Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Can You Believe Abortion And Be An Evolutionist?

with 23 comments

What is wrong with Evolutionists being advocates of Abortion?

 I will give you my thoughts after you give me your views.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Written by dawkinswatch

February 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. As a pro-life creationist, I’ll take a stab at this. 🙂

    Abortion interferes with “survival of the fittest.” Many healthy babies are killed in utero that would ordinarily have survived; while some “weaker” babies live, mate, and reproduce. (I feel yucky even saying it–it sounds so remote and full of eugenics–as if it’s a bad thing that some babies live. That’s not what I’m saying; I’m trying to view it from a naturalistic, man-as-animal, evolutionistic perspective.) It’s also distinctly unnatural for mammals to deliberately kill their offspring (though I think some other species might).



    February 19, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  2. Note the phrase “survival of the fittest”, which has nothing to do with evolution.

    J. Frantz

    February 20, 2008 at 2:28 am

  3. What is nartural selection then? Survival of the weakest?


    February 20, 2008 at 4:32 pm

  4. The two are completely unrelated. What exactly does aborting a fetus have to do with the fact and theory of evolution? I really don’t get your point here.

    It couldn’t be something so simplistic and, not to put too fine a point on it, dumb as claiming that abortion somehow circumvents natural selection and that reasonable people who accept the tenets of science rather then archaic mythology are somehow required to refrain from it?

    Surely you aren’t going to say that, are you?


    February 20, 2008 at 7:34 pm

  5. Katy,

    I reccomend to your attention the fact that the male of many pack dwelling mammals routinely kill the offspring of other males. You shouldn’t make sweeping statements when you are ignorant of the facts involved.


    February 20, 2008 at 7:35 pm

  6. Mike,

    Speaking of ignorance, my name is KATHY, not Katy. 🙂

    And, the fact that males kill the offspring of OTHER males has nothing to do with whether or not they will kill their OWN offspring. I admit that I have not studied the behavior characteristics of all the mammals in the world, so will stand corrected when you show me mammals (particularly female mammals) who deliberately kill their offspring.

    It doesn’t really matter much to me, because I don’t consider humans to be “the highest form of animals” but entirely different. So I couldn’t really care less what the lower species do, mammal or otherwise, because I don’t think it really relates too much to humans, who have an intellect and a soul (though you will likely disagree with the latter).

    I’m trying to look at it through evolutionary lenses, which is that humans are descended from monkeys, apes, or whatever the correct term is (which probably depends on which evolutionist you talk to) for the species, genus, family or whatever is supposedly closest to humans. The “closer” humans are to species that do kill their own offspring, the stronger the argument becomes that it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint to kill one’s offspring. If the closest animals that kill their own offspring are certain species of snakes, then the argument is very weak from a naturalistic standpoint.

    Now, I will admit that many abortions are at the insistence or with the encouragement of the father of the baby. Whether the mother or the father kills the baby, it seems most unnatural evolutionarily speaking; however, I can see that the male would be more likely to kill the offspring than the female. You can list the species that kill their own offspring, and whether it is the male or female that does it, to weaken my argument that it is unnatural to do so.

    I’m more irritated by you misspelling my name than by anything you’ve said, so I hope you don’t think I’ve got a bad attitude or a caustic tone. 🙂



    February 20, 2008 at 11:13 pm

  7. “What is nartural selection then? Survival of the weakest?”

    I didn’t say anything about natural selection. I said something about evolution, which is change in gene frequencies within populations from generation to generation.

    J. Frantz

    February 21, 2008 at 4:39 am

  8. Um, I would be an “evolutionist” (as well as a gravitist and a heliocentrist), and I don’t see why thinking that evolution is true invalidates being prochoice. After all gravity exists and we build planes. Yes, it is a dumb metaphor- almost a silly as the one the blogs writer is sure to use.

    Samuel Skinner

    February 21, 2008 at 4:57 am

  9. Well, kathy, you certainly spent a good deal of time on a simple spelling error. I stand corrected on this vitally important issue.

    Further, you made the following statement:

    “It’s also distinctly unnatural for mammals to deliberately kill their offspring…”

    I did nothing more then point out your error of fact. Apprently, being told that you are wrong annoys you very nearly as much as spelling errors.

    Your knowledge of science is extremely limited as your knowledge of anthropology. Many human socitieys have engaged in infanticide for a wide variety of reasons. Mostly it was to eliminate economically undesirable females.

    Your idea that evolution claims that closely related species must engage in closely related behaviors is incorrect. So, you are simply wrong when you say:

    “The “closer” humans are to species that do kill their own offspring, the stronger the argument becomes that it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint to kill one’s offspring.”

    This is so bizarre I find it difficult to comment. There is absolutley no (to my knowledge) scientific support for such an idea. I can only ask where you got such an idea?

    Abortion and evolution are completely unrelated issue. The former is political and moral while the latter is scientific.


    There is a brief discussion if you care to view it. This practice was happily engaged in by parents of both sex.


    February 21, 2008 at 8:42 pm

  10. Mike,

    You believe abortion and evolution to be totally unrelated. But the original post was precisely what connection might exist. I was merely exploring that idea. My comments stem from things I’ve seen or heard evolutionists say (for instance, some promoters of giving birth in water do so from an evolutionary stance–they claim that since we descended originally from water animals, that it is natural for humans to give birth in water–that we are more or less rejoining nature as we used to be when we do so). Of course, I’m aware that there about as many theories about evolution as there are scientists who believe in it, so the conversations I’ve been privy to may be a brand of evolution that you’re happily unaware of.

    Since you consider abortion and evolution to be completely unrelated, I’m rather surprised you have spent time on this issue at all!


    February 21, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  11. I do think (not believe) that abortion and evolution are unrelated issues.

    Don’t be surprised I spent time on it. I am very much in support of helping people and pointing them in the right direction. For instance, there are no “brands” of evolution. It is a well established field of science. The same science that gives you the computer you are using and the medical care you have most likely used at some point. I consider it astounding that people can simply look at the facts and theories that this approach to learning about the world (which is all science is) have given us and then say, “OK, I’ll take this, and this, but not this. No reason, I just don’t like it.”

    You also might want to give some consideration to the difference between “hypothesis” and “theory” as it is used in science. Where you said “there about as many theories about evolution as there are scientists who believe in it…” you should have used the word “hypothesis”. Also, by the way, the number of researchers that accept evolution is the vast, overwhelming majority.


    February 21, 2008 at 11:04 pm

  12. Mike,

    You are right–hypothesis is correct. I am also aware that scientists who believe in evolution are the majority. But that doesn’t make them right. Just a little over a century ago, the majority believed in creation; a few centuries before that, the majority believed in an earth-centered universe; and quite some time ago, the majority of “great minds” (not sure if they should technically be called “scientists” at that time) believed that the earth was flat, and the world was ruled by the gods.



    February 22, 2008 at 12:56 am

  13. Kathy: Firstly, you’re technically not correct in calling Mike ignorant for not correctly spelling your name. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or education in a subject, and does not usually mean an insult. This means it would apply to your understanding of the usuage of the word ‘ignorant’ but would not apply to Mike’s mispelling. Again that is not an insult, but merely an observation that you do not have knowledge of the word’s correct usuage. But enough about such trivial matters.

    The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ is often misunderstood. It does not mean stronger or fitter in the sense of athletic ability or brutality. It is instead an archaic term that describes the features that enable one individual to have an advantage (in an evolutionary sense) over its equivalent competitor.

    You say you do not consider humans to be ‘the highest form of animals’. That view would actually bring you into line with evolutionary theory. Modern biology does not promote the view that humanity is some kind of ‘perfected’ animal. We are animals, just like many other living creatures on this planet. In many respects we are incredibly close physiologically and genetically to many other animals. Are ability for concious thought does not make us distinct from our evolutionary heritage.

    You also say you do not care how the ‘lower’ animals behave as you do not believe it effects us. However our evolutionary heritage does effect us, in many ways. Our very distant relationship to sea dwelling creatures is part of the reason we suffer hiccups. When you hiccup, you body is reacting in the same way your distant ancestors did to control its gills. Social animals such as the primates, share similar group behaviours to our own, such as social hierarchies and outer group hostility.

    You also make a point about ‘evolutionists’ claiming that women should give birth in water. Firstly, this term ‘evolutionist’ is frankly quite ridiculous. We do not, as others have pointed out, call ourselves gravitationists or continental shiftists, because we accept those scientific theories. Accepting the theory of evolution is not like joining some secret club.

    Secondly, this hypothesis seems to stem from a belief in the ‘water ape’, a point where we returned to water as mammals, before returning to dry land. This hypothesis does not have any good evidence, and is not at all roundly accepted by the scientific community. This is quite ignoring the fact that just because an ancestor gave birth in water, does necessitate that we, a land based animal, should. (I do recognise you were not actually making this point, but I though I would clarify the situation for you).

    The point you make about ‘scientists’ a few centuries ago accepting creation is somewhat true. However this view was not always taken, even before Darwin. Comparing the science of a few centuries ago to the science of today is really rather pointless. The practice of science then was really in its infancy, and was not as rigourous in its application of the scientific method. Today we may well discover more in one day, then scientists discovered in a whole decade then.

    And finally onto the topic of evolution and abortion. Really this is more of an attempt to try and ‘tar’ evolution with the brush of something many, who are ignorant of evolution, find unpalatable. This is the same tactic used to try and connect evolution to eugenics and Hitler’s Holocaust. It is profoundly dishonest and unfair.

    You may have noticed my comment was pretty long. This is similar to the hurdle many scientists face when confronting creationists in talks about evolution. The creationist spouts a short diatribe full of many half-truths, embellishes and down right lies, and the scientist has to spend a far greater amount of time carefully teasing apart the talk and pointing to where the creationist is wrong.

    Well, I’m tired out now. I would honestly be interested to hear your response Kathy.



    February 25, 2008 at 8:49 pm

  14. XanderG,

    If Mike thought my name was actually “Katy” then it was ignorance; if it was a misspelling, then it was not.

    The term “evolutionist” according to Oxford English Dictionary is “one who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.” I am a creationist. Not really sure what’s all the hub-bub about labels–it’s just a concise way of speaking. It helps to avoid the longer phrase “people who accept the theories of evolution” or “people who accept the theory of creation.”

    As far as “survival of the fittest”–I have no problem with your definition, and that is what I’ve always taken the phrase for.

    As a creationist, I believe that man is different from and higher than the animals. Yes, we are similar biologically and genetically speaking, but just as you can argue that that is “proof” of evolution, I can argue that it is proof of a common Creator–that God designed his creatures with similarity so that we all could inhabit the same planet.

    As a creationist, I do not believe in the theories of evolution, so I really don’t care what conclusions evolutionists draw from our supposed evolutionary history. I don’t care about hiccups, or water birthing, or social hierarchy from species “near” or “far” (evolutionarily speaking). We’re speaking past each other, because you base your entire belief system on something that I believe to be inaccurate.

    For water-birthing specifically–I understand that not all people share the same theories or hypotheses or beliefs about evolution. But someone taught this woman that it was a reasonable thing, but we can agree that whoever did was ignorant.

    As to science a few centuries ago….Mike seemed to offer as proof of accuracy that the overwhelming majority of researchers believe in evolution; I was merely illustrating that majority opinion is not always correct. I stand continually amazed that theories are taught as unassailable fact, when the fact is, these theories may be plausible but are unproven. You take a certain set of facts and draw conclusions from them upon which you strengthen your opinion of evolution. I take these same facts and draw conclusions from them which strengthen my opinion of creation. Same facts, different interpretation. It amazes me that people who believe in evolution will take a fragment of jawbone and a tooth from a mile away and put them together as if they came from the same creature, and then from these two small bones create an entire creature and set it forth as proof of evolution. I take these facts–the fragment of jawbone and a tooth–and draw no such conclusions, other than that this animal or quite possibly these two different animals existed at some point in the past. Same facts, different interpretation.

    Thank you for the time you obviously spent on thinking on this question, but really it was as pointless as the time I have spent on it, because you can’t convince me that you’re right and I know I can’t convince you.



    February 26, 2008 at 1:26 pm

  15. Kathy:

    Thank you for replying. If it is okay, I think I’ll bypass our discussion about semantics, as it does not seem to really add much to the debate. We could both argue ’til the cows come home about words.

    You believe that man is different from animals, being higher than them. However, as I’ve said, genetically we are about 98% similar to other primates. If both were created by god, he really didn’t seem to put too much effort into making us all that different from animals. Also I would not argue the similarities between different animals as ‘proof’ of evolution. Proof is not a concept generally used outside of mathematics. Instead we talk of evidence. Such a similarity provides evidence for evolution.

    You say you don’t care about the insights the evolutionary theory has given us into such things as hiccups etc. I find this deeply sad. One of the key features of humanity is its curiousity. Evolution gives us a framework on which we can attempt to answer the major questions of life, with an actual explanation. Creationism instead simply declares life a mystery, and refuses to try and understand the world. It’s like comparing a brand new 34″ HD TV to an old, broken 7″ black and white TV. One idea gives us a breathtaking and complete view of the world; the other gives us only a grainy, mish mash of static.

    It is also fortunate that the great men and women of science in the past did care about such questions. If they had all been as blasé as yourself, we would still not understand many of the natural events in our universe. We would have no germ theory of disease, and instead have to ascribe our illnesses to evil spirits and bad humours. We would have no electricty to run our inventions, no haber process to produce the fertiliser to grow our crops, no internet to communicate instantaneously across the world, no understanding of the human body, to save peoples’ lives.

    In short, your life has benefitted greatly because of science. It has provided the clothes on your back, the food on your plate, the health of you and you loved ones, the ability to travel far beyond the small radius of your home town or city and has saved you and me from a gruelling life of hardship and labour, mercifully cut short by a middle aged death.

    And yet despite all that science has given you, you declare that your bible is how reality is; not the carefully observed and measured reality of science. The biblical account of creation offers no explanations, just empty words. Evolution however provides a clear account of how and why life is as it is, and offers the possibility of determining more about the nature of reality.

    I also take issue with you saying that evolution is what I base my entire belief system on. This is completely non-sensical. I do not take an established scientific fact as a belief system. This is as absurd as saying I take the germ theory or thoery of gravity as the basis of my belief system. It just simply does not make any sense. Really this is just a thinly veiled attempt to misconstrue evolution as some kind of religion, thereby in your mind, making it no more less or likely then any other asinine religion.

    You are quite right however that the argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. However this really only applies to a general uninformed population. If the majority of specialists in an area such as biology, are in agreement about the fact of the theory of evolution, it is not a fallacy to accept their word. However, the only reason that there is such consensus is the mountains of independent and verifiable evidence in its favour.

    The theory of evolution is not taught as unassailable fact. Indeed, nothing is considered sacred in science. The only requirement for challenging a widely accepted theory of hypothesis, is evidence that points to another explanation or renders the current explanation false. This is one of the most important factors a scientific hypothesis must have; it must be falsifiable, i.e. there must be some way to prove the hypothesis wrong.

    As I have said before, we do not prove theories. Proofs are for mathematics. Instead a theory is an idea which started out as a hypothesis, as an attempt to explain the phenomena we see around us. It must be able to make predictions about what will happen under certain conditions, and if is correct, this provides further evidence for the veracity of the hypothesis. However, if it fails, the hypothesis must either be adapted to take account of the new evidence, as well as the existing, or if it cannot, it must be scrapped and an alternative hypothesis formed.

    You are also under the view that in science we start of with an initial bias or assumption, and then try to find evidence that supports our claims or opinions. This is not true, and is in fact more akin to what happens in many religions. Instead we start with what evidence we have. We then formulate our hypotheses as stated above, and then check by experimentation that the evidence fits what we would expect. If it does not, then we know the hypothesis is wrong, not the evidence, and the process stated above happens.

    Eventually after we have done all this, we publish our results, and the scientific community tries desperately to falsify our results. A great attempt is made by all to try and prove the hypothesis wrong! If however we can arrive unscathed at the end of all this, then we know there is a good chance that we have arrived at a successful explanation for the observed phenomena. The theory of evolution has withstood this process for the past 150 years! yes it has gone under modification, but it would be terrible if it hadn’t. In science we try to avoid dogma and stagnation, by making sure our hypotheses and theories can still explain all the evidence.

    Finally, as I realise I have once more penned a mountain of a reply, you say this debate is pointless as I cannot convince you, and you cannot convince me. For me, at least, this is not true. All that would be required for me to accept creation and a creator is some actual evidence. Rather than pointing at the things which science currently cannot explain, an ever decreasing amount, instead find evidence that supports your view objectively, not subjectively. Create hypotheses that explain the facts as they are better than current hypotheses and theories. But I would not hold you breath in respect to evolution. It has already withstood 150 years of tough, rigourous, systematic scientific inquiry. And we expect it to continue to.

    Anyway thanks in advance for reading this. I realise that it really is almost long enough to be a post in its own right. I hope it will give you some food for thought, and I would be interested in hearing a response.

    Xander G


    February 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm

  16. Xander G,

    It’s funny that most if not all of the scientific advances you list were made by creationists who began to study the world *because of* their belief in the God of the Bible. Once the shackles of the Catholic Church were cast off, and people started reading the Bible for themselves, they realized that the God of the Bible is a God of order, so they began looking for order and sense and laws and predictability in creation.

    Genetic similarity no more provides evidence for evolution than it provides evidence for a common Creator. Each hypothesis is reasonable given the evidence.

    If you would have “some actual evidence” for creation and a Creator, if you would like a hypothesis that explains the *facts* as they are better than current hypotheses and theories, then there are many pro-creation books on the market that do a wonderful job.

    One of the “facts” that evolution greatly distorts is the layers of fossils that exist. They say the strata of fossils shows evidence that evolution happened–yet there are no “missing links” in it, and these layers are all jumbled up. The beginning of geology was based on the premise of uniformity–“the present is the key to the past”–that the way things are now is the way they have always been. So when there are layers of animals fossilized, evolutionists point to it as evidence of evolution, for millions of these creatures to be stuck in the mud long enough to become fossils. But they have no real evidence that fossils *do* take millions of years to form–that’s just their hypothesis. Then when they have layers of creatures in mud a mile thick, they take the current rate of sedimentation and say “it must have taken X years for this to build up”; but I could just as easily say that these layers of creatures in mud a mile thick is evidence of the global flood talked about in the book of Genesis. It is amusing to me the lengths so-called scientists go to in order to keep their theories. There is no column of fossils on earth that corresponds to the “ideal” fossil column that is pictured in textbooks. In fact, a great many fossil columns are upside down, or have major portions upside down, when compared to this “ideal.” The theory or hypothesis then becomes that these sections of earth (some even a mile or more wide) must have somehow turned upside down, though there is no evidence to support that–no disturbance of the land around it, nothing. I take that as evidence that these layers of earth were laid down just in the order that is apparent, and the “mixing up” of the animals out of the ideal evolutionary order gives evidence that this “order” is in fact wrong. In fact, the global flood as described in Genesis would explain a lot of facts much better than evolution and historical geology does. The book on which I base this is “The Genesis Flood” by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris. I’d very much like to know your thoughts on it after you’ve read it. You can find my email address at any of my blogs.



    February 28, 2008 at 12:58 am

  17. Dear uneducated woman who’s name is something or other that begins with K…

    Just popping back in here after a long time and I want to clear a few things up. I did not spell your name correctly not because I am ignorant but because I don’t care what your name is and gave the matter the attention it deserved.

    On the other hand, your ignorance is truly astounding. “In fact, the global flood as described in Genesis would explain a lot of facts much better than evolution and historical geology does.” Sheer idiocy.


    April 7, 2008 at 7:16 pm

  18. Mike,

    I guess the only way you can feel superior is to try to make others feel inferior. Fortunately I’m aware of that trick and don’t fall victim to it.

    Here is a website that you may enjoy perusing: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

    Then you may begin to lecture me on my ignorance.



    April 8, 2008 at 1:16 am

  19. I’m sorry if I am making you feel inferior. I do not mean to. You are mistaken and wrong about a great many things but that does not make you inferior. Buck up, little trooper.

    I looked at that site, not for the first time. In my long interest in seeing the incredible hoops creationists will jump through and the lies they will feed the gullible, I have examined Walt Brown’s foolishness before. It took me about a minute to find a bald-face lie. It was on page 3. “Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed…”

    I here present 4 peer reviewed articles (there are many more) that put the lie to Walt Brown:

    Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

    Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.

    Spooner, David M.. Sytsma, Kenneth J.. Smith, James F.. A molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium. Evolution. V45. P757(8) May, 1991.

    Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.

    Or prehaps we can go with Brown’s favorite pet fantasy, the hydroplate “theory”. I quote that as the proper term would be hypothesis. Brown defines it as “Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth…” This idea starts with a blythely unfouded assertion. Was there water in the crust? Brown never explains what proof he has for it being there. Thge entire structure of the idea falls apart at the beggining.

    May we now discuss your ignorance, K-lady?

    Can we further discuss your ignorance now?


    April 10, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  20. Mike, I am attempting to ignore your arrogant and sarcastic attitude which you substitute for argument and logic. Note that I did not say that you made me feel inferior. I said you *try* to make others feel inferior.

    I marvel that you consider the theory (or hypothesis) of the aforementioned website as being “incredible hoops creationists will jump through” when you believe in an even more “incredible” theory of evolution. Perhaps if you had read a bit more, you would have seen the following:

    ‘Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 6.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal (or even downward)” change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution.

    ‘Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities, increasing complexity, that results from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy. Therefore, in this book, the term “organic evolution” will mean macroevolution.’

    The articles you mention above (which I have googled for and cannot find any more information than what you have above — that is, I cannot find an abstract or supporting documentation or anything such like) are examples of microevolution.

    From http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html , “to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones” and “A hypothesis is a working assumption.” Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory explains existing observations and predicts new ones (some of which predictions have been verified). It began as a hypothesis — a working assumption — that there was water below the crust, and went from there to explain existing observations (such as the ocean trenches, the tremendous mountain chains, and a whole host of other observations). Why is it that the hydroplate theory is downgraded to a mere hypothesis because it begins with that you say is a “bythely (sic) unfounded assertion”, when I could say the same thing about the plate tectonic theory and the whole theory of evolution.


    April 11, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  21. First, there is no difference between so-called “Microevolution” and “Macroevolution”. The latter, in a fairly inaccurate manner of speaking, is the former over very long periods of time. Brown specifically claims that time is irrelevant to his claim that what he calls macroevolution (actually just evolution) is impossible, yet he does not say why. Why is that? I don’t understand. A good explanation of that would certainly help his position.

    I also find it interesting that without being able to locate or gain any further information regarding my sources, you dismiss them. You don’t know what they say? How is it that you can say they are wrong? That is very telling. You merely suspect that they don’t fit your supernatural world view, so you dismiss them.

    Brown’s hypothesis is weak because it assumes a thing that is not in evidence (the below ground water) and then uses that to work forward. It is also weak because plate tectonics predicts pretty much all the geological facts we see in the world in a more complete way. It simply doesn’t work as well as plate tectonics to explain and predict things. That is why it is not widely accepted by geologists.

    Most importantly, what Brown does can never be science because it invokes magic. You see, in the real world where the grown-ups live and try to figure out the way things work, you can’t do that. I am sorry if you don’t like or accept that. It just is.

    Brown is simply wrong. His ideas on geology are faulty and incorrect. There is ample evidence that would exist of there were a worldwide flood that simply does not exist.

    He is also wrong about the definition of evolution. Evolution makes no claims about “complexity”. That is a flawed, all to commonly used deception. The most concise definition I have heard is that evolution is the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators. This ranting one hears for theists about complexity puzzles me. For a first step, perhaps a definition of “complexity” could be provided. Is a human more complex then a worm? There are flatworms with far more chromosomes then we have. Are they more complex then a human? Less? If so, why? This complexity business is pretty slippery but maybe you can clear it up.

    Also, I do not point out your ignorance instead of logic and argument. I do it in addition to logic and argument. I am also not trying to make you feel inferior by telling you that you are wrong, I am merely telling you that you are wrong. It is interesting that you think someone telling you are wrong and explaining why is an attempt to make you feel inferior. Why is that?

    I will admit to being sarcastic and taking little pokes at you but I feel I can be excused. A reasonable person in the face of such unreason and willful ignorance can’t help being frustrated.


    April 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm

  22. I didn’t say your sources were wrong. The only information you provided was the titles, which seem to indicate micro-evolution. If you have more information, please share. Simply because two of a species don’t reproduce does not prove that they are different species. Great Danes and miniature chihuahuas would be unable to reproduce because of size issues. But they are still the same species. In the book “After its Kind” by Byron Nelson (which was written in 1967) the author speaks of “intervarietal sterility” and mentions some varieties of flower which, though the same species, cannot cross when one species is the male, but can when the other species is the male; this is due to a “mechanical problem” with the pollen getting to the female parts of the flower.

    It’s odd that you find the hydroplate theory “weak because it assumes a thing that is not in evidence” yet you find the evolution theory strong, although it is built on many assumptions not in evidence (for instance, life from non-life; and you can look through the references on the “In the Beginning” website for many quotes from evolutionists which essentially admit that evolution is so unlikely as to be impossible, yet they still hold to it).

    Um, what magic does Dr. Brown invoke?

    Does not evolution claim that all life descended from a common ancestor? This says, “Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.” And does not evolution claim that somehow life came from non-life (the primordial soup) — and that this first whatever-you-want-to-call-it of life was a single-celled organism? And does not evolution say that the fossil record shows that organisms evolved from less to greater complexity? What about the talkorigins website, which includes this phrase: “complex life forms from simpler ones during biological evolution” in the second paragraph of this article which talks about spontaneous generation?

    Somehow, I manage to avoid sarcasm (at least for the most part), despite your persistent unreason and willful ignorance. 🙂


    April 11, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  23. es, you did say explicitly that they were, by claiming that they were “moicroevolution”. There is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. There is simply evolution.

    Yet again you show your ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Also, I am very famaliar with the dishonest quote-mining tactics of creationists and will give that odius practice the attention it deserves: none.

    Dr. Brown invokes magic when he claims that some unidentifed deity exerted influence on the world, to make this mythical underground water rise from the depths. You see, any time you say goddidit, you are invoking magic.

    Again, since you can’t seem to get it, evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis, so, no, “And does not evolution claim that somehow life came from non-life…” Evolution also never claims that life evolved form less to more complex forms. It claims that life evolves to forms better adapted to survival. This often cause an increase in what could unscientifically be called “complexity”. The rub on this whole “complexity” issue is that it is impossible to define in any useful fashion.

    This is becoming interminable. You believe in religion; in believing things on faith, because you have been told them and thinking for youeself is too much trouble; you automatically accept a source that agrees with your faith based worldview and dismiss those that do not, regardless of evidence. That is the simple problem. We will never be able to communicate be casue you are not willing to, for even a moment, examine your precoceptions. You are hide-bound and foolish.

    In dealing with the facts of science, you miss the central point, that real science; testable, repeatable, and falsifiable, is the inly reliable way mankind has yet determined to discover facts about the world. if faith and mysticism were any good in this regard, there would be only one religion. A man in Tokyo and a woman in Seattle would come to the same conclusions regarding religion. That they don’t proves that it is completely subjective. On the other hand, you drop a rock in Rome and a rock in Miami and they’re will fall at the same speed, a speed accurately predicted by physics.

    Now, given these realities you still choose, when science says one thing and your private myth (which, as it is subjective is exactly like no other person’s) another, to believe your private set of myths. Why is that?

    We simply can’t communicate. I think, you believe. I question my views and dismiss them when they are no longer viable, you are dogmatic. It simply astounds me that an adult can function with so many blinders on, but I will assume that you somehow manage. I am not being sarcastic. I really don’t understand how an adult can believe like you do. I did once, you know, so I have some inkling of where you stand but it is only a memory from childhood. I grew out of it, you see.

    I am done trying to explain the facts to you. You won’t listen.


    April 15, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: