Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

Willowtree,I can't for the life of me understand why you are so hung up on Milton being an evolutionist. Who cares? The point surely is whether his arguments are sufficiently empirically & logically supported, or not. Without repeating the text of others, they aren't. Your only defence has been to parrot that Milton is an evo & you have independent corroboration. You don't, what you have is an argument from authority.The best that can be said that you have found an evo that agrees with you, this in no way means he is right, however. So why don't you do us all a favour & argue the evidence, without committing the logical flaw of hanging your hat on someones spoken word or opinion rather than their presented evidence?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

I would liek to say that I don't see any reason to consider Milton a creationist as such, however so far as I can tell he just objects to evolution without having a coherent position of his own.However I don't beleive that Milton can be considered independant corroboration of creationist claims either. To know that we would have to consider how he arrived at his beliefs. I woudl also add that Willowtree has yet to offer any valid reason for considering Milton any sort of authority - or even to deal adequately with the mounting evidence that Milton doesn't understand what he is talking about - and may well be lying (consider his criticism of Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ - the FAQ clearly and truthfully states that examples of species level transitions will be found in section 2 amongst the mammals but Milton claims not only that the FAQ promises such transitions in a discussion of fish in section 1 but that the FAQ contains no such examples at all).

What you actually said was "Why even reveal ones theism if it has no relevance to the subject ?" I just tried to answer your question from my point of view, being a theist who had just revealed their theism in this debate. surely that qualifies me to have an opinion on the matter?Can I point out that I have made no comment about "theistic evolutionists/deistic evolutionists" since these are terms that I don't use, certainly I can't ever recall having used the term "deistic evolutionists".As for your comment "the claim of rational enquiry that invokes a neutrality toward the Divine is dishonest", I'm sorry, but it's nonsense. How on earth can I invoke the actions of God and use these in my conclusions when I set out to determine the average shoe size of UK citizens? The average shoe size of UK citizens will be the same whether I invoke God or not!!! Same for the question "Do these bacteria grow in oxygenless atmospheres?" If they fail to grow, I'm going to look a bit daft if I report "No they don't grow without oxygen in this experiment because God didn't want them to". There's nothing dishonest about explaining science without mentioning God's input.I do like your comment "The rest of your pro-theistic evolution sermonizing is embarrasssing." My beliefs are personal to me and if I can live with them, then it doesn't really matter what you think, to be honest. I tend to be a bit more concerned with what God thinks - that's all that matters to me in my relationship with God. I don't have to justify my beliefs to you, just God.Have to say that I have done my homework on your ideas about God sense and I personally find your arguments about God removing your ability to recognise him as Creator because you DON'T recognise him as Creator a bit odd. I mean, I'm hardly going to say to my three year old "No you can't go out to play because you don't want to go out to play" Surely God would be more interested in trying to get the non-believers to believe. Isn't that why His only Son died in agony and humiliation on the cross? To save sinners and non-believers? Bit of a waste of time if God is going to prevent you from believing just because you don't believe.I haven't mistaken you with the stereotype you referenced. All I had to go on was your own posts and that's what I based my observations on.Now, I think we should leave this as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive and I think it may be in danger of degenerating into something distasteful. I have no intention of offending you and I have no intention of allowing you to offend me for a third time. Let's just turn the other cheek

No I have not ignored everything about the wolf skulls. Please see post # 141, I have withdrawn the evidence. You must of missed it.The only other thing I want to comment on is your ridiculous analogy to an infant.What you are really saying is that the source I am using - you disagree with.This is the problem with a lot of evos, instead of actually attacking the content they attack the data provider.You ought to read the posts and threads of EvC member Quetzal. This person NEVER engages in source assassination. Quetzal attacks argumets and their interpretations with his scientific expertise.Is it fair game to attack the credibility of a source (Milton) ? Sure it is IF you provide some arguments/evidence. You have attacked Milton but fail to say anything different from your initial attack.Milton is a science reporter for over 20 years and belongs to Mensa.Yes he has an anti- evo ax to grind, that is the purpose of his book. So what is the point ?

Please show me one place where I say Milton is an evo. You are confused.As far as posting evidence is concerned you must of missed post # 116 in this topic. There is new evidence in this post that has largely been ignored.While the ball has for the most part been in my court, it is now in the evo court.Post # 116.

The "God sense" removal position is not mine. God through Paul the Apostle said it in the book of Romans Chapter 1 verses 18 - 25.God Sense creationists DO NOT ask that God be invoked every step of the way, just that He be recognized as the One who created it all.God DEMANDS that He be given ultimate credit as the Creator and a genuine word of thanks. Anyone who does not genuinely do this is eligible to receive the punishment of "God sense" removed for rejecting God as Creator.Trixi, don't worry about it. You do credit God and you are thankful which means you are in compliance with the requirements of God stated in Romans.Thank you for your input.Source of Theology Information : Dr.Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University)

As far as the cuckoo is concerned, Milton does not specify anything other than what I already said.Next, I want to say that your posts are by far the most comprehensive and solid explanations of evolution. I am not afraid to say that I do not understand most of what you say. This is my deficiency for the most part, but in my own defense I do criticize evos like you for "logidemicizing". But the purpose of this post is not to attack or criticize you.I want to tell you that I reject evolution on philosophical and theistic grounds. That this type of evidence precedes the scientific data, and if my argument is properly understood then it explains why the scientific evidence is defective. I have always maintained that "you guys" are brilliant, but I am not qualified to argue or refute evidence with a person of your science knowledge caliber.This is why I have "ignored" your posts. I do not know what to say - there is no where to go.But I sure would like to read a post of yours that addresses the evidence contained at the end of post # 116, the evidence about eyes and information and matter.Question: How come you cannot convince your wife of evolution ? Or is she a theistic evolutionist ? Just curious.Look forward to your reply.

I'm not quite sure I follow your train of thought, Willowtree. I DON'T credit God with creating everything - I'm a firm believer in evolution and I don't believe a word of the Creation story of Genesis, neither the version of chapter one nor the version of chapter two.

Willowtree,Irrelevant. The ACTUAL point made is that you are committing a logical flaw, arguing from authority & ot evidence. Milton ISN'T evidence.Mark

Wow, Willow, I don't really know what to say. It certainly hasn't been my intent throughout this thread to confuse you by using "high falutin'" terminology. If there's something I wrote you don't understand because of the way it was expressed, I hope you'll say, "Stop there. I have no idea what this means..." As I offered before, I'd be happy to try and clarify. One of the things I find endlessly fascinating about evolution is how simple the basic concepts are (although the details get very complex). Hmm. I understand you reject evolution on philosophical grounds. That's been abundantly clear from the outset, and your position has been well-articulated. OTOH, I'm not sure that a philosophical objection to a scientific idea is a valid way of criticizing it. Since evolution uses the same methodological naturalism as every other science, the only way you can legitimately critique it on philosophical grounds is to show that methodological naturalism (vice philsophical or metaphysical naturalism, which ARE philosophies and highly arguable as epistemologies because of their innate presuppositions), itself is invalid as a "way of knowing". IOW, you need to show that the methodology itself of all science is flawed. Believe it or not, that is more or less precisely what Johnson tried to do with his rather vague and undefined "theistic science". However, Johnson's approach isn't only bad science, but bad theology and bad philosophy (there are other threads discussing Johnson - see especially those started by Mr. Hambre). In any case, there's no reason why you can't argue the evidence, as long as you're willing to do a little reading first, so that you understand what it is you're actually arguing against. Alternatively, you can simply phrase it in terms of a question, rather than asserting it's invalid.The bottom line, here, would seem to be that if you can't refute the findings of science on scientific grounds - for whatever reason - then you have no objective reasons to reject a scientific theory: any scientific theory. Which is unfortunate both for your position AND for the sake of discussion. For the former, your position becomes logically untenable. For the latter, I really enjoy it when people bring up contentious points in science on scientific grounds. I not only learn a lot, but find the discussions themselves highly stimulating. I keep waiting for someone to argue with about Margulis' serial endosymbiosis theory or the validity of the Wilson/MacArthur equilibrium theory. Those kinds of arguments are where the real discussions in science are centered. Not arguing over whether or not someone's got an invalid presupposition on philosophical grounds. Well, briefly.Johnson, in the two quotes you provide, is making the fallacious argument that, because some biochemical process we observe in modern organisms or cells is currently irreducible, that it couldn't have evolved. Note that this is a positive claim. It can be falsified if a plausible evolutionary pathway can be presented. By Johnson's definition (echoing Behe), an arch is irreducibly complex because if a single stone is removed, the whole edifice collapses. No one argues that an arch can't be built - you use scaffolding, in this case, to support the arch until the keystone is placed. We see the same thing with evolution. Biological structures and pathways can be created readily through cooption - exactly like the arch. I'll fill in more detail and specific references to specific pathways later if you want them.In the case of the vertebrate eye, the stages have been shown. Remember my discussion of how we can look at living organisms and see quite functional (for the particular critter) "stages" of development - just like the cosmologists see the different stages in star formation through their instruments? Well guess what? We can see every single postulated stage of eye development - from a light-sensitive dollop of chemicals to various permutation of complex eyes like ours or the cephalopods - in living organisms. Note - I don't mean that that's how they developed, but it does show that each step is valid and functional for the particular organism in it's particular environment. I don't have time right at this moment to give you specific organisms, but be assured I can if you need them. To paraphrase Dawkins, "What use is 50% of an eye? It's 50% better than no eye at all..."I've got to go now (my daughter needs the computer for homework). I'll try and get back to address your information point later.However, before I go: I didn't need to convince my wife. Although she's not a scientist of any stripe (her master's degrees are in Public Policy and National Security Policy), she is a Catholic very much on the lines of Trixie on this forum. So I suppose she's a "theistic evolutionist", in the sense of both believing in God and accepting the findings of science. My eldest daughter (13) is also a Catholic, and is not only convinced of the evidence of evolution that she's been exposed to, but is adamant about becoming a biologist. My youngest daughter (10) is a Catholic as well, but hasn't approached the evo-cre debate in any real sense. None of them appear to have any problems with the two - belief in God and acceptance that evolution provides the current best explanation for the diversity of life.

Willowtree: Sorry...I was only trying to be a bit humorous while introducing an analogy about sources. My point was this....Just cuz someone says or writes something, that doesn't make it true. Not necessarily. He is flat out wrong. To say I simply disagree implies that it's more a matter of opinion or interpretation. That is not the case here. BS! Don't you accuse me of that Willowtree. I never attacked Milton as a person. I attacked the evidence of his that you presented and told you why it was wrong.
And where do you get off stating such a boldface lie. Who, exactly, are you talking to here? The people that read and contribute to this site know that what you have just said is out and out crappola. Look back at almost any post on this wedsite and see who presents scientific evidence in support of their claims. While you're at it, also who see who uses sound scientific evidence to refute the claims of the other side. Any time a creationist puts forth some kind of evidence either in support of creationism or in an attempt to discredit evolution, we give scientifically sound reasons why they are incorrect. That's called "attacking" the data. Just because you choose to ignore it (or don't understand it) doesn't make it an attack on the data provider. Sure, we may occasionally say something disparaging about the data provider, but it's relatively rare and usually the result of provocation (like now, for example). Don't toss around accusations this pathetic unless you're prepared to back them up. And yes, I do see the irony in this paragraph...but I was stunned when you made your statement and felt I had to set the record straight. You're joking right? A little humor like I tried? I'll make this simple. If Milton claims that the Thylacine skull is identical to the Grey wolf skull, he is wrong. It's not my opinion that he his wrong. I'm not interperting the data in another way that may cause confusion between the two of us. He is wrong. And I told you WHY he is wrong. I know that you have since withdrawn this evidence, but you have accused me of ignoring the evidence and attacking the person, so I'll ask you to read again my post #139 where I laid out some evidence against the skull comparison claim.
So you see, WIllowtree, I did attack the evidence, not the person. Big deal. What's you point? My brother is a rocket scientist and has an IQ that would probably rival Miltons. But you know what? He doesn't know squat about evolution, nor does he pretend to.[This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 01-12-2004]

Unfortunately work constraints have prevented me (and will continue to do so) from defending myself against any of the personal attacks made by WT against my faith in this and other threads.I see here another Christian is assailed (Trixie).I'd like to point out to all Christians that Dr.Gene Scott's interpetation of Romans Chapter 1 verses 18 - 25 is an attempt to use psychological blackmail to convince his covertees to never even consider the validity of Evolution (lest they lose their "God sense"). His interpretation (which is an abberation of most Christian views of Romans) is that if you deny God as a creator (creator in the literal sense of Genesis) then you will damned by losing your ability to ever see God's work. According to Scott failing to acknowledge God as the creator (Genesis style), will cost you your salvation. The circular nature of this reasoning has been repeatedly pointed out in these threads.Don't believe a word of this blatantly anti-Christian nonsense.It is a desperate and unsustainable scare tactic generated to compell his follows into irrational blind allegiance on matters of biological origins. His followers can then be seen to go on to make pointless attacks on evolution purely on "philosophical and theistic grounds" because the unfortunate reality is, Creationism is cannot be sustained by evidence.As I have stated before, your salvation will definitely not turn upon your belief in a literal creation. The invisible things from "creation" can be seen in the universe that he set in motion through natural processes and through the wonderous creatures (including man) that have evolved according to his laws (laws of the universe).God will forgive any man of his sins and salvation is available to all. It is certainly not even a sin to be convinced by evolution (in fact it is an intellectual imperative).

Be careful Light, if you put down Willowtree's beloved Dr. Gene Scott Willowtree is likely to preach to you for hours about Dr. Scott's profound achievements.

Is this willowtree's way of saying that he has exhausted his supply of "scientific evidence" against evolution and must again drag us back to his religious and philosophical objections to the theory of evolution?

You mean like selling his master thesis at $300 a pop or limited edition copies signed by him for $1000Access denied

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde