Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 02-28-2002, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>

So all phyla didn't appear in the cambrian according to wells. hmmm.</strong>

But he does grossly exagerate the fossil record as Nic showed in his FAQ. Though to be overly fair to Wells. In all probablity, most of phyla of complex animals probably did originate in the Cambrian explosion even if they are first found later on.

Wells wrote:

Quote:

The Cambrian explosion presents a serious challenge toDarwinain evolution. The event was remarkable because it ws so abrupt and extensive--that is, because it happened so quickly, geologically speaking, and because so many major groups of animals made their debut in it. But its challenge to Darwin's theory lies not so much in its abruptness (it doesn't really matter whether it lasted 5 million years or 15 million years), or its extent (it doesn't really matter that sponges preceded it, or that some types of worms appeared later), as in the fact that the phyla and classes appeared right at the start.

Of course there are numerous classes that were not there right from the start: mammals, birds,...

tgamble · 02-28-2002, 03:59 PM

That's good. A cretinist being honest just ain't natural.

"It's like something out of that
twilighty show about that zone."

hezekiah jones · 03-01-2002, 03:57 AM

From a reader review of Icons Of Evolution at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/AB9UUX98KUWY6/1/ref%3Dcm%5Fmp%5Frv/002-0492442-1679224" target="_blank">amazon.com</a>:

Quote:

I was fortunate to have read this book in manuscript form, being a long-time friend of its author, Jonathan Wells. It is no exaggeration that this book will shake the Darwinian establishment at its foundations.

.....

All the biological textbooks that deal in any significant way with Darwinian evolution will now have to be rewritten as a result of Wells's book Icons of Evolution. - William A. Dembski

tgamble · 03-05-2002, 07:22 AM

If anyone is interested, a response has been written
<a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/nofraud.htm" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/nofraud.htm</a>

RufusAtticus · 03-05-2002, 02:59 PM

Quote:

This rebuttal contained here, unfortunately, is only meant as a response to the document distributed at Jonathan Wells' UCSD lecture, and is not meant to rebut the entire expanded web version (doing so would take significantly more space given the large number of internet links from which Tamzek bolsters his arguments on the web version)

Translation: We're debating the smaller one, because it has less data to ignore.
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />
-RvFvS

Valentine Pontifex · 03-05-2002, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>

Translation: We're debating the smaller one, because it has less data to ignore.
</strong>

I don't think you are being fair here. Casey Luskin was involved in the Wells appearance at UCSD where Nic's original version was passed out by Well's opponents. Indeed the original reason for the creation of Nic's document was to have a debunking of Wells that could be passed out at that event. Luskin certainly would want to "reassure" his members the handout they got was wrong in its critism of their icon, Wells. (Of course Luskin's document is extremely flawed, but his members won't figure that out on their own.)
In this case, the cigar is probably just a
cigar and unless one can produce evidence to say otherwise, it really not a good idea to imply otherwise.

Some of the many flaws of Luskin's rebuttal can be found in <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001915.html" target="_blank">this</a> ARN thread.

Now what is intereesting is that ARN has put up a copy of this article up on its website. They have an association with Wells and they allowed such a poor quality rebuttal to be put up.

randman · 03-05-2002, 08:57 PM

You guys who think reading Mein Kempf somehow can prove the Nazis were not social darwinists are just put of your field. The Nazis borrowed from the ideas floating around, and one of the most powerful fairly new idea out there at the time was indeed the concept of Darwinism. By the way, what I mean by fairly new is that it had been out long anough to work it's way into the world-view of a large segment of soceity. You have to remember that Germany was the most educated nation on earth.
One of the most widely read books in Germany right after WWI dealt with some of these ideas adding into them a cultural component via a suppossed dichotomy between "kultur" and civilization. The idea was that civilization of the West was dying out and Germany was evolving into a new system where strong, steely leadership would lead nations into the future recovering the inherent culture of the German race.
You've also got to consider the eugenics angle too.
By the way, the Nazis also borrowed very heavily from socialism/communism. They just developed their own brand of race socialism.
It is foolish to think Darwin's ideas did not play a major role in Nazi thinking.

Daggah · 03-05-2002, 11:10 PM

Quote:

It is foolish to think Darwin's ideas did not play a major role in Nazi thinking.

And it's just as foolish - if not moreso - to think that Darwin's ideas were used properly when they did play a role in Nazi thinking. Also, anti-semitism and extreme nationalism was not, in any way, related to Darwin's theory.

Sure, you can twist evolutionary theory if you really want to. So?

HRG · 03-06-2002, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]You guys who think reading Mein Kempf somehow can prove the Nazis were not social darwinists are just put of your field. The Nazis borrowed from the ideas floating around, and one of the most powerful fairly new idea out there at the time was indeed the concept of Darwinism.

A better expression would be "the caricature of Darwinism".

Quote:

By the way, what I mean by fairly new is that it had been out long anough to work it's way into the world-view of a large segment of soceity. You have to remember that Germany was the most educated nation on earth.
One of the most widely read books in Germany right after WWI dealt with some of these ideas adding into them a cultural component via a suppossed dichotomy between "kultur" and civilization. The idea was that civilization of the West was dying out and Germany was evolving into a new system where strong, steely leadership would lead nations into the future recovering the inherent culture of the German race.

You've also got to consider the eugenics angle too.
By the way, the Nazis also borrowed very heavily from socialism/communism. They just developed their own brand of race socialism.

The only thing the Nazis borrowed from socialism was the name.

Regards,
HRG.

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:41 AM

Well, the Nazis borrowed quite a lot from Lenin and Stalin's example of state terrorism, but this gets into a non-science topic.
Hey, I will admit that Darwin was not a fascist, and would not like his ideas used in the way they have been at times. However, the perveted Nazi nation of their own brand of survival of the fittest, in their eyes of course, is not a totally illogical conclusion of the principles of atheistic evolution, though perverted. In other words, evolutionary theory lays open the idea that morals and such do not come from God, and are not absolute, and may not therefore be anything more than practical ideas that are subject to change. The Nazis thought thus their brand of morality was superiour to those that stemmed from, or at least were advocated by religion.
BY the way, both the the Nazis and the communists considered their ruthless persecutions of whole people groups to be both scientific and moral.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-28-2002, 03:59 PM	#22
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	That's good. A cretinist being honest just ain't natural. "It's like something out of that twilighty show about that zone."

03-05-2002, 07:22 AM	#24
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	If anyone is interested, a response has been written <a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/nofraud.htm" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/nofraud.htm</a>

03-05-2002, 08:57 PM	#27
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	You guys who think reading Mein Kempf somehow can prove the Nazis were not social darwinists are just put of your field. The Nazis borrowed from the ideas floating around, and one of the most powerful fairly new idea out there at the time was indeed the concept of Darwinism. By the way, what I mean by fairly new is that it had been out long anough to work it's way into the world-view of a large segment of soceity. You have to remember that Germany was the most educated nation on earth. One of the most widely read books in Germany right after WWI dealt with some of these ideas adding into them a cultural component via a suppossed dichotomy between "kultur" and civilization. The idea was that civilization of the West was dying out and Germany was evolving into a new system where strong, steely leadership would lead nations into the future recovering the inherent culture of the German race. You've also got to consider the eugenics angle too. By the way, the Nazis also borrowed very heavily from socialism/communism. They just developed their own brand of race socialism. It is foolish to think Darwin's ideas did not play a major role in Nazi thinking.

03-06-2002, 07:41 AM	#30
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Well, the Nazis borrowed quite a lot from Lenin and Stalin's example of state terrorism, but this gets into a non-science topic. Hey, I will admit that Darwin was not a fascist, and would not like his ideas used in the way they have been at times. However, the perveted Nazi nation of their own brand of survival of the fittest, in their eyes of course, is not a totally illogical conclusion of the principles of atheistic evolution, though perverted. In other words, evolutionary theory lays open the idea that morals and such do not come from God, and are not absolute, and may not therefore be anything more than practical ideas that are subject to change. The Nazis thought thus their brand of morality was superiour to those that stemmed from, or at least were advocated by religion. BY the way, both the the Nazis and the communists considered their ruthless persecutions of whole people groups to be both scientific and moral.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.