Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)

[columbusdude82]

http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons%20&%20Myers.MP3

Beach Bum, this one's for you. It's a radio program with PZ Myers, biology professor, and the author of "Billions of Missing Links" Dr Simmons.

[columbusdude82]

How embarrassing is it when you write a book called "Billions of Missing Links" and claim there is no evidence for whale evolution, when you don't even know the names of whale fossils.

This creationist literally did minutes and minutes of research for his book

[Deedee]

Tres funny content here by PZ Myers about the debate. He has a good sense of humor.  I always liked his blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

I liked the musings on whether Simmons has a clue what a female orgasm is. 

And how Simmons had the title of the debate changed at the very last second, in an attempt to reflect badly on evolution.  Typische.

Two days ago I was asked to participate in a radio debate with a Discovery Institute fellow. I asked about the topic and the format, and they said, "the evidence of Evolution vs. evidence of Intelligent Design" and "each would get a 5 minute opening statement and then we would debate the issues brought out in the opening statements." OK, sure, I said, while rolling my eyes at the ridiculous expectations.

I'm supposed to call in in an hour and a half. I just got this email.

I just received an e-mail from Dr. Simmons requesting the title of the debate to change to "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?" When you agreed to the debate I proposed the title and format to you but did not consult with Dr. Simmons. I was corresponding with you while I was in the middle of a show that day and didn't think to pass that specific information to Dr. Simmons. When he learned of the original title he requested this change but sent it to our Producer last night and I just learned of it now.

Well, isn't this just so incredibly typical of frauds? Bait and switch, juggle the terms, move the goalposts, play games.

The show will go on. I had absolutely no respect for my opponent's intellectual honesty in the first place, so I can't argue that this has diminished it.

[columbusdude82]

Yeah. I love how Simmons did not present ONE SHRED of evidence in favor of his creationist/ID views, while expecting PZ to tutor him in biology 101 during a radio program.

[OzmO]

The Theory of Evolution is like a picture in a big puzzle already put together with a some missing pieces, but the picture is clear.

 

[columbusdude82]

The Theory of Evolution is like a picture in a big puzzle already put together with a some missing pieces, but the picture is clear.

 

How long have you been waiting to use this brilliant analogy?

[OzmO]

How long have you been waiting to use this brilliant analogy?

I've been reading some books lately.  Combined with a few things here on the forum, it just makes sense to me that way now. 

[Deedee]

Creationists, while they flog and beat at the theory of evolution and science left and right, seem to be awfully obsessed with being taken seriously on a scientific level.  I don't get that. Spit on the science but then try to prove your faith is reality-based using scientific methods (well, pseudo-scientific granted, but you know what I mean.)  That's demented.   Why not just shout from every rooftop that creationism is based on one's heartfelt, unfaltering faith... and just be proud of that?  

Anyway, the illustrious Dr. Simmons is of course, a well-respected fellow of that similarly illustrious organization, the Discovery Institute. What else would be expected?  

Ever notice how these wacky religious fundies try to surreptitiously hide behind this "scientific think tank" facade, lying about their real intent, covertly working to impose their secret agenda on an unsuspecting society?  They kinda behave in the same way satanic cults are depicted in typical B horror movies.  

[OzmO]

Creationists, while they flog the theory of evolution and science left and right, seem to be awfully obsessed with being taken seriously on a scientific basis.  I don't get that. Spit on the science but then try to prove your faith is reality-based using scientific methods (well, pseudo-scientific granted, but you know what I mean.)  That's demented.  Why not just shout from every rooftop that creationism is based on one's heartfelt, unfaltering faith... and just be proud of that? 

Anyway, the illustrious Dr. Simmons is of course, a well-respected fellow of that similarly illustrious organization, the Discovery Institute. What else would be expected? 

Ever notice how these wacky religious fundies try to surreptitiously hide behind this "scientific think tank" facade, lying about their real intent, covertly working to impose their secret agenda on an unsuspecting society?  They kinda behave in the same way satanic cults are depicted in typical B horror movies. 

Creationism couldn't even qualify as pseudo science

[Decker]

Creationists, while they flog the theory of evolution and science left and right, seem to be awfully obsessed with being taken seriously on a scientific basis.  I don't get that. Spit on the science but then try to prove your faith is reality-based using scientific methods (well, pseudo-scientific granted, but you know what I mean.)  That's demented.   Why not just shout from every rooftop that creationism is based on one's heartfelt, unfaltering faith... and just be proud of that?  

Anyway, the illustrious Dr. Simmons is of course, a well-respected fellow of that similarly illustrious organization, the Discovery Institute. What else would be expected?  

Ever notice how these wacky religious fundies try to surreptitiously hide behind this "scientific think tank" facade, lying about their real intent, covertly working to impose their secret agenda on an unsuspecting society?  They kinda behave in the same way satanic cults are depicted in typical B horror movies.  

You are a very sharp person.  These think-tanks are a disgrace to legitimate academic pursuits.  Whether religious or political, many thinktanks are polluting our national discourse with the blather they produce.

Evolution is not a dicey theory.  Period.  A little academic legwork will bear that out.  But these hucksters have a prejudicial ax to grind so we end up spending our time having to point out that their song 'n dance act is scam.

If we do not continue the good fight, we see problems arise...like in Kansas where a local schoolboard gave equal time to Intelligent Design in its biology classes.

[columbusdude82]

Deedee, I like you.

I'm glad you're on here and hope you stay with us

[Necrosis]

im sorry this creationist is a moron, he keeps being corrected and then tries to keep saying that its complex and you cant know everything.


for example he argues about brains having multiple types of neuropeptides and connections and that for some reason(oh ya because theres alot) that it is designed. However, he is quickly corrected by the doctor on how trial and error does occur, and how the multitude of brains cells is easily accounted for. then he decides to try and use another complex example which is easily corrected.


he also keeps going back to darwin and ad hominen attacks on him as if it has anything to do with his theory, "he said nasty stuff about blacks" LOL WTF? what does that have to do. this debate was ridiculous, DR. simmons should never be allowed to write another book on any subject, he is clearly an intellectual midget.

[Necrosis]

i would also like to point out to beach bum that attacking a theory for not having every answer without offering positive counters is retarded.

its like saying quantum physics doesnt have all the answers, god must of did it, throw out quantum theory.

[Dos Equis]

http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons%20&%20Myers.MP3

Beach Bum, this one's for you. It's a radio program with PZ Myers, biology professor, and the author of "Billions of Missing Links" Dr Simmons.

O.K.  I listened.  Myers was acting like a kid.  Arrogant.  Condescending.  The host actually had to ask the guy to be civil and stop name calling.  Spent about the first five minutes whining about the title of the debate being changed.  Waaaaa!

He would fit right in on this board.   

Now what exactly are you trying to prove with this debate?   

 

[Necrosis]

O.K.  I listened.  Myers was acting like a kid.  Arrogant.  Condescending.  The host actually had to ask the guy to be civil and stop name calling.  Spent about the first five minutes whining about the title of the debate being changed.  Waaaaa!

He would fit right on this board.   

Now what exactly are you trying to prove with this debate?   

 

are you serious? he presented no evidence, and was patently false, your extremely closed minded if this never opened your eyes.

[Dos Equis]

i would also like to point out to beach bum that attacking a theory for not having every answer without offering positive counters is retarded.

its like saying quantum physics doesnt have all the answers, god must of did it, throw out quantum theory.

Not retarded at all.  Retarded would be basing an entire theory on something that doesn't make sense (the suddenly appearing cell that spontaneously reproduces).  

The problem isn't just that there are unanswered questions, it's that some of these unanswered questions go to the heart of this theory:  the origin of life and macroevolution.  Those are enormous holes.  

[columbusdude82]

Myers was A LOT more polite than I. Simmons is a RETARD!!! How dare he dismiss a whole field of science of which he knows next to nothing?!

How dare he write a book about "missing links" when he can't even name whale fossils?

I would honestly have said, on live radio, "are you fuckin kidding me???"

There are pimple-faced sophomores in OSU's 200-level biology classes who could destroy Simmons in a debate on fossils!!!

[Dos Equis]

are you serious? he presented no evidence, and was patently false, your extremely closed minded if this never opened your eyes.

Oh please.  Neither one of them presented evidence.  They were talking.  I wouldn't be persuaded by either one of them talking about their theories, etc. on the radio.  

And the "if you don't agree with me you are close minded (or stupid)" line is tired man.  

[columbusdude82]

Not retarded at all.  Retarded would be basing an entire theory on something that doesn't making sense (the suddenly appearing cell that spontaneously reproduces).

That statement alone quantifies your ignorance to enormous magnitudes. Who said there are suddenly appearing cells? Who said they spontaneously reproduce? You have been fooled by the Creationists into thinking that evolution is a theory of "chance," which it isn't.

OF COURSE there are no suddenly-appearing cells, and of course there is no such thing as "spontaneous reproduction"!
 

The problem isn't just that there are unanswered questions, it's that some of these unanswered questions go to the heart of this theory:  the origin of life and macroevolution.  Those are enormous holes. 

No they aren't. First off, the origin of life isn't a "problem" for evolution. It's a separate field in its own right. Evolution is about what happens after "life" has "started"...

As for macroevolution, it is the sum of many, many microevolutions. If you say you "believe in" microevolution, then congratulations, you believe in evolution

[columbusdude82]

Oh please.  Neither one of them presented evidence.  They were talking.  I wouldn't be persuaded by either one of them talking about their theories, etc. on the radio. 

And the "if you don't agree with me you are close minded (or stupid)" line is tired man.   

That's not what Myers said. The line is: "If you write a book saying fossils don't exist, but you don't know the names of well-known fossils, then you're an idiot."

[Dos Equis]

That statement alone quantifies your ignorance to enormous magnitudes. Who said there are suddenly appearing cells? Who said they spontaneously reproduce? You have been fooled by the Creationists into thinking that evolution is a theory of "chance," which it isn't.

OF COURSE there are no suddenly-appearing cells, and of course there is no such thing as "spontaneous reproduction"!
 

No they aren't. First off, the origin of life isn't a "problem" for evolution. It's a separate field in its own right. Evolution is about what happens after "life" has "started"...

As for macroevolution, it is the sum of many, many microevolutions. If you say you "believe in" microevolution, then congratulations, you believe in evolution

How did it all start c-dude?    

[Necrosis]

Oh please.  Neither one of them presented evidence.  They were talking.  I wouldn't be persuaded by either one of them talking about their theories, etc. on the radio.  

And the "if you don't agree with me you are close minded (or stupid)" line is tired old man.  

what? he countered everyone of his arguments, and proved that he hasnt a sweet clue about the subject.

he proved him wrong on the use of the word darwin, on brain development, whale fossils and the fossil record, the word theory, and showed just how ignorant and infantile his arguments where. He had no arguments, he even said that evolution was not open to debate and he showed him it was and offered him a book to educate himself on the topic.

it wasnt a debate, it was some moron raising ignorant objections that made no sense then being corrected over and over.

he didnt even know the names of the fossils the dr listed , and he wrote a book about evolution  and used that as an argument?

absolutely ridiculous that science is impeded by objections that are absolutely ridiculous.

[Dos Equis]

That's not what Myers said. The line is: "If you write a book saying fossils don't exist, but you don't know the names of well-known fossils, then you're an idiot."

I wasn't referring to Myers.  

[Necrosis]

I wasn't referring to Myers.  

why dont you read books by people who are educated in the field in question?

[columbusdude82]

How did it all start c-dude?   

I don't know, but there are some pretty good theories. See Chapter 2 of Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for a detailed description of one of the more promising ones. In his other book "The Blind Watchmaker," he outlines another theory that uses an analogy to the formation of crystals.

To me, the bigger question is not, "How did the first cell come about?" since the first cells were little more than a membrane with some fluid inside. The bigger question is how did the eukaryotic cell (our kind of cell) come about, with its nucleus, mitochondria, and other organelles? That is surely the bigger question!