardice" card to get you to shoplift or smoke cigarettes with them? Did it work?

Vern said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

[b]It's Time For Revenge...

[url=http://ihateanne.com][img]http://ihateanne.com/images/anne.jpg[/img][/url]

[url=http://ihateanne.com]www.IHateAnne.com[/url][/b]