@PiltdownSupermn, Straight Up Liar
One of Bob ‘I’m a total prick’ Sorensen’s favourite self written works is ‘Willingly Deceived by Evolution‘, a staggeringly wretched pile of steaming shit that would have even Ham and Hovind wincing at how defiantly inaccurate it is.
But how bad can it be? Very, is the short answer, whilst the long answer is a point by point refutation my Fundamentally Flawed colleagues put together last year, which I’m reposting here because it’s so good.
Thanks to Peter and Jim for their contributions.
Piltdown Superman is very proud of his blog, titled very boldly as “Evolution Truth.” Yeah you can tell this is going to be impartial. Unlike Bob/Piltdown/Stormbringer, I do read the links he reblogs and more often than not they are diametrically opposite to the point he’s trying to make. Occasionally I can muster the energy to post what is actually the case, rather his lying through his teeth version.
But it’s been well overdue to rip apart his Willingly deceived by Evolution tracts. As you’d expect, they are full of the usual creationist lies, mispresentation, blinkered thinking.
But don’t take my word for it, so over to Bob.
People believe in evolution because they want to, not because valid scientific evidence compells acceptance of that conclusion.
Nope. Good start though. You don’t “believe in” something which is corroborated by empirical evidence, you accept it as a working theory until it is either falsified or invalidated. You start with a NULL hypothesis i.e. ‘you don’t know either way’ and balance the empirical demonstrable evidence for both cases. What you don’t do, is start with a ‘Presuppositional Evolutionary OR Creationist agenda’, which is precisely what Bob blatantly, and he even admits it, does, while lambasting his opponents for doing the same thing but without any evidence to support that assertion. The whole of Bob’s premise is a hypocritical strawman diatribe.
Funny how God haters fawn all over Papa Darwin
I don’t hate God, you don’t hate something you don’t believe exists, like I don’t hate Santa Claus or Leprechauns. Repetition doesn’t make that anymore of a fact. And yes, On the Origin of Species is a damn good book. You should try reading it.
Darwin was flat wrong about a great many things. Natural Selection is not one of them, no one worships Darwin or puts him on an unassailable pedestal, he wrote a book (actually more than one) and he laid the ground work for others to follow. His name is associated with Evolution solely because he was the first to publish on it and he wasn’t the first to come up with the idea, Wallace also was ready to publish almost exactly the same idea. There have been many other Scientists who have followed and made just as great advances. We can start building the Scarecrow now with all the straw Bob’s producing.
Who was a backslidden theology student. He gave them false scientific validity to “support” their disbelief in God.
Nope. He travelled the world observing nature. He formulated the theory of evolution based on his observations, and in the 152 years since then new fields of science, far from showing evolution to be false, have strengthened it. You won’t read that on Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, CSE or Institute of Creation Research, but I know reading science journals, articles and papers is tough work. There have been many men of God who have contributed to Evolution, Gregor Mendel for one. Just because he gave up Theology for Biology is no valid reason to denigrate him, neither of them started out trying to ‘support a disbelief in God.’ Ad hominem noted.
After all, if there is no God, there are no ultimate rules and we can do whatever we want without penalty (unless we get caught).
Another creationist mantra.
The fact that we do not do “whatever we want”, despite that there are no gods, is proof that this is not true. You’re demanding an explanation for your own misunderstanding. Morals are also an Evolutionary trait, all the Apes (Chimps, Gorillas, Bonobos etc) show empathy and altruism, no ‘god’ necessary. It makes perfect evolutionary sense that these things should have come about in order to benefit the ‘Group’. Besides EVERY civilisation on Earth, including those long gone have had their own morals and mostly these have pretty much been the same. Buddhists, Hindus even the Australian Aborigines FORBID murder, stealing coveting etc. The Romans were famous for their laws and discipline while they were still pagan. The Ancient Chinese have a similar story. None of these groups worshipped Yahweh.
I’m a bit fired up because I was listening to a podcast by Evidence 4 Faith. They summarized something that I’ve known for years: The “missing links” are hoaxes, and are still missing. If you want to hear it, look for the August 15, 2010 podcast. The best stuff begins about halfway in.
This is just complete Bullshit, no other way to put it. Saying evolution is false, because it doesn’t account for “gaps” in the fossil record, is like saying you only saw half the film because persistence of vision is an optical illusion. Moreover, there are no gaps in the fossil record. Go to ANY worthwhile Museum or library, The National Academy of the Sciences, The British Museum, Natural History Museum in London, the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller, Alberta, Denver Museum of Nature and Science and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.
or you could contact these organisations and ask them why they believe in what you consider to be a blatant falsehood: Albanian Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina, Australian Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium, Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada, Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academia Sinica (China, Taiwan), Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cuban Academy of Sciences, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Academy of Scientific Research and Technology in Egypt, Académie des Sciences in France, Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, The Academy of Athens in Greece, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Royal Irish Academy, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in Italy, Science Council of Japan, Kenya National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, Latvian Academy of Sciences, Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco, The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Nigerian Academy of Sciences, Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Palestine Academy for Science and Technology, Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru, National Academy of Science and Technology in the Philippines, Polish Academy of Sciences, Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Singapore National Academy of Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Academy of Science of South Africa, Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain, National Academy of Sciences in Sri Lanka, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies, Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan, Turkish Academy of Sciences, The Uganda National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela, Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences, The Caribbean Academy of Sciences, African Academy of Sciences, The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS), The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
Online sites are beyond counting, ALL of these will show you the THOUSANDS of transitional fossils available to study, but in reality there is no such thing as a ‘missing link’, this is another Creationist furphy, ALL fossils are transitional.
“Gosh, Cowboy Azriel, are my textbooks wrong?”
WTF? Bob’s off his meds again …
Yup. So are many Websites, because the correct information you’re about to read shows up in some places as current, accurate and factual. For instance, look at this foolishness.
I’d like to see those places that are current. I have the books colleges and universities used by students and I can’t find any mention of them. Maybe you can scan or link to them? I can wait.
Take Lucy for example. This critter was touted as one of your evolutionary ancestors. Truth is, Loocy has been ‘splained as being closely related to a bonobo (“pygmy chimp”).
Straight from Creation Ministries whose stated aim is to support the Bible DESPITE what the evidence says (and who have NEVER published a recognised Scientific paper in any Scientific Journal), do you always believe what you read uncritically?
Funny you should mention Lucy though, given that previous to her discovery she represented exactly the sort of “gap” in the fossil record creationists insisted would never be found. Since Lucy, there have been other Australopithecus afarensis fossils found, definitely NOT a Bonobo, but the Apologists keep screaming otherwise in the hope that their screeching will drown out the real science, it hasn’t. Find me a palaeontologist that says Lucy is a Bonobo.
Another interesting item that Evidence 4 Faith brought up is Java Man.
You’re not going to mention the gibbon are you?
This bad boy was manufactured in 1891. It was the skull of an aborigine, and the parts of a gibbon were thrown in for good measure.
Ooops, you did. Well that’s bollocks, and straight from the arse of Gish & Answers in Genesis, which interestingly, has now abandoned that argument as evidence against evolution. Even Ken Ham has said DON’T use that argument. Update your page Bob.
Everybody loved Piltdown Man. The missing link that they were yearning for. It was manufactured in 1912. Fake, but fooled evolutionists for forty years!
Inaccurate. It fooled some for 40 years.
And was it proven fake by the scientific method, or Creationist wishful thinking?
David Waterston in 1913 concluded it belonged to an ape. Marcellin Boule examined Piltdown Man in 1915 and declared them ape not human. Gerrit Smith Miller said it was an ape. That it took 30 years to convince the whole science community doesn’t look good I will admit, but Piltdown is now irrelevant. This hoax has become an historical anacronism, and an example of how even the brightest can be fooled, but also how the Scientific Method is the BEST tool ever developed to get at the truth. Which it did.
Why do you think that is? Because they wanted to believe, that’s why! Please pay attention, 007. If you believe something hard enough, your wish will magically come true. Trouble is, magic wishes are not science.
Neither are Bronze Age Myths
The reasons for it being successful is more complex than just wishing it to be true and if you bothered to research, again that crops up, then you’d realise that. But again it comes back to you doing exactly want you accuse evolutionists of doing.
Peking Man. Another letdown. He was built in 1927. Later, it was discovered that the cave in which they found this dude also contained the bones of modern men. So, that’s disqualified. Doubly so, because the bones mysteriously vanished in 1941.
Yes it’s really annoying that the bones disappeared, it’s buggered up research in that area but don’t let that stop you saying it’s a “letdown” or “disqualified” anyway. What mystery? There was a fucking World War going on!! There were good quality casts made and THEY still exist, research is still going on with these. There is ZERO evidence that any modern human bones were discovered anywhere near the Peking Man bones, this is just Creationists making shit up … again. Or looking for some great conspiracy where there is none.
The subject of so many movies is Neanderthal Man, the stereotypical “cave man”. It’s fame ran from 1856-1957. Then, it was reclassified as subgroup of humans (even though “science” did not get the word out very well, many still believe that this guy is an ancestor).
Since there were several of them in the area that they were found, there is some speculation that it was a small clan of people with rickets and arthritis. Ancient senior citizens’ community?
“Speculation” is being generous with the truth, since it was in the 19th century, and the rickets idea has been well and truly refuted. Not that stops creationists repeating it. Update your page Bob. We even have Neanderthal DNA now Bob, no rickets or arthritis found there … it was an Evolutionary Dead End, but still fascinating.
Ramapithecus was invented in 1934. How desperately do people want to believe in evolution to be fooled by the bones of an orangutan? Spare me.
Oooo, listen to that intellectually superiority at the end like you could tell the difference unless Ken Ham wrote it down for you. The bones are “similiar” to an orangutan, and just to update your knowledge, more complete examples of Ramapithecus have been discovered which pretty much makes your “invented” argument moot. But that was in 1975, 1976 and 1988 so I don’t expect you to recognise that until 2025.
I’ll dispense with some of the other follies of the fake evolutionary parade.
Still waiting for evidence against evolution. So far all you’ve presented is typical (and thoroughly refuted) Creationist propaganda, most of which even the Creationists don’t use because it is so easily dismissed and obviously bullshit! The Straw is strong in this one.
Well, I should include Nebraska Man.
Oh please do.
Did he play for the Cornhuskers? Nope. Another serious mistake, because not only was “Nebraska Man” built entirely from a single tooth, the tooth belonged to that of an extinct pig. Evolutionists make excuses about this major blunder, that it was made out of complex circumstances. But shouldn’t “science” be above such things? Well, not when promoting something they “know” is right at all costs.
Consider this: Complete skulls and skeletons are rare (such as Nebraska Man, above). The images that you see in most illustrations, charts, etc. are the product of speculation and imagination, not fact.
It was quickly debunked by scientists, you know, those people that know what they’re on about, in 1927 ! This is very old news … it was NEVER seriously included in any palaeontology record.
The illustration, not by a scientist you will note if you bothered to research it, of Nebraska man you allude to was drawn by an artist, and the man who found who found Nebraska Man was so impressed by it that he said: “a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate.”
Remember, evolution is belief masquerading as science. True science will go where the evidence leads, not try to force or fake evidence to make their beliefs come true.
Erm, yes. That’s exactly why evolution is a fact, because that’s where the data tells us, that’s where the evidence leads. You’ve listed mistakes that have been sorted out long ago. You seem to think this is a weakness. It’s a strength. It’s also why ‘True Science’ treats Creationism as a lame joke, because there is NO evidence for it.
Evolution’s devotees regurgitate the propaganda and say that yes, evolution follows the scientific method; it can be tested, falsified, repeated, measured, observed…
Yes that’s true, as the mountains of data testifies, and Bob, I know you won’t like this… but that mountain of evidence is getting stronger and bigger by the week. Just go to any Museum of Natural History or any University Library
Are you kidding me? People who believe everything came from nothing are afraid to have their evolutionist faith challenged by facts, including those briefly presented in this overview.
Ah the creationist mantra. Shame it has no basis in reality. A) you’ve produced NO facts at all and B) Quantum Mechanics, a theory just as solid as Evolution, supported by mountains of evidence, says something CAN come from nothing.
You don’t know anything about Quantum Field theory and if you can point out where in evolutionary theory it says anything remotely like “everything came from nothing” I’d be grateful.
Still waiting for these facts you speak of Bob.
I challenge you to actually examine evidence presented by Creation Science. You can start on this very site!
I challenge you to read anything by the scientific community. We have all examined the “evidence” presented by Creation Science along with loads of scientists, we all agree, it’s a joke, easily refuted. Please provide the link that shows where the National Academy of the Sciences (NAS ultimate US Scientific body) says that Creation Science has ANY credibility.
Here is a much more technical piece for your perusal. It’s from a Creationist perspective, so I know that intellectual cowards won’t touch it.
Hahaha! Technical … that’s hysterical. We do read your posts Bob, because they’re hilarious. Occasionally I feel the notion to reply to them. It’s just too easy to bunk your bullshit.
Because if they did examine the evidence without an evolutionary presupposition, they just might take away a very different conclusion.
Like a sky daddy made Adam from the dust and a woman from Adam’s rib? Oh please, I’m sure you’ll demonstrate sometime how that can be… what did you say again? “tested, falsified, repeated, measured, observed.”
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some embryo drawings to make and peppered moths to glue down.
I’m presuming you mean the Jonathan Wells attack on the work on peppered moths. See, this is the problem when you just read one side of the debate Bob, you just make it to easy to show you’re an idiot.
As far as Haeckel’s embryo drawings. Well they still appear in textbooks and instead of me explaining it, I’ll let Ken Miller and Joe Levine who write the school biology books explain it for you. Here’s another article about the embryo drawings not being a complete fraud as creationists have made it out to be Bob.
And I’ll deal with part 2 of your crap when I’ve finished making some biblical artifacts and dinosaur footprints.
I keep coming back to the same point over and over again, and it’s not just Bobby (may I call you Bobby?) that does it, it’s every damn creationist fun die out there who has a blog. Copying, rewording, paraphrasing, reposting something someone else has said or written is fine BUT blindly doing it without looking it up to see if it’s old information (like Piltdown), a misrepresentation (like Ramapithecus and Australopithecus), or just a good old fashioned lie (like Java Man) makes you look a dick.
But reading Bob’s rantings, there is one thing that may escape your notice whether you’re a creationist or evolutionist.
Who spotted the mistakes the scientists made?
Who corrected the mistakes the scientists made?
The answer is that it was scientists. Not one of these frauds, fakes, hoaxes, or whatever else you want to call it was debunked by a creationist. But who keeps banging on about them way, way after? Creationists. The only reason is to sow that seed of doubt in the minds of the gullible, of the ones to thick to think for themselves, so if science was wrong in the 1930′s couldn’t they be wrong about some *insert random alleged liberal/evolutionist conspiracy theory that costs X millions of pounds/dollars/euros*?
Science makes mistakes. It admits to them, owns up, moves on. That’s the scientific method at work. Creationism, does NO science, produces NO commercial items (iPods, rockets, computers etc) makes shit up and regurgitates old refuted nonsense time after time.
In my opinion, the transcendental argument for the existence of god (TAG) argument that creationists and fundies are rushing to all of a sudden is because the scientific evidence for evolution and of a common ancestor back in the plains of Africa millions of years ago is so overwhelming that it can no longer be just waved away or ignored. So why not come up with TAG and that if we don’t agree with your premise, there’s no discussion about creationism? Genius.
Oh actually page 2 is page one rehashed with pictures.
Let’s go through them shall we.
Again, this is misrepresentation.
Do you really, honestly think that the observation and study that Majerus did for over 30 years was of peppermoths glued to trees? Are you really that stupid?
Yes the photos in textbooks are of moths glued to trees. And? The answer is blindingly obvious to me as to why this is usual, but as Michael Majerus, the peppermoth expert in question says:
“The photographs are not part of science, they are educational aids to illustrate the diffence in crypsis of the forms on different backgrounds. I see nothing wrong in this. Most of the natural history films that appear on our televisions, including those of our beloved Sir David Attenborough involve considerable manipulation of organisms to enable footage to be shot. As long as the behaviour filmed is what actually happens in true life, and the organisms are in no way mistreated, there is nothing wrong with this.”
This is really interesting. I remember the BBC Horizon documentary on it well.
Yes the alleged fossil was from China and was trying to be sold by a private dealer. National Geographic paid for exclusivity over it and paper were submitted to two prestigious Science and Nature magazines. Both publications rejected the articles because the scientific consensus was that the fossil was of dubious quality. Despite that said, National Geographic published it anyway and they were made to look arses when they apologised for it a few months later.
So why is problem with that? What did evolutionists do wrong? Science, yet again, it did it’s work.
I mentioned this above. It’s bollocks, it was always bollocks, it was shown to be bollocks (by REAL scientists) VERY shortly after it was announced.