+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 61

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Darwinism Defended

    Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse
    (1982)

    “As is well known, Miller and Urey succeeded beyond all expectation!” - page 161




    No, Miller and Urey did NOT "succeed beyond all expectation." This is not science. It is anti-science. Miller and Urey made extremely bad assumptions about the early characteristics of the "primordial ocean" and atmosphere.

    Their assumptions have been shown to be wrong. Nevertheless, even in a modern laboratory, using bad information, all that Miller and Urey could do was produce, under carefully controlled conditions, a few simple amino acids in extremely dilute form. This hardly constitutes anything that can be called "successful" unless you choose to spin words and facts.
    A flask of even concentrated amino acids is as far away from life as a bottle of sulfuric acid.


    “Suppose that we even grant, what is not yet proven, that we have a full understanding of the natural production of simple one-cell organisms.” - page 164


    Suppose that we do not. The very same people who are always eager to "grant" suppositions to Darwinism never ever make the slightest allowance for skeptics of the fanciful magic that random mutation followed by *selection* can create human beings.



    “One can choose any animal one likes, and one can teach it pretty much anything that one wishes.”- page 194

    Can one choose a snake, and teach it French? Pretty much?


    How about teaching cows to milk themselves? I mean, lots of farmers would really like to see that scientific process which Michael Ruse so stunningly advances.


    “Think for a moment of Christianity, with its powerful message about the ultimate equal worth of every human being, and then think of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.” - page 251


    Think, for a moment, of atheism and the scores of millions of humans starved and tortured and murdered in the USSR and China and Cambodia and Laos and even today in Africa. These were officially sanctioned events, carried out by the highest authority in the land. The Pope constantly emphasizes the ultimate equal worth of humans, as did Mother Teresa, who took in unwanted children by the thousands. Contrast Mother Teresa with leftists, who promote and laugh at abortion butchery.


    “People outside the fold are the ‘spicks,’ ‘wops,’ ‘yids,’ ‘niggers,’ ‘***s’ - the terms speak for themselves.” - page 252


    Thus another leftist pretends to write about science by invoking the most vile and cowardly acts he can imagine on anyone who does not agree with him.
    This is not science, it is anti-science.
    It is widely practiced by the godless left and their acolytes.


    People outside their fold are the "fundies," "bible-thumpers," "flat earthers," "I.D.'ers," and "dinosaur riders" - the terms speak to the ignorance and intolerance of those inside the fold of self styled Anointed Ones.


    “In fact, ethical claims are far more stable than scientific claims. One can still follow Plato in ethics. One would look pretty silly following Ptolemy in science.” - page 273


    Well stated. I give Michael Ruse full credit for this astute observation.

    How often does one see any godless leftist (Michael Ruse calls himself an atheist) giving credit to any "fundie" for anything, anywhere? Approximately never.


    That's how anti-intellectualism works. It is consistently intolerant and dishonest.


    “No apology or defense (of Darwinism) is necessary.” - page 281


    No defense of Darwinism is necessary, so Ruse wrote this book and titled it "Darwinism Defended."


    Brilliant, self-contradiction, no?


    “From outside the scientific community has come a major threat to Darwinian evolutionary theory . . .” - page 285


    This is breathtakingly dishonest.

    1. Many critics of Darwinism are well-educated scientists WITHIN the scientific community.


    2. Ruse has already claimed that "no defense of Darwinism is necessary," so how could there possibly me a "major threat", particularly given his often heard mantra that evolution is "fact, fact, fact!"


    “It would be nice to see the Creationist take on the question of the horse, which is one of the best documented cases of evolutionary change.” - page 311


    The "question" of the horse is analogous to a series of dogs, from chihuahua to great dane. Really it's no big deal. Everyone understands and agrees that evolution takes place in miniscule changes. The point that Ruse and his cohorts try to obfuscate is that one cannot extrapolate ad infinitum.
    Yes, runners have gotten faster and extended world records.
    Yes, high jumpers have jumped higher and higher. But no runner will ever do a mile in 1 second. NO high jumper will ever jump over the moon. And nobody will ever prove that DNA first synthesized itself, or given the first, simplest strands, was able to overcome the insuperable statistical hurdles of polypeptide synthesis, for 200,000 different proteins and enzymes in the human body alone, simply by random mutation and *selection*.


    *Selection* further complicates the statistical demands by requiring additional biological processes or cycles for each new intermediary that must be *selected*.




    “ . .. houseflies, and herrings, and God only knows what else.” - page 319


    The invocation of God's name by an atheist. The poor man is clearly confused.

    Incidentally, Michael Ruse recently stated, after reading about Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, "Dawkins makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."
    "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - Newt Gingrich

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    The evolution model predicts that life evolved (and apparently is evolving) from non-life, that organisms today present a sort of continuum or unbroken spectrum, . . .” - page 295


    “ . . . I note without further comment the repeated claim that evolution implies that there can be no gaps between organisms. No Darwinian has ever said this - or ever could.” - page 310


    Oops! You did. On page 295


    That's what's so great about I.D. haters like Ruse. They can contradict themselves time and time again, and it never even bothers them. Anti-science, writ large.


    But YOU make the smallest slip-up, and it's Darwinian Curtains for you, buster.

    “The argument based on thermodynamics has intuitive appeal. . . . The second law states an ‘obvious’ fact about the world: things tend to go from order to randomness. . . . Of course, as the Creationists note, the evolutionist has an answer: the second law holds only for a closed system. The world is not a closed system: usable energy is always coming in from the sun. Hence, evolution is possible.” - page 306




    One cannot get from randomness to order merely with radiant energy. Conduct any experiment you wish with inorganic matter. Place a chemical mixture in the sunlight and see if the energy separates them. Does the sunlight stack bricks? What does the sunlight order, and how? Whence came the organization and information that is life? More critically, whence came the organization and information contained in matter? And energy?


    So many superficially plausible arguments are put forth on behalf of Darwin's 150 year old fairytale. But science should be, and is, more than superficiality. Wishful thinking does not make Darwinism so. By Darwinism, I mean the same thing that Richard Dawkins and Michael Ruse do, not the trivial microevolution practiced by Gregor ******, but rather the development of all animals from one ancestor, via the mechanism of:


    1. Random mutation followed by
    2. *Selection*

    Didn't happen. Couldn't happen.
    Not in a billion years.
    Last edited by BarackZero; 08-22-2009 at 06:20 AM.
    "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - Newt Gingrich

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    HOW DOES THIS PROVE ANYTHING.

    1. I could find equal number of proofs about how the sky is purple as you have against darwinism.

    2. Copying and pasting information from random sources is pointless unless you qualify them. You haven't.

    3. Adding "......." in the middle of a paragraph does not excuse you from omitting over half the paragraph. You are quote mining, this is the same is lying and gets you kicked out of university and gives you and F in any high-school level course.

    4. 3 threads now and you still haven't proven a point or addressed any of the problems in your method. Maybe you should try another forum were people don't ask so many questions.

    In short Zero how do you expect people to have a discussion with you when you have provided us no useful material to discuss.

    It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion when all you have provided is a couple one liner responses on half a dozen copy and pasted quotes. You've done this in 2 other threads already, the outcome is obvious.

    If you want people to discuss a topic you have fill a thread with at least 50% of your own material, You've barely covered 5%.
    Last edited by Spector567; 08-22-2009 at 04:17 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Stow, OH SOL III
    Posts
    3,233

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567
    3. Adding "......." in the middle of a paragraph does not excuse you from omitting over half the paragraph. You are quote mining, this is the same is lying and gets you kicked out of university and gives you and F in any high-school level course.
    In academics, and in journalism, it's called 'Plagiarism' and at the college level in my state it will get you a lot more then just a 'F' in the course. It is grounds for academic dismissal from the university and a permanent notation will be placed in your academic records. You will be unable to attend any other public university/college in the state for a period of up to three years. Also any degrees earned can be revoked.

    On a professional level (academics or in journalism) it can also lead to dismissal.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    750

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by nomaxim View Post
    In academics, and in journalism, it's called 'Plagiarism' and at the college level in my state it will get you a lot more then just a 'F' in the course. It is grounds for academic dismissal from the university and a permanent notation will be placed in your academic records. You will be unable to attend any other public university/college in the state for a period of up to three years. Also any degrees earned can be revoked.

    On a professional level (academics or in journalism) it can also lead to dismissal.
    yeah, but if he's good enough at it, he can get a job in government or industry.

    how's that tom lehrer song go?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWsjpt-p1pQ

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Think, for a moment, of atheism and the scores of millions of humans starved and tortured and murdered in the USSR and China and Cambodia and Laos and even today in Africa. These were officially sanctioned events, carried out by the highest authority in the land. The Pope constantly emphasizes the ultimate equal worth of humans, as did Mother Teresa, who took in unwanted children by the thousands. Contrast Mother Teresa with leftists, who promote and laugh at abortion butchery.
    The communism in the USSR and China are the worst examples of religion. Neither nation was actually athiest, they may have called themselves such but their religious beliefs were every bit as bad as medieval christianity. On the other hand, many of those who are currently being killed and tortured in Africa are being done so by the hands of Christians. You think that Christians are so loving and tolerant? Go talk to the various neo-nazi groups and the KKK (if you can still find them) which, incidentally, are the most popular in the red states that oppose Evolution the most.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    1. Many critics of Darwinism are well-educated scientists WITHIN the scientific community.
    HA! No they don't. Not in RELEVANT fields of science anyway. An engineer or a meteorologist, while highly educated, knows little more about actual biology and ecology than the average HS graduate does. Get me a statistic from actual biologists and then you may have a point.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    750

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Crab of PAIN!!! View Post
    HA! No they don't. Not in RELEVANT fields of science anyway. An engineer or a meteorologist, while highly educated, knows little more about actual biology and ecology than the average HS graduate does. Get me a statistic from actual biologists and then you may have a point.
    google this one girls: adaptive radiation in the cichlid fishes of the african rift lakes.

    some pretty astounding speciation over just a few million years.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    HOW DOES THIS PROVE ANYTHING.

    1. I could find equal number of proofs about how the sky is purple as you have against darwinism.
    Then why don't you do just that. Don't blather nonsense. Do what you say you can do.

    Furthermore, I never once used the word "proof." You did that evidently attempting to attribute YOUR word to me. Your jejune pretensions are anti-intellectual and offensive.

    2. Copying and pasting information from random sources is pointless unless you qualify them. You haven't.
    None of the citations from the book I read are "random sources." Nor do I need to "qualify" what the author said. It should be quite clear. Nothing was taken out of context. If these citations were "copied and pasted.. from random sources," you should offer up evidence of your claim. You haven't. Like your pals, you never do. You just blather.

    3. Adding "......." in the middle of a paragraph does not excuse you from omitting over half the paragraph. You are quote mining, this is the same is lying and gets you kicked out of university and gives you and F in any high-school level course.
    You are lying through your teeth.
    A good deal of what is said is often immaterial and adds nothing to the point being made. You are guilty of "quote mining" by citing a series of periods you attribute to me. Somehow your "quote mining" is quite all right, and mine is "lying."

    You never can get anything right, can you.

    4. 3 (SIC) threads now and you still haven't proven a point or addressed any of the problems in your method. Maybe you should try another forum were (SIC) people don't ask so many questions.
    One begins sentences with words, not numbers. You meant to write "where" but instead, you wrote "were."

    Such ignorance is indicative of junior high school mentality, which you display again and again.



    In short Zero how do you expect people to have a discussion with you when you have provided us no useful material to discuss.
    I cited Michael Ruse's book. You can't begin to respond rationally. You can't BEGIN.

    It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion when all you have provided is a couple one liner responses on half a dozen copy and pasted quotes. You've done this in 2 other threads already, the outcome is obvious.
    How about your "reasonable discussion" on the "purple sky." Let's see it, but in a separate thread. This thread SHOULD discuss the book, "Darwinism Defended." You can't stay on topic, can you.
    "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - Newt Gingrich

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by nomaxim View Post
    In academics, and in journalism, it's called 'Plagiarism' and at the college level in my state it will get you a lot more then just a 'F' in the course. It is grounds for academic dismissal from the university and a permanent notation will be placed in your academic records. You will be unable to attend any other public university/college in the state for a period of up to three years. Also any degrees earned can be revoked.

    On a professional level (academics or in journalism) it can also lead to dismissal.
    Phrases which are lengthy or immaterial or both are frequently omitted from quotations. Their intentional omission is represented by three successive periods.

    Since the topic of this, my thred, is "Darwinism Defended," and I named the author, Michael Ruse, how anyone could possibly call that "plagiarism" is inconceivable. Wretched dishonesty has no place in any discussion. Nevertheless, leftists and atheists and other condescending haters of Christians and conservatives persist in lying time and time again.

    And now the definition of plagiarism, of which nomaxim is utterly clueless:


    Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."
    "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - Newt Gingrich

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Stow, OH SOL III
    Posts
    3,233

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero
    Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."
    I'm afraid we do not use a 12 year old dictionary for university policy and I'm pretty sure that no other collage or university does. We use 3342-3-01.8 Administrative policy regarding student cheating and plagiarism.
    (2) "Plagiarize" means to take and present as one's own a material portion of the ideas or words of another or to present as one's own an idea or work derived from an existing source without full and proper credit to the source of the ideas, words, or works. As defined, plagiarize includes, but is not limited to:

    (a) The copying of words, sentences and paragraphs directly from the work of another without proper credit;

    (b) The copying of illustrations, figures, photographs, drawings, models, or other visual and nonverbal materials, including recordings, of another without proper credit; and

    (c) The presentation of work prepared by another in final or draft form as one's own without citing the source, such as the use of purchased research papers.
    And since my post was directed towards 'Spector567' for the purpose of providing more information in regards to his post, which I quoted.

    It was not directed towards 'BarackZero' since I find it unlikely that you are in any type of academic standing.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    One begins sentences with words, not numbers. You meant to write "where" but instead, you wrote "were."

    Such ignorance is indicative of junior high school mentality, which you display again and again.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero
    Since the topic of this, my thred, is "Darwinism Defended," and I named the author, Michael Ruse, how anyone could possibly call that "plagiarism" is inconceivable. Wretched dishonesty has no place in any discussion. Nevertheless, leftists and atheists and other condescending haters of Christians and conservatives persist in lying time and time again.
    You meant to write "thread" but instead, you wrote "thred".

    Such ignorance is indicative of junior high school mentatlity, which you display again and again.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    You meant to write "thread" but instead, you wrote "thred".

    Such ignorance is indicative of junior high school mentatlity, (SIC) which you display again and again.
    The subject is the book Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

    Grow up and stop showing your ignorance. You couldn't even google the idiot professor who pissed away $3,000,000 on a Nigerian internet scam.
    "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - Newt Gingrich

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Barrack let me spell it out for you.

    NONE OF US HAVE READ THE BOOK. DISCUSSING MINOR POINTS THROUGOUT THE BOOK WITHOUT PROVIDING THE CONTEXT THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED IS POINTLESS.

    This is not a book club. Hence why you didn’t qualify your information. We have no clue about the context.

    Adding “….” Is removing context. The last time you did it you removed the entire counter argument from the statement. The only way that adding “…..” is acceptable is if we all have the book in hand. WE DON’T

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining

    The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]
    Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining#Quote_mining
    Since the mid-1990s, scientists and their supporters have used the term quote mining to describe versions of this practice as used by certain creationists in the creation-evolution controversy.[23] An example found in debates over evolution is an out-of-context quotation of Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species:
    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
    This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase "absurd in the highest degree", is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself perceived his own theory of evolution as absurd. However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.
    The quote in context is
    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
    Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

    As for cited sources you still have not told me how you acquired this information. I asked you about this in your last book review and you contradicted yourself. Did you read the book, are you getting the information from another book? Are you getting this from a website. Are you busily sitting in a corner in a bookstore flipping random pages and writing things down?

    Out of an over 300 page book you provided less than 1 page of material. It’s very logical to assume that the other pages had some useful material or context that you missed.

    Zero if you want us to discuss your opinion on a book. Try have an opinion more than 2 sentences long.



    Also, You've seen how these threads go on 2 separate occasions. Why havn't you adjusted your method to prevent that?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    The subject is the book Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

    Grow up and stop showing your ignorance. You couldn't even google the idiot professor who pissed away $3,000,000 on a Nigerian internet scam.

    Lol. When I criticise your spelling it's me showing my ignorance and immaturity, but when you criticise someone else's it's....? what? Somehow not completely avoiding the points people are making?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    222

    Re: Darwinism Defended

    Ok BZ... What are you trying to say exactly? You now understand that you didn't provide the information that was needed, but what are you arguing? The fact that some scientists are incorrect? Because there are tons of other scientists that are correct that are very pro Darwinism...
    huh, amazing stuff

Similar Threads

  1. Chris Doyle defended Phil Piccolio !!
    By rodney walker II in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2014, 07:51 AM
  2. Chris Doyle defended Jay Kubasek
    By rodney walker II in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2014, 07:51 AM
  3. Why Does MLM Need To Be Defended?
    By Joecool44 in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 06:25 PM
  4. Why Darwinism is False
    By Lan in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-05-2010, 04:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •