Well, I just read reviews on that one too, and here's what they said,...



I believe this review, especially in light of your arguments in this thread. You’re going on about how could an eye evolve, or how could clotting blood evolve. Those aren’t problematic.

Clearly Sylvia Baker is a fundamentalist with an agenda. Not and unbiased scientist.

When a truly unbiased scientist writes a book that discounts evolution I might bother to read it. People who are trying to discount evolution because they have religious agendas are wasting their breath.

Science doesn’t have an agenda.

You stated in another thread,… and I’ll quote your words for clarity,…


Clearly you’re just a religious fanatic with an agenda. The mere fact that you would say something like proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are delusional.

You actually BELIEVE that scientists just made up evolution as a REASON to not be religious? That’s totally absurd. Most scientists I know have extremely high morals. Probably higher than most religions people.

In fact, most atheists I know have higher moral values than most religious people I know.

So you’re just way off in some kind of delusion that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Scientists don’t have an agenda other than wanting to know TRUTH. Period.

Trying to make evolution into a religious argument is utterly absurd.

If it's important to your own personal beliefs so be it, but to claim that you, or anyone else has any genuinely unbiased evidence for it is untrue.

There is no unbiased evidence against evolution that I know of. The only supposed objections come from people who have religious agendas and are trying to support their beliefs. That's backwards to the way truth is found.

You don't claim to know the conclusion first and then try to bend all the data to point to that. You go where the data leads and that's where you find TRUTH

Why should anyone in their right mind go through any of that if evolution theory is bust just on blood clotting and the eye?
not even to mention the non-existent 'missing links'.

"all the wisdom of man is foolishness to God"...paraphrasing.

YOU WIN.

Congratulations. I now admit that I came from pond scum and am a superior monkey man.

Take THAT inferior monkey men.

I feel so much better now. Now all I have to do is tell the rest of the world they should live it up and hope that evolution blesses us all in 50 billion years with immortality long after I'm dead. I'll get a jumpstart right now and start living in a tree so I can get to growing my tail back.

Who needs SAVING anyhow, the whole human race is fiiiine. I'm just glad that I'll be dead soon and none of it really matters anyway.


WHAT A RELIEF.

Amen!

No, not my favorite word. The unspoken hush, hush, word of the base of creationism, though, it is. I would not teach my children this "version" of creation for fear of the ideas they may conceive as valid or viable for man and woman relationships. It is not a healthy thought process to initiate in children that is for sure.

Spontaneous generation or evolution or whatever, we have not yet learned all there is to learn at this scientific level but we have learned that creationism is not a viable option. So I would rather follow the scientific forms of discovery than the antiquated "belief" of the incestuous creation of man. I am sorry if that offends but I cannot understand how that form of regeneration in man would be considered more acceptable to us considering our intelligence level these days.

Ezekiels wheel and the nephilum. Secret socities and evolution propaganda. All linked together in history. I'm surpiised someone actually knew enough to bring that up.

Too late.....You're way behind the curve. Already been done, c.5000BC, re: Sumerian "Epic of Creation", c.1200BC, Re: Babylonian "Enuma elish" (a rework of the original). Both of them indisputable original sources for the content of "Genesis".

'Alien greys' have been the same harrasing spirits throughout human history and in every society. They are nothing new.

Regarding genetic mutation (DNA), I suppose, for starters, that we should just disregard procreation? How about viruses? EM? Radiation?

Post the link to that review. I want to judge it source since we are talking about bias and unbiased.
There is a negative review for every book; question is how many people see this book as being nothing less than fantastic.

Just the "Every single point in the book is easily refuted by anyone having any familiarity with the concept of evolution." part proves that whoever "reviewed" it is talking out their arse!
Do you really think someone with "any familiarity with the concept of evolution." will be able to refute the flaws of radiation dating?
How can someone with any familiarity be able to refute the eye problem?

THIS is SOLID GOLD material right here:


oh no, they're not problems at all. noooo. it only shows how evolution is IMPOSSIBLE since the influence to mutate (in terms of blood clotting) would kill the animal before it got a chance pass that infomation on.

I find it facinating how you miss this!

Its JUST as bad as if you found some "lost" script of the bible that said: "this is a fairytale story about a superman named Jesus..."; showed it to ME and then I reply:

"that isnt problematic."
You definitely are a lost cause Abra.



You wouldnt know fundamentalist if they told you "CONVERT OR DIE INFIDEL!!"



So why not have a read of Michael Behe's Darwins Black Box?
Or are you gonna jump on Amazon book reviews and go straaaaight to the One star* review to find your comfort zone again?



No, delusional is believing in a concept that has no evidence that ISNT based on speculation.
Sure, Science is about truth, but as soon as someone says the words "God" everyone gets upset and defends.
Just like here.



What have morals got to do with this?
lmao yet again Abra you're letting your emotions throw you.

I never said SCIENTISTS "made up evolution"
and IM delusional you say?

Scientists did not come up with evolution Abra, the concept goes way back before Darwin.
It first came from the Greeks: they taught that men cam from fish, the Empedocles claimed animals came from plants.
And then we had spontaneous generation.

The whole idea of evolution is attractive because it will then mean that there are no consequences for what one does!

I never stated that it was some sort of conspiracy!
that was your delusion of my statement.


The more I read Abra the more I believe you are delusional.


Of course it is isnt it Abra?
Because that would turn your map of reality upside down wouldnt it?
Scary!



There is never an argument where someone resorts to "its bias! its bias!"
When they dont get their way.

If a Islamic extremest believed in evolution and wrote a thesis on it; you wont believe it because he's got "a hidden agenda!"



That is down right pathetic man.
If a Christian man debunked evolution, you would deny it with the same excuse "hidden agenda".



Jeez Abra, not only do you and I NOT have the capacity to understand somrthing that has "always been" but you dont even have the ability to understand this sentence.

I cannot help you further.

I didn't need it cause you finally came to your senses.


LOL!!!!!!!
So you wont even admit your error?
not to mention trying to cover up the bs with that last line!


What error are you talking about this time? You haven't found one yet.



Oh, only the post where you said "Im waiting for my apology" where I followed up and debunked your pitiful attempt to debunk Christ is all!

Coming from you that's a complement.

Untamed, there are certain terms you are using which are incorrect in regards to what evolution is, and we need to clear them up before we can begin to discuss your larger arguments.

"no experience = no call to evolve into a superior species right?"

Using the word superior here is not proper, the function of evolution allows organism to become a better functioning organism in its particular ecosystem. To say that any organism is "superior" to another is inaccurate. Also, "experience" is not the driving force behind evolution as you describe it. In a sense, it is randomness paired with situations that favor particular arrangements of randomness. There is one more important point to remember in regards to evolution, it acts on populations, not individuals.

"So if we "evolved" to get more and more complex. . ."

Complexity is a byproduct and by no means necessary or required. No organism "evolves" to become more complex simply for complexity's sake. Evolution can be as "simple" as antibiotic resistance.

"But what use is a hole in the front of the eye to allow light to pass through, if there are no cells at the back of the eye to recieve light?"

I agree with this statement, if it were true. Here you are assuming that the lens was developed prior to light sensitive cells, and if you look at various "simpler" organisms (flip through an intro zoology text) you will find various organisms that possess structures (albeit rudimentary) similar to our own eye. Development of a lens to focus light onto these specialized photo-sensitive cells is not as farfetched as you make it sound.

"but if you dont have a blood clot system and you get cut, you bleed to death"

This is mostly true, although the clotting cascade that is the dominant source of repair to our circulatory system, it is by no means the only part of it. Also, there are various other organisms that do not really have any means of hemostasis, however, they still thrive. Again, a population need not "experience" blood loss to develop blood clotting. During the evolution of particular species, there are individuals with preexisting genetic variation that is "beneficial" or provides a phenotypic advantage among the various selective pressures applied to the population.

". . .FLAWED dating system known as radio active dating. . ."

It is really only flawed if the person conducting the test does not know what they are doing. What you are saying is tantamount to bashing heart surgery if you let your dog perform the operation.

It's getting late, and I have to be up early, so this should be a decent spot to end for the night.

cheers

Evolution... haha yeah ok

This is clearly not true. Evolution isn’t a religion. That’s your fallacy. Evolution doesn’t say any thing at all about the spiritual nature of the universe. It merely shows how it unfolded.

Also, what if there is no consequences for our actions? So what? I know many atheists who don’t believe in a God or any kind of afterlife yet they are extremely upstanding moral people.

Is the idea of a God who will spank you the only thing that keeps you in line? If that’s the case then praise the Lord and pass the biscuits!

I think it’s truly sad if that is indeed the case for you. I would hate to think that your true ambition is to run around doing immoral things and the only reason you don’t do them is because you think you’ll have to answer for it. That’s genuinely a pathetic situation.

Moreover I’m not sure I’d want to share a heaven with a bunch of people who have a sincere desire to do immoral things but are only restraining themselves out of fear of punishment or the desire to earn a reward. How grossly self-centered would that be?

It doesn’t matter to me whether a judgmental God exists or not. I don’t change my behavior based on that premise. I would automatically be eligible for the biblical heaven just by being who I naturally am even if I never heard of the Bible.

In fact, according to Jesus we will be judged by the same measure we judge others. If Jesus spoke the truth, then there won’t be any judgment for me at all. The gates of heaven would just automatically open as I approached with no questions asked because I don’t judge others. Therefore if Jesus can be taken at his word then no judgment will be passed on me at all. And I’m not even trying to get into heaven. I’m just being my natural self.

So your idea that evolution is attractive because it represents no consequences for my actions only suggests to me that you are one sick puppy.

But like I say, if you need to believe in a God that spanks in order to behave yourself, then praise the Lord and pass the biscuits!

I don’t want to change your personal beliefs. That was never my intent to begin with.

from http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/
Gender is probably not the most important aspect to the Lucy fossil as she offers much more insight into our ancient lineage. Although no other pelvis from this species has been found, other Australopithecus afarensis bones have been and reveal much about sexual dimorphism to infer her being female. Regardless of the gender argument, Lucy's pelvis tells much more; it screams "bipedal." DeWaal points out that "the most significant difference between Lucy and modern chimpanzees is found in their hips, not their craniums" (DeWaal 1997).

It is Lucy's pelvic and femur structure, along with her knee joint, that are decidedly hominid. As Tattersall points out, short of having a pelvis to examine, the knee tells the most about locomotion (Tattersall 1996):

LOL!!!!!!!
So you wont even admit your error?
not to mention trying to cover up the bs with that last line!


What error are you talking about this time? You haven't found one yet.



Oh, only the post where you said "Im waiting for my apology" where I followed up and debunked your pitiful attempt to debunk Christ is all!


I started and participated in a whole post on that issue. Go read the whole post and then we can discuss it. Until then I don't think you have any idea what I think about the issue.

I will give you a little hint ahead of time. I believe that most of the disagreements in the post came from and between people who believe in Jesus not me.

Heres an easy blood clot solution for you and remember I am no scientist.

Long ago before blood coagulated. There were 1 million mice. As you will even agree these 1 million mice are not all exactly the same. (That would be ridiculous.) Now all 1 million mice get cut all at once by some bizarre angry mice cutting beast. The 10 or 12 mice that just happen to bleed a little slower have a much better chance at staying alive and passing on that gene. The ones that bleed like a fountain die in seconds and do not pass on their genes. Now let that happen over a few million generations and Ta-da Coagulation.

There you go easy as that I proved that wrong in 15 seconds of thinking.

Very true, my mistake!!!

However, I think you should have kept it hush!!!

Lubenow's version of 'Bones of Contention's was at least coined the 'best of the bad'. You should have kept it there!

With Sylvia Baker, we're truly going down to fanatical, anything goes, fundamentalist hell!!!

Here is a statement she made on the Trinity Christian School 'website', where she was head teacher, in April 2007,

"The world and everything in it was created by God and did not arise by chance and through evolution." Moreover, "The Bible is, throughout, the Word of God. It is therefore to be believed as true and obeyed unquestioningly."

You truly think this kind of pervasive and categorical mindset leaves room for the minimum level of essential 'objectivity' science is founded upon???

Unscrupulous people will misuse science to support their religious agendi. But it is utter stupidity to then turn around and claim that this misused and difformed science, is credible, much less 'fact'!!!

So much for Ms Baker's motives!!!

As for her practices, not unlike most fundamentalists, they are deceiptful to say the least, as you can read below::

It is reported that Ms Baker was a co-signer and full participant of the 'Estelle Morris letter'.

"... The 2002 Estelle Morris letter, from 27 creationists to the then Secretary of State for Education, was clearly an attempy to push for the teaching of creationism in science lessons.

None of the 27 signatories declared that they were creationists and none disclosed that they were activist members of creationist organisations (most of them were).

THE BSCE REGARDS IT AS A MAJOR ACT OF ORGANISED DECEIPT BY THE THE CREATIONIST MOVEMENT.

It appears that the letter followed another from a much larger and more distinguished group of academics and scientists arguing the opposite case. This letter, which was addressed to the Prime Minister, appears to have been entirely ignored..."

On Sylvia Baker:
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/SylviaBaker

On the BHA letter :
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/BHALetter

On the Estelle Morris letter:
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/SylviaBaker


A PIG dressed-up in a 'tuxedo', IS STILL A PIG!!!

Religious dogma, dressed-up with scientific tid-bits which conveniently 'fit' pre-suppositionist arguments, will never be anything other than MORALLY AND ETHICALLY 'DECEIPTFUL', ... NOT SCIENTIFIC, NOT FACTUAL, NOT REAL!!!