EVOLUTION
IS A LIE
TALK ORIGINS (represented by Dr. W. R. Elsberry)
NOTE: THE LIFE SCIENCE PRIZE changed to LIFE SCIENCE TRIAL on 1-9-2016.
The radical Internet based group of True Believers in Evolutionism (TBEs) known as “Talk Origins” talked itself into a corner.
Talk Origins claims to be “a website that presents mainstream science perspectives on the antievolution claims of young-earth, old-earth, and "intelligent design" creationists. With sections on evolution, creationism, geology, astronomy and hominid evolution, the web site provides broad coverage of evolutionary biology and the socio-political antievolution movement.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalkOrigins_Archive)
Talk Origins’ pitiful attempt to put aside the Life Science Prize Challenge: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA343.html
A detailed rebuttal to the Talk Origins website is “Deception by Omission”.
On 8-18-14 I challenged Talk Origins to contend for the Life Science Prize. Debate Dodger #47, Dr. W. R. Elsberry, responded. That launched an email exchange between Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo and Dr. Elsberry. It is a little tricky, but the trail of correspondence starts at the bottom. I responded to Dr. Elsberry’s “Open Letter” with one of my own.
To date (10-1-14) Dr. Elsberry has not replied.
Talk Origins is all talk and no walk.
AN OPEN LETTER
Dr. Elsberry:
Are you the best Talk Origins has?
Your response is typical of someone who has nothing to support his position. Please include this in your fruitless face saving open letter you intend to circulate.
Apparently responding to me, you initially attacked the Challenge using supporting citations from Debate Dodgers #31 Mr. Ed Brayton, #34 Dr. Michael Zimmerman and Raby’s reference to an irrelevant experience by Alfred Russell Wallace. I am sure you know Wallace though of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution during a fever induced hallucination. Also, surely you are aware that Wallace was “a firm believer in spiritualism.” The request was for “your best evidence that supports evolution.” What is so difficult about that?
Next, you presented a letter that had been churning in your mind since 2004! Was Dr. Mastropaolo that intimidating?
Here are the points (ignoring the petty slurs) you raised, in order, with rebuttals:
P1. The “‘challenge’ is simply a publicity stunt.”
Ri: That is your subjective opinion. You do not know his motivation.
P2. Science “is decided by the community of scientists.”
R2a. That is like saying that thieves get to decide the definition of honesty. Any scientist who dares to buck the True Believers in Evolutionism (TBE) the party line is destroyed by the TBEs.
R2b. Like all TBEs, you confuse evolution with science.
P3. You “don’t have a spare $10,000” and “wouldn’t put any amount of money” into accepting this challenge.
R3. Surely there are enough TBE fans of Talk Origins to provide the $10K for your side.
P4. You have a paragraph that basically says Dr. Mastropaolo should use “peer-reviewed literature” to support his position.
R4. Putting aside that TBE gatekeepers censor anything that questions evolution, Dr. Mastropaolo has published scientific papers. Also, that topic of peer review is answered in items 46 and 50 at http://originalitythroughouttheuniverse.com/life-science-trial/.
P5. You claim that “McLean v. Arkansas” and “Edwards v. Aguillard” determined that creation is not science.
R5. Mclean was about a “balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science" in public schools. Edwards was similar. Both focused on the Establishment Clause which is irrelevant to the challenge you have dodged. Neither provide you cover to doge the simple request.
I too will be blunt, Dr. Elsberry, and use an analogy every 12 year old male understands. You know who the “boys” are in this analogy.
A group of boys are playing inside the safety of their fenced yard. They yell and scream that they are the toughest kids in town. Little Joe is out in the street and says that he is tougher. He can't get into their yard because their mommy is guarding the gate. The bragging boys could easily go to the back yard and climb over the fence and go face Little Joe and prove who is the toughest. The bragging boys don’t because they know they are not as tough as they say. More importantly, the pretty little girls in the house across the street would see them take a whipping.
You dodged the debate long ago and are listed as #47 anti-scientist at
http://originalitythroughouttheuniverse.com/life-science-trial/. I doubt that you have what it takes to come out from behind your hot-air website and email fence to face Dr. Mastropaolo with evidence that “must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated” (Rule #5 of the Life Science Prize Challenge). Therefore, I hereby present you with my personal two part challenge.
1. Provide the best peer reviewed published paper that you wrote supporting evolution.
2. List the best single evidence you have for evolution. Do not send a bibliography. Send your best evidence.
Karl Priest
-------------------------------
Here is another peer reviewed paper by Dr. Mastropaolo:
Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. The Physiologist 45 (4): 343, 2002. Abstract. (2) Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. TJ, The In-Depth Journal of Creation 16(3): 84-88, 2002. (3) Krupa, Donna. Discovery Of The Oldest Human Ancestor Is (again) Called Into Question. Press release for An Objective Ancestry Test For Fossil Bones,by the American Physiological Society Intersociety Meeting, The Power of Comparative Physiology: Evolution, Integration, and Adaptation, August 24-28, 2002, San Diego, CA.
-------------------------------
Here is Dr. Elsberry’s open letter taken from his response to my challenge to Talk Origins (It is also included in the email trail below.):
There are citations listed on that page concerning discussion of your "challenge"; the contentions *about* your "challenge" are fully supported by those. The whole rest of the site has plenty of citations to actual scientific research. I suggest you read it.
Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
PS: You can re-read my previous response to your "challenge". Maybe it will sink in this time.
W. R. Elsberry wrote:
2004/04/26
An open letter to Joseph Mastropaolo:
Dear Dr. Mastropaolo,
I have been anticipating your correspondence. I began writing this letter on 2004/01/10, and last edited these words on 2004/04/26. Since we previously crossed paths on the Calvin “evolution” listserve, I have some knowledge of your approach to these things.
I will be blunt. Your “challenge” is simply a publicity stunt. The content of science is not determined by pseudo-legal encounters between advocates. Instead, it is decided by the community of scientists. In that challenge, those who held to special creation lost, by the preponderance of evidence no less, and did so back in the nineteenth century. Nothing that you or your colleagues have written has changed that. Your chosen line of advocacy is moribund, and you have been reduced to deploying this pathetic “challenge” as a way of avoiding confronting those plain facts.
Needless to say, I’m not going to enter into any such arrangement as you have outlined in your “challenge”. There are several good reasons why I decline to do so, none of them having anything to do with cowardice or fear of what you might say. There is the practical matter that I don’t have a spare $10,000, and I wouldn’t put any amount of money into what amounts to a publicity stunt for you. As mentioned before, science is not determined by the process preferred in legal disputes.
If you want to convince the scientific community that “creation science” is actually science, you already know the right way to accomplish it: develop a coherent theory, evidence in support of that theory, and engage the scientific community via the peer-reviewed literature. That is the only challenge that means anything for your program. Whether you and your colleagues are merely unwilling, or, as seems more likely to me, are unable to meet this challenge makes little difference to the outcome. Your only recourse has been to criticize other theories. That doesn’t cut it where it counts, which is in the scientific literature.
Of course, there have been determinations of whether “creation science” is science or not in the legal setting. McLean v. Arkansas (1981-1982) found it was not. Edwards v. Aguillard was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, and they ruled that it was not. It seems to me that your “challenge” is entirely superfluous, whether one considers the real venue of contention, the content of science, or the legal venue.
I will make sure that this open letter is circulated widely to counter any misuse of my name in regards to your “challenge”.
Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, Class of 2003
8-22-14
He does not know the difference between an essay put in a list of references and objective scientific evidence.
And there is no reasoning with his commitment to ignorance.
You carry on with him if you wish.
*********
8-22-14
Thanks for confirming, yet again, that you don't understand either bibiographies or citations. Your claim is equivalent to denying that *any* of the entries in the origins bibliography provides evidence. That's what reflexive denial does to you.
Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
On 22, Aug 2014, at 10:37 AM, Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
He does not know the difference between a subjective essay and objective scientific evidence.
*********************
>As you can see, Dr. Elsberry was unable to provide one word of contrary evidence.
*******************
8-22-14
I guess that can only mean that Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D., has no understanding of a bibliography or citation. This seems a pretty severe deficit in any person claiming a Ph.D.
[Quote]
If you understand the concept of a bibliography and how the resources within it present evidence, then you shouldvisithttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/ That's been available there for over a decade. What's your excuse for not recognizing it and using it?
[End quote]
Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
On 22, Aug 2014, at 9:57 AM, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
On 08/22/2014 12:55 AM, Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
> 8-21-14
> Karl,
> As you can see, Dr. Elsberry was unable to provide one word of contrary evidence and thereby deserves his place, with Talk Origins, on the Debate Dodgers List.
> Joseph Mastropaolo
> *********************************
> Interesting. You have documented above that you do not understand the difference between "spontaneous generation" and "evolution". Why not pick up a textbook and free yourself from the ranks of the Dunning-Kruger afflicted? I think I know the answer to that already. If you understand the concept of a bibliography and how the resources within it present evidence, then you should visit http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/ That's been available there for over a decade. What's your excuse for not recognizing it and using it?
>
> If you want tutoring to fill in your obvious lacunae, you'd be better off simply stating what you are willing to pay per hour and see if any of the folks you correspond with would be able to put in the time to help you. Your confrontational approach certainly convinced me that reducing time spent with you to a minimum would be a good thing, and that was back in the days of the Calvin "evolution" mailing list. Unfortunately, the attitudinal problems you evince in correspondence are unlikely to resolve simply with tutoring or autodidactic effort. Good luck with that.
>
> Nor does your opinion of my status interest me. As with all such accusations, I consider the source. I have a record of accomplishment that is in no sense devalued because you have issues with science as it has developed since the mid-19th century.
>
> Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
> ******************
> As you can see, Dr. Elsberry was unable to provide one word of contrary evidence
> and thereby deserves his place on the Debate Dodgers List with Talk Origins.
>
> *********************************
> From: Wesley R. Elsberry <welsberr@baywing.net>
> Subject: Re: Objective, valid, reliable, calibrated evidence for evolution
> Date: 20, August 2014 12:07:58 PM PDT
> To: Joseph Mastropaolo <jamastropaolo@gmail.com>
> Cc: welsberr@baywing.net
> On 20, Aug 2014, at 12:07 PM, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>
> On 08/20/2014 10:52 AM, Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
>> 8-19-14
>> Dear Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
>> Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, Class of 2003
>> You say you have scientific evidence that confirms evolution.
>> Any scientist making a public statement is obliged to give his best evidence.
>> You have not given any evidence and thereby have earned your place, #47, on a public list as a pseudoscientist.
>> Dr. Francesco Redi gave his evidence 345 years ago that proved evolution is a 2,000-year-old superstition.
>> For his controlled experiment, he placed meat in three jars, one open, one with a gauze cover, and one with a paper cover.
>> No flies could enter the jar with the paper cover, no maggots emerged, no pupae were formed, no flies hatched.
>> Flies landed on the gauze covered jar, laid their eggs on the gauze, the maggots emerged from the eggs on the gauze, the pupae
>> formed on the gauze, and the same kind of fly hatched from the pupae that laid the eggs.
>> Flies landed on the meat in the open jar, laid their eggs on the meat from which the maggots emerged, formed pupae and hatched
>> as the same kind of flies that laid the eggs.
>> This controlled experiment proved that the maggots were not spontaneously generated and did not evolve from a terrestrial to
>> a flying life form as was believed superstitiously for the previous 2,000 years.
>> There were other experiments as well that conclusively proved that evolution is a 2,000-year-old superstition.
>> Do you have controlled experiments that prove that those reported by Dr. Redi are wrong? If so, let's see your evidence.
>> Sincerely,
>> Joseph Mastropaolo
>> On 08/18/2014 08:11 PM, Kcpriest@aol.com wrote:
>>> Date: 18 August 2014
>>> To: Moderators of Talk Origins and all of their faithful followers
>>> From: Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo via Karl Priest
>>> Subject: A challenge to defend evolutionism using only scientific data that is objective, valid, reliable, calibrated evidence
>>> 1. You proclaim "The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html)
>>> 2. You have mocked the Life Science Prize challenge and Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA343.html)
>>> Please send your best evidence that supports evolution. Every scientist making a public statement or a report at a scientific meeting is obliged to send such evidence upon request.
>>>
>>> Should you decline to send your evidence, on behalf of Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo I hereby formally challenge you.
>>>
>>> The rules are below.
>>>
>>> The Life Science Prize is based upon the claim that evolution is an inverted-fantasy religion that does not exist, never has, and never will because it is based on vitalism superstitions 2,500 years old completely outside the realm of science, the exact opposite of reality, and taught by frauds and forgeries in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This claim is addressed to every evolutionist worldwide bar none. If you do not answer this claim by contending for the Life Science Prize by the deadline below, then you will be put on the Debate Dodgers (default-judgment) List (see
http://originalitythroughouttheuniverse.com/life-science-trial/).
>>>
>>> Life Science Prize Rules
>>> 1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
>>> 2. The creationist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
>>> 3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
>>> 4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000.
>>> 5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.
>>> 6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
>>> 7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both checks.
>>> 8. The judge is a superior court judge.
>>> 9. The venue is a courthouse.
>>>
>>> Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo will contend for the creationists and has his $10,000 ready to hand the judge.
>>>
>>> You have until 22 August 2014 to decide.
>>>
>>> Yours truly,
>>>
>>> Karl Priest
>>> (for Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo)
Dr. Elsberry’s response the same day:
>> There are citations listed on that page concerning discussion of your "challenge"; the contentions *about* your "challenge" are fully supported by those. The whole rest of the site has plenty of citations to actual scientific research. I suggest you read it.
>>
>> Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
>>
>> PS: You can re-read my previous response to your "challenge". Maybe it will sink in this time.
>>
>>
>> W. R. Elsberry wrote:
>>
>> 2004/04/26
>>
>> An open letter to Joseph Mastropaolo:
>>
>> Dear Dr. Mastropaolo,
>>
>> I have been anticipating your correspondence. I began writing this letter on 2004/01/10, and last edited these words on 2004/04/26. Since we previously crossed paths on the Calvin “evolution” listserve, I have some knowledge of your approach to these things.
>>
>> I will be blunt. Your “challenge” is simply a publicity stunt. The content of science is not determined by pseudo-legal encounters between advocates. Instead, it is decided by the community of scientists. In that challenge, those who held to special creation lost, by the preponderance of evidence no less, and did so back in the nineteenth century. Nothing that you or your colleagues have written has changed that. Your chosen line of advocacy is moribund, and you have been reduced to deploying this pathetic “challenge” as a way of avoiding confronting those plain facts.
>>
>> Needless to say, I’m not going to enter into any such arrangement as you have outlined in your “challenge”. There are several good reasons why I decline to do so, none of them having anything to do with cowardice or fear of what you might say. There is the practical matter that I don’t have a spare $10,000, and I wouldn’t put any amount of money into what amounts to a publicity stunt for you. As mentioned before, science is not determined by the process preferred in legal disputes.
>>
>> If you want to convince the scientific community that “creation science” is actually science, you already know the right way to accomplish it: develop a coherent theory, evidence in support of that theory, and engage the scientific community via the peer-reviewed literature. That is the only challenge that means anything for your program. Whether you and your colleagues are merely unwilling, or, as seems more likely to me, are unable to meet this challenge makes little difference to the outcome. Your only recourse has been to criticize other theories. That doesn’t cut it where it counts, which is in the scientific literature.
>>
>> Of course, there have been determinations of whether “creation science” is science or not in the legal setting. McLean v. Arkansas (1981-1982) found it was not. Edwards v. Aguillard was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, and they ruled that it was not. It seems to me that your “challenge” is entirely superfluous, whether one considers the real venue of contention, the content of science, or the legal venue.
>>
>> I will make sure that this open letter is circulated widely to counter any misuse of my name in regards to your “challenge”.
>>
>> Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
>> Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, Class of 2003
>>
>>
>> Add Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District to the list of legal citations where the "challenge" you propose has gone badly for creationism.
>>
>>
> Interesting. You have documented above that you do not understand the difference between "spontaneous generation" and "evolution". Why not pick up a textbook and free yourself from the ranks of the Dunning-Kruger afflicted? I think I know the answer to that already. If you understand the concept of a bibliography and how the resources within it present evidence, then you should visit http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/ That's been available there for over a decade. What's your excuse for not recognizing it and using it?
>
> If you want tutoring to fill in your obvious lacunae, you'd be better off simply stating what you are willing to pay per hour and see if any of the folks you correspond with would be able to put in the time to help you. Your confrontational approach certainly convinced me that reducing time spent with you to a minimum would be a good thing, and that was back in the days of the Calvin "evolution" mailing list. Unfortunately, the attitudinal problems you evince in correspondence are unlikely to resolve simply with tutoring or autodidactic effort. Good luck with that.
>
> Nor does your opinion of my status interest me. As with all such accusations, I consider the source. I have a record of accomplishment that is in no sense devalued because you have issues with science as it has developed since the mid-19th century.
>
> Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
>
>
I guess that can only mean that Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D., has no understanding of a bibliography or citation. This seems a pretty severe deficit in any person claiming a Ph.D.
[Quote]
If you understand the concept of a bibliography and how the resources within it present evidence, then you should visithttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/ That's been available there for over a decade. What's your excuse for not recognizing it and using it?
[End quote]
Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
-----------------------------------
The Life Science Prize proves
evolutionists
do not have any science because EVOLUTION IS A LIE.
See why evolutionists hate to debate.
|
