« Previous | Main | Next »

Are religious politicians "nutters"?

Post categories:

William Crawley | 13:19 UK time, Sunday, 2 December 2007

_44179010_poots203.jpgWe had a little spat on Sunday Sequence this morning between the Times columnist Matthew Parris and Northern Ireland's culture minister, after the latter, Edwin Poots, made it clear that he is a young earth creationist and an opponent of the theory of evolution. We were talking about Tony Blair's claim that he didn't reveal his personal religious views while in government in case people wrote him off as "a nutter". Here's an edited version of part of the conversation:

William Crawley: (To Edwin Poots) You talk about your faith in public meetings.

Edwin Poots: I would talk about it when I'm asked about it, but I don't generally seek to impose it upon people. And I think where Tony Blair is wrong -- and I personally came through this when I was a lad at school, in that I hid my faith whenever I was in secondary school ... It wasn't until I left school and went to college that I was prepared to stand up and tell people that I was a Christian and I found that I didn't grow in my Christianity until I was able to tell others in a confident way that I was a Christian ...

William Crawley: What about when you become a minister, representing the government? Does your role then change, and the things you can talk openly about then change? Is that a new dynamic you've faced?

Edwin Poots: I haven't found that to be the case. In fact, since I've been a minister, I've been questioned in public fora about it, and I've reponded to those questions. Interestingly enough, in Armagh, I was actually approached after one such forum, and this guy says, "I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm from Newry. I send my kids to Irish language schools. If there was a vote for a united Ireland in the morning, we'd be voting for a united Ireland. But, he says, we're actually depending on you guys to stand up for the moral issues in Northern Ireland.

Then, when the conversation turned to Richard Dawkins' claim that religious believers are "mentally ill", the culture minister intervened:

Edwin Poots: He [Dawkins] wants to indoctrinate everyone with evolution. And whenever people suggest that you can teach something other than evolution, and that there might be others theories about how this earth actually came to be, such as intelligent design, Richard doesn't want children to have the option of actually hearing those things and making their own minds up. So it's very interesting that evolutionists are very dictatorial in what they suggest.

William Crawley: Matthew Parris ... you've just heard the culture minister in Northern Ireland speak, Matthew. Would a politician in Britain ever use words like that? A minister ingovernment?

Matthew Parris: Absolutely not. No. And I would use the word "nutter" -- not of Edwin, obviously. But I do use the word 'nutter' of people who think that what informs them religiously entitles them to say that evolution is a form of indoctrination. I mean, there's absolutely no question where science points, and it can only be some feeling that you've got a direct line with revelation with the Almighty that could lead you to stop wanting children to be taught that evolution is the best available explanation of where we are now.

Edwin Poots: Matthew, you're telling me that cosmic balls of dust gathered and there was an explosion. We've had lots of explosions in Northern Ireland and I've never seen anything come out of that that was good. And you look at this earth and you tell me that there was a big bang and all of a sudden all tat is good about this earth came out of it?

Matthew Parris: Good heavens! You're the culture minister and you don't believe in evolution?

Edwin Poots: Yes, absolutely. And you're telling me that all of this evolution took place over billions of years, and yet it's only in the last few thousand years that Man could actually learn to write?

William Crawley: How old is the earth?

Edwin Poots: My view on the earth is that it's a young earth. My view is 4000 BC.

You can listen again to the entire debate on whether our politicians should talk openly about their religious beliefs on the Sunday Sequence website. Also talking part: Al Hays, an American professor of politics currently working at Queen's University, and Ruth Yeo, the recently appointed Humanist Chaplain at Queen's University.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 02:22 PM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • Annie-G wrote:

WOW! This guy is in a government!? Amazing. How can anyone in 2007 believe the world is 4000 years old! It's really astonishing that anyone would vote for someone who is so spaced out.

  • 2.
  • At 03:06 PM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

You would be surprised Annie!

and I hope that this thread does not turn into another 300 post slug-fest!

Goodness there are so many fallacies in what Mr Poots says that I do not where to start.

There may be other "theories" but not in the scientific sense of the word.

Strange that Mr Poots should cite ID since ID makes no stand on the issue of the age of the earth and Michael Behe has no problem with the earth being 4.6 billion years old nor with the fossil record nor with man and ape sharing a common ancestor(since we are apes). Just goes to show that creationists will prostitute their "ideals" out to any flim-flam.

If Mr Poots wants to be fair I am sure that he would advocate the teaching of other creation myths like Hindu creationism/New age Raelian etc etc?

I wonder if Mr Poots knows that Matthew Parris is a confirmed bachelor who has a keen interest in musicals and theatre? That would really have made Mr Poots day!

  • 3.
  • At 04:04 PM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • sarah .......... e.belf wrote:

It's now at the point where I am just embarrassed by the DUP in government. I think it's great that the DUP and SF have made peace are are working together. Hats off to them both for that. However, I do not want my childnren's education in the hands of people who think the world is 6000 years old. It's pathetic and an intellectual scandal. When I tell friends overseas about what's going on hee they now smile knowingly as if to comfort me.

  • 4.
  • At 05:11 PM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Well, how confident can we be that if the DUP get their way to build a private visitors centre at the Giant's Causeway, there won't be creationist fraud listed with the science? It strikes me as a real danger.

Incidentally, Will & Co, it was nice to see Lisburn schoolteachers tell young master Givan and his Svengalis to get knotted.
http://www.lisburntoday.co.uk/news/SCHOOLS-REJECT-LISBURN-COUNCIL-CALL.3517793.jp

  • 5.
  • At 06:08 PM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • Jeffrey leitch wrote:

I thought it was good that Poots was prepared to lay his cards on the table, even though I cant agree with his views. Thats more honest than blair or brown have been.

As Lewis Black says, "These people are watching the Flinstones as though it is a documentary."

  • 7.
  • At 06:46 PM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Hi John,

Haven't chatted for awhile but just like to say that I think Lewis Black is great! I saw a video of the standup in which he said that...very, very funny(not just that line but the whole thing)!

Amen,

Good news for change on the Lisburn front.

Regards

DD

DD- Yeah glad to see you're still around. Lewis Black is great on this topic, as you say:

"Was the earth created in seven days? No. For those of you who believe it was, you Christians, let me tell you that you do not understand the Jewish people. We Jews know that it was not created in seven days, and that's 'cause we know what we're good at. And what we're really good at is bulls***. This is a wonderful story that they told to the people in the desert to distract them from the fact that they did not have air conditioning. ..... And then there are fossils. Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it took place in seven days I reach for a fossil and go 'FOSSIL'. And if they keep talking I throw it just over their head."

The whole segment is HERE.

I looked at your link to Edwin Poots

http://www.dup.org.uk/EdwinPoots.asp

and was quite intrigued by what he lists as his 'interests'.

Regards,
Michael

  • 10.
  • At 12:19 AM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • Joe wrote:

I dont have any problem whatsoever with Edwin Poots having his religious views, however I am slightly worried that someone so gullible is in a position of power.

He asked Parris a few questions about evolution that were so stupid and idiotic that rather than be annoyed I was worried. "Are you tellin me there were these cosmic clouds and then a loud bang"? My God I think he got that back to front. "How have we evolved when it is only in the last few thousand years man has learned to write"...unbelievable! But best of all was the "4000BC" claim.

In return I would have then asked Edwin Poots "Do you believe that humans and Dinosaurs lived together at the same time?".......that may have been the clincher!

  • 11.
  • At 09:09 AM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • D Smyth wrote:

Welcome to Northern Ireland.

Please check your sanity in at Aldergrove: you won't be needing it for the duration of your stay.

  • 12.
  • At 10:42 AM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • garethlee wrote:

The problem isnt Edwin Poots. It's the electorate who are prepared to vote for a young earther in the 21st century.

  • 13.
  • At 11:48 AM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • thepresby wrote:

i see from these comments that mr Dawkins and his evolotionary views has indoctrinated alot of people! and i can also see his same sinister arrogance and contempt as well in many of these comments. Has any one read the dawkins letters?

It seems strange that people say that the "scientific evidence" has only one explaination ie evolution, however there are many scientists in the world who would disagree.

And by the way! if we are 21 century people why can we not tolorate other people own views? even young earth theory? after all nobody was around when it all happened so technically Poots could be correct?

  • 14.
  • At 11:56 AM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • freethinker wrote:

Amenhotep
I don't think that piece from The Star was published in the hard copy paper?

  • 15.
  • At 12:06 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • Cker wrote:

Insanity is rife here as well. How does a belief in a young earth disqualify someone from politics? Isn't a creationist belief quite benign. I know the ranting anti-God squad have easily persuaded some that it is dangerous, but I haven't seen how it actually destroys life or society. What is repulsive is the smug, aloof, mocking, fingerpointing of those who are always correct (even if they are on this issue). Some have provided a counter-example that we have moved beyond the days of picking on the village idiot.

  • 16.
  • At 01:41 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


I think we can say without much fear of contradiction that Parris and all the other scoffers here have never actually looked at the evidence for creationism with an open mind.

Dylan Dog, using another name, openly admits that he is rejecting a point made in favour of ID by William BEFORE HE EVEN UNDERSTANDS IT!

( WC's point;- "How can your metaphysical naturalistic faith be
sustained in a quantum mechanical world?")

http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a177ace29e64c4c5/2691d94096db58bf?#2691d94096db58bf


I would not hold my breath to wonder if M Parris has done any similar reading.

PB

  • 17.
  • At 01:58 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

I made this point recently to the BBC, the discussion can be biased quite easily if the assumptions and understanding of only one side of the debate is challenged and critiqued for validity.

I mean, nobody challenged Parris to see if he really understood the limitations and assumptions of radiometric dating, the basic principles and shortcomings of evolutionary theory and the basic principles of creationism.

In other words, was Parris speaking out of eloquent prejudice or did he really know what he was talking about?

And who did the BBC aid and abett and who did they chase down?

PB

My dearest, sweetest pb,

"I think we can say without much fear of contradiction that Parris and all the other scoffers here have never actually looked at the evidence for creationism with an open mind."

Several posters (including DD and myself) have often asked you for evidence in support of creationism. Yet despite the many requests, you never showed any. I suggest that if you want us to look at creationist evidence that you produce some.

  • 19.
  • At 02:55 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • dp wrote:

I was interested to see the developments in the Lisburn Creationism row - hopefully the story will make it in to the paper this Friday. I have written several letters to the paper (on my blog if you're interested - www.oliverbenen.wordpress.com)and have noticed that all of the concerns raised by creationists have been dealt with adequately by other correspondents, but the creationists don't deal with the fundamental issue of why Intelligent design can bypass the peer review process and get direct access to our school classrooms.
Thankfully - I don't think it will happen.
As Dylan Dog said - even Behe - their supposed Ace in the pack isn't a young earth creationist.
Anyone that thinks the world is 4000 years old obviously has no capacity for critical thought what so ever.

Pb, no one is a 'scoffer' simply because he expresses surprise at a minister believing that the earth was created in 4000BC. Such a view is contrary to all the known evolution that the earth is 4-5 billion years old  - geological, genetic, geographical, botanical, astronomical, historical, physical, etc.

But on the main point about religious politicians, first of all, I think Blair was wrong to hide it. We cannot complain about politicians lacking sincerity and deceiving the public while at the same time wanting them to deceive us. Honesty is the best policy. Of course, it would have cost Blair votes in England to be seen as a 'nutter', but that is democracy for you.

As a leader, we want our politicians to act rationally and in the general interest. Religion and reason, however, do not often keep good company. For example, religion tends to give people an inner certainty which is impervious to reason and which is dangerous. Bush, Blair and Al Qaeda all believe that God (Allah) will guide them, so that earthly disapproval doesn't matter, even if it comes from religious leaders themselves. So islamic terrorists ignore the condemnation of many Islamic leaders and Blair ignored the Pope, who opposed the Iraq War.

I am not saying that religious leaders cannot have their own private religious faith, but rather that they should accept that in a democracy they are ultimately responsible to the people, not to their God. The leader who, Joan-of-Arc-like, claims that God is telling him that this or that action is right is a rather frightening individual who could do anything, even drop a bomb on millions, because 'God' tells him it is the right thing to do.

Blair's strength in the teeth of opposition to that war was the strength of a medieval autocrat, not of a democratic politician. It is the old doctrine of the 'divine right of kings' in modern dress.

Many of us prefer our leaders to be more sceptical and cautious and to approach the world's problems with an open mind. Certitude is not the wisest quality in a complex and volatile planet. It can lead to hasty decisions made in the interests of only one section of the community  – Protestant, Catholic, Jew or Muslim  - rather than in the interests of the people as a whole.

In a liberal democracy a politician should act responsibly in the general interest, which means balancing the rights of the majority with the rights of individuals and minorities. That usually implies transcending their own deeply held religious faith. The question is whether our first minister has now realised this truth in his octogenarian years and whether fanatical nationalists have also realised after 30 years that there is no alternative to persuasion. Have these two groupings learned at last that they cannot impose their narrow ideologies, religious or political on everyone else, or are they just playing games with the electorate?

  • 21.
  • At 03:58 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • jason belfast wrote:

Hey Brian, what did you make of the Humanist Chaplain on the programme agreeing with Edwin Poots!!!!??

Aaahhhhhhhh!

This thread feels just like the good old days. PB, good to hear from you. I see that precisely NONE of the wisdom of these other contributors has worn off on you.

Presby #13- Dawkins doesn't have a monopoly on the concept of evolution. You make the mistake of suggesting that "many" scientists accept creationism as an alternative. This is a myth, like Genesis 1 really. If I asked you for the names of scientists who agree with creationism you'd provide me a single list in response, and it would be the list found HERE on the Answers in Genesis website. Do you realise how infinitesimally small that list is, in comparison with the number of scientists who accept evolution? It's statistically insignificant. For those few, there are critiques HERE for your reading material. Bottom line: evolution is substantiated every day in science, and is the established starting point for every major related discipline. When you go to the doctor for a vaccination shot, you are accepting the medical profession's understanding of evolution in doing so, and using it for the benefit of your own health. When biologists study life, they do so with the understanding that evolution occurred, and work from there. When geneticists study DNA, they do so based on the modern understanding of evolution. It just isn't credible to say that it didn't occur.

Now, maybe you can tell Edwin Poots.

  • 23.
  • At 04:59 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB...honey...

More disingenuous material from you. The question was answered.

(I did understand it, was just seeking other opinions-perhaps you could do the same then perhaps you would not look so silly)

Anyway...

What is the scientific evidence for YEC?

Could anyone name some aspect that is confirmed by indpendent experiment ?

A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A list of all the medical/scientific breakthrough's discovered within the creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

I have set the bar very, very low. If anyone cares to respond I am not interested in the either/or fallacy eg., "evidence" against evolution-just straight answers.

Cker M15

"How does a belief in a young earth disqualify someone from politics?"

It doesn't, just do not try and inflict your fundamentalist religious opinions into the science curriculum.

As Arthur C Clarke said...

"I would defend the liberty of concenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent."

  • 24.
  • At 05:05 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • Joe wrote:

John Wright- you raise the one point that people like Poots cant refute. As you say the mapping of the genome and other brilliant scientific advances have been built upon the premise that evolution is a fact. In a sense they also add to the monumental evidence that evolution in principle that evolution is FACT, because they have been successful. I would love to hear PB give us his opinions.
"After all nobody was around when it happened so Poots could be correct"- that has to be one of the silliest statements I have every read on here. Do you think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Are you telling me that dinosuars lived from 4000 BC to 3500BC, then all died mysteriously, for humans to come along and take root within a few centuries? How do you explain dinosaurs? How do you explain all the archaeological data? Everyone understands that carbon dating has its faults and can give inaccurate results........but not by millions of years. I dont know of a single person who has presented any evidence of that. Do you dispute all that evidence? That is to THEPRESBY! Cant wait for your answer!

  • 25.
  • At 05:26 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • Pistolpete wrote:

Why do creationists always complain that their critics are arrogant and dismissive. If someone from Western society came along claiming that the sun god was a real entity we would, after laughing into ourselves, proceed to explain that the notion is an incredibly silly one given all that we know about the sun. It wouldnt be in the slightest bit arrogant to tell him that he is wrong because we all know that he is wrong. For Edwin Poots to claim that the world is 6000 years old is exactly like this. Noone in the world believes such waffle apart from biblical literalists and evangelicals. Any scientists who do (like the answers in genisis crowd) are biblical literalists. They do so without the slightest bit of evidence. There attempts to claim that evolution is invalid, while pitiful at times, can in some way be tolerated. However they really overstep the mark by claiming that the world is 6000 years old. Someone give us one single little teeny weeny bit of evidence please. Until you do I will continue to consider you all incredibly ignorant people, with much justification.

  • 26.
  • At 06:02 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Hi John,

Yep Lewis Black is great on creationism and on many other topics!

Would you also be a fan of the late. great and sorely missed Bill Hicks?

His views on creationsim are here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk

Regards

DD

  • 27.
  • At 01:43 AM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • nonplussed wrote:

Poots: “Richard doesn't want children to have the option of actually hearing those things and making their own minds up. So it's very interesting that evolutionists are very dictatorial in what they suggest.”

Evolutionists aren’t dictatorial, reality is. Anything with the degree of supporting evidence that confirms evolution is no longer in the realm of subjective preference. Telling kids they can choose their favourite reality is not on.


Cker: “How does a belief in a young earth disqualify someone from politics? Isn't a creationist belief quite benign.”

It isn’t Mr. Poots’ fault if he was inflicted with a faulty education as a kid. However, if he demonstrates that as an adult he is still unable to reason and inform his way past such a monumental falsehood as a 6000 year old Earth then the rest of us have every right to take note of this. It indicates that he cannot be relied upon to make decisions based on the best available evidence if such evidence ever contradicts his faith. Given the number of issues where his particular faith is likely to trump reality, this can hardly be viewed as a private, benign matter. Just the fact that he wants to contaminate another generation of kids shows it is anything but benign.

There was a priest on recently concerned about the impact of a zero drink-drive limit on his ability to drive between masses. His belief in literal transubstantiation might equally fly in the face of reality, but at least he was still realistic enough to accept that the ‘blood’ he was drinking would impact his ability to drive and would show up on a breathalyser. How someone can hold those two mutually contradictory concepts at once is beyond me, but at least this belief was not being extended into areas where it may harm others.


Dr. Quinn: “Lisburn wants to be known as a centre of educational excellence and not a medieval and inward looking town"

Good for him. If only the education minister had been this robust.

On the original topic, I think it disingenuous of Blair to hide the extent to which his faith impacted his decision process. He should have had the courage of his convictions and let the voters decide how comfortable they were with them. If he could not communicate this in a manner distinguishable from ’nutter’ then perhaps that might have told him something useful.

  • 28.
  • At 01:57 AM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • CKer wrote:

(I have just noticed that there is no hash symbol on the Mac keyboard)

Post 23 D_D

Exactly!

I didn't realise he was attempting this. Or have you strayed off point. If there is a creationist conspiracy, it isn't having much effect. I don't think you have anything to fear. There will always be rumblings.

Post 25 Pistolpete

"Evangelicals"

I didn't realise they were all wafflers (=creationists). Do you know them all?

"Until you do I will continue to consider you all incredibly ignorant people, with much justification."

On every issue? It is only one issue after all. Therefore, little justification. You are talking about people here.

Quoting an author hardly adds weight to the idea that children are actually at risk (I am not aware that he is an authority on what is good for kids). At risk from what real danger? Wrong knowledge? If that is the case get on to Childline. Take all creationists children into care and arrest the parents who fill their kids' heads with Father Christmas and the tooth ferry. Hysterics; I tell you.

Surely, they will discard the notion along with the others when they grow up. If they don't, so what? Why do you care so much? You are going to die. So caring is ultimately absurd.

Post 20 B McClinton

Approaching a balanced comment at last.

Although, your comment on reason and religious belief is a little off the mark. There are numerous examples to the contrary. Reason has given many certainty that they are doing the right thing. They believe they have good reason to kill millions because of, say, a political cause they deem to be superior. It is still reason, even if you judge it as bad. I think your views on religious belief verge on caricature.

  • 29.
  • At 08:58 AM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Joe, ref post 24

I suggest you read up a little on the history of science, for example try the succint article in the Enc Britannica.

You will see that history is littered with scientific theories that were once considered watertight.

For example, did you know evolutionists are now moving away from the idea that species evolved into different species very slowly, because the fossil record supports the opposite conclusion?

Now many are moving to the position where they believe in a kind of multiple "special creations" where they suppose that many species appeared from magical leaps forward in mutations.

FACT: Nobody has EVER seen a mutation which adds data to the DNA of an organism; all know mutations either delete existing DNA or reorganise what is there. This is a road block for evolutionary theory.

FACT: There are no transitional chains to show the origins of;-

Single celled organisms
Fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Birds
Mammals

Why is this Joe and how does this support the theory of evolution?

Even Karl Popper agreed that evolution was not science in the normal sense, but an historical discipline in the same category as the study of historical literature.

The reason for this is that it cannot be observed in real time, a normal part of the scientific method and it is therefore so difficult to test properly, according to Popper.

He also said it was very close to a tautology, though of course he still accepted it in the end albeit with these qualifications.

There is no such thing as evidence for or against a theory, BTW; there is only evidence.

The interpretation according to worldviews and non-scientific assumptions of the interpreter declare whether they believe the evidence is for or against a theory.


PB

PS Joe - If you want to get off schoolyard squabbling and into real science, read any scientific paper in this area; you will see very tenative language, qualified in many regards.
Evolutionists speaking bomobastically about religion are giving personal opinions, not science.

  • 30.
  • At 09:02 AM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


PPS Joe

On the question of evidence; all evidence for common descent can be much better understood as evidence for common design (see mutation and fossil problems in my post above).

The only real problem is if you presuppose God cant be behind special creation. Science cannot actually rule this out BTW.

PB

  • 31.
  • At 11:16 AM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Stu wrote:

CKer, the hash symbol is Alt-3 on a Mac keyboard.

What a ridiculous argument. Poots clearly is unable to distinguish between the objective and the subjective. An analogous argument might be:

"He [Newton] wants to indoctrinate everyone with gravity. And whenever people suggest that you can teach something other than gravity, and that there might be others theories about how this earth actually came to revolve about the sun, such as God's divine will, Isaac doesn't want children to have the option of actually hearing those things and making their own minds up. So it's very interesting that physicists are very dictatorial in what they suggest."

Teaching children to make their own minds up about Shakespeare is fantastic. They should definitely be able to make value judgements about Mozart, about Van Gough, about Descarte and about Hitchcock. These are subjective areas where such opinions matter.

Denying gravity would be foolish. The evidence is objective and there to be seen, felt and experienced. You can deny the pleasure that exists in listening to the White Stripes because some people feel it and some do not. Similarly, you can deny the pleasure of worshipping God - some understand and feel it and some do not.

Denying evolution, though, is in with the objective camp. There is factual evidence that can be recorded and observed, it isn't a case of some people evolving and some not doing, or even some people 'seeing' evolution and others not seeing it. You can teach children to understand it. You can teach them to question it. You can teach them to notice it in the real world. You can't simply tell them it doesn't exist - because then you would be lying to them.

Those who attempt to deny evolution even exists are in with those who locked up Gallileo for claiming the Earth moved round the sun.

Let’s agree on a couple of things ….. I’ll throw in my personal ‘opinion’ on them:

1)Evolution is a ‘theory’ not a ‘fact’. IMHO it is a very strong theory and though it can never be proven to a certainty science may never be able to falsify it. Therefore one must live and act with the best evidence and teach the best evidence in our schools as ‘theory’ and not ‘fact’.

2)If modern physics is correct and the physical constants of the universe may vary with time then it is possible that our scientific data on the date of the Earth may be misleading us. IMHO this is a very weak theory but I am content to let others hold it as a theory of ‘merit’ to them. After all anyone denying Newtonian physics a couple of centuries ago would have been considered by the majority as ‘foolish’ as a ‘young earther’ …. But then Einstein came along and Newtonian ideas had to take a more limited role in explaining our world.

Didn’t philosopher David Hume get it right when he wrote:

A wise man considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: To that side he inclines, with doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgment, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call ‘probability’. All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to over balance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence, proportioned to the superiority. A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonable beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experiments, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior evidence.

Regards,
Michael

  • 33.
  • At 01:31 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Michael Hull

At last an evolutionist I can agree with, as a creationist potentially of the young(ish) earth variety.

Dylan Dog and Peter Klaver take note;-

- Michael is a scientist and liberal in theological outlook

- He says evolution is a very strong theory "not a fact" and should not be taught as fact in schools

- Evolution cannot be falsified

- Modern physics may be misleading us on the age of the earth

-Previous scientific revolutions have made earlier theories completely redundant

- Metaphysical evolutionists are certain about evolution with a religious zeal (my words), not with scientific "doubt and hesitation".


Please take note all sceptics, this is a fair and balanced take on many of the issues here from a scientist with liberal theological outlook!

I applaud your objectivity Michael.

PB

  • 34.
  • At 01:44 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

ps Michael

interested in your line that modern physics shows us that physical constants of universe may vary with time...

would like to know more, please can you advise me where to look.

Thanks
PB

  • 35.
  • At 02:27 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Latest falsehood from PB:

FACT: Nobody has EVER seen a mutation which adds data to the DNA of an organism; all know mutations either delete existing DNA or reorganise what is there. This is a road block for evolutionary theory.

PB, *I* have seen mutations adding DNA to the genome many many times, as has any scientist working in genetics. Read the literature, do the work! So you are talking cobblers here. Of course, that's nothing new, but you really don't know the first thing about DNA (or information, for that matter).

Isn't there a commandment against bearing false witness?

Hello Amenhotep,

Indeed, nothing new in pb being dishonest. He has twisted my words on many occasion, as well as yours if I remember correctly. And certainly DDs. And William Crawleys. I wonder if Michael Hull is pleased to find pb by his side now. I thought pbs distortion of Michaels appraisal of evolution particularly outrageous. Michael praises evolution as a very strong theory, so much so that it may never be falsified. Pb wastes no time in twisting that into citing Michael as saying that evolution can not be falsified (something that should be possible for any scientific theory). Classic pb.

greets,
Peter

  • 37.
  • At 03:47 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • nonplussed wrote:

Michael N Hull @ 32

Your points may be narrowly valid, but in the very next post pb demonstrates why they don’t result in the consensus you were seeking.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. True, but only in a technical sense that does not justify the creationist fixation on the point. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Theory is the strongest status of a scientific explanation, not a label indicating half-baked. The scientific method should be taught as being provisional and open to revision but it does not follow that every scientific explanation in school should be paired off with one based on the local religious myth.

You end point 1 by saying that we should live and act according to the best evidence and yet your second point is basically that everything we know could be wrong. You are content to let others hold ideas you consider weak because of the possibility they could be proved correct some day. Are you also content to let them teach these weak ideas that have no corroboration to kids as being plausible alternatives to the currently strongest scientific explanations?

It is always possible that the lone crank could turn out to be the next Einstein, but we do not have to worry too much about this until they supply some corroborating evidence. Einstein himself would not have gotten far without some convincing maths that yielded testable hypotheses which stood up to experimentation. As someone said, being persecuted for your ideas doesn’t make you the next Galileo, you also have to be right.

There is an inexhaustible supply of wrong ideas. It cannot make sense to declare open season for them to be taught to children on the strength of the narrow philosophical point of the impossibility of absolute certainty.

PB- Well, we find ourselves in familiar territory. Last time we were here, you ultimately proved yourself completely inadequate on this topic. Maybe this time you've improved your knowledge and are able to show why the proofs of evolution I gave you last time, or the damning critiques of young-earth creationism I gave you, are invalid?

The fervour with which you grasp onto any shred of credibility for your position is telling. Michael, congratulations! You are PB's gift this Christmas!


"- Michael is a scientist and liberal in theological outlook"

PB, please clarify which scientific discipline.


"- He says evolution is a very strong theory "not a fact" and should not be taught as fact in schools"

As many people have tried to explain to you before, when a scientist calls something a 'theory' it means something different than when a layperson does so. Theory = a system of ideas intend to explain facts. Evolution is such a theory, better than which no better has ever been proposed to explain the facts in biology. Creationism isn't even a blip on the radar, PB.


"- Evolution cannot be falsified"

We could get evidence against evolution and for creationism. But there isn't any.


"- Modern physics may be misleading us on the age of the earth"

It isn't one method which yields the age of the earth; it's MANY. It's confirmed in numerous dating methods and in cosmology. This is your weakest point (if that's possible). In any case, it's conceivable that we're off by a few million years, but not 4.6 billion, PB. The young earth idea is ludicrous, and based upon no science at all. If you disagree, perhaps you could tell me which discipline of science has ever suggested a young earth.


"-Previous scientific revolutions have made earlier theories completely redundant"

No, what Michael said was that, for example, Newton's ideas became less relevant when Einstein explained more than Newton did. Which creationist scientists are explaining more than Darwin did? Yes, theories are of course tentative, but creationism is no theory at all. Newton was at least aiming in the right direction. Your point does not apply to creationism at all, much less discredit evolution.


"- Metaphysical evolutionists are certain about evolution with a religious zeal (my words), not with scientific "doubt and hesitation"."

The facts of evolution are well understood, PB. What they approach with 'doubt and hesitation' is the METHOD of evolution, not whether or not it happened at all. When scientists try to explain gravity, they don't wonder whether it even exists. Would you propose that we approach the question of whether gravity exists with "doubt and hesitation"? No, it exists. But the METHOD by which it works is tentative and theoretical. That's what the scientific method is, and you appear to have absolutely no experience of it whatever.

  • 39.
  • At 04:49 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

More twisting from PB applying the old argumentum di Torquemada which is
the assumption that facts which run contrary to your conclusion will, if
twisted sufficiently, stretched on the rack, broken on the wheel, and
threatened with pots of boiling oil, eventually come around to support
your position.

The well-rehashed canards that you raise continually have been answered many, many times before and repeating them do not make them true.

PB any chance of some positive evidence *for* Biblical creationism? eg., the very simple points I raised in post 23(well I have been asking some of them for a year and a half-so I won't hold my breath!)

Amenhotep

"Isn't there a commandment against bearing false witness?"

PB's Bible does not seem to have it! he has been caught out plenty of times doing this!

Michael

I would disagree and say that evolution is a fact and that the theory of natural selection is the best explanation of this fact.


Wow, pb makes a post and in under two and a half hours there are five posters pointing out his continued dishonesty and wilful ignorance. Pity that pb is impervious to any of that and will just remain as he always was: a person whose mind has been utterly poisoned by his faith. Who will stoop to any lie because of it.

  • 41.
  • At 06:39 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

Peter are you cooling towards PB? do I have a clear run now?


Did you know that the Bible mentions creationists in the New Ulster Liberal Translation(NULT) of the Bible?

Titus 1 12 says "...the Creationists are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies"

  • 42.
  • At 10:53 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Folks, bit of education if y'all don't mind. Evolution is not "a theory". There is the fact of evolution, which incorporates the boody of evidence, and then there is the theory of evolution, which is the set of frameworks and models that we use to make sense of the fact base. Elements are being added to both the factual and theoretical bases all the time.

Evolution *works*. Get over it.

  • 43.
  • At 10:55 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Claire Greenstock wrote:

Peter and Dylan, I am not a creationist. In fact, i've no religious views in this debate at all. I'm just amazed that you two write such nasty things about other people in this debate, particularly pb. You sound arrogant and appallingly so. Intellectual abuse is not acceptable in public debates. So please please stop turning this debate into a personal attack. I see that you are apparently humanists. Try to be more human.

  • 44.
  • At 12:02 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Cker wrote:

# Heh, it works. Thanks Stu. I just switched from PC; so still finding my feet. Mac makes the PC feel positively Stone Age. Oops! Did I just admit to a period of time farther back than a particular genealogical calculation for the age of the earth allows for?

I thought my post #32 was relatively simple and clear. Yet it seems to have stirred some heated discussion and various interpretations have been rendered as to my thinking. I never thought I would become a “Christmas Present’ but if that is what I am then let me unwrap the present for PB.

As a 'scientist' I can theorize in numerous ways the possible existence of a ‘Supreme Being’. One very simple theory that I could set up uses the concepts of biology and genes that authors such as Dawkins, Dennett and Harris frequently utilize in their own arguments opposing such an existence. It is not the strongest theory I would put forward but since we are in an ‘evolution’ and ‘biology’ frame of mind with this discussion let’s posit it.

Genetically humans are entities with about 25,000 genes which give our species a certain maximum intellectual and spiritual consciousness. Genes can be regarded as pieces of information. We can comprehend quantum mechanics while a bacterium with about 8,000 genes can not. We can understand Keat’s reference about melodies from a Grecian Urn (Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on) while a horse can not.

What happens as the number of genes decreases? A virus has about 10 genes – is it ‘living’, is it ‘conscious’ or is it simply a material ‘thing’? Below viruses one has prions, which are just bits of protein. Are these conscious or material? They certainly carry 'information'. At zero genes one has entered the non-conscious, completely material world, a world that we believe ‘exists’. This world is described in modern physics with the use of a model called “String Theory” which can only be understood at an ‘imaginary’ level with the help of complex imaginary numbers.

Now let me theorize that there exists an entity with say 8 million genes. I can make some reasonable assumptions about this entity. Such a ‘Being’ probably (if not certainly) would have a greater intellectual consciousness than I do as a member of the human species. I may comprehend as much about ‘It’ as a moth can about 'Me'. I can even theorize (from the imaginary mathematical concept of ‘infinity’) the existence of an entity having an infinite number of genes. This leads to the thought that just as one can have ‘faith’ (i.e. a rational belief with justified reasons which are open to falsifiability) in the existence of a completely material world of zero genes one may also have ‘faith’ in the existence of a completely conscious world with an infinite number of genes.

This ‘conscious world’ may be understood with the metaphor ‘Supreme Being’ which, like the model ‘String Theory’, can only be understood at an imaginary level. Is this not the direction the theory of evolution tells us that the universe is heading? Is it heading away from a situation in the distant past that was completely inanimate, and lacking in consciousness, to one in the distant future that will be completely animate and infinitely conscious?

I consider myself to be an agnostic Theist and an agnostic Scientist because of my understanding of the two opposing proposals that are before me explaining with model and metaphor how I came into being.

Science gives me a model called ‘String Theory’ which explains my being in terms of infinite dimensions and multiple universes described through the use of imaginary numbers. String Theory can only be imagined and can not be described in terms of any understandable reality. Physicists admit they may never be able to perform an experiment (i.e. test for falsifiability of the hypothesis according to Popper) to explain my discomfort with the existence of multiuniverses.

Religion gives me a metaphor called ‘Supreme Being’ which contains imaginary elements that also can not be understood within the reality in which I exist. Theologians admit they may never be able to provide an explanation to alleviate my discomfort with the problem of evil (or better stated as the 'problem of suffering').

With these as the only alternatives how should I choose a world view within which to live my life? String Theory leads to the conclusion that we are nothing more than bits of protoplasm with electrical connections in our brains that consume energy and which eventually burn out and fade away in a universe that has no purpose and indeed needs no purpose. Yet, if the universe of String Theory is indeed totally disinterested and uninterested in me how do I deal with the fact that “I” as a physical part of this universe, made up of the constituents of the matter that constitute the universe, am very interested in the universe of which I form a small part?

What probability do I personally place that the ‘String Theory’ model will eventually prove to be an eternal truth? Maybe 45%? What probability do I place that the ‘Supreme Being’ metaphor will prove to be the eternal truth? Perhaps 55%? And with these personal assumptions what do I do with them in terms of my worldview?

My son has just left for work, I think there is a 55% probability that he has arrived in his office and is presently at his desk but there is also a 45% probability that he has not yet arrived at work. I wish to call him at this moment - should I dial his office phone first or his mobile phone which is always off while he is at the office? I think as a rational person I would call his office phone first.

I am content with the use of imaginary concepts (parallel universes and imaginary numbers) in science and I am also comfortable with similar concepts in metaphysics (God). Secular Humanists appear to be comfortable with only the former and I respect their belief in this matter, limiting though it appears to be to me. However, if I can handle the concept of a Supreme Being in metaphysics in the same way as I can handle the concept of square rooting imaginary numbers in mathematics why do some in the Secular Humanist community refer to my imaginary concepts in metaphysics as a kind of ‘supernatural baggage’?

Perhaps someday I will come across a model or metaphor of the universe and my place in it that is more probable to me than the belief I now hold. If so I will move to living my life on that basis. However, I shall remain agnostic in my belief; I shall still have a lot of doubt in my life but I will have moved a little closer to some ultimate truth about myself and for what purpose, if any, I am here.

Maybe all of us of whatever belief can accept this as a rational and reasonable position?

Post #11. At 09:09 AM on 03 Dec 2007, D Smyth wrote:

Welcome to Northern Ireland. Please check your sanity in at Aldergrove: you won't be needing it for the duration of your stay.

When I first flew into and out of N. Ireland it was through "Nutts Corner".

Regards,
Michael

  • 47.
  • At 06:15 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Claire,

I am not a humanist-too specist. In my defense, a certain poster over the last year and a half has told blatant untruths, twisted my words and others and expects to get away with it. Has demanded questions of others which has been answered but refuses or can't answer a simple few put to him. This poster is incredibly annoying and in my time here has managed to p' off practiacally everyone at some stage. Hang around for awhile you will see what I mean. If I give a negative impression-apologies Claire-I just don't like sanctimonous, self-righteous hypocrites!

Regards

DD

  • 48.
  • At 10:56 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Billy wrote:

6,000 years later the same old talking serpent that beguiled Eve, is still beguiling the evolutionist today, and they are still cultivating their irrational religion of chance on his lies.

In the beginning.God created the heavens and the earth.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God.

  • 49.
  • At 01:25 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Amenhotep

ref post 35 - give us examples.

when we discussed this previously you were unable to.

I think you are playing semantics.


Can you honestly show examples of mutations which take an organism out of the orbit of natural variation and into the orbit of new species?


PB

  • 50.
  • At 01:32 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Amenhotep

I must remind readers here that Pro Norman Nevin from QUB is also a creationist and specialises in genetics; you dont have a monopoly on your view of mutations!

PB

  • 51.
  • At 01:35 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John Wright

I think you need to wind your neck in just a little when you label me inadequate.

The last time we discussed this you argued that body hair on humans and the appendix were both inescapable proof of evolution as both were now fully redundant.

You were proven wrong on both counts.

try again

PB

  • 52.
  • At 01:58 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB old chap,

You can't really go on at other people not answering questions when there is quite a list that you tellingly and seemingly cannot answer...here they are again...

What is the scientific evidence for YEC?

Could anyone name some aspect that is confirmed by indpendent experiment ?

A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A list of all the medical/scientific breakthrough's discovered within the creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists.

I have set the bar very, very low. If you care to respond I am not interested in the either/or fallacy eg., "evidence" against evolution/science-just straight answers-The positive evidence *for* your brand of creationism-you would think it would be simple...

"The last time we discussed this you argued that body hair on humans and the appendix were both inescapable proof of evolution as both were now fully redundant."

PB- That's funny! That wasn't the argument at all, though I wouldn't expect you to get it right. In any case, you have a lot of work to do with this lot, so I'll leave you to it. :-)

  • 54.
  • At 07:31 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • nonplussed wrote:

Michael N Hull @ 45

I have to say, I didn’t see that coming based on your previous post.

I’m not sure that casting your response in biological terms helped clarify things much so I don’t think it’s worth spending too long unpicking the analogy, but a couple of points struck me as worthy of comment.

I don’t really see that there is any great boundary between things with zero genes and things with one gene. Both belong to the “completely material world”.

At the other end of the scale, level of consciousness does not map directly to the number of genes. Genes are recipes, not blueprints so arrangement is more important than quantity, even if quantity does increase the options. There could be much smarter creatures with fewer genes than a human and stupider ones with more.

Evolution has no direction. It is not, as far as we can tell, heading towards perfection, complete consciousness, or any other particular destination. The universe is certainly not tending towards a state where every atom will form part of a conscious being. Even if it did, it would still be a material universe.

Even if such a superior being exists, your description has it coming into being along the same path as ourselves, so it just moves the open question of our origins over to its origins. Is the Supreme Being also in search of an external agent to provide its purpose?

Parallel universes aren’t exactly imaginary concepts or a useful fiction. If they are proposed as necessary for a scientific hypothesis but don’t actually exist then that hypothesis is wrong and will be shown to be so if it ever gets to the point of making a testable prediction. Also, gods tend not to be regarded as imaginary concepts by theists (by definition!). If you are treating your Supreme Being as metaphor then it is not metaphysics.


Conceiving the possibility of something isn’t the same as having a reason to presume its existence, however attractive it sounds. Many things are conceivable - the universe could be an egg laid by a cosmic penguin or we could be running in a computer simulation – what probabilities should be assigned to those possibilities? You presumably have a pattern of past behaviour with which to assess your son’s likely journey time. What are you using to arrive at 55% for Supreme Being? A “personal assumption” hardly merits the scientific dressing.

Biology and string theory distractions aside, I read your post as saying you are personally more comfortable with the idea that the universe is capable of supplying you with a purpose. I see no problem with being interested in a universe that isn’t particularly interested in me, but to each his own. What I don’t get is the disconnect between your previous assertion that “one must live and act with the best evidence” and your willingness to wish a Supreme Being into likely existence to scratch an existential itch. My personal preferences seem to have little impact on the nature of reality.

In any case, deciding that the universe has a purpose for me doesn’t seem to be a lot of use if the universe hasn’t figured out a way of letting me know what that purpose is.

Michael- As you know, I think along the same lines as you in the philosophical terms of theism. (I also think you explained it brilliantly in your last post, by the way.)

That said, I'm not sure you've helped to explain the comment you made that PB so gleefully unwrapped as though a gift of manna from heaven itself. That post was not about theism or atheism, it was about evolution or creationism. If you agree with the statement, "Evolution is the only working scientific theory adequately explaining origins as observed in the facts of biology, genetics, paleontology, physics and more", could you say so, to make that patently clear to PB? If not, could you elaborate on what exactly you believe?

In response to nonplussed's point that the 'supreme being' Michael describes in #45 came into being by evolution just like us, it's worthwhile pointing out that, as I understand Michael's argument, it's merely a metaphor for indicating how we would deal with the concept of a superior being, and he's not actually describing an evolved physical being with 8 million genes (certainly there are none around here and therefore the existence of such a being would be more of an advanced extraterrestrial than a God).

  • 56.
  • At 10:56 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

PB,

If you think Norman Nevin knows more about this than I do, you are very welcome to get him to write a rebuttal, or, better still, come on here and argue it. I don't think he can. It's a different thing wowing a bunch of blue-rinsed old ladies in the Crescent Church and cutting it in science. There seems to have been a thing about old geneticists making idiots of themselves lately, what with James Watson. I don't think Norman would like to join that particular company. I thought we were dealing in *evidence* rather than mere authority (real or perceived).

OK, you want to see more genetic information? Try these, from good old Belfast:
Pendleton et al. Mutations in ANKH cause chondrocalcinosis. Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Oct;71(4):933-40.

Summary (for the relevant piece of the argument): a mutation in the ANKH gene results in a new ATG start codon, which adds 4 amino acids to the N terminus of the gene. This results in a dramatic increase in the function of the protein. Good work done here in Belfast. Information added to a gene.

Another one from Belfast:
Hughes et al. Mutations in TNFRSF11A, affecting the signal peptide of RANK, cause familial expansile osteolysis.
Nat Genet. 2000 Jan;24(1):45-8.

Summary: Tandem duplications cause ADDITION of amino acids within the signal peptide encoding region of the TNFRSF11A gene, resulting in a hyper-activated protein. Information added to a gene.

There are zillions more examples - you can use PubMed, yes? I think these papers are both freely available for you.

The important point here is that information most definitely *can* be added to DNA. But it is *selection* that non-randomly works on these variations, and results in an accumulation of "meaningful" information.

As for this tired old straw man: "Can you honestly show examples of mutations which take an organism out of the orbit of natural variation and into the orbit of new species?"

I have already explained to you that this is not what happens. Species are not created by a saltatory mutational leap. Populations diverge. Get used to it. Don't expect me to try to defend your misunderstanding of evolution. People have tried to educate you on this several times, and you have just ignored it.

-A

  • 57.
  • At 11:07 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Another thing. Intelligence is not necessarily a function of the number of genes. We have pretty much the same number of genes as mice, and fewer than maize.

It's how they work together to build our brains that is the important thing. There is no élan vitale - "life" is not an essence - it is a behaviour of matter appropriately organised.

"Supreme beings" are unnecessary.

-A

Re #55

Thanks John for saving me the time and trouble to reply to #54. You summed it up much more succintly that I could.

If you agree with the statement, "Evolution is the only working scientific theory adequately explaining origins as observed in the facts of biology, genetics, paleontology, physics and more", could you say so

Let me expand on what I said before....

The theory or evolution is a very strong theory and though it can never be proven to a certainty (as no scientific theory ever can) it is such a strong theory that I see little probabality it will ever be shown to be false. Therefore one must make decisions with the theory of evolution as the best explanation we have for the development of all living species and teach it in our schools.

Now should we teach a theory opposed to evolution? Here I would follow Hume's advice when I quoted him as saying ...

A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonable beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experiments, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior evidence.

I know of no other theory opposing that of evolution that even meets the 100:1 criterion that Hume mentions and thus I would not support teaching highly improbable theories in the education or our youth. Discussion of such theories is, however, quite acceptable to me among adults.

One must note that the theory of evolution says nothing about how life came to 'be' it only explains how life changes and adapts. Life consists of matter which, when subjected to rules, develops and evolves complex patterns. (Conway's Game of Life Computer simulation is a great classroom demonstration of this). So the question then from PB's point of view might be why does matter have physical laws? John Lennox does a good job with this line of thinking in his book "God's Undertaker - Has Science Buried God". PB can check out the discussion at:

http://lookinginthedistance.blogspot.com/2007/10/has-science-buried-god.html

Regards,
Michael

Michael-

You're a kind guy, and too diplomatic for PB's good! In answer to PB's insistence that evolution is 'only' a theory, I like to refer to the theory of gravity. It is the details that we can argue over: HOW evolution/gravity occurs, not whether it even exists. As you say, the probability at this stage that evolution is NOT the means by which life came to be is infinitesimally low.

In other words, it is unreasonable to suggest that evolution is false, given what we currently know. If there were ANY competing theories other than evolution, it would be taught in school. There aren't.

Your final point, about how life came to be in the first place, is one I've tried to make to PB on numerous occasions: evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life in the first instance. Of course that doesn't mean that science has nothing to say on it; only that there's nothing conclusive yet. In the meantime, religion can take a stab at it.

  • 60.
  • At 01:45 PM on 07 Dec 2007,
  • kev wrote:

I think N.I education system certainly needs reformed if after 20 years of education anyone can be so crassly, ill-informed as poor Edwin.

I dont know whether to pity or to laugh at Mr. Poots.

  • 61.
  • At 01:04 PM on 10 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Amen

I am not inclined to take your claim about the mutation you make at face value in post 56.

Here's why.

Nobody has EVER seen transitional chains either to or from the following animal groups EITHER IN THE FOSSIL RECORD OR IN THE NATURAL WORLD;


- Single celled organisms
- Invertebrates
- Plants
- Fish
- Amphibians
- Reptiles
- Birds
- Mammals

The self existence of these highly distinct groups is all the evidence for creationism you need in my mind Dylan Dog - I have yet to hear a serious response to this on this blog.


I also know that Amen's science is led by his non-scientific religious views (absolutely certain athiesm, which cannot be supported by science) and that most passionate evolutionists argue that micro variations within species prove that species can evolve into other species (this does not follow).

By all means post more details about this mutation and lets have a look.

Peter Klaver once "triumphantly" posted a paper on feather evolution to "refute" me only to find that the author admitted that it was 99% speculation! It was embarrasing.

Does your example (Amen) fit into the category of natural variation within a species, or does it actually demonstrate a variation outside these parameters and into the realm of something that is not the same species?


eg Sickle cell anemia mutation gives vastly improved blood cell functionality in a malaria environment, but it is still a loss of information!


But the bigger question is, why even postulate such a tenuous argument when the fossil records and the natural world fit precisely with the creationist record but poke a finger in the eye of evolution?

IN order words, your mooted mutation paper is the least of your worries!

Dylan Dog, the animals groups and in the fossil record and natural world are the strongest evidence I have seen for creationism.

For supposed evidence based science, evolution is based on an evolutionary tree which is openly based on speculation, what an oxymoron.


*** Darwin said his theory was not supported by the fossil record but predicted this would be overcome by new finds in the future.

Of course, the opposite has happened and all the millions of finds later have actually confirmed that all these lifeforms "appeared" fully formed out of nowhere.

Now, how do you athiestic scientists resolve that refuted prediction according to the scientific method?
?????????????????????????????????


Ref the human genome project, you may think it requires a belief in species into species evolution but is this really true? Please explain...how you think it is true.

PB


ps Amen - is it consistent for you to object to me arguing from authority when your own website honours me with my own ad hominem feature c/o yourself? gravy with those double standards sir?

;-)


PPS I know this may have slipped the notice of my fan club but I have to say that I have not yet seen any evidence in the realm of formal science that convinces me of a young earth. However I have some sympathy for Michael Hull's view which questions whether the supposed constants required to age an old earth really were always as constant as we assume.

I am interested to hear more of Michael's views on this.


What I do know for certain is that while teaching on divorce Christ said he created man and woman Eve at the beginning of creation, not billions of years later.


PPPS John Wright - nice side step that evolution does not try and explains the origin of life, but I am not convinced at all. Mainstream science today most certainly teaches that life came from a primordial soup (somehow!).


All you are really saying is that you have no idea where life came from, but it is a scientific law that life can only come from life.

That leaves evolution with a major migraine, but fits perfectly with creationism.

You might also ask what caused the big bang?


Try again.


...One final point, I know some of you like to label me as a fundamentalist but I am not sure sure this has intellectual integrity.

Can anyone offer a definition of fundamentalist which does not include John Wesley for example.... also try William Booth, CS Lewis, Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Aquinas, the church fathers, the founders of our modern denominations etc etc etc. Just curious, you understand.

  • 62.
  • At 01:54 PM on 10 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

JW

REF ORIGINS OF LIFE

Why is it that evolutionists are so quick to say "science has not got an answer to that yet" on matters of legitimate science.

Yet when it comes to commenting on matters that are outside of the bounds of science, evolutionists are so quick to make absolutist statements they would never dream of making in a science paper.

For example, anything to do with the supernatural.

pb

  • 63.
  • At 04:04 PM on 10 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB

We have tried and failed to show you the evidence re: fossils. There is very little we can do with your woeful, wilful ignorance. All fossils are transitional and you are not going to find egs of what you are after-but this was pointed out...

In case you missed it again(!)here are the very simple questions that I have asked you on numerous occasions on the *positive* evidence for your position...(the "evidence" that you give is not positive rather it's a religious point of view-a Hindu creationist could make the same points)

What is the scientific evidence for YEC?

Could you name some aspect that is confirmed by independent experiment ?

A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A list of all the medical/scientific breakthrough's discovered within the creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists.

I have set the bar very, very low. If you care to respond I am not interested in the either/or fallacy eg., "evidence" against evolution/science-just straight answers-The positive evidence *for* your brand of creationism-you would think it would be simple...but it appears it isn't!

PB writes-

"PPPS John Wright - nice side step that evolution does not try and explains the origin of life, but I am not convinced at all. Mainstream science today most certainly teaches that life came from a primordial soup (somehow!)."

What you're referring to is a biogenesis, the formation of life from non-living matter. Of course scientists are working on it (see Miller and Urey for example), but today it's viewed as a separate problem from evolution, which is well established. Evolution is not denied by the problem of abiogenesis, that's for certain. And neither is the problem of abiogenesis such that it will never be solved.


"That leaves evolution with a major migraine, but fits perfectly with creationism. You might also ask what caused the big bang?"

It leaves evolution with no such thing. Evolution explains very well how complex life derives from simple life: by natural selection. That much is plain observable fact, and only religious people claim otherwise. What it doesn't explain is how life first came to be; that's another field of study. That's no indictment of evolution, no matter how hard you wish otherwise.


"Try again."

Try what again? Do you think that by issuing statements like that you can shirk the more difficult matter of dealing adequately with my statements, or of refuting them if there were such a possibility? This reminds me of our previous attempts to rationalise with you on this topic: fruitless.

  • 65.
  • At 11:09 PM on 10 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

eg Sickle cell anemia mutation gives vastly improved blood cell functionality in a malaria environment, but it is still a loss of information!

PB, I am shocked by your ignorance here. How, precisely, is sickle cell anaemia a LOSS of information? Can you please explain that to me in terms of information theory? What I see is a situation where we now have two forms (actually there are many more, but let's run with this) of Hb in the population, and that tells us something (i.e. real INFORMATION) about the selective environment. Wow - an *increase* in overall information!

I presented you with examples of a GAIN of information in the genome, which runs directly counter to your (demonstrably stupid) contention that this does not happen. I would like to know your response to this specific point.

Furthermore, if you want to look at what genomes are actually like, and compare them between species, all the information is there; it is in the public domain. You do not need to take my word for it.

The rest of your supposed rebuttal of my points is pretty much incoherent cobblers.

It is perhaps frightening that you claim to be the inheritor of the mantle of Jesus of Nazareth, yet you fling such untruths and misrepresentations around willy-nilly. There is simply no point in trying to have a logical argument with you, since you cannot even stay on the topic. You are (once again) bearing false witness.

I present you with real data disproving your contention that information cannot be added to the genome. So you go to fossils (and make a tit of yourself there too). So if I (or anyone else) tackles you about that, you jump back to talking shite about "loss of information", when it is perfectly clear that you do not know what information IS.

It's pathetic.

A

  • 66.
  • At 11:18 PM on 10 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

[AARGH! Blog comments thingy not working again! Will - get your IT boffins to fix this - it's painful!;-)]

eg Sickle cell anemia mutation gives vastly improved blood cell functionality in a malaria environment, but it is still a loss of information!

PB, I am shocked by your ignorance here. How, precisely, is sickle cell anaemia a LOSS of information? Can you please explain that to me in terms of information theory? What I see is a situation where we now have two forms (actually there are many more, but let's run with this) of Hb in the population, and that tells us something (i.e. real INFORMATION) about the selective environment. Wow - an *increase* in overall information!

I presented you with examples of a GAIN of information in the genome, which runs directly counter to your (demonstrably stupid) contention that this does not happen. I would like to know your response to this specific point.

Furthermore, if you want to look at what genomes are actually like, and compare them between species, all the information is there; it is in the public domain. You do not need to take my word for it.

The rest of your supposed rebuttal of my points is pretty much incoherent cobblers.

It is perhaps frightening that you claim to be the inheritor of the mantle of Jesus of Nazareth, yet you fling such untruths and misrepresentations around willy-nilly. There is simply no point in trying to have a logical argument with you, since you cannot even stay on the topic. You are (once again) bearing false witness.

I present you with real data disproving your contention that information cannot be added to the genome. So you go to fossils (and make a tit of yourself there too). So if I (or anyone else) tackles you about that, you jump back to talking shite about "loss of information", when it is perfectly clear that you do not know what information IS.

It's pathetic.

A

PB:

You asked me several times for further information about the physical constants changing with time. The effect, if there, is very minor and is a subject of dispute in many physics papers. Just Google your question and lots of stuff will pop up which you can peruse as you wish. Some of it is very technical stuff.

I recommended earlier that you read John Lennox’s book “God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God”. There is a lot in there that you should be happy with, for example:

We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been geatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition that we had in Darwin’s time

What then does the fossil record reveal? Stephen Jay Gould wrote: The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with the idea that they gradually evolved: 1) Stasis; most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance; In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

Frankly, PB I think the conflict you see is a false one. There is no conflict between science (particularly evolution) and religion but between two world views (naturalism and atheism) for which both sides must look towards science for resolution. As Lennox puts it does inanimate matter give rise to 'mind' or is it 'mind' which is in control of matter.

Lennox asks: What fact is ultimate? The atheist's ultimate fact is the universe; the theist's ultimate fact is God. In which direction does science point - matter before mind, or mind before matter? And this boils down to the question of whether the physical laws of matter are a property of matter (naturalism) or defined for matter by an ‘intelligence’ (theism). Is a law of nature drawn up by a legislator (theism) or is it merely the summary of observed facts (naturalism). The naturalism position is: “Things do not act in a particular way because there is a law, but we state the ‘law’ because they act in that way (Joseph McCabe in “Existence of God”).

Here is another way to frame the issue: I have a series of circles and I note that if I divide the circumference of any circle by its diameter I get a number (3.141592…) which goes out to infinity. This number is exactly the same and infinitely ‘fine tuned’ no matter how many circles that I examine. Now if I change just one integer in this infinitely long number, say I substitute the one millionth integer in this series by changing it up or down by say 1, then circles can not exist! The naturalism position is that the number pi is simply a mathematical description of what the picture of a circle ‘is’. They are both the same thing in their essence. On the other hand, the theist says that an intelligence defined pi and thus circles can be depicted for what they are.

So here I retreat to my previously stated position of agnosticism – I remain an agnostic theist and an agnostic scientist – asserting that there are limits to the sphere of human intelligence.

Regards,
Michael

Hello Michael,

I'm catching up from a good while back, I just read your post 45 in this thread. I'm not sure if I follow you correctly, but after reading your post carefully multiple times I have some real problems with it.

You mention beings with different levels of intelligence and how a moth or a horse can't grasp the things humans are capable of. Apart from equating the number of genes with intelligence, I'm fine with that. I would also agree that a far more intelligent being than humans COULD exist. Where I start having trouble is when you ' theorize' about what we can and can't see about that being. You say that if it were there, we may not understand more about it than a moth does about us. But a moth can see us, as can the horse you mentioned, as could so many other animals far less intelligent than us humans. While they can't grasp the things we can grasp, they can note our presence and understand us at least a bit. Even the moth would sense the danger you represent when your fist heads towards it to squash it. Yet with our far greater human intelligence we don't see any sign of the 'supreme being'. The best thing your theory has going for it, is that it can't be disproven at present, isn't it? I couldn't say it's wrong, sure. But there are lots of things you and I couldn't disprove, yet don't assume to be so. Why would you assume with a 55% probability that the 'supreme being' is there?

You also seemed to draw a line between the material and conscious world. Are you sure there is such a distinction? Do you know for sure that our conscious thinking is not simply the result of how matter interacts, purely governed by physical laws of the 'material world' as you put it? I couldn't say for sure that it is. But I suspect so, given e.g. experiments on mice that show how the ability to hold memories is impaired if the mice are genetically disabled from developing certain proteins. It's very early days in understanding the workings of brains, but some very small parts of the 'thinking world' have already been connected to no more than complicated chemistry. Who knows how much more of our thinking might boil down to just small electrical currents bouncing off nerve endings, chemical reactions, etc. Maybe all of it? I can't be sure of that, but how do you know that it won't be all of it, how do you know that the 'thinking world' is more than just the laws of physics acting out in a very complex way?

You then went on to say some things about string theory. Among it

"String Theory can only be imagined and can not be described in terms of any understandable reality."

That statement may be out of date. We had a discussion on this very blog with Maureen and others about how string theory has apparently made a testable prediction. It involves the difference of how string theory and relativity predict the fine details of gravitational lensing (an observable phenomenon):
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/5/26/4127

You also said

"String Theory leads to the conclusion that we are nothing more than bits of protoplasm with electrical connections in our brains that consume energy and which eventually burn out and fade away in a universe that has no purpose and indeed needs no purpose. Yet, if the universe of String Theory is indeed totally disinterested and uninterested in me how do I deal with the fact that “I” as a physical part of this universe, made up of the constituents of the matter that constitute the universe, am very interested in the universe of which I form a small part?"

Sorry, that sounds deep, but really doesn't say anything substantial, does it? Again, you are assuming that consciousness (in this case leading to the curious thinking about the universe inside your brain) could not arise from simple physical interactions between particles/strings/whatevers. Let me give a very simple example. Take a vessel with atomic hydrogen gas. Nothing but very simple building blocks. Yet it can spontaneously form H2 molecules which are more complex. Throw in some atomic oxygen in the original mix and you could get water or, if the vessel is kept cold, small ice crystals. Very symmetric, ordered entities with some complex bonding behaviour present between the constituent water molecules. So how do you know that something complex like the thought patterns in your brain not have come out of a lifeless uninterested mass? It can't be proven 100% sure, but I would say that that is by far the most likely explanation we have sofar.

I come to a rather different chance distribution than your 45% for string theory and 55% for the 'supreme being'. I would give string theory a lower chance of being the explanation for everything, say order of magnitude of 25%. I would give ~75% to some other physical model, as yet not even thought of. And somewhere in the noise of low probability the 'supreme being' metaphore, as I don't see what it has going for it other than that it can't be disproven.

greets,
Peter

  • 69.
  • At 10:26 PM on 11 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

The "quote" attributed to Stephen J Gould is yet another example of quote mining...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html

Gould also said...

"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."

  • 70.
  • At 11:45 AM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

If all fossils are transitional fossils then why are there none linking all these major groups;-

single celled organisms
invertebrates
plants
fish
birds
mammals
reptiles
birds.

No transitional fossils exist either to or from these distinct groups, which are mirrored by the same distinctions in the living world.

Labelling Gould's quotes from Michael as "quote mining" is not addressing the problem, merely dismissing it.

You have failed to address this question.

Michael

I dont think I said this was a conflict between science and religion, I certainly agree it is a conflict of worldviews. I dont see any need for conflict between science and religion; the founders of modern science were perhaps in most cases men of great faith; Newton, Kepler, Pascal; Kelvin based TSLOT in part on the bible's view that the earth is wearing out like a garment.

BTW CS Lewis said that scientists were the wrong people to ask as to whether or not the laws of nature were ever suspended, since it was outside their field. He said metaphysicians should be asked instead.


Amen

I think you are falling back on questionable interpretation of obscure data to try and prove your case.

I believe you are trying to present normal variation or mutations as a route to the creation of new species when all you have actually observed is minor variations within a species.

My evidence? If you look back to the previous point I made you will see that the fossil evidence really works against you if you try to presume these small changes ever amount to a new type of animal.

It is not enough for a phd to label me a mammary gland without addressing these facts.

In fact it strongly undermines your credibility.

Sickle cell anaemia is a disease which impairs the function of the blood and damages its design. It only appears to improve its function if malaria is present.

On your track record you have insisted to me for some time that Christ was not a joiner according to the scripture and it was heavy wrestling to get you to acknowledge you were wrong; I am sceptical about your openess in debate.

It may be impractical to prove here that you are correct when you say your mutation gained information but you have certainly not demonstrated it and I am not convinced.

By all means try; I am interested.

But I suspect that you may well be burying the issue rather than illuminating it, using your expert knowledge to cloak the facts.

Evolutionists rarely appear to see the difference between natural variation and new species evolution.

However you can prove your case easily in layman's terms that will leave nobody here in any doubt;


show us any observational evidence that mutations have ever taken any lifeform out of the orbit of its natural variation and into the realms of a news species.

Here is the rub - this has never been observed and nothing even close has ever been observed. The fossil record and natural world point to exactly the opposite conclusion you are trying to draw.


If a world class Professor of genetics like Norman Nevin agrees with me on this I feel on solid ground.

You may fume that this is an argument from authority but seeing as you constantly use the equal and opposite argument against me - ad hominems - (personal insults) I think you are standing on thin ice.

I can stand very firmly on this as the backdrop to this debate;-


The living organism groups listed above have for the most part strikingly different internal systems, eg hot and hold blooded etc.

There is no evidence in either the fossil record or in the living world of transitional forms to or from them.

I am not aware of any evdidence of mutations ever taking any living organism out of the bounds of normal variation and into the bounds of a new species.


JW

For life to have created itself out of nothing would appear to be "supernatural" as it is against the laws of science, as you rightly point out.

That is quite ironic, isnt it?

So any secular causation would still be excluded from many US school science classes, wouldnt it?

;-)

PB


  • 71.
  • At 05:02 PM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB

You have been provided with info and links from persons far more eloquent and knowledgeable than myself on fossils-some from over a year and a half ago. You are wilfully ignorant and do not want to know anything that would challenge your very narrow religious fundamentalist opinions. Is there any point in me providing links? Your questions reveal your woeful, wilful ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Of course all fossils are "fully formed"! are you that ignorant that you expect a photo snapshot of some halfing-science says no such thing-also (as has been pointed out to you on many occasions evolution does not rest on fossils).

The misquote shows the depths of dishonesty that creationists will sink to-of which you have provided ample evidence.

Now there are some very simple questions for you and I don't know how much more simpler I can make them!

What is the scientific evidence for YEC?

Could you name some aspect that is confirmed by independent experiment ?

A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A list of all the medical/scientific breakthrough's discovered within the creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists.

I have set the bar very, very low. If you care to respond I am not interested in the either/or fallacy eg., "evidence" against evolution/science-just straight answers-The positive evidence *for* your brand of creationism-you would think it would be simple...but it appears it isn't!

  • 72.
  • At 05:09 PM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB

You have been provided with info and links from persons far more eloquent and knowledgeable than myself on fossils-some from over a year and a half ago. You are wilfully ignorant and do not want to know anything that would challenge your very narrow religious fundamentalist opinions. Is there any point in me providing links? Your questions reveal your woeful, wilful ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

Of course all fossils are "fully formed"! are you that ignorant that you expect a photo snapshot of some halfing-science says no such thing-also (as has been pointed out to you on many occasions evolution does not rest on fossils).


PB with this stunning info you should inform all the worlds natural resource companies that they are using the wrong data in there search for fossils fuels and the world's palaeontology and geology community!

why not start here...

http://www.nm.blm.gov/features/blm_paleo/ask.html

and here

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/topics

and then here

http://nobelprize.org/

As you deserve to win it with this stunning info!...or else it's crap you just you copied from a creationist website-I'll go for the latter!

The misquote shows the depths of dishonesty that creationists will sink to-of which you have provided ample evidence.Further the "quote" comes from John Lennox-you would really think that you would have learned something by now after the last time you perverted Michael's opinions-but as ever you never learn!

Now there are some very simple questions for you and I don't know how much more simpler I can make them!

What is the scientific evidence for YEC?

Could you name some aspect that is confirmed by independent experiment ?

A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A list of all the medical/scientific breakthrough's discovered within the creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists.

I have set the bar very, very low. If you care to respond I am not interested in the either/or fallacy eg., "evidence" against evolution/science-just straight answers-The positive evidence *for* your brand of creationism-you would think it would be simple...but it appears it isn't!


If you can't answer these incredibly simple points I am afraid that you do not have a single piece of evidence to back up your opinion, cannot name one practical usage and your opinion is only held by challenged, dishonest religious fundamentalist nutters!

ps. as for what Jesus said...he definitely did not like sanctimonious, self righteous, dishonest hypocrites-btw we are still waiting for an apology for all the blatant untruths and false witnessing you did on Evolution of a debate thread. You can run from sin PB but you cannot hide!


PB "For life to have created itself out of nothing would appear to be "supernatural" as it is against the laws of science .... So any secular causation would still be excluded from many US school science classes, wouldnt it?"

A science classroom exists to teach science. In the case that science doesn't yet have a definitive conclusion, it'll teach some of the competing hypothesis. But it would be wrong to say that life appearing from non-life can only be supernatural; it may be simply a function of the natural world that we haven't discovered yet. That's why I'd implore you to avoid the "God of the gaps" fallacy, whereby any gap in our understanding of science is automatically filled by the concept of God: if we don't know how life came from non-living matter then God must have done it, it must be supernatural.

Pb,

Accusations against you concerning dishonesty are the central theme of this thread. Not surprising if you read part of your post 61:

"Peter Klaver once "triumphantly" posted a paper on feather evolution to "refute" me only to find that the author admitted that it was 99% speculation! It was embarrasing."

Pb, YOU came up with that paper, remember?! I never held that up in defence of evolution. You had come up with a false, completely made-up quote from prof. Prum, citing the paper you now refer to. Typical of the dishonest creationists whom you represent disturbingly well. Refresh your memory of some of your past dishonesties at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/06/belfasts_biblical_flood_1.html
if you like.

Have you read any of the paper that several on this blog pointed out to you yet? It's December now. It's been a year since info was first held up to you by Tony Jackson. Happy anniversary on your one-year stalling ad dodging run. Still no answer to all the questions put to you? Your insights into quantum mechanics, just a short broad outline please? Positive evidence for YEC? Explanations for intermediate fossils in papers pointed out to you so often now? The 'surely small' number of labs that do radiometric dating?

DD, your patience is admirable. Maybe you deserve pb more than I do. That's it then, he's yours. I'll make it my New Years resolution not to ever make the mistake again of seeking the company of christians whose mind is so poisoned by faith as pbs.

greets,
Peter

  • 75.
  • At 08:46 PM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

PB, this is very disappointing. Really. You are making absolutely no effort to engage with the core of the issues, instead relying on cheap evasion.

You ASKED for evidence of a mechanism for information being injected into the genome. I have provided that. I therefore refer you back to my previous posts, and we can consider the matter closed.

It may be impractical to prove here that you are correct when you say your mutation gained information but you have certainly not demonstrated it and I am not convinced.
How so? I have shown that mutations add information to the genome (and some mutations actually subtract information - deletions - we see them pretty frequently too). The think that adds information to the overall system is of course selection, because the best replicators replicate.

If you're missing a point here, can you please let us know what it is, rather than falling back on your previous error?

Evolutionists rarely appear to see the difference between natural variation and new species evolution.

That's because that is precisely how species evolve. Natural variation accumulates by mutation in different populations. If populations are separated for long enough, they drift or accumulate local adaptations, and over time they become separate species. This is the basic principle behind the fission of species. What's your problem with it?

show us any observational evidence that mutations have ever taken any lifeform out of the orbit of its natural variation and into the realms of a news species.

I have already shown you (several times) that this is NOT what evolution predicts. What we actually (and you can look this up - it is all public domain) is that the differences BETWEEN species (e.g. human and chimp) are of precisely the same character as differences that we observe WITHIN species. There is no "orbit" - merely a clustering around a mean. That mean is not fixed, and shifts in response to selection.

Here is the rub - this has never been observed and nothing even close has ever been observed. The fossil record and natural world point to exactly the opposite conclusion you are trying to draw.

Actually, that is just an out and out falsehood. You've been pointed to the evidence many times. Simply re-stating an error does not make it true.

If a world class Professor of genetics like Norman Nevin agrees with me on this I feel on solid ground.

Once again (and I'm getting fed up with this), PROVE IT. Get Norman on here to argue with me if you like. I don't give a toss about what you *think* his opinions are - I want to hear his *arguments* (and you obviously don't have them, otherwise we'd be hearing them).

I actually don't mind debating this with Norman or anyone else, but if you think that you can use him as your teddy bear or security blanket, well that ain't on. You can't argue by proxy. That is what Moses would have called "bearing false witness", and the last time I checked, that was considered a bad thing.

Repent, PB! Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord and all that! :-)

  • 76.
  • At 09:03 PM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Amen

ref Sickle Cell mutations

You wanted to hear Norman Nevin's views?

Well I havent got that, but the organisation he supported in writing to the Govt to request teaching og ID in schools, Truth in Science, has a very interesting article called "sickle cell gene" by Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH.

It would appear this gentleman agrees with me that sickle cell is adaptation by mutation but not Darwinian evolution;-


http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/142/65/

Check (mate?)

;-)

JW

Wind your neck in.

The fossil record and natural world are not "gaps" in the theory of evolution.

They are cutting the very feet out from under the theory of evolution.

You are catching the stick by entirely the wrong end.

In what other endeavour would you say that the clear and extensive absence of evidence to support your theory is a weakness in your oponent's theory???


BTW Can you define "supernatural" in order to exclude it from science? Peter Klaver, Amen and DD have so far failed, it would appear, because any definition may also excludes any future scientific breakthroughs.

What does that tell us?

DD

Please pay attention. I have always maintained I have not yet seen convincing scientific evidence for a young earth.

But read my last paragraph to John Wright; you lambast me with insult after insult but you cant explain why the distinct animal and plant groups in the fossil record and natural world tally completely with the genesis account of creation with its unique groupings.

Why ignore the fact that Darwin's prediction has been completely demolished?

Despite millions of new fossils since Darwin, the transitional fossils he predicted and said his theory required have never been found.

The groupings I have listed above are very contrasting in their internal workings and each fossil find confirms how seperate they are from each other.


PB


PS Amen. Interesting that you did not have an answer to this fossil problem either and instead insulted me!!

Pb,

You should have know by now we are all alert enough of you not to let you get away with what you wrote in post 61:

"Peter Klaver once "triumphantly" posted a paper on feather evolution to "refute" me only to find that the author admitted that it was 99% speculation! It was embarrasing."

Pb, YOU came up with that paper, remember?! I never held up that paper in defence of evolution. You had come up with a false, completely made-up quote from prof. Prum, citing the paper you now refer to. Typical of the dishonest creationists whom you represent disturbingly well. Refresh your memory of some of your past dishonesties at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/06/belfasts_biblical_flood_1.html
if you like.

Have you read any of the papers that several on this blog have pointed out to you yet? It's December now. It's been a year since info was first held up to you by Tony Jackson. Happy anniversary on your one-year stalling ad dodging run. Still no answer to all the questions put to you? Your insights into quantum mechanics, just a short, broad outline please? Positive evidence for YEC? Explanations for intermediate fossils in papers pointed out to you so often now? The 'surely small' number of labs that do radiometric dating?

greets,
Peter

Re 68

Hello Peter,

A lot of stuff there but nothing I would take you to task about. What it proves is that we are all ‘searching’. John Wright has given a good summary of what I think I said above.

We may not understand more about it than a moth does about us. But a moth can see us

How do you know that? If a moth flies through the spotlights during a performance of Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, what does it know about the events below? (This example isn’t mine – I’ve forgotten for the moment to whom it should be attributed).

Yet with our far greater human intelligence we don't see any sign of the 'supreme being'. The best thing your theory has going for it, is that it can't be disproven at present, isn't it? I couldn't say it's wrong, sure. But there are lots of things you and I couldn't disprove, yet don't assume to be so. Why would you assume with a 55% probability that the 'supreme being' is there?

In post 67 in my comments to PB I basically answered this. The question for science to decide is a question between naturalism and theism. In giving a 55% probabality to the theism side I am just saying that I am slightly on the theistic side of the argument but not by much.

You also seemed to draw a line between the material and conscious world. Are you sure there is such a distinction? Do you know for sure that our conscious thinking is not simply the result of how matter interacts, purely governed by physical laws of the 'material world' as you put it?

The answer is ‘no’ to both questions. But then I might argue that gravity is a form of consciousness. Objects in space depending on their mass influence and are affected by other objects via the interchange of gravitational ‘consciousness’. So I accept your argument on this question. However, gravity does not have ‘free will’. It appears that the ‘mass of atoms’ that I am, does have free will (I agree that is also a matter of dispute but again since I am a theist more than a naturalist I am of the opinion that we may have free will). Further, as time goes on ‘matter’ seems to be taking on more and more of a ‘consciousness’ that permits itself to affect itself.

You then went on to say some things about string theory. Among it "String Theory can only be imagined and can not be described in terms of any understandable reality." That statement may be out of date. We had a discussion on this very blog with Maureen and others about how string theory has apparently made a testable prediction. It involves the difference of how string theory and relativity predict the fine details of gravitational lensing (an observable phenomenon)

Agreed but it is on as thin ground as the young earthers are hoping that the physical constants change with time to explain a 6000 year old earth ;-)

"String Theory leads to the conclusion that we are nothing more than bits of protoplasm with electrical connections in our brains that consume energy and which eventually burn out and fade away in a universe that has no purpose and indeed needs no purpose. Yet, if the universe of String Theory is indeed totally disinterested and uninterested in me how do I deal with the fact that “I” as a physical part of this universe, made up of the constituents of the matter that constitute the universe, am very interested in the universe of which I form a small part?"Sorry, that sounds deep, but really doesn't say anything substantial, does it?

I think I covered this in my previous comment and with the comments on free will.

I come to a rather different chance distribution than your 45% for string theory and 55% for the 'supreme being'. I would give string theory a lower chance of being the explanation for everything, say order of magnitude of 25%. I would give ~75% to some other physical model, as yet not even thought of. And somewhere in the noise of low probability the 'supreme being' metaphor, as I don't see what it has going for it other than that it can't be disproven.

That is a very strange world view! You believe to a 75% probability in some “physical model as yet not even thought of.” Wow, and I only placed 55% on my ‘God’ metaphor!

Live with it in happiness and peace!

Kindest regards, Peter.
Michael

Pb,

You should have know by now we are all alert enough of you not to let you get away with what you wrote in your latest few post. For instance, in 61 you wrote

"Peter Klaver once "triumphantly" posted a paper on feather evolution to "refute" me only to find that the author admitted that it was 99% speculation! It was embarrasing."

Pb, YOU came up with that paper, remember?! I never held up that paper in defence of evolution. You had come up with a false, completely made-up quote from prof. Prum, citing the paper you now refer to. Typical of the dishonest creationists whom you represent disturbingly well. Refresh your memory of some of your past dishonesties at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/06/belfasts_biblical_flood_1.html
if you like.

Have you read any of the papers that several on this blog have pointed out to you yet? It's December now. It's been a year since info was first held up to you by Tony Jackson. Happy anniversary on your one-year stalling ad dodging run. Still no answer to all the questions put to you? Your insights into quantum mechanics, just a short, broad outline please? Positive evidence for YEC? Explanations for intermediate fossils in papers pointed out to you so often now? The 'surely small' number of labs that do radiometric dating?

greets,
Peter

  • 80.
  • At 10:05 PM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB! Sweetie!


I really don't know how any more simpler I can make it! I can't draw stick figures for you!

Try and pay a little bit of attention! I am simply asking for the positive evidence that would back up your position and have made it so simple for you!Not just for YEC buy *any* aspect of your ideas! and you support a position that you admit has no evidence!

"you cant explain why the distinct animal and plant groups in the fossil record and natural world tally completely with the genesis account of creation with its unique groupings."

Errr PB, I have provided link after link, those more in the know have provided more info than me! You create straw-men and distort(nothing new there!)and are that wilfully ignorant you cannot see out of your own disproved narrow religious fundamentalism. The Genesis accounts are myths and the only people who see this "tally" are those on the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism. Intelligent Christains do not have a problem with evolution-as I keep saying do not worry about it!

"Why ignore the fact that Darwin's prediction has been completely demolished?"

Gosh! this is a fact!Goodness! Please tell all the world's natural resource companies and their share holders that they are wasting trillions and trillions on a demolished prediction!!!????PB what the hell are you doing wasting your time posting on this blog!? this news will change you the world!make you the most famous person on earth(and richest) , You will become the most famous scientist ever!!!!!! unless of course you are just parroting a lot of crap that you copied off some creationist website...I'll not hold my breath!

"Despite millions of new fossils since Darwin, the transitional fossils he predicted and said his theory required have never been found."

You really should stop repeating falsehoods-it's very naughty and Jesus is weeping for your sins!

PB! all your talk of (cough) "facts" about fossils and all and since they are a classic eg of empirical evidence you will of course be able to answer these very simple questions...

Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

"Peter Klaver, Amen and DD have so far failed"

More blatant false witnessing from you-answers were provided you just didn't like them. Oh! still waiting an apology for all those blatant untruths you told on that thread...

  • 81.
  • At 10:29 PM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Amen

ref Sickle Cell mutations

You wanted to hear Norman Nevin's views?

Well I havent got that, but the organisation he supported in writing to the Govt to request teaching og ID in schools, Truth in Science, has a very interesting article called "sickle cell gene" by Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH.

It would appear this gentleman agrees with me that sickle cell is adaptation by mutation but not Darwinian evolution;-

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/142/65/

Check (mate?)

;-)



JW

I am not arguing that shortcomings in the theory of evolution proves creationism.

Creationism theory says life forms were created in distinct groupings which still exist and have never changed beyond natural variations. This is completely vindicated by the fossil record evidence and by life forms in the natural world today. That is not pushing the God of the gaps, and the ONLY real response to this point on this blog, if you look carefully is bile and invective, not serious engagement.

Evolution says that life forms have changed from species to species via common descent, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support this in the fossil record or natural world.

Can you spot the difference? You are catching the stick by entirely the wrong end.

BTW Can you define "supernatural" in order to exclude it from science? Peter Klaver, Amen and DD have so far failed, it would appear, because any definition may also excludes any future scientific breakthroughs and of course the truth of creationism.


DD

Please pay attention. I have always maintained I have not yet seen convincing scientific evidence for a young earth.

But read my last paragraph to John Wright; you lambast me with insult after insult but you cant explain why the distinct animal and plant groups in the fossil record and natural world tally completely with the genesis account of creation with its unique groupings.

Why ignore the fact that Darwin's prediction has been completely demolished ; Despite millions of new fossils since Darwin, the transitional fossils he predicted and said his theory required have never been found.

The groupings I have listed above are very contrasting in their internal workings and each fossil find confirms how separate they are from each other.

PB

PS Amen. Interesting that you did not have an answer to this fossil problem either and instead insulted me!!

  • 82.
  • At 10:41 PM on 12 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Pete

You will get all the insight you want into QM when you try to commit an objective definition of "supernatural" to this blog!


Been waiting a long time for this - how can you exclude it from science if you cant define it?

PB

  • 83.
  • At 06:19 AM on 13 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB dearest!

I refer you to M79.

Been waiting a looonnngg time for answers, they are simple points(it's not as if I am talking QM or anything!)

The question on the supernatural was answered-apologies if you did not understand the the response.

BTW-still waiting an apology for all the blatant untruths you told about QM, Dover etc-remember cognitive dissonance?

DD

XX

  • 84.
  • At 02:51 PM on 13 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

PB, the sickle cell question is actually not relevant to the point I made. What problem do you have with my suggestion that the mutations in ANKH and in TNFRSF11A represent a local increase in the information content of the genome?

SCA is a different matter, but we can actually use that information as well. For one thing, the genome has not changed in length, so in terms of coding basepairs, you could say that the information content is the same. However, high levels of HbS carriage are found in areas that are either currently or historically malarial, so we can actually derive REAL information from a population in which we find high levels. We can use what we know of natural selection to infer that the population under study has been historically exposed to malaria over a number of generations. That is INFORMATION that we can extract from a population genetic spread. This is actually now pretty commonplace, and there are new techniques for detecting this, which are quite interesting, but I won't bore you with at this point.

You seem to choose Norman Nevin's association with "Truth [sic] in Science" as an implication of his endorsement of some article or other (I'll read it, but I don't hold out high hopes). Perhaps you would like to find something that NORMAN NEVIN has written on the subject and submitted to peer review. But this is by the by. For every creationist geneticist you might be able to find (and it seems there may indeed be *one*) I can find you 100 more who support evolution. My point is not to swamp you with authority; YOU are the one trying to pull the authority card, but it is worthwhile you knowing that Norman's creationist views are not shared by the genetics community, including large numbers of scientists far more eminent than him.

As for the fossils, we can come back to them another time. I was answering the information question, so you can consider that answered.

[PS, where did I insult you???!?!]

PB- I have an idea. Let's say we give you the fossil record. It's yours. Have it. The others on here have been trying to explain to you that you're wrong on the fossil record, but let's grant you for the sake of argument that you're right. How do you explain away every other piece of evidence for evolution? How do the predictions of evolution happen to be true each and every time they're used in genetics, biology, physics and so much more? What you seem to be missing is that the theory of evolution does not stand or fall on the fossil record:

1) Because there are well understood reasons that fossils may not have formed;

2) Because there are many other independent evidences for evolution which don't rely on fossils;

3) Because the existence of fossils at all is itself evidence of evolution!

Until you can deal with the rest of the evidence for evolution, you can't rely upon the fossil record alone: that's willful ignorance. Engage in the debate, or don't have it at all!

My sweetest, dishonest peab,

First of all, don't fall for DDs flirtations, he's not serious about you the way I am. For instance, I'm quite serious when I say you should not misrepresent what was said, by whom, etc.

"You will get all the insight you want into QM when you try to commit an objective definition of "supernatural" to this blog!

Been waiting a long time for this - how can you exclude it from science if you cant define it?"

As I already said, and DD also mentioned (again, see e. g. post 82), that question was answered already.

So what are your views on QM? And on all the other issues you left open? Surely you're not going to remain blank for a second year on everything that has been put to you and you haven't answered sofar?

greets,
Peter

  • 87.
  • At 09:57 PM on 13 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Oh dear. PB, did you actually *read* that article that you referenced re sickle cell? It has absolutely no relevance to natural selection in SCA *whatsoever*. It is a rambling free-association chin-rub.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not.

-A

Hello Michael,

Thanks for your reply in post 77. I'm afraid there are a few points I don't go along with. You wrote

"In post 67 in my comments to PB I basically answered this. The question for science to decide is a question between naturalism and theism. In giving a 55% probabality to the theism side I am just saying that I am slightly on the theistic side of the argument but not by much."

I see in your reply to pb little that takes away my previously stated problem: your theistic proposition only has going for it that (at present) it can't be disproven. The naturalist proposition is more modest in its claims. It describes the regular patterns of the world around us, whether they are just there or are the result of the 'legislator'. How can you claim a 55% likelyhood of all coming from the legislator if we are like your moths in a stage light that can't see what's going on below? It just 100% postulated, isn't it?

"But then I might argue that gravity is a form of consciousness. Objects in space depending on their mass influence and are affected by other objects via the interchange of gravitational ‘consciousness’."

Buh. Now it seems to have gone down to redefining the meaning of certain English words. 'Interaction' is the normal term in physics for what you refer to. Do two magnets that you can feel attracting each other have a magnetic 'consciousness'? That's not what the word for it is.

Regarding the prediction of testable a prediction by string theory you wrote

"Agreed but it is on as thin ground as the young earthers are hoping that the physical constants change with time to explain a 6000 year old earth ;-)"

I have no info to go on, yet I thoroughly suspect that you have not looked into any detail what the prediction by string theory would be. Care to give us your more detailed thoughts about how likely it is that braneworld gravity would predict the right interference pattern by chance? Somehow I have a gut feeling that your statement there was fired off without being very well considered.

Regarding my expectation for what would be the ultimate description for the universe you wrote

"That is a very strange world view! You believe to a 75% probability in some “physical model as yet not even thought of.” Wow, and I only placed 55% on my ‘God’ metaphor!"

Not so strange I think if you look at it from a historic rather than scientific or philosophical point of view. Newtonian mechanics were thought to be the key to everything at the end of the 19th century. That turned out to be incorrect. Atoms were once thought to be the elementary building blocks. But then we learned about atomic nuclei with protons and neutrons. And the latter later turned out to consist of quarks. So if these one dimensional strings of about 10^-20 m turn out to be real, would I think that understanding them would be the key to all? I don't see why I should. I would expect them to be the answer to everything for a while, until something is discovered that can't be explained by them. And then maybe we'll learn about some phenomena at even vastly smaller scales. When Newtonian physics started to be surpassed by relativity and quantum mechanics noone had yet heard of string theory. What's so strange about 'extrapolating' the pattern of Newtonian -> QM + relativity -> string theory and guessing about what, if anything comes after string theory? That pattern is not exactly firm ground to stand on, but I would say more than the 55% expectation of a supreme being on the sole basis that it can't be disproven :P.

Ok, sorry about that last sentence. While I was not convinced by your follow-up post, I do enjoy this discussion very much. So thanks again for posting.

kind regards,
Peter

  • 89.
  • At 01:38 PM on 17 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:

JW

Sorry it took me so long to reply - I did post on Thursday but it didnt take obviously.
The first point I would make is that I have not seen anyone actually explain that I am wrong on the fossil record, they have only asserted it.

You must appreciate that as M Hull points out, the difference here between two contrasting worldviews.

There are of course well understood reason why fossils dont form.Without question!

But I have yet to hear good reasons for why these reasons ONLY apply to transitional lifeforms which a literal reading of Genesis suggests dont exist. That is a very different question and when I ask it all I get is bile and insults.


I would like to see you have a go at it. I have no reason to sacrifice my reason for the current theory of creationism, but nobody is even trying to address this point. Are they avoiding it or dont they understand?

They seem determined to disguise their lack of any answer with ever more shrill insults and declarations of undying love.

Q. Why is it that the fossil record and natural world record only evidence for specific kinds of animals as recorded, roughly speaking, to a literal reading of genesis, but excluding transitional forms between;-

single celled animals
plants
invertebrates
fish
amphibians
reptiles
mammals


I would have expected the fossil record to have much more like a continous spectrum of lifeforms with little in the way of distinct species. You might at least expect more of a continuum in the living world. But no. We have the opposite. Only more or less biblical creationist kinds, as listed above.

I appreciate there is "a" logic to evolutionary theory (which I used to believe) and its interpretation of the evidence, but you are really speculating when you imagine creatures that there is no evidence for.

If you review the facts carefully you actually cant dispute this.


That is why Karl Popper did not accept evolution as a normal scientific theory; he said it was much too difficult to test!

If you surrender the point (just for the sake of argument of course) that the primary evidence in the argument is much stronger for creationism you are in diffs however; if you concede that the roots and trunk of the tree look very much like an oak you are already on the backfoot if you are going to try and argue that the rest of the branches are pine!

As we have discussed before, creationist theory having already the upper hand in the fossil record and the living world, then goes on to make a strong case for common design being the reason for evidence which evolutionists take as common descent.

The only real argument you guys appear to have against this is that I can't bring supernatural creation into the discussion.

That might be true in a biology paper but this is not a biology paper; this is the real world.

As we have seen, even Dr Peter Klaver cant give a definition of supernatural that does not exclude any future "mainstream" scientific breakthroughs, such as worm hole travel (NASA working on it) or anti-gravity technology (BAE were working on it) memes ( no actual evidence for this, just speculation, as I understand).

It seems to be a convenient arbitrary clause invoked by the high priests in order to keep certain "heresies" out!

Other "evidence";-

Does the fact that embryos from many types of animals look the same really PROVE they evolved from common lines, or does it just prove that they look alike when embryos?

The answer of course is that it only proves they look alike. Anything more than this is speculative interpretation. It is not observed evidence!

Again, this is why Popper said evolution was not a normal theory - it is so difficult to test. Creationism of course falls into the same category - you cant observe or replicate it happening.

I know that chimps and men are seperated by a minute degree of DNA but chickens also share a large amount with humans. I suppose many of their organs and systems are so similar.

But all BMWs in the same series have similar design and they did not evolve. So common design is a reasonable alternative - especially as the primary evidence (fossils and natural world) supports creationism more than evolution.


Peter
Yes well observed, you are a phd in physics and know a lot about QM and I am a layman who does not; you are missing a small point though Pete, nobody is disputing this.

But is the evidence for worm holes strong theory or memes stronger than for creationism???

So why reject one out of hand and retain the rest?





Amenhotep

Can you post us the conclusion to the paper on TNFRSF11A so we can read what you are asserting?

The group which Prof Norman Nevin campaigns under, Truth in Science, seems to follow the common creationist view (check the website for yourself) that adaptions can happen within a species eg look at all the variety of dogs, but that mutations can never turn dogs into cats or cows or anything else.

In fact, professional dog breeders fear mutations because they know they will damage the dogs health.

What organisms are we talking about in these papers? Do these mutations cause them to leave the parameters of natural variation and into territory of a new species?

This is of course, never observed. You may say, it takes so many millions of years so you cant watch it.

Fair enough, but that is your problem in proving your theory, not mine. I suspect that any interpretation you put on "information gain" is therefore speculative and subjective.

Because of this difficulty in testing Popper said he did not accept it as a regular scientific theory.

PB

  • 90.
  • At 02:05 PM on 17 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Hi Peter

You state that Michael's theistic proposition only has going for it that (at present) that it can't be disproven.

That is hardly a fair representation of ID advocates such as McGrath, who would argue that design in nature is evidence for God.

You say the existence of God is just 100 % postulated, but it seems you are sticking to only the scientific method which is highly questionable.

You have NOT chosen to debate this topic on a science website, remember? It also takes in philsophy and religion and questions what if any true demarcation there is between them in the real world.


You also take him to task for redefining certain English words, when you yourself can define the dividing line between science and religion, at least so far in this discussion.


When we are talking about what is postulated and what is proven, lets have a look again at theoretical physics, worm holes and string theory.

You seem very comfortable on the one hand with the fact that physics has undergone what were unforseen revolutions in understanding the world and are comfortable with "guessing" what might come after string theory. Could it be "supernatural" a word which you cant define, to date.

I also note that you appear to represent the evolution of physics across these periods as a smooth accumulation of knowledge, but we know in fact that it was anything but. The 20th century for example had very contrasting views of what exactly light was which did not follow from one another. QM also outraged many people with its "counterintuitive" views, as Dawkins puts it.

But you seem to be sectarian and guilty of double standards;- if an advocate of ID suggests that it might be the next thing after evolution you go completely crazy.

Have you an objective explanation for this apparent arbitrary approach?

You also admit your grounds of debate here are "not exactly firm ground to stand on".

Seems some strange double standards going on there Pete.

Are you actively testing your worldview like me or are you in denial about how you approach these subjects?

Why can't ID advocates have the same scientific credibility in debating their views as memes, worm holes and string theory currently have?

PB


  • 91.
  • At 05:52 PM on 18 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB,

Sweety, you keep repeating all this stuff about fossils and declare rather confidentially that your views are "facts" and back up Ken Ham's interpretation of ancient Hebrew creation myths. The thing is PB, fossils have been explained to you many times but none of it sinks in because you are wilfully ignorant and it is absolutely pointless trying to debate you. Your assertions about fossils reveal so many fallacies(nothing new there!)and your wilful ignorance but more about this...

If indeed creationist "theory"(perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of this "theory"?-I have been asking for a year and a half!). Since fossils are a classic eg of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!

Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

I am afraid PB if you can't answer you are not talking "fact" but indeed give a whole brand new definition to the word eg., the narrow, dishonest opinion of a bunch of religious nutters from the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism.

You will understand PB if I do not hold my breath on this one!

If your scientific method were up to scratch, PB, you'd say, "OK, so we can't find out from the fossil record what happened, let's look elsewhere," at which stage you'd go elsewhere and find the ton of evidence in biology, genetics, geology, physics, cosmology, astrophysics etc. supporting evolution, and quickly conclude that there must be OTHER reasons that the fossil record doesn't contain ancestor species (other than "Evolution is false", because evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt elsewhere). Understand my point? A problem with one source of evidence out of hundreds of supporting sources of evidence does not a failed theory make, even if it IS true that the fossil record does not contain proof of evolution. A single problem with Einstein's theory of general relativity doesn't sink the theory, because the theory is adequately supported everywhere else. The problem must exist for a reason OTHER than the entire theory being wrong.

As I tried to explain before, even if we give you a point for the fossil record (which is very generous, since it doesn't prove creationism by any stretch), the tally looks something like this:

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION: 350

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING CREATIONISM: 1.

Which theory does logic thus endorse?

In short, PB, you're a man who's built his house out of straw, and the wind has blown most of it away. On the other hand, I'm warm and comfortable in my house of rock, and it's based on the well-understood, almost unanimously accepted, peer-reviewed, theory of evolution, upon which much modern science is built.

Amen.

IGNORE MY PREVIOUS POST, it was an error. Here's thef full version:

--------------------

What I've been trying to explain to you PB is that there are hundreds of sources of evidence other than the fossil record, all of which point toward evolution. And the fossil record doesn't even begin to SUPPORT creationism; the most you can claim at this stage is that it LACKS evidence for evolution (which is, of course, an argument from silence). So you could claim, at most, that the fossil record is inconclusive. But so many other bits of evidence are entirely conclusive.

If your scientific method were up to scratch, PB, you'd say, "OK, so we can't find out from the fossil record what happened, let's look elsewhere," at which stage you'd go elsewhere and find the ton of evidence in biology, genetics, geology, physics, cosmology, astrophysics etc. supporting evolution, and quickly conclude that there must be OTHER reasons that the fossil record doesn't contain ancestor species (other than "Evolution is false", because evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt elsewhere).

Understand my point? A problem with one source of evidence out of hundreds of supporting sources of evidence does not a failed theory make, even if it IS true that the fossil record does not contain proof of evolution. A single problem with Einstein's theory of general relativity doesn't sink the theory, because the theory is adequately supported everywhere else. The problem must exist for a reason OTHER than the entire theory being wrong.

As I tried to explain before, even if we give you a point for the fossil record (which is very generous, since it doesn't prove creationism by any stretch), the tally looks something like this:

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION: 350

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING CREATIONISM: 1.

Which theory does logic thus endorse?

In short, PB, you're a man who's built his house out of straw, and the wind has blown most of it away. On the other hand, I'm warm and comfortable in my house of rock, and it's based on the well-understood, almost unanimously accepted, peer-reviewed, theory of evolution, upon which much modern science is built.

Amen.

  • 94.
  • At 01:00 PM on 20 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Hello PB. I have explained the TNFRSF11A issue - new genetic material added to the gene. Information, baby. That seems to satisfy your question as to whether information has been observed being added to a genome. I've given you the citation; take yourself over to Pubmed and look it up. It's not an uncommon phenomenon - gene duplications, insertions etc are very common events. I was just giving you one small example that was worked out here in Belfast.

The group which Prof Norman Nevin campaigns under, Truth in Science, seems to follow the common creationist view

Yes, they are a very questionable bunch. However, you are saying here that Norman "campaigns under" them - can you provide evidence for that? As far as I can see he was just the lead of a crowd of misguided people who wrote favourably about this group to the UK government. There is nothing on their website or elsewhere to indicate that he is either a member or an affiliate of this gaggle of frauds and charlatans. Which is a good thing. Hopefully he feels embarrassed about it now.

that adaptions can happen within a species eg look at all the variety of dogs, but that mutations can never turn dogs into cats or cows or anything else.

Evolution does not suggest that it does. However, there *is* a mutational pathway between dogs and cats and cows (and us and chimps and trees and fungi etc). Dogs and cats (for example) diverged quite a while ago, so each lineage has picked up its own mutations that has resulted in reproductive isolation of the lineages (i.e. speciation). But if you look at their genomes, they are very very similar, and (this is the crucial bit that you keep blanking because it fatally undermines your "argument") the character of the variations seen *within* a species are precisely those which are seen *between* species. There are just more of them.

In fact, professional dog breeders fear mutations because they know they will damage the dogs health.

Some mutations do; some do not. The SOURCE of the variation is mutation.

What organisms are we talking about in these papers? Do these mutations cause them to leave the parameters of natural variation and into territory of a new species?

Humans. You have mutations that I do not, and vice versa. There is no pre-assigned "territory" of a species, other than that defined by the genepool, which shifts with each generation. This has been answered ad nauseam. Please engage brain. New species arise from splitting genepools, and at the point of the split it is not at all evident that they are even different species - the big changes occur in subsequent generations as they diverge further (there's nothing keeping them together any more).

It is not a "jump". This can happen quite quickly, however (maybe a couple of hundred generations), which is too fast for the fossil record to capture, if there is a strong selective pressure. However, the genetic record is very explicit - you can get much higher-resolution comparisons by using the "fossils" within our cells.

This is of course, never observed. You may say, it takes so many millions of years so you cant watch it.

No - it can happen quickly, as I've said, but "quickly" is still often slow in terms of a human lifetime. It has been happening continually *for* millions of years, and is happening right now. Species keep branching and creating new biodiversity.

Because of this difficulty in testing Popper said he did not accept it as a regular scientific theory.

Well, Popper has his fans and detractors. The THEORY of evolution is not the "theory that evolution happened" - that is now considered a fact. The Theory is our framework for understanding the mechanisms and processes involved in producing the fact of evolution. Whether Popper popperly understood this is not entirely clear. As it is, the *fact* of evolution is one of the best-supported facts in all of science, and the Theory continues to improve. It's a fascinating and beautiful thing.

-A

PB- I don't want to be too overbearing in my pressing of this point, but you'd do well to print and read, and re-read and study, Amen's response to you in #93. It contains everything you're patently missing on this topic, especially with regard to his last paragraph.

My sweet peab,

I see you are as desperately short on honesty as ever.

"As we have seen, even Dr Peter Klaver cant give a definition of supernatural that does not exclude any future "mainstream" scientific breakthroughs, such as worm hole travel (NASA working on it) or anti-gravity technology (BAE were working on it) memes ( no actual evidence for this, just speculation, as I understand)."

Pb, as I've told you so many time already now, DD answered your question about the definition of supernatural already very adequately. Why would I spend time in addition to DD on what is just another tangent from you to distract attention from all the gaping holes in your story (still no evidence for creationism, your views on QM -whahaha!!-, explanations for all the transitional fossils so often presented to you, labs doing radiometric dating)?
Oh, and I did look at the BAE site remember, and found there was not a single piece of physics on there, just fancy jargon which you aren't able to distinguish from real research. Not surprising, as your grasp of physics can be estimated when speak of "worm holes strong theory"

And apart from outright dishonesty we also see the more subtle misrepresentation of other peoples positons again in your post 89:

"That is hardly a fair representation of ID advocates such as McGrath, who would argue that design in nature is evidence for God."

FYI, McGrath is a theistic evolutionist, not an ID'er.

And then you quote me as saying that I describe my own position as"not exactly firm ground to stand on".
Care to remind me where I said that please?

Why don't you make it your good intention for 2008 to clean up your act, pb?

Happy holidays,
Peter

  • 97.
  • At 09:33 PM on 21 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Peter, good point re McGrath. I'm not at all sure where PB got the notion that he was a cdesign proponentsist. He clearly believes in an old earth and evolution, albeit guided by god.

In fact, I've run across quite a few people who think that "Intelligent Design" is the same thing as "theistic evolution" - this seems to be part of the sleight-of-brain that the loonies are using to get their half-arsed cobblers into "respectable" circles.

-A

Small point: I'm a "theistic evolutionist" but I don't believe God needs to 'guide' the process of evolution supernaturally in any way. Remember, if indeed a creative being exists outside of our space-time constraints, then that God's creation may not necessarily be the 'content' of the universe but maybe its laws and constants, or in the hypothesis of a multiverse maybe only ITS laws and constants. Theistic evolutionist mustn't necessarily believe that God is active supernaturally in the evolutionary process.

  • 99.
  • At 07:10 PM on 24 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


JW

I disagree that the fossil record does not support creationism.

John, you never tried to explain why the only fossils we are missing are broadly speaking the ones the bible record says dont exist.

I have yet to see any crediblke evidence from other areas that cannt be easily accepted as evidence of common designer ie by a single designer, rather than common descent.

Remember, all BMWs in the same series have similar design traits, but they never evolved from each other.

Peter

In post 87 you argued using a phrase about not having firm ground to stand on see penultimtae paragraph.

The fact that McGrath is not a creationist does not weaken his argument; he still believes in ID.

I am growing quite incredulous that you are running away from defining supernatural!

Full marks for oserving that I am not a physicst and that as you prooduly display on your url you have a phd in the field; I sitll question what evidence you might believe that tiny strings across 9-10 dimensions might hold the answer to a grand unified theory of eveything!

Anyway, you are throwing in red herrings; you are perfectly happy for Dawkins to speculate about memes and aliens as "scientific" but throw a blue fit when someone talks about God; does strong theory or worm hole faster than light travel bother you as theories which are discussed and researched with little/nothing in the way of actual evidence?

It appears your double standards when it comes to ID is is sectarian discrimination. You have never given me the slightest reason to think otherwise Pete.

Amen

You seem to be playing the dumb semanticist. It is a matter of public record, as you well know, that Nevin signed the open letter to the Govt calling for ID to be taught in schools.

But most interesting of all you are now telling us that the evidnence for new-species evolution by mutation comes from..... humans.

errrrrrrr....I just have one small problem with that Amen, I have yet to see the evidence for anything either evolving to of from humans.

eveything in this field as far as I am aware is strictly speaking either primate or human with no missing links, when examined closely.

in other words, you CLAIM, this paper you are describing is evidence that species can evolve from another species but in fact it demonstrates no such thing.

I did start to have look at pubmed but have not had the time.

But please do post the conclusion of this paper on this thread so we can all have a look.

It will be interesting to see if the authors actually make the verbatim claims about their work that you do!

In the News Testament the people who lorded it over the laity were condemned roundly and we dont have to go too far to find examples of supposed church leaders who claimed that only they understood the scriptures; they were/are wolves who scattered the flock.

The bible actually teaches the priesthhod of all believers.

I see a parallel in this field where people claiming to be priests of this particular religion tell the laity that only they can understand the mysteries.

But it appears to me you are making much bolder claims for your evidence that the evidence actually allows.

This is obviously the position of QUB genetics professor Norman Nevin, Science in Truth and many others.

I see you are stung by Popper's conclusions, trying to set them aside but faily to refute the points he raised; I dont believe you even realise yourself when you are going beyond the actual acience and into speculation which suits your agressive form of athiesm.

As you are throwing mud, I wont feel too bad in reminding readers that you previously tried to convince me that you are the Son of God and also that Christ was not a joiner!!

As I recall you backed down on both counts. That is not intended as an attack on your character but as a reflection of your record in displaying facts.

Anyways,


John, Amen, DD, Pete

setting aside the debate, I wish you all a very pleasant and peaceful break with your family and friends and a happy new 2007.

shalom

PB

  • 100.
  • At 08:30 AM on 25 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB,

Fossils have been explained to you verbatim. You are wilfully ignorant and it is very insulting when you ask questions-get answers but and ignore them and repeat the same old dishonest creationist canards.

Anyway you did not present "positive evidence" in favour of creationism, the best you did was make assertions. Now these are some extremely simple points that you keep missing them(indeed some of them for a year and a half!), perhaps you could answer them as I said they are very simple but you oddly cannot answer them!It is even more mad considering that you said that your opinions are "fact" and creationist theory(whatever the hell that is!) is a better explanation!)Oh well here they are again!!!!!

If indeed creationist "theory"(perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of this "theory"?-I have been asking for a year and a half!). Since fossils are a classic eg of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!

Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

I am afraid PB if you can't answer you are not talking "fact" but indeed give a whole brand new definition to the word eg., the narrow, dishonest opinion of a bunch of religious nutters from the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism.


In any case Merry Christmas!

DD

Hello all,

Let's go easy on pb for this once. Obviously the festive season meant he had a little too much to drink before he posted. How else could he have repeated his ludicrous claim that McGrath supports ID? Or missed (again, sigh) my reference to DDs answer regarding the supernatural. Etc. I see no other explanation for such bad posts other than drunkenness or willful dishonesty. It couldn't be the latter could it?

Pb my sweet, beware of Dylan Dog. Being an atheist, he is of course morally degenerate and an utterly evil man. He's the sort of person who would take advantage of you in your drunken state. It's good to see that you're getting into the spirit of Pastafarianism by having lots of beer. But it will make you vulnerable. So don't have too much and don't allow DD to have his way with you in an unguarded moment. Honestly, if you had that sort of encounter with him I'd be devastated. It would take me ages to recover. It think it would take me all of the rest of the year to recover from it if it happened. So please be good.

xxXXX
Peter

I too can't see how PB could have posted a comment like his latest one, other than maybe drunkenness or perhaps a hostage situation which forced him to make the comments under duress? Either way, he's merely rebuilding the same old sandcastle of nonsense which has been brought crumbling down time and time again by the tide of reason. For example:

"I have yet to see any crediblke evidence from other areas that cannt be easily accepted as evidence of common designer ie by a single designer, rather than common descent."

I've spent a portion of my spare time from the past couple of YEARS doing just that, but you reject it, not out of concern for scientific congruity, but because it doesn't fit your ideology. See the evidence from human chromosome #2, for a single tiny example out of hundreds of such possible examples. Maybe you just don't understand that when the thousands of active biologists, geneticists, physicists, geologists, cosmologists go to work every day, they conduct their ON THE BASIS OF evolution? Nothing they've tested or discovered for hundreds of years has called into question the theory of evolution. It's established. It's the best operating theory. They're sure it happened. The details are being worked out, but evolution is a certainty. The longer you take to learn that, the more you resemble a church member at the time of Galileo, who were absolutely certain that the earth was at the centre of the universe (that is until good scientists finally persuaded them otherwise).

How long will it take for science to sway you from your wayward theology, PB? Hope you had a great Christmas, btw, and I look forward to more of this in '08.

  • 103.
  • At 09:37 AM on 26 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

Peter,

How very dare you! I can assure you my intentions are entirely honorable...well almost ;-)

PB

Don't listen to that smooth talking heartbreaker, he is nothing but a Lothario!


JW

I have told you off about this before! Please *stop* talking sense!
Incidentally John, PB according to his own philosophy should indeed be a Geo-centrist.

Happy boxing day everyone!

(I have my eye on you Mr Klaver!)

DD,

"(I have my eye on you Mr Klaver!)"

Well, I'm flattered but I have to disappoint you. I am fully monogamously devoted to my sweet peab.

  • 105.
  • At 11:22 PM on 26 Dec 2007,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

Peter,

You twist everything! I of course meant that I am keeping an eye on your nefarious tactics!(please take note PB)

  • 106.
  • At 02:20 PM on 27 Dec 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Tarnation - my posts keep getting chewed by Will's dastardly blog software wot doesn't let comments get through. Curse you, BBC IT department!!

Anyway, PB: how do you think your latest post (or, rather, the bits that were targeted at me) addressed any of the issues I raised? Why did you take what I said on one aspect and try to misapply it to another, where I had already shown that you had a wrong idea of what evolutionary theory predicts?

Go back and read the thread. I think it has all been adequately covered. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the conceptual framework that we use to understand that fact (or, rather, collection of facts).

The train left a long time ago; there is no point in arguing about this further, and it's safe to say that if the DUP (for example) continue to try to push a creationist agenda onto the science education and public profile of Northern Ireland, it will be met with serious opposition.

I really do not think that Norman Nevin will be found in the front line of that particular battle - do you?

-A

  • 107.
  • At 08:26 PM on 31 Dec 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Happy News Year guys!

JW

I do agree that people from many disciplines have proven natural variation, and natural selection.

But nobody has observed or demonstrated what they extrapolate from this; one species turning into another.

Check out the drosiphila fruit fly experiments; lots of breakdowns but no hint of a new species after strenous attempts to force mutations.

I am not arguing from silence to say that a very conservative review of the fossil record suggests lifeforms abruptly appeared out of "nowhere". That is what the evidence suggests.
It is staying very strictly within the bounds of the evidence.

In contrast evolution actually argues from silence when it suggests that there are thousands of missing links which have never been seen or found in fossil record. Now that is a REAL argument from silence.

Did you know John that despite believing in evolution Karl Popper could not accept it as a normal scientific theory? He found it too difficult to test/observe/demonstrate.

Amen - are you sure you are completing the sum box at the bottom of the post? I have sometimes missed this and think this was a problem logging posts.

Previously I simply said I found it hard to believe that any mutations in humans were evidence of species to species evolution. I dont understand how I am misapplying what you have said? Sorry if I have.

A problem with your mutation is also that there are no "missing" links to or from homo sapiens, as far as I am aware there are all primates or humans but nothing half and half.

Can you post the conclusion from your paper for us to see it here pls?

I also have a problem with evolution being "fact". Isnt all science provisional? Didnt even Dawkins say it was possible that evolution could be scrapped some day with a better explanation? I believe so.


Pete
When I said McGrath supports ID I meant theistic evolution within that category, though I take your point he may not be very happy about that and perhaps IDers would not accept that either.

Sorry for any confusion Pete; BTW Pete what are your views on an almighty creator God?

cheers all

PB

  • 108.
  • At 02:36 PM on 01 Jan 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

Happy new year!

Evolution is a fact-species change, the theory of natural selection is the best explanation for this fact. This was all gone over with you before.

I can't believe that you are still arguing the point about about fossils appearing "fully formed" errr this was all covered many times before but as usual into one wilfully ignorant ear and out the other. Of course they are fully formed! you are that ignorant you expect to see an eg of a species in change! Evolution does not state this. So what you are looking for as an eg of evolution if found would actually be evidence against evolution-truly remarkable ignorance!

Fossils have been explained to you many, many times but it is impossible to try to debate someone who is so wilfully ignorant.

In any case there are some extremely simple points that you seemingly cannot answer! which is very odd considering that you mentioned your views were "fact"!!! a "...better explanation" etc etc here they are again... sigh!

If indeed creationist "theory"(perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of this "theory"?-I have been asking for a year and a half!). Since fossils are a classic eg of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!

Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

I am afraid PB if you can't answer you are not talking "fact" but indeed give a whole brand new definition to the word eg., the narrow, dishonest opinion of a bunch of religious nutters from the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism.

Hello peab,

First of all a merry 2008 to my great love.
Maybe JW won't mind if I address a question pb posed to him.

"I do agree that people from many disciplines have proven natural variation, and natural selection.
But nobody has observed or demonstrated what they extrapolate from this; one species turning into another."

You have mentioned this so many times before but consistently ignored the answer. It has been given to you many times. One occasion where I answered it, was when you were posting under a different name. Just to remind you: evolution from one species into another takes so many generations that it can of course not be observed in situ. Your point is a really unfounded one in that you demand that something that science says takes millions of years be observed in real time.

"Pete what are your views on an almighty creator God?"

I've never seen anything that makes me think there is one.

Now, don't let DD get his evil, immoral, atheist way by letting him tear you away from me. I beg you to remain on your guard for him.

Peter

  • 110.
  • At 02:51 PM on 02 Jan 2008,
  • pb wrote:


Pete

I never posted under a different name, on that particular thread I posted anonymously as I was wanting to debate the topic rather than engage with your ad hominems for a change!!! (so much for your scientific method?)

Now as for your friends at pasatfarian central....well we know their track record on multiplying personalities online against me!

Anyways, if you want to talk seriously as a scientist, can you tell me exactly where the threshold is for an unreasonable burden of evidence for evolution?

Is this defined anywhere or is it a vague arbitrary rearguard action to shore up an untestable theory?

Or is it an objective standard which can also be applied to creationism ID?

Wll???

As a professional scientist I am quite amused at your constant sexual harrassments and intimindation as I am sure many readers are?

I will not pursue this at length as I think people can draw their own conclusions.

But might I suggest you muse on what QUB would make of threats using their domain name and identifying yourself as a member of the physics faculty?

In fact for that matter what would the police make of it???

http://www.psni.police.uk/index/hate_crimes.htm

Hmmm. Should I call makes those calls or not???

;-)


PB

  • 111.
  • At 04:54 PM on 02 Jan 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB,

You are flying off the handle here! Peter (and myself for that matter) are only showing love for you!We love you PB as you a constant reminder of what a lot of complete and utter cobblers creationism is!

Indeed PB if you want to play like that perhaps you should give us your name so we can warn other Christians about your behaviour eg., your constant breaking of 4 & 9 of the 10 commandments. There really is no excuse for your ignorance on this matter as the Bible is widely available.

Anyway since you cannot answer the extremely simple points that I have asked you-which is *very* strange considering you said that your views are "fact", "creationist theory(whatever the hell that is)is a better explanation" etc etc. I must sadly come to the conclusion that you cannot back up your ground-breaking views of fossils(which is really bonkers considering that fossils are a classic eg of standalone empirical evidence)with a single independent experiment!!! not a single objective, credible and verifiable source!!!Not a single observation which was predicted by creationist "theory"!!! You cannot name a single scientific (nor medical)discovery within the creationist framework!!!!which leads onto...you cannot name a single natural resouce/oil/petroleum etc company which uses the creationist framework which is "fact"!!!!This is truly astounding!!I mean this a trillion dollar a year industry and their bottom line is money that uses falwed, false data!!!incredible!! You cannot name the document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign that they *MUST* agree with an individuals opinion before publishing-like the statement from AIG!! could it be because such a document does not exist?

In short PB, you have illustrated perfectly what a useless load of balderdash Biblical creationism is! I LOVE YOU!

DD

  • 112.
  • At 05:41 PM on 02 Jan 2008,
  • pb wrote:

Hi Pete

Here is a very interesting link to the QUB code of conduct.

Interesting sections on bullying, sexual misconduct, attitude to members of the public, image and reputation of the uni etc etc.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:PzJWJA2DYDAJ:www.qub.ac.uk/pers/policies/codeofconductpro.doc+qub+members+%22code+of+conduct%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

Let us know what you think of the document!

cheers


;-)

PB

  • 113.
  • At 07:32 PM on 02 Jan 2008,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Hi PB

Here is an interesting link to the Bible and it's code of conduct.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:1-17;%20Deuteronomy%205:7-21;%20Matthew%2019:18,19;22:34-40;%20Luke

Interesting sections on telling fibs, false witnessing. The Bible in general gives not bad advice on how to live ones life, how not to be a sanctimonious, self-righteous hypocrite and how to treat people. Indeed how to uphold the reputation of the Bible. As I have told you before you are light years away from Christians that I know.

Let us know what you think of the document on these matters as you do seem to be ignorant(nothing new there!) about them.

Cheers

;-)

DD

ps. Your previous link was to HATE crimes! where has anyone shown you hate? Indeed we have shown you nothing but remarkable restraint and love! This is in the face of your willful ignorance and dishonesty! We have also been very patient with you(even though answers have been pointed out to you but you keep repeating the tired old canards). You also mention "bullying" which is odd since the only bullying has come from you with your constant asking of questions(which have been answered) and your refusal to answer very simple questions. You have also falsely construed that there is a "sexual" element to this!? not at all and this does seem like wishful thinking on your part and frankly I do not wish to be part of your fantasies. Indeed you have taken something which was very pure and innocent and done your old argument um de Torquemada on it!(you do know what this is) I do realise that our relationship is over and you are not talking to me ;-( but I do forgive your behaviour!(not sure about your god though :-/) Love will conquer all PB!

pps. Please never stop posting your views on science because you do give a perfect illustration of the utter cobblers that is Biblical creationism, for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart.


  • 114.
  • At 08:12 PM on 02 Jan 2008,
  • pb wrote:

DD

to quote;-

"The Police Service of Northern Ireland will record any incident perceived to have been committed against any person or property on the grounds of a particular persons ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, ***RELIGION***, political opinion or disability, whether it amounts to a crime or not.

"...Hate crimes can take many forms, including, ***VERBAL ABUSE***, physical assault, ***INTIMIDATION*** and damage to property."

If you would care to enlighten readers as to specifically where and when I have committted any offences DD it would be most interesting.


Where I have apologised in the past it has been for honest misunderstandings, not deliberate deceptions.

ref sex, it is standard fare in sexual misconduct cases to solicit affection or sexual favours against the will of the victim.

;-)


PB

My sweetest pb,

Don't pay any attention to what that nasty, immoral, (sexually lustful and depraved too I guess, right?) atheist Dylan Dog says to you. I won't let him harm you. Stick close to me as you always do and you'll be fine.

There is little point in contacting QUB. I was on a fixed-term contract there, which has now expired. My page is still on their website only as a former member of the group.

But do call the police. It would be magnificent. We would live on the run together! You know, like in those US road movies. The two of us, against the whole world. On the move most of the time, staying in motels where without restraint we live out our passion. It would be so romantic. Oh, I do look forward to it!

Crazy about you as ever,
XXXXXX
Peter

  • 116.
  • At 10:17 PM on 02 Jan 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB

Sweetness!

Discrimination because of ***RELIGION***, not that is interesting! so you admit that your views are not scientific but religious in origin and since they are religious when we point out your very basic errors(again and again)you are going to run off gurning to the police!!!! try acting like a man and answering some very basic questions-but then again you can't do this!As I said sweetie you are light years away from Christains that I know.

As for ***VERBAL ABUSE*** and ***INTIMIDATION*** what are you on about!? surely it is not when we point that you are wilfully ignorant? Now that is a ***FACT***!that is why it is impossible to debate with you and why people here have so little respect for you.(see the point about evolution Fact *AND* theory-it is so simple that even your fellow creationists get it!

What about "QM has little respect for science", "QM is undermining evolution...", "Catastrophism mainstream", your claim that Judge Jones did not say that ID was not science-I posted the ruling and in the very first line said ID was *NOT* science-yet you repeated the claim!? Your (cough) "facts" on fossils, which you cannot back up!The claim that there are only a few labs that do radiometric dating. Your twisting of what Michael Hull said about the falsibility of evolution and sadly on and on it goes...

What is wrong with affection PB, there is so little of it in the world! as for the "sexual favours" that is part of your own private fantasy and personally I do not want to be part of it-please keep your private thoughts private and try not to destroy something that is innocent and pure with your tawdry thinking.

  • 117.
  • At 11:29 PM on 02 Jan 2008,
  • pb wrote:


Pete

err why are you still billing yourself as a QUB academic if they got rid of you?

should I just call your dept and check if they were thinking of giving you a new contract anytime??

;-)


DD

Should we reject TSLOT because Kelvin based it on the bible?

PB

  • 118.
  • At 05:40 PM on 03 Jan 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB

Well that has been pointed out to you before to be wrong. Don't get me wrong Kelvin was a great scientist however his work that has survived today is firmly in the materialistic naturalism frame(incidentally it was his work on the age of the earth that showed a literal interpretation of Genesis to be garbage).

To put it another way, algebra was mainly developed in the great flowering of Muslim culture and enlightenment in the 10th to the 12th centuries, the scientists working on this did it for the glory of Allah and the one true prophet therefore the Koran is true...

Regards

DD

ps. please do not try and destroy the pure and beautiful thing that you have with Peter!

  • 119.
  • At 05:49 PM on 03 Jan 2008,
  • One-eyed Wonderkin wrote:

PB, Peter, and DD,
Your debate is very interesting. However, I have read dozens of posts and PB has provided nothing but deluted notions that Peter loves PB.
Hopefully, PB will be able to provide some substance.
Creation should not allow for evoluation because god creates perfect things, so change is unacceptable. Is evolution the devil's influence on earth?

Hugs and kisses to you PB. May the noodles embrace you.

  • 120.
  • At 07:57 PM on 03 Jan 2008,
  • Jean Bart wrote:

@98.At 07:10 PM on 24 Dec 2007, pb wrote: "...John, Amen, DD, Pete
setting aside the debate, I wish you all a very pleasant and peaceful break with your family and friends and a happy new 2007.
shalom
PB"
Is this a Creationist Curse?

My sweet pb,

"err why are you still billing yourself as a QUB academic if they got rid of you?"

I'll update the url when I've started my new job.

"should I just call your dept and check if they were thinking of giving you a new contract anytime??"

There would be little point. The reason for moving on is that it is good to get a varied cv is you plan to remain in science. As I do. So I warmly appreciate your offer, but I would be unlikely to accept another job at QUB even if it were offered.

I know why you are so upset and therefore phrased it in such unpleasant language as 'got rid of you'. And you are right, I should have mentioned it to you earlier and discussed it with you before making up my mind. But don't worry: I'll take you with me of course!

And don't let those new atheists like One-eyed Wonderkin fool you. Undoubtedly he/she is as depraved and immoral as DD.
Just out of curiosity One-eyed Wonderkin, would you be the first woman to fancy pb? He does seem to attract the attention of men mostly. No surprise there of course.

greets,
Peter

  • 122.
  • At 09:31 PM on 03 Jan 2008,
  • One-eyed Wonderkin wrote:

I find that one of society's ills is the general inflexibility of a good number modern humans. It has become socially unacceptable for people to change their views based on new evidence.
I am fairly sure that there are plenty of people in the US government that believe that WMD are still present in Iraq. They are just hid really well.

Quick on fossils - they are chance things. The vast majority of things that die (except modern humans) actually decay or are eaten by other animals. Fossils should be be considered generally rare.

  • 123.
  • At 10:11 PM on 03 Jan 2008,
  • One-eyed Wonderkin wrote:

Peter,
I am not a woman.
I am not an athiest.

One of the questions that has really dug at me for a long time is why does god or allah need to be worshipped? Also, if so ultimately powerful, why not show up and set everyone straight?
The "gods" I call my own have definite interactions with me. Tangable interactions.

  • 124.
  • At 06:58 PM on 24 Jan 2008,
  • pb wrote:


OEW

Fossils are chance are they?

What are the chances of them corresponding with genesis?

Why should fish birds plants and mammals appear arbruptly in the fossil record as genesis would predict?

Surely it should be more likely that the fossil record should show significant smooth gradations between these categories instead of confirming the ridiculous notions of those creationists?

why arent there loads of bird-reptiles, fish-amphibians and man-apes for example.

The fossil categories which exist fit much too neatly into the genesis framework and also into the framework of the natural world.

To conjecture evolution from this is a leap of faith and an argument from silence.

PB

PS Pete, yes I did word that in unpleasant language and I apologise. sorry.

  • 125.
  • At 06:40 PM on 30 Jan 2008,
  • pb wrote:

happy new years chaps

a few questions/points to liven up this section again for 2008.

Hope youre well settled into that new job Pete!


Is ID based on scientific principles?

1) Is it possible evolutionists are unconsciously endorsing arbitrary double standards in science? Normal scientific theories are required to be observable and repeatable, but the evolution of one distinct species into another has never been observed or demonstrated, which many leading evolutionists openly concede. Noted science philosopher Karl Popper (an evolutionist) refused to classify species to species evolution as a scientific theory because it could not be observed or replicated and therefore could not be tested as a theory.

2) Evolutionists often respond "you are asking too high a burden of evidence", but are they being consistent? I would be most grateful if anyone could explain clearly where exactly the acceptable threshold of evidence is which evolution surpasses. Then it should be quite clear if this is an objective standard that can be fairly applied to intelligent design or if it is arbitrary.

3) What is and is not science? I would be most grateful if anyone could define what boundaries they believe exist; I understand this is an old debate with few clear conclusions. Karl Popper's views on evolution are a case in point. This is not to imply that mainstream science is unreliable, simply that it does seem to allow arbitrary inconsistencies in order to shore up unscientific philosophical assumptions (eg athiesm).

4) For example, how can the Big Bang create matter and energy from nothing and how could life have "just happened" when lightning hit a pool of chemicals? Aren't both theories essentially "supernatural" in that they surpass the natural laws of biogenesis and the first law of thermodynamics?

5) Regarding the peer review process and publication record of IDers, there is increasing awareness of the subjectivity and weaknesses of the process. Do reviewers give objective reviews to research which challenges their own research, funding and status, for example? And don't different journals publish radically different reviews of the same research?

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says many people show "a regrettable ignorance" about how science works and says that the peer review process can oppose viable theories; he says climate change science has become so "politicised" that it is difficult to find a journal that will publish research which contests established theories. Should we therefore view the process with unassailable religious faith or perhaps a dose of healthy scepticism?

6) The scientific revolution of Bacon, Boyle, Kelvin, Newton, Kepler and Pascal was directly inspired by a Christian worldview which desired to know more about God and his creation. The presumption of a Creator was inherent in the motivation of that period and the giants on whose shoulders we now stand, so can anyone explain how we secularised science and why it was really necessary?

PB

  • 126.
  • At 09:51 PM on 31 Jan 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB,

Well you haven't learned anything-nothing new there!

All that stuff about fossils and the other well-worn canards have been gone over with you many, many, many times. The problem is that you are wilfully ignorant and no amount of evidence is going to change your narrow religious opinions(because your opinion is only held by those on the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism).

You cannot answer the very simple questions that I and others have asked you(you know what they are!). you really would think that after all this time you would get it-but as ever not!

As I have said to you before why not live your life within the creationist framework-if it is so "true" then you should not have a problem? You know all those medical/scientific breakthroughs within this framework...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Oh dear there aren't any!

Or fill your car with petrol or heat your home with fossil fuels with companies that use creationism like...well there aren't any!

You must remember that ID/creationism (in whatever form eg., Biblical, Islamic, Hindu, Inuit etc etc), astrology etc are all useless horse manure.

Please stop wasting peoples precious time here with your wilful ignorance(we all know that it is a fruitless task in attempting to debate with you). Although one thing that you have done very successfully is to illustrate what a complete load of dishonest, useless cods wallop creationism is which I thank you from the bottom of my heart!


If you genuinely want to know about science or fossils why not go here...

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/topics

Or indeed any of the other sites that I have posted links to-but you never do...because you are not interested.

Or else go and watch cutting edge creationist natural history programmes like...The Flintstones!

Oh! happy new year btw!

  • 127.
  • At 10:58 AM on 01 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:

Hi DD

HNY to yourself too.

You didnt read my point 6 did you?

Even Oppenheimer said the scientific revolution could not have happened without the Christian faith.

It was a product of the Christian faith.

But we have now moved from their position, the study of uniform causes in nature in an open system.... to the study of uniform causes in nature in a closed system.

In other words, God as a given to no God as a given.

This is a religious change brought about through the enligthenment that has acutally very little to do with science per se.


You are trailing badly in this subject area.

PB

  • 128.
  • At 11:44 PM on 01 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Hello peab,

You wrote to DD

"You didnt read my point 6 did you?"

My sweetest pb, my hot angel (you know you are, and so do DD, OEJ and I), your point no. 6 had exactly nothing to do with ID, the subject of your post 125. Try to grasp it peab, ID advocates try to pass ID off as science. For you to bring up belief in the christian god in support of ID shows you really don't get it.

Peter

  • 129.
  • At 03:43 AM on 02 Feb 2008,
  • James wrote:

This is my first time on this site and I am amazed at some of the comments of PB. He says he feels on solid ground because a top geneticist at QUB agrees with him. I listened to a program of Williams were a Prof McIntyre of Leeds, considered an expert in his field, claimed that dinosaurs were on Noahs arc with humans. The whole idea that, because an academic agrees with me I am on solid ground, is a joke. The evangelical, born again Mr Francis Collins of genome fame, accepts evolution as fact. What does PB say about that? Do you see what I mean PB?
I am an agnostic. My position is that in terms of some general form of higher intelligence, we simply do not know. However I maintain that a firm understanding of scriptural history and anthropological analysis of world religions offers incontrovertable evidence that the God Christians, Jews and Muslims worship specifically is a human fabrication. That notion of God and the notion of a general higher intelligence are totally different, and I think that too often people obscure the difference.

  • 130.
  • At 05:42 PM on 04 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:


Peter

I notice that you dont for a second query the facts of my point 6. Thanks.

I can certainly agree that ID is not accepted as science by "mainstream" science at present.

That does not mean it is not factual or true.

Can you actually attempt an answer to question 6 Peter?

You evade all the points I raised in my last poits Peter.

They sort of explain what prejudice is used to keep ID out of mainstream science.

Come on, up your game Dr Klaver and answer my points!

James

I am really pleased for you that you are amazed, but what does that add to the argument?

I admit freely genetics is beyond me at present - what are your qualifications in this field?

It is not irrelevant to note that top scientists do disagree on these matters.

I am not claiming to win the argument with that, just highlighting that there is a debate among people much better qualified than you or I.

Perhaps more important is the fact that Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project) argues that the natural sciences create a positive presumption of faith.

What do you say about that as an athiest James?

That is the REAL starting point of this debate. Not the evolution/ID debate.

The philsophical debate of science was deciding what direction ID/evolution debate would go a long long time before the words ID or evolution were ever heard of.

A positive presumption of faith in an almighty creator surrenders the point that any form of ID is easily possible even if the individual speaking does not believe it to be true.

But I now think the real debate is actually going back to the cause of the big bang, TFLOT and biogenesis.

From what I can see, any suggestion that athiestic origins of life dont break these two laws are special pleading.


s 1-6 and you will see what I mean.

As for the presumption that creationism is a modern imposter, the points defended here by DD Amen and Peter are essentially atheism and evolution.

And in science's long history going way back to the Greeks, those are two very modern ideas indeed which many se as irrelevant to all modern science.

Doe you need to be and athiest or evolutionist to have developed satllite communication, medical genetics or the computer? none of the above!

As for Andy McIntosh, you have certainly ridiculed him (congratulations, what a feat!) but you have not even begun to refute him.

Try again.


PB

  • 131.
  • At 05:55 PM on 04 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:

PS Pete

We dont have a secular consitution by law in the UK so the Dover case does not set a precedent for God being behind ID in UK education and research.

Come on Pete, you have had a good rest now, put em up and address the questions 1-6...

wouldnt want to be KOd by a pea brain would you Dr Klaver?

PB

  • 132.
  • At 06:21 PM on 04 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:

Yo Dr Pete


So ID is "not science" you say;- what is the significance of that statement in light of this;-


Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." [11]

While passing the peer-review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[9] He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."[10]

c/o wikpedia

  • 133.
  • At 08:57 PM on 04 Feb 2008,
  • James wrote:

PB- what a load of bluster once again, it would really be nice to see you at least once stick to the points I raised. Firstly I raised Francis Collins to show the folly of raising the names of academics in debate. Secondly I raised McIntosh to show the folly of feeling on safe ground because an academic agrees with you. Very very very simple points PB. You ask me what do I think about Francis Collins claiming that the natural sciences provide a positive presumtpion of faith? I ask you why have you immediately judged me to be a Dawkins-esque atheist who maintains that evolution must lead to atheism (or that the two are inextricably linked). I never once suggested that. I certanly dont think that. That is the thing with you PB. I only commented here out of frustration at your posts. You are nearly impossible to pin down and in most cases you are actually arguing against things that your opponents have not suggested.
I come to the entire God debate not from a scientific background. I come at it from the scriptural front and in terms of anthropological studies of world religions. I made this perfectly clear in my last post and true to form you chose to ignore that. I also said perfectly reasonably that in terms of the Christian God, Muslim God and the other Gods of world religions....I do not believe. I am an atheist. I reach this conclusion not via science but through the other avenues outlined. On the issue of a creator in general......agnosticism seems the logical conclusion.

  • 134.
  • At 12:00 AM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:


James

I fully respect your views and your right to hold them.

A pity you do not seem to do the same!

As I do for Francis Collins.


I must say I just dont accept that I am any more impossible to pin down than the athiests on this site. Perhaps I am only difficult to pin down when I simply refuse to be marginalised as an irrelevant stereotype!!!

See post 125. Can you see the points there that athiest evolutionists wont be pinned down on? There are quite a few.

And as I rule I dont have personal remarks in every post I make, like they do.

Nonetheless it is I and not them that goad you into frustration!!!

Can you see your inconsistency there James?


You also think it is a serious argument to be "amazed" and yet you accuse me of bluster!!!


Go figure!


The point about Collins was a broader point - not about evolution.

My point is that science has for the vast majority of its history had an open system and certainly from the scientific revolution this was explicitly Christian and openly inspired by faith in Christ. fact.


ergo you may believe that agnosticism seems the logical conclusion (why call yourself an athiest then????), but Collins and the giants who created the foundations for modern science think you are dead wrong.

Gould said half his evolutionist colleagues saw their evolutionary science as being a integral part of their faith too; athiesm is on shaky ground in science perhaps?

I am actually quite happy in seeing theistic evolution as a form of ID, which if course linguistically it is.


The main argument I have with you, DD, Dr Pete and Amen is actually nothing at all to do with evolution.

It is actually that they are using the latest narrow naturalistic interpretation of "science" to defend and impose their agressive athiesm.

This is of course a religious faith too because you cant prove athiesm with evidence.


Now please dont throw a pointy head because I dont see things like you do. That is essentially a fundamentalist position because you are then claiming absolute truth.

Meanwhile I accept that ID and creationist theory is bound to change with new research and that my understanding of scripture just cannot be perfect either.

That is the antithesis of a fundamentalist viewpoint.


So, the athiests here are the nasty religious fundamentalists here, I have just demonstrated it (not simply sneered it!)


Now, why are you annoyed with me again James?

And BTW if you dont want to be lumped in with Dakwins then dont argue like him ie ad hominems and emotive sneers.


And dont just weigh in with a whinge about dinsaurs on the ark before you have demonstrated that you have a clue what you are talking about.

I can give a long list of examples of people who have come undone here doing just that sort of thing and thinking they were clever.

As for Nevin etc, Please understand I never said his existence proved I was right, just that his career at the top of the field of genetics is a real thorn in the side to athiests.

I know it is not a complete argument but people on this blog seems to expect me to me to have advanced degree knowlegde in genetics, theology, palentology, physics, biology, hermenutics, ancient history etc etc.

I am just an ordinary bloke so please just accept my point on Nevin for what it is and no more.


I accept that your interest is scripture and anthropology and if you want to have an adult conversation on that I will be glad to, though it may take a few days between posts!


sincerely

PB

PS As I restarted this blog with my questions, I claim the right to repost them.

They are serious questions and real issues raised on this blog before but which the heavy athiests mainly seem to run scared of.


For example, Dr Klaver still cant come up with a definition of "supernatural" that keeps God away and yet still allows the possibility of scientific breakthroughs.

///////////////////////

Is ID based on scientific principles?

1) Is it possible evolutionists are unconsciously endorsing arbitrary double standards in science? Normal scientific theories are required to be observable and repeatable, but the evolution of one distinct species into another has never been observed or demonstrated, which many leading evolutionists openly concede. Noted science philosopher Karl Popper (an evolutionist) refused to classify species to species evolution as a scientific theory because it could not be observed or replicated and therefore could not be tested as a theory.

2) Evolutionists often respond "you are asking too high a burden of evidence", but are they being consistent? I would be most grateful if anyone could explain clearly where exactly the acceptable threshold of evidence is which evolution surpasses. Then it should be quite clear if this is an objective standard that can be fairly applied to intelligent design or if it is arbitrary.

3) What is and is not science? I would be most grateful if anyone could define what boundaries they believe exist; I understand this is an old debate with few clear conclusions. Karl Popper's views on evolution are a case in point. This is not to imply that mainstream science is unreliable, simply that it does seem to allow arbitrary inconsistencies in order to shore up unscientific philosophical assumptions (eg athiesm).

4) For example, how can the Big Bang create matter and energy from nothing and how could life have "just happened" when lightning hit a pool of chemicals? Aren't both theories essentially "supernatural" in that they surpass the natural laws of biogenesis and the first law of thermodynamics?

5) Regarding the peer review process and publication record of IDers, there is increasing awareness of the subjectivity and weaknesses of the process. Do reviewers give objective reviews to research which challenges their own research, funding and status, for example? And don't different journals publish radically different reviews of the same research?

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says many people show "a regrettable ignorance" about how science works and says that the peer review process can oppose viable theories; he says climate change science has become so "politicised" that it is difficult to find a journal that will publish research which contests established theories. Should we therefore view the process with unassailable religious faith or perhaps a dose of healthy scepticism?

6) The scientific revolution of Bacon, Boyle, Kelvin, Newton, Kepler and Pascal was directly inspired by a Christian worldview which desired to know more about God and his creation. The presumption of a Creator was inherent in the motivation of that period and the giants on whose shoulders we now stand, so can anyone explain how we secularised science and why it was really necessary?

  • 135.
  • At 11:48 AM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

Oh dear PB as dishonest as ever I see!

First off I do hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have found a natural resource company that uses the (cough) better explanation(sic) of creationist (cough) "theory" (sic) that powers your PC and your home and car etc?

I did have the greatest misfortune to read all your post including point 6 and as usual it was full of all the old bluster and well-worn canards.

It is ironic and hypocritical to cite these very intelligent men of science when in a lot of cases it was your fellow-traveller Bible-believers that opposed them in many cases. Such as the geo-centrism which was the norm, Lord Kelvin work on the age of te earth destroyed Biblical creationism before Darwin(how ironic you should cite him!?!?).

It was not because of of Christianity that science came about but in many cases it was in spite of.

You do make very astute point when you mention the enlightenment. Lets look at science pre-enlightenment and science post-enlightenment...well just look at it go when we remove a frame of reference!

Here is a little video to illustrate this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

"You are trailing badly in this subject area."

You have some cheek! even a broken clock tells the correct time at least once a day-you have got *nothing* right on this subject!

As JW succinctly put it you are "completely inadequate in this debate".

Your other post to James contain the same old inaccuracies and dishonesties.

You say that we refuse to be pinned down!? which is very odd since there is a growing list of very simple questions that you seemingly cannot answer! Indeed these questions have been asked of you for over a year and a half now! here they are again(funny you keep missing them!!!

If indeed creationist "theory"(perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of this "theory"?-I have been asking for a year and a half!). Since fossils are a classic eg of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!

Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

You see PB I have set the bar very low for you and made it as simple as possible(but it is never simple enough!)

OH dear those nasty old atheists up to their tricks asking simple questions damn!As you well know we are not arguing evolution equals atheism simply that Biblical creationism is dishonest, useless horse manure-which is a *fact* by every definition and sense of the word. James raises the excellent point of Francis Collins, as I have told you many, many times intelliegnt Christains have no problem with science-so please don't worry about it!

"And dont just weigh in with a whinge about dinsaurs on the ark before you have demonstrated that you have a clue what you are talking about."

Well the flood myths of Genesis are myths which have no evidence to back them up. Indeed (and this is saying something!!) belief in the flood myths is if anything even more stupid than creationism!!

"I can give a long list of examples of people who have come undone here doing just that sort of thing and thinking they were clever."

Golly! can you!? what about the llooonnnggg list of all the times you have caught out being dishonest?
Do you remember Quantum Mechanics? and how it was "...undermining evolution", or how "it has little respect for the laws of science" or "Catastrophism...mainstream", or your views on fossils, or the "few labs doing radiometric dating" or Dover and your helpful links to the dishonest practice known as quote-mining the list goes on and on...and on...

Indeed the cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze me! eg., how you proclaim to defend the Truth of the Bible by being (consistently) dishonest!

Nevin is no thorn in the side to science, he is a complete irrelevance.

"I know it is not a complete argument but people on this blog seems to expect me to me to have advanced degree knowlegde in genetics, theology, palentology, physics, biology, hermenutics, ancient history etc etc."

Err no PB we do not but *YOU* were the one demonstrating to us your wilful ignorance on these subjects and your refusal to accept *very* simple points.

If you want to know more and ask science questions why not go here...

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/topics

Scientists from all over the world use this site or here...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.paleontology/topics

To discuss your ground-breaking work on fossils!?

Or even better why not here...

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/index.php

here is a list of the contributors to this site-there are some very big names here!

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/biographies.html

Whats wrong? are you too scared!?

Anyway you go back and watch the Flinstones!

Luv ya PB

and please never stop posting...pllleeeaaasssee!

Btw you are not an "irrelevant stereotype" not at all PB! rather you are a very relevant stereotype of a creationist!


  • 136.
  • At 12:05 PM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

Oh dear PB as dishonest as ever I see!

First off I do hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have found a natural resource company that uses the (cough) better explanation(sic) of creationist (cough) "theory" (sic) that powers your PC and your home and car etc?

I did have the greatest misfortune to read all your post including point 6 and as usual it was full of all the old bluster and well-worn canards.

It is ironic and hypocritical to cite these very intelligent men of science when in a lot of cases it was your fellow-traveller Bible-believers that opposed them in many cases. Such as the geo-centrism which was the norm, Lord Kelvin work on the age of te earth destroyed Biblical creationism before Darwin(how ironic you should cite him!?!?).

It was not because of of Christianity that science came about but in many cases it was in spite of.

You do make very astute point when you mention the enlightenment. Lets look at science pre-enlightenment and science post-enlightenment...well just look at it go when we remove a frame of reference!

Here is a little video to illustrate this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

"You are trailing badly in this subject area."

You have some cheek! even a broken clock tells the correct time at least once a day-you have got *nothing* right on this subject!

As JW succinctly put it you are "completely inadequate in this debate".

Your other post to James contain the same old inaccuracies and dishonesties.

You say that we refuse to be pinned down!? which is very odd since there is a growing list of very simple questions that you seemingly cannot answer! Indeed these questions have been asked of you for over a year and a half now! here they are again(funny you keep missing them!!!

If indeed creationist "theory"(perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of this "theory"?-I have been asking for a year and a half!). Since fossils are a classic eg of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!

Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?

Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent eg of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) eg., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasising their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

You see PB I have set the bar very low for you and made it as simple as possible(but it is never simple enough!)

OH dear those nasty old atheists up to their tricks asking simple questions damn!As you well know we are not arguing evolution equals atheism simply that Biblical creationism is dishonest, useless horse manure-which is a *fact* by every definition and sense of the word. James raises the excellent point of Francis Collins, as I have told you many, many times intelliegnt Christains have no problem with science-so please don't worry about it!

"And dont just weigh in with a whinge about dinsaurs on the ark before you have demonstrated that you have a clue what you are talking about."

Well the flood myths of Genesis are myths which have no evidence to back them up. Indeed (and this is saying something!!) belief in the flood myths is if anything even more stupid than creationism!!

"I can give a long list of examples of people who have come undone here doing just that sort of thing and thinking they were clever."

Golly! can you!? what about the llooonnnggg list of all the times you have caught out being dishonest?
Do you remember Quantum Mechanics? and how it was "...undermining evolution", or how "it has little respect for the laws of science" or "Catastrophism...mainstream", or your views on fossils, or the "few labs doing radiometric dating" or Dover and your helpful links to the dishonest practice known as quote-mining the list goes on and on...and on...

Indeed the cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze me! eg., how you proclaim to defend the Truth of the Bible by being (consistently) dishonest!

Nevin is no thorn in the side to science, he is a complete irrelevance.

"I know it is not a complete argument but people on this blog seems to expect me to me to have advanced degree knowlegde in genetics, theology, palentology, physics, biology, hermenutics, ancient history etc etc."

Err no PB we do not but *YOU* were the one demonstrating to us your wilful ignorance on these subjects and your refusal to accept *very* simple points.

If you want to know more and ask science questions why not go here...

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/topics

Scientists from all over the world use this site or here...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.paleontology/topics

To discuss your ground-breaking work on fossils!?

Or even better why not here...

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/index.php

here is a list of the contributors to this site-there are some very big names here!

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/biographies.html

Whats wrong? are you too scared!?

Anyway you go back and watch the Flinstones!

Luv ya PB

and please never stop posting...pllleeeaaasssee!

Btw you are not an "irrelevant stereotype" not at all PB! rather you are a very relevant stereotype of a creationist!


  • 137.
  • At 01:44 PM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Small point my lovely PB,

You say "As I restarted this blog with my questions, I claim the right to repost them."

First of all really good to see you back I did miss you! and please never stop giving your views on science! as they a delightful reminder of the intellectual dishonesty, indeed the dishonesty full stop, the willful ignorance and uselessness of creationism of which you have provided many helpful examples-for which I do thank you(and have kept a helpful note on).

Of course you have every right to repost your canards(most of which have been answered before but as ever...right over your head!)however PB fair's fair there is a long list of simple questions that I and others have been asking you for over a year and a half which you very rudely in my opinion (and others) have not answered.
So you really should try and answer these simple questions before you try to run away and change the subject yet again

Here they are(you keep missing them! indeed you have kept missing them for over a year and a half!)You can also substitute fossils for Biblical creationism in general if you want.

Perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of creationist theory-(I have been asking for a year and a half!).

Since fossils are a classic e.g. of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!
Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?(or indeed the creationist framework as set by AIG and ICR for e.g.?)

Science has to produce results-could you name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent e.g. of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) e.g.., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasizing their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

And perhaps you could tell us more about the "few" labs doing radiometric dating you did repeat this assertion on at least 2 occasions but when (repeatedly) asked to back this up...you ran away!

And please PB when you finally answer these simple questions do not use the either/or fallacy I simply request the simple evidence for your position.(You really would think this would be simple!)

It would also be great if you could at least acknowledge your many dishonesties that you have used in order to deceive the gentle readers of this blog.

I will of course look in to see how you are doing on the usenet groups that I have posted. No offense to Will Crawley here but I do not know why you waste your time posting on this blog when you profess to hold scientific "facts" which will earn you the Nobel prize many times over, make you one of the most famous men of science, towns and airports will be named after you!your work on fossils will earn you BILLIONS from natural resource companies(you will make Bill Gates seem like a pauper!)so I do hope that you share my concern on the veracity of your views.

I am also concerned that you would mention that we are insulting and nasty to you when we have shown you nothing but love and extreme patience! and you just throw it back in our faces by threatening police and legal action. As I said we have shown you nothing but patience in the face of your posts which insult the intelligence of the gentle readers here.

I would say that in a rare moment of honesty from you you did admit that you felt you were being "attacked" because of ***RELIGION***(your emphasis) you did this in quite an intemperate, shrill tone which was quite shocking! In any case I am glad that you admit that your views are religious rather than science. I must add that I have no intention of insulting your religious views nor insulting the dogmatic, authoritarian Pope of your religious cult-Ken Ham and as you well know your position is only held by those on the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism(which is very odd given that you say your views are "scientific"!?). I hope that my position is clearer as yours certainly is.

What also concerns me sweetest PB is your flip-flopping between the two mutually exclusive positions of Biblical creationism and ID(this was pointed out to you before but you seemed to have missed-like so much else!). In one post you cite Biblical creationism about fossils e.g.., the world started 6000 years ago, in 6 days with a talking snake to the ID position which according to Michael Behe the world is 4.6 billion years old and he no problem with transitional fossils and evolution(as such)-it is very confusing when you change between these two contradictory positions!

Further you say..

"Meanwhile I accept that ID and creationist theory is bound to change with new research"

But the point is PB dearest is that on the whole they don't change as (you even admit) they are religious, dogmatic assertions.

Finally please try and learn what ad hominem actually means-it means to attack the arguer rather than the argument. I have been trying with increasing concern to get an argument out of you e.g.., a single piece of positive evidence to back up your claims but none is ever forthcoming!

You must understand that we love you here! I try to tell people what a complete load of dishonest horse manure Biblical creationism is and all I have to do is point them to your posts-for which I must again thank you from the bottom of my heart!

You have a Yabba Dabba Doo time PB!

Luv

DD


  • 138.
  • At 02:03 PM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:


DD

You openly dismiss everything I say as lies while admitting you openly admit that you need help understanding what I am talking about (ie when you went to talk origins to get your thoughts previously)!!!

why should I waste time with this?

The debate has moved on.

Evoltuion vs creationism is a symptom and a red herring.

The real problem is asserting that science should be a closed system without God.


if you want to join the train try UNDERSTANDING the last few points.

PB

PB

  • 139.
  • At 04:01 PM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Hello James,

Well, it didn't take you very long to get to know peab better. Well done, thanks for posting the message that caused my precious peab to respond with post 134 in this thread. I haven't had such a good time since.......well, since pb, DD and I were together the other day.

Peab my sweet, the list of questions you raised were indeed not new and have been answered many times before, as has the definition of supernatural (well taken care of by DD).

One new point you raised was peer review. It is indeed not sufficient to filter out all flawed publications. But ID can't even get through that wide a filter. Imagine what nonsense it must be then, if it can't slip through that sometimes leaky system.

I did appreciate your bits of yelling and pompous self-congratulation.

"I simply refuse to be marginalised as an irrelevant stereotype!!!"

Your anger really turns us all on. You know it does!

"I am actually quite happy in seeing theistic evolution as a form of ID, which if course linguistically it is."

Oh my FSM, save us! That explains your folly of calling McGrath an ID'er.

"My point is that science has for the vast majority of its history had an open system and certainly from the scientific revolution this was explicitly Christian and openly inspired by faith in Christ. fact."

Peab has just demonstrated that his ignorance extends to ancient history. He has never heard of the work of Greeks for instance.

"So, the athiests here are the nasty religious fundamentalists here"

I would recommend a dictionary.

"you cant prove athiesm with evidence"

Ah, 'just a theory' then! Maybe we should teach atheism in RE classes, 'to let students hear all sides of the story' and 'paying attention to alternative theories'?

"And dont just weigh in with a whinge about dinsaurs on the ark before you have demonstrated that you have a clue what you are talking about."

You were mentioning ad hominems to James?

"I can give a long list of examples of people who have come undone here doing just that sort of thing and thinking they were clever."

Oh please do give that list. This is probably your second-most self-congratulatory statement ever (the number 1 being 'I'm beating all comers on the facts - not insults', the real classic).

"I know it is not a complete argument but people on this blog seems to expect me to me to have advanced degree knowlegde in genetics, theology, palentology, physics, biology, hermenutics, ancient history etc etc."

As you make so many claims in all these areas, it would seem fitting if you had any amount of knowledge in them.

Peab my sweet, it pains me to see you make such a fool of yourself again. I know you need an outlet for your energy, but your posts here are not the solution. You know that if you use the usual physical outlet for it, that the results are so much more satisfying for all involved. I know DD and Amenhotep will attest to this.

greets,
xxXX
Peter

  • 140.
  • At 04:52 PM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Hello James,

Well, it didn't take you very long to get to know peab better. Well done, thanks for posting the message that caused my precious peab to respond with post 134 in this thread. I haven't had such a good time since.......well, since pb, DD and I were together the other day.

Peab my sweet, the list of questions you raised were indeed not new and have been answered many times before, as has the definition of supernatural (well taken care of by DD).

One new point you raised was peer review. It is indeed not sufficient to filter out all flawed publications. But ID can't even get through that wide a filter. Imagine what nonsense it must be then, if it can't slip through that sometimes leaky system.

I did appreciate your bits of yelling and pompous self-congratulation.

"I simply refuse to be marginalised as an irrelevant stereotype!!!"

Your anger really turns us all on. You know it does!

"I am actually quite happy in seeing theistic evolution as a form of ID, which if course linguistically it is."

Oh my FSM, save us! That explains your folly of calling McGrath an ID'er.

"My point is that science has for the vast majority of its history had an open system and certainly from the scientific revolution this was explicitly Christian and openly inspired by faith in Christ. fact."

Peab has just demonstrated that his ignorance extends to ancient history. He has never heard of the work of Greeks for instance.

"So, the athiests here are the nasty religious fundamentalists here"

I would recommend a dictionary.

"you cant prove athiesm with evidence"

Ah, 'just a theory' then! Maybe we should teach atheism in RE classes, 'to let students hear all sides of the story' and 'paying attention to alternative theories'?

"And dont just weigh in with a whinge about dinsaurs on the ark before you have demonstrated that you have a clue what you are talking about."

You were mentioning ad hominems to James?

"I can give a long list of examples of people who have come undone here doing just that sort of thing and thinking they were clever."

Oh please do give that list. This is probably your second-most self-congratulatory statement ever (the number 1 being 'I'm beating all comers on the facts - not insults', the real classic).

"I know it is not a complete argument but people on this blog seems to expect me to me to have advanced degree knowlegde in genetics, theology, palentology, physics, biology, hermenutics, ancient history etc etc."

As you make so many claims in all these areas, it would seem fitting if you had any amount of knowledge in them.

Peab my sweet, it pains me to see you make such a fool of yourself again. I know you need an outlet for your energy, but your posts here are not the solution. You know that if you use the usual physical outlet for it, that the results are so much more satisfying for all involved. I know DD and Amenhotep will attest to this.

greets,
xxXX
Peter

  • 141.
  • At 05:02 PM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB sweetest one!

I would say that most of what you write is lies and the rest is wilfully ignorant hogwash that you have copied off creationist websites.

Yes I went to talkorigins usenet and very helpful they were too! I was seeking clarification on some points that you raised concerning Quantum Mechanics(which you are of course an "expert")and as I thought it was your usual dishonesty "QM...undermining evolution" etc. Perhaps if you posted there you would not be caught out telling falsehoods and setting up distorted strawmen.

"why should I waste time with this?"

Indeed why should we waste our precious time with you? This is *not* a debate we are having with you, it is impossible to have a debate with someone who is so consistently dishonest and wilfully ignorant. Indeed the only reason I am here is to observe the latest blooper that you make. Moreover the best advice that I received on that TalkOrigins thread was from a poster who stated in relation to your "points" was "I hope you saw fit to laugh" and that is what I do!

"The debate has moved on."

I know you would like it to and for you to run away from making confident assertions then crying about ***RELIGIOUS*** discrimination and running away but you really should back up what you say!

Here are the simple points(yet again!)Further PB they actually come under the point you are attempting to make about science.

Here they are(you keep missing them! indeed you have kept missing them for over a year and a half!)You can also substitute fossils for Biblical creationism in general if you want.

Perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of creationist theory-(I have been asking for a year and a half!).

Since fossils are a classic e.g. of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!
Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?(or indeed the creationist framework as set by AIG and ICR for e.g.?)

Science has to produce results-could you name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent e.g. of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) e.g.., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasizing their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

And perhaps you could tell us more about the "few" labs doing radiometric dating you did repeat this assertion on at least 2 occasions but when (repeatedly) asked to back this up...you ran away!

And please PB when you finally answer these simple questions do not use the either/or fallacy I simply request the simple evidence for your position.(You really would think this would be simple!)

It would also be great if you could at least acknowledge your many dishonesties that you have used in order to deceive the gentle readers of this blog.

I do understand your oft repeated canards on this point. Indeed they are one of the most repeated canards that creationists use! Hope you had a look at my helpful video?

And PB! I do hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have found a natural resource company that uses the (cough) better "explanation"(sic) of creationist (cough) "theory" (sic) that powers your PC and your home and car etc? If not you are being a dreadful hypocrite!

And do try and stop being hypocritical and flip-flopping between Biblical creationism(6000 years) and ID(4.6 billion years) as it makes you look rather silly! one or the other good man!

Luv

DD

  • 142.
  • At 09:16 PM on 05 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:

Pete

When I referred to study of uniform causes in an open system before the scientific revolutin this was a reference to the Greeks.

They had many factors outside your strict naturalistic athiesm which they saw as a part of their science.

The problem is therefore yours, not mine!


If you want a reminder of the bloody nose I gave lets just have a chuckle about the published paper on feather evolution you put up against my argument that there was no evidence feathers had evolved.

Of course your paper openly admitted it was 99.9 per cent speculation.

It still brings a smile to my face. If only you had read the paper before your put it up on your website.

Now you see why I warned James to laugh after the fight on this blog and not before it!


I see you finally have stopped billing yourself as a QUB scientist Pete.

Are you going to put your new url up and we will see how they like your innovative mixture of sexual innuendo and science?

Or in your heart of hearts do you realise what a twit a professional scientist makes of himself in doing such things.

Lets see your new url then!


As for the supernatural, DD couldnt and didnt put up a defition if you read his post again, nice try.

Let him try again and you will see. It was a definition of naturalism that he used.

You may as well admit your failure here.


I am not interested in trading blows with you, but what I am interested in in seeing what credible responses you have to my latest posts.

The answer is none.

My hypotheses survive test number one with no serious challenge whatsover except for insults.


Thanks Peter

PB

PS DD, you are really wasting your time on old old stuff. Keep up and I will discuss with you.

  • 143.
  • At 12:22 AM on 06 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Hello peab,

Ah, how reassuring it is to see that your dishonesty is as bad as ever. YOU blundered by bringing up Prums paper, remember! Surely you remember, you came up with a made-up quote that was not in Prums paper at all.

For the full history of that particular episode in your dishonesty, see the earlier thread of this forum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/06/belfasts_biblical_flood_1.html

Yes peab, there you are, exposed as a blatant liar again. You brought up the paper in post 41 in that thread. In post 43 of that thread I exposed you once again. Let me remind you how silly you looked by repeating part of post 43 in that thread:

"I looked for the quote you gave, using the word 'antecedents'. Zero hits. The line you quote is not in the article!! Go on pb, and others as well, download that pdf and copy-paste the quote into the Acrobat search field. No hits. Try part of the sentence. No hits. Try the single word 'antecedents'. No hits.

It's not surprising when you look who the authors are. They are evolutionists. That's right pb, in your ignorant attempts to rubbish evolution you have sunken to the point of making up false references, attributing lines to evolutionary biologists that they never wrote. Holding up people in support of your statements who actually make a living doing research to further expand our knowledge of evolution."

And from that you claim victory? When you gave me more ammo to use against you! Whahaaha!
And then you warn me of what may await me by continuing to play you for a fool. Ooooohhh, scary!

Peter

  • 144.
  • At 12:59 PM on 06 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:

Yes Pete I agree that you published the paper ostensibly because it appeared someone on the web had attributed a quote to it which did not appear to be in the paper.

However the contested quote was entirely consistent with the paper you published. The anomoaly was never explained by either side.

The context was clearly that you were using the paper to destroy the creationist view ie that there was no evidence that feathers had ever evolved from anything else.


The result was that you were left red faced when the paper came down squarely to the conclusion that there was really no evidence for feather evolution at all but that speculative models were created by the authors because... well everyone knows evolution is true.... right Pete?

No wonder Karl Popper threw a blue fit at this "scientific theory" of evolution.


PB 1
PK 0

Again.

//////////////////////////


The terms of this debate have now changed.

My focus is no longer on whether evolution or creationism/ID is true but actually whether science proves athiesm.

This really the main main point that Pete DD, JW and Amen are trying to push. Evolution is just a front.

Duuhh. Thanks Mr Dawkins.


Here is a simple illustration.

This is a set of scientists who studied the uniformity of natural causes in an open system.(ie not dismissing supernatural reality as non-existent etc).

Put another way, there was no real dividing line between their science and their faiths. (yes I know many of them werent Christian but the point in question is whether science proves there is nothing outside a closed system. All these guys believed there clearly was).

we have the following periods (the list is not exhaustive);-

- ancient Greeks
- Islamics
- Medievals
- Renaissance
- Scientific Revolution
- "Modern" scientists since then who also believe in a Creator regardless of their view on creation or evolution.

The creation of a closed scientific system in the west was really completed only around the end of the 19th century.

Now you can contest minutiae in that, I'm sure, but the main premise is accurate.

More recently Gould said in this era around half his evolutionist colleagues were devout believers who saw their science, including evolution, as the hand of God.

Francis Collins of Human Genome project is one such example.

That means that the Dawkinsites who actually argue that science affirms there is definitely no creator or supernatural are -in the broad sweep of history- "heretics" and a tiny minority.

It also means that even today you might be only hitting parity with 50 per cent of your colleagues.

And even the theistic evolutionists you work with still carry over the old belief informally, in a Creator and that their science is an open system.

They believe the God hypothesis is very useful because, as required by Occam's razor, it explains so many problems in science with the minimum number of assumptions.

for example, special pleading which excuses the big bang and the origin of life from the first law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis. And the reasons why scientifc laws are stable and comprehendable.

Looking back at the broad sweep of history of science and even the demographics of it today, you are in a tiny minority who seperates your science into a watertight closed system and insists there is nothing outside it. as per Dawkins of course.

This change happened because of the adoption of a philsophical assumption from the enlightenment that has nothing to do with "science" in the strict sense.

So your entire worldview is hanging on a very tenous and recent philsophical or religious hook, and it certainly isnt proven physics Pete.

The last point of course is that, as Oppenheimer (and history) affirm, the scientific revolution which you woe so much to could not have happened without the Christian faith which inspired it.

So you are entitled to your opinion when say there is no God or supernatural (that word again that nobody here can define!)

But you cant say the weight of science history is behind you. And you cant prove it with science either.

It is your decision to take that literal leap of faith.

So, in conclusion, you simply have no grounds for marginalising me as a kook for choosing to have faith.


(Radio commentator speaks: "A points win to PB in round 144, after a dramatic knockdown of Klaver. Klaver is back on his feet again, but shaky.

"Has he got anything left in his armoury for the next round???"

"ding ding!......round 145!

"Let's see......."

PB

  • 145.
  • At 07:57 PM on 06 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Even if what you say is "true"(though you are as right about this as you are on everything else eg., see QM, fossils, catastrophism etc etc).

It does not change the fact that Biblical creationism is load of dishonest, useless horse manure!

Ps., why not go at those simple questions, it is only a year and a half-after all!

  • 146.
  • At 08:58 PM on 06 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Peab my sweet,

I don't recall being red-faced over that paper. Re-read the thread I linked to. You'll see that I merely pointed out that the paper was outdated, see e. g. the paper with numerous examples of intermediate feather fossils that I have been pointing out to you (dozen of times now). Oh, and yes, I may have turned a bit red during my roaring laughter at your expense, given your 'It's official, there are no intermediate fossils' and the unforgettable 'I am beating all comers on the facts -not insults'. Those were classics in the pantheon of creationist blundering.

Yet despite that, you award yourself points, and then later on again, as if this is a boxing match. That means your ignorance extends to yet another area. In boxing, it is usually not one of the contestants who gets to decide who is ahead. Referees do that. And you'll notice the silence in this thread when it comes to your support. Our recent visitor, James, wasn't particularly impressed with your posts.

Now, don't you go making up new identities again (like 'John') to pat your own shoulder. That would be very naughty. I do like your naughtiness in other areas of course! Do stay a naughty in those ways.

And finally I see you concede on the evolution/creationism debate. Very late, but wise of you. Are you ready to concede other areas too? If not, I'm still eager to hear your thoughts on QM.

greets,
xxXXX
Peter

  • 147.
  • At 09:22 PM on 06 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

Oh dear PB you really lost it old chap!

You are becoming more and more dogmatic and authoritarian just like your Pope Ken Kam!

Perhaps you should start your own website AIPB(Answers in PB) where everyone must sign a document that they must agree with you!Do you like being all strict and authoritarian PB?

Anyway sweetie First off I do hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have found a natural resource company that uses the (cough) better explanation(sic) of creationist (cough) "theory" (sic) that powers your PC and your home and car etc?
It's a very simple question!

The Prum paper did indeed expose the nefarious tactics used by yourself and how scientific papers are written has been explained to you time and time again but...as usual you are too obtuse and wilfully ignorant to get it.

"DD, you are really wasting your time on old old stuff. Keep up and I will discuss with you."

Oh dear PB do try and get that dummie quick that you just spat out of the pram in case some nasty person steps on it! You see my love you were the one that started this thread again with a post about fossils. Now this should be self-evident but I am just asking some incredibly simple questions that even Henry Simple, King of the simple people, who fell off the top of the simple tree and hit every branch on the way down could answer-THEY ARE THAT SIMPLE!

Here they are again sweetness!

Here they are(you keep missing them! indeed you have kept missing them for over a year and a half!)You can also substitute fossils for Biblical creationism in general if you want.

Perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of creationist theory-(I have been asking for a year and a half!).

Since fossils are a classic e.g. of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!
Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?(or indeed the creationist framework as set by AIG and ICR for e.g.?)

Science has to produce results-could you name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent e.g. of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) e.g.., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasizing their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

And perhaps you could tell us more about the "few" labs doing radiometric dating you did repeat this assertion on at least 2 occasions but when (repeatedly) asked to back this up...you ran away!

And please PB when you finally answer these simple questions do not use the either/or fallacy I simply request the simple evidence for your position.(You really would think this would be simple!)

It would also be great if you could at least acknowledge your many dishonesties that you have used in order to deceive the gentle readers of this blog.

"My focus is no longer on whether evolution or creationism/ID is true but actually whether science proves athiesm.

This really the main main point that Pete DD, JW and Amen are trying to push. Evolution is just a front."

Oh dear PB, that's another whopper!
I have given you lists of intelligent Christians who have no problem with science-please don't worry your pretty little head with this subject!You cite Francis Collins in support of yourself, Franicis Collins 4.6 billion year old earth, no probs with transitional fossils, evolution etc etc !?!?

And PB have you decided which position you are going to adopt? ID or Biblical creationism? It does get very confusing when you flip=flop between these two mutually exclusive religious (oops!) positions!

I did answer your question on the supernatural, I did try and keep it simple but as ever...it was not simple enough...

I did answer your recent questions and you must remember that your Bible-believing colleagues were against science! Geo-centrism was once the norm and goodness help anyone who dared challenge!(I know you are a geo-centrist yourself and I don't want to offend your religious opinions again and you threatening us with the police!). You see PB science has to produce results, pseudo-science doesn't it's as simple as that!

Science happened in spite of the Christian not because of it!

Anyway I did have a look at the usenet groups I recommened and haven't seen you!? are you scared to share your (cough) "knowledge" (sic) with the worlds scientific community?


"So, in conclusion, you simply have no grounds for marginalising me as a kook for choosing to have faith."

I don't think anyone here as marginalised you because you have faith per se, it is the type of "faith" that you have eg., a looney tune form of Protestant fundamentalism that has made you dishonest, obtuse and wilfully ignorant and as evident in your last couple of posts an inflated sense of grandeur. As I have said to before PB, I have many Christian friends and amongst members of my family-none are anything like you! you are light years away!a completely alien species!

As for all this ding-dinging PB, I think you are completely Ding-Dong!

PB if myself Peter, Amen, JW, Gee Dubyah were to keep a score of all the times we have exposed you...well goodness I don't think a super computer would be able to keep the score!

In any case stick the dummy back in and try and answer those simple questions!I do realise that you want to run away from your sin...but you can't run from it!

Luv

DD

  • 148.
  • At 10:26 PM on 06 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB sweetness!

You really have done yourself in with Prum as you did link to that nasty dishonest misquote, indeed that is a constant feature of yourself!

PB you appear to have become quite authoritarian and strict, it appears you are attempting to ape your religious leader Ken Ham! Perhaps you should start a website AIPB(answers in PB) and get everyone to sign a document that they must agree with you! You may want to be "strict" with us, but I assure you this relationship is purely platonic.

"DD, you are really wasting your time on old old stuff. Keep up and I will discuss with you."

PB you brought up fossils again in your first post back(and thank goodness you are back as I did miss you!) and all I want, nay humbly request is that you back up what you say!

Here are the very simple questions again!

Here they are(you keep missing them! indeed you have kept missing them for over a year and a half!)You can also substitute fossils for Biblical creationism in general if you want.

Perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of creationist theory-(I have been asking for a year and a half!).

Since fossils are a classic e.g. of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!

Could you name some aspect of your claims about fossils that is confirmed by independent experiment?
A piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

A good example of evidence for your claims about fossils would be some observation which was predicted by it.

A list of all the scientific breakthrough's discovered within the fossil creationist framework?(or indeed the creationist framework as set by AIG and ICR for e.g.?)

Science has to produce results-could you name me the practical results of Biblical creationism(you give the excellent e.g. of fossils and say their theory is superior so...) e.g.., a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research after their bottom line is money(and why the major companies use the "flawed" radiometric method)?

You talk about competing world views-yet the only group to keep emphasizing their own very narrow religious agenda are the YECists-indeed to publish on AIG you must sign a document that you *MUST* agree with the religious opinions of Ken Ham-I have asked you on numerous occasions to name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign but none is ever forthcoming.

And perhaps you could tell us more about the "few" labs doing radiometric dating you did repeat this assertion on at least 2 occasions but when (repeatedly) asked to back this up...you ran away!

And please PB when you finally answer these simple questions do not use the either/or fallacy I simply request the simple evidence for your position.(You really would think this would be simple!)

It would also be great if you could at least acknowledge your many dishonesties that you have used in order to deceive the gentle readers of this blog. Is there something wrong PB that you cannot answer these simple questions? I am concerned! :-/

And I do hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have found a natural resource company that uses the (cough) better explanation(sic) of creationist (cough) "theory" (sic) that powers your PC and your home and car etc?

It does appear that you want to run away and hide and ignore these simple questions that would back up your claims. But as Peter has noted you have decided very wisely to leave this issue who can blame you since you were constantly being caught out being dishonest and willfully ignorant! Indeed PB this is probably the first time that you have been wise!

Now it appears that you accept evolution! Indeed you have moved (sometimes in the same post!) between Biblical creationism, to ID and now to theistic evolution!(and sometimes back again!).

Your point about Christian science is interesting in the sense that Bible-believers e.g.., creationists and your mates the geo-centrists have done nothing! As I have told you science has to produce results , pseudo-science doesn't and your failure to answer my very simple questions illustrates this perfectly! I again thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Luv

DD

Peter!

I am so glad that you linked back to that thread because that is when PB did my favourite PBism(I know there are many!). If you look down the thread to post 73 our lovely PB "quotes" the Enc. Britt about Jesus, PB then goes on to say rather confidentially what the august journal has to say! Unfortunately for PB he deliberately left the first part of the article (which says what the Enc. Britt actually states!!!-which is the exact opposite of PB!). False witnessing and quote-mining for Jesus!? don't ya just love it!

Ps. do you not think that PB is becoming rather authoritarian? I think he believes he is Torquemada, Calvin, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind all rolled into one!I detect a Napoleon "complex".

  • 149.
  • At 11:52 PM on 06 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:


Radio commentator speaks: "I dont believe it, Klaver's corner has thrown in the towel,

"its all over...

"this is it ladies and gentlemen, PB has won the "w&t are religious politicans nutters" title with a fantastic show of humility, incisive wit and knowledge.....

"...beating the heavyweight favourite, physics phd and leading NI Humanists assocation member good and proppperrrr!"

(.....crowd goes wild....)

/////////////

Ok well maybe I should have left the humility piece out...

BTW Pete it is not a good debating tactic to remind readers of how pleased I was at trouncing you previously ref Prum.

sigh!

In all seriousness for a second Pete, I dont take any pleasure from the heat in this debate at all.

I would much prefer we could discuss like civil adults.

I bear no grudges against you and I know you are a very talented and intelligent person, I have a lot of respect for anyone who has a phd in physics, in all seriousness.


DD

I appreciate the direction of post 145 but in all honesty I have moved on from the points in 147 and just dont have th time in my life to revisit right now.


later guys

PB

  • 150.
  • At 10:36 AM on 07 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:

BTW Pete and DD

If you think I have conceded evolution is true you couldnt be more wrong.

We have stablished, above, that science is historically and currently, the study of the uniformity of natural causes IN A SUPERNATURAL WORLD.


At Dover the trial judge was seriously misled by those that told him supernatural causation was "a science stopper" and ID should not be taught in state schools because of its religious connotations.


What the judge should have been told was that the SECULAR origins of the universe are in fact supernatrual. Yes you read that right.

And he should have been told that the secular origin of life is in fact supernatural too. yes you read that right too.

Because both ideas contradict natural laws of science, TFLOT and the law of biogenesis, with only special pleading for fig leaves.


The judge should also have been told, that really no science at all should be taught in US state schools because, as we have demonstrated, 99% of it has religious connotations in that 99% of it has been directly inspired by faith in a creator God.


eg Kelvins TSLOT was based directly on scripture "the earth shall wear out like a garment...etc"


In reality, Occam's Razor demands that a Creator God hypothesis be given serious respect as the origin of matter and life, as neither proposition conflicts at all with TFLOT or biogenesis.


In fact a creator God logically pulls together every field of knowledge very well....the holy grail of science.


Traditionally science has always assumed a creation of the universe along these type of lines, broadly speaking.


The enlightenment turned this assumption on its head for philsophical reasons.


But as we have seen, supernatural causation is the wellspring and atmosphere of all science and not a "science stopper" at all.


So the premise for excluding ID in the broadest sense from schools seems to be on exceptionally thin ice.


PB



  • 151.
  • At 02:12 PM on 07 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:


ps... yes I know the ancient greeks were not monotheistic, but they still believed in science as study of uniformatiy of natural causes in a supernatural world.

After them, each scientific period listed in previous posts was monotheistic and abrahamic, as a general guide.

PB

  • 152.
  • At 05:41 PM on 07 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB,

I am so glad that you admit defeat and concede that we (and the world scientific community) were right all along but you could have done it with a bit more grace. I think in all honesty that you admit by your silence that you cannot answer my very simple questions and therefore admit that Biblical creationism is dishonest, useless horse manure. It would have been better if you had admitted all your past dishonesties too-for which I cannot give you any respect.

PB you really are losing it about Prum(I did think that you had turned over a new leaf and were trying to be honest). You introduced a dishonest eg of quote mining and built up a distorted strawman. In any case now you accept defeat and that Biblical creationism is dishonest, useless horse manure you will renounce your previous religious opinions.

The rest of the post is disappointing. You really would think that you would have learned your lesson about Dover!? but evidently not! ID was rejected because it is useless, dishonest horse manure.

As is your views on TFLOT and biogenesis.

Kelvin may have believed that he formed TSLOT on the Bible however it is firmly based on the materialistic naturalistic framework(also Kelvin was one of the first scientists to destroy a literal interpretation of the Bible). The only time science works is without a frame of reference eg., the Bible, Koran, Das kapital, Mein Kampf. Trying to fit science into these parameters has always been a disaster eg., Biblical/Islamic/Hindu etc creationism, geo-centrism, flat-earthism, ID,Five year plans, Aryan "science" etc and unfortunately etc.

You are finally(perhaps) getting the point that I have stressed to you from day one that intelligent theists have no problem with evolution/science-I myself have given you plenty of names, Peter supplied the name of Prof Weins re: dating methods(yet you accused the Prof of being "activist"!?), so has Amen. The thing is PB that all scientific discoveries have been without a frame of reference.

You must also remember that many discoveries that we take for granted today were vehemently denounced and suppressed by the Church. Anaesthetic for women in childbirth was opposed because it removed the "sin" of Eve!? Nearly every discovery was made by mavericks who dared to think outside the box.

"es I know the ancient greeks were not monotheistic, but they still believed in science as study of uniformatiy of natural causes in a supernatural world."

Oh dear PB! have a look at the Atomists.

"After them, each scientific period listed in previous posts was monotheistic and abrahamic, as a general guide."

Well the Hindu's and Buddists would disagree! and it does not of course make their position true...just look at the dishonest, useless garbage that is creationism!

So glad that you admit you were wrong about Biblical creationism and that you have evolved a bit, just need to get to realise that ID is the same and we are on the right track! Since we are talking about intelligent Christians re: Francis Collins why not have a look at Ken Miller, a scientist( who happens to be a Christian) who destroyed ID!

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/


Luv

DD

  • 153.
  • At 02:53 PM on 08 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Hello peab,

While your 'radio announcements' are rather silly, there is one area where I will concede defeat: you're the undisputed master in the area of self-congratulation. Only you could take a reminder of your dishonest false quoting of Prum (yes, you stated completely made-up, non-existant lines from his paper, in your desparation) and claim victory from it.

You say you don't bear me any grudges. That's kind. I don't bear you any grudges either. I would have plenty of reason to, with your year and a half of willful ignorance, refusals to absorb any information that you know shows you wrong, lies, made-up quotes, distortions of just about any area of science (none more laughable than 'QM has little respect for the rules of science'), refusals to answer that long, long list of questions that yecs have no substance for, etc. But I don't bear you any grudges, as I don't take you serious enough to do so.

And in your follow-up post you mention science again in a supernatural world. Come off it peab, you can't even define supernatural! How many times has this come up now? Why not follow DDs good example and describe accurately how you see it?

And thanks for agreeing that the Greeks are an example you can't work around. I appreciate that single bit of honesty on your part.

greets,
Peter

  • 154.
  • At 07:38 PM on 12 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:


Thanks Pete

The Greeks still believed in a creator Goddess, Gaia, and even Lovelocks reincarnation of her has been criticised as telelogical.

In any case, I dont have to work around the Greeks, they fit into my model perfectly;

science has been the study of uniform causes in a supernatural world until about 100 years ago, when it assumed the supernatural did not exist.


DD - you might want to look up wikipedia on "Teleology" and "natural philsophy".

PB

  • 155.
  • At 08:17 PM on 12 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:


Pete

Can you tell me what evidence there is to support the idea that the universe is made up of tiny strings many times smaller than atoms which exist across 9-10 dimensions?

If you can show me the proof I will recant on my QM quote.


You actually created my self congratulation by your ridiculous persistent ad hominems. it was my only real defence without insulting you.


You call me a YEC yet acknowledged before I was not convinced by the young earth "science".


I dont have to give a watertight def of supernatural because it is not me trying to exclude it from a watertight science compartment (as in Dover trial) - the onus is on you to define it if you wish to exclude it.


I read one physics prof recently who suggested string theory fitted quite easily into the category of supernatural, by the way.


I think the phrase "the study of the uniformity of natural causes in a supernatural world" is helpful.

It suggests everything outside uniform natural causes is supernatural.


The Greeks arnet a stumbling block for my worldview Pete but they are for yours.

Some suggest they stole many of their ideas from the Indians and Babylonians before them.


Gaia was the greek creator Goddess. Lovelocks reincanration of her more recently was also criticised as being teleological.


  • 156.
  • At 07:54 PM on 13 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB

You might want to look up the Atomists(not all Greeks believed in Gaia).

Your definition of supernatural is a very narrow protestant fundamentalist version.

Glad you admit that Biblical creationism is dishonest, useless horse manure! Now all you have to do is to apologise or at least be man enough to acknowledge the many dishonesties that you told in defence of YEcism eg., fossils, QM, floods etc etc and etc!

The supernatural(probably) does not exist because there is no evidence and it is useless and does not produce results as yourself have given us constant reminders!

Why not look at a decent history of science? why not try Bill Bryson's 'S Short History of Nearly Everything'.

  • 157.
  • At 11:15 PM on 15 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Peab my sweet,

It wasn't the wisest move of you to bring up the ancient Greeks. By repeating the idea that the Greeks stole many of their ideas from the Indians you've just exposed another area of your ignorance. The silk route didn't become a regular traveling route until the first century BC. FYI, that is well after the period in which ancient Greek culture flourished. See e. g.

http://www.ics.forth.gr/~vsiris/ancient_greeks/

And unlike the Romans, who had extensive trade with the west coast of India, the Greeks didn't. And the Indians hadn't developed the ideas the Greeks came up with it at the time. So you're suggesting the Greeks stole ideas the Indians didn't have yet through communication routes that weren't active yet. Well done.

As I said before peab, stick to relieving your energy in the usual physical way. And I'm not the only one saying that. Amenhotep and DD will attests that if you do, the result is much more satisfying for all involved.

kisses as always,
Peter

  • 158.
  • At 02:10 PM on 16 Feb 2008,
  • pb wrote:

Pete

Sorry, I'm not fishing for your red herrings.

where exaclty the greeks got their ideas from is irrelevant.

The point is that science only went avowedly secular in the past century or so.

That leaves those like Dawkins (who claim science proves the supernatural is bunkum) in a small minority.


Anyway, I actually wrote that "some" people "suggest" the Greeks got their ideas from the Indians and the Babylonians.


The point I was pointing to was that there was obviously signififcant application of "science" to the real world long before the Greeks.

But again, the real question is - why does Dawkins and co act like science has always been avowedly secular?

As we have said, a very significant percentage of scientists today strongly disagree with him, regardless of their precise religious views.

PB


  • 159.
  • At 04:27 PM on 16 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB sweetness,

Science has to produce results, you are living in the world of "secular" science because...it works, it's as simple as that!

The supernatural is indeed bunkum-just a lot of special pleading on the part of mutually exclusive religions.

Ok PB lets play by your rules lets include the supernatural into science...so Aleister Crowley's magick, Hindu supernaturalism, new age, astology, Buddhist and every supernatural claim etc I know that you will agree 101% with this view.

It is very odd that you say you are not convinced by YECism yet repeatedly use their dishonest arguments! After all you did start this thread again post 124 with that dishonest, useless horse manure about fossils and then in a later post came off with something about dinosaurs and the ark-which you of course admit to now to be utter guff.

Now I do know you want to run away and you believe that this is your thread and you can do what you like with it but...you *really* should try and be honest and apologise or even at least acknowledge all the dishonesties that you have told in the past in defense of YECism. Try and get some backbone inserted!

Ps. I do sorta miss all that AIg stuff, remember the list of fundie dentists you used to keep giving us-ahhh the old days!

DD

Ps. have you looked up the Atomists yet?

Here's a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomists

Lucretius 'On the nature of things' is very interesting! Did you know only one copy survived the flames of your Bible-believing buddies(so much else was lost forever as a result of your mates)? Goes to show what happens when the supernatural is in charge!

Pps. Peter I do indeed attest to your last paragraph!

  • 160.
  • At 08:39 PM on 18 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB is obsessed with Dawkins!

And I suspect that Prof Dawkins knowledge of science history is a bit more...knowledgeable than PB's(Indeed Dawkins actually praises William Paley in the Blind Watchmaker but PB is that wilfully ignorant and so experienced at constructing a straw-man argument that he chooses not to know this).

PB you have hit the nail on the head when you make the point of science in the last 100 years or so! WOW! just look at it go!I would be here all day giving you examples(you are using one right now!).

Compare this before to when science was a closed system(rather than the open one it is today), when there had to be a frame of reference. Indeed PB you have given us all many wonderful, succinct eg's of how dishonest, useless complete and utter horse manure science does become when the supernatural is introduced!Again thank you so much PB!

Oh PB! still waiting for an apology or at least an acknowledgement of all the dishonesties you told in favour of dishonest tripe like YECism-you did waste a lot of people's time over a long space of time-the least you could do would be to say...sorry!

Regards

DD

  • 161.
  • At 01:36 PM on 19 Feb 2008,
  • anon wrote:

DD - U R totally missing the points.

PB

  • 162.
  • At 08:41 PM on 19 Feb 2008,
  • Dylan_Dog wrote:

PB I totally understand the tired old canard you are striving to make.

Still waiting on the apology...

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.