« Previous | Main | Next »

The Thermodynamics of Andy McIntosh

Post categories:

William Crawley | 11:06 UK time, Sunday, 7 January 2007

drmcintosh.jpgThe creationist campaigner Andy McIntosh spoke to me on today's Sunday Sequence, following Richard Dawkins's public challenge to his professional status as a scientist and professor at Leeds University. Dr McIntosh has claimed that biological evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which asserts that systems must become more disordered over time.

Critics claim he has failed to recognise that evolutionary biology relates to an "open" system, whereas the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to "closed" systems. Andy McIntosh told me he accepts that evolution relates to an open system, but there are nevertheless difficulties in respect of the Second Law.

When I asked him if he shares his view on this matter with students at Leeds University, he said he was happy to speak about his views when students raised questions about evolution. This is possibly significant, since Leeds University has published a statement distancing the University from Dr McIntosh's stance on evolution. Following today's interview, it seems clear that Professor McIntosh is prepared to explore these issues with students in the course of his work at the University.

To test whether he would regard any scientific view as grounds for dismissal from a university position, I asked Professor McIntosh if he believed a "scientist" defending geocentricity (the view that the earth is at the centre of the universe) should be dismissed from a teaching position, even if that person held to that view on the basis of his reading of the Bible. He repeatedly refused to answer that question. I pointed out that some creationists maintain geocentricity -- in opposition to Galileo and Copernicus -- on the basis of their reading of the Bible, just as his view that the universe is only six thousand years old is based on his reading of the Bible. You can hear the entire interview here.

After today's programme, I received the following comment by email from Andy McIntosh. Dr McIntosh has asked me to publish this in full on the blog today, which I am happy to do.

Professor A.C. McIntosh: A comment

My thanks to William Crawley for allowing me to speak on his programme today. Despite diversions on to age of earth issues (It is well known that I hold a young earth position and have done for years. My book Genesis for Today has been freely available for 10 years where I expound that view both Biblically and scientifically), we managed to get to the point in the short time I had available -

Thermodynamics as I have explained before, does lie at the heart of the debate. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory unless the machinery is available to do so. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming such will not happen, even with natural selective forces at work. All natural selection will do is select from what is there already. It will not create a new machine which was not there before (either as a sub-machine or coded in embryonic form). An open thermodynamic system is not the answer either since simply adding energy to existing machinery will not change what is there already to a new machine. To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."

My position is to side with experimental science and not with 'just so' attempts to get round the clear evidence of design in nature. At the very least these matters should be critically considered in science teaching today.

With a high volume of correspondence, I will not be able to enter extended discussions here, but may contribute as I am able.”

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 11:38 AM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

Could we leave all the ad hominems aside in this tread and stick to the science here?

I've heard all of the AH comments before and I am not interested in more - get to the heart of the matter!

There are scientists of every discipline in this group. Speak in a way that brings dignity to your (and my) profession.

Cordially,
Michael

  • 2.
  • At 11:42 AM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Mr McIntosh,

If you believe in Biblical creationism why is this position only adopted by Biblical creationists the "evidence" would be adopted by those of all faiths and none-but it is not.

Why not just admit that your position is based on your fundamentalist faith and has nothing to do with evidence or science.

Why not have a look at the work of the scientist(who is a Christian) Ken Miller
who has done more(than any atheist scientist could have done) to destroy the fallacy that is ID.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

Btw science is not a dogmatic position it is open to debate, hence the reason that is peer-reviewed-thought that I would point that out as you seem to be ignorant on that point(and on most things).

Strange that you side-stepped the question of geo-centrists?

Also why is your creation myth true and all the rest false?http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

  • 3.
  • At 11:43 AM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dennis Golden wrote:

It's pretty bad when he couldn't or wouldn't answer the question about geocentricity. How can a "professor" have a problem with saying that THAT is off-bounds in a university!!? McIntosh seems to think that a university science lecturer can hold just about ANY view he likes without fear of criticsm or rebuke from the university. I hope Leeds were paying attention.

  • 4.
  • At 11:44 AM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Erm, taking a Boeing 777 as an example, I think he'll find that many of the parts are made from simpler machines.
I have real trouble understanding what he is saying. Does he not know that the machinery for making things like proteins, the DNA and its associated mechanisms, have the capability to form new structures by means of mutation?
Hence, thanks to mutation, new structures arise in the machinery that are then capable of building slightly different body parts or behaviours etc.

Another example- look at Hurricanes. Massive formations, with distinct shape and structure. They arise apparently spontaneously given certain starting conditions such as moisture ni the atmosphere, hot water and the right winds. Nobody would describe them as disorganised. The reason they exist is that it is thermodynamically better to form a hurricane and redistribute energy that way, than by the usual processes of convection etc.

Finally, he signs off with the usual plea of personal disbelief. THats fine, dont believe it if you like. Nevertheless evolution happens. Just dont try and use pseudoscientific reasons for it not working when your real reason is personal disbelief.

  • 5.
  • At 12:22 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Ok Micheal lets stick to the science.

Well thats Andy McIntosh out of the picture then.

  • 6.
  • At 12:29 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

I think that Mr McIntosh should publish his evidence for his belief that the world is 6000 years old.

This evidence would overturn biology, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology indeed all the sciences.

Mr. McIntosh would get the NObel prize and become the greatest sceintist that the world has ever seen! He would join Newton, Galileo, Darwin(!) etc etc in the pantheon of greats.

I think Mr McIntosh should put up or shut up.

Regards

DD

  • 7.
  • At 12:32 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • David (Oxford) wrote:

wow. bizarre wouldn't summarise that interview. mcintosh has lost it entirely. no real scientist would have trouble saying that a geocentrist should not be in a lecturering position in a UK science department.

  • 8.
  • At 01:48 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Gelman H wrote:

Just listened. Why does McIntosh keep saying he didn't get enough time on Creation Wars ... he got more time than anyone else.

I can tell why he thinks he didn't get enough time listening to this interview .. he spends so much time getting to the point, repeating himself and evading questions. soooooo frustrating to listen to mcIntosh. I bet there are creationists who agree with me on this.

  • 9.
  • At 01:52 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dr David Green wrote:

I hope Dawkins gets to hear this interview. This proves his point 100 %. Leeds University needs to act on this academic disgrace. I also think the university should answer the question McIntosh refused to answer: Would a professor of science who believes in geocentricity get the sack!? This is 2007 ... astonishing.

  • 10.
  • At 02:22 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dr rubberduckie wrote:

Thermodynamics question:

Where does matter come from?


  • 11.
  • At 02:34 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

I've said elsewhere that in my extensive experience with scientists and engineers, many of even the most technically knowledgable of them have great depth of knowledge in their field of specialty but little breadth. What that means is that once they are outside their own field, their knowledge is little or no more than the average person but others may not be aware of that. It seems to me that this is the case here. Andrew McIntosh's specialty is thermodynamics as applied to mechanical engineering. He may be expert when it come to the efficiency of a boiler or a refrigerator but when he gets into the realm of chemistry and biochemistry even as thermodynamics applies to it, it's clear he is beyond his limit. But that is where he made his technical blunder and that is where his false notions should be challenged and attacked. You'll notice his analogies are related to mechanical machines, an area he is more familiar with. I didn't hear the broadcast but hope to. I regret if my question about which chemical bond in the natural formation of DNA from inert matter violated the second law of thermodynamics as he contends, was not asked of him. I think he would have ducked that one too. He should avoid biology, a subject he knows little about and stick to boilology, an area with which he is more familiar.

Leeds University's distancing itself from his comments isn't good enough for me. Had he contended the earth was the center of the universe, that would clearly have been his private opinion about an area which had nothing to do with his professional life. His contention that the formation of DNA in nature is impossible without divine intervention because it violates TSLOT is in direct contradiction of what he was hired to teach and reflects on the education he passes along to his students, the quality of which the University certifies and attests to. For me that will remain in doubt until they change their own position and I will not recommend hiring any of their graduates if I am called upon to do so strictly on the strength of it.

  • 12.
  • At 02:45 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Creation Scientist wrote:

I was very disappointed with Andy McIntosh today. I am also a creationist but I don't agree with his point about TSLOT. He's entitled to his view. Problem is, when TSLOT is shown to be in agreement with evolution, as it surely is, others will write off creationism.

Second problem: Why couldn't he just say that geocentricity is a silly view and be done with it? Instead, he made it look like he is open to the idea. Awful.

Please find a better spokesman for creationism!!!!!

Hi folks: non-scientist speaking.

(1) His failure to answer the geocentricity question is at once astounding and very revealing.

(2) His argument from the Boeing 777 is surely a way of making the socalled 'irreducible complexity' argument, in which he's saying that these things (the dolphin's sound lens etc.) are so complex they could not have derived from simpler forms. Yet I haven't heard McIntosh or anyone else refute the argument Ken Miller made in the lecture posted here a while back (perhaps someone could find the link again) in which he showed that, in fact, the components of these complex parts can and did form together in other ways to do other jobs - simpler jobs - before they did the complex thing they're doing now. As Guthrie points out above, the Boeing 777 is made up of many simpler parts which, on their own, could be grouped together to do other things than now form a Boeing 777. For example, the seats could once have been in a coach rather than a plane; these parts could be reassembled in some biological junkyard challenge to do other, more simple, jobs.

Perhaps I'm understanding this incorrectly...

  • 14.
  • At 03:02 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Creation Scientist #12
He wouldn't reject geocentricity because he knows no more about astronomy than he does about the thermodynamics of chemical reactions. He's just a kook. Besides, in his mind, HE is the center of the universe and he happens to live on earth (at least his body does.) Maureen...Insect as a metaphor for McIntosh, valid or no?

  • 15.
  • At 03:09 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Helen Hays wrote:

i suppose the ball is now in leeds university's court.

sad day for academia when a professor thinks theres a place for genocentricity in a university teaching faculty these days. maybe there's room for flat earthers too??

Sad.

  • 16.
  • At 03:24 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Gelam wrote:

Im not sure id trust this guy with a boeing 777 let alone the fossil record. CRAZY man.

  • 17.
  • At 03:26 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Helen Hays #15
Far sadder when a man who believes that the formation of DNA in nature violates the second law of thermodynamics is hired and kept to teach thermodynamics at a university. The only university I know of where he belongs if it still exists is The University of the Trees, a communal cult in Hollister California which believed that if you prayed to small pyramids, that would keep you healthy and your car's engine in tune (I'm not making this up.) Maybe he should try to find a position at another school such as Whatsamatta U or Barely Normal.

  • 18.
  • At 03:47 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Paul Millington wrote:

The Wright brothers' original plane was built in a bicycle factory. Saab aircraft and Saab cars share a common heritage. His comments on 777s are utterly ridiculous.

I don't know what Prof McIntosh's views say about his competence to teach thermodynamics but they demonstrate that he understands very little about biology.

Creation adherent #12,
As you are a creationist, we would be at opposite ends of the spectrum of this debate. But it is commendably honest of you to openly and voluntarily state that, as a Creationst, you thought McIntosh was no good.

On a separate note:
While self-assembly of structures is not the field of materials science that I work in, I think McIntosh would be unpleasantly surprised to learn that in not too many years from now, the computer he uses to send his emails etc may well contain chips (as in the machine type of object, not greasy food) that were built by merely bringing atoms and molecules together and imposing the right process conditions, like temperature. And then letting the stuff figure it out for itself. Strange then, that semi-conductor companies are spending fortunes on research grants to look into what he says is impossible?

  • 20.
  • At 04:26 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


...I would suggest you are understanding it iccorrectly John.

For the illustration to work, the coach and whatever other machinery need to dismantle themselves and then rebuild themselves into the design of an airplane - by chance - having never seen or heard of the concept before. Then the aircraft would have to work too...

Dawkins needs a lot of faith to believe that..

PB

  • 21.
  • At 04:36 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Rehashing some unanswered/ignored questions for the evolutionists here;-

1) How many interim species fossils have ever been found where the interim features have no obvious function?

eg any "birds" that had semi-wings that were neither limbs nor wings?


I have been asking for weeks why there has never been a fossil found with transitional scales/feathers...

And why has there never been a bat fossil found where the wings were again of no use for flying but they had obviously gone further than arms?

(Many people have posted hyperlinks on the theory of the evolution of feathers but nobody has posted any actual evidence, ie a fossil).

2) I have yet to get an answer to this question on this blog; what standard of evidence is required of both evolution and creationism in order to be accepted as fact? There has to be the same standard of evidence for both. No answers yet?

3) Scientific methods requires a theory to be replicated in a lab for it to be accepted as fact. Why is evolution not required to meet this criteria? Are there different standards for creationism.

4) Andy McIntosh gave a lab test on this blog (at the very start of this debate) that if done would blow his view on evolution and TSLOT out of the water. He said it had never been done, but I dont see any of the evolutionsts even broaching this subject on this blog. Why not?

PB

  • 22.
  • At 04:48 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Perhaps you could point out one piece of credible, verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence that would back up your claims?

Glad that you (finally) admitted that your opinion
(and that of other creationists) was based on your fundamentalist faith and not on evidence.

If it was based on evidence it would be accepted by those of all faiths and none but sadly is not!

  • 23.
  • At 05:01 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

Anonymous

I presume you meant transitional rather than 'interim'?
I presume you have looked at below?
If not - read and come back.

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

alan

  • 24.
  • At 05:05 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Natural selection is not chance.

Nothing to do with faith, though it takes a hellava lot of faith to believe that the world started 6000 years ago with a talking snake!!!!

  • 25.
  • At 05:11 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Michael #1
"Speak in a way that brings dignity to your (and my) profession.

Now just how do you do that when one of the contributors is Dr rubberduckie? :>)

  • 26.
  • At 05:39 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

But Alan, where are the transitional fossils between those transitional fossils etc ad infinitum

(just thought I would get the usual creationist canard in to same the usual suspects the time)

  • 27.
  • At 06:26 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • rubberduckie wrote:

As most people here seem to have a lot to say about thermodynamics I was expecting someone to enlighten me as to where they think matter originally came from.


Helen,

You posted -

"sad day for academia when a professor thinks theres a place for genocentricity in a university teaching faculty these days. maybe there's room for flat earthers too??"

That's somewhat unfair, he refused to answer the question. Judge him, if you feel you must, on what he said, not on what he refused to comment on. If we argue from silence we'll end up in all sorts of bother.


  • 28.
  • At 06:56 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

he refused to answer because he knew that WC had caught him out.

If he answered yes, he would be a laughing stock if he answered no he would have to leave university.

He was answered a straight and simple question several times and refused to answer-that in itself speaks volumes.

  • 29.
  • At 07:12 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Rubberduckie- best scientific theory is that matter condensed out of the sub-atomic particles present after the big bang.
If you have another theory, say to do with sneezing, please let us know.

  • 30.
  • At 07:39 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

# 25 Mark wrote:

"Michael #1 "Speak in a way that brings dignity to your (and my) profession. Now just how do you do that when one of the contributors is Dr rubberduckie? :>)

The debate so far has been excellent in my opinion - high quality responses and comments with good science behind them.

U2 ruberduckie!

Keep it up everyone!

Thanks,
Michael

  • 31.
  • At 07:47 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • rubberduckie wrote:

Thanks guthrie,

Is current thinking that the universe has been expanding ever since the 'Big Bang' and prior to the 'singularity' nothing existed?

  • 32.
  • At 08:07 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

rubberduckie #27
If you have not heard it previously, I think you would do well to listen to the previous broadcast in which McIntosh debated Dawkins. It will give you insight into how McIntosh becomes very evasive when he corners himself into positions where he is forced to choose between what I think he knows is technically correct and what conforms to his theology. This issue with TSLOT is one which will haunt him for the rest of his professional life. It is an unforgivable gaff for someone of his assumed knowledge.

When your explanation of all existance is based on a pure fantasy, the real world does not and cannot be allowed to intrude. You always have a ready answer for every question in your back pocket. So for McIntosh and his kind, all of hte answers are simple. Were did matter come from? God created it. Why? He had a plan. What was his plan? He revealed it to man in his word, the Bible. The bible is his word and his word is the bible. What does the bible mean? My religion has the only true interpretation, we take the true word of god as he said and meant it. Become my loyal follower and I will tell you so you will be assured of salvation and eternity in heaven. Now isn't that easy? Why can't everyone see it, it's so simple? (Please drop your donation in the box on your way out.)

  • 33.
  • At 08:19 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

The universe is still expanding and has been since the big bang, all measurements show this. However big bang theory has had to insert an inflationary period in the first few million years in order to account for the current state of the universe. (note to creationists- this still leaves 14 billion or so years in play)
Hence people are trying to work out alternatives, so far with no success.
Prior to the big bang, we cannot comment scientifically, having no evidence. There are a variety of hypothese on the table, the problem being demonstrating their validity in the absence of direct evidence.

  • 34.
  • At 08:48 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

One thought on the interview.

First I speak as one who does NOT support McIntosh's position scientifically as I have said many times on these blogs. Having spoken about my position at length previously I am not going to repeat it here.

Given the above opening comment I will now say that in my opinion Will again talked over his guest and then introduced a subject that was completely off topic.

The topic to be explored was how does one make 777 airliners from a machine that is set up to produce Ford automobiles by just inputing energy. McIntosh made the argument very simple for the listeners. His position is that new machines (that is excluding sub machines or embryonic ones which are programmed already according to a digital template) cannot be formed just by adding energy to existing machines. Natural selection can work on existing machinery and bring about sub sets of what is already there, but entirely new functional machinery on its own is not possible.

The logical place to have gone with this argument would have been to discuss human evolution in terms of this machine ‘model’ that McIntosh was presenting and then see where that line of questioning would lead with its consequences for evolution and the 2nd Law as perceived by McIntosh.

I’m sorry to say my suspicion is that Will’s grasp of the science was (and is) not strong enough to permit him to follow this avenue and so he wandered off into the TIS website without a flashlight. This was a completely blind alley to ask Professor McIntosh under what circumstances a professor should be fired giving as an example a professor holding a geocentric belief.

I would have refused to answer such a question also and I would have been shocked if McIntosh had ventured an opinion!

In my own employment as a senior research manager I would have NEVER answered a question about the hiring and firing policies of my company under ANY circumstances in a public forum. It would have been wholly inappropriate for Professor McIntosh in his capacity as an employee of Leeds University to make any comment on its hiring policies.

Where would McIntosh be expected to draw the line if he started down that path with an answer? What if McIntosh had foolishly answered this question with a ‘yes’, would he then have been required to state whether Dawkins should be fired because he believes aliens exist on other worlds?

McIntosh made it plain that the policy of TIS is not to support a geocentric model - he does not support it - and a lot of time in this very short segment was wasted on a 'bad ambush'.

Will, IMHO that was a very bad diversion from the topic on your behalf. It was a total waste of MY time for you to have brought that up.


Regards,
Michael

  • 35.
  • At 09:09 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Michael, to my mind the most logical approach from McIntosh's assertion that new structures are not therodynamically feasible would be to go off the talkorigins and have a look at the evidence for mutations, and the changes in proteins and thence bodily structures etc. This puts the lie to Mcintosh et al's assertion that new "machines" cannot be created just by inputing energy. OR rather, he's right in a small local sense, however that all the evidence shows that other factors are in play that make mincemeat of his supposition.

  • 36.
  • At 09:24 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Simpler machines *do* make more complex machines. Andy may not know this, but he was conceived from a sperm cell and an egg cell, and from that "simpler" machine, his entire body and brain were constructed in such a way that he can (presumably) produce sperm cells himself, and spawn a whole new generation of wee Andies with his dearly-beloved (I say this hypothetically; I do not know Prof McIntosh's orientation or family setup).

Here's the kicker - when Andy is producing sperm, and Mrs Andy is producing eggs, the DNA will *not* be copied absolutely faithfully. It will contain mutations - not very many, but some. Many will have absolutely no effect. Many will be embryo-lethal or have a major negative effect (this happens in all of us). Some will nudge the function or expression of a protein up a wee bit or down a wee bit. This is the source of the genetic variation we see in the population. When natural selection "chooses" the genes to get propagated into the next generation, *this* is where the information gets added to the system. Selection is dramatically powerful, and is even being *used* by scientists AT LEEDS UNIVERSITY to design better systems and drugs than Andy and his intelligent colleagues can. http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/press_releases/current/astbury.htm Intelligence is great; evolution is often *better*. Maybe Andy would like to complain to the university about their pro-evolutionary stance...

  • 37.
  • At 09:36 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • David (Oxford) wrote:

Michael,

I think you miss the point (ref 34). I thought the question about geocentricity focused the issues very helpfully. McIntosh couldn't answer it either way: if he'd said that it was right to dismiss geocentrist scientists, he was open to the response that Dawkins was right (i.e., McIntosh should be dismissed). If he said geocentrist scientists should not be dismissed, he would be defending an embarrassing and bizarre form of outdated science. Thus, McIntosh was left unable to answer the question, which in itself is a ridiculous outcome for McIntosh.

As for the science, in a general radio interview there's only so much detailed science one can get into. If you listen to McIntosh long enough, you realise that he has a tendency to ramble endlessly (even creationists here are frustrated by his inability to communicate); so I don't blame a presenter for trying to move him on in a 5 min interview!

You seem to think the point of the interview was to debate TSLOT. I'd say the bigger question was the issue raised by Richard Dawkins: whether someone with McIntosh's views should have a teaching position in a UK university. That may be a waste of your time, but it was right up my street. The bounds of academic freedom are precisely the point here, not some diversion. I'm tempted to say, Michael, that you are (IMHO) wasting my time with your comments, but I'm much too polite to make such a patronishing comment, dear friend. Peace ;-)

The most interesting part of that interview was the professor's unwillingness to deal with Geocentricity. That was REALLY telling. He could have said, "I regard that as a bizarre pseudo-scientific view and I would be uncomfortable hiring any lecturer who argued for that view." Instead, he was all over the place avoiding making a statement. I think I know why. My colleagues in the US tell me that Answers in Genesis leaders are extremely embarrassed by the presence of geocentrists in their ranks; but they are nervous about challenging them since these geocentrists base their arguments on a similarly literalistic reading of the Bible. This is (unbelievably) a serious debate within creationist politics! McIntosh was walked right into it and his silence was deafening.

As for the science: I think he made his point. I'm bored by his ridiculous account of evolution. He had plenty of time to outline that silly view. Why waste any time on it? Better to paint him into a corner on the issues he found uncomfortable.

  • 39.
  • At 10:03 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Creation Scientist wrote:

As I said earlier, i was really annoyed with Andy McIntosh twisting creationism in this direction. He was all over the place today ....AGAIN.

  • 40.
  • At 10:14 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

I finally got to listen to the broadcast. Oh dear! To be honest (and slightly to my own surprise) at first I felt rather sad for him. It’s never pleasant to see someone make a complete and utter fool of themselves in public (especially when they don’t seem to realise what they’re doing). This will destroy his professional standing within the broader scientific community (if it’s not already damaged enough). To anybody with a real understanding of chemistry and biology (and indeed of thermodynamics), what he said was shoddy rubbish. Basically it was just a dreary rehash of standard creationist stuff that has all been said a thousand times before. His evasion over the question of geocentrism simply confirmed my opinion that he has lost it.

Yet on thinking about this, my sympathy began to wane a bit. The fact is, this is largely his own damn fault. I’m happy to acknowledge that within his specialised field of combustion engineering, he seems to be competent enough, but to put it mildly, that doesn’t automatically make him an expert in biology! In fact, McIntosh’s biological knowledge is painfully scanty - sub GCSE stuff. There is more than a little arrogance here. He seems to be saying “never mind my own lack of biological knowledge, I’ll still show how everybody else is wrong”! It’s as if I, a biochemist, felt able to pontificate in public about combustion engineering because I know how to use a Bunsen burner! Now of course it is possible for someone from a different field to make important contributions to another. A good example is Francis Crick (of Watson and Crick fame) who originally trained as a physicist. However, it’s essential that you learn the basics of the new field first. I’m sure there are plenty of people in the faculty of Biological Sciences at Leeds (or in the Department of Earth Sciences) who would be happy to give some time to clarify honest queries. Indeed, Amenhotep (post 36) notes exactly the sort of work going on at Leeds that’s relevant and that he could easily have found out about if he wanted to. Yet it turns out that although he has been corrected many times in public about his misunderstandings, he never seems to take any of the criticism on board. But then I suppose God has spoken to him and God has told him that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and all the Earth's fossils were formed in the great flood. So the evidence to the contrary can just go hang.

  • 41.
  • At 10:41 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Jane Gray (Belfast) wrote:

Well said, Tony. Spot on. I thought the same when I listened to it tonight. The geocentricity point was a complete checkmate. He'd nowhere else to go.

  • 42.
  • At 10:42 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Michael #34
I have to take strong exception to what you say. You of all people should know that the analogy between a living cell or any organism including man and a machine is an entirely fallacous one and so is the the analogy of the structure of the DNA molecule with the notion of information. While machines were created by intelligence to perform a specific function, living cells and men were not unless you accept the unsupported notion that god created life and man for a purpose. Anthromorphizing, the ascribing of human traits to objects, animals, or natural processes may make for entertaining literary technique but it is a very weak and badly flawed method of scientific reasoning. Living organisms have only one chararacteristic trait which distinguishes them and that is that under suitable conditions, they can replicate themselves through the chemical processes they carry on. It would therefore have been very foolish for William Crawley to have accepted McIntosh's incorrect premise and argued with him on that basis. There are no useful parallels to be drawn between the evolution of life and the development of machines again because life does not evolve with conscious intent, another badly flawed analogy.

The question about hiring and firing both at it realates to McIntosh and Leeds University is very simple one, do they have any quality standards whatsoever which they would enforce? Apparantly McIntosh comes out ahead on this one, he'd likely insist that whoever he hires be open to his absurd theological theories of science while Leeds University demonstrates every day they keep him that they have no standards at all.

  • 43.
  • At 11:05 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Alan Watson

ref post 23 transitional fossils

I looked up the wikipedia site you gave me, thanks.

It stated that one clear example of transitional fossil was the "walking whale", Ambulocetus.

But then it showed a picture, and the thing was basically a big crocodile.

So that in my mind is not transitional. From a creationist viewpoint it looked like the finished article.

For example, take a bird's wings or a bats wings, or a teradactyl's wings or indeed the eye.

Have we any living or fossil examples that show a partially evolved wing or eye? I know you will argue that evolution has no goal, but you well understand my point and that is an evasion.

To get to the wing stage it would have to be useless for a significant period of time when it was neither a proper wing or leg. And that would prove a serious disadvantage in survival stakes and thus mitigate AGAINT the theory of natural selection.

Still aint seen no transitional fossils between scales and feathers guys..

BY the way Amenhotep, you say simple machines do make more complex machines and that sperm and sexual reproduction are the example. To me that is an invalid example as sexual reproduction is the method by which one machine produces another almost identical machine. Using information from two sources a machine is produced which is a blend of the previous two.

The sperm is simply a vehicle for the previous information, there is no new information in process or product.

PB


PS Why is it that all these guys leap on ACM for refusing to discuss geocentrism but I suspect would leap as one to take a flying dagger heading in the direction of Dawkin's belief in alien civilisations?

  • 44.
  • At 11:09 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Alan Watson

ref post 23 transitional fossils

I looked up the wikipedia site you gave me, thanks.

It stated that one clear example of transitional fossil was the walking whale, Ambulocetus.

But then it showed a picture, and the thing was basically a big crocodile.

So that in my mind is not transitional. From a creationist viewpoint it looked like the finished article.

For example, take a bird's wings or a bats wings, or a teradactyl's wings or indeed the eye.

Have we any living or fossil examples that show a partially evolved wing or eye? I know you will argue that evolution has no goal, but you well understand my point and that is an evasion.

To get to the wing stage it would have to be useless for a significant period of time when it was neither a proper wing or leg. And that would prove a serious disadvantage in survival stakes and thus mitigate AGAINT the theory of natural selection.

Still aint seen no transitional fossils between scales and feathers guys..

BY the way Amenhotep, you say simple machines do make more complex machines and that sperm and sexual reproduction are the example. To me that is an invalid example as sexual reproduction is the method by which one machine produces another almost identical machine. Using information from two sources a machine is produced which is a blend of the previous two.

The sperm is simply a vehicle for the previous information, there is no new information in process or product.

PB


PS Why is it that all these guys leap on ACM for refusing to discuss geocentrism but I suspect would leap as one to take a flying dagger heading in the direction of Dawkin's belief in alien civilisations?

  • 45.
  • At 12:03 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

pb
Re your PS - you don't seem to have read my and other's replies to your constant questioning.
We have evidence for life already in the universe and as there are trillions of planets in millions of solar systems in millions of galaxies the possibility of life outside the earth is pretty high. You don't seem to have any idea of the size and existance-time of the universe.
On the other hand we have no evidence for the existence of gods at all.

  • 46.
  • At 12:05 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

PB

On transitional fossils.

at the risk of sounding like a stuck record there are any GODS(!) amount of transitioanl fossils in the phylogenetic tree of the horse - including those that show the gradual receding of toes to the reduced number that formed the hoof. All of these evolutionary stages are visible.

Re your PS in 44 - one would leap on a geocentrist because we can observe that it's not true. That is obvious to you surely?

  • 47.
  • At 12:16 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

In support of Prof. McIntosh, I quote the following from letters which appeared in The Guardian recently:

Dr David Tyler wrote: “Your correspondent talks about submitting research for peer review. ID research has been published. In thermodynamics, this has been done by mathematician Granville Sewell in articles and his textbook. Intelligent design advocates are bringing significant issues to the table and science is not well-served by others walking away and treating the issue as an exercise in polemics.”

Prof. Stuart Burgess of Bristol University wrote: “Professor McIntosh makes a valid point. The second law states that every system always decays from a relatively ordered state to a disordered state. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of how naturalistic evolution overcomes this fundamental law of science. As someone who believes in a creator, Andy McIntosh stands shoulder to shoulder with great scientists such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin. Professor McIntosh is in good company.”

  • 48.
  • At 12:29 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Billy wrote:

The complexity of God’s creation, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made, defies the evolutionary supposition that every thing was produced from the same primordial slime; a lifeless primordial earth could only produce life from pre-existing life, He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made, Each according to its kind. Evolution fails dismally to explain the beauty of the complexity of God's creation, The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Darwin’s tree has been blown over it has no roots, His roots dry up beneath, and his branches wither above. The evolutionist is without excuse.


  • 49.
  • At 01:44 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

Re Post 42 Mark wrote:

“Michael #34 I have to take strong exception to what you say. You of all people should know that the analogy between a living cell or any organism including man and a machine is in this argument a fallacious one. It would therefore have been very foolish for William Crawley to have accepted McIntosh's incorrect premise and argued with him on that basis. There are no useful parallels to be drawn between the evolution of life and the development of machines again because life does not evolve with conscious intent, another badly flawed analogy.”

Mark: I DO believe that the analogy between a living cell or any organism including man and a machine in the way that McIntosh is using it is a fallacious one. (I would debate with you separately, however, the case that organisms, including humans, are ‘machines’). That is why I would have entered into a discussion of this with McIntosh when there is a huge audience listening who don’t understand this point. If someone tells me that the earth is flat and seriously believes what they have said and I am in front of an audience that doesn’t know what the shape of the earth is, I don’t head off in another direction talking about their thoughts on requirements for employment. I would put forward counter arguments so it would become clear to the listening audience what the facts are so that they can come to their own correct understanding of the matter.

IMHO Will’s role (and other interviewers too I might add) is to serve as a conduit for a dialog between his audience and his guest. The dialog with McIntosh was specifically to flesh out questions on evolution, the 2nd Law, and supposed violations thereof. The audience can understand the manufacture of 777 machines. Why did Will not ask McIntosh if he was drawing an analogy between a living organism and a cell and if he answered in the affirmative then take the conversation further from there.

McIntosh is a very smart man - he has a top degree in his field - his degree is not in human resources management. It's not in biology either but he is commenting in that area as well as in the area of thermodynamics so both of these are proper topics for discussion. The employment issue was a Dawkins' issue - it is not McIntosh's issue so why bring it up with him?

Will states “To test whether he would regard any scientific view as grounds for dismissal from a university position, I asked Professor McIntosh if he believed a "scientist" defending geocentricity...........”

Let me repeat - I am uninterested in McINTOSH’s views on the conditions of a university professor’s employment!

In Post 36 Amenhotep wrote:

“Simpler machines *do* make more complex machines. Andy may not know this, but he was conceived from a sperm cell and an egg cell, and from that "simpler" machine, his entire body and brain were constructed in such a way that he can (presumably) produce sperm cells himself, and spawn a whole new generation of wee Andies with his dearly-beloved (I say this hypothetically; I do not know Prof McIntosh's orientation or family setup).”

This IS McIntosh’s position so you have missed his point. McIntosh would say that a feretilized egg is a template containing all the information needed to make a human being (a human machine). What he would argue, however, is that the information in the template was put there by an intelligence and that this template will always produce only a human machine. He would argue that adding energy to this system will not add new or different information to make a different ‘machine’.

That’s what Will should have explored with him but didn’t. If McIntosh sees scientifically that his position is mistaken I expect he will change it but I don’t think that will, or should, necessarily change his position as to whether “God” did or did not create life.

Regards,
Michael

ps: I continue to applaud the fact that this discussion has refrained for ad hominem invective.

PB- [re. the transitional walking whale fossil] you say "It looks like the finished article".

But IT'S NOT the finished article! This is a ridiculous comment of yours, PB! Paleontologists have studied the damn thing and concluded that it's a transitional form, yet you look at a picture on Wikipedia, declare it's a "crocodile"!, and therefore won't accept it as a transitional form! LOL! I almost can't believe I've just read this from someone who claims to be interested in the science and open to learning!

  • 51.
  • At 01:51 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Gelam wrote:

Michael - calm down! When you become a radio presenter you can decide what questions to ask!!! I enjoyed hearing McIntosh wriggle ;-) To be honest, the interview you wanted to hear would have been sooooooooooooooooo boring.

  • 52.
  • At 02:14 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

Post 51 Gelam wrote:

"Michael - calm down! When you become a radio presenter you can decide what questions to ask!!! I enjoyed hearing McIntosh wriggle ;-) To be honest, the interview you wanted to hear would have been sooooooooooooooooo boring."

I accept that you could be right.

Regards,
Michael

  • 53.
  • At 02:39 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Michael #49
"...and spawn a whole new generation of wee Andies..."

Now there's a frightening thought...onward creationist soldiers, a whole entire army of them. Conjures up a sci fi movie with an invasion of thousands of giant insects.

"if McIntosh sees scientifically that he is mistaken I expect his position will change."

Michael, I'd almost bet the farm he will not budge from his spot to his dying day.

"McIntosh is a very smart man."

He's so smart, he's even conned himself. Like the other creationists, he is delusional and for those with any scientific training, they have to contort what they know like a pretzel to make it fit their theology. It often takes them to the point of absurdities. AFAIAC, there never was a debate, he was just plain wrong along with the rest of his ilk. For me this is not a technical discussion, it's about whether creationists will be able to force the public schools to teach their theology. In the US it looks like they are losing big. I saw the clip just yesterday of Pat Robertson telling the people of Dover Pennsylvania after the court verdict that if they suffer a tragedy not to turn to god because they have forsaken him.

I don't care a bag of sour apples about what McIntosh says about the earth being flat or being the center of the universe. I just worry that if I have to hire an engineer and they were taught thermodynamics by the likes of him, I may get stuck with someone whose entire education is worthless.

  • 54.
  • At 04:06 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 53.
* At 02:39 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Mark wrote:

"if McIntosh sees scientifically that he is mistaken I expect his position will change."

I can't shake the impression that he already knows that scientifically he is wrong. Appears like a just another AIG salesman to me. In my opinion, AIG has big expectations of their doctrated members selling their product. Check out their website!

  • 55.
  • At 05:16 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Jane wrote:

* 44.
* At 11:09 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"PS Why is it that all these guys leap on ACM for refusing to discuss geocentrism but I suspect would leap as one to take a flying dagger heading in the direction of Dawkin's belief in alien civilisations?"

It would seem that NASA hold that life on other planets may exist also.
They have equipped a number of exploratory craft with devices for detecting enviromental conditions which may suuport life.
As you well know pb Dawkins stated "possibility". Sad that you have to try and get by twisting others words isn't it. I believe this assertion, as with most of your posts falls under what is called presenting a "Strawman Fallacy" argument. Obviously your favourite form of attempt at an argument, PB.
However it does nothing to support your fairy tale "creation truths".

  • 56.
  • At 06:19 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Oh for Pete's sake Pb, are you STILL going on about Dawkins and Alien civilizations? (post 44 and Jane's reply post 55). We had this discussion before Christmas (see post 21 on the 'defending Andy McIntosh' thread: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/defending_andy_mcintosh_1.html ).

Pay attention at the back of the class!

  • 57.
  • At 06:26 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 43.
* At 11:05 PM on 07 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"Have we any living or fossil examples that show a partially evolved wing or eye?"
"For example, take a bird's wings or a bats wings, or a teradactyl's wings or indeed the eye."

Hahahahaha
Always love the IDiot "half an eye" theme.
.
"New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors"
W. J. Gehring
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/3/171
.
Journal of Heredity 2005:96(3):171–184 ª 2005 The American Genetic Association
doi:10.1093/jhered/esi027
Advance Access publication January 13, 2005
THE WILHEMINE E. KEY 2004 INVITATIONAL LECTURE
New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and
Photoreceptors
"Darwin and the Problem of Eye Evolution.
Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (1882) had great difficulties with eye evolution and devoted an entire chapter to it, ‘‘Difficulties of the Theory,’’ in which he discusses
‘‘organs of extreme perfection and complication: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
But then he continues: Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
.
“Master Control Genes and the Evolution of the Eye” Walter Gehring:
Q: Can you describe what that original common ancestor of all eyes might have been like?
A: This was already postulated by Darwin, and it's remarkable how correct he was, in retrospect. What he says is that the prototypic eye probably would consist of two cells only: a photo-receptor cell -- which he called a nerve, which is absolutely correct; it's a nerve cell which is photosensitive, which has rhodopsin -- and a pigment cell. The function of the pigment cell is to shield the light from one side. This gives the owner of this eye a big advantage, because they can see which direction the light comes from. So this is already a direction discriminating eye.
And then, he thinks, from this prototype, then selection could set in and make all of these wonderful eye types -- the eye of an eagle, or of a squid, or of a Drosophila, a fruit fly. Interestingly enough, a considerable time later a Japanese group found a flat worm which has exactly this minimal prototypic eye, which is only consisting of a single photoreceptor and single pigment cell. And these animals, of course much to my satisfaction, they also have a Pax-6 gene.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/l_044_01.html

Perhaps you would like to detail this conspiracy for us with your vast insights, PB.
Do you honestly expect people to take your ranting seriously?
Anyway, I posted this because Walter Gehring is a brilliant scientist and many Nobel Prize winners have also worked with him in his labs, which are famous around the world.
Enjoy!!

  • 58.
  • At 06:38 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 47.
* At 12:16 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

In support of Prof. McIntosh, I quote the following from letters which appeared in The Guardian recently:

Dr David Tyler wrote: “Your correspondent talks about submitting research for peer review. ID research has been published. In thermodynamics, this has been done by mathematician Granville Sewell in articles and his textbook. Intelligent design advocates are bringing significant issues to the table and science is not well-served by others walking away and treating the issue as an exercise in polemics.”

Prof. Stuart Burgess of Bristol University wrote: “Professor McIntosh makes a valid point. The second law states that every system always decays from a relatively ordered state to a disordered state. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of how naturalistic evolution overcomes this fundamental law of science. As someone who believes in a creator, Andy McIntosh stands shoulder to shoulder with great scientists such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin. Professor McIntosh is in good company.”
.
"In thermodynamics, this has been done by mathematician Granville Sewell in articles"

Yes, let's not forget these two gentlemen!
I wonder if we could have the references of the reputable peer reviewed journals these articles have been published in?
Thanks in advance.

  • 59.
  • At 08:43 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Andrew wrote:

People talk about open systems being able to reverse entropy. Evolution works we are told because we get energy from the sun. But if you spend too long in the sun, your skin will age quicker, and you may get skin cancer. Therefore increased solar energy destroys the DNA in organic material - it does not lead to evolution, but to a quicker death.

However, people over look the fact that the sun is also running down - following the path of entropy. The only way to oppose entropy is to have an open universe, one where an intelligent agent can work on matter and energy.

This continued attack on Andy McIntosh by ill informed science opinion is the ugly side of secular fundamentalism. It is also illegal to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief and Crawley's line of questioning was below the standards of a BBC journalist.

  • 60.
  • At 09:08 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Pb (post 44):

"The sperm is simply a vehicle for the previous information. There is no new information in process or product".

Go to a mirror. What do you see? Unless you have an identical twin, your face is unique. It's (largely) the result of information in your DNA. Your DNA is unique, it is new information that did not exist before you were born. So where did this new information come from?

  • 61.
  • At 09:39 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 59.
* At 08:43 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Andrew wrote:

"People talk about open systems being able to reverse entropy. Evolution works we are told because we get energy from the sun. But if you spend too long in the sun, your skin will age quicker, and you may get skin cancer. Therefore increased solar energy destroys the DNA in organic material - it does not lead to evolution, but to a quicker death."
.
Best you get this scientifically informed opinion/argument written up and submit it, Andrew. Your vast scientific knowledge and rational will no doubt make those hundreds of thousands of scientists see the error of their ways.
Good Luck


  • 62.
  • At 09:50 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Oh, and Andrew, best you make yourself familiar with the current knowledge of DNA repair mechanisms which repair UV damage to nucleic acids in organisms and plants. Always good to let people know you have grounded understanding in what is currently known,as a result of vast research in this area. (relevent to cancer, you see)
Once again, good luck :)

  • 63.
  • At 09:58 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 60.
* At 09:08 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Tony Jackson wrote:

"It's (largely) the result of information in your DNA. Your DNA is unique, it is new information that did not exist before you were born. So where did this new information come from?"
.
I know,I know, God did it!
Hmm...If God made me, and is responsible for my thoughts, God must have told me to say that. Maybe, God only made creationists and didn't make the scientists. I'm confused!

  • 64.
  • At 10:14 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 60.
* At 09:08 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Tony Jackson wrote:

"It's (largely) the result of information in your DNA. Your DNA is unique, it is new information that did not exist before you were born. So where did this new information come from?"

Out of curiosity, do they teach meiotic recombination, (crossing over), in creation school "biology"? Do they teach any reproductive biology/embryology?

Tom, Molecular Biologist, etc,
It's a waste of time trying to explain half-evolved feathers or eyes to pb. He has been presented with links to article abstracts on the matter in the past, but he chooses to ignore that.
So while I know it is a waste of time, I will make another effort. Not that it will convince pb. But at least others can see that statements about Creationist fundies and IDiots distorting things and ignoring facts is well founded.

Even if pb had only read the abstracts, he would have read in the third linked abstract the following line:

"We first review a series of fossil discoveries representing intermediate forms of feathers or feather-like appendages from dinosaurs and Mesozoic birds from the Jehol Biota of China."

This I pointed out to him in another post already. That line alone already seems quite encouraging, certainly sounds from the abstract like the paper would give you what you want. But did pb make an effort to get hold of and read the full article? From his follow-up posts it is obviuous he did not. I did make the (little) effort required to get hold of the full article. It is 16 pages, so at first it seemed it might take a good bite out of my Sunday. But it was quite easy, already in fig. 1 on page 3, pictures of fossils with intermediate feather stages are presented. It also shows where in China exactly they were found (in the North East of the country). Get hold of that paper yourself pb. Go to the website of the journal and purchase that single article and READ IT. Compare figs. 1(i) and 1(k). 1(k) looks pretty much like a complete feather, but even you would have to agree that the thing shown in 1(i) would not help a bird fly. The hairs (or what do you call the things that branch away from the central stemm?) are not connected. If an animal flapped that thing about, the air would pass between the hairs without much resistance, not providing much lift.

I expect you'll come up with some excuse not to admit you've been wrong all this time. Like 'the feather is the wrong color' or 'I wanted a different intermediate stage than the one shown'. Well, you can get much more if you make the effort. The article, as scientific articles should, lists references to related work. There are alsmost two pages full of references to related work. Imagine how many half-evolved feathers or other organs you'd find if you read through those! But I'm not going to do your work any more. Even if I printed the papers, came to your house and read them to you at a moment of your convenience, you would find an excuse not to accept you were wrong.

If reading the articles is too much work for you (or your internet connection is too slow to download them, as you previously stated. haha, lame excuse if ever there was one, you have plenty of bandwith for making ludicrous posts) and you want the way of least effort, skip the articles and think about animals like ostriches or emus for a moment. Formally they are not birds because their wings are not good enough to let them fly. Yet they spend lots of proteins and energy on growing them. There goes your counter-argument that intermediate stages form a barrier to evolving flight in animals.

I have posted highly critical posts about you before. There is an oppurtunity for you here. If you read the paper, or better still a good bunch of them, and then admit in all threads where you have been spewing this nonsens that you were just uninformed and plain wrong, I will add to all those threads that admitting that makes you a big man.

  • 66.
  • At 11:10 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

If I take a creationist view for a moment: say that all species that have ever existed were present at creation, and then slowly some species became extinct which I assume is the creationist view of dodos, dinosaurs etc.

What we have there is a gradual narrowing of the number of species extant, a focussing of the planets biomass into a diminshing number of species. Is this not in contradiction to TSLOT much more than evoloutionary thought - which shows the species count diversifying?

Which one seems the most ordered to you chaps?

  • 67.
  • At 11:25 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 65.
* At 10:22 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Peter Klaver wrote:

"Tom, Molecular Biologist, etc,
It's a waste of time trying to explain half-evolved feathers or eyes to pb. He has been presented with links to article abstracts on the matter in the past, but he chooses to ignore that."
.
Of course you're absolutely right there Peter. However McIntosh also brought up the old "irreducibly complex eye" theme, so it was a bit hard to resist. Especially being familiar, as I am, with the reseach Gehring and his lab have carried out.
Gehring and his team discovered Hox genes.
Highly conserved homologous Hox genes
have been found in the large number of diverse organisms analysed to date, including those as diverse as the fruit fly (Drosophila), the earth worm (C.elegans) and rodents , to name just a few.
This is also why I posted the info, rather than just linked it.
No more excuses for PB. (even though he'll come up with one)
:)

  • 68.
  • At 11:37 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 66.
* At 11:10 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

"What we have there is a gradual narrowing of the number of species extant, a focussing of the planets biomass into a diminshing number of species. Is this not in contradiction to TSLOT much more than evoloutionary thought - which shows the species count diversifying?"
.
OK I really can't even attemp to try and take any of these people seriously anymore.
Between this forum and others, I continue to be dumbfounded by their rationale.
Cheers

  • 69.
  • At 11:44 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 67.
* At 11:25 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Molecular Biologist wrote:

"Highly conserved homologous Hox genes
have been found in the large number of diverse organisms analysed to date, including those as diverse as the fruit fly (Drosophila), the earth worm (C.elegans) and rodents , to name just a few."
.
Oh, I believe I forgot to mention, that a homologous Pax6 gene was recently discovered in coral. Coding a simple photoreceptor.
Cheers Mr McIntosh/PB

  • 70.
  • At 11:51 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Tom #54
I didn't write that McIntosh would change his position if he saw the light. Michael did, I just quoted him. You are preaching to the choir, I have said what you did about McIntosh knowing he was wrong here many times. I just added that I don't think he will ever retreat from that position no matter what. As I see it these creationists lost the right to call themselves scientists, at least in my book. You've heard of defrocking priests? Well I'm putting frocks these. Yes I now consider all of them frocked :>)

  • 71.
  • At 12:09 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

According to a report presented to the American Astronomical Society in Seattle, NASA may have found life on Mars and inadvertently destroyed it. The link explains how the Viking Space Probe did this in 1976/1977 by looking for the wrong kind of life. A new space probe Phoenix is scheduled to be launched to Mars next summer and will take a much more expansive view in its search for life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070107/ap_on_sc/mars_life

What will creationists say if and when life is discovered to have evolved independently beyond earth? Will they take their usual answer out of their back pocket and say it was God's will? What would have been his purpose if man didn't exist there and there was no Jesus on Mars to die for man's sins? God only knows, he works in mysterious ways. They always have the right answer.

  • 72.
  • At 01:31 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

#66

"If I take a creationist view for a moment: say that all species that have ever existed were present at creation, and then slowly some species became extinct which I assume is the creationist view of dodos, dinosaurs etc."

That is not the traditional creationist view. The earth was initially populated with a number of types of animals - e.g. "dogs" - each with a rich set of DNA. The different species we see today (wolves, dingos, domestic dogs, ...) came from them - each with a diminution of the original DNA.

  • 73.
  • At 01:36 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Andrew, its not entropy being reversed, its simply entropy decreasing in one area at the expense of another area of the universe.

And your point about cell damage etc is exactly the point. No one is saying that life forms are perfect and indestructable. Instead, we are balanced on an edge between creation and destruction, increasing and decreasing entropy.

Yes, the sun is running down. However, like I said, what matters is the local situation. If you look into the maths of this, and the chemistry, you will find that it is entirely possible to have one area of increasing entropy and another decreasing. Think of a hypothetical electric car running down a hill, solely under the force of gravity. The wheels are turning, turning the electric motors as dynamos. At the bottom of the hill the potential energy of the car is less than at the top of the hill, but the batteries have more charge in them than they had at the top.
Probably not the best simile, but you never know...

Oh, and by the way, we are all awaiting your scientific evidence for an entity that can "reverse entropy".

How exactly is McIntosh being discriminated against on the grounds of his religious belief?

  • 74.
  • At 01:47 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

OOps, that anonymous was me.

Creationist apologist- you are aware that Stuart Burgess is actually on the TiS council of reference, and therefore isnt a fair commenter?

Besides, his letter is mince. Since when did believing in a certain God have anything to do with your scientific abilities? With regards to his lack of knowledge of thermodynamics, we have covered that already on this thread.

Dr Tylers letter would be more interesting were it not that Granville Sewells research has not got any relevance to the debate. He might like to think it has, but I am afraid that Sewells work is mince.

  • 75.
  • At 01:55 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Jane

ref 55

I never, ever presented any creation truths, so you are in serious error there.

This is a religion blog so I am entitled to test your evolution theories to the limit. I think creationism is plausible and am sceptical about evolution, but I am evaluating my understanding using the answers to my questions (or lack of them) named Phds on AIG and other ref works, such as Origin of the Species, Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Brittannica.

Ref your story about NASA, I still dont see any evidence from you or anyone else in this blog that aliens exist.

I think that might make a bigger headlines than if ACM was proven right.

Lastly, Dawkins said on RTE tv recently, I saw it, that it was "probable".

John Wright, it is a great assumption to call the "crocodile" a transitional whale. you cannot prove this.

GW, ref the horses, again, you cant prove these evolved, merely that they existed. Nobody witnesses it and it cannot be replicated in a lab.

PB

  • 76.
  • At 02:38 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

I want to know if there were pairs of tyrannosaurus rex and brontosaurs on Noah's Ark. What did they eat for forty days and forty nights? Father McIntosh? Father Wilder Smith? Anyone?

pb, in #75 you respond to various people, but not to my post #65. You know, the one asking why you haven't read the articles about fossils of animals with half-evolved feathers. Or were you just too busy doing (finally, finally) your reading of articles on fossils of half-evolved feathers? Have you obtained the papers yet, how far have you progressed at this moment? Have you reached page 3 of the mentioned paper yet, you only have to read up to page 3 to see figure 1 with the fossils. You've been on about half-evolved feathers so many times, please don't go quiet on us now, now that it is just getting fun.

C'me on, read it, and tell us your next excuse for ignoring scientific evidence. Be a good boy, play along, and I'll give you a popsicle.

Have you considered admitting that your rants on feathers were just a sign of you being totally (and consciously, persistently, stubbornly) uninformed, while several of the scientists on this blog have tried to educate you on the matter? It would make you look so much better if you just admitted that.

  • 78.
  • At 03:11 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

Re Post 63 Pastafarian #5 wrote:

“If God made me, and is responsible for my thoughts, God must have told me to say that. Maybe, God only made creationists and didn't make the scientists. I'm confused!”

Let me ask a question to clear this confusion.

Some philosophies posit that one does not have free will, others posit that one does.

Do you believe that you have free will?

Regards,
Michael

  • 79.
  • At 03:17 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

pb, you seem to misunderstand the difference between religion and science. If you want testable methods of looking at the world around us, and finding out how it works and how it came to be, go to science. If you want belief, go to religion.
So far, you have shown yourself to be totally close minded. We could continue trying to educate you as to the value of phylogenetic trees, the past and occuring evolution of bacteria, cabbages and mosquitos, but it hardly seems worth it.

Heres a simpler question- how do you know that Noahs ark existed, since you weren't there?

  • 80.
  • At 03:41 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

Mark,

Answers in Genesis says that all the animals entered some form of trance like state, which reduced their desire to defecate, eat each other and all other activities undesirable in a naval environment. So if AiG say it it must be true. there are 200 Phd's backing AiG you know...

Meanwhile back on planet earth...

Mike - what is the name for this marvellous process whereby the generic dog creature gave rise to dingoes, wolves, foxes and domestic dogs? Sounds a lot like evolution to me...

  • 81.
  • At 05:09 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Post 79, Guthrie wrote:
"pb, you seem to misunderstand the difference between religion and science. If you want testable methods of looking at the world around us, and finding out how it works and how it came to be, go to science. If you want belief, go to religion."

Hi Guthrie,
The supposed dichotomy between science and religion simply does not stand up. There are many branches of knowledge, of which the natural sciences of chemistry, physics, biology are a part. Those sciences which can be studied in a test-tube, by experimentation, and so forth do not consist of all empirical knowledge. Science, as commonly understood, cannot answer the question of origins - "How did life begin? How did the universe begin? What was the origin of the species?" Science can speculate and theorize. Science can say - "Either life began by divine (supernatural) agency or by random (evolutionary) processes." Until the nineteenth century, Science opted for the former; post Darwin, Science has opted for the latter. We may conclude, therefore, that there are currently two broad theories of origins: creation or evolution. To opt for one or the other is always necessarily a religious or a-religious choice - i.e., we either accept that there is a divine Creator which explains the material universe and the origin of life, or we reject the concept of a divine Creator and opt instead to put out faith in Evolution. We must accept, therefore, that (by generally accepted definitions of Natural Science) Evolution is not science; it is, at best, a scientific theory undergirded by a philosophical world view that, by definition, rejects the concept of an Almighty Creator God.

We must be honest about the inherent problems with evolutionary theory. For intelligence and complexity to arise, and indeed for life itself to arise, requires the application of a higher intelligence to set the "wheels" in motion. That much is common sense. To believe that random processes can ever give rise to highly ordered and structured, reproductive mechanisms requires - frankly - a huge leap of faith. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how the Magic of evolution operates - its source of power, direction, intelligence, etc. To my mind, it is weighed in the balances and found wanting.

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 82.
  • At 05:55 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Cheezal wrote:

* 76.
* At 02:38 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Mark wrote:

"I want to know if there were pairs of tyrannosaurus rex and brontosaurs on Noah's Ark. What did they eat for forty days and forty nights? Father McIntosh? Father Wilder Smith? Anyone?"
.
I think 'anyone' is the correct answer, due to the fact Father McIntosh and Father Wilder weren't there. They probably ate the unicorns too.

  • 83.
  • At 06:00 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Eh?
What other kinds of empirical knowledge are there?
We're talking about knowledge based upon observation and experiment here. Thats all science is, once you get past the philosophy stuff- observe and experiment.

How often do you go to church and the minister says in his sermon "I'd like you to undertake a small experiment..."


As for the origin of life, sure, lacking scientific evidence, we cant say for certain what happened. This does not however mean that your argument wins by default.
Science can happily say "we arent sure how life started, although we have these ideas here:"

Presumably you have an argument with those Christians who also agree that Evolution is right?


I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how the Magic of evolution operates - its source of power, direction, intelligence, etc. To my mind, it is weighed in the balances and found wanting.

This sums it up- you are trapped within a world view centered upon yourself. Why does the world require power, direction and intelligence? Does it take intelligence or purpose for rocks to weather away? Does it take intelligence or purpose for a radioactive element to decay?

  • 84.
  • At 06:01 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Gee Dubyah (post 80) wrote:

"Mike - what is the name for this marvellous process whereby the generic dog creature gave rise to dingoes, wolves, foxes and domestic dogs? "

Perhaps I could answer on behalf of Mike, to save him the trouble? It's called Genetic Variation within Species.

Sounds a lot like what the Creator had in mind to me!

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 85.
  • At 06:25 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

So what happens when the 'Genetic Variation within Species' has progressed to such an extent that some of the varieties can no longer interbred? They are no longer varieties. Poss. a new species?

  • 86.
  • At 07:31 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 85 (Alan Watson)

An interesting point, but does mutations within a species or "kind" does not prove evolution unless additional information is added to the genome which was not contained in the parent genes.

An article published by the Institute for Creation Research states:

"If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many 'transitional' forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct 'kinds' of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no 'dats' or 'cogs'. Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true 'vertical' evolution.
"Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new 'basic kind'."

  • 87.
  • At 08:19 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Peter

I'll give you a rational response when you apologise for calling me a child and for not having a science backround (on a religion blog!!??)

PB

  • 88.
  • At 08:23 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Oh please! the institute for creation resaerch research!

It's utter bunk, contains the usual logical fallacies etc etc

Is this article peer-reviewed? NO!

What do these bunch of snake-oil salesmen believe? well that the world started 6000 years ago in 6 days with a talking snake!!!!

For goodness sake, wise up!

  • 89.
  • At 08:49 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

Post 86
Pretty convincing answer - if you can't imagine timelines of millions and billions of years.
The logical outcome of 'Genetic Variation within Species' is speciation and the geological record supports that.
The accepted meaning of speciation is no interbreeding, of which there are many examples. You accept genetic variation but why should it stop before speciation occurs? And indeed, why should it stop before real speciation? ( your terminology)
alan

Hello pb, you wrote

"I'll give you a rational response when you apologise for calling me a child and for not having a science backround (on a religion blog!!??)"

I never criticised you for not having a science background. My criticism is that you repeatedly ignore information that others take time to gather up for you, even pre-read for you and pinpoint for you where to look (at some point I do start to feel like a primary school teacher who is helping a struggling, unwilling child who can't finish his tasks on his own), and then presented to you in the easiest possible way to digest. I would criticise anyone who would be so unconstructive, evasive and stubbornly determined not to take in the relevant information presented to him on a silver plate, pre-cut into ready-to-digest pieces. Scientist or not.

As for the stab at you with promising a popsicle, it passed the moderator, whereas an earlier post (also directed at you) did not. With active filtering in place, it is apparently allowed in this forum.

By calling for an apology before continuing the debate, you appear to be looking for an excuse to flee from a discussion that you know you've lost now. I said in my last few posts to you that you would look so much bigger a man is you just admitted your error (in all the threads where you posted your now-lost half evolved feather challenge). You've now taken a course that combines the bad elements of both options you had: you indicate you can't keep up the debate, and you show immature denial about it. The first part was unavoidable after you dug yourself in so deep, raising the issue more than a dozen times and then being presented with a paper about half-evolved feathers, photos and all. But you could so easily have done better on the second part by just admitting it. That would have gained you some credibility in the eyes of some people, including mine.

But there we have it. Pb is increadibly persistent in his challenge about half-evolved feathers. Some scientists take up the challenge and put a hand of cards on the table (just a first, small hand btw). It is up to pb to take in the information and show his hand in turn. Instead, pb runs from the debate like a little kid, giving a very transparent excuse for his flight. Ok pb, as you wish.

  • 91.
  • At 10:28 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

* 86.
* At 07:31 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 85 (Alan Watson)
"Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true 'vertical' evolution."
.
I always find the creationists understanding of evolutionary concepts, and terminology, most amusing.
Creationist Apologist, could you outline a little more clearly your ideas as to what is meant by "horizontal evolution" and "vertical" evolution".

  • 92.
  • At 11:06 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 86.
* At 07:31 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 85 (Alan Watson)

An article published by the Institute for Creation Research states:

"Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new 'basic kind'."

Umm...Creationist, you don't seem to be aware that genetically engineered mice and rats, as well as fruitflies, are commonly used in Biomedical research labs all over the world as I speak.
Also, as stated in a previous post, biomedical researchers match up DNA from human cells/proteins with that of flies , worms and rodents (in particular), to identify and isolate homologous (matching) DNA sequences in and from these. These matching sequences can, and are, then analysed
to examine and determine the function/malfunction of the corresponding human gene, which mostly has a similar, or often, the same function.
This research is sucessfully carried out on the basis of conserved genes existing because of the evolutionary relationships between such diverse organisms.
Perhaps AIG should let the medical world know that this can't be right, because evolution doesn't exist.
Though I'm not sure how AIG will explain all of the effective new medical treatments (including those for inherited genetic diseases and cancer) that have arisen from this standard type of research.
Why haven't they have done so by now.
AIG appears to be a huge cult making money out of others ignorance.

  • 93.
  • At 11:11 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

The creationist group "Truth in Science" apparently wishes to correct teaching that is, according to their website, "dogmatic and unbalanced". In that case they would no doubt wish to see this approach taken throughout the curriculum. They would presumably wish for a less dogmatic and more balanced view to be taken of religious education - with coverage of such issues as "What is the evidence for a God?" and "What are the aspects of human psychology that make us go down on our knees to worship imaginary beings?"
I would suggest that a suitable teaching pack be delivered to all schools, both secular and religious.
alan

  • 94.
  • At 11:21 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • alan watson wrote:

Maybe he's talking varieties of cotoneaster?

  • 95.
  • At 11:26 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Luther's Barber wrote:

A word or two from a sponsor: Mr T. Acquinas on the real CENTRAL question:

Concerning God, whether God exists:
"As to this question, there are three points of inquiry:
1. Whether God's existence is self-evident
2. Whether it can be demonstrated
3. Whether God exists.

Article 1: Whether God's existence is self-evident.
Thus we proceed to the first point. It seems that God's existence is self-evident, for those things are said by us to be self-evident the knowledge of which is naturally within us, as is the case with first principles. But, as John of Damascus says, "The knowledge of God's existence is naturally implanted in all things." Therefore God's existence is self-evident.
Furthermore, those things are said to be self-evident the truth of which is obvious once the meaning of the words is clear. For example, when we understand the means of the words "whole" and "part," we immediately realize that every whole is greater than its part. Once we understand the meaning of the word "God," however, it immediately follows that God exists. The words itself signifies "that being a greater than which cannot be signified." That which exists in fact and in the mind is greater than that which exists in the mind alone. Thus, since the moment we understand the meaning of the word "God" he exists in our minds, it follows that he must also exist in fact. Thus God's existence is self- evident.

Furthermore, it is self-evident that truth exists, for whoever denies the existence of truth simultaneously concedes its existence. If truth does not exist, then it is true that truth does not exist; yet if something is true, then truth exists. God, however, is truth itself. "I am the way, the truth and the life" (Jn. 14:6). Therefore God's existence is self-evident.

But on the contrary, no one can think the opposite of what is self-evident, as Aristotle remarks. One can, however, think the opposite of the proposition "God exists," for, as the Psalm says, "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God." (Ps. 13:1, 52:1). Thus it is not self-evident that God exists.

Response: It must be said that a thing can be called "self-evident" in two- ways, in itself and in relation to us. A proposition is self-evident when its predicate is included in the definition of its subject. For example, in the proposition "man is an animal," the idea of "animal" is included in the definition of "man." Thus if everyone knows the definitions of both subject and predicate, the proposition will be self-evident to all, as is the case with the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are so common that no one is ignorant of them, such as "being" and "nonbeing," "whole" and "part," etc. If, the proposition may be self-evident in itself, but not to them. Thus it happens, as Boethius says, that some things are common conceptions of the mind" and are self-evident "among the learned only, such as that incorporeal beings do not occupy a place."

I say, therefore, that this proposition, "God exists," is self-evident in itself, since the predicate is the same as the subject. For God is his own existence, as will be seen later. Nevertheless, because we do not know what is involved in being God, the proposition is not self-evident to us, but needs to be demonstrated through those things that are more evident to us though less evident to themselves, namely God's effects.

To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that a general and confused knowledge of God's existence is naturally infused within us, for God is man's beatitude and man naturally desires beatitude. What man naturally desires he naturally knows. This is not to know God's existence specifically, however. It is one thing to know that someone is approaching and quite another to know that Peter is approaching, even though that someone may actually be Peter. Many people think that the perfect good of man called "beatitude" is wealth, some imagine it to be pleasure, and so on.

To the second argument it must be said that he who hears the name "God" may perhaps not know that it signifies "something greater than which cannot be conceived," since some people have thought of God as a body. Granting, however, that someone should think of God in this way, namely as "that being a greater than which cannot be conceived, "it does not follow on this account that the person must understand what is signified to exist in the world of fact, but only in the mind. Nor can one argue that it exists in fact unless one grants that there actually exists in fact something a greater than which cannot be conceived. It is, however, precisely this assertion the atheist denies.

To the third, it must be said that the existence of truth in general is self- evident to us, but it is not self-evident that this particular being is the primal truth.


Article 2: Whether God's existence is demonstrable.
We proceed thus to the second point. It seems that God's existence is not demonstrable, for it is an article of faith. What is a matter of faith cannot be demonstrable, for demonstration allows one to know, whereas faith, as Paul says, is in "things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). Therefore God's existence is not demonstrable.
Furthermore, the central link in any demonstration is a definition; yet we cannot know what God is, but only what he is not, as John of Damascus says. Therefore we cannot demonstrate God's existence.

Furthermore, if God's existence were demonstrable, this could only be through his effects; yet his effects are not proportionate to him, for he is infinite, his effects are infinite, and there is no proportion between the two. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated through an effect which is not proportioned to it, it seems that God's existence cannot be demonstrated.

But on the contrary Paul says, "The invisible things of God are understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20). Such could not be the case unless God's existence could be demonstrated by the things that are made, for the first thing to be understood about a thing is whether it exists.

Response: It must be said that there are two types of demonstration. One is through the cause, is called a demonstration propter quid, and argues from what is prior in an absolute sense. The other is through the effect, is called a demonstration quia, and argues from what is prior according to our perspectives; for when an effect is better known to us than its cause, we proceed from the effect to knowledge of the cause. In situations where the effect is better know to us than the cause, the existence of the cause can be demonstrated form that of the effect, since the effect depends on the cause and can only exist if the cause already does so. Thus God's existence, though not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated through his effects.

To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that God's existence and other things about him which (as Paul says) can be known by natural reason are not articles of faith but preambles to the articles of faith. For faith presupposes natural knowledge just as grace presupposes nature and perfection presupposes something which can be perfected. Nothing prohibits what is demonstrable and knowable in itself from being accepted on faith by someone who does not understand the demonstration.

To the second it must be said that, when a cause is demonstrated through its effect, the effect substitutes for the definition of the cause within the demonstration. This is particularly true in arguments concerning God. When we prove that something exists, the middle term in the demonstration is what we are taking the word to mean for purposes of the demonstration, not what the thing signified by the word actually is (since the latter, the actual nature of the thing in question, is determined only after we determine that it exists). In demonstrating that God exists, we can take as our middle term definition of what this word "God" means for us, for, as we shall see, the words we use in connection with God are derived from his effects.

To the third, it must be said that perfect knowledge of a cause cannot be derived from an effect that is not proportionate to the cause. Nevertheless, the existence of the cause can be demonstrated clearly from the existence of the effects, even though we cannot know the cause perfectly according to its essence.

Article 3: Whether God exists.
Thus we proceed to the third point. It seems that God does not exist, for if one of two contrary things were infinite, its opposite would be completely destroyed. By "God," however, we mean some infinite good. Therefore, if God existed evil would not. Evil does exist in the world, however. Therefore God does not exist.
Furthermore, one should not needlessly multiply elements in an explanation. It seems that we can account for everything we see in this world on the assumption that God does not exist. All natural effects can be traced to natural causes, and all contrived effects can be traced to human reason and will. Thus there is no need to suppose that God exists.

But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).

Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it. A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing. Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized. For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot. Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold. Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like "more" and "less" to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum. For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being. That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something "God."

The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design. Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being "God."

To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that, as Augustine remarks, "since God is the supreme good he would permit no evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could produce good even out of evil."

To the second, it must be said that, since nature works according to a determined end through the direction of some superior agent, whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God as its first cause. in the same way, those things which are done intentionally must be traced back to a higher cause which is neither reason nor human will, for these can change and cease to exist and, as we have seen, all such things must be traced back to some first principle which is unchangeable and necessary, as has been shown."

  • 96.
  • At 11:40 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

PB/Creationist Apologist

Re Ambulocetus - the walking whale - why do modern whales have back leg bones at their hips ?(there are no fins here in a modern whale as you posited back in creation wars). ...

I asked a similar question about the snakes vestigal legs - to be given a blithe answer about the serpent from eden having had his legs taken away - which species of snake was he then? and why do other snake species have vestigal legs when the are clearly speciated and not "GENETIC VARIATIONS WITHIN THE SPECIES" as some folk are disingenuously claiming.

Furthermore - take the slow worm - not a snake - BECAUSE IT HAS (useless) LEGS - lets call that a TRANSITIONAL SPECIES - alive and kicking (well wriggling).

Come on lads - the games' up. It's been fun, but lets talk about the ark now - that'll be a giggle!

  • 97.
  • At 12:02 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post. 91 (Questioner)

Thank you for your question.

"Horizontal evolution" refers to changes (variations) within the kinds, which may also include "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions). Creationists would generally use the term "variation" rather than "evolution" as the latter can be misleading.

Here's a brilliant online dictionary definition for "coincidental evolution": "The maintenance of sequence homology among nonallelic members of a multigene family within a species. Also known as concerted evolution; horizontal evolution."

"Vertical evolution" is simply another term for macro-evolution as described by evolutionary theory. It refers to the (supposed) common descent of all life from a single ancestor. It entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction.

I trust that this helps.

Kind regards,

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 98.
  • At 12:07 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

Oh I see Luther is now cutting and pasting the whole AIG propaganda onto the forum. More does not make it right you know Luther.
.
Oh well.
Here are two guys who discovered an very elegant and simple way of testing what function the above mentioned matching genes perform in other organisms, and also, whether they perform the same function in humans.

"RNA interference (RNAi)
—–The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2006—–
“for their discovery of RNA interference - gene silencing by double-stranded RNA”
Andrew Z. Fire, Craig C. Mello
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/
The mechanisms responsible for the creation of double-stranded RNA in the cytoplasm of cells are proposed (so far accepted) to have been the result of an evolutionary process that armed eukaryotic cells with a defence against double stranded RNA viruses and/or other double stranded RNA nucleic acids.
.
What medicine thinks of this cult:

"The threat to medicine from the cult of irrationality
The Journal of Pediatrics, Volume 149, Issue 4, October 2006, Pages 433-434
Richard E. Behrman
“There is a threat to rational thought from what I characterize as a “cult of irrationality.” I believe that there is a small but significant anti-rational, anti-scientific subculture within our society made up of diverse groups and interests. This subculture exerts its influence through a larger, poorly informed and scientifically uneducated segment of the general public as well as through the political system. It represents a major indirect and direct threat to scientific programs, including clinical investigation and science and medical education as well as education at primary and secondary public school levels. Three examples can serve to illustrate this problem. First, in the past year “creationists” and “anti-evolutionists,” now calling themselves “Advocates for Intelligent Design,” have significantly distorted or eliminated the teaching of evolution within the science curricula of a number of public schools across the country, including Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. They have pressured some movie theaters and science museums not to show movies or exhibits that mention the “big bang” theory of the origins of the universe, the evolving geology of the earth, and the observations of Darwin. They argue that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory and should be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. However, as Professor Daniel Dennett of Tufts University has pointed out, to be considered a scientific theory, the “Intelligent Design” idea needs to provide an explanation for existing biologic facts, explain the observations of the process of natural selection, and be formulated as a testable hypothesis. It is not any more scientific to point to man as the end result of design than it would be to contend that intelligent genetic engineers came to earth 6 million years ago from another galaxy and genetically re-engineered some primates to give them language and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection; it worked, resulting in human beings! Nor would it be more probable than to contend that life started on Mars and was blown here by cosmic impact. The endorsement of this religious belief by influential politicians and movie stars does not make it a scientific theory, a testable hypothesis to be taught as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. There is no scientific content or controversy to teach about in a biology class. However, Intelligent Design theory might be an excellent topic to teach in a high school class on current events and contemporary politics.”
.
The Journal of Pediatrics, Volume 149, Issue 4, October 2006, Pages 433-434
Richard E. Behrman “
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&list_uids=17011306&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google
NOTES FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SCHOOL PEDIATRIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRS, INC. RICHARD E. BEHRMAN, MD

  • 99.
  • At 12:42 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

Does anyone else get the impression that creationists try to rewrite the meanings of terminology used for describing currently held tenets of Evolutionary Theory to suit themselves.
LOL

  • 100.
  • At 12:42 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

# 96 Gee Dubyah

"Come on lads - the games' up. It's been fun, but lets talk about the ark now - that'll be a giggle!"

OK lets...

No doubt you're dying to know how Noah managed not to get eatten by a T-Rex?

Simple really. What's the largest dinosaur egg ever found? Go on; guess...

Well it is about a foot long, and probably belonged to a Sauropod.

Now suppose you are Noah; you need to choose some T-Rex couples to re-populate the Earth after it gets a bit wet. You have 3 choices:

1. Grandma and Grandpa T-Rex; fully grown, probably not able to have more offspring and a little grumpy in their old age - prone to casual violence.

2. Mum and Dad T-Rex; fully grown, had some kids and also prone to some violence - destructively strong.

3. Newly/Recently hatched love's young dream T-Rexes; Very small (no bigger than a few feet), young and virile/fertile. Also prone to violence but can't do too much damage as they are so tiny and cute.

Now Mr. GW, which would you choose?

I can hear you now on your nice big ark...

"aww the little T-Rexy is nibbling my finger"

  • 101.
  • At 12:43 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 96
Gee Dubyah wrote: "It's been fun, but lets talk about the ark now - that'll be a giggle!"

It is all too easy, isn't it, to mock what we do not believe or understand, and to ridicule those who hold a socially unacceptable view. Our forbears in, say, the 17th century would have been equally incredulous that anyone should hold that the world came about by random evolutionary processes. Thomas Watson, a highly respected theologian of that period, wrote: "The world must have a maker, and could not make itself.... To imagine that the work of creation was not framed by the Lord Jehovah, is as if we should conceive a curious landscape to be drawn without the hand of an artist."

The ark and the Flood is actually a sobering warning to all of us, for Jesus said "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." (Luke's Gospel, chapter 17, verses 26 & 27).

Jesus Christ certainly believed the story of the ark, thousands of years after the event, and used it as a warning to his hearers that they should be ready for his future return to this world in judgment. Meanwhile, God restrains his anger, waiting in mercy for us to turn from our evil ways.

  • 102.
  • At 12:44 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Dr David Green wrote:

Will,

Can you ask people like LUTHER not to cut and paste long sections of other websites into this? It takes forever to load in as it is! You should also probably be concerned about copyright material from other sites. WOuld be faster to justban Luther, who's the equivalent of a disruptive 6 year old in a university lecture hall.

  • 103.
  • At 12:59 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

* 97.
* At 12:02 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post. 91 (Questioner)

Here's a brilliant online dictionary definition for "coincidental evolution": "The maintenance of sequence homology among nonallelic members of a multigene family within a species. Also known as concerted evolution; horizontal evolution."
.
Could you provide a link to this online dictionary, Creationist?
Ta in advance. :)

  • 104.
  • At 01:42 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 99.
* At 12:42 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:
Must have been damn hard rounding up amoebas and other microscopic organisms without the use of a microscope?
Especially those soil micro-organisms.
How did Noah achieve this?

  • 105.
  • At 03:06 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Nikkiee wrote:

* 97.
* At 12:02 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post. 91 (Questioner)

Thank you for your question.

"Horizontal evolution" refers to changes (variations) within the kinds, which may also include "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions)."
.
Has anyone else here, familiar with evolutinary concepts/terminology (i.i. those taught in reputable biology subjects) ever heard of "horizontal evolution" before?
.
Creationists attempt to make up their own evolutionary concepts/terminology to try and argue against the theory.
Quite sad really!

  • 106.
  • At 03:39 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Nikkiee wrote:

* 97.
* At 12:02 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:
"coincidental evolution": "The maintenance of sequence homology among nonallelic members of a multigene family within a species. Also known as concerted evolution; horizontal evolution."
.
The only time the term "horizontal evolution" is used in a biological evolutionary sense, is when it is sometimes used to describe horizontal transfer of genetic variation from one bacterial cell to another.
.

"sequence homology among nonallelic members of a multigene family within a species."
.
Can you define what you mean by
"homology among nonallelic members of a multigene family"
.
A multigene family referrs to a group of related genes which have arisen through gene duplication.
Can you define what you mean be "nonallelic members of a multigene family"??
I am very familiar with the term allelic, but how can a multigene family consist of nonallelic members?

  • 107.
  • At 03:58 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

Perhaps Creationist Apologist could reference a relevent Journal article or two that cover:
"coincidental evolution": "The maintenance of sequence homology among nonallelic members of a multigene family within a species. Also known as concerted evolution; horizontal evolution."
I feel I will need to read an authorative presentation of these concepts. (reputable peer reviewed Science Journals only please)

  • 108.
  • At 05:14 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Guthrie/GW/Jane/Molecular Biologist

Guys, can I make one point, you all seem to take my questions as deliberate and willful attacks on your beliefs which they most certainly are not.

Peter Klaver made the point to me that his research must stand up to serious criticism from peers to proceed, so in my mind that is what I am doing here for myself, testing my own worldview to the limit ie can evolution really make sense to me?

When you ridicule my serious questions you are hindering me from making a serious assessment of evolution and undermining your efforts to promote the theory.

It also doesnt speak well of your integrity as people to ridicule anyone's sincerely held beliefs, regardless of their background.

Guthrie ref 79
You talk about testable theory but historical evolution is no more testable than creationism, as far as I can see??? Likewise, what empirical evidence is there for it?

GW ref 80
No new information is present in breeds of dogs, no new species. From what I can see breeders concentrate specific traits and play down or remove others. But nobody has ever bred a non-dog from a dog.
Ref the whale's rear "legs" I dont really know the answer and dont pretend to. But I stand to be corrected when I say that it is not uncommon for "vestigal" organs with no apparent use to be later found to have a use. Can you similarly try and answer my question about bat and bird wings and the eye? See question below..

Jane, ref 55, you accuse me of constantly using strawman arguments, but as I understand it, that means deliberately setting up what I would know would be a parody of your position in order to make it easier to knock down. I simply dont do that, as far as I can see. If you can show me an example I will apologise.

Molecular Biologist ref 57
You just ridicule my serious questions and leave me with no direct answers to my questions.

Here it is again for you: Why do not animals apparently exist today that cannot be reasonably assumed to be "completed"? I give as examples birds/bats with incomplete wings.

Can you answer the bird/bat question please? This is not to humiliate you - it is to educate me...or do you simply have no idea how to answer? I would respect that!

Ref the eye, I had a glance at your hyperlink and it was interesting. But if I may respectfully play devil's advocate for a second, these are comparatively simple organisms overall and would not be expected to have very developed "eyes".

I was asking why there are no advanced mammals for example which have eyes only half-developed by, say, human standards. Surely there would have had to have been a period when a mammal's eye and a bird's wing would have been utterly useless for anything and therefore an evolutionary deadweight. Surely at this point the organ/limb would have mitigated against survival of the fittest and eliminated itself from the gene pool? A serious question I assure you, not an attack. CAN *ANYONE* HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE EVOLUTIONARY POSITION ON THIS MATTER PLEASE? Remember this is a religion blog, not a science blog.

MB, please understand this is not "ranting" as you describe it, these are real questions in my head. I have not read them somewhere as a tactic to try and beat evolutionists.

Two cases which I have been presented with on this blog and which I have examined in some depth were the evolution of feathers and antibody production.

Despite having looked at many hyperlinks provided by Tony Jackson, I could only find theory of feather evolution but no hard evidence, no transitional fossil.

(please understand I dont believe 'transitional' fossils prove evolution as they still do not prove one species changed into another, but I am interested to see to what extent they exist...testing my worldview).

The other case was antibody production which Tony and others insisted was evolution. But another obviously very informed blogger came on and contested that it was not true natual selection or mutation by evolutionary standards. Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia both speak of antibody "differention" and make no mention of evolution or mutation.

So I am not dismissing what Tony has said, but it appears very much that there are differing views on it that do not require belief in evolution; no new species are produced, or as ACM would say, one type of machine is not producing a new type of machine (species) with obviously new information. New antibodies are still just differently coded antibodies and they all come from the same species.

I have read someone saying it depends on how you define species, fine, that may score points in a debate, but it certainly does not strengthen the theory of evolution in my eyes ie that one animal species can turn into another.

So guys, if I am learning less and less here, little reason to hang around. I hope I am mainly respectful on this blog, but if I went into a temple to explore the religion you guys hold and judged it by your attitude to me, I would walk out again pretty quickly. I said to Peter before I do believe that one aspect of absolute truth is love.
I certainly wouldnt blame you if you got the same reception in my church and walked out. I apologise if at any time I have been similarly disposed to any of you.

Can we have a fresh start? with respect...

PB

PS Would also be very interested if anyone could take the time to give some very brief answers to my queries in post 21, even if you only have a line on one or two of the questions.

But please, if you just want to abuse me, save yourself the energy and just let be.


  • 109.
  • At 06:58 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

CA

How arrogant to assume that it was your god that created the world, there are 1000's after all(my bet is the FSM(BHNA!)).

So a figure called Jesus believed in the ancient myths of his culure...so what! I can give loads of egs from ancient history of figures who believed in their ancient myths, does that make them true-of course not!

Btw I would keep silent about this myth as it does show your god up as being very nice. Plus if your god was omnipetent and all powerful, then your god would have knew what was going to happen, so why lose his rag(not a very good quality) and kill everyone? In any case it is nothing to get worked up about as it is of course a myth.

Funny that Egypt was flourishing at the time of the "flood" yet no water damage on the Pyramids, not a single hyroglyph mentions it plus the entire population gets wiped out then a within a very short space of time gets re-populated by people who carry on as if nowt happened...funny that!

Btw if you believe it to be true please cite credible, verifiable evidence to back up your claims...

  • 110.
  • At 07:43 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 108.
* At 05:14 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:

"Ref the eye, I had a glance at your hyperlink and it was interesting. But if I may respectfully play devil's advocate for a second, these are comparatively simple organisms overall and would not be expected to have very developed "eyes"."
.
Might I suggest that you have more than a glance pb. I didn't aquire any scientific knowledge or understanding by "glancing" at information. Rodents have a massive numbers genes homologous to human genes. One of the reasons they are used in biomedical research involving genes.
They are mammals you know?.
The simularity of the sequences contained in rodent genes and human genes can be obtained from the NCBI website. Have you still got the links? Freecall site you know?
If you are serious you will do your own investigations as others do.
.
"I was asking why there are no advanced mammals for example which have eyes only half-developed by, say, human standards. Surely there would have had to have been a period when a mammal's eye and a bird's wing would have been utterly useless for anything and therefore an evolutionary deadweight."
.
You obviously didn't read the post I made above requarding Walter Gehring and eye evolution! Pretty rude to even bring this up on that basis!
Simple answer:
Mammal radiation and diversification came very late in the overall evolutionary time frame. In other words all eye types were most likely well and truly already in existence by then. This is why there are no "half evolved" eyes, by human standards, in mammals. These eye types evolved from simpler versions. (Please read Walter Gehring Q&A given above, if that is not too much to ask of you)
.
"but if I went into a temple to explore the religion you guys hold"
.
Oh yes PB, very smug for one who chooses to remain ignorant and then argue on the basis of their ignorance.
By the way I'm not interested in discussing your bird/bat feathers with you. You can read up on that yourself using the links provided by many past posts.
I think your constant harping on it is simple a tactic to try and annoy others. Most of those posting on the subject here, have had to work, doing the research and study underlying their knowledge. If you want to understand some this knowledge, might I suggest you put some of your own time and effort in also.
One who keeps asking the same question over and over, when it has been adequately answered, and only glances at information given does not deserve respect in my book of manners.
No matter how nicely you coach your rhetoric, PB, I personally find you a total deliberately ignorant bore. (boar) If you are not, why aren't you discussing information retrieved from the sources you have been provided with, regarding feathers? (over and over I might add....on no less than 3 of these forums)
I came across another creationist poster, on another forum awhile ago, with a very similar attitude to yours. His posts consisted of repetitive nagging on uninformed questions, no matter how many times they were adequately answered. He also admitted he was paid to coduct such “arguments”
Sound familiar?
Cheers

  • 111.
  • At 07:50 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

PB
"I was asking why there are no advanced mammals for example which have eyes only half-developed by, say, human standards. Surely there would have had to have been a period when a mammal's eye... would have been utterly useless for anything and therefore an evolutionary deadweight."
.
Firstly, eyes evolved before mammals arose. That is why all vertebrate eyes are very similar. It has been shown on several occasions that the transition from a flat sheet of photoreceptive cells to a fully functioning vertebrate eye through a series of gradual improvements is probable and rapid. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.
.
Here is a reference (there are lots more):
Eyes: variety, development and evolution.
Fernald RD.
Brain Behav Evol. 2004;64(3):141-7.
.
As to wings, there are various animals, such as frogs, reptiles and mammals that have various gliding abilities. Gliding is an advantageous step towards powered flight. There are also theories that powered flight in birds may have evolved from fast running, ground dwelling dinosaurs where proto-wings may have assisted them in prey capture. Unfortunately, feathers are not often preserved as fossils, but there are some exciting finds being made at Chinese dig sites.
.
Here is a reference (there are lots more):
.
Bird Evolution.
Clarke J and Middleton K.
Current Biology. 2006; 16(10): R350-R354.

  • 112.
  • At 07:53 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 109.
* At 06:58 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Dylan Dog wrote:

CA
"my bet is the FSM(BHNA!))."
.
All Hail His Noodley Appendage. :) :)
RAmen

  • 113.
  • At 08:55 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

PB, I see them more as mistaken attempts to make a horse fit through a cat flap.
Which would of course cause suffering to the horse, hence I wish to see it stopped.

For example, with regards to transitional fossils, you have just stated that you do not believe they show evolution in action. Hence it is pointless us trying to debate with you about transitional fossils. In order to continue the debate, you have to accept that there may well be transitional fossils.

With regards to antibodies, you are missing the point. They are indeed structures, but similar to other strucutres, yet different. Hence they are new. McIntosh et al have yet to come up with a proper definition of what is new and what is not new. Is a point mutation new information? What if an organism accidently gets two copies of all its chromosomes? Is that new information? (Hint- it leads to huge variation in structure and other characteristics)

  • 114.
  • At 09:09 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

PB

I am not well up on bats wings and eyes etc.

Of the hip, re wings - I would start with the flying squirrel with a large flap of skin attached to it's arm but not yet part of its "han" as in the bat.

Im not sure about eye development. But I will look into it because it's interesting. I would imagine being a soft tissue structure it's difficult to know as the fossil record probably doesnt offer much, but we'll see.

Now can we have your thoughts on snakes legs (all species) and slow worms as a transitional example?

Also as an aside to JK, I'd really like to have seen you robbing a T Rex nest - but I'll settle for ANY evidence that man and dinosaur co-existed.

I look forward to your evidence. really, I do...

  • 115.
  • At 09:19 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

One more thing PB. Don't you think it is more than a little dishonest to continually claim others haven't answered your questions when they have clearly given you more than enough information. Even when this information is posted in front of your eyes, you admit you "glanced" at it and then you try to change the subject. You think this attitude deserves respect?
Where I come from, respect is automatically given, but is easily eroded by a recipients behavior, if that behavior shows them to be unworthy of such respect.
This would also appear to be the case as far as Mr. McIntosh goes.
I have just finished emailing, relevent people at my own university, of this disgracefull McIntosh saga. Many in the relevent departments (biology/physical chemistry to name two) may not have yet heard, due to being currently away on the holiday break. I've also linked the forum ( and interviews) so they may judge for themselves.
Your feathers and eyes are irrelevent to the main issue here.
Cheers

Pb wrote, #108:
"Despite having looked at many hyperlinks provided by Tony Jackson, I could only find theory of feather evolution but no hard evidence, no transitional fossil."

Pb, you have now stooped so low that I think it is jusitified for me to accuse you of outright lying . Read post 65 of this thread, pb. It contains exactly the information on where to find a photgraph of a fossil of a half-evolved feathers in artcile number three that Tony Jackson gave you the link for. Figure 1(i) on page 3. So claiming that you have not been presented with evidence makes you a liar. You could have made up any excuse that the photograph did not represent evidence that you found convincing. But you can not say you have not been pointed to any evidence. That is simply a lie. To the blog moderators: please look at the history of pb's posts on half-evolved feathers to verify that my harsh verdict on pb (being a liar) is not just shouting on my part, there is firm ground for doing so. I'm not doing so lightly btw.

You mention respect, pb. It is highly unrespectful to any readers of this blog to post things you yourself know are not true and then to expect people to swallow that.

You're not going to get off so easily on this one. So I'll repeat my questions (and will keep doing so): have you obtained a copy of the article (or multiple articles) yet and read it, have you looked at fig. 1(i), are you ready to concede defeat on the half-evolved feathers issue?

  • 117.
  • At 09:35 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

#104 Pastafarian #5*

99.
* At 12:42 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:
Must have been damn hard rounding up amoebas and other microscopic organisms without the use of a microscope?
Especially those soil micro-organisms.
How did Noah achieve this?

Firstly, can I take it that by asking this question you can understand how Noah could take dinosaurs on his ark?

There are several logical ways in which micro-scopic organisms, especially soil ones, could survive.

The most obvious is that Noah needed to take food on the ark. A heck of alot of food infact - i.e. lots of plants etc. Have you ever picked a carrot or potato out of the ground? What's it covered in? SOIL. Now immagine how many potatos, carrots and the like you will need to feed all those animals, and yourself, for quite along time. The soil micro-organisms could simply have "inadvertantly" been brought on the ark. (I use "inadvertantly" in that Noah may not have done it on purpose, but that it would have been part of God's plan - He's good at things like that)

Other possible ways of micro-organisms surviving include floating vegetation masses, floating on pumice (high volcanic activity), in/on some of the animals on the ark or even in or on the bloated, floating dead bodies of animals/humans.

  • 118.
  • At 10:02 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

JK,

The most likely explanation for the flood is that it simply never happened.

There is no physical evidence to support this literal interpretation of a bronze age myth(though it is fun observing how you attempt to rationalise the irrational).

regards

DD

  • 119.
  • At 10:07 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 111.
* At 09:09 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:
"but I'll settle for ANY evidence that man and dinosaur co-existed."

I believe I saw a drawing on the AIG site (I think)of some sort of pre-historic creature (from around the time of dinosaurs) with Alan and Edna....err...or was it Adam and Eve?
I'll try and find it. :)

  • 120.
  • At 10:25 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 113.
* At 09:35 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:

"Other possible ways of micro-organisms surviving include floating vegetation masses, floating on pumice (high volcanic activity), in/on some of the animals on the ark or even in or on the bloated, floating dead bodies of animals/humans."
.
Fair enough. So where are all the bones of all of these dead humnas and animals?
Have many been found?

  • 121.
  • At 11:31 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 88.
* At 08:23 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Dylan Dog wrote:

"Oh please! the institute for creation resaerch research!"
What do these bunch of snake-oil salesmen believe? well that the world started 6000 years ago in 6 days with a talking snake!!!!"
.
My question, based on McIntosh's ill informed assertions of the relationship between biological systems and TSLOT, is do they really believe it or just sell it?
Honest question here folks?


  • 122.
  • At 11:33 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

* 118.
* At 10:02 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Dylan Dog wrote:

JK,

The most likely explanation for the flood is that it simply never happened.

There is no physical evidence to support this literal interpretation of a bronze age myth(though it is fun observing how you attempt to rationalise the irrational).

Firstly are you aware of all the other flood "myths" from around the world that have similar themes to the Biblical Flood? Nice co-incidence eh?

To say there is no physical evidence is simply un-true. There is lots of it both geologic and fossil. Far too much, infact, for me to list here. I'm sure you know where to look to find it documented!

Can you explain to me how there have been fossils found, for example, of animals giving birth, in the middle of a meal or even in the middle of a fight?


  • 123.
  • At 12:12 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

JK - posts 117 and 121

JK,
May I suggest that you use quote marks ("... ") when quoting from someone else's post. I was confused at first until I realised that your opening paragraph was actually a quote.

You have made some interesting and valid points and they deserve to be considered. Thanks.

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 124.
  • At 12:17 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

# 108 pb wrote:

" Would also be very interested if anyone could take the time to give some very brief answers to my queries in post 21, even if you only have a line on one or two of the questions."

PB (and Billy):

All of your questions are discussed, and I think you will find answered to your satisfaction, in the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller.

It is a highly interesting read and knowing your position as well as I do I know you will get a lot out of this book. It will also leave your belief in God as the creator fully intact.

Regards,
Michael

  • 125.
  • At 12:19 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Gee Dubyah #114

"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

--From Macbeth (IV, i, 14-15)

Would you like the full dinner sir or will that be a la carte?

  • 126.
  • At 12:56 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 122.
* At 11:33 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:
"Can you explain to me how there have been fossils found, for example, of animals giving birth, in the middle of a meal or even in the middle of a fight?"
.
Where are these fossils held?
Could you also provide a link, preferably 2 or 3, to the all the availbale information concernig these fossils. I am extemely curious due to my past experience of living in tropical monsoonal locales where major flooding is not uncommon. I have also seen the demise of large numbers of stock and wild animals due to massive (not as big as the one of which you speak of course)flash flooding. So you can understand my interest in these fossils.
Thanks in advance

  • 127.
  • At 01:02 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Quetioner wrote:

* 103.
* At 12:59 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Questioner wrote:

* 97.
* At 12:02 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post. 91 (Questioner)

"
Here's a brilliant online dictionary definition for "coincidental evolution": "The maintenance of sequence homology among nonallelic members of a multigene family within a species. Also known as concerted evolution; horizontal evolution."
.
"Could you provide a link to this online dictionary, Creationist?
Ta in advance. :)"
.
Creationist Appologist, about that link for that "brilliant online dictionary"?

  • 128.
  • At 01:02 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Re- Posts 95, 98 and 102 (Luther's Barber)

I did a Google search by pasting in the search box a phrase from Post 95 and found that there are 5 sites which appear to contain the entire text. It is from Thomas Aquinas' Summa theologiae (Summary of Theology) (13th C.)

Note that it is not "AIG propaganda" as Molecular Biologist suggests, pre-dating AIG by more than 7 centuries.

Whilst I find the essay very interesting, and deserving of consideration, I do also agree with Dr David Green (post 102) that bloggers should not cut and paste lengthy sections from other websites. A web URL link is all that is required.

Regards,

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 129.
  • At 01:24 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

Lets have the evidence of man and dinosaur co-existing please.

  • 130.
  • At 01:28 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Re:122

Other flood stories...a lot of early civilaisations were based on fertile areas ie., near rivers-which are prone to flooding-simple problem solved.

There is no genuine evidence to back up this myth(well it may have been a localised flood). The "evidence" you will probably give me will be from AIG/ICR etc etc ie., wah wah sites that believe the world started with a talking snake! utter bunk as I am sure you will agree.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_3.html

  • 131.
  • At 01:41 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Re- Post 127 (Questioner):

"Creationist Appologist, about that link for that 'brilliant online dictionary'?"

Yes, I will gladly oblige. The link is as follows:-

http://www.answers.com/topic/coincidental-evolution

(Apologies - I have not yet worked out how to insert a "live link" using HTML coding.)

By the way, "Answers.com", the online dictionary, is not in any way connected with AIG. It is not a creationist but, rather, a secular website; and does not try to defence creationism.

I might also add that the terms "Horizontal Evolution" and "Vertical Evolution" were not my choice of expression. I first used them in a quotation from an article found on the website of the Creation Research Institute. I was then asked for the definitions. When I searched online, I found that these expressions are widely employed by evolutionists and creationists alike. So I can hardly be accused of being biased in this respect.

Regards,
"Creationist Apologist"

  • 132.
  • At 01:51 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Coleoptera, Guthrie

thank you very much for your polite and factual response 111.

I thought someone might raise the gliding animals like the frog and the squirrel etc, I know these are certainly revelvant to this discussion, especially from an evolutionists viewpoint.

But from a creationist viewpoint, that does not actually directly answer the question about birds and bats, unless you claim birds and bats were descended from them.

ie in creationist theory, those examples you have given are "perfect and complete".

There also remains the issue about whether partially evolved wings mitigate against natural selection.

Thanks for you time, genuinely interested in whether there are rational explanations for this...

Guthrie ref 113
I also appreciate your polite response and have taken note of it.
With proper respect, how can fossils *prove* evolution? Surely there has to be an amount of assumption and interpretation as it cannot be witnessed? A serious question, thanks Guthrie.

GW ref 114
Again thanks for your reasonable engagement...will have to look into your questions...out tonight maybe no answer for a while...

Peter, calling me a liar? look that is just out of order. If you can hyperlink to the website you are talking about I will look at it.
If you look carefully at my posts about Tony's postings I never asserted I had looked at every single one or that there was no evidence of a fossil, just that I could not find it. Please dont jump to such cynical conclusions about me...you are way off beam here - got that hyperlink?

Too many ad hominem comments from other bloggers so not responding unless they rephrase points/questions without such content.

thanks to those that heard me...

respect
PB


  • 133.
  • At 02:09 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Posts 110, 115 and 116

If evidence were required of the willingness of some evolutionists to abuse and denigrate their opponents, rather than debate calmly and respectfully, we have it in these posts.

PB is addressed as: "pretty rude"; "very smug"; a "total deliberately ignorant bore"; "more than a little dishonest"; and by implication unworthy of respect. On another post, he is accused of having "stooped so low" and of "outright lying"; and "highly unrespectful". Moreover, bullying tactics are used with demands such as "are you ready to concede defeat on the half-evolved feathers issue?"

And all this in response to PB's posting 108 in which he makes a reasonable defence and presents a reasonable challenge. He could not have been more civil. On the contrary, as PB himself says, "It also doesnt speak well of your integrity as people to ridicule anyone's sincerely held beliefs, regardless of their background."

For scientists to attack a self-confessed non-scientist in this way is surely inexcusable. No matter how slow a teacher may think his student is, or how ignorant of the facts, the experienced teacher will patiently go over the lesson until his student has grasped it. How can you expect people to be attracted to your evolutionary theory if you take the moral high ground and abuse your opponents in this way? This is simply unacceptable.

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 134.
  • At 02:27 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

To PB(with respect)

I think the reason why posters get annoyed with you (and other creationists) is that they ask the same questions time and time again as if they have never been asked before eg., I wish I had a quid for everytime I had read about a "half-evolved eye/lung/etc etc".

Check here and follow the links about fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_3.html

If you are *genuinely* interested in finding out about evolution, why not post questions here http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

You will find scientists(some of them are Christians!) from all over the world willing to answer questions in a dedicated talk spot.If you treat them with respect and are genuine you will get on fine! Sometimes it is difficult to follow/answer questions/replies on a blog.

Anyway, hope you do use the link

DD

  • 135.
  • At 02:43 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Gee Dubyah #129

Evidence of man and dinosaur co-existance? Haven't you ever heard of....Fred Flintstone?

Hello pb, you wrote

"Peter, calling me a liar?"

Yes, I am indeed. And I am not the only one who points out your dishonesty. Molecular Biologist beat me to it. In the post just prior to mine he wrote

"One more thing PB. Don't you think it is more than a little dishonest to continually claim others haven't answered your questions when they have clearly given you more than enough information. Even when this information is posted in front of your eyes, you admit you "glanced" at it and then you try to change the subject. You think this attitude deserves respect?"

And my post passed the moderator of this religious blog (whereas a previous one didn't, so monitoring is active). They find it acceptable to say the things I say to you. Maybe they (unlike you) did look at the substance of the issue and agreed with my scathing judgement of you.

You wrote
"If you can hyperlink to the website you are talking about I will look at it."

The third reference Tony Jackson put up is from the Journal of experimental zoology B. The website of that journal can be found at

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/102521318

The paper you want is in the back issues (2003). Download the one Tony linked to, and read it. In that paper are various references to other work in this field, like that of Sawyer and Knapp. That is publshed in the same journal, so you can download and read that paper too:

Sawyer RH, Knapp LW. 2003. Avian skin development and the evolutionary origin of feathers. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol)
298B:57–72.

There are 14 references to other papers in the Journal of experimental zoology alone. You can download all of them, and read them. As you can do with plenty of the the other journals as well. Many are open and free for all. You don't need to work at a university of bioinformatics company or have to have an expensive personal subscription to access them. If you had ever taken a litle time, I would not have had to spend mine pointing this out to you. It was there, all the time. Freely accessible and easy to find for all those who would bother to look for it.

  • 137.
  • At 03:08 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

Re Post 113

The circle has been closed but at least we did get to about post 50 before the downhill slide into the gutter started!

In post 1. At 11:38 AM on 07 Jan 2007, Michael N. Hull wrote:

"Could we leave all the ad hominems aside in this tread and stick to the science here? I've heard all of the AH comments before and I am not interested in more - get to the heart of the matter! There are scientists of every discipline in this group. Speak in a way that brings dignity to your (and my) profession."

Cordially,
Michael

  • 138.
  • At 03:50 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Creationists:
I suppose one of the reasons we find debating you to be a frustrating and difficult experience is because you never seem to take on board what is being explained to you. You say “there are no transitional fossils”, we direct you to web sites and papers from the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing examples. You come back and say “but evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics”, we explain why it doesn’t. You say “On this AIG website, I’ve found the names of two hundred people with science PhDs who don’t believe in evolution”, and we show you why this is irrelevant. Then you say “but there are no transitional fossils” and we’re back to where we started. Round and round we go. It’s a grim parlour game from Hell.

  • 139.
  • At 04:31 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

pb- there is an amount of assumption and interpretation that cannot be witnessed in just about every bit of science. We cannot see sub-atomic particles directly, we need special instruments to detect them and their traces. Does this mean that they do not exist? Not exactly, but I suppose then we get into phenomenology and stuff like that which is a bit complex.
Its also a bit like history- people generally agree that the North American natives came across from Asia something like 12,000 years ago. But they cannot agree on an exact date. Does this mean the theory is wrong, since it has no access to eye witness statements? But we have some archological evidence, as well as DNA evidence, which all comes together in a rought timescale.


Given the problems people still have with the assassination of President Kennedy, how much do you think we'd all agree about fossilisation?

Problems with fossils go all the way back to Darwin and before- Darwin himself admitted that they were a puzzle, but that was before Geology really went to town on fossils, and physics produced dating techniques that revealed the age of the Earth.

One way to disprove the fossil record that has been built up would be to find a fossil totally out of place. A rabbit in the Cambrian for example.

This isnt the kind of venue for being particularly rude to people. If I want to do that, I go somewhere else. Its enough to point out the scientific views as opposed to the beliefs of Creationists and ID'ists. I dont care what they believe, unless it comes into direct conflict with what is generally regarded as best practise- in this case McIntosh is part of TiS, and they need to be opposed, because of their attempts to put religious doctrine into science classrooms.

Actually, what surprises me is that people accept TiS's tactics. They are documented Creationists, many of them believing in a young earth. Yet ID theories have been put together by people who either accept an old earth, or will make no comment on it. Moreover, ID'ists frequently claim not to be Creationists, yet here we have creationists pretending they are ID'ists. Or have they converted?

  • 140.
  • At 05:39 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

* 129.
* At 01:24 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

"Lets have the evidence of man and dinosaur co-existing please."

Sorry my replies might take some time - I am revising for exams at the moment.

I usually don't like posting links to other things, in fact this is the first time I've done it (I think!).

This, if nothing else, is quite an interesting read. See what you think.

[url]http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurhistory.htm[/url]

  • 141.
  • At 05:58 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 138 (Tony Jackson)

Ladies and Gentlemen, it looks like this blog thread is about to get a lot more interesting as we get down to discussing transitional fossils, etc. I note that many other questions have been put to creationists which have not been properly addressed on this blog yet. I look forward to the ongoing discussion. (I cannot respond immediately as I have work to do. Will be back as soon as I can.)

Regards,
"Creationist Apologist"

  • 142.
  • At 07:10 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

* 140.
* At 05:39 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:

Sorry, my tags didn't work there, I'll try again!

http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurhistory.htm

You may just have to cut and paste...

  • 143.
  • At 07:35 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Had a look at it and it is typical creationist twaddle.

  • 144.
  • At 08:48 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

* 143.
* At 07:35 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Dylan Dog wrote:

"Had a look at it and it is typical creationist twaddle."

My goodness; I did not expect such a highy reasoned, rational and scientific response. Thanks for your contribution to the debate.

  • 145.
  • At 08:52 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

Creationist apologist

I want to see a carbon dated dinosaur fossil from a time band when humans existed. I'll even settle for one from when I think humans first appeared (around 200,000 years ago is the oldest H. Sapiens find), and not the 6,000 years ago you'd have us believe.

that should make it easy for you shouldn't it.

I am not holding my breath...

  • 146.
  • At 09:36 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian # wrote:

* 133.
* At 02:09 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Posts 110, 115 and 116

"If evidence were required of the willingness of some evolutionists to abuse and denigrate their opponents, rather than debate calmly and respectfully, we have it in these posts.

PB is addressed as: "pretty rude"; "very smug"; a "total deliberately ignorant bore"; "more than a little dishonest"; and by implication unworthy of respect. On another post, he is accused of having "stooped so low" and of "outright lying"; and "highly unrespectful". Moreover, bullying tactics are used with demands such as "are you ready to concede defeat on the half-evolved feathers issue?"

"And all this in response to PB's posting 108 in which he makes a reasonable defence and presents a reasonable challenge."
.
No, you are mistaken creationist appologist. This is rather a response of PBs deliberated ignorance of the past few weeks of answered provided.
May I suggest your also look at the other 3 forums, from which this is a continuation?
He constantly accuses others of evading his questions, but himself never provides adequate answers to those asked of him.
I have all relevent sections of those forums cut and paste into a word doc.
When I get a little time later, I will
post some quotes from those. Anyone reading over these can see the patience and completeness with which PBs questions have been answered. These past converstions also show the evidence of PBs deliberately ignoring answers given whilst attacking others.
Reading these may also bring you up to speed on which questions and answers have been posted.
The reason a new forum started was due to McIntosh's lates interview.
However PBs accusations of others evadindg his questions/not giving him the answers he wants, are contained in these forums.
Here are just two of the latest forums
"Defending Andy McIntosh"
22 Dec 06, 11:47 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/defending_andy_mcintosh_1.html
"Andy McIntosh replies"
30 Dec 06, 03:42 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/andy_mcintosh_replies.html

  • 147.
  • At 09:51 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 144.
* At 08:48 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:

* 143.
* At 07:35 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Dylan Dog wrote:

"Had a look at it and it is typical creationist twaddle."

"My goodness; I did not expect such a highy reasoned, rational and scientific response. Thanks for your contribution to the debate."
.
I believe, to get a reasoned rational and scientific response, you need to present reasoned rational scientific information. Any information published in a reputable journal and reviewed by scientific peers will get you one of those. Although anything at all that has been peer reviewed by other scientists (who don't belong to the same creation club) will also get a rational scientific response.

Hope this helps.
Cheers

  • 148.
  • At 10:02 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Posts 140,142 and 144 (JK)

Thanks, JK. This is fascinating and certainly does provide compelling evidence to suggest that dinosaurs and man once co-existed, even in relatively recent times.

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 149.
  • At 10:17 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

No probs JK!

I like to be succint and to the point!

DD

ps. can you please give credible, verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence?

  • 150.
  • At 10:17 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 138.
* At 03:50 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Tony Jackson wrote:
"You say “there are no transitional fossils”, we direct you to web sites and papers from the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing examples. You come back and say “but evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics”, we explain why it doesn’t. You say “On this AIG website, I’ve found the names of two hundred people with science PhDs who don’t believe in evolution”, and we show you why this is irrelevant. Then you say “but there are no transitional fossils” and we’re back to where we started. Round and round we go."

An extremely accurate account Tony.
Reviewing the past few of these related forums reveals this.

  • 151.
  • At 10:26 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

* 145.
* At 08:52 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

"Creationist apologist

I want to see a carbon dated dinosaur fossil from a time band when humans existed. I'll even settle for one from when I think humans first appeared (around 200,000 years ago is the oldest H. Sapiens find), and not the 6,000 years ago you'd have us believe.

that should make it easy for you shouldn't it.

I am not holding my breath..."

I could start another debate entirely about Carbon dating, but lets not do that. Let's concentrate on the matter in hand.

Now you want some evidence that Dinosaurs walked with humans.

Firstly, Did you read the article I posted? What did you think of it? Even if you think it's a lot of crap, I would still like a reasoned, rational answer. (Unlike Dylan Dog's)

Secondly, How long does organic matter like red blood cells etc last? Few thousand years?

How then, and I quote: (Discover 27(4):37–41, 77, April 2006),

"Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana"

Now what is the most rational, reasonable and scientific reason for this? Would it maybe be that the fossilized dinosaur skeleton isn't 65 million years old? Would seem that way to me.

Just to point out, instead of saying the bones were only a few/10s of thousands of years old, evolutionists decided to overturn what were "rules of paleontology" and say that "oh, em, then soft tissues must be able to last 65 million years..."

If ever you wanted an example of twisting evidence and moving goal posts to maintain a world view there's one!

Thanks you Pastafarian, post #146. If you take the trouble to compile it all I would appreciate the effort, but it may become quite long. I browsed through the older threads for a while once, and quickly the number of whines about half-evolved feathers I counted from pb reached into dozens. The list may become too long to post in a thread (the way poster Luther posted that endless post). But I can easily put a document on a webserver for you if you like, you could just include the link to that.

Quick status check: pb, how is the reading on half-evolved feathers going?
Could you give us the references of the articles you have finished sofar?

  • 153.
  • At 11:13 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

108.
At 05:14 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
pb wrote:
Guthrie/GW/Jane/Molecular Biologist
“When you ridicule my serious questions you are hindering me from making a serious assessment of evolution and undermining your efforts to promote the theory”
As far as I can see (over the 3 ACM forums), it is your continual whining of not being presented with evidence, when even 'Blind Freddy' can see that you have, which in turn portrays your determination to remain ignorant, that has earned you ridicule.
Guys, can I make one point, you all seem to take my questions as deliberate and willful attacks on your beliefs which they most certainly are not.
Not at all Pb, rather they are attempts at deliberate distortion and denial of known scientific evidence and facts. No belief necessary.
To me, it appears completely the reverse, where you have taken the presentation of the facts answering your questions as “atheistic Dawkin's follower attacks” (see other McIntosh forums, also the top of this one)

“and undermining your efforts to promote the theory. your efforts to promote the theory.”
No need to promote it PB, it is already accepted by the overwhelming majority, over 350,000,
of scientists worldwide, not all of whom are biologists, based on scientific investigation and evidence. This number includes the majority of medical professionals as well as most others in every other field of the natural sciences and other fields of science. Would be interesting to see figures for the general public as well.
Your use of the term “promote the theory” exposes you.
.
“CAN *ANYONE* HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE EVOLUTIONARY POSITION ON THIS MATTER PLEASE?”
Oh PB thou doth protest too much! In light of all the help you have been offered, yet have consistently refused to even look at? Very, very bad acting job, indeed.
Remember this is a religion blog, not a science blog.
Really so ACM's assertions reguarding the TSOT are religious and not a contradiction of the current scientific understanding of TSLOTand biological systems. If you wish to consider evolution as a belief, that is your problem as far as I am concerned. They do say ignorance is bliss.
So how about physical chemistry, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, biomedical research, developmental genetics and many other scientific fields. Are these belief systems to your mind too?

(please understand I dont believe 'transitional' fossils prove evolution as they still do not prove one species changed into another, but I am interested to see to what extent they exist...testing my worldview).
Interested PB, I shall count the number of times you have questioned this and the numbered of times you have been provided with the facts and evidence of the answers.(you do comprehend what these words mean don't you PB facts..evidence)

“The other case was antibody production which Tony and others insisted was evolution. But another obviously very informed blogger came on and contested that it was not true natual selection or mutation by evolutionary standards. Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia both speak of antibody "differention" and make no mention of evolution or mutation.
“ACM would say, one type of machine is not producing a new type of machine (species) with obviously new information. New antibodies are still just differently coded antibodies and they all come from the same species.”
This was also discussed and references given on the previous forum PB. Your unwillingness to learn, whilst continulally proclaiming an intense desire to do so, portrays your determination to just argue for aarguments sake!
ACM also showed a clear lack of knowledge of functioning biological systems.
So guys, if I am learning less and less here,
That is because despite the patience of a numbered of talented and informed scientific minds trying to inform you, you choose to remain uninformed and illinformed PB.
I hope I am mainly respectful on this blog
On this blog? Does this include the past ACM forums, which can and should (to avoid repetition) be considered part of this blog?
PS Would also be very interested if anyone could take the time to give some very brief answers to my queries in post 21, even if you only have a line on one or two of the questions.
But please, if you just want to abuse me, save yourself the energy and just let be.
Ohh poor PB, so totally inocent of any wrong. He only wanted a couple of lines, was given dozens and dozens, not to mention references for a plethora of information directly relevent to his questions, all of which he chose to ignore! Poor thing!
.
133.
At 02:09 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
Creationist Apologist wrote:
Re- Posts 110, 115 and 116
“If evidence were required of the willingness of some evolutionists to abuse and denigrate their opponents, rather than debate calmly and respectfully, we have it in these posts.”
To creationist appologist, as I see suggested above, perhaps you should peruse the past forums also. Though I don't hold out much hope, going by your subjective tone, reading those may help a little with your objectivity. Please take special note of PB's language won't you?

  • 154.
  • At 11:13 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Guys

Thanks for your contributions.

Peter, you are still well out of order. But I am getting the impression from your post that none of the journals you mention actually have a transitional fossil between scales and feathers.

Can you answer me if there is a transitional fossil anywhere? that was my original question at the start of this all, I am not asking about whether theories on feather evolution exist, just the transitional fossil I asked for at the very beginning??? Still no clear answer...have you a hyperlink for one???????????

Guthrie - thanks, will come back, and GW.

Guys, I will no longer be acknowledging any postings which are ad hominem. This is a religion blog, not an academic science blog and there is no good reason I cannot ask such questions.

And I think it is a bit naive to expect to "convert" people just like that to your way of thinking. I dont.
But I do think it is mature for both sides to test and improve their worldviews with the help of each other.

If you dont like my terms of discussion, please just dont get involved. You are free to ignore me, I wont do you any harm.

I will engage with all intelligent disucssion which does not contain ad hominem attacks.

And I will come back to other posters to me above, tomorrow, just done out now and off to bed.

respectfully
PB

PS Thanks Creationist Apologist.

  • 155.
  • At 12:09 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

122.
At 11:33 AM on 09 Jan 2007,
JK wrote:
"Firstly are you aware of all the other flood "myths" from around the

world that have similar themes to the Biblical Flood? Nice co-incidence

eh?
To say there is no physical evidence is simply un-true. There is lots

of it both geologic and fossil. Far too much, infact, for me to list

here. I'm sure you know where to look to find it documented!
Can you explain to me how there have been fossils found, for example,

of animals giving birth, in the middle of a meal or even in the middle

of a fight?"

126.
At 12:56 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
Pastafarian #5 wrote:
"Where are these fossils held?
Could you also provide a link, preferably

2 or 3, to the all the availbale information concernig these fossils. I

am extemely curious due to my past experience of living in tropical

monsoonal locales where major flooding is not uncommon. I have also

seen the demise of large numbers of stock and wild animals due to

massive (not as big as the one of which you speak of course)flash

flooding. So you can understand my interest in these fossils.
Thanks in

advance"

My above request may have gotten a little drowned under the Dinosaurs

(along with Fred and Wilma) so this is just a polite reminder
Could you give me references for where these fossils are held JK?
Thanks

  • 156.
  • At 12:35 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Barney wrote:

* 129.
* At 01:24 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

"Lets have the evidence of man and dinosaur co-existing please."

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html

  • 157.
  • At 12:53 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 153.
* At 11:13 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Molecular Biologist wrote:

Appologies. It seems my post came out a little scrambled and is missing some quotation marks/breaks.
Hope all can decipher it.

  • 158.
  • At 12:55 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 130 and 134 (Dylan Dog)

DD, you first refer to AIG/ICR as “wah wah sites”. I presume that “wah wah” harks back to our chimpanzee “ancestor” since the term is not to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary but would be an excellent attempt at vocalization from an evolving primate. (I use the term “primate” in its zoological sense; not as a reference to the Archbishop.) Your comment is most enlightening.

You then repeat ad nauseam your favourite gibe about the “talking snake”, the fourth such reference on this thread alone! Yet in post 134 you complain to PB, “I think the reason why posters get annoyed with you (and other creationists) is that they ask the same questions time and time again as if they have never been asked before…” Perhaps we might wish that we had a quid for every time you mention the “talking snake”!

Now let's consider the mystery of the “talking snake”. The story is related by Moses in the book of Genesis to explain how the first man and woman fell into disobedience from the state of innocence in which they were created. The woman, Eve, was tempted by Satan through the medium of a snake.

I perfectly understand, of course, that a rationalist world-view, which regards the universe as a closed entity, cannot conceive of supernaturalism, and hence the difficulty that atheistic or purely rationalistic scientists may encounter. Rationalism, and its bedfellow naturalism, are confined to a uniformitarian and materialistic view of natural processes. This excludes the possibility of supernatural intervention outside the familiar laws of experimental science. Hence the impossibility of a pure rationalist believing the story of a talking snake. (Indeed, all religious belief is bunkum to the pure rationalist.)

A Bible commentator explains: “That it was a real serpent is evident from the plain and artless style of the history and from the many allusions made to it in the New Testament. But the material serpent was the instrument or tool of a higher agent, Satan or the devil…” (Robert Jamieson, Commentary on the Whole Bible)

http://www.ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB01.htm

If that sounds impossible for an evolutionist to believe, then please have some sympathy for the creationist who is expected to believe that a walking, talking, highly intelligent man or woman is the end product of a marvellous and magical process called evolution, whereby inanimate matter, of its own volition (wherever that orginated) decided to club together in such a way as to form an amoeba, the first living organism, which gradually transformed itself until eventually (by some magical process which no-one has quite explained) it developed itself into the first mammal, which gradually – yes, over millions of years – managed to improve itself by some intuitive power (someone, please tell me how), until – hey presto! – one day a fully-formed two-legged creature sauntered out of his cave smacking his lips and crying (you guessed it!) “Wah! Wah! Wah!”

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 159.
  • At 01:33 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • samuel td wrote:

If I hear the name of Andy McIntosh again, I'll screeeammmmm...

Can i appeal to all the sensible people here to stop discussing this nutcase?

  • 160.
  • At 02:11 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Jill wrote:

Is Truth in Science a separate entity from the American Creationists groups? Anyone know? All creationist groups (both UK and American) appear to constantly reference Answers In Genesis.
Just wondering.

  • 161.
  • At 02:15 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

It seems to me rather fitting that a discussion about a false prophet of thermodynamics would generate a great deal of heat and not much light.

  • 162.
  • At 02:48 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 130 and 134 (Dylan Dog)

I was about to address the above posts and was then sidetracked by the talking snake. Anyway, DD references the URL of a website called “talkorigins” - not a talking snake this time, though I can't help wondering if that old Serpent didn't have a part to play!

It should be noted, first of all, that, according to Wikipedia, “The TalkOrigins Archive is a popular website that presents mainstream science perspectives on the anti-evolution claims of young-earth, old-earth, and ‘intelligent design’ creationists”. In other words, it is dedicated to an evolutionary philosophy of origins. To counter this bias, Biblical Creationists have set up a website called The True.Origin Archive, and this may be accessed at the following URL:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

The purpose of TrueOrigin is to offer “intellectually honest responses to the claims of evolutionism’s proponents, including—but not limited to—the ‘Talk.Origins’ newsgroup and the ‘Talk.Origins Archive’ website”. Anyone interested in dispassionately considering both sides of the arguments should visit both sites.

DD’s first reference deals with creationists’ claim that fossils can form rapidly, indicating that fossils are not a problem for a young earth. The claim itself is not a big deal, as evolutionists also acknowledge that fossils are known to form rapidly in localized catastrophes. In response to this, may I refer you to the following:

(1) “The Geologic Column, Does it Exist?”
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

2) “Geology and the Young Earth”
http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp

DD’s second reference deals with the claims of certain creationists that “The bodies of mammoths that apparently froze suddenly have been found”. The creation source quoted is from the Watchtower Society, not a Biblical evangelical creationist source. The implied premiss of the statement, that it has to do with flood catastrophism, is something that creationists also dispute. See, for example, the following Abstract from Dr John Morris:
http://www.icr.org/article/1123/

DD’s third reference is an alleged claim that “The contorted positions of fossil animals indicate that they were rapidly buried alive”. In fact, this is a somewhat misleading allegation. What the writer in question precisely said is as follows: “The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas”:-
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences25.html

More pertinent to the debate between evolutionists and creationists is the apparent absence of transitional fossils which alone could prove evolution once and for all. Other areas in the debate must also be discussed but this is all I have time for tonight.

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 163.
  • At 03:18 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Restaino wrote:

Geocentric theory??? Why not ask Dr. McIntosh about atomic theory or quasigeostrophic theory? What does this have to do with the 2nd Law and evolution??? Absolutely nothing!!! I don't blame him for not answering the irrelevant question.

I have yet to hear any evolutionist that can explain the origin of information. Where did information come from? Professor McIntosh has answered that question, but what is the answer from the evolutionists? It seems that they infer that information comes from evolution, but this is circular reasoning.

Judging from the comments posted here there are many that do not like Professor McIntosh's presuppositions. Could it be possible that the evolutionary answer to the question contradicts the evolutionist's own presuppositions?

WHAT IS THE EVOLUTIONARY ANSWER TO THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION? ANYONE PLEASE!

  • 164.
  • At 03:45 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

“The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas”:-

Sounds like what happens when animals are caught in a hot lava flow.

  • 165.
  • At 04:04 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Phil wrote:

* 163.
* At 03:18 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Tony Restaino wrote:
"WHAT IS THE EVOLUTIONARY ANSWER TO THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION? ANYONE PLEASE!"
.
Now,now calm down Tony. No need to shout! You'll give yourself high blood pressure doing that. Though you probably don't believe in high blood pressure as it's related to processes which evolved in the evolution of "fight/flight responses of the central nervous system.
Evoluionary theory doesn't specifically cover origins (it's more about natural selection you know?), however other exeriments has produced the results predicted.
In a little while, I shall go and retrieve some info for you. In the meantime "breathe, and again, breathe".
Back shortly. :)

  • 166.
  • At 04:29 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Phil wrote:

* 163.
* At 03:18 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Tony Restaino wrote:
"WHAT IS THE EVOLUTIONARY ANSWER TO THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION? ANYONE PLEASE!"

Now Tony, here is a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
I can't explain the info on there for you at present as I'm pretty busy looking at some research here involving the development of a new vaccine.If you can't follow the information at the link, I'll be happy to explain it in simplified terms
when I get time. OK
Just relax!

  • 167.
  • At 04:55 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Phil wrote:

* 165.
* At 04:04 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Phil wrote:

* 163.
* At 03:18 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Tony Restaino wrote:
"WHAT IS THE EVOLUTIONARY ANSWER TO THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION? ANYONE PLEASE!"
.
Oh and if you'd prefer to search for slightly more biased information for yourself, the theory comes under "science of abiogenesis (origin of life)" rather than evolution itself. OK?
Deep breaths.
Hope this helps.

  • 168.
  • At 05:18 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

PB re post 132,
you wrote:
"I thought someone might raise the gliding animals like the frog and the squirrel etc, I know these are certainly revelvant to this discussion, especially from an evolutionists viewpoint.

But from a creationist viewpoint, that does not actually directly answer the question about birds and bats, unless you claim birds and bats were descended from them.

ie in creationist theory, those examples you have given are "perfect and complete"."

Your original criticism was that the transition between non-flying and flying must pass through non-adaptive stages. The fact that "perfect and complete" examples of animals with various gliding abilities exist shows that intermediate stages are adaptive.

A second important point is that structures, such as wings, may initially have a function that is entirely unrelated to their current function, i.e. flight. As a said in my previous post, wings may have begun as structures that increased the ability of ground dwelling dinosaurs to catch prey. You can read all about it in the reference I posted.

  • 169.
  • At 05:50 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

Creationist Apologist re post 162
you wrote:
"More pertinent to the debate between evolutionists and creationists is the apparent absence of transitional fossils which alone could prove evolution once and for all."

If there was no fossil record we would still have a very strong evidence for evolution. Evolutionary theory generates hypotheses that are tested constantly in ways that draw no evidence from the fossil record. Not one study of what must be millions, over 150 years has found any evidence that the theory of evolution should be rejected. If you know of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that provides any evidence that does not support the central tenents of evolutionary theory I'd like to read it.

  • 170.
  • At 06:45 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

For all of you who are continually and patiently providing information requested by the creation religionists,
those asking and offered will no doubt ignore anything offered.
Just a reminder of the AiG "Statement of Faith".
.
"6.No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp?vPrint=1
.
So, you see any evidence you proffer goes against this statement of faith. Why would the creationists even bother to look at it if they know beforehand they are forbidden to accept any of it ?
Time and time again, those requesting information have been provided with such.
How many creationist posters have referenced the information provided, not even as a courtesy showing they have actually looked at what they requested and were provided with?

The creationist agenda, consistantly appears to be, to give the appearance of a legitimate debate reguarding "the problems" with evolutionary theory.
Rather this is a debate between a particular religious philosophy and science, and thus impossible.
As was quoted in an earlier post, by a member of the medical profession, there are no credible claims of problems with evolutionary theory as it stands.
An affiliation comprised of fanatical evangelical Christian groups
appears to be the only major anti-evolution contender.


This endless questioning appears to be simply a ploy by this religious cult, wanting to expand their member/power base (and no doubt their income), to portray of a some sort of big debate. Religion is big business. Any brand that was required teaching in schools would gain even more power. Why is it always the evangelical creationists (AiG affiliates in particular) pushing this particular social engineering agenda and not other Christian religious denominations?


  • 171.
  • At 08:36 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

Tom,

I thank you. This post (no 170) has lifted a weight from my shoulders. You have unearthed incontrovertible evidence that debating with these delusionists is futile. I had got to the point that I could type disingenuous blinfold in milliseconds whilst discussing science with these folk - now I don't need to.

However, without engaging, how can we stop this nonsense being pumped into vulnerable young minds?

What a depressing quandary...

  • 172.
  • At 08:37 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Unemployed wrote:

Wonder what it is worth to become a "creation scientist"? I'm thinking those that work for AiG probably get paid ok.
Anyone know?

  • 173.
  • At 09:25 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

This got lost in all the other stuff earler, so I'm re-posting it.

* 151.
* At 10:26 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:

* 145.
* At 08:52 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

"Creationist apologist

I want to see a carbon dated dinosaur fossil from a time band when humans existed. I'll even settle for one from when I think humans first appeared (around 200,000 years ago is the oldest H. Sapiens find), and not the 6,000 years ago you'd have us believe.

that should make it easy for you shouldn't it.

I am not holding my breath..."

I could start another debate entirely about Carbon dating, but lets not do that. Let's concentrate on the matter in hand.

Now you want some evidence that Dinosaurs walked with humans.

Firstly, Did you read the article I posted? What did you think of it? Even if you think it's a lot of crap, I would still like a reasoned, rational answer. (Unlike Dylan Dog's)

Secondly, How long does organic matter like red blood cells etc last? Few thousand years?

How then, and I quote: (Discover 27(4):37–41, 77, April 2006),

"Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana"

Now what is the most rational, reasonable and scientific reason for this? Would it maybe be that the fossilized dinosaur skeleton isn't 65 million years old? Would seem that way to me.

Just to point out, instead of saying the bones were only a few/10s of thousands of years old, evolutionists decided to overturn what were "rules of paleontology" and say that "oh, em, then soft tissues must be able to last 65 million years..."

If ever you wanted an example of twisting evidence and moving goal posts to maintain a world view there's one!

  • 174.
  • At 09:54 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Disgusted wrote:

Yet another mighty fine example of evangelical scientific knowledge if ever there was one. "Condoms don't reduce the incidence of AIDS." In areas of Afrifa where the disease is rife, the number of children left as orphans/dying from the AIDS epidemic is mind boggling.
Not a lot of women in some of these areas have the choice of abstinence.
Polygamy is also a way of life in many
parts of African, with men commonly having many wives. Abstinence only?
Baloney!
.
"God and the Fight Against AIDS"
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17963

These so called Christians deserve special treatment and respect because?

  • 175.
  • At 10:22 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

JK,

I have read 6 articles on this in the last half hour, not one suggests the dating is wrong, but that the fossilization process is not fully understood.

Carbon dating is a solid, very mainstream-science technique. These remains have dated at millions of years old.

As a parting thought - even if these remains were 10's of thousands of years old (which scientific consensus is not even discussing as a remote possibility) they would still pre-date creation.

Your use of the words scientific and reasonable are - you guessed it - disingenuous - see post 170 and 171.

Gee.

  • 176.
  • At 10:24 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

Oh, so are we all reposting our previous posts now if they happened to get buried?
Especially the cut & pastes?

  • 177.
  • At 10:47 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Mike. G wrote:

* 173.
* At 09:25 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* JK wrote:
Just to point out, instead of saying the bones were only a few/10s of thousands of years old, evolutionists decided to overturn what were "rules of paleontology" and say that "oh, em, then soft tissues must be able to last 65 million years..."
.
I take it this article from Discover has also been published in one of the reputable peer reviewed paleontology journals? Certainly sounds like such a discovery should have made it into one of those for review.
.
As with all scientific article publications it is necessary to read at least one or two reviews to read others expert opinions if it is not your area of expertise.
Could you give references for the peer reviews of this article?
Look forward to reading them.
Thanks in advance.

  • 178.
  • At 11:10 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 171.
* At 08:36 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

Tom,
"I thank you. This post (no 170) has lifted a weight from my shoulders. You have unearthed incontrovertible evidence that debating with these delusionists is futile....
However, without engaging, how can we stop this nonsense being pumped into vulnerable young minds?"
.
Make as many people as possible aware of what is going on. Many are not up to speed on the issue. Spread the word!
This is a good site to start with.

British Centre for Science Education
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/HomePage
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/

  • 179.
  • At 11:25 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Noodleyness wrote:

* 171.
* At 08:36 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:
"However, without engaging, how can we stop this nonsense being pumped into vulnerable young minds?
What a depressing quandary..."

Have you considered becoming a Pastafarian? There are many, many English Pastafarians who intend on demanding that the Pastafarian Creation Story be given equal time if the Christains creation story is be taught in schools.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

  • 180.
  • At 11:31 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

* 175.
* At 10:22 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

"Carbon dating is a solid, very mainstream-science technique. These remains have dated at millions of years old."

You obviously don't know very much about carbon dating then:

"The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years"

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

  • 181.
  • At 11:58 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Jk

Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html and follow the links.

I,m sorry but your cut and paste is yet again more creationist twaddle. Also I do hope that you aplogise for repeating this lie and false witnessing against the members of this blog? will you be honest and admit that you were wrong(at least)? Btw your cut and paste is one of the infamous and common creationist claims.

To CA re: "true" origins

More creationist twaddle, from another wah wah who believes the world started with a talking snake!

Do you really believe the world started with this primitive bronze age creation myth?!

You really need to calm down CA! the thing is evolution has evidence to support it-you have a bronze age creation myth about a talking snake!(another quid!)

The thing is ask the same questions that have been asked numerous times before they are nothing new just the same tired old twaddle.

Why are there no Hindu, Buddist, agnostic, atheist, Shinto etc etc Biblical creationists? and (intelligent) Christians see http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ have no probs with evolution. The thing that drives you is a literal interpretation of a primitive bronze age creation myth. Btw why is yours right and all the other creation myths wrong?

Why can you not present (just) one piece of credible, verifaible, peer-reviewed evidence to back up your claims? why can you not find refs from non-fundamentalist sites to support your claims? why not admit (like PB) that it is your faith that drives you and not science, evidence or reason?

Why not join this newsgroup with is dedicated to evolution/origins, and ask questions there. There are scientists from all over the world that would be willing to help you out(some of them are Christians too!). I believe this format is better than a blog spot as posts can get lost, time loading a page etc etc. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

Regards

DD

ps. The evidence presented by Talk Origins is credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed.

  • 182.
  • At 12:06 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Jill:
Truth in Science is as far as I am aware a home grown UK organisation, but with strong links to US Creationists. I understand that their schools information pack included a DVD which was made by AMerican Creationists.
The ID arguments they have used are solely American in origin, and TiS are part of the worldwide network of Creationists in general, through the activities of their members.

Gee Dubyah, I noted your mistake with regards to carbon dating yesterday, but assumed you might have been wanting to see how much our Creationists knew about it. Unfortunately, it appears I was wrong. The half life of C14 is measured in a few thousand years, and IIRC, you cant get dates much beyond 40,000 years ago. Hence it is useless for what you are suggesting.

Have you looked up Potassium/ Argon dating?

The reference to Dinosaur soft tissue was covered a year or two ago. Essentially, the researchers work was blown out of all proportions. I cant recall the exact story, but it was not a case of large amounts of soft tissue being remarkably preserved, more that some structures still survived.

  • 183.
  • At 01:56 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

a subsequent correction on my part hasnt made it why not Will? - I apologise it was lazy and an oversight to use the term carbon dating - like sying hoover instead of vacuum cleaner (is that just a UK thing?). Anyway, other elemants such as strontium have half lives allowing any dating. The generic term is "radiometric dating" referring to techniques using elements other than Carbon.

Thank you for correcting me.

So the dinosaur in question was dated as millions of years old using RADIOMETRIC DATING(95 M I think). So can we proceed from here?

  • 184.
  • At 01:57 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Mark

You know I dont agree with you that ACM is a false prophet (or a real one for that matter) but I did think post 161 was funny!!! keep it up!

Peter Klaver

- did you actually find me a hyperlink to a transitional scales-feather fossil yet please? Does one exist? This has been my question from the beginning but all I *appear* to get is hyperlinks to *theory*. Have I missed this?

Will log on again tonight to go through above in more detail guys...

PB

PB

  • 185.
  • At 02:00 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • JK wrote:

* 181.
* At 11:58 AM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Anonymous wrote:

Jk

"Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html and follow the links.

I,m sorry but your cut and paste is yet again more creationist twaddle. Also I do hope that you aplogise for repeating this lie and false witnessing against the members of this blog? will you be honest and admit that you were wrong(at least)? Btw your cut and paste is one of the infamous and common creationist claims."

You obviously didn't read what I posted very well.

Firstly the article I posted was NOT from a Creationist website; it was from Discover Magazine!!

Secondly, the link you gave me was to an article written more than two years before the article I posted from Discover!!

  • 186.
  • At 02:33 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

I'd love to hear how various animal species were made in vast numbers then killed off in a matter of days. I mean, they must have bred in some mad and new method to populate the earth with their many sub phylum before god got mad with them and made what appeared to be a mass extinction event. What happened? Did they eat off the wrong tree or something?

How did the flood drown ammonites, trilobites Graptolites ect?

I personally love the way that McIntire ignores the whole science of sedimentary stratigraphy and cites a few and rather inconclusive bits of "evidence" which don't really prove anything either way.

Does McIntire really believe that if nobody had ever heard of the bible that anyone would seriously believe this twaddle?

  • 187.
  • At 02:40 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

Guthrie,

I believe that the soft tissue in question was accessed after dissolving out the minerals deposited in the fossilzation - it was previously thought this would remove everything. It's been suggested there could actually be a sizeable amount of this stuff accessible in the existing fossil collection.
All we need now is Dickie Attenborough to launch that theme park...

  • 188.
  • At 02:40 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

JK:(post173):

"if ever you wanted an example of twisting evidence and moving goal posts to maintain a world viewthose are one".

Ouch! My irony meter just exploded!

Question to moderators: why did my post earlier today disappear down a black hole? It was much less strong than what has passed previously. It took a good bit of time to compose (the one repeating the info on where to get the fossils article to pb and other things). Could you check please? Another poster also just reported a post gone missing. If the text is still somewhere, could you email it to me so that I don't have to re-create it.

Hang on pb, it's coming. Either it might still turn up, or I'll redo it.

  • 190.
  • At 05:04 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

Re 189:

Peter: I have learned to copy my text before I post it. This has happened to me.

Michael

  • 191.
  • At 05:42 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Jk

Oh I did read the article very well! The claim that the findings indicate a young earth are twaddle!

Indeed JK perhaps you should have read the whole article to read Schweitzer's opinion of how creationists had tried to hijack and twist the findings...here it is...

"While scientists struggled to make sense of the bones, another community had no doubt about how to interpret the results. The reports were quickly embraced by biblical literalists who believe God created life on Earth less than 10,000 years ago. For decades they have been working to place a scientific patina on their ideas. The Institute for Creation Research runs a graduate school near San Diego with 11 instructors who hold doctorates in biochemistry, geology, and other sciences. Conferences offer papers on topics like the physics of the Genesis flood. "Any time there's empirical evidence, that's gold for them," says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. "My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."

Could not sum up the dishonest bunch better myself!

She is an evoltionist and a CHristian!

Oh and please read the further links that I provided in the original talk origins link.

Don't worry what you did was the most infamous creationst tactic ie., misquote.

How can you expect to be taken seriously?

Kindest regards

DD

  • 192.
  • At 06:35 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

JK

"If ever you wanted an example of twisting evidence and moving goal posts to maintain a world view there's one!"

Your comment is especially ironic!!!!

As your post proves it!

Regards

DD

  • 193.
  • At 07:40 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

JK

was there a point you wanted to make now we are all clear on the full story with the Schweitzer dinosaur artice?

So like I said - we have yet to see empirical evidence of man's co-existence with dinosaur. Yet creationists would have us believe there was a full cast list from jurassic park on board the good ship noah.

Were is the evidence? Where is it?
There is none.
And there is no empirical evidence for the flood, there is no empirical evidence for God and there is no empirical evidence for creation.

Nada...

  • 194.
  • At 08:27 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Unemployed wrote:

I was wondering if any of you YECs here wanna buy a bridge? I also have some very lovely towers for sale?

  • 195.
  • At 10:34 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 181 (DD)

Hi DD,
You say "The evidence presented by Talk Origins is credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed."

Please see their FAQs page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Last question: "Q...Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed..."

Answer: "A. We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.

Q. Does that sound like they're peer-reviewed?
A. Not necessarily.

Regards,

"Creationist Apologist"

P.S. I wish I had time to reply to lots of the other blog contributions. It would require a book of considerable length!

  • 196.
  • At 11:42 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

131.
At 01:41 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
Anonymous wrote:
Re- Post 127 (Questioner):
"Creationist Appologist, about that link for that 'brilliant online dictionary'?"
Yes, I will gladly oblige. The link is as follows:-
http://www.answers.com/topic/coincidental-evolution
(By the way, "Answers.com", the online dictionary, is not in any way connected with AIG.
"I might also add that the terms "Horizontal Evolution" and "Vertical Evolution" were not my choice of expression. I first used them in a quotation from an article found on the website of the Creation Research Institute. I was then asked for the definitions. When I searched online, I found that these expressions are widely employed by evolutionists and creationists alike".
Regards,"
"Creationist Apologist"
.
In other words, Creationist Appologist, you really have no idea of
you are talking about in your #86 & #97 posts, do you?
A very bad attempt to marry Cuvier's hypotheses debunked with current molecular knowledge of homologous/duplicated genes.
I believe AiG are currently rehashing their "creation homolgy" ideas because the ones originally presented were just so bad, they pulled that AiG pulled them from the repertoire on their site.
Maybe you should update your knowledge
of these matters a little?
Or is yours the new version now available?

  • 197.
  • At 12:13 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

You see folks, all of the biological fields using current molecular analysis techniques, are chock full of evidence supporting evolutionary relationships. So far the YECs only attempts to get around this are to use the ideas of Darwin anti evolution theorists, such as Cuvier, and try and make those ideas fit modern molecular evidence. This is usually attempted by using the "sledge hammer" technique.
This is the method, whereby, creationists try bashing those old ideas into current evidence, even though they never, ever fit. For more information on the TiS's "kinds" see:

British Centre for Science Education: Truth in Science’s Bogus Science
"Truth in Science’s web page contains unsubstantiated claims, deception and outright misrepresentation."
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience

  • 198.
  • At 12:49 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 169, Coleoptera writes: “If you know of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that provides any evidence that does not support the central tenents of evolutionary theory I'd like to read it.”

Please see the following article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

At the end of the article, it states
(QUOTE) The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/Technical.asp

(END QUOTE)

As to their policy regarding peer review, Answers in Genesis say: “We encourage people to submit their papers through the peer-review process…”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0929.asp

“Our purpose is most definitely not to claim infallibility, but to ensure that all of us try to take advantage of the processes of peer review, etc..”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2003/0131neg.asp

Regards,

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 199.
  • At 12:59 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 195, Questioner wrote: “British Centre for Science Education: Truth in Science’s Bogus Science ‘Truth in Science’s web page contains unsubstantiated claims, deception and outright misrepresentation.’”

To find out more about British Centre for Science Education, please follow this link:
http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com/
"The purpose of this blog is to examine the new group calling itself the 'British Centre for Science Education'. We aim to shed light on the available facts concerning its membership, published statements and discussions. In doing so, we expect that you will come to the same conclusion as we have - that anybody taking it seriously needs to take another look."

Regards,
"Creationist Apologist"

  • 200.
  • At 01:10 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Some of the main British creationist groups are as follows:

Creation Science Movement, founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement by prominent members of the Victoria Institute who were concerned at the scientific, ethical and theological consequences that belief in Evolution brings to society. It is the oldest creationist organization in the world.
http://www.csm.org.uk/

Biblical Creation Society
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Creation Resources Trust
http://www.c-r-t.co.uk/

The Genesis Agendum
http://www.genesisagendum.org.uk/

The above are all independent British organisations. In addition, there are two which are part of an international organisations:

Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Creation Ministries International
http://www.creationontheweb.com/

There are also various creationist websites. In relation to the present Intelligent Design debate, I recommend that you look at the following:
http://www.idintheuk.blogspot.com/

Regards,

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 201.
  • At 01:43 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

God is dead. He died of boredom reading the entries on this thread.

  • 202.
  • At 02:34 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

* 199.
* At 12:59 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

"Re- Post 195, Questioner wrote: “British Centre for Science Education: Truth in Science’s Bogus Science ‘Truth in Science’s web page contains unsubstantiated claims, deception and outright misrepresentation.’”
Creationist Appologist, I posted, post #
195 as a follow up post to a rather meaty one requarding your intesting homology statements in earlier posts, however it seems to have disappeared.
The BCSE has some very, very interesting and well documented background on Truth in Science,so I can well understand why you try to disuade people from looking at the site.
I'll repost my missing post reguarding
your "kinds", homologies and horizontal evolution as soon as I can.
Cheers

  • 203.
  • At 02:42 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

* 198.
* At 12:49 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

"Re- Post 169, Coleoptera writes: “If you know of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that provides any evidence that does not support the central tenents of evolutionary theory I'd like to read it.”
Please see the following article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp"
.
How about a journal which is held reputable in the sientific world,not just creationist organisations?

  • 204.
  • At 02:59 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

Well my previous post appears to have come up, but it looks like I've left some information an questions out, which I meant to include. Busy doing a few things at once here!
Will update with the other questions I have for Creationist Appologist when possible.

  • 205.
  • At 03:34 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Questioner wrote:

* 199.
* At 12:59 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

"Re- Post 195, Questioner wrote: “British Centre for Science Education: Truth in Science’s Bogus Science ‘Truth in Science’s web page contains unsubstantiated claims, deception and outright misrepresentation.’”
To find out more about British Centre for Science Education, please follow this link:
http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com/
.
Thanks for that blogspot link, Creationist Appologist. It makes good reading!
Those evilutionist athiest Dawkins supporters are out to smear creationism again. hahaha
Cheers

What is the BCSE?
"The British Centre for Science Education is a single issue pressure group dedicated solely to keeping creationism and intelligent design out of the science classroom in publicly-funded schools in the United Kingdom.
The BCSE consists of a formal voluntary organisation with paid membership and a public forum where the general public can debate the key issues involved.
It is run as cooperative organisation by part-time volunteers. It has no full time members of staff.
The membership is open to all who support our aims. Members, in practice, are professional and managerial people from all walks of life who have been through the education system, understand it and have benefited from it. We are aware of the key issues involved in education both as beneficiaries of it and as “customers” of it.
We both value and understand education.
Members and participants in our forum include teachers, academics, scientists, the clergy, engineers, archaeologists, scientists, students, management consultants, professional managers and businessmen.
It includes people of a wide variety of political and religious persuasions."
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/HomePage

  • 206.
  • At 07:14 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

CA

Some of the material is peer-reviewed on TO, read what it has to say again.(sceientists read over the articles and it is an easy to read format for the layman and is referenced)

As for your assertion that their are peer-reviewed articles supporting creationism, we were looking for articles from a genuine science journal not "talking snake" monthly-the creationist journal.

And BSCE reveal the slander of "Truth" in science on their site.

So any chance of credibel, verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence to back up your clains that the world started 6000 years ago with a talking snake?

Maybe from a Hindu scientist?

Knock yourself out!

  • 207.
  • At 07:18 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 195.
* At 10:34 PM on 10 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 181 (DD)

"Hi DD,
You say "The evidence presented by Talk Origins is credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed."
.
The Talk Origins site is well respected within the scientific community for it's presentation of creation vs evolution articles. The articles there, present in detail the "creation science" claims, as well as what is currently known by science in reguard to these claims.

The creationists don't like the site as it presents all of their "scientific" arguments in detail as well as corrections of the fallacies contained in the creation "scientific" protests against secular science.
Most interesting was the setting up of a site, by creationist interests, with a very, very similar name, "True Origins" and a webfront not very dissimilar to the Talk Origins site?

  • 208.
  • At 09:27 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 200.
* At 01:10 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

"Some of the main British creationist groups are as follows:"

And Truth in Science is??

  • 209.
  • At 09:29 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

Boring Futile debate.

I refer everyone to Tom's illuminating Post #170.

Ok, it appears the blog server did indeed eat my latest post, as well as a few by others, judging from what others say. Let me try again.

Pb, you wrote
"all I *appear* to get is hyperlinks to *theory*"
No pb, the link and instructions I provided point to an article with photographs of fossils and the location of the excevation site in it. I did not provide a one-click link because the server doesn't give one. It points to some download script 'PDFSTART' that opens another (mostly empty) window and then starts a separate pdf download. There is no such links as http://zoologymagazineserver/yearissues/2003/articel.pdf
But you had seen that if you had taken the trouble. Since a repetition will merely make you claim once more that you have not been presented with anything, I will do it a bit different this time. I will repeat the info and ask not just you but everyone to see if they can get to the article from that. If they all can, including your fellow creationists, then it will show that you were determined not to learn. Or in another scenario, evolutionists could all find it but no creationists. That would be equally fun.

As Tony Jackson linked for you, the article is in the JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY B, year 2003, issue 298b, pages 42-56, first author CHENG-MING CHUONG. The website of that journal (as I stated before) is
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/102521318
On that homepage, you must go to the link 'Issues' to the issues of the year 2003 (as stated in earlier posts already), issue 298B (as stated in earlier threads already), article on pages 42-56 (as stated several times before). If you hover over the pdf link, you'll see the aforementioned 'PDFSTART' download script (no articlefilename.pdf). But click on the link and your pdf will download.
Not too difficult in my opinion, doesn't require a PhD to understand.

Please a few people, is there anyone else but pb who can't find it from this? It takes about two minutes to check. Don't disappoint me please my fellow evolutionists, let at least a few of you report back if you could find it from this info.
Then a question to the creationists: earlier on in this thread, Creation Scientists said he did not think McIntosh was a good advocate for your cause. Do those of you who have checked the info above think that pbs continued claims of 'only theory presented' makes him a credible advocate for your cause? Do you think he is acting honestly when he makes such statements?

Btw those paying attention would have seen that the whole of issue 298B is dedicated to a special issue on 'Development and evolution of amniote integuments'. So anyone who doesn't like the feather photographs in figure 1 of the mentioned article, you have tons more articles to read more on the subject. Tons of references to other related journal articles in the article itself as well. So anyone who is genuinly interested: have a feast!

But as Tom said, anything contradicting scripture is rejected anyway, so I don't hold my breath for any creationsist to report back a list of a dozen articles he/she read before making furhter claims. Why read if your mind is fully made up already.

  • 211.
  • At 09:48 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 199.
* At 12:59 AM on 11 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

"Re- Post 195, Questioner wrote: “British Centre for Science Education: Truth in Science’s Bogus Science ‘Truth in Science’s web page contains unsubstantiated claims, deception and outright misrepresentation.’To find out more about British Centre for Science Education, please follow this link:
http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com/%E2%80%9D
.
Creationist Apologist
I'm wondering if you may also have a link to a creationist blog reguarding the following organisation?
Science, Just Science campaign!

"We are a collection of concerned individuals from all walks of life and of all backgrounds and beliefs. We are concerned because of the teaching of pseudoscience in place of science in schools in the UK and about what affect that will have on our nation's children."
http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwiki-1.9.5/tiki-index.php
OR
Blog: SJS Blog
http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwiki-1.9.5/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=1

  • 212.
  • At 12:46 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

Creationist APologist re post 198:

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it is not what I asked for. I asked for an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The website that you linked is not a scientific article nor does it reference any scientific articles.

The two creationist journals do not seem to contain any articles that provide experimental evidence against evolution. None of the articles I read even provided references to scientific articles that support their claims. The scientific standard of the articles is nothing short of laughable, entirely discrediting the assertions that they are scientific and peer-reviewed.

Could you please provide an article from a peer-reviewed journal that contains all of these sections, but especially 3 & 4:
1)Abstract
2)Introduction
3)Materials and Methods
4)Results
5)Discussion

Hi Coeloptera,

In that Creationist article you read, was it just the sectioning that was missing (not a mortal sins per se, some journals leave the formatting entirely up to the authors, although even when it is not obligatory, I always put in the items you mention) or did it not contain any info on Materials and Methods and Results in whatever style of presentation? The latter would indeed give you a good laugh, wouldn't it?

And no references either?! Ooooohhh kaaayyyy......

Question to those who advocated the paper: the journal in which it was published, is that journal indexed in any scientific database? If so which one? If not, how come it is not considered part of scientific literature? I wonder.

  • 214.
  • At 06:24 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

The BCSE revealed blog is intereting, insofar as it depends upon muckraking and insinuation worthy of a tabloid newspaper.
Thata all most of it is- a direct attack upon a group who wish to prevent TiS from peddling their religious views in science classes.
If they had any actual science behind their views, they wouldn't have to resort to such tactics.
Isnt it also revealing that McIntosh is interviewed on a radio show about religion, as opposed to one about scientific breakthroughs?

  • 215.
  • At 06:34 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 206.

DD,
Thank you for your query. Please go to the following link for an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory of Intelligent Design.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Regards,

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 216.
  • At 07:41 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

CA

Please see...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/
(look at the section on 'Peer-review')

In any case you do know that Micael Behe one of the chief prophets on ID had to admit under oath at the Dover trial that his ideas were not scientific and for ID to be admitted as science, science would have to include astrology and witchcraft!!!(it's there in black and white in the court transcript).

Also please see this webiste of the Christian Ken Miller(who has done more than any "atheist" scientist to expose the fallacy of ID) http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ and http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

Btw my question related to a peer-revewed article in favour of Biblical creationism(which you advocate), not find any? In any case the ID movement keep telling us that they do not name who their intelligent designer is, ie., it could be Zeus, Pachamacha, Odin etc etc. Do you know something we don't?

Kindest regards

DD

  • 217.
  • At 09:35 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Guys

Thanks for the hyperlink ref feathers, I will try and look tonight or tomorrow. Flat out at work and home.

Anyone else I still owe an answer to please feel free to post a reminder.

BTW, the quality of the debate here has obviously passed by word of mouth as it is a good topic of conversation elsewhere;-

http://www.venganza.org/2006/12/24/fsm-cake.htm

Dec 27th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Ok, I’m going to shamelessly hijack this thread for something else. Please don’t make me walk the plank for it, it’s in a good cause.

Richard Dawkins was on BBC radio recently, debating with amongst others a UK professor (in either Chemistry or Thermodynamics, don’t remember), Andy McIntosh. McIntosh at some stage claimed that evolution was in contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. In very oversimplified terms, the second law states that processes always increase the level of disorder. Total disorder that is, isolated parts of a system can gain order at greater expense of other parts (thereby already explaining the error in McIntosh’s claim). At present there are two discussion threads about McIntosh’s blunder at the website of the program that hosted the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/
So if you have been missing the hate mail lately, take the verbal war to the enemy. I warmly encourage you to put some posts in those threads. Also, there is another thread about electing a Man of the Year. I followed the example of voting for Richard Dawkins. Wouldn’t it be nice if the website of a religiously flavoured program would report Dawkins to be the man of the year! The thread only has a few dozen entries sofar, spread over various candidates. A few extra votes can make the difference. So go out and vote, my fellow Pastafarians.
RAmen.


...I’ve just voted. Thanks for telling...

...Just checked the BBC poll and Dawkins appears to have at least a third of the votes....


Dec 28th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Thanks everyone for voting for Dawkins. The Person of the Year election is going quite nicely. Those who haven’t voted yet, don’t relax too soon. Dawkins is ahead now, but the number of votes for any candidate is still small. If anyone drums up support among Creationists or George W. Bush conservatives the way I did among Pastafarians in this thread, it could easily turn. The more votes for Dawkins, the merrier the Christmas aftertaste will be this year! So go vote on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/person_of_the_year_2006.html
and have a merry Christmas aftertaste. Possibly one of very few tastes that can come close to pasta.

http://www.venganza.org/2006/12/29/the-wall-of-seperation.htm

Richard Dawkins was on BBC radio recently, debating with amongst others a UK professor (in either Chemistry or Thermodynamics, don’t remember), Andy McIntosh. McIntosh at some stage claimed that evolution was in contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. In very oversimplified terms, the second law states that processes always increase the level of disorder. Total disorder that is, isolated parts of a system can gain order at greater expense of other parts (thereby already explaining the error in McIntosh’s claim). At present there are two discussion threads about McIntosh’s blunder at the website of the program that hosted the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/
So if you have been missing the hate mail lately, take the verbal war to the enemy. I warmly encourage you to put some posts in those threads. Also, there is another thread about electing a Man of the Year. I followed the example of voting for Richard Dawkins. Wouldn’t it be nice if the website of a religiously flavoured program would report Dawkins to be the man of the year! The thread only has a few dozen entries sofar, spread over various candidates. A few extra votes can make the difference. So go out and vote, my fellow Pastafarians.
RAmen.

I don’t think PB (pb) likes a few of the people over on the BBC “Andrew McIntosh responds” either. He can put a sentence together, but continually brings up all the red herrings on answersingenesis, as well as totally change the subject when he is cornered.
(don’t they all…hahahaha) He also may be under the impression he has a lot more people posting at him than he has! Just a hunch :)


Also of interst on that BBC blog in case you missed it in the Discovery Christmas thread: Richard Dawkins was elected man of the year in the area of religion, ethics anb media. Thanks in part to the votes by you, my fellow Pastafarians. Thanks for your votes.


I’m not Mark, but sometimes I do have a problem remembering who I am on all these blogs. I’m pretty sure that I’m Nikki though, at least on one or two posts. Depends on the subject at the time I think.
Must be quite rather disconcerting for PB having so many different science types posting against him though. ;)


...Btw: would the BBC forum posters ‘???????’, ‘??????????’, ‘????’ and ‘??????’ happen to be you?


The 200+ Creationsist scientists are the ones listed on AIG, most of them do have PhDs and even professors titles. The 353000 Evolutionists are a number I got from a discussion about religion vs science on a BBC blog. I don’t know where it came from originally or how accurate it is.

Cheers
PB

  • 218.
  • At 09:46 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Oh yes, the creationists are very "honest" in their attempt to gain a position to indoctrinate school children everywhere, with their world view. As was already said ,not one creationist "science" paper has
been submitted/published/peer reviewed in a reputable journal. But they still dishonestly try to give the impression creation articles have been through this process! So desperate are this cult, to carry out this deception, that they, themselves, publish two magazines, present them as science journals and claim peer review by others who all agree that:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
These people claim to have integrety?

  • 219.
  • At 10:00 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Guys

Just in case that wasnt clear;-

..some really interesting reading about this blog and the Dawkins person of the year award we gave him;-

http://www.venganza.org/2006/12/24/fsm-cake.htm


The discussion follows on here, along with a very interesting discussion about the number of evolutionists really posting on this blog...

..and how the number of evolutionist scientists was arrived at to counter AIG's phd 200, see;-

http://www.venganza.org/2006/12/29/the-wall-of-seperation.htm

Yes, read post 217 again... it will sink in...eventually...

cheers
PB

  • 220.
  • At 10:01 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB! BLESS HIS NOODLY APPENDAGES!!!!

You have visited the blessed site of the FSM(BHNA)! did his appendage of love touch you? Have you seen the light?
Did you read the 1000's of personal testimonies?(well it works for other religions)

Oh Praise be! We have another convert!

BLESS HIS NOODLY APPENDAGES!!!!

(if this doesn't show HIS power, then nothing will)

Another Pastafarian!

Regards

DD

RAmen

ps. the last thing about the scientists is true.

  • 221.
  • At 10:46 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

I can appreciate the FSM stuff, although I have nothing to do with it. It is rather funny, helps sort out people with a sense of humour from those that dont.

Anyway, the precise number of PhD's in support of anything should only be used as a rough guide to its relation to scientific work.
If I can get 20,00 chemistry PhD's to sign a petition about what they think chemistry is all about, I think I can say that whatever the petition was about is fairly representative of the scientific field of chemistry. On the other hand, if I can get 200 PhD's in anything from botany to physics to IT and engineering to sign a petition on evolution, I can fairly safely say that they are not representative of the actual state of the art of Evolutionary Biology.
It all reminds me of those anit-global warming petitions, where in one case many of the signatures were from economics people, not people with science or climatology degrees.

It is also to do with reliability. If you want your car fixed, do you go to the garage or to some bloke who trained as a lawyer? In some cases he might have been a mechanic before going to learn law, but on average, I would much rather go to a garage. Same here. If you want to learn about evolutionary biology, go see a biologist, not someone else, and especially not someone like McIntosh, who apparently knows less biology than I do.

  • 222.
  • At 11:17 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

Funny what a sense of humour you develop when you're caught out, instead of a rational, scientific response.

Dont hear too much about peer reviewed papers and facts now.

I dont see how influencing a poll like that can encourage anyone to trust all the other stuff you are saying.

I think if you read the quote again about how the number of evolutionary scientists was arrived at in the world that oppose the 200 phds on AIG you will see the poster said he had no idea how accurate the figure was he was using against me.

And that poster had a phd in phyics!

I wonder how reliable the rest of his research and posts are.

It's quite laughable how you make a half hearted attempt to reclaim some self respect in your ps, but in your heart of hearts you obviously know its all over.

Amen

PB

  • 223.
  • At 11:45 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 217.
* At 09:35 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"Guys
Thanks for the hyperlink ref feathers, I will try and look tonight or tomorrow. Flat out at work and home.
Anyone else I still owe an answer to please feel free to post a reminder."

pb
Quite sizable post for someone asking for the same information over and over for the past 3 wks and not having time to read the info given.

So the point of your post is ??? that people on another forum are talking about this you and this blog???
Can you point out how that makes all the scientific answers given, to be incorrect?
Thanks for the publicity though. Wondered where the influx of new Pastafarians has been coming from.
RAmen :))

  • 224.
  • At 12:11 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 222.
* At 11:17 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"I think if you read the quote again about how the number of evolutionary scientists was arrived at in the world that oppose the 200 phds on AIG you will see the poster said he had no idea how accurate the figure was he was using against me."

Hahahaha pb, that figure was given by one of yours, one of AiGs very own. A Professor no less!
Will have to check which of the McIntosh forums it appeared on, but here is the relevent part of the post.
43.
At 08:03 PM on 31 Dec 2006,
Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
"The proof is that he (#14) and 353,000 of his evolutionist colleagues...."
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach.
.
With the track record of other AiG "scientists" one would be wise to say they are not sure how accurate the figures are. Wouldn't be surprised if the figure. for those accepting that evolution is scientifically stable, to be much higher in reality.

  • 225.
  • At 12:24 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 222.
* At 11:17 PM on 11 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"Dont hear too much about peer reviewed papers and facts now.
I think if you read the quote again about how the number of evolutionary scientists was arrived at in the world that oppose the 200 phds on AIG you will see the poster said he had no idea how accurate the figure was he was using against me.
And that poster had a phd in phyics!"
.
What are you on about now pb??

"I wonder how reliable the rest of his research and posts are."
Do you have an inernet connection pb?
Why don't you check for yourself?
Tom

  • 226.
  • At 12:39 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 211, Tom’s quote from Just Science that “We are concerned because of the teaching of pseudoscience in place of science in schools in the UK and about what affect [sic.] that will have on our nation's children”.

So, is the teaching of Intelligent Design true science or pseudoscience? Stephen C. Meyer, in a peer-reviewed article entitled “DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation”, explains that:

“… many simply refuse to consider the design hypothesis on grounds that it does not qualify as ‘scientific’. Such critics affirm an extra-evidential principle known as methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism asserts that, as a matter of definition, for a hypothesis, theory, or explanation to qualify as ‘scientific’, it must invoke only naturalistic or materialistic entities. On that definition, critics say, the intelligent design hypothesis does not qualify. Yet, even if one grants this definition, it does not follow that some non-scientific (as defined by methodological naturalism) or metaphysic hypothesis may not constitute a better, more causally adequate, explanation…. Surely, simply classifying an argument as metaphysical does not refute it.”

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 227.
  • At 12:46 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Peter (post 210): you’re a more patient man than I am! It took me about five minutes on PubMed to find these references, and as Peter explains, most of them are freely available and with minimum effort they can be downloaded and read at leisure. The fact that none of the creationists here have done that (or if they have, they have shown no evidence that they’ve understood them) really does speak volumes.

Which reminds me. In the dying days of 2006, on a blog now far away (post 8 on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/andy_mcintosh_replies.html ), I suggested that if creationists really wanted to understand why biologists are so sure that all life on this planet ultimately shares a common ancestor, they could do a lot worse than visit Doug Theobald’s excellent site “29 evidences for macroevolution” at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. It really is rather good. Now be honest, have you been there? Have you downloaded it and sat down and read it? Admittedly, it’s a rather tightly packed argument, but it has to be to do justice to the weight of evidence. If pb and his friends had bothered to read and absorb even a tiny fraction of the arguments in this site we could move on to discuss some of the genuine controversies in evolutionary biology. Instead we are stuck in an endless loop and never get anywhere because one side is forever campaigning against their own misunderstanding of the theory.

It is true that some aspects of the theory of evolution are subtle and counter intuitive. But so is much of modern science. Yet chemists don’t have to put up with constant demands that Phlogiston theory should be taught as real science to school-children and physicists should consider themselves lucky that they don’t have to deal with smart-arse lawyers claiming that ‘Einsteinism’ is just an atheist plot.

  • 228.
  • At 12:52 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • PB wrote:


what am I on about?

On nothing much...just...

1) Evolutionists multiplying false identities online to give the impression there are more of them than there are and to try and undermine an opponent.

2) Evolutionists rigging an online poll to win a BBC award for one of their own, ie Dawkins.

3) An evolutionist with a phd in physics admitting using figures he was unsure of and has not checked to undermine the viewpoint of someone else (me).

As I said...

nothing much at all

;-)

PB

  • 229.
  • At 12:55 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 224.
* At 12:11 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
* Pastafarian #5 wrote:

"Hahahaha pb, that figure was given by one of yours, one of AiGs very own. A Professor no less!
Will have to check which of the McIntosh forums it appeared on, but here is the relevent part of the post."

Here it is!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/andy_mcintosh_replies.html
43.
At 08:03 PM on 31 Dec 2006,
Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:

  • 230.
  • At 01:03 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • PB wrote:

what am I on about?

On nothing much...just...

1) Evolutionists admitting multiplying false identities online to give the impression there are more of them than there are and to try and undermine an opponent (me).

2) Evolutionists admitting rigging an online poll to win the person of the year BBC award for one of their own, ie Dawkins.

3) An evolutionist with a phd in physics admitting using figures he was unsure of and has not checked to undermine the viewpoint of someone else (me).

As I said...

nothing much at all

;-)

PB

PS Nobody here can throw back at me that I have not been trying to follow all your info on transitional fossile to scales feathers. I have been asking for weeks upon weeks for a hyperlink to an actual fossil or even a name, date and place found for a fossile and nobody has actually posted anything concrete. All I seen is pages and pages of theory of evolution on feathers. I cant download pdfs on this computer and will check Peter's stuff tomorrow if I can, but I am not holding my breath.
Anyway, all that is a diversionary tactic to divert attention away from the very interesting matter of Dawkins' person of the year awars etc. LOL

  • 231.
  • At 01:20 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 226.
* At 12:39 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:
"So, is the teaching of Intelligent Design true science or pseudoscience? Stephen C. Meyer, in a peer-reviewed article entitled “DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation”, explains that:"

Creationist Appologist, I know you have been asked many times before, but could you please reference the journals and details (vol. ect) of these peer-reviewed articles. Or is it a case of them only being published in Creationist publications reviewed by creationists?
Please provide references!

  • 232.
  • At 01:36 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 74 – Guthrie wrote: "Dr Tylers letter would be more interesting were it not that Granville Sewells research has not got any relevance to the debate. He might like to think it has, but I am afraid that Sewells work is mince.”

Dr David Tyler has kindly provided the following response to the above comment:

“The issue is not whether Sewell's work is mince, but whether it represents engagement with these issues in the world of scholarship. My letter was responding to the accusation that ID thinking has not made it at all in the peer reviewed literature. Sewell's work was mentioned because McIntosh was using a thermodynamic argument with Dawkins and this is one area where ID-thinking has entered the literature. That is why it is relevant. Sewell is a mathematician who is contributing to the topic of the thermodynamics of evolution. The Discovery Institute list will give the details.”

Website link:
http://www.discovery.org

Regards,

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 233.
  • At 02:11 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 230 (Tom).

Here is the bibliographical data that you requested for the peer-reviewed article by Stephen C Meyer:

"2003. DNA and the origin of life: information, specification and explanation. Pp. 223-285 in J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer, eds., Darwinism, design and public education. Michigan State University Press, Lansing, Michigan."

Regards,

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 234.
  • At 02:28 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Tony

If it took you five minutes to find these references then how could you expect me to find them? In all seriousness.

On the very first post you gave me on this topic there were half a dozen hyperlinks and I checked them all. I could not see anything on fossils on them.

And I am not being funny when I say I cant download pdf files on this computer, I dont know why. Have to do it elsewhere so that is a bit of a problem. Peter calls me a liar when i say this, but there you are. My computer is a dinosaur (!) and I am on a dial up connection.

Will try and check Peter's refs tomorrow; do these fossils have particular names, because that could save a lot of trouble when it comes to peer reviewing them???

Tony, you and many others here are very quick to give high powered science papers to people like me, who may not find them that easy to digest.

I sometimes wonder why more of the scientists dont at least summarise their point in plain English here rather than just putting in a hyperlink, (which is helpful of course). To me there is too much throwing academic papers around here and not enough real person to person engagement which has been good when it happened, eg on antibodies.

I wonder do all the scientists really understand the papers they are hyperlinking, because it would be more constructive if they would just make the main points on this blog.

Also, I can tell you I am used to looking at problems from different angles, and according to creationism theory, none of what you has said so far knocks it down in my mind.

To me none of you can look at this from the opposite angle (I used to be an evolutionist and can see it from both sides).

To me this looks like a debate about socialism and capitalism; Americans are certain they are right while Russians traditionally would have been certain they were right.

I can perfectly well understand how so many people can believe in evolution; no problem. It has a logical worldview, although I can see it does have flaws.

But what amazes me is that you Tony cant see how such highly qualified and respected people such as the QUB prof on genetics can have a logical worldview on creationism through interpreting the data differently. That is not asking you to agree with him, just asking you whether you think he is;

a) Mad
b) Bad
c) or Genuine

Which is he?

These 200 profs and phds on AIG (let's not pretend they are the only creationists in the world of course they are not) cant be 100% bonkers can they?

There must be a logical worldview they are using, even though you will be able to find flaws in it and reject it?

My personal problems are;-

I am talking about;
1) No obviously transitional species exisiting eg birds or bats with half wings or limbs or eyes. ie all animals are perfect and complete by creationism standards.
2) Transitional limbs being a definite liablity in natural selection.
3) No evidence aparent to me, admittedly a layman, that puts evolution ahead of creationism; ie both are required to be replicated in a lab. The examples of antibodies is cited by other authorities as "differention" and does not produce new species in the normal sense.
4) No matter what anyone says, static fossils do not actually prove evolution. That takes assumptions.

By the way, what do you think of the capers of your fellow evolutionists in posts 228 and 217?

cheers
PB

PS Contrary to suggestions, I have no connection to any creationist groups or their statements of faith and havent a position yet on a young/old earth.

  • 235.
  • At 03:10 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

"To me none of you can look at this from the opposite angle (I used to be an evolutionist and can see it from both sides)."
If that is true, I don't see how you cal ask such ill informed questions, pb

BTW, I wonder if both yourself and Creationist Appologist understand what is actually meant by "peer review".
Peer review means review by scientists from all over the world, who may have totally conflicting religous and political views, to both other scientific peers, as well as the author of any journal article publication! It DOES NOT refer to review by those holding the same religous and philosophical world view.

If you want to use terminology currently used by the scientific community, please make the effort to determine the meaning of the terms used, as usually they are very specific.
Hope this helps Creationist Appologist.
Thank you.

  • 236.
  • At 04:08 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

* 230.
* At 01:03 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
* PB wrote:

what am I on about?

On nothing much...just...

"1) Evolutionists admitting multiplying false identities online to give the impression there are more of them than there are and to try and undermine an opponent (me).

2) Evolutionists admitting rigging an online poll to win the person of the year BBC award for one of their own, ie Dawkins.

3) An evolutionist with a phd in physics admitting using figures he was unsure of and has not checked to undermine the viewpoint of someone else (me)."

Suggest you check your facts a little more closely pb

  • 237.
  • At 06:29 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

"The examples of antibodies is cited by other authorities as "differention" and does not produce new species in the normal sense."

Maybe it would help others if you stated for everyone what your actual understanding of the term "species"
means pb. I have a feeling it your interpretation is different to that used in evolutionary theory.

  • 238.
  • At 06:38 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Pb you say:
“ If it took you five minutes to find these references then how could you expect me to find them? In all seriousness.”

I don’t. That’s why I made you aware of the links.

“I sometimes wonder why more of the scientists dont at least summarise their point in plain English here rather than just putting in a hyperlink, (which is helpful of course).”

But we have also given you links to well written popular accounts eg. Before Christmas, I gave you a link to a National Geographic article written by the award-winning science journalist Carl Zimmer summarising some new results in the emerging field of evolutionary developmental biology and how this sheds new light on among other things …um… feather evolution.

“Also, I can tell you I am used to looking at problems from different angles, and according to creationism theory, none of what you has said so far knocks it down in my mind.”

And if I stand on my head, I too can see things from a different angle. It doesn’t mean it’s a productive use of my time.

“I can perfectly well understand how so many people can believe in evolution; no problem. It has a logical worldview, although I can see it does have flaws.”

No. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that I now see follows naturally from your own all-encompassing theological world view. It’s not a question of BELIEVING - that’s the wrong way to put it. Here is a good web site from an English professor who expalins the point well: http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm .

“These 200 profs and phds on AIG (let's not pretend they are the only creationists in the world of course they are not) cant be 100% bonkers can they?”

Why not? They have to sign a pledge on joining the organisation that the Bible is litterally true as a historical document and that commits them to a host of scientific absurdities flattly contradicted by the evidence.

”No matter what anyone says, static fossils do not actually prove evolution.”

For all the comically obsessive attention paid by creationists to fossils, it is ironic that even if every creature on this planet turned to dust when they died and there were no such things as fossils, there would still be enough evidence to confirm evolution. The “29 evidences” web site explains why. The point is this: IF all living things are connected by genealogy – what Darwin called ‘descent with modification’ - then we should be able to arrange all life on this planet within a tree-like pattern of relationships (with contemporary species occupying the tips of each branch), and that is exactly what we do find. Note that there are a vast array of different and independent data sets that can be used to reconstruct the tree. Traditional data sets based on anatomy and physiology have been supplemented and indeed overwhelmed by the recent torrent of data pouring out of the DNA sequencing labs every day. The web site also explains some of the technical details about how the tree is reconstructed. In almost all cases, these different data sets mutually corroborate each other, and even when they disagree, the disagreements are usually minor and can generally be resolved by further work. I have to say that I think this is a remarkable and delightful fact, and there really is no rational explanation for it other than evolution. Note something else that is often under-appreciated, even by other scientists outside biology. The very fact that life fits this branching pattern automatically rules out vast numbers of theoretical creatures – a mammal with true bird feathers or a bird with mammary glands for example. There are thousands of other examples of hypothetical creatures that are similarly impossible on evolutionary grounds, and whose discovery would disprove evolution.

  • 239.
  • At 07:08 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

You beat me to the point about the 200
AiG scientists having to base their opinions on the AiG Statement of Faith
Tony. I've noticed that everytime the issue of molecular evidence is brought up, the posts are simply bypassed and ignored by creationists. Very telling!

  • 240.
  • At 08:34 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

Hi Peter re post 213,

none of the articles that I read contained methods and results in any form. One paper had a table and some graphs but provided no formal analysis of the data. In fact, that article manages to calculate skull volumes for males and females based on data from a single skull. The article also provides no information as to the age or sex of the individual to which the skull belonged. It is an absolutely pathetic standard.

Creationist Apologist re post 226

Classifying an argument as metaphysical does not refute it. However, metaphysical arguments are not scientific because they cannot be tested. It is a basic requirement of science that hyptheses are able to be evaluated by experimental evidence.

  • 241.
  • At 08:46 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Well PB! a sanctimonious creationist trying to claim the moral high ground well I never!!!!

Personally I have never posted on the FSM(BHNA!) site.

Re: % of scientists follow this link
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Now what about some peer-reviewed papers and facts to back up your assertions?

I did ask before IF you were genuine to join the talkorigins google group IF you were sincere about asking questions. I did think you were for a while now it seems like you are just another creationist troll.

Good day

DD

  • 242.
  • At 08:54 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

Creationist Apologist re post 215

None of the articles on the Discovery Institute's website provide any evidence against any of the basic predictions of evolutionary theory. These predictions must be falsified if evolution theory is to be rejected. If I am wrong could you please give me a reference?

Hello pb,

So, your internet connection is too slow to download the pdfs? Pathetic. The pdf I (Tony originally) mentioned is only hundreds of kb large. If you can post here regularly, in this sloooooww-loading thread, you could have downloaded the pdfs a 100 times over by now. If you had looked at the links provided, you would have know how silly a statemant yours was to make.

And with your computer you can browse even this slowest of internet sites, but not display pdfs? Riiiight.

And nothing in the links from Tony mentioned fossils? Let me quote from the third one (again):"We first review a series of fossil discoveries representing intermediate forms of feathers or feather-like appendages from dinosaurs and Mesozoic birds from the Jehol Biota of China."

And you call for literature on fossils for weeks and weeks (dozens of times), and then when you are provided with it you change your mind to "To me there is too much throwing academic papers around here and not enough real person to person engagement". Again, such a bright example of credibility (cough, cough).


I suspect some of your fellow creationists must be cringing to have you in their camp. Why not ask a few of them?
Creation apologist, may I (politely) take a few moments of your time. You strongly disapproved of my language to pb in a previous post. Could you please take a few minutes and check post #210 and see if you can get to the stuff pb has asked for? Even if his computer is a 286, he can't claim that we didn't provide him with info, can he? And what do you think of my criticisms at the beginning of this post? For instance, would you stand up for pbs statement that nothing we provided to him ever mentioned fossils, if you read the quote from the abstact? Does this not provide a justification for calling him a liar? Would you stand up for pb as a creationsist who brings credibility to your cause? Are you glad to have him on your side?
'Creation scientist', in an earlier post in this thread you showed a commendable, voluntary honesty. Could I ask you the same questions as those I just asked to creation apologist?

  • 244.
  • At 10:29 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

"I wonder do all the scientists really understand the papers they are hyperlinking, because it would be more constructive if they would just make the main points on this blog."

Scientific reporting reqires a very specific format with accurate results data presentation and discussion.
Anyone who has undertaken any scientific study has had to write many such presentations, (not my most favourite part of scientific study), so most understand how to read a primary research paper.
Many of the links you have been given are not primary papers (although many are) but are summaries of information obtained from numerous studies. If you had bothered to look at the Talk Origins links, you would also find in depth explainations of the basic concepts underlying such research.
Again pb, why should all these people spend all their time trying to explain things to you when you don't even bother to arm yourself with an understanding of the most basic background concepts underpinning the issues you raise? Are you just trying to waste everyones time?
Is it attention seeking behaviour?
Is it an act put on for the wider readership?
I am totally puzzled how you can keep making excuses, for not looking at what you have been given and coming back with an informed argument. Many of the links are to sites which do not present in pdf format. (Talk Origins for one!)
I personally can't understand your repeated excuses for maintaining your ignorance of this information.
You show no sign that you have even glanced at any of it. When this is pointed out you say "I'm not a scientist I want you to explain it to me".
The respectable thing to do is to arm yourself with basic background before
entering into discussion of any topic.
Try reading back over the past 4 McIntosh forums pb.
Like others, I think you have run out of excuses!

  • 245.
  • At 11:12 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

Maybe pb considers "half of something" to be a transitional "something"? Like "half an eye" for example.
Do you understand what the term "transitional" refers to PB?
If so, could you give a brief explaination of your understanding?
Then I, for one, will know if you are applying the same meanings used by the sciences.
I've noticed that the IDists and creationists have a habit of applying evolutionary terms with new meanings, which differ to the scientific meaning of the term.

  • 246.
  • At 11:44 AM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Tony

You are getting a hold of the stick from the wrong end.

The 200 AIG profs and phds would not lose their reason after they sign up to any statement of faith - though I have not verified they are required to do this.

If this was the case they would have already reached the conclusions before they signed up.

This is not at all adaquate answer to this question Tony.

Tony - I dont know what the reason is my computer is not loading pdfs.

If you really want to check it out I will meet you in Belfast this evening and you can verify this for yourself.

PB

Thank you for your support pastafarian #5, as well as to Tony in his earlier post. Pastafarian, any chance I could ask you to follow the instructions in post#210 and report back your findings? I know, anyone should be able to judge pb by now, but just in case any of his co-creationists still have doubts. Haven't heard too much from them about actually obtaining and reading literature, have we? Or about standing up in support of pb.

  • 248.
  • At 12:12 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Creationist apologist- nice to know we're showing someone well connected in the Creationism crowd the problems with their belief.

Anyway, as for Tyler, firstly, I stand by my point. If you go and read Granvilles (anyone remmeber "open all hours"?)
essay in the Mathematical intelligencer:
http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ecsewell/essays/ch2.htm

You'll find that it contains no mathematical working to demonstrate why everyone is wrong about thermodynamics and evolution, and lots of quote mining, whilst ignoring modern research.

The journals home page is here:
http://www.springer.com/west/home/math?SGWID=4-10042-70-1042774-detailsPage=journal%7Cdescription

I see that their description is this:

"The Mathematical Intelligencer publishes articles about mathematics, about mathematicians, and about the history and culture of mathematics.

It informs and entertains a broad audience of mathematicians and the wider intellectual community. The Mathematical Intelligencer welcomes expository articles on all kinds of mathematics and interdisciplinary trends, and articles that portray the diversity of mathematical communities and mathematical thought. Humor is welcome, as are puzzles, poetry, fiction, and of course art. Forthcoming issues will feature emergent mathematical communities around the world, new interdisciplinary trends, and relations between mathematics and other areas of culture."

I can only assume that Sewells work falls into the category of humour. Thus, it is not actually engaging with anything worth mentioning. I could probably get a letter published in a geology journal arguing for a flat earth, but that wouldnt count as engaging with the issues.
If Dr Tyler knows of any real work in thermodynamics done by Sewell, he should tell us now, since he is being mandacious in the extreme to categorise Sewells opinion piece as a piece of peer reviewed research.

Just go and read it and you'll see what I mean.
Have you read many scientific papers before?

By the way, all I can find mentioned on the Discovery institutes website by Sewell about the thermodynamics of evolution is the aforementioned essay, and this:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3122

An article published in the Spectator, which I understand is effectively a news and current events magazine!

This does not count as research in thermodynamics and evolution.
Perhaps you would like to ask Dr Tyler where such research can be found. Your side would get on so much better if people actually did the calculations to prove what they claim, instead of merely claiming it.

  • 249.
  • At 01:18 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 235. Tom wrote:

"Peer review means review by scientists from all over the world, who may have totally conflicting religous and political views, to both other scientific peers, as well as the author of any journal article publication! It DOES NOT refer to review by those holding the same religous and philosophical world view."

Hi Tom,
I have no problem with your definition of peer review. Your definition is a good one. This is the standard of peer review that is required.

Regards,
"Creationist Apologist"

  • 250.
  • At 01:39 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • "Creationist Apologist" wrote:

Re- Post 243 (Peter Klaver)

Hi Peter,
I note your questions to me. This is just a quick reply during my lunch break. I will get back to you as soon as I can.
Regards,
"Creationist Apologist"

  • 251.
  • At 01:44 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

PB

some of these complaints look awfully familiar. Now you and I have had our moments, but we often acheive civility!! ;)

However, I must say I have offered numerous points only to meet with the rejoinder - busy/need time to read/ could find etc

I know I use it a lot but the word disingenuous is becoming a kind of mantra in describing my experience of conversation with the creationaist lobby.

I accept that none of the evidence you have been offered constitutes PROOF of evoloution. But to use an anology you are fond of, I am sure it would carry the day in a court of law. In a hundred years, the evidence will be that bit stronger, and stronger still in another hundred. I do not believe you scrutinise your own position with the same gimlet eye.

You have written a credo, and posted innumerable times on this site - but I still don't know what you believe.

1. How old is the earth?
2. What is the origin of all it's species?
3. Do you hold the bible's account as literal and inerrant?

You are very partial to pointing to gaps in scientific theory, but have been careful to keep your own counsel, I suspect this is because you do not wish the creationist proponents here driving wide vehicles through your own philosophy.

Over to you.

  • 252.
  • At 01:48 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Peter

I dont know why there was a problem giving the name Jehol Biota long ago....

It seems there is far from a consensus on the transitional nature of the fossils;-
PB

Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds
Science Daily —

CHAPEL HILL -- No good evidence exists that fossilizedstructures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are theearliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, arenowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear tobe bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen toresemble feathers to a modest degree.
Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia ofthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientistssays that as a result of their new research and other studies,continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" makeno sense....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm

  • 253.
  • At 03:41 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Re- Post 248
"Creationist apologist- nice to know we're showing someone well connected in the Creationism crowd the problems with their belief."

Well, I'm just taking a tea-break so let me quickly comment.

The most important thing, my friends, is not whether we're well connected with a particular crowd in this world, but whether we're well connected with God and with His Son Jesus Christ, Maker of heaven and earth. It was Jesus Himself who said: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life, but He who believes not in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (The Gospel According to John, chapter 3, verse 36 – “peer reviewed” by the Early Church and officially recognized as part of the Canon of Scripture!). The One who created the world by the word of His power, who was born as a baby at Bethlehem 2,000+ years ago, lived a life that was righteous and pleasing to His Father in heaven, was crucified on a wooden cross outside the city of Jerusalem, though innocent of any wrong-doing, taking upon Himself the penalty for the sin of the world, was buried and miraculously raised again on the third day, ascended into Heaven where He is presently seated on the right hand of the throne of God on high, crowned with glory and honour - this same Jesus is coming again to this earth, on that great and awful day of which the prophets have spoken long ago. Are we ready to meet Him?

To be "well connected" with this God means that we must first humble ourselves, confessing all our wrong-doing and rebellion against Him, and receive Him by faith as our God, the one who alone can rescue us from sin’s awful penalty. To know this God is the only source of true happiness, meaning and purpose to life. To have no connection with this God means enmity with God, emptiness and futility of life, and the everlasting judgment which we all deserve on account of our inherent violation of God's righteous laws. In summary, “God commended His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, chapter 5, verse 8).

- Well, that's something to think about.

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 254.
  • At 05:01 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

PB you admit that the "scientists" at AIG have to sign a statement of faith(which no other scientist has to do) and say they still retain their "reason"!

Errr they believe the world is 6000 years old and started with a talking snake!!!!! sweet FA to do with reason!

Also funny that there are no athesists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddists and indeed no Jews or Muslims that I can see also no liberal(ie., intelligent Christains)...wonder why that is mmmmmm

If they are right then 99.99999% of the other scientists are wrong http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html this list includes those of all faiths and none-funny that!

Also strange that you or CA have not commented on the Christain Ken Miller whose link I have provided several times.

You should be aware that creationists do NOT represent Christainity, indeed many Chtristians aer deeply embarrassed by the tactics used by creationists ie., lie, misquote indeed every underhand tactic in the book.

I did try to encourage you to join a dedicated news-group (with sincerity) but I do agree with other posters you have no interest in learning anything aand are just trolling here wasting peoples time-you should be honest but then again an honest creationist! that'll be the day!

Kindest regards

DD

  • 255.
  • At 05:06 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB the scientists at AIG have lost their "reason"(they believe the world is 6000 years old and started with a talking snake!!!!). They reached this conclusion through their fundamentalist faith(remember you finally admitted it)it has nowt to do with science reason or evidence.

Funny that their are no athesists, agnostics, Hindu's Buddists etc etc on the list and also as far as I can see no Jews, Muslims or liberal (intelligent) Christains....

Wonder why you or CA have not commented on Ken Miller? mmmmmmmm

Pb, you wrote:

"I dont know why there was a problem giving the name Jehol Biota long ago...."

Oh dear oh dear oh dear pb, how can you be any less credible? I gave you the same quote various times in the past, even in this very thread, see post #65. Or you could have just read the abstracts and spotted it yourself.

"It seems there is far from a consensus on the transitional nature of the fossils;-"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm

Yummie, it gets ever better! The article pb links to is 'curious' for an advocate of creationism to say the least, given that it quotes bird life existing 150 million years ago. Pb, are you losing your creationsist, less-than-6000-years-old faith here?!?! I read you had visited the Flying Spaghetti Monster website, and are now apparently exchanging one faith (creationism) for another (Pastafarianism). May you be touched even more warmly by his noodly appendages!
Ramen


Creation apologist, creation scientist, JK, other creationists, do you have any doubt about what sort of people you're sharing a world view with? I would really like to hear if there is a distinction between creationists or if all are completely dishonest, distorting lyers who happily go along with pb.

  • 257.
  • At 06:07 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

CA

You are aware that creationism is not accepted by all Christians? Indeed as far as I can it is only the fundamentalists.

What is your (and PB's) opinion of Ken Miller http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

or here http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

and here

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html

Also the Archbishop of Canterbury etc etc etc

Your nice little piece illustrates your faith, it says nothing about creation.

Regards

DD

  • 258.
  • At 06:17 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Pb (post 246):

“If this was the case they would have already reached the conclusions before they signed up.”

Er… yes… exactly.

“If you really want to check it out I will meet you in Belfast this evening and you can verify this for yourself.”

Actually pb, I would like to meet you – yes, really! Unfortunately, I live in Cambridge

Critical note to (my fellow) evolutionists: cut the talking snake line. pb has made himself look completely stupid repeating his half-evolved feathers line (but then again that was unfounded buit). The snake line, while valid to point out, is also not doing anything anymore by repeating it more often.
If you want to make an effort, follow the link and instructions in post 210 and report back if you could find it. That is also not the greatest objective to spend your time and energy on, but probably more good than reapeating the talking snake line even more often.

  • 260.
  • At 06:31 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

CORRECTION TO 251

that should have been creationism's Opponents driving trucks, tanks, and coaches with horses (highly evolved creatures you know) through PB's mystery beliefs...

Note/Request to William/Moderator

please start a new creation war thread - this is a pain to load up now...

  • 261.
  • At 07:52 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Peter Klaver,

Re: Talking snake

I was just pointing out what creationists believe-usually they get verey defensive and embarrassed about that-funny that?

Yes I do repeat it as a pee- take of what creationists do ie, repeat ad in finitum.

I do like to hear creationists admit to what they actually believe ie., the world started with a talking snake but evolution is "unbelievable".

But will give it a rest

Maybe other posters ie., CA and PB will do the same?

Some chance....

  • 262.
  • At 08:13 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Pb: post 234 (again):

“But what amazes me is that you Tony cant see how such highly qualified and respected people such as the QUB prof on genetics can have a logical worldview on creationism through interpreting the data differently. That is not asking you to agree with him, just asking you whether you think he is; a) Mad, b) Bad, c) or Genuine. Which is he?”

I guess you’re talking about Professor emeritus Norman Nevin. Never having met the man, I wouldn’t feel able to answer your question. However, if I ever did meet him, I think I’d say this: “Professor Nevin, since your retirement have you kept in touch with the flood of data pouring out of the DNA sequencing labs? (eg here: http://www.ensembl.org/index.html ). If so, how in all honesty can you look at such data and not imediately be struck by the evolutionary implications?”

ps Peter (post 259): I downloaded my copy ages ago!

  • 263.
  • At 10:42 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Re- Post 224, Pastafarian #5 wrote:
"With the track record of other AiG "scientists" one would be wise to say they are not sure how accurate the figures are. Wouldn't be surprised if the figure. for those accepting that evolution is scientifically stable, to be much higher in reality."

Now let's consider a poll carried out in the USA in 2005.

"NEW YORK, NY, May 23, 2005 – Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design."
http://www.hcdi.net/News/PressRelease.cfm?ID=93

Wouldn't you expect the percentage of evolutionists to be nearer to 95% if evolutionary theory had satisfying scientific proof?

Please take a look at this poll:
http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776/

"Q. Do you agree more with the evolution or more with intelligent design?"

56.18% - agree more with evolution
40.45% - agree more with Intelligent Design
3.37% - no opinion

"Q. What are your views on the origin and development of human beings?"

29% - God created humans exactly as they appear now.
25% - God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings.
45% - Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role.
1% - I don't like to think about such matters.

"Q. What are your views on evolution?"

22% - reject it
67% - accept it
10% - undecided

Wow! we might say. In a political party election, 32% would be considered a very significant vote; that's the percentage that do not unquestioningly accept evolution.

Q. "Several states are considering mandating the teaching of intelligent design alongside the teaching of evolution. Do you think that schools should..."

...be required to teach intelligent design? - 21%
...be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design? - 40%
...be prohibited from teaching intelligent design? - 38%

Again, very interesting. 61% believed that schools should be either required or allowed to teach intelligent design!

Q. "Do you believe that intelligent design has legitimacy as science or do you believe it is only a covert way of getting creationism into the schools?"

legitimate scientific speculation - 46%
religiously inspired pseudo-science - 54%

Again, very interesting.

DD says (again and again and again ad nauseam):
"Funny that their [sic.] are no athesists [sic.], agnostics, Hindu's Buddists [sic.] etc etc on the list and also as far as I can see no Jews, Muslims or liberal (intelligent) Christains [sic.]...."

Sorry for the [sic.]s but this is a cut-and-paste citation. Sloppy spelling gives one the impression of sloppy science.

The Poll referred to above is particularly helpful because it gives a breakdown of the religion of those who voted. So, for example, let's look at the last question - which is particularly relevant to the present debate:-

Of the 1,482 physicians who participated in the poll, the breakdown of those who believed that I.D. has legitimacy as science is as follows:
Jewish (346 total participants) - 18% agreed
Protestant (417) - 63% agreed
Catholic (304) - 49% agreed
Orthodox Christian (46) - 54% agreed
Hindu (63) - 48% agreed
Buddhist (14)- 36% agreed
Muslim (40) - 60% agreed
Atheist (65) - 2% agreed
Spiritual but not organized religion (98) - 26% agreed
Other (89) - 46% agreed

So there we have it. Intelligent Design is strongly supported by a significant percentage of participants in this poll. Moreover, religious belief or non-belief, rather than scientific proof, appears to be a significant factor in influencing both atheists and religious people alike.

Dylan Dog, do you really expect people of non-Christian faith to accept Biblical creationism? That is an "ad absurdum" - they do not accept the authority of the Bible, so how could they possibly accept Biblical creation? The test which we are concerned with is whether they accept Intelligent Design; and the results are revealing.

A report on this poll in Evolution News concluded: "...if one looks past the press release at the details of the poll itself, one finds that actually a majority of doctors favor intelligent design over Neo-Darwinism. Questioned about the origin and development of human beings, only 38% agreed with the Darwinian story that 'humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement--no divinity played any role.' In contrast, 42% said that 'God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings.' That scenario involves intelligent design and, thus, contradicts the Neo-Darwinian account. Another 18% of doctors said 'God created humans exactly as they appear now.' Thus, 60% of doctors take an ID position."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/05/

Phew! Now we've got Dylan Dog's persistent challenge out of the way! Now you can go and chew another bone, DD! Thanks for your efforts.

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 264.
  • At 10:46 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 255 - Dylan Dog wrote:
"Wonder why you or CA have not commented on Ken Miller? mmmmmmmm"

May I request your patience, DD. I will get to him in due time. I don't have millions of years each day.

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 265.
  • At 11:00 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Re- Post 260
Gee Dubyah wrote:
"Note/Request to William/Moderator
please start a new creation war thread - this is a pain to load up now..."

Man alive! You evolutionists are just so inconsistent. You want to invoke an intelligent designer to invent a new creation wars thread? Why can't you invoke evolution? Is your goddess so powerless that she cannot evolve a new thread while we're talking? Or does she need another 65 million years before she's read to do business with the BBC?

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 266.
  • At 11:24 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Apologist, we know you have no good arguments left when you start saying that because all these physicians think theres something right with ID, it must be a science.
I'll point out again that just because someone says something is a science, that does not mean it is. We can take a trot through philosophy of science if you have trouble understanding this point. A simpler way of putting it is that science is ultimately not decided by public aclaim.


  • 267.
  • At 11:51 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

263.
At 10:42 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
Anonymous wrote:
"survey of 1,472 physicians"
Well now that's a big sample size for the United States isn't it?
I can't seem to find information as to what geographical area the poll was conducted over either. Any info on that CA? Just wondering does anyone know how many physicians there are in the United States, so we can work out some stats?

"Sympathy for the idea of intelligent design comes primarily from Protestant members of the medical community, although openness to consideration of intelligent design as a legitimate speculation is strong among Catholics but completely lacking among Jews," said Alan Mittleman, director of the Finkelstein Institute."

Still, who can argue with a sample size of 1,472 physicians "somewhere"?

  • 268.
  • At 11:52 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 266 (Guthrie) "I'll point out again that just because someone says something is a science, that does not mean it is."

So just because someone says Evolution is a science, that does not mean it is?

  • 269.
  • At 11:56 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 266 (guthrie): "I'll point out again that just because someone says something is a science, that does not mean it is."

So just because someone says evolution is a science, that does not mean it is.

  • 270.
  • At 01:01 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

RE 263 - "Physicians POLL"

dear Annonymous or was it CA,

yes I was surprised at the low percentages saying they favoured evolution - now wait a minute - they favoured evolution right? Ok.

So then i go to the site, and what do I see?

That Physicians were polled and analysed on the basis on THEIR RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Furthermore - and I quote 'half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply “a religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation,” ' Whoops thats half of Catholics - arent they like err Christians - or are they the bad Christians (like the Judean People's front???)

Is that the best you can do?

This cult of yours is built on sand (whoops did i get all godly for a moment???). It's deranged, dangerous and yep, you guessed it DISINGENUOUS!!!

DIS-IN-Bleedin-GENUOUS .It's word of the week folks, roll up roll up see the god botherers sweat. Watch em wriggle and tell half truths! Gasp at their duplicity in the name of the "TRUTH".

  • 271.
  • At 02:03 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 265.
* 265.
* At 11:00 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
* Anonymous wrote:
"Re- Post 260
Man alive! You evolutionists are just so inconsistent. You want to invoke an intelligent designer to invent a new creation wars thread? Why can't you invoke evolution? Is your goddess so powerless that she cannot evolve a new thread while we're talking? Or does she need another 65 million years before she's read to do business with the BBC? "Creationist Apologist" "

Err....what?? Are you, by any chance, drinking alcohol? Drugs?

  • 272.
  • At 02:23 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 268.
* At 11:52 PM on 12 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

"So just because someone says Evolution is a science, that does not mean it is?"

Well I guess if those people are reputable,(as opposed to pseudo) scientists, one would have to take their word for it, even if one was totally ignorant of the actual science!
Are we going back to the "conpiracy" of global scientific community now?

  • 273.
  • At 02:35 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

Creationist Apologist re: post 269

"Re- Post 266 (guthrie): "I'll point out again that just because someone says something is a science, that does not mean it is."

So just because someone says evolution is a science, that does not mean it is."

Evolutionary theory is constructed from clearly defined and testable hypotheses. That is what makes it a scientific theory. Creationism requires the existence of God and we cannot measure God in any empirical way. In order to accept the existence of God we must rely on faith alone. Therefore, creationism is religious (because it requires faith) and categorically unscientific (because its predictions cannot be tested).

Before you quote Stephen C. Meyer again, I will refer you back to my post #240.

  • 274.
  • At 02:55 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

I noticed in earlier posts that Creationist Apologist appeared to have a bit a fondness, or presumed knowledge, of some molecular biology. Me too :)
Just for a minute, let's talk about the
the fact that the same genetic errors/ pseudogenes are shared by primates and humans. Are you familiar with the creationist opinion on this reseach and evidence, Creationist Apologist?

  • 275.
  • At 03:37 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Physicians!!!!

My poll was relaeted to Life scientists!

Please try and get something right.

"Dylan Dog, do you really expect people of non-Christian faith to accept Biblical creationism? That is an "ad absurdum" - they do not accept the authority of the Bible, so how could they possibly accept Biblical creation? The test which we are concerned with is whether they accept Intelligent Design; and the results are revealing."

Errr were you dropped on your head whwn you were a child? I never meant/said that Biblical cretinism equaled cretinism because hindu cretinism and biblical cretinism are mutaully exclusice positions and bioth believe that their god/s created the world. Really is quite simple, sorry that you cannot grasp simple concepts. Great to know that you accept that Biblical cretinism is based on faith and not evidence(finally). Because if their was "evidence" to back up your position then their would be Hindu biblical cretinsts but there ain't!

"Phew! Now we've got Dylan Dog's persistent challenge out of the way! Now you can go and chew another bone, DD! Thanks for your efforts."

Errr whatever rocks your boat, I was talking about Life scientists, so the challenge still stands! please see previous threads, I did try to make it as simple as possible!

"May I request your patience, DD. I will get to him in due time. I don't have millions of years each day."

Let me guess(to save you the bother of a cut and paste) he is not a TRUE christian, well he intelligent and honest...

Kindest regards

and do try a bit harder

DD

  • 276.
  • At 03:49 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

re post 263

""NEW YORK, NY, May 23, 2005 – Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design."
http://www.hcdi.net/News/PressRelease.cfm?ID=93

Wouldn't you expect the percentage of evolutionists to be nearer to 95% if evolutionary theory had satisfying scientific proof?"

No. They polled physicians not scientists. I would expect that the opinions physicians would reflect the opinions of society far more closely than they would the scientific community. In other words religious conviction rather than scientific evidence has influenced their responses. Just as you say "... religious belief or non-belief, rather than scientific proof, appears to be a significant factor in influencing both atheists and religious people alike". I strongly doubt that the result would be repeated if physicians in a western country other than the USA were asked the same questions.

Finally you say:
""Q. What are your views on evolution?"

22% - reject it
67% - accept it
10% - undecided

Wow! we might say. In a political party election, 32% would be considered a very significant vote; that's the percentage that do not unquestioningly accept evolution."

This is incorrect (and not just because your percentages don't add to 100). According to the link you supplied the percentages of all respondents are:
15.18% - reject it
77.73% - accept it
7.09% - undecided

Looks like you don't have the numbers anymore...

  • 277.
  • At 03:54 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Tony, Peter, GW

Tony,

You to have an all encompassing theological worldview in which your scientific method operates; yours has assumptions just like mine does.

You are VERY quick to assume Prof Nevin is not up on current research. But by all accounts the world respected academic that he is, I think that it is a *huge* assumption to think he just suddenly lost interest in his field.

And there are quite a few profs/phds in genetics also in the AIG 200 list too. Not to mention the fact that the father of the subject was a creationist monk! BTW there are other lists of creationist scientists online too, I think Truth in Science does one.

BTW, sorry I meant to offer my PC to Peter to inspect, not you. I dont know why it wont load up pdfs but it just wont.

Anyway Peter,

I still havent heard a response from you about three things, you appear to have suffered selective memory loss, maybe the noodles of the FSM have got into the machine somewhere ;-)

How seriously would you take a scientist who took part in behind the scenes operations in an apparently open and honest debate, but worked with others to;-

ref post 217
1) Rig a poll to ensure that a leading light in their thinking won a BBC person of the year award?
2) Manufacture numerous false identities in an online discussion to ensure their oppoenent looked vastly outnumbered.
3) Used figures for a supposed ratio of evolutionary vs creationist scientists to make your argument look stronger when he openly admitted he was unsure whether the figures were accurate?

ref post 252
So the scientist that rejects your Chinese fossils as showing transitional scales/feathers formations is an old earther and you say that undermines my argument? You cant have it both ways. You cant dismiss the credibility of scientists because they believe in a young earth and then turn around and dismiss others because they believe in an old earth; the feathers debate has moved on.
The onus is now on you to respond to Dr Alan Fedducia's findings on your fossils. The fact he is an old earher strengthens my argument as I have no position on an old/young earth and he is one of your own side.

GW
ref 251
Very interesting to hear you agree that none of the postings here constitute proof of evolution.

I wont keep my own counsel on any matter of belief, ask away and I will be open.

1) How old is the earth?; I dont know I havent looked at the evidence. What I do know think is that an old earth per se does not necessarily undermine a creationist position, so it is not a major point for me right now. However I do find it very curious that recorded human history only began about 6000 years ago around the Euphrates and Tigris, (ir the biblical location of Eden). I need to study all this more, esp geological history and the flood debate.

2&3 What are the origin of all its species and what do I think of the bible?
I have actually stated this position numerous times before here; I think creationism is plausible but am sceptical about evolution. My faith is not affected by whether or not evolution or creationism is true. I'm not a scientist but from what I can see it is not possible to prove either scientifically.
I am not actually so sure that evolution would stand up its case in court IF both creationism and evolution were starting from the same finish line.
From what I can see Origin of the Species carried the concept of evolution into the public consciousness as a theory but because much zeitgeist was prepared and fertile ground for it was accepted as fact as opposed to theory without proper scientific scrutiny and has been so ever since. It seems to me that a huge number of assertions were lept over and forgotten. So in court today perhaps it would be impossible to get a jury that had not already been "brainwashed" and reached a predetermined decision before they had really looked at the evidence.
There is also the matter that both evolutionists and creationists have a an all-encompassing theological worldview containing assumptions about God, the bible and the origins of life. These will bias any jury member as to which expert witness to place more credibility on. Anyone who wants to contest this point should list the assumption in my theological worldview; I think they will find they have a reverse assumption to each point that is equally open to question.
So basically I accept your point I would be surprised at any jury going for creationism, but I think the trial has probably been prejudiced for over 150 years.
Origin of life? During the course of all our discussions here I have not found anyone give me a convincing argument that evolution really works. In particular I think that fact that partially evolved limbs and organs in creation theory must mitigate against natural selection; ie I cant see how an arm that was truly half bird/bat wing, or an eye that was only half an eye would work. And I dont see anyone with a really convincing argument as to why we dont see what I would understand to be genuninely transitional live animals today. Any that I have seen have perfectly fitted the creationist worldview for just as created species. 100%.
So at the moment I have a creationist view of origin of species but I carefully evalute all the answers about evolution I get to see if they add up; a work in progress.

Science changes every decade and perceptions of it vary from culture to culture. For example, in the US creationism is much more prominent and respected in many walks of life. Does that in itself make it more credible? No of course not, but it does show you how subjective perceptions can be.

But the bible is the best selling book in history, unchanged, unchallenged. Jesus Christ split history down the middle and still does. Numerous people have really gone out of their way to examine the evidence for his resurrection and come out transformed. Ben Hur was a story written by such a chap to make use of all the evidence that converted him. Check it out. Lord Darling former Lord Chief Justice of UK had no doubts about this, and others likewise.

That is the type of evidence that is really pivotal in my life. Plenty of Christians believe in evolution so to me it is not a critical point, just a curious one.

I wont be using any scientific paper as the foundation stone for my life any time soon though.

I think it is probably not unfair to see this blog as a microcosm of the global debate on evolution vs creationism and you can potenitally see some of the tactics used, detailed above. I would not be surprised if some creationists were equally guilty, but my real point is that there is a law of diminishing returns here; you are sane and reasonable but so many just want to character assassinate and win a debate. Its getting to be a waste of time.

I have acutally been really busy lately, kids sick etc. I submitted a 1000plus word report on the bible on polygamy in the early hours of yesterday in another discussion on this blog (ie "shortbusing" section).

So I cant please everyone all the time I guess...


Any other outstanding answers I owe you, please remind me and I will try to get to them.

Good talking to you
PB

  • 278.
  • At 09:16 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

PB

thx.

firstly on PROOF. It can never be stressed enough that you and I probably carry very different concepts of proof. However, in short, evolution remains unproven - but the evidence there is, in my opinion, is overwhelming. Gaps remain, but if they where filled would that constitute proof - probably not.

Science is a pessimistic discipline - there are very few concepts held as immutable laws at present - and Evloution is not one of them, even though it forms part of the scientific consensus - many other mainstream concepts are in this category too.

The "Truth" to the extent that it is knowable - is likley to be a subtle variation on todays thinking - and unlikely to look like much of a change to non white-coats like you or I. So don't get carried away.

I think it is a shame that the pasta guys played a bit rough with the blog stats - but that's their tack - irreverent etc, I actually feel a bit noodly every now and again. The FSM website is actually hilarious in my book - maybe even you raised a wry smile?

You continually use the irreducible complexity argument re eyes and limbs. This subject is dealt with at length on Talk origins. It does not constitute a serious objection to evolutionary theory.

If you are really interested - there has been reseearch clearly mapping out how through a sequence of small improvements a vertebrate eye can evolve without the creation of useless non functioning parts required to develop further in order for the end result to be a working eye. Limbs are even more straightforward. I didn't keep the link to the research, but I can spend time to find it again - but only if you want to see it and promise to read it...

Here's a question - which came first - your doubts about evolution, or your faith?

  • 279.
  • At 10:20 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Patafarian #5 wrote:

"From what I can see Origin of the Species carried the concept of evolution into the public consciousness as a theory but because much zeitgeist was prepared and fertile ground for it was accepted as fact as opposed to theory without proper scientific scrutiny and has been so ever since. It seems to me that a huge number of assertions were lept over and forgotten. So in court today perhaps it would be impossible to get a jury that had not already been "brainwashed" and reached a predetermined decision before they had really looked at the evidence."
.
So what is your opinion of the plethora of molecular evidence supporting both, observed as well as predictions of evolutionary relationships.
For example the molecular evidence of the evolution of eyes pb? You do know what DNA is don't you?

  • 280.
  • At 10:27 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

PB, I find it interesting that you say this:

"There is also the matter that both evolutionists and creationists have a an all-encompassing theological worldview containing assumptions about God, the bible and the origins of life."

How exactly do you explain that a laarge number of Christians accept evolution, as well as a large number of atheists? Are these so called assumptions different depending on youre religous beliefs, or what?

Hello Creationist apologist,

Pb just dodges any science related question and rants on about me spreading word of the man of the year poll amongst Pastafarians. Little point in repeating the issues any further with him. But as mentioned before, I would like to hear the creationists opinion about pb (see posts 210, 243, etc). In an earlier post you said you would answer my questions about him. You know, they were the questions about whether his repeated claims about not having been given pointers to info etc were honest, if he is a credible advocate for creationism etc. You indicated you would get back to me on the matter. I see you have made several posts in this thread since then. Just in case it slipped under the radar, could I once more ask you to look at the posts, see for yourself if you consider info to be accessible, and give us your opinion on pbs honesty and credibility as a creationism advocate please? Please note, I am not asking you to sign off on the fossil evidence, or renounce creationism in any way, just confirm if any evidence (whatever you think of it) has been made accessible for people to get to, if it actually *mentions* fossils or only covers theory as pb claims, etc. Thank you.

And as stated in earlier posts, I would welcome responses from other creationists as well. Sofar none has given one. Would anyone stand up for pb? After my harsh remarks about pb, is there not one creationist who will speak out in support of him, and stake his/her own reputation by explaining why you think he is a credit to the creationist cause? Is there any distinction between creationists, or are they all on the same wavelength as pb?

And pb, please go on posting in this blog. In the contest to obtain credibility for either the scientific or creationist cause, few have helped the scientific side like you have. More! We want more from you! So do repeat the claims that we've never shown you anything (btw, is your computer fixed yet, eh?).

  • 282.
  • At 11:38 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Re: probs reading pdfs, perhaps you need the latest version of adobe http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Try it, should sort your problem out.

Re: AIG scientists, as has been pointed out before check out their statement that they have to sign(which was posted before) they have reached their conclusions before looking at the evidence-simply not science.

Re: FSM this is red herring
Re:3) Used figures for a supposed ratio of evolutionary vs creationist scientists to make your argument look stronger when he openly admitted he was unsure whether the figures were accurate?

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html and http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Pleasae see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG040.html re: recorded human history.

Half an eye/arm/lung etc etc is better than no eye/arm/lung. There have been many links to you about transitional fossils, I'll let it go at that.

Good for you being a committed XChristian and admitting that evolution is no barrier to faith, just wish some of your fellow believers would do the same.

So the tactics used by evolutionists ie., having a bit of fun allegedly rigging a poll, in the great big schenme of things...so what! And creationists are more than guity of being underhand! which I always find strange and hypocritical since they are the most vociferous Bible defenders yet are prepared to lie and bear false witness to back up their claims- a massive case of double think.

You are right ultimately it is a waste of time debating creationists as they have already made their minds up (see AIG's statement that I reffered to above).

It is beginning to be a pain to try to follow this debate as the page takes ages to load and the blog format does not aid long debates. As I have offered before PB and to anyone else, if you are sincere and genuine in wanting to know more why not go here http://groups.google.mw/group/talk.origins/topics?lnk=hppg

Anyway...

Hope the kids get better soon

All the best

DD

  • 283.
  • At 11:50 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

277.
At 03:54 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
pb wrote:
“And there are quite a few profs/phds in genetics also in the AIG 200 list too. Not to mention the fact that the father of the subject was a creationist monk!”

As most were before more and more natural observations and use of new technologies shone the light at a different angle on scientific thinking. Harking back to Mendel being a monk really doesn't mean much as most back then scientists didn't have the technologies to explore nature as we do now. So many believed in supernatural answers. Mendel was a statistician who observed ratios of inherited characteristics in pea plants. Your point in bringing up Mendel on a number of occasions (like every other topic that has already been discussed is
This is why the creationists get all their scientific ideas from the pre-Darwin era. Would you like to tell everyone what creation story Mendel believed pb? This is why all creation, so called sciences based on the ideas of Darwins contemporary opponents or those before Darwin, like Cuvier.
Pbs conspiracy theories
“ref post 217
“How seriously would you take a scientist who took part in behind the scenes operations in an apparently open and honest debate, but worked with others to;-
1) Rig a poll to ensure that a leading light in their thinking won a BBC person of the year award?”
Since when does someone informing others that there is an election on and encouraging them to vote for a particular candidate as “rigging a poll”? By your interpretation every government election is a rigged poll!

“2) Manufacture numerous false identities in an online discussion to ensure their oppoenent looked vastly outnumbered.”
You made this claim a few times now, and as a Pastafarian I'd like to see your evidence. I checked your links provided and saw nothing more than a few people joking around at Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (fancy that!) about posting on a number of different forums? Umm.. you're not that special you know pb. In fact I've heard through other forums that those posts were a follow on from a joking email conversation (which involved some betting) about Pbs seeming conspiracy paranoia.
You really shouldn't try to quote mine bits out of others conversations when you are ignorant to the
what the broarder conversation is about pb. It's likely to come back and bite you. There are six people(all pastafarians :) here in my block of appartments alone posting on these issues of creationism being taught as science on both this forum and a number of other similar forums.
Besides pb you have been provided with peer reviewed references, so your assertions are a pretty eweak attempt to credit the science that has been presented to you. Why don't you concentrate a little more on actually reading some of it?
“3) Used figures for a supposed ratio of evolutionary vs creationist scientists to make your argument look stronger when he openly admitted he was unsure whether the figures were accurate?”
Need you be reminded (again) that those figures were provided by one of AiGs own Professors?
Reference:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/andy_mcintosh_replies.html
43.
At 08:03 PM on 31 Dec 2006,
Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
“ he (#14) and 353,000 of his evolutionist colleagues”
You know full well that was the case as this has already been pointed out to you it on this forum.
The rest of your post seems to be, well, a long waffle without any address to any of the arguments you have tried to raise! Nothing surprising there.
Personally I couldn't care less whether you believe in evolution or not. What I care about is your endless attempts to twist scientific facts to get people to join your creation cult.

But that's not what all your posts are about is it pb. Anyone reading over them can see it a mile away. You appear to take the readership of this, and the past three forums, for complete idiots.
Everyone has seen your repeated failed attempts to twist scientific facts to get people to join your creation cult.
It is hard to pick one creationist from another in this respect. Do the creation bosses hold classes to teach techniques in this I wonder? If they do, I suggest they are not doing a very good job of it.
As for the rest of your post, you appear to have plenty of time to preach, but not to discuss the issues you have raised or answer the questions you have been asked in resonse to your own.

  • 284.
  • At 12:38 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Doesn't pb even wonder why so many links to the CoFSM were posted here, following his weeks of inuendos and insinuations of some sort of global science conspiracy?
You know, to hide the big online identity fraud from public eyes.
Watch out for those evilutionist scientist conspirators.
Lots of members of the CoFSM saw right through you from the very beginning pb, and you've proved them correct perfectly. Plus I won a nice little bit on a bet :) Thanks.
By the way pb, have you been over to the FSM Discussion site yet?
Lots of evolution science vs creationist pseudoscience discussions over there. You should check it out some time.
Don't want to disrupt your commitments here,(you seem to have quite a few questions you still haven't answered) so I'll give it a few days and then post you some links to few of the discussions there.
Oh and my girlfriend wants to know if you have managed a little more than glance at the molecular info posted back up this thread on evolutionary eye types? Refer to post:
#57.
* At 06:26 AM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Molecular Biologist wrote:"
You did ask for some evidence prior to that post and have further asked a number of times since. Perhape we'll have to post quotes of your repeated requests following the information provided as a reminder since your memory doesn't seem to be the best?

  • 285.
  • At 01:21 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Pastafarian #5 wrote:

Oh and Peter Klaver had no idea about the running joke at the CoFSM/other forums pb,(at least at the time), to my knowledge. This is clear from his post there which you linked previously!
A lot of hot air about nothing. You've
been over to the CoFSM site pb, and so would you like to tell everyone about some of the big "serious" (lol) conspiracies being planned over there?
There are quite a few to choose from.
You do know that we plan to insist that our creation story is taught in classrooms as well, if the biblical version is to be taken on board:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
There are laws against dicrimination on the basis of religous beliefs, or so I believe?
We also currently have one member planning on running for the American presidency. (least he says he will if he can try and remain sober for long enough...we're not counting on him too much though. Sorry Peter Popoff :) Perhaps you would like the Jim Jones "run!!!!" forum better:
http://www.venganza.org/2006/12/06/run.htm

  • 286.
  • At 01:54 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

For those who have not seen it, may I urge you to look at Peter Loose's critique of evolutionism in an earlier thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/01/norman_nevin_defends_truth_in_1.html

It's post no. 60.

A careful consideration of the points he makes would save us from going over the same ground again.

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 287.
  • At 02:26 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

277.
At 03:54 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
pb wrote:
“In particular I think that fact that partially evolved limbs and organs in creation theory must mitigate against natural selection; ie I cant see how an arm that was truly half bird/bat wing, or an eye that was only half an eye would work.”

How many times do you have to be told that, in evolutionary terms, there is no such thing as a “half an eye” or “half an arm” PB?
You know as well as anyone else here, that this is a creationist twisting of transitional terms and concepts to try and present a strawman fallacy. You know, the argument where you misrepresent the other sides terms/concepts/arguments and then try to ridicule them. You said in an earlier post that you had never done this and yet reading back over the past four McIntosh forums, there is continual evidence of you doing just that. The whole ID/creation arguments are based on knocking down strawman “red herrings”.
It's all they've got. These people create their own twisted versions/interpretations of evolutionary terminology and concepts and then argue against them. It is the only tactic by which they can even present any pretense of a debate.
Check out any forum discussing this and you'll probably be convinced, just be the same style of argument (if you can call it that),that you are reading the same posts over and over.
Their aim is to try and manipulate those who may be scientifically ignorant to the meanings of evolutionary terminology. They know full well that most of their target audience probably doesn't have a good comprehension of these terms. The creationists/IDists would have to be the sleaziest bunch of snake oil salesmen and women one would ever have the misfortune to come across.
They just keep trotting out the same old deceits time and time again.
Problem is that some people do buy it.

  • 288.
  • At 02:39 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Dan Allen wrote:

What is his big problem with the second law of thermodynamics?

Is it like the chestnut set A Level students thar refridgerators appear to violate the second law?

Guess what - they don't.

  • 289.
  • At 02:42 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Dan Allen wrote:

I'm confused by these comments about DNA being unique and therefore containing more information.

Is information created everytime the National Lottery is drawn?

Where did the 'information' of tonights draw 'come from'?

That information certainly has 'meaning' to millions of people.
The meaning being 'I'm rich' or 'I'm not rich [again]' as is more common.

Spooky! Camelot are violating the second law of thermodynamics.

There seem to be some serious and basic failures to understand basic principles of physics in circulation.
I sympathise with Prof. Dawkins.
If you can't pass Phsyics A Level are you really qualified to be a professor of science?
No really, what is going on?
We seem to have far too many universities [or as is more probable pay academics far too little] if this is the standard of thinking going on in our universities.

  • 290.
  • At 03:48 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


GW, Tony, MB, DD

GW
As I pointed out about Christ in my earlier post, my faith came first and later my scepticism about evolution.

I would certainly have a look at the link about the eye, but I cant promise how much time I can give it at present, so its your call.

By the way, if you check out the FSM website I have quite entered into the joke and have admitted openly I think the whole thing is quite funny, no doubt about it. On the other hand though, there does seem to be an atmosphere which, if it had the power tomorrow, might just outlaw any concept of religion at all, even the beloved FSM??? It does seem very intolerant. Funny, but intolerant.

Peter

I'm not a creationist advocate (dont know enough), just an evolutionist sceptic. Said this many times.

So now instead of address my serious science questions in post 277 you are trying to organise a vote of no confidence in me? I wonder if just a little bit of that in there might be ad hominem?

Anyway, I will take that as a badge of honour from you, and all the more so because you, a phd, consider me, a total non-scientist, worthy of crushing.

Anyway - any chance of some answers to 277 on the feathers?

MB, I just think you are totally intolerant to attack me for using creationist terminology in describing my understanding of the issues. Such hostility! You are asking me to buy into your belief system against my judgment, and I would not dream of asking you to do that. I think you have issues you need to reflect on.

regarding the FSM rigging the Dawkins poll and identity multiplications etc, all the comments are on the FSM website. I will let any interested readers read the primary source evidence (collated for ease of reference on post 217) and make up their own mind who is telling the truth. And... for the last time if you check 217 the phd in question openly says he was not sure how accurate the figures he was using against me, it is a moot point whether or not they really were accurate or where they came from.

I think the secondary sources now being posted here on this topic might just be a little...well...make up your own minds on that one.


DD

Thanks, I note a good dose of generosity there in your last posting.

If you look at my last posting before that, yes you will see that I would not be surprised at all to see some creationists using the same underhand tactics to win arguments that some evolutionists use. In fact, AIG website talks openly about being attacked by some creationists for rejecting some apparent evidences after new research shows it is not sustainable. No shame or risk in that, truth is truth is truth, so all that is just plain silly no matter who buys into it.

And yes, I welcome your acknowledge ment, we have jousted on this point for so long about many Christians being evolutionists. I fully accept many Christians see things this way and I have no doubts most of them may be much better people than I am. In fact, I dont doubt many, many evolutionists will be much better people than me, though I am not sure just at this moment in time that the FSM crew just make it into this category ;-) joke!

I think what I outed was quite small scale and really quite funny ref the FSM. But I think the nasty edge they came back with and the twisted black propagand denials are actually getting a bit sinister.

It dovetails well with the attitude from Dawkins and makes you wonder what chance any dissenting scientist (regardless of his faith stance) might have in breaking new but controversial science ground where such types are in control.

Pasafarians, I salute you... and go easy on the tomtao sauce

IIIIIIIII
O O
---
IIIIIIII

Thats a 2 sec FSM by the way, just to show no hard feelings!!!


My alloted hour is up for this afternoon... kids to tend to

Best

PB

  • 291.
  • At 03:51 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Dan Allen (post 289):

"is information created everytime the National Lottery is drawn? Where did the 'information' of tonight's draw 'com from'?"

Exactly!

It’s one thing for our creationists posters to be confused about this point, but quite another for McIntosh to make the same mistake. I happen to know for a fact that the ‘lottery win’ analogy has been explicitly pointed out to McIntosh on more than one occasion. Yet whenever he speaks about evolution, he still repeats the claim that “random processes cannot generate new information”.

  • 292.
  • At 08:56 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Dan Allen wrote:

PB, It isn't rigging to drum up support for your ideas.
That process is political but also a necessary part of the scientific process.

I would love the think we'd got so many people going through the CoFSM site that we can sway a BBC poll.

Rigging would be if we all voted multiple times or other underhandedness.

Convincing people to vote is (as I mentioned) part of the process.

That would be same as saying preaching is not an acceptable way to disseminate Christianity - which sounds fine to me but something I recognise society is yet ready for.

  • 293.
  • At 09:08 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Dan Allen wrote:

Tony (RE:Post 291):

Thanks, the really sad thing is I can remember these chestnuts about order be allowed to congregate in parts of a system at the (greater) expense of other parts and an example being the solar system but not the details.

What I do recall is that you need to understand why McIntosh's objections are fallacious to have 'got somewhere' with TSLOT.
It's part of the 'what it doesn't mean and why' bit in any basic course on the subject.
He really should be stripped of his title and sent back to A Level college.

I don't want to brag but because all this stuff is a tad hazy to me now [forgotten for about 18 years - A levels you know] I can honestly say I've forgotten more about TSLOT than the professor knows!

It's terrible that such ignorance gets so much time on the podium. Leed's University and scientific establishment really ought to protect their reputations better.

  • 294.
  • At 09:53 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Dan

I can see the logic in your point but why cant Peter Klaver???

Ever since I opened this issue up from the FSM he has gone into hate overdrive on me and refused to answer my questions on feather evolution as raised by Dr Fedducia in post 252.


I think his ravings in post 281 count as probably the lengthiest ad hominem rant I have ever seen on a blog, it is almost entirely about me. Not very objective for a phd.

My point is this; if Peter felt as innocent about

1) The poll rigging
2) Blog debate identity multiplication
3) Use of doubted figures in debate

...as some of the rest of you do, he would doubtless be as relaxed about it as you. But to me, post 281 closes the case about what HE thinks about it himself. He was never like this before.

Peter, skimming over some of your mails I concede I think I did miss some of your postings where you had highlighted info for me on feathers but this was not deliberate, sorry.

But no, my computer still cannot load pdfs... it will have to be looked at.

Still, if you're still around and still talking to me I'm still interested in your views on Dr Fedducia's verdict on the feather fossils.

Bless your noodles

PB

PS - Gee Dubyah ref 278


Hmmm. You've given me a much more objective and honest appreciate of evolution than I could have done, bless your noodles.

I cant actually evaluate the science in scientific terms as you do. You get a bit crusty at times, but you are probably the most honest blogger from the FSM side of the houses I have seen on here. respect!

  • 295.
  • At 10:31 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

290.
At 03:48 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
pb wrote:

“MB, I just think you are totally intolerant to attack me for using creationist terminology in describing my understanding of the issues. Such hostility! You are asking me to buy into your belief system against my judgment, and I would not dream of asking you to do that. I think you have issues you need to reflect on.”

Call it impatience with your continual insistence in bringing up the same issues, whilst stating that no-one has answered your questions, after the information and evidence has been presented to you. Must be four weeks now, of your same questions over and over all the while ignoring the information given?
You have stated you only glanced at information on the eye?
.
I don't care what your belief system is pb or what you buy into, but don't keep on dishonestly insisting
that you haven't been provided with evidence. For one to point this out is not at all intolerance,simply pointing out the facts as presented by all of your posts on these forums. So what do you consider to be “half an eye” pb?
I see you have been asked for explanations of your understanding of the terminology you constantly use and no explanations have been given. I also see many explanations of the mainstream scientific
meanings of these terms which you appear to continually ignore, then ask the same ill informed
questions using the rhetoric. By the way pb, my family are religious so there is no problem there. One of my relatives is also the head at a non-secular school. She also thinks creationism is pseudo science and shouldn't be taught as science.
I do hope readers go back over these forums to make a informed opinion. Together, your posts speak for themselves pb

  • 296.
  • At 10:51 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


FYI

bloggers...

Thought this was a useful point from ICR about lists of creation scientists ie that they are only samples and the real number may be MUCH MUCH bigger.

While the following comment only relates to ICR I suppose it could well apply to all three websites listed below.

ICR says: "...this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a comprehensive survey of the world's universities, research organizations, etc. to find out who is an evolutionist or creationist. Whether evolutionist or creationist, most scientists do not get involved in the creation versus evolution controversy. Also, many creationists keep their beliefs secret depending on the situation for fear of discrimination, etc."

ICR list of creation scientists (phys sciences).
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/

ICR list of creation scientists (Bio sciences)
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/

Note on both of the websites listed above there appears to be a pull down menu at the bottom with further names.

Also see
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_sci_faq/


Here is another 100 creationist phds here;-
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

Of course going back to our all time favourite AIG top 200 profs and phds...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

I notice there has been a lot of debate on this entry recently about peer reviewed papers from creationist scientists.

On this AIG hyperlink above there is a section near the bottom about "discrimination" against creation scientists that may well be of interest to those raising this query.

Having said that, PB can take no responsibility for the accuracy or content of any websites outside this posting ;-)


I havent counted exactly but I suppose there must be roughly 400 names here, I dont know, count them yourself...

bless your noodles

PN

  • 297.
  • At 11:52 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

pb- there is a small problem here. There are undoubtedly a number of people with science degrees who believe in a literal creation. (Although I have seen estimates suggesting that the number of Americans with science degrees is in the millions)

Many of them appear to have productive scientific careers, publishing papers etc, like Mcintosh does. Yet they appear not to be publishing papers showing that actually creationism is correct. Why do you think that is?

  • 298.
  • At 12:06 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 295.
* At 10:51 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"I havent counted exactly but I suppose there must be roughly 400 names here, I dont know, count them yourself..."

Could we have the number of these scientists, who, have at least submitted papers on their findings of Creation Research, to reputable Scientific Journals pb?
BTW shouldn't you be reading some of the information given in past posts to answer to your persistent repeated questions?

  • 299.
  • At 12:10 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Your list of creationists are still a miniscule minority and fall within the 0.15% http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html.

Had a look through the lists and not a single atheist/agnostic, Hindu, Buddist etc etc nor for that matter(as far as I can see) Jew or Muslim nor liberal Christian-do you not find that strange? I know that I do.

PB when you find me a Hindu Biblical creationist then my interest will be pricked(and I can name you tonnes of scientists who are Christians who have no probs with evolution).

Re: discrimination against creationists and AIG, as has been pointed out AIG "scientists" start with a conclusion and work their way from there, there is no research, evidence, reason etc.

I must admit that AIG terrify me because of the statement that their "scientists" have to sign because if they did take over then wave goodbye to free enquiry and advancement-science would become a dogmatic faith(and please evolution is not dogma/faith/religion).Science is not dogma, although individual scientists may like to hold onto their own ideas, if something better comes along and is backed up by evidence then we move on.

To put it another way what if a group of "scientists" who happened to believe that the Viking legends were true and tried to publish peer-reviewed papers without evidence, would this constitute discrimination?(indeed replace Viking with Inca/Greek/Roman/Indian etc etc).

In any case as I have pointed out and you have agreed evolution is NOT a Christian/atheist position.

Regards

DD

  • 300.
  • At 12:15 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 243 (Peter Klaver)

Peter,
I have checked post 210. I visited the site:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/102521318
and followed your instructions, located an Abstract of the article, but could not download the PDF file without logging on and paying $25. So I did a Google search and managed to locate the entire article for free at:
http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/ijdb200448023/ft249.pdf (I will come back and discuss the article in a later post.)

No, I do not believe that you have any justification for calling pb a liar. It is possible to be mistaken, or sincerely wrong, without being a liar. Besides, he has since issued an apology (Post 294): “Peter, skimming over some of your mails I concede I think I did miss some of your postings where you had highlighted info for me on feathers but this was not deliberate, sorry.” I assume that you will now accept his apology and life will continue as normal. As I said to pb in a private e-mail earlier today, I have appreciated reading his contributions on the BBC blogs. Indeed, it is unlikely that the discussion would have been so interesting and lively were it not for his contributions.

You ask whether I would stand up for him as “a creationist who brings credibility to your cause”. If you had read carefully what pb has been saying all along, he is not yet a convinced creationist. It is more important to me that he is “on side” as far as his faith in Jesus Christ is concerned. God accepts us in Christ on the basis of Jesus’ death on the Cross, no matter who we are; He forgives us and is in the process of transforming our lives. We do not claim to be perfect, but we do claim forgiveness, peace with God and everlasting life. This is infinitely more important than whether or not one accepts a six-day literal creation.

The Lord God Almighty, whose name is Jehovah, Maker of Heaven and Earth, says: “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?... To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to him?... Have you not known? have you not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding...” (Isaiah chapter 40, verses 12, 18 and 28.)

Regards,

"Creationist Apologist"

  • 301.
  • At 12:39 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 297 (Guthrie)

Please see the following link for a peer-reviewed article in support of creation:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

  • 302.
  • At 12:42 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

IRC organisation:
IRC
“ICR offers courses leading to master's degrees in the sciences, which are exempted by California for religious reasons.[3] They have an on-campus program and a distance education program via the internet.”

“Massimo Pigliucci has criticized ICR for claiming to be interested in research while requiring students and faculty to sign a promise that the published material will correspond to a literal interepretation of the Bible, thereby excluding facts that aren't predetermined by religious doctorine.[9] Moreover, Pigliucci notes that even within ICR "the dispensation of degrees has created internal schisms that have often resulted in the sudden dismissal of some ICR scientists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

  • 303.
  • At 12:53 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

Re- Post 210 (Peter Klaver)
I have looked at the article on feathers but cannot find the proof for evolution that you refer to. The article is packed with unsubstantiated evolutionary dogma.

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 304.
  • At 12:59 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

298.
At 12:10 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
Dylan Dog wrote:

“Re: discrimination against creationists and AIG, as has been pointed out AIG "scientists" start with a conclusion and work their way from there, there is no research, evidence, reason etc.
I must admit that AIG terrify me because of the statement that their "scientists" have to sign because if they did take over then wave goodbye to free enquiry and advancement-science would become a dogmatic faith(and please evolution is not dogma/faith/religion). ”

But Dylan Dog, didn't you notice that the majority of pbs last links were for the “Institute for Creation Research” and not AiG. Doesn't appear to be too much difference though. Easy mistake on your part :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research
“Some creationists are opposed to the ICR. For example, the Christian Identity Movement believes the ICR are "crypto-evolutionists," Gary North "oppposes the ICR on the grounds that they" acknowledge the second principle of thermodynamics, and John W. Robbins considers the ICR's acitivies a "fraud."[15]”

“Standing behind the Grand Canyon display of the ICR musuem, Gish claimed, the Grand Canyon was created in one day during the Biblical flood that involved Noah's Ark. Dr Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education responded, "the Grand Canyon consists of granite and shale and really hard stuff about 5,000 feet of it. You're not going to cut this very hard rock with just a bunch of water flowing through it at one time."
.
This is telling :)
“Some creationists are opposed to the ICR. For example, the Christian Identity Movement believes the ICR are "crypto-evolutionists," Gary North "oppposes the ICR on the grounds that they" acknowledge the second principle of thermodynamics, and John W. Robbins considers the ICR's acitivies a "fraud."
Cheers

  • 305.
  • At 01:43 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Creationist Apologist wrote:

The truth of special creation may be considered and satisfactorily demonstrated from a teleological point of view. The argument for design is overwhelming.

The burden of proof is on evolutionists to explain how the mechanism of evolution works, and where the information comes from to produce biologically self-replicating organisms, and how the energy is applied and directed. Information simply cannot arise by itself; it is impossible. And even information alone is insufficient unless there is a mechanism to translate that information into productive work. It does not take a genius to realise that a highly complex order of information is required to produce the human body, along with the ability for that information to be translated into the mechanisms required for building the body cell by cell. The miracle is repeated over and over again every time a child is conceived in the womb.

No scientist alive today could assemble the raw material and manufacture a living human being from scratch – it is utterly impossible. Nor could they come anywhere close - not by a million miles. The ingenuity behind the creation of humankind would have to be a supra-human intelligence of the highest degree. The achievement of the human brain alone is beyond our comprehension. Is there any scientist, or any number of scientists combined, who could even come anywhere close to producing a human brain, with consciousness, ability to send and receive a wide range of messages through the body, to perceive and communicate with the outside world, to assimilate and process knowledge, and so on? Moreover, the medical world, with all its acquired knowledge of, say, the human brain, is still in its infancy in terms of the discoveries yet to be made. As an Israelite psalmist wrote in one of the celebrated psalms of the Old Testament, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”.

Now, are we seriously to believe that this marvellous body, with its perfectly designed abilities, was produced as a result of chance mutations in an upward progression over millions of years? This would defy all known laws on which the universe is established. You cannot have highly ordered and incredibly complex physical biological structures without a means of transmitting the information from one generation to the next, and a mechanism for processing the information and assembling the building blocks of life. And remember, this is not merely to reproduce a single cell, but to create an entirely new set of working parts – bones, flesh, nerves, muscles, vains, etc. Does any evolutionist have the faintest idea of how complex this is, to say the least? Could anyone even begin to create a human body from scratch? And yet you imagine that a mindless chance process could achieve what all the combined intelligence of science in the world cannot achieve! It is, frankly, sheer nonsense!

As Dr Vij Sodera writes in his book “One Small Speck to Man: the evolution myth”, “…genes and chromosomes are extremely complex structures, and no gene can mutate and evolve unless it first exists. Furthermore, not all things are possible.”
http://www.onesmallspeck.com/

“Creationist Apologist”

  • 306.
  • At 01:54 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 300.
* At 12:15 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:
"The Lord God Almighty, whose name is Jehovah,...."

Has this become a blog for posting sermens now, rather than a discussion about whether creationist views constitute science or not?
BTW Creationist Appologist did you see the previous post reguarding the question about the Truth in Science organisation ?

"No, I do not believe that you have any justification for calling pb a liar. It is possible to be mistaken, or sincerely wrong, without being a liar."
How about his cotinually saying he has been provided with no information and then admitting he merely "glanced" at what was provided? What would you call that CA? A slight misrepresentation of the truth maybe?
.
Re * #299. * At 12:10 AM on 14 Jan 2007, * Dylan Dog wrote:...
"In any case as I have pointed out and you have agreed evolution is NOT a Christian/atheist position."
.
These quotes from the BCSE may interest you DD.

Quote ["Non-believers must be challenged in such a way that they can no longer hide behind the delusion that science has disproved the existence of God."]
BSCE reponse:
"...Let’s look at that sentence again; there’s something else about it that is very nasty indeed. It is saying that it will force people to disbelieve that science has disproved the existence of God.
Um, we don’t quite get this either? Looks distinctly like these people are saying that others have no right to their religious opinions and beliefs unless they agree with evangelical Christian fundamentalists.
Or, is it saying that we must be confronted by these people?
Or is it saying that we are deluded and are cowards by hiding? Look again at the way it is worded. The implication is that you cannot accept modern science and be religious at the same time. Really? So, all the Catholics are wrong - the mainstream Anglicans, the Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, vast numbers of Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists....
And, um, non-believers in what, precisely?"

  • 307.
  • At 02:33 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

"You cannot have highly ordered and incredibly complex physical biological structures without a means of transmitting the information from one generation to the next, and a mechanism for processing the information and assembling the building blocks of life. And remember, this is not merely to reproduce a single cell, but to create an entirely new set of working parts – bones, flesh, nerves, muscles, vains, etc."
Don't tell me, another "peer reviewed" paper from the creation club "peer review process" by creationist "scientists"?
Don't even bother!
You seem to have "lost the plot" so to speak, CA. Err have you heard of DNA at all?
The creationist posts on this forum cannot be anything more than some sort of joke! Or are you trying to sell your product to the uninformed and unwary? Behe and Dembski's utter rubbish which has already been discredited on numerous occassions by quites a number of different people.
Talk about desperation!
Those looking fro some objectivity, see Talk Origins (esp FAQ) for information on every one of the IDist ideas/claims!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
The Talk Origins site presents these creation claims,the evidence against them, as well as reponses of both sides following on from the initial ones.

  • 308.
  • At 02:52 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 305.
* At 01:43 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
* Creationist Apologist wrote:

"The truth of special creation may be considered and satisfactorily demonstrated from a teleological point of view. The argument for design is overwhelming."
.
Please note the details of this courtcase ruling:
The Dover Trial (Full transcript)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case [Last update: September 28, 2006]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
.
Wikipedia information Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Decision
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)”
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)
"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

  • 309.
  • At 03:07 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Coleoptera wrote:

Creationist Apologist re post 301

So, you didn't understand it? "The article is packed with unsubstantiated evolutionary dogma". Although it assumes a basic understanding of evolutionary theory, which you clearly lack, it is all substantiated. Instead of dismissing it out of hand perhaps you could make some specific criticisms and support your position with other evidence. It is a major failing of much creationist argument that it criticises the interpretation of evidence but can't provide more parsimonious explanations, just as you have.

I read Peter Loose's critique on "evolutionism" (whatever that is). He sounds authoritative but he is wrong on a number of points. Most importantly he states that "it should be noted that even today there is very little empirical evidence for the core mechanism of neo-Darwinism". This is entirely wrong. The core mechanism of evolutionary theory follows 4 principles:
1) Mutation leading to variation in traits
2) Heritability of traits
3) More offspring are produced than can possibly survive
4) Variation in traits increases or decreases the chance of survival, leading to a change in trait frequency within a population
These 4 principles have been empirically demonstrated in countless experiments. He dismisses 2 of the best-known examples because he argues "nothing new is created". In essence what he is arguing is that he accepts that these mechanisms do produce change in populations, but can't accept that they create new species. This is the fallacious "microevolution but not macroevolution" argument. Microevolution and macroevolution are simply scales of the same process. To dismiss macroevolution in this way is akin to arguing "I can see how wind causes ripples but I can't fathom how it forms waves". It is a ridiculous and indefensible position.

  • 310.
  • At 03:13 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

I see CA moves the goal-posts again!

Errr that article not peer-reviewed.

The rest is special pleading that assumes that the incompetent "designer" is your god-how very arrogant!(I bet that if you got a class of kids and asked them to redesign humans they would make a better job of it than your god, ie. straigther backs, easier for women to give birth etc etc). So a scientist would make a better job of it than your inept deity.

Then again you may give me a list of physicians in New York!!!!!(still trying to work that one out).

Ok CA lets take the lazy attitude ie., GODDIDIT!!!(but which one?) satisfied?

And again CA evolution is NOT an atheist/theist position, intelligent theists have no probs with evolution.

Kindest regards

DD

  • 311.
  • At 07:44 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


guthrie

ref post 297

an answer and hyperlink to more answers to q's about peer reviewed papers are in post 296.

the main point i am making is that nobody knows the real numbers of cs's because no survey has been attempted amd there is such hosyility many wouldnt come out.

read 296 again slowly.

mb - i did respond to your post about primitive eyes i think - can you respond to that comment please?


DD
ref creation scientists statement of faith; it is exactly opposite to your counter assumpion - so who moderates these assumptions in interest of scientific objectivity????

raised this a few times in recent blogs and it is ignored so far anyway...

pb

  • 312.
  • At 10:13 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Pb

Creationists are very vocal, they have no problem admiting what they believe on the sites you mention. Surveys have been done into what scientists believe and creationists are a tiny, miniscule minority.

Science is about free enquiry; so I don't really get your point. No scientists has to sign and swear by a tatement of faith that they will reach their conclusions before looking at the evidence.

DD

  • 313.
  • At 10:13 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

* 302.
* At 12:42 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
* Tom wrote:


IRC
“ICR offers courses leading to master's degrees in the sciences, which are exempted by California for religious reasons.[3] They have an on-campus program and a distance education program via the internet.”

“Massimo Pigliucci has criticized ICR for claiming to be interested in research while requiring students and faculty to sign a promise that the published material will correspond to a literal interepretation of the Bible, thereby excluding facts that aren't predetermined by religious doctorine.[9] Moreover, Pigliucci notes that even within ICR "the dispensation of degrees has created internal schisms that have often resulted in the sudden dismissal of some ICR scientists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

Any scientists out there ever had to sign a pledge which insists what their findings would have to correspond to?

  • 314.
  • At 10:27 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

btw MB, you seem to have missed this but I repeatedly say I have no problem with Christians believing in evolution.

But I think you are way off beam in labelling creationism as pseudo science.

Just look at the growing lists of creation scientists in post 296.

This is only after 3 minutes googling.

Can all these scientists really be so stupid?

There must be so, so, many more who are afraid their funders would take the same attitude as you and cut them off or refusing to hire them.

AIG links listsed a posts above deals with this in detail. Are you really so far about QUB's Professor Emeritus in science to label him a complete dupe?

That is technically a very fundamentalist position, taking on a pretty hard position of absolute truth.

Even GW in recent posts takes a much more objective view of the frailities of the theory of evolution and he is no suporter of mine. To me this suggests also (and the point has been made before) that there must be many more agnostic evolutionist scientists out there whom the evolutionists are claiming as their own.

I am sure there is some validity to your concerns that I have no disgested all the information that has been presented.

But your members of YOUR religion mocking website gloats at creating fictional bloggers to snow me under, see post 217, posts directly from your own webiste.

And there are other bloggers here apart from you raising non-scientific questions about this debate also.

One major point that you appear to have missed is that in taking an openly mocking attitude to someone's sincerely held religious views and being party to tactics in post 217, you have disqualified yourself as a dissintered source of unbiased advice and information on this topic... even if you hostile ad hominem posts before did not.

So forgive me if I do not pore over the smallest detail of every hyperlink you give me as "gospel".

You must also take into account that maybe part of the reason I do not take in all the info given is because I have no science background to speak of.

What I can say for certain is that I have never delieberately rejcted any info provided.

i do get the impression, perhaps wrong, that many papers are linked here that the posters themselves could not discuss, and they have science backgrounds.

One question I do not seem to have had answered (apart from Dr Feduccia) is that if gliding squirrels and such are really presumed to be ancestors of birds and bats, is there any DNA evidence to suggest this?

The point I made about the primitive organism with the eye was that in creation theory that organism was created as is. You wont like that but that is true. Is there not a huge gap betwen that and mammals' eyes?

And surely there has to be a DNA connection between such links for them to be valid?

How many "intermediate" eyes are there in evolutionary evidence?


sincerely
PB

  • 315.
  • At 10:51 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Dan Allen wrote:

PB,

Just in case someone didn't point it out from post 21.
Point 3: Experiments in a lab are only one way to get scientific theory accepted.
For example, it is generally accepted what the stars are (balls gas held together by gravity undergoing fussion) and the processes taking place in them, but we can't reproduce them (exactly) or gravity on their scale in lab.
Crudely speaking you need a compelling evidence based argument based on observation of the world around us.

I've got a question for you.
Forget about how we might interpret them, but do you accept that fossils are artefacts of creatures that lived millions of years ago and are not around today?

I know we were trying to keep this discussion to Prof. McIntosh and his primary school knowledge of science, but I think he's been put to bed by now on this one.

  • 316.
  • At 11:48 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB I can't answer for MB however...

"But I think you are way off beam in labelling creationism as pseudo science."

It IS pseudo-science!simply because it is NOT science! no evidence, no peer-reviewed papers. It is mumbo-jumbo nonsense. Is it falsiable? as has been pointed out before creationists reach their conclusion before looking at the evidnce.

In regards to ID(which is very different to creationism, as ID is very quick yo point out) at the Dover trial Behe admitted under oath that ID is NOT science and that is straight from the horses mouth.

We have been over this "growing list" before and creationists represent a tiny, tiny, miniscule minority but like empty vessels they make the most noise. As i have said before- Had a look through the lists and not a single atheist/agnostic, Hindu, Buddist etc etc nor for that matter(as far as I can see) Jew or Muslim nor liberal Christian-do you not find that strange? I know that I do.

PB when you find me a Hindu Biblical creationist then my interest will be pricked(and I can name you tonnes of scientists who are Christians who have no probs with evolution).

"Can all these scientists really be so stupid?" at the risk of sounding harsh, I would say yes or perhaps it would be better to say deluded.

Actually some creationists make a lot of money peddling their stuff to the great unwashed and make more money than the average scientist.

AS we have been over time and time and time again their position is based on their fundamentalist faith.

I suggest that you look over what Guthrie said again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

Ok, my last response here for a while (or quite probably for good).

Thank you Creation Apologist for your response. I wanted to get a response from creationists to see if they are all as hopeless as pb. You're the only one who answered on their behalf and your answer in post #300 is all I could have asked for. Along with lengthy, boring bible quotes, the following part says it so beautifully:

"Peter,
I have checked post 210. I visited the site:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/102521318
and followed your instructions, located an Abstract of the article, but could not download the PDF file without logging on and paying $25. So I did a Google search and managed to locate the entire article for free at:
http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/ijdb200448023/ft249.pdf (I will come back and discuss the article in a later post.)"

Couple of remarks about that:
1) no, the paper is free to download for all who take the trouble to follow my instructions. As previous posts (from myself and several others) have already stated repeatedly. Others are able to get it just fine, for free.
2) even if the price tag had been true, surely a Creation Apologist would not let that deter him? You're defending Gods glorious Creation! Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Correcting for about 2 millenia of inflation, you would fail God for a much lower amount?! I'm deeply disappointed in you, shocked even.
3) the article you say you googled up is a different one than the one I pointed out. Did you ever see that neither the journal name, first (or second or third, ...) author names, paper length, issue number, year of publication or even the title match?
So the utter bunk nature of creationist arguments has now been confirmed on the basis of one more example. Thanks again for your post CA, you did me great service.

I'm heading back to the FSM website forums now. Creationism has been shown to anyone who reads this thread as the load of rubbish it is. No point in spending more time on it. To those who go on debating CA or pb, I admire your patience, but I would say sensible posters are done here. You can get the same fundamentalist nonsense on the FSM website occasionally with better sense of humour generally, without the moderator delays and much quicker page loading. Why stick around here on Crawleys blog?

While I said I'd leave before, this time I'll try to stick to it. One thing might bring me back though. If the FSM website ever holds a 'forum troll of the year' poll, I'll nominate pb and come back to drum up support for his bid. That's actually quite ok you know pb, notifying people of a poll.

Have nice lives everyone, switching off now.

  • 318.
  • At 06:06 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

pb, the issue is not really how many creationists hold degrees in various subjects, (I see no point in arguing such a point, it is much more fun to argue the science instead) because if the science were wrong, then ultimately, even if it took a long time, they would win out. Sure, you can list a number of scientific theories which have taken a long time to become accepted. Continental drift for example took IIRC 40 years, but once they had evidence of the oceanic ridges, that was it.

"But I think you are way off beam in labelling creationism as pseudo science."
Nope, sorry, I stand by it. What other science presumes that a holy book is correct first, then looks at the evidence?

"Can all these scientists really be so stupid?"

Yes. Linus Pauling for example thought that vitamin C could cure cancer and other illnesses. Haeckel was wrong with his "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" stuff. Fred Hoyle was wrong about a steady state universe, Lord Kelvin was wrong with his estimates of the age of ths un and the earth. And so on. ALthough Kelvin wasnt being stupid, he just didnt have access to enough information to make the correct estimate. There are plenty of other examples of stupid scientists. We are only human after all. What you dont hear much about are the dead ends people run up when they are researching something.

"There must be so, so, many more who are afraid their funders would take the same attitude as you and cut them off or refusing to hire them."

But then if that did happen to them, they could run to the media and complain of harassment etc. Here in the UK, nothing like that has happened.


"AIG links listsed a posts above deals with this in detail. Are you really so far about QUB's Professor Emeritus in science to label him a complete dupe?"

Dupe? That would suggest whoever it is you are talking about has been fooled. I wouldnt quite define someone devoted to a religiously founded pseudoscience a dupe.

Not absolute truth- just a rough approximation. I'll be quite happy if they can demonstrate the existence of [deity of choice] empirically, because then it'l all be fine and easily demonstrable.
Scientific theories are the best apprixmations currently available, not the ultimate truth. People will act sometimes as if they are, but thats because people like ultimate truths, (see religion for examples) and also we have to be emotionally involved in things in order to get on and do stuff.


  • 319.
  • At 07:37 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Creationist apologist (post 305):

“the argument from design is overwhelming”.

If you just stand in your back garden and don’t enquire further, then the illusion that the Earth is flat and that the Sun goes round the Earth is similarly overwhelming.

As several posters have previously mentioned, and as McIntosh himself is fond of noting, the “argument from design” has recently been re-branded by Michael Behe in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Behe gives examples of biochemical structures that he claims have so many functionally interlocking parts that if any one part is removed, then the structure stops working and they are therefore ‘irreducibly complex’. Behe claims that the phenomenon of ‘irreducible complexity’ means that these structures cannot have evolved because intermediates would not have been functional. It’s really just a biochemical version of the “what use is half a wing?” argument. Behe’s claims are based on multiple technical misunderstandings of biochemistry and molecular biology and have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere – not least the famous talk origins web site. However, I’m not going to repeat the technical arguments here, since I doubt they would get through to CA, Pb et al. Rather, I’ll try another approach, admittedly at the risk of being more philosophical and theological (but this is supposed to be a religious affairs blog after all!).

It’s all very well saying “look at the blood-clotting cascade – it’s really, really complicated so it must have been designed”. But the natural world is full of organisms that have far less benign adaptations. Have you ever wondered where Ridley Scott got the inspiration for the Alien movies? See this amazing David Attenborough video clip about the eerie Cordyceps fungus and find out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tga-UG9oUYc&mode=related&search=

(you might need broadband).

Or consider this: right now tens of thousands of children in the third world are going blind because a parasitic filarial worm is burrowing into their eyeballs. In both cases (and of course there are countless more I could have used), the organisms concerned posses highly sophisticated adaptations to achieve their goals. The way that Cordyceps selectively reprograms the ant’s brain is an amazing story that is only vaguely understood and the multiple interlocking molecular adaptations that enable the filarial worm to outsmart and evade the human immune system are likewise astonishing. From the application of his own logic, Behe would have to claim that these adaptations are ‘irreducibly complex’ and were therefore designed. I think it is interesting to consider why Behe didn’t choose these or similar cases for his book. If I were to hazard a guess, I’d say it was because in that case, he would be forced to confront some awkward philosophical questions about the nature and personality of his designer.

  • 320.
  • At 08:49 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 314.
* At 10:27 AM on 14 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:

"The point I made about the primitive organism with the eye was that in creation theory that organism was created as is. You wont like that but that is true. Is there not a huge gap betwen that and mammals' eyes?
And surely there has to be a DNA connection between such links for them to be valid?
How many "intermediate" eyes are there in evolutionary evidence?"
.
I refer you back to post #57 pb.
"“Master Control Genes and the Evolution of the Eye” Walter Gehring:
Q: Can you describe what that original common ancestor of all eyes might have been like?
A: This was already postulated by Darwin, and it's remarkable how correct he was, in retrospect. What he says is that the prototypic eye probably would consist of two cells only: a photo-receptor cell -- which he called a nerve, which is absolutely correct; it's a nerve cell which is photosensitive, which has rhodopsin -- and a pigment cell. The function of the pigment cell is to shield the light from one side. This gives the owner of this eye a big advantage, because they can see which direction the light comes from. So this is already a direction discriminating eye.
And then, he thinks, from this prototype, then selection could set in and make all of these wonderful eye types -- the eye of an eagle, or of a squid, or of a Drosophila, a fruit fly. Interestingly enough, a considerable time later a Japanese group found a flat worm which has exactly this minimal prototypic eye, which is only consisting of a single photoreceptor and single pigment cell. And these animals, of course much to my satisfaction, they also have a Pax-6 gene.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/l_044_01.html

Also the BCBI website contains a mass of information detailing the genetic relationship of evolutionary eyetypes.
In particular the Pax6 gene which is fundamental in coding all of these eye types. All organisms so far analysed possess this gene.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=gene&cmd=search&term=Pax6
If you have a specific question about this information I am quite capable of answering it pb. Just trying to explain it to you is a waste of my time. Many other posters have attempted this to be met following posts by you showing no indication that you even read the information given!
Again if you have a specific question or problem relating to the information provided, please ask.

As for your assertion
"One major point that you appear to have missed is that in taking an openly mocking attitude to someone's sincerely held religious views and being party to tactics in post 217, you have disqualified yourself as a dissintered source of unbiased advice and information on this topic... even if you hostile ad hominem posts before did not."
I suggest you state clearly your insinuation and back it with some evidence and facts, rather than ill informed innuendo. If you can find a problem with any of the scientific information or evidence I have provided, both on this forum and the past three McIntosh forums, I would appreciate you pointing it out.
You see pb in scientific investigation, you make your assessment on the evidence provided , not on the person providing it.

  • 321.
  • At 09:00 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

This page too ages to load and to be honest I have better things to do.

If PB and CA are sincere I did post links to another dedicated site to post on.

Good luck everyone!

DD

  • 322.
  • At 09:34 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Restaino wrote:

Post#166 Phil,
Thank you for your suggestion. I have reviewed “The Origin of Life” by Moritz. Though very interesting he does admit serious shortcomings in the research on “the origin of life.” As he mentions various scenarios and steps that have “provided plausible scenarios for the origin of life” yet he does admit that “evolution of a primitive RNA organism might be observable on a lab bench.” He makes a good hypothesis and does admit that it needs to be tested. Has it been tested? He stated “experimental models are needed.” Have any models been developed?

He states that replicating RNA with copy errors would render the resulting RNA as non-functional. True, but where did the RNA get the information for the replication process? He implies that through randomness and “natural selection” higher orders of life could evolve. Has this been observed? Many might say yes, but where is the data?

You mentioned “however, other experiments have produced the results expected.” I assume you are referring to natural selection and not evolution. What experiments are you referring to? Are you saying that natural selection is used to make various species?


  • 323.
  • At 11:43 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Scott wrote:

"Please see the following link for a peer-reviewed article in support of creation:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm"

CA,

The article you posted seems logical from a computer science / digital image processing perspective. However it completely ignores several important biological facts regarding how the eye is actually connected to the brain.

There are about 100 million photoreceptors in human eye, but only 1 million ganglion cells in the optic nerve. If you try to map photoreceptors to pixels and ganglion cells to wires, you find there is no one-to-one connection between the two.

Since the optic nerve doesn't have enough bandwidth to transmit the raw data from each photoreceptor, the retina must multiplex, encode or pre-process the image data before sending to the brain. As images are projected by the lens in a linear (but upside down) fashion on the surface of the retina, it's quite possible that the natural order of the image is preserved during this encoding process and does not require complex mapping by the brain.

Even if you ignore the lack of a one-to-one connection between wires and pixels in biology, the paper claims that a single genetic encoding scheme was written into our DNA, by God, which allows us to compensate for the particular way in which each photoreceptor is connected to the brain. For this encoding scheme to work, each photosensor in the eye must somehow connect itself to brain in the exact spatial location (photosensor Z must connect to the brain at point X) in each human being. If this connection is consistent, the image projected on the retina could again be delivered to the brain in a linear fashion, which does not require complex mapping.

If the connection scheme varies from person to person, each eye would need to use a different mapping system to decode the image. This would either require the brain to decode the random image (which the paper claims is impossible) or that God fine tunes the DNA of each human being to decode their particular wiring configuration.

Again, I can see how this could be considered accurate from a digital image processing / computer science perspective, but it ignores the actual biological process of how image data is transmitted to the brain.

  • 324.
  • At 11:47 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
  • Molecular Biologist wrote:

* 321.
* At 09:00 PM on 14 Jan 2007,
* Dylan Dog wrote:

"This page too ages to load and to be honest I have better things to do."

I agree DD
Seems to be a waste of time here.

  • 325.
  • At 01:24 AM on 15 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Speaking of the integrity of the Intelligent Design proponents, have a look at this clip. Bill Dembski commissioned this and sent it as a present to those who testified, at the Dover Trial, against intelligent design being taught in the classroom as science.
“Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism”
http://richarddawkins.net/article,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-

  • 326.
  • At 10:30 AM on 15 Jan 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Appears that Dembski asked Dawkins to remove the animation from his site, (even though it was a xmas gift) but it is still accessable on a creationist site! Makes you wonder why?
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/id/JJ_school_of_law/

  • 327.
  • At 04:19 PM on 15 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Sorry, I missed your post 297 earlier due to so many other posts getting in the way.
I read something about the evolution and function of the eye somewhere recently, I cannot recall where.
I note that the article appears to have been peer reviewed by other creationists. This may be why it seems to take the approach that it does.
I shall restrict some comments to stuff I know something (however little) about.
For starters, in the summary:

"The image-forming and image-processing capabilities of sighted living creatures are uniquely specified by the simplest laws of optics: the perceived image of an object scene must be a faithful mapping in order for the imagery to be useful and advantageous to the creature."

No, all that it needs is for the image to be a slightly better map of "reality" than is available to any other comparable organism, in order for it to confer selective advantage. Also, as has been noted above, there are very simple eyes out there that consist of only a few cells. Their reoslution would not be wonderful, but as long as they can do the job, everything is fine.

"If this wiring process were performed randomly, even the simplest of sampled images would have an exponential number of possible connections from the actual image to its perceived or displayed counterpart."

Why would it be performed randomly? As far as I understand it, a whole lot of connections are formed in the developing baby, and then those that do not work are pruned. Or in other words selection takes place.

The article appears to claim that there has to be a physical correspondence between the brain and the eyes, whereas in fact the signal from the eye is processed down to a smaller set of data.
I note also that the article ends with the traditional claim that only a creator could make something as complex as this.
The article is not a credible paper any more than my post is a credible explanation of the state of the art understanding of neurological development.

  • 328.
  • At 10:00 PM on 15 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Guys I will read your postings in detail.

MB- very interesting info on the variety of eyes, you have made your case fairly well.

I am slightly confused by your frustration at failing to convince me so far.

If we switched shoes, how easy would it be to convince you that Christ rose from the dead? There is a mountain of historical and legal opinion to support this, but I imagine you would be horrified at the very thought of examining it???

BTW, in a previous entry on McIntosh, didnt you openly describe a process of micro evolution which you openly said you "assumed" would fit the category of evolution?


Tony Jackson, interesting post. Before the fall of man in the bible there was no death, no weeds, no carnivores. The earth was cursed by the fall and so things changed, evil was introduced in the form of Lucifer and his fallen followers.
Ever read Paradise Lost? Not a theological tome but it gives poetic insight into how the angels might have been deformed by choosing evil.
In Eden the garden produced food without any work...after the fall man got his food by the sweat of his brow... everything changed...just food for thought, thanks for the discussion...


Dan - thanks for the direct answer to my question. I suppose one difference between stars and evolution is that we can still witness stars and demonstrated gravity???

Do you agree that origin of the species was accepted as fact at a very low standard of proof?

What standard of evidence would "prove" creationism do you think?

Do I accept the age of fossils as millions of years old? I havent examined the science or evidence so I cant say. I do know it is hotly contested by many very well qualified scientists, including geologists and paleontologists on both sides.

Incidentally, I have made this point but nobody seems to have accepted it;- nobody has ever tried to survey the number of creation scientists in the world.

isnt it obvious from the flak here that many would prefer to keep their heads down for fear of seriously damaging their careers? That is the point made on my earlier posting with hyperlinks.

I would say a useful estimate could be made by starting with the number of Christians in the world, according to denominations more associated with this belief perhaps...


Peter Klaver
After all the abuse you heaped on me for failing to download PDFs on partially evolved feathers, now you have repeatedly failed to address the point of Dr Fedducia who rubbished them. Plus Ca Change...


Lastly, a point occured to me today ref ideologies skewing scientific research, check out these two websites and you will see what I mean;-


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

http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/borngay.htm

PB

  • 329.
  • At 11:15 PM on 15 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

But why would creationist scientists recieve such a bashing, given the number of religious people around? It does sound like you want to feed a persecution complex.

As for teh age of fossils, again, it is hotly contested by a small number of creationists with an agenda, and they are usually ignored by the many more scientists who use dating techniques in their work, since they know it works.

As for origin of the species, it took several decades for it to be widely accepted, amidst much opposition and argument. I would not say that it was easily accepted at all.

  • 330.
  • At 01:11 AM on 16 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

eeerrrrr Guthrie....

You ask why would creation scientists recieve such a bashing????

Have you missed the minor firestorm that McIntosh brought down on himself or the outright hostility on this blog that has been displayed to anyone politely sceptical about evolution?


Have you really read all the posts about from the flying spagehtti monster mob? If you link onto their website you will see them incadescent with rage that Christians can homeschool their own children???

What part of this hostility cant you see Guthrie?

And did you check out the two hyperlinks for ideological influence on science? Which is it - fixed or not?

PB

  • 331.
  • At 06:17 AM on 16 Jan 2007,
  • Tony Jackson wrote:

Pb (post 328):

“In Eden the garden produced food without any work...”

Oh yeah? Now that really would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

“Before the fall of man in the bible there was no death, no weeds, no carnivores. The earth was cursed by the fall and so things changed, evil was introduced in the form of Lucifer and his fallen followers.”

So let’s see if I’ve got this right: because Adam sinned….. therefore God now let’s African children go blind.

As science, this is a non-starter; as theology, I wouldn’t want to comment; but as philosophy, this is just plain nuts.

  • 332.
  • At 09:07 AM on 16 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

I missed the links on ideological influlences in science. Suffice it to say, there always are and always will be some such links- thats why we have such a high bar set, and also why creationism continually fails to jump it.

Firestorm of critiscism? But if he is misleading, as I think you'll find he is, then McIntosh deserves all he gets. You have seen the oprobium heaped upon Dawkins havn't you?
You do realise that we have a point, that we are not just attacking McIntosh because he is a Creationist, but because he twists and smarms his way around science, using misleading statements to try and fool his audience?

  • 333.
  • At 02:09 PM on 17 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Guthrie

The links are that all the research which is quoted in the Tatchell link says this factor is immutable fixed.

But Tatchell pulls the rug in that he knows so many people who have changed this factor. Again, Kinsey's research shows he encountered many people who had changed this factor.

The two scientists Tatchell reviews are well qualified and high profile... but they refuse to comment on their own sexuality.

Ref ACM and TSLOT - I dont agree with you. It IS fair comment to criticise hom on a point of science but the attacks on him have obviously been motivated by anti-religious feeling.

So it seems fair to say that many people are waiting for a point of controversy of error from a creationist so they can destroy them.

That is not say non-faith scientists would not get the same treatment for error. Of course they do. But my original point was that creation scientists know that many people will single them out for hostility if they know they are such.

So keeping this quiet invites less negative attention. Are you just playing devil's advocate? You cant live an an-apolitical world.

From what I understand ACM is not even challenging TSLOT, he is only challenging evolution. The evolutionists are saying he is challenging TSLOT, but he is really saying that TSLOT proves evolution wrong. See the difference?

ACM says: "The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines.
"And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub-part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified."

Why has nobody falsified his point as he has challenged? wouldnt this be the simplest way to shut him up?

I respect scientists when they talk honestly about their scientific views but the amount of ridicule heaped on faith above is unjustifiable, with their authority.

Their authority cannot answer;-

1) Do I matter?

2) Is there any reason for me being here, aside from the biological?

3) Where did the universe come from?

4) Should I love or hate?

5) What happens to my consciousness after I die?


So to pretend science has all the answers for their lives is aburd, perhaps 90 per cent of their decisions in life are non-scientific.

This is not to justify creation science, just to question whether science has the authority to debunk faith.

Thanks Guthrie

PB


  • 334.
  • At 06:34 PM on 17 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

No, we're not saying that he is challenging the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we're saying his attempts to conflate it and information are vacuous, meaningless garbage, so pointless as to make dumping it on the fields as fertiliser a worthless activity.

If he were to prove that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proved evolution wrong, he would be able to show calculations demonstrating that. Heck, I learnt to calculate delta G in first year chemistry courses, and I learnt about Entropy when still at school. Surely a man with his resources could carry out the calculations. If he did so, I think he would have a good chance of getting a paper published somewhere on it.

However, since he continues using only words to describe these things, without providing any scientific definitions that agree with how everyone else defines thermodynamic terms, we can only assume that he has no evidence at all.


I suggest you go and read up the thread as for why McIntosh is wrong. For example, bacteria develop mutations that enable them to eat nylon, or metabolise antibiotics.

How on earth can this not count as changing chemical machines?

Can you show me anywhere that scientists insist that science is the way to answer questions regarding if you matter or if you should love or hate anything? (Social sciences dont count)

I think it clear that science and faith are in separate fields. Perhaps at some time they will be united in some way. Perhaps not.
But at the moment, the problem only comes when certain people, such as Creationists, use their faith to attack science, which is like me using my invisible sword here to cut through my omputer monitor.

Plus of course you have to understand that many of us here keep seeing the same old claims, time after time after time. There is a reason there is a website called "talkorigins", which has the answers to all the usual creationist pboilerplate. Its because they cant come up with new questions, except rarely, and when they do the questions are invariably mince.

  • 335.
  • At 07:59 PM on 17 Jan 2007,
  • Dan Allen wrote:

PB,

Some excellent points you have there but I mus say you're still showing your self to be a science novice.
I think some of the others are so rough on you because they don't realise that you aren't putting this on. You really don't understand - yet.
You've missed my point about stars. If you challenge the idea that they're balls of gas undergoing fussion I can't take you to one to resolve it.
You are always at liberty to tell me you don't care evidence X because it doesn't prove they're not angels.
Please tell me you don't think stars are angels.

Actually if you I think that might give us an interesting avenue to explore if we feel at logger heads on
evolution...

Where creation falls down is the same, we simply can't find any meaningful evidence to speak of but you can dis-miss everything as inconclusive for ever if it takes your mood but the creation argument is no better than "the stars are angels".
Lovely idea but totally unscientific.
It is very hard for me to think of what evidence you could produce for creation which only goes to show me how unlikely you are to produce a scientific theory.
In science you have the theory and bring the evidence. Remember, the burden of proof is on the exponent of the theory.
And also remember disproving evolution doesn't prove creation and certainly proves nothing about which of the many candidates for creator it may or may not be.

I do accept that origin of species was 'accepted' as a theory on limited evidence at the time. Today is a very very different matter. It is the only evidence based explanation we have for life on earth. On a candidate list of one (serious evidence based explanations) it is the most probable.

The truth about science is that people get ideas and people see their potential long before proof is established.
Darwin did go out on a limb (NB: the only created limb you'll find here - ha ha).
But that doesn't undermine his point and it doesn't reveal science as a conspiracy or a lie.
People have spent their entire working lives looking for sub-atomic particles that they never find.
There is in that search a form of faith. But they don't claim that their faith proves they exist. Indeed that is why they continue to strive...to replace the shallow joy of faith with the full depth of knowledge.

I don't think you'll find that the nature of fossils is very 'hotly' contested by many with any credible evidence based counter argument.
Desperately denied is more the case.
There's an old joke about the mother who goes to see her son at the changing of the guard and complains that he was the only one marching in step...

This is advice to you and some of the posters here.
Don't get in to very specific arguments about gaps in the fossil record and how they may reflect on evolution if you aren't in concensus about what the the fossils even are.

And worse, the principle (why is it still a theory?) of evolution doesn't stand or fall on whether or not we have enough fossils for the evolution of the birds.

  • 336.
  • At 10:54 AM on 18 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Guthrie, Dan


Guthire

You failed to address the falsifiable test of ACM.

And you failed to address the anti-religious motives of many in the science community.

Those were my two main points.


Dan

I'm not challengeing anything about stars, exatcly the opposite. I'm saying it seems much more likely our science is correct about them because

1) They can be observed in action.
2) There is no ideological victory at stake over what they are made of.

I dont know how many times people have said dismissing evolution doesnt prove creation and it is absolutely correct. It is a given and redundant, I am not trying or capable of even advocating creationism.

I respect your honesty in accepting that evolution was accepted on ltd evidence and that it is still only "most probable". To me that shows serious integrity because very few people on this blog would admit that. In fact I dont think they ever have.

Believe me, I am not putting anything on.

It seems to me, a science novice, that evolution sneaked in under a low bar and then it was raised to skyscraper level for creationism so nobody now even has a chance of getting a peer reviewed paper published in the evolution dominated science community. Any thoughts?

I am not claiming that evolution is a conspiracy but I think my hyperlinks in 328 clearly demonstrate ideology can steer and edit science. I will take the silence from Guthrie and yourself as agreement - or do you think otherwise???

I just never saw anyone on this blog yet admit that some (not all) scientists clearly consciously and deliberately massage the facts to achieve a predetermined outcome in their research, in SOME cases.

I dont suggest for a second that scientists should suspend belief for faith, that would be ridiculous. I am just saying that they let a huge amount of arrogance show when they drive off the cliff of science into the mid-air of faith - and they dont realise they are dropping fast.

The only point this makes to me is gives me SOME concern for those that engage in this as to whether or not they are making equally grave but untested arrogant assumptions in any other area of their thinking; it certainly shows they are capable of it.

Dont all the assumptions made by creation scientists to uphold their worldview require equal and opposite untested assumptions by athiestic evolutionists?

This discussion has cooled down now and I feel it has become more real... interested in your thoughts...

will hang around a bit. I am interested to go to talk origins but for tow reasons - we have history already and know where we are coming from and time... would I start all over again and cover the same ground? Is that the scientists on this blog admitting they need better experts to defend their views to a science novice like me???

PB


  • 337.
  • At 02:16 PM on 18 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


was looking at the Behe Dover hearing.

It appears it was not really true to say ID was a religion, as was concluded.

What Behe said was that it required a religious outlook to interpret the data in favour of ID.

That is still a scientific method.

This goes back exatcly to what I surmised in post 277.

The court was prejudiced ever since origin of the species, it assumed God could not be involved, so ID was classed as a religion.

But nobody ever tried to through evolution out of court because it required an athiestic worldview and assumptions to interpret the data in favour of that conclusion.

Which court decides on which assumptions are correct?

BTW, it is also interesting that seperation of church and state played such a vital role in the trial.

The fact that this was such a central issue also suggests a seperate momentum to decide against anything that might have supported ID.

PB

  • 338.
  • At 03:29 PM on 18 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

But I did, PB.
I pointed out that there have been changes in the genome of some creatures, that have been observed to increase survival rates of said creatures. These changes frequently include the creation of novel structures, eg proteins, or changes in the cell wall that are novel for that creature. Hence, McIntoshs objection is utter *******.

Molecular biologist will probably be able to point you straight to a number of studies about knocking out certain genes in bacteria and other animals, and observing the results. I dont have anything like that handy, suffice to say, they knock McIntoshs conjectures into the bin.

Finally, McIntosh is the one claiming that free energy etc prohibit the formation of new information. Therefore it is actually his responsibility to do the test work.
For example, if I claimed that pb was living on Mars, nobody would believe me unless I produced photographs, videos, etc from Mars.
Same here. He is claiming something, but then saying it is up to us to prove him wrong. But why? Can you prove to us that you are not on Mars, pb?
(This is an example, I am not asking you to reveal personal information online)

As for the supposed anti-religious motives of the science community in general, what part of many evolutionists and other scientists are theists of one stripe or another do you not understand? There is no broad based anti-religious bias in the scientific community. There are scientists who think less of people with religious beliefs, just as I am sure these people think less of atheists. There are many more scientists who couldnt care less. For example, one of the dozen academics who wrote in support of TiS is actually a prof at my old university. I e-mailed a friend who had stayed on and done his PhD in the same department as said Prof, and he said that the prof's religious affiliations were known of (7th day adventist I believe) but nobody did or said anything, because such affiliations usually have little to do with the quality of science you can do.
Unless of course you try and make your results fit the preconcieved idea of a 6,000 year old earth.


pb- if you arent trying to advocate creationism, why do you use the same arguments as them?

yes, every scientific theory we know is is regarded as the most probably one. Those of us with a scientific education and who have worked with science usually take it for granted. The public though tend not to be so aware of this. We need better science education in this country.


"ont all the assumptions made by creation scientists to uphold their worldview require equal and opposite untested assumptions by athiestic evolutionists?"

No, they dont. As explained, plenty of theists find evolution compatible with their religion.

As for Dover, IIRC the ID pushers failed in their attempt to a large part because their motivation was religious. Testimony about one of the school board standing up and talk about how he wanted to get Jesus back into science classrooms did not go down well.

The Lemon test has several prongs, one of which is based upon the intent of the people involved in the case.

"What Behe said was that it required a religious outlook to interpret the data in favour of ID.

That is still a scientific method."


No, its not. Any model that requires you to change your religious outlook is not scientific. For example, were I to say that you had to be a Hindu in order to understand their cosmology, then that would not be scientific. Again, you should recall that a large number of scientists believe in a god of some kind.

What causes the problems is when someone takes a particular view as being absolutely correct. We see this with biblical literalists, who believe in a literal 7 day creation. This clashes fatally with the scientific evidence. Hence you get Creationists mangling the evidence to try and make it fit their world view.

Is there any part of science you disagree with, apart from evolution?


  • 339.
  • At 09:16 PM on 18 Jan 2007,
  • Dan Allen wrote:

PB,
Almost by definition, Behe pushes it too far to demand a certain outlook to interpret data in favour of ID.
That amounts to demanding bias.
The facts should speak for themselves.
No that isn't scientific method. Not at all.

He is by your description destroying all and every part of his own argument in a single sentence.
I could do no better than to say you need a certain outlook to find a certain answer in the data.
Game. Set. Match. Tournament.

Really.

There should be nothing more to say.

I'd give up on Behe if I were you. Everyone else (except for some list of people someone will cite) has...

Please don't judge all science by the aggresive youthful arrogance on these bloggers.
But do think about these things...

  • 340.
  • At 03:17 AM on 19 Jan 2007,
  • Orthodox Agnostic wrote:

"And you failed to address the anti-religious motives of many in the science community."

Well, I am sorry you got that impression. For me it's more of an a-religious stance, at least as far as science goes. You see, once a nontestable explanation is injected into the thinking, there is no way to proceed with the investigation. Any and all evidence can be "explained" by the catch-all entity, and so no discriminating choice can be supported.

Science does not seek to disprove God, in fact it is utterly unequipped to even approach the question. Hence, Gould's NonOverlapping Magisteria.

Two approaches come to mind, then.

(A) The universe really is 14BY old, the earth really is 4.6 BY old, and evolution is the best description available for how life came to be as it is, or

(B) An Intelligent Designer created the universe as a seamless sham in which the universe looks to be 14 BY old and the earth appears to be 4.6 BY old, and evolution is apparently the mechanism by which life came to be as it is.

(Yes, I realize that's a false dichotomy, but it's the only two stances I can imagine right now that reconcile the question.)

In either case, one goes about doing the same thing, scientifically speaking. The only difference is in (A) one is describing the physical world and in (B) one is describing the sham set up by the designer, secure in the belief that it's really a fiction. No big deal, professors of Shakespeare study the plays all the time, fully aware that they're dealing with a created reality. Study the world or study the fiction, one goes about it in the same ways and reaches the same conclusions. If the sham is perfect, how could one not?

In either case, evolution is the path to explore, as is the Big Bang, etc. Whether one believes it to be "true" or not is sort of irrelevant. It's simply all that's available.

One thing the follower of (B) should not do, however, is attempt to catch the Designer in a slip-up. That'd be a pretty faithless act, for how could such a Creator possibly make an error that mere humans could find?

I hope this helps.

Regards,
--Tom

  • 341.
  • At 01:34 PM on 19 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Guthrie, Dan , OA

Guthrie
Those changes are not the creation of new species and are well withint the creationist worldview of natural variation.

Thats a bit of a cop out for ACM's test. Tell me you would not love to be the one to knock him of his perch with this demonstration - if you could do it!

I am not saying the majority of scientists are anti-faith, just that there is obviously a very loud and belligerant group who definitely are. I imagine many more could be on the quietly hostile part of the spectrum???

I do believe in creationism as a theological viewpoint (I am bible student first and foremost), I cannot advocate it on a scientific basis as I have so little science and do not as a rule try to convince people into it.

The fact that many Christians believe in evolution does not for a second even slightly disprove my argument that athiestic evolutionists have equal and opposite assumptions to creationists. Theistic evolutionists merely adopt the same assumptions in this area as evolutionists. eg "There are no assumptions in evolution that required the belief in God, or this theory assumes God is not involved in this process."

Nothing you have said about Dover directly challenges what I have already said.

In factm I thought about this overnight; The currently agressively secular stance of the state in the US meant the case was effectively biased before it opened; "We cannot discuss or accept the existence of God in the court of classroom and any theory proposing this, we are bound to reject, whether or not there is evidence to support it" ie seperation of church and state.

Surely, the hindus and others would not get the chance to make a serious case for the same reason? And as evolution is only a theory you must allow for the remote possibility that creationism might be correct. Otherwise it would be YOU holding the absolute position.

In other words, from your words it appears you must allow for the remote possibility that God exists and creationism is correct, but that neither have been proven scientifically. If we accept for a second that it was actually correct and proven at the Dover trial, the court would still be obliged to throw it out as it would contravene the seperation of church and state.

So the trial was rigged before it began????

Asking me if there is any part of science I disgree with is asking me if there are any spades I disagree with. They are all morally neutral tools and their moral value depends on that of those handling them.

Dan

I really know very little about Behe and dont hold him as "one of ours right or wrong".

I appreciate your apology on behalf of your profession but if you read the above you will see I have no quarrel with science. There is good and bad in every profession.
In the same way I have no quarrel with drivers, only nasty and dishonest ones.

Admittedly I cant comment on every detail of Dover and the quality of the detail of Behe's argument.

But the way I imagine the evidence is like one of those pictures with two images; at first glance it appears to be a man with a moustache, but if you look at it again it is also a naked woman.

ie evolution has "evidence" of geological strata and eras, apparent similaries between species with concur with the theory that one developed from another.

Creationism says, as I understand, that there are such enourmoous gaps in the fossil record as to make the above thesis highly tenous and no evidence that one species ever turned into another; there is no solid evidence of any existing transitional species; no witnesses to evolution etc.

Take assumption no 1, like the Dover judge and court, and you will see the man with the moustache.

Take assumption no 2, like a creationist, and you will see a naked woman (naughty Christians!).

So as far as I can see both have scientific grounds, depending on the assumptions you make. Come on, you have never seen two ordinary scientists draw totally opposite conclusions from the same data?


OA
Isnt your assumption that God is not involved also untestable?

You say evolution is apparently the mechanisn by which life came into being, but nobody as yet come into a serious suggestion as to how life created itself from a pool of mud.

You also suggest the designer created the world a sham to look xyz billion years old. Two problems;

1) An ancient earth does not prove or disprove evolution or creationism. You can believe in an ancient earth and creationism.

2) There are many very well qualified people able to offer other logical interpretations of the data ref the age of the earth, listed in hyperlinlks above (ie phds and profs in all disciplines) but it appears to me that the evolutionary prejudice is so strong that very few people are willing to give this a serious look.

Who lit the match for the big bang?

Appreciate the calm minds and serious discussion.

PB



  • 342.
  • At 02:19 PM on 19 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

one example of this might be... not sure of it in detail... please dont nail me I know it is not a watertight example but here goes...

much research has found chemical imbalances in the brains of schizophrenics which has led many to conclude that the problem is chemcial imbalance. There are many papers on this apparently.

But I believe there may also be a minority view that the correlation does not prove causation. ie the imbalance could be a sympton and not the cause.

The only point I am tenously putting forward is that top quality research may totally miss the real point at times...

this is following on from the tatchell hyperlin above that found serious problems with that research...

pb


  • 343.
  • At 02:30 PM on 19 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


can proper scientists come to apparently widely diverging conclusions about the same subject?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm

PB

  • 344.
  • At 04:43 PM on 19 Jan 2007,
  • Orthodox Agnostic wrote:

Hi, PB. Thanks for the good questions and points.

"Isn't your assumption that God is not involved also untestable?"

Um, yeah. That's sort of the point. Science hasn't the tools to address that, nor does assumption of a deity lead to any forward progress. In fact, allowing a deity into the description shuts down further inquiry. If God's going to mess with us we might as well give up the whole endeavor. Remember what I said last month about Kierkegaard?

"You say evolution is apparently the mechanisn by which life came into being, but nobody as yet come into a serious suggestion as to how life created itself from a pool of mud."

Actually, evolution does not address how life first came to be, just how it proceeded once it did. But anyway...

Okay, confession: I am one of those mavericks who favors the notion that life began subterraneously as anaerobes. Self assembly of chemical systems is my field, you see, and I see an awful lot of mineral templates that could account for protolife to adopt, as well as the energetic requirements for life to get started. c.f. archaons.

"You also suggest the designer created the world a sham to look xyz billion years old. Two problems;

1) An ancient earth does not prove or disprove evolution or creationism. You can believe in an ancient earth and creationism."

Yup. But you'd still have all the evidence amassed pointing to evolution, and have to conclude that *that* is the sham, and go on about your business studying it. William of Occam raises his finely honed razor...

"2) There are many very well qualified people able to offer other logical interpretations of the data ref the age of the earth, listed in hyperlinlks above (ie phds and profs in all disciplines) but it appears to me that the evolutionary prejudice is so strong that very few people are willing to give this a serious look."

It has, in fact, been looked at seriously. Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the earth based upon the earth's temperature and (notoriously) came up with a figure way too small to feel comfortable with. He wasn't aware of radioactivity, you see.

Oh, and that someone holds a PhD does not make them right. Be careful with credentialism; it'll bite you.

"Who lit the match for the big bang?"

We can't say. Nor can we even conclude that someone did. There's no violation of any physical law for the Big Bang: The sum total energy of the universe is zero, according to our current theories, and the Big Bang was, from our perspective, a singularity. There is an interesting conjecture called foam theory which suggests that there may be many, many such "bubbles" of reality, of which our universe is only one. At this point the Anthropic Principle kicks in. We cannot conclude *anything* (including probabilities about the question) about the "special" nature of our universe, for were it not as it is ( and may not be in those other bubbles) we would not be here to discuss it.

There are a lot of open questions still about. We know far less about the world that we don't know. That doesn't render science a worthless endeavor, it just limits what we can say about the world. The only way to proceed honestly is to acknowledge the limits of what science can address, and not drag in unprovables to fill the gaps.

Thanks again for the responses.
--Tom

  • 345.
  • At 10:29 PM on 19 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Said I wouldn't be back buit out of curiousity...I saw this...

"Surely, the hindus and others would not get the chance to make a serious case for the same reason? And as evolution is only a theory you must allow for the remote possibility that creationism might be correct. Otherwise it would be YOU holding the absolute position."

I can't believe that you used the "only a theory..." canard, in all these discussions has nothing sunk in about what a scientific theory actually is? It's and explanation. In the case of evolution, the theory of natural selection explains the fact of evolution.

See http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm
Btw re: the Hindus, their "science" is also based on a creation myth.

Oh please Dover! that was the trial that Dremski and other leading Iders yapped about having for years then what did they do...yep they cleared off and left poor Behe to make himself look like an idiot. Behe admitted under oath that for ID to be admitted as evidence you would also have to include "astrology" and "witchcraft"!!!!!!!-for goodness sake!

"there is no solid evidence of any existing transitional species; no witnesses to evolution etc."

Oh yes there is! and people did take great trouble posting up links, but you ignored them. As has been pointed out to you before evolution has been obeserved 1000's of times in te lab and in the natural world-even creationists admit it! they call it "micro"-evolution.

Biblical creationism is NOT science, does not even come close, it is mumbo-jumbo nonsense dressed up in pious nonsense. As has been pointed out to you on many occasions if biblical creationists "evidence" was so strong then it would be accepted across the board, but it ain't only fundamenatalist bible thumpers accept it and lets face it when do they EVER get anything right! As you know intelliegent Christians have no problem with evolution.

"Who lit the match for the big bang?"

Ok, your goddidit! right lets stop free enquiry, close down universities etc and go back to the dark ages, those naughthy people how dare they ask questions...

I did post a link to a dedicated talk forum PB to move away from this messy format, my conclusion is that you are just another creationist troll.

Got that off my chest, now I am outta here.

  • 346.
  • At 06:26 AM on 20 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Tom, DD

Tom

You are a rare find, an evolutionist who knows what they are talking about and doesnt lose their temper.

Coming back to the God thing, I would be interested to hear your thoughts at more lenght about the image with two interpretations.

I am fascinated by this impression I get that no court, and perhaps therefore no science as currently designated, can ever accept creationism because God cannot be measured.

It appears ID was trying to get around this by leaving out God.

A big problem in this is that science seems to assume that supernatural events fo not exist and cannot happen.
But that is at odds with a great deal of human experience.

I have seem accounts of scientists trying to account for such events and just walking out.

This seems to point to serious and real limitations on science that it would be better to admit and pose as a problem to be solved logically rather than one that does not exist or is not relevant to science.

This could then leave the door open to God not being a dirty word in a legal court trying to decide what is science and what is not.

The bible is a valuable and accurate guide to history and just because its creation story does not measure up to much of modern science does not mean it is wrong. Science has achieved such somersaults before.

And ref phds, of course they dont make anyone right, but they are credentials that many evolutionists openly detest and choke on when held by creationists.

They are certainly more significant than not, especially when the holder is able to give explanations that add up to a logical worldview, albeit very different from yours.

DO you believe supernatural events do happen and how do you account for this with your scientific worldview?


PB


DD

Look, dont take out your rage on me, it doesnt say much about your character or humility.

If you read the past few posts there have been a number of evolutionists, including GW, admitting that evolution is just a theory, albeit the most probable one to explain our origins. So why are you attacking me alone???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

A most probable theory must ncessarily allow for the remote possibility that it is not correct. What part of english dont you get?

If you cant be civil just dont come back.

You have some serious issues to deal with.

You constantly set up straw man arguments to knock me down. I never ask you to keep coming back here. In fact I invited anyone frustrated by my questions not to get involved several times.

Where did I ever hint that all universites should be shut down???

On the contrary I have said numerous times I have every respect for science but not every respect for every scientist. So who is the troll now?

You have failed to try and understand my new points about Behe and repeatedly trot out all your old points - YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.

And you repeatedly raise the point about why no jews, hindus or muslims dont believe in biblical creationism and never take in the nuances.

AIG is a website only for Christians but more importantly...

There are many people of many faiths who are very sceptical about evolution and that is exactly the point I am making here.

It struck me yesterday that perhaps the majority of scientists not in the western world may not believe in evolution as they more usually have a different worldview, for example.


For the 30th time, I am not advocating creationism as I am not capable of it, but I am testing evolution and expanding my understanding. Keep up or leave.

In response to your invitation to join talk origins I replied that I thought I would be starting all over again to go there. I also asked if you felt you were out of your depth to redirect me.
And finally, would you define yoursefl as a troll if you refused to join a creationist discussion group if I provided you with a link?

Or are you too closed minded?

BTW, do you believe that supernatural events do happen or not?

PB

  • 347.
  • At 12:22 PM on 20 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB
It does not say much about your character or humility that you should repeat the same old creationist canards and then ask for special pleading.

They say it is a theory NOT "just a theory", there is a big difference!

If you actually look at what they said is that the theory of natural selection is the best explanation that we have at the moment.So you have put a different spin on what they said got that??????(does putting lots of ? make some sort of point??) Of course there is the remote possibility that it may not be correct but the theory that replaces it must be testable, falsefiable and backed up evidence. Personally I would accept this however at this time natural selection is the best expanation that we have and is backed up by insurmountable evidence that is freely, easily and publically available. So what part of that do you not get?

If you cannot grasp the most simplest of criteria then don't come back, you do have some serious issues to address PB.

What strawman arguments?

Never said that YOU wanted to shut uni's down however if we were to accept creationist dogma then we may as well shut uni's down as there would be no questioning as the conclusion would already have been reached.

You are a troll because you ask typical creationist questions, get answers/links say you can't access them/understand them and go back to square one again, typical trolling behaviour.

I did listen to what you said about Behe and I did read the trial transcript so don't know what you are talking about(you don't need to shout I can hear you!).

"And you repeatedly raise the point about why no jews, hindus or muslims dont believe in biblical creationism and never take in the nuances.

AIG is a website only for Christians but more importantly...

There are many people of many faiths who are very sceptical about evolution and that is exactly the point I am making here. "

Again you fail to take in the very the simple concept that if the evidence for biblical creationism was objective, verifiable, credible and peer-reviewed then there would be Hindu biblical creationists, atheist, Sikh etc etc ad nauseum but there isn't. Creationists do not even represent Christianity, from what I can see it is the fundamenatlist fringes and when do they ever get anything right! Yes there are Hindu creationists who are skeptical about evolution BUT they are not biblical creationists in both cases it is their extreme faith that drives then not evidence, logic or reason and certainly not science.

"It struck me yesterday that perhaps the majority of scientists not in the western world may not believe in evolution as they more usually have a different worldview, for example."

Could you back this up with evidence? and so what if they do...

"For the 30th time, I am not advocating creationism as I am not capable of it, but I am testing evolution and expanding my understanding. Keep up or leave."

Yet you repeated again that evolution has never been observed, I(and others) pointed out to you on many occasions that evolution HAS been observed 1000's of times in the lab and in the natural world. Again even creationists acknowledge that evolution is a fact-they call it "micro" evolution. Now this has been pointed out to you umpteen times, and you blanked it and repeated the same line- Very troll like behaviour.

When I did believe that you were sincere I felt that the dedicated discusion group would be best if you were genuinely interested in asking questions, I and others have pointed out that this blog format is a pain as posts dissapear or and earlier post appears after a later one and it takes agggeeesss to load even with a supposedly fast broadband connection and it is a pain to keep up with discusions as some of us have a life. So I directed you to a dedicated discussion format in which scientists (and there are even a few creationists) would answer your questions. If you had went on and were sincere about your questions I would have backed you up, but you prefer to go with this annoying format-you must admit it is an annoying for long discussions? can we agree on something?).

PB since you will not/refuse join a dedicated discussion group why not go to the BBC Messageboards Christian topic http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/

There you will find other creatinists, scientists, intelligent Christians and interested parties all in a fun discussion! So why not come over? It's quick and as I said usually good fun!

"And finally, would you define yoursefl as a troll if you refused to join a creationist discussion group if I provided you with a link?

Or are you too closed minded?"

But I have been on creationist discussion groups!

Now to be accussed of being closed minded by a creationist-that is something!! No I am close-minded, rather I am open-minded but not so open that my brain falls out!

"BTW, do you believe that supernatural events do happen or not?"

No, I think that Hume answered that question over 200 years ago. But I am open-minded and would love to see some evidence that is objective, credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed that would back a supernatural claim up, then I would change my mind-honestly!

DD

ps. I will pop back later on today to see if you have replied, busy today what with the footie and what-not but please consider the offer re: the BBC mb's, it is the Christian topic after all!


  • 348.
  • At 08:30 PM on 20 Jan 2007,
  • Orthodox Agnostic wrote:

Good morning, PB!

"You are a rare find, an evolutionist who knows what they are talking about and doesnt lose their temper."

In my experience, that's true of most "evolutionists". I'm notable only in that I find it fun to talk about it. Thus, it's the small minority who do care enough to lose their temper that are most visible. But thank you, that was a kind thing to say. You're quite civil as well, when shown basic respect.

"Coming back to the God thing, I would be interested to hear your thoughts at more length about the image with two interpretations."

I'm not sure what to add. The point I've been trying to make from several approaches is that God is not forbidden in science (there are plenty of theist scientists.) He is, however, utterly irrelevant and therefore not accepted as part of the scientific discussion. As the-most-beautiful-woman-in-the-world just said while looking over my shoulder, "One doesn't teach Shakespeare using geometry, or _vice versa_."

An analogy might help. Suppose Euler was presenting his famous proof that there can exist no greatest prime number. Pythagoras raises his voice and objects: "You've not considered the fractional numbers! Heck, you've not even considered the far more plentiful irrationals! Your proof is a sham."

Euler: "It should be clear, sir, that I was discussing the integers. For that matter, the notion of a 'prime fraction' or even a 'prime irrational number' is utterly undefined, adds nothing to the conversation, and makes me wonder whether you should be welcome at the convention. Start making sense, or pipe down, please." (Note, Euler is getting frustrated at this point and his temper is wearing thin."

Pythagoras: "Close minded denialist! Why are you so arrogant to exclude fractions! Why do you assume no irrational prime numbers exist? Are you going to allow the other side equal time?"

Euler, sotto voce: "No."

Pythagoras: "Well, we'll just see about that! We'll teach it in the elementary schools that irrational prime numbers are not being given due consideration. Teach the controversy!"

Now, admittedly, Euler comes across as pretty arrogant and dismissive. But he's really quite flummoxed by this ludicrous challenge. That's sort of what brought me by this site; I'd heard that a professor of thermodynamics made a pretty outrageous statement about the Second Law, and I was rather aghast at his attempt to spread disinformation. On this I am as certain (and, I suppose, as arrogant and dismissive) as Euler. Professor McIntosh is blazingly, stunningly wrong. What got my dander up about it is that he should know far better; either he's self-deluded, incompetent, or simply dishonest. I don't see any other options. (Certainly "right" isn't one of them!)

"I am fascinated by this impression I get that no court, and perhaps therefore no science as currently designated, can ever accept creationism because God cannot be measured."

As I mentioned above, God is not excluded so much as irrelevant in science and the science classroom.

"It appears ID was trying to get around this by leaving out God."

A disingenuous attempt. Have a look at the "Wedge Document" from the Discovery Institute. ID is undeniably stealth creationism.

"A big problem in this is that science seems to assume that supernatural events do not exist and cannot happen.
But that is at odds with a great deal of human experience."

Not necessarily impossible; just irrelevant to science. If you could measure a ghost, it would be welcome in science. If, on the other hand, it's inaccessible (and no, scripture doesn't render it "accessible"), leave it out. ("Strop, strop, strop" goes Occam's razor...)

"I have seem accounts of scientists trying to account for such events and just walking out."

Yup. Might be fun to look at, but once it becomes clear that it's undemonstrable one has to just shrug and dismiss it. As a scientist, that is, of course.

[_deletia_]

"The bible is a valuable and accurate guide to history..."

("Objection!" "Noted!")

"...and just because its creation story does not measure up to much of modern science does not mean it is wrong. Science has achieved such somersaults before."

I'm going to go with the evidence. Sorry.

[_deletia_]

"Do you believe supernatural events do happen and how do you account for this with your scientific worldview?"

Personally, no I do not. I've been tricked enough times that I remain skeptical.

And, I'm quite content to accept that some things may be beyond my understanding. There are most likely hidden variables I'm not seeing.

And yes, that is a statement of faith rather than a testable hypothesis. Folks around here call it "horse sense."

Regards,
--Tom

  • 349.
  • At 07:04 PM on 21 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD, OA

My thoughts from the weekend...

Science cannot test the existence of God so he must be left out of theory and research.

This is understandable and it would seem it cannot be any other way for the moment for science to retain a stable footing.

But that is not to say that science can say that anything it cannot measure is not real. It would seem science would retain more integrity to say there are questions it really cannot begin to tackle as yet, for example, what happens to human personality and consciousness after death? And do rational scientists believe in God, even if their identity is not in their faith?

If either of you have any belief in "God" then you would have to concede he may be and may have influenced reality or else you are not really talking about "God".

But if evolution is at present "the most probable theory" to explain human origins then we must logically concede two points;-

1) Science should confess there are questions and issues it cannot begin to examine at present, so it cannot be ruled out that methods of scientifically proving God will be found.

2) At present the term "the most probable theory" necessarily allows a mathematical possibility that evolution is wrong.

If point one is solved then the remote possibility of creationism being the "most probable theory" radically change.

Finally and on a different footing, if we stand back and look at ourselves, in a moment of normal living room common sense, are all the scientists on this blog fighting creationism REALLY saying that they REALLY believe that they evolved purely by random chance and that there is no purpose above the biological for them being here?

I think that is an ENOURMOUS leap of faith in itself. Huge. Think about it.


Or, as I suspect, do many of them actually believe in God, albeit even in agnostic terms, call on him in private in times of crisis and believe deep down that he is their maker.

But perhaps these same scientists find their ire kindled by "Christians" in their personal lives whose personal behaviour leaved a lot to be desired. Or perhaps they feel provoked by religious statements and concepts from creationists which appear totally ridiculous in laboratory terms?

If these secular people in their quiet moments do suspect/believe that God created them (even if they believe that is by evolution) then perhaps we are not as far apart as all the heat and light above suggests.

Remember, I am on record numerous times as saying I have no problem accepting any Christians who believe in evolution, even though I am sceptical about it myself on rational and theological grounds.

Perhaps apparently opposing people from faith and science camps can yet learn something from each other's views without either surrendering integrity, conviction or truth?

DD

Look can we get one thing straight I accept it is a valid question - why do hindus etc not believe in biblical creationism. I do think it is a valid if not complete answer to say this group of people may have become Christians.

You are missing a very important point but; my discussion is about scepticism of evolution and in that I have much in common with creationist hindus, muslims etc in that people from many religions are sceptical of evolution. Can you see any significance in that?

You can just insult away at me (as a troll) but if you notice OA and I are having quite a civil conversation despite different viewpoints.

In my experience people making cynical accusations are often drawing on assumptions their own hearts are swimming with. (Have you/do you ever Troll DD?) I hope not in this instance.

I have no hidden motive here and I think you must confess no audience to play to at this stage of the discussion. I am here for what I say I am.

And can we just settle this once and for all, I am not going to accept petri dish experiments as proof that one species can morph into another, or that you and I are hear by pure mathemitcal chance.


Tom,

I think if you look again McIntosh did not make any statements attacking TSLOT, his statement was attacking evolution and using TSLOT to do so.

But I think Dawkins et al have successfully brought a whole new category of ire down on McIntosh by preseting it in the terms you describe.

Sorry my response was not up to the detail of yours Tom.

Hopefully will look in again Tuesday

best
PB


  • 350.
  • At 09:15 PM on 21 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"But if evolution is at present "the most probable theory" to explain human origins then we must logically concede two points;-

1) Science should confess there are questions and issues it cannot begin to examine at present, so it cannot be ruled out that methods of scientifically proving God will be found.

But science does "confess" that there are things that cannot be answered at present. Maybe the methods of proving god/s/the tooth fairy etc etc will be found.

2) At present the term "the most probable theory" necessarily allows a mathematical possibility that evolution is wrong.

Yes, I agree 100%

If point one is solved then the remote possibility of creationism being the "most probable theory" radically change.

No! you are using the either/or fallacy ie., if evolution is wrong then creationism is right. Thats not how it works. Evolution is only a tiny part of science, paleontolgy, physics, geology etc all show biblical creationism to be wrong.
Biblical creationism puts the cart before the horse.

"Finally and on a different footing, if we stand back and look at ourselves, in a moment of normal living room common sense, are all the scientists on this blog fighting creationism REALLY saying that they REALLY believe that they evolved purely by random chance and that there is no purpose above the biological for them being here?

I think that is an ENOURMOUS leap of faith in itself. Huge. Think about it."

Well it's not random, it's called natural selection. Personally I believe that my life has great purpose and fulfilling but I do not feel the need to believe in a higher being to fill my life or not to make me moral.

"Look can we get one thing straight I accept it is a valid question - why do hindus etc not believe in biblical creationism. I do think it is a valid if not complete answer to say this group of people may have become Christians."

Sorry can't make any sense of that.

"You are missing a very important point but; my discussion is about scepticism of evolution and in that I have much in common with creationist hindus, muslims etc in that people from many religions are sceptical of evolution. Can you see any significance in that?"

Yes, because it is their religion that drives them. I would not let your creationist buddies know that you have something in common with Hindu creationists because a helluva lot of Christian fundamentalists view Hindu's as Satan worshippers and damned to hell(search the web) and both positions are entirely mutually exclusive.

You keep missing the important point that if the evidence for biblical creationism was objective, credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed then it would be accepted across the board but it ain't, it's the fundamentalists. Hence the reason why there are no Hindu Biblical creationists-they are mutually exclusive positions. It is a position built on extreme faith and history has shown that extreme faith is not a good thing!

"You can just insult away at me (as a troll) but if you notice OA and I are having quite a civil conversation despite different viewpoints."

Give OA a bit of time! you did annoy a lot of posters here!I would advise OA to look over the previous posts on this thread and others concerning evolution.

"In my experience people making cynical accusations are often drawing on assumptions their own hearts are swimming with. (Have you/do you ever Troll DD?) I hope not in this instance."

Not cynical but based on the evidence put in front of me. Me! Troll! how very dare you!

"And can we just settle this once and for all, I am not going to accept petri dish experiments as proof that one species can morph into another, or that you and I are hear by pure mathemitcal chance."

Not THAT is troll like behaviour! PB what is the point in trying to speak to you if you are not going to accept evidence when it is presented to you!? You have repeated the falsehood that evolution has never been oberved several times, myself and others have pointed out on numerous occasions that evolution has been observed 1000's of times both in the natural world and in the lab-ever hear of MRSA, bird-flu, super-bugs etc etc? Thats evolution baby!!! The evidence for this is in the public domain and freely and easily available, so there really is no excuse for your willfull ignorance. As has been pointed out to you before evolution is not "chance" it's natural selection.

As I said what is the point in trying to speak to you when as you admit you will not accept the evidence!? there's no point! just keep burying your head deeper and deeper into the sand. That is depressing.

Thats several times now I have asked you to join other MB's-one was even Christian! but you do not seem interested.

Anyway have a good one

DD

ps. please stop using the "only a theory" line!

  • 351.
  • At 01:55 PM on 23 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


sorry, evolution is only a theory. Just had to get that out of the way.

Ok, the most probable theory.

I accept that evolution being proven wrong does not directly give more credence to creationism.

But in the bigger picture it means you would certainly be scratching around for an alternative to evolution.

How do you define troll behaviour? I dont give a flying fig if you rage because I dont believe in petri dish evolution. I havent seen this in encyclopaedia britannica; other bloggers here have given strong scienitific explanations as to why they dont believe it and I have no doubt that some scientists do carry out research with the ends already pretty much in mind; THEY are driven by their creeds also.


I have given examples of this in corrupt pharmaceutical research and in ideologiclly driven research on sexuality.


How many times have you asked and been asnwered about hundi, muslim biblcial creationists???

Isnt that troll behaviour by your standard?

If you want to understand why I am here see the latest threads on;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/01/norman_nevin_defends_truth_in_1.html


You have no right to bully and criticise me about where I determine to blog so long as it is within the rules of the blog.

I can just as well ask why do you keep coming back to me and asking the same question over and again when I have given all the answer I can to it???????????????


By the way, what authority do you use in defining what purpose your life has?

later

PB

  • 352.
  • At 08:38 PM on 23 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Umm, by definition scientists try and do research with the ends in mind. However, they do so to test stuff. Think of the experiments proving Einsteinian relativity, or the peppered moth experiments. They set out to test a hypothesis, i.e. they carried out actions with a definite end in mind.

The important difference is testing.

Unfortunately, due to the difficulties you have in separating what some individuals do from what tens and hundredds of thousands of others are engaged in, I doubt your fair mindedness.

I got most of the way through a post on the other thread but managed to press teh wrong button and lost it.

Authority for defining the purpose of my life? Why do I need an authority for that?

  • 353.
  • At 10:42 PM on 23 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

"sorry, evolution is only a theory. Just had to get that out of the way."

Now thats just being silly!

"Ok, the most probable theory."

Good!

"I accept that evolution being proven wrong does not directly give more credence to creationism."

Correct, creationism has no credence.

"But in the bigger picture it means you would certainly be scratching around for an alternative to evolution."

As long as the evidence is objecive, credible and verifiable I would be delighted.

"How do you define troll behaviour? I dont give a flying fig if you rage because I dont believe in petri dish evolution. I havent seen this in encyclopaedia britannica; other bloggers here have given strong scienitific explanations as to why they dont believe it and I have no doubt that some scientists do carry out research with the ends already pretty much in mind; THEY are driven by their creeds also."

Errrr well troll like behavior would be someone repeatedly claiming to be sincere and genuine but then say that you are not going to accept evidence(that is not hidden away in scientific journals but in the news practically every day, and been obeserved 1000's upon 1000's of times-ironically it is even accepted by creationists! ie., "micro" evolution-it's still evolution.) By other bloggers showing "scietific" credentials I assume you are referring to AIG!!!??? Just dig your head in the sand, as I said what is the point in trying to debate you. Ahhh evolution is a creed now...those old creationist canards are coming thick and fast!

"How many times have you asked and been asnwered about hundi, muslim biblcial creationists???

Isnt that troll behaviour by your standard?"

No, just that you fail to grasp the concept that their evidence (ie., creationists) is not objective, credible or verifiable and that it is their extreme faith that drives them not reason. Also that it is impossible to be a Hindu and biblical creationist-totally mutually incompatable.

Have looked at the other thread.

"You have no right to bully and criticise me about where I determine to blog so long as it is within the rules of the blog.

I can just as well ask why do you keep coming back to me and asking the same question over and again when I have given all the answer I can to it???????????????"

Whooaaaa! I was not bullying or criticising you! It was a sincere attempt to ask you to join other sites that are more "user" friendly. This takes ages to load and is a pain-for long discussions. For goodness sake I even offered a Christian site! You do whatever you want I am NOT telling you what to do, they were just suggestions-I think you are the one with rage issues!
I have answered the second part above.

Seriously settle petal! if you want to carry on here...fine, none of my business, I was actually just trying to help you! well here we go back to wasting time waiting for this damned page to load-yawn!

I have answered the second part above re: Hindu's etc

"By the way, what authority do you use in defining what purpose your life has?"

I don't because I don't need one and I am doing fine, thank you very much.

DD

  • 354.
  • At 01:54 PM on 24 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

Wrong conclusion, sloppy methodology; I never said creationism had no credibility as you did, I said evolution being proven wrong would not directly make creationism more credible. Big difference.

I think you are unfairly labelling me a troll; can you show me any evidence for evolution which I have not countered in a logical manner and/or which much better qualified people than you in that specific field offer another logical view? I dont accept anyone has done this AT ALL and hereby reject all your troll accusations.


I am not so convinced about your trolling though... but happy to drop it there.


Gutrhie

There is a big difference between testing an hypothesis and ignoring the whole truth on a subject.

eg Michael Hull, a electro chemist phd on this blog and an evolutionist relates a story about how a friend of his shied away from what he thought would be a research field which would be beneficial to treat cancer because of career and funding considerations. Instead he researched a similar field which he did not believe would yield the same health benefits.


I see your point that I may be unfairly stereotyping most scienists by the actions of a few.

But for me on this blog it is a massive step of progress just for an evolutionist to acknowledge that some scientists distort their science for personal reasons.

I get the impression that very few would ever come to the creationist viewpoint with an open mind; science trains them for years to dismiss God in these matters. How can they approach it unbiased?

Out of all the people who have discussed these here you seem one of the very few reasonable ones. Most of them seem quite vitriolic and obviously do not come to the subject with an open mind.

I dont doubt your integrity but could you really come to the creationist evidence afresh imagining that it was acceptable to scientifically acknowledge that God exists?

From my understanding, if you can, this would have given Behe a good chance of having his ID theory accepted at Dover.


Guthrie and DD, why does it matter what authority you use to define your purpose in life?

Because as scientists I thought it would be interesting to understand your views; it is obviously something we believe with our hearts primarily, not our heads.

Ultimately, what real purpose and meaning to our lives can there be without God?

In my understanding, purpose necessarily means a part in a larger plan, which requires a divine player.

If you have purpose derived from a divine player, that requires belief in a deity, which begins to make a case for Behe's ID, outside current scientific method limitations of course.

If you believe you have purpose aside from God, then who or what is defining that purpose?

PB


  • 355.
  • At 02:18 AM on 25 Jan 2007,
  • Orthodox Agnostic wrote:

Greetings PB:

It would appear our conversation is winding down, so I thank you in advance for what has been an interesting discussion. A few points:

"1) Science should confess there are questions and issues it cannot begin to examine at present, so it cannot be ruled out that methods of scientifically proving God will be found."

I agree with the premise entirely, but I fail to see how one reaches the conclusion. Yes, it is remotely possible that someone may come up with a clever idea to get around the omnipotence problem, but for now it seems pretty unassailable. To wit: Once one claims omnipotence of a deity, there is nothing more that can logically be said about it. Take existence, for example. An omnipotent deity could surely both exist and not-exist simultaneously, no? That it makes no sense from a human understanding of logic is precisely the point; an omnipotent deity would not be bound by human logic.

"2) At present the term "the most probable theory" necessarily allows a mathematical possibility that evolution is wrong."

Agreed. And this has happened repeatedly. The theory of evolution was quite radically revised by SJ Gould and Niles Eldritch with their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

"...are all the scientists on this blog fighting creationism REALLY saying that they REALLY believe that they evolved purely by random chance and that there is no purpose above the biological for them being here?"

Hmm. You've no doubt already heard from a few folks complaining that evolution is NOT a series of concatenated random events' Natural Selection intrudes. Yet folks don't often explain that point very well. Allow me to expand a bit:

Saying that evolution is wildly improbable given the random events which comprise it is like saying forest fires are statistically impossible since it is absurd to believe that hundreds of thousands of trees all burst into flames spontaneously at the same time and place. No, the first event may have been "random" (spontaneous combustion of a pile of pine needles, a lightning strike, what-have-you...), but after that one tree sets fire to its neighbor, etc, etc.

Natural selection is a selection rule. To illustrate how powerful such a simple rule can be: suppose one were to flip fifty coins every second, waiting for a configuration of all-heads to arise. One would have to continue for about 18 million years for the likelihood of seeing the all-heads configuration to reach 50%.

Now add a rule: at each flip, leave one of the coins that came up heads alone for the rest of the experiment, and flip only the rest from then on. You'll be done in a few minutes.

Before someone objects that inclusion of such a rule is an infusion of information or intelligence, it need not be (in the case of Natural Selection.) The selection rule is this: childlessness is hereditary. If your parents had no children, then neither will you. One scarcely needs a deity to impose such an obvious "rule."

"I think if you look again McIntosh did not make any statements attacking TSLOT, his statement was attacking evolution and using TSLOT to do so."

Correct. He did not attack the Second Law. He merely misused it in a particularly egregious fashion.

Regards,
--Tom

P.S.-- As for my purpose in being here: the space I occupy would be a sudden hard vacuum, which would collapse violently, breaking windows and eardrums, were I not present to hold it open.

Seriously, I have no idea whether I have a purpose or not. I simply strive to lead a decent meaningful existence.

  • 356.
  • At 09:30 AM on 25 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

I am glad to see that you have settled down and that you are anwering your posts in a calm manner.

"Wrong conclusion, sloppy methodology; I never said creationism had no credibility as you did, I said evolution being proven wrong would not directly make creationism more credible. Big difference."

I was being a tad sarcastic PB, apologies if that did not come across.

It's simply because you say that evolution has never been observed when it plainly has! the evidence is in 1000's of peer-reviewed articles, can be observed in the natural world and is in the news (practically) every day. Yet you say that you "will not accept the evidence"-as I have said before what is the point in speaking to you? Many other people provide evidence for this with links etc so I don't know who you are referring to.

"Ultimately, what real purpose and meaning to our lives can there be without God?"

Plenty! I and millions of others get along very well, thank you very much!

"In my understanding, purpose necessarily means a part in a larger plan, which requires a divine player."

To your understanding yes, ditto above answer.

"If you have purpose derived from a divine player, that requires belief in a deity, which begins to make a case for Behe's ID, outside current scientific method limitations of course."

The problem with that is that it is was Ken Miller, a scientist who is also a Christian, who showed Behe to be wrong. Behe has admitted for his definition of science to be true you would also have to include astrolgy and withchcraft-meaning that univerities would resemble Hogwarts!

"If you believe you have purpose aside from God, then who or what is defining that purpose?"

Me and I would ditto Guthries answer.

PB

Is there the slighest possiblity that you might be wrong?

I.e., would you accept that natural selection is correct

Would you accept that there is the chance that another god (say Vishnu or Buddha) may be the true god.

Would you accept by the remotest possiblity that your god does not exist. And how would your life change?

  • 357.
  • At 01:48 PM on 25 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

Yes of course there is every possibility I am wrong. I have faith in Christ you have faith in... science and yourself.

Science does not even begin to offer any solution to the life after death problem. Faith does. Let us make our beds and lie in them.

"1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for."


There has been much legal and historic examination of the evidence for the resurrection of Christ - have you ever looked at any of it?

By the way, have you noticed the significantly more humble scientific approach of Guthrie ref evolution?

I think you are trolling when you continually raise the witchcraft and astrology point.

I have repeatedly raised the point (correct me if I am wrong) that creationism was not proven wrong at Dover. It was asserted it could not be considered scientifically because it required the assumption of the existence in God.

As I see it the relative merits with astrology and witchcraft were not actually examined.

And to come back to may orignal anger...you never actually answered the question;-

post 278 GW says evolution is "unproven" but with overhwleming evidence. Tom says it is the "most probable theory". Can you accept both these takes on evolution? Or are you just attacking me on sectarian grounds?

These sound quite shaky in comparison to your apparently absolute faith in it? Do you agree with them?

The grounds on which I came to faith - and most others i think - has nothing to do with creationism. I have never heard of someone coming to faith in this way personally.

To be honest I never doubt Christ of God's existence. The only thing I ever doubt is myself and my own faithfulness. That is my honest answer.

What would I do if they didnt exist? To be honest I find the faith provides guidlines for a stable society, a stable family life good personal character and financial management.

So I guess much would remain the same. Of course there would not be much point praying.

But at the end of my life what would I have missed out on?

PB

PS OA/Tom - run out of time, will come back tomorrow!

  • 358.
  • At 04:14 PM on 25 Jan 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

"Yes of course there is every possibility I am wrong. I have faith in Christ you have faith in... science and yourself."

Good for you PB!

"There has been much legal and historic examination of the evidence for the resurrection of Christ - have you ever looked at any of it?"

Yes I have and found it wanting. The same way I find apologists for Mormon's, Muslims etc wanting for evidence for their claims.

"By the way, have you noticed the significantly more humble scientific approach of Guthrie ref evolution?"

Good for him, I do find him an excellent poster.

"I think you are trolling when you continually raise the witchcraft and astrology point."

Not trolling, just going by the trial transcript.

"I have repeatedly raised the point (correct me if I am wrong) that creationism was not proven wrong at Dover. It was asserted it could not be considered scientifically because it required the assumption of the existence in God.

As I see it the relative merits with astrology and witchcraft were not actually examined."

No creationism was not "proved" to be wrong at Dover, it was shown to be wrong about 170 years ago(even before Darwin). Biblical creationism IS wrong! In any case I thought that Biblical creationism and ID were 2 seperate entities? well that is what they tell us anyway...

Behe had to admit underr oath for his version of ID to be considered as evidence then witchcraft and astrology would also have to be included! roll on Hogwarts!

"post 278 GW says evolution is "unproven" but with overhwleming evidence. Tom says it is the "most probable theory". Can you accept both these takes on evolution? Or are you just attacking me on sectarian grounds?

These sound quite shaky in comparison to your apparently absolute faith in it? Do you agree with them?"

Errrr I have already answered this and told you that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation we have so far but I would be willing to change my mind if a better explanation comes along-I did say this and no-where did I mention "absolute faith"-so I don't know where in hell you got that from.

And a resounding YES to both "takes" on evolution! Evolution by natural selection is unproved as a theory because you cannot prove a theory. Both writers that you mention both say in other words what I have said.

I think you are getting mixed up with the fact of evolution and the theory(explanation) of natural selction.

"To be honest I never doubt Christ of God's existence. The only thing I ever doubt is myself and my own faithfulness. That is my honest answer."

Good for you! but do you ever consider that your god may not be the true god, after all there are 1000's?

"What would I do if they didnt exist? To be honest I find the faith provides guidlines for a stable society, a stable family life good personal character and financial management."

Good for you! personally I find that it doesn't but whatever works for anyone...

"So I guess much would remain the same. Of course there would not be much point praying."

So besides praying there would not be much point?

All the best

DD

  • 359.
  • At 09:57 PM on 26 Jan 2007,
  • guthrie wrote:

Thanks Dylan, and pb.

I generally start off nice and polite, but if the poster is obtuse, braindead or trolling, I migh get vey agressive.

I have a somewhat less agressive approach to science generally. I apreciate we are talking about the most likely explanation, but I also appreciate that we are talking about the most likely explanation. Hence I keep badgering Creationists to provide evidence. When you have evidence you can have more fun.

Anyway, it is winding down, and very few expletives have been used, not to mention nobody storming off in a huff, which reflects well on all concerned.

  • 360.
  • At 07:28 PM on 28 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Just lost a posting that took ages to write!

Tom/OA/Guthrie

Run on ok, its been a good chat.
Why so many names?

If you are staying I would ask why you have such a shallow credo for the meaning in your life? what is it really?

On the bible as history, is there anything in particular you think that disproves this or is it just a perception?

DD

Would you rather live in a country with a Christian cultural foundation or an athieistic one?


Guthrie and GW both described evolution as "unproven" and "the most probable thery" but you describe it as "fact".

There is a pretty big gap there - why only attacke me?

What books have you read about the evidence for Christianity BTW?

Some interesting facts, which prove nothing;-

1) Homo sapiens appeared around 12k yrs ago
2) Recorded history began 6k yrs ago.
3) Civilisation began around the area of Eden, the Tigris and Euphrates
4) Creation stories from many cultures echo genesis.


Will check back in a few days or earlier

best
PB

  • 361.
  • At 03:16 AM on 29 Jan 2007,
  • pb wrote:

my last post has not appeared as yet...

a recap.

Guthrie/Tom/OA - why so many names?
It has been good so no probs if you move on.

I was thinking that your raison d'etre appears very shallow compared to everything else in your life which is so well considered.

It appears to me that without God, ultimately the only meaning to life is personal ambition, pleasure and acquisition. ie there can be aims but ultimately no real meaning/purpose/signifiance and certainly no moral absolutes about how to pursue these aims. And no idea what happens your consciousness after death?????????????????? How comfortable are you with that????

You do call yourself agnostic so perhaps you have some sympathy for all this?

BTW on the bible and history I was looking through a few reference books where the bible is commended for its historical accuracy, one of them - dont laugh - the dummies guide to world history, which is surprisingly comprehensive though certainly liberal.

Are there any specific biblical passages you believe are not accurate or is it a general perception?


DD


If you think the only reality of faith is prayer think again.

Remember the global jubilee campaign to cancel 3rd world debt - it was founded by the churches. think Bono and G8. Remember the Red Cross?

I know of many people who practise otherwise irrational sacrifice in their lives for others who would be classed as the detrius of society by most people. That is reality, that is truth, that is the reality of a God of love and humility in my book. While you dont have to be a person of faith to do this in my experience there are very few people without it who pour their lives out for the nobodies of society.

And of the top three societies you would prefer to live in around the world would you choose three with Christian foundations or three with atheistic foundations?

Why do I believe. Faith is a certainty you cant define scientifically as I see it.

You can look up my credo on Will and Testament as I entered it in the competition.

But I have seen God move like a wind in too many lives, really turning people's lives around for the better to not believe.

I have had a muslim friend ask a friend of mine why/how their face was shining while they were walking esp well with God. I have seen perfect strangers turn their lives around and worship God after God appointed chance meetings.

I have seen my sister totally healed of a brain tumour after its prescence was confirmed in open brain surgery. The consultant said "miracles do happen".

I am not trying to convince you, I think it is pointless, but I am showing you some of my reasons.

My first core one was that I experienced God's unconditional love and that is fundamental.

You say there are 1000s of Gods but there are very few that really claim to be "God" ie the creator and all-powerful all knowing.

Do you believe in ANY of these 1000s or are you perhaps hiding behind your scepticism and so putting off any decision at all?

The bible says the majesty of creation is testimony to the existence of God and so men are therefore without excuse. Romans 1.

BTW, which books on Christian faith evidence have you read?

If you are interested, you could post a reply on the more recent Prof Nevin entry which is still on evolution but is much shorter.

Also, I must protest. Guthrie and GW did not assert evolution to be "fact" and I dont think that is scientifically correct.

GW said it was "not proven" thought with overwhelming evidence and Guthrie etc said it was "the most probable theory".

There is more of a gulf between you three that you care to admit. I still see you singling me out because of my faith.

For me I am happy to accept that science with its current limitations is not capable of considering creationism as it accepts it cannot begin to test anything beyond the material world.

A few random thoughts which to me point towards the plausibility of YE creationism though;-

1) Recorded history only dates back to 6000bc
2) Homo sapiens only appeared not long before that.
3) Civilisation began in the area around biblical eden, ie in the vicinity of the euphrates and tigris.
4) Many creation stories are remarkably similar despite coming from different cultures, languages and locales.

I dont begin to say these prove anything, but there are certainly *surprisingly* consistent with YE creationism in my book. To me evolution would have made much more sense if none of these facts were correct.

BTW Tom/OA/Guthrie
You talked about fossil records and geography. I read recently that ocean type fossils have been found in high mountain ranges, isnt this correct?


Best
PB

PS - Move to the prof nevin entry now as it is much shorter?

  • 362.
  • At 04:33 PM on 03 Feb 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"Would you rather live in a country with a Christian cultural foundation or an athieistic one?"

I would prefer a secular foundation

"Guthrie and GW both described evolution as "unproven" and "the most probable thery" but you describe it as "fact".

There is a pretty big gap there - why only attacke me?"

Look over the posts again and look at what I (and others) have wrote. To reiterate again-Evolution is both fact and theory(this has been covered previously with many links). Evolution has been observed both in the lab and in the natural world both 1000's of times-it's a fact! the theory of natural selection is an explanation of the fact over long periods of time. So the other posters are totally correct and I already said that I agreed with them 100%-please see my previous post, I thought that I made that clear but oh well.

"What books have you read about the evidence for Christianity BTW?"

Geza Vermes, AN Wilson, Robin lane Fox amongst others.

"Some interesting facts, which prove nothing;-

1) Homo sapiens appeared around 12k yrs ago"

Which sort of destroys the creationist claim that the world started 6000 years ago.

In any case see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

"2) Recorded history began 6k yrs ago."

And your point being? This was at the time that mankind discovered agriculture and the first cities were formed. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG041.html
In any case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
"3) Civilisation began around the area of Eden, the Tigris and Euphrates"

And your point being? this in no way "proves" creationism.

"4) Creation stories from many cultures echo genesis."

Not really! see http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

If anything it looks like the writers of Genesis "borrowed" from earlier myths.

Don't think that most of your points are "facts" but you are right they certainly prove nothing.

"Remember the global jubilee campaign to cancel 3rd world debt - it was founded by the churches. think Bono and G8. Remember the Red Cross?

I know of many people who practise otherwise irrational sacrifice in their lives for others who would be classed as the detrius of society by most people. That is reality, that is truth, that is the reality of a God of love and humility in my book. While you dont have to be a person of faith to do this in my experience there are very few people without it who pour their lives out for the nobodies of society. "

People do do good in the name of religion, but it does not necessarily make it true.

"And of the top three societies you would prefer to live in around the world would you choose three with Christian foundations or three with atheistic foundations?"

As I said before secular.

"I have seen my sister totally healed of a brain tumour after its prescence was confirmed in open brain surgery. The consultant said "miracles do happen"."

genuinely pleased to hear that about your sister. Atheists, Hindu's etc have also had "miraculous" cures-does that make them right?

"You say there are 1000s of Gods but there are very few that really claim to be "God" ie the creator and all-powerful all knowing.

Do you believe in ANY of these 1000s or are you perhaps hiding behind your scepticism and so putting off any decision at all?"

Oh loads claim to be the head honcho! No I do not believe in any of the 1000's of other gods/deities and I suspect niether do you(you would also be an atheist in that regard)-I just go one further!So not hiding behind anything.

"The bible says the majesty of creation is testimony to the existence of God and so men are therefore without excuse. Romans 1."

Well it would say that wouldn't it!

"Also, I must protest. Guthrie and GW did not assert evolution to be "fact" and I dont think that is scientifically correct.

GW said it was "not proven" thought with overwhelming evidence and Guthrie etc said it was "the most probable theory".

There is more of a gulf between you three that you care to admit. I still see you singling me out because of my faith."

There is no gulf between us, see the previous posts that you ignored. I did think that I dealt with this but obviously it has not got through. It has nothing to do with your faith more your willfull ignorance.

"I dont begin to say these prove anything, but there are certainly *surprisingly* consistent with YE creationism in my book. To me evolution would have made much more sense if none of these facts were correct."

Already dealt with this-they are not consistent with YEC because YEC is nonsense and shown to ne nonsense even before Darwin. Most of your "facts" are not correct.

"You talked about fossil records and geography. I read recently that ocean type fossils have been found in high mountain ranges, isnt this correct?"

Plate tectonics

PB don't think I will be posting here again as this thread is getting ridicolously ages to load, why not come to the BBC MB's Christian topic?

DD

  • 363.
  • At 01:23 PM on 05 Feb 2007,
  • pb wrote:


I have no idea what the BBC MB Christian topic is.

I suggested the Prof Nevin one on this blog?

Cagey! You cant have a secular foundation to a society unless it is USSR.

Sorry GW and Guthrie are really at odds with you on the status of evolution but you wont see it.

You wont let your guard down, wont say what you think about God, will you?

Why are you really here?

Does your life have any significance beyond itself?

What happens your consciousness after you die?
PB

This post is closed to new comments.

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.