Creationist Psychology Revealed 
TheCorinthian
18 y
2,275
Energy Awareness Course
Use CureZone kode to get a free session!
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Natural Weight Loss
Remove toxins from the body, restore digestive function, lose weig...
Dr. Clark Shop
Hulda Clark Cleanses
"God Loves Me, So Evolution Can't Be True"
Creationist Psychology Revealed
by Joyce Arthur
© copyright, February, 1995
published in OASIS, Volume 8, No. 17, Fall 1995
On January 26, B.C.'s community religious channel, Vision TV, aired a half hour program called On Main Street. The topic was evolution versus creation. The program was a good lesson in the workings of the creationist mind and a sad display of what happens when a bit of paranoia and some wishful thinking is mixed with an unhealthy dose of ignorance.
The host of the program was Dale Meyer, and his guest was creationist Dr. David Menton, Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University Medical School in St. Louis, Missouri. It should be immediately said that a medical doctor teaching anatomy is well out of his field of expertise when it comes to discussing evolution. Since an understanding of evolutionary theory is not critical to Dr. Menton's discipline, he is no more qualified to speak on evolution than the average intelligent layperson.
Host Meyer introduced the program with this statement:
"Did God play a role in the origin and development of man? The overwhelming majority of Americans say yes! But public schools, museums, and government-sponsored programs promote an evolutionary theory that excludes God completely."
Meyer quoted the Gallup poll which found that only 9% of Americans believe that evolution occurred without God, but 40% believe God played a role in evolution, while 46% believe that God did it all, creating everything suddenly without evolution. "Is it a fluke," asked the host, "that 86% of Americans are giving God some credit?" The question implied that the average American knows better than the average scientist about the origins and history of humanity.
In fact, creationists sincerely believe that the general population is indeed better-informed than scientists when it comes to the origin of man. In response to a question asking why Americans don't believe in evolution, Dr. Menton claimed it's because the average layman knows that complex things require an intelligent designer---nothing complex happens spontaneously by chance.
One of the overriding themes of the program was that scientists deliberately shut out God and ignore all evidence of creation. Apparently they do this, not because of the nature of science, or because there's anything wrong with creationism, but because, as Dr. Menton asserted:
"They prefer to believe that origins occurred in a way that is suitable for science. They would prefer that it not be supernatural." (italics added)
He complained that:
"Evolution holds sway because most of the scientific community considers creationism virtually unthinkable. It doesn't matter what the nature of the evidence is. If one view is unthinkable, it's not going to get explored."
It is clear that Dr. Menton did not even understand why the supernatural is excluded from science. He thought Science should be open to all hypotheses, and claimed that the most "obvious hypothesis" includes a supernatural creator. He illustrated the unfairness of the rules of Science by adapting William Paley's famous (but thoroughly refuted) watch designer argument. If we wanted to find out the origins of a watch by playing the "watch game," Menton said, where the only rule was "there is no watchmaker," we immediately discard the only real plausible hypothesis!
Throughout the show, Dr. Menton completely ignored the fact that most scientists (and a lot of evolutionists) believe in God. And of course, the real reason why Science does not admit supernatural hypotheses is because they can't be subjected to scientific observation, experimentation, and falsification. The business of science is to try and explain things through naturalistic processes, because that's the only objective method we humans have of independently verifying how the world works. With a supernatural solution, not only is there no means to explain things, there's no point in explaining anything at all. If science does go beyond the bounds of natural phenomena, it stops being science and becomes metaphysics or theology. Nevertheless, creationists feel victimized and offended by what they see as a deliberate, mistaken, and unjust snubbing of the supernatural by science.
There was the usual assortment of errors and distortions, both from Dr. Menton and the audience. Here are a couple of choice examples from Dr. Menton:
"The Darwinian idea hasn't changed much in 130 years... there have been some small changes. We now talk of Neo-Darwinism, a new form of Darwinism. The only difference being that Darwin thought things sort of survived if they were genetically suited to survive. Neo-Darwinism says it's not a simple matter of life and death, it's a matter of differential offspring. Those who leave the most offspring survive while those who do not survive don't leave as many offspring."
Dr. Menton has got things perfectly backwards. How can it be that this self-appointed evolutionary expert has not even read Darwin's The Origin of Species, in which the idea of differential reproduction serves as a building block to the theory of natural selection? And of course, it was Mendelian genetics which largely transformed Darwin's theory into Neo-Darwinism.
"For evolution, I don't believe that we have a theory...because we must have something observable, repeatable, and testable... Scientifically, we can't understand how we got here."
The tired, oft-refuted argument that evolution is not science because it can't be observed has once again reared its stupid head. Atoms and gravity can't be seen, but few people claim that physics is not scientific. Besides, evolution has been observed in modern times, including some cases of macro-evolution (speciation). Evolution has also been scientifically deduced from the study of both fossils and living organisms, and from related fields such as geology and plate tectonics.
An audience member asked:
"People tell us that we came from amoebas. But we still have amoebas. Why would we still have amoebas if we came from them?"
Instead of correcting the questioner's very basic misconception by pointing out that parent species can live on unchanged, indefinitely, after giving rise to other species, Dr. Menton told her it was "a good question" and then veered off to talk about the alleged common ancestor of humans and fruit flies and how species just stay the same species and never become something else. Dr. Menton added, "We still have bacteria today," thereby confirming to all present that evolution just doesn't make any sense at all, darn it.
Creationists rarely talk about natural selection, because it spoils the random, strictly by chance, theory of evolution that they so love to hate. Dr. Menton was no exception. Even though he discussed Darwin and his theory, he didn't bother letting his listeners in on what Darwinism was actually all about---natural selection. Simply put, natural selection dictates that individuals with traits and variations better suited to the environment are more likely to survive than others who are less well-suited. Because they compete more successfully for mates and limited resources, and live longer, the fitter individuals leave more offspring, and their favourable traits are passed on to a larger portion of the succeeding generation. The traits spread through the population, and eventually, perhaps, cause it to evolve into a new species. Natural selection is literally a blind designer because it uses only the tools at hand and is not directed towards any ultimate, pre-determined goal. The random aspect of evolution is the unpredictable occurrence of traits and variations (caused by mutations and gene recombination) and environmental changes, not evolutionary change itself.
Dr. Menton promoted his random view of evolution in a garbled version of punctuated equilibria:
"Evolutionists say that animals change randomly until they hit on a winning combination, then they persist indefinitely. Now we have punctuated equilibria, so there is no fossil record left, all we see are the winners."
Punctuated equilibria is actually the theory that species may undergo long periods of stasis and short bursts of evolutionary change, fuelled by natural selection. The nature of the fossil record supports this theory in many instances, because it often shows species persisting unchanged for a very long time, only to be replaced by another species, which in turn may remain unchanged for a long time. The theory concurs with the earlier evolutionary views of great evolutionary biologists like Ernst Mayr, who showed that new species probably evolve in small, isolated areas, spread to other areas as they become more numerous and successful, and replace endemic species.
Dr. Menton also reserved a personal remark or two for Darwin:
"...as [Darwin] developed evolutionary views, he came to literally despise the word of God..."
That's enough to send devilish shivers up and down the spine of every Bible-believing Christian. You see, according to creationists, evolution breeds evil. Apparently, it is a direct cause of atheism, as well as many other social ills. However, Dr. Menton seems a little befuddled by the fact that:
"Some of my dearest friends are evolutionists and I find them to be very kind, honourable people."
How they got that way remains a complete mystery, however. As the good doctor explains:
"...the basis for determining right and wrong must depend on what our ultimate reality is. If God is our creator, that has a profoundly different effect than if we are just a spontaneous self-assembly process."
Although he had previously claimed that people generally don't believe in evolution anyway, he manages to completely contradict himself, twice, within the space of two sentences:
"If [a belief in evolution] were to become widespread, it would have a profound effect and has had a profound effect. We've got everybody believing that man is an animal."
After these forays into the "scientific" aspects of creation/evolution, and evolution's alleged social repercussions, the program finally reached the crux of the issue, the real reason why creationists are creationists. It has nothing to do with science, or the best theory of origins. The bottom line was nicely expressed by Dr. Menton when he said:
"The creator made us in his own image, so we can tell something about the creator just through human beings themselves. Our own creativity, our sense of love to children, a relationship of a father to his children, a purpose for living. Carl Sagan said man has to make his own purpose for living. But creation gives us purpose, it gives us a relationship to a loving father who has made us and given us this earth to live on, and to share our love and concern for others, and I'm not sure that concern for others would rise out of an evolutionary view."
The need for a loving father figure and an ultimate purpose in life, then, is what drives the creationist engine. Emotional needs and wishful thinking take precedence over the facts of evolutionary science. Within the creationist mind, perfectly at home, is the paranoid, irrational idea that the theory of evolution poisons society and turns people into selfish animals. Resurrecting long-dead ideas from 19th century social Darwinism, Dr. Menton closed by protesting that the poor and the weak are not just steps on the evolutionary ladder of progress. Our real reason for being on this earth, he revealed, is to receive God's love.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/menton.html- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
2,126
This is a reply to # 414,432
Dr. Menton has got things perfectly backwards. How can it be that this self-appointed evolutionary expert has not even read Darwin's The Origin of Species, in which the idea of differential reproduction serves as a building block to the theory of natural selection? And of course, it was Mendelian genetics which largely transformed Darwin's theory into Neo-Darwinism.
Very few folks have read The Origin of Species, yet naturally we all feel qualified to comment on the subject of evolution. One of the more interesting things that goes completely ignored is a comment that Darwin made in The Origin of Species noting how, left to themselves, species that man has manipulated revert back to their natural forms after a few generations. In other words, Darwin already had evidence that the species tend to maintain their distinctiveness and revert back to it -- not differentiate and do strange things.
In fact, man's manipulation through sexual selection can produce some extreme variation within in a species, but it has never once produced a new species.
Darwin makes his case pretty well, but this isn't the only problem in his work. Consider, for example, when he discusses various visual organs and their capacity for sight. He shows how different creatures in existence in modern times have differing visual ability, ranging from sea creatures that can simply detect light to creatures of differing visual ability all the way to full visual perception. Then Darwin invites the reader to consider that the evolutionary process could be in play here, as clearly we have different stages of visual ability, so it's not all that big a leap to think that those with better sight are the more advanced, and those with lesser visual abilities were evolution's stepping stones.
Only problem is, there's nothing to prove this.
Science depends on noting some pattern, formulating a conclusion, and then testing that conclusion (the hypothesis) with some predictions to see if the predictions hold. Great. Darwin has done an excellent job of noting that various creatures have different abilities in a wide variety of areas, and he drew a fascinating conclusion from it, but the prediction and test side are very underrepresented. The obvious prediction is that, as a natural, on-going phenomenon, evolution should have examples. Lots of them. Yet we don't have any. And the "one" we've found in the fossil record isn't exactly a stellar proof.
Furthermore, genetics actually raises more questions than it solves, as far as evolution goes. Genes are tricky things, and while we can identify them and correlate them to specific problems or characteristics, and while we can modify genetic material and inject genes into places they wouldn't otherwise go, we still have so much to learn about how the genes are responsible for driving the creation and maintenance of bodies from cells.
Consider one case, when genetics engineers attempted to create "beefier" salmon. They worked their technological magic and tried inserting a gene to encourage growth. Eventually, they got some live samples with the gene expressing, and the salmon grew much more muscle tissue than their natural counterparts. Only problem was, the meat was green, not orangey-pink. Care for some green salmon?
In the recent human genome project, as the genes were being mapped, geneticists were realizing that there were far too few genes based on their (then-)current thinking about the relationship between one protein and one gene. As with the "more meat and color change go together", there simply must be a more complex interrelationship among (at least some) human genes than we formerly believed. The data strongly suggests that the one-to-one assumption wrong, and so some geneticists are working to come up with a better model.
Evolutionists needs to do that, too.
I'm told about another case (take this with a grain of salt, because I don't even know where to look to find corroboration for this one) where some researchers attempted to create mice with chromosome pairs that either came from two eggs (both donors female) or from two sperm (both donors male). They succeeded in producing the embryos, but the embryos were not viable. They all died after a short while. After some investigation, the researchers noted that the female-female embryos all failed in one manner, and all the male-male embryos failed a different way. Ultimately what was uncovered was that some of the genes responsible for causing gene expression from the chromosomes that came from the female parent were located in the chromosomes of the male parent and vice versa. In other words, some of the genes from male sexual cells, even on chromosomes that are supposedly the same between the sexes, are different from the genes in female sexual cells. How do the different sexual cells in the different genders know to include the correct-for-the-sex genes on the chromosomes that go into sexual cells? And if a "random mutation" occurred, how would the mutation that appears in one creature be properly trasmitted through another creature of the opposite gender, so that it expressed in a way that didn't result in embryo death?
And what are the odds of all this happening?
Evolutionists like to try to overwhelm their opponents with large numbers. "Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years of evolution". And yet, really, we have no credible proof of it happening in the millions of years of the fossil record. Statistically speaking, for a random mutation to occur that results in a beneficial alteration to a species is unknown but extremely small, based on the evidence. We know of genetic oddities producing third arms or two heads or some such, but we have no examples of humans suddenly growing feathers on their arms. In other words, the only examples we have of genetic oddities are to express what is already present in strange ways, not to change into something different. Same thing with all those deformed frogs. They're not growing things that are making them into new species; they're simply growing parts that are already a part of their genetic code in eerie ways.
So in the same way I demand that Christians produce Jesus to tell me that their particular interpretation of Jesus is in fact The Way It Is®, I insist that evolutionists give me some actual proof for evolution -- not wishful thinking, not invitations to see relationships, and certainly not calls to ignore the accumulated evidence we already do have on the subject.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed Healme
18 y
1,985
MoreThis is a reply to # 414,435You seek the truth. That is good and your openminded as well that is good too!
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed supersport
18 y
1,972
MoreThis is a reply to # 414,435Hey John...you seem pretty knowledgeable.....tell me...what does it mean to you if there are scientific journals that show how animals can quickly adapt to a changing environment? Some call it "phenotypic plasticity." I just don't see how Darwinists can rationalize this. I believe there IS a mechanism for change in the world, I just don't see "chance" or "accident" as being that mechanism. Please read this site for a description of Darwin's version of adaptation.
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwep1.htm
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
1,953
Energy Awareness Course
Use CureZone kode to get a free session!
Hulda Clark cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
Cleanse the Liver
with a natural herbal detox
This is a reply to # 414,446what does it mean to you if there are scientific journals that show how animals can quickly adapt to a changing environment?
Yet another blow to Darwinian evolution is what it means to me. On the other hand, this is consistent with the sudden explosion of species after extinction events that the fossil record shows. How the species know to "evolve" or whatever it is they do during such periods is the bigger mystery.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
1,953
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
1,995
This is a reply to # 414,435Very few folks have read The Origin of Species, yet naturally ....
This is a basic problem, why should it be natural? What is natural and reasonable is defer to those that have knowledge of the subject. Or at least some basic knowledge of the sciences involved. And if you don't have that knowledge, because you lack education, then at least you should educate yourself.
Selective breeding results in animals that are better for humans (milk, meat, docility, neotony, rapid growth ect.) not better for the specific animals. And the selective pressure never stops, since they are never allowed to breed under "natural" circumstances. Why would you expect speciation to occur?
of evolution. One of the more interesting things that goes completely ignored is a comment that Darwin made in The Origin of Species noting how, left to themselves, species that man has manipulated revert back to their natural forms after a few generations. In other words, Darwin already had evidence that the species tend to maintain their distinctiveness and revert back to it -- not differentiate and do strange things.
You incorrect about new speciation. In agriculture new species have been developed, the oldest example - going back 10 000 years is wheat. Look up speciation through polyploidy. There has also been speciation of the Drosophila the work of Rice and Salt is among many that have been done with the fruit fly.
You also make the error of assuming that Darwin is the beginning and end of evolutionary thought. Unlike in static religion orthodoxy, Science grows and expands its wisdom. Darwin was a starting point, his theories have been proven correct of the last 150 years, but his theories and models have been expanded upon.
You are mistaken about the predictions. Darwin's predictions are 1000X more accurate than anything you would find in any creation myth. It predicts the discovery of DNA, random mutations, fossil records, phylogenic data. And if you don't seen any example of evolution it is because you are closing your eyes to them. A high school microbiolgy experiment introduces children to selective pressure and evolution.
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002)
The fossil record already provides all the answers you are looking for, it is rich in proof and examples that adequately provide answers to you questions. For humans to grow feathers - if we are to go along with this ridiculous suggestion - would likely be a lethal mutation and be quickly be reabsorbed into the body soon after fertilization.
You make the same logical errors and fallacious arguments to dismiss evolution as creationists. Though at least they have some thought behind them, and its not just the radical nonsense we get from others.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
1,989
Energy Awareness Course
Use CureZone kode to get a free session!
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Natural Weight Loss
Remove toxins from the body, restore digestive function, lose weig...
Hulda Clark cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
This is a reply to # 414,449Selective breeding results in animals that are better for humans (milk, meat, docility, neotony, rapid growth ect.) not better for the specific animals. And the selective pressure never stops, since they are never allowed to breed under "natural" circumstances. Why would you expect speciation to occur?
And then...
Look up speciation through polyploidy. There has also been speciation of the Drosophila the work of Rice and Salt is among many that have been done with the fruit fly.
Care to make up your mind? Would speciation occur or not?
Well, of course, it didn't, so the question is rhetorical.
Besides, you're confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution. You're also being very liberal with your definition of "speciation".
Wheat is just another example of taking an existing species and super-selecting the desired attributes and then calling it a different species, when what we actually have is a different breed. You might as well try to explain to me how chihuahuas are a different "species" than Great Danes.
Polyploidy is one case where we might call that "evolution", I'll grant you, except that, when the resultant species survives, that's the end of its evolution. Just one step. For example, a flower that is the cross of two different flowers and contains the sum of the chromosomes from both parents is a nice hybrid, but it's not exactly "random mutation". It's just a different possible parenting pathway. What's the next step for such a species, and where are the examples?
As for Darwin predicting DNA -- you're kidding, right? Darwin is to DNA as Joseph Smith is to caffeine.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,058
This is a reply to # 414,470The question is why would it occur in the conditions you proposed.
Speciation has occured many times, in plants and animals, in the examples I provided.
Just because you don't like the facts don't quibble with the definition of speciation. By the standard defitinion speciation has occured.
John you need to update your biology education. A breed like in dogs can fertilize any other breed of dogs. Fertilization of an Irish Wolfhound by a Yorkie will occur.
Fertilization of these species does not occur. It's why they are different species. They are ot different breeds.
Many species have encountered and evolutionary dead end, this does not negate the fact that evolution has occured. So objection polyploidy as evolution is not valid.
"As for Darwin predicting DNA" -- no I am not kidding. Try reading it again.- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
2,016
This is a reply to # 414,471What "standard" definition of speciation? Do you not know that there are two distict definitions of speciation, one morphological, the other biological, and that many serious biologists (and members of related specialties) are still debating which is correct?
For instance, morphologically, tigers and lions are quite distinct. Biologically, however, they're the same species, because they can interbreed. Some biologists, however, even go a step further with the biological definition and suggest that unless the creatures want to interbreed, then the species are distinct, and thus tigers and lions are not the same breed (except in unusual circumstances...?). But what about dogs and wolves? Or dogs and coyotes? Morphologically, distinct. Biologically, they're compatible. And as for interest, male guardian dogs will happily mate with female coyotes or female wolves if given the opportunity. So are coyotes a different species from dog or not? According to morphology, they're different species. According to both biological definitions, they're the same species.
See, species is a nebulous term, kinda like arguing about the planet-not-a-planet, Pluto. We started naming species well before we had an idea about cellular activity, but a better solution isn't so simple. What's worse, the definition of evolution depends on the definition of species, so the definition of species is its own religious war.
And, no, polyploidy does not prove evolution, although it is an interesting side show. (All your fruit fly claims, by the way, are examples of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. I am not arguing against micro-evolution in the slightest, so you can put that one away, unless you honestly believe [you religious nut, you!] that micro-evolution is the same thing as macro-evolution.) What polyploidy shows is that life is not always as simple as the one-to-one species mapping. More complex interrelationships among life forms exist than simple "perpetuate the species". And while that is kinda in the same league as "evolution", it's not the same as evolution. Is a mule the evolution of a donkey (not strictly a case of polyploidy, but the chromosomal makeup of the child differs from the parents)? You seem to think so!
And since you're making the claim that Darwin predicted DNA, please cite the actual source. If all you're doing is suggesting that Darwin predicted evolution, and then decades later DNA was discovered as the program for cellular activity, and then Darwinists took the next step of assuming that DNA would necessarily drive evolution, and that proves that Darwin predicted DNA... again, I say, Darwin is to DNA as Joseph Smith is to caffeine.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed supersport
18 y
1,965
Energy Awareness Course
Use CureZone kode to get a free session!
Hulda Clark cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
Cleanse the Liver
with a natural herbal detox
This is a reply to # 414,472thanks for that description of speciation, John. I've been confused on that myself. Can you describe what the evolutionists describe speciation to be...and contrast that with Idists rendition? There's also something in there about the sterility of the offspring. In otherwords, it's not enough that two animals can breed and have offspring -- but also if that offspring is sterile or not....ie a mule. Care to explain the difference if you know? Thanks, S- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed muad_dib
18 y
1,961
This is a reply to # 414,473Yeah the exact definition is that members of the same species WILL mate and produce fertile offspring. Whether they will mate based on geography, anatomy, courtship, etc. that's another story, but that's how taxonomy is determined. It's not an absolute, but an organizational system.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
1,944
Energy Awareness Course
Use CureZone kode to get a free session!
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Natural Weight Loss
Remove toxins from the body, restore digestive function, lose weig...
Hulda Clark cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
This is a reply to # 414,473Speciation is just another religious war.
While the discovery of cells and DNA have made it pretty clear that the question of what constitutes a species is not as simplistic as we had formerly assumed, Science isn't willing to give up its taxonomic system wherein we have all these differing species names but members of the same genus or even family are sexually compatible and might technically be just a single species.
Cats, for example, all seem to be able to interbreed -- at least, all the large predatory ones can, and all the smaller ones can, and some of the smaller can mate with some of the larger... which suggests that the only thing stopping a lion from mating with a house cat is the size differential.
Likewise, all the various dog-like species don't seem to have a problem mating with one another (except maybe the fox -- I can't find any reliable evidence of a fox hybrid, and I'm told [grain of salt and all that] that fox DNA actually has some significant differences from wolves and dogs).
So, it boils down to a matter of opinion as to what distinguishes one species from another. A lot of biologists want to use the biological method, but it's difficult to reconcile what genetics is telling us with what our history and language are telling us (i.e. lions are a different species from tigers, rather than simply a different breed of cat...), and our taxonomic nomenclature helps reinforce the old ways.
How do evolutionists define speciation? Whichever way is convenient to justify their belief in evolution, if you ask me. The preference is typically morphological, rather than biological, simply because the evolution they can prove -- micro-evolution -- is entirely supported by the morphological viewpoint of speciation.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed muad_dib
18 y
1,961
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,195
Energy Awareness Course
Use CureZone kode to get a free session!
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Natural Weight Loss
Remove toxins from the body, restore digestive function, lose weig...
Hulda Clark cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
This is a reply to # 414,472By any standard, these examples I provided meet both your requirements. You are quibblin about minutia.
Well John, I not about to re-read the book for your benefit. Let's see how good my memory is.
Like all good scientific theories, the theory of evolution, describes and predicts.
The Theory of Evolution requires a method of inheritance, a means to pass on a favourable mutation from one generation to the next, without it there is no evolution.
Tatammmm! DNA. The method of inheritance as predicted by Darwin.
I don't know how you can call the creation of a new species micro evolution. A species change is Macroevolution. But you are right about one thing. There is no real difference between macro and micro. It is the same mechanism.
Liger/Tigons tend to be sterile, and replete with health problems. I don't know what kind of guardian dogs you speak of but the maremmas, pyrenese and kuvaz I know of kill coyotes on sight. Either way, these are just examples of common ancestry, and support evolutionary theory. Now, if you could mate a dog with a cow or a tiger with a bunny (Tibbit?) The polyplody example I provided is a fine illustration of evolution.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
1,969
This is a reply to # 414,475
Ummm... I own a Great Pyrenees and have probably done a little more research on the topic than you have. The primary reason to have Pyrs altered as working dogs is that, during predatory mating season, there will be a few weeks during which the dog is more interested in mating with predators than protecting the flock. That's according to folks who actually use the dogs as flock guardians. Somehow, I trust their opinion on the topic more than yours.
As for micro=macro, you can insist they're "the same", but your wishful thinking doesn't make it so. We can demonstrate micro-evolution quite easily, where potential characteristics disappear from a species in a given geographic region due to environmental factors (like coloration on moths becoming predominantly or exclusively one color, due to other colors standing out against places where the moths might perch, like tree trunks, for example, thereby making them easy prey), but that's not the formation of a new species, merely the "natural selection" of specific genetic traits already apart of the species for a given area.
Darwin's natural selection is perfectly true for micro-evolution. To an extent, Darwin was right -- differing breeds of species do tend to be treated as different species under our taxonomic system when environmental situations favor various traits over others. But that doesn't genuinely make the two differing populations geninely different species. We simply have a proclivity to name any new morphological variation a new species.
Micro-evolution is what Darwin observed, and he inferred macro-evolution from it. It's far from proven however. Not even close, really.
And for the record, I'm not saying that macro-evolution doesn't happen. I'm simply showing that it's extremely far from having been proven.
Also, you're back to Joseph Smith and caffeine. Look at what you said:
The Theory of Evolution requires a method of inheritance, a means to pass on a favourable mutation from one generation to the next, without it there is no evolution.
Tatammmm! DNA. The method of inheritance as predicted by Darwin.
You are assuming that DNA mutation is the vehicle by which the hypothesized evolution occurs. When you can actually prove that DNA does this, come back and state your proof. Until then, you're simply clinging to your fascination with all things scientific and seeing what you want. Think yourself a man of science? Well, then, PROVE IT. DNA is how we transmit our existing characteristics (dominant genes, or recessive genes that aren't dominated) or the potential existing characteristics (recessive genes that are dominated) into our offspring. Micro-evolution is the natural selection of certain existing characteristics over others due to environmental factors. Macro-evolution is the alteration of existing or potential characteristics into other characteristics. Can you grasp how the two are different? DNA clearly supports micro-evolution. DNA has not once been shown to naturally support macro-evolution (not to be confused with what we can accomplish in a laboratory).
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,203
This is a reply to # 414,486John working dogs should not be altered, they work much better with their full complements. That's how it is for all true working dogs - police, guardian, stock, personal protection, tracker. It is the mixture of aggresion and prey/defence/hunt drive that gets the job done. You may own one Pyr, but I've also owned many working dogs as a child and adult (all from working lines), and if a predator ever got close enough they were dead, estrus or not.
Wishful thinking? I am not the one closing my eyes the evidence. The mechanisms are the same, they both lead to the same thing. To quote Wilkins " Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails."
and M.Issak
""Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). "
"Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming."
Wow, John you must think yourself as some damn genius for you to suggest that it is not DNA that is the means by which mutations occur, and then are passed on to the progeny. Maybe it the evolution fairies? Using their evolution pixie dust? Yeah! that's a valid idea. Now I am certain that you don't know the difference between micro and macro. Your defitions while convenient to a creationist are not valid. Creationist have clung to this distinction like "a new-married wife about her husband's neck, hardly to be shook off."
You must suck at Jeopardy E_V_O_L_ _T_I_O_N, I can just hear you since the word is not complete, all consonansts gone, "Can I have a vowel?" It takes the same effort to solve this, as is would to see that Darwin predicted the existence of DNA.
What are "recessive genes that aren't dominated" anyways?
You want to prove evolution is false? Easy, find an organism that does not use DNA/RNA as the means of inheritance.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed UserX
18 y
2,010
This is a reply to # 414,491Corinth,
Why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that if someone is challenging some aspect of the theory of evolution...that that automatically makes them a creationsist?
Come on, that's not scientific reasoning...and you of all people should know that!
When did John proclaim himself to be an anti-evolutionist...or creationist? I believe in his earlier post in this thread that he clearly stated that he wants PROOF FROM BOTH SIDES:
//www.curezone.org/forums/m.asp?f=543&i=2444#i
And resorting to insults, sarcasm and suggesting that you are the all-knowing on everything from Science to religion...and now to dog-rearing is most unbecoming. You might try a little humility and open your mind a bit...perhaps you, too, would learn something. (If nothing else, at least a more positive way of interacting with people!)
"challenge the message and not the messenger"
When you know that you don't know you will be on the right track. That's when the real majic begins!Beginners mind is the state of all possibilities...before we are so thoroughly cluttered with conditioning, history, subjective coloring, 'education', analysis, 'proofs'. What do we truly KNOW? You don't need to be so scared, Corinth...beauty and fun reside in the mysterious! It's OK not to control everything...you can't anyway so you might as well stop beating your head against the wall.
"The emperor, who was a devout Buddhist, invited a great Zen master to the Palace in order to ask him questions about Buddhism. "What is the highest truth of the holy Buddhist doctrine?" the emperor inquired.
"Vast emptiness... and not a trace of holiness," the master replied.
"If there is no holiness," the emperor said, "then who or what are you?"
"I do not know," the master replied.""
"A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup.""
I will add that you have a very Western-centric view of science. Please don't come back with some comment attacking 'religious "zeolots"'...as Daoism (of which Zen is an outgrowth) was philosophical in origin and these were some of the greatest scientists of their time and also developed the basis for Traditinonal Chinese Medicine. Our religious/philosophical beliefs cannot be seperated from science...this is a false dichotomy. A hallmark of Western Science is that something can be measured and experimentally repeated. It does not take into account that there are things which we are yet able to measure...although that doesn't mean they don't exist. Only that we DON'T KNOW how to measure of replicate them yet.
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/nature/guitart.html
You also might want to do some delving into phenomenological and hermeneutical research and the human sciences. Then again, you might not consider human behavioral research as 'true' science.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,113
This is a reply to # 414,49236, read between the lines. John tries to present himself as a skeptic to both sides, but his writings clearly indicate and antievolutionary bias. The cynic in me would say this is a technique to make himself more appealing to rationalists.
I am also very open to the faults and lack of data in all aspects of science. I have not argued from authority and except for the case of dogs I have used the work of others to point out errors. I have also never made claims of omniscience, which would border on the supernatural. If you had been paying attention to my views on the suppernatural, you would know this. When it comes to dogs, I can confidently claim I know more than most. I have however owned working dogs all my life. I currently own a NVBK titled dutch and a Schutz 3, FR1 titled Beauce, and 1 stock working Kelpi - I like the pastoral group :)
Unlike the supernaturalists, rationalists are experts at recognizing the limitations of their knowledge and of knowledge in general. It is the irrationalists that create myths to cope with their fear of the unknown. This is why they never even get on the track. They are willing to believe any crackpot idea and because it cannot be proven wrong (even though many times it can) they assume it must be right.
You can also believe that little tiny men are pushing this message around the web so it can get to you, but I would not give this theory much cosideration.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed UserX
18 y
2,303
R
This is a reply to # 414,494I don't have to read between the lines. John and I have been around this hood for a long time and I have a pretty good sense of where he comes from...and he's not as you claim him to be.
You acknowledge that Science has it's limitations and yet you insist that things which people have had direct experience with and that Science is yet able to prove are automatically are irrational and thrown out as myths and fables. You also refer to the supernatural and I would like to suggest to you that this is different than super NATURAL. I'm not talking about parlor tricks and opiate stories...I'm talking about abilities that are NATURAL to all of us and that we all have originally which are unfortunately socialized, educated and conditioned out of us as we grow up. I'm also not talking about blind faith...I'm talking about direct experience. Science...and physics in particular will someday fall precisely in line with the spiritual (not religious) experiences to which I am refering.
I am also not talking about those fairy tales that serve to soothe fears. I'm talking about experiences that put your head right in the lion's mouth! You want to talk about fear...have a direct experience and true knowledge (not conceptual reasoning) of who you REALLY are and what reality TRULY is, as 'irrational' as it may seem, and you will know crap-your-pants fear!!!
There is a great quote by Pema Chodron (Buddhist nun) that I can only paraphrase as I don't have the book readily available. In a nutshell, she talks about how many practitioners believe that their meditation practice is like a boat that will safely take them from the shore of what they have known to the shore of liberation. But in reality, once in the the middle of the waters of practice after the shore that one came from is no longer is sight...the boat breaks up and one realizes that there is no shore to reach. The bottom has dropped out and there is nothing to hold onto! Talk about terror!!!
Corinth, Science is YOUR religion...YOUR security blanket. You believe that if you can measure and 'prove' things than you know what 'reality' is and you can explain, order, manipulate and control everything. Boy are you in for some surprises!!!- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,388
This is a reply to # 414,503What you really mean is that you don't want to read between the lines. Or because of your religious bias, you are incapable of recognizing his bias, because it is similar to yours. Functionally it is the same.
People have experiences that are false on a regular basis, whether from exogenous chemicals or endogenous chemicals brought about by prayer/meditation/flagellation it does not make the experience true. Sometimes just because that is the nature of our brain. Amputees have 'direct experience' of their missing limbs, but it does not make their 'limbs' any more real. People - especially those that delve in the supernatural - are capable of convincing themselves of almost anything - such is the case with your claims. Drug induced stories can be very compelling - which make them very appealing and believable to their audiences.
Every experience, I or anyone else can have must is a direct experience. Unless you can download memories?
Science is not my nor anybody's religion. Science can be toppled, by and inconvenient truth. It must always adapt to knew discoveries, it grows, changes. Religions are static, like your beliefs. They are based on religious beliefs. Religion sooths, comforts, dulls. It is why it has been called opiate for the masses. It dulls the pain of reality, alays fears for those that cannot face them.
Your story about the rowers describes the religious to a tee. They and you are afraid that Science will destroy your boat and you will find yourself alone without any support. It is why they fight Science and rationality so fervently, they really have no choice.
Me, I would have learned to swim.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today". Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
Don't surrender so easily 36, keep fighting.
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed UserX
18 y
1,938
This is a reply to # 414,504Corinth,
HOW ARROGANT!
Please refrain from interpreting what I 'really' mean...since I was quite clear by what I said.
I've had experience working with amputees in rehab facilities, and although phantom limb syndrome is experienced when the material limb is no longer there...the energetic imprint of the limb remains and these people can find some relief with energy work.
I disagree with your assertion that there is only direct experience. One can conceptualize an experience, analyze it, and think it to death...and that does not account for direct experience. You have demonstrated a perfect example with yourself making assertions about things of which you KNOW nothing. You've read about them, thought about them, analyzed them, dismissed them...all without direct experience of them.
You have also made many false assumptions about me. I am not religious and do not believe in 'God'. I have no opium in my pipe, and have no fears that Science will destroy my boat. My boat was blasted to smithereens years ago and Science had nothing to do with it! Swimming would be of no help in this situation...one must learn to float with the tides and let them carry you as they may. And yes, it it all about CHANGE...birth, growth, decay, death, birth, growth, decay, death...and so on and so on.
You simply don't get it. I'm not talking about soothing fears...I'm talking about getting so up close and personal with them that they become one's friend.
As I said once before, sit your ass on a cushion for about 10 years and we can continue our discussion. Until then, you will continue to herd my words into your limited understanding and misinterpret everything I say.
Mental masturbation bores me terribly. You will have to fight with yourself from now on. Time for me to move on to dance and laugh and rejoice in having lost my mind!!!
Expand 17 messages, 21 to 37 of 37 TheCorinthian
18 y
2,134
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed UserX
18 y
1,938
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,388
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed UserX
18 y
2,303
R
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,113
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed UserX
18 y
2,010
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,203
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
1,969
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed supersport
18 y
1,965
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
2,016
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed TheCorinthian
18 y
2,058
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
1,989
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed Healme
18 y
1,985
- Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed John Cullison
18 y
2,126
