[Note: If you comment or trackback and you misquote me or it is clear you did not read this (and think about my point) you will be deleted. I’m tired of the wingnuts.]
I left the computer yesterday after I stirred up the Evolutionary Zealots and I missed the brain implosion. When I got back on the computer, it was amazing to see, frankly, how these people became walking talking caricatures of themselves.
Even after I mocked them they didn’t get that they were the butt of a cruel joke. They are so predictable in their zealotry. I often say that the “oozers” are more religiously fanatic than the religious people. They continue to prove it.
But to get to the point. The Commissar (of all people) called me a flat earther and asked me two questions.
I never avoid a question so let’s go.
I have two questions for Paul:
1) Are the millions of fossils in museums and universities real or frauds? Not their age, just their provenance. Were they dug out of the earth honestly; are they the remains of creature now extinct? Or are they frauds and fakes?This is where I just scratch my head. The “oozers” want us to believe (as a matter of religious doctrine) that lightning hit inorganic primordial ooze and it became life. From that humble beginning all life on earth evolved. I’ve written this many times on Wizbang but….
Where in there exactly did I imply that fossils in museums were fake? He may as well ask me my favorite color. It is a completely disjointed question that bears no relevance to the discussion. But for the record, no I never said they were fake and I do not believe that they are.
Now, how exactly does that prove all life came from ooze?
2) If you accept the fossils as real, do you believe that the diversity and change represented in them was accomplished A) unaided and strictly by genetic change, or B) guided by a higher power, either through Intelligent Design or by instantaneous Creation?…
What do YOU believe, Paul?Lemme type it REAL slow.
I don’t believe either. (Is that so hard to wrap your brain around?)
To believe A, you have to believe a whole string of improbable events happened — all in a row. (to digress a bit) It is sort of like believing that Hillary really did turn 1000 bucks in 100,000 in the cattle futures market honestly… Sure she could have done it (mathematically) but she also could have gotten the right number on a roulette table 15 times in row. I’m just not buying it.
There are massive gaping holes in the whole theory. Massive. (google is your friend)
But what annoys me the most, and why I make fun of them, is that to the zealots, saying you don’t believe a flawed theory is heresy. I might be actually thinking for myself and not repeating “The Gospel According to Oozer” (hey i like that) and we can’t have any of that.
And they are sooo intellectually dishonest. Not a one of them will actually say:
“You’re right Paul. There are some major holes in the theory. BUT it is the best theory we have today. History may prove us to be fools, but for today I believe it is the most probable way to answer all the questions surrounding the diversity of life on earth. But I do understand that there are enough problems still in the theory that you are not convinced yet.”
Is it that hard?
Instead they resort to insulting their critics and lecturing people that THEY are scientists… Bull Shit. A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.
You zealots can choose to believe a (presently) flawed theory. Hip hip hooray for you. But my skepticism (believe it or not) is based on the quality of the theory and is not a sign of lower intelligence or life form. (pun intended)
Now if you believe B, you believe something with a strong historical record but quite short on scientific data. Like believing A, you have taken a leap of faith… The difference of course being that you will admit it.
The EZ’s love to say that their theory elegantly explains the diversity of life. I hate to point out their denial of reality, but there is no more elegant theory than “God made it that way.” If we are scoring on elegance, religion wins… by definition.
So Commissar… that’s what I believe.
Update The religious Zealots have a new tactic. I expose it below the fold.
Confronted with the fact that they are religious fanatics they are using the “Paul is confusing evolution with abiogenesis” line which Steve still can’t spell even though I’ve corrected him 3 times.
I’ll clip Jeff Harrell In The Commissar’s comments.
The theory of evolution basically comes in two parts. First is the part that says that species change over time due to things like environmental pressures and just plain ol’ random mutations. Nobody can argue that this isn’t true. My ex-girlfriend was born without wisdom-tooth buds. Pure mutation. Will it be passed down to her kids? Don’t know. But that’s just an example. The fact that organisms change over generations is undeniably true.
The other part of the theory says that organisms change into significantly different organisms over time. Fish evolve into lizards, dinosaurs evolve into birds, shrews evolve into you and me. That’s the part that’s never been observed. There appears to be a sort of succession of life in the fossil record, but it’s got massive gaps in it that we have yet to explain. One explanation might be that evolution in punctuated. Another explanation is that it basically doesn’t happen at all, at least not in the way that’s been theorized.
The first half of the theory is pretty much indisputable, I think. The second half – who knows? There are just too many gaps in our knowledge to come anywhere close to thinking that we can explain the diversity of life.
An important part of the scientific method is recognizing the limits of what we know. When somebody recognizes the limits of what we know about the history of life, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a creationist, or an anti-evolutionist, or any type of “ist” at all. Except possibly “scientist.”Jeff mostly gets it right There are really 3 parts.
1) Lightning hits ooze and it becomes life. (yes Steve that is spelled, abiogenesis)
2) Life changes over time (proper definition of Evolution)
3) Life evolves enough to explain all the diversity of life including man. (oozer theory)
#1 Is a tough sell scientifically.
#2 is Pretty Solid
#3 Is (scientifically) near laughable. (today)
But I’ll use this to show the disingenuous of the Zealots. Their argument goes like this:
Zealot: You know Evolution exists. (#2)
Sane Person: Yeah but parts 1 and 3 are quite flawed.
Zealot: You idiot, you don’t understand the difference between 1 and 2.
Thereby changing the subject away from the flawed theories. Great way to make a scientific point.