Part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday.”
Posted by truthtalklive on 2 July, 2009
This post was filed in Evolution and has
This is the continuation thread on evolution, which has raged on now for quite some time. Both previous threads have over 900 comments each.
Please keep this thread on-topic. Any posts that are not on-topic will be deleted.
Thanks!
Moderator
Find us on:
446 Comments on “Part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday.””
Going to the beach Friday 7/3 and coming back the next Saturday. Dont think I will have internet access, but I will be diligently looking for any type of transitional form that may burst forth from the ocean.
Bob: (Hilarious laugh!) Hope you have a lovely break. Maybe bring back some fossilized beer cans, or whatever else may have been fossilised on the beach over the last 30 YEARS!! That’s how fast things can get fossilised (if anyone else didn’t get it!)
How warped does a person’s thinking have top be for them not to even be able to perceive of something like gradual change? When you’re a creationist things just poof into existence just the way they are right now. Why bother discussing this one area of scientific inquiry anyway? Creationists deny all science, not just evolutionary theory. Bible believers have fought a war on scientific and social progress ever since the Bible was voted on to be the literary basis for the false religion of Christinsanity. The Bible has been obliterated, debunked, refuted, and shot full of holes by critics and all one has to do is cruise the Internet to see all the harsh criticisms of it. The only people left believing this hokey collection of lies, nonsense and man-made religious dogma are the kind of people who make ridiculous comments like the ones above. I really cannot imagine a more pathetic person than one who claims not to believe in evolution. You don’t get anymore brainwashed than that.
That’s not good enough Bernie.
The trick is, your going to have to find ways of[politely] showing everyone reading these posts why they are wrong about science.
Bonus points if you can do it without criticizing the Bible or all types of Christians in general terms[after all, we are only really arguing against a specific type of Christian. MattF., Kash, Fred, and millions of others are not in the same category.].
Have you read what I’m going through with Maz upon the other site “Are Your Kids Already Gone?”. She want proof of Ken Ham’s scientific/evolutionary dishonesty, and you know how well she handles proof that goes against her faith[sigh].
Bernie:” How warped does a person’s thinking have top be for them not to even be able to perceive of something like gradual change? ”
I could answer that but I won’t.
”When you’re a creationist things just poof into existence just the way they are right now.”
Not exactly.
”Why bother discussing this one area of scientific inquiry anyway? ”
Yes, why bother.
”Creationists deny all science, not just evolutionary theory.”
Error.
”Bible believers have fought a war on scientific and social progress ever since the Bible was voted on to be the literary basis for the false religion of Christinsanity.”
False.
”The Bible has been obliterated, debunked, refuted, and shot full of holes by critics and all one has to do is cruise the Internet to see all the harsh criticisms of it.”
First line……wrong again.
And…… absolutely true…….there are many many sites you can find almost anything on to refute almost everything under the sun.
”The only people left believing this hokey collection of lies, nonsense and man-made religious dogma are the kind of people who make ridiculous comments like the ones above.”
More ridicule and accusations which are untrue.
” I really cannot imagine a more pathetic person than one who claims not to believe in evolution. You don’t get anymore brainwashed than that.”
And for deserts…..!
Bernie, I’m sorry but I have to cease this ridiculous repartee. It is getting neither of us anywhere.
All I can do now is pray for you.
John: I’ll say this, if you could show me where Ken Ham has told an out-and-out lie, then I would challenge him myself about it. I have had to do this with other Christian ministries (not creation ministries BTW), so I am not afraid to accept the truth when it actually is true.
Maz: MattF gave a lenghty list of ways Ken Hamm either omits important information or outright lies about evolution and what evolutionists believe. It is post 7 under “Are your kids already gone?” Don’t ask a question that you aren’t really going to investigate the answer.
And here is an article that mentions just a few of the ways Ken Ham is less than rational when it comes to both the Bible and science. http://stupiddinosaurlies.org/2009/01/02/a-visit-to-ken-hams-crackhouse/
Here’s something that I’d like to see the evolutionists here respond to:
http://www.evolutionhoax.com/book_chapter1.pdf
Also from Conleigh:
Top ten questions not answered by the “Theory of Evolution”:
1. How did DNA evolve?
2. How did cells evolve?
3. How did DNA replication evolve?
4. How did cellular replication evolve?
5. How did sexual reproduction evolve?
6. How did protein synthesis evolve?
7. How did bones evolve?
8. How did the muscle contraction system evolve?
9. How did the nervous system evolve?
10. How did learned behavior evolve?
Baggins, there are theories about all of your top 10 questions. Rational theories based on observable data. But it would take more space than is worth it here to answer those (although MattF has answered many of them throughout his posts over the past 6 or so evolution pages). And as we have pointed out many times, just because there have been “hoaxes” and misinformation printed about evolution does not invalidate the entire theory, especially since it is other evolutionary scientists that refute the hoaxes. Just like the fake relics of the cross that have been sold to unsuspecting people from the 300s AD to the present don’t invalidate the reality of the cross.
Here’s an article about evolution and pheromones, Baggins. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-4S02YVW-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=948017810&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a7bf5bb2f703b338a0cef80ebb9f17b9
baggins: From the book chapter you sent us to, it says, “According to the
“Theory of Evolution”, at some point in time long ago there
must have been a colony of ants that did not have pheromones
at all. The proteins and enzymes required to make them had just
not yet evolved.”
This statement is patently false, and demonstrates the writer’s obvious lack of understanding of how evolution works. Pheromones have evolved in many species of insect, and thus ants probably always had pheromones, as they had inherited them from whatever original insect ancestor they share with other similar insects. In fact, many species of animals have pheromones, including mammals. Pheromones appear to be something that point to a COMMON ancestor for many organisms, since such a wide variety of life-forms utilize pheromones.
I couldn’t read the article you posted because the site requires that I pay. The abstract that I can read is worthless on its own.
Post 10 - kash: But it would take more space than is worth it here to answer those
Link it up, maybe?
Post 12 - kash: This statement is patently false, and demonstrates the writer’s obvious lack of understanding of how evolution works.
Maybe it isn’t false, how would you know? Are the challenges of evolving pheromones any (or significantly) different in the scenario you elude to?
Also, is it even necessary for you to evoke the idea of a common ancestor? Just because some organisms are similar in some way doesn’t mean they must share a common ancestor.
After all of this, what have you even said in response to the first chapter of the book?
bagins,
Let’s see you answer these questions. I must warn you that if you copy answers from creationist websites those answers have already been soundly refuted by scientists and those refutations will be posted thereby proving you wrong. I say that not only can’t you come up with your own questions about science, as you post above reveals, you can’t even answer any questions about the pseudo-science other creationists have convinced you to believe in. Also I notice you failed to respond to the last post I made that demolished your last post directed at me. In fact I notice every time you get cornered you do the same thing. You’re certainly NOT a mighty defender of the faith. Hahaha.
Ten questions creationists can’t answer without resorting to the supernatural
1. The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
2. How could the Genesis flood form the Grand Canyon. How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
3. What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is only a few thousand years old?
4. How do you explain the astronomical evidence that the universe is billions of years old, without resorting to the preposterous assumption that the speed of light was millions of times faster in the past than it is now?
5. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?
6. If your claim that thermodynamics will not permit the evolution of complex living structures is true, then how do you explain, without resorting to make-believe special mechanisms that have no basis in thermodynamics, the development of a chick in an egg?
7. If creationism is scientifically valid, then why is it necessary to emphasize that the sectarian religious dogma of the Book of Genesis is the ultimate scientific authority?
8. If you believe that God can override nature to create living things as described in the Book of Genesis, then what reasons do you have, other than your religious beliefs, that God could not have created living things through a process of evolution?
9. The standard creationist explanation for the distribution of fossils in geological strata, with most primitive life forms in the lower strata, and mammals and humans in the upper strata, is that clever mankind was smart enough to climb to higher ground to escape the rising flood waters.
10. How do you explain the fact that thousands of persons drowned in the recent Central America floods, in an area contiguous to higher ground? How do you explain the position of the fossils in the geologic layers, with small fossils below large fossils, which is contrary to hydraulic sorting in which large objects settle deeper than small objects?
Bernie, go to talkorgins.org and type any of your questions in the seach and you will get answers. Scientific answers. As for the evolution of pheromones, type in google “evolution pheromones” and you will get many abstracts of papers discussing this topic, some of which are not at pay sites. But they are going to be highly technical, which is something YECers tend to avoid, because they do not have the prerequisite basic science background knowledge to understand many scientific papers. That is not a judgement, it is just a fact. If I had not had advanced physiology in veterinary school, I would not be able to understand either. It has nothing to do with intelligence, just they type of education required. For instance, your question about how muscle contraction systems evolved requires a basic understanding of muscle function, which requires a physiology course. It has to do with differences in Calcium ion channels between smooth muscle and skeletal muscle, and how these two muscle types show up in different species not to mention different “levels” of organisms (the muscle system of invertebrates versus vertebrates, for instance). So yes, there are answers to all of those questions, but they are not pithy statements.
oops, I meant that last post to be to Baggins, not Bernie. Sorry.
“Maybe it isn’t false, how would you know?” Because I’ve been exposed to evolutionary theory in actual graduate level science classes, something the writer of that chapter obviously has not.
“After all of this, what have you even said in response to the first chapter of the book?” I have said that the writer is critiquing a “theory” that only exists in the shallow YEC understanding of evolution, not the actual theory. What more needs to be said?
“Also, is it even necessary for you to evoke the idea of a common ancestor? Just because some organisms are similar in some way doesn’t mean they must share a common ancestor.” But all of the genetic information that we have does indicate that shared characteristics are shared precisely because there was a common ancestor. This observation is what the theory of evolution is based upon, rather than the YEC position that all organisms - from single celled bacteria to invertebrate sponges to fish to mammals to humans - were poofed into existence all at once 6000 years ago. If you want to believe the second scenario, fine, but to try and force everyone else to believe it and to ignore all contrary observational data (including the fact that the earth is much older than 6000 years and the universe even older) is intellectually dishonest. And to hang the salvation offered by Jesus on such a shallow interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis and then to have to make up stuff like “all animals were vegetarians on the ark” to try and make it possible for such an event to have literally occurred is intellectually dishonest, and it makes an unnecessary stumbling block to faith in any rational, thinking person. When it comes to Ken Ham and his followers, I am content to live and let live, except that they are spending millions of dollars trying to force their childlike fantasy world on the rest of us. God does not require, nor does He desire, that we make stuff up to try and make the Bible “real”. The Bible is real because it exists, and it is the story of God’s interaction with mankind, and humanity’s evolving understanding of God. God doesn’t change, but our understanding of Him and His universe most certainly has, and anyone who reads the Bible can see that.
Post 14 - Bernie: Let’s see you answer these questions.
I can’t answer your questions or the questions I posed to evolutionists. Like I’ve said, I am ignorant of the mode of our origins (whether by evolution or creation) - and also unsure of what belief the Bible requires.
I can ask questions to evolutionists though, but none have been answered lately. kash has mentioned how she has a high-level education, how opponents to evolution simply must not understand it, and how proponents of creation have to fabricate many child-like/fantasy ideas - and most importantly she has sent me on a wild goose chase in her failure to explain anything. Also, she is more apt to attack ideas that haven’t even been mentioned than answer the questions I ask. Apparently those things are worth talking about, but answers to my questions (or links) would be a waste of time, not worth it.
kash has also said there were theories for all of the things I mentioned. The first site I bring up about pheromones (in salamanders) says, “There is no one unifying construct that makes theory-based predictions at all levels (e.g., from proteins to neural response).”
- http://plethodon.science.oregonstate.edu/
Therefore, I conclude that kash is guilty of “intellectual dishonesty”.
bagins,
You know very well that there are good scientific explanations for any question you have. You know you could find these explanations on the Internet, at the public library, at a bookstore and most embarrassingly for you these explanations are being taught at private Christian colleges and universities all over the world including in the Bible belt. Kash went out of her way to give you sources you could check for yourself and explanations a sixth grader could understand. You don’t bother to check these sources but instead supply a quote from one site that only proves you have no grasp of the subject and then disrespectfully call her a liar.
There’s a glaring error in your thinking: “Like I’ve said, I am ignorant of the mode of our origins (whether by evolution or creation) - and also unsure of what belief the Bible requires.”
That’s backward. You should asking what belief science requires about the Bible, not what the Bible requires you to believe about science.
Bilbo: “and how proponents of creation have to fabricate many child-like/fantasy ideas” Not all creationists, just the Young Earth variety. And I am sorry that you feel like researching pheromones was a wild goose chase. When I googled “evolution of pheromones” I got citations of many good abstracts. However, I do think that most of these are in online journals that require subscriptions. Here is one on evolution of pheromones in moths that doesn’t require paying: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=170892 The same general principles could be applied to ants.
Here is a detailed discussion of one part of the evolution of muscle systems. http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/171/4/695 You are probably going to complain that it is gobbly gook, but I tried to warn you. Many people prefer creationism because of its simplicity. Science is complicated, and requires very specialised education. Different branches of science can’t even talk to each other. For instance, I am well versed in medical and physiology jargon, but I wound find it difficult to read a journal of theoretical physics or mechanical engineering, particularly an article dealing with a very specialised area.
Baggins: “There is no one unifying construct that makes theory-based predictions at all levels (e.g., from proteins to neural response).” Yes, that is the sort of statement often made in scientific literature, even though anti-science proponents claim that evolution is some sort of dogma. The writers are pointing out that thus far, no one has proposed one single mode of natural selection to explain ALL of the different types of pheromones that are in nature. They go on to discuss 6 evolutionary perspectives and what they would predict. If you then click on the sidebar, you will see that researches go on to sequence the genetics of the salamander pheromones and ultimately show that several perspectives apply depending on the level of the signalling system being studied. From the next page in the site you posted, they write: “Comparative studies of cDNA sequences for PRF and PMF in the genus Plethodon reveal that both proteins have undergone rapid, selection-driven evolution over the last 27 million years. This continual, rapid evolution is characterized by convergent evolutionary events, gene duplication, production of pseudogenes, and the maintenance of polymorphism (Watts et al. 2004; Palmer et al. 2005, 2006). We have referred to the process producing this evolutionary pattern in male courtship pheromones as a ‘molecular tango’ and have hypothesized that it is driven by coevolution with receptors in the female VNO (Watts et al. 2004, Palmer et al. 2005).”
Maz post 6,
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, but it is a holiday weekend, and I have been busy preparing to have fun, having fun, and recovering from the aftermath of having fun[grin].
As for Ken Ham’s dishonesty, here are but a few examples. I could supply many more but I’m lazy, type slow, and my motivation is killed knowing that you will probably not accept any of this as being a good example of Ken Ham spreading misinformation. Interruptions within quotes are all mine.
From “Dinosaurs And The Bible, by Ken Ham”pg.4
“According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65million years ago[no, that's according to the science of geology and paleontology]. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages[Ken ignores the science used in dating rocks and fossils]. They only uncover dead dinosaurs, i.e., their bones[FOSSILS of their bones, NOT bones, as would more commonly be the case IF dinosaurs actually existed under 6,000 years ago]and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story of the past[as if evolutionists just made it all up?]. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age[going by this logic, modern forensics would never be able to solve any crimes,to say nothing of what would happen in the fields of archeology, paleontology, anthropology, geology......]. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old[Big lie. If he's NOT deliberately lying here, then he's in such a state of denial/delusion that he should probably be under the care/supervision of a handler when addressing the common public.]. No scientists observed dinosaurs die[he says again, as if scientists would HAVE to].Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionist[fancy that?] they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.”
Ken makes the assumption that evolutionistic scientists just base all of their scientific data on assumptions that are based upon their personal evolutionistic world view. But then Ken Ham does this very same thing that he claims evolutionists do, but from his young-earth biblical perspective, thus making him a hypocrite. All of his arguments for Young Earth Christian Creationism and against evolution rest upon the foundation of three personal simple ideas, the first which is “Because God made it that way” which is supported by the second idea of “Because the Bible says so” which is based upon the third “Because that’s how I interpret the Bible”. And how scientific is that[smile]?
Pg.11
“In reality, there may have been[remember how you like to criticize scientists for using terms like "may have" in their explanations, Maz? How come Young Earthers never seem to mind when Creation Scientist use such terms, hmmmmm?] fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.”
Where does he get this figure from, and what in the heck does he define as a “dinosaur kind”? Does he mean types of dinosaurs[if so, then there are far more than 50], or “kinds” of dinosaurs, as in say, the “dog kind”? This unscientific Bronze-Age word “kind” is used way too often way too conveniently to explain away large diverse groups of life forms whenever numbers or diversity cause problems for Young Earthers. If I’m wrong Maz, please correct me. In detail.
Pg.12
By the way, the Flood of Noah’s Day probably occurred[there's another pair of those words that reeks of no scientific verifiability, right Maz[smile]?] just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as as the Earth settled down after the great Flood[good attempt at trying to cover all the bases, Mr. Ham]. Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably[Another one of those assumptive words, Maz.] formed about 4,500years ago, not millions of years ago.”
Want to hear Ken Ham try and pass off dinosaurs as dragons?
Pgs.14 and 15[with a drawing of St. George on a horse lancing a Baryonyx, being portrayed as a quadruped, which it was certainly not.
"Also, there are many very old history books in various libraries around the world that have detailed records of dragons[and things like Barnacle Geese and Vegetable Lambs, ha.ha. It's a Catholic thing.] and their encounters with people.Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly for creationists, many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs[only if one used their imaginations really hard, and didn't know very much about dragons OR dinosaurs. Remember how I mentioned to Maz on the other site how much Ken doctored up the statue of the Baryonyx with all of those horns, spikes, and hound ears that it never had, in order to make it into a dragon of legend? It sits within the Creation Museum. Go look up the picture on the computer. What, did he think that a normal Baryonyx was just a little too unimpressive? That's an example of a "physical lie" by the way, Maz.],even Tyrannosaurus[what dragons in world myth and legend looked like a Tyrannosaurus??]. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!”
Uh, actually it’s because they are unnatural and mythical monsters.
It’s bad Maz, when a self-confessed crazy man who thinks he’s a Witch with magical powers has a better grip on reality and knowledge of science[Grin].
But wait, he goes on…
“However, the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beast[Oh..how I wish!], much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs[except for the poor Baryonyx, huh?], and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago[Reeeeeally? Methinks Ken is thinking of Nessie or Ogopogo.].”
Is this enough Maz, or do you want some more? Because I can go on and on…
Do you remember when Ferox listed the main differences between dragons and dinosaurs? I could re-list them for you if you wish, for the differences are rather extreme.
Baggins, many of your questions were answered within many of the past sites on evolution. Seek and yea shall find.
Goodnight.
Baggins: Ok, to return to your original citation of the article about the ants. The writer is making the point that it would be wildly unlikely for an ant to suddenly have a mutation that produced a pheromone. But as I pointed out, pheromones are present among many species, and serve a variety of functions. All that really has to happen is for a mutation in an alarm pheromone or a sex pheromone or even the strength of such a substance to signal a new function. And your writer that also complains that the other ants have to simultaneosly be abe to sense that change…but they already have sensory organs that pick up chemical signaling, such as sex pheromones. So you see, the scenario your writer describes as being so unlikely is not any scenario predicted by evolutionary theory. It might be predicted by Creationist theory, where new stuff poofs out of nothing, but not evolutionary theory. In evolutionary theory, everything comes from something that existed before in a slightly different form or function.
Hi John, glad you had a good 4th of July. My three year old son loved the local parade because of all the fire engines!
Hello again Kash, it’s a pleasure to once again hear directly from you[smile].
I spent most of my time cooking, then eating, then dancing, then eating, then dancing, then eating….
Everyone around here[away from us, for miles around] was shooting off guns, as if they were trying to recreate the revolutionary war or something, crazy buggers. You’d think that bullets were cheap, the way they were wasting them! I pity any high flying night bird.
I am glad to hear that you and your family had a good time. I personally have lost an interest in parades[The nearest one is over 32 miles away anyway]. I’ve never been very at ease with large loud groups of humans. I feel apart from my own species. Ferox friendship backwash combined with my own social ineptness, I guess.
I experienced the usual cognitive dissonance of being happy to be at a simple small town event where people are obviously proud to be Americans with the subconscious realization that few of them have more than a passing familiarity with the true history of our nation, both its triumphs and travesties. I can see why my grandmother told me (when I was 12) that I read too much and would get “confused”. But the 4th of July is all about what we got right as a nation, so I just focused on that. Anyway, like I said, my 3 year old liked the fire trucks. My one year old took a long nap when we got home, so it was a success.
John: You quoted Ken….. ” In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old……(and your response)…..[Big lie. If he's NOT deliberately lying here, then he's in such a state of denial/delusion that he should probably be under the care/supervision of a handler when addressing the common public.]. ”
This is not a lie, any more than an evolutionist would state what he believes. There IS no proof….that is what Ken and creationists BELIEVE. That is not a deliberate lie. And we aren’t ready for the insane asylum either! (No angry tone involved here, just a statement).
”This unscientific Bronze-Age word “kind” is used way too often way too conveniently to explain away large diverse groups of life forms whenever numbers or diversity cause problems for Young Earthers. If I’m wrong Maz, please correct me. In detail.”
I havn’t got time to go into detail, but it is simple enough…..”Kinds” is the word used in the Bible and simply means the different kinds of animals like….cat….dog….horse….the group of animals, which in Noahs day would not have had the variety of species we have today. I’v said this before. And also, the animals…and especially the large ones, for convenience, (and the food problem) would have been taken on as very young. There is no way, Noah would have taken on a fully grown T-Rex!! (Grin).
And as far as the fossils being laid down by the flood….a lot of them were….laid down quickly by water and covered very quickly by sediment. Many fossils show a rapid burial because of the position they are in and their ‘good’ condition.
”It’s bad Maz, when a self-confessed crazy man who thinks he’s a Witch with magical powers has a better grip on reality and knowledge of science[Grin].”
Well, you said it! With such a reputation one wonders HOW you can have a ”better grip’! ‘
I can’t stay much longer, but I have not found anything in the books I have read or the talks I have heard that would lead me to believe Ken was in any way lying, which is what you originally was saying. But I shall look up the Museum pictures and have a look….just for you!
mherman: “funny how I somehow didn’t get the truth about REAL science isn’t it? (GRIN).”
It is, actually, which is why some on here have accused you of deliberately ignoring facts that are contradictory to your views.
mherman: “Maybe bring back some fossilized beer cans, or whatever else may have been fossilised on the beach over the last 30 YEARS!! That’s how fast things can get fossilised (if anyone else didn’t get it!)”
It’s not just (or even primarily) a question of how fast fossils form, Maz. What’s key is how long they’ve been there.
mherman: “I’ll say this, if you could show me where Ken Ham has told an out-and-out lie, then I would challenge him myself about it.”
I. Have. Given. You. A. LIST. And you were even pretending to listen at the time.
mherman: “I have had to do this with other Christian ministries (not creation ministries BTW), so I am not afraid to accept the truth when it actually is true.”
Um, yeah. Right. So how are you coming on that list of clearly-observed evidences that corroborate evolution and contradict instantaneous creation again?
b baggins: “Here’s something that I’d like to see the evolutionists here respond to:”
We have, b. Many times.
b baggins: “Maybe it isn’t false, how would you know?”
It’s false because it claims that something is a logical necessity that isn’t. It’s rather simple, b.
b baggins: “Also, is it even necessary for you to evoke the idea of a common ancestor? Just because some organisms are similar in some way doesn’t mean they must share a common ancestor.”
The idea of a common ancestor is not asserted “just because some organisms are similar in some way”. There’s a lot more to it than that. Especially if you bother to look at genetic and molecular evidences. After a while, asserting that all the evidence we have to support lineages and ancestry and similarity are all coincidental really starts to look ridiculous.
b baggins: “kash has also said there were theories for all of the things I mentioned. The first site I bring up about pheromones (in salamanders) says, “There is no one unifying construct that makes theory-based predictions at all levels (e.g., from proteins to neural response).”
- http://plethodon.science.oregonstate.edu/”
Please read for comprehension, b. There is no contradiction between the statements “theories exist” and “there is no single, unifying construct”.
Maz post 30,
Yes, I thought that the making post 26 for you would be a complete waste of time, as you have an alternate concept as what it is for Ken Ham to lie, as well as what constitutes as science and evidences, but at least others reading here may have gained some small benefit from my efforts.
“Well, you said it! With such a reputation, one wonders HOW you can have a ‘better grip’.”
Yessssssss, isn’t that interesting?
One of the reasons, just so you know, that I describe myself as an insane weirdo is to rob the power away from those critics who may accuse me of being irrational[or whatever] within their own posts. I’m weird, but actually not really THAT insane. I know others are thinking it, so I just jump the gun and throw it out there before anyone else can, and then interpret my responses as “defensive”.
As an added bonus, when I am right about something it makes the person I’m arguing/debating with look all the worse[crafty evil smile].
John: ”… as you have an alternate concept as what it is for Ken Ham to lie, as well as what constitutes as science and evidences,”
This could also be said of the evolutionists. (GRIN)
”…but at least others reading here may have gained some small benefit from my efforts.”
And hopefully from mine too! (Another grin!)
”One of the reasons, just so you know, that I describe myself as an insane weirdo is to rob the power away from those critics who may accuse me of being irrational[or whatever] within their own posts.”
Now would I do that? (Sideways grin with a glint in my eyes!) That is done far more on your side of the evolutionary fence….tho only very slightly from you I must add (sweet smile) but others are very bold in their accusations towards our mental state!
”I’m weird, but actually not really THAT insane.”
No, I don’t think you are! (Another sweet smile!)
”As an added bonus, when I am right about something it makes the person I’m arguing/debating with look all the worse[crafty evil smile].”
Yes, I feel that way sometimes! (Cheeky grin!)
John: “Yes, I thought that the making post 26 for you would be a complete waste of time, as you have an alternate concept as what it is for Ken Ham to lie, as well as what constitutes as science and evidences,”
This, I must admit, was one of the key elements that led me away from creationism, and made it much easier to leave completely.
It’s pretty simple in scientific circles, where “lying” means “knowingly misrepresenting the facts, which is to be avoided”.
In creationist circles, “lying” means “knowingly misrepresenting the facts, which is to be avoided, unless we need to bolster our faith or there’s a chance we could get somebody to convert by confusing him; in that case, saying whatever you need to in order to get the job done is okay”.
How else can one explain the repeated misrepresentation of what evolution claims and what evolutionists believe? I can *almost* excuse the scientific gaffes on the grounds that they simply don’t know what they’re talking about, but since when is deliberate misrepresentation of an opposing point of view *not lying*? Why is it *not lying* to repeat the same arguments over and over, long after they’ve been shown with *directly observed fact* and *repeated experiment* to be specious?
How else is one supposed to understand an attitude that says, “It doesn’t matter what you tell me about evolution or those who accept it; it and they are basically attempting to deny God”?
Frankly, I think God has called us to a higher standard of truth.
My father’s a creationist, but to his credit, even though he has no interest in biology, he saw that I was a scientifically-minded youth and always encouraged me to go where the evidence leads; the truth has nothing to fear from evidence. Even though I had a rather serious crisis of faith when I saw the fact of evolution for myself (since YECism tends to intertwine its interpretation of creation with ideas like sin, death, and redemption), I like to think that it was his example and advice that kept me seeking for answers in Christ even in the midst of confusion. The end of all of it seems to have been to make God appear more powerful, majestic, and awe-inspiring than I could ever have considered Him to be as a young-Earth creationist.
How about something that returns the thread to its topic. If the church doesn’t celebrate the birthdays of Athanasius, Augustine, or any of a large number of people pivotal in our faith, why would it want to celebrate Darwin’s birthday. How about that I guess I agree with St. Ken of Ham on something after all. Okay folks back to debating transitional fossils, etc.
Welcome back St. ADB! Good question.
ADB: “If the church doesn’t celebrate the birthdays of Athanasius, Augustine, or any of a large number of people pivotal in our faith, why would it want to celebrate Darwin’s birthday.”
Well, personally, I think the lack of celebration of people who have helped to codify the Christian faith is rather short-sighted of modern evangelical Christianity. Of course, the risk of celebrating these people is that some might be inclined to skip the barrier between appreciation and worship; one must keep in mind that these men, insightful as they might have been, were as fallible as anyone.
Christianity holds that God revealed Himself naturally as well as supernaturally, so I wouldn’t see a problem with churches celebrating people whose insight into creation allows us the potential to see God more clearly: Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo, and so on. We can recognize the fallibility of these men while still thanking God for the brilliance He endowed them with so that we, His children, could see His eternal attributes in creation a tiny bit more clearly.
Come to think of it, that’s exactly what I do.
That said, though, the last thing I’d want to do is place a stumbling block before my brother. If someone thought that a call to thank God for the insight of these men meant that he should think of them somehow as divine, then the church is not the place to be celebrating them. That would be a shame, though.
Maz post 33,
“And hopefully from mine too!(Another grin!)”
I’m sure that they do Maz, and Bob’s too, although perhaps not quite in the ways that you would always like[smile].
Maz, why do I get the feeling that you missed the point that I was trying to make within the bottom half of my post 32?
Oh well, thank you for your sweet smiles.
It’s great to know that your still around ADB.
John: What point were you making?
Well, let me try and put it like this Maz, think of my self criticisms as a form of “inoculation” against my critics, and with the added bonus of adding insult to injury to critics when I prove my points and or debunk them.
John: Well, that’s what I thot the first time!
Really? When you said things like “That is done far more on your side of the evolutionary fence…” I got confused.
I’m still somewhat confused.
I’m usually confused.
People and life is SO DARNED CONFUSING!!!
Keeps you on your toes, eh[grin]?
John: YOU get confused at YOUR age!? (Big grin!) Let me enlighten you.
You said,……”that I describe myself as an insane weirdo is to rob the power away from those critics who may accuse me of being irrational[or whatever] within their own posts.” ”
And I said, ”Now would I do that? (Sideways grin with a glint in my eyes!) That is done far more on your side of the evolutionary fence….tho only very slightly from you I must add (sweet smile) but others are very bold in their accusations towards our mental state! ”
In other words accusations like that come from the evolutionistic side far more than from my side……especially from others. Is that clearer? (Sweet smile)
Confused, yes, suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease, no[grin].
“Is that clearer?”
Ehhhhhh……………………………………..lets move on now shall we?
John: (Giggle).
On my beach trip the only thing I saw for a transitional form was a representation of a ??????????
Maz Watched Gallapagos: Beyond Darwin on the Science channel last nite. One of the learned scientists said he wished people could go there to see evolution and natural selection happen right before their eyes. Guess he didnt get the memo that its too slow for us to see it.
bobgriffin: “One of the learned scientists said he wished people could go there to see evolution and natural selection happen right before their eyes. Guess he didnt get the memo that its too slow for us to see it.”
Wrong again, Bob. We’ve seen natural selection and evolution happen. Directly. In the lab and in the field. Would you like citations?
And would you mind answering the questions posed to you? What are you trying to assert about God by citing probabilities with respect to abiogenesis? (Regardless of whether or not your reasoning in doing so is bogus, why do you even mention them?)
Why do you claim that mermaids are only possible in evolution? Is God incapable of creating mermaids?
MattF Im going by the sentiments of your side on this blog. Its too slow to see it in action. Of course, natural selection does occur, but you still have that slight problem of defining species to make it work for you. If you cant see the logic of assigning probablities of the impossible happening I cant help you.
Logic of the day: The bible says all things were created at once, and doesnt mention a mermaid. Evolution says creatures evolved from fish to man or vice versa. That gives the possibility of a mermaid. God could create a mermaid, but he doesnt lead us to believe that he did.
Bob: When you see all the diverse and peculiar creatures that God created (and that have since changed in variety but only within their own genus)….particularly in the oceans of this world….and the evolutionists say it all came by random genetic mutations….one wonders why they just can’t accept that a creature like a mermaid couldn’t exist! The mind boggles!
The existence of a mermaid would probably be proof that evolution is false, and that ID is correct. Maz, your comment reflects a complete ignorance of the theory of evolution.
X: Same old line….I don’t understand evolution! That is the only lame excuse that evolutionists can come up with when we bring up these questions.
I KNOW EXACTLY what evolution is, I’v heard about it on here, aswell as being indoctrinated all my school life about it!!!…..so it’s probable that the evolutionists on here don’t know themselves!
Ignorance is celebrated as enlightenment by the young earth creationist.
bobgriffin: “Im going by the sentiments of your side on this blog.”
Better to go by data than by sentiments.
bobgriffin: “Of course, natural selection does occur, but you still have that slight problem of defining species to make it work for you.”
How do *you* define “species”, Bob, and why?
bobgriffin: “If you cant see the logic of assigning probablities of the impossible happening I cant help you.”
It’s been pointed out to you why your “logic” is specious; claiming that an event in the past is impossible on the basis of probability is a fallacy. You have not even attempted to justify why it should be considered seriously in the case of your particular argument. Regardless, is it your intention to show that God cannot do the improbable? That this sort of thing could not have happened, even with God involved? In what way is your argument meant to support instantaneous creation?
bobgriffin: “Logic of the day: The bible says all things were created at once,”
Where? I can’t find any mention in the Bible of when angels were created, for example.
bobgriffin: “and doesnt mention a mermaid.”
… or dinosaurs, or bacteria, or platypi…
Fact is, it doesn’t mention any species by name in the creation account. What point is the fact that a mermaid is not mentioned by name supposed to prove?
bobgriffin: “Evolution says creatures evolved from fish to man or vice versa.”
Not vice versa.
bobgriffin: “That gives the possibility of a mermaid.”
No.
bobgriffin: “God could create a mermaid, but he doesnt lead us to believe that he did.”
Did He lead us to believe that He created bacteria? And if you believe that God could create a mermaid, why do you then say that mermaids are only possible in evolution, a theory you continue to demonstrate ignorance about? Must the Bible mention something specifically by name for us to assert that it exists or is true?
mherman: “one wonders why they just can’t accept that a creature like a mermaid couldn’t exist!”
If you were to study the mechanisms through which evolution works, you would understand why the discovery of a mermaid would falsify evolution.
Evolution does not assert that every creature which can be imagined can exist. There are mechanisms by which it works that prevent some things from being possible. This is how the theory can potentially be falsified.
merhman: “The mind boggles!”
Only a mind unwilling to understand boggles.
mherman: “I don’t understand evolution! That is the only lame excuse that evolutionists can come up with when we bring up these questions.”
That’s because we want you to understand what you claim to disbelieve.
We *know* you don’t accept the melange of ideas you call “evolution” in your own head. That twisted personal philosophy has nothing to do with evolution as it is understood by the scientific community.
You claim to reject evolution as held by science, but *the reasons you give for it* show an ignorance of evolution as held by science. You’re fighting an imaginary opponent.
mherman: “I KNOW EXACTLY what evolution is”
Based on your objections to it, you really, really, REALLY don’t. You have an idea in your head that you call “evolution”, one closely parallel to what young-Earth creationists call “evolution”. It’s not evolution as understood by the scientific community. If you knew evolution as understood by the scientific community, questions like why it does not permit mermaids would not boggle your mind any more than questions like why gravity does not pull things sideways. (”With all the things that fall, one wonders why they just can’t accept that a sideways-falling object couldn’t exist! The mind boggles!”)
If you know anything about evolution, you know that mermaids aren’t consistent with the theory.
X: If you knew anything about evolution you would realise that it couldn’t happen not in a billion trillion years.
o.o
Bob’s Post 49,
This guy,…….he’s some piece of work, isn’t he[smile]?
Maz post 50,
“…one wonders why they[evolutionists]just can’t accept why a creature like a mermaid couldn’t exist.”
A creature LIKE a mermaid, such as a Steller’s Sea Cow or a Bottlenosed Dolphin, or a MERMAID like in Bob’s fantasy?
If your thinking of a Mermaid Maz, then, am I to understand by you statement that you think…..that WE evolutionists actually think that a mermaid could come to exist through natural evolution as we know it? If so, then where did you ever get this crazy idea? How many times Maz have I, Matt F., Fred, Kash, Chris C., Abc’s, and other evolutionists debating with you tried to convince you and Bob[mainly Bob]that Mermaids were an evolutionary impossibility?
Many times Maz, many times.
Who and where are these evolutionists that think otherwise?
John: ”… am I to understand by you statement that you think…..that WE evolutionists actually think that a mermaid could come to exist through natural evolution as we know it?”
No…it is obvious they don’t.
My argument is, that with all the weird and wonderful creatures in this world….and remember the weird construction of the duck-billed platypus…..isn’t it atall possible that a creature like a mermaid could have evolved? I mean, the possibility that evolution would bring about such a marvelous creature as man through random chance mutations from some kind of chemical soup is incredible is it not?
”…and other evolutionists debating with you tried to convince you and Bob[mainly Bob]that Mermaids were an evolutionary impossibility?”
It is just so strange that you think a creature like a mermaid is impossible, yet you can believe all the amazing variety of creatures that live on this earth and in the sea have evolved over millions of years from an original chemical soup!
No Maz, mermaids are not possible through evolution in nature. You need to learn more about genes and D.N.A.
Unlike the Platypus which is NOT composed of body parts from different animal species, and is wholly mammal and natural[they have a fossil record, you know], a Mermaid is a creature composed of mixed and incompatible D.N.A.[Fish and human. Well, not really human. They are actually a type of Fairy. Did you know that?]and is completely unnatural, physically. Evolution as YOUR describing it is akin to saying that …if I developed the habit of standing still for great periods of time and lunging out my hands to snatch up my food that, if I passed on this habit to my descendants, in a few thousand years[because you don't believe in millions]my descendants will have the body of a Preying Mantis from the waist up.
Although scientists can create many strange creatures in the lab through gene manipulation,Evolution in nature does not work that way, Maz. There are “rules” in nature that evolution follows.
Do you know what a mermaid is Maz? They are magical beings, members of the Fey, related to the Silkies. All of these beings cannot exist without magick, the rules of science as we understand them do not apply to them, for they are beyond them. Now I’m not saying that such beings cannot exist, but if they do, they are not to be used as examples while discussing Evolutionary/Natural science, because they are outside of it. What is a Mermaid to you Maz? All fish? All human? Or the creature from folklore that is Fey, and sometimes able to change it’s form? Or something else? What is it about them that makes you think that they could naturally evolve into existence? What is it about evolution that makes you think that such a creature could naturally evolve?
Yes, man is a marvelous creature, but then so is a Cuttlefish.
Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you.
The top section of Post 768 on the site “Should the Church Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday?, Part 2″.
John: ”No Maz, mermaids are not possible through evolution in nature. You need to learn more about genes and D.N.A.”
And they also ask us to believe that dinosaur SCALES somehow evolved over these millions of years into bird FEATHERS! Oh, I know we have been through this ALL BEFORE!……But how do you deny one type of creature the possibility of evolving while accepting all sorts of strange and wonderful creatures evolving…..like fish to mammals and everything else that is involved with the evolutionary theory. It’s ALL impossible….yet you believe it….except when it comes to mermaids!!
mherman: “If you knew anything about evolution you would realise that it couldn’t happen not in a billion trillion years.”
Here, Maz ignores the fact that we’ve watched evolution happen directly, many times, without any explanation as to why the optical illusion affecting so many is so danged persistent.
mherman: “My argument is, that with all the weird and wonderful creatures in this world….and remember the weird construction of the duck-billed platypus…..isn’t it atall possible that a creature like a mermaid could have evolved?”
No. You need to learn more about how inheritance mechanisms work. Once you’ve got that, find out how DNA that describes fish would have had to change into DNA that describes humans. See if you can explain how a mixture of the latter and the former could give rise to a single, viable organism.
A thought experiment might help. Consider that according to evolution, *all* organisms are related to a common ancestor (or a few common ancestors). One of the many evidences we use to support this idea is clear evidence of how rules of heredity have given rise to the nested hierarchical sorting of organisms that we see. In much the same way that we can determine siblings through DNA analysis, we can determine which organisms are related to each other and how.
Does this imply, then, that we can reasonably expect evolution to *ever* form an organism that is half giraffe, half strawberry? Of course not.
A deeper study into inheritance and DNA would show you exactly *why* not, but this thought experiment might give you enough for your intuition to grapple onto something.
mherman: “I mean, the possibility that evolution would bring about such a marvelous creature as man through random chance mutations from some kind of chemical soup is incredible is it not?”
Not *just* “random chance mutations”. There is a mechanism which makes sure that the ones that provide an advantage “stick”.
And we *are* talking about three and a half billion years’ worth of that.
That said, it *is* remarkable. So are all God’s creatures. But this reason you give for believing this and other strange things that you have argued for on this site — an argument that basically boils down to “Isn’t it remarkable? It must be the case, then” — is bad reasoning, and will lead to many incorrect conclusions.
mherman: “It is just so strange that you think a creature like a mermaid is impossible, yet you can believe all the amazing variety of creatures that live on this earth and in the sea have evolved over millions of years from an original chemical soup!”
That’s because we have this inconvenient thing called evidence. The diversity of life evolving from organic soup is consistent with experiment and observable facts, including the laws of genetics and heredity. Mermaids are not.
mherman: “I find it funny that you say mermaids cannot possibly, even with hundreds of millions of years of evolution, exist. But evolutionists ask us to believe that all the variety of life came from a SINGLE chemical soup hundreds of millions of years ago, which couldn’t have had all that multitudinous molecular information within it!”
It didn’t have to. We’ve given you mechanisms by which organisms can increase the amount of “information” in their genetic code. I even gave you this when you were pretending to listen to me. Stop repeating the same error as truth when you’ve been shown differently. It makes you look bad.
mherman: “And they also ask us to believe that dinosaur SCALES somehow evolved over these millions of years into bird FEATHERS!”
Yes. I cited a study that shows that scales can become feathers with the movement of a single amino acid. It’s not as difficult as you seem to think. (Not to mention that you somehow came to the conclusion that scales are “just flaps of skin”, which is completely wrong and a bad place from which to claim knowledge on the possibility of the described scenario.)
You also haven’t addressed the information that shows *why we claim to know this has occurred*.
mherman: “Oh, I know we have been through this ALL BEFORE!”
And yet, somehow, you refuse to learn. You refuse to even look at facts. Odd, no?
mherman: “But how do you deny one type of creature the possibility of evolving while accepting all sorts of strange and wonderful creatures evolving…..like fish to mammals and everything else that is involved with the evolutionary theory.”
Rules of genetics and heredity.
mherman: “It’s ALL impossible….yet you believe it….except when it comes to mermaids!!”
If you can show how mermaids are consistent with the laws of genetics and heredity (as the arrival of all the forms of life’s diversity we’ve witnessed are thus far), then we’d have to reconsider. Until then, all you’re doing is waving your hands and demonstrating your ignorance.
John: ”… a Mermaid is a creature composed of mixed and incompatible D.N.A.[Fish and human. Well, not really human. They are actually a type of Fairy. Did you know that?] and is completely unnatural, physically. .” ”
Ha ha ha ha ha!! Another good joke John! Your humour is so uplifting to the heart!
Well…….. how on earth…..or in the water (ahem)….did fish ever get to change into mammals if the DNA is incompatible to start with? Evolution takes (apparently) millions of years, so there would have had to be some fish and some mammal DNA existing together at some point……….or they couldn’t exist atall to bring land animals from sea living creatures! Same with mermaids, yes?
ORRRRRRRR….maybe you don’t understand evolution! (chuckle!)
”There are “rules” in nature that evolution follows.”
And pray tell me, WHO made the rules? If you have any kind of rules, laws, design, pattern to anything there had to be an outside influence to make it so…..a Ruler, a Law maker, a Designer, an Architect. And ofcourse, as you believe in deities of sorts, you may believe that one or some or all had a hand in it…….interfering as you put it! (smile). But atheists have no such deities to fall back on, so what is their excuse for all this design, these ”rules” in nature. As far as I know, rules play no roll in chance!
”Do you know what a mermaid is Maz? They are magical beings, members of the Fey, related to the Silkies.”
AH SOOOOOOOO…..they DO exist? (sideways glance and a smirk)!
Tell me, is this an evolutionary idea? Mmmm?
”What is a Mermaid to you Maz? All fish? All human? ”
A human with a tail I guess. One that could breathe under water aswell as on land. Like amphibians…….they do that don’t they? I ask you, why do we have legs to start with? Why didn’t we develop a tail?……from back when we were fish swimming happily in the sea until we got a hankering for the land life! We all (animals) came (apparently) from a COMMON gene pool.
”What is it about evolution that makes you think that such a creature could naturally evolve?”
The theory of evolution itself seems to believe in the impossible……so why not mermaids, that’s all.
OOPs…..roll should have been role!
mherman: “Well…….. how on earth…..or in the water (ahem)….did fish ever get to change into mammals if the DNA is incompatible to start with?”
“This sort of thing changed into that sort of thing” is a different statement from “this sort of thing can co-exist with that sort of thing and give rise to a single organism”.
mherman: “Evolution takes (apparently) millions of years, so there would have had to be some fish and some mammal DNA existing together at some point……….”
In the same organism? Care to provide a citation?
mherman: “or they couldn’t exist atall to bring land animals from sea living creatures!”
The DNA of one type of creature *changed to become* the other type of creature *over time*. The DNA for both didn’t exist in the same creature at the same time.
mherman: “Same with mermaids, yes?”
No.
mherman: “ORRRRRRRR….maybe you don’t understand evolution! (chuckle!)”
Pot? It’s kettle calling for you. Something about you being black.
mherman: “And pray tell me, WHO made the rules? If you have any kind of rules, laws, design, pattern to anything there had to be an outside influence to make it so…..a Ruler, a Law maker, a Designer, an Architect.”
He never argued that no one made the rules. It’s simply that you’re making a claim in ignorance of the rules that exist.
mherman: “And ofcourse, as you believe in deities of sorts, you may believe that one or some or all had a hand in it…….interfering as you put it! (smile). But atheists have no such deities to fall back on, so what is their excuse for all this design, these ”rules” in nature.”
Ask one of them. The answer, regardless of what it is, has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurred, though.
mherman: “A human with a tail I guess. One that could breathe under water aswell as on land. Like amphibians…….they do that don’t they?”
No.
mherman: “I ask you, why do we have legs to start with?”
Adaptation of existing structures. Study some homology.
mherman: “Why didn’t we develop a tail?”
We lost ours. That’s why we have a vestigial coccyx.
mherman: “from back when we were fish swimming happily in the sea until we got a hankering for the land life!”
Evolution has nothing to do with “hankering”.
mherman: “The theory of evolution itself seems to believe in the impossible……so why not mermaids, that’s all.”
Look at why evolution claims what it does. How “impossible” it seems to you personally is not a valid basis for claiming that evolution asserts something that it does not.
Maz I can tell from the posts over the weekend that we still dont understand. Went to a picnic yesterday and the high was 82 degrees in JULY. Only 77 for our high today. I guess I will stick with being a global warming denier.
Saw Planet of the Apes this weekend. What would you consider the equivalent of the human doll found in the cave?
MattF Tell me again how 3 billion base pairs come together at the same time and place and correct order all by themselves. Im sure one of you intellectuals can handle that.
Bob post 67 — Was that a little tongue in cheek humor? If thats your reasoning for denying climate change, it really sheds light on why it is so easy for you to not accept other modern science (evolution). By the same logic, if you walked outside on an unusually hot day, wouldn’t you have to claim that global warming is occurring?
bobgriffin: “Tell me again how 3 billion base pairs come together at the same time and place and correct order all by themselves.”
I’ve told you that your reasoning for demanding it is specious, and you haven’t given any reasons why my reasons are invalid. Simply, abiogenesis does not even require that three billion base pairs to “come together at the same time and place and correct order all by themselves”, so even if I gave you an explanation, it would demonstrate nothing. It also, as a separate point, makes no sense to assert that something did not happen because of odds against it — odds which you refuse to show any kind of derivation for, it must be noted, in spite of multiple requests, so I have no reason even to trust the figures you mention.
You’re acting rather silly at this point, Bob — kind of like someone who keeps demanding to know why, if the Earth is round, it still *looks* flat.
And you also haven’t addressed why you think low probability is an argument against God’s action in a particular direction. Nor have you explained why mermaids are *impossible* under the idea of instantaneous creation; you’ve only pointed out that they’re not mentioned in Genesis 1 and 2, but neither is any specific species besides man.
Bib: Ah…..they suddenly realise they came from……………………………………………HUMANS!!!
Sorry Bob, my ”i” and ”o” have no letter printed on the keyboard! I often get this wrong….but usually correct it!
Bob #69. It’s all by chance……don’t you understand yet? (giggle)
How come someone wins the lottery only once (if that) in a lifetime? Seems the odds are against us! But the odds of that happening are nowhere near the odds of life originating let alone evolving on this earth without some Greater Power at work! Welcome back!
The weather here has been quite cool……and some rain too. I think we had about two weeks of hot weather a few weeks ago.
Chris C Your revered scientists have told us ad nauseum how the last several years have been the warmest on record. So now when I walk outside and feel the coolest July temperatures I have felt in 50 years, I must wonder about their science. I even had a campfire outside last night in the midst of a summer of global warming.
MattF
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis [ ày b? ? jénn?ssiss ]
noun
Definition:
life from inanimate matter: the hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials
Read that carefully for the tenth time. And I need to explain my logic. Your intellectualness is getting in the way again. Back to another odds example we have used before: If I play you in poker and I get 5 straight flushes in a row, do you think I beat astronomical odds or I was cheating? Ill keep looking silly in your eyes, but I wont believe the impossible is possible.
Maz Glad to have another Global Warming Denier with me. We have some places in the US Midwest that last week had the lowest temps at this time of year since 1900. Its just like evolution - stare at the facts and come up an opposite conclusion.
Bob: I would like to ask our evolutionist friends here: Do the scientists know HOW life came from non-life? And if I talk to a brick wall, will it come to life in a few million years? (Chuckle, chuckle).
Bob: I wonder if they get on an upward escalator hoping to go up and find themselves going DOWN!? That’s much like evolution. (Cheeky laugh!)
I’m wearing a jumper this evening!
Worldwide incremental increases in temperature == global warming.
OMG its hotter sometimes now lol0l =/= global warming.
Again you show that you fundamentally do not understand the theory. I think the part that is tripping you up is the “incremental” part. Also the “global” part. Statistics show that globally, it is getting incrementally hotter. Its undeniable. Now, I can respect skepticism on the reason. What is foolish is to deny the verifiable evidence about global warming.
X: Actually the right name for it is Climate Change. But we have had that before in earth’s history…..hot, cold, hot, cold, hot, cold. How do they know that it will get steadily hotter until we all roast alive?
bobgriffin: “Read that carefully for the tenth time.”
I know what abiogenesis means.
bobgriffin: “Your intellectualness is getting in the way again.”
It’s better than thinking I have an argument that I can’t explain or back up, or numbers that I have no derivation for with the expectation that people will just believe me.
bobgriffin: “Back to another odds example we have used before: If I play you in poker and I get 5 straight flushes in a row, do you think I beat astronomical odds or I was cheating?”
Get back to me after you’ve got a planetful of people playing poker, each many times per second over a billion years’ time, in a Universe where the likelihood of planets full of people playing poker is reasonably high. The odds that *you* would get these hands in a random weekend game during your lifetime are rather low. The odds that these hands would show up *somewhere* in this hypothetical scenario is rather high.
You have also not demonstrated why your hypothetical scenario of many base pairs is necessary for abiogenesis to occur. And, in any event, you still demonstrate a terrible grasp of probability. (One can treat random poker hands in a fair game as independent probabilistic events to a high degree of accuracy. Not so organic molecules.)
Maz, after reading your posts I swear if I didn’t have my hair cut so short already I’d be sorely tempted to reach up and rip out two fistfulls of it!!!
[Smile].
Not really.
But good grief woman, I’ve tried to explain these things as technically as I could……then as simply as I could…nothing is working! GAAUUUUGHHHH! I’m not going to answer the questions within your posts because my motivation to try and better explain things to you is dead.
I noticed that you didn’t criticize my half human half Preying Mantis monster evolutionary explanation. That’s really how you think that evolution works, isn’t it.
[Siiiiigh....]
Oh well. At least you and Bob have found a raft of silliness to cling to and hug and comfort each other on as you drift through the choppy seas of knowledge.
And also, poker chips and lottery cards don’t reproduce themselves[smile].
That’s important Maz.
According to the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster the increase in the earth’s temperature is tied directly to the number of the pirates in the world. Check their website for the graph illustrating this correlation. The recent cooling trend might then be thought to be related to the increased pirate activity coming from the Somali pirates.
The earth is gradually warming and it seems only people incapable of perceiving gradual change are the ones who doubt it.
All hail your noodley master. RAmen.
John:” That’s really how you think that evolution works, isn’t it.”
Evolution DOESN’T work, that’s the whole point!
I don’t believe in mermaids, but then I don’t believe in half and half of anything in the evolutionary theory…..animals transforming into other animals etc. Evolution just doesn’t work.
”And also, poker chips and lottery cards don’t reproduce themselves[smile].
That’s important Maz.”
They are inorganic objects aren’t they?……..and evolutionists believe inorganic became organic at the beginning in some sudden and mysterious way that scientists still can’t explain. You can’t have it both ways John, we are talking about chance here……whatever the substance, chance is chance, and chance has not rules, no design, no pattern, otherwise we would all be able to work out how the chips will fall won’t we.
We would all be winners!! Yippee!!
mherman: “Evolution DOESN’T work, that’s the whole point!
I don’t believe in mermaids, but then I don’t believe in half and half of anything in the evolutionary theory…..animals transforming into other animals etc. Evolution just doesn’t work.”
By that logic…
Creationism believes in unicorns! After all, they’re not impossible in creationism, are they? And even if you try to show me that they are, I can just deny it. I don’t believe in unicorns, but I don’t believe in creationism, either, so why not?
Whether or not you believe evolutionary theory, Maz, *we have seen it in action*. Directly. Yes, even animals transforming into other animals. You’re exhibiting classic reality-denial. Taking a stance borne out of reality-denial doesn’t carry much weight in scientific matters.
mherman: “evolutionists believe inorganic became organic at the beginning in some sudden and mysterious way that scientists still can’t explain.”
Keep in mind, folks, that this is someone who claims to know what she’s talking about.
Not “evolutionists”. You’re talking about abiogenesis, there, which has been explained to you.
Not sudden. And not *completely* mysterious. There are a number of quite plausible mechanisms that have been proposed. It will take a lot of investigation before we can even hope to find out if any of them were the culprit or if there was something else afoot, but the matter is not as murky as you make it out to be.
mherman: “whatever the substance, chance is chance, and chance has not rules, no design, no pattern,”
Yes. But chance that is *constrained by a mechanism* is not pure chance. Even the simplest organic chemistry has constraints upon it that all these people who pontificate about poker hands and probabilities seem to fail to grasp: the laws of chemistry itself. They mean that things *cannot* and *will not* simply arrange themselves in random patterns; of the ones that are left, the ones that fail (or simply don’t work as well) get eliminated *because* they fail (or don’t work as well), unlike poker hands (a group of cards is a hand no matter what).
x81 How can we trust these undeniable figures when the global warming proponents were caught a few months ago falsifying data? Do cycles mean anything to you? 20 years ago your same scientists told us we were in for global cooling.
MattF That specific definition calls it a hypothesis. Whats your proof that its correct? Leave all the probabilities out and show me the proof. Ill give you some probability info tonight that may help you.
bobgriffin: “That specific definition calls it a hypothesis. Whats your proof that its correct? Leave all the probabilities out and show me the proof.”
The fact that abiogenesis is a hypothesis has no bearing on what I’m saying: You are defending your position with error. I do not have to prove a hypothesis I accept in order to demonstrate that you are misapplying logic in *your* position.
I have never attempted to demonstrate that abiogenesis must be accepted. I have even stated multiple times that the evidence for it is sketchy at best. Quite outside of these points, your attempts to support your stance are fallacious. For example, there is no need to show how billions of base pairs could arrange themselves spontaneously in the correct order to demonstrate abiogenesis.
You’re occluding the middle (another fallacy). If I disagree with a Republican, that does not mean that I agree with a Democrat. Also, if it so happens that I agree with a Democrat, that does not mean that I must prove that the Democrat is correct in order to demonstrate that the Republican uses poor logic in defending his stance.
I do not require that someone accept aboigenesis in any sense. But I’d like to see reasons for not accepting it that don’t require using bogus arguments.
bobgriffin: “Ill give you some probability info tonight that may help you.”
Based on your demonstrated grasp of probability thus far, I won’t hold my breath; you seem to continue to think that outcomes in organic chemistry can be analyzed using probability that concerns independent events, for example. But I would like some answers to questions you continue to dodge: Why is it impossible for mermaids to exist under creationism? And what is it that you hope to demonstrate about God and His methods by appealing to probability?
MattF I have never attempted to demonstrate that abiogenesis must be accepted. I have even stated multiple times that the evidence for it is sketchy at best. —- Thanks. I vote with you on that.
I think a mermaid would be possible with creationism - were just not told there were any. It should be possible and maybe probable with evolution - but we dont see any. Ill try another probability - the chances of 1 enzyme forming by itself it 1 in 10 (40,000). This points out that the chances of small complex things forming on their own are zero, much less anything like DNA. The point is probability and ID science infer that God and his methods made us, not a mindless process.
bobgriffin (speaking of the mermaid): “It should be possible and maybe probable with evolution”
On what basis do you make this claim, given that it violates laws of heredity and genetics? Why do you expect that acceptance of evolution would require acceptance of these violations?
bobgriffin: “Ill try another probability - the chances of 1 enzyme forming by itself it 1 in 10 (40,000).”
On what do you base this figure? What circumstances are you assuming? (Organic chemistry is very sensitive to conditions.)
bobgriffin: “This points out that the chances of small complex things forming on their own are zero, much less anything like DNA.”
It points this out *if you can demonstrate that the derivation of the probability you give is valid and that the circumstances on which its derivation depend are necessary*. You haven’t done that with any probability figure you’ve given. We can’t just take your word for your numbers.
To pick a vastly oversimplified example of why this sort of thing is important when you’re talking about probabilities, consider that the odds of being dealt a royal flush are approximately 649,740:1 — *assuming that five cards are drawn from a randomly-shuffled 52-card deck without replacement*. That’s usually what happens with poker, so that’s what we’re usually interested in. But unless it’s clear that those are the circumstances we’re talking about, the odds are meaningless.
Consider a constraint on the probability: the deck only has five cards. It’s still randomly shuffled, and cards are still drawn without replacement. Suddenly, the odds are radically different: they’re either 1 or 0, depending on what those cards happen to be. So, given the sorts of things that can constrain how organic molecules interact, on what do you base the probability? Why should I consider it valid, even before I consider whether the argument you present based on that probability is valid?
bobgriffin: “The point is probability and ID science infer that God and his methods made us, not a mindless process.”
And God is incapable of using a certain method because of certain probabilities? Or do you agree that God need not have used instantaneous creation, and might well have used something we would see as abiogenesis?
Maz post 87,
Soooo…let me get this straight, you, who loves science and understands evolution, have been trying to convince me/us that evolution in nature does not work by…. trying to convince me/us that a magickal creature who’s existence is both unnatural and unexplainable with the Natural Sciences… should be able to come into being through evolution in nature if evolution is true?
I’m sorry Maz, but your technique needs some work.
I can’t have it both ways? I think that if you had a better understanding of what the worlds top scientists had to say about “ambiogenesis in nature” then you would not think that I was even TRYING to have “it” both ways. Also, poker chips and lottery cards are UNNATURAL objects, which is a rather important consideration, don’t you think[smile]? You anti-evolutionists seem very fond of using unnatural and man-made objects[cars, watches, books, etc.]to try and prove how unlikely evolution could be, but you never seem to see the irony or flaws in your arguments.
MattF Just a few for tonite. You at least have a 52 card deck to make the assumptions. Organic chemistry is very sensitive to conditions. What would the conditions need to be for the first base pairs to organize? — The greater the complexity, the smaller the probability. I think a mermaid would be possible in evolution based on Darwins book.
Bob: On my beach trip the only thing I saw for a transitional form was a representation of a ??????????
Answer: The major fallacy in this statement is that it reflects a belief that evolutionary theory predicts that there are clearly defined animals and awkward transition periods between them. This belief is just one of the many wrong-headed ideas creationists have about evolution by natural selection. This presupposes the idea that the future animals are planned and defined before they exist, and therefore there can be sort of in-between creatures that aren’t really animals themselves. The obvious point you are missing is that in-between creatures are just regular animals, and that small changes add up over time to produce large differences.
This points out that the chances of small complex things forming on their own are zero, much less anything like DNA.
Answer: The fallacy here is looking at the complexity of DNA after the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution and thinking that it just popped into existence that way or that evolutionary theory predicts DNA from 4 billion years ago would be just as complex as it is today.
The point is probability and ID science infer that God and his methods made us, not a mindless process.
Answer: First ID magic is not science for several reasons the main one being that it unlike evolutionary theory it hasn’t produced any usable viable results. Until ID magic can tell us how to make better medicines, better food crops or make some other concrete contribution to the well being of humanity it cannot be considered science. ID magic writers can infer whatever they want but they’ll never be able to back up any of their claims about science or God. Writing books isn’t doing science. It’s promoting religious dogma for people afraid to think for themselves. And that describes you perfectly. I haven’t seen one argument, claim or statement posted by you that I haven’t seen on a creationist website somewhere. When one argues with a creationist one argues with the entire creationist community. You all are connected by these propaganda websites on the Internet. If one argues with one creationist one argues with them all. You’re a conformist Bob. All of you creationists are.
John: ”if evolution is true?”
”IF”, being the operative word here. As evolution is just SOOOOOOO impossible and has no REAL scientific evidence for it ever happening, then a mermaid would be SOOOOOOOOOOO impossible too!
The fact that you accept such an impossible scenario as evolution and yet deny there could be ANY possibility of such a creature evolving shows me you have no REAL understanding of what is involved for evolution to work atall.
…”worlds top scientists…”
You mean the evolutionistic ones.
”Also, poker chips and lottery cards are UNNATURAL objects, which is a rather important consideration, don’t you think[smile]?”
John, everything comes from some natural product. Your cards are made from paper, which comes from wood, which grow in forests. So your cards actually originated from something alive!
”You anti-evolutionists seem very fond of using unnatural and man-made objects[cars, watches, books, etc.]to try and prove how unlikely evolution could be, but you never seem to see the irony or flaws in your arguments.”
The thing is John, you are blind to the MECHANICS of even a single cell. It has to have everything in it’s place…..it CANNOT EVOLVE into being a cell…..IT JUST DOESN’T WORK.
That’s why Bob keeps asking you about the base pairs. 3 MILLION have to come together JUST RIGHT. Chance has no rules, as I said….and chance will not bring about the right combination of base pairs to make life possible. Forget the transitional forms etc., the very beginnings of life itself is beyond chance happenings in some primordial soup. AND if there was any oxygen present at the time this soup supposedly started the evolutionary process…..the process could not have started, due to the destructive nature of oxygen on the basic chemicals of life! A NO WIN situation!
PS: And actually…if there were no oxygen for life to start….then there would be no ozone layer….bad news for life all round!
bobgriffin: “Organic chemistry is very sensitive to conditions. What would the conditions need to be for the first base pairs to organize?”
Ah! Now there’s the sort of question we need to be asking. Especially since once some base pairs come together, there are mechanisms for adding *more* base pairs in a way that only the combinations that represent good ones “stick”.
You may remember some time ago when I posted references to articles that showed several different mechanisms for getting things started. None of them require that an arbitrary and absurdly high number of base pairs come together spontaneously in the correct order. That comes later — *much* later — and it doesn’t happen spontaneously, it happens incrementally. Through well-understood processes.
Finding mechanisms like this is only the first step, and probably the easiest. If we want to be honest in our investigation, we will need to determine as best we can which might have been the one that happened on the primordial Earth. (Just having a plausible answer isn’t enough; we need to see if it is not only plausible, but supported by the evidence.) There are auxiliary questions as well, such as whether the mechanisms we understand could reasonably give rise to the genetic diversity and length we see in the time required, which can serve as regulators to our inquiry. So far, we haven’t run into evidence that flatly prevents it from happening at all.
bobgriffin: “The greater the complexity, the smaller the probability.”
As a back-of-the-envelope statement (”complexity” isn’t exactly a useful mathematical construct from which we can define probabilistic tendencies), that seems intuitive enough. But abiogenesis doesn’t require amazingly complicated things to arise spontaneously, fully and correctly formed. That’s creationism. (Re-read your definition. It says nothing about life arising from non-living materials suddenly, nor about arising with its current “complexity”.)
It must also be pointed out as a separate point that probability, no matter what figures it generates, is not evidence that something did or did not occur. The assumption that it is is a basic mathematical fallacy.
bobgriffin: “I think a mermaid would be possible in evolution based on Darwins book.”
Keeping in mind that Darwin got much incorrect about heredity (his idea of “pangenesis” was flat-out wrong) and that genetics hadn’t even been discovered (never mind studied and understood) by his time, what in Darwin’s book leads you to believe that a mermaid would be possible in evolution?
mherman: “As evolution is just SOOOOOOO impossible and has no REAL scientific evidence for it ever happening,”
Again, we’ve watched it happen. What kind of scientific evidence counts if not direct observation? The whole fact that Maz can deny this reality baffles me. It’s like someone claiming that grass cannot exist because, well, it’s sooooooo impossible.
mherman: “The fact that you accept such an impossible scenario as evolution and yet deny there could be ANY possibility of such a creature evolving shows me you have no REAL understanding of what is involved for evolution to work atall.”
That’s because evolution works according to certain principles. The existence of a mermaid violates those principles.
Here, it’s a bit like deriding people who accept the existence of grass but deny the existence of the unicorns who would naturally be *eating* that grass you continue to insist upon.
mherman: “…”worlds top scientists…”
You mean the evolutionistic ones.”
What, 99.985% of the scientific community? That’s an awfully big “top”.
There are more historians who deny the Jewish Holocaust (proportionally or in raw numbers) than scientists who do not accept evolution. Is this just a coincidence? Or is the evidence really worth considering?
mherman: “So your cards actually originated from something alive!”
This does not even imply that they *behave* like something alive. They don’t even behave like organic molecules, which aren’t alive in the way that most people mean “alive”.
mherman: “The thing is John, you are blind to the MECHANICS of even a single cell. It has to have everything in it’s place…..it CANNOT EVOLVE into being a cell…..IT JUST DOESN’T WORK.”
This is a common assertion of the Intelligent Design crowd. Trouble is, when they were pressured to come up with examples of things that wouldn’t work in simpler form, scientists showed that this assertion was wrong. Each and every time.
So now it’s your turn, Maz. Show us that *you* understand, that *you* are *not* blind. Show us one cellular mechanic that “just doesn’t work” in any capacity in a simpler form.
mherman: “That’s why Bob keeps asking you about the base pairs. 3 MILLION have to come together JUST RIGHT.”
And that’s why Bob — and you — continue to misunderstand logic. Unless you can *demonstrate* your assertion that there is some cellular mechanism that can’t work in any capacity in a simpler form, the “millions of base pairs” isn’t even a requirement.
mherman: “AND if there was any oxygen present at the time this soup supposedly started the evolutionary process…..the process could not have started, due to the destructive nature of oxygen on the basic chemicals of life! A NO WIN situation!”
You were here when evidence was trotted out that the primordial Earth didn’t have free oxygen (and that life may well have started well away from atmospheric influence in any event), right? This isn’t even a relevant objection.
mherman: “And actually…if there were no oxygen for life to start….then there would be no ozone layer….bad news for life all round!”
Again, there are many abiogenesis models that take place far away from the surface (where the ultraviolet radiation currently blocked by the ozone layer is blocked by other things). There are some nifty ideas about things happening around deep-sea vents, for example. Even being in a lake would be enough for radiation shielding.
It’s also the case that when simple organic molecules are concentrated, UV light actually *facilitates the creation of more complex molecules* (by allowing molecules to break apart and recombine). You want citations of studies where we’ve watched this happen?
As molecules, too, DNA and RNA are pretty resistant to ultraviolet radiation simply because of their geometry. It may be that ultraviolet light is exactly what gave DNA and RNA their advantage, and got abiogenesis going in a serious way. (Again, do you want studies?)
bobgriffin: “What would the conditions need to be for the first base pairs to organize?”
Just as a follow-up, you may find it interesting to study the world of ribozymes. Some can catalyze their own synthesis. Once mutagenesis and selection are factored in, improvements happen quickly. Consider B6.61, reported in 2007 and itself an improvement on a ribozyme from 2001 (the “Round-18″ polymerase ribozyme), which can add 20 nucleotides to a primer template in just *one day’s time*.
Bernie My statement just reflects what is commonly seen. And your comments can be found on evolutionary magic sites. Thats the way it will always be.
MattF I do remember your earlier posts about 20 or 30 somethings coming together. That still leaves you about 2,999,999,970 short of what you need to get started.
Wait, dont worry, the mindless process will do it over billions of years.
MattF The Bible says God created all things on one day and Adam named them. Evolution says thing evolve from sea to land, and also posits transitional forms. Which one do you think would lead people to posit a mermaid?
Creation. Next question.
bobgriffin: “I do remember your earlier posts about 20 or 30 somethings coming together. That still leaves you about 2,999,999,970 short of what you need to get started.”
Let’s see. Assuming *one* of these things exists at a time (patently ridiculous, of course, since we’re talking about molecules that *reproduce themselves* here), 20 nucleotides per day works out to less than 411,000 years for a chain of three billion.
And Earth was apparently around for *one billion years* — almost 2500 times that length of time — before life appeared. And that first life almost certainly didn’t have a three-billion-base-pair DNA chain. So even if I cook the books in your favor, Bob, things don’t look too good for your notions of numbers.
bobgriffin: “The Bible says God created all things on one day and Adam named them. Evolution says thing evolve from sea to land, and also posits transitional forms. Which one do you think would lead people to posit a mermaid?”
That’s not *the only thing* either train of thought says, and you know it. Evolution, for example, claims that organisms evolved from sea to land habitats *in a manner consistent with the laws of genetics and heredity*. Awfully convenient how you keep skipping that.
And a mermaid isn’t a transitional form. Nor does the existence of transitional forms even *imply* that a mermaid is possible.
(I think it probable that even Maz would object to the idea that all things were created on one day if you asked.)
An intelligent creationist might think, “If God created all things instantaneously, there’s no way to know beforehand what one creature or another will look or behave like until we discover it. God did not see fit to give us a catalog of all the species He created. Until we discover a mermaid, then, all bets are off as to their existence.” He *certainly* wouldn’t claim that only evolution predicts mermaids (unless he aspires to omniscience); if he’s honest about what evolution claims and why, he wouldn’t even claim that evolution predicts them at all, and would understand why the discovery of a mermaid would be rather strong evidence *aganist* evolution.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes predictions about what kinds of creatures will be found where, both in the present and in the past. Famous fossilized species have been discovered *because* evolution predicted that if a creature like X exists, it will be found in *this* location in *these* layers, prompting paleontologists to look there (e.g., Tiktaalik); their successes are powerful confirmation of the theory. All creationists can offer in terms of why these predictions have worked so well and continue to do so is an appeal to coincidence.
Maz post97,
Maz, you sound as if you didn’t understand the context in which I used the word “if” within my question to you within the beginning of my post 94. When you pick out and cling to such words in an attempt to undermine someone’s position in a debate, it makes you look weak, as if your desperately grasping for any little straw you can find. And as you didn’t answer the question shall I presume that your answer is “YES”?
As for the rest of your post……Now, this is just sad, Maz, and it’s all the sadder because I know that your not joking. I, Ferox, and others have tried to explain to you that mermaids are UNNATURAL, magickal, creatures of MYTHOLOGY with INCOMPATIBLE D.N.A., and then you say to me
“The fact that you accept such an impossible scenario as evolution and yet deny that there could be ANY possibility of such a creature evolving[you never answered the questions I asked you about Mermaids within the very bottom of my post 60] shows me that you have no REAL understanding of what is involved for evolution to work at all.”
This from the woman who thinks that you really CAN’T tell that predators like sharks, Tigers, and T. Rex’s are supposed to be flesh eaters just based upon their teeth , claws, senses, and digestive tracts, that the fossils within the Cambrian Layer can be used to support Young Earth Christian Creationism, and that Modern Humans have always[meaning only 6 thousand years] physically been modern looking….and that everything else in mankind’s ancestry was really just “all ape”, but without being able to scientifically explain HOW or Why.
Oh wait, I’m sorry Maz, I forgot. This isn’t YOUR thinking, this is Ken Ham thinking for you.
And although Lottery cards are “natural” in a vague way[aside from the glue, ink, bleaching, dyes, and other chemicals, as well as the fact that the wood was ground up, heated, and reshaped]you’ll never see a lottery ticket[or a pocket watch] in the forest or field save as a piece of litter. And they cannot reproduce themselves either[frown combined with the cold, glowering, glittering, stare of a predatory insect].
Look Maz, you can believe anything you want, but until you have a better understanding of what your arguing against you will always lose in a debate on this topic.
Evolution.
Laws of Genetics and Heredity.
Study Maz, study.
Oh, and your wrong about the mechanics of cells too.
Bob post 103,
Apparently only people with your misunderstanding of science and evolution would think that. Right now you and Maz are it. Your son shall be in for a really interesting and difficult time as he grows and progresses in the school systems, assuming that he goes to a good one, that is.
It’s weird, but you’d think that someone like ME would be more likely to try and promote the possibility of a mythological being like a Mermaid instead of trying to teach science and reality to hard heads.
That’s part of the stereotype about “Wiccan’s” right[grin]?
Bernie My statement just reflects what is commonly seen.
Answer: No your statement reflects the kind of ignorance of science typical of a creationist. Your claim to be able to refute a theory you don’t even understand is simply ridiculous.
And your comments can be found on evolutionary magic sites. Thats the way it will always be.
Answer: Do you ever think about what you say? That isn’t the way it is at all. My comments can be found in scientifically peer-reviewed literature and yours cannot. That’s a very big difference.
I love this from you in post # 90: Leave all the probabilities out and show me the proof.
Answer: Who showed you proof that angels and Satan exist, that giants and talking animals used to exist or that a new earth is going to exist? It’s amazing what you’re willing to take on faith Bob and then turn around and demand proof for the obvious.
And this from mherman: Evolution DOESN’T work, that’s the whole point!
Answer: Since when? Our knowledge of evolution by natural selection has led to the invention of antibiotics, better medicines, better and safer foods and better poisons to defend these foods from insects and a lot other advances that have doubled the average life span in the last 120 years. The thing about science is that it works whether people believe in it or not. The same cannot be said about religion. I would ask the creationists when their “theory” is going to make some advances in medicine or some other field that will improve our lives. What are they going to do exactly? Make a woman from a rib? Creationism and Intelligent Design magic dogma can’t be used for anything is science and we all know this. Only people who don’t know what science does, what science is and why it exists could fall for such an obvious hoax as biblical creationism or Intelligent Design magic.
John: ”When you pick out and cling to such words in an attempt to undermine someone’s position in a debate, it makes you look weak, as if your desperately grasping for any little straw you can find.”
I don’t need to be ”desperate”, I guess I must have misunderstood you.
Mermaids are a myth because they aren’t real, we can agree on that I think. And as the theory of evolution just doesn’t work the way they think it does, I think I would safely say that they would never exist in a billion years!!
Hear ends the subject of mermaids (at least for me).
How about centaurs?! (Huge Grin!)
”Oh wait, I’m sorry Maz, I forgot. This isn’t YOUR thinking, this is Ken Ham thinking for you.”
Can you honestly tell me that you have not read anything that has influenced your thinking in life?
When I read something, I MAKE MY OWN MIND UP about it. No doubt you do too. I have always been that way and I always will. YOU haven’t influenced me have you?
I’v had more evolutionary ‘theory’ stuffed into my brain since school days that IT should have influenced me far more…..yet, I choose to believe the Bible and see the evidence for it IN SCIENCE….when it is not twisted or invented by others.
”Look Maz, you can believe anything you want, but until you have a better understanding of what your arguing against you will always lose in a debate on this topic.”
AH! There’s the ”better understanding” (I don’t understand evolution) thing again! (Snicker).
But why are you and others on here so convinced that IIIIIII have lost the debate. That is your evolutionistic ”confidence” talking! I certainly don’t feel that way. I think I have presented some good points and evidences on this subject, YOU just haven’t accepted that. Oh well, it all keeps us happily debating doesn’t it. (Broad smile).
”Oh, and your wrong about the mechanics of cells too.”
Absolutely not. Carry on studying John.
John: Some information about the single cell.
”Even the simplest self-reproducing organism contains encyclopedic quantities of complex, specific information. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 base pairs.14 As for humans, the atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits: “there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopædia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.”15
Even more amazingly, living things have by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. To illustrate further, the amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is staggering. It is the equivalent information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content.16
The genetic information cannot be translated except with many different enzymes, which are themselves encoded. So the code cannot be translated except via products of translation, a vicious circle that ties evolutionary origin-of-life theories in knots. These include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid is linked to the right tRNA molecule. One sieve rejects amino acids too large, while the other rejects those too small.17
The genetic code that is almost universal to life on earth is about the best possible, for protecting against errors.18
The genetic code also has vital editing machinery that is itself encoded in the DNA. This shows that the system was fully functional from the beginning—another vicious circle for evolutionists.
Yet another vicious circle, and there are many more, is that the enzymes that make the amino acid histidine themselves contain histidine.
There are complex rotary motors in living organisms. One type drives the flagellum of a bacterium. The vital enzyme that makes ATP, the “energy currency” of life, is a motor that can change gears, yet is so tiny that 1017 could fit inside a pinhead’s volume.19
The complex compound eyes of some types of trilobites, extinct and supposedly “primitive” invertebrates, were amazingly designed. They comprised tubes that each pointed in a different direction, and had special lenses that focused light from any distance. The required lens design comprised a layer of calcite on top of a layer of chitin—materials with precisely the right refractive indices—and a wavy boundary between them of a precise mathematical shape.20 The Designer of these eyes is a Master Physicist, who applied what we now know as the physical laws of Fermat’s principle of least time, Snell’s law of refraction, Abbé’s sine law and birefringent optics.
Jonathan Sarfati.
Once again, Maz mistakes “Gee-whiz-isn’t-it-nifty” for scientific evidence of… something.
None of the issues up there are problems for evolution. Histidine enzymes can contain histidine because copying mechanisms are imperfect. Things that work in spite of their relative sophistication do so because ones that don’t work don’t last. The simplest modern cell is not a good model of what the first life would have been like. DNA can exist and be fully functional without its current “editing machinery”, though it’s clearly an advantage to have it — there’s no circularity required. And so on.
Of course, if Maz really understood evolution (as she claims to), she’d know all this. Obviously, she doesn’t know all this, since she apparently thinks it’s evidence against evolution. She has no idea what evolution is; she only knows what creationism teaches evolution is.
MattF See mherman 109. All of what you say is possible over 411,000 years, but is it probable - especially with a mindless process? I dont think so. Dont know about your evolultionist predictions. Ill have to look into that.
Bernie There will always be 2 sides to this debate. Many creationists are in peer reviewed journals - but I bet you would find fault with the scientists or the journals. Some things in religion we do have to take on faith. But many things you believe in evolution you have to have a lot of faith also. Many things in everyday life take faith. Why your problem with only religion accepting faith?
By the way, we had many scientific advances before evolution.
Bernie There will always be 2 sides to this debate.
Answer: Wrong again Bob. There is NO debate in the scientific community about the validity of evolutionary theory. This debate isn’t happening any place that matters and so there really isn’t a debate let alone two sides to it. The only people doubting evolution are Bible believers and these people have fought against every scientific discovery and theory ever made ever since the Bible was forged, faked and formed by men so as to brainwash other men.
Many creationists are in peer reviewed journals - but I bet you would find fault with the scientists or the journals.
Answer: Name one Bob. Just one. A creationist could get peer-reviewed on another subject but not on creation magic and you KNOW it. The fact that you would make such a claim illustrates very clearly your intellectual dishonesty. But then every word you post proves you’re a liar. Lest we forget all your lies about having read public school science textbooks and the mountain of lies you told to defend that lie. You’re the king of the Christian whopper here Bob.
Some things in religion we do have to take on faith. But many things you believe in evolution you have to have a lot of faith also.
Answer: Not true. Science is based on evidence not faith.
Many things in everyday life take faith. Why your problem with only religion accepting faith?
Answer: There is a very big difference between faith and religious faith. They aren’t the same things but like a typical fundie you attempt to confuse the issue. A person can have faith in something but when presented with evidence that their beliefs are false will change them. A person who has religious faith can be presented with absolute proof that their beliefs are false and instead of changing their mind they will cling even harder to their religious beliefs. Religious faith means never changing ones mind. It’s brainwashing and you Bob are a prime example of what happens to a person after they’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated and brainwashed by other members of a false religion.
By the way, we had many scientific advances before evolution.
Answer: And every one of those scientific adavnces were denied and fought against by Bible believers just like the modern advances are today. Freudian slip Bob? Thanks for admitting evolution is real science for once. Now just admit that creationism isn’t science because it can’t produce any usable and viable results. The great thing about you Bob is that all your posts are self-refuting.
Bernie Enough of the 3rd grade antics. Act like an adult and Id love to converse with you.
A person who holds childish and retarded beliefs telling ME to act like an adult. You believe in angels Bob. Grow up.
bobgriffin: “MattF See mherman 109.”
Saw it. Responded to it (post 110). About two hours before you posted this brief reply. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before.
bobgriffin: “All of what you say is possible over 411,000 years, but is it probable - especially with a mindless process?”
The mechanism that keeps good stuff and winnows out bad has been empirically verified; the “mindless process” works just fine for *ensuring* that useful DNA chains can be built simply because useless ones won’t persist. (It may not build them absolutely optimally, but believe it or not, that’s exactly what we find — DNA structure is remarkably suboptimal.) As far as finding out whether or not the mechanism described is the one that is actally responsible, in whole or in part — well, that’s what science is trying to figure out. See, science *knows* it doesn’t know everything. If it didn’t, scientists would have nothing to do.
Your attempt to assert that useful things can’t be done by a “mindless process” (or that “mindless processes” are only capable of random direction) would also deny that there can be a water cycle, or a carbon cycle, or thermodynamics, or any other advantageous, natural process. Things that we perceive as “useful” can still be done by processes we can analyze and describe (and it’s worth noting that the perception of usefulness is all in our heads anyway).
It’s also worth pointing out that there are other mechanisms, like gene duplication, that can increase nucleotide counts even faster than this simple ribozyme manages all by itself. And that a molecule that replicates itself is going to have much, much more than one copy at a time.
You seem to want to keep boiling this down to probabilities, but fail to grasp that we’re talking about probabilities *with constraints*, and that’s the key issue. Consider this, a probability with a constraint. We invent a game that consists of one million turns. Turn one is flipping the coin. After that point, if the coin shows heads, we leave it alone, and that counts as a turn. If it shows tails, we flip it again, and that counts as a turn.
After the one million turns, what are the odds that the coin will show heads? As it turns out, the odds are only around 1 in 10^(301,030) that it *won’t*.
Now, as concerns our little ribozyme, it’s a little simplistic, but if you replace “shows heads” with “survives and reproduces” and “shows tails” with “is useless and fails to reproduce”, you’ll get some starting idea of why your notions of probability are wrong-headed. (Organic chemistry isn’t nearly as simple as a coin flip, but the mathematical model is headed in the right direction.)
When we start folding in the real world to determine how probable this all is, in other words, it starts to look even worse for your position. That’s what I meant by “cook[ing] the books in your favor”; if we don’t look at things too carefully, someone *might* start to think that you had a point.
bobgriffin: “Dont know about your evolultionist predictions. Ill have to look into that.”
Okay. Be sure to look up Puijila darwini, too. Evolution predicted what it would be and where to find it. Expeditions went, found nothing, and abandoned the search. After a long absence, they returned recently (April of this year) and found it. I mentioned it in part 2 of this debate (post #178).
There’s a decent pile of these organisms, actually — biologists are keen to see how transitions occurred, so it’s in their best interest to try to figure out where to find them — but these two ought to get you started.
And look into how we know where to find fossil fuels.
And look into how we know how to develop pharmaceuticals that not only kill off disease, but kill off *future mutations* of the disease; we need to know how it will mutate and when for this to work, which evolution predicts nicely.
bobgriffin: “Many creationists are in peer reviewed journals”
Discussing creationism? Name one.
bobgriffin: “Some things in religion we do have to take on faith. But many things you believe in evolution you have to have a lot of faith also.”
Well, okay, I see your point, but there’s the key difference: Evolutionary ideas are accepted or rejected based on the available evidence (in the form of observation, discovery, and experiment) and whether or not these ideas are consistent with same. It may have to fill in some holes where its knowledge is less than perfect, but science values parsimony, so it tries to keep those holes to a minimum. (You’ll find those holes in *every* scientific idea, so it’s not fair to claim that evolution is less scientific on this basis.) Where evolution has “faith”, it takes the form of assumptions concerning details we don’t have yet. Those assumptions cease to be assumptions as soon as relevant facts come to light (and the notion is accepted or rejected).
Creationism, by contrast, ignores available evidence that is inconvenient to ideas it seeks to embrace. Where it has “faith”, it takes the form of believing that certain things are true even though they contradict available evidence (e.g., that the Noahic flood gave rise to the geologic column, or that all “properly interpreted” evidence reveals that the Earth is no older than ten thousand years or so, or that there are no transitional forms, or that we’ve never seen one “kind” become another “kind”, and on and on).
Neither one, I would argue, is true faith. Faith is not an intellectual acceptance of provisional ideas, nor is it a belief in something in spite of the facts.
bobgriffin: “By the way, we had many scientific advances before evolution.”
Non sequitur. We had scientific advances before general relativity, even though Newtonian physics turned out to be wrong. Scientific advances corroborate a given theory when predictions pan out. What gives weight to the “rightness” of a theory is when it gets things right that competing theories don’t. When this happens, old theories are discarded, and our understanding gets a little closer to the truth.
What we’re talking about is not whether or not a theory is required for scientific advancement, but whether a theory can make predictions that are scientifically useful.
Evolution’s predictions pan out. Creationism’s don’t. That’s why the scientific community rejects creationism. It really is that simple.
Your attempt to assert that useful things can’t be done by a “mindless process” (or that “mindless processes” are only capable of random direction) would also deny that there can be a water cycle, or a carbon cycle, or thermodynamics, or any other advantageous, natural process.
Answer: Matt, keep in mind that you are talking to a person who believes angels control the winds as Rev 7:1 claims they do. The problem is even though Bobby believes this with all his heart he won’t admit to it here on this blog. Bob through science out the window a long time ago. Discusing science with Bob is like discussing it with a two year old.
MattF Ill try this another way. Even if the changes did occur over 411,000 years, they have to be in the correct order and shape to be useful. Yes, I really dont see how a mindless process can do that. What you infer from today from “natural selection” is after the first cause, which you have no answer for. And these laws that the changes operate under? Laws need a lawgiver.
Bernie Since you act like you are 3, what do I expect.
bobgriffin: “Even if the changes did occur over 411,000 years, they have to be in the correct order and shape to be useful.”
Shape? Isn’t that kind of defined by the laws of chemistry?
But what you’re saying is *precisely the point*. Mechanistic constraints that throw out ones that *aren’t* in the correct order allow this to happen. In the long run, they *demand* that it happens.
Yes, 411,000 years represents an idealistic minimum (if one assumes that the most efficient way to add nucleotides is the method described, which it’s not — look up gene duplication and lateral gene transfer for a start). But there was much longer than that, and forces at work to keep things in bounds.
Imagine a self-replicating molecule that has managed to make 100,000 copies of itself. They all go to add a random nucleotide. The ones that are “correct” move on, not only continuing to attempt to add more to their own chain themselves, but making copies of themselves, all of which continue trials that add to the chain. The ones that aren’t “correct” don’t. Repeat ad nauseam.
Now, obviously, there are more mechanisms to add nucleotides than this. But all of them are constrained. Unbounded probability has no application here.
In a way, you’re the one arguing for a very improbable event — that try as they might, for example, these ribozymes could never manage to get the right nucleotide to add onto the end of their chain, in spite of billions upon billions upon billions of trials, even though there are only four nucleotides to consider.
bobgriffin: “Yes, I really dont see how a mindless process can do that.”
Not my fault, and not a shortcoming of the ideas being presented. In any case, please don’t claim to understand how probability applies to the problem in your ignorance.
bobgriffin: “What you infer from today from “natural selection” is after the first cause, which you have no answer for.”
-=sigh=- Yes. As soon as you have replicating things competing for limited resources that do not copy themselves perfectly, you have natural selection.
The ribozymes I mentioned are just such a beast, competing for the chemicals in the “soup” and their own continued survival in future generations. They arise spontaneously, Bob, without need for intelligent intervention. We can and have watched this happen.
We’ve mentioned many, many, many, many, many times that evolution and natural selection only apply to imperfectly-replicating, resource-hungry things, especially when people of your ilk try to compare the complexity of an organism to, say, a house healing itself. Your “revelation” is obvious, and something we’ve been repeating from the beginning.
Evolution doesn’t even pretend to address “the first cause”. And abiogenesis is fully consistent with known laws of organic chemistry.
bobgriffin: “And these laws that the changes operate under? Laws need a lawgiver.”
“Laws”, in a scientific sense, are ways in which the Universe appears to behave consistently. If you want to insist that a Universe needs a Creator in order to behave consistently, that’s your business. It’s far from obvious, though, since we don’t have a Creator and a Universe operating without His consistency-inducing influence to observe… so this line of thought doesn’t really count as evidence.
Bob: I love doing puzzles. Do you think a monkey could put a 1000 piece puzzle together to make the right picture…….even if he was given a billion years to do it!? But that’s what the evolutionists says happened with those 3 billion base pairs… except they all came together all on their own! They just went together perfectly…..all by chance……and not even a monkey to help them!
Ah…..but supposing the monkey was given a 3 billion piece puzzle?
I certainly wouldn’t be able to put the right pieces together let alone a monkey! (Big laugh!)
mherman: “Do you think a monkey could put a 1000 piece puzzle together to make the right picture…….even if he was given a billion years to do it!? But that’s what the evolutionists says happened with those 3 billion base pairs… except they all came together all on their own!”
No, Maz, it isn’t. Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about when it comes to evolution and its claims.
All right, Maz, quick lesson in basic human consideration for you.
If you make a claim that people who accept X must believe/think Y, and someone who *actually accepts X* disagrees with you and tells you why it’s not so, you *don’t* get to claim that you know X. Not even if you formerly accepted X yourself. The only way you can continue to claim to know X is if you can demonstrate through logical deduction that acceptance of X *must inevitably lead to* believing/thinking Y.
Take, for example, your claim that evolution is an attempt to disprove God. This ignores the legions of Christians (and members of other faiths) who believe in God but nevertheless accept evolution. Unless you can demonstrate that evolution *demands* the absence of God, you are making your claim in ignorance and arrogance. Whether or not you (or people you’ve known, or people you’ve heard about) found acceptance of evolution a hindrance to a belief in God, you *still* can’t make this claim without establishing a necessary link between them.
Or your claim that those who accept evolution think that random chance is responsible for the diversity of life. Or your claim that those who accept abiogenesis think that random chance is responsible for the *origin* of life. Or any of many other claims you’ve made about people who accept evolution in the face of *exactly such people* who disagree with you and have patiently tried to explain their own thoughts — all the while ignoring the need to show why you make the claim other than to allow yourself an easy dismissal of their ideas.
To do otherwise puts you in the position of claiming to know what other people *really* think and believe, which you cannot possibly know. Even more insidious, this unwillingness to listen implies that you will dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a liar, which is both insulting and rude. It doesn’t make you out to be a very nice person.
That said, just to show I’m not trying to employ a double standard, I *again* invite any creationist to look at the lists of directly-observable evidences I’ve posted that contradict spontaneous creation and, in light of them, tell me why I’m wrong in my claim that creationism is incompatible with science. (Any creationist should consider it a perpetual invitation.)
It’s a good challenge MattF., but as Maz chooses to ignore you I’m afraid that the only person you MIGHT hear from is Bob, and I don’t know if he has the ability in him to be able to recognize your lists of evidences AS the evidences that they are.
Time will tell.
Perhaps in three years or so someone new will be browsing through the sites and see your challenge and answer it.
Or not.
John: Or not. I wonder why we don’t get more people on here that can add some intelligence into the debate.
Because the Darwin thread has had like 2,400 posts over half a year and no one is closer to changing their minds.
X: That is why we need some new minds!
Well Maz, tell all of your friends in England to come on and give it a go. Perhaps Bob will do the same.
I am guessing, but if we counted we would find that half of the total posts come from Maz or Bob, the resident young earthers. There aren’t any others supporting them. Maz and Bob have to understand by now. You know they do.
That they haven’t even once conceded a point, or had the courtesy to acknowledge the points of others is frustrating for us.
Serenity now!
Fred: We see it from another angle ofcourse.
John: As this is an American site with an American radio programme I would have expected more American Christians to get involved. How many people live in the USA John?……and what percentage are Christian…do you know?
Fred post 129,
I bet that there are others besides Maz and Bob that just quietly read, Fred. Many of them only seem to show up right after a show on evolution and then give up after a few weeks of debating. That could be interpreted as wisdom on their part, I soppose[smile].
Maz post 131,
How the heck would I know?
I’m a secretive hick that lives in isolation in a jungle/swamp.
I have no idea how many people live in America Maz, as the numbers grow by the minute[If "immigration" was a God unto it's self it'd be acting as if it was on "crack" down here in South Florida, ha, ha.]. Something close to 300 million[for now]I’m guessing.
As I consider Christianity in all of it’s various forms to be the dominant theological belief system in this country, or at least one of the top dominant theological belief systems, I imagine that the number of Christians in America is “very high”.
John: Don’t lose your cool! I was only asking!
But the number is probably considerably higher than in England I would guess.
I would be interested to know how many people actually read these posts….but I guess we will never know.
I didn’t loose my cool Maz. I wasn’t annoyed as I may have seemed, you can tell by the “smile” I threw in the post.
Why do you think it is that the number of Christians is lower in England? Aside from being a much smaller country, that is.
I have to go now and butcher a lot of Catfish I caught last night, so you will not hear from me again until later this evening…or perhaps tomorrow.
Good Day, y’all.
John: Maybe your smile should have followed the words, ”how the heck should I know?” ha ha!
England is a lot lot smaller than the USA! And I would venture to guess a lot lot less people live here, I think it was 52 million at the last count. So there would probably be less Christians.
Someone said that there is about 72 % Christians in England, but that’s counting everyone who may say ”I’m C of E”, which is what I would have said if I wasn’t a Christian and not even going to Church.
Enjoy your Catfish!
Maz The climate change denier is back. We are getting reports of around 3000 instances in the US in July of record breaking LOW temps. I dont understand it.
Maz Check out this quote. The public has a very poor understanding of evolution. People don’t recognize evolution as referring to the common ancestry of living things. Even those who accept evolution often don’t understand it well. I think some of our fellow posters are these people.
MattF 120 Possible. but very unprobable.
Bob: Even the evolutionists can’t agree about it sometimes! There seems to be several different theories. THEORIES. Which must mean that they are not FACT, because FACTS don’t differ.
Bob post 138,
What within MattF’s post are you talking about? Be as specific as you can.
As for post 137, would you care to elaborate on you claim[smile]? Also, where did you get the quotes?
Maz post 139,
Poor Maz, still in the dark about how the scientific community uses words like theory and fact, as compared to the manner in which the “common man” uses the words. If I am wrong, then please tell us how. Also, instead on trying to focus on whatever it is that you think all evolutionists/scientists are disagreeing with each other on, why do you never seem to give serious consideration to what evolutionists/scientists agree with each other on?
John: I know how the scientific community uses the words……..to suit their own belief in millions of years!
I hear many things on the Nat. Geog. channel (among others) and I read a lot as you know, there are differences, and they will also agree with that. Of course, they will all agree with the millions of years and that we all gradually came into being by chance from some premordial soup some billions of years ago, but the mechanics is sometimes the difference between one evolutionist and another. I mean we are already hearing of some that believe the Big Bang didn’t happen the way it did. That the solar system didn’t come about the way they said, that some animals perhaps didn’t evolve they way they have believed for millions of…..oops….for years!
Hey Bob! I listened to the weather forecast today….they had promise ”warmer weather” for August a few weeks ago, but they say it will probably turn out to be the wettest August in years! In fact the Met. Office have got the summer weather wrong for the past three years! We are having floods up in the Lake district as well as other places….creating more lakes!
Climate change….yes. Global warming….doesn’t look like it!
The Theory of Intelligently Designed Weather (IDW)
28-July-2009 · 3 Comments
We’re writing this for Steve Doocy, a very pleasant television personality who, although not a meteorologist, is the weatherman on Fox & Friends , and who also does some interviews. It was Doocy who recently interviewed Casey Luskin, one of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids).
You will recall that Doocy just sat there grinning while Casey, unopposed, claimed that all the science books used in public schools are wrong about evolution. See: Casey on Fox & Friends. That creationist infomercial still annoys us, so here you go, Doocy — this is for you:
Meteorology is the science that studies weather, and one of its applications is weather predicting. Imagine a movement analogous to creationism, but it’s about weather, and the devotees of this movement oppose meteorology.
Imagine further that a meteorology denier gets himself into a debate with a genuine meteorologist. The scientist starts out describing what we know, and how we can use that to predict weather, and his opponent interrupts with questions like: “Where does wind come from?” and “Where does water come from?” After each question, seizing upon the obvious surprise of the scientist, the meteorology denier follows up with “You don’t know, do you? Well do you??
The meteorology denier claims that he does have the answers. All of these things are divinely created, he explains. Further, he says that meteorology is a failed science because it has no proof, makes imperfect predictions, and ignores the divine aspect of weather. The meteorology denier asserts that he does have proof for the claims he’s making — the proof is in his scriptures.
The meteorologist will object that he’s there to discuss science, and he’s not interested in debating about theology. Even Doocy might handle it like that, at which point the debate would probably end. But we’re writing this, so the debate continues.
As the religious debater exits, another genius takes his place. He too is a meteorology denier, but he says that his position isn’t religious. He claims to be a scientist, and he follows the newly-developed theory of Intelligently Designed Weather (IDW). He’s employed by a think tank located in the Seattle Slough.
The IDW spokesman says that according to his “theory,” wind and water were created by an intelligent agency (this isn’t theology, of course), and thus all weather phenomena are caused by the Intelligent Weather Designer (the IWD). He demands to know why his “scientific theory” isn’t taught alongside the “failed” science of meteorology. He claims that increasing numbers of meteorologists are rallying to the theory of IDW, but those who dare to speak out against the entrenched orthodoxy are “expelled” because the meteorology-only lobby maintains a death-grip on education.
Around this point in the debate, a genuine meteorologist would be tempted to respond with the Buzz Aldrin rebuttal, but Steve Doocy would probably just stand there, grinning.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• • • • • • • • • • •
Is there anything more entertaining than making fun of evangelical Christians?
John 140 What can I say? I read that post and shake my head that you could believe it is possible.
That quote was by Eugenie Scott (smile) The leader of NCSE (smile) Not a person in my camp (smile). So that would mean one of your people says many of you dont understand it.
Maz We now have places like Seattle, Washington that are having record heat. Chicago set a record for lows for July. So are we in global warming or global cooling?
Bernie Would that be written by some of your YEC denier buddies?
Bernie:” Is there anything more entertaining than making fun of evangelical Christians?”
What’s that saying…..”Laugh now, pay later.”
Bob: #145. I guess it all depends where you are in the world eh? (Big smile).
bobgriffin: “So that would mean one of your people says many of you dont understand it.”
You (and Eugenie Scott) are quite right, Bob — most members of the *general public* (go back to the quote) *don’t* understand evolution properly.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that 99.985% of scientists — the number who accept it — don’t understand it.
Nor does it mean that we should take every objection to it as valid. It might be noted, for example, that most members of the general public don’t understand general relativity properly, either. Let’s use it as an example.
If people were to raise an objection to general relativity with ideas of their own, and the response is that the objections make it clear that the objectors don’t understand what they’re talking about, whom should we believe? The person who gives numbers without context, shows no apparent ability to show where those numbers come from, and has not yet demonstrated any understanding of the basic science underlying the theory? The person who claims that he likes to watch TV programs about the theory and knows it well (since he was taught it by his schoolteachers as a child)? The person who makes statements about mathematical concepts he demonstrates no apprehension of, making basic mistakes about the nature of entire fields like probability? The person who quotes other people who agree with him to show that their rhetoric is the same as his with no appeal to actual experiment? The person who makes elementary fallacies apparent to anyone who’s even dabbled in the study of logic? Or the person who tries to refer readers to actual observation, experiment, and discovery, encouraging people to learn why general relativity is consistent with known fact and the ideas the objectors advance are not?
Imagine further that when the objectors’ gross errors in reasoning were pointed out to them, they never bothered to engage *why* the conventional folk might be mistaken and *why* their apparent errors are not errors at all — but instead continued to trumpet the same objections to the theory over and over as if evidence relevant to their objections had never been brought to the table. What should reasonable, responsible people think about these objections?
MattF How do I know youre not a member of the general public?
bobgriffin: “How do I know youre not a member of the general public?”
You don’t. Even if I were to post credentials, you could always (rightly) assert that there’s no reason to take my word for it. But, as usual, you’re missing the point.
I’m not saying that the members of the general public on this forum ought to shut up and listen to someone from the scientific community. Credentials are irrelevant to scientific theory. An individual can always be mistaken, so the statements of an individual are never given weight in scientific circles. What matters is whether or not empirical tests we devise agree or disagree with a theory when we perform them. I’m imploring you to look at the *evidence* as it relates to the theory, Bob, not the individuals, not the rhetoric, not your intuition about what you *think* a scientific theory ought to permit or not, and not mathematical concepts you can’t justify concerning an entirely different field of study.
When the dust settles on matters of science, what is left standing is not an appeal to an advanced degree or membership in scientific organizations or attempts to justify a train of thought by trotting out numbers with no explanation. What matters is what can be demonstrated.
That said, we should not be surprised that the general public, who (more than the scientific community) lack training and discipline in scientific thinking (and who, in large numbers, are apathetic about learning more), would misunderstand scientific matters — especially since learning a lot of this stuff is hard work. That, I think, is the point SHE was trying to make — not that the general public are *incapable* of understanding the theory of evolution, but that many have neither the inclination nor the desire; still others simply don’t know how badly they misunderstand it.
Sorry — by SHE, I mean Eugenie Scott, of course.
MattF Im not missing the point. The point is learned people and scientists on both sides can make equally compelling cases - and neither side can prove their case with 100 percent certainty. Data can be interpreted, classified, explained etc in different ways. And then we get into empirical too.
Bob: And the question is: What empirical evidence is there for evolution?
bobgriffin: “The point is learned people and scientists on both sides can make equally compelling cases - and neither side can prove their case with 100 percent certainty.”
Of course neither side can “prove their case with 100 percent certainty”. Science harbors no illusion that it can prove *any* theory to that degree. The best it can do is attempt to approach the truth by winnowing out what is clearly false. (If two explanations both appear to be consistent with the available data, then if possible, an experiment can be constructed to see which, if either, is correct.)
Creationism is clearly false. It is inconsistent with experiment, discovery, and observation.
bobgriffin: “Data can be interpreted, classified, explained etc in different ways. And then we get into empirical too.”
Yes. This is precisely why there is scientific debate at the fringes of any theory you care to name.
But there are also explanations which the data flatly contradicts. The data flatly contradicts a flat Earth, for example. It also flatly contradicts creationism. Even when we’re talking about *direct observation*.
It’s not that we have two explanations for the data. It’s that we have one explanation that fits the data, and one that was unequivocally disproven by the data a century ago.
mherman: “And the question is: What empirical evidence is there for evolution?”
Why don’t we start with posts 184, 416, and 428 in part 1 of this debate? No creationist has seen fit to even *address* the empirical evidence mentioned there thus far.
MattF Lets start with abiogenesis.
MattF The earth isnt flat? Just looked at 184, 416 and 428. That is a slam dunk for your side?????
bobgriffin: “Lets start with abiogenesis.”
Abiogenesis isn’t evolution. It’s not even *necessary* for evolution. As I’ve pointed out, all I’ve tried to do is show you where your train of thought left the rails of logic and to give you plausible mechanisms to show what may have happened. Actual evidence of exactly what *did* happen is sketchy, but that doesn’t mean that we’re left with implausible mechanisms, hopeless conjecture, or improbable ideas.
bobgriffin: “Just looked at 184, 416 and 428. That is a slam dunk for your side?????”
It’s evidence that agrees with evolution and contradicts creationism. It has virtually nothing to do with abiogenesis, though.
Bob: Abiogenesis…….isn’t that the same as spontaneous generation. So where do the evolutionists think life came from?
mherman: “Abiogenesis…….isn’t that the same as spontaneous generation.”
Nope. Spontaneous generation is the idea that some life forms (e.g., maggots and mice) can *spontaneously* arise, fully-formed. In other words, it’s a breed of *creationism*.
mherman: “So where do the evolutionists think life came from?”
Assuming you’re talking about what those who accept abiogenesis think, they generally accept that primitive life can form from increasingly complex molecular interactions consistent with the rules of organic chemistry. Spontaneous generation does not even address this.
It’s interesting to note that some early Christians bought into the idea of spontaneous generation to lighten the load of Noah’s ark (e.g., Augustine, in “City of God”, book 15, chapter 27) or to affirm God’s creative power (e.g., Origen, in “Contra Celsus”, book 4, chapters 57 and 59).
Bob post 144, in response to my post 140,
You call that a specific and elaborate answer/explanation of what you disagree with Matt F on and what you think about some of the posters here?
Is the act of intelligent self expression too great a feat for you, or do I need to reword my questions to help you better understand my desires?
“I read that post and shake my head that you could believe it is possible.”
That’s probably because you don’t understand what your reading, or have an “Answers In Genesis” explanation of what Matt F posted, which is of course wrong by association.
Thank you for the information on the quotes. Realize that most “average” people are ignorant about ANYTHING that does not apply to their everyday lives/jobs, but for those with an interest who are better educated on evolution and science, things are different.
Your overuse of the word “smile” within your post brings to mind someone I once saw who had received a Frontal Lobotomy.
post 157,
Yes. It’s not a slam dunk as so much as it’s the chop of a guillotine.
I noticed that you used your usual dismissive manner on the evidences within those posts. Try and explain them with creation science if you think you can. an explanation of “God just made them to look that way under 6 thousand years ago” will not suffice as a scientific explanation.
JOHN Did you have the lobotomy or a friend? I usually dont have the time to get real into specifics, but Ill be stuck at home the next 4 days. Ill try to do some in the morning.
John: ”…. an explanation of “God just made them to look that way under 6 thousand years ago” will not suffice as a scientific explanation.”
Supposing your deities had the power to create things just as we see them today (or near enough allowing for natural selection…..which is not evolution) then if they did, you would be saying something like, ”….because the deities made them that way at the beginning of creation.”
Now transfer that thought to the fact….the truth as we Christians believe it and which is recorded in the first chapter of the Bible by a man inspired by God, that God created the animals right at the beginning of creation just as we see them today. (Ditto) So what is so wrong about saying that?
If evolution had the evidence it was supposed to have, if evolution was true, there would be no doubt at all that it happened that way. But there are too many missing links……gaps…….and question marks within the evidence presented by our evolutionist scientists to warrant it being called a fact.
Ah…the sun is shining today!….for a change!
John For Mattf 120 What proof do we have for any self replicating that has lasted over 400,000 years?
Bob post 162,
No, I did not have a Frontal Lobotomy, and are you not glad????
For if I had, then that would make your efforts look all the worse upon this site as you attempt to debate against the Natural Sciences. Imagine what someone like the aggressive Atheist Dudley or Barney[remember them?] would have to say about it…”Geeze Bob, even the guy with BRAIN DAMAGE knows more about this topic than you do!”, so you see, it would actually behoove you for me to be a super genius. If your going to get beaten, at least try and make sure that you get yourself beaten by one of the best[big toothy grin].
You still have not addressed the evidences within those posts.
Post 164,
You don’t believe in 400,000 years Bob, so why choose this number?
And as you also apparently don’t believe in “proof”, do you really want an answer?
And why?
Maz post 163,
“So what is so wrong about saying that?”
Nothing Maz, as so long as you can realize that scientific and historical evidences prove otherwise and that you should not expect such an unverifiable idea to be taught in schools to children as an equally scientifically valid explanation for the earth’s biodiversity and history.
If such a thing were true Maz, then you’d have to wonder WHYYYYYY???
Why would a Creator Deity create everything almost instantly in such a way as to appear scientifically as if things had evolved over millions of Years? Why make it appear to the science of Geophysics as if such a thing as Continental Drift had occurred? Why do these things and then come down so darned hard on people when they then have doubts about the claims of such a Creator Deity[scientifically speaking]?
Your ideas only make sense as so long as you do not try to apply science to them.
You see, this is why Young Earth Christian Creation Science is not recognized as a valid science. Young Earth Christian Creationists originally recognized that real science did not provide the information that they could ever allow themselves to accept as valid due to the fact that it was incompatible with their theological beliefs about the way everything in the universe as we know it should be. So, like that statue of the dinosaur in the Creation Museum that Ken Ham doctored up to look like a dragon, because reality was not fitting enough to suit his needs, these type of Christian Creationists tried recreating science to suit their desires.
But it is not real, Maz. It is naught but a self satisfying fantasy….I am truly sorry. Try to look at it from this perspective…..imagine if such pseudosciences and ideas were coming from some new New Age cult movement. Surely as an intelligent woman you would then recognize the flaws in their claims as the self serving, theological based, unscientifically verifiable cult nonsense that they are, I hope. But because this is involving your OWN theology you have grown to accept it.
You see, it is easy for one such as myself as my theology has no Creation mythos, no final Apocalyptic ending, nothing that is incompatible with evolution or scientific evidences for an ancient universe. I believe in Magick and other things that seem incompatible with science as we know it, but I have the good sense to know that this belief in such things is only for MEEE, to be used by MEEE…..you would never see me trying to petition local school systems to teach my personal beliefs to today’s youth as a valid alternative to the commonly accepted scientific curriculum.
Can you imagine[grin]?
“If evolution had the evidence it was supposed to have, if evolution was true,…”
Evolution does, therefor it is. You never addressed the point that scientists have seen and can see evolution in action. You can deny it, but your only kidding yourself. Denial of evidences in no evidence against evidences.
“…there would be no doubt at all that it happened that way.”
There is not any doubt that evolution accounts for the biodiversity in the universe, save by people like you who will not accept real scientific evidences.
As for the “missing links” and “gaps”, were you correct on this matter and I the evolutionist wrong, there would not even be anything for the gaps and links to be between, now would there?
This goes back to wondering why everything would have been created to appear as if it had evolved….over oceans of time instead of six thousand years, not to mention such scientific illusions like geological distribution of animal and plant life, Continental Drift, the fossil record, the speed of light in space, etc.
Would you like any elaborations on any of my comments?
Enjoy that sunshine. The weather here is up to but not limited to 100 degrees[roughly 89 degrees in the shade] at high noon, with powerful rain showers starting every afternoon lasting into the night.
John: ”… as so long as you can realize that scientific and historical evidences prove otherwise”
They don’t. And they don’t teach it in schools because they want the children to know the truth. They want them to accept and believe their world view……that there is no God and that it all came by chance. Oh…sometimes…..it is so hilariously silly to think that!
How blind people can be!….but then we do have a creature that seeks to stop people knowing that God exists….and he has his little helpers that come onto this site sometimes!
John: ”Why would a Creator Deity create everything almost instantly in such a way as to appear scientifically as if things had evolved over millions of Years?”
But He didn’t. He created everything so complex and wonderful, it is your way of looking at things that changes what they look like. Darwin put glasses on so many eyes and now they see what he thot he saw….but it is a deception…..concocted by that creature I told you about. Even he knows how gullible human’s can be sometimes!
”Your ideas only make sense as so long as you do not try to apply science to them.”
Who’s science? The evolutionists or the creationists? You won’t allow the YEC science to show you the truth about the evidence because you have a world view that prevents that from happening. IN your eyes you have millions and millions of years passing by like sheep on a sleepless night! Baaaaaaa.
” So, like that statue of the dinosaur in the Creation Museum that Ken Ham doctored up to look like a dragon, because reality was not fitting enough to suit his needs, these type of Christian Creationists tried recreating science to suit their desires.”
No more than the British Museum portrays dinosaurs. And have you forgotten how the museum in the USA had a manikin of Lucy?……completely erroneous portrayal of the fossil remains of the ape creature to try and make people believe she was actually partially human….. with human hands and feet etc…..which weren’t even in the fossil findings!
”Surely as an intelligent woman you would then recognize the flaws in their claims as the self serving, theological based, unscientifically verifiable cult nonsense that they are, I hope.”
The Jehovah’s witnesses believe in Creation as we do, I don’t go along with their theology, they are a false cult, but they are right when believing that God created the Universe the way Genesis records it, and they often show the science within their ”Awake” or ”Watchtower” magazines to support their belief.
” But because this is involving your OWN theology you have grown to accept it.”
No John, actually I believed there must be a God long before I became a Christian. The world around me showed this to me. When I looked up at the stars and wondered about it all….I knew there must be a God that created it all. I just didn’t know Him then. My theology didn’t colour my thinking….in fact, if anything, the evolutionistic teachings I had at school should have taught me otherwise….but it didn’t because deep down inside I couldn’t accept that all that there is came by chance.
John:” You never addressed the point that scientists have seen and can see evolution in action.”
Didn’t our zealous atheist Richard Dawkins say something like ”Evolution happened, we just don’t see it happening.” I have quoted it before, maybe you can find it, a you are good at that, but he disagrees with your statement!
If you are talking about natural selection, that is not evolution in action. Natural selection does not change one species into another….like cat into dog, horse into elephant so to speak. Do you get my drift? (Sweet grin with a tilted head).
”As for the “missing links” and “gaps”, were you correct on this matter and I the evolutionist wrong, there would not even be anything for the gaps and links to be between, now would there?”
The gaps and missing links prove there is no connection between the fossils within the record, so proving no gradual change from one animal species to another. We will always find fossils that is a fact, but the fossil record shows distinct animal species, not inbetween, transitional forms, which should be in abundance if millions of years of evolution took place. Don’t you see that? Erm….no probably not.
John: ”the speed of light in space, ”
Ah….my favourite subject! Well, they are still working on that one. It is not as absolute as they think it is. And there are some weird things happening out in space. It is not ”flat”, and there are the forces of gravity which create all sorts of strange things to happen with light and time itself. Did you know that light can be bent? That light and time can be slowed down? It is not a closed book.
John: BTW, it is raining again here and no sign of the sun!
“Ah….my favourite subject! Well, they are still working on that one. And there are some weird things happening out in space. It is not ”flat”, and there are the forces of gravity which create all sorts of strange things to happen with light and time itself. Did you know that light can be bent? That light and time can be slowed down? It is not a closed book.” - mherman
Uh-oh! Here’s comes the tired old YEC warhorse “Speed of Light is Slowing Down and That Proves the Universe is Only Six Thousand Years Old”.
And there off…
It’s Newton and Galileo leading with Einstein and Modern Physics rounding the far turn…
Going into the back stretch it’s…wait a minute… there’s Young Earth Creationism circling the track backwards.
Fred: Do you know anything about the physics of light, time and space? If so, you would know the truth of what I have said.
But if all you can do is make a funny comment, then it proves you have nothing serious to say on the subject. Pity, I like to discuss this topic with someone who really knows what they are talking about.
Fred: Here’s a little experiment you can do if you or someone has a fish tank. As long as you don’t go scaring the poor fish to death, just put a straight stick, pencil, or something similar into the water and see what happens. Tell me when you have done it.
Maz post 166,
“They don’t.”
Well then Maz, alllllllllll you have to do is use science to prove it. You can start on those examples listed within MatF’s post within part 1 of this site title. After that, I’ll supply you with some more. Should be rather easy if you are the one here with the proper/better understanding of this topic.
Thank you for once again sharing your unsubstanciated conspiracy theory with us in the next few sentences. See….this is one of the reasons I’m so happy that Pat Robertson was never able to get elected as President in this country. Oh God, how he would have screwed things up for the school systems, among other things!
“Oh how blind people can be!”
I’ve got no argument with you there Maz.
“…but then we do have a creature that seeks to stop people from knowing that God exists…”
If you can’t support your claims with science, just use theology, eh? Is that how it is?
“…and he has his little helpers that come onto the site sometimes!”
Well, since Ferox is somewhere in Central or South America by now, who are you thinking of, me or Bernie?
That was intended to be a joke.
post 167,
“But he didn’t.”
Says you. Science disagrees with you. If you could recognize real science and it’s evidences for what it is, and recognize Young Earth Creation Science for the crap IT is, then you would know this.
“Who’s science? The evolutionists or the creationists?”
The science with the best all round evidences, of course. Your creation sciences don’t have it, and in the end, they always have to fall back on the excuse of “Because God said it was so, as I have interpreted it from my Bible, and if you truly had faith as a Christian you wouldn’t challenge or doubt my word for it.” which is NOT scientific at all, and involves a great amount of denial.
Science and evolution transcends any theological beliefs, from anyone Maz, and anyone who tries to tell you that only one modern, special, elite, group of theists REALLY understand how to properly interpret science then they are wrong. This is the stuff that negative CULTS are made of, Maz.
You sound like a brainwashed cult member.
I have to go for now, so I shall point out the many other errors in your posts later on this evening. Surly you won’t mind waiting.
John: havn’t we been through both sides, you give your scientific evidence, I give my scientific evidence. I’m sorry if you didn’t see it then, and I’m sure if I go through the whole lot again you won’t see it now. Maybe we could save time by just reading our own posts through the whole of the evolution vs creation debates on this site………then…………oh…maybe not, it’s just not worth it!
”Well, since Ferox is somewhere in Central or South America by now, who are you thinking of, me or Bernie?”
Ferox was never a real problem, I quite liked her. I hope she is well and makes it back some day so we can find out what she has been up to, and maybe ‘chat’ again. You are OK too sooooooooo…..
”If you could recognize real science and it’s evidences…”
Here we go again..(yawn widely)…It brings to mind the magic roundabout……….round and round we go…..I feel a bit giddy! (Swaying from side to side).
”You sound like a brainwashed cult member”
Well, that’s a new one!
See you later!
“(to)Fred: Here’s a little experiment you can do if you or someone has a fish tank. As long as you don’t go scaring the poor fish to death, just put a straight stick, pencil, or something similar into the water and see what happens. Tell me when you have done it.” mherman
No, Maz, I don’t think that I will do that. Not until you can bring yourself to be honest with us (and yourself) concerning some things around here. Why would you broach the subject of astrophysics unless there was some YEC notion that is anti-science and that you comfort yourself with?
No, until you can muster some humility I think I’ll address your posts with the sarcasm and ridicule that they deserve.
best,
fred
Fred: Oh? You don’t want to see what happens? You don’t want to see something that is straight, like a pencil, appear to bend when put in water? Which proves that light bends in certain conditions. Gravity in space does the same thing. So if light bends, does that mean a light ray coming from an object in space, bent by gravity (say passing near the sun) actually takes longer to get to us? Actually, no it doesn’t. Now does that sound weird or not? I learnt these things….not from creationist sources, but from SCIENCE books.
Me thinks Fred, that all you CAN do is ridicule and be sarcastic, because you appear to be unable to hold a serious and intelligent conversation with me or anyone else who disagrees with you.
Golly! Junior High School Physics. Maz is coming along!
“…not from creationist sources, but from SCIENCE books. ” - mherman
Maz concedes that creationism is not science!
DING DING DING!!!
Welcome to intellectual honesty, Maz. Good to have you here!
John As usual, an intellectual having a large opinion of hisself. Your side came up with the 400,000 number. Run with it. Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. Im sure I havent answered some posts, but that goes both ways. You scientist need much more proof - like the doll in Planet of the Apes.
Continuation of criticizing post 167,…
So as I was saying, science transcends theological faiths, which is why Christians like Kash, a Pagan like me, and an Atheist like Chris C. can all agree on the evidences supporting an ancient universe and evolution.
“But it is a deception…..concocted by the creature I told you about.”
As I am not a member of your religion, and some people you have debated with are Atheistic, trying to blame Satan for this will not have the effect that you wish, as well it shouldn’t in a debate about nature and science. To henge the validity of science on theological beliefs is akin to dragging science back 600 years. If this is what you want then fine, but your going to have to put up with a lot of disagreement and ridicule from modern mankind unless you…live in a sheltered commune of like-minded people, or something.
“No more than the British museum portrays dinosaurs.”
The question is WHY are the dinosaurs being portrayed unrealistically in the British museum?
Are you talking about the original statues of Iguanodon, like the ones at the Crystal Palace in London? Some museums offer old, flawed versions of specimens simply for comparison to updated, innovative discoveries.
“Lucy is not deplicted as “half human”anymore that a stuffed Chimpanzee is, she just has similarities. She was a primate, so naturally she would have five fingers and toes[just like us]. They can determine her posture, which naturally helps scientists determine what her feet would have been like. Mistakes are sometimes made, naturally, but the evidence is still there. When I typed up “Lucy” on the computer a VAST amount of Creationist sites appeared telling me about how much they disagreed with “Lucy” as a creature and the scientists who are associated with her in any little way. They all come off as insecure, trying to grasp at any little thing in an attempt to undermine the Natural Sciences. If you really want to learn about this ancient ancestor of ours that you shouldn’t even believe in as a Young Earth Creationists anyway…[smile]…then look for it in a book. Carl Zimmer has some great ones. As long as your getting scientific information from Creationists sites and books, your only getting half of the story, if that much at all. I know you disagree, but your the one that has to live with the consequinses of that, not me.
And besides, nothing you mentioned about “Lucy” or the dinosaur statues changes the fact that A:”Lucy” and dinosaurs actually existed, and that the evidence is there for everyone to see and study if they dig for it, and…
B:That Ken Ham and others like him embellish or omit the facts on such things to suit their agendas, and that this too can be easily discovered and exposed by anyone.
“…I couldn’t accept that all that there is came by chance.”
You love to use that word;”Chance”. You really REALLY need to try and understand the processes of Natural Selection and how they work. If you do, then perhaps you will quit misusing this term in relation to this topic, for you see, if evolution was based on chance, then it wouldn’t even exist at all.
post 168,
Maz, a quote credited to Richard Dawkins has no bearing on the validity of the evidences for evolution. If your really interested in this quote, then look it up. On a site by Richard Dawkins.
“If you are talking about natural selection, that is not evolution in action.”
Yes it is, because evolution works THROUGH natural selection.
“Natural selection does not change one species into another…..like cats into dogs, horse into elephant, so to speak.”
Thank’s for the sweet grin, and at least your choosing animals with more compatible D.N.A.this time[because it's at least all mammalian] instead of talking about Mermaids again.
Maz, we have explained this to you already, how small changes lead into a big change in a lifeform.
Besides, I’m not convinced that you even understand what the word species means and what constitutes a different species. For example, tell me what you think. An American Alligator, and a Nile Crocodile…are they different species, or not and just members of the “Crocodillian Kind”? A Bottlenosed Dolphin and an Orca…members of a different species, or not and just members of the “Delphinidea Kind”? A White Oak Tree and a Live Oak Tree… members of a different species, or not and just members of the Oak Tree Kind”? Bear in mind that all of these life forms are related by common ancestors and cannot interbreed with one another. One of the points I’m trying to make here is that species need not be so physically radical from one another[like Elephants and Sea Cows, which by the way, are also related by a common ancestor, Ha.Ha.] to qualify as having evolved from a single species into another.
Then in your last paragraphs you show us that you still cannot recognize transitional life forms for what they are. Let me put it like this Maz. For every new species[you'd call it a "missing link"]discovered to fill up what you call a “gap” between two species, there are now two new “gaps” on either side of the newly added species between it and the original discovered species. Do you see what I’m getting at here Maz? For someone who wants to believe that all of life has always looked as it looks when it is discovered[within 6,000 years] instead of what scientific evidences reveal, then it wouldn’t matter how many “missing links” we find and “gaps” we fill because Young Earth Christian Creationists in their state of denial will always claim that those “missing links” always looked like that, and that deceitful scientists just manipulated their position in a fantasy time-line, and that the areas["gaps"] around the lifeforms now need filling for evolution to be true!
It’s a perfectly self satisfying circle of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
Bob post 180,
Bob, ANY intellectual that tried debating with you on the Natural Sciences would soon develop a very large opinion of themselves.
Why would you think that scientists need more proof for you to ignore? As if your life isn’t hard enough[contemptuous smile with half lidded eyes].
How come we never hear from you on any of the other sites anymore Bob?
Fred: ”Maz concedes that creationism is not science!”
So because I read science books ASWELL AS creation literature, you come to that erroneous conclusion. Of course…..you would!
Creation scientists would agree with everything I said, so where is the problem?
But have you anything scientific to say?
John: ”….it shouldn’t in a debate about nature and science.”
Have you forgotten the site you are on John? Read the line at the top again……”Today’s issues, from a Biblical perspective.” As Christians, we believe science and the Bible go hand in hand, but as someone who hasn’t faith in our God, your outlook on things is of course biased by your own ‘religious’ views.
”….but your going to have to put up with a lot of disagreement and ridicule from modern mankind.”
We do, and we’ve got used to it, especially on here!
”She was a primate, so naturally she would have five fingers and toes[just like us].”
Pure speculation. There were no bones to make that assessment. And she was more akin to an orang-utan as far as I can remember.
”As long as your getting scientific information from Creationists sites and books, your only getting half of the story,”
But as long as you are getting your scientific information from evolutionist sites and books…YOU are only getting half the story…if any at all!
You see John, we are both biased towards our own world view! That is the way we see the evidence….the same scientific evidence, but from our different beliefs.
”B:That Ken Ham and others like him embellish or omit the facts on such things to suit their agendas, and that this too can be easily discovered and exposed by anyone.”
I could say exactly the same thing about evolutionists. They are keen to tell you what they want you to believe and leave out the stuff that doesn’t fit their belief in evolution over millions of years. They also can be, and often have been, exposed.
”You love to use that word;”Chance”. You really REALLY need to try and understand the processes of Natural Selection and how they work. If you do, then perhaps you will quit misusing this term in relation to this topic, for you see, if evolution was based on chance, then it wouldn’t even exist at all.”
That’s it!! If it was based on chance….(and not a creator)…..then it wouldn’t exist at all!! Haven’t I been saying that all along! REALLY John can’t you see what you have just admitted to?
And it was natural selection that brought Darwin to write his Origins book…..about evolution!
”Maz, we have explained this to you already, how small changes lead into a big change in a lifeform.”
Pure evoutionistic speculation again!
Back in a minute!
John: ”…or not and just members of the Oak Tree Kind”? ”
Now you are using the word ”kind” which when I used from the Bible was corrected on.
There are different species within a genera, like, foxes, wolves, dingo’s, Great Danes and poodles are all in the dog family, so your examples would probably be in the same family, but a crocodile and a platypus would not…..not even going back millions of years to find a common ancestor. Alligators and crocodiles are from the same common ancestor. The one that God created at the beginning. We are not against natural selection.
” For someone who wants to believe that all of life has always looked as it looks when it is discovered[within 6,000 years]”
No, all life we see today is not always the same as it was when it was created, because of natural selection and adaptation. All these come about by a LOSS, not an addition, to the genetic information in the DNA. We have been through this before as well.
I hear a song coming on……”It’s the same old song, with a different tune…..lah lah lah lah lah!
”It’s a perfectly self satisfying circle of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.” Mmmmm…..(with a little bit of a smirk).
Hey John; As you live on the edge of…..or in….the wilderness over there, have you ever read any of Grey Owls stories? I’v been reading a book by him and it’s truly fascinating. I love the Canadian wilderness which is where most of his (true) stories are based, and he writes them so well, about the animals and especially his beloved beaver.
John I used the doll in Planet of the Apes for a reason. That would be the type of evidence both would have to agree about - no arguing over dates, classification etc. I only get time for this site - thats the best I can do. You have half lidded eyes - are you a transitional form? And now you get back to the definition of species. I will definitely have to become an intellectual to go by your definitions.
Bob: We may all be transitional forms (smirk) ……….but one wonders what we are changing into!
Maz 188 Excellent question. Maybe the intellectuals will have an answer.
Bob: The evolutionists are always telling us that animals evolve into other animals……..but they don’ say anything about what we are evolving into! Maybe some of out resident evolutionists could have a guess!
Maz post184,
“Have you fogotten the site you are on John?”
No. Silly me to think that you might understand what I meant about how personal theological beliefs should not be a factor when studying and debating about real science. I forgot that your mentality on science was stuck in the 1400’s. Silly me to think that ANYONE ANYWHERE of ANY FAITH who claimed to understand science would be mature enough and educated enough[or at least willing to become educated enough] to agree with each other on confirmed scientific evidences, like, say, the chemical formula of water:one molecule of water is two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom. Do you disagree Maz? If so, then you are an ignoramus. But what you cant seem to get through that head of yours is…that disagreeing with the evidences of and for evolution is exactly like disagreeing on the scientific evidence that this is the chemical formula for water.Especially if your doing it for personal theological-based reasons, which is all that Young Earth Christian Creationism is based upon. So reminding me that people on this website study science from a “Biblical Perspective”[As long as they aren't Christians that do it like Matt F or Kash though, right?] is akin to reminding me that I should be willing to change the way I portray the something like chemical formula of water. As if I should just say instead “water is composed of God’s wet sadness for lost souls” and leave it at that…because this is a Christian website. That explanation would be not much less scientific an explanation that what you get from Answers In Genesis websites.
“And she[Lucy] was more akin to an orang-utan as far as I can remember.”
Maz, Orangutans have five fingers and five toes, just like us, as do all of the “Great Apes”.It’s an ape thing.
I didn’t Say that the SHAPE of ‘Lucy’s” feet and hands were just like modern man’s.
“But as long as your getting your scientific information from evolutionist sites and books…YOU are only getting half the story…if any at all!”
Now…I’m sure this statement makes perfect sense to someone like you, Maz, but If I’m going to try and educate myself on Evolutionary Science then I’m going to study Evolutionary Science from the people who work in/with this branch of science, just as if I wanted to learn about medicine and surgery I would read and study from people who work with/in the various medical fields.
Whatever extra crap-uh, I mean, information[smile]I might get on evolution from unscientific religious websites or books that are deceitful and anti-evolution/science in attitude would only be used by me for comparison, humor, or to help me understand the opposition and their motives better.
Young Earth Creation sites have nothing of value to add to science except to serve as examples of what NOT to be. As Be3rnie is fond of mentioning, Young Earth Christian Creationism has contributed nothing to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any way….all it does is make ignorant theist feel better about their place in the universe as they conceive/perceive it.
Evolutionists and Young Earth Christian Creationists are NOT looking at or possessing the SAME evidences, and just interpreting it in two different ways for Young Earth Christian Creationism not only has no scientific evidences for itself, but goes out of it’s way to edit out and ignore vast amounts of science and evidences….it must simply to exist, added by it’s efforts to re-create it’s own custom-made version of history and pseudoscience.
You help to confirm this yourself by ignoring or denying all and every bit of scientific evidence that we provide you with on this matter! How long have you gone ignoring MattF’s excellent posts on science simply because you disagree with his idea of Genesis? How scientifically objective is THAT?!? To claim that you have the same evidences is a delusion indeed. You don’t have half of our scientific evidences…in fact, I’m going to go so far to say that you don’t have 1/5 of our scientific evidences. Remember how I told you that Young Earth Creation Science came into being? Because intellectually dishonest and spiritually insecure Biblical literalists it didn’t want to agree with the evidences of real science and history and thus began to create their own[Matt F, if you are reading, as a former Young Earth Christian Creationist yourself I'd appreciate it if you would either confirm or correct this statement of mine, if you would please. Thank you.].
Maz, instead of focusing on whatever good point you think you were trying to make about my statement that evolution does not rely on “chance”, you should have instead focused on the suggestion that you learn about the processes of Natural Selection. If you understood how evolution worked through the processes of Natural Selection then you MIGHT understand what I meant when I said “if evolution was based on chance then it wouldn’t exist at all.” We have explained and EXPLAINED the fine selective biological workings that make evolution the finely tuned successful process that it is for creating or ending lifeforms, but you’ve never given any us any sign of understanding with your talk of “pure chance”,”stagnant D.N.A.”, “loss of genetic material”, and build up of “degrading mutations”.
“Pure evoutionistic speculation again!”
No Maz, that’s science.
Real science supported by evidences that you claim Young Earth Creationists also possess, which you are once again denying and then ignoring for us all to see thus once again proving my point[sympathetic, but not THAAAT sympathetic smile].
Post 185 is…absolutely ridiculous, and helps me far more than you. We have tried and tried through thousands of posts on many sites to explain evolution and science to you, and just when we think that you MIGHT actually understand a thing or two someone like Bob pops up and says something completely ignorant like “But it’s called the THEORY of evolution, not the FACT of evolution. And yet they expect US to believe it like it’s a fact! Hayuk!Hayuk!Hayuk!” and then you come back with something like “Yeah! They expect us to believe it…like it’s true! Why can’t they see it?! Hee! Hee! Hee! Hee!” and you drag us all right back to the very beginning…making everything we’ve done to try and help you a complete waste of time and effort. THAT’S probably why there’s hardly anyone trying to help you understand anything on this topic anymore, and why Fred won’t treat you with more respect than he does.
Post 186,
I live in a Jungle/swamp. No, I have never read his stories but I do know of the man and something of his biography. That wasn’t his real name, you know.
Bob post 187,
Try and use something from reality as an example when you can instead of a movie. It will provide us all with something more concrete to debate about.
“I will definitely have to become an intellectual to go by your definitions.”
Don’t be so hard on yourself Bob, just save yourself the trouble and take word for it[smile].
Seriously, It’s not like I’m really, REALLY smart[unless I'm just being too modest or hard on myself],Bob, I actually just consider myself to be of “average” intelligence, it’s just that your really REALLY….uh…..not good at debating on this subject.
Maz Post 188,
We already discussed this Maz. You and Bob don’t remember.
You’ll just have to wait and be surprised.
Maz,Post 175 about F. L. A.
Sorry that I did not address this earlier Maz.
I have heard nothing from Ferox since that last post that we all read here on the website. No emails, no post cards, nothing. I only have my memories, my drawings, various scars and healed broken bones, my broken front door frame from Ferox trying to scrabble and squeeze through, patched rips in the living room furniture….
I miss that monster in many ways. Wildlife has returned to our territory, I see razorbacks, turkey, large alligators, and deer, again now. And I worry about what may come to pass the next time bandits or poachers are discovered on our property.
If I hear anything from Ferox then I shall let you know about it Maz, but honestly, I would not be surprised if we never heard from Ferox personally again. I’ll keep checking the newspapers for any reports of strange encounters.
John:” No. Silly me to think that you might understand what I meant about how personal theological beliefs should not be a factor when studying and debating about real science.”
You have the erroneous belief that science and God doesn’t mix, well, for your information, God created the science at the beginning! Space, Time and Matter. That is why science works by laws……Someone put those laws in place.
”Silly me to think that ANYONE ANYWHERE of ANY FAITH who claimed to understand science would be mature enough and educated enough[or at least willing to become educated enough] to agree with each other on confirmed scientific evidences,”
You are being ’silly’ today!
You know that evolutionists look at the evidence differently because they have a world view without God. S they need millions of years instead of 6 days!
”… like, say, the chemical formula of water:one molecule of water is two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom. Do you disagree Maz?”
H2O. I agree. And water is liquid because those molecules are not as closely bonded together as are those making up a solid would be. Agree?
John: ” But what you cant seem to get through that head of yours is…that disagreeing with the evidences of and for evolution is exactly like disagreeing on the scientific evidence that this is the chemical formula for water”
Now come on, there are many things evolutionist scientists and creation scientists do believe in….and that includes the constitution of water.
”Especially if your doing it for personal theological-based reasons, which is all that Young Earth Christian Creationism is based upon. ‘
I don’t just believe the Bible and force the evidence to fit it…..that is what evolutionists do…except they don’t use the Bible but there own brains (silly). We can see the evidence in science for the truth of the Bible!
”As if I should just say instead “water is composed of God’s wet sadness for lost souls” and leave it at that…because this is a Christian website. ”
Now John, you are starting to sound like another person on this site who doesn’t exist! You are being silly again.
”I didn’t Say that the SHAPE of ‘Lucy’s” feet and hands were just like modern man’s.”
But that is exactly how the Museum portrayed them, that was my point! And that is fraudulent!
John: The creationist scientists and the creation sites, are no less scientific than any other….it’s just your personal biased belief.
”Evolutionists and Young Earth Christian Creationists are NOT looking at or possessing the SAME evidences, and just interpreting it in two different ways ..”
Whether you like it or not, they do.
”….for Young Earth Christian Creationism not only has no scientific evidences for itself, but goes out of it’s way to edit out and ignore vast amounts of science and evidences…”
That’s your biased belief again……and so evolutionists NEVER ignore evidence that goes against their theory???
”How long have you gone ignoring MattF’s excellent posts on science simply because you disagree with his idea of Genesis?”
I have explained more than once why I don’t respond to MattF and I am not going say it again. It has nothing to do with simply disagreeing with him and you know that. Otherwise I would have to stop debating all other evolutionists on this site!
”To claim that you have the same evidences is a delusion indeed.”
John, now you can’t change the evidence, that is silly (again), but the interpretation of that evidence is what is in question. Like the Grand Canyon, we look at the SAME evidence but see something different. Like the fossil record, it’s the SAME record, but we see it different.
John: ” If you understood how evolution worked through the processes of Natural Selection then you MIGHT understand what I meant when I said “if evolution was based on chance then it wouldn’t exist at all.” ”
I have to say it….you don’t understand natural selection! It is NOT evidence of evolution.
And you are telling me that atheists are wrong to believe it all came by chance? Tell that to the atheist.
You, as a deist, will believe some god-like creature interfered with the chemistry of the Universe or whatever and it all came together as it is today through evolution. And I know you will correct me if I’m wrong. But, YOU, may believe in a Being or Beings that had a hand in creation, but the atheist does not. THEY say it all came by chance……how else would it have come into being?
”We have explained and EXPLAINED the fine selective biological workings that make evolution the finely tuned successful process that it is for creating or ending lifeforms, but you’ve never given any us any sign of understanding with your talk of “pure chance”,”stagnant D.N.A.”, “loss of genetic material”, and build up of “degrading mutations”.”
And we have EXPLAINED too!
How the Creator made this finely tuned Universe. But YOU have never given us any sign of understanding either….even with all our EXPLANATIONS about DNA, and mutations being on the most part a loss of information and not the stupendous additions that you need for evolution to happen even over millions of years! (Feel like tearing my hair out!)
John: ”…and you drag us all right back to the very beginning…making everything we’ve done to try and help you a complete waste of time and effort.”
Certainly is. And it was at the Beginning that it all started…”At the Beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth….”
Oh I can see you getting all hot under the collar! (If you wore a collar that is!)
”THAT’S probably why there’s hardly anyone trying to help you understand anything on this topic anymore, and why Fred won’t treat you with more respect than he does.”
Just because you and Fred and others don’t agree with us YEC’s doesn’t mean to say that you can’t have some respect. There is nothing crazy about believing in God…..any more than your belief that there are deities in existence…..what’s the difference. WE both believe in science……ah!…what’s the point in saying it again!
Yes, I know Grey Owl wasn’t even an Indian, he just took up that way of life because he loved the wilderness. His stories are fascinating.
” I actually just consider myself to be of “average” intelligence,”
Out of interest, what is your IQ?
”We already discussed this Maz. You and Bob don’t remember.
You’ll just have to wait and be surprised.”
But John, I shall be dead and long gone before any transition takes place that makes any difference to the human race…..that is…IF evolution were true. (Of course it isn’t!
)
Do scientists actually have ANY idea?
Thanks for the news (or lack of) about Ferox.
John We could give you tons of instances where EVOLUTIONISTS disagree with each other about many things. How would you classify those scientists? I used the movie example because they apparently thought it would be one where minimal disagreement would occur - a slam dunk case if you will. Just wondering what your slam dunk is.
John: Here’s something interesting I found for you to mull over.
Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution
by Bill Sardi
Critics of Darwin’s theory of evolution point to flaws in the fossil record (no new species, no missing links) as evidence that the theory is false. But in the 1960s scientists discovered genetic material called DNA and were quick to suggest that the rate of change in DNA is evidence that confirms Darwin’s theory of evolution.
While it is convenient for evolutionary biologists to assume that various DNA proteins evolve at a fixed rate, a recent study blows a hole in this theory. The September 25 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, geneticist Francisco Rodriguez-Trelles and colleagues at the University of California, Irvine, indicate the idea of a molecular clock may be hopelessly flawed. “It may be ripe for the pawnshop” say Menno Schilthuizen, writing in Science Now.
Calculating the different mutation rates for three well-known genes for 78 species, researchers found widely different mutation rates even for closely related species. “Molecular clocks are much more erratic than previously thought and practically useless to keep accurate evolutionary time,” says Schilthuizen. The authors of the research conclude that the neutral theory of molecular evolution (predictable or constant rates of change) is flawed and that changes in the rate of variation are left to the vagaries of natural selection (randomness). With no evidence to confirm the neutral theory of molecular evolution, scientists say this amounts to a “denial of there being a molecular clock.”
Phosphate - - - - Guanine Cytosine Adenine Thymine - - - - Sugar
A DNA Nucleotide Sequence
Positions of the middle four proteins differs
DNA is made up of many subunits or strings of sequenced proteins strung between a sugar and a phosphate molecule (called a nucleotide). Think of a wash line in the back yard. There are two poles (the sugar and phosphate molecules) with four proteins (amino acids – guanine, cytosine, adenine, thymine) hanging on the wash line. There are many of these “wash lines” in one gene and over time some of the proteins hanging on the wash line change their positions. One protein may be substituted for another, which is called a mutation. Different species of life have some of the same genes and therefore the rate of change (number of protein substitutions) can be used to calibrate a DNA clock. Comparative studies of different proteins in various groups of organisms tend to show that the average number of amino-acid substitutions per site per year is typically around 10-9. Calculating backwards, scientists have attempted to use the DNA clock to determine when, let’s say, chimpanzees and man diverged from the same genetic tree. There are a lot of assumptions here (even that there is a genetic tree at all) but the scientists believe humans and chimps split off from a common ancestor about 5.5 million years ago.
But the DNA clock is not so reliable. Paleontologists calculate the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of a fossil record that is rich in almost every species of life, occurred about 540 million years ago. But DNA clock estimations come up with a date of 1 billion years ago for the Cambrian explosion. So there is an unexplainable 500-million year gap. Which provides the most accurate dating, the fossils or the genes?
The so-called neutral theory of evolution holds that DNA mutations (protein substitutions) accumulate at an approximately constant rate as long as the DNA retains its original functions. The differences between the sequences of the same DNA segment (or protein) in two species of life would then be proportional to the time the species diverged from a common ancestor. The undeniable problem is, different DNA protein sequences (or even different parts of the same gene) “evolve” or change at markedly different rates. For example, mutation rates in primates are slower than in rodents. This also assumes that all mutations move progressively rather than in reverse.
If what these researchers say is true, that the theory of a molecular clock is hopelessly flawed, scientists have some real reorganization on their hands. There are no less than 30 textbooks written on molecular evolution in the past decade and numerous PhDs awarded in this area of investigation. To date, no convincing evidence for a phylogeny tree has ever been produced. The evolutionary trees shown in biology textbooks are simply theory, not science. Genetics does not confirm its existence either, though it took scientists more than three decades to determine this. Few scientists are expected to abandon the theory of neutral molecular evolution anytime soon.
Sources:
Francisco Rodriguez-Trelles, Rosa Tarrio, Francisco J. Ayala, Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA, Volume 98, pages 11405-10, September 25, 2001
Schilthuizen, M, Molecular Clock Not Exactly Swiss, Science Now, Sept. 28, 2001.
Dictionary of Biology, Oxford University Press, Market House Books, 2000.
National Human Genome Research Institute
October 2, 2001
Bill Sardi is a journalist residing in Diamond Bar, California. His new book is Big God vs. Big Science (Here & Now Books, 107 pages, illustrated, $7.00) at http://www.hereandnowbooks.com.
And here is another interesting link about the persecution of scientists who do not toe the evolutionary line.
Academic Persecution of Scientists and Scholars Researching Intelligent Design is a Dangerous and Growing Trend.
“There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution,” said Robert Crowther director of communications for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin’s theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.”
Discovery Institute hosted a briefing for the media on academic freedom at the National Press Club today, featuring a prominent astronomer persecuted for his views on intelligent design, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez of Iowa State University.
According to Discovery Institute, self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them.
University of Idaho president Timothy White, issued an edict recently proclaiming that it is now “inappropriate” for anyone to teach “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses.
Cornell University President Hunter Rawlings, III, delivered a polemic speech denouncing intelligent design and scientists and scholars researching the theory.
Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory to a group of honors students.
Three days before graduate student Bryan Leonard’s dissertation defense was to take place Darwinist professors at Ohio State University accused Leonard of “unethical human-subject experimentation” because he taught students about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.
High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.
Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, for example, recently wrote this about anyone supporting intelligent design or questioning modern evolutionary theory: “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.”
Discovery Institute is the nation’s leading public policy center that defends “teaching the controversy” about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. The Institute recently launched a national campaign to defend the rights of scientists, teachers, and students who are being threatened because they dare to raise critical questions about evolution.
“Free speech and academic freedom are cherished principles in America,” added Crowther. “They are too important to be sacrificed to the intolerant demands of extremists on any issue.
Posted by Robert Crowther on December 7, 2005 08:21 AM | Permalink.
“You have the erroneous belief that science and God doesn’t mix,..”
This from the woman who has reminded me more than twice that being on a Christian website, I should accept that scientific information I supply to the posters here will be unaccepted or at best, misunderstood….because of the scientific information’s incompatibility with the posters faith.
Maz your gift for misunderstanding is almost as amazing as your gift of denial and reinterpretation.
Maz, are you[Or Bob?] actually an Atheists that is TRYING to make Christians look bad? No offense intended, but sometimes I just cannot help but wonder. Your posts involving science do so much more for us skeptics of Young Earth Christian Creationism than you will perhaps ever realize.
…….
I am preparing a feast for my parents this evening, because they are my parents and they deserve it, so I will not have the time to criticize everything that you have presented me with. Perhaps someone else will pop on and do it for me[?] so I can take the easy, lazy way out[and really, I think we all know what a big waste of my time it would be anyway due to your failure to recognize failure].
And I don’t know what my I.Q. is. I have a feeling that I’m above “normal” in many ways, but I try to maintain a degree of humility[unless I'm being annoyed by an absolute moron]. I started to take an I.Q. Test once, just out of morbid curiosity, but by the time I had gotten to the ninth question I had already noticed two errors in grammar, so I lost faith in the validity of whatever the hypothetical results might have been.
It is not important to me anyway.
Bob post 197,
“John we could give you tons of instances were EVOLUTIONISTS disagree with each other on many things.”
Yeeeeaaaah? Well you just go ahead and supply us with some Bob, and we’ll see if it’s actually something important this time, something that will actually help your case, or if it’s something like Scientists disagreeing with the discovery and discoverer of “Piltdown Man”, whether or not a certain dinosaur lived 68 million years ago, or 70 million years ago[As if THAT'S real helpful for the arguments a Christian Young Earther, ha.ha.], or if it’s something like the information within Maz’s post 199[smile].Why not make things easy and just supply us all with, say…only twenty examples of instances out of your tons?
“How would you classify those scientists?”
Well, if they are like the people from the Discovery Institute complaining about discrimination like in Maz’s post199, I would call them very poor and dishonest scientists indeed.
Young Earth Christian Creationists complaining that OTHER Young Earth Christian Creationists are being discriminated against by the scientific community….well NO WONDER!
“Free speech and academic freedom are cherished principles in America,” added Crowther.
Answer: There’s no such thing as academic freedom at the elementary and secondary school levels. Teachers can’t just teach whatever they want. There is academic freedom in colleges and universities. There aren’t any Christian colleges teaching creation “science” or Intelligent Design magic. They all teach all the science biblical creationists don’t accept including and especially evolution and common descent.
Intelligent Design magic is not science. Intelligent Design magic promoters write books bashing real science. When are the Intelligent Design promoters going to come up with some tangible, viable results from all their “research?” When are the ID promoters going to invent a new vaccine, new medicines, better food crops or poisons to protect those crops or make some advance in science that makes the world a better place? How is it evolutionary biologists have been responsible for doing all those things I just mentioned which have made our lives easier, healthier and longer? Why can’t creation “scientists” do something besides write books and actually show us what their science can produce?
We all know the answers to those questions. We all know, even the creationists on this blog, that creation “science” and ID magic are not science, they are the Christian religion clumsily disguised as science. Creationists have no idea why science even exists. So they don’t understand why ideas cannot be science unless they can produce something. We should be able to point out that the science they don’t trust keeps advancing and producing usable results while the pseudo-science they believe in has never produced anything but literature. Then the argument should be over. But creationists aren’t interested in science they’re only interested in fighting an ideological war.
So Matt and everybody arguing with these creationists it isn’t going to do any good to explain science to these people. If you want to watch them crumble like a cookie attack their ideology. That’s what they are really trying to force on the rest of the world.
John: ”This from the woman who has reminded me more than twice that being on a Christian website, I should accept that scientific information I supply to the posters here will be unaccepted or at best, misunderstood….because of the scientific information’s incompatibility with the posters faith.”
No John, incorrect. It is because your science is woefully incorrect with it’s interpretation.
It is incompatible with the FACTS.
”Maz your gift for misunderstanding is almost as amazing as your gift of denial and reinterpretation.”
Funny, you seem to have the same gift!
You’ve ducked out pretty well. I hope you all enjoy the feast.
John You will never accept anything Maz and I put on this site. I told you it wa s evolutionary scientists disagreeing, not creationists. I know of a scientist that has degrees in chemistry and biochemistry and now teaches biochemistry. Would his views be acceptable to you?
John See post 137. Close to what were talking about, and already here for you to see.
John: Hope the feast went well.
When you have the time…..have you any intellectual response to post’s #198/199?
Bob: I don’t think it would matter who was disagreeing with the theory of evolution, they won’t accept that they are completely and utterly wrong. Even if Darwin himself was raised from the dead and told everyone he was wrong after all, they would still stubbornly hold to the theory, because they have nothing else but God to fall back on for Creation! And that would be crazy…..wouldn’t it????
Maz They would say that Darwin didnt understand the theory.
Bob: I don’t think it would matter who was disagreeing with the theory of evolution, they won’t accept that they are completely and utterly wrong.
Answer: It doesn’t matter who disagrees with the theory of evolution or what they say. The have to DO something. Science isn’t just a bunch of words with no evidence to back them up like Christian theology is. If someone could disprove the theory of evolution they would have to actually demonstrate with experiments that evolution isn’t valid. Unbeknownst to the creationists scientists have been subjecting the theory of evolution to tests of falsification ever since natural selection was discovered. Science always tries to disprove its theories while Christianity always tries to prove its dogma, always and forever afraid to challenge its own shaky foundation and ridiculous claims. Science is about asking questions. Christianity is about giving answers and disallowing questions especially questioning its paper idol. The idol, the paper oracle must never be questioned on penalty of eternal punishment. That other people openly question the Bible and find it to be ridiculous because they refuse to accept man-made dogma about the Bible being the Word of God before they read it really irritates the creationists.
Even if Darwin himself was raised from the dead and told everyone he was wrong after all, they would still stubbornly hold to the theory, because they have nothing else but God to fall back on for Creation! And that would be crazy…..wouldn’t it????
Answer: What about Alfred R. Wallace the simultaneous discoverer of natural selection? Had Darwin procrastinated any longer about writing his book it would be Wallace’s theory of evolution creationists would be trying to banish from our school curricula. This reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of the creationists what science is, why it exists, what it does. Creationists think Darwin invented the theory of evolution. Darwin made a discovery, which was simultaneously corroborated by other scientists.
because they have nothing else but God to fall back on for Creation!
Answer: Most Christians have accepted the theory of evolution. So that statement is ridiculous.
And that would be crazy…..wouldn’t it????
Answer: Nothing is crazier than your posts. Sometimes I get the feeling you’re actually an atheist posing as a creationist trying to make creationists look really foolish. If you are you’re doing a really good job of it.
Bob #207. That’s real funny!!! The thing is HE DIDN’T!!
TruthTalk: Is there nothing in your rules that would stop ”the person who doesn’t exist” from continually spewing out hatred and blaspheme on this site? If not I think you should make a new rule. I mean if he was atleast putting some kind of intelligent debate forward against the subject I can understand, but (altho I haven’t read his latest posts since I stopped conversing with him) surely the content of most of his posts are just rediculous rantings of anti-christian and anti-God hatred.
Maz 210 Ditto. You know what they say about ad hominem attacks.
Bob: I’m just wondering where the Moderator is.
BTW, it’a pouring with rain here, dreary, dark, altho not cold, more like humid. The weather man doesn’t promise much better weather for this month.
You know what they say about ad hominem attacks.
Answer: ROFL! The nerve of you people! All you two do is make ad hominem attacks on the other people who post on this blog plus scientists, atheists and everyone else who has information that your religious beliefs are absolutely false.
TruthTalk: Is there nothing in your rules that would stop ”the person who doesn’t exist” from continually spewing out hatred and blaspheme on this site?
Answer: If they actually fairly enforced any rules on this site then you, Bob and Mike would have been banned for calling me an idiot and other names a long time ago. But as the moderator explained this is a Christian site and Christians are going to be allowed to get away with just about anything while unbelievers must toe the line or be banned. I get a lot of satisfaction that I can still demolish all your arguments on such an uneven playing field. So just keep on hurling those insults and let everyone see how evangelical Christian behave. You people set an example everyone would want to follow. Not.
mherman: “Is there nothing in your rules that would stop ”the person who doesn’t exist” from continually spewing out hatred and blaspheme on this site?”
Here I must disagree with you. While I will refrain, as much as possible -very very few responses to the man, from commenting on the rantings of “the person who doesn’t exist (TPWDE)” he should be allowed to place his thoughts on this site.
He does us a great favor as he tells us exactly what the enemies of Christ are thinking and promoting. We can then take what he presents and use it to refute the arguments with others we engage in conversations. In other words, TPWDE allows us to strengthen our beliefs against all those that would slander the name of Christ.
We should always be able to justify to anyone why we believe. At this point in time, TPWDE cannot be reasoned with. You cannot reason with a person that creates their own reality. I gave the example of my schizophrenic aunt, Josephine. Once she believes something, no amount of evidence or facts will alter her delusion. Such a person will say that a pig is a big fish and nothing on earth will change their minds.
TPWDE reminds me of the story of a man who woke up one morning thinking he was dead. His wife did everything she could to convince him otherwise, but nothing would change his mind.
After two weeks, she decided to take her husband to the doctor so the doctor could prove to him that he was not dead. After 3 hours of showing the man charts and models of the human body proving that the dead do not bleed, the man conceded that the dead do not bleed.
As soon as the doctor heard the man’s acceptance that the dead do not bleed, he stabbed the man in the hand with a needle. The man looked down at his hand in amazement and as he saw the blood oozing out he shouted, “Great Scott, THE DEAD DO BLEED.”
Mike: Then maybe we did a disservice to Boris, Fred (of old) and Barney and any other irreligious person that posted their anti-Christian garbage on here, when they were banned? WWJD?
Moderator: You are awfully quiet at the moment.
I shall be going off air now……and if Bernie is still on here tomorrow…..I won’t be. Sorry, but that is how I feel about it.
For all those who have debated fairly and respectfully, thank you. God Bless.
mherman: “Mike: Then maybe we did a disservice to Boris, Fred (of old) and Barney and any other irreligious person that posted their anti-Christian garbage on here, when they were banned?”
I don’t know because I was not around when they were posting. All I know is that the rules should be fair and strictly enforced for all. If anyone violates a rule then the procedures should be the same for all. Now I do believe that the moderator has a duty to protect the integrity of the site to make sure that a handful of hateful people do not destroy the purpose of the site.
I see Truth Talk Live as a forum for discovering truth not a battlefield for the enemies of Christ to promote their hate and venom and thus ruin this forum for those to which it was intended. We can all debate vigorously and can agree to disagree without rancor. You and I debated several issues and while we did not see eye to eye, we respected each others rights to believe differing points of view.
I cannot tell you what is the dividing line between vigorous debate and hostile / vicious attacks, but the moderator should know it when he sees it. I will admit that from time to time I have been guilty of stating things about TPWDE that I could have said a different way. If I had stepped out of bounds, I should have been reprimanded.
I believe our…at least my major objection to what TPWDE writes is the complete distortion of history and blaming Christianity for the holocaust and the global slave trade of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Either the man is ignorant of history or he willingly knows he spreading propaganda.
I know I am rambling here but this is not an easy issue to resolve. While we should welcome different points of view on all issues, we must also recognize that 1/2 dozen TPWDEa would ruin this website for all Christians, and that should never be allowed. So while I have a point in allowing TPWDE a forum, you too have a point that this person should not be allowed to make this site anything less than for people seeking truth.
MIke and Maz Thats a tough one. It is interesting to hear the opposing points, but the lies and distortions get a little old. Maybe the moderator could edit some of the posts? That way they would still be here but lose the hostility/attacks.
Post 219,
A Young Earth Christian Creationist complains about “lies and distortions” which do not exist but within his mind within posts from skeptics containing current, proven,scientific information, and then suggests acts of censorship upon the posts of said skeptics.
I think that your Devil would smile at your efforts, Bob.
So while I have a point in allowing TPWDE a forum, you too have a point that this person should not be allowed to make this site anything less than for people seeking truth.
Answer: The problem is Mike, that you and the other fundamentalist Christians are not seeking truth. You’re claiming to already have the truth and the authority to tell the rest of us what this truth is. The discussion should start with whether or not you really have the truth, not based on any preconditions that you already do. Really though, most of these threads are about particular subjects that most of us wish you would stick to.
John as far as your post referring to Bob accusing people of telling lies and making distortions, whom is he talking about exactly? It must be me because I know he can’t be talking about Fred, Matt, x or you. Or perhaps it’s the scientists that Bob thinks are being dishonest. Because you know, all scientists are atheists and they don’t want to have to acknowledge God because they would then have to acknowledge they are all sinners and have to repent. And the cow jumped over the moon.
Maz How do you like your health care? All of us here in the US who oppose Obamas government proposed health care are being treated like those who deny evolution. I guess we are deniers and dont understand whats best for us.
Bob: Ditto #217. I refuse to post on here while someone like Bernie is allowed to continue posting his rubbish.
Maz Keep up with me here and ignore Bernie. Check out on YouTube - Journey Inside the Cell. A video in conjunction with the new Stephen Meyer book. Maybe the intellectuals can look at it and tell us how it happens by a mindless process.
Sorry Bob, but I seem to have lost interest. I’v become a sceptic…….I am sceptical that TPWDE or any ‘intellectual’ would see any light even if a laser beam were shone right into their pupil. I mean, their thinking is a mindless process after all……isn’t it?
mherman: “Sorry Bob, but I seem to have lost interest. I’v become a sceptic…….I am sceptical that TPWDE or any ‘intellectual’ would see any light”
You are wrong about intellectuals. Some of the most brilliant minds have been devoted Christians and great men of faith. You recently told me to ignore a certain person, and as you can see I am following your very wise advice.
So I will encourage you to do what I have done. I will no longer respond to TPWDE. It is an absolute waste of time. I will pray for him if for no other reason than to drive him crazy. That’s right Bernie, you are on my prayer list and will remain there until I draw my last breath or you come to Christ. Every morning while you are drinking your coffee, just think, Mike is on his knees praying for me…..MIKE IS ON HIS KNEES PRAYING FOR ME. I have also asked the men in my Sunday School to pray for you. Next week, I will put you on our prayer list.
I URGE ALL CHRISTIANS WITHIN THE SIGHT OF THESE MESSAGES TO PRAY FOR BERNIE, THAT HE MAY COME TO KNOW THE LORD. I am going to get as many people praying for you as I can Bernie….I love you that much.
mherman, you add much to this board. Keep posting your thoughts for it through our exchanges that we grow in Christ. Remember, “We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.” You can even mention the Rapture and I will keep my keyboard silent
How about that?
Cute Mike.
Conquering with kindness[smile]?
Bernie post 221,
No, I’m pretty sure that all of us who contributed scientific information that Bob wouldn’t/couldn’t allow himself to take seriously were included within that remark. As for the bottom half of your post regarding Atheistic scientists, I cannot help but wonder if Maz or Bob have noticed the contradiction of thinking that, if they were correct about evolution, that at least five confirmed theists that they have been debating with for thousands of posts on a multitude of sites[ MattF, Kash, Fred, Ferox, and I] would knowingly promote an unverifiable fantasy created by Atheistic scientists who are trying to duck out of spiritual accountability.
Bob post 224,
Bob introduces us to high school level biology.
High School level biology, Bob. Which incidentally contains absolutely nothing that either goes against or CANNOT be explained by science/evolution, which you would already know if you had payed attention to the many posts that we have provided you and Maz with regarding to cells.
But…as usual, you did not, and of course not being one to research such matters for yourself, leads you to say such things as “Maybe the intellectuals can look at it and tell us how it happens by a mindless process.”
We explained it was not a “mindless process”, how such things happened, and you ignored or forgot it.
Not our problem.
Live with the consequences of your actions and inactions.
Maz post 225,
Maz, you have to first understand a thing and understand it well before you criticize the understanding of others.
You know, by refusing to post alongside Bernie’s presence, you give him power over you. Why not just ignore him as you do with MattF? Just a thought.
I’m leaving myself, at least until the next site on this topic comes into being, so perhaps you can now take some comfort in knowing that there’s one less skeptic here to try and correct you.
Until the next time[smile].
Mike: Please note that I put the word ”intellectuals” in quotation marks. That means something.
I’m glad you’ve seen the light (so to speak) about TPWDE. I wish everyone ignored him and maybe he would go away of his own accord. (Wishful thinking).
Yes, we can still pray for him, Gods grace can reach the stubbornest heart and the lowest of all creatures. Let’s spread the word around and who can stand against the power of God!
I am just surprised that TTL have been very quiet on the subject of TPWDE’s offensive posts though, and very disappointed in them. How many people read this site? And how many could possibly be put off coming to Christ by all his negative mumbo jumbo. And a space child? Give me a break!!
And you won’t respond if I mention the Rapture? Boy, Mike, that is saying something!
John: ”We explained it was not a “mindless process”, how such things happened, and you ignored or forgot it.”
So there WAS a MIND behind it all?
Do all Atheists agree with you?
OK. Here’s a very interesting little video about amber.
Either, evolution didn’t happen, of we haven’t been here for millions of years…..take your pick!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6rvCR5TmkA&NR=1
And how many could possibly be put off coming to Christ by all his negative mumbo jumbo.
Answer: People are much more likely to be put off coming to Christ by reading the posts made by the creationists on this blog than they are anything I post.
I have to agree that, in my opinion, young earth creationists put far more stumbling blocks to faith than skeptics like Bernie. YECers make all sorts of demands about how one much think and interpret the Bible, including how one must approach reality to make it fit that very narrow rubric. Bernie at his worst just makes one work harder to defend one’s faith, and become more educated about what one believes, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Maz, I watched yours, now you watch mine. Evolution, amber, and the Eocene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2UkYl6ions&feature=related
Kash: Some old earth ones do too sometimes! And there is a question mark over WHO is actually ‘narrow’.
”Narrow is the way that leads to life….!”
Kash: Listened to your (fairly boring I have to say) video link. But that doesn’t explain why we see the same creatures that were trapped in amber some 40-54 million years ago (”quite recent” so he says!) still alive today. What, no evolution for 40-54 million years? Well you may say, that isn’t long on the evolutionary time scale is it. But it’s still a jolly long time with no change!
And out of interest I listened to part of another video clip by this man talking about God with some contempt.
So what was the point of the video?
“What, no evolution for 40-54 million years? Well you may say, that isn’t long on the evolutionary time scale is it. But it’s still a jolly long time with no change!” But evolution would only occur if minor changes reinforced by environmental conditions cause them to confer selective advantage on the organism in question. An organism that is well adapted to their environment (take the shark) would have only minor change (if any) under our current understanding of how evolution works, no matter how long the time frame.
“And out of interest I listened to part of another video clip by this man talking about God with some contempt.” THe fact that he is an atheist has no bearing on the validity of his scientific explanations, just as the fact that a given person is a Christian has no bearing on the validity of their ability to read Shakespeare in Old English.
John Sorry, I keep forgetting that you are right all the time.
mherman: “Now transfer that thought to the fact….the truth as we Christians believe it and which is recorded in the first chapter of the Bible by a man inspired by God, that God created the animals right at the beginning of creation just as we see them today.”
But the animals “at the beginning of creation” were not as they are today. Not even nearly so. How do you explain that?
mherman: “So what is so wrong about saying that?”
It doesn’t match the facts. It’s really quite simple. If you’re going to claim that it’s consistent with science, it makes you a liar (or terribly ignorant). It also strongly implies that the creator (whoever you’re putting in that position) is a liar, since He made it evident to every line of inquiry we’ve been able to devise that things were *not* created several thousand years ago (and made all those lines of inquiry give consistent answers even though they’re independent of one another). Those who worship the Christian God would generally disagree with the assertion or implication that He is deceitful.
mherman: “If evolution had the evidence it was supposed to have, if evolution was true, there would be no doubt at all that it happened that way.”
There *is* no doubt. At least, not among the people who have studied it and seen the facts directly. The only “doubt” is among people who have books or videos to sell, and those who listen to them without bothering to actually check the evidence.
mherman: “But there are too many missing links……gaps…….and question marks within the evidence presented by our evolutionist scientists to warrant it being called a fact. :-)”
There are “gaps” in *every scientific discipline*. That said, the theory of evolution has some of the *fewest* gaps of any scientific theory in existence. How many “gaps” are too many? And why is the fact of evolution ineligible for facthood when we’ve *directly observed it*?
bobgriffin: “What proof do we have for any self replicating that has lasted over 400,000 years?”
Look into fossils of single-celled organisms.
Besides that, if you’re seriously proposing that there is some mechanism that will *prevent* this, it’s up to you to present the mechanism. We generally assume that things behave the way we directly observe them behaving *unless evidence suggests otherwise*.
mherman (quoting John): “”… as so long as you can realize that scientific and historical evidences prove otherwise”
They don’t.”
Ah, but they do. They may not contradict the cherry-picked facts that Ken Ham and his ilk like to present, but if one actually tries to see which explanation fits all the available data and which is flatly contradicted by volumes of studies and observations, it’s clear that instantaneous creation is false. I even gave a list of these evidences when you were pretending to listen. So far, no creationist has addressed them.
mherman: “And they don’t teach it in schools because they want the children to know the truth.”
It (creationism) contradicts directly-observable scientific evidence. That’s usually enough to get something removed from a science curriculum all by itself.
mherman: “They want them to accept and believe their world view……that there is no God and that it all came by chance.”
I have no desire for people to accept or believe those things. I simply want people to understand the truth, not some nice-sounding garbage handed to them by a swift-talking teacher who knows how to use people’s good sense against them.
mherman: “You won’t allow the YEC science to show you the truth about the evidence because you have a world view that prevents that from happening.”
Young-Earth creationism isn’t science because it contradicts the facts. Go back to when you were reading my posts, and look up that list I posted. (If it contradicts the facts, it isn’t science. That’s all there is to it.)
mherman: “deep down inside I couldn’t accept that all that there is came by chance.”
Evolution teaches nothing of the sort.
mherman: “Natural selection does not change one species into another….”
We’ve seen it happen. Directly. Many, many times. Do you want another list?
You have a bizarre talent for not only ignoring the facts, but also insisting that the facts aren’t there, and then saying that your thinking is somehow compatible with science. This is not the hallmark of someone attempting to be honest with the data.
mherman: “like cat into dog, horse into elephant so to speak. Do you get my drift? (Sweet grin with a tilted head).”
We’ve tried to explain to you before that this is not how evolution happened. Yet, you claim to understand evolution. How backwards is that?
mherman: “The gaps and missing links prove there is no connection between the fossils within the record, so proving no gradual change from one animal species to another.”
No. At best, all one could assert (even though they would be doing so wrongly) is to claim that they *fail to show gradual change*. They don’t “prove there is no connection” — any more than the fact that there is void between the planets proves that there is no gravity.
mherman: “but the fossil record shows distinct animal species, not inbetween, transitional forms, which should be in abundance if millions of years of evolution took place.”
It does. I’ve given you lists.
mherman (quoting John): “”the speed of light in space, ”
Ah….my favourite subject! Well, they are still working on that one. It is not as absolute as they think it is.”
Cite? The speed of light in vacuum has been constant for at least millions of years; we have direct observational evidence of this.
mherman: “And there are some weird things happening out in space. It is not ”flat”, and there are the forces of gravity which create all sorts of strange things to happen with light and time itself. Did you know that light can be bent? That light and time can be slowed down? It is not a closed book.”
The speed of light in vacuum is constant. This forms the basis of relativity.
But you’re right that it’s not a closed book. For when light is bent and spacetime is warped, other things happen, too. What “side effects” do you know that have been observed to be in effect and require re-writing estimates of the Earth’s (or the Universe’s) age?
mherman: “havn’t we been through both sides, you give your scientific evidence, I give my scientific evidence.”
First of all, there’s no scientific evidence that is possessed by either side. The evidence is what it is.
Second, any decent scientific theory has got to be able to explain *all* the data. Creationism doesn’t.
bobgriffin: “Your side came up with the 400,000 number.”
It was given as a scenario, not as a statement of fact.
*You* came up with some interesting numbers — not just your “side” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) — yet *you* have refused to give any reason for believing that these numbers are accurate. Why the double standard, Bob?
John: “When I typed up “Lucy” on the computer a VAST amount of Creationist sites appeared telling me about how much they disagreed with “Lucy” as a creature and the scientists who are associated with her in any little way. They all come off as insecure, trying to grasp at any little thing in an attempt to undermine the Natural Sciences.”
This is one of the gripes I have about young-Earth creationism. A fascinating find is unearthed, and rather than attempt to investigate it to find out what it is and try to learn from what it might teach us, the young-Earth creationist pundits scramble to sweep it under the rug and pretend that there couldn’t possibly be anything interesting about it whatsoever.
Which seems more interested in pursuing truth? A group that invites all who are curious to come and look? Or a group who insists that there’s really nothing to see after all?
mherman: “That’s it!! If it was based on chance….(and not a creator)…..then it wouldn’t exist at all!! Haven’t I been saying that all along! REALLY John can’t you see what you have just admitted to?”
Yes. He admitted that evolution is not based on chance.
But we’ve been saying that to you all along.
mherman: “No, all life we see today is not always the same as it was when it was created, because of natural selection and adaptation. All these come about by a LOSS, not an addition, to the genetic information in the DNA. We have been through this before as well.”
Yes. And when we talked about this, we pointed out that every mutation has a corresponding mutation that “undoes” it. So if it’s possible to lose information, it’s possible to add it as well. However, you have ignored this, since continuing to cling to your incorrect picture of things allows you to believe that your picture is somehow scientific and legitimate.
John: “Remember how I told you that Young Earth Creation Science came into being? Because intellectually dishonest and spiritually insecure Biblical literalists it didn’t want to agree with the evidences of real science and history and thus began to create their own[Matt F, if you are reading, as a former Young Earth Christian Creationist yourself I'd appreciate it if you would either confirm or correct this statement of mine, if you would please. Thank you.].”
You’re absolutely correct — not just in terms of the evidence I personally had valiantly tried to ignore that contradicts creationism, but in terms of the evidences that creationist teachers and organizations have been shown to ignore over and over again, even when it’s directly presented to them. (Duane Gish and Triceratops make for an interesting example.) Since I had been taught that big Christian ideas like sin, death, and redemption hinged on a “correct” understanding of Genesis — an interpretation I never failed to see when I went over the text, even though the specifics the YECist camp likes to insert are nowhere to be found — I was in an uncomfortable place for years, struggling between intellectual honesty and my faith and feeling like there was no way to have both.
An excellent history of the formation of the creationist movement and its continuing dishonesty — presented simply on its own merits, with no attempt to address the “other side” at all — is “The Creationists” by Numbers. (It’s a weighty read, but a good one.) The fact of the matter is, for example, that “flood geology” was soundly disproven over a century ago.
Anyway, back in the day, I was a dutiful little creationist, trying desperately to make it all fit. I submit that I probably own more young-Earth creationist propaganda than anyone on this site — and I continue to (casually) collect more, just to see how the teachers are repackaging the same old, long-debunked arguments for a new series of books or videos. Of course, that no more proves that I understand creationism than Maz’s television consumption proves that she understands evolution. What matters is what is consistent with the directly observable evidence and what isn’t. Creationism isn’t.
mherman: “Like the Grand Canyon, we look at the SAME evidence but see something different.”
No. The creationist has to *ignore* vast sections of the Grand Canyon in order to continue to insist that it was formed by a flood. The “evolutionist” has no such handicap. Would you like examples? I’ve mentioned them before. (Hint: Coconino Sandstone.)
mherman: “ike the fossil record, it’s the SAME record, but we see it different.”
Again, no. Again, the creationist must *ignore* vast sections of the fossil record in order to pretend that it was all laid by a single catastrophic event, or that it does not reveal great age, or that it does not imply evolutionary succession. The “evolutionist” has no such handicap. Would you like examples? Again?
The creationist would like to believe that it’s merely a difference in interpreting the available evidence, but this merely shows how little evidence (and what kinds!) the creationist has allowed himself to be exposed to.
mherman: “mutations being on the most part a loss of information and not the stupendous additions that you need for evolution to happen even over millions of years! (Feel like tearing my hair out!)”
Um… yeah. We’ve shown you with *actual, observed examples* how the rate of “beneficial” mutation is perfectly consistent with the rate required for evolution (go back to the “darwin” as a rate of evolutionary change). Yet you *refuse* to learn, continuing to insist that this is “all chance”.
You’ve shown us no actual, observed examples of anything you’ve said, in spite of repeated requests to do so.
So the group with evidence has been forthcoming, and continues to be ignored. The group *without* evidence feels like pulling its hair out when those who disagree don’t simply take their say-so about things, refusing to present evidence when asked. Why does this seem backward?
bobgriffin: “We could give you tons of instances where EVOLUTIONISTS disagree with each other about many things.”
I could give you tons of instances where physicists disagree about many things on the nature of gravity. This is not evidence that no one knows anything about how gravity works. If you think it is, you’ve missed something important about science generally.
mherman: “Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution”
I’ve addressed the notion of a “molecular clock” before. There’s no question that this is under hot debate currently, especially since it appears that changes can accelerate in response to certain environmental pressures. This does nothing to address molecular *phylogenies*, however, which is what the genetic evidence for evolution depends on. Timing information is secondary to information regarding inheritance and relationship. Molecular phylogenies are rather solid.
In other words, this entire copied-and-pasted paper is a smoke job, attempting to get people to accept an idea by throwing around sophisticated-sounding terms and not even addressing the information it claims to address.
mherman: “Academic Persecution of Scientists and Scholars Researching Intelligent Design is a Dangerous and Growing Trend.
[...]
According to Discovery Institute,”
Ah. Rather interesting when the group that demands special pleading claims to be persecuted, isn’t it?
bobgriffin: “I know of a scientist that has degrees in chemistry and biochemistry and now teaches biochemistry. Would his views be acceptable to you?”
That depends on whether or not his views are in agreement with the facts. We’ve tried to explain this before, Bob. Academic credentials are *irrelevant*.
mherman: “Even if Darwin himself was raised from the dead and told everyone he was wrong after all, they would still stubbornly hold to the theory, because they have nothing else but God to fall back on for Creation!”
We would still embrace the theory. But that’s because the facts agree with it. We don’t embrace the theory *because* of Darwin, and we wouldn’t dismiss the theory *because* of Darwin, either.
And, frankly, it has nothing to do with whether I want people to “fall back on” God for creation or not. I — and most other Christians, as it turns out — accept evolution, but don’t believe that is exclusive to the idea of a Creator God.
mherman: “And that would be crazy…..wouldn’t it???? ;-)”
What’s crazy is that you can say something like this and still claim to understand evolution.
Maz: ”Narrow is the way that leads to life….!” I don’t think Jesus meant we are to be small minded. Just my opinion.
Kash: ”But evolution would only occur if minor changes reinforced by environmental conditions cause them to confer selective advantage on the organism in question.”
We are always being told we don’t understand evolution, but for someone who has studied biology you are sadly ignorant of the changes that you are supposing happened. Again I must repeat, that the changes that occur in natural selection are usually due to loss of information…not a gain. There is no new information passed on to enable evolution to take place. You should know this, yet you keep holding on to a progressive evolutionary change which builds things from microbes to men!
You have to ask yourself….WHERE did all that new information come from?
It really blows my mind how scientists can blindly hold to an idea, a theory, and ignore the truth that would make evolution absolutely impossible even over a trillion years.
”An organism that is well adapted to their environment (take the shark) would have only minor change (if any) under our current understanding of how evolution works, no matter how long the time frame.”
Oh? Your ”current understanding”, you mean you may be wrong?
I’v read again about how the scientists talk about the meaning of ”theory” and ”proof” and it again boggles the mind to see how they wiggle out of saying that it just isn’t fact yet! There is no REAL proof, the theory has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. In some areas….they haven’t got a clue! Yet they teach it and talk about it as if it is an accepted fact. It is not.
”The fact that he is an atheist has no bearing on the validity of his scientific explanations, just as the fact that a given person is a Christian has no bearing on the validity of their ability to read Shakespeare in Old English.”
It is often said on here of us, that we get all our information from Creation web sites (which is false)……..it seems they (the evolutionist) thinks this negates everything we present as evidence of what we believe about Creation. So now you say it doesn’t matter if your evidence comes from an atheist? But this negates your point……you use an atheist who doesn’t believe in any God, and even treats Him with sarcastic scorn, to support your theory in evolution that says God used it. That is questionable at best and ridiculous at worst.
Kash: We are to be single minded.
Interesting quotes:
“… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
“If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part.”
Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
“A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.”
Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
“It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven.”
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
Evolution — No longer inspiring the confidence it once did
William Dembski
PRESS RELEASE
Wednesday, October 11th was an historic day in the life of the European Parliament. (2006)
Polish member of the European Parliament, Maciej Giertych, retired head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Science, and father of Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Roman Giertych, introduced a public seminar on the General Theory of Evolution to fellow MEP’s.
Professor Giertych questioned the value of teaching a continually falsified hypothesis – macroevolution – to students throughout Europe, as well as pointing out its lack of usefulness in regard to scientific endeavour.
Professor Giertych introduced the subject by relating how his children had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of macroevolution – the common ancestry of biological life – was to be found in the science of genetics. This was news to Professor Giertych who had spent his life working at the highest level of genetic research. He revealed to the meeting that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.
This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo who had travelled from the USA to participate in the Brussels hearing. He explained that the biological sciences offer no empirical proof of macroevolution, just insurmountable problems. The theory of evolution consists merely of interpretational evidences which by their very nature could be interpreted in many different ways. He told the audience that the theory, after more than 150 years, still lacked any empirical proof.
Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.
Finally, Dr. Guy Berthault spoke to the audience about the results of his empirical research programmes concerning the deposition of sediments. Contrary to the established idea that the geologic column was formed slowly over millions of years, horizontal layer by layer, he revealed that his ongoing research proves empirically that the whole column could have been laid down in a matter of months. His research, which has been published in journals of the National Academy of Sciences in France, Russia and China, shows that continuous deposition of water borne sediments sort themselves mechanically and a simple change in current velocity cause strata to build upon each other whilst still progressing in the direction of flow.
In opposition to the existing notion of sediment deposition that is generally taught, Dr. Berthault revealed that his empirical experimental results clearly show that parts of undisturbed lower strata are actually younger than parts of higher strata laid down in a continuous flow.
This means that fossils can not be dated by the strata that they are found in, nor the rocks dated by the type of fossils found in them and makes nonsense of the geologic column as it is currently taught.
Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.
END
mherman: “Again I must repeat, that the changes that occur in natural selection are usually due to loss of information…not a gain.”
Cite?
And what does this have to do with the rate of “beneficial” mutations being entirely consistent with an evolutionary time scale?
mherman: “There is no new information passed on to enable evolution to take place.”
Completely false. Look into gene duplication or lateral gene transfer for starters. We’ve mentioned these many, many, many times before. They are directly-observed mechanisms that allow “new information” to be created.
*This* is why “[you're] always being told [you] don’t understand evolution”. Your statement contradicts what really happens in the really real world — things that happen to agree with evolutionary theory. The fact that you claim this invented idea as evidence against evolution shows that you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
mherman: “You have to ask yourself….WHERE did all that new information come from?”
Gene duplication and lateral gene transfer, for a start.
Do you *really* think such a question has simply been *missed* by legions of highly-trained scientists?
mherman: “It really blows my mind how scientists can blindly hold to an idea, a theory, and ignore the truth that would make evolution absolutely impossible even over a trillion years.”
That’s because the idea is consistent with the facts. Your “truth” is not. It’s that simple.
mherman: “Oh? Your ”current understanding”, you mean you may be wrong?”
Yes. Just as it is our “current understanding” that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Just as it is our “current understanding” that mass/energy is always conserved.
Science never claims to be complete. The quotes you supplied in post 242 mention this. The fact that it is provisional does not mean that it is uncertain. I am *certain* of the existence of electrons, just as I am *certain* that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.
I know what it would take to undermine that certainty, but that does not mean that the ideas are shaky or lack evidence.
But that’s almost incidental. Much more than what it asserts, science is certain of what the facts have demonstrated to be *false*. Creationism is unequivocally false.
mherman: “There is no REAL proof, the theory has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
No theory ever is. You don’t seem to understand how science works.
mherman: “Yet they teach it and talk about it as if it is an accepted fact. It is not.”
It is as close as science ever gets. It is more certain than the accepted fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
And it certainly matches the facts better than creationism.
mherman: “It is often said on here of us, that we get all our information from Creation web sites (which is false)……”
So you say. But I note with some amusement that the “evolutionists” show what creationists say alongside directly-observable evidence to show that they don’t agree (e.g., my list of things that Ken Ham gets wrong). Creationists don’t do the same with “evolutionists”. The best they can do is quote mine in an attempt to make evolution itself appear shaky, or else quote creationists to try to show that their points have some merit.
If you could show with some directly-observable evidence why what “evolutionists” say is wrong, it might begin to look as if you had some sort of scientific case.
So maybe you don’t get everything from creation web sites, but you treat creationist rhetoric as more substantial than directly-observable fact. That’s what we’re talking about here. In your bizarre hierarchy of truth, the word of a teacher is more trustworthy than actual, observable data, or anyone who uses actual, observable data to make their point.
Respect for ideas must be earned. Ideas that stand up and remain consistent with observation in spite of people’s best attempts to disprove them with those same observations earn respect. Ideas that continue to gain traction even when the plain facts contradict them can only gain derision at best.
mherman: “Evolution — No longer inspiring the confidence it once did”
“Maciej Giertych”
Oh, *there’s* an interesting fellow to quote.
He believes, for example, that there are different “races” of humanity, something biology gave up a long time ago. He believes civilizations can be sorted “hierarchically” (gee, who’s on top?). He believes that since Jews are not a race, it’s a mistake to think that anti-Semitism is racism (huh?). He believes that civilizations and cultures should remain separate, otherwise they grow weak — which is why Gypsies and Jews should always be denied Polish citizenship.
Read all about it in his “Civilizations at war in Europe”. All these weird, racist ideas that Maz seems to think are typical of *evolution* (without a shred of proof), yet this poster boy of *creationism* displays them all proudly.
mherman: “Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo”
Mastropaolo, who believes (according to his $10,000 challenge) that science is determined in a court of law. He shows really bad understanding of science with this challenge. Why should we believe his take on the biological sciences?
(Besides this, an equivalent court case has already taken place: in McLean v. Arkansas, which attempted to determine whether creationism is science or religion, Judge Overton ruled that creationism is a religion.)
mherman: “Dr. Hans Zillmer”
I don’t know much about Zillmer, to be honest, though I’ve heard rumors that he bases his notions of paleontology on the (long debunked) Paluxy River basin in Glen Rose, Texas. I’ll have to look deeper into him.
mherman: “Dr. Guy Berthault”
It’s interesting to note that Dr. Berthault’s literary knowledge and field methods are decades (sometimes even centuries!) out of date. His “discoveries” in sedimentology and field geology have been known to geolosits for a long, long time. He can make it sound impressive by presenting his “findings” to an audience that is generally uneducated with respect to geologic science, though. He also does nothing to address the layers that demonstrate that gradual deposition must have taken place (e.g., the Coconino Sandstone layer or the Bright Angel Shale layer).
mherman: “In opposition to the existing notion of sediment deposition that is generally taught, Dr. Berthault revealed that his empirical experimental results clearly show that parts of undisturbed lower strata are actually younger than parts of higher strata laid down in a continuous flow.”
Yeah. And if the strata we’re talking about in the Grand Canyon remotely resembled strata laid down in a continuous flow, *maybe* he’d have a point.
mherman: “C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.”
That’s rather overstating the case. The C.E.P. was formed out of another (informal) French-speaking Catholic group in 1997, specifically erected because they perceive macroevolution to be in conflict with their specific reading of the Bible… *not* because they think macroevolution is in doubt *on its own scientific merits*.
Right….repeat after me………..
Natural Selection and Adaptation Preserve Life Forms, Rather Than Generate New Ones.
Plants and animals were originally created with large gene pools within created kinds. A large gene pool gives a created kind the genetic potential (the potential to produce a variety of types within a kind) to adapt to a variety of ecosystems and ensure the survival of that kind of organism through natural selection.
Genetic potential can best be understood by observing the large number of dog breeds. There are many shapes, sizes, and colors of dogs, illustrating the tremendous genetic potential in this kind of animal. Other kinds of plants and animals have similar potential to produce variety within a created kind.
Natural selection can only operate on the genetic material already present in a population of organisms. It cannot create new genetic information and subsequently change one kind of organism into another.
Please note: IT CANNOT CREATE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGE ONE KIND OF ORGANISM INTO ANOTHER.
AND….if you didn’t get it the first time…..
Neo-Darwinian Theory Fails the Mutation Test
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Darwin’s original conception of simple-to-complex evolution maintained that nature selected certain individuals with superior features, and in this way gradually, one tiny feature at a time, an entirely different creature could eventually form.
The source of new features or feature fragments for nature to select, however, eluded evolutionists for decades. To answer this, the Geological Society of America in 1941 formulated a new version of Darwinian evolution. They decided that genetic mutations should be considered the source of new information for nature to select, and thus the Neo-Darwinian Theory was born.
Since that time, however, science has revealed that mutations have fallen far short of the lofty accomplishments ascribed to them. A survey of mutation-related news from just the first few months of 2009 clearly demonstrates their grim, deleterious reality:
One mutation was found to guarantee heart disease.
Certain mutations increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
A mutation that enables rats to resist rodent poison was found to be the likely cause of both bone disease and vascular calcification in rats. In humans, it is quite likely that a similar mutation causes the same diseases.
Another mutation leads to a brain disease called acute necrotizing encephalopathy.
“Fatal Familiar Insomnia…prevents the patient getting to sleep…and…, after a number of months thus, causes death. [It is] caused by the D178N mutation.”
A mutation that produces a difference of a single amino acid in an enzyme (out of approximately 150 in its protein) was found to be a likely cause of the mysterious “sudden collapse” condition in healthy athletes.
Mayo clinic researchers are looking for the mutation that contributes to restless leg syndrome.
Mutations have been implicated in technical journals as causative agents in autism, brain cancer, some migraines, breast cancer, the devastating neurodegenerative disease pontocerebellar hypoplasia, fatal lung disease, and many more ills—just since January 2009.
If mutations really generate new and useful information systems, then mutation-related news should be reporting more benefit-causing mutations. Deleterious mutations clearly and vastly outpace any beneficial candidates. Given time, more harmful mutations accumulate, leading eventually to extinction, not evolutionary progress.
The relentless supply of news shows exactly what the Bible says: This is a temporarily sin-cursed world that is full of decay and death. But the Bible also reveals what the news does not: Death will not have the final word.
mherman: “Right….repeat after me……….. ;-)”
See? Creationism is about repeating the right words, not about looking at the world around you and thinking. I’m snipping most of the “explanation”, which comes right out of Ken Ham’s playbook.
mherman: “Natural selection can only operate on the genetic material already present in a population of organisms. It cannot create new genetic information and subsequently change one kind of organism into another.”
You keep saying this, even though we’ve *watched it happen*. Directly. Both the addition of “new genetic information” and the transformation from one “kind” of organism into another. I’ve given lists. Do you want them again?
mherman: “Please note: IT CANNOT CREATE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGE ONE KIND OF ORGANISM INTO ANOTHER.”
Shouting it doesn’t make it any more true.
mherman: “A survey of mutation-related news from just the first few months of 2009 clearly demonstrates their grim, deleterious reality:”
Whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial depends on the environment; even as a single environment changes, a deleterious mutation can become beneficial or vice versa. And the fact that beneficial mutations are rare is immaterial, since harmful mutations don’t survive long, and beneficial ones do; moreover, harmful mutations tend to limit their numbers or die out, whereas beneficial ones sweep through a population relatively quickly.
Note that according to Henry M. Morris (”Scientific Creationism”, p. 13), *any* beneficial mutation is a falsification of young-Earth creationism.
That said, consider the following *directly-observed* beneficial mutations; I’ll happily supply citations if needed:
* Some bacteria can now digest nylon.
* Transposons are rather common mutations in the plant kingdom, where they occasionally provide benefit.
* Plant breeders use “mutation breeding” — a system designed to *deliberately induce mutations* so that the beneficial ones can be selected.
* Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacterium in human lungs, has strains that mutate quite a lot. This has allowed it to survive more effectively in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where treatments create much greater environmental pressures and varieties.
* Some mutations in humans grant greater resistance to heart disease.
* Still others grant greater resistance to AIDS.
* Still others make human bones stronger.
* Still others are used in vitro to evolve vastly improved function in RNA molecules.
mherman: “If mutations really generate new and useful information systems, then mutation-related news should be reporting more benefit-causing mutations.”
It reports plenty. But if people *just* *won’t* *listen* because their preconceived notions won’t allow them to, there’s no help for it.
mherman: “Given time, more harmful mutations accumulate, leading eventually to extinction, not evolutionary progress.”
Assuming that there *is* time and the harmful mutation doesn’t destroy the individual’s ability to pass on the mutation outright, yes. Which is exactly why harmful mutations don’t persist, whereas beneficial ones do.
Something else to consider if you buy into Maz’s idea that no new genetic information can be created, ever:
All of humanity is descended from eight people who got off a big boat, right?
If you understand biology doled out in *high school*, you will understand that this represents a maximum of 16 different alleles. (In reality, there’d be less, since the odds that Noah and Mrs. Noah would be living near each other and *not* have alleles in common is vanishingly small — not to mention that three of the eight were descended from Mr. and Mrs. Noah themselves. But we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt here. Call it divine providence or something.)
There are current human genetic loci that have over *four hundred* different alleles; some have over *seven hundred*. We’ve seen that creationist science is goofy; could it be that creationist math is wacky, too, since if no new information can be created, seven hundred must be less than or equal to sixteen?
Not only that, but if we assume that beneficial mutation is the source of these new alleles, to get from 16 to 400 in 4400 years (the amount of time young-Earth creationism gives since the Flood), we need one beneficial mutation roughly *every eleven years* (for each genetic locus) — much greater than any recorded observation. So why the high rate of beneficial mutations, and what stopped them?
Not only *that*, but since beneficial mutations are rare — less than 1% of all mutations — this means that we ought to be seeing a bare minimum of *nine deleterious mutations every year*, or at least 300 per generation. Per genetic locus.
If you can propose a mechanism that would have allowed this high rate of mutation to occur without killing people *and* allow it to be passed on through their sperm and eggs, a Nobel prize in medicine would easily be yours; this information would be *incredibly* useful in cancer research.
So either the creationists are being *really* selfish with their data and they’re callously allowing countless cancer victims to die, or they have no idea what they’re talking about when they say that creationism is compatible with science.
”In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth”….and He is so miraculously clever
that He did it all in 6 days!…….Just as He said He did in Genesis 1! Haven’t we got an amazing God!? Hallelujah!
MattF Macroevolution.
Further to my post #246 (cos some people just don’t get it!)
The Natural Direction of Life Is Degeneration, Not Evolution
Mutations in the genomes of organisms are typically nearly neutral, with little effect on the fitness of the organism. However, the accumulation of deleterious (harmful) mutations does occur and the accumulation of these mutations leads to genetic degeneration.
Mutations lead to the loss of genetic information and consequently the loss of genetic potential. This results in what is termed “genetic load” for a population of organisms. Genetic load is the amount of mutation in a kind of organism that affects its fitness for a particular environment. As genetic load increases, the fitness decreases and the organism progresses towards extinction as it is unable to compete with other organisms for resources such as food and living space.
An increase in genetic potential through mutation has not been observed, while the increase in genetic load via mutation is observable in all organisms and especially in man.
For those who think they can mix a miraculous Almighty Creator God with evolution, here’s some more food for thought.
Creation Was 24/6 and Recent.
The language of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are technically precise and linguistically clear. Any reader would understand that the author of those pages intended to convey a normal six-day creation, involving God’s supernatural intervention both to create (something from nothing) and to make and shape (something basic into something more complex).
Three days (Day 1, Day 5, and Day 6) involve creation. Three days (Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4) involve the organization, integration, and structuring of the material created on Day 1.
Life was created on Day 5, a life in which all animals and man share. A special image of God was created on Day 6 that only man has. The movement from “simple to complex” may appear to follow evolution’s theory, but the specific order (water > land > plants > stellar and planetary bodies > birds and fish > land animals > man) most emphatically does not.
The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary 24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.
The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle.
When God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger (certainly the most emphatic action ever taken by God on behalf of His revealed Word), God specifically designated a seventh day to be a “Sabbath” day (rest day) in memory and in honor of the work-six-days, rest-one-day activity of God during the creation week (Exodus 20:11). In that context, spoken and written by God Himself, the creation week can mean only a regular week of seven days, one of which is set aside as holy.
bobgriffin: “Macroevolution.”
I have no idea how a one-word post is supposed to rebut or explain anything, so I’ll try the same tactic: Reality.
How are you coming on that list of directly-observed phenomena that support “macroevolution” and contradict the idea of instantaneous creation, Bob? Why should I believe that it never happens when there is so much *directly observable evidence* to support it?
mherman: “Any reader would understand that the author of those pages intended to convey a normal six-day creation,”
Ancient scholars who spoke the original language of the text natively and who spent their entire professional lives dedicated to understanding these texts disagree. Even before modern science got to weigh in. It doesn’t help your case to overstate it.
mherman: “Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.”
This, on the other hand, is an abject *lie*. See Zechariah 14:7, or Hosea 6:2 (which has two instances).
If you’re trying to talk about the *truth* of the Bible, please don’t defend your position with *lies*.
mherman: “The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle.”
Strange to an English speaker, perhaps, but not to the people who received the text as it was written. I’ve addressed these points before, showing other places in Scripture that reveal that this passage is not as straightforward as this author likes to pretend.
mherman: “In that context, spoken and written by God Himself, the creation week can mean only a regular week of seven days, one of which is set aside as holy.”
Not true. I’ve addressed this before as well. Using Scripture itself to interpret Scripture.
I will also note that the young-Earth creationists on this forum have done nothing to address the idea that they may be squirming out of a command given in Scripture for God’s children to follow (in Hebrews 4) by using such a rigid, counterfactual interpretation of Genesis 1.
Maz Wait for MattF to bring on the speculation and inferences to the impossible.
Bob: What did you mean by ”Macroevolution?” I’m a bit perplexed myself.
bobgriffin: “Maz Wait for MattF to bring on the speculation and inferences to the impossible.”
Pot. Kettle. Et cetera.
Any closer to giving us information for how the fantastic numbers you’ve been throwing about were derived, Bob? Any reasons why they shouldn’t be dismissed as “speculation” or “inferences to the impossible”? Any mechanisms that show why *my* claims are impossible, given that they are consistent with observation, experiment, and discovery?
At least I’ve shown why I claim what I do with directly-observed fact(*) or the derivations of my numbers. You have yet to do even that little.
Looks like I’m not the one speculating here, Bob.
(*) That’s right, Bob. “Macroevolution”, as you call it, has been *directly observed*. (Want citations?) Continuing to claim that things which have been directly observed do not exist is usually termed “denial”.
Bob: If anyone claims that macroevolution has been observed is a fool at best and quite dishonest at worst. NO ONE has EVER observed macro-evolutionary changes in the animal kingdom…..unless of course they lived a few million years to see it!
Any evidence that may be brought up for macro-evolution is not the same as observing it actually happening. That would be silly! Even our most atheistic of evolutionaries will admit it hasn’t been observed. Why don’t they all admit it?
Maz 255 You answered it in 257. That was just a one word rebuttal to a lengthy post.
mherman: “NO ONE has EVER observed macro-evolutionary changes in the animal kingdom…..”
Helacyton gartleri. We actually watched it happen.
MattF My numbers were arrived at with statistics and probablity. The only way you can observe macroevolution is to redefine macroevolution in your own borderline mystical and devine way.
John Heres something about high school science for you.
Darwin Lobbyists Urge Ban on “Dangerous” Words in State Science Standards
John West
If you needed more evidence that the Darwin lobby wants to turn science education into little more than unquestioned propaganda, take a look at the outlandish new “study” evaluating state science standards published by two officials of the National Center for Science Education, the leading Darwin-only lobbying group. Published by a journal devoted to the one-sided teaching of evolution, the article by Louise Mead and Anton Mates condemns various states for filling their science standards with “dangerous” words and “creationist jargon.”
Just what are these “dangerous” words that must be banned?
“Assess,” “Analyze,” “Evaluate,” and “Critique.”
No, I’m not kidding.
Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is “overwhelming.” But they act as if they know that the evidence is so shaky that the slightest whiff of open discussion will topple the theory, and they are working overtime to prevent students and teachers from being able to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
Increasingly, the Darwinists’ justification for shutting down open inquiry by students and teachers is the patronizing insistence that high school students are too infantile to be allowed to discuss things like adults. In the words of Mead and Mates: “Expecting high school biology students to be able to evaluate evolutionary theory is no more reasonable than expecting high school physics students to evaluate quantum field theory. If students had the necessary knowledge and skills to make such judgments, there would be little reason for college science courses!” Rubbish. If high school students are capable of understanding the arguments and evidence for evolutionary theory, then they should be able to understand—and rationally discuss—scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory.
At some point, reasonable people outside the Darwin lobby are going to realize that the real threat to science education in America isn’t coming from proponents of intelligent design or other critics of Neo-Darwinism. It’s coming from the Darwinists themselves, who are trying to replace the scientific method in science classrooms with unthinking dogmatism and learning by rote.
And believe it or not, this was from a creationist type website.
Bob: I heard someone tell about their experience in college when they questioned certain areas of evolution though they weren’t a Creationist. Instead of answering such questions they were encouraged to be quiet!
It’s nothing to do with Creationism being unscientific, they just don’t want all those little things that they don’t want to mention, that go against evolution, that they fight so energetically to keep out of the ears of their students, to be known.
Normal, thinking people can usually see through all the hype, but when you have an agenda, when you hold onto a dogma, when you believe something and then want the evidence to prove it, you are unable to see the flaws in the whole evolutionary charade. And they then go and accuse us of doing that very same thing.
Yes, we believe God Created the Universe, but we SEE the evidence for it everywhere. You would have to be completely blind not to see the wonderful world we live in.
If macroevolution takes millions of years, how can anyone actually SEE IT HAPPENING? That actually proves that you don’t need millions of years!!!!!
bobgriffin: “My numbers were arrived at with statistics and probablity.”
Yeah, you’ve said that. You haven’t demonstrated it, though, so we have no idea whether or not the numbers are pertinent to the scenario it’s trying to describe.
I could tell you that the distance from London, England to Proxima Centauri is 7.13 centimeters, a number I derived with simple trigonometry. Without a derivation showing where this number came from and demonstrating its relevance, though, no one should have reason to believe this figure — *especially* since it seems to run counter to simple observation. (Even though a correct distance to that star can still be derived with simple trigonometry, simply citing its use does not automatically make figures I may quote valid.)
bobgriffin: “The only way you can observe macroevolution is to redefine macroevolution in your own borderline mystical and devine way.”
Why do HeLa cells not count as macroevolution to you, Bob?
bobgriffin: “Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is “overwhelming.” But they act as if they know that the evidence is so shaky that the slightest whiff of open discussion will topple the theory, and they are working overtime to prevent students and teachers from being able to evaluate the evidence for themselves.”
No — they’re merely trying to make sure that *science* is taught in the science classes. Creationism has been rather soundly falsified. Allowing it to be taught as an “alternate explanation” in biology curricula is akin to allowing astrology to be taught in astronomy curricula. Not only is it bad science, it’s misleading to the kids who are depending on the curricula to give them some measure of knowing what good science *is*.
bobgriffin: “Increasingly, the Darwinists’ justification for shutting down open inquiry by students and teachers is the patronizing insistence that high school students are too infantile to be allowed to discuss things like adults.”
No. They’re pointing out that the point at which one gets to *valid* disagreement about evolution — that is, disagreement based on science — is far beyond what we can expect a high school curriculum to routinely dispense to its students. We’ve gotten to *that level of confidence* about the theory. Expecting students to evaluate it to a level where they can form observationally-based objections to evolution would be like asking them to be educated to a level where they can form observationally-based objections to a heliocentric Solar System.
bobgriffin: “If high school students are capable of understanding the arguments and evidence for evolutionary theory, then they should be able to understand—and rationally discuss—scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory.”
I’d argue that, generally speaking, high school curricula are incapable of showing their students all the evidence for evolution. Students at that level simply don’t have the background to understand the volumes of genetic evidence from the piles of sequences we’ve been doing, for example, or moleucular biological evidence.
If we had the ability to bring students generally to the place where they could understand the evidence well enough to form observationally-based objections to it, I’d definitely encourage debate. The fact that there are many who have gone through these curricula with the delusion stil intact that creationism is consistent with scientific observation, experiment, and discovery reveals that we’re nowhere close to that level, sadly.
But go ahead — prove me wrong, Bob. Show me why I’m misinterpreting the directly observable evidence, and how I ought to be interpreting it instead. I gave you a list.
bobgriffin: “And believe it or not, this was from a creationist type website.”
I believe it. Pretending that evolution and creationism merely interpret the available evidence differently is a common error in the creationist camp.
mherman: “I heard someone tell about their experience in college when they questioned certain areas of evolution though they weren’t a Creationist. Instead of answering such questions they were encouraged to be quiet!”
What was the question?
mherman: “It’s nothing to do with Creationism being unscientific, they just don’t want all those little things that they don’t want to mention, that go against evolution,”
Such as?
mherman: “when you believe something and then want the evidence to prove it,”
Heh. Evolution is the only one that makes predictions, Maz. It’s the only one even *capable* of testing its statements with observation, experiment, and discovery. And these predictions pan out.
What we’re doing is looking at life and trying to come up with ways to describe what we see, then testing those ideas to see if they still hold true — not picking what we like from a very specific interpretation from a vague text and pretending that it all fits.
Looks like you can’t see the log in your own eye.
mherman: “You would have to be completely blind not to see the wonderful world we live in.”
And you would have to be either deaf or ignorant to pretend that only creationists are able to see the wonder of the world and Universe we inhabit.
mherman: “If macroevolution takes millions of years, how can anyone actually SEE IT HAPPENING? That actually proves that you don’t need millions of years!!!!! ;-)”
No. And again, this shows how badly you misunderstand evolution.
Seeing *one type* of “macroevolution” occur quickly does not mean that *all types* of “macroevolution” occur quickly. That’s a pretty silly error to make. The kinds of changes that constitute “macroevolution” are many and immensely varied. You might as well assert that because ice melts at 0 degrees C, *all things* must melt at 0 degrees C.
Next thing you know, creationists will be asserting that because stalactites formed from gypsum, concrete, or mortar form quickly, that all stalactites — including the calcium carbonate ones in caves — must form quickly. Wouldn’t that be hilarious? Wouldn’t that just show that they have no idea how science works — even something as basic as high-school chemistry?
Oh, wait. (Creation Magazine, Sep-Nov 1987, still visible at Answers In Genesis and repeated many times since.)
Matt F., I only returned to this site because this seemed like the best place to address you.
I just wanted to thank you for responding to my request within post 191.
I hope that your family is…doing well…if not better.
I know that that probably sounded somewhat “lame”. It’s none of my business, and I don’t know how I could ever help in any way, but…I just wanted you to know that if there WAS anything that I could do to help in any way, that I’d try it if I could.
The way we all converse with each other here it becomes an easy thing for me to think of posters as neighbors, instead of people who are an untouchable hundreds or thousands of miles away, so when I hear tell of people having family problems, Kash’s baby being sick, or Maz having a bad back, my desire is to throw on my boots and hat and get off for a visit to see how I can help.
But of course, I can offer nothing but…words upon a computer[frown].
You are so sweet, John. For all your gruff exterior (as you have described yourself here), you are obviously a big softie on the inside. We have formed a little “blog community” here, haven’t we?
Yes Kash, I believe that we have.
Thank you for your kind words.My relatives are mainly to blame, call me a victim of my enviroment[smile].
My exterior isn’t really that gruff, or big[grin]. I’m not some big, craggy faced, bruiser. I’m 5′7, 133lbs., wiry and clean-cut.
I’m just gruff when I need to be, as and when situations requiring gruffness happen to arise in life.
Alright, I’m off again.
John: You have a soft heart! I feel the same.
For the ‘whosoever believes in evolution’:
http://www.creation.com/15-ways-to-refute-materialistic-bigotry
John: “I just wanted to thank you for responding to my request within post 191.”
No problem. Hope it helped.
John: “I hope that your family is…doing well…if not better.”
We haven’t been able to get the primary form of care we were originally seeking for my mother. There’s a doctor she’s been seeing lately who has another theory — that the aphasia was brought on, or perhaps exacerbated, by the combination of medications she’s been taking. When she heard this, without telling anyone, she stopped taking her blood pressure medication cold turkey… and nearly had a stroke.
So there’s that, too. As she recuperates, we’ll see if Doctor Number Two’s ideas pan out; he’s cautiously optimistic about slowing the aphasia’s progress.
Thank you for reaching out, even though there’s little we can do to connect physically in an online forum. Your thoughts and words mean a great deal. And I’m sorry that you felt it necessary to leave.
mherman: “For the ‘whosoever believes in evolution’:”
It’s not a belief; it’s an intellectual acceptance based on fact, much as the way I accept the existence of electrons.
Quick treatment of the points:
1. The author misses the point. There are *many things* that science accepts without being able to observe them directly or repeat them. (Astronomy in particular would be a pretty dead science if this were not so. Frequently, observing something from a different angle — or observing it again — is frequently not an option.) This does not prevent it from making useful predictions and being potentially falsified if those predictions fail to pan out. There are so many of these fulfilled predictions as to remove all reasonable doubt. (To use his example, if birds are descended from dinosaurs, there are certain things we *always* expect to find and certain things we expect *never* to find. If these predictions fail, so does the model of evolution. There are literally thousands of these predictions for this scenario alone.)
2. Not really addressed in this paper.
3. The counterargument makes several glaring errors. First, the evidence for macroevolution is not merely accumulated microevolution — not nearly so. (The point is often made simply because if you want to show that macroevolution cannot exist, you need to show the mechanism that blocks accumulated microevolution. This is not the same as saying that the only evidence for macroevolution is found in studying microevolution.) I gave a list in post 184 of part 1 of this debate of directly-observable evidences that corroborate macroevolution and contradict instantaneous creation, and none of them concerned microevolution. To address some subpoints:
* Yes, we’d expect similar DNA in similar creatures under creationism, but we *wouldn’t* expect that they’d be related to each other through the relationships *only* expressed in inheritance and relationship. It’s not just that the *functionality* of the DNA is similar; it’s that the *type* and *location* of the DNA are similar when there’s no reason for them to be if each creature were created instantaneously. We also wouldn’t expect noncoding DNA to exhibit these relationships. (Why is it, for example, that the DNA responsible for vitamin C production is in the *same place* for *all mammals*, including man — where a mutation has clearly rendered that DNA inoperable for our species?)
* Yes, we’d expect homologies to be similar for animals who use them for similar functions, but what about animals where the function is clearly *different* but the homolgy nevertheless remains the same, each in a way that would be consistent with these animals evolving from other related species? What about creatures who use *different* homologies for the *same function*, each in a way that would be consistent if these animals evolved from related species?
* The attempt to show that *some* proteins vary widely is not, as the author asserts, an “anomaly”. Creationists will often pretend that things like evolutionary ancestry can be derived by looking at a single, fast-changing protein. In reality, evolutionary relationships are determined by looking at *volumes* of similarities between species.
* I’ve addressed the whole “adding information” bit before. We’ve directly observed things that add to genetic volume and diversity. If you mean other things by “adding information”, that’s too bad, because these directly-observed mechanisms are all that is needed to drive evolution.
* It’s no surprise that species “overlap”. Evolution anticipates this; species do not turn on and wink out when the “next stage” comes along, somehow sensing that they’re obsolete or something. What it does *not* anticipate — and what creationism has thus far failed to produce — is a species showing up well before it’s supposed to. Why are there no flowering plants in the layers with dinosaurs — anywhere in the world? Why no rabbits in pre-Cambrian rock? And on and on.
* Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis. I’ve mentioned this before.
* The simplest lifeform *ever* does not need to look like the simplest lifeform we know of *now*.
The sort of thinking used to refute this point is typical in creationist papers: they look at everything with a fourth-grade level of detail and assume that this proves their point. (e.g., “These other species were merely other races of men! Look at how similar they are to men!” — while ignoring the reasons they couldn’t have been men.)
4. Oh, I get it. The reason you can’t get papers published in periodicals which are always hoping for evidence to completely blow the lid off what we think we understand is because they’re *discriminatory*. It certainly can’t be because you have no testable unfiying theory, no predictions, and no positive evidence. Right. (Interestingly, “alternative medicine” practitioners have the same complaints about why *they’re* not allowed in scientific publications — as do astrologers, and UFOlogists, and many others. Get back to us when you have a testable unifying theory.)
5. No. Modern evolutionary theory is *not* “all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God”. Evolution is about finding out *what* things happened. Finding a mechanism is attempting to find out *how*. And evolution says nothing about God one way or the other. (As far as creationist quote-mining goes, I’ve done exactly what they recommend on this site many times: Comparing it to the actual quotes to show that the creationists are being dishonest. Even with quotes shown by Sarfati and Answers In Genesis.)
6. Not really addressed in this paper.
7. This article ignores that we’ve *directly watched spontaneous polymerization happen*, and that we’ve *watched self-replicating systems arise spontaneously*. Chirality is not a problem if life arose one way first and took over decisively; in fact, chirality is strong support for the idea of a common ancestor! (There’s no reason for instantaneous creation to produce chirality!) And, as usual, other objections (like cytosine) ignore the fact that these things did not have to originally arise in their current form.
8. We *do* have countless information-adding mutations; we’ve *seen* them. I’ve mentioned them here. But creationists continue to pretend they don’t exist. And the first self-reproducing entity came *long* before life, so natural selection existed long before life.
9. How is this author differentiating between amounts of information? Why is the formation of a snowflake or crystal different from forming a DNA sequence? (DNA is crystalline in structure.) And sunlight is the mechanism that allows for the formation of increasingly complex organic molecules well before it is harnessed to do things like make food; I cited a study that illustrates this. The author misses the point about how the energy input is used.
10. The author continues to ignore the fact that mechanisms that produce new DNA information have been directly witnessed. There’s also a lot of probability that doesn’t apply (first of all, it’s not shown how it’s derived; and second, from his “explanation”, it’s plain that he thinks the order of things is independent and random, which it most certainly *isn’t* in organic chemistry).
11. The author accepts new species forming within a “kind”, but does nothing to rigorously define “kind”, nor to explain why the genetic changes required would have had to be so unbelievably fast since Noah’s time nor why they have stopped being so speedy since… nor why current rates are consistent with the rate we expect from the fossil record! (Coincidence?) There’s some more arguing where they show that they don’t understand that a *lack of evidence* is not the same as *indications that the theory isn’t right*.
12. See 11.
13. The author completely ignores the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx to bolster his assertion that it was a bird. He also ignores the fact that there are many structures that are *exactly where we’d expect them to be* if Archaeopteryx *were* a transitional form. There is no reason for these to be so if Archaeopteryx were instantaneously created. (This same tactic is used to justify his other hand-waving to wish away transitional forms.) Archaeoraptor is trotted out again, even though the biological community never accepted it and even though the paper Sarfati is refuting never mentions it. And he goes back to the fourth-grade level of analysis by pointing out things like “100% leg” and “100% wing”, even though a leg or a wing is a hopelessly gross structure with countless features in it that must all undergo gradual change to make the transition… and it is precisely those many changes that we *see happening* in these fossils, in exactly the manner we’d expect to see them if one were evolving into the other. (This also ignores the homologous structures we see all over the evolutionary map where one thing is used to make a decidedly sub-optimal other thing.) And the molecular clock thing is trotted out again.
14. Yeah, we know about genetic drift’s tendency to wipe out very small advantages. The thing is, though, that just as you point out harmful mutations accumulate, *so do beneficial ones*. It’s also the case that beneficial mutations sweep through a population orders of magnitude more swiftly than harmful ones. Harmful ones still manage to exist after many generations. You can’t have it both ways.
15. Summary of the Intelligent Design movement and irreducible complexity that I’ve already refuted.
MattF Hela cells. Theres a great example of the change you want me to believe in. For my probability, try a Dembski book. Im sure thats a credible source for you. If you dont think evolutionists try to suppress all dissent, you need help. Look to the NCSE for some examples.
Bob: I can accept an outright atheist to deny the truth, but not someone who proclaims himself a Christian!
Bob,
Refuting the lies, distortions, misquotes, and bad science of people who call themselves creation “scientists” and Intelligent Design proponents is hardly suppressing all dissent. It is what it is, exposing the fallacies and lies of the creationists. Is Matt F. suppressing your dissent when he punches holes in all your arguments? All William Dembski has ever done with his Intelligent Design magic is write books. Writing books isn’t doing science. What you creationists are completely oblivious to is, the real purpose of science. Evolutionary biologists have produced antibiotics and medicines, better food crops and a lot of other products that have made our lives better, safer, longer and more enjoyable. What have creation “scientists” or ID magicians produced with their “science” exactly? They’ve produced exactly nothing and they never will produce anything because they aren’t really doing any science. They are fighting science they way Bible believers like them and you have always done ever since there was a Bible. When you can find some use for creation “science” or ID magic get back to us will you? Explain to us all what scientific application your creation “science” has exactly. How is creation “science” going to give us new and better medicines and better food crops since you think it’s “true and evolution isn’t. It isn’t, is it Bob and mherman, and you know it too don’t you? Everybody does.
Here are a few critiques of William Dembski’s books:
Commentary on William A. Dembski’s No Free Lunch (2002) (Off Site) by Wesley Elsberry
“Despite the promotional hype, No Free Lunch is not a work that will disestablish evolutionary biology. Its arguments, especially where they touch upon evolutionary algorithms and actual biology, betray a superficiality of acquaintance with those fields. It is an important book, however, in the sense that it represents the best that the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement has to offer. [Dembski] can be counted upon to make the most interesting errors of any of the current ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents. But for those who are looking for a ‘magic bullet’ to oppose evolution, the ammo of No Free Lunch is a dud.”
Design? Yes. Intelligent? No. - A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory (2000) (Off Site) [ Index ] by Massimo Pigliucci
A presentation by evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci on the flaws in the arguments of Michael Behe and William Dembski.
Does the information increase if there is no selection? (2002) (Off Site) by Elliott Sober
Dembski stated in his book No Free Lunch: “The No Free Lunch theorems show that evolutionary algorithms, apart from careful fine-tuning by a programmer, are no better than blind search and thus no better than pure chance.” This control experiment shows that when the ev program is run without selection there is no information increase. Therefore we can attribute the information increases observed with selection entirely to that selection. In other words, an evolutionary algorithm does far better (almost 13 standard deviations!) than ‘pure chance’ which is the situation when there is no selection. This falsifies Dembski’s statement about No Free Lunch Theorems.
How Not to Detect Design (1999) (Off Site) by Elliott Sober, Branden Fitelson, and Christopher Stephens
A review of Dembski’s Design Inference. Note: In Acrobat PDF Format Only.
The No Free Lunch Theorems and Their Applications to Evolutionary Algorithms (2003) (Off Site) by Mark Perakh
Contrary to Dembski’s assertions, the NFL theorems do not at all prohibit Darwinian evolution (or make evolutionary algorithms in general incapable of outperforming a random sampling).
Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates (2002) (Off Site) by Richard Wein
A critique of William Dembski’s book No Free Lunch. The aim of Dr. William Dembski’s book is to demonstrate that design (the action of a conscious agent) was involved in the process of biological evolution. Wein’s critique shows that his arguments are deeply flawed and have little to contribute to science or mathematics.
Order and Design: Philosophical Issues by Wesley Elsberry (Off Site)
Ellsberry is a professional zoologist, and Christian, who has written numerous articles critiquing Dembski and his views (as well as Intelligent Design in general).
Rebuttal to William A. Dembski’s Posting and to His Book No Free Lunch (2001) (Off Site) by Thomas D. Schneider
A post by Dembski, as well as a small portion of No Free Lunch, are reviewed. “Not surprisingly, Dembski’s arguments fail time and time again.”
Review of The Creation Hypothesis (1998) by Graham Oppy
Dembski contributed a chapter to this book on the possibility of intelligent design. In his detailed review of The Creation Hypothesis, Oppy assesses Dembski’s thesis that it is logically possible that there be compelling evidence of intelligent and transcendent design.
William Dembski’s Treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems Is Written in Jello (Off Site) by David Wolpert
“It may well be that there is a major mystery underlying the performance of some search processes that one might impute to the historical transformations of ecosystems. But Dembski has not established this, not by a long shot.”
The Wizards of ID (2000) (Off Site) by Robert T. Pennock
Published in Metaviews 089 (October 12, 2000), in this letter Pennock responds to William Dembski and criticises “Intelligent Design Creationism,” arguing that Dembski is a young Earth Creationist in sheep’s clothing and that Intelligent Design Theory is sectarian Christianity and bad science.
bobgriffin: “Hela cells. Theres a great example of the change you want me to believe in.”
You missed my question: Why don’t you think they are an example of macroevolution? Scoffing doesn’t count as a reason. Or do you have no reason other than your preconceived notions (e.g., “Macroevolution can’t occur, therefore, this can’t be macroevolution”)?
bobgriffin: “For my probability, try a Dembski book. Im sure thats a credible source for you.”
That depends on the derivation, Bob. Why are you so reluctant to provide one, or even point to a specific one? Is it that you don’t understand the numbers that you have given us? Is it that you have no derivation at all?
Besides, his filter to determine whether or not an unlikely outcome is possible fails on its face; I gave several easy-to-realize outcomes with less probability than his filter. Moreover, the very *idea* that one can determine whether or not something happened in the past based on the probability of its occurrence is an elementary probabilistic fallacy. Why, then, should I trust his knowledge of probability?
bobgriffin: “If you dont think evolutionists try to suppress all dissent, you need help. Look to the NCSE for some examples.”
It’s certainly true that the scientific community suppresses *some* dissent. The entire process of peer review, for example, exists for that very purpose.
But when it comes to objections that are not based on experiment, observation, or discovery, when the very objections contradict established fact and directly-witnessed events and phenomena, there’s just no reason to waste the time. The only thing to do is to try to keep the public from being duped as much as possible.
So science will also attempt to suppress astrologers, UFOlogists, flat-Earthers, geocentrists, homeopaths, and creationists — if for no other reason than the “evidences” they use to bolster their claims are unequivocally false(*) and that their voice stands to misinform the public.
(*) A small group of examples from the creationist camp in particular include the following: “There are no transitional forms”, “There are no mutations that add DNA ‘information’”, “Studies show that the speed of light is slowing down”, “Radiometric dating is based on unverifiable assumptions”, “Evolution is an attempt to disprove God”, “Hitler justified his ideas with evolution”, “Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation”, “The first self-replicating entity must have been as complicated as the simplest modern lifeform”, “Some systems are irreducibly complex”, “Human population growth indicates a young Earth”, “The declining strength of Earth’s magnetic field indicates a young Earth”, “The rate of the Sun’s shrinkage indicates a young Earth”, “The amount of dust on the Moon indicates a young Earth”, “The age of Niagara Falls indicates a young Earth”, “Evolution supports Haeckel’s embryos”, “Evolution supports Archaeoraptor”, “Evolution supports Piltdown Man”, “Evolution runs on random chance”, “Polystrate fossils present a problem for the geologic column”, “The entire geologic column does not exist anywhere in the world”, “There is too little salt in the oceans for an old Earth”, “Planets rotating in retrograde disprove the nebular hypothesis”, “Relativistic time dilation has allowed the Earth to age only 6000 years while the rest of the Universe is much older”, “Complexity does not spontaneously arise”, and on and on.
mherman: “I can accept an outright atheist to deny the truth, but not someone who proclaims himself a Christian!”
What does that mean in terms of the articles you’ve copied and pasted that contain demonstrable untruths?
mherman 270
That site made me laugh so hard I spit a mouthful of coffee all over my monitor and desk this morning.
I only keep coming back here because people that I respect keep addressing me personally. That said……
Maz post 269,
Thank you Maz, and also, thank you for the site within post 270. I searched around and found their sections involving dinosaurs. I was not disappointed[smile].
MattF post271,
Your welcome Matt, reaching out with kind words are the least that I can do. I am flattered that you think my thoughts and words mean a great deal.
“And I’m sorry that you felt it necessary to leave.”
It’s because I gave up on Maz and Bob, in a sense, as “hopeless cases” in regards to this matter[That does not mean that Maz and Bob win the debate by default].
They bring to my mind that knight from the movie “Monty Python’s Search For The Holy Grail”. Ever see it? He’s bleeding to death on the ground because his arms AND legs have all been chopped off and he’s yelling at the victor who’s walking away “Come back here! I’ll bite yer legs off!” Bob and Maz are like that character, but without the acknowledgment of having any wounds from the battle[smile].
I started to feel like a cyber version of Ted Patric the cult deprogrammer, if you know who he is[I have one of his books"Let Our Children Go".], but unlike Ted Patric, I didn’t have the advantage of one on one in your face evidences. How effective would Ted have been if all he could have done is send letters of advice to the cult members? Not very effective at all. That’s why I gave up and decided to leave. That’s why I haven’t been answering Bob Griffin. Criticisms and corrections are fun to give and fun to read, but I didn’t think it was getting anywhere. Logic didn’t work, reason didn’t work, evidence didn’t work,….I grew bored, and aside from this, I found that it was getting easier and easier for me to start acting like a jerk. In real life I never have to work so hard to show anyone that they are wrong about anything, I can just warn or offer advice and if it is refused, I can just step back and enjoy watching them get themselves hurt or messy, a satisfaction denied to us skeptics of Young Earth Christian Creationism here…at best all we can do is read them make bad examples of themselves and their beliefs, and hope that others reading also have the ability to recognize these mistakes. That’s why I ended my post 227 as I did. When the NEXT site involving this topic arises[You just KNOW that it's coming...they love this topic, probably if for no other reason than because it always creates thousands of amusing posts.]hopefully there will be a bunch of new characters for us to debate with to make things more interesting[for me].
It’s great to hear from you again Abc’s. I missed you, the teacher.
John: ”That’s why I gave up and decided to leave.”
I feel hurt. ;-( Have we ever given up on you?
I guess we feel you have more to lose ‘if’ you are wrong than we do ‘if’ we are wrong eh?
Of course, I am confident that I have the Truth……I have Jesus Christ in my life….and He is the Truth.
Anything else is like a positron compared to the Universe.
”Criticisms and corrections are fun to give and fun to read, but I didn’t think it was getting anywhere. Logic didn’t work, reason didn’t work, evidence didn’t work,…”
I know just how you feel John!
”I can just warn or offer advice and if it is refused, I can just step back and enjoy watching them get themselves hurt or messy,”
As Christians we can’t just step back and enjoy watching people go to hell….even after being TOLD the Truth! It is not only frustrating but the thought of anyone going to hell fills me with horror…..and that is why I keep going with people like you John who seem at times to be almost there….yet……
Eternity is not a long time…..it is ETERNAL…..there is no time. It is just an existence that goes on forever. And I ask myself, WHO in their right mind would choose to go to hell rather than Heaven?
WHO, when given a choice to open a door to an amazing life for all eternity, or an eternity of suffering, torment and endless deaths, would choose the second door? Crazy! And then people go on about how God sends them there. Absolute RUBBISH! Jesus is the door to eternal bliss and joy and the Devil is the door to torment and pain forever…..honestly John, WHO in their right mind would actually choose to go through the second door?
It just boggles the mind why people resist such a love that God has for them.
IT BOGGLES MY MIND!
And it really would be nice to be able to meet you in Heaven one day and give you a big bear hug and say….”John you made it! Great to see you here!”
But….the choice can only be made by YOU.
What else can I say or do to encourage you even to seek to know this Truth?
And here’s something else for those Theistic evolutionists to get their evolutionistic teeth into:
What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution?
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
In 1 Kings 18:21, Elijah chastised the people of God for not taking a stand for their God. He asked, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow Him.” Henry Morris, in commenting on this passage, stated:
The spirit of compromise that prevailed among the people of God in Elijah’s time also manifested itself in the mid-nineteenth century, as Christians labored to accept both God and evolution, both the Bible and the ages of geology. This was not surprising, for in every age there has been conflict between God and the Devil and a corresponding tension between the world-system and the community of the saints, and always there have been those among the latter who seek to ease the tension by yielding up some of the distinctives of the Bible-founded separatism to which they were called. Neither is it surprising then that the same spirit of compromise is moving strongly today among erstwhile Bible-centered Christians (1966, p. 97).
Some today prefer a “middle-of-the-road” approach to the matter of origins—a concept generally known as “theistic evolution” (sometimes referred to as “religious evolution,” “mitigated evolution,” or “spiritual evolution”). What, exactly, is theistic evolution?
The word “theistic” derives from the Greek word, theos, Greek word, meaning God. Therefore, when one claims to be a “theistic” evolutionist, he is claiming to believe in both God and evolution at the same time. It is not always easy to provide a simple, comprehensive definition for theistic evolution because the concept is altered by its adherents to suit their own personal situations. Some, for example, would suggest that God created the initial building blocks of matter and then allowed the evolutionary process to take over—including the spontaneous generation of life. Others contend that God created not only the primary building blocks of matter, but also life itself, and then placed into operation natural laws through which evolution operated over eons of time. Still others would argue that God not only created the building blocks and gave life a “push,” but actually intervened from time to time, even though evolution was the mode of operation. Generally speaking, those in this last group prefer to be called “progressive creationists” rather than out-and-out theistic evolutionists. The following definitions from the literature offer a summary of the concept known as theistic evolution.
Many Christians, including men of science as well as theologians, accommodate the discoveries of science in their religion by suggesting that God did not create the world (in its present form) supernaturally. Rather, He used natural processes as His “method of creation,” and guided evolution to the final realization of man. In this view, Adam’s body was produced as a result of the process of evolution, and God then completed His “creation” of man by giving him an eternal soul. The creation of life as described in Genesis is thus recognized to be essentially poetic, or at least to be flexible enough to permit God a wide latitude in His method of creation. This interpretation is generally referred to as “theistic evolution” (Young, 1985, p. 46, emp. and parenthetical item in orig.).
The theistic evolutionist holds a position somewhat between that of the absolute evolutionist and the creationist. He believes that God created the materials of our universe and then guided and superintended the process by which all life has evolved from the very simplest one-celled form on up to the sophisticated forms which we know today. Evolution was God’s method of bringing about the present development, though originally the materials were created by God (Baxter, 1971, p. 159).
What is theistic evolution? Believers in God generally take the position that God made the universe, including the laws of nature, so that the universe moves along in response to these laws. If one drops an object to earth, it is expected to behave in accordance with the law of gravitation as formulated by scientists as a result of their observation. Both theists (believers in God) and atheists (disbelievers in God) believe that there are natural laws by which the universe operates. The atheist believes that there was no FIRST CAUSE but that this system has gone on for eternity, so that prior to each effect there has existed a totally adequate natural cause. When a natural effect occurs for which there was not a totally adequate natural cause, then supernatural INTERVENTION has occurred. Theistic evolution postulates that such intervention accounts for some actions in evolution (Camp, 1972, p. 192, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).
[On occasion, there is some confusion about the definition of theistic evolution in regard to natural laws. Robert Camp has addressed this matter: “The expression ‘theistic evolution’ is sometimes used to refer to the concept that God created natural laws which would cause evolution to take place and thus in this guiding principle, God can be said to be the author of life. This notion cannot be said to be ‘theistic evolution’ in any meaningful sense. One might as well refer to theistic rain, theistic thunder, theistic earthquakes, etc. These natural phenomena can be observed, yet we believe that they have totally adequate natural causes though a theist will no doubt believe God created those natural forces while an atheist will not believe in God. The phenomena are not regarded to be a result of divine intervention into the laws of nature” (1972, p. 63).]
There is also the question:
IS THEISTIC EVOLUTION POPULAR?
Is theistic evolution popular? Indeed it is. Many today have accepted it as a “way out” of having to make a decision in favor of either creation or evolution. Thus, it has become the “middle of the road” position that so many Christians already have taken on a myriad of other issues (e.g.: verbal inspiration, the virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles, etc.). As Wysong observed:
Theistic evolution has been advocat