Ah, lovely. Exams are over. I have time and will hopefully be able to blog again, but just as I contemplate stopping my blog entirely, Mandi Pandi http://www.myspace.com/mandiventer gives me this link:
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
I am slightly inspired again. I guess everyone needs antagonists or inspiration of some sort.
Now, I am not the kind of person who would look at a comment I don’t like and delete it. I will instead answer the comment and shed light on the various misinterpreted quotes given in the website.
"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
Yes. It is hard. And? It is hard to get a 50 ton airplane to fly. It is even harder to leave the earth’s orbit. Are you implying that, because it is hard, phylogenetics is invalid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all."
Yes. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all. It is very hard to determine exactly where we came from. Complete fossils are rare. Humans came from chimpanzee-like ancestors, who came from other primate-like ancestors, who come from rodent ancestors who came from lungfish-like creatures, who came from etc. Obviously we don’t know every single detail about every single thing, but remember; one hundred years ago we didn’t know the compositions of many stars, including our own. Are you implying that, because we don’t have documented evidence of every single thing, the things we DO have evidence of, are untrue?
I suggest reading Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins. It tracks the entire progress backwards from humans to the possible origin of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale
"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."
What irritates me about this is that the creationists have taken a quote by an educated biologist (Niles Eldredge), twisted it around and completely misinterpreted it. I guess what he is saying (because the context is unknown) is that we are still not certain about the diversification of multi-cellular life, and that we are still researching because it is hard. Unlike the creationists who say “we don’t know, we don’t want to know,” he’s saying that we should find out.
"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
All major groups of fishes have their origins based in nothing? That is quite a claim. I think what he really means is that no one knows where lungfish came from. That is a slightly less preposterous claim, but still slightly... untrue. If only because the might have discovered more fossils since the book was written, more than fifteen years ago. He also says “Whatever ideas authorities may have...” which means that he does not care for evidence or peer reviewed pubication.
The link below shows what humans have discovered thus far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish#Taxonomic_History
"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." Gould
Yes. As Gould, a very influential and respected biologist, has stated, we can rarely trace the gradual transformation of one, entire species into another through a, finely, graded, sequence, of intermediary, forms.
He did NOT say, “We cannot follow the development of a species” or
“The species does not seem to be developing at all! Are species just staying the same they were after they left Noah’s Ark? The evidence doesn’t add up! It’s a miracle!”
Are you implying that, because some species’ ancestry is unknown, they do not have any ancestors?
The rest of the quotes in that category are similar: “We don’t have exact perfect evidence of every single species’ ancestry. We have absolutely NO evidence AT ALL that God exists. Therefore, evolution is untrue, and God exists."
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Yet again, the language is misinterpreted. Gould is saying, in the context of the sentence (please read it entirely, and not just the red highlighted text which PROVES God’s existence) is that there are few fossils which show the gradual change from one species into another. He didn’t say that the do not change, he is saying that, from the few fossils we have, it may look like they don’t change.
Are you implying that, because we don’t have documented evidence of every single thing, the things we DO have evidence of, are untrue?
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." Gould
Yes. Darwin was distressed by the Cambrian explosion.
“Darwin saw it as one of the principal objections that could be lodged against his theory of evolution by natural selection,[2] as have modern-day Creationists.” – Wikipedia... again.
He must have been a smart man to see so far into the future. People are still using it as ammunition, even though it is irrelevant.
Or rather: “And on the third day, God said, let there be a sudden diversification in organisms such as phytoplankton and the various colonial calcareous microfossils grouped together as calcimicrobes!”
Surely THIS is proof of God’s existence!
The rest of the quotes in that category are similar: “We don’t have exact perfect evidence of every single species’ ancestry. We have absolutely NO evidence AT ALL that God exists. Therefore, evolution is untrue, and God exists.”
The same can be said of “Large Gaps.” In fact I’m not even going to bother reading through the entire category. I grow tired of these repetitions and rephrasing of the same sentence.
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
“All of us?” Surely that cannot be true. Stephen Jay Gould, Charles Darwin and other biologists have studied the origin of life. They don’t think life is too complex to have evolved. But that’s a moot point anyway.
Life’s complexity IS great and it really IS hard to imagine. Just like it is hard to imagine that the earth is round (but when you know that it is, it makes more sense). We are not sure about the origin of life, but unlike the creationists, scientists are still researching and guessing. In last month’s issue of Scientific-American, an extensive article on the origin of life and the progress we’ve made to understand it was published. Yet, there is still more proof that life evolved from “dead matter” than there is proof that God exists.
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
I like this quote. Very wise that one. IF. IF. IF living matter is not caused by the interplay of atoms, etc. how has it come into being? IF. But as evidence states (Scientific American, as mentioned) living matter is likely caused by known forces.
And, more importantly, let met repeat what the author said, ironically enough, on a Christian website: we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
I agree wholeheartedly. There is, for example, no proof that prayer works or that God exists. We must therefore not reject the theory that “God does not exists” just because we don’t like it.
The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.
I have to agree. Most would break down before an inquisition. The inquisition, as made famous by the Spanish Christians, tortured people until they agreed with the inquisitor. It is obvious that this person would prefer an evolutionist harangued until he agrees that God exists, even though he’s only saying so to lessen the pain of the inquisition.
Ah yes, and here I see a quote made in 1925. I am not saying that the quote is wrong because it is old, but one must see the entire context. The author stated that “if you study palaeontology” but many advances and discoveries were made in that field in the past 80 years.
Followed by two ignorant quotes which state that “there is no evidence of this and this,” even though the evidence does exist.
And then one which criticises evolution because it is a “new religion” which scientists subscribe to. The quoted is Wolfgang Smith, a physicist and aerodynamics specialist. I’m sure he has also studied evolution... at a dinner party with fellow creationists perhaps.
“In his writing, Smith has constantly emphasized the idea of putting science back into the Aristotlean framework of traditional realism.”
I like this... This man says that we should follow “Aristotlean realism” even though Aristotle said, for example, that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object, and he didn’t even bother to test his hypothesis. I think Smith is on the mark. We SHOULD go back to a time when we said things without proving them and believing in things that has been disproved.
Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance." (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
Nice. I would read the book, but the problem is that the title sounds more insightful than the content.
I’m going to skip to the end now. This is becoming... frustrating. More repetitions.
There is only one person in recorded history who claims to be the eternal creator of the universe who had no beginning. He is the Anointed One.
Only one person in “recorded history” has claimed to be the eternal creator of the universe.
If you read carefully, you will see many layers of ignorance.
1. Several people have claimed to be the Creator. Most, if not all, of them were mad.
2. This passage implies that “recorded history” is the only history; that, before the bible was written, there was nothing.
3. The passage also implies that claiming to be a god makes you a god.
4. “Eternal” is unnecessary, although it’s probably not as ignorant.
5. MANY Gods have claimed to be The Creator, including Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Bill Gates and Yahweh.
You will be ever hearing but never understanding. You will be ever seeing but never perceiving. The hearts of these people have become calloused. They hardly hear with their ears and they have closed their eyes. Matthew 13:14-15
I like this quote. It reminds me of people who do not believe in evolution.
God gives life to the dead and calls into existence things that do not exist. Romans 4:17
WOW.
And the final sentence:
Is atheism against the law?
CLICK HERE
It is against the law in Alabama (or other bible-belt states), as well as most countries where women have no rights. It is also against the law to be a Christian in Mecca. I hope these people don’t believe this as “further proof” of God’s existence... Especially since the government has no business what a citizen believes. The Nazi government, for example, killed anyone who believed in a certain set of values and ended up slaughtering more than six million of these so-called “enemies of the Reich.”
And I hope to God that Mandi Pandi won’t try to execute me for heresy, as she might be being brainwashed to do by this website...
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except
Read the above link please. It is extremely witty. As is the rest of the publication.
