Replies

More to the point though, how many intelligent responses has he gotten to this posting?

Real short and simple answer to that one: NONE.

The little 'God-hates idiots' post contains about a dozen major kinds of cogent arguments against evolutionism and I've never yet seen a rational response to any of them from the little evo clique on FR. I assume most of them aren't getting past the Eastwood quote and that's a universal characteristic of bullies all over the world, good at dishing it out, not terribly good at absorbing it. They like to characterize opponents as bible-thumpers, fundamentalists, and double-chromasomers but don't react well to having the basic idiocy of their own doctrine exhibited in public.

A very short list of points in the Eastwood-quote post includes the following:

How does even one new kind of complex new creature ever arise via mutation/selection when the probabilistic odds of that happening can be seen to be a high-order infinitessimal?
How does such a near-impossible to impossible thing happen countless billions of times, i.e. once for every kind of complex creature which ever walked, swam, flew, or slithered on the face of the Earth? Doesn't that stand everything we know about mathematics and probability on its head?
How does natural selection select on the basis of hoped-for/future functionality requirements rather than just doing the random walk around starting points which we observe in nature?
How do the various parts required for a new kind of animal evolve, when clearly the first would de-evolve and become vestigial while the second was evolving?
How does punc-eek escape the claim that it is pure pseudoscience? Does it not amount to a claim that lack of evidence is support for the theory?
Does punc-eek not amount to a claim that inbreeding is the only major factor in producing new kinds of animals? Does that not stand our common-sense observations on their head? Should the laws against cousins and brothers and sisters marrying eachother be repealed?
Given the odds against any species spreading out from a small area and taking over (the well-known gambler's problem), does punc-eek not stand probability theory on its head by requiring an infinite sequence of such unlikely events?
Parochially adapted animals rarely if ever prevail against globally adapted ones in real life; is this not a further killing argument against punc-eek?
Gould, Eldredge et. al. speak of "speciation events" without ever mentioning a specific mechanism for these rapid changes from one kind of animal to another; what is the mechanism? Is the mechanism the same for all the myriads of animals which have ever punc-eeked themselves to power? Why does anybody let Gould and Eldredge get away with such obvious BS?

I mean, there are others points there but those will do for starters. Like Gore3000 notes, I've never yet seen anybody in the little FR evo clique even take a shot at answering any of these problems; all I've ever seen is carping and bitching and accusations of spamming against the most content-full item which ever gets posted on most of these threads, while 60% of the posts on them are nearly content-free. And, as far as I am concerned, the bitching and moaning amounts to an attempt to suppress the free flow of information and nothing else.

Never? What unmitigated gall!

Over year ago I posted this.

Your hand-wave-and-grumble response.

(Note in any event the difference between saying, "I never got answered on the content of my post." and "I think I dealt with the answers.") You have made the former and not the latter claim. It is false.

So here I am a few days ago giving you another shot at the same criticism, since you're still spamming the same posts over and over.

You did nothing but mischaracterize it, and to someone else at that.

No. You simply blast the same stuff over and over. And it is you ignoring others.