Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 600

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 724

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/cache.php on line 404
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Finch Beaks Change Size, Evolutionists Ejaculate Spontaneously, “Darwin Definitively Proven Right”

For the first time, scientists have observed in real-time evolutionary changes in one species driven by competition for resources from another.

In a mere two decades, one of Charles Darwin’s finch species, Geospiza fortis, reduced its beak size to better equip itself to consume small-sized seeds, scientists report in the July 14 issue of the journal Science.

This is a ground-breaking “NEW” discovery?

Er… OK.

We mean, we realize that it is a scant 12 years since the book was published, but still.

But His Majesty, being a cave-dwelling Christofascist and all, still doesn’t see what the “news” here are. Was the fact that individual species adapt to changes in their environment by changing coat color or beak size, just to name two examples, really in serious dispute? Bacteriae “develop” new resistances all the time thanks to natural selection (and yet, to this day, refuse stubbornly to become anything other than, well, bacteriae, the Fundamentalist little bastards!), and we haven’t not once heard the Holy Father or any other of our dangerous Theocratic Leaders, who are allegedly this close to converting all non-Christians at gunpoint any moment now, suggest otherwise.

His Fundamentalist Majesty must have missed the memo from the Christo-Taliban again.

But hey, don’t let us piss on your parade. You’re all so wonderfully excited that we expect somebody to be elevated to Sainthood in the Church of Darwin any moment now. It doesn’t take Evolutionists that much to get excited these days, it would appear. Not surprisingly, since they haven’t found much, and nothing of any serious substance, in spite of 170 years of furiously looking.

So party on, dudes.

Oh, and there’s more:

Adaptation can go either way, of course. As the Grants later found, unusually rainy weather in 1984-85 resulted in more small, soft seeds on the menu and fewer of the large, tough ones. Sure enough, the birds best adapted to eat those seeds because of their smaller beaks were the ones that survived and produced the most offspring.

Evolution had cycled back the other direction.

And the finches, much to nobody’s surprise, remained finches throughout.

Let us know when one of them turns into a giraffe.

Or an eagle. We like eagles.

223 Responses to “Finch Beaks Change Size, Evolutionists Ejaculate Spontaneously, “Darwin Definitively Proven Right””
  1. Unregistered Comment by Getalis UNITED STATES

    First!

    Which gives me the opportunity to play a favorite game of mine: Poke-the-Evolutionist™.

    My hermetically-sealed Christian mind just has to know…

    1) If any two species chosen at random share a common ancestor, would that not imply that every living creature today was ultimately derived from one singular “Mother-Beast”? Just what did this creature look like (I imagine a bulbous sphere, fourteen stories in diameter, with various heads sticking out all over: cow, porcupine, squid, human, etc. Most are confused; none are happy.)

    2) What fossil evidence have you found to support the existence of Question #1’s Mother-Beast? And pray tell, where on G*d’s green earth did you find it?

    3) Does the common ancestor thing apply beyond the animalia kingdom? Do I, a six-foot blonde Caucasian, have a common ancestor with that twenty-foot green saguaro outside?

    4) Or perhaps G*d Himself created plantlife and was so busy indulging in certain recreational delights resulting from this creation, He let the animal kingdom evolve on its own? Does the Holy Book of Hippie expand on this at all?

    5) If evolution is a continual process, and there are millions (if not billions) of animals crawling around the Earth, shouldn’t we have observed some cross-species movement by now? Shouldn’t some gorilla in the St. Louis Zoo have given birth to a hairless pink monkey capable of speech, rational thought and subsequent ADHD diagnosis?

    6) Evolution selects for traits in species that improve their overall chance of mating and surviving. Eyesight was a very nice thing for primitive man, since dinner often had to be chased down and beaten with a rock. So why does half of the modern human population need corrective lenses?

    7) The basic gist of the Theory of Evolution is that stuff came from earlier, simpler stuff. Barring some kind of initial creation sequence, where did the original “stuff” come from?

  2. Unregistered Comment by Crusader Corim UNITED STATES

    I have a dedicated evolutionist as a friend, who once told me “Well, since there are theoretically infinite universes, no matter how improbable you say evolution is, it could happen just by chance”.

    I promptly asked him if he saw a roulette wheel roll 40 double naughts in a row, no matter how many “theoretical infinite roulette wheels” there might be, if he would think that perhaps the casino MIGHT be modifying its results?

    He admitted he probably would, and I reminded him that the formation of a single cell by chance is roughly a trillionth as likely as that.

    He won’t debate me on evolution anymore. He didn’t change his mind, of course.

    Must be my bigoted un-nuanced Jewish-fascist-Taliban (wait… that doesn’t make sense) self that can’t see this blinding truth.

  3. Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur UNITED STATES

    Of course we know the real reason evolutionists deny creation and the concept of a creator: The thought that they might perhaps be accountable to someone other than themselves.

  4. MasterGuns Comment by MasterGuns UNITED STATES

    I had a lab that gave birth to 3 little males once. All were bigger than their father before they were a year old. Obviously they evolved into Giant Black Labs.

    My study is just as scientific as theirs.

    Semper Fi

  5. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    There is a religion out there that takes WAAAY more faith than any other… and exceedingly blind, bigoted, and MINDLESS faith as well.

    That religion is called Evolution.

    RH

  6. LC Stargazer Comment by LC Stargazer

    1) Looked like a bacteria, not a Hollywood Ur-beast. See, rubbish like this is part of the problem. You haven’t even got a clue what evolution -is-. No wonder you don’t think it makes sense.

    2) No Ur-beasts. We find plenty of fossil bacteria - they’re in the oldest sedimentary rocks on the planet. (And no, they weren’t dated by the bacteria.)

    3) Yes. That branch point seems to be about 1.5 billion years back.

    4) It would explain the platypus, actually…. ;-) Seriously, though, you think -hippies- have anything to do with science? Scientists have no more use for the stupid patchouli-smeared critters than His Rottieness does.

    5) Since the evolutionary process doesn’t -include- cross-species changes, no, we don’t expect to see it. What you have just said makes about as much sense as someone who claims Christianity must be a crock because we haven’t found any space aliens on Venus.

    6) How good does your eyesight have to -be- to spot a mammoth, eh? But the point is that in the Old Days, the near-sighted folks would’ve failed to survive unless they could do something useful for the tribe. And now that there’s lots of useful non-hunting things to do, they survive just fine.

    7) Ah, at last a reasonable question. This one isn’t technically part of evolution, though. Evolution is what happens -after- you get the first life. There’s no problem with believing that God created the Universe or Earth or Life. Scientists just want to know -how- it was done. Genesis is just a fairy-tale for the kids, since it doesn’t match what’s out there.

    As for you, Corim, what you ‘reminded’ your friend of was that you haven’t got a clue how it works and that it probably isn’t worth trying to teach you. Chemistry, as you apparently don’t comprehend, does not work by ‘random chance’.

    Let the flames begin!

  7. LC Stargazer Comment by LC Stargazer

    D’oh! And after all that, I missed my first intended point… what makes ANY of you think that the journaltwits get science reporting any closer to correct than they do politics??????

  8. Kristopher Comment by Kristopher UNITED STATES

    Hmmm … I’ll go by what the facts show.

    Evolution is considered a law nowadays … not a theory … unless, of course, you are a Doctor of Divinity posing as a scientist.

    Look if you want to be religious, fine. We won’t dispute your claim that God guided the creation of life and intellegence … we couldn’t disprove it anyway.

    But try to not dispute the facts and the fossil record with non-peer reviewed anecdotes. Leave passing off personal opinion as peer-review to folks like Belisiles and Kellerman.

    If you have hard and real evidence pony it up. Science is by nature fallible … we have no dogma, other than demanding that theory fit facts, and not vice-versa.

  9. Unregistered Comment by Tuning Spork UNITED STATES

    In a mere two decades, one of Charles Darwin’s finch species, Geospiza fortis, reduced its beak size to better equip itself to consume small-sized seeds

    Actually, that doesn’t prove that Darwin was correct since Darwin hypothesized that evolutionary changes were completely random, accidental mutations. The evidence suggests that species evolve more through their own bodies’ “knowledge” of what they need. The smaller beaks weren’t purely accidental, they were a gradual change due to what the environment demanded of them. Kinda like developing calluses on your hands when you work outdoors.

  10. Unregistered Comment by Fred Stone

    Well yes, finches remain finches. That’s what we would expect. If they became eagles or giraffes that would be strong evidence against the theory of evolution.

    And no, evilutionists don’t “deny the Creator just because we might have to be accountable to someone other than ourselves”. We find ourselves accountable to society regardless of our individual conception of god or science. Evolution isn’t about ethics. It’s about science.

  11. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    There’s a big problem with trying to use the so-called “fossil record” to prove evolution. Actually there’s a TON of reasons… but here’s the short version.

    1) The strata aren’t in order. And don’t give me any bullcrap about earthquakes or similar malarky. They aren’t in order now and there is no way in hell they ever were.

    2) Barring mummification or other forms of human intervention, to create a fossil, 99.9% of the time the creature must be BURIED ALIVE.

    The so-called fossil record was created during major catastrophes in the course of history. That’s why there are huge gaps. Thats why things aren’t in order, because the things that died in one catastrophe and were buried and created fossils were whatever happened to be in that area when it was time for that catastrophe to hit. Then the next catastrophe hit and another dozen or so so-called “layers” got laid down, and your bacteria end up on top of the dinosaurs.

    Simple. Logical. And the scientists will never accept it, because they are way too stuck on stupid blind faith in their god of Evolution.

    RH

  12. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    And the finches, much to nobody’s surprise, remained finches throughout.
    Let us know when one of them turns into a giraffe

    If they learn to carry on a conversation in French and use cutlery would that indicate evolutionary progress?…:lol:

  13. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Well, sorry, Fanusi, I didn’t mean to insult you personally… or anybody else necessarily. But we feel that same head-on-table feeling whenever the “evidence” starts getting presented. We wonder how on earth anybody but a libtard could believe that.

    Guess it’s something we’ll just have to agree to disagree on.

    RH

  14. Unregistered Comment by KentM UNITED STATES

    Re: Getalis

    1) This manner of perceiving the issue matches nicely with a literal interpretation of the bible, where all would be confused, none informed.

    2) You need to read more.

    3) Are these actually serious questions? Really? And… “Animalia”?…

    4) What does this mean?… Maybe a fun thing to say to buddies over a beer around the campfire, but… what does this mean?

    5) Only if you’ve been slipping into the cages late at night. Or maybe a mule is a better simple enough example. Or any

    6) (Evolution does not ’select’, it is a process whereby the most fit succeed. It’s not a Presidential appointment.) I guess the simplest answer would be that most of us are past that stage of evolution, past the rock hitting stage, and are involved in using our brains to ’see’ viewpoints. Most of us.

    7) Again, do you read? Books? Hey, here’s a question for you - how do you account for fossil evidence of physical alteration of creatures over time, that change in species - in particular the human species - is a factuality? Doesn’t this kind of blow apart the Adam & Eve part of the story?

  15. hOOt Gibson Comment by hOOt Gibson UNITED STATES

    Evolution=The God of those that actually think man is his own God…..bottom line. Carbon Dating is a bullshit science, so is evolution. Pony Up the proof, there is none to be found….Christians and Jews that I know never claim(as the libturds love to spout) that the earth is “only 8000 years old”…that of course, like evolution and carbon dating is pure bullshit.

    We Christians have our faith in our God, libs and evonuts have their own special God…..it’s themselves.

    hOOt

  16. Unregistered Comment by Neighseighr UNITED STATES

    Recipe for denial of evolution

    Mix generous helpings of fundamentalist christianity with blowhard neo-conservatism
    Fold in anti-intellectual pseudo-science
    Add in some paranoid hysteria
    Half-bake and serve

    see also: world is flat, earth is center of universe, fluoride is commie plot

  17. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    Obviously they evolved into Giant Black Labs.

    Did they eat Cleavland?

    But I see this time and time again. Someone makes points I agree with, points that I would not dream of disputing - and then they start attacking evolution.

    Misha is not so much as attacking evolution, as making fun of the people who are absolutly convinced that evolution is 100% correct and there is no other possiblilities.

    As for myself, I dont give a rats ass as to how creatures adapt. I want to know how they all started. From the beginning.

  18. Agent Orange Comment by Agent Orange

    Thankfully, I prefer to stay out of discussions like this. (Not this time though, to the great dismay of all involved :P)

    One question:
    I’d like to know how life moved from the water on to land. Once you’re past that, I reckon it’s perfectly possible for the evolutionary process of “amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammal-like reptiles to mammals” to occur(there is fossil proof of species of all these)…
    …but how do species adapted to life in the seas move on to a completely different environment (land), seeing that anything adapted to survive on land would be less than optimized for marine life? More importantly, why even bother going the terresterial route?

    On a side note, why do creationists/IDists make a big fuss about radiocarbon dating? Seeing as it only works up to 50,000 years back, what does it have to do with macroevolution anyway?

    (No, I’m not knocking anyone here, I really want to know)

  19. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Actually Stargazer, regarding point 6 about eyesight, there’s evidence that we haven’t been letting our eyes get enough time in complete darkness, due to our mastery of fire and electricity, and this causes some distortions during childhood development.

  20. Kat Comment by Kat

    Sire, THANK YOU!!!!

    This is a debate I rarely involve myself in, because evolutionists - in my experience - are much more interested in piling on and attempting to beat up non-evolutionists. See? I’ve been so traumatized I can hardly bear to use the word “creationist.”

    When an evolutionist can show me one instance where one species evolved into another, then I’ll be willing to listen. Until then, quit bothering me about change-within-species and microevolution, with which creationists have no problems.

    Show me how a fish turned into a reptile. SHOW me how a lizard turned into a bird. SHOW ME HOW AN F****ING LEMMING TURNED INTO A HORSE!!! Then we can talk.

    “Evolution.” Bah! Just another way of wanting to deny that we don’t know everything, even though Someone else does. **pfft!**

    Anyway. Thanks again, Sire… I bow again to Your excellence, and I’m sending some greatful hugs Your way.

    – LC & IB Kat, GLOR
    http://www.CatHouseChat.com
    http://www.WideAwakesRadio.com

  21. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Heh… hoot, I have run into a Christian or two who were part of the “young earth creationist” crowd. And I pointed him to a few good verses that help disprove his theory.

    And you are right about this much, carbon dating is totally unreliable. No no, don’t tune out folks, this is important. Even if you want to continue to believe in evolution — hey, that’s your right! just as it is mine to continue to disbelieve — you need to read this. Carbon dating depends on things that you simply cannot prove, and in some cases can easily DISprove. Let me list a few:

    1) The theory that C14 decays at a constant rate and has ALWAYS decayed at the same rate. Well it doesn’t. Oh it tends to be about the same amount in the paltry amount of time we’ve observed this phenomenon, but there is a randomness factor involved too.

    2) That the amount of C14 on the earth is constantly being generated at the same rate EVERYWHERE on earth. Nope it doesn’t do that either. Yeah it spreads out but there will ALWAYS be spots on earth that haven’t *yet* fully equalized with the entire rest of the planet.

    3) That the amount of C14 on the earth is constantly being generated at the same rate throughout history. This requires the partial pressure of the various atmospheric gasses to be the same throughout all of history. Same ratio of nitrogen to oxygen to carbon dioxide to ozone to… etc… Again, can demonstratably DISprove it. It is a known fact that the ozone layer increases in a cyclical nature and decreases in a cyclical nature over the seasons of the year. It is a “known fact” that carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere and “causing” so-called global warming / cooling / climate change. (It probably is actually accumulating but I doubt anybody here believes it does much to the climate.) And it is a known fact that there are increases and decreases in the amount of solar radiation — solar flares, sunspots, etc. But every last change to the atmosphere can alter the rate of creation of C14… and if you don’t have a constant rate, you simply can NOT know how much should have been there 5000 years ago. Yes you can guess. They try to pretend you can calibrate for this. Well sorry, but you just can’t. You don’t have records on atmopheric pressures. You don’t have dates for every volcanic eruption in the history of time. You don’t have the dates for every solar flare over the history of time. And you can’t reconstruct them either.

    4) Take five carbon date samples from an object and you will get five different dates. I can’t prove it with a handy link, but in many cases those dates will vary by THOUSANDS of years…. IF carbon dating is valid, it’s sure not very exact or reliable!

    I think the problem is that there are two theories of evolution. One is that species change over time. This is pretty obviously true, proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The second is that one species can, over time, become a new species. This I consider unmitigated horse hockey. But I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you further.

    RH

  22. Unregistered Comment by LC Septeus7 UNITED STATES

    Now, I am a molecular biologist. And as such I can say that the amount of evidence supporting evolution is _vastly_ more than most theories. More than general relativity, for a start.

    Isn’t it interesting that you can’t actually present empirical evidence as your indictate the strength of the theory but instead you point to the strength of a completely different operational science that produces real empirical results and say my “historical science is just like general relativity or something.”

    When was last time your physcists friends defended relativity with statements “its likes just like Darwinian Evolution or something.” Try Never!

    Quote:

    “There’s the similarity of bone structure - and other structures such as scales - the fossil record and so forth.”

    And what does that prove? It proves that evolution is bullshit because there’s too much commonality. Let’s start with how pentadactylism is a major problem.

    Please explain why pentadactylism still occurs even where there are NO ancestral links (this a called convergence). Please explain why other than the early and exstinct Acanthostega that the opportunistic nature of modern synthesis hasn’t produced functional polydactylism? Where did Darwin ever predict pentadactylism dominance?

    The shared form of four-limbed vertebrates proves too much for the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation and instead shows a system bias which is a hallmark of front-loaded evolutionary system which screams intelligent design.

    But above all, there is the genetic relatedness. The genetic record shows, time and time again, how different organisms are related to each other.

    What does that prove about the commonality of form? Answer: Nothing abosolutely nothing.

    So Mr. Molecular Biologist explain why Thylacinus cynocephalus shares a common form with Canis lupus but has no close ancestrial genetic relatedness?

    On the flip side would you argue that genetic based Brazil nut Allergens in transgenic soybeans prove that Brazil nuts evolved into soybeans because of the shared genetics?

    No. So genetic comparisions prove nothing where an Intelligent could produce transgenic species which is very easy to do.

    By the way, transgenetic species also share common ancestry with their original line so the fact of genetic continuity proves nothing about the mechanism of body plan formation or the absence of Intelligent Design.

    So you’ve shown no evidence of that neither common form or genetic relatedness prove the absence of design or the presence random mutation, Genetic Drift, Sexual Selection, and Natural Selection as the only mechanism of evolution.

    In short, there’s no there.

  23. Unregistered Comment by Tuning Spork UNITED STATES

    Kat said:

    When an evolutionist can show me one instance where one species evolved into another, then I’ll be willing to listen. Until then, quit bothering me about change-within-species and microevolution, with which creationists have no problems.

    If two groups of the same species become seperated for an extended time, their adaptions will take two different courses. Eventually they will become distinct species in that they will be so different that they are no longer inter-fertile.

    As someone wrote above, the gaps in the fossil record are due to the rareness of the conditions optimal for fossilization and we don’t have the “missing links” between, say, Asian elephants and woolly mammoths.

    Agent Orange said:

    I’d like to know how life moved from the water on to land. Once you’re past that, I reckon it’s perfectly possible for the evolutionary process of “amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammal-like reptiles to mammals” to occur(there is fossil proof of species of all these)…
    …but how do species adapted to life in the seas move on to a completely different environment (land), seeing that anything adapted to survive on land would be less than optimized for marine life? More importantly, why even bother going the terresterial route?

    A.O., check out mudskippers. They can take oxygen out of the water AND out of the air. Why bother going the terrestrial route? Because they can!

    You’re right, it’s pretty hard for a creature that breathes free oxygen in the air to find a way to separate oxygen from the water. (whales, dolphins…) But, water to air? Not as difficult.

  24. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Isn’t it interesting that you can’t actually present empirical evidence as your indictate the strength of the theory but instead you point to the strength of a completely different operational science that produces real empirical results and say my “historical science is just like general relativity or something.”

    When was last time your physcists friends defended relativity with statements “its likes just like Darwinian Evolution or something.” Try Never!

    Um, molecular biologists are profoundly involved in studying evolution. They’re the ones that can tell you how many base pairs separate two species, and the likely time since these mutations took place. Your argument is like saying a quantum physicist wouldn’t know anything about atomic physics.

    Quote:
    “There’s the similarity of bone structure - and other structures such as scales - the fossil record and so forth.”
    And what does that prove? It proves that evolution is bullshit because there’s too much commonality.

    His point, I believe, is that the family trees were originally constructed based on obvious and not-so obvious similarities in the bones. These relations were confirmed by the fossil records, which could have produced a completely different arrangement of family trees, but did not. Then we developed DNA sequencing, a completely different method than the first two, and it built the same family tree structure as the other two, even though it could have produced a completely different one. It did not. Maybe species that look related from their histories, their molecules, and their bones because are related.

    Let’s start with how pentadactylism is a major problem.
    Please explain why pentadactylism still occurs even where there are NO ancestral links (this a called convergence).

    Pentadactylism doesn’t just occur, it’s normal for most mammals.

    Please explain why other than the early and exstinct Acanthostega that the opportunistic nature of modern synthesis hasn’t produced functional polydactylism? Where did Darwin ever predict pentadactylism dominance?

    Darwin didn’t predict anything of the sort, he said the fact that mammals all have five digits or fewer indicates that they are related by descent from an ancestor with five digits, as a limb is easier lost than gained. In likelihood our resident molecular biologists might find the sequence determining digit count, and find that it’s current coding scheme will produce problems in numbers greater than five.

    The shared form of four-limbed vertebrates proves too much for the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation and instead shows a system bias which is a hallmark of front-loaded evolutionary system which screams intelligent design.

    Do what?! Intelligent design would’ve given each animal exactly as many digits as it needed, instead of cobbling them together out of parts in some rather crappy arrangements, unless you think G-d is an incompetent moron or something.

  25. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Deathknyte has it in a nutshell:

    Misha is not so much as attacking evolution, as making fun of the people who are absolutly convinced that evolution is 100% correct and there is no other possiblilities.

    I have absolutely no problem with people believing in evolution, nor do I have a particular desire to prove them wrong. There’s just no motivation there. You see, if evolution should, one day, be proven with actual hard evidence and should scientists, one day, close all of the obvious inconsistencies and loopholes (start with irreducible complexity and I’ll start paying attention), then I’d just have to accept that G-d made us evolve as well. No biggie.

    But, like Deathknyte points out, I do have a problem with people claiming that a postulate is “law” simply because they say it is, the problem being that I never can stop laughing once I’m presented with it.

    Which is perfectly illustrated with this:

    see also: world is flat, earth is center of universe, fluoride is commie plot

    See? With the possible exception of the last one, at some point in time “all serious scientists agreed” that that was, indeed, the case.

    Notice anything similar? I do.

    And it’s beyond hilarious to see it popping up throughout history, always accompanied by an amen chorus of “serious scientists in consensus” and never ever accompanied by serious, irrefutable evidence.

    It’s times like these that I get a true idea of how Galileo and Kopernicus must have felt. not that I in any way compare my limited intellect with their massive genius, but I can certainly “feel their pain.”

    But, again: I do NOT in the least way say that evolution is “impossible.” Very few things are, since that, literally, means “not possible. Under ANY circumstances.”

    Take the odds of a simple polypeptide forming by chance. Without them, life is impossible. With them, life is still far from being a given, since they’re useless on their own. And the odds of one spontaneously appearing is 1×10E-40,000.

    I call that “unlikely”, at the very least, but maybe I just don’t have enough faith. It certainly would explain why I don’t play the lottery either.

  26. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    And HEY! Sir George!!!

    Welcome back!!!

    DAMN, but I’ve missed you! :) :) :)

  27. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Are you trying to say that it is impossible for evolution and creationist theories to intertwine? Are they really exclusionist?

    Both are still theories.

    Evolution cannot be detected over a few short years, it would take thousands, if not millions of years.

    The biblical story of creation is just that: a story. It was based on earlier stories of creation, melded together to form the Hebrew version found in your Bible today. Read some of the Sumerian versions of Creation — before the monotheistic God of the Hebrews. Other cultures have similar stories with different variations on the same theme.

    But is either theory wrong? Who knows? I think that it is possible for BOTH to be right or wrong.

    None of us really know the when, where, how, or why of our origins. It has been THE question of man ever since the beginning of our awareness.

    One theory does not “disprove” the others.

  28. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Kristopher,

    Um…sorry, but, I’m a Young Earth Creationist because of the evidence.

    Take a look at the “Law of Evolution” some time. REALLY take a look at it. I mean, look at the evidence, and crawl deep down into that “Law”.

    You’ll find that ALL of the evidence is declared to be evidence, not actual evidence.

    You see, not ONCE has any actual evolutionary process been observed or even hinted at.

    THERE ISN’T ANY FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION!

    There isn’t ONE fossil of an intermediary species. There isn’t ONE fossil of a partially evolved species. There isn’t ONE fossil of an animal with a partially evolved adapation in an animal.

    NOT.
    ONE.

    In addition, look up “irreducible complexity” some time. It’s the final coffin in the nail of Evolution.

    Also, NOT ONCE in the history of science has inanamite material, or just even non-sentient animate material, been able to ADD information to something. The addition of infomation to something has been the sole demesne of sentient beings.

    And…um….there are quite a few non-soft scientists who are also writing articles on how flawed Evolution is, and they are NOT getting peer-review, because the peers all worship at the altar of Evolution…but, they can’t get published or peer-reviewed, because the Gate-Keepers of Evolution say “Looking at the evidence isn’t science!”

    There are NO (and I do mean “not one”) reasons to be an Evolutionist based on science, reason, or logic. Evolutionists are all Evolutionists for emotional and/or non-rational reasons.

    It’s not my fault the evidence points towards a Creator. I USED TO BE an Evolutionist, until I started actually looking at facts and evidence…for a change.

  29. LC Beaker Comment by LC Beaker UNITED STATES

    “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
    - Albert Einstein

    Why is it so hard for some people to simply accept that evolution is just another tool used by The Almighty to create the universe? Arguing with someone who refuses to accept the vast evidence supporting evolution is annoying.

    Then again, I’m sure Galileo Galilei felt the same way when discussing celestial mechanics.

    It doesn’t shake my faith in God to accept evolution, any more than it will if they actually find life on Mars or Europa or anywhere else. The struggle to figure out how things went from Point A (the creation of the solar system) to Point B (humans fighting about how it happened) is the struggle to understand God, not replace Him.

  30. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Is that guy really a molecular biologist? If he was truly interested in that field of study he would know that DNA is a self-replicating, self-correcting, 3 out of 4 “programming code”.

    I work in the field of information science (which is where the action ultimately will be WRT the ID/Evolution debate in the coming years) and I can tell you that the more we learn about genetics, the more we realize that life is information.

    DNA is all about information. Traditional biologists have been, for years, looking at the newsprint on which the story is written and justified their existence. Meanwhile, information theorists look at the paper as simply the medium on which the real information is printed.

    That said, I care not one whit about the evolution debate since the real issue is how life began, rather than what course it took after it began. Given that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, the debate over evolution is moot.

    Someone created the first life and some tend to believe that that person was God. Given that God wrote that He did not use evolution to create the speciation we see today, I think we can take His word for it. Of course, that works out well since all the evidence points to ID and away from evolution anyway.

    But like I said, I don’t really care about the musings of the secularist pushers of the evolution myth. Liberal theologies are not my thing.

  31. LC Stargazer Comment by LC Stargazer

    It’s no use, really. Somehow we’re supposed to trot out an explanation for a complex process that doesn’t take up any more room than one of these snide comments. If you can’t, you’re not demonstrating the evidence. But if you spend hours crafting a long reply, they’ll just blow it off. And if you send them to a website with a precrafted long and detailed reply, they’ll ignore it as ‘atheist propaganda’ or some such rubbish, even when it’s run by (non-fundamentalist) Christians.

  32. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Stargazer,

    Sorry, but…

    For one thing, “non-fundamentalist Christian” is a contradiction in terms. A person is either a follower of Jesus the Christ, or, they are not. Look it up sometime. Not my rules, the Bible’s.

    Secondly, every single well-crafted reply I have EVER read about Evolution lacks one critical piece: evidence.

    Evolution is a theory, and a BAD theory at that, because it works first from a illogical assertion (God doesn’t have to exist for Life to exist), and crams everything into it.

    Problem is, the evidence doesn’t fit. Never has. Based on the THEORY of Evolution, a Lincoln Mark VIII evolved, by itself, from a bicyle. By random chance. A Lincoln Mark VIII is a VASTLY less complex entity than even a worm, and we KNOW it didn’t evolve by random chance.

    “Random chance” is science-speak for “We don’t know/don’t care about all the variables that create this effect”. Random chance doesn’t create anything, because random chance DOES NOT EXIST! And that is verifiable. Logically and in the lab.

    THAT is why Evolution is a religion. It even takes more irrational faith to be an Evolutionist than a Christian, since Christianity is logical, rational, and proveable. Evolution is none of those things.

  33. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    I am a firm believer in a Creator, but I do find some compelling evidence to evolution. Enough to call it fact, no, but enough that it could have plausibly occurred. I try to be as realistic as possible, so when I am presented with a feasible theory, I don’t immediately discount it. That being said, I don’t find the evidence for evolution compelling enough for it to be taught as an exclusive theory. The current finch “evolution” is conclusive proof of survival of the fittest, NOT of evolution. When a fortuitous mutation occurs, those that have the mutation will either live longer, reproduce more, or be healthier. This causes more of said species with the mutation until it is the dominant form.

    Basically, if evolution did occur, it was guided by a Supreme Being. I know I’m god for a boring debate on this issue, but I’ll try to make it up on other topics.

  34. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Stargazer,

    Trust us, we feel the same thing about your attempts to support your world view, sorry. We could also craft a long explanation that would blow your carefully guarded belief system to bits but you would just blow it off as fundamentalist propaganda, no?

    Just like conservatives rarely convert true-believer Libs, so too Creationsist/IDers rarely convert the true-believer evolutionists. While it is demonstrably true that liberalism is a failed ideology, its adherents don’t want to hear anything that will challenge them. Rather than accept the facts, the fallback (you’re just a follower of Bushitlerburton) is patronizing dismissal.

    Likewise, political liberalism’s kissing cousin, evolutionism, continues to maintain a following of true believers despite the failure of the theory to produce fruit. But rather than accept the reality that their pet theory has serious problems, they fall back on labling the opponents of their theory “theocrats”, “fundamentalists”, “non-scientists”, “flat-earthers” (there’s an original insult for you), and other such dismissives.

    So it goes.

  35. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    The trouble with ID is that if it wanders into areas of science and logic, it directly implies a vast multiplicity of gods. Nobody that can create multiple galaxies is going to idle away their weekends on an obscure planet jacking around with hamster balls.

  36. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Intelligent Design is the bastard love-child of Evolution and Creationism that no one loves.

    Hybrids are sterile, and have no future…just like ID.

  37. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Are you trying to say that it is impossible for evolution and creationist theories to intertwine? Are they really exclusionist?

    Not really. We’d have to revise a bit of interpretation, but evolution wouldn’t “disprove” G-d. I’m just not holding my breath waiting for evolution to be proven, since it’s so mindbogglingly implausible a theory.

    I mean, the Bible gets even the sequence right:

    1) Nothing.

    2) Light, lots of light out of darkness (”Big Bang”?).

    3) Separating the light from the darkness. (matter coalescing into stars as opposed to being diffusely spread everywhere?)

    4) Land, then seas.

    5) Vegetation.

    6) Fish, reptiles (according to the Aramaic original) and birds. The last bit is the only one in the sequence that seems to not “match” the accepted scientific sequence of events.

    7) Animals and finally, on the same day, Man.

    With the exception of the bit about birds, this is the exact same sequence as the one generally accepted by science.

    Now, keeping that in mind, the only thing you’d have to do in order to reconcile evolution and creationism would be to assume that the new species were made based on the ones He’d already made (evolved) rather than “made from scratch”. Since the Book isn’t all that definitive on the issue, it’s entirely possible. It’d also rather neatly explain the likeness across species in number of limbs, digits etc., since He’d be expanding on what He’d already made, diversifying as He went along.

    Oh, and on a side note not related to evolution: I’m not trying to “convert” anybody here, but I can’t help but find it fascinating, I found it fascinating even BEFORE I found my faith, that a bunch of “goat-herders” got the sequence right like that, particularly since there is absolutely no compelling reason reason known to “primitives” why, say, plants should come before animals or why fish should come before mammals, just to name a few examples.

    It somehow suggests to me that they weren’t “guessing” or “making shit up as they went along”, but that’s just me :)

  38. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Actually Humble-D, “Theistic Evolution” is the bastard love child of Evolutionism and Creationism. The notion that God used evolution (despite Biblical teaching to the contrary) to “create”.

    ID is simply an alternate theory to the random mutation nonsense that pervades the halls of academia. There are many non-Bible believers who accept ID simply because it does not call on Jehovah as the specific Designer in question but does offer a much more satisfying explanation of origins than the conventional wisdom. After all, ID could also point to an alien race that cooked up our particular DNA and seeded this planet 10, 000 years ago. Just because God was not involved does not mean that ID is a form of evolution.

  39. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    But science doesn’t point to any seeding 10,000 years ago, it points to new forms arising over billions of years.

  40. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    See that’s the problem, Beaker… There is a ton of interpretation of the evidence that seems to point at evolution, but that requires the interpretation to be correct. I don’t think it is, and I’m not the only one. Much of the evidence has gaping holes and room for other interpretations… link goes to a fairly short — 26 pages — summary of actual scientific articles that points out the alternate explanations and internal inconsistencies, written by, yes, a “real” scientist. Also check out his article on the current “war” going on between traditionalists and geneticists within evolutionary circles. And check out this article on the problems with the classic theory of peppered moths’ “evolution” during the industrial era. None of this actively disproves evolution by itself, but it DOES show the “proof” in its favor is NOT absolute or even remotely close.

    I agree with Misha. The biggest problem I have is the absolute lunacy of calling this a LAW. It’s not a law. It’s not even a theory. A theory required empiracle evidence with EXPERIMENTS that are REPEATABLE. It’s a hypothesis that happens to fit SOME observed facts… but not all. And the vast majority of those have at least one other interpretation possible that’s not even considered by many.

    That’s not honest science. That’s religious extremism.

    RH

  41. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    That, Sir George, is a hypothesis that REQUIRES radioactive dating to be accurate. If it’s not then the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. I suggest you read yet another article (the third by my friend Mr. Mendez but hey he’s a smart guy) that shows the problems with radiometric dating.

    RH

  42. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    Calling it a LAW would be extremism, calling it a theory is exactly right. It is a plausible thoery put forth to explain occurances that we a) don’t fully understand and b) really have no way of testing in a reasonable time frame. If (God willing) I make it into heaven, I shall see what I can find out. Until then, however, it is a purely academic debate (and should stay that way) that does not threaten my faith in the least.

  43. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Oh and by the way, I would like to compliment all — on both sides — for keeping this fairly polite. We all know this is an issue people feel quite strongly about. IMO that is a testiment to the fact that, opinions of morons like gweenfarts notwithstanding, most people on this blog are fairly decent folk.

    RH

  44. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Misha, it sounds like you might be entertaining the possibility that God created using some evolutionary process. Allow me to dissuade you of that notion. NOTE: The following is a theological discussion rather than a strictly scientific post.

    If the Bible is true (and I’m not talking just about the historicity of Genesis Chapter 1 and 2, I’m also talking about the Gospel message upon which Christianity is based), then evolution CANNOT be the way God created life. If people actually understood the foundational beliefs of Christianity then they would never even attempt the theistic evolution canard.

    At a doctrinal level, the Bible teaches that Christ died for our sins. Even the marginally informed non-believer knows this. 1 Corinthians 15:21 reads,

    “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.”
    This is the central truth of Scripture and the one upon which every thing else hangs.

    According to Scripture, a specific man (Adam) committed the first sin and thereby introduced death into the world. To ultimately revoke this curse, another Man had to die a physical death on behalf of everyone who has come since Adam first sinned (as in, all of us). The alert reader will immediately recognize the problem then with God using evolution as a methodology for creating life. Evolution (regardless of which theory you subscribe to) REQUIRES millions of years of death before Adam arrives on the scene. If death, as evolutionists assert, existed for millions of years before Adam’s arrival 6-10 thousand years ago, then Christ was a fool because he died not realizing that death predated Adam (Jesus slaps forehead: “dang, now I remember, the Father had death going on a long time before Adam, d’oh!”.)

    If Adam was the first sinner as the Bible teaches but death existed before Adam as evolutionary science teaches, then death is not a curse but merely a methodology. This is why Christianity and evolution are entirely incompatible with each other. One requires Jesus Christ to be a savior, the other requires Him to be a delusional idiot.

    The Bible is replete with references to death being the result of (rather than predating) Adam’s sin. As a result, the Bible is all about God’s plan to keep men from having to face eternal death. Now, the unbeliever is free to dismiss the Bible’s teaching that Adam ushered death into this world but they cannot claim that the teaching ITSELF does not exist.

    Because I Cor. 15:21 is the central thesis of the Christian Faith, “theistic evolution” must be relegated to the status of fiction.

  45. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox,

    Preach on, brotherman!

    Well said. On par with many of the other theological shreddings of theistic evolution I’ve read.

    The Bible is either true, in which case, life was created, or, it is false, in which case, we are all dead in our sins.

    There ain’t no middle ground. None.

  46. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Robert, your source is an idiot. His link said:

    • H. erectus men have lived as recently as 10,000 years ago. (6,500 years ago, see next article)
    • H. erectus buried their dead and believed in some form of afterlife as evidenced with the items buried in the graves. H. erectus was not culturally inferior to modern man.
    • This recent age does not allow H. erectus enough time to evolve into a more “modern man.”
    • H. erectus and H. sapiens have existed side by side for the last 1.6 million years. One did not evolve into the other one. Homo erectus is simply a variation of modern H. sapiens. This supports the creation concept.

    That’s not even up to the level of high-school logic, on top of being factually incorrect. To our evolution, it doesn’t matter when homo erectus died out, or even that it ever did, just as you can breed up a new varieties of corn despite the continued existence of other varieties. Also, the oldest anyone has put a date for a homo sapiens is about 250,000 years ago, not 1.6 million, and living simultaneously no more makes them the same species than does having lions and antelope in the same wildlife film mean they can’t be seperate species.

    I could go on, but the guy is an embarrassment to organisms with higher brain functions.

  47. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Well then I retract my compliments on keeping things civil…

    RH

  48. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    George,

    I’m still waiting to see any real evidence FOR Evolution, so…

    In fact, I’d settle for a logical consistency in Evolution.

    How about a rational proof?

    Okay, at this point, I’d almost become an Evolutionist if someone could produce some non-faked evidence for it.

  49. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Oh and btw, George, he used evolutionists dates — even though he disagrees with them, see the bit on radiometric dating above — as of the best data he had available at the time he wrote that article. If you guys changed the dates later (or there was another article you missed) that’s not exactly his fault, now is it?

    RH

  50. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Evolution is a mathematical certainty given the assumption that populations are not stable over time, do not rise to infinity, and that offspring can vary from their parents. It sounds circular, but that’s all it takes for it to be guaranteed to exist. There’s nothing fancy or mysterious about it.

  51. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Robert, nobody has ever dated homo sapiens to 1.6 million years ago, and evolution was invented by Christians who expected to find nothing of the sort. The long time scales we now accept weren’t even anticipated by evolutionists, they were developed by nuclear physicists who didn’t know diddly squat about biology.

  52. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    But science doesn’t point to any seeding 10,000 years ago, it points to new forms arising over billions of years.

    First, “science” does not point to any new forms arising over billions of years. Second, seeding of this planet has its adherents. Some believe we were designed by someone other than Jehovah and still others imagine life evolved elsewhere and traveled to this planet.

    There is a well thought-out out theory on the seeding of life on this planet (exactly when is beyond the scope of this post so I won’t get into the time frame except to say that the primary reason that the notion of panspermia was developed is because evolution, for it to have actually happened would take TRILLIONS of years of random chance in order to even get to even a simple cell (which is far from simple of course).

    For the uninitiated, the notion of panspermia is that life arose elsewhere and found its way here. It might have come on a meteor, maybe aliens brewed us up and seeded the planet in the distant past, maybe cosmic dust itself has the components necessary for life. No matter which theory the panspermiaists ascribe to, the idea began to arise once scientists in the 60s realized that abiogenesis (life arising spontaneously on this planet) was mathematically impossible in the 4.5 billion years that modern scientific thought assumes as the age of the earth [note: I do realize that in the 60s scientists thought the earth was much younger but that is another discussion).

    However, the panspermiaist thinks, maybe it arose elsewhere where there WAS enough time, and it then found its way here.

    Ultimately, as an alternative to Design, it is the most probable given that abiogenesis is a long dead notion. Only the marginally informed still think that it is possible for life to have arisen on this planet only a few billion years ago. Not nearly long enough for even a protein molecule to have formed by chance much less a living cell.

  53. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    George,

    It sounds like a circular argument because it IS a circular arguement.

    It still hasn’t introduced a starting point, and no species has EVER been observed, either in a lab, the field, or by fossil evidence, to have become another species.

    Besides, since I actually read more about Evolution than most Evolutionists, I know that no species has ever been observed to maintain more than a 20% or so deviation from itself for more than a couple of generations. The evidence does not support Evolution. Never has. Never will.

    In addition, inanamite material is incapable of adding information, which is what life is: added information.

    Evolution is a mathematical impossibility, not a certainty.

  54. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Abiogenisis is not mathematically impossible, a laughable assumption. In fact, the reason that we’re thinking that there will be life on Mars and possibly on moons of Jupiter and Saturn is that we’ve found that most life isn’t even on Earth’s surface, and arose very, very early, as a chemical inevitability.

  55. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    There isn’t any evidence that life arose early, George.

    You’re still using a circular arguement.

    “The theory of Evolution says life must have evolved this way, so, life evolved this way, because the theory of Evolution says so.”

    No, thanks. I’ll take the observable evidence over that.

    Besides, according to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe could be as young as….15,000 years old.

    Seriously. I’ve read a fair amount on that, too.

    And, sorry, but, the odds of life forming by “random chance” are considered to be mathematically impossible, because the odds are less than the total number of estimated molecules in the Universe.

    I’ll play the lottery before I bet on anything with odds that long.

  56. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    A circular argument often occurs when a mathematical equation says 2=2. That doesn’t mean 2=2 is false, it means its trivially true, as is the existence of evolution. It has to happen because otherwise 2=1, using those givens I listed. It’s not rocket science.

    Actually Devildog, most of the food you eat was developed. Almost everything on a salad bar started out as the same species of mustard plant. We turned it into many dozens of wildly different vegetables like kale, kohlrabi, radishes, turnips, spinach, cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli. Many of these are recent, and we’re coming up with new ones all the time.

  57. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    That’s the flaw in your argument, George…

    They only happened with outside interference. NOT by “random chance”.

    We have observed “evolution” occuring ONLY with outside interference (ourselves). NOT ONCE has one species become another species without some intelligence causing it to happen. NOT ONCE.

  58. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Devildog, the current estimate is that life started here about 4 billion years ago, and possibly sooner. That’s early.

  59. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox:

    You seem to be using two different definitions of ‘death’. On one hand, there is the ‘death’ that all living creatures, from tulips to horses. This IS a natural process, a methodology, as you said. However, there is also the eternal death which you alluded to. This death can only be experienced by man. Since we both seem to believe that Christ WAS a savior, not a delusional idiot, we accept that through Him comes eternal life. Since through Him came the resurrection of the dead, what was the fate of those who saw a natural death before His birth? Since all such people are not in hell (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Solomon, et al), it leads one to believe that natural death was not the end before Christ. By following this thought, I can conceive that IF we did happen to evolve from a lesser species, those before Adam would have a similar type of arrangement. It is also conceivable that Adam was the first man endowed with an eternal soul. Perhaps the ‘death’ referred to in 1 Cor. is death of the eternal soul, and before that time the soul was eternally in the presence of God. No matter, I don’t see how said crux of Christianity refutes a theistic evolutionary process. Maybe I missed something, if so, please let me know.

  60. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Actually Devildog, those vegetables occured entirely by random chance, unless medieval farmers were performing sophisticated genetic manipulations. Most of those changes required a halving or doubling of the chromosome numbers, and were accidents that happened when a honey bee got naughty. The farmer noticed the new plant and planted more of them next season. Now that we have DNA analysis we can produce primitive versions of the original varieties. And those aren’t the only examples of observed speciation, just the most familiar ones.

  61. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Sir George, are you saying you actually believe in abiogenesis? And you guys call us flat-earthers! ;-)

    Let me go over the basics.

    There are only three possible explanations for the existence of life:

    1. Abiogenesis. Life arising spontaneously by random chance. This was a popular theory up until the end of the 1960s amongst discipline specific researchers. As the complexity of life became more well understood (even basic amino acids are very complex when one begins to calculate what it would take for one to form of its own volition) scientists had to begin to form a new approach which led to…

    2. Necessity. This is currently where the action is in chem evolutionary research circles. The thinking goes, since the earth has not been around long enough for life to have arisen by chance, then there must be something intrinsic with the chemical building blocks of life themselves to make them simply WANT to bind together in the right sequence in order to form protein molecules.

    3. Design. Once it becomes obvious that chemicals do not form asymmetrical information, this is the final stop. The best a chemical interaction can do is to form repeating patterns (such as in crystals). However, life is not formed by the repetition of patterns. In fact, DNA is anything but repetition. It is information. Information comes from a mind, not from two chemicals interacting.

  62. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    MCaN wrote:

    It is also conceivable that Adam was the first man endowed with an eternal soul. Perhaps the ‘death’ referred to in 1 Cor. is death of the eternal soul,

    These are good thoughts but you are trying to bend Scripture to harmonize with current (flawed) scientific thinking. This is wholly unnecessary.

    As I mentioned, 1 Corinthians 15:21a says,

    “For since death came through a man,

    This verse is somewhat ambiguous regarding who the “man” is although it is implied that it is Adam since other references are more specific. But what the verse is completely UNAMBIGUOUS about is that death entered the world through this particular man. Even if one could find some basis for the mythical “soulless” man who predated Adam, one would have to assume that they were all over the place when Adam showed up since they could not have, by Paul’s own words, died. There was no death before Adam.

    Now, you could say (and I think you did) that maybe this is some kind of spiritual death. But the problem here is that if it was a spiritual death then why did Christ die PHYSICALLY? He needn’t have gone through the whole incarnation thing of being born a human, growing up, only to be killed when He could have done a spiritual death instead since the first death was likewise spiritual.

    No, the Bible constantly reminds us in numerous ways that Adam was the first man, that he lived in a world where there was no disease, no pestilence, and no death. When he sinned, he set in motion the law of entropy. Things started to die. The Bible is clear that this was a physical curse.

    But you are partly right in that there are two Biblical definitions of death. The physical death and the spiritual one. The Bible is clear that EVERYONE is slated to die the first death but that the second death can be avoided by accepting Christ as Savior. However, just because the second death is a spiritual one does not diminish the reality of the physical death spoken of in the second part of the verse:

    …the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.”

    Christ died a physical death so that, despite Adam’s (and our) sin, we will be physically resurrected after we physically die.

    I am only offering a cursory explanation. For a more in depth discussion of pre-Adamic humans, read this article. Among other things, it has an explanation for how the whole notion of spiritless pre-Adamic humans gave way to the idea that slavery was an okay thing.

  63. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Beeble, the reason scientists are starting to think life may be ubiquitous on planetary bodies is because we’ve vastly improved our understanding of biology. In the 1960’s scientists weren’t even aware of the existence of one of the three branches of life on this planet.

  64. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Misha, it sounds like you might be entertaining the possibility that God created using some evolutionary process. Allow me to dissuade you of that notion.

    Well, it was a bit of speculation on the subject as to whether evolution, SOME form of evolution, could be possible without contradicting the Bible.

    Clearly, some important “ground rules” must be followed, the first one being the one you mention, namely that death was introduced as a result of Original Sin. It wouldn’t have to be death as such, however, it could be “merely” the death of MAN. Genesis is only clear on the subject regarding man, after all.

    Another equally important one is that man would have to be unique in that he WAS created “from scratch” since the Bible says so.

    And finally, “evolution” in the Biblical sense wouldn’t be the Darwinian version, since every new creation would be created based on earlier designs rather than left to evolve into a new form spontaneously. Every new creation would be stuck as is, a lizard would be forever a lizard and, say, a brontosaurus would only be “related” to it as a concept. Happily, this quite readily explains such things as the Cambrian explosion and the sudden appearance of a multitude of mammals.

    So the question would be: Would that really be “evolution” at all?

    In a sense, yes, but I still prefer the original version. It fits observed facts and doesn’t require an awful lot of twisting, spinning and interpretation. I was merely thinking out loud as a result of an earlier question in the thread.

  65. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox:

    Christ HAD to become man to save us from sin. Such as you said sin (and through it death, spiritual or physical, depending) entered the world through man, so it had to be redeemed through man.

    Also, taking that Adam was the first (therefore only) man, and that no one “evolved” into him, then how does one interperet Gen. 4: 14-16 about how Cain was afraid that “anyone may kill” him. If there were no people other than Adam (and Eve, and Cain and Abel), then it seems his fear was unfounded. It if was animal he feared, then why the ‘anyone’ that both he and the Lord referred to. Either a) God made other people, or b) said people were products of evolution or c) the Bible is either i) wrong or ii) not to be taken literally. Regardless, there WERE other people there, if taken as stated, and these people were NOT in the garden of Eden and WOULD possibly kill Cain. As I said, I may have lost it but I can’t see any contradiction within theistic evolution.

    With the article you mentioned, I found no referance to said verse, and I tend to find it less than credible with its comments about all animals being vegitarian. Nonetheless, the lack of Gen. 4: 14-16 being addressed undermines its literalistic credibility.

  66. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    I keep hearing about “evidence” of evolution or the lack thereof. Yet, the only “evidence” given for creationism is the Bible, which are words backed up solely by faith and nothing more.

    Faith requires you to take a blind leap to a “truth”. Science can (and often does) fill in those gaps where faith is used as a bridge to reach a fact. As Misha pointed out, Creationism does tend to support the “big bang theory”, although there is a lot of dispute as to the time frame involved. (the use of days in the Biblical version could be metaphorical, instead of absolute, but I have had serious discussions with some people who feel that it is an absolute, and that the earth is only a few thousand years old, not billions)

    Someone here mentioned something about law. Neither Creationism nor Evolution are “Laws”. They are theories and will always remain so.

    Beeblebrox, Jehovah is only as old as the Hebrews themselves, and the “evidence” is that they “borrowed” much of the story of creation from earlier civilizations, namely the Sumerians, who didn’t believe in a monotheistic God, but had many — not one named Jehovah.

    MCaN had it right when he points out that “death” is two separate meanings. One being physical — which every living organism will eventually achieve, and the other being spiritual — which has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

  67. Unregistered Comment by Tuning Spork UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox,

    Consider that Cain left Eden and took a wife. Consider that Jesus spoke in parables. Consider that the “death” that was to come to all humans was a death of innocence that comes with the knowledge of good and evil.

    Animals do not worry about morality, nor do they fear death. It was our awakening, our intelligence, our “God-like” knowledge of our own mortality that has caused trouble for our souls. This was addressed in nearly every religion known to man.

    Why not consider not taking the early chapters of Genesis literally, but as an allegory, and see where that takes you? I’ll bet you’ll find some interesting possibilities!

  68. Unregistered Comment by Tuning Spork UNITED STATES

    Okay, folks, here’s an analogy for ya.

    Let’s say that one man decides to drive cross country from New York City to Los Angeles to visit his idiot cousin. Along the way he takes photographs, at irregular intervals, to show the landscape as he makes his way from sea to shining sea.

    The driver and the landscapes represent evolution over time, the photos represent fossils and the idiot cousin represents us.

    The idiot looks at the photos. They are time stamped , so he knows in what order they were taken.

    The 1st photo shows a bustling city — tall buildings and people as far as the eye can see.
    The 2nd photo shows a tired old industrial town. Old factories and litter in the streets as far as the eye can see.
    The 3rd photo shows a rural area with heavily wooded areas dotted by large meadows as far as the eye can see.
    The 4th photo shows plains and endless farmland, cattle and cornfields as far as the eye can see.
    The 5th photo shows huge snow-capped mountains, evergreens and large lakes as far as… well, you get the picture.
    The 6th photo shows vast stretches of painted deserts.
    The 7th photo shows arid sandy lands with cactus and Joshua trees.
    The 8th and final photo shows wide roads lined with palm trees; automobiles and hot dog stands are everywhere.

    Ooookay. Since the photographic record is not complete (there are huge gaps in the journey), what is idiot to make of the evolution of the landscape from east to west coast? Where are the photos that show the “missing link” between the mountains and the painted desert, or between the smokestacks and the rural woodlands?

    He can’t see the dogs turning into cows, or the snowcaps into mesas. Should he conclude that, along the journey, the cities suddenly became cornfields? or would it make more sense to conclude that the differences in the landscape were gradual and took many miles to show the differences?

    Okay, I’m tired so I’m just gonna leave it there.
    :)

  69. Unregistered Comment by Getalis UNITED STATES

    Re: KentM

    1) This manner of perceiving the issue matches nicely with a literal interpretation of the bible, where all would be confused, none informed.

    In other words, you can’t address my question so you dodge it and counter with a freshman whine about Scripture. Nothing remarkable there.

    2) You need to read more.

    This is rich, considering…

    3) Are these actually serious questions? Really? And… “Animalia”?

    Is Joe Wilson a floptacular douche? And yes, I said “Animalia,” as in the “Kingdom of…” As in one of the five or six major categories under which all living things may be organized?

    A free tip: when you tell someone they need to read more, your credibility is greatly enhanced if you don’t follow up said declaration by professing complete ignorance of one of the most basic fourth-grade components of the issue at hand.

    4) What does this mean?… Maybe a fun thing to say to buddies over a beer around the campfire, but… what does this mean?

    It means you sidestep another scary question.

    5) Only if you’ve been slipping into the cages late at night. Or maybe a mule is a better simple enough example. Or any

    In other words, no. We can’t observe any modern-day evolutionary species-shifts because it all mysteriously stopped at an unspecified time for unspecified reasons. Thus spaketh the Magikal Space Bacteriae.

    6) (Evolution does not ’select’, it is a process whereby the most fit succeed. It’s not a Presidential appointment.) I guess the simplest answer would be that most of us are past that stage of evolution, past the rock hitting stage, and are involved in using our brains to ’see’ viewpoints. Most of us.

    “Select for” as in “the best survive and pass on their superior traits to the next generation.” (Good gravy, you really need a thesaurus.) And I doubt your precious “viewpoints” have enough meat on them to feed a bullemic gnat.

    7) Again, do you read? Books? Hey, here’s a question for you - how do you account for fossil evidence of physical alteration of creatures over time, that change in species - in particular the human species - is a factuality? Doesn’t this kind of blow apart the Adam & Eve part of the story?

    I never denied minute alterations over time within the same species. To wit, they bore me something fierce. My question was where the original life form whence all modern creatures are derived came from? You, per expectation, completely ignored this question and started harping about Scripture again.

    To answer your query, I guess I missed the part in Genesis where Eve evolved from a lobster.

  70. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    DJ,

    the only “evidence” given for creationism is the Bible, which are words backed up solely by faith and nothing more.

    Incorrect. The actual evidence supports the assertions made in the Bible.

    Faith requires you to take a blind leap to a “truth”.

    Also incorrect. Faith requires me to trust a God who logically MUST exist. I have NO faith in the existence of God. I have KNOWLEDGE of God. Big difference.

    Somewhere along the line, Christians (and American Christians in particular) decided it was too much effort to actually…FOLLOW… the Bible. You see, the Bible commands Christians to be ready, at any moment, to defend their faith, so they may explain their hope. Can’t do that, if you don’t know the first thing about it, can you?

    God is so logically neccessary, Aristotle became an atheist because the GREEK gods were insufficient to account for existence. But, he hadn’t heard about YHWH yet. His logical proofs for the existence of another God besides the Greek gods was so compelling, the Greeks built an altar to that god. Seriously. It’s still there, in the Pantheon. That’s not faith, that’s a logical certainty.

    As Misha pointed out, Creationism does tend to support the “big bang theory”, although there is a lot of dispute as to the time frame involved.

    The only dispute is in how long the hyperinflationary period lasted. At ANY time period, the math still works out. So, it could have lasted billions of years, or it could have lasted six days.

    What is relevant, though, is that physics CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT HYPERINFLATIONARY PERIOD! The Universe expanded at a fantastic rate for an undetermined (by us) amount of time, and then, just as rapidly, slowed down. Hm. *checks a book* Yup, just like the Bible says.

    Good grief, it’s getting really tiring having to explain to people that theologists SUPPORT the Big Bang, and atheist philosphers do not. Only the uneducated on each side think it supports the other side. Unfortunately, too many people don’t take the time to actually know what the fuck they are talking about on this. I’m no expert, but, I’ve spent more time studying this than most of the people here. Almost combined. And I haven’t spent *that* much time studying it.

    Someone here mentioned something about law. Neither Creationism nor Evolution are “Laws”. They are theories and will always remain so.

    Wrong. Creationism IS a law, because it comes from THE book of law.

    Evolution isn’t even a good theory, much less a law, yet, is defended as a LAW in the courts. C’mon, do better than that. I really do know you can.

    Beeblebrox, Jehovah is only as old as the Hebrews themselves, and the “evidence” is that they “borrowed” much of the story of creation from earlier civilizations, namely the Sumerians, who didn’t believe in a monotheistic God, but had many — not one named Jehovah.

    …where to start on this one…

    First of all, His Name is NOT Jehovah. Never has been, never will be. “Jehovah” is a made up word, taken from the consonants of His Name (YHWH), and adding the vowels from “Adonai”.

    Secondly, His Name is YHWH, which is a really interesting word, since it’s an infinitive conjugated infinitive. If that doesn’t make any sense to you, it only *barely* makes sense to me. You see, YHWH is most definitely a conjugated form of the Hebrew word “To be”, and yet, it’s in an infinitive form. It appears nowhere else in Hebrew, and no other language even has something close to it. Among the ways it can be translated are:

    I AM!”
    “I am that I am”
    “I am existence”
    “I exist”
    “I am self existent”
    “I am, was, and always will be”

    Another way to get a grasp of what that word means would be in context of an imaginary conversation:

    “I AM!”
    “You are what?”
    “Yes”

    Now, going back to the logically neccessary “first mover” of Aristotle, you see that some simple sheep herders figured out that a being wholly independent of anything else MUST exist in order for the world to exist. Not bad for some people who lived thousands of years before the concept was even grasped….

    and the “evidence” is that they “borrowed” much of the story of creation from earlier civilizations, namely the Sumerians, who didn’t believe in a monotheistic God, but had many — not one named Jehovah.

    Nope. Sorry. That’s a theory that was only developed in the late 1800s…”coincidentally”, right after Evolution became the vogue theory…which is really funny, because Evolution became the vogue theory about 10 years BEFORE “On The Origin of Species” was even started….hm…interesting, no?

    In addition, the “theory” of evolving religions ran into a snag, once researchers actually started…RESEARCHING…world religions. You see, EVERY “primitive” religion has a Supreme God, even the animist religions. Every. One. And yet, only the Hebrews could describe Him. Hm. Not bad for a bunch of shepherds, dontcha think?

    There isn’t any evidence of it. Just hypotheticals. Rather like Evolution. The coincidence is not lost on some of us.

  71. Kristopher Comment by Kristopher UNITED STATES

    Devildog:

    You have simplydecided that all of the evidence is faked … youhave chosen to believe in bishop usher’s 6000 year old world, and no amount of evidence I present will alter that belief.

    Arguing with you would be like arguing with some moonbat that has decided the feds demolished the WTC … any evidence I present will be discounted.

    Evolution is peer reviewed by biologists, paleologist, and geologists. The fifteen billion year old universe is current peer reviewed science for astronomers.

    No one who beleives in the 6000 year old cosmos has any real proof or evidence … and no amount of evidence to the contrary will be believed.

    Scientists who believe in the 6000 year old universe don’t hold jobs in thier field of study … companies that pay scientists want results, not religion.

    I cannot disprove god … but I can disprove your 6000 year old cosmos …. the light from the nearest galaxy took many times that amount of time to get here.

    But …if you decide that god lied to us, and painted that galaxy there as a backdrop on a canvas, then I cannot convince you.God does not lie to us … the cosmos is what it is, and if the evidence says 15 billion years, then as far as I am concerned, that is the real figure.

  72. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    The trouble with ID is that if it wanders into areas of science and logic, it directly implies a vast multiplicity of gods. Nobody that can create multiple galaxies is going to idle away their weekends on an obscure planet jacking around with hamster balls.

    Which sums up my belif that there is a God, and he does not care.

  73. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Which sums up my belif that there is a God, and he does not care.

    The name for that, in case you care, is “Deism”.

    From what I recall of the distinctions, you’re a “soft Deist”, like Thomas Jefferson was.

    Kristopher,

    you have simplydecided that all of the evidence is faked

    Nope. Not at all. I just happen to KNOW that all the evidence has either been faked, or rehashed every 10 years or so, or just forced to fit. Been looking in to this for about seven years now.

    Just so you know, I was an Evolutionist about six years ago…what changed my mind? The evidence…

    youhave chosen to believe in bishop usher’s 6000 year old world, and no amount of evidence I present will alter that belief.

    Half right, and half wrong.

    You’re correct that no amount of evidence you present will change my mind, because, sorry, but, you don’t have any. If you did, I’d look at it. But, you don’t. How do I know? Because no one does.

    You’re wrong, though, because I don’t give a fuck about Bishop Usher’s 6000 year Earth. The Bible is a book of Law, not a scientific treatise, or a war journal. Not every day is accounted for in the Bible, so, I see no rational reason why anyone would try to use it to determine the age of the Earth.

    The evidence, though, is that the Earth is prolly around 15,000 years old. It could be 6,000 years old, I just haven’t seen any evidence to support that. I have seen evidence, though, that the Earth didn’t get hit by ANY meteorites more than 15,000 years ago. Hm. I think I’ll go with “The Earth is 15,000 years old or so.”

    Arguing with you would be like arguing with some moonbat that has decided the feds demolished the WTC … any evidence I present will be discounted.

    That’s known as a “self-fufilling prophecy”. “It won’t work, so, why bother?”, right?

    If you had the evidence, I’d look at it. Seriously. But, IT DOESN’T EXIST! No fossil record, incorrect data on how long fossilization takes (people have fossilized hats recently), 14 assumptions (meaning: with no proof) required for radio-carbon dating to be accurate, faked drawings of embryonic development…shall I keep going on? When there is that much “evidence” that is faked, it makes me wonder “Why do they need to fake the evidence, if they’re correct?” Which leads to the logical answer “Because they either have no evidence, or, they are incorrect, or both.”

    Evolution is peer reviewed by biologists, paleologist, and geologists. The fifteen billion year old universe is current peer reviewed science for astronomers.

    Ah, yes…this one. Also tired of shooting this one down.

    You see, the articles raising questions are peer-reviewed by “scientists” who are Evolutionists…who immediately deny peer-review of any article that doesn’t support Evolution, and then claim that there aren’t any peer-reviewed articles disputing Evolution.

    Circular arguments are so much fun.

    I cannot disprove god … but I can disprove your 6000 year old cosmos …. the light from the nearest galaxy took many times that amount of time to get here.

    Not if they were a lot closer to each other 15,000 years ago. Check out the math on the hyperinflationary period of the Big Bang. We don’t know how long the period took. The math works just as well with a six day period, and 15,000 years of expansion as it does with a 1 second period, with a billions of years expansion. Don’t like it? Take it up with Stephen Hawking, since that’s who I got that from. And he is NOT a Creationist. He’s an Anglican agnostic. (darn near repetitively redundant, I know, but…)

    But …if you decide that god lied to us, and painted that galaxy there as a backdrop on a canvas, then I cannot convince you.God does not lie to us … the cosmos is what it is, and if the evidence says 15 billion years, then as far as I am concerned, that is the real figure.

    But the evidence DOESN’T say the Universe is billions of years old. The THEORY says it, regardless of what the evidence shows.

    The bilions year old theory of the age of the Universe was created to explain Evolution, since the ONLY HOPE Evolution had of being true was for the Universe to be a near-infinite number of years old, since that’s about how long it would take for the CHANCE of a protein molecule forming on its own…and I’d rather play the lottery than bet on the chances that happened.

  74. Unregistered Comment by Tuning Spork UNITED STATES

    If God didn’t care then everything would disintegrate.

    I think, perhaps, we need a definition of God if we’re ever gonna get anywhere here.

    So, what is God?

    I submit for your consideration that God is the bomp in the bomp sh’bomp. By that I mean the God is whatever it is that moves the world and everything in it. Got is not a blade of grass, but God became a blade of grass. God is not the speed of light, but God defined the speed of light. God is everything that we can’t measure.

    In other words, God is not the what, where or even how. God is the Why. Why are the universal constants what they are and not something else? Why is xold-blooded murder wrong and not something else? Why is there Something and not Nothing in the first place?

    Buddhism, Hinduism, Judeo-Christianity, etc etc all have similar basic premises. That there is are universal laws of morality seems to be as obvious as that there are certain laws of physics and chemistry. Is the Christian God any more real than a Hindu God? If they teach the same obvious moral truths, then I’m inclined to presume that those teachings come from the same God. Devine inspiration (revelation) may come in many languages, expressing themselves in many different ways.

    I disagree that all stories in the Bible are to be taken literally. I believe that they are allagories and parables designed to relate a higher truth. They may indeed be Devinely inspired, but they are certainly — to my mind — allegories and/or parables.

    That’s my belief and I’m stickin’ to it. :P

  75. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Evolution is peer reviewed by biologists, paleologist, and geologists.

    I have to jump in here because that, as regards Evolution, means absolutely nothing. Or, more precisely, it means the exact same as if you let a hundred imams review the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and then proclaimed them “true” because they’d been “peer-reviewed” and found correct.

    Let me be more precise: You CANNOT question Evolution in the slightest in a peer-review, because you’ll find yourself out of a peerage in three seconds flat if you do. Not since the Spanish Inquisition has anything been that fanatically defended and not since then have repercussions for anybody who dared question it been as quick and as utterly destructive.

    Ask Bill Dembski or, better still, ask Richard Sternberg, another well-renowned scientist with a stack of qualifications who didn’t even question Evolution, he just published an article by somebody else who happened to do so.

    The Evotaliban had a smear-campaign running in seconds, spread lies about him and his credentials and he eventually had to retain a lawyer simply to defend himself from the vicious attacks from the Church of Darwin, all because he’d committed the “heresy” of allowing an article, a “peer-reviewed” one, no less, to be published.

    If I’d spent my entire life in science, earning multiple doctorates and trying to make a living out of it, I too would be hesitant to risk losing it all by being branded a “heretic” by a bunch of fundamentalist nutcases, particularly after reading what happened to Dr. Sternberg who, I repeat, didn’t even question the Holy Gospel of Darwin. He just published an article by somebody who did.

    And yet we Christians are supposed to be the witch-hunters?

    It is to laugh.

  76. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Incorrect. The actual evidence supports the assertions made in the Bible.

    Evidence? Do tell. Show me the irrefutable evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that everything you see here was created in six days, and that life didn’t evolve. Show me that G-d is actually the Judeo/Christian entity described in the Bible.

    Sure, there is some evidence that may “prove” some things in the Bible, but most is backed up by your faith that the Bible and everything in it is true.

    The Bible is silent on the issue of evolution. It does say that man was created in G-d’s image, but nobody really knows the steps that were taken to arrive to where man is today.

    In fact, the story of creation in the Bible is very short and incomplete, and glosses over a lot of stuff.

    Also incorrect. Faith requires me to trust a God who logically MUST exist. I have NO faith in the existence of God. I have KNOWLEDGE of God. Big difference.

    Logical to you. Your knowledge is internal, something you’ve thought of and accepted as a “truth”. That is where faith comes in. You believe in it so strongly, that it becomes a FACT to you.

    I’m not saying it as a bad thing. Everyone has to believe in something, even athiests. Athiests know for a FACT that G-d doesn’t exist. It is as deep rooted in them as your knowledge of G-d is in you. But there still is no tangible evidence either way. Just faith.

    God is so logically neccessary, Aristotle became an atheist because the GREEK gods were insufficient to account for existence. But, he hadn’t heard about YHWH yet. His logical proofs for the existence of another God besides the Greek gods was so compelling, the Greeks built an altar to that god. Seriously. It’s still there, in the Pantheon. That’s not faith, that’s a logical certainty.

    Where was YHWH during the time of the Sumerians, who were around before the Hebrews? I know it is a little tricky for you since you apparently think the Sumerians came AFTER the Hebrews, but the reality is, the Hebrews came after.

    The Sumerian texts (which was the first known writings) are far more instructive when it comes to creation. They predate anything of the Hebrews, and it is easy to tell where the Hebrews got the story from.

    Jehovah, YHWH — it makes no difference. The point I was making is that when the stories dealing with creation were written down for the first time, they were written by people who had numerous gods, not just one.

    In addition, the “theory” of evolving religions ran into a snag, once researchers actually started…RESEARCHING…world religions. You see, EVERY “primitive” religion has a Supreme God, even the animist religions. Every. One. And yet, only the Hebrews could describe Him. Hm. Not bad for a bunch of shepherds, dontcha think?

    You make the assumption that I am talking about an “evolving” religion, instead of just borrowing certain aspects of others.

    Not every religion has a “Supreme being” in it. Look at some of the Native American religions. Look at some of the aboriginal religions.

    There isn’t any evidence of it. Just hypotheticals. Rather like Evolution. The coincidence is not lost on some of us.

    There is a lot of evidence out there. Does it “prove” or “disprove” for certain the theory of evolution? Nope. We are talking about a time span of BILLIONS of years, and the records are spotty at best. There are new fosilized species discovered all the time, yet in all of our existence, we have only barely scratched the surface.

    We only have to look at the fact that according to time records, man is pretty much a late comer to this dust speck.

    Kristopher sums it up pretty well. It shouldn’t really matter HOW old the universe is, nor should creation remove the possibility that evolution happened in concert with creation.

    I cannot disprove G-d by whatever name you want to give him/her/it. It is quite possible that there is a “higher being” out there — something so indescribable and uncomprehensible that for simplistic sake we’ve had to invent a myth to help us “understand”.

    As to the question of whether the G-d of the Bible “lied” to us, the concept of BILLIONS of years would have been a little hard to comprehend than to use metaphors in days to get a point across.

    You’re correct that no amount of evidence you present will change my mind, because, sorry, but, you don’t have any. If you did, I’d look at it. But, you don’t. How do I know? Because no one does.

    This is kind of like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “la la la la la”. You just admitted that even when presented with evidence, you wouldn’t consider it evidence because you’ve already made your mind up that it is false.

    The evidence, though, is that the Earth is prolly around 15,000 years old. It could be 6,000 years old, I just haven’t seen any evidence to support that. I have seen evidence, though, that the Earth didn’t get hit by ANY meteorites more than 15,000 years ago. Hm. I think I’ll go with “The Earth is 15,000 years old or so.”

    Really? I think that most geologists would disagree with you. Actually, I KNOW that most geologists would disagree with you — and by most, I suspect that well over 99 percent.

    At the end of the day here, we still have competing theories. You choose to consider what is found in the Bible to be THE LAW, but that is only because you’ve chosen a side and wish to stick with it. So be it. I am not discounting anything, since I consider all of it to be theories that until we shuffle off this mortal coil, we will never really get to the bottom of — and maybe not even then.

  77. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    The name for that, in case you care, is “Deism”.

    From what I recall of the distinctions, you’re a “soft Deist”, like Thomas Jefferson was.

    I think I will stick with being a bad Roman Catholic.

    If God didn’t care then everything would disintegrate.

    I would like to hear your reasoning for that.

    At the end of the day here, we still have competing theories.

    There will always be compeating theories until one can be proven to the satisfaction of all people. I don’t think anyone here expects us to find the answer to life or where life came from.

    I half suspect that Misha threw this out here just to keep the LC’s debating skills up.

  78. Unregistered Comment by LC Septeus7 UNITED STATES

    Um, molecular biologists are profoundly involved in studying evolution. They’re the ones that can tell you how many base pairs separate two species, and the likely time since these mutations took place.

    I never said molecular biologist weren’t involved in evolutionary biology. My argument is that framework in which they interpret the data from genetic comparisions is wrong. Same goes for the whole molecular clock concept.

    Quote: “Your argument is like saying a quantum physicist wouldn’t know anything about atomic physics.”

    I disagree because evolutionary biology is a historical science and a branch of natural history whereas (most) physics is operational science with very clear mathematical predictions with more direct empirical testing. There’s no comparing experimenting with particle acceleraters versus reconstructing entire histories of evolving species from scat and a fossilized bones from a few remote locations.

    His point, I believe, is that the family trees were originally constructed based on obvious and not-so obvious similarities in the bones. These relations were confirmed by the fossil records, which could have produced a completely different arrangement of family trees, but did not.

    But the problem is that common forms do not in fact show this relationship at all unless you just dismiss cases like Thylacinus cynocephalus .vs Canis lupus. There’s an entire field of research on evolutionary convergence where we have the SAME(or very similiar) structures evolving repeatedly using different genes from different families and sometimes this happens at the same in different locations.

    Maybe species that look related from their histories, their molecules, and their bones because are related.

    Nobody is saying they aren’t “related” i.e. use the same genetic materials. All Transgenics are related genetically to the original species but their “evolution” had nothing to do with Darwinian conception of relatedness.

    You have to stop thinking in terms of genetic relatedness being proof of an unaltered lined between children and parents thinking of Genomic Darwinism.

    Pentadactylism doesn’t just occur, it’s normal for most mammals.

    Why? That is the question you have to answer. If your theory of evolution is actually a scientific one then you should have explanation based on solid evidence why the pentadactylism is most universal in mammals and why Darwinian mechanism must bias mammals towards the pentactylism universally in universal environments.

    Darwin didn’t predict anything of the sort, he said the fact that mammals all have five digits or fewer indicates that they are related by descent from an ancestor with five digits, as a limb is easier lost than gained.

    Which is the problem because if he had actually made a scientific theory then it would have been able to predict the forms that animals would take given the directon of thier history. Darwinism can’t do this because it lacks the mathematical foundations to formulate the biophysical dynamics and mechanic which predict form. An understanding of form must be taken the engineering and design sciences which works because Design theory says that biological forms must follow intelligent principles of design to produce any working design at all i.e. organisms must follow construction mechanisms that must work with intelligent construction principles.

    In likelihood our resident molecular biologists might find the sequence determining digit count, and find that it’s current coding scheme will produce problems in numbers greater than five.

    Code bias and deep error correction? Now which theory predicts that? Darwinian evolution with it history of multiple coding systems and opportunistic selection schemes which can make use just about anything which can imagined or ID with its teleogical front-loaded evolutionary bias made necessary by finely turned physical constants which shows a strong anthropic principle?

    Intelligent design would’ve given each animal exactly as many digits as it needed, instead of cobbling them together out of parts in some rather crappy arrangements, unless you think G-d is an incompetent moron or something.

    And here come the negative theology arguments about how crappy the designer is because I can imagine doing another way so the designer must have done it my way because I think can imigining building an entire universe based on my ideas. I mean just look a the human hand it ain’t nothing on robotics.

    So by what standard is pentadactylism crappy? Scientifically define crappy. These are nothing more than subject judgements made without any frame of reference to support these wild assertions other than George’s own imgination about how things ought to look according to George.

  79. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Not every religion has a “Supreme being” in it. Look at some of the Native American religions. Look at some of the aboriginal religions.

    Um…DJ…those were the ones they found the unexpected Supreme Being in…where they weren’t expecting them.

    I did say that even the animist religions, of which those two groups certainly qualify as, had a Supreme Being. ALL of them had, as part of their religion, a “Great God”, whom they knew almost nothing about, “just over that mountain/hill/forest line.”

    Logical to you. Your knowledge is internal, something you’ve thought of and accepted as a “truth”. That is where faith comes in. You believe in it so strongly, that it becomes a FACT to you.

    Oh, dear. Now I realize why you’re a liberal…you believe in the absurd.

    Logic isn’t personal. Logic is logic. Facts aren’t opinions, and opinions aren’t facts.

    *A* creator is logically neccessary. Look it up sometime. Claiming that logic can vary from person to person is claiming that the absurd exists. Which means ALL your appeals to science are ludicrous, because science can’t learn the rules of an absurd universe.

    Good grief, you’re staking your very existence on something you don’t have the first fucking clue about…and you try to call ME irrational?

    You might as well become Muslim. They believe in an irrational universe, too.

  80. Unregistered Comment by Uchuck the Tuchuck

    Why do bugs have six legs? Why do spiders have eight legs? Why did I get short-changed with only four limbs? And only two eyes? If I had four arms I could make and eat a ham sandwich while riding a motorcycle, which would be incredibly useful. I’m not trying to make a subtle point for or against anybody’s position. I’m just curious.

  81. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    Wow. Quite a thread. And as another LC already has pointed out, the dialogue has been mostly civil .

    Something must be wrong!

    The Bible is not about Creation, it is all about Redemption. Everything else is just gloss. We are utterly doomed to perdition and saved only through grace.

    Evolution is a pseudo-science designed to keep man from redemption. Without moral absolutes there is no sin. Without sin there is no need for a Savior. So let’s party.

    Why a pseudo-science? Because it will never produce results that can be replicated in a laboratory.
    As LC Septeus7 points out:

    evolutionary biology is a historical science and a branch of natural history whereas (most) physics is operational science with very clear mathematical predictions with more direct empirical testing.

    As I see it, we have become so specialized, so compartmentalized, so narrow in our focus that we fall upon the minutiae of science to define an Infinite God. And we miss the Big Picture - namely, that when the Universe - in its incredibly mind numbing totality - is considered, it screams “Random Chance.”

    Not.

    The mechanism whereby new genetic information, “coding,” is produced still remains unknown. And forget random mutations. There just ain’t enough time for a protein to evolve on its lonesome in a primodial amino acid soup and turn into a single cell (batteries and DNA not included), grow a brain, eyes, legs, arms, hands and pecker (gotta make a lot of workers!) to make hammers to build a cage big enough to hold a million monkeys for a thousand zillion years so they can type out the complete works of William Shakespeare by random chance.

    Come on….

  82. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    I’ll fart oysters and shit pearls before that happens.

  83. Kristopher Comment by Kristopher UNITED STATES

    And yet we Christians are supposed to be the witch-hunters?

    It is to laugh.

    Provide better evidence for a 15,000 year old cosmos, then the current evidence of a 15 billion year old cosmos, and competent scientists will abandon the latter.

    Provide better evidence for a 15 billion year old cosmos, then the evidence fundamentalists are providing of a 15,000 yea old cosmos, and the fundamentalists will absolutely NOT abandon their “theory”.

    Science is fallible … any accepted theory or law CAN be proven false with enough good evidence.

    Those who interpret the bible literally see this as some kind of weakness … they have trouble understanding why falibilty and peer review makes science stronger in the long run.

    You can continue to beleive that the cosmos is 15,000 years old if your beleif demands this … we who choose the scientific methoad will not burn you at the stake ( and yes, christians gave up that insanity in 1790 … the last time a witch was burned ). We might shake our heads, but the we won’t get stupid about it.

    ACLU fanatics excepted, of course. If you want to key these litigious idiots’ cars and give them random groin-kicks, be my guest.

  84. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Hmmm, Sig94 (#82) says: “Evolution is a pseudo-science designed to keep man from redemption. Without moral absolutes there is no sin. Without sin there is no need for a Savior“…

    Really?!?!

    Well this is going to come as a suprise to a couple of Jesuits I know who also teach anthropology at a local Catholic university…

    I mean you may have made a good point, a valid point but its one I don’t think I’ve heard before…

    Interesting….

  85. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Provide better evidence for a 15,000 year old cosmos, then the current evidence of a 15 billion year old cosmos, and competent scientists will abandon the latter.

    Provide better evidence for a 15 billion year old cosmos, then the evidence fundamentalists are providing of a 15,000 yea old cosmos, and the fundamentalists will absolutely NOT abandon their “theory”.

    I haven’t made my mind up on that issue myself (some others may or may not have in this thread), but I can assure you that I’ll consider the evidence, no matter what.

    Science is fallible … any accepted theory or law CAN be proven false with enough good evidence.

    It can. Unless you run the questioners out of the Holy Church and burn them as soon as they raise their voice which, coincidentally, was what my entire comment was about.

    I’m all about the evidence. My education is in natural sciences, most of my life’s work has been done in the natural sciences, so I’m no Luddite. I guaran-damn-double-tee you that any actual evidence you present to me will be considered. Just don’t excommunicate me if I find it lacking, please. That’s so — fundamentalist.

    No, I’m not referring to you specifically. I have no reason to believe that you’re one of the academic thugs who will do all they can to destroy a man’s career because he dares do what science is SUPPOSED to do, namely raise questions.

    Again, I refer you to Dembski and Sternberg, the two scientists that I mentioned as examples of the consequences at the sharp end of the irrational and certainly amoral and scientifically indefensible behavior of the Church of Darwin in Academia.

    I’m not saying that YOU feel that way, I’m not suggesting in the least bit that YOU agree with what happened, I’m merely saying that, with repercussions like that, it’s no damn wonder that not very many scientists will question Darwinism in public and why “peer-review” doesn’t mean a damn thing when discussing articles supporting Darwinism.

    The principle of peer-review is fine, it’s great, but it’s worthless if the Church has impaled the heretics before assembling the “peers.”

    Shades of Scientology. With even less charm.

    Which is a crying shame because science was SUPPOSED to be a debate where you could speak up freely, even if, no ESPECIALLY if your remarks questioned established doctrine.

    And it used to be that way until Darwinism came along and was established as the One Anointed Truth That Cannot Be Gainsaid On Pain of Excommunication.

    Then it was right back to the Dark Ages.

  86. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Oh, dear. Now I realize why you’re a liberal…you believe in the absurd.

    That, is your opinion. You believe in something mainly because you have accepted it as the truth. It is logical to you, but the fact is, you cannot prove it any more than I can disprove it. You would respond with “how can it be any other way?” Your “evidence” can be just as “flimsy” as the evidence used to “prove” the theory of evolution. You have yet to point out any real facts.

    *A* creator is logically neccessary. Look it up sometime.

    It is only logically necessary if you’ve exhausted every other possibility both known and unknown.

    The major reason why we have this discussion at all is because the subject of our creation is too incomprehensible for man to ever really know. We will probably never even scratch the surface to arrive at any kind of “truth”. For everything we think we know, there is a seemingly infinite number of things we don’t, nor ever will know. You assign these unknowns to a “creator” and attempt to box him/her/it in to the confines of a neatly wrapped up story.

    Good grief, you’re staking your very existence on something you don’t have the first fucking clue about…and you try to call ME irrational?

    On the contrary. You are assuming that I think you to be irrational. The fact is, neither of us really know the facts or “truth” outside of faith. It doesn’t make either one of us irrational, or absurd.

    Unlike you, I am not trying to disprove one theory in favor of another. I think that BOTH are quite possible. As someone mentioned above, who’s to say that evolution is/was not a tool of a creator?

    I think it is entirely possible (and yes, even probable) that there is/was a creative force (or creator) involved that resulted in us being here today. I am just not convinced that it is the one described by any of our established religions, nor do I think that this creator even knows or cares that we exist. That is man thinking we are the center of the universe, and that everything is about us.

    Wow. Quite a thread. And as another LC already has pointed out, the dialogue has been mostly civil .

    Something must be wrong!

    Yes, I too am amazed at how civil this conversation has been, given the topic, and I must say that it has been refreshing. (save for the references of being “absurd”)

  87. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Nothing wrong with DJ’s logic here (#87): “That, is your opinion. You believe in something mainly because you have accepted it as the truth. It is logical to you, but the fact is, you cannot prove it any more than I can disprove it. You would respond with “how can it be any other way?” Your “evidence” can be just as “flimsy” as the evidence used to “prove” the theory of evolution. You have yet to point out any real facts.

    Kristopher (#84) says: “Provide better evidence for a 15,000 year old cosmos, then the current evidence of a 15 billion year old cosmos, and competent scientists will abandon the latter. Provide better evidence for a 15 billion year old cosmos, then the evidence fundamentalists are providing of a 15,000 yea old cosmos, and the fundamentalists will absolutely NOT abandon their “theory”.“…

    Kristopher, its basic physics sir that we use as tools to help us with age of both the planet and the cosmos that we can see…

    The same basic physics that works your computer chips, your moniter, your wrist watch and so forth is what tells us the age of the planet and so forth…

    Kristopher consider perusing the following description of a dating method: How radiometric dating works in general

    The physics of this method also drive many of the electronics we take for granted…

  88. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    Kristopher consider perusing the following description of a dating method: How radiometric dating works in general

    I’d assume the guy radiometric asks a girl radiometric who her parent element is and how much of her is now a daughter element. Being the slut that she is, she immediately gives him a taste of her half life. Lacking any self control at all, he blows off half his neutrons and wakes up to find himself in a police lock up in Argon, Pennsylvania.

    Radiometrics are notoriously promiscuous and not to be taken seriously.

  89. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Radiometrics are notoriously promiscuous and not to be taken seriously

    Sig! Sig! Sig!

    Now that was pretty dang funny….:lol:

  90. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Oh dear, I go away for a day and 90 comments later.

    Misha said:

    …with repercussions like that, it’s no damn wonder that not very many scientists will question Darwinism in public and why “peer-review” doesn’t mean a damn thing when discussing articles supporting Darwinism.

    Misha, Interestingly enough, one of the best evidences that evolution is false is this very reality. If it were true, then there would be no fear amongst evolutionists to allow critique of the theory in peer reviewed journals. The fact that you can lose your research job if you even question evolution speaks volumes.

    Consider a few other obvious examples of this:

    Soviet style Marxism. Did they allow dissent? Of course, not. The politburo insiders knew they had built a house of cards and any critique would send it tumbling.

    Man-made global warming. Question this myth and you’re risking your funding if you are a researcher who thinks maybe the whole idea is hoccum.

    Liberalism. How many conservative writers are in the MSM? The MSM is the “peer reviewed journal” of modern liberal thinking. Is conservatism a valid point of view? One would never know if one relied on the MSM for all of one’s information.

    Each of these were or continue to be sacrosanct. Challenge them, and you are out. Why such vehemence? Because the underlying belief system is false and the promoters of that belief system know it deep down.

    Such is the case with evolutionism.

    This will only get worse as the house of cards begins to crumble. One evolutionist above still believes in abiogenesis even though chem researchers have now moved to Necessity as a more acceptable theory of Origins (not to be confused with biological evolution).
    Darwinism, NeoDarwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Panspermia, Multiverse theory, etc. etc. etc. All of these compete for the top spot as the most likely NON-design theory. As Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theory get more fragmented in their adherents, we will see more and more fear rising in the scientific community. Their fear? That the public will realize the truth; that they don’t know squat about what they are talking about.

  91. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    MCaN wrote:

    Also, taking that Adam was the first (therefore only) man, and that no one “evolved” into him, then how does one interperet Gen. 4: 14-16 about how Cain was afraid that “anyone may kill” him. If there were no people other than Adam (and Eve, and Cain and Abel), then it seems his fear was unfounded.

    This is an easy one so I’ll start with it first.

    Adam lived to be 930 years old. How many children could he have sired during that time? Even if we only give Adam 130 years (the age at which his son Seth was born) how many children do you think he could sire in that amount of time?

    Given that Adam and Eve were hyper healthy, one would assume that they conceived Cain fairly quickly and then, assuming no twins, and a couple of months after each birth to recover before conceiving the next child, the most children they could have had would have been 156 before Seth. Genesis says that Adam continued fathering children after Seth. Each of these children reaches childbearing age at puberty and begin to pair up and multiply.

    The question, who did Cain marry? Probably a (gasp) sister, a cousin, or maybe even a grandchild of his parents. We don’t know for sure but the Bible does say that there were no human females on the planet when Eve was created. So Cain’s wife had to be a descendent of Adam and Eve. For more on this read this explanation: Where did Cain get his wife?

    You continue:

    Either a) God made other people, or b) said people were products of evolution or c) the Bible is either i) wrong or ii) not to be taken literally.

    Now see, here is a perfect example of a strawman. You give 4 and only 4 options and completely miss the obvious answer (given above). You forgot Occam’s razor. Just because we don’t marry relatives today (insert joke about the Appalachians here) does not mean that early humans had the same issues. In fact, it was not until Moses’ time that the prohibition against marrying a sister was made. Remember, Abraham married his half-sister. The obvious option is that Cain married a relative.

    Finally you said:

    Regardless, there WERE other people there, if taken as stated, and these people were NOT in the garden of Eden and WOULD possibly kill Cain. As I said, I may have lost it but I can’t see any contradiction within theistic evolution.

    If the Bible said that Adam had only three sons and no daughters then I would concede this point to you. In fact, I would give up on the Christian faith altogether because it would clearly not be true. Read the above linked article. It goes into some good detail on the basis for the Adamic race being the ONLY race of men created by God. It also does a very good job of explaining why people who think Cain had no female to marry unless he went to some spiritless aborigine are completely off the mark.

  92. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Tuning Spork said:

    Consider that Cain left Eden and took a wife.

    Indeed he did. So?

    Consider that Jesus spoke in parables.

    Indeed he did. So?

    Consider that the “death” that was to come to all humans was a death of innocence that comes with the knowledge of good and evil.

    Your first two “consider thats” have nothing WHATSOEVER to do with your third “consider that”. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible that the death of which Paul writes is a “death of innocence”. Those of us who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God Himself recognize that Adam died spiritually the moment he sinned. Let me be clear on this point. By defending the idea that Adam’s sin brought physical death into the world does not mean I don’t believe he also brought spiritual death.

    I believe that God introduced entropy into the universe at the moment of Adam’s sin. I do not believe he would have physically died had he not sinned. This is simply conjecture on my part but given that the Bible routinely speaks of physical pain and suffering being the result of sin, I find it easy to believe that entropic principles came into play once Adam sinned.

    Animals do not worry about morality, nor do they fear death. It was our awakening, our intelligence, our “God-like” knowledge of our own mortality that has caused trouble for our souls. This was addressed in nearly every religion known to man.

    Whether every religeon speaks of this or not is really irrelavent to the discussion. We are talking Theistic Evolutionary thought here. The question is whether men died before Adam.

    A.) The Bible says that there were no men before Adam.
    B.) It says that death entered into the world (my contextual reading is that this death was both spiritual and physical).
    C.) Christ died to rectify both the physical and spiritual death issues.

    Why not consider not taking the early chapters of Genesis literally, but as an allegory, and see where that takes you? I’ll bet you’ll find some interesting possibilities!

    This is no doubt true. If Genesis is allegory then Christianity is a hoax. Yes, you are right, that is VERY interesting. ;-)

    Not to be flippant but Genesis is NOT allegory. The Bible is very clear when it is using symbolism, parable, poetry, metaphor, or historical prose. Genesis is the latter. This does not mean that it is a scientific article but it does mean that it is true and that within the constraints of the type of prose being used, Moses communicated what happened.

    I can tell you that Steve Jobs and the Woz created the first Apple Computer and claim this was a true story without going into detail on how they did it. Genesis gives an overview of what happened. You are free to ignore it for whatever reason you may have but there really is no reason to do so unless:

    a.) you do not believe that the Bible (and in this specific case, Genesis) is a story of redemption through Jesus Christ (remember, the first prophesy about the coming of the Messiah is in Geneisis 3.15:

    “And I will set enmity between you and between the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; he will watch out for your head, and you will watch out for his heel.”

    B.) you believe so fervently in modern scientific dogma (which is ever increasingly factionalized) over Scripture (which has been proven correct time and again including in its statements on scientific truth) that you are willing to risk it all on the hope that man is right and God is wrong.

    Personally, I see no reason to force anyone to believe that the Bible speaks truthfully about these subjects. Why they would want to take the chance is not necessarily a mystery to me either. People want to be their own god and evolution is the best way to explain how this is an acceptable philosophy. For my part, I simply know for an absolute fact that the Bible is true and so what it says, needs to be acknowledged.

    You might ask ‘how can a person with a post graduate degree from a secular university, who should know better than to believe in ancient myth, know for certain that the Bible is true?’

    Simple.

    The Bible was clearly written by God Himself. It constantly affirms in hundreds of different passages that it could only have been written by someone living outside of our dimensionality. Specifically, the person who wrote the Bible, the person who inspired (one might say “ghost wrote”) the Bible made sure that what was found in those pages could not have been penned without perfect foreknowledge of human events.

    Specifically, the Bible makes over 300 predictions related to Jesus Christ’s first coming. Each of these prophetic statements were fulfilled to the last detail. Only someone who knew exactly what was going to happen could have been able to write those prophesies. In fact, the likelihood that even 8 of them could have been fulfilled by random chance is astronomical. For all 300+? Beyond impossible.

    So you can argue about who married Cain or whether animals have souls all you want. The reality is that the Bible was written by God, He proves it in multiple places, and that is more than enough for me.

    Cheers.

  93. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Actually I beg to differ on one point, zaphod (2 points if you realize from that I’m talking to you)…

    Genesis IS poetry. It’s historical poetry, and it is NOT allegory, but it’s still poetry nontheless. Now it’s only poetry in the original Hebrew, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t poetry. Still there are plenty of other parts of the bible that quote from it, reference it, or uphold it in other ways. So your conclusion that either Genesis is true or the rest is a hoax is absolutely correct.

    And the rest I’d pretty much agree with too. After all, II Tim 3:16 is a pretty clear statement that all scripture is directly inspired by God Himself. And since all they had when those words were penned — aside from the gospels and a few letters, none of which was officially canonized yet even though Peter was probably already working on the selection of what would become the canon — was the OT. So it basically comes down to either believe the entire Bible or throw the entire thing out.

    RH

  94. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Misha, Interestingly enough, one of the best evidences that evolution is false is this very reality. If it were true, then there would be no fear amongst evolutionists to allow critique of the theory in peer reviewed journals. The fact that you can lose your research job if you even question evolution speaks volumes.

    Indeed. I wouldn’t go as far as to consider it conclusive proof that Evolution is hogwash, because it isn’t, but it certainly is proof that some of its adherents are afraid of it being questioned which ought to lead to the obvious next question: “What are they so damn afraid of?

    I, for one, don’t have any sacred cows that I won’t allow questioning of. I do have plenty of sacred cows, but questioning is OK. Depending on the intelligence and intent of the question, it can lead to some pretty interesting debate, as this thread proves.

    And, again, and I keep coming back to it because it is so damn central to the whole debate: Isn’t science, TRUE science, the kind of science that I’ve always loved since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, SUPPOSED to be about questioning the established truths in order to maybe learning something that we didn’t already know? Sure, a lot of the questioning will lead nowhere and a lot of the questions will be easily answered and/or dismissed, but should we outlaw the posing of the questions themselves simply because they question dogma?

    Isn’t that EXACTLY one of the reasons why we refer to the Dark Ages as “the Dark Ages?”

    And who the Hell in their right minds will pose a question if they know that the response will be that they’ll be treated worse than a child molester simply because they asked?

    That kind of response is not the response of a scientist, it’s the response of a bunch of medieval fuckwits armed with pitchforks and torches.

    It’s also the response of somebody who is deeply in doubt of the validity of his own position.

  95. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Just because we don’t marry relatives today (insert joke about the Appalachians here) does not mean that early humans had the same issues.

    And, from a geneticist’s point of view and, obviously, assuming that G-d made Adam and Eve perfect in every way, their genetic makeup just hadn’t had enough time to mutate sufficiently for reinforcement of recessive traits to be near as much of a risk as it became later.

    This is often overlooked when people look at the reason for Biblical instructions on proper conduct, that there was a logical reason behind them as well.

    Even if we were to completely throw ethics and morals out the window, there’d STILL be a very real and biological reason why incest is a Very Bad Thing™.

    This bit is particularly helpful if one ever comes across a deranged individual defending incest and attacking your opposition to it by saying “so it’s wrong just because you think it is?”

    If you can resist the urge to slice his genitals off with a rusty knife for long enough to explain it to him that is. That’s not an easy feat to accomplish.

  96. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    DJ,

    First, at least take the time to get a basic grasp of logic. After that, then, look into the Law of Causality. After that, you can look into the Law of Non-Contradiction. When you are done with those two, you can contemplate the basic reliability of the sense.

    Those three logical LAWS alone will prove your beleif in the absurd, since you STILL maintain that what is logical for me is different than what is logical for you.

    The Laws of logic are immutable, and all science is based upon them. Once you tell me that MY logic is different than YOUR logic, you IMMEDIATELY and IRREVOCABLY nullify any petition you make to science, since all science is based upon those three laws.

    THAT is why I made the comment about your belief in the absurd. Because you DO believe in the absurd. Once you claim logic means something else to me than it does to you, you negate all science.

    Chew on that one for a while.

  97. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Isn’t that EXACTLY one of the reasons why we refer to the Dark Ages as “the Dark Ages?”

    The Dark Ages weren’t so Dark as everyone thinks.

    Why did England have several hundred more grain mills at teh beginning of the ‘Enlightenment’ than right after the final Fall of Rome? Hm?

    And what was the impetus for the ‘Enlightenment’? Nah…it couldn’t have been….the Church, could it?

    I mean, it’s not like Gregor Mendel did his research about 100 years before the ‘Enlightenment’.

    Good grief, I hate it when even I fall for propoganda.

  98. Unregistered Comment by Tuning Spork UNITED STATES

    :)

  99. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    100.

  100. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Those three logical LAWS alone will prove your beleif in the absurd, since you STILL maintain that what is logical for me is different than what is logical for you.

    The problem with your ‘logic’ is that your foundation is only a myth at worst and a theory at best. There are no established or irrefutable facts in the theory of Creation. The same can be said about Evolution as well, so it is a push.

    You want to assign logic using different criteria as I do, and that is where something that might be logical to you is different than what might be logical to me. In order for your logic to match my logic, we first have to agree on the criteria that we use. You want to call something a “fact”, whereas I can only go so far as it being a “theory”. And if something doesn’t fit what you think is a “fact”, then it has to be absurd.

    I can readily admit that I don’t know the “facts” dealing with Creation and Evolution, and I submit that nobody does, nor ever will. So what we have left are only theories and beliefs based on giant leaps of faith.

    Here is something for you to ponder:

    If there is a creator, where did he/she/it come from? Before this creator, what was there? The easy answer is to say the creator was always there, but that is not logical. Before there was something, there has to be nothing, and nothing itself is tangible.

    This is the problem that has vexed man ever since he came into being and wondered the who, how, what, where, and why.

  101. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox (#91) says: “Misha, Interestingly enough, one of the best evidences that evolution is false is this very reality. If it were true, then there would be no fear amongst evolutionists to allow critique of the theory in peer reviewed journals. The fact that you can lose your research job if you even question evolution speaks volumes“…

    Hmmm, do you have some credible sources that show people losing their jobs because they are in the field but don’t buy into the whole evolutionary template?

    None the less you might find this interesting since it could be said to fit into your creationist template…

    From Wired magazine: Code of the Caveman
    A new DNA mapping technique may solve an ancient mystery: Do modern humans carry Neanderthal genes?

    Rubin’s team was able to read only 76,000 base pairs from the Neanderthal – a tiny slice, if you consider that the completed human sequence is 3 billion base pairs long. It was enough for him to be confident that we’re probably not carrying Neanderthal genes

  102. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    If there is a creator, where did he/she/it come from? Before this creator, what was there? The easy answer is to say the creator was always there, but that is not logical. Before there was something, there has to be nothing, and nothing itself is tangible.

    Um…not really.

    The Law of Causality states that every effect must have a cause sufficient to account for the effect. Take it back far enough, and you MUST have something that existed without being caused. The “unmoved mover”, or “the self-existent creator”. Logically neccessary. A bunch of shepherds supposedly figured out that there had to be an uncreated being about 2000 years before Aristotle did…since the name of the Hebrew god is “the self-existent one”.

    In addition, the Law of Non-Contradiction states that A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same state. So, all of matter could NOT have created itself according to the “laws” (highly verifiable theories, really) of physics, because the laws of physics would have had to exist before the laws of physics existed. Not possible. Something cannot create itself.

    Now, on to the basic reliability of the senses…

    We KNOW, from observation, that the universe has NOT existed for an infinite amount of time, since the laws of thermodynamics state that the universe would have had enough time to cool off to a uniform temperature…which it hasn’t. So, the universe has a starting point. At which point, we can go back to the two logical Laws I’ve already briefly touched on, and we now know that a Creator, or unmoved mover, or non-created existence, MUST logically exist, because, otherwise, the universe wouldn’t exist, since we KNOW that matter can’t create itself.

    I’ve only run through the bare bones of it. You can check into it yourself, as I have, and you’ll then see that denial of *A* creator is logically absurd.

    Once that has been established, THEN, we can argue over HOW the Creator did everything, and WHO that creaator is.

    I just find it awfully…coincidental…that a bunch of barely literate shepherds figured out a logically neccessary Creator before anyone else even figured out what logic was. But, I have KNOWLEDGE that a Creator exists, and, since NO OTHER RELIGION in the world has one, I’m going to go with Judeo-Christianity, since they’re the only ones who figured it out.

  103. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Hmmm, do you have some credible sources that show people losing their jobs because they are in the field but don’t buy into the whole evolutionary template?

    I’ve got better than that.

    Granted, Dr. Sternberg wasn’t fired (at least not to my knowledge), but that’s not for a lack of trying. I suggest that you read this for a summary of what WAS done to him.

    And his “crime” was to allow publication of a peer-reviewed article that heretically dared to pose a few questions regarding the Church of Darwin and its Holy Doctrine.

    Torquemada would’ve been proud of those torch-bearing primitives.

  104. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Misha,

    You might want to raid the Imperial Treasury, and purchase a copy of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science”. Just like the other three PIGs, it’s a doozy.

    Or, you could just drop by for a visit, and borrow my copy.

    (Also have “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Feminism”…not as good as the other three, but, still good)

  105. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Juandos,

    Thanks for providing the link. Yes, the article does fit well into my “creationist template”, if by “template” you mean my sincere belief backed up by mountains of evidence that evolutionists will cling to even silly research projects (was this even a valid research project? It doesn’t look like it) in order to keep their house of cards standing.

    The article is long on pedantic prose:

    “Hidden in the foliage nearby squats a man. Like the animals he’s hunting, he has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to cope with freezing temperatures. His massive jaw juts out…”

    and very short on actual information.

    However, we can glean that Rubin used a tiny slice of DNA (actually .004% of what he actually needed to do a valid study), made some computer guesses about it:

    “using powerful bio-informatics software to separate out likely Neanderthal DNA. This “sifting” process is a simple pattern-matching exercise: The software compares each strand of DNA with other known sequences, eliminating anything that doesn’t look hominid.”

    and pronounced that Neanderthal was a separate species from Homo Sapiens.

    This is what passes for serious science in the evolution research community? Even the casual reader will note the words “likely” and “doesn’t look” in the above paragraph. Who’s definition of “likely”? Who’s impression of what “looks” like hominid DNA and what doesn’t?

    Really. Really. Silly.

    The long and short of it is that, baring any evidence to show otherwise (and there has yet to be any shown), and given that even evolutionists admit that they lived at the same time, Neanderthal WAS homo sapiens.

  106. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Humble D,

    I thought I was well versed (for a layman) in the arguments. Your contributions to this thread have me bowing to your superior logic and intellect.

    It is rare to find someone who can keep the debate where it obviously belongs, at a high level rather than mired in irrelevant minutia (like whether Neanderthal had any Homo Sapiens DNA or not.)

    Thanks for your explanations.

  107. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox,

    *snort*

    Not very common for someone to compliment me on my abiltity to keep an argument sane and rational.

    I can get down and dirty with the best of them.

    Anyway, I shamelessly borrowed that apologetic from RC Sproul’s Defending Your Faith. Somehow, in five chapters, he makes the logical neccessity of *A* creator seem so simple, it should be taught to kindergartners.

    And I’m just a simple layman myself. I just devour books on apologetics, overviews of science, and listen to Christian theology and philosohy about six hours a day. You might say it’s one of my hobbies.

  108. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    The Humble DD said:

    You might say it’s one of my hobbies.

    Or maybe like me, an “avocational pursuit”?

  109. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    The Law of Causality states that every effect must have a cause sufficient to account for the effect. Take it back far enough, and you MUST have something that existed without being caused. The “unmoved mover”, or “the self-existent creator”. Logically neccessary. A bunch of shepherds supposedly figured out that there had to be an uncreated being about 2000 years before Aristotle did…since the name of the Hebrew god is “the self-existent one”.

    The problem with these “laws” is that they only use the VERY limited knowledge we have available to us. We are nowhere near able to even scratch the surface of knowledge — and I suspect we never will. We can’t even fully describe what gravity is.

    There is more philisophy here than there is real scientific fact. We dare to “know” who or what this Creator or G-d really is, without really knowing anything. We try to make things fit neatly into some kind of neat comprehendable package.

    You make a decision to believe in the Biblical version of creation. No amount of “evidence” could ever sway you from that belief, mainly because that “evidence” is largely circumstantial or can be explained away with other just as equally circumstantial evidence.

    The reverse is also true for those who choose evolution over creationism. It all boils down to a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

    I don’t find myself in either camp, because I recognize the one TRUE fact: we will never know for sure.

  110. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    The problem with these “laws” is that they only use the VERY limited knowledge we have available to us.

    Er…no.

    For one thing, the Law of Causality is a self-defining Law. It isn’t flawed, because each term is defined by the other. An “effect” is something that has a cause, BY DEFINITION, and a “cause” is something that has an effect, BY DEFINITION! So, that particular law is NOT based on limited knowledge at all. It is based upon reason, and the FACT that an effect has a cause, and a cause has an effect. So, the limits of knowledge don’t have any effect on that law.

    In additon, the Law of Non-Contradiction is also not affected by limited knowledge, because if that Law isn’t true, than science is worthless. A is either A, or it is not. If A can be A and not-A at the same time, and in the mode, then, nothing we can observe, learn or study is worth the time we spend on it, because finding out that A is really not-A and A at the same time, and in the same fashion, INSTANTLY nullifies EVERYTHING we know. F’rinstance, a finch cannot be both a finch and a cow at the same time. If it is possible for a finch to be a finch and a cow at the same time, then, there is no point to science, because it won’t teach us anything. Once again, limited knowledge is no impediment to this logical law.

    Thirdly, the BASIC (meaning, for the most part) reliability of the senses is integral to science, since, if we can’t EVER trust what we see, what is the point of science, since what we observe can’t be trusted?

    If the laws of logic and the basic reliability of the senses are *only* based upon our limited knowledge of the world around us, then, science is the study of the absurd, and completely useless in any debate. However, if the laws of logic and the basic reliability of the senses are NOT absurd, but, inherently rational, then, science is ‘merely’ the study of what rules *A* creator used to create the universe.

    The very rules that science uses to conduct its studies are the very rules that determine the existence of *A* creator. Only one religion, IN THE ENTIRE KNOWN HISTORY OF THE WORLD, has ever even come close to describing, defining, and postulating the existence of that creator. Since there can only be ONE creator, I’ll go with the assertions made by that religion, since they seem to have known something everyone else didn’t, THOUSANDS of years before anyone else did!

    (The Hebrew religion predates *almost* all known religions in the world. The Hebrews were already an ‘old’ race by the time the Greeks rose to power. Even the Egyptians came after the Hebrews)

    The Laws of Logic were used to predict just about all of the discoveries of the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, and had a major hand in all of the discoveries from the 8th century and earlier. In other words, without the Laws of Logic, you wouldn’t be typing on a computer at all, because you wouldn’t exist.

    Since Evolution is a non-theistic theory, and the STATED intent of the religion is to explain Life and existence WITHOUT the existence of *A* creator, it is doomed to failure, because it is based upon an absurd premise: that *A* creator doesn’t exist.

  111. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    DJ,

    If an evolutionary paleontologist could accurately predict, from his lab, exactly where we would find a complete dinosaur skeleton, as well as how many bones we would find in the skeleton, the position of the skeleton in the ground, how many feet deep down we might find it, and that we would find it in exactly 274 days from today, then I might listen to him (even though I don’t believe in evolution.) That would be an evolutionist worth following.

    I would listen even more closely if he could do that same level of prediction, 100% accurately, on the exact nature of the dna molecules in the bone marrow of said skeleton.

    But the reality is, no evolutionary researcher can predict distant future events. Meanwhile, God did it all the time in the Bible and with 100% accuracy.

    Let me ask that you simply do a little thought experiment with me here…

    If YOU were God, you created everything including a species specifically designed with free will, and gave them the choice to love you or eschew you, how would you go about the process of getting them to even pay attention much less make a choice to love you? Remember, too much interference in their lives would get in the way of the free choice thing, not enough would tend to let them live their lives without even knowing of your existence. Furthermore, would you not want to communicate with them on a global and historical scale in a way they could understand but that could not be faked by others pretending to be You or would be added to or subtracted from?

    It is now clear that the real God, figured out how to do just that by putting his message into a book that could not be created by any human mind. He put concepts into the Bible that no man could know, indeed, no being that was limited to 4 dimensions could possible come up with.

    The existance of thousands of fullfilled prophesies (most notably the 300 or so about the first coming of Jesus Christ) are absolute proof of the existance of God.

    So, and follow me here, if God was able to give us His prophetic word is it possible that He wrote the rest of the Bible too? Would a being capable of creating us be unable to adequately explain Himself to us?

    Once I realized that the Bible is full of fulfilled prophesies, I began to realize that God had the where-with-all to communicate more than just those prophesies. He must have written the entire book!

    This is how I know that He created us from scratch rather than evolved us. Because He said so.

    Once this reality hits you, then science takes on the same meaning it had for Einstein, Keppler, Pasteur, Maury, Newton, Carver, and many other “Fathers of Science”, that “science brings man nearer to God.”

  112. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    If an evolutionary paleontologist could accurately predict, from his lab, exactly where we would find a complete dinosaur skeleton, as well as how many bones we would find in the skeleton, the position of the skeleton in the ground, how many feet deep down we might find it, and that we would find it in exactly 274 days from today, then I might listen to him (even though I don’t believe in evolution.) That would be an evolutionist worth following.

    Now who is being absurd?

    This discussion is going to keep going around in circles, and nobody will get anywhere. We are all way too set in our views on this, and that is fine. You see things solidly from your perspective, while I tend to find creationism to be nothing more than stories and theories.

    Does that mean I subscribe to evolution? Not all of it, but I do think that there is plenty of evidence the Earth is far older than the 6,000 - 15,000 year time frame that I’ve read here.

    I also don’t buy into this giant conspiracy some people lay out that evolution is some kind of fraud being perpetrated on us, or that all of the “evidence” is being faked to further the theory.

  113. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    that all of the “evidence” is being faked to further the theory.

    Not all of the evidence is being faked.

    Just most of it.

    The famous drawings of the striking similarities of embryos of various animals were first of all taken from different stages of development (while the author claimed they were taken from the same stage of development) and were doctored to ’show’ those similarities by the author (as analysis of his own notes and later ultrasounds were to show).

    In addition, there are 14 (I think that’s the right number. going off of memory) assumptions that must be made for radio-carbon dating to be accurate. 14. ASUMPTIONS. Not facts. Not logical steps. Assumptions. As in “If we just assume, for the sake of argument, that A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M, and N are all true, then, radio-carbon dating shows that X is Y years old.” FOURTEEN ASSUMPTIONS! Cripes, in most scientific circles, TWO assumptions are enough to get a theory thrown out as absurd! That’s FOURTEEN things about radio-carbon dating that ARE NOT KNOWN, but, are assumed to be!

    The study that the original post is about is so “new”, that The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, written last year, and published at the beginning of this year, takes a couple of pages to debunk it…and the book that ‘revealed’ the ‘new discovery’ was, as Misha pointed out, written TWELVE YEARS AGO! (Just so y’all know, in the intervening 12 years, the finch’s beak sizes have reverted back to normal size)

    The experiment where a researcher created a protein molecule in a laboratory from a soup of various gasses and elements was shown to have been horridly rigged, since the conditions that the researcher created were, by his own admission once pressed, not even close to what the Theory of Evolution posited the early Earth was like. It had almost no similarity to what the Theory claimed HAD to exist at the beginning of the Earth.

    Fossilization takes a LOT less time to occur than we have been told. There are pictures out there of fossilized hats. Hm. Hats haven’t been around for millions of years…

    Oil is no longer called a ‘fossil fuel’, since it was discovered that oil is NOT formed by decaying flesh. It’s caused by a rock-eating bacteria. Oil is bacteria poop.

    And those are just the fakes and mistakes that *I* am aware of, and I don’t pay that much attention to flawed theories! I won’t even get into the absolute, total, and complete lack of any fossil evidence to corroborate the Theory. None. Not one intermediary species. Not one partially ‘evolved’ creature. None.

    In addition, in the book that started it all, On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin included a little tidbit at the end of the book that would shred his theory in about ten seconds. That tidbit is “if there is a character trait of a species that cannot be created by small, incremental changes in another trait, then, the Theory of Evolution is wrong.” (Not a direct quote. just summing up the argument) That is what is now called “Irreducible Complexity”, or, in other words, something that cannot function without all of its component parts, so, would not have been able to come into being by small changes over time. We know of AT LEAST two character traits in animals that are irreducibly complex: bats wings and blood clotting. In addition, flagellum are irreducibly complex at the cellular level. Irreducible complexity is why I no longer even entertain Evolution as a viable theory. Until a better one comes along, Creation is the only theory that adequately explains Life as we know it.

    I won’t even get into how impossible it is for information (i.e. the genetic sequence neccessary for life) to be added to something without an intelligence adding it. Never been seen to happen. In other fields of science, it’s called “The Law of Entropy”. Everything within the universe, absent an outside force, is trying to get to a lower energy state (i.e. have less information). It’s that whole “outside force” thingie that keeps confuzzling the Evolutionists, because Evolution CANNOT happen without an outside force causing it to.

  114. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    No wonder oil prices are getting so high! We keep killing off all the bacteria we need with antibacterials and antibiotics!

    Now that we’ve identified the problem, we just need to figure out a way to breed said bacteria…

    Actually I heard something different — not sure if it’s true, though. I rather suspect it isn’t. But I heard that somebody out there had invented a machine to take the biowaste from chicken processing plants and the like and turn it into oil… somehow it just seems too good to be true, but I’d love to be wrong…

    RH

  115. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Fossilization takes a LOT less time to occur than we have been told. There are pictures out there of fossilized hats. Hm. Hats haven’t been around for millions of years…

    Sure, there ARE exceptions. You probably could fossilize something under ideal or special circumstances, but it wouldn’t be the norm

  116. Kristopher Comment by Kristopher UNITED STATES

    Oil is no longer called a ‘fossil fuel’, since it was discovered that oil is NOT formed by decaying flesh. It’s caused by a rock-eating bacteria. Oil is bacteria poop.

    Actually, I tend towards the a-biotic theory.

    Methane is manufactured naturally in the crust and mantle … apply pressure and heat to methane and you will start to build bigger “organic” molecules out of these methane building blocks … propane, heptane, octane, etc….

    Large sedimentary formations seem to be best at trapping and collecting these gasses beneath them.

    If you want to use this bit of non-polar chemistry to carry your religious beleif further, be my guest.

  117. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    DJ Allyn, ITW said:

    Now who is being absurd?

    I could have made it even more absurd than that and would have made my point even better. DJ, my point was that even the most absurd postulate about a fictitious paleontologist trying to predict the future would not come close to the 100% accuracy of the the predictions in the Bible.

    Since the Bible is completely accurate WRT prophesy, what makes you think that it is not also accurate WRT the creation of the universe?

    DJ, you have chosen to believe your world view of science without any substantive basis for knowing it is absolutely true.

    Because the Bible has proved to be written by a being of extraterrestrial origin and who lives outside of our dimensionality, I trust it as being authoritative re: the discussion in which we are currently engaged.

  118. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Because the Bible has proved to be written by a being of extraterrestrial origin and who lives outside of our dimensionality, I trust it as being authoritative re: the discussion in which we are currently engaged.

    I tend to use a different, albeit tangentially related, argument.

    If the Bible is absolutely correct on 99.9% of the stuff we CAN prove today, wouldn’t it be safe to assume it’s correct on the .1% of stuff we can’t?

    Literally millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have been spent on research on behavior, and how to improve it. ALL of that time and money could have been saved by just…reading the Bible, which can be read, OUT LOUD, in 40 hours. Hasn’t been one behavorial study that has proven ANYTHING the Bible has said wrong yet. And a bunch of barely literate shepherds figured it out 6000 years ago…hm…maybe they had an inside scoop?

    And, no, before anyone says it, NO other religion has that kind of track-record or teaching. I *used* to believe that “all religions teach basically the same thing”…until I actually looked at them. Only ONE stands out from the rest.

  119. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Humble DD,

    You are correct to remind us that the Bible talks extensively about behavioral issues and it is always right, both about the cause and the solution.

    My point is that, for the skeptic, Biblical prophesy is the first place to look to find out if one’s skepticism is well-founded or fatally idiotic.

    Peter actually personally KNEW Jesus and yet, he reminded his readers that not everyone would have the opportunity to be an eyewitness to see Jesus walk on water, or heal with a touch, but they could look to Biblical prophesy to assure themselves that He was the son of God.

    Read these amazing words from 2 Peter 1:

    “For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

    We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

    These two paragraphs sum up the issue. Peter is saying, look at the prophesies of the scriptures (what we now call the Old Testament) and analyze them. Determine for yourself if the Bible is true based upon whether they were fulfilled or not.

    Peter’s audience did just that and were convinced. They believed because they were able to check out the facts without any middleman for themselves. An honest reading today, even by the most die hard (but open-minded) skeptic, will do the same thing.

  120. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Beeble,

    It was the behavorial studies that sealed it for me.

    How did a bunch of barely literate shepherds figure out what the rest of the world has only BEGUN to figure out, 6000 years earlier?

    According to Evolution, they wouldn’t have had the time. According to anthropology, they couldn’t have. According to psychology, they didn’t.

    And yet, they did. The ONLY rational explanation for it is that the logically neccessary Creator explained it to them.

    Once I got past that hurdle, the rest of it was downhill.

  121. Unregistered Pingback by Creationist Morons Strike Again at The Politburo Diktat

    […] Orac takes a break from his medical practice by fisking Emperor Misha’s recent post, Finch Beaks Change Size, Evolutionists Ejaculate Spontaneously, “Darwin Definitively Proven Right.” […]

  122. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    MISHA (#104) says: “Granted, Dr. Sternberg wasn’t fired (at least not to my knowledge), but that’s not for a lack of trying. I suggest that you read this for a summary of what WAS done to him.

    And his “crime” was to allow publication of a peer-reviewed article that heretically dared to pose a few questions regarding the Church of Darwin and its Holy Doctrine“…

    Well is it possible that Sternberg made some basic mistakes in submitting the Meyers’ paper?

    The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process

    Sternberg says on his site: “In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena. Instead, I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy“…

    Dr. John M. Lynch says on his site, “Stranger Fruit” the following that Sternberg didn’t address: Not wishing to inject some truth into this but, Meyer isn’t “of Cambridge University” … Meyer got his PhD in history and philosophy of science (HPS) from Cambridge in the early ’90s. He is not a biologist and indeed has no peer-reviewed publications that I am aware of in HPS. So, the paper was in a field outside his expertise.

    In regards to the statement I put in bold from Dr. Sternberg, Dr. Lynch makes this statement: “That’s bull and he knows it. The literature is replete with papers that challenge “Darwinism” (whatever that may mean) and guess what? Sternberg himself wrote one of them. See “On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System” which was published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences in 2002 and whose abstract ends with “Neo-Darwinian ‘narratives’ have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.”*“…

    So there is apparently some question about the whole Sternberg being suppressed situation it seems…

  123. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox (#106) says: “Yes, the article does fit well into my “creationist template”, if by “template” you mean my sincere belief backed up by mountains of evidence that evolutionists will cling to even silly research projects (was this even a valid research project? It doesn’t look like it) in order to keep their house of cards standing.“…

    Do you have something to point me to these, “mountains of evidence” since I’m still not sure what this whole intelligent design is exactly?

    What very little I’ve read doens’t tell me much…

    None the less there is this bit from ZoomInfo on Dr. Sternberg….

  124. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Well is it possible that Sternberg made some basic mistakes in submitting the Meyers’ paper?

    According to the US Office of Special Counsel, it might have been possible, but it was found to not be the case. In fact, not only did the publication not violate any rules or principles, none of the parties involved in the smear job later did the least to retract their claims.

    Which also goes for the defamatory claims about his professional credentials, also confirmed by the US OSC.

    In fact, all of Dr. Sternberg’s claims about the attempt to run him off campus because he’d allowed publication of a PEER-REVIEWED article questioning the Darwinist Orthodox Church’s principles were confirmed by the US OSC, along with some highly interesting and quite disturbing emails between the parties to the lynch mob.

    And I’m still just scratching the surface of the US OSC’s findings.

    Note, in closing, the interesting factoid that, once a contemporary case was decided, creating the precedent that the US OSC had no jurisdiction (not meaning “no expertise”) in the matter, all of the respondents in Dr. Sternberg’s complaint stonewalled, refusing to co-operate any further. Obviously, that is their legal right under the circumstances, nobody is disputing that, but it is highly interesting that they, assuming that they’re completely free of guilt of any malfeasance, wouldn’t be interested in clearing their names once and for all, PARTICULARLY since all of the information discovered so far supported every single one of Dr. Sternberg’s complaints.

    Read the whole thing.

    Now, I’d be perfectly willing to allow for a certain amount of “he said, she said” in this case, if it weren’t for the fact that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel agrees completely with Dr. Sternberg.

    As it stands, however, I have to reach one of two conclusions:

    1) Dr. Sternberg is correct in his claims of a witch hunt on the basis of him allowing, as editor, the publication of an article challenging “accepted” dogma.

    2) Dr. Sternberg is not merely a liar, he’s also guilty of forging an official letter from the US OSC.

    Considering that Dr. Sternberg is not behind bars, I can’t reasonably settle for another explanation than 1).

  125. Unregistered Trackback by Pharyngula UNITED STATES

    There are no limits to creationist stupidity…

    Every time I talk to creationists, I’m always stunned at the depth of their misconceptions. There are always the same old boring arguments that are ably dismissed with a paragraph from the Index to Creationist Claims, but there are also……

  126. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    I haven’t read all of the comments, so if this has been discussed previously, I apologize.

    The number one issue in every single evolution/creation debate is ignorance. It always pains me to hear people speak out against evolution who obviously do not have a good grasp of the material. So, instead of writing a long post about these matters, I’m going to point you in the direction of those who have come before me, and have done a much better job than I could ever hope.

    First, to address the age-old argument that there is no evidence for evolution, I give you this link.

    In this article, PZ Meyers uses Pub Med, an online research article database, to easily find 150,000 primary research articles discussing evolution. That’s not including the 25,000 review articles he found as well. Better start reading!

    Also, http://www.talkorigins.org is a wonderful online resource for information on evolution. The archives contain articles outlining the current evidence for evolution and answers to hundreds of creationist questions. My first link also lists many other great online resources.

    The truth is, the evidence is there. Literally tens-of-thousands of books and articles spanning multiple fields of study just waiting to be read. Unfortunately, most creationists simply don’t want to hear it. So, if you’re going to debate evolution, at least do a little research first so you don’t make yourselves look like idiots. And if you don’t feel like doing the reading, than I recommend keeping your opinions to yourselves. I hate to sound so rude, but some of you have come off sounding so arrogant, and yet your “arguments” are just simply laughable.

  127. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    Sorry people, but when you criticisms of evolutionary theory proudly and clearly mistate basic concepts in biology, information theory, chemistry, and so on, then your claims about evolution should not be taken seriously.

    For instance, take this, by Misha: “Take the odds of a simple polypeptide forming by chance. Without them, life is impossible. With them, life is still far from being a given, since they’re useless on their own. And the odds of one spontaneously appearing is 1×10E-40,000.”

    This calculation displays basic ignorance of both how to conduct a calculation of probability as well as of how proteins form and what they are like. There’s no way around this: only someone that does not understand what a protein is, how it folds, and why that is important, could come up with such an irrelevant calculation.

    Now, maybe it is true: maybe abiogenesis really is impossible. But if so, this certainly isn’t evidence of it, and it IS a demonstration that you are willing to come to conclusions about scientific evidence that are woefully and almost proudly misinformed. You can call me all sorts of nasty names, but the reality is that given that the basis of your skepticism is so objectively obviously demonstrably confused and wrong, you should probably spend more time re-examining your own arguments for similar flaws rather than whining about evolutionists (who don’t, by the way, consider evolution “a law” because that’s itself as flawed an understanding of the use and meaning of scientific terminology as calling an apple a pear)

  128. Unregistered Comment by couloir007 UNITED STATES

    I wonder if Beeblebrox is aware that Douglas Adams was an atheist and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy doese nothing but rip on religion?

  129. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    In this article, PZ Meyers uses Pub Med, an online research article database, to easily find 150,000 primary research articles discussing evolution. That’s not including the 25,000 review articles he found as well. Better start reading!

    Linking to a repository of articles agreeing with you and then demanding that everybody else read all of them before daring to question you may be amusing to you, but it’s not an “argument.”

    If you wish to bring up a specific point you’re certainly most welcome to do so, so here’s how it’s done: You provide a summary of your point, one or more quotes and bits of evidence supporting your assertion and add links back to it for verification. Surely, with Evolution being so self-evidently true and proven beyond all reasonable doubt over and over again, it can’t be all that hard to dig up just one?

    So, if you’re going to debate evolution, at least do a little research first so you don’t make yourselves look like idiots.

    If you’re going to debate creationism, at least have the common courtesy of being specific, rather than reverting automatically to “I smrrrt, you DUMB!”

    Most of us grew out of it around 2nd grade.

    And if you don’t feel like doing the reading, than I recommend keeping your opinions to yourselves.

    Er, no. You don’t get to say what can and cannot be opined upon, here or elsewhere. Kindly keep your delusions of adequacy to yourself.

    I hate to sound so rude, but some of you have come off sounding so arrogant, and yet your “arguments” are just simply laughable.

    Which you prove how, exactly? Or is it just a postulate? At least we have the courtesy to provide you with an argument. But hey, whatever floats thy boat, Torquemada.

    For instance, take this, by Misha: “Take the odds of a simple polypeptide forming by chance. Without them, life is impossible. With them, life is still far from being a given, since they’re useless on their own. And the odds of one spontaneously appearing is 1×10E-40,000.”

    This calculation displays basic ignorance of both how to conduct a calculation of probability as well as of how proteins form and what they are like. There’s no way around this: only someone that does not understand what a protein is, how it folds, and why that is important, could come up with such an irrelevant calculation.

    I suggest you take that up with whoever did the calculation, then, since I didn’t. I furthermore suggest that you explain just what is ignorant about it because, frankly, you just saying so isn’t in the least bit impressive. Show us where his math and understanding of protein synthesis and folding is lacking, please. No, I’m not saying that it isn’t, as a matter of fact you may well be right, I’m just asking you to substantiate your claim beyond “because I say so.”

    Or you could just say “I smrrrt, you DUMB!”

    I don’t particularly care. Just don’t expect me to take you any more seriously than any other snot-nosed pre-schooler if you choose to do so.

  130. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Misha,

    That’s the typical rhetoric from the Evolutionists: We’re right because we want to be!

    No amount of evidence will change their minds.

    Reminds me of another on-going conundrum….hm…something about the Son of God….

    One either chooses to believe the evidence, logic and reason, or, one does not. Case closed.

    Evolution has no evidence to support it. Citing a slew of ‘peer-reviewed’ articles as support doesn’t mean much, since many of them contradict each other, or rehash other, older erroneous “proofs”.

  131. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    HDD, well said. 10,000 “experts” agreeing with each other proves nothing. As to the Son of God, the Birth, Life, Death and Resurection of our Savior is better documented than many thing accepted to be uncontroverted historical fact (the life and rule of Julius Caesar, fer instance). It’s been a long time since I have heard anyone calling that other JC a fictional character created by an opressed minority.

    ALL of Evolution Theory is based on short term observations. While I have no doubt that such things as dogs raised in cold weather grow longer hair after a couple of generations, I have yet to see anything beyond conjecture that dinosaurs turn into people, no matter WHAT time frame is offered.

    Mayhaps it’s just me, but I find it easy to believe that any power capable of creating the world in 6 days, and then take a day off for his equivalent of golf, is perfectly capable of creating billion year old rocks while he is at it.

  132. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Comment by couloir007

    I wonder if Beeblebrox is aware that Douglas Adams was an atheist and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy doese nothing but rip on religion?

    Wow, Adams was an atheist, STOP THE PRESSES!

    Here and I thought that after reading all his HHGTTG books, watching the BBC series, listing to the radio show, and seeing the most recent movie (the screenplay of which was written by Adams) that Adams was a Christian. I guess I’ll have to change my nick. ;-)

  133. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Wil, the experts have been agreeing with each other on the overall concepts and mechanisms of evolution for almost a century and a half. It has withstood every development in zoology, microbiology, chemistry, geology, physics, the development of radiometric dating techniques, and the revolutions in DNA analysis; any on of which could’ve refuted evolution but instead confirmed and expanded our knowledge of it. It’s not a conspiracy unless all those Christian scientists are in on it, as opposed to looking at the evidence in their own fields and drawing scientific conclusions based on the bits of evidence before them.

    For example, why do small Pacific islands so often have flightless birds living on them? Obviously the birds didn’t walk there. Do you think Noah sailed around the Pacific dropping off flightless birds like he was Santa Claus, or do you think the birds flew to the islands and then gave up flying because there weren’t any bird-eating mammals chasing them around? What Darwin postulated was that if you put a small subset of animals on a remote island they’ will eventually diversify enough to take better advantage of its unique environment. Following that logic, perhaps this is exactly what living things have been doing all along.

    Christians engaged in careful study and rational explaination of the natural world had a problem. When the New World was discovered the Noah’s ark story didn’t make much literal sense, because it would require all the unique species in the Americas to swim the Atlantic ocean to get on a boat so they wouldn’t drown, and then swim all the way back. To maintain that this really happened requires ever more improbable and strained claims that are patently absurd, in a scientific sense. For example, for it to rain enough to submerge the tallest mountain would require 30,000 feet worth of water to be up in the clouds, yet atmospheric pressure is the weight of everything in the atmosphere above your head. Prior to the flood Noah would’ve literally been under pressure, the same as if he was almost 30,000 feet under the ocean. A scuba diver can make it to almost 300 feet before nitrogen narcosis sets in, and nuclear submarines have a crush depth of much less than 2,000 feet, and there’s no way to make a rational case that the flood actually occurred exactly as described, and not from an evolutionary standpoint, just from a knowledge of how air works. Problems of this nature had been plaguing geology because the flood theory of geology wasn’t working out, and instead geologists like Hutton, back in the 1700’s, were finding evidence of an extremely old Earth with a molten interior, and this was before Charles Darwin had his dangerous idea.

    As for peptide synthesis, drug companies manufacture chains up to 300 units long via purely chemical means on industrial scales. Obviously, it’s not mathematically impossible or you wouldn’t be able to run out an buy over a thousand different machines that’ll synthesize them for you.

  134. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Note to those evolutionists still reading: You may wish to keep with the current state of chemical evolutionary research. Misha brought up the probabilities issue vis a vis life arising by random chance. This post will address that issue in more detail.

    Abiogenesis is a dead notion and researchers are now largely (I say largely because there are evolutionists who believe in a wide variety of conflicting theories - but I digress) pursuing chemical Necesity.

    A number of years ago, it became obvious that the abiogenesis math wasn’t adding up and so the scientific community decided they had to look elsewhere for answers. The best paper I have ever read on this subject was written by one Dr. Dermott J. Mullan. His explosive research on the probabilities of life arising by chance can be found here.

    If you don’t want to read all 47 pages of the paper (which contains some highly nuanced math), here are the crib notes:

    The most time that anyone can reasonably (read “scientifically”) claim that life had in order to first evolve is 1.11 billion years. (If you don’t know why go to section 3 of his paper). Mullan’s area of study seeks to answer the question, “is 1.11 b.y. long enough for a given set of amino acids to form the proteins necessary to build the first primitive cell?” I find his paper compelling because he is errs so far to the side of life arising by random chance in order to give all benefit of the doubt to the promoters of the abiogenesis theory.

    For example, he grants, for optimization sake, that the first proteins would be more primitive than any we know of today, containing only 12-14 amino acids (compared with say, a basic protein like insulin, which has 51). There are no proteins in existence today with this low of an amino acid count. But he uses the number anyway so as to give some window of possibility for life to have arisen through random interactions of primordial amino acids into a protein that might have given rise to the first living cell.

    After all his calculations he does ultimately conclude that life could have arisen without intelligent intercession:

    “With all of these assumptions, we find that the probability of assembly of the RNA required for even the most primitive cell by random processes in the time available is no more than one in 10^79.”

    Of course, this is a kind way of saying “impossible”.

  135. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    A few points:

    1. You ask for evidence, and I give you evidence. You choose not to read it. Did you even click on one link? I’m not going to go into detail about any of it, because we both know there’s no amount of evidence that I could show you that would change your mind. That’s the difference between religion and science. Religion starts with the conclusion and works it’s way back. Science begins with evidence and moves forward. Darwin wasn’t looking for a way to dethrone God. He used his powers of observation and intellect to develop this theory, much like Galileo and Copernicus before him.

    I’ll admit, science is often slow in shifting to a new paradigm. However, good evidence always finds it’s way to the forefront of scientific debate: evidence submitted by other scientists, not by religion. Evolution has hung on for 150 years. The theories about the process has changed multiple times as new evidence surfaces. However, the existence of evolution remains as close to a scientific certainly as science will allow.

    So what do you want? Do you want observaiton of speciation? Transition fossils? Responses to all the other creationist claims? Here you go. I doubt you’ll read it.

    2. If 10,000 experts reaching a concensus isn’t proof, then what the heck is? Sure scientists disagree often on evolution. But the debate is always HOW evolution occurred, not IF it occurred.

    3. Why do you assume the burden of proof is on evolutionists? You are denying a theory that has survived 150 years of intense debate, and continues to be upheld by scientific groups around the world. I believe the burden of proof is on creationists. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your 150,000 peer reviewed articles?

    4. And furthermore, why is creationism the assumed alternative to evolution? As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence for the biblical account of creation. ID continues to be struck down in courts around the country. In fact, the biggest defeat, in Dover, PA, was by a Christian judge appointed by our President. It held all the cards, and yet still went down in flames.

    5. “While I have no doubt that such things as dogs raised in cold weather grow longer hair after a couple of generations, I have yet to see anything beyond conjecture that dinosaurs turn into people, no matter WHAT time frame is offered.”

    This is just an example of what I was talking about in my previous post. Using your high school science education to debunk evolution is like my attending church twice and then attempting to debunk scripture using complex theological arguments. Do you think holding a PhD in biology makes you more stupid? The idea that someone with no formal education in biolgy can so easily dispove what many consider to be the most strongly upheld theory in science is just pathetic.

    But you go on believing your “facts”. Just as Christians believed the Earth was the center of the galaxy. Speaking of which, has religion ever won when it went up against science? I see a pattern that makes future predictions rather simple. If religion’s for it, Im against it!

  136. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Sir George,

    Because you argue from a uniformitarian perspective, it’s natural for you to find it inconceivable of how flightless birds could be marooned on an island. But just because you cannot imagine that the earth at one time did not have numerous distinct oceans does not mean that it did not. There is ample evidence that, at one time, ocean levels were much lower and the continents were connected.

    As for pointing to various fields of science that have accepted evolution and still managed to forge ahead as evidence of the primacy of the TofE, this is a spurious and dishonest piece of “evidence”.

    Faulty thinking abounds in the scientific community. Theories gain acceptance for decades, even centuries until overturned by better science. How could such theories persist for that long if they were false? How could scientific inquiry proceed if it is based on incorrect notions. Well, it does. Simple as that. I maintain that scientific inquiry progresses IN SPITE of the widespread belief in the myth of evolution. This is because the theory really does little to inform research in key areas. Indeed, none of the areas of study you list is helped by any “understanding” of macro-evolutionary processes. Natural selection, sure. Micro-evolution, obviously. But, given that Creationists accept these as solid science, they are not at issue.

    Still, your argument is double-edged given that modern science itself was established by Creationists, not evolutionists (both groups of which were contemporaneous with the other).

    That’s right, evolutionists were not highly visible in the founding of modern fields of scientific inquiry. This being the case, if your argument were to be applied even-handedly, then one would have to give serious credence to Creationism given that any one of the fields listed below “could’ve refuted [creation] but instead confirmed and expanded our knowledge of it.”

    So I ask you, if Creationism is incorrect how could modern science have even been developed at all? The uninitiated are often stunned by the sheer volume of fields of study developed by those who believed God created the universe as described in the Bible. The following list of the fathers of modern science was developed by Curt Sewell, author of God at Ground Zero:

    Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Lord Chancellor of England, is said to be the one who began the “scientific method.” This was based on experimentation and induction from data, rather than simply philosophical deduction like Aristotle used. Bacon was a devout Bible-believer, who wrote: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures [the created things of nature], which express His power.”

    Johann Kepler (1571-1630), discovered the laws of planetary motion and celestial mechanics. He was an earnest Christian, and wrote that he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

    Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), mathematician, philosopher, a founder of hydrostatics and hydrodynamics, wrote the “wager of Pascal,” — “How can anyone lose who chooses to become a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing — in fact, he has been happier in life than his non-believing friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell.”

    Robert Boyle (1627-1691), father of modern chemistry, said to be the greatest physical scientist of his generation, active Christian and Bible student and translator.

    Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686), developed the principles of stratigraphical interpretation of fossils, and was a Flood geologist, attributing the fossils to the Biblical Flood of Noah. He wrote many theological works.

    Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), discoverer of the law of gravitation, the three laws of motion, the calculus, the first reflecting telescope, and many others. He wrote more theological works than scientific papers, including a book defending the Ussher chronology of the Earth. He wrote: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”

    William Herschel (1738-1822), astronomer and telescope maker, discovered double stars and the planet Uranus. He was a devout Christian who wrote: “The undevout astronomer must be mad.”

    Michael Faraday (1791-1867), universally acknowledged as one of the great scientists and experimenters, primarily in electricity and magnetism. He was a sincere Christian and faithful church-goer, and stated that he was supremely confident that true science and the Bible were both based on divine truth and were necessarily in agreement.

    Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872), inventor of the telegraph, artist, sculptor, and builder of the first camera in America. He wrote: “The nearer I approach to the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of God’s remedy for fallen man …”

    Matthew Maury (1806-1873), oceanographer and “Pathfinder of the Seas.” A Bible-believer, he read Psalm 8:8, “… the paths of the seas …” and said that if God said there paths through the seas he would find them and chart them. He discovered the prevailing currents of the world’s oceans during his lifetime with the U.S. Navy.

    James Joule (1818-1889), physicist and discoverer of the mechanical equivalent of heat and one of the chief founders of the scientific discipline of thermodynamics. He was also a devout Christian.

    Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), paleontologist, glaciologist, professor of natural history at Harvard, whose Museum of Comparative Zoology is named in his honor. Some have said he wasn’t really a Christian, but he certainly believed in God and His special creation of all kinds of organisms. He was an active opponent of the concept of evolution.

    Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), established the germ theory of disease, pasteurization as a way of destroying bacteria, and demolished the evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation, developed vaccines for rabies, anthrax, and other diseases. He was a strongly religious man, who was criticized by the biological establishment of his day because he opposed Darwinism, yet he’s acknowledged as one of the greatest biologists of all time.

    William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), was a Bible-believing Christian. He was one of the foremost physicists of all time, and held the chair of Natural Philosophy at University of Glasgow for 54 years. He established the scale of absolute temperature, and defined the first two laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong opponent of Lyell’s principle of uniformitarianism and Darwin’s evolution. In 1903 he made a statement that “With regard to the origin of life, science … positively affirms creative power.”

    Joseph Lister (1827-1912) was a great English surgeon, who developed the concept of antiseptic surgery and chemical disinfectants. Lord Lister received many honors during his lifetime, and was a firm Quaker Christian. He wrote: “I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.”

    Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) was one of the greatest scientists of all time, best known for his comprehensive mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory and other theoretical physics works. He strongly and actively opposed Darwinism and other naturalistic views of Earth’s origins. A hand-written paper found after his death affirmed his personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and quoted the Genesis account of man’s creation in the image of God.

    George Washington Carver (1864-1943) is considered the greatest black scientist of all time, working mostly in the realm of agricultural products. He was born as a slave in the Southern U.S., and dedicated most of his life to helping his people, while also proclaiming his faith in God and the Bible.

    Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), the father of the U.S. space program, was born in Germany and emigrated to the U.S. in 1945, becoming a citizen in 1955. He was a practicing Lutheran, and was active in church life, and a sincere Bible student. He wrote: “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

    Do we assume that the Theory of Creation is valid just because modern science was conceived of, and developed by Creationists? I am not going to go that far. However, it should stand as a counterpoint to any assertion that evolution must be true because modern science has managed to persist with the notion still in wide spread acceptance. Heck, the Greeks managed to advance science despite the fact that they thought the earth was flat (even though the Hebrews at the time had the silly notion that it was a sphere).

  137. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Gurigi inanely state:

    …has religion ever won when it went up against science? I see a pattern that makes future predictions rather simple. If religion’s for it, Im against it!

    If you take the time to read my previous post you will realize how this statement is the pinnacle of stupidity. Clearly the product of modern university “training”.

    Modern science exists only because men of God believed that the universe was created by an intelligence and it had purpose. Because it had purpose, it was therefore, knowable.

    You rail against people who you think are less informed than you and then you demonstrate that you are the most uninformed of all by making such foolish and easily fscked assertions.

    So to repeat, science advanced for millennia before modern Darwinism was proposed and accepted. It will advance even further once the scientific community gets its collective head out of its nether regions and admits that the whole notion of evolution is the most absurd “theory” ever perpetrated on mankind.

  138. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    As for peptide synthesis, drug companies manufacture chains up to 300 units long via purely chemical means on industrial scales.

    True. But not by random chance. They produce them by intelligent design.

    1. You ask for evidence, and I give you evidence.

    No, you did not. You gave me a reading list and then said “read all of this or you’re not worthy of my attention.” That’s not argument, that’s arrogance. I don’t have a problem with arrogance, by the way, just read the rest of this site. If you refuse to, then you’re not worthy of my attention. Be arrogant all you like, just don’t expect me to be impressed with you. I don’t impress easily.

    Find a specific point, summarize your argument and link to whatever evidence you have for it. Why is that so impossibly hard, considering that you keep telling me that the evidence is so overwhelmingly in your favor? All you have to do is to find one measly little example and you’re home free.

    You choose not to read it. Did you even click on one link? I’m not going to go into detail about any of it, because we both know there’s no amount of evidence that I could show you that would change your mind.

    Considering that you haven’t even tried yet, it’s amazing how much you know about what I will and will not accept as evidence. Did random mutation bestow mind-reading abilities upon you?

    That’s the difference between religion and science. Religion starts with the conclusion and works it’s way back. Science begins with evidence and moves forward. Darwin wasn’t looking for a way to dethrone God. He used his powers of observation and intellect to develop this theory, much like Galileo and Copernicus before him.

    And then generations of scientists spent 170 years trying to find evidence for this theory and, failing miserably all the way, settled for declaring it the established truth. Because they say so.

    Fine. I don’t have a problem with you having your own church, because it sure as Hell doesn’t threaten mine. Nothing threatens mine. I’m sure that Darwin wasn’t looking to dethrone G-d (unless he was stark raving mad, which I have absolutely no reason to believe) and, even if he was, it’d still be completely irrelevant. Because he couldn’t even if he tried.

    I’ll admit, science is often slow in shifting to a new paradigm. However, good evidence always finds it’s way to the forefront of scientific debate: evidence submitted by other scientists, not by religion. Evolution has hung on for 150 years.

    Considering the methods that the Darwinian Cosa Nostra employs against heretics, it’s no wonder either.

    The theories about the process has changed multiple times as new evidence surfaces. However, the existence of evolution remains as close to a scientific certainly as science will allow.

    The existence of G-d remains as close to a scientific certainty as science will allow. So your point is?

    So what do you want? Do you want observaiton of speciation? Transition fossils? Responses to all the other creationist claims? Here you go. I doubt you’ll read it.

    I would, if I considered this discussion important enough to wade through every single word on all of those pages in order to try to make your point for you.

    Pick. One. Concrete. Example.

    Trust me, I’ll be more than happy to read, consider the evidence and let you know what I think about it. If it’s obvious that you’ve got it right, I’ll even concede the point.

    Pointing somebody to the Library of Congress saying “the proof is somewhere in there. Come back when you’ve read it all and found it” is NOT. AN. ARGUMENT.

    DYOFDW.

    But thanks for the links. Honestly.

    2. If 10,000 experts reaching a concensus isn’t proof, then what the heck is? Sure scientists disagree often on evolution. But the debate is always HOW evolution occurred, not IF it occurred.

    If 10,000 experts say the Earth is flat it’s proof? Because once upon a time they actually did. Thankfully, a few brave souls decided to question the orthodoxy. Coincidentally, I can find at least 10,000 expert theologians agreeing that G-d exists, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll run around making the ludicrous claim that that is “proof” that He does.

    Or how about Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change? I can find a few thousand experts saying that man has no influence on it, then I can find another few thousand saying the opposite. How do we settle whose preponderance of concurring opinions is “proof?” Head count? A vote in the UN?

    3. Why do you assume the burden of proof is on evolutionists? You are denying a theory that has survived 150 years of intense debate, and continues to be upheld by scientific groups around the world. I believe the burden of proof is on creationists. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your 150,000 peer reviewed articles?

    The burden of proof is upon them if they want it to be more than a mere theory or, indeed, if they want to be taken seriously at all by those of us who don’t swallow the orthodoxy hook, line and sinker. Or how would you like ME to state that “G-d exists. If you can’t prove me wrong, that means that He does exist?”

    If you’re at least halfway sensible, and I have no reason to believe that you’re not, you’d immediately tell me that I’d lost my marbles.

    4. And furthermore, why is creationism the assumed alternative to evolution? As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence for the biblical account of creation.

    Have you got a better one? Because I’m all ears if you do. Really. I assume that the reason that creationism/ID is the only alternative to evolution is that nobody’s come up with a third explanation yet.

    Either everything just happened to appear from nothing on its own, or somebody/something made it happen. I don’t see much room for a third way, actually.

    ID continues to be struck down in courts around the country. In fact, the biggest defeat, in Dover, PA, was by a Christian judge appointed by our President. It held all the cards, and yet still went down in flames.

    By those scientific luminaries known as “judges.”

    Besides, they’re not striking ID down as such, they’re just choking on their inability to read the First Amendment. Or, more likely, they’re not finding the language in that exceedingly plain and simple text that they’d like to find, so they make it up out of whole cloth.

    This is just an example of what I was talking about in my previous post. Using your high school science education to debunk evolution is like my attending church twice and then attempting to debunk scripture using complex theological arguments. Do you think holding a PhD in biology makes you more stupid?

    Apparently it does, according to Darwinists, if you happen to disagree with them. Even if you have several PhDs.

    But they’re the only ones so far that I’ve heard of so blinded by their own religion. Well, other than Scientologists, that is.

    But you go on believing your “facts”. Just as Christians believed the Earth was the center of the galaxy.

    You may or may not have noticed, but when actual hard evidence suggested that such wasn’t the case, those horribly rigid Christians went ahead and accepted it.

    Regrettably not until some of them had done their damndest to get rid of the heretics by any means available, much like today’s Darwinists, but in the end they accepted it.

    Not that there’s anywhere in the Bible stating for a fact that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, it was just some people’s interpretation and, surprise, it turned out they were wrong. Big deal.

    How about the flat-earthers? They read Genesis, pondered the exact meaning of the less than exact language in it, trying to fill in the gaps, and came up with the interpretation that Earth was a disc with a giant dome covering it. It’s not like they had the wherewithal or equipment to come up with something better. Then, later, they DID get the equipment and the old interpretation was discarded because it was obviously wrong. That’s how you do it. Of course, the fact that Earth WASN’T flat and DIDN’T have a firmament with stars glued upon it didn’t in the least bit contradict Genesis since the text never said anything like that to begin with. Again, big hairy deal.

    Speaking of which, has religion ever won when it went up against science?

    Has it ever LOST? Still waiting for Christianity to be conclusively and scientifically debunked. I don’t see it happening either, but if it does, it does. I’ll just have to deal with it.

    I see a pattern that makes future predictions rather simple. If religion’s for it, Im against it!

    We already knew that. It’s painfully obvious, really. Which tells us all we need to know about your real agenda.

    Good luck with it.

  139. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    “If you take the time to read my previous post you will realize how this statement is the pinnacle of stupidity. Clearly the product of modern university “training”.”

    Actually, I went to a christian college. I wasn’t taught much about evolution; had to learn that myself.

    So let me get this straight, I give you peer-reviewed jounral articles, and you give me single-sentence quotes from centuries past with no context?

    You win.

    By the way, good job ignoring the rest of my post.

  140. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox, the article you cite assumes that life arose on the very surface, which is very likely an invalid assumption. It assumes that the Sun ignited at the same time the Earth formed, which is wrong. It assumes the early earth was frozen, which is wrong. The latest thermodynamic research backed by studies of early Zircon crystals shows the Earth may have cooled enough to support life in as little ten million years, which throws his whole timeline off. It also continually asserts that evolution theory says the first cell had to form randomly. The theory of evolution doesn’t even cover that topic.

    Scientists are now studying feldspars as a likely initial starting point for life, because a weathered piece of feldspar has a million pores per square millimeter that naturally acts as a cell wall, and which can serve as a catalyst for a host of organic chemical reactions. They’re studying many natural catalysts and chemical reactions which would render all calculations based on random probability meaningless, and it is just this type of interesting research which is making exobiologists think life may be extremely common in the universe, even possibly in our solar system. There is now (since 2005) evidence that the early Earth had a hydrogen atmosphere, and a hydrogen atmosphere would produce organic compounds just through photochemistry and electrical discharges. Science advances, creationism does not.

    Because you argue from a uniformitarian perspective, it’s natural for you to find it inconceivable of how flightless birds could be marooned on an island. But just because you cannot imagine that the earth at one time did not have numerous distinct oceans does not mean that it did not. There is ample evidence that, at one time, ocean levels were much lower and the continents were connected.

    No, I can’t imagine it because I’m not completely stupid. The islands are volcanic island chains. They didn’t go drifting all the way across ocean basins from California. They don’t contain continental crust. The bed of the Pacific ocean has never dry enough for parrots to walk to Hawaii, and if they had, why didn’t the rats saunter on over too? And just where are all these flightless parrots on the continents, and why did they all decide to walk to tropical islands in the middle of the freakin’ ocean? There is such a thing as being so open-minded that your brains fall out. When a bird doesn’t need to fly anymore, why would it bother with it, as it’s just a waste of energy? If a parrot gets a defective gene so its wings don’t work anymore, what’s the harm? It wasn’t using them anyway. If you land on an island where the animals look very similar to common ones that all swim or fly, and no animals look similar to ones that just walk, and there’s no way to walk to the island anyway, then odds are you’re looking at animals that swam and flew to the island. They probably just settled down for a spell of genetic drift and natural selection favoring the food growing on the island. It’s not rocket science. In contrast, you offer islands cruising around the Pacific, and I suppose kangaroos swimming to the Middle East to hop on that ark. Does that really seem likely?

    And yes, creationists can do a lot of science, and did, especially prior to the the development of evolutionary theory, like almost every scientist you listed. A lot of science was done when we thought the Earth was flat, too, but that doesn’t lend evidence toward a flat Earth. Science will advance no matter who conducts valid scientific inquiry, so Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Animist, Confucionist, pagan, athiest, and Rastafarian scientists would all produce the same age for the Earth, the same evolutionary trees, the same science. It’s based on what is in the rocks, in the physics, and in the cells, not what’s in their heads.

  141. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    I don’t really have a dog in this fight.
    Does that make me agnostic?
    No, not really…. I have my beliefs which I think/feel are based on experience.

    How-some-ever, it does leave me with a couple of observations and questions.

    “Global Warming” is still being argued about, yet “the experts” want to
    “do something” at the minor possible cost/inconvenience of the entire first-world standard of living.

    If the “Theory of Evolution” is so thoroughly proved that it might as well be the “Law of Evolution” then shouldn’t *ALL* the “experts” in *ALL* relevant disciplines be doing their damndest to help it get along with its business?
    Why keep nattering, doing nothing, developing “medicines”, surgical techniques, *avoiding* evolution, and actively *working against* it?
    To truly let Evolution run its course, you’d stop abortions, stop prolonging lives, kill////drat!
    (how to do cross-outs?)
    “euthanize”"defectives” &
    (”G_d Forbid”) promote
    “eugenic breeding”…. although that’s kinda “choosing” Evolution, rather than letting it run its course.

    The “current trend” of Evolution certainly seems to be a
    “less than optimal” course, since it’s starting to produce a rather large number of children than can’t seem to learn to read/think/calculate, and so-called adults that are best suited for lives of not-so-quiet desperation as barely-satiated parasites or scavengers (at best).

    Sumthin’s “gone missin’”…..

  142. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Misha notes (#125): “In fact, all of Dr. Sternberg’s claims about the attempt to run him off campus because he’d allowed publication of a PEER-REVIEWED article questioning the Darwinist Orthodox Church’s principles were confirmed by the US OSC, along with some highly interesting and quite disturbing emails between the parties to the lynch mob.“….

    Two questions here and one has absolutely nothing to do with the Sternberg case:

    1) Which peers did the review and are they really peers?

    2) Is the US OSC the same office that Patrick J. Fitzgerald works for?

  143. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    Peterobinson, I’d be happy to answer your questions.

    1. The idea that Global warming is still in debate among scientists is false. Global warming is widely accepted as a true phenomenon among the scientific community. However, as you pointed out, this truth is rather inconvenient to some powerful people, so they have hired “scientists” to muddy the intellectual waters. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t understand this, and so they always present the issue as if it’s a balanced debate. If you’re interested, I highly recommend the new movie An Inconvenient Truth. It answers a lot of questions on the subject.

    By the way, the tactic of muddying the waters has been used before. Creationists use it, certainly. But it was also used back in the 1980’s during the CFC ozone depletion scare, and also in the 70’s with the research on negative effects of certain pesticides. Some of our Senators just used the tactic in the stem cell debate. It is certainly not new.

    2. You are confusing science with morality. We know that evolution occurs, but no good scientist has ever declared that we should consciously help it along. That thinking quickly leads down the road to social darwinism and eugenics. Evolution is not a code of ethics. It is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply the method in which species are able to successfully adapt to changing environments over long periods of time. It has no conscious mind.

    The problem with humans trying to force natural selection is that we are too short-sighted. We cannot predict the future and the changes it will bring. We tried eugenics back in the 1930’s, as did Hitler. That didn’t work out too well. Some people still argue for social darwinism (most of them not scientists, I should point out.) But there again, you are applying a natural phenomenon to social policy. Two different worlds.

    It is true that our society has somewhat gotten off the track of natural selection. However, that is expected in a population where environmental pressures have been lifted. We now have the ability to cure / treat many diseases and allow those people to reproduce, passing on their genes. We have enough resources to support a much larger population than normal. We also have the ability to control our family size with birth control techniques. What dis this mean? I don’t really know, but I can tell you that if those pressures were ever reapplied, in say a world catastrophe, natural selection among humans would return quickly.

  144. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Oh wow, I knew you were a “true believer” but I still have a hard time believing you could possibly be stupid enough to shill for A Politically Convenient Lie like that.

    So, “global warming” (that hasn’t happened) is true because you say so. Evolution is true because you say so. CFCs cause ozone holes and DDT kills bald eagles because you say so. And all those people who disagree and know you are full of it are just ideological traitors who were hired by the eeevil capitalists to confuse the poor proletariat.

    Dude you’d be RIGHT AT HOME working for Pravda.

    RH

  145. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Guirgi wrote:

    We know that evolution occurs,

    You know NO SUCH THING.

    Chemical evolution (i.e. abiogenesis) is a mathematical impossibility (despite the assertions made by Sir George to the contrary). The probabilities are against it which is why Necessity is the current rage amongst researchers. If we KNEW that life evolved by chance then why are chemists the world over working on the newer field of life arising by necessity? Why are evolutionists arguing multi-verse theory? Why all the discussion of panspermia? There are numerous competing evolutionary theories to abiogenesis because the smart money amongst evolutionists is that the math precludes life arising on this planet by chance.

    Macro-evolution (i.e. first cell gradually evolving to man) is a hypothesis (actually, more of a theological belief system) that is more akin to history. It’s hard to PROVE history, especially ancient history. In fact, Judaism and Christianity are routinely criticized because the historicity of the Bible is based on documents that are millennia old. Meanwhile, Guirgi KNOWS that evolution is true despite the fact that there is no way to conduct experiments on ancient history. We can surmise, we can guess, we can debate (usually in a philosophical manner) whether we evolved or not. Be can never know evolution research is a forensic science that lacks quality clues. It also lacks witnesses.

    Small evolutionary changes within a species and Natural Selection are givens that no one disagrees with.

    Design is a more viable explanation for our existence for three primary reasons:

    1. Irreducible complexity. This is the nail in the evolutionary coffin.
    2. Life is information. The formation of DNA requires intelligent input given that it is a 3 out of 4, self-correcting, self-replicating programming code more complex than any encryption methodology ever conceived by man.
    3. The Bible, which is unquestionably written by a being who lives outside of our dimensionality given its ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy, states that the universe was invented and life did not arise by random chance.

  146. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    Misha:”Evolution being so self-evidently true and proven beyond all reasonable doubt over and over again, it can’t be all that hard to dig up just one?”

    This is exactly the point. If you think that there is just one single thing you need put before you that blows you out of the water, then you aren’t getting how good the evidence is. The reason evolution is considered so solid by science isn’t because of any one single paper: it’s because of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of little things that all fit together in precisely the same way. It’s one thing to understand what the fossil record implies about life on earth, and the ancestral connections it suggests existed. That alone is interesting, although it itself is the result of a large large body of smaller lines of evidence. It’s when you put that together with what the genetic “paternity test” data implies about the ancestry of life on earth, and then you see that they both paint the exact same PATTERN of ancestry, that you’re really talking about something. It isn’t merely reading one paper about allele change in this or that feature. It’s reading countless numbers on things all over the world, and finding them all pointing to the same things in the same ways that does it. Sorry: that takes a little more effort on the part of the reader. That’s just the way it is.

    “I suggest you take that up with whoever did the calculation, then, since I didn’t. I furthermore suggest that you explain just what is ignorant about it because, frankly, you just saying so isn’t in the least bit impressive. Show us where his math and understanding of protein synthesis and folding is lacking, please. No, I’m not saying that it isn’t, as a matter of fact you may well be right, I’m just asking you to substantiate your claim beyond “because I say so.””

    First of all, the calculation assumes that all events are indepedent of each other: that’s the basic principle inherent in doing the math that way. But they aren’t: real world situations involve causality and all sorts of restriction conditions which have to be modeled, and inherently limit the number of options. so the calculation is clearly a joke on that level.

    But secondly, if you know anything about proteins, you know that their functionality is determined by how they fold, and this is determined not by the total sequence of anmino acids, but rather by key sequences. There are thousands of amino acid sequences that form the same shape and do the same things. Furthermore, there are countless ones that fold near the same way and do near the same thing.

    Finally, given those two other problems, the calculation also seems to assume that chemistry must hit upon the exact sequences found in modern life today in order to get anything functional. That’s pure nonsense too: no one has any clue what proteins early life might have had, how many it required, or what all the alternative possibilities were.

    In short, if this calc was handed to you by someone, then either they got lied to, or you got lied to. Because it is so laughably irrelevant (for those reasons and more) that if the person making it knew any math at all, they HAD to know it was fraudulent, and basically designed just to impress rubes into thinking that abiogenesis is impossible.

    Behe does the same thing with flagella, talking big about all the specific proteins as if there were only one possible way a flagella could ever work. From reading him, you’d never find out that there a countless different flagella even in life today, with all sorts of different parts, numbers of parts, and even things similar to flagella but that serve different functions entirely.

    All these arguments are designed to play on the lack of knowledge of non-biologists. They sound impressive as long as you don’t know enough to know that the scenario they are proposing leaves out all sorts of key details that make their arguments fail.

    —-

    peterobinson:”If the “Theory of Evolution” is so thoroughly proved that it might as well be the “Law of Evolution””

    This is what I mean. You claim to have thought of a sarcastic objection to evolution, but the objection itself demonstrates that you don’t even understand scientific terminology. Theories never, no matter how well established, become “laws.” Theories may contain laws (for instance, evolution has things like Dolo’s Law), but laws are very different sorts of things than theories: they describe universally observed principles or relationships. Theories, on the other hand, are large bodies of explanation.

    Even in math, which has deductive (and therefore abolute) proofs, we still don’t call “number theory” “number law.” That’s just not how the terms work. And yet you think that this idea is some

    [quote]”then shouldn’t *ALL* the “experts” in *ALL* relevant disciplines be doing their damndest to help it get along with its business?”[/quote]

    This is another silly misunderstanding. Evolution simply describes something that happens in nature. But it isn’t an almost no one takes as, and no one HAS to take it as, a guide to anything. What “is” is different from what “ought.” If geology says that a certain volcano is about to explode, should we just “let nature take its course” and not evacuate the surronding area? That’s basically the silly argument you are making.

    Beeblebrox: 1. Irreducible complexity. This is the nail in the evolutionary coffin.

    Except not. IC has been refuted as an idea in so many ways that it’s not even funny. Again, IC is one of those objections to evolution that only works if you don’t know enough about evolution or the relevant disciplines to know what the argument leaves out or gets wrong in each specific case.

    IF there were IC structures in nature, it might pose a problem for evolution. But demonstrating that there are simply hasn’t been done. Looking at some complex structure and saying “I don’t get how it could have evolved” is not a demonstration of anything in particular, but that’s all IC has ammounted to so far.

    2. Life is information. The formation of DNA requires intelligent input given that it is a 3 out of 4, self-correcting, self-replicating programming code more complex than any encryption methodology ever conceived by man.

    So? What sort of argument is this? It’s just another “this seems really complex. I don’t know how it could have evolved, and I refuse to look at all the possibilities of how it could have.”

    Most people that make this argument can’t even define what “information” actually means. Do you know what KC information is vs. Shannon information? How are you defining it?

    3. The Bible, which is unquestionably written by a being who lives outside of our dimensionality given its ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy, states that the universe was invented and life did not arise by random chance.

    You believe it can predict the future. I don’t see it doing that at all. All the “500 predictions” people cart around turn out to be laughably bogus.

  147. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    My dearest plunge, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I would like to stress what you said about there not existing any one piece of evidence that proves evolution. When I give evidence by the truck-load, it’s not so that I won’t have to provide specific examples; it’s so that you can see all of the different supportive evidence from across multiple fields of science. The above link has evidence in genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, the archaeology, ect. Completely different fields all supporting the same theory. That’s what I meant in my previous post when I stated that you needed to read! Evolution is not a simple theory. It takes time and effort on your part if you really want to understand the evidence. You paint evolution as if it’s a shallow idea based only on the opinions of idiots, and yet I give you articles and books and websites that discuss more complex scientific issues then I’ve ever seen on any creationist website (I would say “in a creationist journal article”, but they’re kinda hard to find.)

    A strong theory in science is one that has preditcive power. Even in the early stages of the theory, Darwin was able to make some amazing predictions about types of evidence that wouldn’t be discovered until decades later. The fossil record is a good example. Recently, the article on a newly discovered fossil, Tiktaalik was released. The fossil is a good example of a transition between fish and tetrapods. Looking at the fossil record, scientists were able to predict the existence, and general location of, such a fossil before they even started looking for it! You see the same amazing predictive power in other theories, such as the Big Bang. It doesn’t make anything a certainty, but it does strengthen the idea.

    Where’s the predictive power in creationism? If there was a global flood, why do we not see evidence for it? If god created all animals within a short amount of time, then why do we have such a detailed fossil record spanning millions of years? Why do we find the more simplified lifeforms the further back in time we go? You attack our theory, and yet you have no valid theory of your own. Show me evidence that’s not in your bible. Give me research to study and evaluate. Evolutionists have been begging ID’ers for years for some tangible evidence. It’s not there, and I doubt it ever will be.

    And I’m sorry, but the bible is just not a good source of evidence for non-christians. I have no reason to believe what’s in your book. Sure, there might be some rudimentary science in there, but the Qur’an also has some accurate science (as well as some inaccurate science, just like the bible). Maybe I should believe that as well? Heck, if I did want to study scripture as a science text, I wouldn’t even know what version to use. And god forbid I actually get to study the primary sources.

  148. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    What a surprise that you would claim that the Bible is laughably bogus. I mean, after all, we think the exact same thing about YOUR religion. So I supose we DO agree on something, after all!

    RH

  149. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    What a surprise that you would claim that the Bible is laughably bogus. I mean, after all, we think the exact same thing about YOUR religion. So I supose we DO agree on something, after all!

    I don’t find the Bible laughably bogus. I find the claims about it being litterally true because of supposed countless fulfilled prophecy to be bogus.

    You don’t have the slighest idea what my religion is, though, but nice try! I know you’re bitter, but trolling around for insults lieu of having any good arguments isn’t excatly impressing.

  150. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Plunge said:

    I don’t find the Bible laughably bogus. I find the claims about it being litterally true because of supposed countless fulfilled prophecy to be bogus.

    The Writer of Scripture does not claim the Bible to be “literally true”. The Writer simply says what he means and means what he says. Even those with a passing knowledge of the Bible know that it contains symbolism, metaphor, parables, poetry, 1st person accounts, historical prose and other literary forms. It also is clear when it is using these different literary devices.

    And although it is hard for me to tell, I am going to assume that you were looking for proof that the prophetic aspects of the Bible are without error. Would you admit that if the author of the Bible could be demonstrated to be able to “write history in advance” that it would be proof that someone other than humans wrote it? If not, how would you explain the ability to describe future events with such accuracy?

    There are over 300 prophesies in the Bible on the subject of the first coming of Jesus, Here is a sampling:

    Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).

    A messenger was sent to prepare the way (Malachi 3:1).

    Made a triumphant entry into Jerusalem as a king riding on a lowly donkey (Zechariah 9:9).

    Betrayed by a friend that resulted in wounds in the hands (Zechariah 13:6).

    Price of betrayal was 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12).

    The blood money was used to buy a potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13).

    Offered no defense at his trial (Isaiah 53:7).

    His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16).

    The probability of these 8 prophesies being fulfilled BY CHANCE by a single man are astronomical.

    Here are a few summary articles that further define the probability issue for the skeptic:

    You Bet your Life

    The definitive work on the subject: The Christ of Prophecy by Peter Stoner

    Prophesy the Bible, and Jesus

    A good table with an explanation of the Prophesies of Jesus

    Of course, if you do not believe that the supernatural is possible then no amount of mathematical data is going to convince you. However, the study of prophesy, whether Biblical or not, is always fascinating and (yet dangerous for the avowed skeptic - you’ve been warned).

  151. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Correction on one of the reference links in my last post:

    Prophesy, the Bible, and Jesus

  152. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Comment Plunge made to RH:

    You don’t have the slighest [sic] idea what my religion is,

    Plunge, he was referring to your religion of Evolutionism. But I think you knew that. Could be wrong though.

  153. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    “If not, how would you explain the ability to describe future events with such accuracy?”

    I would explain it by pointing out that the claimed examples are just plain terrible. First of all, the Gospel accounts we have are not only not first hand, but they were very obviously written by people very aware that they needed to find prophecies to claim that Jesus would fulfill, given that Jesus had failed to fulfill the only ones that actually mattered (the actual core messianic signs like world peace, a rebuilt temple, eveyone acknowleging Jehovah, etc. That’s what the second coming is all about after all: the actual Jesus failed to do the things that mark the messiah as such, so we have to invent some way to pretend that he still could be by saying that he someday will.)

    The only authority we have for most of these is the Gospel accounts. And the examples are laughably vague and/or silly. Some, like the “ass, foal of an ass” passage turning into Jesus riding around on two animals at once, are almost comical. Some, like the TEXT and NO ONE ELSE actually calling Jesus Emmanuel, based of a prophecy that wasn’t even a prophecy in the first place, are just plain sad. And given that Scripture was well known to, for instance, Jesus, doing things you felt a messiah wouldn’t exactly the most impressive thing in the world in the first place. It’s not unlike the prophet who declares that a certain young woman will bear a child, and this child will be a sign for a certain king… and then going and GETTING THE GIRL PREGNANT himself. Oh, man, how could he have known it would happen!?!

    Most of the rest of the list is also awful in one way or another. Take “His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16)” for instance. Read the actual Hebrew. Does it say pierced? No. But if you actually MISSPELL a word in Hebrew, it does say, in a distinctly ungrammatical way, something that maybe translates into “gouged.” Which still is way far off the mark from pierced, but heck: that didn’t stop the English translators! And, of course, the fact that this is David almost certainly speaking about HIMSELF and has nothing to do with the messiah is also another sort of problem.

    In other words, these lists have the very obvious character of either the gospel writers scrambling to find ways to try and prove that their failed leader was the messiah, and doing a near Benny Hill-like job of it (both born of a virgin, based off ANOTHER mistranslation of Scripture, and anyway the sort of thing only pagans would care about anyway, AND paternally related to King David?? You can’t make up something that stupid.) or people after the fact searching through the OT and tossing up any random connection they can find, whether it has anything to do with the messiah or not (Jesus wore sandals, and this passage (about Moses, but shhhh) says that “he shall come forth to you wearing sandals” Wow!)

    Given the fact that all of this is a smokescreen for the fact that, again, the ACTUAL important prophecies weren’t fulfilled, it’s particularly unimpressive.

    I’ve heard the rest of your arguments so many times that it’s really not worth getting into. This is way off topic already anyway.

    Suffice to say, the idea that Jesus is the Jewish messiah is by far the weakest claim of Christianity. I don’t have a problem with the argument that Jesus was a great moral teacher, or even if you want to claim that Jesus was the son of God sent to save everyone’s sins. None of that necessarily relies on the ties to Scripture. But the connections to the Jewish Scriptures and the messianic hopes of Judiasm: trying to make Christianity look like a logical, sensible outgrowth of Judaism? That’s just lame. It just doesn’t work. That’s probably why Christianity never really took off amongst literate and highly religious Jews, and appealed best to those on the fringes of the religion, or outside it and far away from the original events.

    And wow: a WorldNetDaily article. Is this the one that will use some sort of semblance of logic and cla…. oh wait. Nope. Just another evangelistic equation that only makes sense if either you ALREADY believe, or are too dumb to catch on to all the unspoken question-begging.

  154. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    Plunge, he was referring to your religion of Evolutionism.

    Well, I hoped he wasn’t descending into “oh, you are poopypants” level rhetoric, but okay, if you say so.

    My religion isn’t “Evolutionism.” I don’t have the slightest idea why anyone would think that makes sense. There are plenty of Christians who happen to agree that the evidence for evolution is clear and overwhleming: in fact the largest Christian sect on the planet, for one, agrees that its okay. Regardless, it only makes sense to call evolution a “religion” if the word is near meaningless. Evolution is a scientific theory that lives or dies on its abilitity to explain and stay consistent with the evidence. That’s as far away from faith as one could possibly get. But hey: if that’s “religion” then so is every single other human activity ever, including dentistry, chemistry, and taking a dump.

  155. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    And wow: a WorldNetDaily article. Is this the one that will use some sort of semblance of logic and cla…. oh wait. Nope. Just another evangelistic equation that only makes sense if either you ALREADY believe, or are too dumb to catch on to all the unspoken question-begging.

    Yeah, we generally say the same about your talkorigins bullshit.

  156. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    Yeah, we generally say the same about your talkorigins bullshit.

    Yeah, the only difference there is that everything on talkorigins has these neat little things at the bottom of the screen called references. And each reference refers back to a peer-reviewed journal article; an article in which we can look up and read if we so choose. It sure is nice to have original manuscripts to look at every now-and-then.

    And I have to ask, Spatula: How much have you actually read on talkorigins? Come on, be honest! I’ve spent hours of my life dredging through creationist bullcrap looking for some semblance of true evidence. How much time have you spent researching the other side?
    Maybe it’s hard for you to read something that’s not organized into chapter and verse.

  157. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    I would like to withdraw the last statement of my previous post. It was a shallow comment that provided nothing to this conversation. I do apologize.

    The rest of the statement is valid.

  158. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    plunge -

    peterobinson:”If the “Theory of Evolution” is so thoroughly proved that it might as well be the “Law of Evolution””

    This is what I mean. You claim to have thought of a sarcastic objection to evolution, but the objection itself demonstrates that you don’t even understand scientific terminology.

    Wasn’t an objection.
    Not-so (apparently) Simply asking why
    you guys don’t “put yer money where yer mouth is”.

    Theories never, no matter how well established, become “laws.”… Theories, on the other hand, are large bodies of explanation.

    You must not like those “explanations”.

    Even in math, which has deductive (and therefore abolute) proofs, we still don’t call “number theory” “number law.” That’s just not how the terms work.

    Yet you work with those “theories” and accept the results thereof.

    ”then shouldn’t *ALL* the “experts” in *ALL* relevant disciplines be doing their damndest to help it get along with its business?”

    This is another silly misunderstanding. Evolution simply describes something that happens in nature. But it isn’t an almost no one takes as, and no one HAS to take it as, a guide to anything. What “is” is different from what “ought.” If geology says that a certain volcano is about to explode, should we just “let nature take its course” and not evacuate the surronding area? That’s basically the silly argument you are making.

    Nope, it’s not my argument.
    Unless you (like most so-called libs) have “something against” the
    “little brown people” who live around most volcanoes, evacuation seems like a decent sort of idea.
    Modern medicine and such also seem like
    decent ideas.
    Of course, looking at the results, I previously posted about a rise in parasitic/scavengers types and I’ve also seen a rather large increase in examples of Terminal Stupidity…..

    Is this one of the situations in which we’re forced to
    “take the good with the bad”?

  159. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    Yeah, we generally say the same about your talkorigins bullshit.

    You can SAY things all you want, but then the guy at timecube.com says a lot of things too. Fact is, a bunch of well established, evidence based science vs. a bunch of handwaving apologist ranting isn’t even a contest.

  160. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    Wasn’t an objection.

    Ok. It still displays an obvious lack of understanding of what you are talking about though.

    you guys don’t “put yer money where yer mouth is”.

    As I explained, its because your question makes no sense at all. Just because science tells us that stuff happened a certain way doesn’t mean that it’s good, or that we should want more of it. Malaria is natural. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invent DDT and blast the crap out of the mosquitos that spread it.

    You must not like those “explanations”.

    ??? What are you talking about? I like them just fine insofar and as long as they explain and are consistent with the evidence.

    Yet you work with those “theories” and accept the results thereof.

    Er, yes? Again, I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you STILL operating under the misapprehension that theory in science (or even in math!) is a synonym for “wild guess”? It’ not.

    Nope, it’s not my argument.

    I’m going to have to disagree with you there. You pretty clearly implied (and just did so AGAIN!) that the study of evolution implies that we should do things like stop working on medicine and so forth and just let people live and die as they can. It doesn’t. That was your argument, and its a lousy one.

  161. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    plunge -

    Wasn’t an objection.

    Ok. It still displays an obvious lack of understanding of what you are talking about though.

    For the most part, I’m talking about *you* and trying to get you to commit to a position.

    you guys don’t “put yer money where yer mouth is”.

    As I explained, its because your question makes no sense at all.

    That seems to be an example of the previously mentioned “Terminal Stupidity”.
    Please show me how it is not.

    Just because science tells us that stuff happened a certain way doesn’t mean that it’s good, or that we should want more of it. Malaria is natural. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invent DDT and blast the crap out of the mosquitos that spread it.

    Seems to me that it was the enviro-libs who were so determined to outlaw it, causing some millions of deaths. Soooo…. now it’s finally back in favor.

    You must not like those “explanations”.

    ??? What are you talking about? I like them just fine insofar and as long as they explain and are consistent with the evidence.

    Yet you work with those “theories” and accept the results thereof.

    Er, yes? Again, I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you STILL operating under the misapprehension that theory in science (or even in math!) is a synonym for “wild guess”? It’ not.

    Nope, it’s not my argument.

    I’m going to have to disagree with you there. You pretty clearly implied (and just did so AGAIN!) that the study of evolution implies that we should do things like stop working on medicine and so forth and just let people live and die as they can. It doesn’t. That was your argument, and its a lousy one.

    As a bit of a pragmatist, I disagree.
    If your theories are worth anything at all, you should be really hot to see them in action.

  162. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Um, you’re not making much sense. As was said earlier, a theory does not get promoted to “a law.” A law is just a scientific observation that’s always been observed to be true, without explaining why it would be true. Newton’s law of gravity, for example, says masses are attracted to each other according to the formula f=k (m1*m2)/d^2. It doesn’t explain why masses act like that, nor what gravity is. It’s just an observation that masses act like that.

    A hypothesis is a rational explanation of an event. Note that most creationist theories don’t actually rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis because they don’t explain how or why something occurred, just that some intelligence must’ve done something.

    A theory is a hypothesis that’s been confirmed by many people who’ve tested it against real world observations, and they often contains lots of laws. One might say that a theory is a complicated description of why and how, whereas a law covers simple things like spring constants and the compression of ideal gases. The theory of flight includes numerous laws and theorems, such as Bernoulli’s law. That doesn’t mean that the only thing keeping a Boeing in the air is conjecture.

    And finally, just because the theory exists doesn’t mean you have to be for it, which makes about as much sense as being for orbital mechanics. It just is.

  163. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    sir george -

    I’ve previously stated that I do not have a dog in this hunt. I’m looking for reasons why those who believe in Evolution don’t do everything in their power to promote it’s furtherance.

    Um, you’re not making much sense. As was said earlier, a theory does not get promoted to “a law.” A law is just a scientific observation that’s always been observed to be true, without explaining why it would be true.

    So, according to you, Evolution has not always been observed to be true.

    Newton’s law of gravity…. doesn’t explain why masses act like that, nor what gravity is. It’s just an observation that masses act like that.

    Which, as a bit of a pragmatist, is quite fine with me.

    A hypothesis is a rational explanation of an event. Note that most creationist theories don’t actually rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis because they don’t explain how or why something occurred, just that some intelligence must’ve done something.

    Depends on your requirements for “rational” and “explanation”…. mebbe we can get that guy to expound on their meaning…. you know, the one who waxed so eloquent about the word “is”?
    Uh…. well, mebbe not.

    A theory is a hypothesis that’s been confirmed by many people who’ve tested it against real world observations, and they often contains lots of laws….

    The theory of flight includes numerous laws and theorems, such as Bernoulli’s law. That doesn’t mean that the only thing keeping a Boeing in the air is conjecture.

    Yet we all trust the theory of flight well enough to hop on most airplanes, even if they’re only certified by the FAA……. even when said theory has yet to reach the level of law.

    And finally, just because the theory exists doesn’t mean you have to be for it, which makes about as much sense as being for orbital mechanics. It just is.

    Here comes that ole pragmatist again.
    We also rely upon and use contrivances that take advantage of the (probably) theoretical orbital mechanics.

    If something is worth so much blather, it’d damned well better be of some use; otherwise, *why bother*?
    Why put any more time, effort, $$ into it?
    Maybe it’s somebody’s religion after all?

    All this is probably moot for a fella who has “Dirty Harry” and “Sgt Rick Hunter” as 2 of his most favored philosophers…. in this case, the latter worthy’s “Works for me!” is in operations mode.

  164. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Sir George said:

    A hypothesis is a rational explanation of an event

    Not quite correct. This is more accurate (note that the words “supposition” and “limited evidence”:

    “hypothesis |hīˈpäθəsis| noun ( pl. -ses |-ˌsēz|) a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

    Thus, ID or creation as an explanation are clearly AT LEAST hypotheses. Heck, Panspermia is a hypothesis and there is about ZERO evidence (as opposed to “limited”) for that notion.

    A theory is a hypothesis that’s been confirmed by many people who’ve tested it against real world observations, and they often contains lots of laws.

    Maybe you can tell us which “laws” the TofE contains?

    In the case of ID the laws the theory contains would include:

    Ones related to thermodynamics (which the TofE violates)
    Ones related to information input (which the TofE violates)

  165. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    For the most part, I’m talking about *you* and trying to get you to commit to a position.

    But I have committed to a position. You are trying to argue that my position implies or requires something that it does not. And it doesn’t really matter what your motives are: your attemtps still demonstrated a charateristic lack of understanding.

    Seems to me that it was the enviro-libs who were so determined to outlaw it, causing some millions of deaths. Soooo…. now it’s finally back in favor.

    You seem completely unable to stay on subject. I’m not an “enviro-lib” and that doesn’t address my example at all.

    If your theories are worth anything at all, you should be really hot to see them in action.

    ….

    I’m looking for reasons why those who believe in Evolution don’t do everything in their power to promote it’s furtherance.

    You really need to make up your mind and start making sense.

    There is no “see them in action” or “promote its furtherance.” That’s as stupid as claiming that because astronomy says that comets sometimes crash into planets, that we should try to make a comet crash into earth. One has nothing to do with the other, and your implication that they should is as goofy as your understanding of theory/law.

  166. Unregistered Comment by plunge UNITED STATES

    I’ve been flagged by the spam filter?

  167. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    For the most part, I’m talking about *you* and trying to get you to commit to a position.

    But I have committed to a position. You are trying to argue that my position implies or requires something that it does not. And it doesn’t really matter what your motives are: your attemtps still demonstrated a charateristic lack of understanding.

    Seems to me that it was the enviro-libs who were so determined to outlaw it, causing some millions of deaths. Soooo…. now it’s finally back in favor.

    You seem completely unable to stay on subject. I’m not an “enviro-lib” and that doesn’t address my example at all.

    If your theories are worth anything at all, you should be really hot to see them in action.

    ….

    I’m looking for reasons why those who believe in Evolution don’t do everything in their power to promote it’s furtherance.

    You really need to make up your mind and start making sense.

    There is no “see them in action” or “promote its furtherance.” That’s as stupid as claiming that because astronomy says that comets sometimes crash into planets, that we should try to make a comet crash into earth. One has nothing to do with the other, and your implication that they should is as goofy as your understanding of theory/law.

  168. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    Thus, ID or creation as an explanation are clearly AT LEAST hypotheses.

    Creationism is, ID is not. ID doesn’t propose anything testible: there’s no explanation that comes out of the evidence.

    Ones related to thermodynamics (which the TofE violates)
    Ones related to information input (which the TofE violates)

    You haven’t answered my question about information. But in any case, can you explain how evolution violates either of those laws? Generally when people do this, it’s yet another case of exposing a lack of knowledge as to what those laws even mean.

  169. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    Ones related to thermodynamics (which the TofE violates)

    You’re gonna have to explain this one. And before you do, make sure you look up 1. the actual laws of thermodynamics and 2. the difference betwee an open system and a closed system.

  170. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    And I have to ask, Spatula: How much have you actually read on talkorigins? Come on, be honest!

    I’ve read enough, asshole.  Enough to know that all they’re doing is throwing up microdecimals and wild-assed guesses and hoping they stick.

    They still  haven’t shown me the species that transmogrified itself into a completely different species.  They still  haven’t shown me your so-called “missing link”.  And until they do, it’s a fucking THEORY.

    A.  Fucking.  Unproven.  THEORY.

    Got that, Socrates?

    I’ve spent hours of my life dredging through creationist bullcrap looking for some semblance of true evidence. How much time have you spent researching the other side? Maybe it’s hard for you to read something that’s not organized into chapter and verse.

    You’re awfully damned brave when you’re hiding behind your biology professor’s skirt while giving him that rimjob, aren’t you, wussy boy?  Don’t suppose you’d like to come say that to my face, would you, chickenshit?

  171. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    You can SAY things all you want, but then the guy at timecube.com says a lot of things too. Fact is, a bunch of well established, evidence based science vs. a bunch of handwaving apologist ranting isn’t even a contest.

    When you finally come up with some “evidence” like that, fuckhead, do please let us know.

  172. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Speciation wiki

  173. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Plunge,

    I would like to address you with the assumption that you are making an honest attempt to refute my position. I do this even though your tenor in your critique of Messianic prophesies seems either dishonest or unserious. If I am reading you wrong I apologize in advance. Nonetheless, I do want to address your criticisms of my position by first unpacking your assertions. If the following quotes do not adequately summaarize your primary points, please feel free to correct me:

    1. The Gospel accounts we have are… not first hand
    2. they were very obviously written by people very aware that they needed to find prophecies to claim that Jesus would fulfill [them],
    3. Jesus… failed to fulfill the only ones that actually mattered (the actual core messianic signs like world peace, a rebuilt temple, eveyone acknowleging Jehovah, etc.)
    4. The actual Jesus failed to do the things that mark the messiah as such, so [the Gospel writers had] to invent some way to pretend that he still could be [the Messiah] by saying that he someday will [be].
    5. The only authority we have for most of these is the Gospel accounts.
    6. The examples are laughably vague and/or silly.
    7. Some, like the “ass, foal of an ass” passage turning into Jesus riding around on two animals at once, are almost comical.
    8. Some, like the TEXT and NO ONE ELSE actually calling Jesus Emmanuel, based of a prophecy that wasn’t even a prophecy in the first place, are just plain sad.
    9. Given that Scripture was well known to… Jesus, doing things you felt a messiah wouldn’t exactly the most impressive thing in the world in the first place. It’s not unlike the prophet who declares that a certain young woman will bear a child, and this child will be a sign for a certain king… and then going and GETTING THE GIRL PREGNANT himself. [maybe you could rewrite this point as it makes very little sense to me. Are you saying that Jesus got someone pregnant? Do you mean that JOSEPH got Mary pregnant knowing that the two of them were in the predicted genealogy of the future Messiah? -Dan]
    10. Most of the rest of the list is also awful in one way or another. Take “His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16)” for instance. Read the actual Hebrew. Does it say pierced? No. But if you actually MISSPELL a word in Hebrew, it does say, in a distinctly ungrammatical way, something that maybe translates into “gouged.” Which still is way far off the mark from pierced, but heck: that didn’t stop the English translators!
    11. David [was] almost certainly speaking about HIMSELF and has nothing to do with the messiah is also another sort of problem.
    12. These lists have the very obvious character of either the gospel writers scrambling to find ways to try and prove that their failed leader was the messiah… both born of a virgin, based off ANOTHER mistranslation of Scripture, and anyway the sort of thing only pagans would care about anyway, AND paternally related to King David?? [again, please feel free to rewrite this point into something cogent so that I can address it appropriately -Dan]
    13. …people after the fact searching through the OT and tossing up any random connection they can find, whether it has anything to do with the messiah or not (Jesus wore sandals, and this passage (about Moses, but shhhh) says that “he shall come forth to you wearing sandals” Wow!)
    14. The ACTUAL important prophecies weren’t fulfilled…
    15. The idea that Jesus is the Jewish messiah is by far the weakest claim of Christianity.
    16. The connections to the Jewish Scriptures and the messianic hopes of Judiasm: trying to make Christianity look like a logical, sensible outgrowth of Judaism? That’s just lame. It just doesn’t work.
    17. That’s probably why Christianity never really took off amongst literate and highly religious Jews, and appealed best to those on the fringes of the religion, or outside it and far away from the original events.

    I have eliminated most of the ad hominem remarks from your post about my stupidity or the lameness of the arguments, etc. since they only tend to demonstrate that you are an unserious person. I tried to boil down your arguments to the key points you were making. Most readers probably notice that all are assertions on your part without noting any evidence. If you would like to take a moment to back up your assertions with actual facts, that would even be better.

    Meanwhile, despite your incorrect assertion that this part of the thread is OT, I maintain you are wholly wrong on this point given that we are talking about authority. You maintain that there is proof of evolution and point to authoritative sources in various fields of science as an inference that your position is correct. Fine, meanwhile I am calling on my own authoritative sources that support my position.

    However, if you are going to set the rules of this debate such that you can refer to your set of authoritative sources and I cannot refer to mine, then your rules are clearly intended to stifle debate. The only reason I can think you might want to do that is if you know that your position is so weak that you are afraid to look at my evidence for fear that you might have to rethink your world view.

    Personally, I am not afraid to confront your supposed evidence for your position. I am interested in all evidence that might challenge me. One would hope that those defending Evolution would do the same. However, as Misha has pointed out several times in this thread, the gatekeepers of the church of evolution are even more zealous than the inquisitors of Tomás de Torquemada.

    Please prove to me that you are interested in debate by honestly engaging me in the issue of whether or not the Bible is authoritative or not with regard to prophetic utterances. My position is that since it is, it is also going to be authoritative on matters of creation and other scientific questions.

    When I get a chance, I will take on each of your 17 points as each is without merit. However, I want to take the time to find references to help buttress my critique of your assertions.

  174. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    plunge -

    Dunno what made you think you were blocked by anything, this came thru fine.
    Of course, that may simply be another symptom of yours……..

    But I have committed to a position. You are trying to argue that my position implies or requires something that it does not. And it doesn’t really matter what your motives are: your attemtps still demonstrated a charateristic lack of understanding.

    Is this just an assumed position?
    In any case, if you take a position you need to defend it.
    A rather decent defense would be to show some use for it.

    You seem completely unable to stay on subject. I’m not an “enviro-lib” and that doesn’t address my example at all.

    I’ve yet to see any example from you that proves the use of ET.

    You really need to make up your mind and start making sense.
    There is no “see them in action” or “promote its furtherance.”

    So, you’re “into” things that have no real use other than allowing you to talk ad infinitum?
    Come on, give me something useful to help me make up my mind.

    There is no “see them in action” or “promote its furtherance.” That’s as stupid as claiming that because astronomy says that comets sometimes crash into planets, that we should try to make a comet crash into earth. One has nothing to do with the other, and your implication that they should is as goofy as your understanding of theory/law.

    DUH!
    What is STUPID (& terminally so) is thinking about purposely crashing a comet into the earth, when any sane person would want to move it off course.

  175. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    Ok, this is how I see it:

    No matter who’s right and who’s wrong, it’s hard to disagree that evolution is, by far, the current reigning theory on the relationship between the species. Now, it is true that in the past reigning theories have often been thrown out for new theories that better explain the evidence at hand. Such is the beauty of science. However, these instances tend to have a few things in common:

    1. The new theory is developed by people inside the appropriate fields. Old theories are not thrown out by people with no scientific training in the corresponding area.

    2. Once a theory is in place, it is not torn down simply by claims that the evidence is false. The theory must be replaced by a one that better explains the evidence. Evolutionists know the evidence. You’re not going to convince them of anything by trashing what experts in the field have all agreed to be valid. Of course, the current theory could at the very least be weakened if new evidence arose that conflicted with the theory.

    So, what is needed from the creationist side is a theory that better explains all of the evidence we have gathered over the last 200 years. This theory also needs to come from experts within the field of biology, not from a high school biology teacher (Ken Ham) or from Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind.) You could also gain credibility by providing new, contrasting evidence. However, it would have to be a large amount of evidence to tempt science to adopt a new theory; and even then you STILL need a new theory that can explain all of the evidence, both new and old.

    So I ask you, where is the evidence, and the new theory to support that evidence? The evolutionist side in this debate has given you more information than you can read in a lifetime. We have also given you concise summaries of this evidence, so that you can more easily understand the sea of data held up by our side as evidence. Now you give us something to look at.

    On a side-note, I’m also curious to know what alternate beliefs people hold in this discussion. Do you believe in a young Earth or old Earth? When was life created? How long have humans been on this Earth? Of course, my follow-up question will be about your supporting evidence, but we can just start with the beliefs.

    They still haven’t shown me your so-called “missing link”. And until they do, it’s a fucking THEORY.

    Again, I beg you to look up the true definition of a scientific theory. Evolution cannot possibly ever rise to a higher distinction, nor could any other theory of its kind.

    And I’m not sure what “missing link” you are referring to. Do you want reptile to birds? Or reptile to mammals? Or ape to humans? It’s all given under the same link. There’s even more, if you’re interested. Of course, the problem with using the “missing link” logic is that every time a transitional form is found, two more “missing link” slots open up on each side of it.

    And Spatula, again I apologize for my comment of earlier. I’m assuming it was the reason for your burst of anger. I’d prefer to keep this discussion as civil as possible.

  176. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Dunno what made you think you were blocked by anything, this came thru fine.

    He was temporarily. The automated spam trap tagged him for moderation, and it took a while before I could rescue him from purgatory and tell the damn thing to leave him alone.

  177. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    The Almighty Emperor’s Might Knows No Bounds!

    Dunno what made you think you were blocked by anything, this came thru fine.

    He was temporarily. The automated spam trap tagged him for moderation, and it took a while before I could rescue him from purgatory and tell the damn thing to leave him alone.

    Hmmmm…. now you’re leaving me alone to decide just which and/or how many of him to ignore?

  178. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Guido,

    The problem with the “reptiles to birds” hypothesis (fine, I’ll start using the ‘correct’ term, since none of the Evolutionists will) is there STILL isn’t any fossil evidence for it! NONE!

    Without at least ONE fossil of a transitory species, Evolution is just labratory mental masturbation! It’s fun for a while, but, of no lasting consequence.

    Radio-carbon dating, as has been addressed several times, is absolutely useless for determining the age of ANYTHING, since 14 assumptions must be made for radio-carbon dating to be accurate…making radio-carbon dating an assumption in and of itself. Which is what us wacky Creationists have been trying to tell you! If radio-carbon dating is an assumption, then, it is declared to be true FIRST, and then, every assumption is made to make it true.

    EXACTLY like Evolution. The ASSUMPTION is, because it isn’t Creation, that it is true. All ‘evidence’ is then smashed into the theory, no matter how poorly it fits.

    Given that NO closed system has EVER been observed to spontaneously go to a more ordered, higher energy state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, should hint at a flaw in Evolution. ALL observations have shown that closed systems go to LESS ordered, LOWER energy states without outside interference. That’s where the Theory of Entropy in thermodynamics comes from. So, in order for Evolution to be correct, quite a few of the theories in thermodynamics must be INcorrect…even though all observable evidence dictates otherwise.

    Don’t give me any fucking bullshit about how it doesn’t apply in this case. If it isn’t universal, then, it is useless in science. The ‘laws’ of physics apply everywhere in the universe. Otherwise, there’s no point in knowing what they are.

    Another idiotic defense of Evolution is the contention that human beings aren’t outside influences. Don’t believe me? Take a gander at one of Sir George’s contentions in a previous comment:

    As for peptide synthesis, drug companies manufacture chains up to 300 units long via purely chemical means on industrial scales. Obviously, it’s not mathematically impossible or you wouldn’t be able to run out an buy over a thousand different machines that’ll synthesize them for you.

    What he was responding to was the (completely accurate) assertion that it is effectively mathematically impossible for protein chains to have formed on their own, spontaneously. So, his defense of that is “We do it all the time!”

    Er…Sir George, normally, I really respect your opinion, even when I don’t agree with it. But, that is one of the most assinine statements I have ever read from ANYONE. It ranks right behind “Global cooling is proof of global warming.” Seriously. It is that blindingly stupid.

    It’s a statement that commits suicide IMMEDIATELY to anyone with even a GLIMMER of knowledge of logic, since it blatantly violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. You proof that protein molecules can form spontaneously with no outside interference is that we form them, with intent, with purpose, and by design, as an outside interference…

    Admit it. You’re trying to make us Creationists look good. Aren’t you?

  179. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    and…uh…er….

    I should also point out that this dumb ole’ barely educated truck driver is having no problems punching holes into the Theory of Evolution.

    What do you think is happening among all the scientists who are actually examining the REAL evidence? Hm?

    The answer is, as Misha has been quite vocally pointing out, and quite well, I might add, is that they are being shut-up, forcibly, because they dont’ conform to the current orthodoxy. Even though the current orthodoxy is a really lame attempt to disprove the existence of a logically neccessary creator.

    Oh, and I’ll also point out, that, while I do NOT condemn Beeblebrox for citing the Ultimate Authority (although, I should, just to stay on Glenda’s good side), I have not done so. If you won’t accept observable evidence as a decent authority, what makes me think you’ll accept a higher authority than that?

    You bet I’m a Bible thumpin’ Jesus Freak. Proud of it, too. I’ve just learned that talking of adult matters, like the Creator, to someone throwing a childish temper tantrum, like Evolutionists, is trying to put a dress on a pig: you only get dirty, and the pig gets mad.

  180. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Plunge2 said:

    ID doesn’t propose anything testible: there’s no explanation that comes out of the evidence.

    Although I am a Creationist and not an IDer (inasmuch as ID is agnostic about the identity of the designer), I can tell you that this statement is completely and totally incorrect.

    Design theory is a form of information theory. It is used all the time in various fields. For example, if an anthropologist sees some etchings on the wall of a cave, how does he determine if it was scratched there by animals or written there by a primitive man? The manner in which he determines this is to make a call to design theory. SETI uses similar methodologies, as does forensic science. Was a man killed accidentally or on purpose?

    All of these rely on design theory for answers. Now, if Plunge wants to tell the astrophysicists at SETI or anthropologists, or paleontologists, or the forensic scientists that they are not really engaging in science because design theory is not really a theory at all “because it is not testable”, be my guest.

    However, for a full explanation of the scientific method intrinsic to ID, visit the ideacenter.

    You haven’t answered my question about information.

    Dr. Steven Meyer said during a debate with Peter Ward:

    “We would say that the presence of information in the cell is best explained by intelligence. And the reason for that is what we know from our uniform and repeated experience about what it takes to create intelligent information. DNA is chock-full of digital code. It’s a 4-character digital code; many software engineers have said that it functions exactly like software. What we know from experience is that information, whether in the form of a digital code in a program always arises from intelligence. Programs require programmers, and information generally always arises from intelligence, so when you find information present in a living system, it is a natural and scientific inference to infer that a prior intelligence played a role. One of the rules of historical scientific reasoning, from Lyell and Darwin forward, is that we should explain the present effects and past events by reference to causes that are presently in operation. That’s the so-called principle of uniformity in science. The present cause of information that we observe is mind, or intelligence. So when we find the information in the cell, by the rule of the method that historical scientists used, we should infer intelligence played a role.”

    But in any case, can you explain how evolution violates either of those laws? Generally when people do this, it’s yet another case of exposing a lack of knowledge as to what those laws even mean.

    Regarding information rich code requiring information input… Evolution cannot explain the existence of information itself. Information is neither matter nor energy. Some might say it is “metaphysical”. Whatever one says about the origins of information, it is the height of silliness to claim that a 3-out-of-4 self-correcting, self replicating code sprang into existence on its own. Entropy plays a huge part in information theory because the problem of noise introduction.

    This brings me to:

    Evolution violates the principles of thermodynamics, or more specifically, entropic principles.

    David Cavanaugh writes:

    “That brings us to natural selection, which one could just as reasonably postulate as a mechanism to prevent change (e.g. evolution) from occurring by suppressing mutations and other Entropic system decay, as it could be seen as the primary mechanism by which a random walk to increased system complexity occurs. The idea of biological systems magically changing into more and more complicated entelechies, just flies in the face of a universe ruled by Entropic processes. Living things get sick and die, species become extinct, our abodes get dirty, mechanical contrivances degrade and break, social systems are prone to chaos and anarchy … The list of things that touch our everyday experience goes on and on. Statistical calculations similar to those cited above for spontaneous generation, yield extremely low probabilities of occurrence. Biological systems may use Entropic processes to survive, but it’s a real stretch to say that random processes must surely lead to ordered systems. The mechanical contrivances of Man also use Entropic processes to perform their function, but the damn things just break, so where’s the mechanical evolution except as a Teleological process?”

    Read the whole thing as it blows holes in all the huffing and puffing evolutionists persist in bellowing whenever Creationists mention that evolution violates entropic principles. Bottom line, Cavanaugh explains how it makes no difference if a system is open or closed. It still goes from order to disorder.

  181. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    LC, I’m honestly starting to think that your replies are part of a humerous plot to frazzle the evolutionists. But in case they’re not, I’ll take the time to rip apart the nonsense above that you call a post.

    Fist off, the reptiles to birds comment. I’ll simply quote you, and then quote the first line of the link I provided in my previous post.

    The problem with the “reptiles to birds” hypothesis (fine, I’ll start using the ‘correct’ term, since none of the Evolutionists will) is there STILL isn’t any fossil evidence for it! NONE!

    In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological “gaps” (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others

    Second, and this is the main point of your post that makes me think you are joking, is your comments on carbon dating. Even most creationists know by now that carbon dating is only good for dating material that is no more than 50 to 60 thousand years old. There are other dating methods that can date much older material, such as potassium-argon dating. However, the main problem you’ll have in discounting these methods is that, despite the assumptions made in using them, their results correlate well with each other.

    And finally, let’s discuss your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Given that NO closed system has EVER been observed to spontaneously go to a more ordered, higher energy state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, should hint at a flaw in Evolution.

    Well, by definition, a closed system has no outside interference, and so you’re actually describing an open system in the above quote. It is true that the overall entropy of a closed system will always increase, that does not mean that there cannot be pockets of decreasing entopy, as long as the total entropy is increasing. And furthermore, in case you haven’t noticed, our planet receives all kinds of outside interference, namely from our sun, making us an open system. Do you not think that the development of a sperm and egg into a living being is a decrease in entropy? Heck, I can decrease entropy in my office right now just by straightening up my desk. And if all matter/energy always increased in entropy, how in the world would plants be able to make the sugars that we so desparately need to survive?

    And I don’t know who has told you in the past that the laws of thermodynamics are not universal. I’ve certainly never heard that from an evolutionist.

  182. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Humble DD wrote:

    while I do NOT condemn Beeblebrox for citing the Ultimate Authority (although, I should, just to stay on Glenda’s good side), I have not done so.

    Just to be clear, I am not citing “Ultimate Authority” in the traditional sense of “If God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” No skeptic or non-believer should be persuaded by such an argument.

    What I am saying is that the Bible demonstrates in numerous ways that it was written by an extraterrestrial being who lives outside of our time domain. There are thousands of prophesies throughout the old testament that have been fulfilled to prove this reality. Furthermore, there were over 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The very existence of the early church, made up entirely of Jews who knew the prophetic Scriptures (including the highly learned doctor Luke and the Pharasee leader Nicodemus) are a testament to the validity of the witnesses to Jesus’ divinity.

    These are all evidences that should be allowed in the courtroom of public debate on the matter of whether the Bible speaks definitively on matters of prophesy, science, relationships, heaven, and hell.

    I maintain that the fact that the Bible’s prophetic nature proves that it was authored by YHWH Himself, allows it to be used as evidence in the discussion at hand.

  183. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Guirgi, as I said above, read Cavanaugh. Until you do, you are ill-prepared to discuss the entropy issue.

  184. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    What he was responding to was the (completely accurate) assertion that it is effectively mathematically impossible for protein chains to have formed on their own, spontaneously. So, his defense of that is “We do it all the time!”
    Er…Sir George, normally, I really respect your opinion, even when I don’t agree with it. But, that is one of the most assinine statements I have ever read from ANYONE. It ranks right behind “Global cooling is proof of global warming.” Seriously. It is that blindingly stupid.
    It’s a statement that commits suicide IMMEDIATELY to anyone with even a GLIMMER of knowledge of logic, since it blatantly violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. You proof that protein molecules can form spontaneously with no outside interference is that we form them, with intent, with purpose, and by design, as an outside interference…
    Admit it. You’re trying to make us Creationists look good. Aren’t you?

    No, I just assumed you’d have a vague idea of how such machines work. They’re not like a jet-engine, they’re more like a tide washing over a rock. A peptide floats along and sticks to a substrate, then other peptides wash past it and latch on. This process continues, forming a long chain of peptides called a polypeptide. All nature would need to start producing such peptides is a suitable rock, some water, and a thin soup of peptides. Somehow, this inevitability is argued to be mathematically impossible.

    And the silly thermodynamic argument has been debunked so many times that at this point further refutation is just contributing to the eventual heat-death of the universe.

  185. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Beeble, by Cavenaugh’s argument life itself would be an impossible violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and thus his argument is refuted by your continued existence.

  186. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    Guirgi, as I said above, read Cavanaugh. Until you do, you are ill-prepared to discuss the entropy issue.

    And I so to you, until you have taken 1 year of general chemistry, one year of organic chemistry, 1 semester of physical chemistry, 1 year of biochemistry, countless hours, both undergraduate and graduate, in biology, or some equivalent of the above, then you are ill-prepared to discuss the entropy issue, or most of the other issues so far discussed in this forum.

    Unlike most people in this discussion, I actually read the link provided and was not impressed. A freshamn college student could successfully debate this man. For the rest of it, I defer to Sir George, who has already pointed out that the entropy issue has been rebutted ad nosium. I would give you a link about it, but I doubt anyone would read it.

  187. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    By the way, who is this David Cavenaugh? I see a fancy PhD beside his name, but I cannot find any mention of him in Google.

  188. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    From Huntsville Alabama (his internet provider)

    “Molecules of Life: A Simple Probability Study,” presented by David Cavanaugh
    o Beginning with a simple discussion of the two basic polymers of life, proteins and DNA, David Cavanaugh will use elementary probability to demonstrate the very, very high improbabilities of biological macromolecules arising by natural processes other than intelligent design.
    o David obtained a BA degree in chemistry from Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan with a minor in computer science and has postgraduate education in mathematics and computer science. Upon graduation David worked for 8 years at Parke-Davis as a professional analytical chemist active in the areas of statistical software, computer data acquisition and laboratory automation. Then for 21 years at Benchmark Electronics Incorporated, he held diverse engineering positions, with research interests include statistics, physics and bioinformatics. For the last eight years, David has done research and publishing in bioinformatics in conjunction with the Baraminology Study Group, who’s major goal is to produce a Biblically informed scientifically comprehensive alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolution.

    The Baraminology Study Group, of which the aforementioned Sternberg is a member, is part of the Creation Research Society.

  189. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox,

    No worries.

    Read enough of your comments to know that you and I will have a chance to meet in the New Jerusalem, if we don’t meet in this world.

    I am not criticizing you for citing YHWH. Not at all. I just don’t use Him for discussions on science, because, frankly, too many people think science contradicts Him. Quite the contrary. You can count, on one or two fingers, the number of scientific advancements that have been given to us by atheists.

    It would take volumes of books to count the number of scientific advancements that theologians (professional and avocational) have given us.

    I’m going to bet on the winning team on this one. I’ve read the end of the book, and I know who wins.

    2 Tim 4:3 is pretty much my Life Verse.

  190. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Well, as Darwin was a Christian, as were his predecessors and most of his followers, where do you get the idea that evolution, which is a bedrock of biology, paleontology, and geology, is some crazy atheist plot? If G-d has given us the intelligence to develop the tools to ferret out the true nature of species, continents, and planets, isn’t ignoring these tools the same as burying your talents? If He asks you what you managed to learn on your own, will you be able to cite anything that wasn’t an idea commonly accepted by desert nomads thousands of years ago?

  191. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    George,

    Ah, but, I’m not.

    I’m going off of the evidence.

    The reason I oppose Evolution is that there simply isn’t any evidence for it.

    Another reason I oppose Evolution is that the creators of it (Darwin and anothe dude I’m too lazy to look up) included in their theory a way to DISprove the theory…a way that has been met EASILY. And, yet, the Evolutionists keep trying to tell us that it hasn’t.

    There are only two groups of people who advocate Evolution: those who have a stake in it being right (Atheists), and ignorant Christians, which, unfortunately, outnumber knowledgeable Christians by roughly 15 to 1.

  192. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Well yes, aside from the millions of research papers in anatomy, embryology, molecular genetics, population genetics, heredity, taxonomy, entomology, ornithology, botany, microbiology, ecology, geology, paleontology, and medicine, why there isn’t any evidence at all.

  193. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Well yes, aside from the millions of research papers in anatomy, embryology, molecular genetics, population genetics, heredity, taxonomy, entomology, ornithology, botany, microbiology, ecology, geology, paleontology, and medicine, why there isn’t any evidence at all.

    I’ll give you the free pass on the hyperbole.

    There are only thousands of papers, not millions.

    Coincidentally, or not, there are also thousands of research papers saying that humanity has caused global warming, even though there are mountains of evidence that the Sun is the SOLE culprit of global warning.

    There are also thousands of research papers trying to disprove the existence of the logically neccessary creator.

    Your point?

    I can find research papers proving every idiotic theory there is. Just because it’s “peer-reviewed”, doesn’t mean it’s true. There were several hundred research papers showing the blacks were less intelligent and less capable than whites. Are we to believe those, as well, since they are so many of them?

  194. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    There are only thousands of papers, not millions.

    Actually, there would be millions. Even subsets of those fields are covered by many dozens of journals each, and each publishing dozens of articles per month or quarter, some for almost 150 years. For example, there would be articles giving the descriptions and relations of almost a million different existing species, plus many many articles devoted to each extinct species we’ve discovered. Then there are articles on their morphology, development, anatomical traits showing their ancestral lineage and related species, and articles delving into their DNA. The number of articles on plant genetics alone is staggering. You’re looking at least at thousands of papers per year. In each university there are lots of professors who constantly publish just on this subject.

    Coincidentally, or not, there are also thousands of research papers saying that humanity has caused global warming, even though there are mountains of evidence that the Sun is the SOLE culprit of global warning.

    And yet a careful search showed that most articles that address the topic of whether global warming is occuring actually argued against it.

    There are also thousands of research papers trying to disprove the existence of the logically neccessary creator.

    Actually, there would be none, as it’s not a topic of any field of science. You might try the philosophy or theology departments for that one.

    Your point?

    I can find research papers proving every idiotic theory there is. Just because it’s “peer-reviewed”, doesn’t mean it’s true. There were several hundred research papers showing the blacks were less
    intelligent and less capable than whites. Are we to believe those, as well, since they are so many of them?

    There are still research papers on that very subject, and most notably a book addressing the topic called The Bell Curve which caused a great deal of controversy. Peer-review doesn’t guarantee truth, but it does weed out things that are easily refutable by methods that can be observed and duplicated.

    Evolution is still one of the most dynamic fields of science because knowledge of it is accelerating, due to better tools to examine DNA and other aspects of it. In 150 years, nobody has been able to put forth a valid refutation that would convince anyone who looks at all the data and is familiar with the nuts and bolts of it. If there was a magic argument it would be all over the web, yet all we’re still seeing are trivially refutable arguments based on a misunderstanding of scientific basics.

    An example is the 2nd law arguments. If you tossed a pair of irradiated hamsters into a grain silo, which is a closed system, you’d end up with a silo full of mutant hamsters sitting on a mountain of hamster poop. The number of different kinds of hamsters increased, as did the total number of hamsters. The second law of thermodynamics can’t rule out evolution unless it rules out eating. As long as the sun provides an external source of energy, population, diversity, and information can all increase over the long haul.

  195. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    And yet a careful search showed that most articles that address the topic of whether global warming is occuring actually argued against it.

    Not to get off-topic here, but it was my understanding that there was little if any argument in the acadmic world that global warming was occuring.

    Would you mind giving a source for this?

    Thanks.

  196. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    The purported proof of consensus was a paper by Naomi Oreskes discussed here. She performed a search of the literature for abstracts with the key words “global climate change” and came up with 928 articles, 75% of which she said supported the consensus view. Unfortunately, “global climate change” is more a buzzword amongst environmentalists, and when the search was expanded to “climate change” the number of hits jumps by an order of magnitude to include even more research papers that don’t support the consensus view. One subsequent study found that only 1% of papers specifically endorsed the consensus, and now Naomi Oreskes’ name has become a joke about piss-poor data dredging.

    details here

  197. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Um…

    There is also another reason to not consider “peer-reviewed articles” any sort of proof…

    The purposed of peer-review is NOT to establish the veracity of a paper. Not at all. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that proper research protocols were followed. That’s a big difference.

    You see, if the peer review was to establish veracity, then, the reviewing peers, in order to conduct the review with due diligence, would have to replicate any experiments performed, or, acquire and analyze the same evidence. But, we know that doesn’t happen. Why? Because twenty year peer-reviewed studies are published usually twenty ONE years after the study started. Not forty years, or forty one years, or any other time that would account for at least ONE of the reviewing peers replicating the study to duplicate results.

    One of the best examples of how flawed using peer-review to declare a study true is cyclomates, of which, saccharine is one. There was a study done that showed cyclomates caused cancer in laboratory rats…at 1000 times a lethal dose (actually LD 50) of sugar. And yet, it was vetted by peer-review, because no research protocols were broken. The fact that a company called “G and H Sugar” was one of the primary funders of the study was also disclosed, again, following acceptable research protocols. But, the actual RESULTS of the research were so flawed as to be completey worthless!

    Another peer-reviewd research project was the study showing aluminum caused Alzheimer’s in labratory rats. Again, it was peer reviewed, and, again, the fact that a major vinyl siding company (Sears, IIRC) was the major funder of the study was disclosed, following all standard research protocols. Of course, the fact that the researchers, unhappy with the rate of absorbtion of aluminum into the rat’s bloodstream by normal dietary use of aluminum dishes, cut open the rat’s heads and implanted chunks and slivers of aluminum directly into the rat’s brains. The fact that ANY foreign body injected into the brain will most likely cause Alzheimer’s was irrelevant. The study was funded to show that aluminum in the brain causes Alzheimer’s. Which, it did. The fact that Sears, Roebuck then used that study to convince people to take off their aluminum siding and install MUCH more expensive vinyl siding is…irrelevant, right. I mean the research was peer-reviewed, so, it’s trustworthy, right?

    You’ll notice that, in each peer-reviewed study, the funding agency wanted a pre-set outcome, and the researchers delivered that pre-set outcome, all without doing anything that would set off any peer-review alarms. In fact, any study worth doing is funded or started by someone who has a pre-set theory on what will happen, and will then arrange the process to get that pre-set result. And peer review allows for this.

    All of a sudden, you expect me to believe that Evolutionists are the only ones who don’t follow this model? Yup, Evolutionists are just like journalists…superhumans who would NEVER allow their pre-conceived notions to affect their work. Never. Nope. Too saintly for that.

  198. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Sir George wrote:

    Well, as Darwin was a Christian, as were his predecessors and most of his followers, where do you get the idea that evolution, which is a bedrock of biology, paleontology, and geology, is some crazy atheist plot?

    According to Guirgi, you are not qualified to make this statement. Until you have 4 years of training in Biblical apologetics, a year of Greek, a year of Hebrew, 2 years of Biblical hermeneutics, and a year of graduate level church history you are ill-prepared to discuss the issue of Darwin’s theological beliefs. Darwin and Huxley were most certainly attempting to forward an ideological/personal belief system that would explain life sans God.

    That said, reading you and Guirgi, I honestly get the sense that you guys know very little about Christian theology and even less about information theory (and I readily admit, my scientific training is not in biology but in Information Theory).

    evolution… is a bedrock of biology, paleontology, and geology

    Really? Now you’re just throwing out talking points that you made up yourself aren’t you?

    John Ray, a devout Biblical believer, was the father of modern biology, a field that developed rapidly over the susequent 200 or so years without the aid of evolutionary thought whatsoever.

    Louis Agassiz, the founder of the study of modern glacial geology was a devout Christian and Creationist.

    Adam Sedgwick, a Creationist, TAUGHT Darwin the field of field geology and was ultimately vehemently opposed to Darwin’s concepts as unscientific.

    Steven A. Austin is a leading geologist and coal formation expert (and a Creationist).

    As for paleontology, its the study of a specific field of evolutionary theory no? Citing paleontology as proof of evolution is like me citing the existence of the field of eschatological hermeneutics as proof of Biblical inerrancy. Nice try though ;-)

    Oh, and not only is paleontology a specific field dedicated to proving the theory of evolution, it also happens to be one of the softest research areas in science. Those guys are stumbling around in the dark most of the time and have been the most likely “scientists” to foist obvious hoaxes on the the rest of the scientific community.

  199. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    LC, you’ve somehow managed to discredit all peer-reviewed articles ever written. Well done.

    I hope you never have to go see a doctor, because the vast majority of his/her knowledge is going to come from evidenced-based medicine (aka learning to read journal articles.)

    I’ll also point out that, though it is true that not all studies are replicated, many of them are, especially the studies that are considered groundbreaking. And it is not uncommon at all for someone to reanalyze data recorded from a previous study. You often see this in meta-analyses, where researches look at data from multiple studies and converge them into one large pool of data. The veracity of these studeis is also strengthened by the multitude of review articles (I discussed the presence of 25,000+ of these articles on the subject of evolution above) in which multiple papers on the same subject are compared and contrasted to attempt to review the current evidence and draw any new conclusions form the comparisons.

    Also, just because one doesn’t agree with the methods used (as in the aluminum study) doesn’t mean that that paper shouldn’t be published. The important thing is that we have the primary source to read for oursevles, so that we can see the methods used and make our own decisions concerning the conclusions to the article. We do it in medicine all the time. And in both of your examples, full disclosure was made concerning the funding parties, so that information was also available to help the reader draw his/her own conclusion if needed.

    As an example for evolution, I know that the Tiktaalik paper I mentioned in an above post was peer reviewed by several other researches. Not only was the paper reviewed, but the fossils were also analysed by other parties to check for accuracy and concensus in the conclusions of the paper.

    There is no doubt that one’s bias and agenda can oftentimes spill over, intentional or not, into their research. The important thing is that we have access to the same information the writers did so that we can challenge their conclusions if needed. I look at pharmaceutical companies’ studies quite often, and I’ve gotten to where I rarely read their conclusions. It’s easeier to just read the methods and results sections and draw my own conclusions.

  200. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Guirgi wrote:

    you’ve somehow managed to discredit all peer-reviewed articles ever written

    Guirgi, either you are hopelessly dense (something I doubt) or you are being purposefully obtuse. You know very well that Humble DD was pointing out that simply because something is peer reviewed does not make it gospel. You also know that tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles have been debunked over the years. This does not mean that the rest are untrue and this was HDD’s point.

    Indeed, there are thousands of NON-peer reviewed articles that contain research information that is original and backed up with solid research. Does that make those articles untrue? Not likely. Peer review is just a methodological shortcut that has been established over the years for researchers to get funding and to establish a certain level of bona fides so that others will read the results of their studies. Each field has its primary journals and this includes ID and creation science.

    Peer review in the field of evolution is a joke and we all know it. It is a joke because it is a rigged system. This is the point that Misha has been making throughout. It is not unlike the primary media outlets in this country. They do not abide conservative journalists nor do they allow their reports in the news pages of their papers. Does this mean that conservative perspectives are illegitimate just because they don’t show up in the elite media publications? Hardly. It just means that the elite media are a bunch of fascists information gatekeepers.

    It is the same with science journals. They are no-ID, no-Creationists allowed clubs. True, there are a few modern Galileos out there who buck the intrenched evolutionary dogmas but they are quickly labeled pariahs and if they had any research funding it quickly dries up.

    I worked for 15 years in the university environment including UCSC, the home of major components of the Human Genome Project. You could not even mention that you were A.) a Christian, B.) a Conservative, or C.) an IDer, or you would be laughed out of the room. However, I’ve known several PhDs over the years who were all three. They just kept their beliefs to themselves in order to continue their research.

  201. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    Peer review in the field of evolution is a joke and we all know it.

    As I said before: If you are going to undermine one of the most powerful theories in science, I’m gonna need some evidence supporting the above statement.

  202. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    I tried to boil down your arguments to the key points you were making. Most readers probably notice that all are assertions on your part without noting any evidence. If you would like to take a moment to back up your assertions with actual facts, that would even be better.

    I suppose, but since I don’t believe in the claims of the Bible, this really is offtopic, and its sad that you cannot see that. You consider the Bible to be authoritative. I don’t. Even if many of the things in the Bible are true, even if Jesus is the messiah, it still wouldn’t magically make your particular reading of the Bible’s statements on things like biology and geology accurate. So the point really is moot.

    wrong on this point given that we are talking about authority.

    But we aren’t. Science is the realm of evidence. When we point to authority in science, we do so not because it is a FINAL appeal (i.e. because authority is all we have at the end) but only as a shortcut measure of plausibility. Authority in science can always be challenged by “show me the evidence.”

    You maintain that there is proof of evolution and point to authoritative sources in various fields of science as an inference that your position is correct.

    Yes: and you are quite right in noting that it is an _inference_, not a deduction. You are attempting to argue authority by deduction off a premise I don’t accept: that the Bible (and more specifically, your reading of the Bible) is authoritative, therefore anything it (or, rather, your interpretation of it) says is therefore the case. I don’t accept that premise. However, I think you probably DO accept the premises on which I inferentially reference authorities in science: premises like the plausibility of the vast conspiracies that would be necessary to cover up or ignore supposed “gaping holes” in evolution and so forth.

    However, if you are going to set the rules of this debate such that you can refer to your set of authoritative sources and I cannot refer to mine, then your rules are clearly intended to stifle debate.

    I don’t particularly need to reference any authority, but I think I’ve pretty clearly demonstrated that when I do, I’ve done so in a legitimate way, as opposed to trying to set a “final” authority on things that not everyone accepts.

    However, as Misha has pointed out several times in this thread, the gatekeepers of the church of evolution are even more zealous than the inquisitors of Tomás de Torquemada.

    Like I said, it’s very easy to make these sorts of silly accusations about anything. If I burst into an AA meeting and declared that alcohol was a myth and doesn’t exist, I have no doubt that the members present would rightly, well, disagree. I could then scream that “the gatekeepers of the church of alcohol existing are even more zealous than the inquisitors of Tomás de Torquemada.” Should anyone be particularly impressed, though, that I can do so?

    Please prove to me that you are interested in debate by honestly engaging me in the issue of whether or not the Bible is authoritative or not with regard to prophetic utterances.

    I can certainly engage you in that debate, but doing it here is secondary: perhaps there is somewhere else you’d like to take it in the meantime? The reality is that I don’t regard it so, you do, and its really not on the topic, which is the evidence for evolution.

    You seem very eager to change the subject on that latte debate.

  203. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    peterobinson, you’ve reached the point where none of your responses even make sense in light of what I’ve said. Until you respond to what’s been said, instead of rambling incoherently about some other subject, I’ll hold off on wasting anymore time responding to you, only to get back some jumble about enviro-libs or whatever that doesn’t address any of the points I raised.

  204. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar

    The problem with the “reptiles to birds” hypothesis (fine, I’ll start using the ‘correct’ term, since none of the Evolutionists will) is there STILL isn’t any fossil evidence for it! NONE!

    Unforutnately, that’s just not the case. Your problem is that you don’t understand how fossil evidence is used or why it is used. Fossils flesh out cladistic categories by demonstrating the particular grouping of traits. For instance, modern birds have a whole host of traits that are 1) common to all birds and 2) unique to birds among modern animals. Do you agree? The same goes for dinosaurs. This is, after all, how we can class these creatures into distinct groups.

    Now, another important fact is that traits and features, if evolution is true, can only be passed down ancestrally: i.e. they can’t jump around from species to species.

    Interestingly enough, that’s exactly one of the things that would be very easy for an intelligent designer to do if it wished. In fact, mankind has already begun doing it genetically (for instance, putting a fish anti-freeze gene in a tomato). But we never see that happening in nature: for some reason, all life seems to fit into a pattern and restriction that only really makes sense if traits and groups of traits can be passed down from parent to child, and no other way (at least outside of the realm of bacteria/viruses)

    However, this raises an important point of where creationists generally display a complete misunderstanding of evolution. In evolution, nothing ever leaves or even changes very much from the key distinctive features of what came before it. That’s why the term “modification with descent” is so apt. Human beings, for instance, fit into every taxonomic group that evolution says their ancestors belonged to. We are still mammals by any definition that can include all mammals. We are still apes by every definition that can include all apes. We are still tetrapods, still eukaryotes, still eutherians, still homonids, etc. Evolution is actually remarkably conservative. When a creationist declares that some obviously genetically different offspring population is, say “still” a fruit fly, they are demonstrating a misunderstanding of evolution. Everything that every evolves from a fruit fly will still fit into the category “fruit fly.” There may be any number of different creatures descended from fruit flies, but they will all retain the distinctive characters that separated fruit flies from all other flies, an fruit flies from all other forms of life.

    So, given that, what happens when we find a fossil that has both traits that were otherwise known to be unique to dinosaurs AND birds? Clearly, given these constraints, such a fossil is transitional. That is, it has the distinctive, definitional features of two major groups, demonstrating ancestral relation from one to the other.

    Creationists often try to beg off on this by claiming or pointing to some evidence that a given fossil is not DIRECTLY ancestral to any modern form. For instance, archaeopteryx is very clearly a transitional fossil, showing all sorts of key mediations between dinosaurs and birds. But it’s also not thought to be ancestral to modern birds: it’s a cousin, not a direct parental line. Creationists try to pretend that this means that it isn’t transitional. Unfortunately, that’s not what transitional means. Transitional fossils need not be directly ancestral: all they need to do is demonstrate what’s been happening on a particular branch of descent: what sorts of groups of traits (which remember, can only be passed down ancestrally if evolution is responsible)

    Without at least ONE fossil of a transitory species, Evolution is just labratory mental masturbation! It’s fun for a while, but, of no lasting consequence.

    Again, I find that people that make such statements don’t even understand the basic cladistic (i.e. groups nested within groups) pricinplies that define what a transitional fossil is. There are countless transitional fossils known: indeed a far richer record than we’d ever hoped for, given how rare, scattershot, and biased the fossil record is by its nature.

    Radio-carbon dating, as has been addressed several times, is absolutely useless for determining the age of ANYTHING, since 14 assumptions must be made for radio-carbon dating to be accurate…making radio-carbon dating an assumption in and of itself.

    Your problem is that you think up an objection, but then never think past it. That’s because you don ‘t really care about the evidence: you just care about having plausible deniability against something. But scientists think past these things. They don’t go “oh, this assumption, we’ll just make it and ignore the alternatives!” Instead, they go and test those assumptions. You act as if the variance in atmospheric carbon was some secret that scientists have hushed up. Nonsense. Scientists not only know about it, but they are the ones that both discovered it AND firgured out ways to measure and control for it. All of these supposed assumptions get tested and cross-checked whenever possible. You just haven’t bothered to look.

    If radio-carbon dating is an assumption, then, it is declared to be true FIRST, and then, every assumption is made to make it true.

    Nope. Dates are crosschecked in countless ways. For instance, tree-ring and ice-core and coral growth data and things like that provide an excellent way to calibrate tools like radiocarbon dating, because they all work off annual regularities that trace back thousands and thousands of years (which, by the way, is all CARBON dating is considered good for, given its short half-life).

    Which, of course, is half the point. A creationist focus on radioCARBON dating is yet another tell-tale sign that they are talking big about something they are clearly demonstrating they don’t know anything about. We don’t USE radiocarbon dating for most fossils. Carbon dating is only accurate for very very recent history. Completely different isotopes are used for older dates. And interestingly, these isotopes also have neat self-checking features that carbon lacks: isochron measures that allow us to cross check different measurements of age with a high degree of accuracy.

    But of course, that isn’t enough. The ages that these methods give don’t JUST settle the question on their own. The reason things like the age of the earth and evolution are so rock solid is, again, not because of any single piece of evidence. It’s the way that countless different indepedent lines of evidence all line up to tell the same story. Radio-dating, for instance, to be valid, HAS to be consistent with, for instance, the distance of the continents and the speed at which they move. When we date the rocks extending from the trench in the middle of the Atlantic all the way out to Africa and South America, the dates of these rocks either has to make sense with what we know of plate tectonics, or else BOTH are called into question. And BOTH of these have to match what we know of basic chemistry and physics in regards to how fast things can happen. And all three have to match the data we get from the magnetic pole reversal data found in hardened, but once molten, rock. And all four of those things have to match the pattern of fossils found in each area and layer. All of these different things have to not only say “yes, the earth is old” they have to match up in every detail and tell the same story about the same age of the same earth.

    And they do. THAT is what is so convincing: more powerful than any of these pieces of evidence alone. Could any one of these methods be in error? Sure, anything can be. But even if every single one was in error, telling us the wrong ages, why would they all tell us the SAME wrong age, even when taken indepedent of each other? That would be a coincidence of absolutely mind-boggling proportions.

    Given that NO closed system has EVER been observed to spontaneously go to a more ordered, higher energy state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, should hint at a flaw in Evolution.

    If this is really what the 2nd law said or meant, then you’ be right. However, if that were true, then most of basic chemistry could never work, ice couldn’t freeze, and so on. THAT should hint at a flaw in your understanding of entropy.

    So, in order for Evolution to be correct, quite a few of the theories in thermodynamics must be INcorrect…even though all observable evidence dictates otherwise.

    Nope. Again, this relies on a tell-tale misunderstanding of what the 2nd law says (furthermore, given that its a law, if what you say is true, then life wouldn’t just be unevolvable, it would be just impossible, period. In order for something to be a law, intelligent designers have to be just as subject to it as everything else. Otherwise, it’s not a law). All of life is precisely in accord with thermodynamics. Every process in your body, which is constantly taking energy and producing more ordered states, is doing so while obeying the laws of thermodynamics. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand thermodynamics.

    If it isn’t universal, then, it is useless in science. The ‘laws’ of physics apply everywhere in the universe. Otherwise, there’s no point in knowing what they are.

    Exactly! That’s why your understanding of it is clearly flawed. Not only is the earth as a whole an open, not closed system, but the 2nd law really only restricts perfect efficiency when considering something as a whole. For instance, when water cools into ice, it does so by releasing heat. The result is that we have the ice, which is more ordered than water. But when considering the system as a whole (i.e. the “closed” view) then the release of heat offsets and even outstrips the increase in order in the ice. Thus, entropy. If the 2nd law said that things can’t become more ordered period, then ice could never form at all (the “outside influence” nonsense means nothing, really: we can talk about water sitting in absolute 0 space if we like, no outside influence at all). But it can. It just can’t do it without paying more in the loss of heat than it gains in order.

    I should also point out that this dumb ole’ barely educated truck driver is having no problems punching holes into the Theory of Evolution.

    Well, you have no problem convincing yourself that you have, and then screaming away all arguments to the contrary. That’s not quite the same thing.

    If you don’t know something well enough to criticize it without mistating all sorts of very basic elements, then I don’t think you have much chance of punching holes in anything. Even if you don’t think evolution or geology are worth a damn, the fact that you get some very very basic things wrong about them suggests that your criticisms can’t possibly be well informed, and that many of your percieved holes are the result of you not knowing what you are talking about.

  205. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox:

    Although I am a Creationist and not an IDer (inasmuch as ID is agnostic about the identity of the designer), I can tell you that this statement is completely and totally incorrect.

    Design theory is a form of information theory. It is used all the time in various fields.

    That’s certainly a claim that ID makes, but it just isn’t so in practice.

    For example, if an anthropologist sees some etchings on the wall of a cave, how does he determine if it was scratched there by animals or written there by a primitive man? The manner in which he determines this is to make a call to design theory. SETI uses similar methodologies, as does forensic science. Was a man killed accidentally or on purpose?

    All of these methodologies are done based on knowledge of the sorts of things we are dealing with. i.e., they have the form of “we know what a human being is like, therefore we can look for these distinctive traits that characterize their activity.” If you apply this logic to biology, then I guess you must conclude that human beings created all the animals. But obviously, that logic is flawed.

    ID, however, does not fit that form at all, though it pretends to. By the very nature of the claim, the ID must be defined in such a way that is so vague that it has NO distinctive anything. Because it can do anything at all, including perfectly mimicing things that look completely natural, there is no way to distinguish. In empiricism, that’s what you get when you declare that something can do anything: it tells you precisely nothing.

    It’s ironic that people like Dembski make the claim to be working with information theory and things like anthropology. But of the people that actually ARE working in those fields, many have never even heard of ID or Dembski, and the movement certainly has yet to contribute anything at all relevant to what they are doing.

    Now, if Plunge wants to tell the astrophysicists at SETI or anthropologists, or paleontologists, or the forensic scientists that they are not really engaging in science because design theory is not really a theory at all “because it is not testable”, be my guest.

    Funny: the anthropologists and SETI folks agree with me: I don’t have to tell them anything. For instance, as an instructive side note, SETI has rightly pointed out that before the ID people made their claim about SETI, they never bothered to even ask what SETI was doing. SETI isn’t looking for “intelligence” directly by analyzing information: they are looking first for artificiality (i.e. signals that are inconsistent with what is known of normal stellar events)

    Oh, and you STILL didn’t answer my question about information. You posted a quote about a Creationist claiming that a cell has lots of information (which is true), but you didn’t answer my question about what you are defining information as. You have to do that before we can even start in on the rest.

    Dembski, for instance, who regularly claims that ID is of great relevance to information theory, has never published anything of any note to information theory. In fact, most people in the field consider him not only a crank, but someone who misuses basic mathematical terminology in an increibly sloppy way. His purported definition of CSI, for instance, when translated out of gobbledygook, effectively means “something which contains a lot of information, but doesn’t contain a lot of information” - a useless, meaningless contradiction.

    The ID movement regularly makes such grand claims… that then crash and burn on even a minimal inspection.

    Some might say it is “metaphysical”. Whatever one says about the origins of information, it is the height of silliness to claim that a 3-out-of-4 self-correcting, self replicating code sprang into existence on its own. Entropy plays a huge part in information theory because the problem of noise introduction.

    Again and again, I’m asking you to define information. You make all these grandoise claims about infomration theory, but in my experience, most creationists who do this are generally clueless about what information theory actually is or say. If you say that evolution can’t produce it, so what is it exactly? What’s a string with lots of information vs. one with none?

    Read the whole thing as it blows holes in all the huffing and puffing evolutionists persist in bellowing whenever Creationists mention that evolution violates entropic principles. Bottom line, Cavanaugh explains how it makes no difference if a system is open or closed. It still goes from order to disorder.

    But it doesn’t. The only tedious huffing and puffing here is Cavanaugh. He simply repeats over and over that entropy is about things breaking down, being inefficient. Well, yes. But what does that have to do with natural selection not being capable of producing information, or nature producing order?

    One big gaping problem with his claim is that we can model it mathematically, and it does produce information: which is pretty much the end of the story as far as abstract principles go (since math is deductive, and hence things can be “proven” conclusively). In fact, genetic algorithms are an entire FIELD of computer science, and the field couldn’t EXIST unless evolution could create information.

    Understanding the process is not hard.
    1) There is a population of individuals with a level of variation that is constantly increasing through “noise” level in regards to trait variation).
    2) There is an environmental condition that imposes restraints upon whether or not these individuals continue on into another generation.
    3) This condition filters out particular statistical swaths of that original population, skewing the traits within it one way or another.
    4) The final population thus has been imprinted with information about the environmental conditions: it’s skewed towards a particular direction, and this imprinted skew can even be used to figure out what the environmental condition was if you hadn’t known.

    The End. See, not so hard to understand, right? That’s just the very basics, but it’s a very real and very simple demonstration of how natural selection creates information without violating entropy in the slightest.

  206. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Beeblebrox said:

    Peer review in the field of evolution is a joke and we all know it.

    Then Guirgi (apparently without comprehension of his words) wrote:

    As I said before: If you are going to undermine one of the most powerful theories in science, I’m gonna need some evidence supporting the above statement.

    This is a fascinating, even startling statement Guirgi. Here, by your own admission, we are finally getting to the nub of the debate! You admit above that if peer reviewed journals in the evolution field can be shown to be of biased (the point of my post and this entire thread by Misha), then this “undermines one of the most powerful theories in science”. Is the TofE THAT fragile that if the peer review system is shown to be a joke (i.e. unfair and rigged), then the whole theory fails? Wow!

    The fact that peer reviewed articles on ID or creationism submitted to leading evolution biased journals are not allowed to be published while many other articles of marginal value (both on the subject of evolution as well as numerous other subjects) ARE allowed seems to me, to be a self-evident basis for questioning the veracity of said peer reviewed journals.

    The anti-ID bias is there for all to see. Misha and Humble DD have both shown examples of this bias. When the evolution cabal has this much influence on what is and is not published in peer reviewed journals, then I put them in the same category as CBS news and the NYTimes. That is, a mouthpiece for an agenda. Once this happened, the value of the journals dropped precipitously.

    If the peer reviewed article system is as broken as observers believe it to be, then, by Guirgi’s own admission, the TofE seems to have been undermined.

  207. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    The fact that peer reviewed articles on ID or creationism submitted to leading evolution biased journals are not allowed to be published while many other articles of marginal value (both on the subject of evolution as well as numerous other subjects) ARE allowed seems to me, to be a self-evident basis for questioning the veracity of said peer reviewed journals.

    Again, it’s easy for ANY fringe group to make such a claim. If you simply ignore the question of whether the articles in question actually were well supported or whether people had legitimate scientific complaints about them, then of course it looks biased. Likewise, if my grandmother hit someone with her purse, she might look like a nasty old lady: if you leave out the part of the story where they kicked her down and tried to steal her purse, of course. Such one-sided presentations prove absolutely nothing.

    Holocaust denial, homeopathy, water dowsing: all of these groups claim official bias against their views. But there is an equally plausible alternative: maybe the evidence really just doesn’t hold up for their claims, and they are rightly turned down so regularly because of that.

  208. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    This is a fascinating, even startling statement Guirgi. Here, by your own admission, we are finally getting to the nub of the debate! You admit above that if peer reviewed journals in the evolution field can be shown to be of biased (the point of my post and this entire thread by Misha), then this “undermines one of the most powerful theories in science”. Is the TofE THAT fragile that if the peer review system is shown to be a joke (i.e. unfair and rigged), then the whole theory fails? Wow!

    Now who’s being hopelessly dense? Like all good theories, evolution has within it a means to bring it down. However, no one has ever come anywhere near this possiblity. Now, in your attempt to undermine the theory, you have made a direct statement against the pool of evidence available to support the theory. I was merely asking you to back up your claim, which you did not. So again I ask, where is your proof that the mass of research-based evidence on evolution “is a joke?”

    Now, I might claim that ID research is a joke. But I’d at the very least follow it up with this article. Admittedly, I am no expert in the field of ID research, so if the article above has missed anything, please let me know.

    By the way, I’d still like to know exactly what beliefs are held by you and other creationists in this discussion concerning the age of the Earth and the origins of life.

  209. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Guirgi, you amaze me. I did not say that the evidence for evolution was a joke, I stated that the bias of the peer reviewed article process is a joke.

    Any process that locks out the competition and still claims to be neutral should be roundly ignored in my opinion. I have absolutly no faith in the peer reviewed journals as far as articles on origins are concerned because the system is rigged to favor the ideological bent of the mainstream conventional thinking. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of brilliant researchers in the fields of ID and Creationism but they can’t get published in the elite scientific journals to save their life. Why? because those journals do not allow such articles no matter what.

    I merely pointed out that it was YOUR statement that theTofE was undermined if the journals could be shown to be biased. I maintain that their bias is self-evident. If you can show me that the elite scientific journals routinely publish anti-evolution articles, then I will take back what I said.

  210. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Beeble, how could a scientific journal publish an article that concludes with “I’m too dumb to know how science explains this, so I contend that it was done by magic, or maybe space aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

  211. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Beeble, how could a scientific journal publish an article that concludes with “I’m too dumb to know how science explains this, so I contend that it was done by magic, or maybe space aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

    Oh, for the love of…

    George, that’s another idoitic statement, and you know it as well as I do.

    Christianity is the ONLY religion that has ADVANCED science, because Judeo-Christianity (sorry, left off the “Judeo” the first time, and too lazy to insert it…which is why I type about six times more letters to explain it…) is the ONLY religion that has a logically neccessary, rational, ordered diety.

    Science doesn’t DISprove YHWH, science only strives to find out what rules our universe runs under. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing “unscientific” about Creationism, because a being who is logically neccessary to create the universe, and powerful enough to do so, can EASILY create life just because. Nothing irrational about it, nothing mystical about it, and nothing spooky about it. Something powerful enough to create ALL matter and the rules it operates under is NOT going to have much of a problem just speaking all known life into existence. Any science that tries to prove YHWH DIDN’T do that it is ultimately going to fail, because it HAD TO HAPPEN that way.

    Cripes, there was just a new study released not too long ago that claimed the speed of light wasn’t constant, because it was faster in the past than it is now. The ONE theory they did NOT consider is that the speed of light has remained constant the entire time, it only APPEARS it was faster in the past because the galaxies were a LOT closer in the past than the current TofE currently allows for.

    Why is it most astrophysicists are Christian, and a significant portion of them are Creationists? Hm? Couldn’t have to do with their observations of the universe, could it? No…couldn’t be. Engineers are also majority Christian, and a signifcant portion of them are ALSO Creationists. Don’t hear about them much, either. Why? Couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with the Church of Evolution not allowing them to speak out, could it? No…couldn’t be.

    It is a rather well-known phenomenon that the “harder” the science, the more likely the majority of it’s practitioners will be both Christian and Creationists. I’ve seen the poll results. Scientists, AS A WHOLE, aren’t predominately Christian or Creationist, but, that’s because Anthropology, Socialogy, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Paleontology are all considered “sciences”…and they’re all awfully “soft”…and they outnumber the “hard” scientists by a lot. Couldn’t have to do with merely having an opinion and the wherewithall to say being the prime requirement to be a “soft” scientist, could it? No…couldn’t be.

    Two possible explanations, and one of them discarded, out of hand, simply because it didn’t conform to TofE. Hm. If a dumb ass truck driver can understand the basics of observation that well, why can’t scientists? It couldn’t be because ALL scientists have an agenda, could it? Noooo…couldn’t be. (ALL humans have an agenda, including Creationists and IDers. Becoming a journalist or scientist does not make one immune to that.)

    Creationists’ have merely chosen to match their agenda to the logically neccessary Creator’s agenda, as much as possible. Since the evidence doesn’t dispute Creationism, who says it can’t be the way it really happened?! Atheists, that’s who.

    Look, I was an Evolutionist/IDer as recently as five years ago. I changed my mind, because the amount of evidence that isn’t really evidence, smashed into the Theory no matter how poorly it fit, comparisons to other scientific fields, pure lack of evidence, and Pravda like tactics from the scientific community made me really quetion the Theory. I’m just a simple layman, I’ll admit that. BUT, I have learned, through trial and error, that, if you can’t explain it someone as dumb as me, you don’t know what you’re talking about. “It’s too complex for you mere mortals to understand” is a bullshit excuse, used by people who know how weak their argument is. I have seen NO exceptions to this. NONE.

    Creationism adequately explains the gaps in knowledge we have with the TofE. Easily. And without a lot of mental gymnastics (in fact, fewer mental gymnastics than TofE requires), because, I don’t know about YOUR god, but, MY God is rational, logical, orderly, and fairly understandable…within certain limits.

    A divine creator who is NOT omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is not a divine creator worth bothering with. A god who is not both just and loving is not a god worth worshiping. I bring up the “just” part because justice REQUIRES a certain amount of predictability and order, otherwise, it’s capriciousness….just like Allah…who isn’t real known for his contributions to the scientific community. (all Muslim advances were either stolen, or made IN SPITE of Islam, not because of it. Muslim scholars were almost always declared to be infidels)

  212. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    Sir George said:

    Beeble, how could a scientific journal publish an article that concludes with “I’m too dumb to know how science explains this, so I contend that it was done by magic, or maybe space aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

    Hey Humble DD, I share your exasperation WRT the completely juvenile nature of this (and similar posts from this guy).

    Turn the tables Sir George. If Creationists controlled the elite (used here in the pejorative sense) scientific journals and, as a matter of policy, disallowed all evolution articles from appearing in same said journals with the rationale that all the evolution articles end with “I’m too dumb to know how Design explains this, so I contend that it was done by random chance [Darwinism], or maybe space aliens [panspermia], or the Flying Spaghetti Monster [multiverse theory].”

    This, of course, would not be a good excuse because no article (on either side) contends anything like this. To say it does merely shows that either a.) you have no understanding of the the theory you are attempting (quite poorly I might add) to defend, or you do not know how to critique an opposing argument.

    Saying the equivalent of “oh yeah, so’s your old man” is not really worthy of an apologist for any scientific theory and yet, I’ve seen it over and over with evolution proponents starting in the early 90’s on alt.talk.origins and continuing to today right here. This is one of the strongest evidences that one can point to that the TofE is a house of cards. Light on evidence, heavy on ad hominem remarks.

    See ya.

  213. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Just so you know, the VAST majority of the time, I agree with George, and like his analysis of things.

    Everyone has their weakness. George’s appears to be Evolution. Mine is an inability to to play nicely with others.

    Don’t like you any less, George. Just know you’re really, REALLY wrong on this. Sorry.

  214. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    plunge2 -

    peterobinson, you’ve reached the point where none of your responses even make sense in light of what I’ve said. Until you respond to what’s been said, instead of rambling incoherently about some other subject, I’ll hold off on wasting anymore time responding to you, only to get back some jumble about enviro-libs or whatever that doesn’t address any of the points I raised.

    Tsk!
    More of that deliberate obtuseness?
    I am under no obligation to take your statements as truth or gospel.
    As for any “light” from what you’ve said, it is nonexistent.

    *You* raised the subject of DDT.

    As for the so-called points you raised, none of them managed to do what I asked, and if you cannot sway someone who “has no dog in this hunt”….
    “rotsa ruck” vs anyone who’s committed to a different viewpoint.

  215. Unregistered Comment by Guirgi UNITED STATES

    Beeble, forgive me for misunderstanding your objection. I grossly overestimated the complexity of your argument. I thought you were alluding to some grand conspiracy behind all evolution-based articles; but instead you are referring to simple bias. Well, I can’t honestly say I’m surprised that there’s bias, seeing as how that’s the job of the journal. No journal would publish an article not grounded in good evidence; not when its reputation is at stake. To be surprised that evolution journals won’t publish ID papers is to be surprised that JAMA won’t publish homeopathy papers, or that astronomy journals won’t touch moon-landing conspiracy papers. Why should they, when the evidence is so lacking?

    Why is it most astrophysicists are Christian, and a significant portion of them are Creationists? Hm? Couldn’t have to do with their observations of the universe, could it? No…couldn’t be. Engineers are also majority Christian, and a signifcant portion of them are ALSO Creationists.

    Got any evidence for this?

    Cripes, there was just a new study released not too long ago that claimed the speed of light wasn’t constant, because it was faster in the past than it is now.

    This as well?

    I’m just a simple layman, I’ll admit that. BUT, I have learned, through trial and error, that, if you can’t explain it someone as dumb as me, you don’t know what you’re talking about. “It’s too complex for you mere mortals to understand” is a bullshit excuse, used by people who know how weak their argument is. I have seen NO exceptions to this. NONE.

    I bet it would be incredibly difficult to explain quantam mechanics to someone with no science background. This goes for molecular biology, pharmacokinteics, our immune system, and many other scientific topics. Just because you can’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not true. The arrogance you get from evolutionists is a manifestation of our frustration at ignorance. I always encourage people to study, to read about this complex theory that they do not understand. Instead of actually doing a little work, they just assume I’m looking down on them, and continue believing whatever it is they want to believe.

    Creationism adequately explains the gaps in knowledge we have with the TofE. Easily. And without a lot of mental gymnastics (in fact, fewer mental gymnastics than TofE requires), because, I don’t know about YOUR god, but, MY God is rational, logical, orderly, and fairly understandable…within certain limits.

    No offense, but ID just seems like the idiot’s/lazy person’s way out. I am in no way calling you an idiot, but to throw up our arms and say “It’s too hard, I guess God did it” seems like a surrender. How in the world can we have the ability to say what’s designed and what’s not? Long ago, the Greeks thought the sun was too hard to understand, so they blamed it on design. Two hundred years ago, we believed the human body was too complex to understand. Not too long ago, we thought cell structure was too difficult to understand. Then it was DNA. We constantly push back the definition of complexity, replacing it with understanding. The main idea behind ID just seems so arbitrary. Where do we draw the line on what is too complex?

    Look, I was an Evolutionist/IDer as recently as five years ago.

    I’d like to hear more detail on this if possible. I had the opposite experience. I was dragged kicking and screaming to the theory of evolution. Even being in the midst of a Christian environment couldn’t stop me from seeing the blatant lies that came pouring from every angle of the creationist side.

    And last, why is it that I know nonchristian evolutionists, christian evolutionists, christian anti-evolutionists, but no nonchristian anti-evolutionists? Is the holy spirit required to properly evaluate the evidence?

  216. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Beeble, how could a scientific journal publish an article that concludes with “I’m too dumb to know how science explains this, so I contend that it was done by magic, or maybe space aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
    Oh, for the love of…

    George, that’s another idoitic statement, and you know it as well as I do.

    Christianity is the ONLY religion that has ADVANCED science, because Judeo-Christianity (sorry, left off the “Judeo” the first time, and too lazy to insert it…which is why I type about six times more letters to explain it…) is the ONLY religion that has a logically neccessary, rational, ordered diety.

    Sorry, but in 2000 BC the Riga-Veda and other texts said the Earth was a globe orbiting the sun. Christianity took 3500 years to catch up. Pythagoras and other famous Greeks developed a large measure of early science and mathematics five centuries before Christ, while Xenophanes was simultaneously studying fossils. The Bible still said insects have four legs. Oopsie! Shortly thereafter, Herodotus was writing a history of science. The bulk of early science is Greek and Muslim, and some of the Muslim science was taken from pagan areas they conquered. Judeo-Christian thought doesn’t much affect science till a thousand years later.

    Science doesn’t DISprove YHWH, science only strives to find out what rules our universe runs under. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing “unscientific” about Creationism, because a being who is logically neccessary to create the universe, and powerful enough to do so, can EASILY create life just because. Nothing irrational about it, nothing mystical about it, and nothing spooky about it. Something powerful enough to create ALL matter and the rules it operates under is NOT going to have much of a problem just speaking all known life into existence. Any science that tries to prove YHWH DIDN’T do that it is ultimately going to fail, because it HAD TO HAPPEN that way.

    Because why? Wouldn’t your argument apply equally toward proving the truth that the Greek god Chronos arose from chaos to create time itself, an idea which agrees with modern inflation theory? Wouldn’t it prove that the universe was created by the Mayan gods Xmucane, Sovereign Plumed Serpent, and Heart of Sky (made up of Thunderbold Hurricane, Newborn Thunderbolt, and Sudden Thunderbolt)? The Mayans even held that monkeys are our direct predecessors, which in scientific terms would put them light-years ahead of Christianity.

    Cripes, there was just a new study released not too long ago that claimed the speed of light wasn’t constant, because it was faster in the past than it is now. The ONE theory they did NOT consider is that the speed of light has remained constant the entire time, it only APPEARS it was faster in the past because the galaxies were a LOT closer in the past than the current TofE currently allows for.

    Um, that’s nuts. The light would’ve been faster shortly after the Big Bang. The Earth didn’t form till billions of years later, and the speed of light is unrelated to the Theory of Evolution. Heck, the Theory of Evolution was doing just fine back when all the physicists still thought light propagated through the aether.

    Why is it most astrophysicists are Christian, and a significant portion of them are Creationists? Hm? Couldn’t have to do with their observations of the universe, could it? No…couldn’t be. Engineers are also majority Christian, and a signifcant portion of them are ALSO Creationists. Don’t hear about them much, either. Why? Couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with the Church of Evolution not allowing them to speak out, could it? No…couldn’t be.

    And thanks for your Grand Conspiracy Theory, but no astrophysicist would be a young Earth Creationist because then his entire field of study would make no sense at all to him, as the photons he looks at would all be clever lies.

  217. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Turn the tables Sir George. If Creationists controlled the elite (used here in the pejorative sense) scientific journals and, as a matter of policy, disallowed all evolution articles from appearing in same said journals with the rationale that all the evolution articles end with “I’m too dumb to know how Design explains this, so I contend that it was done by random chance [Darwinism], or maybe space aliens [panspermia], or the Flying Spaghetti Monster [multiverse theory].”

    Not by a long shot. Given some random question on biology, such as why do we see feature X in zebras and horses, or why do bluebirds in the southern part of their range have a smaller body size, or why do whales breathe air instead of using gills, the creationist can always apply the same answer, “because God made them that way.” In fact, just by learning this one handy answer to all scientific questions everyone can qualify for a PhD in cladistics by sending in a Crackerjack box top.

    The trouble is, how does a creationist explain how koala bears got from Australia to the Middle East to get on Noah’s Ark, and how did they carry so many eucalyptus leaves with them, because they don’t eat anything else? Then, how did they get back? Then find an explaination for every other species in the New World, Australia, and the Pacific, including fascinating questions as to why New World monkeys are all color-blind and Old World monkeys are not.

  218. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Why is it most astrophysicists are Christian, and a significant portion of them are Creationists? Hm? Couldn’t have to do with their observations of the universe, could it? No…couldn’t be. Engineers are also majority Christian, and a signifcant portion of them are ALSO Creationists.

    Got any evidence for this?

    Yes. Every survey done on Christianity in the science fields. Links? No. I do most of my research on dead tree, and read approximately 70 books a year, most of them on apologetics or history, with a few “science for idiots” books thrown in. And, yes, that is about 1.25 books per week. I’d read more, but, I’m too tired after work. There’s a fucking reason I got to put “Imperial Scholar” after my name, even though there are MANY people here with more schooling than I. It’s because I’m a rare breed: one who only speaks on subjects one knows about. And I know A LOT about A LOT of subjects.

    Not bad for a dumb ass Marine who drives a garbage truck, eh?

    Cripes, there was just a new study released not too long ago that claimed the speed of light wasn’t constant, because it was faster in the past than it is now.

    This as well?

    You bet. It was on Yahoo! News just this last week. In fact, it was on Yahoo! News as this post was just getting warmed up.

    Link? No. Look it up your own damn self. I know it’s there. Go find it. I did.

    I’m just a simple layman, I’ll admit that. BUT, I have learned, through trial and error, that, if you can’t explain it someone as dumb as me, you don’t know what you’re talking about. “It’s too complex for you mere mortals to understand” is a bullshit excuse, used by people who know how weak their argument is. I have seen NO exceptions to this. NONE.

    I bet it would be incredibly difficult to explain quantam mechanics to someone with no science background. This goes for molecular biology, pharmacokinteics, our immune system, and many other scientific topics. Just because you can’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not true. The arrogance you get from evolutionists is a manifestation of our frustration at ignorance. I always encourage people to study, to read about this complex theory that they do not understand. Instead of actually doing a little work, they just assume I’m looking down on them, and continue believing whatever it is they want to believe.

    Ah, but, I DO understand the basics of quantum mechanics. And I also understand the basics of every other topic you mentioned.

    Why? Because I asked people who understood them.

    I’ve read both of Stephen Hawking’s books. Multiple times. Each. I damn near grew up on the University of Wisconsin’s campus, and one of my friends was a nuclear physicists…and also, one of the pioneers of electron microscopy. Last I checked, he worked at Los Alamos. (he was a surrogate father figure to me, since my father was long run away by this point) My Big Brother (as in the program) was a plant pathologist. Spent a lot of time in his lab. My father is a chemical engineer, and majored in agronomy for while in college. Spent a lot of time discussing chemistry and organic chemistry with him.

    There are about five topics that I am NOT capable of discussing with anyone of any education or training level, and that’s because opera, art, pop culture, television, and current pop music hold little appeal to me.

    If you can’t explain it to a dumb ass like me, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, and I don’t even TRY to learn anything from someone who knows less about the topic than I do. No future in that. You teach me, or, I ignore you. Simple rule. Worked for the past 35 years. See no reason to stop using it now.

    Feel that tug in your cheek? That’s the hook in the bait. Ask any LC, or even Misha. Ask them how easy it would be to explain something complex to me. I won’t give the answer, because I’m the “humble” Devildog for a reason. I don’t like to brag. AT ALL. But, I’m a bit smarter than the average bear, and a lot smarter than most of the scientists I’ve met.

    Mathematically speaking, I am, 98% of the time, the smartest person in the room. Not bragging. Stating. And I hate even doing that. So, if you can’t explain something to a dumb ass like me, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Creationism adequately explains the gaps in knowledge we have with the TofE. Easily. And without a lot of mental gymnastics (in fact, fewer mental gymnastics than TofE requires), because, I don’t know about YOUR god, but, MY God is rational, logical, orderly, and fairly understandable…within certain limits.

    No offense, but ID just seems like the idiot’s/lazy person’s way out. I am in no way calling you an idiot, but to throw up our arms and say “It’s too hard, I guess God did it” seems like a surrender. How in the world can we have the ability to say what’s designed and what’s not? Long ago, the Greeks thought the sun was too hard to understand, so they blamed it on design. Two hundred years ago, we believed the human body was too complex to understand. Not too long ago, we thought cell structure was too difficult to understand. Then it was DNA. We constantly push back the definition of complexity, replacing it with understanding. The main idea behind ID just seems so arbitrary. Where do we draw the line on what is too complex?

    WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY I WAS AN ID’ER?!

    I didn’t. I have CLEARLY stated both my disdain for ID, and my Young(ish) Earth Creationist belief. (the Bible is not an account of EVERY day after Creation, nor is it a scientific treatise. There’s a lot left out of the Bible…like…several hundred years, even IF Bishop Usher (was that his name? not relevant to me, so, I don’t spend any effort remembering it) is correct.)

    And the “lazy way out”?! Do you have ANY fucking idea of how hard it is to be a Christian?! Good grief, there are HUNDREDS of passages in the Bible I don’t like! Do you have ANY idea of how hard it is to trust YHWH, when you have no clue what His plan is for your current hardship, or even if He plans on you going Home during it?! Do you have ANY fucking clue what it is like to go through life trusting Someone who knows more than you, but, won’t tell you?!

    Do you have ANY fucking idea of how hard it is to the ONLY person standing up for morality and decency in a crowd of people who believe in situational ethics?! “Lazy”, my fucking ass.

    Being a Creationist takes a moral courage and fortitude that you have no concept of. “Lazy” wouldn’t be a word that even came CLOSE to describing it. It means, as a layman, studying no less than 6 different fields of science in your spare time, in addition to hours of Bible study, and even more hours devoted to apologetics. Give me a fucking break. There are a lot of things I am. Intellectually lazy is NOT one of them. I have spent more time studying Evolution and Creation than most of the people here, in addition to the houurs EVERY DAY that I devote to both Bible study and apologetics.

    If you think I’m taking “the lazy way out” by being a Creationist, then, you have no clue what you’re talking about, because being a Creationist takes a lot of time and effort, just to even be able to understand the concept of the Creator. I’ve only scratched the surface, and I’m STILL ahead of most Christians. That is not bragging. That is a pure statement of fact.

    If you’re going to call anyone “lazy”, step in front of a mirror, first.

    Look, I was an Evolutionist/IDer as recently as five years ago.

    I’d like to hear more detail on this if possible. I had the opposite experience. I was dragged kicking and screaming to the theory of evolution. Even being in the midst of a Christian environment couldn’t stop me from seeing the blatant lies that came pouring from every angle of the creationist side.

    Are there lies coming from the churches? You bet. Most Christians don’t even devote a basic unit of time to knowing the first thing about their god, much less His plan for Creation. When someone doesn’t know anything about a topic, but, believes they know the answer, they don’t really have a choice but to make stuff up as they go along.

    But, as you may have noticed from other threads, I don’t pay much attention to what churches say. I use the Bible and Jesus the Christ as my sole authority of doctrine, so, I don’t have to make anything up. If I don’t know about a topic, I know where to check. Really cuts down on the “making it up as I go along” I have to do.

    Now, on to being a former Evolutionist/IDer.

    I started out as an atheist Evolutionist, and then, gradually became a Christian. Once I became a Christian, I then gradually became an IDer. Once I started hearing the problems with ID, I decided to dig a bit into it, and find out what the problems actually were.

    Once I did that, I became a Creationist. No fossils with partially devoloped wings, no pre-humming bird fossils, no actual fossil evidence for gradual changes caused by random mutations.

    Then, I did some research into random chance. Found out, there is no such thing. “Random chance” is science-speak for “we have no idea how to figure out all the forces acting upon this particular event, so, we’ll label it ‘random chance’”. Don’t believe me? Do some research into it.

    After that, I did some reading on apologetics, and the neccessity of *A* Creator, of some form. And THEN, I did some more reading on apologetics, on how Jesus the Christ HAD TO BE who He said He was. In the course of doing that, I found some Bible passages that adequately explained both the extinction of the dinosaurs and the presence of other species of Homo Sapiens (such as Neanderthal). And then, once I looked at what fossil evidence was readily available to a dumb ass like myself, I realized that the fossil evidence did NOT contradict the Bible, but, actually ANSWERED some of the burning questions that people have had about it, such as, who did Cain marry when he left Eden? (a Neanderthal)

    And then, I looked at the descriptions of behavior and the causes of that behavior that the Bible described, and I realized that modern psychiatry had spent millions of dollars, and thousands of man-hours, trying to figure out what they could have understood, just by reading ONE book for about 40 hours of time.

    My intellectual ‘gift’ is the ability to take a bunch of apparently unconnected topics, and make them connect, and explain to anyone else in a way that they then see what I just saw. THAT is why I stopped being an Evolutionist: because too many other fields of science contradicted it.

    And last, why is it that I know nonchristian evolutionists, christian evolutionists, christian anti-evolutionists, but no nonchristian anti-evolutionists? Is the holy spirit required to properly evaluate the evidence?

    Several reasons.

    To answer your last question first, yes, according to the Word of God, you MUST have the Holy Spirit to understand the Word. Without the Spirit, the Word doesn’t make any sense. The words mean things, and you can read them. But, without the Holy Spirit, they just don’t make sense.

    I know this from personal experience, because, after I accepted Jesus the Christ as my Lord and Savior, I then IMMEDIATELY became able to tell you what the Bible said on any topic, WITHOUT HAVING EVER READ IT! I still haven’t read the Bible all the way through, and I have proven to MANY pastors that I knew what the Bible said about something without having to do so. (I still should read it through, and I still should read it more diligently. Not making excuses for that. Just saying I won’t be surprised at what I read.) So, yes, the Holy Spirit IS required to understand Creationism. Not my rules. Sorry.

    The reason you don’t know any non-Christian anti-Evolutionists is purely because of motivation.

    Non-Christians are ALREADY denying the existence of God. So, they need to have a ‘theory’ that explains the world they see, BUT, without a god. Otherwise, they’d have to believe in that god.

    Evolution is the ONLY alternative to Creation, so, no non-Christian will accept Creation. Well…there are some non-Christians who accept Creation, but, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Muslims are the exception, not the rule. They all still use the Word of God as their supposed sourcebook, so, you could call them a hybrid of the non-Christian Creationist.

  219. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    “Mathematically speaking, I am, 98% of the time, the smartest person in the room. Not bragging. Stating. And I hate even doing that. So, if you can’t explain something to a dumb ass like me, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    In generaly, the problem with people that think this way about themselves is very much NOT that they are too stupid to understand something: it’s rather that they think so highly of themselves that think they think they understand more than they do. A little bit of knowledge can often be worse than plain ignorance, because people then go and try to use this incomplete knowledge as if it were complete. In doing so, they end up with all sorts of crazy results, which they then often attribute to something being wrong with what they are examining rather than something wrong with their understanding of things.

    “Once I started hearing the problems with ID, I decided to dig a bit into it, and find out what the problems actually were. Once I did that, I became a Creationist. No fossils with partially devoloped wings, no pre-humming bird fossils, no actual fossil evidence for gradual changes caused by random mutations.”

    You can’t both say things like this and at the same time be expected to be taken seriously as someone that is actually well informed about these topics. These are the standard unvarnished creationist claims about the fossil record: claims that are either wrong or incredibly silly, and most importantly of all are just highly misinformed about what evolution requires and what it expects to find in the fossil record.

    Put simply, the fossil record confirms common descent in every respect: it matches exactly the pattern that evolutionary change suggests it should. If the fossil record preserved every single creature that every lived, as you seem to expect, then this outcome would ITSELF be a miracle and a seeming violation of lots of basic physical laws. The only people who pretend that the FOSSIL record could preserve evidence of INDIVIDUAL mutations are the most die-hard creationists.

    Darwin, its interesting to note, never expected the fossil record to be as rich as it turned out to be. He never expected that, for instance, it would be complete enough to derive actual exentise ancestral general lineages from it. Nor, of course, could he have anticipated genetics existing and allowing us to cross check those assumed lineages and find, surprise surprise, exactly the same pattern built into gene relations as was suggested by the fossil record: and both of which then matching all the plausible constraints of geography/geology.

    “Then, I did some research into random chance. Found out, there is no such thing. “Random chance” is science-speak for “we have no idea how to figure out all the forces acting upon this particular event, so, we’ll label it ‘random chance’”.”

    I’m not sure what the point of this comment is. I think you’ve completely missed the point of randomness. Randomness isn’t about whether we can deterministically know exactly how an outcome was caused. It just means that in general we have no particular reason to think it will happen one way or the other. A coin flip is random in the sense that it could be heads or tails. This outcome may certainly have an exact causal reason. But the point of randomness is not whether or not it does, but rather that this outcome isn’t specially correlated with what it determines. For instance, a coin flip to determine which team will be on offense first isn’t any different than a coin flip to determine which gene will mutate. Both flips have a 50% chance of heads. from the perspective of those different outcomes even if strictly deterministically the outcome of each flip is certain.

  220. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Um I must beg to differ. The only people who pretend that the lack of fossils prove that evolution is true are die-hard evolutionists. The only people who are willing to admit to the fact that every single instance of “intermediate species” has been at least a mistake and often a deliberate fraud are creationists and ex-evolutionists.

    As for “common decent”… even IF your facts were true they still would prove nothing. Compare the engines of every model of car built in 2006 and you will find an amazing amount of “common decent” that show they are all “related”. Whoopdeedoo. Only a completely insane idiot would try to say that means car engines evolved from a piston.

    BTW, I can’t beleive this thread is still going on. You’d think ya’ll would have gotten tired of it by now. Oh well, feel free to continue all you want. I can’t stop ya and wouldn’t bother to try if I could… but I’m ducking back out again… l8r all.

    RH

  221. Unregistered Comment by plunge2 UNITED STATES

    “The only people who pretend that the lack of fossils prove that evolution is true are die-hard evolutionists.”

    But there is no inexplicable “lack of fossils” in the sense of macro-evolution. Again: the fossil record is richer and more complete than anyone ever predicted.

    “The only people who are willing to admit to the fact that every single instance of “intermediate species” has been at least a mistake and often a deliberate fraud are creationists and ex-evolutionists.”

    Nonsense again. Though I’ve found that most people who say things like this can’t even define what a transitional fossil is (intermediate implies something that is itself a sign of a common misunderstanding). Suffice to say, there are plenty such fossils that demonstrate the commonality of various lineages quite clearly and sufficiently.

    “As for “common decent”… even IF your facts were true they still would prove nothing. Compare the engines of every model of car built in 2006 and you will find an amazing amount of “common decent” that show they are all “related”.”

    No, you won’t, because the commonality they will show bespeaks a VERY different pattern of relation. The patterns demonstrated by the evidence for common descent obey a very very particular set of constraints that are very hard to square with a designer. Your car engines provide an excellent exmaple. With car engines, it’s clear to see that good ideas that someone had for one engine can get picked up and transferred to the engines of even a completely different model of car. This is, in fact, something that is trivially easy and obvious for intelligent designers (like car engineers) to do.

    And yes, we never see any evidence of anything like that in the history of biological life. If an extremely obvious solution to some problem is discovered in some lineage it does no good for any other lineage. That’s because the relations in nature seems restricted in every case to direct physical descent via reproduction.

    “Whoopdeedoo. Only a completely insane idiot would try to say that means car engines evolved from a piston.”

    As I pointed out, you car example is a great one… for showing how life is not at all what one would expect from something that was intelligently designed.