Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

beware of Dawkins readers, like Jaclyn Glenn

Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 8:40:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Beware of people who read Richard Dawkins.
Well, this is a teaser sentence only as I, in fact, read Richard Dawkins. So does Jaclyn Glenn who recently did a review of Ray Comfort"s Evolution vs God which is a video of Comfort interviewing several college professors and students (more students than professors) on what their evidence for evolution is. The interviewees waffle quite a bit with Comfort, among other things, asking for evidence for a change in "kinds" " a term he nebulously defines well enough to suite his needs with examples: the canine kind, coyote kind, domestic dog, feline kind, and human kind. Comfort"s professor interviewees are blogger PZ Myers and Gail Kennedy whose only examples of such changes are stickleback fish (who remain stickleback fish) and bacteria (which remain bacteria). They could, of course, have also mentioned Darwin"s finches which change beak sizes but remain finches. But I digress.
While browsing on youtube, I came across Jaclyn Glenn"s review of that video. Yet another atheist I could peruse who I never encountered before. (I"m curious if Dawkins" book The God Delusion sitting in the background was there for effect or because she was actually reading it.) Nevertheless, I watched most of the video and came up with a list of her numerous factual shortcomings.
1.Glenn suggests that when Comfort claims evolution can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans, and amphibious mammals into whales that means one kind of animal, a monkey for instance, must give birth to a human. The vast majority of creationists do not argue those changes must be that rapid although Glenn seems to insinuate they do.
2.Glenn thinks that just because creationists can"t witness evolution or understand how it can happen, we immediately leap to the conclusion that God created life. That is a "god of the gaps" strategy that does not reflect modern scholarship. Intelligent design theorists, for instance, claim positive reasons for attributing life forms to divine creation whether it involves a young earth, old earth, or even progressive creation.
3.Glenn takes aim at Comfort"s argument that evolution in the fossils is not observable. She likens that to a claim aging doesn"t exist because we cannot witness it. Yet, people and their children can, during a period of time, observe a child growing old but not observe the formation of the fossils that typify the entire life story of evolution.
4.Glenn assumes that molecular similarities between chimpanzees and humans show they are cousins via evolutionist relationship. However, similarities do not show common ancestry and may easily show common design " much like similarities between cars indicate similar designers.
5.Glenn claims that evolution could be disproven by finding one fossil in the wrong location. Yet, I"ve found that evolutionist beliefs are not falsifiable and can be molded to fit any theory. Evolution can be presumed to have been more rapid than before.
6.Glenn makes a big misstep criticizing Comfort"s critique of the moral ramifications of evolution " particularly Comfort"s claim that Hitler was putting natural selection into practice. Glenn retorts that evolution is a biological process, not a moral one, and we might as well sit in a circle and discuss the morality of a tsunami. It"s interesting that Glenn never denies that Hitler was eliminating the unfit; she just wants to find a detour around the issue. What Glenn does is jump from human evil to natural evil as if to suggest both are morally equivalent. Yes, evolution is a natural process, but one with moral or immoral results and we can"t ignore making ethical judgments about human actions. If humans did actions that happen to fall under the rubric of evolution, then we should describe them as moral or immoral. I think, like PZ Myers, she does not want to face the ethical ramifications of evolution.

So, I find yet another example of atheist misperceptions about their subject of study " no different than Dawkins and others I describe in my book the Vast Wastelands of Unbelief. As a rebuttal to Glenn, I would suggest Wac3media"s whose review is lengthy and mostly on target.
This is also readable at my blog http://vastwastelandsofunbelief.blogspot.com...
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 10:07:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Amen!

By the way, I find the "out of place fossil" falsification invitation to be very reasonable and I would like to offer that falsification:

a trilobite in the lower cambrian.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 10:52:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 8:40:11 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
Beware of people who read Richard Dawkins.
Well, this is a teaser sentence only as I, in fact, read Richard Dawkins. So does Jaclyn Glenn who recently did a review of Ray Comfort"s Evolution vs God which is a video of Comfort interviewing several college professors and students (more students than professors) on what their evidence for evolution is. The interviewees waffle quite a bit with Comfort, among other things, asking for evidence for a change in "kinds" " a term he nebulously defines well enough to suite his needs with examples: the canine kind, coyote kind, domestic dog, feline kind, and human kind. Comfort"s professor interviewees are blogger PZ Myers and Gail Kennedy whose only examples of such changes are stickleback fish (who remain stickleback fish) and bacteria (which remain bacteria). They could, of course, have also mentioned Darwin"s finches which change beak sizes but remain finches. But I digress.
While browsing on youtube, I came across Jaclyn Glenn"s review of that video. Yet another atheist I could peruse who I never encountered before. (I"m curious if Dawkins" book The God Delusion sitting in the background was there for effect or because she was actually reading it.) Nevertheless, I watched most of the video and came up with a list of her numerous factual shortcomings.
1.Glenn suggests that when Comfort claims evolution can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans, and amphibious mammals into whales that means one kind of animal, a monkey for instance, must give birth to a human. The vast majority of creationists do not argue those changes must be that rapid although Glenn seems to insinuate they do.

I have seen plenty of Glen's videos. I don't think she insinuates all creationists all the same. In fact I remember hearing that from her.

2.Glenn thinks that just because creationists can"t witness evolution or understand how it can happen, we immediately leap to the conclusion that God created life.

She's partialy right. Half of creationist are like that, the other half understand evolution perfectly, but simply refuse to accept it despite being the only reliable model for explaining biodiversity.

That is a "god of the gaps" strategy that does not reflect modern scholarship. Intelligent design theorists, for instance, claim positive reasons for attributing life forms to divine creation whether it involves a young earth, old earth, or even progressive creation.

Intelligent design "theorists" that can be called "modern scholars", would never believe in "divine creation". Although I can agree some scholars could make a good argument about "alien" creators for the origin of life on Earth, but they could hardly elaborate anything about the origin of life in the universe without embarassing the whole scientific community.

3.Glenn takes aim at Comfort"s argument that evolution in the fossils is not observable. She likens that to a claim aging doesn"t exist because we cannot witness it. Yet, people and their children can, during a period of time, observe a child growing old but not observe the formation of the fossils that typify the entire life story of evolution.

No you can not see people agin, you simply rely on your memory and have a somehow "clear" picture of them being a child, then teenager, then adult. But you don't have a picture of them growing, because you have never seen them growing. Then you assume those 3 persons are the same person, but this is the same as assuming this represents different evolutive stages of a horse: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

I could go on and say that the child, teenager and adult are simply very alike because they have a designer that decided to make them alike. If you were to ask the teenager if this is true, I could even say the designer implanted memories of the child on the teenager, but that they are two different persons. You could never probe me wrong, except of accusing me of making an extraordinary claim without showing you evidence, which is what scientists (real ones) accuse creationists of doing.

4.Glenn assumes that molecular similarities between chimpanzees and humans show they are cousins via evolutionist relationship. However, similarities do not show common ancestry and may easily show common design " much like similarities between cars indicate similar designers.

Sure. If someone ever accuses me of having a sister, I will say: oh no way, genetic similarities do not show that this girl and me share the same father, it simply shows we have the same designer. Again, extraordinary claims with zero evidence.

5.Glenn claims that evolution could be disproven by finding one fossil in the wrong location. Yet, I"ve found that evolutionist beliefs are not falsifiable and can be molded to fit any theory. Evolution can be presumed to have been more rapid than before.

Still Glenn is right, humans can not appear on the fossil record before bacteria if evolution is true, no matter how fast you want to make the process.

6.Glenn makes a big misstep criticizing Comfort"s critique of the moral ramifications of evolution " particularly Comfort"s claim that Hitler was putting natural selection into practice. Glenn retorts that evolution is a biological process, not a moral one, and we might as well sit in a circle and discuss the morality of a tsunami. It"s interesting that Glenn never denies that Hitler was eliminating the unfit; she just wants to find a detour around the issue. What Glenn does is jump from human evil to natural evil as if to suggest both are morally equivalent. Yes, evolution is a natural process, but one with moral or immoral results and we can"t ignore making ethical judgments about human actions. If humans did actions that happen to fall under the rubric of evolution, then we should describe them as moral or immoral. I think, like PZ Myers, she does not want to face the ethical ramifications of evolution.

It is called "natural selection" to make it clear it has nothing to do with "artificial selection". So hitler was not putting evolution into practice. And about evolution producing "moral or immoral results" I think this is a stupid statement sorry. It's like saying that you stepped on a stone and hurted yourself, and thus the stone produced an immoral result. Simply a huge absurdity.

So, I find yet another example of atheist misperceptions about their subject of study " no different than Dawkins and others I describe in my book the Vast Wastelands of Unbelief. As a rebuttal to Glenn, I would suggest Wac3media"s whose review is lengthy and mostly on target.
This is also readable at my blog http://vastwastelandsofunbelief.blogspot.com...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 11:19:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 8:40:11 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
Beware of people who read Richard Dawkins.
Well, this is a teaser sentence only as I, in fact, read Richard Dawkins. So does Jaclyn Glenn who recently did a review of Ray Comfort"s Evolution vs God which is a video of Comfort interviewing several college professors and students (more students than professors) on what their evidence for evolution is. The interviewees waffle quite a bit with Comfort, among other things, asking for evidence for a change in "kinds" " a term he nebulously defines well enough to suite his needs with examples: the canine kind, coyote kind, domestic dog, feline kind, and human kind. Comfort"s professor interviewees are blogger PZ Myers and Gail Kennedy whose only examples of such changes are stickleback fish (who remain stickleback fish) and bacteria (which remain bacteria). They could, of course, have also mentioned Darwin"s finches which change beak sizes but remain finches. But I digress.
While browsing on youtube, I came across Jaclyn Glenn"s review of that video. Yet another atheist I could peruse who I never encountered before. (I"m curious if Dawkins" book The God Delusion sitting in the background was there for effect or because she was actually reading it.) Nevertheless, I watched most of the video and came up with a list of her numerous factual shortcomings.

Never heard of this jaclyn person, but okay.

1.Glenn suggests that when Comfort claims evolution can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans, and amphibious mammals into whales that means one kind of animal, a monkey for instance, must give birth to a human. The vast majority of creationists do not argue those changes must be that rapid although Glenn seems to insinuate they do.

Problem is, Comfort does claim this. Its how the "Crocoduck" came to be, because of a misconception that in order for two animals to split, one must give birth to a half-same half-different species of animal. And this is actually a very common misconception within the laymen creationists, of which there are many.

2.Glenn thinks that just because creationists can"t witness evolution or understand how it can happen, we immediately leap to the conclusion that God created life. That is a "god of the gaps" strategy that does not reflect modern scholarship. Intelligent design theorists, for instance, claim positive reasons for attributing life forms to divine creation whether it involves a young earth, old earth, or even progressive creation.

Intelligent design theorists are divorced from creationism.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org...

By lumping them together, you are doing what most IDers dislike, and wish to avoid. It looks like you are doing the same thing you accuse Jaclyn of doing.

3.Glenn takes aim at Comfort"s argument that evolution in the fossils is not observable. She likens that to a claim aging doesn"t exist because we cannot witness it. Yet, people and their children can, during a period of time, observe a child growing old but not observe the formation of the fossils that typify the entire life story of evolution.

Well, not really. If we start now, by cataloging the shape of the bones, we can, in a few million years, be able to "Witness" the formation of fossil ancestry. That would be the same as a person observing a child, every day, for 5 years to witness aging. This is certainly doable, there is nothing physically preventing us from observing and cataloging fossils for a million years or so. But, like following a child every day for 5 years, it takes considerable time and effort.

But of course, were not talking about what we can do, were talking about what has already happened. In which case, if you treat it all equally, all you have to go on is a string of pictures, possibly a video or two.

5.Glenn claims that evolution could be disproven by finding one fossil in the wrong location. Yet, I"ve found that evolutionist beliefs are not falsifiable and can be molded to fit any theory. Evolution can be presumed to have been more rapid than before.

Were not talking about a simple strata or two misplaced. Were talking about fossil rabbits in the precambrian. If we thought that, for example, the first telegraph was invented in 1860(I have no idea when the first telegraph was invented, just using it as an example), but then found a telegraph dated to be built in 1856, were we wrong about when it was invented? Sure. But youre not going to find a telegraph made in 200 B.C. That would certainly flip, not only the history of communications, but all of history and archaeology on its head.

6.Glenn makes a big misstep criticizing Comfort"s critique of the moral ramifications of evolution " particularly Comfort"s claim that Hitler was putting natural selection into practice. Glenn retorts that evolution is a biological process, not a moral one, and we might as well sit in a circle and discuss the morality of a tsunami. It"s interesting that Glenn never denies that Hitler was eliminating the unfit; she just wants to find a detour around the issue. What Glenn does is jump from human evil to natural evil as if to suggest both are morally equivalent. Yes, evolution is a natural process, but one with moral or immoral results and we can"t ignore making ethical judgments about human actions. If humans did actions that happen to fall under the rubric of evolution, then we should describe them as moral or immoral. I think, like PZ Myers, she does not want to face the ethical ramifications of evolution.

No, not at all. Thats the difference between gravity killing someone because they accidentally tripped and fell off a building, and someone pushing someone off a building intentionally. In both cases, Gravity was the force that killed the person, as the simple act of pushing someone does not necessarily kill them. But just because someone used gravity to kill someone else, doesnt mean that Gravity itself has moral ramifications.

With Hitler, i mean, first off, Hitler rejected common ancestry, which makes him closer to being a creationist or an IDer than an actual evolutionists, but even so, his misuse of evolution is no different from someone pushing someone else off a building. The only ethical ramification is placed on the person who decides to use or misuse it, and not the actual thing in question.

There is nothing wrong with making ethical judgements about human actions, but all of this is specifically divorced from the natural phenomenon in question.


So, I find yet another example of atheist misperceptions about their subject of study " no different than Dawkins and others I describe in my book the Vast Wastelands of Unbelief. As a rebuttal to Glenn, I would suggest Wac3media"s whose review is lengthy and mostly on target.
This is also readable at my blog http://vastwastelandsofunbelief.blogspot.com...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 11:20:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 10:07:29 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Amen!

By the way, I find the "out of place fossil" falsification invitation to be very reasonable and I would like to offer that falsification:

a trilobite in the lower cambrian.

Im surprised you didnt object to the fact that he essentially grouped ID along with Creationism.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 11:22:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 10:52:09 AM, Otokage wrote:
4.Glenn assumes that molecular similarities between chimpanzees and humans show they are cousins via evolutionist relationship. However, similarities do not show common ancestry and may easily show common design " much like similarities between cars indicate similar designers.

Sure. If someone ever accuses me of having a sister, I will say: oh no way, genetic similarities do not show that this girl and me share the same father, it simply shows we have the same designer. Again, extraordinary claims with zero evidence.

LOL @ this one. I could not come up with a better retort, so i decided to leave it be. :P
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 2:20:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ok, now to respond. First this statement from
Otokage.

>It is called "natural selection" to make it clear it has nothing to do with "artificial >selection". So hitler was not putting evolution into >practice. And about evolution >producing "moral or immoral results" I think this is a stupid statement sorry. It's like >saying that you >stepped on a stone and hurted yourself, and thus the stone >produced an immoral result. Simply a huge absurdity.

This is a ridiculous retort to my critique of Glenn. Evolution is about the fittest surviving and that means the most unfit must die. So what was Hitler doing? Killing the most unfit who obviously weren"t fit enough to survive. We ascribe moral judgments to human actions and obviously what Hitler did was a human action. Therefore, since Hitler was doing an action that can be described as evolutionist, and we ascribe moral judgments to human action, then we should be ascribing a moral judgment to his evolutionist actions. It"s as easy to understand as if a=b and b=c, then a=c. What does stepping on a stone have to do with a human action to another human? Poor comparison again, as poor as Glenn"s talk about the morality of a tsunami.
As far as lumping creationists and ID"ers, there seems to be a misconception on what I was doing. I was merely stating that both of them do not merely argue that absence of evidence leads us to conclude automatically that God created things. I certainly don"t make that argument. That"s all I was saying and by listing them separately in the paragraph of mine that was reproduced, I obviously was indicating they should be thought of separately. What"s the problem with that? Where exactly did I indicate they should be thought of as the same?
As far as rabbit fossils in the Precambrian, what that really disprove evolution? Evolutionists would simply argue that "Well, I guess we were wrong, looks like evolution happened a lot quicker than we imagined. Yep, no surprise that we find rabbits in the Precambrian." Is that what evolutionists do? Of course it is. While Darwin came along and gave us a test for evolution (finding multiple intermediates in the fossil record), evolutionists have done the same today in the guise of punctuated equilibrium. These gaps confirm evolution also. That was the message of Steven Stanley"s The New Evolutionary Timetable, a book I happen to own. The message of modern evolutionist arguments is whether evolution proceeds slow or fast, evolution explains it all. Sounds like the scientific version of having your cake and eating it too.
Oh, the unscientific nature of evolution I described in my article for the Lutheran Science Institute. The Article is at http://www.lutheranscience.org...
Hope you all get a chance to read it.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 6:03:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 2:20:20 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:

This is a ridiculous retort to my critique of Glenn. Evolution is about the fittest surviving and that means the most unfit must die. So what was Hitler doing? Killing the most unfit who obviously weren"t fit enough to survive. We ascribe moral judgments to human actions and obviously what Hitler did was a human action. Therefore, since Hitler was doing an action that can be described as evolutionist, and we ascribe moral judgments to human action, then we should be ascribing a moral judgment to his evolutionist actions. It"s as easy to understand as if a=b and b=c, then a=c. What does stepping on a stone have to do with a human action to another human? Poor comparison again, as poor as Glenn"s talk about the morality of a tsunami.

So many things wrong. Ill address them one by one, i suppose.

First off, "Fit" within the context of evolution is defined as the animal or species that is the most well adapted to its environment. And, of course, all of this is within the context of "Natural selection".

There is no adaption to having a gun put to your head, nor is it a natural way to die. Therefore neither "Survival of the fittest" nor "Natural selection" have anything to do with what Hitler did.

Secondly, describing how something is, does not mean it ought to be that way. Its like saying Spiders are morally evil, because they eat their young. Im sure we both agree that we do not ascribe morality to spiders. And yet, if we apply the same thing to humans, we would agree that it is morally wrong to eat your children.

Just because spiders eat their young, and we do not consider it morally wrong, doesnt mean that its not morally wrong if we do it.

Thirdly, yes, theres nothing wrong with ascribing morality to an evoluionists actions. But simply calling him an evolutionist, has nothing to do with whether evolution is wrong, anymore than if we call him a Gravitationalist, as im sure Hitler accepted the theory of Gravitation, too.

As far as lumping creationists and ID"ers, there seems to be a misconception on what I was doing. I was merely stating that both of them do not merely argue that absence of evidence leads us to conclude automatically that God created things. I certainly don"t make that argument. That"s all I was saying and by listing them separately in the paragraph of mine that was reproduced, I obviously was indicating they should be thought of separately. What"s the problem with that? Where exactly did I indicate they should be thought of as the same?

You indicated that they should be thought of as the same, when in point 2, you talked about creationists, then used Intelligent design theorists as a specific example, and then ending with "Progressive creation". Which means that you were specifically including intelligent design theorists who accept Creationism.

But if you didnt mean it that way, thats fine too.

As far as rabbit fossils in the Precambrian, what that really disprove evolution? Evolutionists would simply argue that "Well, I guess we were wrong, looks like evolution happened a lot quicker than we imagined. Yep, no surprise that we find rabbits in the Precambrian." Is that what evolutionists do? Of course it is. While Darwin came along and gave us a test for evolution (finding multiple intermediates in the fossil record), evolutionists have done the same today in the guise of punctuated equilibrium. These gaps confirm evolution also. That was the message of Steven Stanley"s The New Evolutionary Timetable, a book I happen to own. The message of modern evolutionist arguments is whether evolution proceeds slow or fast, evolution explains it all. Sounds like the scientific version of having your cake and eating it too.

Yes, it really would disprove evolution. A huge aspect of it, anyways.

Finding a fossil rabbit in precambrian isnt "Welp i guess evolution happened a lot quicker than we imagined", it would be a "Welp, I guess someone sent a rabbit back in time using a time machine" kind of scenario. Its like finding an Iphone 5, buried deep within the tombs of an ancient Chinese emperor that lived 2500 years ago, with ancient recordings of the emperor talking to his friends on it. Would modern archeologists simply say "Well, i guess the Ancient Chinese were somehow technologically advanced enough to create cellphones, that, by coincidence, looks and operates exactly like an Iphone 5, 2500 years ago"?

But this argument of "Even if there was evidence that disproves evolution, evolutionists would somehow dismiss it or explain it away" reeks of desperation on the creationists part. Its like trying to justify that Evolution isnt science, despite having zero evidence to disprove evolution. Its like saying "I have absolute proof that evolution is false, but im not going to present it, because i know that even if i do, youll just ignore it anyways".

Oh, the unscientific nature of evolution I described in my article for the Lutheran Science Institute. The Article is at http://www.lutheranscience.org...
Hope you all get a chance to read it.

I took a quick rundown, and already found consistently major flaws in his arguments.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 6:59:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 8:40:11 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
Beware of people who read Richard Dawkins.
Well, this is a teaser sentence only as I, in fact, read Richard Dawkins. So does Jaclyn Glenn who recently did a review of Ray Comfort"s Evolution vs God which is a video of Comfort interviewing several college professors and students (more students than professors) on what their evidence for evolution is. The interviewees waffle quite a bit with Comfort, among other things, asking for evidence for a change in "kinds" " a term he nebulously defines well enough to suite his needs with examples: the canine kind, coyote kind, domestic dog, feline kind, and human kind. Comfort"s professor interviewees are blogger PZ Myers and Gail Kennedy whose only examples of such changes are stickleback fish (who remain stickleback fish) and bacteria (which remain bacteria). They could, of course, have also mentioned Darwin"s finches which change beak sizes but remain finches. But I digress.
While browsing on youtube, I came across Jaclyn Glenn"s review of that video. Yet another atheist I could peruse who I never encountered before. (I"m curious if Dawkins" book The God Delusion sitting in the background was there for effect or because she was actually reading it.) Nevertheless, I watched most of the video and came up with a list of her numerous factual shortcomings.
1.Glenn suggests that when Comfort claims evolution can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans, and amphibious mammals into whales that means one kind of animal, a monkey for instance, must give birth to a human. The vast majority of creationists do not argue those changes must be that rapid although Glenn seems to insinuate they do.
2.Glenn thinks that just because creationists can"t witness evolution or understand how it can happen, we immediately leap to the conclusion that God created life. That is a "god of the gaps" strategy that does not reflect modern scholarship. Intelligent design theorists, for instance, claim positive reasons for attributing life forms to divine creation whether it involves a young earth, old earth, or even progressive creation.
3.Glenn takes aim at Comfort"s argument that evolution in the fossils is not observable. She likens that to a claim aging doesn"t exist because we cannot witness it. Yet, people and their children can, during a period of time, observe a child growing old but not observe the formation of the fossils that typify the entire life story of evolution.
4.Glenn assumes that molecular similarities between chimpanzees and humans show they are cousins via evolutionist relationship. However, similarities do not show common ancestry and may easily show common design " much like similarities between cars indicate similar designers.
5.Glenn claims that evolution could be disproven by finding one fossil in the wrong location. Yet, I"ve found that evolutionist beliefs are not falsifiable and can be molded to fit any theory. Evolution can be presumed to have been more rapid than before.
6.Glenn makes a big misstep criticizing Comfort"s critique of the moral ramifications of evolution " particularly Comfort"s claim that Hitler was putting natural selection into practice. Glenn retorts that evolution is a biological process, not a moral one, and we might as well sit in a circle and discuss the morality of a tsunami. It"s interesting that Glenn never denies that Hitler was eliminating the unfit; she just wants to find a detour around the issue. What Glenn does is jump from human evil to natural evil as if to suggest both are morally equivalent. Yes, evolution is a natural process, but one with moral or immoral results and we can"t ignore making ethical judgments about human actions. If humans did actions that happen to fall under the rubric of evolution, then we should describe them as moral or immoral. I think, like PZ Myers, she does not want to face the ethical ramifications of evolution.


So, I find yet another example of atheist misperceptions about their subject of study " no different than Dawkins and others I describe in my book the Vast Wastelands of Unbelief. As a rebuttal to Glenn, I would suggest Wac3media"s whose review is lengthy and mostly on target.
This is also readable at my blog http://vastwastelandsofunbelief.blogspot.com...

It's hypocritical to claim atheism is a dangerous point of view when your a young earth creationist.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:54:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 8:40:11 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
Beware of people who read Richard Dawkins.
Well, this is a teaser sentence only as I, in fact, read Richard Dawkins. So does Jaclyn Glenn who recently did a review of Ray Comfort"s Evolution vs God which is a video of Comfort interviewing several college professors and students (more students than professors) on what their evidence for evolution is. The interviewees waffle quite a bit with Comfort, among other things, asking for evidence for a change in "kinds" " a term he nebulously defines well enough to suite his needs with examples: the canine kind, coyote kind, domestic dog, feline kind, and human kind. Comfort"s professor interviewees are blogger PZ Myers and Gail Kennedy whose only examples of such changes are stickleback fish (who remain stickleback fish) and bacteria (which remain bacteria). They could, of course, have also mentioned Darwin"s finches which change beak sizes but remain finches. But I digress.
While browsing on youtube, I came across Jaclyn Glenn"s review of that video. Yet another atheist I could peruse who I never encountered before. (I"m curious if Dawkins" book The God Delusion sitting in the background was there for effect or because she was actually reading it.) Nevertheless, I watched most of the video and came up with a list of her numerous factual shortcomings.
1.Glenn suggests that when Comfort claims evolution can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans, and amphibious mammals into whales that means one kind of animal, a monkey for instance, must give birth to a human. The vast majority of creationists do not argue those changes must be that rapid although Glenn seems to insinuate they do.
2.Glenn thinks that just because creationists can"t witness evolution or understand how it can happen, we immediately leap to the conclusion that God created life. That is a "god of the gaps" strategy that does not reflect modern scholarship. Intelligent design theorists, for instance, claim positive reasons for attributing life forms to divine creation whether it involves a young earth, old earth, or even progressive creation.
3.Glenn takes aim at Comfort"s argument that evolution in the fossils is not observable. She likens that to a claim aging doesn"t exist because we cannot witness it. Yet, people and their children can, during a period of time, observe a child growing old but not observe the formation of the fossils that typify the entire life story of evolution.
4.Glenn assumes that molecular similarities between chimpanzees and humans show they are cousins via evolutionist relationship. However, similarities do not show common ancestry and may easily show common design " much like similarities between cars indicate similar designers.
5.Glenn claims that evolution could be disproven by finding one fossil in the wrong location. Yet, I"ve found that evolutionist beliefs are not falsifiable and can be molded to fit any theory. Evolution can be presumed to have been more rapid than before.
6.Glenn makes a big misstep criticizing Comfort"s critique of the moral ramifications of evolution " particularly Comfort"s claim that Hitler was putting natural selection into practice. Glenn retorts that evolution is a biological process, not a moral one, and we might as well sit in a circle and discuss the morality of a tsunami. It"s interesting that Glenn never denies that Hitler was eliminating the unfit; she just wants to find a detour around the issue. What Glenn does is jump from human evil to natural evil as if to suggest both are morally equivalent. Yes, evolution is a natural process, but one with moral or immoral results and we can"t ignore making ethical judgments about human actions. If humans did actions that happen to fall under the rubric of evolution, then we should describe them as moral or immoral. I think, like PZ Myers, she does not want to face the ethical ramifications of evolution.


So, I find yet another example of atheist misperceptions about their subject of study " no different than Dawkins and others I describe in my book the Vast Wastelands of Unbelief. As a rebuttal to Glenn, I would suggest Wac3media"s whose review is lengthy and mostly on target.
This is also readable at my blog http://vastwastelandsofunbelief.blogspot.com...

- Glen is an unsophisticated idiot who imagines otherwise. Half the atheist debaters in this Forum are probably more intelligent than her.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 6:39:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
>You indicated that they should be thought of as the same, when in point 2, you talked about creationists,
>then used Intelligent design theorists as a specific example, and then ending with "Progressive creation".
>Which means that you were specifically including intelligent design theorists who accept Creationism.

Ok, rereading my original paragraph I can see why you thought I was including intelligent designers in with creationists. I meant them as distinct, but I can understand how you thought I meant otherwise.

>So many things wrong. Ill address them one by one, i suppose.

>First off, "Fit" within the context of evolution is defined as the animal or species that >is the most well adapted to its environment. And, of course, all of this is within the >context of "Natural selection".

>There is no adaption to having a gun put to your head, nor is it a natural way to die. >Therefore neither "Survival of the fittest" nor "Natural selection" have anything to do >with what Hitler did.

>Secondly, describing how something is, does not mean it ought to be that way. Its >like saying Spiders are morally evil, because they eat their young. Im sure we both >agree that we do not ascribe morality to spiders. And yet, if we apply the same thing >to humans, we would agree that it is morally wrong to eat your children.

>Just because spiders eat their young, and we do not consider it morally wrong, >doesnt mean that its not morally wrong if we do it.

>Thirdly, yes, theres nothing wrong with ascribing morality to an evoluionists actions. >But simply calling him an evolutionist, has nothing to do with whether evolution is >wrong, anymore than if we call him a Gravitationalist, as im sure Hitler accepted the >theory of Gravitation, too.

Lessee, so am I to understand that we ascribe a survival of the fittest to animals that beat out others for survival (sorta like the wolf surviving by eating the elk) but not to humans who survive at the expense of others by killing them? How"s that work? So if an wolf eats an elk the fittest survived but not if a man kills another with a gun? That seems contrary to what argumentation of evolutionists I"ve encountered where they explain EVERYTHING humans do via evolutionist precepts. If one organism kills another whether it"s animal or man, isn"t that an example of the fittest killing the unfit regardless of whether it"s by chasing it down and killing it vs shooting it with a gun? Humans are just animals after all, right?
Yeah, I know, just because something is does not mean it ought to be. That"s a fallacy. I"m not ascribing immorality to what Hitler did merely because it"s "evolutionist." I"m ascribing immorality to killing other people because it"s innately immoral and it happens to be an action that can be described as a survival of the fittest.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 11:52:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 6:39:04 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
>You indicated that they should be thought of as the same, when in point 2, you talked about creationists,
>then used Intelligent design theorists as a specific example, and then ending with "Progressive creation".
>Which means that you were specifically including intelligent design theorists who accept Creationism.

Ok, rereading my original paragraph I can see why you thought I was including intelligent designers in with creationists. I meant them as distinct, but I can understand how you thought I meant otherwise.

>So many things wrong. Ill address them one by one, i suppose.

>First off, "Fit" within the context of evolution is defined as the animal or species that >is the most well adapted to its environment. And, of course, all of this is within the >context of "Natural selection".

>There is no adaption to having a gun put to your head, nor is it a natural way to die. >Therefore neither "Survival of the fittest" nor "Natural selection" have anything to do >with what Hitler did.

>Secondly, describing how something is, does not mean it ought to be that way. Its >like saying Spiders are morally evil, because they eat their young. Im sure we both >agree that we do not ascribe morality to spiders. And yet, if we apply the same thing >to humans, we would agree that it is morally wrong to eat your children.

>Just because spiders eat their young, and we do not consider it morally wrong, >doesnt mean that its not morally wrong if we do it.

>Thirdly, yes, theres nothing wrong with ascribing morality to an evoluionists actions. >But simply calling him an evolutionist, has nothing to do with whether evolution is >wrong, anymore than if we call him a Gravitationalist, as im sure Hitler accepted the >theory of Gravitation, too.

Lessee, so am I to understand that we ascribe a survival of the fittest to animals that beat out others for survival (sorta like the wolf surviving by eating the elk) but not to humans who survive at the expense of others by killing them? How"s that work? So if an wolf eats an elk the fittest survived but not if a man kills another with a gun? That seems contrary to what argumentation of evolutionists I"ve encountered where they explain EVERYTHING humans do via evolutionist precepts. If one organism kills another whether it"s animal or man, isn"t that an example of the fittest killing the unfit regardless of whether it"s by chasing it down and killing it vs shooting it with a gun? Humans are just animals after all, right?

It would be stupid to ignore the impact evolution has had on humans. Sorry, but African americans have skin pigmentation because of thousands of years of being under the sun. Thats just an evolutionary fact.

And yes, humans are just animals, you are correct. But the "Fittest" person with the gun, didnt naturally evolve that gun on his hand. He didnt grow it. It doesnt make him well adapted to his natural environment. None of it is included into what is central to evolution.

Yeah, I know, just because something is does not mean it ought to be. That"s a fallacy. I"m not ascribing immorality to what Hitler did merely because it"s "evolutionist." I"m ascribing immorality to killing other people because it"s innately immoral and it happens to be an action that can be described as a survival of the fittest.

Couldnt pushing someone off a bridge, be described as gravity?