The Cult of Christ

tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The following video is an instructional parody on the program, "How to be a cult leader." This video is interlaced with real footage of Christians engaging in behavior that is identical to brainwashed cult members.

Although the vast majority of Christians do not engage in the extreme behavior depicted in this video, the kinds of abuse propagated in the name of Christianity must be brought to the attention of moderate Christians everywhere.

Although not every Church or Christian engages in the actions depicted in this video, these images serve as a powerful reminder of religion's great potential for abuse and how, at their core, most religions are superstitious-filled, man-made tools designed for power and control.

Religion has a much darker side than the faithful would like to admit. By propagating superstitious beliefs, fear and intolerance are allowed to grow among the ignorant, the suffering and the impoverished. People of all religions must be made aware of what they are participating in and what effect it has on the world around them.

"It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." ~ Carl Sagan


  1. How to Become a Cult Leader [film]
  2. The Many Faces of Benny Hinn (24 part series)
  3. The Way Of The Master Series [Season 1, Episode 7: "Atheism"]
  4. Witness to Seal Beach Kid (Way of the Master)
  5. Creationism propaganda for children caught on camera
  6. Peanut Butter - Atheist Worst Nightmare!
  7. Jesus Camp
  8. Homosexuality is a Sin
  9. Dispatches - Return to Africa's Witch Children (5 part series)

47 responses so far

  • Jon Weiss says:

    I am often amused at lame attempts to dictate how Christians shoudl or should not act. People are who they are.

    I am a Christian and a Sociologist, any time a scientist tries to fit people into the pidgeon holed matrix of the scientific method they forget that people rarely fit a mold.

    There are some non Christians who have said that Darwin killed God by "proving" evolution. But Darwin did not "prove" evolution he merely observed what was already proven. Some Christians will say that evolutions is a falsehood, but it is actually a fact, things do change over time.

    As for the true relationship of Science, Eveolution, and Christianity. . .

    Science has in it's quaint manner simply observed the system build by God (eveolution) for his creations to adapt themselves to the ever changing environment that God also created with a built in ability to change.

  • chall says:

    well, I wonder how much it is Christianty and how much "group mentality and wanting to fit in" led by charismativ people? Then again, I've never been too impressed with organized religion, since I've seen too many people in power ending up loving power more than the message and I dislike mob mentality.

    The biggest thing for me is to remember that "it's not our place to judge other people and their behaviour, just work on ourself and our interaction with others."

    By the way, have you heard Front242 "Welcome to paradise"? A remix of a southern pastor and their music... It makes the concert audience a bit funny to watch, since they chant "jesus" since it is part of the lyrics 😉

  • A. Nuran says:

    Jon, the difference between christianity and Science really is pretty simple.

    Christianity demands belief without evidence based on the threat of eternal torture at the hands of a creature with the morals of a sociopathic spoiled child. Inconvenient questions are punished here on Earth and in some hypothetical world to come.

    Science makes us ask inconvenient questions. It demands and provides proof for its claims. And it corrects itself however imperfectly over time.

    Down at the foundations Science is absolutely philosophically incompatible with revealed religion. This isn't a reason to abandon Science. It's a reason to toss Christianity and the rest into the recycle bin and hope they come back as philosophies suitable for grownups.

  • Katharine says:

    lulz, as if a sociologist has much grasp of biology.

    My parents are sociologists by training (both have bachelors' and masters' degrees in the subject) and my mother, who was a dissertation short of her PhD, fully admits she knows squat about it, and my father doesn't know much either. I'm a biology student (for some reason, a whole lot of my fellow natural science majors also have social science parents) and already know more than they do about it.

  • csrster says:

    'But Darwin did not “prove” evolution he merely observed what was already proven. '

    Mr. Weiss certainly doesn't seem to know much about the history of biology. Various evolutionary ideas had been around before Darwin, but it was Darwin who established, by observation and analysis, the non-fixity of species and the role of natural selection. To say that he "proved evolution" is loose speaking, but to say that anybody else "proved evolution" before him is simply wrong.

  • Got here via John Wilkins, on whose blog I've written a longer comment.

    But I was taken aback by the woman in the segment beginning around 8:50, because I recognised her voice. I have no idea who she is, but back in the late nineties when I was a Christian and living at a theological college, she was a guest at a public function I attended. She spoke prophecies over a number of individual members of the audience, including me, and we received these prophecies on cassette tape afterwards. I've uploaded the mp3 of the one I got: because it may be good for a laugh in light of the fact that I would go on to abandon belief in God.

    Commenter A. Nuran describes the worst forms of Christianity while purporting to describe typical Christianity, and that bothers me. It's definitely a long, long way from my own experience.

  • Jeb says:

    Seems to be blocked in the uk.

  • Of course we are already blessed with three of the most perfect cult leaders ever to grace internet communication, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Paul Zachary Myers and Wesley Royce Elsberry, each with hundreds if not thousands of mostly anonymous fans many of whom divide their loyalty between all three of these accomplished "community organizers." Their dedication to their leaders rivals that which Adolf Hitler was able to evoke from a whole people. Some folks have this great talent but I am unaware of any scientist worth his salt who ever found it necessary to have a fan club. I am an independent investigator myself and always have been.

  • Gary says:

    This video is utterly useless as applied to religion as a gross generalization.

    Apply this whole thing to political leaders, entertainment star (rock star, movie star Barak Obama ...) worship.

    In other words, the dolts that produced this video to debunk Christianity specifically and religion generally are propagandists of the worst order.

    Literally everything mentioned applies to politics, entertainment, psychology abusers, and much of modern science with the likes of high priests of religious Darwinism like Dawkins, Myers, and many others.

    They are self-deceived hyopcrites and all the twits that watch this, allow it to brain wash them and then go out and spread the news to spread their own little meme ought to be tarred and feathered and sent to the deprogrammers themselves.

    And of course we have the usual homosexual agenda being preached and all who oppose depicted as religious fanatics.

    In short this video is just an unbelievable piece of finely honed anti religion porpaganda, worthy of the Joseph Gobbels or Stalin.

    Don't let yourself be brainwashed by this.

  • I agree with Gary, whoever that is.

    Don't underestimate the influence of Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins in undermining the Judeo-Christian ethic which has made the United States the greatest nation in the history of civilization. They both loathe the principles established by our founding fathers and seek the destruction of the very institutions that permit their freedom to seek our demise. They have the same goal sought by Barack Hussein Obama, another Marxist revolutionary atheist, which is to destroy our feedom and transform our culture into one of compliance and mediocrity. We are in the midst the darkest days in the history of the Western World as our most sacred institutions are being destroyed from within just as they are being threatened from without by forces which can only be described as evil.

  • Jesse Lingeman says:

    What? Gary: While I agree with you that some similarities can be drawn to how rock stars are treated, this video shows some segments of Christianity that are taking to the extreme, and what lies there is cult like. They weren't trying to "debunk" Christianity, they were trying to show some of the things that are done in its name.

    And I am unaware how accusing children of witchcraft in the Niger Delta or telling kids flat out lies about the history of biology is applicable to science.

    Anyway, nice troll.

    John D, the founding fathers were mostly deists and the country was founded on the seperation of church and state. Not on the integration of it. Obama is not a Marxist, and I'm pretty sure you don't even know what that word means. And if you think that these are the darkest days in the Western World, days of comparative riches, free of epidemics, mostly war free, then you sir, are a true moron of the highest caliber.

    Another nice troll.

    • Gary says:

      Jesse Lingeman,

      I really appreciate your attempt at dismantling my evaluation of this anti Christian propaganda with the poor, ignorance and misotheism based, cop outs you've so graciously provided.

      Btw, Obama not a Marxist? Maybe you should discover this cool web search site called and oh, um, at least read some news.

      I'll bet you think he's not a Muslim too huh?

      And I'll bet you were even dumb enough to vote for the greatest liar president in your country's history.

      Your comment to Dr. Davison is just as futile and more evidence of your incapacity to accept simple facts.

      Worse, "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in your Constitution - geez and I'm not even an American!

      Your response merits no further reply as you have revealed yourself to be, to quote a moron, "a true moron of the highest caliber".

  • Jesse Lingeman

    With your comment, calling me a moron, you have just established that this is just another snotty insult factory thereby joining this blog with Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes and Panda's Thumb. Thanks for exposing yourself with your own words as is invariably the case.

    Also if you are going to italicize the word seperation for emphasis, at least learn how to spell it - "separation"

    Nearly all the founding fathers were devout Christians, with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson and their Constitution was firmly based on the Judeo-Christian ethic throughout. They were Christian Theists with a capital T.

    Obama is not only a Marxist, he is a revolutionary Marxist intent on the destruction of the Republic. When the House of Representatives returns to Republican control in November, the first item on their agenda will be to initiate impeachment proceedings against Obama who has violated his oath of office countless times. He has shown nothing but contempt for the separation of powers and has surrounded himself with incendiary revolutionaries and left wing radicals. He will destroy this nation if he can.

    • Greg Rowley says:

      You are correct sir, ad hominem attacks are truly unnecessary. However, it would be nice if you could back up your claims about Obama with actual, factual evidence.

      Thank you.

  • I am curious as to why my comment has not appeared under recent comments. Is this blog practicing discrimination against some of its users? At least this user is not anonymous. I also deeply resent being called a "moron of the highest order" by Jesse Lingeman. I was under the impression that scientopia was to be a cut above Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, Panda's Thumb and other weblogs that specialize in character assassination. So far this blog does not live up to that expectation.

  • I recommend that Jesse Lingeman be warned that his behavior is unacceptable. Otherwise, I fear it will continue. I don't tolerate that sort of thing on my weblog and disapprove of it elsewhere. If scientopia is to be successful and I hope it will be, it must separate itself from those venues where denigration and personal insult continue to characterize the tenor of the dialogue.

    I misrepresented Lingeman. He called me a "moron of the highest calibre"- not order.

  • Is Lingeman going to be warned about his nasty words or is he not? If not, why not? I am getting tired of this dog and pony show. If it can't meet my standard of decency, I will have to condemn it as just another bastion of intolerant Darwinian mysticism.

    The ball is in the court of grrlscientist, aka the spouse of Bob Ohara, a regular at After The Bar Closes.

  • I see that grrlscientist opts to ignore my request for civility here. Chu-Carroll has already banished me after calling me a liar three times in a row, a hideous and totally unjustified insult to levy against a fellow human being. Chu-Carroll should be banished from Scientopia not John A. Davison. I was also threatened with banishment by jeremy for mentioning anonymity. To avoid banishment I promised jeremy, whose own identity remains hidden, that I wouldn't mention anonymity again on his blog. However, let the record show that I have written an essay with the title "Anonymity is Cowardice." I have written and published much critical of neo-Darwinism and will continue to do so for so long as I am able.

    I have gone out of my way to survive here in the face of transparent opposition to my science which is firmly based on that of several distinguished biologists all of whom had rejected the Darwinian model, all for very sound reasons. My reputation as an adversary to the Darwinian thesis is well known.

    I entered Scientopia in the same spirit that I entered every other forum that purports to deal with the great mystery of our origins. The result has invariably been the same - threats and ridicule followed by banishment. Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, EvC, ARN, Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent, and several lesser venues have banished me from their proceedings. My only message at Pharyngula was met with "Your stench has preceeded you." The next thing I knew I was a charter inmate in Pee Zee's infamous "Dungeon", his "Hate File," where I languish to this day. It is pathetic when intellectual adversaries find it necessary to employ such methods. I believe it indicates a profound insecurity on the part of those who organize these so-called forums. Whether I am banished at any more blogs here at Scientopia is not a matter for me to decide. I am prepared to defend OUR science anywhere where I am allowed. I am even willing to absorb some more abuse because it characterizes the abuser not the abused. One thing is certain, when that happens, I will ask that it cease as I did here. I have been a willing masochist for a strategic reason. I have found it to be a wonderful device to lure ones enemies into untenable and revealing positions. That does not mean that I enjoy it.

    The only question is will I be allowed to opine freely at Scientopia or will I be treated with the same contempt I have received elsewhere? Is it acceptable at Scientopia to call an adversary a liar, a moron? As near as I can tell it is. That is fine with me but don't expect me to respond in kind. The only issue is - will I be banished from the discussion? That is no longer acceptable to this student of organic evolution.

  • I have no intention of going away without establishing the position of scientopia concerning abusive language directed at a published scientist who has offered an alternative to the Darwinian hypothesis concerning the mechanism of organic evolution. It is only the mechanism of a past evolution that has ever been in question and it is the shared opinion of a number of us that the Darwinan explanation is a dismal failure. The cults that have developed by Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Royce Elsberry and Clinton Richard Dawkins are all directed to the preservation of Charle Robert Darwin's Victorian dream that there is now and never was a role for a guided evolution, that evolution was a process controlled exclusively by mechanisms intrinsic in the nature of matter. Such a proposition is without experimental verification. Furthermore, the fossil record pleads for a goal directed phylogenesis which is now complete with the contemporay flora and fauna. Surely, on a thread concerned with "cults" it is most appropriate to introduce interpretations at variance with the several Darwinian "cults" which strive to explain evolution without either guidance or purpose.

    I am not the first to question the godless explanation represented by "natural selection" the sine qua non of the neo-Darwinian model.

    "To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded assumption which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
    Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107

    Is Scientopia prepared to discuss these differences in civil discourse? That is the primary reason I came here and so far I am disappointed with my reception which consists largely of when not being insulted of being ignored or worse, summarily banished. Such has been the history of the Darwinian model from its inception in 1859 right up to the present day. The atheist inspired Darwinian "cult" can no longer safely ignore insult and banish their many critics as the realities of molecular biology no longer support the Darwinian model. It is time to put Darwin's dream to rest as the failed vision it has proven to be. I see no compelling reason why scientopia could not be the perfect vehicle to achieve that much desired result. But will it is the only question.

  • Mandrellian says:

    John Davidson

    If you are indeed being repeatedly ignored, insulted and dismissed it is mostly likely because you repeatedly say things which can bring no other reasonable response. If everything you say seems to garner a negative reaction, perhaps you should think about either modifying what you say or changing where you say it (only, that is, if you wish to avoid negative reactions). There are plenty of online venues where invocations of shadowy Darwinian-atheist cults & Obama-Marxist destabilisation conspiracies and the open desire to live under a Christian theocracy in violation of the US Constitution would be welcome; common sense would dictate that blogs concerned chiefly with science - that is, with reason, logic, plausibility, evidence, facts etc. - would not be all that welcoming.

    Your actions here and elsewhere seem to indicate an incredible disconnect: most if not all of what you say seems specifically designed to attract negative responses ranging from dismissal & ridicule up to bans & abuse, yet you seem to expect nothing but respect & deference for your comments and yourself as if you were a figure of authority.

    If you expect people here or at other scienceblogging venues to take you seriously or respect your points of view after such a long time spent consistently & purposefully provoking negative responses, it's unreasonable to expect that the people you've spent so long provoking will suddenly accede to your demands for respect, especially if the content and style of your posts remains more or less unchanged.

    Respect, whether it's personal or for an idea, is earned. It isn't relinquished in response to a tantrum, least of all on the internet and certainly not at a venue chiefly concerned with evidence, reason and robust argument.

  • Let the record show that this blog has no interest in addressing the most significant issue with which evolutionary science has always been confronted - the mechanism by which evolution took (past tense) place.

    The mistake that Darwin and his disciples have always made and continue to make is that the mechanism by which organic change proceeded is already known.

    "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
    Bertrand Russell

    Sexual reproduction, allelic mutation, natural selection, Mendelian and Population Genetics, none of these ever had anything to do either with speciation or the creation of any of the other taxonomic categories. The ascending sequence of complexity which the fossil record unambiguously reveals must have been planned in advance by an unknown number of programmers. There is no room for chance in such a record. The Darwinian thesis does not even qualify as a bona fide hypothesis since it can make no predictions, the essential feature that distinguishes an hypothesis from a mere notion.

    Until the atheist Darwinian model is completely abandoned as an explanatory thesis, progress in the solution of the great mystery of organic evolution will remain at a standstill as it already has for a century and a half.

    "Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority."
    Thomas Henry Huxley

  • I want to thank grrlscientist for permitting me to present our thesis here, an opportunity denied me by Mark Chu-Carroll who was unable to tolerate ideas different from his own. I trust my comments will not be deleted. Since there has been no response, I see no reason to continue here.

  • Epinephrine says:


    The ascending sequence of complexity which the fossil record unambiguously reveals must have been planned in advance by an unknown number of programmers.

    It seems to me that you've missed the point entirely. You present an argument by personal incredulity, with nothing to disprove the better established and more predictive modern evolutionary synthesis model.

    Does your statement falsify evolution in any way? No. By an evolutionary model you would get numbers of sequences with increasing complexity, and some others that didn't adapt and died out, and others still for whom no change was necessary, as selection pressures remained relatively constant. This is what is observed.

    Furthermore, an evolutionary model would predict the expansion and diversification of surviving species after extinction events (which we see), and would predict that arrival of creatures to areas with unfilled niches would often lead to an expansion into those niches (seen in island life, like Darwin's famous finches). It would also predict island gigantism due to lack of predation, and that areas that are isolated (typically islands, but other systems as well, like lakes that are disconnected) would have different evolutionary paths, as the random walk* that the inhabitants follow will differ through chance. This is observed, for example, in the lakes of the Canadian shield, where the stickleback fish populations were trapped and they vary in the degree to which they are armoured. Cichlids in lake Tanganyika likewise show that the separation need not be as extreme as separate lakes, merely rocky clusters separated by long sandy stretches.

    *note that evolution is not random, but that there are random elements involved in genetic drift, wich can then result in different paths being taken when a given selection pressure is present.

  • Epinephrine, whoever that is.

    You have recited the usual Darwinian litany which we several critics have all rejected as having no merit.

    I have missed absolutely nothing.

    I have rejected the Darwinian thesis in its entirety just as did each and every one of those who preceeded me, a veritable honor role of the finest biologists of the last 151 years. Genetic drift is incompetent as a progressive agency and can only generate subspecies none of which are incipient species. Furthermore, there is no tangible evidence that creative evolution is even in progress any more. I stand by what I have presented here and nothing you have said has swayed me in the slightest. You may not like what I have offered here but you have done nothing to modify what the real evidence demands.

    I am not being difficult, only presenting the conclusions which the tangible, experimentally verified evidence requires.

    Furthermore, I am certainly not the first to claim that evolution has ceased. One of the most remarkable statements supporting my position was made by a selectionist Darwinian by the name of Julian Huxley, author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis."

    I refer to page 571 of that tome, seven pages from the end in which in a lengthy paragraph Huxley states without reservation that evolution is no longer in progress. He then says -

    "Only along a single line is progress and its future possibility being continued - the line of man."

    It is no wonder that the Darwinian faithful neglect to mention that summary presented by the man who coined the term "The Modern Synthesis." The refusal of Huxley to come to grips with his own conclusions represents one of the great mysteries in the history of evolutionary science. Another example is provided by Theodosius Dobzhansky who, after proving that selection cannot transform Drosophila melanogaster into a new species, remained a Darwinian selectionist nevertheless. The investigator who ignores his own discoveries cannot be considered a scientist.

  • I add that man, Homo sapiens, is a perfect example of a species that cannot evolve into a new species. Quite the contrary, man is degenerating rapidly as natural selection is no longer culling genetic defectives due largely to the intervention of modern medicine. Homo sapiens, one of the most recent mammals to appear may be the last mammalian species ever to appear. Indeed, as I have suggested, the entire present biota may be doomed to extinction. I see no replacements as thousands of our fellow organisms continue to disappear in alarming numbers. In short -

    "A past evolutuion is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

    I realize this is not an optimistic prospectus but I believe it is in accord with the present status of the evolutionary scenario. This view was anticipated by Pierre Grasse -

    "Aren't our plant , our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
    Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71

    Note the inconsistency between Grasse's words and the title of his book!

    The fosssil record makes it very plain that organisms that cannot evolve are doomed, with very few exceptions, to extinction. I see no evidence that any extant organism will ever become substantially different from what it is right now. Julian Huxley, Pierre Grasse and Robert Broom all claimed the same.

    My task, as I see it, is to resurrect these scientists from the oblivion to which the major Darwinian spokespersons, Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould and more recently, Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers have sentenced them, primarily by ignoring them or worse by pretending they never existed.

  • G.D. says:

    Looks like someone's got a serious case of J.A. Davison infection here

  • Epinephrine says:


    Epinephrine, whoever that is.

    Yeah, we get it, you don't like pseudonymity (which is different from anonymity). I saw your clumsy jab at Grrlscientist, above, putting a name to her husband. What's in a name? That whom you call Epinephrine, by any other name would irk you just as surely. A name is just a label, and having used this one for a decade I think it is a fairly good identifier.

    Invoking past biologists who agree with you (whether or not they did, it matters not) is simply appeal to authority. All you have offered is appeal to authority, and arguments from personal incredulity.

    Evolution still occurs; we see it at the level of viri, we see it at the level of bacteria. We have plants that have undergone pronounced changes both spontaneously and via breeding. We have examples of animals that have adapted in the past several thousand years, diversifying and filling niches. Darwin's finches. The lizards of Pod Mrcaru. There is no reason to suggest that the processes that lead to speciation have ceased. Lenski's experiment is a wonderful modern example of the development of a novel trait, the ability to use citrate as food. It also showed how genetic drift can play a role in facilitating more complex adaptation, since the ability to utilise citrate seems to have required a previous mutation. None of these suggest in the slightest that evolution has stopped, nor does it make any sense - so long as genes are subject to change and there exist selection pressures there will be evolution. Period. The difference between evolution that we can easily observe and speciation is only one of scale.

    As to human evolution, I would have been tempted to agree even a handful of years ago that for humans the selection pressures have ceased or at the least been greatly attenuated. Somewhat unexpectedly (and this is often the most exciting type of science, that which comes as a surprise), research has shown that the rate of change has accelerated in the past 40,000 years.

  • Epinephrine, whoever that is and I will not take him seriously until he discloses his identity. That is the criterion I require on my weblog and I expect it elsewhere.

    I made no "jab" at grrlscientist. I simply identified her. Unlike yourself, she emade no attempt to hide her identity. Quite the contrary, she went out of her way to disclose it.

    I agree that we see a "kind" of evolution with viruses and bacteria. My emphasis and that of my sources was always on the higher organisms. The whole concept of species collapses with the prokaryotes.

    You accuse me of appealing to authority which I most certainly do. My science rests firmly on the findings and convictions of a handful of the greatest biologists of the post Darwin era, scientists that have been ignored by the dominant evolutionary community. Epinephrine continues to make claims which I feel do not satisfy the criterion established by Dobzhansky, a Darwinian, that would establish contemporary speciation. Those criteria require a known extant ancestor the offspring of which can be proven to be a new species. Such a conclusion requires experimental verification, a verification which to my knowledge has not been established. As far as we know all of Darwin's finches have descended from a single bird with no speciation taking place duing that long interval. The remarkable reality is that the Darwinians have never domesticated Darwin's finches to test under controlled conditions their status as separate species. The canary is a finch among the easist of birds to domesticate. The question we should be asking is why have they not been tested, especially since we know for certain that they hybridize freely, producing genetically fit offspring . My personal opinion is they have not been tested because the Darwinians are terrified at what those tests might reveal. I believe that if experimental criteria were applied to test assumed species differences, that the number of named species would be dramatically decreased.

    I do not see how one can conclude that the rate of evolutionary change has accelerated during a period in which we observe rampant extinction without a single known reaplacement. I am also unaware of such a literature. Such a claim flies in the face of everything we now observe.

    I do not expect "our" position to be readily accepted but I do require it that it be countered effectively which to date has not occurred. Until that takes place I will continue to believe as did my distinguished predecessors that there is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian model that ever had anything to do with the sequence of increasing complexity that the fossil record continues to reveal. Furthermore, I remain confident that sequence has reached its climax and no further creative evolution will ever occur. As ontogeny terminates with the death of the individual, so, I believe, will phylogeny terminate with the extinction of its products.

    "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
    Bertrand Russell

    "An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
    Boris Ephrussi

    Again I thank grrlscientist for permitting me to present my thesis here, something I was denied by Mark Chu-Carroll as I have been at many other websites for a very long time.

    "If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
    Oscar Wilde

  • William Fessler says:

    Hello Epinephrine,

    Being a little deceiving?

    Explain your "Galapagos finches" example please? You sited this as a proof of evolution. Explain then how the beaks of the finches change size and shape during dry seasons then change back during normal seasons. Clearly these finches "remain" finches and despite the rapidity of the changes we see clearly that no speciation ensues. Obviously the information for" beak" assimilation is preserved by the finches, who also are able to adjust to their surroundings without the need of evolving into another creature. Another statement you made "note that evolution is not random, but that there are random elements involved" what does that mean? You are back peddling in that statement. You can't say it's not random in one breath and in the next say it is.

  • VMartin says:

    Epinephrine wrote:

    Invoking past biologists who agree with you (whether or not they did, it matters not) is simply appeal to authority. All you have offered is appeal to authority, and arguments from personal incredulity.

    And why not? Professor Davison's work is grounded on the legacy of great men like geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. In my view Goldschmidt's view will be dusted off soon, regarding all the complexity of genes interaction like pleitropy and epistasis.
    The effect og genes (and consequently the definion of them) are not as simple as was thought only a decade ago. Goldschmidt dismissed the darwinian definition of gene.

    Nowadays even darwinists themselves (like professor Moran, Nijhout etc...) seeing reality as it is use Goldschmidt's concept of saltation even though in Orwelian disguise: "great phenotypical changes".

    As to "personal incredulity" argument - it sounds pretty theologicaly and not scientificaly, doesn't it?
    Whatever far fetched speculation darwinists invent one has to believe them to be also a real Darwinist. Incredulity means that you have your own critical judgment what in Darwinian circles is obviosly something undesirable.

    The rest of your post has been perfectly addressed by John.

  • Epinephrine says:

    I refuse to take J.A.D. seriously until he realises that it is the quality of an argument, not the identity of the person making it, that matters. I suppose you disapprove of "Student" and his contribution to statistics? Or the medical "Student," who contributed to the journal Pediatrics? Pseudonimity is different from anonymity, in that it provides a consistent identity. I don't know that you are truly John A. Davidson, only from the style and content can I be assured that you are the same poster that posted the last few items here under that name.

    Had I picked any name that sounded real (I have used the name Neal Andrei when I had reason to, an anagram of the word adrenaline) you would never bother to question whether it was my identity.

    You have now stated your objection - the lack of contemporary examples of speciation. What definition of species and speciation are you using? You question whether Darwin's finches are species, but many bird species hybridise, so it is possible to have separate species and still have hybridisation.

    If you are willing to consider plants (which I feel you should be, as they, too, evolve over time) there are numerous examples of speciation through polyploidy and hybridization. If this is sufficient, we have observed such events in the past hundred years, the Raphanobrassica plants being an example.

    In the case of animals it seems likely that populations become more and more dissimilar gradually. The lizards of Pod Mrcaru are a good example of what it seems you seek in an animal model, in that they are a transplanted species that developed cecal valves, unlike the parent population from Pod Kopište. Of course, we've only had a few decades over which the changes have been observed, but there is no reason to doubt that the two populations would diverge even further.

    Do you agree that such an experiment (transplantation of species to a novel environment, and observation for a period of time for differences between the parent population and the newly established population) is an approach that would potentially address your question? If not, what approach would be required?

    Do you agree that if differences are observed over 40 years, that even greater differences could develop over a longer time period?
    If so, the experiment is being conducted, and you simply need to wait for the data. It is possible that the time periods involved in evolution are too long to easily produce speciation in "higher" animals in experimental settings.

    As to my comment that humans have been shown to be undergoing rapid genetic change, this comes from a 2007 paper in the PNAS (

  • "Epinephrine" does not seem to understand my position. I have no intention of responding to "Epinephrine" here or anywhere else. "Epinephrine" does not exist. Neither does anyone else who must hide his identity.

    I presented my thesis here strictly for the record. I am happy to defend it provided I know my adversary. That is the criterion at my weblog and it is my criterion here and anywhere else I am permitted to hold forth. Failure to identify oneself means only one thing. It means that person is insecure. "Epinephrine" should try to publish a paper in a refereed journal using "Epinephrine" as the principal investigator.

  • Incidentally, I agree that man is undergoing change at an increasing rate. Those changes are deleterious due to the relaxation of the only thing that natural selection ever accomplished which was to PREVENT change. Leo Berg had it right in 1928 -

    "The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
    Nomogenesis, page 406.

    Natural selection, the cornestone of the Darwinian thesis, never had anything to do with speciation or the formation of any other taxonomic category except intraspecific varieties, none of which are incipient species.

    The accumulation of deleterious mutations is the prelude to extinction.

  • Epinephrine says:

    "John A. Davidson" seems not to understand his/her own position, as "John A. Davidson" has responded to "Epinephrine", here.

    You can choose not to address me, but it's a fool's choice, since there is no way to verify identity in the first place. Any name I chose to provide is isomorphic to the name "Epinephrine," in that it serves to identify me, and is just as unverifiable. I have no proof that you are actually John A. Davidson, and require none, as I don't care one whit. The simple fact is that I have provided an example of speciation, an example of an experiment in which divergence of reproductively isolated species, and you simply repeat your mantra, while acting too noble to engage in discourse with someone who doesn't provide you with a two part, name-sounding name (a nymophone?).

    Whatever. Your failure to defend your views is telling 🙂

  • Since Epinephrine cannot even spell my name correctly, I am not surprised at his response. I will be happy to defend my views as soon as Epinephrine establishes that he knows what they are. I doubt if Epinephrine has read any of my publications. If he had he would ask a specific question. Instead he wears his anonymity like a badge of honor. Sorry Epinephrine, but I don't respond to interrogation from unkown adversaries. In my opinion that is what is wrong with 95% + of internet communication.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

    To claim that there is no way to verify identity is ridiculous and doesn't pass the smell test. Tell that to the IRS!

    The test that two organisms are separate species is the "experimental" demonstration that their hybrid is sterile. That is why we know that Darwin's finches are, as far as we know, all a single species. Darwinians don't like to do experiments. In my opinion they are terrified of what they might reveal. The Grants just received a million dollars for providing convincing evidence that Darwin's finches are probably all a single species. That was based entirely on field observations. The progenyof such spontateous crosses are genetically fit and fertile according to the Grants. The failure to domesticate Darwin's finches in order to test them under controlled conditions is an inexcusable scandal if you ask me.

    It is hard to believe isn't it?

    Not at all. It is a matter of record.

    • Epinephrine says:

      Sorry about the misspelling. Unintentional.

      Sorry Epinephrine, but I don’t respond to interrogation from unkown adversaries.

      Clearly, you do.

      To claim that there is no way to verify identity is ridiculous and doesn’t pass the smell test. Tell that to the IRS!

      I thought it was obvious, but I meant in the context of internet communication, like this. You have no way to verify any identity I provide, making it a pointless exercise to demand a name.

      Showing that the famous finches can hybridise doesn't show that speciation doesn't occur. I gave an example of plant speciation from the past century, so we have evidence of ongoing speciation.

  • Epinephrine

    This is the twenty first century and quite likely the last for Western Civilization.

    I already know all I need to know about you. You are too insecure to divulge your identity. Darwinism in all its trappings is a total failure and those who continue to defend it like Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers are living in fantasy worlds entirely of their own construction.

    It is obvious I am wasting my time here, something I don't have the time left to waste. I'll go find another blog to infect. I trust my comments will remain.

    "I get no respect."
    Rodney Dangerfield

    Be sure to have the last word Epinephrine. I know it must mean the world to you and you alone.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

  • G.D. says:

    Nah, you should be allowed to have the last word, John. All our irony meters exploded with the following statement. I found it very ... telling:

    "Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers are living in fantasy worlds entirely of their own construction."

  • G.D. obviously another cowardly blowhard.

    Thank you, I will have the last word.

    I don't respond to cowards who must hide their identities as they denigrate those who disclose theirs. That is the sort of thing they do at Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, EvC, ARN,, After The Bar Closes, Uncommon Descent and now this blog as well. I see G.D. also uses the collective "our," another disgusting tactic common to "groupthinks."

    All that remains is for grrlscentist to banish me like Mark Chu-Carroll did. I hope you will allow me the last word as you just promised but I doubt it very much. Real men keep their word and wouldn't dream of hiding their identity. The ball is now in the court of G.D. whoever that is and of course grrlscientist who promotes this sort of behavior by allowing it to take place.

    Please have the common decency to allow me to leave this blog without another cheap shot. If it occurs it will become widely publicized.

  • Epinephrine says:

    But you take cheap shots constantly, J.A.D..

    Real men keep their word and wouldn’t dream of hiding their identity.

    What is that except a cheap shot by someone who doesn't grasp the etiquette of the internet? And "real men" have throughout history written under pseudonyms. James Madison, you cowardly blowhard! And William Sealy Gosset, you would have been better keeping your statistics to yourself, J.A.D. condemns cowards who would share knowledge when forbidden to publish.

    All hail J.A.D., whose opinions should be law unto all who write on the internet! Mayhaps the communication establishments will convene (internationally!) and promptly ban the use of pseudonyms, as they so offend one miserably out-of-touch professor. But so long as they don't, I'll enjoy the fact that it irritates the crap out of you. (Yes, I used the word "crap." Quick, get indignant!)

    Oh, FYI, I'd happily have argued under my real name, as I post that way all the time. I simply don't want to connect this pseudonym with my real identity.

    I don’t respond to cowards who must hide their identities as they denigrate those who disclose theirs.

    I think you meant to type, "I always respond to cowards who hide their identities, mostly to tell them how superior I am for using my name when I post. Sometimes I also comment on their post content (when I feel like it), but I am secure in the knowledge that I can hide behind my already stated convictions and refuse to argue with someone who raises points I don't want to address. Na-na-na-na-na-na, pbbbbbltt."

    But I have no fear that you'll be back, busily "not responding" to these posts.

  • Epinephrine, whoever that is and I am sure I will never know.

    I can only c0nclude that you are a glutton for punishment. You refuse to allow me to leave this blog gracefully, so I will leave you and all the thousands of others like you some transparent Truths for you to go ballistic about.

    Mendelian Genetics, sexual reproduction, population genetics, natural selection, competition, probability or any other type of statistics, none of these ever played any role whatsoever in producing what we see in the fossil record. The millions of species that came and went in the millions of years that evolution was occurring were scheduled to appear and disappear in advance by an unknown number of programmers who are no longer with us. In other words there is NOTHING in Darwin's Victorian fantasy that has now or ever had anything to do with the Origin of Species, the title of that pathetic opus minimus.

    In the past, extinction and evolution were occurring simultaneously. Today only extinction remains.

    Now to prove my point about the cowardice of anonymity, I invite all persons, who are willing to stake their reputations by stating their full names and professional identities, to declare right here that I have not presented an accurate summary of the history of organic evolution. I doubt there is anyone here who is willing to make such a commitment. If they do they will soon become widely known. Of that they are assured.

    Until and unless that occurs don't expect me to play defense. That is not my style. I do not debate and debate has never played a role in science. I discover and present my discoveries to receptive minds of which there have always been far to few.

    The atheist inspired hysteria that Darwinism has always represented is the perfect example of what Bertrand Russell warned us about -

    "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."

    That is what Darwinism has always been - a groundless proposition.

    EVERYTHING I have just summarised I have already published which anyone who was even remotely familiar with my work would already know. I do not defend that which I have published and never will except in the professional journals in which my science already securely rests, hopefully for all time. My sources never defended their science either because they were never challenged, only ignored and only denigrated after their death when no longer able to defend themselves.

    "No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
    Thomas Carlyle

    I repeat -

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

    I look forward to those names.

  • Here's a thought. Wake up Dawkins or Elsberry or Myers (the Big Three) and inform them of my challenge. Maybe one of them will be willing to stake his reputation on claiming that my position is not sound and is not in perfect accord with the testimony of both the experimental laboratory and the fossil record. Of course their reputations are nothing to brag about to begin with because they have contributed nothing themselves to the central question - What is the mechanism by which a past evolution took place? As little as they have contributed to evolutionary science, I predict they won't respond to my challenge either just as no one here will. They too are terrified at the prospect that they have dedicated their professional lives to a phantom, a mere figment of the human imagination.

    I'll check back later to see how things are progressing.

  • I see I have been shut down.

  • By not allowing me to present my invitation to Pee Zee Myers to join this discussion, grrlscientist has established beyond any doubt that scientopia swims with the atheist Triumvirate of Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins and Wesley Royce Elsberry.

    "A doctrine which is unable teo maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose itseffect on mankinmd with uncalculable harm to human progress."
    Albert Einstein

  • Excuse my typos. I sometimes get upset when I am dealing with Darwinians. In any event, I did invite Myers and Dawkins too. I would invite Elsberry but he has blocked my email.

  • Excuse me for losing it when I couldn't find this thread a while back. Actually, I have little more to add here anyway. I'm busy right now over at Bob O'Hara's blog. Everyone is welcome at my weblog, the only requirement being using your real name.