Sunday, June 28, 2015

A reply regarding "Darwinist Cognitive Dissonance"

The comment section only allows 4096 characters, so I was forced to move my reply to a commenter here.

The commenter responded to my post called "Darwinist Cognitive Dissonance." I hadn't checked my blog in a *long* time, so I apologize for not making a more timely response to the comment.

What follows are several paragraphs of me quoting the commenter's comments (in italics), and then me responding to each.

"What a delightful steaming mess of creationist ignorance."

What a colorful misrepresentation of my blog entry.

"Macroevolution is simply evolution above the species level..."

'Simply' is not a word that would be appropriate, although the commenter's statement of theoretical concept is correct.

"...and, as the basic building block of it, speciation, has been directly observed (both in the lab and in the field)..."

This, dear readers, is a complete and utter lie. Adaptation within a species has been observed in a lab. Speciation (macroevolution), the actual transformation of a species into a different species, has never been observed in any lab, controlled environment or natural environment anywhere, ever. Don't take my word for it; look it up.

" is a fact not a theory."

Stating this, in this way, which has become quite common, in no way whatsoever makes it a fact. And in fact, speciation is still a theory with no observable proof. Again, look it up; if you merely scoff at my response and blindly accept the commenter's statement, then you're no better than anyone who would rather remain in the dark.

"It is one more of the facts of evolution that the Theory of Evolution explains, and which Creationism attempts to ignore."

'Creationism' is a buzzword used to distract people from the merit of an argument; my argument has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual matters, nor the idea that a god created the universe.

"...the ToE does not rest on Haeckel's drawings (and their 'fakeness' has been exagerated by creationist propogandists -- it was more a case of carelessness or laziness than fraud)..."

I never said nor implied that the Theory of Evolution rested on Haeckel's drawings, this is an exaggeration by the commenter. As to the drawings' 'fakeness': the fact that they were manufactured from imagination and deliberately presented as actual fetal drawings is not an exaggeration, and to attempt to characterize it as carelessness or laziness is an attempt to rationalize a glaring mistake by the scientific community that was allowed to mislead the masses for 140 years; a ridiculous amount of time for known inaccuracy to be presented as scientific fact.

"...Piltdown Man was suspected almost immediately by the scientific community, and was eventually debunked by that community..."

That fact does not nullify its fraudulent nature. And 'eventually' was not efficient by any stretch of the imagination.

"...Homo Erectus (Jave Man) is widely acknowledged as a transitional hominid..."

Perhaps eventually, but that truth does not erase the fact that the remains were re-interpreted many times, creating a lot of controversy between legitimate anthropologists, which doesn't sound like the findings can be considered at all conclusive.

"...Nebraska Man was simply a misidentified tooth (remembered almost solely by creationist propandanists)..."

Indeed! A fact that should be an embarrassment to the scientific community that allowed it to go past an armchair supposition by overzealous Darwinists. The fact that 'creationist propagandists' are the ones who maintain it in the public memory is not a mark against them, but shame for the questionable scientists who would rather it was permanently swept under the rug.

"...and 'Orce Man' is simply notorious creationist fraudster Duane Gish's gross misrepresentation of a very minor, but perfectly genuine, anthroplogical find."

I would like to know how a skull fragment that was originally claimed to be Europe's earliest human fossil, then said to be an infant ape, then a donkey, etc., is a 'gross misrepresentation' of the facts.

"Freddy misrepresents Punctuated Equilibrium as merely an explanation for the Cambrian Expansion..."

While this may be true, since I have no way of reaching directly into Gould's and Eldredge's minds, it is what I suspect, because up until 1972 when their paper was published, there was much head scratching regarding the 20 million years (an extremely short time for the myriad species to appear for the first time, regardless of the popular title 'explosion'). The huge alleged speciation during the Cambrian Period could not have occurred via phyletic gradualism, which is what the original Darwinian Theory requires to be valid.

"There are many long lists of transitional fossils (Wikipedia has an extensive one)."

These lists are only meaningful to Darwinists, as the fossils are assumed to be transitional. One may argue that the fossil evidence is overwhelmingly obvious, but that is only because one may also interpret fossils in whatever way one finds the most convenient. That is not good science; that is good imagination.

"Finally, from Freddy's last point it is clear that he is a Young Earth Creationist..."

I can only assume that the commenter is referring to point number six, where I call attention to 'All sorts of interesting cosmological data that don't seem to support current wisdom for the age of the universe.'

Unfortunately, the commenter has made an incorrect accusation, as I am not a 'Young Earth Creationist.' Furthermore, his assumption that I am a YEC is not only typical Darwinist propaganda, but an argumentum ad lapidem (an attempt to reduce my argument to absurdity without actually providing proof of absurdity) and an argumentum ad hominem (an attack on my credibility in an attempt to therefore nullify my argument).

Why I no longer promote Linux

There are many blogs, YouTube channels, and whatnot out there whose owners rave about the advantages and superiority of the Linux computer operating system. For years, I have attempted to share this amazing OS with as many people as possible.

Friends who wanted to "redo" their computers have placed them in my hands, and I have given them back clean computers that can boot to both Linux and Windows. And guess what? Every one of them now prefers to boot to Linux. The only time they boot to Windows is when they're forced by proprietary nonsense regarding some software they wish to use.

But I have decided: no more. No longer will I take the time and effort to 'prove' to anyone something that they should already have the good sense to find out on their own. It's just too much like banging my head against a brick wall.

What am I squawking about? Here are some facts for you:

1) Linux is the leader in mobile (smart phone) operating systems, beating out (now don't faint, Apple fanatics) iOS and all others. This trend will continue, as more people realize they get more features and a more stable OS for less money. But yeah, since Biff and Buffy have iGadgets, they sure look tempting.

2) Most devices that use embedded systems (microwave ovens, refrigerators, automobiles, etc.) utilize a form of Linux... which means you're already surrounded by Linux and you didn't even realize it.

3) Linux of 2015 is not Linux of 1991, not by a long shot. While in its infancy, Linux was only usable by super geeks; now, 24 years later, the installation process for Linux is simpler and yet still more advanced than either Windows or Apple.

4) Linux combines the best features of Windows and Apple, and adds many more robust features for both the single user and network user. Linux is easier to use than Windows or Apple. Let me say that one more time for people who are hard of seeing: Linux is easier to use than Windows or Apple.

5) Installing software on 'modern' Linux systems is as easy as one single mouse click. No "Next" buttons, "Yes" or "No" buttons, "I accept" buttons, EULAs to read... nothing but a single click.

6) The answer to "what can Linux do?" is: yes. That's not an exaggeration; if you want a computer to do something, and Windows or Apple can do it, Linux can not only do it as well, but in many cases does it better. Linux is also much more stable than Windows or Apple; many Linux users have never seen their computers crash. I personally crashed mine once, but the problem wasn't Linux; it was a limitation of VirtualBox regarding the unreasonable load I was placing on it.

7) Can I surf the Internet, play games, watch movies, get email, purchase stuff from and eBay, do my personal banking, use social media, etc., etc., etc.? See fact number 6 above.

8) Linux currently is the safest operating system you can use. One reason is because virtually all viruses and malware are written for Windows and Apple operating systems. Using Linux is like being born with automatic immunity to all cold viruses. You end up on some web page that infects a Windows computer and absolutely nothing happens to you in Linux, because the virus wasn't written to infect your file system.

9) Linux has many different kinds of desktop environments available, and yes, both Windows and Apple styles have been reproduced for those who are more comfortable with those interfaces.

10) In my skeptical wife's words, once she had used Linux for a while: "It is definitely a better mousetrap."

You may keenly observe that in the last ten paragraphs, I actually did what I said I would no longer do. You caught me, but I didn't want to go out without taking one last swing.

Why did I decide to abandon my quest to get people to pay attention to the best thing that's ever happened to personal computing, despite their uninformed bias?

Because eventually, virtually all personal computer systems will be running some form of Linux anyway, due to practical considerations by manufacturers, software designers, and consumers themselves. So I'm going to stop wasting my breath on people who don't even want to get a clue in 2015, and just enjoy Linux's advantages myself... like someone who excitedly discovers a pot of gold and realizes he doesn't have to share it with anyone.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the most compelling feature of Linux that insures its dominance in the near future:

It's 100% free of charge; a courtesy extended to you because the hackers (very smart computer programmers, for crying out loud, NOT PIRATES OR CRIMINALS, like the popular media has incorrectly characterized them) around the world who created and improve Linux do it out of love and pride... two factors that are typically rear-seated when a creative endeavor is motivated by money.