March 28, 2005

Paul at Oozbang: "Not a Creationist"

Paul claims he is not a Creationist. He posts endlessly, "debunking" Evolution, but never Creationism. He never met a Creationist talking point that he didn't like.

Read some of the Comment threads. The admitted Creationist commenters and he engage in tag-team, back-slapping comraderie and cooperation. "I'll take it from here," is a typical comment. None of his Creationist commenters are troubled by his allegedly non-Creationist views.

Let me be clear. Paul is a Creationist stalking horse. He is intellectually dishonest. His constant attacks on "oozers" and "Evolutionary Zealots" are transparent. His claims to scientific impartiality are disingenuous.

Did I say intellectually dishonest? Read this post, in which he repeats one of the Creationists' favorite lies:

If you consider the diversity of life on this planet and the fact that 90% of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct, it is obvious that there would have had to be trillions of cases when one species evolved into another. Yet with all of our study we can not document one time in history that it has happened. The scientific community has put all its stock in the fact that these trillions of events happened but we can not cite a single example.

Now, in fact, there is plenty of documentation of "one species evolving into another." Spoons offered Paul the link, and now read Paul's reply in the comments:

I'll give you the argument. Let's say Mrs. Hunt actually has 30 or 40 transitional fossils.

NOW- You expect be to believe that is proof that inorganic ooze became life from a lighting bolt and all life evolved from there because you can document 30 or 40 fossils?

Heh. The link above contains hundreds (just among vertebrates). In the interest of space, I'll just reproduce the index:


  1. Introduction:

  2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays

  3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish

  4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians

  5. Transitions among amphibians

  6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles

  7. Transitions among reptiles

  8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long) - over 100 in this category alone! Just peruse this section.

  9. Transition from reptiles to first birds

PART 2 has transitions among mammals


  1. Overview of the Cenozoic

  2. Primates

  3. Bats

  4. Carnivores

  5. Rodents

  6. Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)

  7. Condylarths (first hoofed animals)

  8. Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)

  9. Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)

  10. Elephants

  11. Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)

  12. Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)

"30 or 40." Sorry, Paul. Hundreds of them. Hundreds. "Why not trillions?" Answer here.

In the same comment thread, he called them "questionable." Which ones are questionable, Paul? On what basis do you question them?

He also never misses a chance to toss out the phrase "a lightning bolt hitting inorganic ooze," which is as intellectually dishonest a phrase as the rest.

Here is another page on transitional fossils.

Here's another example of Paul's intellectual dishonesty:

"There are some major holes in the theory. BUT it is the best theory we have today. History may prove us to be fools, but for today I believe it is the most probable way to answer all the questions surrounding the diversity of life on earth. But I do understand that there are enough problems still in the theory that you are not convinced yet."

According to Paul, "evolution is the best theory we have," therefore Creationism is a worse, a less likely theory. Shouldn't both of them be de-bunked by people whose only interest is impartial advancement of knowledge? Indeed, shouldn't such a dispassionate person devote more effort to debunking the "less likely" theory?

"I'm not a Creationist," is his refrain. Then why does he repeat all their canards and discredited arguments? Paul is a Creationist stalking horse.

Matthew 7:16: "By their fruits, you shall know them."

UPDATE: Paul is deleting my Comments at Oozbang when I ask him these questions. Coward.

Commenter Mark at Oozbang noted that even Young-Earth Creationists admit evidence of new speciation, occurring in the present!


Posted by Commissar at March 28, 2005 12:19 PM
Confessions

You are an idiot.

And a paranoid idiot at that.

Now I'm a closet bible thumper?

Way to advance an argument.

Extracted from: Paul at March 28, 2005 02:03 PM

Paul does not mention his frequent use of Creationist talking points.

He doesn't explain why he claimed "no evidence of inter-species evolution."

He does not comment on why he mis-characterized the hundreds of transitional fossils as "30 or 40."

And he certainly doesn't identify which ones are "questionable."

Extracted from: The Commissar at March 28, 2005 02:23 PM

Good lord how I wish talk.origins was as active as it used to be. Back in the late 80s/early 90s you still had the "freshman surge" on the USENET, which lead to a great running joke:

=========================
(1) Rush into the debate with all guns blazing (i.e. evolution can't be proved, the 2nd law argument, "macroevolution" has never been observed, there are gaps in the fossil record, etc., nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything). Have head handed to you. Whimper smugly about how mistreated you are. Leave.
(2)Rush into the debate etc. Have head handed to you. Disappear without even a goodbye or a f**k you.
(3) Rush into the debate etc. Have head handed to you. Claim that all your assertions are "common knowledge". Redirect followups so that they are never seen. Leave.
(4)Rush into the debate etc. Have head handed to you. Continue to post sniping one liners (sometimes for years) without ever answering a single question or including a bit of content in your posts.

And the unusual one.

(5) Rush into the debate etc. Have head handed to you. Some how wade through all the vitriol from both sides and decide that evolution might actually be _interesting_. Visit a library. Learn something. Continue to post but from a position of greater knowledge rather than continual, aggressive ignorance (not that the poster I am referring to, John Gonzalez, ever was aggressively ignorant. Remember, I am carefully speaking in generalities).

Anyway, one way or another they always leave. Kind
of sad, really. Like losing a stupid yet well-loved pet.
========================

Ah, crusty USENETers. I do miss them so. Good to see you quoting from the FAQ though. Taught me more about science in a month than I learned throughout my public school years.

Extracted from: scott at March 28, 2005 02:38 PM

slow news day?

Extracted from: deltanine at March 28, 2005 02:45 PM

Oooooh flame wars on Usenet

man that takes me back

Extracted from: Larry Bernard at March 28, 2005 03:17 PM

Ah, Usenet and talk.origins! Those were the days.

Paul is indeed behaving exactly like a Usenet newbie. The difference is, somehow he's gotten a blog that gets millions of hits, so his ignorance is transmitted to far more people than would ever hang out on Usenet in talk.origins.

Extracted from: Orac at March 28, 2005 03:19 PM

Paul says:

You are an idiot.
And a paranoid idiot at that.
Now I'm a closet bible thumper?
Way to advance an argument.

I presume the first two sentences are examples of the correct way to advance an argument?

Extracted from: West at March 28, 2005 03:21 PM

Sheesh. Bible-thumper here. If Paul's arguing in favor of my POV, he ain't doing all that great a job of it. With friends like that, who needs enemas?

Of course, the posts on the evolutionary side haven't exactly been constructive, either. The way everyone's been going Howler and Cyber Sister over this issue, methinks that for all his faults, Paul may have touched an insecure nerve here and there.

For my money, I know what I believe concerning origins. And I am convinced that we still don't know jack. No matter what the theory is today, it could just as easily become a punchline tomorrow by one turn of unfortunate events.

Rather than sit around and engage in pointless flaming on the "internets", however, I'm just waitin' for the One who has the final answer to set the record straight once and for all. Intellectually lazy? Maybe. But no more so than those who get off on googling everyone else's research to support their views.

Extracted from: Chadster at March 28, 2005 06:58 PM

Glad to see someone likes the Flame Warriors...

Extracted from: Orac at March 28, 2005 08:20 PM

Flame Warriors.. ;-) another fun point of my olde usenet days

I do have one problem with creationism.. and lets ignore the scientiscian type problems

creationist theory isn't any more biblically valid then regular ole science

Extracted from: Larry Bernard at March 28, 2005 08:43 PM

=========================
(1) Rush into the debate with all guns blazing (i.e. evolution can't be proved, the 2nd law argument, "macroevolution" has never been observed, there are gaps in the fossil record, etc., nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything). Have head handed to you. Whimper smugly about how mistreated you are. Leave.

(2)Rush into the debate etc. Have head handed to you. Disappear without even a goodbye or a f**k you.

(3) Rush into the debate etc. Have head handed to you. Claim that all your assertions are "common knowledge". Redirect followups so that they are never seen. Leave.

(4)Rush into the debate etc. Have head handed to you. Continue to post sniping one liners (sometimes for years) without ever answering a single question or including a bit of content in your posts.

Sounds like the Republicans that invaded and infested alt.society.liberalism...... ;-)

Cheers,

Extracted from: Arne Langsetmo at March 28, 2005 11:24 PM

I've never understood why Fundamentalist Christians (of whatever denomination) are so opposed to the reality of Evolution. If they believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would they presume to deny his capacity to effect any and all change in all times and in all ways? Do they resent the temerity of God's children (i.e., us) in solving his "mysteries"?

Extracted from: Toby Petzold at March 28, 2005 11:52 PM

It is without question that micro-evolution exists. However- there is no conclusive data that proves Ape -> Man.

I believe in both theories, creator and evolution. However- the scientific data that I feel strongly about, regarding evolution, is only on a micro level. No big boom for me.

Extracted from: HundredPercenter at March 29, 2005 04:32 PM

Your essentially similar comment/question is addressed in the next post.

Extracted from: The Commissar at March 29, 2005 05:24 PM