So you believe in evolution..

[The Grand Nudger]

Fucking priceless Blam. lol. I love the little "Negroids-Wolves" circle. Looks super scientific to me....

By the by Power... All that condescending bullshit about your dealings with atheists led me to realize something after I posted. If you've had this discussion before then I don't want to have to correct you, your definitions, or handle some common sophomoric arguments. You should already be well aware of the facts, what evidence there is and what evidence there is not. Just skip all the foreplay and bring some new evidence to the table. You've already been made aware of why your "arguments" are garbage if you've ever had this discussion. If you're going to rehash it all here with a new audience then I think I can see exactly why you joined this forum. You were completely frustrated on another and decided that you might come here in the hopes that you could peddle your bullshit over from scratch to an audience who had never been exposed to it. Well, surprise surprise we have. Not a little bit, a lot. Shit and run posters link the same trash. Matter of fact, I think the only place you're likely to find a gullible enough audience for what you've offered thusfar is at a fundy christian website. I'd be willing to bet that even there some christian would pop up out of the woodwork ashamed of these arguments. That wouldn't be as satisfying as posting here I'm sure. So, in light of all of this, how about you drop the pretense of engaging in some sort of scientific debate, of being better educated on the subject, and of having something new and worthwhile to say? If all you have is the same tired creationist shit that we've all had to suffer through about once a week, it's not worth any of our time engaging you in a discussion (nor you yours), and you should just pick some other subject.

[Darwinning]

oh, and to your earlier link, here is a counter link

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

And here is the rebuttal.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

Straw man arguments
Red herrings
Self-contradictions
Equivocation
Two wrongs make a right
Fallacies of accident and converse accident
Ignoratio elenchi
Naive theological assumptions
Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics
Misunderstanding of the scientific method
Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses"
Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory
Misleading mis-quotes
Fallacies of accent
Distortion of scientific controversies
Arguments from authority
False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

[Erinome]

Good fucking mother of marinara, the shit is deep in this thread.

The mental gymnastics it requires to try seeing things from this guy's point of view is distressing. I wonder if he's ever heard of Occam's Razor?

So defensive too. Insulting a person's intelligence is the first sign that the person who is insulting feels defenseless. It's the number one key to manipulation- text book psychology.

"Well, it's obvious to me that you're all very uneducated on the matter."

Yeah, that's what I would say too if I were backed into a corner by brilliance. Everything he says is pretentious, and when Min told me that people like him would rather blow their brains out than skeptically interrogate the evidence we gift wrap for them, he wasn't blowing smoke. Lesson learned- Listen to Min.

[Minimalist]

Holy fucking shit...10 pages already from yet one more idiot xtian who doesn't know his ass from his elbow?

I realize many of you do not believe that God exists because you believe evolution is a proven fact

Wrong, stupid. There is no evidence for your fucking 'god' ( or anyone else's, god for that matter.) There are museums full of evidence for evolution.

When your childlike mind is able to comprehend that fact you can get back to us.

[Jaysyn]

I should give up people.. This is a bit like arguing with a stubborn child about the existence of Santa

You never even began. You brought up two unconvincing cases of vestigial organs..you could try engaging the original post. Not one person has constructed a valid argument supporting macro evolution

Actually Aleialoura did on the very first page of this thread, but you ignored it & kept babbling in typical creationist fashion.

---

Goodnight everyone..hopefully when I return someone will present an argument supporting macroevolution..

for those who keep posting the 29 evidences, here are the 29 refutations http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Old & outdated, I read the first two pages & gave up. The author hinges his case (against the 29 evidences) on not having found out how rudimentary life originally started on ancient earth. As if not knowing what the first cause was is enough to ignore the mechanism in which evolution takes place. But either way, we can do it in a lab these days. Nice try though. E for effort.

[Tiberius]

When will creationists learn that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution? That is, you can disprove abiogenesis completely, and it still wouldn't negate evolution. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life began; evolution is the theory about how life developed. Just because abiogenesis comes before evolution doesn't mean evolution is dependent on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is but one theory (albeit the most well-supported) about how life arose. All evolution depends on is for life to exist...and we're pretty certain it does.

[Anomalocaris]

When will creationists learn that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution? .

Would they be creationists if they had faculty for learning?

Christianity is nothing but the art of faking it to fool the least educated dregs of humanity. Creationists specialize in the least educated of the least educated.

[Minimalist]

When will creationists learn that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution?

Can I get "never" in that pool, Adrian? I'll put a few shekels down on that.

[Epimethean]

Another YEC fucknut rears his pointy head. Donuts are on me, folks.

[Cyberman]

I realise this is backtracking somewhat but I really wanted to address this little nugget before you guys chew all the fun out of our new toy:

You're admitting here that you just assume apriori that life happened on its own and don't consider any alternatives. It reminds me of this quote:

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin
harvard professor of zoology and biology

From your context and wording you're clearly trying to present Professor Lewontin's words in an anti-evolutionary, even anti-religious light. This is not surprising since those words are featured very prominently on many creationist websites, articles and blogs. However, whenever I smell horseshit I don't automatically think there's a unicorn somewhere around, and whenever I see a carefully mined quote I want to visit the mineshaft and see the excavation marks for myself. So a little digging unearthed this fascinating little titbit, which I shall present in its entirety so as to forestall any excuses for not clicking this link:

Quote

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Answers in Genesis)

"The materialist way of thinking has widely creeped into the natural sciences until it became the predominating paradigma. The American geneticist Richard Lewontin aptly voiced that this is an unsubstantiatable preliminary decision: It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Gitt)

Original Quote

"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Comment

Answers in Genesis makes it appear as if by "patent absurdity", Lewontin means evolution, when he is really talking about astronomy.

Gitt makes it appear as if Lewontin thinks that materialism cannot be justified and is a personal decision. But in reality Lewontin gives a reason just after creationists stop quoting him.

Also, many scientists will disagree with him in the detail creationists are emphasizing, and say that methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science, giving exactly the reason Lewontin gave.

(All non-cosmetic emphasis as per original).

In short, the quote you gave formed part of a review of Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World and nothing to do with evolution; second, just as with that other favourite mined quote, Darwin's "absurd in the highest degree" which I look forward to seeing again before too long, the quote you gave actually goes on to continue the point beyond the point you ended quoting; third, the quote is quite clearly edited with the insertion of the word 'evolutionary' and ellipses indicating omitted words.

Bottom line: no matter what your reference sources are, they are lying to you.