|
|
The comment section only allows 4096 characters, so I was forced to move my reply to a commenter here.
The commenter responded to my post called "Darwinist Cognitive Dissonance." I hadn't checked my blog in a *long* time, so I apologize for not making a more timely response to the comment. What follows are several paragraphs of me quoting the commenter's comments (in italics), and then me responding to each. "What a delightful steaming mess of creationist ignorance." What a colorful misrepresentation of my blog entry. "Macroevolution is simply evolution above the species level..." 'Simply' is not a word that would be appropriate, although the commenter's statement of theoretical concept is correct. "...and, as the basic building block of it, speciation, has been directly observed (both in the lab and in the field)..." This, dear readers, is a complete and utter lie. Adaptation within a species has been observed in a lab. Speciation (macroevolution), the actual transformation of a species into a different species, has never been observed in any lab, controlled environment or natural environment anywhere, ever. Don't take my word for it; look it up. "...it is a fact not a theory." Stating this, in this way, which has become quite common, in no way whatsoever makes it a fact. And in fact, speciation is still a theory with no observable proof. Again, look it up; if you merely scoff at my response and blindly accept the commenter's statement, then you're no better than anyone who would rather remain in the dark. "It is one more of the facts of evolution that the Theory of Evolution explains, and which Creationism attempts to ignore." 'Creationism' is a buzzword used to distract people from the merit of an argument; my argument has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual matters, nor the idea that a god created the universe. "...the ToE does not rest on Haeckel's drawings (and their 'fakeness' has been exagerated by creationist propogandists -- it was more a case of carelessness or laziness than fraud)..." I never said nor implied that the Theory of Evolution rested on Haeckel's drawings, this is an exaggeration by the commenter. As to the drawings' 'fakeness': the fact that they were manufactured from imagination and deliberately presented as actual fetal drawings is not an exaggeration, and to attempt to characterize it as carelessness or laziness is an attempt to rationalize a glaring mistake by the scientific community that was allowed to mislead the masses for 140 years; a ridiculous amount of time for known inaccuracy to be presented as scientific fact. "...Piltdown Man was suspected almost immediately by the scientific community, and was eventually debunked by that community..." That fact does not nullify its fraudulent nature. And 'eventually' was not efficient by any stretch of the imagination. "...Homo Erectus (Jave Man) is widely acknowledged as a transitional hominid..." Perhaps eventually, but that truth does not erase the fact that the remains were re-interpreted many times, creating a lot of controversy between legitimate anthropologists, which doesn't sound like the findings can be considered at all conclusive. "...Nebraska Man was simply a misidentified tooth (remembered almost solely by creationist propandanists)..." Indeed! A fact that should be an embarrassment to the scientific community that allowed it to go past an armchair supposition by overzealous Darwinists. The fact that 'creationist propagandists' are the ones who maintain it in the public memory is not a mark against them, but shame for the questionable scientists who would rather it was permanently swept under the rug. "...and 'Orce Man' is simply notorious creationist fraudster Duane Gish's gross misrepresentation of a very minor, but perfectly genuine, anthroplogical find." I would like to know how a skull fragment that was originally claimed to be Europe's earliest human fossil, then said to be an infant ape, then a donkey, etc., is a 'gross misrepresentation' of the facts. "Freddy misrepresents Punctuated Equilibrium as merely an explanation for the Cambrian Expansion..." While this may be true, since I have no way of reaching directly into Gould's and Eldredge's minds, it is what I suspect, because up until 1972 when their paper was published, there was much head scratching regarding the 20 million years (an extremely short time for the myriad species to appear for the first time, regardless of the popular title 'explosion'). The huge alleged speciation during the Cambrian Period could not have occurred via phyletic gradualism, which is what the original Darwinian Theory requires to be valid. "There are many long lists of transitional fossils (Wikipedia has an extensive one)." These lists are only meaningful to Darwinists, as the fossils are assumed to be transitional. One may argue that the fossil evidence is overwhelmingly obvious, but that is only because one may also interpret fossils in whatever way one finds the most convenient. That is not good science; that is good imagination. "Finally, from Freddy's last point it is clear that he is a Young Earth Creationist..." I can only assume that the commenter is referring to point number six, where I call attention to 'All sorts of interesting cosmological data that don't seem to support current wisdom for the age of the universe.' Unfortunately, the commenter has made an incorrect accusation, as I am not a 'Young Earth Creationist.' Furthermore, his assumption that I am a YEC is not only typical Darwinist propaganda, but an argumentum ad lapidem (an attempt to reduce my argument to absurdity without actually providing proof of absurdity) and an argumentum ad hominem (an attack on my credibility in an attempt to therefore nullify my argument). |