« Previous | Main | Next »

Belfast's biblical flood

Post categories:

William Crawley | 16:16 UK time, Wednesday, 13 June 2007

I didn't write a post yesterday because I was too busy deflooding my house. I spent the morning filming with the Blueprint team near Royal Avenue in Belfast. We were filming a segment of the second programme dealing with the fate of the Irish elk. Eventually, our computer graphics wizards will place a simulated Irish Elk in the scene with me, which meant that Jim and Carole had to frame shots with just enough space for that imagery to be added in post-production. While setting up, Carole was interrupted by a passer-by who asked why a camera crane and crew were in Castle Place. She explained that this was a BBC natural history programme and that we were telling the 600 million-year history of Ireland and Northern Ireland in three hours. The passer-by reached into his bag and handed her an evangelistic tract, explaining that we were wasting our time because the world was, in fact, only six thousand years old. He told her why carbon dating was a scientific lie and was adamant that the fossils we were examining were left by Noah's flood. This was clearly neither the time nor the place for a discussion about the age of the earth. But the weather soon changed dramatically, and I later found myself at home trying to keep a flood of near-biblical proportions out of my front hall.

Comments

Maybe it's a good idea to post the same URL as on the 'Dino hunting on the north coast' thread:

https://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Although on that thread there seem to be few takers among the young earth creationist camp.

  • 2.
  • At 06:41 PM on 13 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

...reading an interesting book by David Pawson, held by some as UK's greatest living bible teacher.

...unlocking the bible omnibus.

In it he says that many Christians are too quick to reject science and that mainstream science maybe much more compatible with creationism that many think.

He also notes that Christ and all eight NT writers treat it as historic fact.

He says some modern geological dating techniques have put the earth between 175,000 to 9000 years old, from memory.

Like me, he is not dogmatic about the age of the earth, and says old-earth creationism may be plausible.

He even shows how the week of creation could be significantly long periods, again without compromising creationist belief or biblical integrity;- based on hebrew word "yom" translated as "day" in Genesis.

His bottom line is that science works on what it can observe and at bottom it is very valuable - but always provisional.

So he says atheistic scientists and biblical creationists should not be dogmatic and watch how both their disciplines develop with integrity as both are in states of flux, ie interpretation of genesis is also developing, he says.

He states that mainstream anthropology now supports the idea that neaderthals etc need not have had any evolutionary relationship at all with homo sapiens but that no man-ape has ever been found.

Among his many reasons for scepticism of evolution are that mutations dont help animals; there are so few transitional fossils and that the fossil record shows all "stages" of evolutionary animals exsiting in the same periods.

PB


PB- I applaud your attempt to make creationism sound plausible, but it won't wash. I've read Pawson on numerous issues, so I'm familiar with (and very critical of) his work. Let me just dispel one myth right now: there is no way that the earth is 9000 years old. What you're describing is the two main types of creationism: young-earth creationism (9000 years) and old earth-creationism (up to millions of years but still creation). The latter is much more sensible than the former, but neither method of denying evolution is very credible. I note with interest what you say here:


"His bottom line is that science works on what it can observe and at bottom it is very valuable - but always provisional."

I agree. All belief should be conducted on the same principle, be it theology, science, philosophy. But I don't detect your 'provisional' approach to theology, PB!

Hello everyone,

No better way to get a big laugh back on your face after a hard day than a post by pb on science.

"He says some modern geological dating techniques have put the earth between 175,000 to 9000 years old, from memory."

Pb, I'm beginning to suspect a strong sado-masochistic streak in you, the way you keep coming back for torment. No credible method dates the earth back to that age. Care to produce any scientifically acceptable literature to support it (since you don't know what science is: that usually means articles in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed by the major scientific data bases)?

"Like me, he is not dogmatic about the age of the earth, and says old-earth creationism may be plausible."

That makes about as much sense as saying you're not dogmatic about the possibility that gravity may be real.

"His bottom line is that science works on what it can observe and at bottom it is very valuable - but always provisional."

Whereas if your faith is blind enough a literal reading of the OT is beyond any doubt. Sigh. Dawkins said it well: I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

"So he says atheistic scientists and biblical creationists should not be dogmatic and watch how both their disciplines develop with integrity as both are in states of flux, ie interpretation of genesis is also developing, he says."

Indeed. After the literal account of genesis was blown apart the Chirstian believers went for 'interpretation', trying to smooth out the factor of 3/4 of a million they were off re the age of the earth. If you ever needed proof of evolution and how things adapt, then it is the survival of Christianity despite having to come up with ever more 'creative' ways out.

"Among his many reasons for scepticism of evolution are that mutations dont help animals;"

Right. In that case could you explain how anti-biotics is becoming less and less effective? The little buggers don't adapt right, as that would not help them? So how come that treatments that were effective only decades ago are no longer so now?

"there are so few transitional fossils"

Lovely, pb is back at claiming a lack of transitional fossils. How many times have tons of it been pointed out to you in previous threads now pb? It must be dozens of times by now? And how many times did you run from the debate (or tried to shift attention to another subject)? The last fine example of that was on

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/04/humanists_send_dawkins_to_stor.html

where you confidently began "Lets have that discussion on feather evolution." but then cowardly ran when again so many examples were pointed out to you. Tell me pb, how many articles that have been pointed out to you have you read by now. Still zero? Or how about a related question on emus and ostriches that have wings that do not enable them to fly? No transitional species?

  • 5.
  • At 08:56 PM on 13 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Oh dear PB!

I thought as Peter said that you had very wisely decided to stay away from this area as you have been shown many times to be incompetent in this area(stick to banging on about gays).

I see Peter and John have answered you but...

"He also notes that Christ and all eight NT writers treat it as historic fact."

and...so what? the ancient Egyptians viewed their creation myth as being historically accurate as did the Romans, Inca's, Aztecs etc etc ad nauseum.

Mr Pawson is repeating the same old tired, boring canards that have been answered many, many(yawn) times before.

DD

  • 6.
  • At 09:19 PM on 13 Jun 2007,
  • Take Heed wrote:

As a biblical Christian, I have to tell you that David Pawson's teachings have been rejected by many believers as false prophesy. For an investigation into his views see:

https://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Transcripts/Pawson_expose.htm

Hello Dylan Dog, John Wright,

Nice to see you guys turn up for the gig. Mark, are you there too?

  • 8.
  • At 10:00 PM on 13 Jun 2007,
  • Willplaystoaudienceof4 wrote:

You've got to admire Will (and I went to secondary school with him in the 80's, so I actually do...) - he really plays to the audience of 4 by throwing in a story about some randomer on the streets of Belfast just to stir up some controversy. Do you think Will and his blog regulars are really surprised by finding a creationist on the streets of Belfast!! Ok there's more than 4 commenters out there but a "scientific" study of comments on this blog will likely identify Peter, Mark, Dylan & John at the top of the commenting pile. I see them as a bit like Statler & Waldorf from the muppet show sitting up there in the stalls ready to take swings at the poor Christians!
Pray4Belfast are organising a prayer against suicide meeting in Beechmount Leisure Centre on the Falls Road at 7.30 pm on the 14th June. Now, irrespective of whether you believe in God, there's a story to be investigated concerning Belfast's suicide epidemic (see here).

  • 9.
  • At 10:06 PM on 13 Jun 2007,
  • Willplaystoaudienceof4 wrote:

You've got to admire Will (and I went to secondary school with him in the 80's, so I actually do...) - he really plays to the audience of 4 by throwing in a story about some randomer on the streets of Belfast just to stir up some controversy. Do you think Will and his blog regulars are really surprised by finding a creationist on the streets of Belfast!! Ok there's more than 4 commenters out there but a "scientific" study of comments on this blog will likely identify Peter, Mark, Dylan & John at the top of the commenting pile. I see them as a bit like Statler & Waldorf from the muppet show sitting up there in the stalls ready to take swings at the poor Christians!
Pray4Belfast are organising a prayer against suicide meeting in Beechmount Leisure Centre on the Falls Road at 7.30 pm on the 14th June. Now, irrespective of whether you believe in God, there's a story to be investigated concerning Belfast's suicide epidemic (see here).

Hello Willplaystoaudienceof4, you wrote,

"he really plays to the audience of 4 by throwing in a story about some randomer on the streets of Belfast just to stir up some controversy."

I must admit that I had a small suspicion that that might be the intention when two posts in a row first covered 200 million year old dino fossils and then young earthers:) Hence the preemptive post on the Wiens article on dating methods in both threads. An article which a certain poster here no doubt didn't read.

But I'm quite sure I'm not in the top 4 of posters here. My posts are mostly limited to subjects touching on science. Pb must be way ahead of me. Well, in terms of quantity at least. I mean, he's an 'expert' not just on evolution and the fossil record, but also on slavery. Heck, even Will attested to this (or so pb claimed ad nauseum, without much ground as usual). And on the history of the middle east. And the historical accuracy of the bible. And on homophobia. And on science in general. I think we are blessed to have such a well-developed mind among us, enlightening us on such a wide range of subjects.

Must go now, my sarcasm is in need of replenishing.

Btw, I thought the Statler & Waldorf analogy was funny:)

  • 11.
  • At 12:00 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Catholic believer (NI) wrote:

When Pray4Belfast is praying against suicide, maybe they will take a look at how many young gay people take their own lives and ask if the church's rejection is part of that problem.

  • 12.
  • At 12:02 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Claire L wrote:

why are fundamentalists such conspiracy theorists? from what I can tell Will has been filming this natural history thing for months. it's hardly his fault if some creationist nutter comes up and leaflets his crew!!

  • 13.
  • At 12:07 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • David Devlin wrote:

Very funny. Not nearly as funny as young creationism though. And i AM a Christian, so please don't write me off for saying this!

  • 14.
  • At 12:18 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

Why does the BBC keep propagating Satan’s lies of the anti Biblical View of beginnings, do they not get the message when a righteous one on the streets of Belfast tells them the truth about creation. "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."


Does the BBC not get the message, if William’s house was on the verge of flooding after a couple hours of rain, what would the rain of forty days and forty nights do to the face of the earth? And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

The passer by must have been one that Les Reid forgot to take into account when carrying out his evolutionary influenced survey.

600 hundred million years in three hours says a lot about the false supposing of evolutionary gossip, for that is what it is Satan’s heresy.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years. So understand the change of the weather for he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;

Supposing and more supposing the calculation of evolution = nil and void.


Hello Bill, you wrote

"Supposing and more supposing the calculation of evolution = nil and void."

Care to elaborate on those calculations? Or the ones about what would happen after 40 days of rain?

  • 16.
  • At 09:28 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Willplaystoaudienceof4

Like your post however...

"I see them as a bit like Statler & Waldorf from the Muppet show sitting up there in the stalls ready to take swings at the poor Christians!"

It's not about having a go at Christians per se, it's about challenging fundamentalist Christians who say very silly things which have been shown to be false and repeat them ad nauseum(Bill's post is a perfect example)-do like the bit about the muppets!

Ps. Evolution has little to say on the age of the earth, though geology and astrophysics do, and the flood myth is an allegorical story. Bill did you fall in here from a time-warp from the 15th century?

  • 17.
  • At 09:35 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Willplaystoaudienceof4 wrote:

Dear Catholic believer (NI),
you make a fair point and I can assure you that some of the groups involved in Pray4belfast have been specifically set up in Belfast's own gay village - the Cathedral Quarter - to bring the good news of Christ to all, regardless of sexuality, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Check out Hill Street Fellowship. Ask yourself where would Christ be found if he returned to Belfast today (in his humanity)? He would be in the CQ, at least for a good lunch with a few sinners....

Mind you, this comment 'thread' could probably do without another 'strand'.

Regardless of your perceptions about Pray4Belfast, if you are truely concerned about the suicide epidemic in Belfast then come along this evening (14th June) to the Beechmount Leisure Centre and stand with us. I make no apologies for drumming up some publicity for such an important issue. Perhaps Peter will attend too....

Hi Dylan Dog,

"do like the bit about the muppets!"

I liked Willplaystoaudienceof4's Muppet analogy too. If we are supposed to be Statler & Waldorf, then I guess Bill and pb are the intellectual giants that are Gonzo and Miss Piggy?

  • 19.
  • At 10:21 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • JLKelly wrote:

Well if Will is deliberately pressing the creationists' buttons here, it's obviously working. I read that Will+Testament is "the most popular blog in the bbc nations and regions". Either the UK is full of creationists or there's some other reason they're all reading!!!!

While I'm being sarcastic, this Pray4Belfast thing is odd. Some of us have been involved in suicide prevention work for quite some time and have practically given up on the churches. What else are they going to do apart from praying?

  • 20.
  • At 10:25 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Darwinius wrote:

Will must love you guys! You never fail to take his bait lol. Keep it coming Will, I love it when you tease the flat earthers.

Hello Darwinius,

"Will must love you guys! You never fail to take his bait lol. Keep it coming Will, I love it when you tease the flat earthers."

Not that I speak on behalf of anyone but myself, but I think the science-minded posters here have been taking the bait as much (or more) as the YECs, flat earthers etc. But that is good fun though, happy to be posting here. Always nice to see non-creationist Christians express their embarresment with creationists. I have some hope that it may be a helpful thing to drive people away from their superstitions, if they see the lot that they are more or less on the same boat with.

  • 22.
  • At 10:44 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Willplaystoaudienceof4 wrote:

Dear JLKelly,
I'm sure that you would agree that the churches in Belfast coming together as one and in recognition of the problem is surely a positive step in the right direction. While I don't agree with you that the churches have not been involved "on the ground" (in fact this whole Pray4Belfast 'thing' was instigated during a church leaders meeting where many were recounting the increasing numbers receiving practical help and counselling for suicide and depression), I do agree that more needs to be done. Please come along tonight and let us know how to help you practically. What do you need?

That said, I for sure know that there is NO "power in prayer". But I do believe in an interventionist God who, in his mercy and through the blood of Jesus, will stretch out his him to help all who call on him.

Peace to you.

Hello Willplaystoaudienceof4,

"I make no apologies for drumming up some publicity for such an important issue. Perhaps Peter will attend too...."

I might have, if I didn't already have a prior engagement at the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland meeting this evening.

  • 24.
  • At 11:14 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Willplaystoaudienceof4 wrote:

Apology..
the results are in. I got bored after doing June even though the "most prolific comment poster" awards did not quite follow my own prediction.

Here they are (no. of comments so far for June 2007):

1st place: John Wright with 32
2nd place: pb with 18
3rd place: Mark with 17
4th place: Michael N Hull with 13
Joint 5th place: Christian Hippy with 12
Joint 5th place: Rubberduckie with 12
7th place: Peter Klaver with 11
8th place: Dylan Dog with 9

So, apologies to Peter and Dylan Dog... it was just that the four of you seemed to hunt in a pack.

Anyone care to do May for me?

E&OE

  • 25.
  • At 11:24 AM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Peter,

M18 good call!

I do think Will is being a bit naugthy! If you look at these threads it is the ones concerning gays/sex and the age of the earth that tend to get the most hits.

  • 26.
  • At 01:06 PM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • am wrote:

Hello Bill

re post 14

"Why does the BBC keep propagating Satan�s lies of the anti Biblical View of beginnings"

SATANS LIES, chill out! Why is it so important to you how god made the earth?

I am a christian and for my faith it doesnt seem important to me when or how he did it. Could you explain why your interpretation of Genisis is important to your life.

someone once told me that there was more theology written about genisis and the start of johns gospel than the rest of the bible. In some ways to me this seems like a massive waste of energy. Why is it so important to you?

thanks

am

  • 27.
  • At 01:53 PM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

"So, apologies to Peter and Dylan Dog... it was just that the four of you seemed to hunt in a pack."

No apology necessary! perhaps the reason for the "pack" is that the same things matter to us or the same things annoy us.

#24- I'm privileged. Is there any point to this?

  • 29.
  • At 02:03 PM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Stephen-Antrim wrote:

Yeah I saw the same article I think about how Will's blog is getting more readers than any other outside the national news blogs (that figure relates only to the bbc blogs of course). So all those who are topping the list of commenters have to accept some of the cred/blame/responsibility for that!! Im a regular reader, wouldn't miss checking it every day, so keep posting guys, I love your rows!

  • 30.
  • At 02:28 PM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Willplaystoaudienceof4 wrote:

#27 John wrote "Is there any point to this?"

Refer to #10, Peter (rightly) claimed that he was not in the top 4 posters to this blog (in response to my comment #8/9).

I was simply looking at the facts and reporting them.

  • 31.
  • At 03:34 PM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Rick Hill wrote:

Hope your house is ok!
None of the "muppets" seems to have noticed that bit in the blog!

WPTAO4- You still haven't told me why you think that's pertinent information. So I repeat, what's the point? Do you simply have time to kill?

  • 33.
  • At 11:30 AM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • rubberduckie wrote:

am,

Do you believe in the fall?

If this is a myth then then there is no need for Christ and Christianity is worthless.

  • 34.
  • At 12:10 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Peter

Sorry, you have good sleight of hand but it was actually you that slunk away.

You never did give us a critique of the creationist stance on bird feathers.

Here is your second chance;-

https://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/feathers.asp


Could it be because, like all the other posters here, you have little or no qualifications in any field directly related to evolutionary biology, specialising in nuclear physics as you do?

;-)

PB

Come on pb, your standards are dreadful, but this poor even for you. Pretty dishonest to pretend I hadn't very clearly shown you the folly of that AiG rubbsih on the previous thread (and many other threads before, and others on this blog have done so on numerous occasions too). In order not too waste too much time on you I'll just copy-paste my response from there. This passed the moderator last time, so if the moderator might save himself the time too.


Well pb, first you complained semi-continuously about the supposed lack of half-evolved feathers for months, then you were presented with extensive literature which you never read despite the many reminders by various posters. You had decided all of a sudden that it was not important to you anymore (because you got your ass kicked so badly from all sides on the subject). And now you have made another 180 degree turn. Oh boy pb, the inconsistency in your posts do make me shake my head in bewilderment.

And then your attempt at debate is no better. Bringing out the hogwash from AiG again. How many times has Dylan Dog explained to you that that is not the voice of science pb, how many? How many more will be necessary before you accept it?
This attempt is actually of lower standards than most of your previous ones. How many articles on half-evolved feathers have been pointed out to you, pb? Links to articles, entire issues of scientific journals dedicated to it, hundreds of references therein to other work covering dozens of excavation sites where fossils of half-evolved feathers have been found. So you knew that that AiG quote was nonsense at the moment you posted it. Again a very dishonest way of doing things pb, posting things which you know are not true.

To put the debate about your lack of honesty beyond any doubt I remind you of another question that you have consistently run away from, that on living animals with half-evolved feathers like emus and ostriches. You know they are around, alive and well. So your endless naggingh about a supposed lack of half-evolved feathers isn't true and you know it. Never mind what a guy with a phd says, from the countless examples, both fossils and living animals, you know perfectly well it's not true. It doesn't require a phd in any field to see it. It has been pointed out to you sooooooo often, the issue you raised was answered long before you raised it. Not very honest of you to knowingly keep up the charade.


Apart from that, why do you keep stating I'm in a different field of science than I actually am? You've done that often in the past and you have on two occasions actually apologised for the distortions you posted on this blog. Now you turn around and repeaet the exact same distortions. Ah, the wonderful honesty and morality that Christianity inspires in some believers, isn't it magnificant? I can imagine a few other things that might make a person as dishonest as Christian beliefs make pb. But not many.

  • 36.
  • At 02:17 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Uh PB,

Peter did answer you!

It has been pointed out to you on many, many occasions why AIG is utter bunk! but still you persist in using this totally discredited website as "evidence"

Incidentally in that pathetically small list of "Phd.s" that you liked to trumpet a while ago(remember the 400, which became 200 then 79) of which biologists made up the lowest percentage.

Anyway in the past I have given you ample opportunity to go to other dedicated websites where you can ask questions(but you always funnily enough found an excuse). Now since you want the opinion of a professional biologist why not post your questions here:

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/topics?hl=en

Scientists from all over the world will answer anything that you want to know on this topic(that is is you are sincere of course)

You could of course give one(just one) piece of objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back up biblical creationism? knock yourself out! ;-)

  • 37.
  • At 02:20 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • am wrote:

hi rubberduckie,

of course i belive in sin, and redemtion through jesus. do you know any christians that dont? these are the things that are important to me.

i was hoping Bill could tell me why his interpretation of creation in genisis is so important to his faith. why do the time and the mechanics of it matter? to me it doesnt seem important.

best,
am

  • 38.
  • At 02:53 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


well Pete

Alot of heat there but not much light.

You deliberately failed to critique the AIG creationist article on feathers.

Could it be that as a nuclear scientist you havent the foggiest about this subject but are too proud to admit it?

Here is your third chance; what is wrong with the AIG article on feathers, from an evolutionary viewpoint

;-)

PB

  • 39.
  • At 03:19 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

Peter did answer you!

Now why don't you(if you sincerely want to know) do something and ask a biologist-I did provide a link or read any of the peer-reviewed articles?

Odd that you should cite a "third chance" for Peter(even though he did answer the question) when it has been pointed out to on umpteen occasions that AIG is utter twaddle.

Oh well! just don't think or question PB, but there is no worry of that since you have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you do not do this.

  • 40.
  • At 03:39 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

pb, try to follow the next three easy steps:

1) The AiG piece you link to claims 'a complete absence' of a fossil record of species with intermediate feathers.

2) Tons of examples of fossils of species with feathers in an intermediate stage have been pointed out to you. They exist in large numbers.

3) Therefore the AiG piece is rubbish.

Pb, do you carry an organ donor card? If you don't use your brain then why not give it to someone else?

  • 41.
  • At 04:25 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Peter

From AIG. discuss;-


In the words of Prum, understanding "the evolutionary origin of feathers has been constrained by the lack of any known ancestral feather morphologies or structural antecedents".


Prum, R.O. and Williamson, S., Theory of the growth and evolution of feather shape, J. Experimental Zoology (Molecular, Developmental, Evolution) 291:30–57, 2001.

PB

  • 42.
  • At 04:50 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Pb, pointing out other AiG dentists etc with PhDs who claim a lack of fossil record doesn't make the fossils go away. It doesn't make your case any stronger if all 186 of them provide you with quotes. The examples are there for all to verify so a million claims to the contrary make for one million false claims. Read some of the papers that have been pointed out to you so often instead of filtering out any information that would make you any wiser. As Karl Popper said:

"True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."

In the meantime, how are you getting on with understanding the three easy steps of my previous reply:

1) The AiG piece you link to (as well as the new source you cited) claims 'a complete absence' of a fossil record of species with intermediate feathers.

2) Tons of examples of fossils of species with feathers in an intermediate stage have been pointed out to you. They exist in large numbers, verifyable to all.

3) Therefore the AiG piece is rubbish.

And please do go on posting, you're doing a better job of discrediting some flavours of Christianity than I ever could.

  • 43.
  • At 06:31 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Follow-up:
pb, citing false quotes is also not a very good sign of quality debating. As you had actually provided a reference to a decent, peer-reviewed journal I decided to look up the article reference you gave. There is an article with that reference, but the quote is a complete lie! The article can be downloaded in pdf from

https://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/78504330/PDFSTART

I looked for the quote you gave, using the word 'antecedents'. Zero hits. The line you quote is not in the article!! Go on pb, and others as well, download that pdf and copy-paste the quote into the Acrobat search field. No hits. Try part of the sentence. No hits. Try the single word 'antecedents'. No hits.

It's not surprising when you look who the authors are. They are evolutionists. That's right pb, in your ignorant attempts to rubbish evolution you have sunken to the point of making up false references, attributing lines to evolutionary biologists that they never wrote. Holding up people in support of your statements who actually make a living doing research to further expand our knowledge of evolution.

You would have found this out yourself if you HAD ACTUALLY READ ANY PAPERS ON EVOLUTION.

Dishonest loser.

  • 44.
  • At 07:27 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Willplaystoaudienceof4 wrote:

In reply to #32:

Dear John,
I hope that you are just trying to keep your lead in the number of comments competition. Otherwise, I fear that evolution has failed you since you can't understand simple logic (now class, please pay attention):

[A]
WPTAO4 claims Peter is one of the top 4 commentors on this blog.

[B]
Peter suggests that he doesn't think that he is, but takes it in good spirits.

[C]
WPTAO4 (on his tea break so as not to get sacked) decides to tally the comments on this blog for the month of June so far. Finds out that Peter is, in fact, in 7th place and subsequently issues apology.

[D]
JW (most prolific commentor for June - well done! And he thinks that WPTAO4 has time to waste!!) asks why the commenting stats have appeared...

[E]
WPTAO4 replys pointing out [A], [B] and [C] above.

[F]
JW still doesn't get it and needs help with his understanding...

[G]
WPTAO4 posts this reply, refer to [A]-[G].

Any more questions?

WPTAO4 #43- No other questions; you've answered everything transparently. How lucky we are to have you around now to total up our numbers of comments for the very useful activity of determining who arrives within the top four so as to settle any disagreements about who may or may not hold that status.

Peter #42, PB- Love the Popper quote. (Love Popper.) But I'm not sure you're going to dissuade PB from his deliberate ignorance; I've tried many times on various issues and failed miserably. PB clearly wishes to believe that 200 PhDs is a really big number that believe in a literal Genesis; while this is of course an absurd notion, religious belief such as PB's does not rely upon an unbiased, accurate, peer-reviewed consideration of all available facts.

Rather it relies upon a contrived use of ancient religious literature in a manner totally ignorant of its historical contexts and done so using a complex exegetical apparatus which ensures that only a predetermined interpretation can ever be construed as the right one. In this sense, PB is not theologically available to accept the facts of scientific discovery. He's fearful of it, for it threatens the process by which he's come to believe what he does and the lifestyle connections that accompany it.

Hello all,

John Wright, I fully agree that pb will always come up with some excuse. But I was being sincere when I said that I appreciated his posts. I do honestly think that he demonstrates how religion can poison a persons mind. How many other things can you think of that could give a person such a warped way of thinking? Seeing with whom they are more or less sharing a boat with might start some other believers wonder if what they're into is such a good idea. So I will be dedicating most of this post to pb again. From science with love.

JW, WPTAO4, I really don't see what the thing is all about either way. I can't say I was bothered about being estimated in the top 4. What if I had been? And while I don't see much use to the statistics, I can't be bothered about them being posted. Part of my working hours are spent looking at numbers that turn out not to say much useful in the end:)

And then the main course for pb. Especially for you pb.
Pb, citing false quotes is not a sign of honesty or intelligence. As you had for once actually provided a reference to a decent, peer-reviewed journal I decided to look up the article reference you gave. There is an article with that reference, but the quote is a complete lie! The article can be downloaded in pdf from

https://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/78504330/PDFSTART

I looked for the quote you gave, using the word 'antecedents'. Zero hits. The line you quote is not in the article!! Go on pb, and others as well, download that pdf and copy-paste the quote into the Acrobat search field. No hits. Try part of the sentence. No hits. Try the single word 'antecedents'. No hits. Other words like 'morphologies' do turn up hits, but never in the quote you mention.

It's not surprising when you look who the authors are. They are evolutionists. That's right pb, in your ignorant attempts to rubbish evolution you have sunken to the point of making up false references, attributing lines to evolutionary biologists that they never wrote. Holding up people in support of your statements who actually make a living doing research to further expand our knowledge of evolution. Has your religiously poisoned mind reached rock bottom yet or can you go worse still?

You would have found this out yourself if you HAD ACTUALLY READ ANY PAPERS ON EVOLUTION. And what was that you said a few posts back? Me not knowing enough on the subject to comment? Riiiiggghhht. I see.

  • 47.
  • At 11:18 PM on 15 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

F.A.O. "am"

GOD said that He created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, day and night. When you track the genealogical record in God's Word you will soon discover that the earth is just over 6,000 years old. God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

If you don’t believe in the Biblical account of Creation you have fallen to Satan’s lie and have eaten the forbidden fruit. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

You as a Christian “am” who believes in sin and redemption also believe in a literal interpretation of Creation, but you probably have not realised that you do so, by celebrating the LORDS DAY you our conforming to the literal account of GOD’S CREATION, For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”.

Tell me “am” do you "Remember the Sabbath day” as the LORDS DAY.

The Christian Hippy

Hello all,

John Wright, I fully agree that pb will always come up with some excuse. But I was being sincere when I said that I appreciated his posts. I do honestly think that he demonstrates how religion can poison a persons mind. How many other things can you think of that could give a person such a warped way of thinking? Seeing with whom they are more or less sharing a boat might start some other believers wonder if what they're into is such a good idea. So I will be dedicating most of this post to pb again. From science with love.

JW, WPTAO4, I really don't see what the thing is all about either way. I can't say I was bothered about being estimated in the top 4. What if I had been? And while I don't see much use to the statistics, I can't be bothered about them being posted. Part of my working hours are spent looking at numbers that turn out not to say much useful in the end:)

And then the main course for pb. Especially for you pb.
Pb, citing false quotes is not a sign of honesty or intelligence. As you had for once actually provided a reference to a decent, peer-reviewed journal I decided to look up the article reference you gave. There is an article with that reference, but the quote is a complete lie! The article can be downloaded in pdf from

https://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/78504330/PDFSTART

I looked for the quote you gave, using the word 'antecedents'. Zero hits. The line you quote is not in the article!! Go on pb, and others as well, download that pdf and copy-paste the quote into the Acrobat search field. No hits. Try part of the sentence. No hits. Try the single word 'antecedents'. No hits. Other words like 'morphologies' do turn up hits, but never as part of the quote you mention.

It's not surprising when you look who the authors are. They are evolutionary biologists. That's right pb, in your attempts to rubbish evolution you have sunken to the point of making up false references, attributing lines to evolutionary biologists that they didn't write. Holding up people in support of your statements who actually make a living doing research to further expand our knowledge of evolution. Has your religiously burdened mind reached rock bottom yet or can you go worse still?

You would have found this out yourself if you HAD ACTUALLY READ ANY PAPERS ON EVOLUTION. And what was that you said a few posts back? Me not knowing enough on the subject to comment? I see.

Christian Hippy- You're going to tell me that the Sabbath is now a Sunday? Where is that in the holy infallible inerrant Word of the Living God? And what is involved in keeping it holy in your mind? (Let me guess... don't work and don't buy anything.)

  • 50.
  • At 02:49 AM on 16 Jun 2007,
  • am wrote:

hello bill

I hope that you dont think i have eaten the forbidden fruit. Its not that i dont belive in the accout of creation in genisis im just not sure it is to be taken literally. It is discribed in very poetic language you have to admit.

I cant really understand your point about how my celebrating the lords day has anything to do with a literal intepretation of six day creation, it seems to me that this is a bit of a tenuous link. Could you mabey explain why it is important to how you celebrate the lords day?

Would you also agree that not all of the bible is to be read litererally and that christians often misinterpret it?

If you hold a literal interpretation of genisis then that is different to me (personally i dont hold any interpretaion). I am interested in why it is important to your faith.

  • 51.
  • At 10:55 AM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


JW

You describe yourself as a Christian who believes Almight God created the universe.

And you also challenge the "majority" view of scientists who say climate change is man-made.

Do you believe the argument that man is behind climate change to be one giant global conspiracy?

PB

  • 52.
  • At 11:39 AM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

Care to apologise for your blatant use of a misquote that totally misrepresented the views of Prof Prum?

I think you should before you go getting all high and mighty with other posters-don't you?

Ps, are you going to twist this around to creationism ie., the "majority" view?

Yes pb, Dylan Dog is right. You've sunken lower than ever before by citing false evolution-critical quotes from evolutionary biologists who are actually making a living expanding our knowledge of evolution. Any response at all? Surely you're not going to let the worst ass-kicking you've ever received on this blog (and that says something, considering how you've been hammered on a variety of topics by many different posters) go by completely unanswered?

Take note: saying 'I don't want to have to register with the Journal of Experimental Zoology' isn't going to help you out. It's the sort of excuse I'd expect from you but it won't do you any good. If you come up with that as an excuse I'll make one temporary copy right violation and put the article on my own webserver for you to download without giving any personal details. In fact, why don't I do that right now:

https://titus.phy.qub.ac.uk/group/Peter/fulltext2.pdf

Go on pb, check for yourself. I'm calling you out. In your desparation to rubbish evolution you've sunken to the point of posting false quotes. How dishonest your Christian faith makes you. You're a perfect example of how religion can poison a persons mind (accepting Michael Hulls earlier statement that not all religions are equally damaging). It can promote dishonesty, hypocrisy, aversion to thinking or absorbing knowledge. Let's get rid of it. Come on pb, you must have some response. Or is this item going to added to the list of things you've not answered in the past. The list must be getting worryingly long for you.

  • 54.
  • At 02:01 PM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Peter

You need a password to access that paper which I dont have so i cant verify if ***AIG*** (not me) have misquoted the paper concerned.

You and DD repeatedly set up a caricature of AIG's list of scientists.

There are a significant number of geologists, palentologists, geneticists, biologists etc etc on that list as you well know, so If they and QUB's Prof Nevin can see some credbility in it, I reckon they must have some valid science.

And you also continually act as though those are the only creationist sceintists in the world, without evidence.

I see one survey of mainly western countries put *general public* belief in evolution as around 65% average of the populations, so I dont feel too lonely;-

https://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science

Anyway, one point I dont recall you and DD ever respoding to is the inherent and declared bias in your approach to the evolutionary evidence.

1) Both of you are passionate and quite emotional athiests, but I dont know how that can leave you with an open mind when it comes to looking at other theories. Not very scientific.

2) As both of you are atheists, you have a declared interest in only beliving evolution, as without that theory your athiesm worldview begins to look very shakey.

On my account, my faith would be quite stable if evolution is true.

My scepticism (not dogma) about evolution is just that I dont see the bible in any part treats genesis as myth or allegory and science itself has constantly evolved throughout time.

Having said all that, I would have hoped we could be a bit nicer to each other on this blog by now. I dont think harsh words help anyone's case, on the contrary.

PB

  • 55.
  • At 03:04 PM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Dear dear PB!

The article is direct misquote that perverts and misrepresents the views of Prof Prum-a 5 second google showed this!

https://www.yale.edu/eeb/prum/featherdev.htm

and

https://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8452%2820020422%29269%3A1493%3C781%3ARMOWPP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

here is the pdf

https://www.mcorriss.com/Prum_&_Brush_2002.pdf

PB how many times does it have to be explained to you that AIG is twaddle? even by your standards you are being very obtuse on this point.

OK, here goes again!

The list is pathetically small, only 79 of the already pathetically small list actually have relevant qualifications. All are fundMENTAList religious nutters. All HAVE to sign a document that they MUST agree with Ken Ham, their ideas were shown to be bunk even before Darwin! They have reached a conclusion that their bronze age creation myth is true! IT'S COMPLETE AND UTTER TWADDLE!

Here we go again the live science survey(yawn) well it shows that not everyone is as willfully ignorant as you! also public surveys show high support for astrology so therefore...it's true!

1. PB I have looked at creationism and...there is no evidence to back it up! simple as that! if you think I am wrong please provide me with one(just one) piece of evidence to back it up that is objective, credible and verifiable? now I have asked this of you on numerous occasions and you have failed to produce anything, therefore you are arguing emotionally for a position that has no evidence-now that is silly!

2. Same answer EVIDENCE and don't forget intelligent theists have no problem with evolution nor science so that's that "argument" blown out of the water.

Evolution is fact and theory.

Genesis is an allegorical myth, if it wasn't there would be evidence to back it up and how weak your faith is!

Then PB stop posting dishonest garbage from AIG, grow up and learn to take criticism.

PB, I LOVE YOU! I HONESTLY LOVE YOU! I predicted that you'll come up with a poor excuse and you promptly oblige with the exact excuse I warned you against giving! You're perfect! Perfectly simple-minded and predictable that is.

And bringing up the AiG 'scientists' again, along with Truth in Science people like Nevin. And playing the 'such and such a % of people don't believe in evolution' card (again), as if science is a democracy. Oh, I get such a warm feeling inside! Will you have my babies pb?

  • 57.
  • At 06:31 PM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Pete

Good to see you loving your enemies - a great example for me to follow ;-)

So are you too afraid to honestly discuss your declared prejudice in weighing up the evidence for evolution?

You cant even begin to consider weighing up the evidence for creationism as it could blow your athiesim apart; ergo you have come to the conclusion before you have begun.

Come on, a little rational application to this question would be interesting!


Well is science run as a democracy or not? Does scientific consenus matter?
If it does then there is a democratic element to it.
If it doesnt then that strenghtens the hand of creation scientists doesnt it.
Hard to have it both ways.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
According to a 1997 Gallup Poll quoted by wikipedia, 5% of US scientists are young earth creationists. But as science is not democratic the fact that they are only 5% is not significant, they are respected scientists and so is their theory, isnt that right Peter?


As a layman, that suggests to me the scant and contradictory fossil record (with supposed ancestors co-existing at the same times) is wide open to an alternative theory, such as held by Nevin, a former prof at your very own uni Peter!

Personally I think that one of the problems between us is that when you and I talk of faith we are talking about 2 entirely different things.

You say you grew up in a very strict anti-intellectual religious environment with lots of dogma, and I wouldnt buy into any of that for a second.

Where did you ever get to in your discussion of why you are here Peter?

DD -

As you are a self confessed complete layman in science I take your assertion that AIG's scientists are twaddle in that context.

How much of Prof Nevin's work have you read DD - it might be a good place for you to start!

Its all so nasty boys, I think you should chill out a bit.

PB

  • 58.
  • At 07:36 PM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

There once was a brainy baboon, Who always breathed down a bassoon, For he said, "It appears that in billions of years I shall certainly hit on a tune". Arthur Eddington


The Christian Hippy

  • 59.
  • At 11:24 PM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB PB PB!

You do know that you are manna from heaven for Dawkins a 'godsend' in fact!

Keep up the good work!

"rational application"!?!? please stop PB!

You say that the "scientists" in the survey are "respected"-how do you know this? and so is their "theory"!? OK PB please tell what is the scientific theory of Biblical creationism? show me how it is parsimonious, makes predictions, is falsifiable etc indeed just show me evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable-you really would think that it would be soooo simple to show just 1 piece of evidence to back up your claims. I think you need to look at the figures again PB.

PB please don't take my assertions that AIG is twaddle(i notice that you have not apologised for your use of the dishonest deliberate misquote from AIG-it has been noted PB)ask the world scientific community!

I know that Prof Nevin has published a lot of scientific papers but NONE on creationism! he has his fundie hat on for that one!

PB why are Biblical creationists all fundies? does that not strike you as odd? especially so when they claim the evidence is empirical?

PB you are passionately and emotionally asserting things which you cannot back up with evidence-not that is rather silly!

You are right it has got nasty, your resort to using a blatant misquote from AIG which totally perverts and misrepresents Prof Prum is an example of this. I think you should apologise to the posters here and acknowledge the dishonesty of AIG and then chill out!

And PB! you should publish your wide knowledge on the fossil record! you will be world famous and become the most famous scientist who ever lived!

You were actually honest in your previous note and said you cannot accept science because it clashes with a literal acceptance of the creation myths at the start of the Bible-glad that you admit that your view is not scientific but religious.

Cheeers!

DD

Now now DD, is that any way to talk to my new-found love?

  • 61.
  • At 06:20 AM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

I apologise Peter! But love is allowed a tiff now and again...

Talking about misquotes the link provided by Billy/Christian Hippy in M56 is full of them.

See:

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

and

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

This is a very dishonest activity of which no TRUE Christian would take part-I suspect the work of Beelzebub!

  • 62.
  • At 08:22 AM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Rachel W wrote:

I never posted here though I read this every now and again.

But dear PB: Peter isn't not looking at the evidence for creationism because it would destroy his atheist worldview, but because there is none. None, not a scrap, and no, the bible doesn't count as evidence.

  • 63.
  • At 12:07 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Rachel

Sorry evolution is a theory which interprets what Darwin conceded was a very scant fossil record.

Science was never able to observe or reproduce a process by which one species is changed into another.


DD

I have asked this question of you before but lets open it up to Rachel and Peter too;

QUESTION: What actual evidence would satisfy you that creationism is correct?

I suggest that none of you can actually suggest any specific evidence which would satisfy because you have already decided you will reject anything.


Evidence I would suggest is that mutations harm organisms; the paucity of intermediate fossils (eg between man and primate) and apparently that so many supposedly sequential animals appear in the same stratas.


Modern science cannot at any point test miracles, it is beyond its ability. So the miraclous creation of the universe is rejected before it begins.

Now I dont pretend to know a lot about evolution, a layman like DD here, but can anyone suggest to me what the creatures are that make up the evolutionary chain from animals before bird, through the emu and ostrich and into the modern sparrow?

Peter suggests that emu feathers are internediary but I wonder by what route the sparrow developed from the ostrich.

If we are going to conclude that there is an incomplete fossil record in this matter then that supports my argument that we have a scant fossil record, as Darwin said.

In my understanding it is a bit like a giant dot-to-dot puzzle where the dots are fossils.

You can join the dots up and say this one progressed from that one or you can say well the dots were created by a miracle, but sorry, science cant analyse that (which was a major conclusion at Dover).


BTW DD if you have a problem with the MORI poll which found 5% of US scientists were young earth creationists I suggest you take it up with MORI who are well respected in this field.

Have you really read all Nevin's works? I understand many creation scientists publish papers with creationist implications but cant explicitly say there was a mirculous begining because science cannot grapple with such matters, as yet anyway.


Peter
I see you have completely avoided discussing your self-declared bias in analysing this subject.
You have a passionate hatred for faith so how could you ever come objectively to the evolution/creationism evidence?

PB


  • 64.
  • At 01:54 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


btw Rachel

who says the bible doesnt count as evidence?

You presume that because of your cultural conditioning but had you been brought up in a different country you may well place sacred writings as more trustworthy than science.

After all, the glory of science is that it is always provisional, always changing.

The old testament has been around some 6000 years and while interpretations do change the text remains the same.

Historically, it has proven its worth time and again. If you really want to dispute this then you could try and prove any incident it reports as false.

PB

  • 65.
  • At 02:05 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Hello pb,

"I see you have completely avoided discussing your self-declared bias in analysing this subject."

Ah, falsely attributing statements to people is becoming your new trade mark. After your false quote of prof. prum you now declare that I have a self-declared bias. That's news to me. When did I declare that exactly?

"You have a passionate hatred for faith so how could you ever come objectively to the evolution/creationism evidence?"

Oh come on pb, since when did you start having an interest in any evidence? Have you still read zero pepars on evolution, even when it is presented to you at a single mouse clicks distance? Just rest comfortably in what you read in you bible. And go on posting here. You know I love you for it.

PB- The bible doesn't count as evidence any more than any other ancient book which contradicts science.


"...had you been brought up in a different country you may well place sacred writings as more trustworthy than science."

Yes, and that would be horrendously wrong.


"Historically, [the bible] has proven its worth time and again. If you really want to dispute this then you could try and prove any incident it reports as false."

The two creation stories in Genesis, for starters.

  • 67.
  • At 03:03 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • am wrote:

dear bill

could you please answer my questions on post 48. i would like to know why the subject is so important to your faith.

PB- Consider the following text:

"And behold a drunken man came to me and requested help, so verily I said unto him, 'I shall put you up at the Best Western for no more than three days and then ship your ass off to rehab so thou might be free from this damnable addiction.' And it happened as I said it would."

Does it constitute evidence that the above event actually happened to me, just because I said it and wrote it down? I'd suggest you're foolish if you believe it does. And responding to someone who doubts its evidential quality by saying that the burden of proof is theirs to prove it wrong is ridiculous: can you prove that the above event did not happen?

Yet again your logic is found wanting, on this as so many of these issues.

  • 69.
  • At 03:27 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

I have already tried posting this three times this morning to no avail.

But Prum's paper which Peter displays on his website is quite clear feather evolution is mostly theory, proposition and hypothesis which requires much further testing.

He also says explicitly near the end that the lack of actual fossils seriously hampers investigation.

PB

  • 70.
  • At 03:30 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Peter

This should be interesting.

The following supports the argument I put forward in my last posting about the dot-to-dot puzzle. Prum makes it quite clear he does not have too many dots but has nonetheless drawn a very complex model based on hypothesing and propositions;-

From page 54 of the paper you kindly put on your website;-
"As with the question of the origin of feathers themselves, studying the evolutionary origin of feather shape determination is constrained by the absence of obvious intermediate or plesio-morphic morphologies (Prum, ’99)."

Again from page 44 of the article on your own website. Take particular note of the fact that his "model" (not fossils) define a "theoretical" not actual evolution;-

RESULTS
"The model defines a theoretical, six-dimensional feather morphospace. The six growth parameter axes determine the theoretical feather shapes at each point in the morphospace."


Also from page 54;-
"The realism of the model parameters does not indicate what parameter values are actually involved in the growth of real bird feathers. Sophis-
ticated tests of our model would identify which of the theoretically plausible parameter combina-
tions actually occur during the growth of differently shaped feathers in different taxonomic
groups of birds."


In this absract below of Prum's paper it is clear his whole argument is based on propositions, hypothesising and models but not with actual fossils; ergo it is based on the assumption, not tested here, that evolution actually happened;-


Review
Development and evolutionary origin of feathers
Richard O. Prum *
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, and Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454

email: Richard O. Prum (prum@ukans.edu)
*Correspondence to Richard O. Prum, Natural History Museum, Dyche Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-2454
Abstract:
Avian feathers are a complex evolutionary novelty characterized by structural diversity and hierarchical development. Here, I propose a functionally neutral model of the origin and evolutionary diversification of bird feathers based on the hierarchical details of feather development. I propose that feathers originated with the evolution of the first feather follicle - a cylindrical epidermal invagination around the base of a dermal papilla. A transition series of follicle and feather morphologies is hypothesized to have evolved through a series of stages of increasing complexity in follicle structure and follicular developmental mechanisms. Follicular evolution proceeded with the origin of the undifferentiated collar (stage I), barb ridges (stage II), helical displacement of barb ridges, barbule plates, and the new barb locus (stage III), differentiation of pennulae of distal and proximal barbules (stage IV), and diversification of barbule structure and the new barb locus position (stage V). The model predicts that the first feather was an undifferentiated cylinder (stage I), which was followed by a tuft of unbranched barbs (stage II). Subsequently, with the origin of the rachis and barbules, the bipinnate feather evolved (stage III), followed then by the pennaceous feather with a closed vane (stage IV) and other structural diversity (stages Va-f). The model is used to evaluate the developmental plausibility of proposed functional theories of the origin of feathers. Early feathers (stages I, II) could have functioned in communication, defense, thermal insulation, or water repellency. Feathers could not have had an aerodynamic function until after bipinnate, closed pennaceous feathers (stage IV) had evolved. The morphology of the integumental structures of the coelurisaurian theropod dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx and Beipiaosaurus are congruent with the model's predictions of the form of early feathers (stage I or II). Additional research is required to examine whether these fossil integumental structures developed from follicles and are homologous with avian feathers. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 285:291-306, 1999.© 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

So in conclusion;-
1) Prum is quite clear state that the lack of fossils is a big problem for his theory.
2) He takes on board untested the assumption that evolution actually happened.
3) He says his theoretical model requires much testing against acutal feathers to see if it is correct.

Over to you Pete, DD, Rachel.
PB

PS I am not for a second saying I have all the answers or anything so dogmatic. I am simply testing your theory to destruction.

  • 71.
  • At 05:12 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Ignorance is bliss! so you must be very happy!

I don't know where to start on the oft repeated canards that you assert.

The evidence for the fossil record has moved on from Darwin, it was 150 years ago!

PB why not look at what science actually says!

"QUESTION: What actual evidence would satisfy you that creationism is correct?"

ANSWER: evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable(I don't know how more simple I can make it!). I have asked you repeatedly to produce just one(I mean for goodness sake!)piece and except for bluster you have given me nowt. Therefore I can only conclude that you are arguing very emotionally for a position which you cannot back with evidence-no that is silly!

As Peter has pointed out to you before and myself and others in links the canards that you repeat have been well-answered.

How do you test a miracle? anyway as has been pointed out to you on many occasions the main claims of Biblical creationism are empirical.

The evolution of the bird:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

Re: 5%, in terms of the life scientists the figure is 99.99% in favour of science.

Never claimed to have read Prof Nevins work and the reason why creationism is not published as scientific literature is because it is twaddle.

PB you said that you cannot accept that Genesis is allegorical myth-do you give the same standard to the rest of the OT? Are you a geo-centrist?

According to Joshua, YAHWEH stopped the sun in the sky. As most of us know this is impossible as the sun does not move and the earth goes around the sun. To my knowledge the Bible does not acknowledge this as being allegorical so is it literally true?

BTW your evasion in noting the blatant dishonesty of AIG re: the deliberate perversion and lie that was told about Prof Prum. You would think that if you had an ounce of integrity that you would notice this, apo9logies and move on. But as I said it has been noted. I must say that it is not very Christian behaviour.

And please do not try and drag this down to an atheist/theist debate-as has been pointed out to you on many occasions intelligent Christians/theists have no problem with evolution/science.

  • 72.
  • At 06:31 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

While you are talking about Prum's work, you will see the AIG quotation is a very fair represetation of his conclusion see post 68.

Personally I cant account for the variation in actual words used, but the key point is this;-

Prum says his model is "contstrained" by the lack of obvious fossils - see post 68 quote of prum's work.

So despite Darwin having made the same point 150 years ago, scientists are still complaining that there arent enough fossils to stand up their evolutionary models!

Over to you.

PB

  • 73.
  • At 07:08 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

JW

If you want to talk about the bible and history, here is Enc Britannica take on the life of Christ. You will notice how seriously it takes the gospels as historical documents.

Then you could go on to read prof FF Bruce and CS Lewis on the same matter of course....

PB


Jesus Christ
Summary of Jesus' life

Although born in Bethlehem, according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth, a village near Sepphoris, one of the two major cities of Galilee (Tiberias was the other). He was born to Joseph and Mary shortly before the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2; Luke 1:5) in 4 BC. According to Matthew and Luke, however, Joseph was only his father legally.They report that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and that she “was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18; cf. Luke 1:35). Joseph is said to have been a carpenter (Matthew 13:55), that is, a craftsman who worked with his hands, and, according to Mark 6:3, Jesus also became a carpenter.

Luke (2:41–52) states that as a child Jesus was precociously learned, but there is no other evidence of his childhood or early life. As a young adult, he went to be baptized by the prophet John the Baptist and shortly thereafter became an itinerant preacher and healer (Mark 1:2–28). In his mid-30s, Jesus had a short public career, lasting perhaps less than one year, during which he attracted considerable attention. Some time between AD 29 and 33—possibly AD 30—he went to observe Passover in Jerusalem, where his entrance, according to the Gospels, was triumphant and infused with eschatological significance. While there he was arrested, tried, and executed. His disciples became convinced that he still lived and had appeared to them. They converted others to belief in him, which eventually led to a new religion, Christianity.
ENDS

  • 74.
  • At 08:16 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Goodness PB!

You really haven't a clue!

I know you won't but try and look at fossils and the supposed lack thereof:


https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

and

https://home.comcast.net/%7Efsteiger/others.htm

same old boring canards from you PB.

I fail to see what is "wrong" with Prum!

However again you tried to sidestep AIG's use of a dishonest and blatant misquote.

Also instead of simply repeating canards perhaps you could give us the the positive "evidence" for Biblical creationism-just one would do and please make it objective, credible and verifiable.

Since you said(this seemingly non-existent) "theory" is respected(!?) could you show me how creationism does these simple things (1) form a hypothesis (2) form testable predictions based on that hypothesis (3) devise an experiment to test your prediction (4) modify your hypothesis until predictions and experimental results match.

PB things have moved on from Darwin! and even if there was not a single fossil the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

PS. do you believe that your god stopped the sun in the sky in Joshua?

  • 75.
  • At 08:35 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

since you like Enc Britannica so much the first paragraph on the article says:

"Jesus Christ (born c. 6–4 BC, Bethlehem; died c. AD 30, Jerusalem) also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth founder of Christianity, one of the world's largest religions, and the incarnation of God according to most Christians. His teachings and deeds are recorded in the New Testament, which is essentially a theological document that makes discovery of the “historical Jesus” difficult. The basic outlines of his career and message, however, can be characterized when considered in the context of 1st-century Judaism and, especially, Jewish eschatology."

So in fact instead of taking the documents seriously the article instead admits that the gospels are theological works rather than "historical" and makes study of said documents difficult.


PB- What the hell had any of that to do with my previous post to you? Do you think that ignoring the parts of what your opponents say in debate that you find difficult constitutes engaging in discussion? So far you've failed to address my challenge to your claim that the bible is itself "evidence" of creation, and many of the other points raised by the others on this thread. (That's not to mention my comprehensive response to you here.)

  • 77.
  • At 09:50 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

Your talk origins link explicitly *confirms* Prums view about the real scarcity of fossils.

How could evolution stand up without any fossils, as you suggest? I would be very interested to hear this.

Enc Brit clearly says finding the historical Jesus is difficult, but nonetheless still gives a summary of his life in post 71 based on the gospels.

The 2005 edition says one particular mark of their authenticity is that they report embarrassing stories about heros in the texts. eg Peter denying Christ and John the Baptist doubting Christ etc etc.

So Enc Brit's serious treatment of the gospels certainly flies right in the face of rachel w's claims above that the bible does not count as evidence in looking at history.

That is unless she wants to make a distinction between its reliability in Genesis and the NT.

And DD, I guess if you can believe God spoke and created the world, if you really do believe him to be "Almighty" then not only do I think stopping planetary motion is a cinch, but I also believe he could shrink the sun, put it in your pocket without harming you and put it right back in the sky before anyone had noticed. That is what I understand by "Almighty".

But back to the point of our discussion and one for which I have been lambasted for some months on this blog;-

ITS OFFICIAL; THERE AINT ENOUGH FOSSILS TO STAND UP THE THEORY OF FEATHER EVOLUTION FROM REPTILE SCALES, JUST MODELS, PROPOSITIONS AND HYPOTHESES.

Interested to hear Pete, Rachel and JW on this...

PB

  • 78.
  • At 10:11 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

JW

You can just calm yourself down right there.

I have actually hammered the question of whether or not fossils demonstrate feather evolution right into the ground here, if you look at the quotes from Prum I have given and the talk origins link from DD about the paucity of fossils generally.

And if you note in post 73 c/o DD Enc Brit says the bible records the "teachings and deeds" of Jesus Christ. Get that? Enc Brit says the NT does record the teachings and deeds of Christ. historical evidence right there, along with whatever difficulties some historians see in them, they are nontheless historical evidence, if they record "deeds".

Now are you really saying you think your words in post 66 equate in terms of historical evidence to that of the bible? I suggest Enc Brit disagrees.

Please do not confuse my refusal to engage with ad hominem comments with a refusal to debate.

I am currently beating all comers on this entry on **the facts**, not the insults.

over to you.

PB

PS I dont have time to back into the other debate right now, life is v busy. I dont guess either us will surprise each other by now though ;-)

  • 79.
  • At 10:24 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

John I have been following your aside with PB and have to admit how flummoxed as were you in PB jumping from Genesis to the life of Jesus as a way of comparative history. PB does not get evaluation of evidence. I don't think I have met someone who uses practically all the common fallacies as listed below:

https://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

  • 80.
  • At 11:02 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Read the talkorigins in article in full.

Evolution/fossils the modern of knowledge about anatomy, embryology, biochemistry and biogeography provides ample evidence for evolution on its own.Although fossils are a nice little bonus.

PB you explicity claimed about the Enc Brit that"You will notice how seriously it takes the gospels as historical documents."

The first paragraph that you conveniently left out says the...opposite! It says that they are theological documents(which I would concur as I would with the whole article when taken in it's full context)and it is difficult to discover the
historical Jesus from these documents. You did admit this in your next message only after I exposed you. Your previous use of a misquote was bad enough but false-witnessing for Jesus is a different matter!I believe that you should apologise to the other posters for your blantant misrepresentation.

Also ancient literature is full of embarrassing stories about god-men-check out the Greeks!

"And DD, I guess if you can believe God spoke and created the world, if you really do believe him to be "Almighty" then not only do I think stopping planetary motion is a cinch, but I also believe he could shrink the sun, put it in your pocket without harming you and put it right back in the sky before anyone had noticed. That is what I understand by "Almighty"."

What a lazy way of "thinking"! so you are a geo-cenrist? it's just that the Bible says that your god stopped the sun, which as most of us know doesn't move-the earth actually moves around it. Which says that the writers of Joshua thought as such, but they have an excuse for their ignorance as they did not know any better-what's your excuse?

PB Peter has answered your questions of fossils and feathers.

Now instead of repeating canards why not present evidence for the simple questions I asked in M72?


  • 81.
  • At 11:40 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

very interesting link there DD

but I see you are refusing to discuss Prum's quotes in post 68. Why?

funny, your baloney detector link says dead giveaways for baloney are ad hominems and strawman arguments, which have both been poured onto me like a deluge above and which I have not engaged in.

I also like this quote:
"If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work".

That of course must not apply if the chains in your argument must be fossilised steps in the evolution of feathers.

This one is also good;

"Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?"

Yes you've guessed it, evolution cannot be duplicated either.

I would said your baloney test kit has backfired on you DD. TTFN.


PB

BTW it was not me that attacked the bible's value as historical evidence, it was JW and Rachel - i was merely defending it.

Ah, there's my pb. My lovely pb. Don't let anyone try to snatch him away from me, he's mine. He makes my life so much fuller, as he keeps showing how much better it is to have a scientist atheist world view than his blind faith that disallows him entry to that nice pub called 'Reality & Knowledge'.

Pb, in your latest installment of 'How to embarres yourself as a Christian' you came up with

"ITS OFFICIAL; THERE AINT ENOUGH FOSSILS TO STAND UP THE THEORY OF FEATHER EVOLUTION FROM REPTILE SCALES, JUST MODELS, PROPOSITIONS AND HYPOTHESES."

Good free advice: if you're going to shout make sure you have your story in order. You don't, your story is out of date. You source was an article from 1999. Eight years can be along time in science, new discoveries can be made. Previously I had pointed out to you many times another article from 2003. You know, the one about the series of intermediate fossil finds in China in 2003. Had you read the stuff that I previously pointed out to you more than a dozen times, you would have known that your source is out of date. Let me quote about the fossil finds of 2003 from the other paper:

Special conditions in the Jehol Biota in China allowed for the excellent preservation of soft tissues, hence many integuments of Mesozoic creatures evolving from reptiles to birds about 120 million years ago were well preserved in fossils (Chen et al., ’98; Zhou et al., 2003, Fig. 1).

Isn't that nice pb. The fossils are there, pictures of them and all. I had previously pointed them out to you, including on which page the photographs are. And now you come up with a claim from the last millenium that there are no fossils! Makes you look silly again, doesn't it? You said you had been lambested on the subject for months. Well indeed you had been, and I'm happy to be doing it once more. Reading one out-of-date paper and then shouting your lungs out in ignorance once more. Did I tell you I love you for showing the insanity that beliefs can inspire? Come here, give me a big hug.

xxxXXX
Peter

  • 83.
  • At 11:54 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


BTW JW

Interesting quote from you on your website;-

"I'm effectively agnostic about catastrophic climate change, and actively opposed to coercive public policy with the aim of curbing emissions".

The 2007 IPCC report on climate change, which represents the cream of the worlds climatic scientists said of the problem; "urgent action needed", "no doubt about the cause", "major impacts ahead".

How can you possibly disagree with such informed scientific opinion John?

John???

PB

  • 84.
  • At 11:56 PM on 18 Jun 2007,
  • Jean Bart wrote:

* pb wrote: "...I am currently beating all comers on this entry on **the facts**, not the insults..."
.
I'll always be amazed by what people like pb consider "facts". Like badly edited stories in a x-th generation copy of an old collection of stories from a world and a culture lightyears away from the XXIst Century's world, that were transmitted orally for centuries, then written down and put together, then translated in different ways, and mainly originated from the need to hold together and rule a people, having no rational arguments to convince that people of a certain way to stick together. But it's easier to believe than to think, of course... sad, sad people, but happy in a way...

follow-up:

I just read pbs other comment on feathers:

"I have actually hammered the question of whether or not fossils demonstrate feather evolution right into the ground here"

If a dictionary ever needed an example to explain 'utterly unfounded, self-happy smugness' then they could put in a picture of pb. Quoting out-of-date sources and then claiming he has hammered the question into the ground. Pb, does it surprise you that no Christians on this blog ever support you? They must be cringing to have you in their camp, if they even still take the time to read your posts at all.

But I'll protect you from the onslaught of the rational, knowledgeable crowd in this thread. I know you can't stand up for yourself in a debate, so you just hide behind me. You're so valuable to me that I wouldn't want anything to happen to you.

ever yours,
Peter

*** CUE: MISSION IMPOSSIBLE THEME ***

Well, ladies and gentleman, your ever-faithful commenter John Wright here in another record-breaking attempt to reason with PB about the bible! Let's get started, shall we?


So Enc Brit's serious treatment of the gospels certainly flies right in the face of rachel w's claims above that the bible does not count as evidence in looking at history."

No-one has suggested there's no historical facts in the bible. A more careful reading of the comment you allude to (Rachel W, #60) will show that Rachel's point was that the bible does not count as evidence for creationism. This is very different, as we'll see below. Someone writing something about how they imagine the role of God in creation does not constitute evidence, certainly not scientific evidence, which is -I presume- what we're talking about here.


"That is unless she wants to make a distinction between its reliability in Genesis and the NT."

Of course there's a distinction between Genesis and the gospels, and I find it just a tad amusing that you assumed nobody would want to make it! I've lost count of how many times I've explained the following to you: the bible is sixty-six different books written by different people for different reasons, all of them for an audience of which you are not a part. It comprises many genres of literature and cannot be regarded as a single whole, which you appear to want to do. The creation stories in Genesis were not written in the historical genre; they were written in the mythological genre for an audience who understood their nature; for example, they borrow extensively from the creation myths of neighbouring cultures. Other biblical books were written in the historical genre (Kings is a good example), but the creation stories in Genesis are not included in that category. I'm not sure I can be any more clear on this point.


"I guess if you can believe God spoke and created the world .... then not only do I think stopping planetary motion is a cinch....."

I'll stop you there. Again, nobody is saying that an almighty God couldn't do the things you're suggesting; I'm saying that all the evidence points to the fact that he DIDN'T. Monumental difference there. God could create a huge cake the size of a planet and have it rain icing down on us for eternity if he wants -he's almighty- but someone writing that down in a ancient book doesn't mean that he DID.


Finally:

ITS OFFICIAL; THERE AINT ENOUGH FOSSILS TO STAND UP THE THEORY OF FEATHER EVOLUTION FROM REPTILE SCALES, JUST MODELS, PROPOSITIONS AND HYPOTHESES. Interested to hear Pete, Rachel and JW on this..."

I have no opinion on the matter. The theory of evolution doesn't stand or fall on the basis of paleontological concerns, and here's why: (A) paleontology is not the premise for the theory of evolution, (B) there are already enough transitional forms in various species to substantiate the fact that evolution occurred, and (C) the lack of fossils in some species doesn't prove they didn't evolve, particularly when the theory explains the rest of the facts phenomenally better than any other. Half-evolved feather or no, evolution occurred, and there's plenty of evidence for it (if not a transitional feather). The existence (or lack) of a transitional feather fossil doesn't bolster or damage the theory of evolution. (From what I've read, though, there are some fine specimens that are good contenders in the category.)

  • 87.
  • At 01:25 AM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • LOL wrote:

* 84.
* At 12:23 AM on 19 Jun 2007,
* John Wright wrote:

"The theory of evolution doesn't stand or fall on the basis of paleontological concerns,..."
.
Exactly John!:)
Relative relationships predicted by evolutionary theory, and depicted on "The tree of Life" have also been supported and placed by comparative mitochondrial, and genomic DNA sequencing!
.
Tree of Life
www.tolweb.org/tree/

DD, Peter, LOL, PB- Interesting comments all. I admit to feeling slightly bad for PB, the lone gunman surrounded on all sides! While I won't be deterred from debating with you PB on an issue which I believe you're totally wrong, I will offer a timely reminder that none of it is personal (of course) and I think you sound like a very decent chap.

I won't be goaded into a diversion on climate change, but I'll respond to this: "How can you possibly disagree with such informed scientific opinion John?" ...by saying that I'm merely agnostic on the issue. You're attempting to draw a comparison between climate change and evolution. But the wealth of evidence for origins as explained by Darwinian evolution and the cosmos as explained by Einstein is incomparably greater than the evidence for catastrophic, human-caused climate change. It's just not a fair juxtaposition.

But I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, so that'll be the last word on climate change - it's for another thread.

  • 89.
  • At 06:21 AM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

I am not refusing to discuss Prof Prum's comments.

And how are the attacks on you ad hominen and strawman? bit difficult when you do not actually produce any evidence!

Re: Chain-read the links again and please try and learn something.

The theory of evolution can be falsified . The experiments used to show evolution can be duplicated and there is a wealth of data to support this.

Now(very simple) can you show me the same for Biblical creationism, just one piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable.

Your "defense" of the Bible was shown to be wanting.

Ps. To john M86, I think PB is a decent sausage too! just needs to apply his critical thinking faculties a bit.

  • 90.
  • At 09:43 AM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Morning all,

Last night I only quicly read pbs unfounded triumphalism posts. This morning I went through it all more thoroughly and found pb's statement that

"I am currently beating all comers on this entry on **the facts**, not the insults."

Can you spell S-E-L-F-H-A-P-P-Y S-M-U-G? Here is a man who has had more up-to-date literature pointed out to him, pre-read for him, had the page numbers with photos of intermediate feather fossils pointed out to him, YET depsite those endless reminders manages to come up with out-of-date, last-millenium literature. And then shouts out victory claims.

Pb, it must be hard on you to get pummeled again. There you were, thinking you had it nailed this time, only to be exposed as an embarrasing ignorant once again within hours.

What's that? Oh no. Please don't cry. On my way home to you I will buy a big bag of nice sweets for you to cheer up again. You know I care deeply about you. As we've been together only shortly I don't know what your favourite flavour is. Which ones would you like me to bring you?

Mad about you,
Peter

  • 91.
  • At 12:14 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Hello all,

Last night I only quicly read pbs unfounded triumphalism posts. This morning I went through it all more thoroughly and found pb's statement that

"I am currently beating all comers on this entry on **the facts**, not the insults."

Can you spell S-E-L-F-H-A-P-P-Y S-M-U-G? Here is a man who has had up-to-date literature on countless fossils pointed out to him for months, pre-read for him, had the page numbers with photos of intermediate feather fossils pointed out to him, YET depsite those endless reminders manages to come up with out-of-date, last-millenium literature that claims a total absence of fossils. And then shouts out victory claims like the one quoted above (and unlike pbs false quotes, that is an accurate one).

Pb, it must be hard on you to get pummeled again. There you were, thinking you had it nailed this time, only for your post to be exposed as embarrasing ignorance once again within hours.

What's that? Oh no. Please don't cry. On my way home to you I will buy a big bag of nice sweets to cheer you up again. You know I care deeply about you. As we've been together only shortly I don't know what your favourite flavour is. Which ones would you like me to bring you?

Anything for you,
Peter

  • 92.
  • At 05:22 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Peter

I recall addressing some of those post 1999 finds before, but throw up some hyperlinks for some papers and lets have a look.

Its amusing that DD said things had moved on alot re fossil finds since Darwin and then when Prum also said there were very few DD referred me to talkorigins link that confirmed there were very few but that it was perfectly normal and nothing to worry about.

Its also amusing Peter that higher up this blog you were using the Prum paper to disprove my argument but now its weaknesses are pointed out you are moving away from it.

By all means bring forward the latest and most up to date paper you can find on the matter, with a link and we will move on to the next stage.

The fact you were so trusting in Prum also underlines again that you are out of your depth in the biological sciences, as a physicist.


Peter has been hammering on at me for months on feather fossils issue, so I make no apology for showing this aspect of evolution has very thin evidence, according to what we have looked at here so far.


John, very amusing; it IS possible to discard a global scientific consenus on climate change but NOT on evolution.

I guess we are all guilty of such selective use of evidence when it suits our world view, and I mean that in deadly earnest, me included; the human condition.

I was looking up Enc Brit on Genesis and pulled out a few interesting snippets, ref its historical value, bearing in mind we all accept Enc Brit is by no means a creationist mandate;-


1) It says the book is based on "extremely old oral and written traditions" which is fairly neutral but not at all dismissive, we would have to agree. It is now widely accepted that in such socieites oral tradition was very accurate over long periods, in my understanding, as they were so dependent on it.

2) While calling the tower of babel a myth in one article, in another it takes a more neutral stance, saying the discovery of ziggurat towers in recent times in that area had affirmed the concept of the tower of babel in popular understanding esp as the tower most people connect to the biblical story is known to be called "Babuil".

3) Noachian deluge (flood); Enc Brit says this theory has "lost much of its geomorphic appeal" in recent times but the fact that sedmintary deposits form the continental bedrocks still leaves unanswered questions.

4) Abraham is treated as a genuine historical figure, while it veers towards holding Adam and Noah as "types".

5) It says Sodom and Gomorrah were "presumably" destroyed 1900bc by earthquake, petrol and gas combustionand "possibly" covered in shallow water of Al-Lisan.


So while Enc Brit is avowedly evolutionist it certainly has a lot of time for Genisis as historical evidence.

My point is that anyone trying to dismiss it as irrelevant in historical terms -yes even in the book of genesis - is onto a loser.

Look forward to the best paper on feather evolution you can turn up Peter, as I am sure does everyone else.

By the way DD, the Enc Brit quotes on jesus were a section which was a self contained summary of his life and, if I recall correctly, a section on his miracles.

To quote every entry was impossible and I never pretended Enc Brit took an unciritical view of the gospels, just that it took them very seriously.

If you read ANY post I have ever written on the bible as history I have always said exactly the same thing; mainstream history does take the bible seriously as historical evidence, albeit not in an uncritical manner and certainly not as divinely inspired.

This contrasts sharply with most posters here who regullary assert such rubbish as that it is of no more vlaue that posts on this blog, take a bow John Wright with your parable of the drunken man above.

ttnf

PB


  • 93.
  • At 06:34 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

BTW Peter

I wonder, just wonder, if you might be a tad embarrassed if any of your superiors could see your puerile "love poems" above.

Who would really take you for a professional scientist working on the following project at QUB, c/o of your own hyperlink;-


Peter Klaver

Atomistic Simulation Group,
School of Mathematics and Physics,
Queen's University Belfast,
Belfast BT7 1NN,
Northern Ireland

Current research project: radiation damage in fusion reactor materials
Building a nuclear fusion reactor has been one of the Holy Grails of science and engineering for decades. At present, the record for sustaining a controlled fusion plasma is still measured in seconds, but hopefully that will change to full-time operation in the not too-distant future. The ability to sustain a fusion plasma would be a landmark achievement, but it would also immediately give rise to a new problem: how to deal with the material damage to reactor components, caused by continuous fast neutron bombardment and He bubble formation.

  • 94.
  • At 07:38 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Read what the articles say again about fossils.

Things have moved on from Darwin! it was over 150 years ago! and their is a wealth of fossil data but as has been pointed out to you and pointedly ignored fossil evidence makes up a very small part of the overall picture.

Right Genesis, OK Enc Brit says that it was based on oral traditions well so were all of the earth's other creation myths. So...they are all true!? PB people in ancient times did seek answers but did not have the tools that we have so you can excuse their ignorance...so whats your excuse?

Babel it's a myth. There are some excellent books on the evolution of language.

The Flood stories are allegorical myths.

(Btw PB I am not asserting these things dogmatically, rather there is no evidence to back them up, I would also say the same about Greek, Hindu, Viking etc myth so please do not think that I am making a special case of aspects of the Bible)

Abraham could have existed.

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, does not prove diddly though.

As JW pointed out no-one here is dismissing entirely the whole Bible as fabrication, but some of us do put on are critical thinking faculties. So Genesis can be dismissed as historical. If you think differently please provide objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back it up.

(PB Peter gave you LOADS of papers on fossil evolution)

PB are you a geo-centrist?(you haven't answered me yet)

PB you bore false witness against the Enc Brit article. I have already exposed you in posts 73 and 78. You stated that the article said something and it fact it said the opposite-false witnessing for Jesus! Btw I think the article is great, well-written and have no problem with it.

PB the mainstream view of the Bible is that people think that is was as divinely inspired as much as they believe that Homer was, the Egyptian myths, Hindu myths etc etc

Talking about posters asserting rubbish...

Could you tell me how Biblical creationism is falsifiable, how it is testable and can in be confirmed by independent experiment? Could you provide just one piece of objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back up your claims?

PB Peter loves you!(you confirm his, mine and others suspicions of what loopy-lou religion can do to peoples minds!) and so does Richard Dawkins!

PB could we have your full name and address so we can let your work colleagues know your puerile posts, your stunning willful ignorance, your false witnessing etc etc I mean "do unto others..."

  • 95.
  • At 08:28 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

I don't think that I will post links to you anymore as I am not sure if you are sincere and more importantly I do not see why I should waste precious time researching stuff on the web when you can do it yourself. However here is link to a pdf that deals with the basic aspects of evolution:

https://www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd026042.pdf

Now if you are sincere and genuinely do want to know to know more about science here are some links where you can ask scientists questions(biologists, paleontologists et al):

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/archive.htm

https://www.madsci.org/

https://scorescience.humboldt.k12.ca.us/fast/ask.htm

https://www.hhmi.org/askascientist/

https://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/ask.html

https://www.askascientistsf.com/

https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/askmag.html

Here is one that deals solely with fossils/dinosaurs and in which you can ask the experts.

https://www.dinosaursociety.com/dinosaur-news.php

That is of course if you are sincere and genuine and not wasting peoples time.

Up to you...

Regards

DD

PB, either you are being willfully ignorant for convenience to your position, or you are missing some parts of my earlier responses. I'll show you what I mean, so we can get over this roadbump and get to something more valuable:

In #64, I told you that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 of the bible do not constitute evidence for creationism.

In # 73, you respond by saying, "If you want to talk about the bible and history, here is Enc Britannica take on the life of Christ. You will notice how seriously it takes the gospels as historical documents." Note that you've moved the discussion to the gospels rather than the creation story.

In #84, I replied, "No-one has suggested there's no historical facts in the bible." In other words, we're talking only about the creation stories, not any other part of scripture. We are disputing with you the historical value of creationism, saying that it's a theological myth rather than a historical account. I then proceeded to explain why you cannot use the historical accuracy of one part of the bible to stregthen your case for the historical accuracy of another.

Now in your latest entry in #90 you are right back at the start, citing examples of other biblical passages that you assert the Encyclopedia Britannica regards as having historical value. Yet they're nothing to do with the discussion! You can't bolster the historical value of Genesis 1 by appealing to the historical value of the gospel of Matthew! They're different pieces of literature. We aren't discussing other passages; we're discussing the creation stories. I'm really trying to be patient here.

I'll try again.

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

PB- I am making the following two basic claims:

(A) that creationism contradicts the wealth of scientific data which points to a very old Einsteinian cosmos and Darwinian evolution by natural selection; and

(B) that the reason for (A) is that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are mythological in genre, not historical. Therefore creationism derives from a mistaken reading of the Genesis creation stories.

If you wish to contradict (A) or (B) or both, you cannot cite what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about other parts of the bible. That is irrelevant, since we aren't discussing the gospels or other parts of the OT or anything else; we're discussing the creation stories in Genesis. (In case you genuinely missed it, see my second response in #84 for more on why you can't point to historical accuracy in one part of the bible to augment the historical accuracy of another.)

I really hope we can get somewhere now?

  • 97.
  • At 10:54 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

All of God’s creation was created mature, Adam & Eve were created fully mature and fully functioning as adults being of a mature age even though they were only seconds old when created, and on the fourth day God created the sun, moon, and stars and set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. To give light means instant light mature light, the speed of light at creation was infinite not 186,282 miles per second as we know it to day. Light on the day of its creation appeared to be billions of light years old when in fact it was just seconds old, just as Adam & Eve were mature though being only seconds old so was all that filled the firmament of heaven. God created a mature Universe. If you read the Bible it explains this GENESIS 1:14 Let there be lights (instant) in the firmament of the heaven. The simple answer is “BORN MATURE”

I don’t adhere to Bishop Ussher’ chronology, but I base my chronological view of Creation based upon the dates of Bible Kings and by laying them along side the dates of the rulers of Assyria and Babylon.

The Assyrians based their history data upon astronomy and by using the Assyrian ‘eponym’ Lists which gives us the dates of their kings and by using present knowledge it allows us to plot Absolute Dates accurately which therefore can be used to pinpoint the dates of Old Testament chronology.

Stone Age 10,000 - 4,000 B.C. Genesis chapters 1-11

Chalcolitic Period 4,000 - 3,200 B.C. Genesis chapters 1-11

Bronze Age 3,200 – 1,200 B.C. Abraham born (2166 B.C.) Jacob enters Egypt (1876 B.C.)The Exodus (1446 B.C.)

Iron Age 1,200 – 330 B.C. David becomes King (1004 b.C.) Israel’s Fall (586 B.C.)
The Jews Return (539 B.C.)

The Hellenistic Period 330 – 63 B.C

The Roman Period 63 B.C. – A.D. 330 Christ crucified (A.D. 30)

Evolution is only a false religious philosophy nothing more, generated by atheistic scientific freethinkers and their supporters with theatrical imaginations; who are nothing more than false teachers who are trying to vandalize the clear teaching of the scriptures, the established fact is that evolution is beyond the reach of the scientific method, meaning that the theory of evolution is, consequently, not science at all. Is there scientific proof of evolution, no, there simply is none.
Many people regard the Bible and science to be at odds with each other which causes them to reject the Bible without first examining the facts for themselves, science and the Bible are in full accord with each other.
Paleontology is consistent with the Bible, JOB: 40, V15; 41 V1, Astronomy is consistent with the Bible, Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22. The Bible is consistent with Meteorology; Job 28:25 The Bible is consistent with Biology Leviticus 17:11, the Bible is consistent with Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology and Physics which can be supported by the facts of the Bible; there is more science in the Bible than one can fathom, and it would actually be helpful if the skeptic resolved himself to read the Bible.
The year1948 and the National Restoration of the Jewish Nation is further proof that Biblical prophesy supports the accuracy of the Bible which can be read in Ezekiel 37:1-10


God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is
Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; ACTS 17:24

A fundamentalist is bound also to be a creationist, accepting the literal account of creation in six days given in Genesis, and affirmed by other references throughout the Bible. The creation account does not appear in a figurative part of the Bible, such as the prophetic book, but in one of the historical books, It is presented as factual, and endorsed as factual by the Lord Jesus Christ, do you, theistic evolutionist doubt the words of our Lord. The fundamentalist knows that human history teems with alternative explanations of origins reflecting man’s efforts under Satan’s direction to eliminate the creator, the higher critic, the rationalist, the universalist, the liberal lose any accountability to Him. to abandon the Genesis account of creation is to capitulate to the great lie of Satan, and to turn the Bible into a book conditioned by the limitations of human understanding. Shame on you!

Apostate New evangelicals usually find the biblical account of creation an embarrassment. They are to self conscious about their standing in the eyes of the world. They are too anxious to be respected by the world, and non evangelical scholars. They are afraid of being scorned, or of being regarded as obscurantists.


One of the necessary mechanisms of the evolutionary argument or theory is mutations, a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene, but this basis forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, resulting in physical and mental handicap this is hardly the foundation of a evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous complex development.

If man did evolve why are there still apes and monkeys?

If positive mutations did happen how would they become established in the population based on rare occurrence?

One of the necessary mechanisms of the evolutionary argument or theory is mutations, a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene, but this basis forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, good to bad, resulting in physical and mental handicap this is hardly the foundation of a evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous complex development.

If positive mutations did happen how would they become established in the population based on rare occurrence?

Distorted DNA information (mutations) is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, going from a normal state to a state of distortion, going from good to bad, from complexity to chaos.

The evolutionist always fails to look at the big picture the whole picture; evolutionists violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics there information becomes twisted and distorted from the truth.

  • 98.
  • At 12:48 AM on 20 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


John

The bible is constantly being dismissed here as of no value.

Read earnestly, the enc britt quotes on genesis show credible affirmation of genesis' records on sedimentary formation of contients from the noachian flood, the tower of Babuil, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah and espcially the existence of the actual person of Abraham, which DD just appears to refuse to see???

Yes one article does refer to babel as a myth, nonetheless, other entries are not so dismissive.

It is a fact that more recent excavations discovered ziggurats matching the description of the biblical tower and with an almost perfect match in name.

Yes John, nobody expected Enc Brit to bat for creationism, but even I was surprised how deeply into Genesis it goes with an open mind.

That is mainstream secular scholarship for you, but hey, JW, if YOU can retain your self respect by rejecting international scientific consensus on climate change, forgive me if I also reserve judgement on Enc Brit's view on the first chapter of genesis.

And getting back to the point; DD i dont have time to read every link you give me so lets stick to the main dispute here and see it through properly;

lets bring out the latest papers you can find on feather evolution and see which sides the facts REALLY fall down on.

At the moment my money is on the side which says there are too few fossils to stand up feather evolution.

Strange how nobody wants to talk about Prum's quotes anymmore!!!!

If Peter is really saying that Prum wasnt up to much because the important discoveries are all much more recent, well lets see it out.

BTW, isnt it interesting how evolution always gets up over the 100 post mark..

and bearing in mind this post is about the biblical flood, isnt it interesting how much time enc britt has for the theory!

gdnight all...

PB

PB- I give up. You've singlehandedly failed, yet again, to coherently deal with my response to you in #94, nor the clean slate I offer in the latter part of that post in terms of how to continue to conduct this debate.

Let me ask you one final question, the answer to which may perhaps be the most illuminating of all:

Do you agree with Christian Hippy's post #95?

  • 100.
  • At 06:18 AM on 20 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

JW-I feel like giving up too!

DD read what I said again!

Peter did supply recent papers on feather evolution.

And of course "you don't have time" to read the links...well what a surprise!

We are still talking about Prof Prum, I provided links...oh what is the point!?

Yes evolution does tend to get over 100 posts, it's because people like you and Bill post utter garbage and expect to get away with it!

PB are you a geocentrist?

What is the scientific theory of Biblical creationism?

How is it falsifiable?

Is it confirmed by independent experiment?

Could you provide just 0ne(!?!?!) piece of objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back it up? YAWN!

Care to apologise for the blatant misquote in AIG?

Care to apologise for your blatant false witnessing in the Enc Brit article?

As for Bill I almost fell off my seat at the usual creationist lies and canards...

why are there apes and monkeys, 2nd law of thermodynamics etc etc goodness!

Care to back up anything yo say with objective, credible and verifiable evidence?

No...oh well!

Damn you both make me proud to be an atheist!

Keep it up!

pb, your response was as disappointing as ever. While I have shown you wrong SO many times, it seems you now expect me to build the case against myself?! I have little time before the weekend. But later on I'll explain again why you are such a brilliant example of how religion can poison a persons mind.

  • 102.
  • At 04:33 PM on 20 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Peter,

Talking about religion poisoning peoples mind's have you read Christopher Hitchens 'God is not great(how religion poisons everything)'?

I pre-ordered it on Amazon, it's excellent, erudite and witty and PB aptly proves the point!

Regards

DD

I'm a big Hitchens fan and loved reading parts of God Is Not Great: it's full of so many valid points about religion and religious attitudes that, while I disagree with his ultimate conclusion ('there is no god') I would recommend it for entertainment value alone.

I'd also like to reiterate on a link posted by someone (possibly you DD?) several weeks ago to a written six-part debate hosted by Christianity Today between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. The link is here for those interested in this great exchange.

  • 104.
  • At 08:35 PM on 20 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Hi John,

Whilst not necessarily agreeing with everything the Hitch says(Iraq) but by gum he can make a point well, he is excellent entertainment value. I have been watching quite a bit of him on the web recently in debates and find myself hoping that everyone else will just shut up and let him speak! I do like a caustic wit. Personally I do not believe that a belief in God worries Hitchens nor myself it's the attitude that it gives certain people and I would broaden my concerns to fundamentalism in general as unfortuantely it is not only limited to religion.

Anyway...cheers for the link!

  • 105.
  • At 11:06 PM on 20 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


how does the written chinese language support the story of Babel and Eden? ......coming up soon.

meantime.....

No I am not geocentrist.

John - genesis is evidence, but not by your scientific standards. The people that wrote it did not write it with that in mind.

BTW, as a believer in God, what are your scientific evidence for that belief?

And did you ever answer how you justify ignoring the climate change science?

And why does Enc Brit say evolution is a "theory" which "postulates" the development of life in that manner?

because it is a provisional theory, until a better one comes along?

And why is everyone refusing to discuss how strong your feather evolution evidence is any more?

Cant find any good papers to back up your theory?

DD asks for scientific evidence of supernatural creation??? DD surely you know that is impossible in modern science? that was a major conclusion at dover!

chinese angle coming up

PB

PS DD how did Prod Nevin become a world authority in genetics without ever writing anything which supports the theory of evolution?

  • 106.
  • At 12:46 AM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • Kale wrote:

* 95.
* At 10:54 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
* Bill wrote:
"A fundamentalist is bound also to be a creationist, accepting the literal account of creation in six days given in Genesis, and affirmed by other references throughout the Bible."
.
I really, really liked your post Bill :)
Would you agree then, with the stance and information provided on AiG?

PB- Since I'm a sucker for punishment, I'll respond.


"genesis is evidence, but not by your scientific standards. The people that wrote it did not write it with that in mind."

An acknowledgment from you that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are not pieces of literature which fall into the 'scientific' genre. Now perhaps you will also acknowledge that they are not written in the 'historical' genre either? They are allegorical stories, not historical accounts (they couldn't be the latter in any case, since no human being was present at creation). If you can admit this we might finally get somewhere.


"BTW, as a believer in God, what are your scientific evidence for that belief?" [sic]

I don't have any. But the difference between my belief in God and your belief in God is that your belief contradicts scientific discovery and is willfully ignorant of the facts it yields; mine would be discarded in a hot second if science could prove the non-existence of God. I certainly think we can disprove certain kinds of God (like one which created the universe in six days 6000 years ago).


"And did you ever answer how you justify ignoring the climate change science?"

I told you I won't get into it, since it's an entirely different matter on which the facts are completely dissimilar. In short, I'm rejecting your analogy, and that's all I'm prepared to get into because I know how you love to deal in tangents.


"And why does Enc Brit say evolution is a 'theory' which 'postulates' the development of life in that manner? because it is a provisional theory, until a better one comes along?"

Precisely. You've encapsulated the scientific process. Gravity is also a theory in this regard; it provisionally explains why a ball falls to the ground when you drop it. Theories explain facts: the observable fact is that the ball drops and the theory explaining that fact is gravity. Evolution is exactly that: the theory which best explains how life came to be as it is. Perhaps creationism was such a theory, until a better one (evolution) came along to replace it. If you have an even better theory, please share it! Nevertheless, if nothing else, I'm glad you've come to understand the scientific process.


"And why is everyone refusing to discuss how strong your feather evolution evidence is any more?"

The reason I'm not discussing it is because I have absolutely no interest in it. We don't need transitional feathers to substantiate the claims of the theory of evolution: those claims are substantiated extraordinarily well by all the available evidence already.


Let me leave you with a slightly abridged recap of the central question I'm asking of you, with all the above in mind.

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

I am making the following two basic claims:

(A) that creationism contradicts the wealth of scientific data which points to a very old Einsteinian cosmos and Darwinian evolution by natural selection; and

(B) that the reason for (A) is that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are mythological in genre, not historical. Therefore creationism derives from a mistaken reading of the Genesis creation stories.


Now. What issue do you take with either/both of those statements?

  • 108.
  • At 08:41 AM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • Peter Klaver wrote:

Pb,

"And why is everyone refusing to discuss how strong your feather evolution evidence is any more?"

My steewtest pb, I'm not refusing you (would I ever?), but as I said I'm rather busy. I will attend to all your needs this weekend.

"Cant find any good papers to back up your theory?"

I feel I have to be a bit harsh on you there, much as it pains me to do so. TONS of papers about fossils have been pointed out to you, by different posters here, including myself. Look for instance at the talkorigins link DD gave you in post #72. That's a good lead to relevant articles on the subject. Or the articles I pointed out to you SO MANY TIMES. Dishonesty has no place in a healthy relationship. If you don't improve your behaviour you'll lose me!

Peter

  • 109.
  • At 05:07 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Re: Chinese characters here is a review by a Christian

https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/chinese_characters.html

I have learned through past experience that you cannot be trusted when you claim an article or what not claims anything ie., your blatant false witnessing about the Enc Brit article on Jesus.


So you are not a geocentrist so you do deny that your god stopped the sun in the sky in Joshua-interesting you did say if the Bible did not make it clear a story was allegorical then it was to be taken literally, plainly some parts are more literal than others.

"And why does Enc Brit say evolution is a "theory" which "postulates" the development of life in that manner?

because it is a provisional theory, until a better one comes along?"

Well see JW has given you a great answer but evolution by natural selection is described as a "theory" because (wait for it...!) it is a theory!!! well knock me down with a feather! it is a theory which describes the fact of evolution.

Ok lets talk about feather evolution, why not start with the links oh, that's right you are "too busy".

PB the process for fossilisation is very rare, we do not have every fossil that is impossible. Now if you want answers I did post plenty of links where you can ask scientists questions but you are not interested in finding out answers! you are an atypical willfully ignorant creationist troll.

"DD asks for scientific evidence of supernatural creation??? DD surely you know that is impossible in modern science? that was a major conclusion at Dover!"

Oh for goodness sake PB are you really that obtuse? I and others have been over this time and time and time again. I thought that it was explained in simple terms but obviously not simple enough for you. OK here goes again for the umpteenth time(YAWN).

At Dover The ID(iot)ists claimed that they had empirical evidence(irreducible complexity) to back up their claims but this was blown out of the water by the biologist and Christian Ken Miller. Biblical creationists claim that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE BACKS UP THEIR CLAIMS-got that I really do not know how simpler I can make it! you do know that Henry Morris wrote a book on Biblical creationism in which the Bible or your god was not mentioned, this was the standard creationist textbook and claimed empirical support. Biblical creationists say that rocks, fossils etc back up their claims-that is EMPIRICAL evidence! have you got that? Goodness PB not only are you ignorant about science you are also ignorant about things which you claim to know about!?!? astounding!

So PB can you back up your claims with one (just one, not a 100, not even 10, not 2 just one!)piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

You also claimed in an earlier post that the "theory" was respected this implies that the theory exists so what is it? and how is it backed up by independent experiment? how is it falsifiable? etc

Because if you can't answer this it looks like you are arguing a position that has no evidence and is only supported by a bunch of religious fundamentalist nutters.

Any chance of an apology for your blatant false witnessing about the Enc Brit article on Jesus(more importantly you should apologise to Jesus!)

Re: Prof Nevin ans he has 2 hats-his religious ans scientific.

ps. I stand corrected on one point, it's not that you make me proud to be an atheist-you make me proud and glad to be me! for that I offer my sincerest gratitude.

In the light of DD's remarks, I have to say I was unaware that PB had claimed that "...if the Bible did not make it clear a story was allegorical then it was to be taken literally..." - so I have another question.

What is your basis for this idea PB?

  • 111.
  • At 08:25 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

You have been asking for evidence for creationism.

Here are a few points I think make sense and stand fairly strongly as facts. I repeat I am not qualified in this area – I will be corrected – but I think this places JW, Peter yourself and the Christian Hippy all on the same footing with me ie laymen. In other words I am not being dogmatic or trying to be economic with the truth but am giving you my understanding in good faith, as always. Put another way, you are way out of the spirit of this discussion if you accuse me of deliberate deception if I don’t completely understand the issues or my language is not 100 precise. I should grant all my opponents the same terms, of course.

Pre-discussion facts are;-
i) As Enc Britt puts it in the opening line on evolution, evolution is a “THEORY in biology POSTULATING that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”

ii) Evolution is not observable or repeatable in a lab, just like creationism. Neither can be proven scientifically.

iii) As with all science, evolution is a provisional theory, albeit a widely but not universally accepted one among biological scientists and paleo-academics.

iv) Scientific theories for the origin of life in the very first instance are weak.

v) According to observed science mutations are disadvantageous.

EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM

1) Genesis chapter 1 and science agree on the ORDER in which creation happened; creatures appeared on land first and man appeared last. The only apparent exception is where celestial bodies appeared mid-way through the “week” of creation in Genesis 1. But this is easily taken into account by the fact that the story is told from the Adam's perspective and Eden was covered in a thick mist until then, so the bodies would not have been visible in the sky until then.


2) There are large gaps between the following classes of animals with very little that can be argued to be true transitional organisms between them;-

a)Large gap between single celled organisms and man celled creatures
b)Large gap between invertebrates and vertebrates
c)Large gap between fishes and amphibians
d)Large gap between Amphibians and reptiles
e)Large gap between reptiles and birds
f)Large gap between all other creatures and humans

3) In fossil evidence, groups classified separately under evolutionary theory actually appear simultaneously in the Cambrian period. They they appear almost together in an explosion of life, according to fossil record.

4) All life forms are very complicated and have always had DNA


PB

  • 112.
  • At 09:00 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Re: your first paragraph, a lot of misunderstanding could be avoided if you would just even get the basics of what people are saying. PB you are being dogmatic! you are asserting claims that you cannot back up with evidence.

"i) As Enc Britt puts it in the opening line on evolution, evolution is a “THEORY in biology POSTULATING that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”"

yes the theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory-very good PB I would never have guessed that a theory is a...theory. Did you ever consider getting a job as someone who states the bleeding obvious?(I agree with article 100% btw)


"ii) Evolution is not observable or repeatable in a lab, just like creationism. Neither can be proven scientifically."

Absolute utter ignorant rubbish! evolution has been observed in the lab and been confirmed by independent experiment. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, what was your excuse...oh yes you would not accept them!

"iii) As with all science, evolution is a provisional theory, albeit a widely but not universally accepted one among biological scientists and paleo-academics."

Correct!btw it's the theory of evolution by natural selection is almost widely accepted by Life scientists. Evolution itself is a fact, even your fellow Biblical creatioisnts agree on this! your ignorance on your own position is astounding!I did put up a long post awhile ago explaining this with links to creationists, quotes etc also explaining patiently why evolution is both fact and theory-what's the point? you just want to live in your own narrow little delusional world and stick your fingers in your ears.

"iv) Scientific theories for the origin of life in the very first instance are weak."

They are a matter for astro-physics(not biology) and there are a couple of different hypothesis. Science does acknowledge that the things it does not know contrast this with...creationists.

"v) According to observed science mutations are disadvantageous."

some are, most are neutral, some are beneficial.

PB I did ask for evidence that was objective, credible and verifiable and your "evidence" fails on all these accounts.

Re: Genesis, you can twist any creation myth to suit your own agenda. Hindu creationists do the same trick.

2) PB why not read the links and stop exposing yourself to further ridicule. It was explainded patiently that fossilisation is very rare and even if we did not have a single fossil the evidence would still be overwhelming for evolution.

3)Likewise

4)Ditto

Now could you provide evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

You have fallen into the either/or fallacy ie., if evolution by natural selection was shown to be the wrong explanation for the fact of evolution that Biblical creationism would replace it. The only problem is that Biblical creationism was shown to be complete twaddle!(even before Darwin!)

In any case how can you be trusted PB since you are the person who deliberately left out the first paragraph of three paragraph article on Jesus(no less!) then stated the article said something that the article did not say! You are typical of the ilk!

Where in Joshua does it say that the story of the sun stopping in the sky is allegorical? are you the central authority on what is literal and allegorical in the Bible or is it literal when it confirms your prejudices?


  • 113.
  • At 09:03 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


JW

Im not at all impressed by your refusal to discuss how you can dismiss climate change science. It is VERY relevant to this discussion.

I dont and cant hold any dogmatic views on the age of the earth, I dont see the bible does either, ref Christian Hippy's post.

Ref myth or literalism of Genesis, I am forced to see Adam and Noah and their lives are treated very literally by all NT writers without exception, inlcuding Christ.

I dont have a systematic method written down for reading the bible, im not a theologian. But read the NT entries on them for yourself if you are interested. NOBODY in the NT quotes Genesis as a myth.

Adam;-
https://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=adam&searchtype=all&version1=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26

Noah;-
https://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=noah&searchtype=all&version1=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=51&startnumber=26

Ref gravity - you do of course realise that BAE and many others are currently working on antigravity engines, which could totally turn the theory on its head... could that happen with evolution too?

DD

The judge at Dover did indeed rule out supernatural creation as something that could be considered scientific.

I dont see why I have to doubt that Almighty God "stopped the sun in the sky".

Almighty God is able to do Almighty things, I reckon anyway.

Ref the Chinese characters I have only read a snippet of this and am aware it has been widely criticised, though I have not seen it disproven.

My Chinese friend sees it as very valid, hope to post a few details tomorrow on this from Pawson and get some reaction. It seems quite interesteding.


Peter

I apologise for misjudging your silence, as you were busy. Perhaps DD can also allow me to busy from time to time???

ttfn

PB

  • 114.
  • At 09:50 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Guess what other figures and writers from ancient history viewed their respective creation myths as being literal ie., the Egyptians make loads of references to their creation myth(more than the writers of the NT) so does that make it more true? and...so what! fail to see the point you are trying to make here.


"Ref gravity - you do of course realise that BAE and many others are currently working on antigravity engines, which could totally turn the theory on its head... could that happen with evolution too?"

I would welcome it if it did! the evidence of course would have to be objective, credible and verifiable.

"The judge at Dover did indeed rule out supernatural creation as something that could be considered scientific."

I do despair! Myself and others have gone over this systematically with you before but what is the point? OK again I will make it short and as simple as I can...The IDists claimed that they had empirical evidence that backed up their claims, this was shown to be twaddle by the biologist and Christian Ken Miller-that's pretty simple!

"I don't see why I have to doubt that Almighty God "stopped the sun in the sky"."

How could your almighty god have stopped the sun in the sky when the sun does not move? that is rather difficult! Many ancient cultures believed the the sun revolved around the earth. It is not their fault, they didn't know any better and I am not "dissing" the writers of the Bible on this matter. They have an excuse for their ignorance-what's yours?


It does seem that some Christians are more literal than you...

https://www.fixedearth.com/


"Almighty God is able to do Almighty things, I reckon anyway."

lazy and answers nothing.

Goodness not Pawson again!

PB I do forgive you for being busy(or can't open links etc), but it is strange that you always "too busy" to read articles/follow links/understand basic concepts that challenge your opinions-odd!

PB your "evidence for creationism" in your previous post actually contains only tired boring old creationist canards. Could you actually post evidence to back up your position and make it objective, credible and verifiable?

You have a good one PB!

DD

  • 115.
  • At 10:18 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

Genesis is a book of "history", a book of "Beginnings", therefore commonsense tells you to read the history book of Genesis as history, to read it literally, Genesis talks about real places not imaginary places, Genesis is not a fictional book but a book of truth, and the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. Archaeological records and discoveries prove that the Euphrates Valley is the place where earth’s earliest inhabitants lived, the place where the "Creation story" began.

PB- Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. Let me make it very clear what your problem is with how you read the bible. You believe the following sentence:

The bible should be read literally unless it specifically states otherwise.

There are, obviously, huge problems with this. When the Lord God is walking through the garden and Adam hears him and covers himself, am I to believe that you think God was literally walking through the garden in the cool of the day? How so? Talking snake etc. in the same vein. The book of Revelation is to be taken entirely literally too? What about the Song of Songs? You are not using your brain, PB. What you claim doesn't make any sense.

Surely even you realise that when a piece of literature is written, it's written in a genre; that is to say, it is a particular type of literature. By regarding all the bible to be historical in genre, you make mistakes such that you've made with Genesis 1.

More later.

  • 117.
  • At 11:28 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

I have given you points 1-4 marked as verifiable facts in favour of creationism; you have not acutally attempted to address those points AT ALL and have resorted to your usual barrage of ad hominems.


You could at least have the courtesy of addressing these four points intelligently and by that I do not mean giving me a hyperlink.

Can you form four intellient counteragruments or just more vitriol and hot air?

BTW....

BAE and NASA work on rewriting laws of physics here fyi;-

https://www.greenglow.co.uk/


Alot of heat there DD mot so much light.

I am not in either/or mindset. You admit you have very few fossils and you dont put up any real dispute when I say there are huge gaps between all the major animals groups.

That is not either/or, that is direct evidence supporting the idea that they were created as such.

And you did not dispute that Genesis portrays the correct order in which things were created.

You dont seem to get my point on Dover; I am not disuccing whatever evidence IDers did or did not present at Dover; simply that the judge said that any evidence which assumed a supernatural beginning could not be accepted by science.

Why are you contesting this, it is obvious and true and rules creationism out as an acceptbale theory in modern science.

I make no apology for not having time to study every link you through up, you have a nerve lambasting me for not doing so.

BTW creationism perfectly well accepts natural variation and differention in labs; that is VERY different to demonstrating how one species can turn into another in a lab or observing it happen. That is an attempted strawman argument.

I admitted already today in a post above I am a layman, like you, with limited knpowledge on evolution/creationism.

What a strawman argument to suggest I cannot admit what I do not know!


PB

  • 118.
  • At 11:44 PM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John calm yourself down.

it is not getting ridiculous.

As Bill correctly points out Genesis from the first verse talks of real places and rivers.

The tower of babel and the method of its contruction as given in Genesis have been verified as perfectly valid structures in that period.

Before the 19th century many people thought these places and people were fair tales. Then archologists starting digging and found they were real places. I have misplaced the quote but I read one respected archeologist recently saying that not a single archeological find has ever done anything but strenghten the bible.

So God walks in a garden - what is the problem with that? man was made in his image and can walk in a garden too.

Jesus threw devils into pigs - what is the problem with a devil in a snake?

I respect your right to disagree with me but your attitude and tone are contemptous and totally intolerant and do you a gross disservice.

There are many many doctors and profs of theology around the world who read the bible largely as I do (look at Billy Graham, CS Lewis, FF Bruce) as you well know, so your attempt to try and make me feel I am a moron hick are just dispicable to be honest John.

You did not even have the courtesy to give an intelligent answer to my point that Adam and Noah are treated as real people throughout the bible and New Testament.

I would be most grateful if you could at least offer an intelligent response to that.

Are you able to?

PB

PB- Telling me to calm down is a defensive mechanism you are employing in order to make my criticisms of you sound less rational. I'll ignore it.


"As Bill correctly points out Genesis from the first verse talks of real places and rivers." [emphasis mine]

Incorrect. The first time we encounter a place name is in the eighth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, and it isn't even a verifiable location! It's such a "strong" historical record that we have no idea if it did exist where Eden even was! Are you really trying to be serious about this? To claim that something is historical you must have evidence. You have none. How do you deal with that fact if you want to hold to this outmoded belief?


"I respect your right to disagree with me but your attitude and tone are contemptous and totally intolerant and do you a gross disservice."

To the contrary, PB, I've patiently spent time trying to debate you on this with some regard for rational, reasonable logic, all to the sense of the sucker for punishment within me. You don't like my attitude because it is intolerant not of you as a person but of the ridiculous, empirically vacuous, theologically retarded positions you've taken on these issues. Moreover the real disservice here is to your own intelligence, and I'm not being facetious when I say that God's gift to you of your rational faculties is currently being wasted on this nonsense.


"...your attempt to try and make me feel I am a moron hick are just dispicable to be honest John."

That's never been the intention of my debate with you, and you know it. If that's how it makes you feel, then it's your cross to bear, not mine. I'm well aware that many Christians believe as you do: if it makes you feel better that I acknowledge that fact, go ahead and feel better. I'd have thought that whether a belief is right or not is a greater concern than whether or not it is popular, but if that's what floats your boat, knock yourself out.


"You did not even have the courtesy to give an intelligent answer to my point that Adam and Noah are treated as real people throughout the bible and New Testament."

I'm glad you brought that up again; actually at the end of post #114 I said, 'More later', and this was one of the points I came online this evening to address. It's astonishing to me that you use this as "evidence" of creationism. I'll respond by making 2 observations:

1) Of the passages you link to with references in other parts of Scripture to the keywords "Adam" and "Noah", not a single one tells us whether they regarded those characters as allegorical (in the way Jesus would refer to a man in a parable) or historical (in the way we'd talk about Queen Victoria). Yet again your own assumption that Genesis is historical is colouring the way you read the references to the characters of Genesis in other texts. This is total non-starter. It doesn't establish that the speakers in those texts regarded them as historical. It's an argument from silence, it's not very persuasive and certainly doesn't count as 'proof'.

2) Even if you were right (and I don't believe for a second that you are), just because some later readers of Scripture believed something and wrote that they did (which, again, this is entirely hypothetical since that is not the case), it does not follow that they were right to regard them in that way. In other words, the beliefs of the Apostle Paul in AD60 have no bearing whatsoever upon the truth of an event which creationists date to BC6000. Appealing to another interpretation of a verse does not a historical document out of a allegorical one make.

It appears you want so badly for Genesis 1 and 2 to be literal that you're willing to thrust that interpretation onto other historical figures and endue them with the authority necessary to make that interpretation universal. I'm afraid life isn't that simple. You haven't proved a damned thing.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, stand on a wealth of actual evidence. Genetics, astronomy, biology, geography, biochemistry, physics, ecology, physiology, even psychology - it all best makes sense, and in many cases it only makes sense, given evolutionary theory as a starting point.

The only people who don't believe this are those who have a religious (ie. a non-scientific) reason for so thinking. You, for example, didn't start off with a blank slate and decide for yourself that creationism best fit the facts of the world as we know it. Instead, you started with theological mentors who taught you to read the bible as the Word of God, literal, infallible and authoritative, and then proceeded to treat their own interpretations as the only interpretations that exist. It isn't surprising that you find yourself deeply uncomfortable with a theology that doesn't hold to those fundamentals.

Let me ask you a question, PB. What would it take for you to abandon reading Genesis 1 and 2 literally? A videotape of the event? A graveyard of transitional human forms? What about the chromosones showing human evolution in the genes? Or finger bones in living whales? Ask yourself this hypothetical question. The results will be intriguing.

pb, you wrote.

"I apologise for misjudging your silence, as you were busy."

I'll give you a full response on the things you adressed to me this weekend.

For now let me just say that your apologies ring as hollow as an empty oil drum. Just one example: you've misstated my field of research on seveal occasions, apologised for doing that on several occasion and then you went on making the exact same misstatements again (you know, your 'What does a nuclear physicist have to say about evolution' etc).

Some of your critics in this thread have stated that they think you are basically a decent, honest chap. I don't think so. Your distortions, endless repeats of statements you know to be untrue, ignoring anything that others patiently point out to you that would shatter your irreality bubble etc. doesn't make me think very highly of your moral fibre.

More later. Much more.

Peter

  • 121.
  • At 12:58 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

Doesnt it seem odd that while fossils are very rare, they generally only record *known* animal groups, listed above, and yet consistently leave huge gaps in the record between these known groups?

It requires more faith than I have to accept this record as evidence FOR evolution. It seems much stronger as evidence for creationism. What are the chances of fossils consistently failing to record transitional animals, yet faithfully recording all the known animal groups? Why would they record such a strange pattern if transitional animals were so common?

As for DNA, I was reading how the uniformity in its "language" structure among all organism is argued for evidence of one common ancestor. However I wonder why if we agree there is one common DNA language as a source for all animals, that this could not be explained by the fact they were all created with the words of one supreme being. Scientifically of course I am not allowed to posit this as it assumes a supernatural beginning, which science cannot prove or disprove or consider.

You appear to be quite wrong in opposing my assertion that mutations are normally harmful. Enc Brit says;- "Germinal mutations, however, affectthe sex cells (eggs or sperm) and can be transmitted to the individual's offspring. When germinal mutations alter an organism, the effect is usually harmful. Many genetic diseases are the result of such mutations. Harmful genes eventually may be eliminated from a population if they impair the carriers' ability to reproduce at the same rate as their fellows. A mutation will rarely produce a beneficial change. When this does occur, the percentage of organisms with this gene will increase until the mutated gene becomes the norm in the population. In this way, beneficial mutations serve as the raw material of evolution."

Anyone know of any mutations in humans which have been beneficial? There are certainly plenty which ave caused disease.

We are not going to agree whether or not evolution has been carried out in a lab. However the real debate here is about macro evolution; as a new species has not been created from another species by evolution in a lab, is not repeatable or observable, then macro evolution has not been proven.

Your Chinese takeaway sir;-

Pawson believes we can reconstruct the whole of Genesis 1-11 from the picture language in China; that these people migrated east from Babel and as early languages were pictorial, they took the creation story with them in that form. When they arrived in China they believed in the one true God and only after Confucius and Buddha did they drift into idolatory, he says.

Pawson says the picture language they use includes;-

Word for “Create” = pictures for mud + life + someone walking ie creation of Adam.

Word for “Devil” = pictures for man + garden + picture for “secret”. ie the devil is a secret person in the garden

Word for “Tempter” = pictures for “devil” + two trees + and the picture for “cover”. ie the trees of life and knowledge (and covering up with fig leaves??)

Word for “Boat” = pictures for container + mouth + eight. So a boat is a vessel for eight people, the number of Noah’s family in the ark.

A chinese friend of mine affirms his belief in this analysis. While there is predictably plenty of "sound" and criticism against such ideas it would be interesting to hear actual explanations for why the above pictures have developed in this form. Have you any possible explanations for the form of these four words DD?


good debating with you

sincerely

PB

  • 122.
  • At 02:01 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John

You wrote;-

"PB- Honestly, this is getting ridiculous.... When the Lord God is walking through the garden and Adam hears him and covers himself, am I to believe that you think God was literally walking through the garden in the cool of the day? How so? Talking snake etc. in the same vein. The book of Revelation is to be taken entirely literally too? What about the Song of Songs? You are not using your brain, PB. What you claim doesn't make any sense.

"Surely even you realise that when a piece of literature is written, it's written in a genre; that is to say, it is a particular type of literature. By regarding all the bible to be historical in genre, you make mistakes such that you've made with Genesis 1."

Your words to me regarding my method of reading the bible are "Ridculous...dont make any sense...not using your brain. ....you make mistakes."

This is of course because you reject the bible as divinely inspired where I do not. I accept the bible is written in different genres but that does not mean it is not divinely inspired. Just because there is symbolic language involved in prophecy does not mean that the city of heaven does not descend to earth at the end of time, as in Revelation. As a rule of thumb there are usualy indiciations when something is written in symbol form, ie explanations. Christ explained such parables and Daniel and Revelation both explicity explore the meanings of their prophetic images.

I was reading my IVP New Bible Dictionary last night and while it takes a neutral stance on evolution vs creationism in scientific terms it is absolutely adamant that a real snake spoke in Eden. This publication is edited by JI Packer and FF Bruce who are two exceptionally well qualified and respected theologians.


CS Lewis, who described himself as an historian of literature also wrote - I paraphrase - that modern biblical scholars (he felt compelled to expose them because the church was failing to do so in his day, he said) were wrongly assuming they knew more about the miracles and context of what they read in the bible than the biblical authors themselves did. ie Moses did not really part the sea, they simply forded it at a narrow point etc. CS said modern scholars were in error because of their arrogance in assuming their knew more than biblical authors.

And of course, CS disproves your theory that only indoctrinated people read the bible literally, as of course he came to it both as an athiest and as a sceptical literary historian. While there is some validity in your comments they do not actually prove the bible is not literally true in reference to the history it records.

It is a bit like the critics who say the gospels were written to prove that Christ fulfilled OT prohecies and are therefore less credible for that, which is a circular argument. Such criticsm cannot determine that the gospels do not accurately record the fulfillment of those prophecies. Or put another way, how would someone in that time write the gospels if the messiah had truly come at that time? Eactly as they did of course!

Nor do you recognise or admit, John, the bias of athiests coming to genesis who are completely unable to consider it may be literally true. The same cannot be said of Christians who have an intellectual option of being evolutionary theists (which I am quite comfortable with); athiests have NO option but to believe evolution, therefore they are bound to be much more biased in reading genesis than Christians.

In practise this is demonstrated by the flood of personal attacks on me by DD and Peter and the trickle of their actual engagement with the factual points I raise.


QUESTION 1: John what qualifications in science and theology do you have to pass such absolute and uniquivocal judgement on my views and those of IVP and CS Lewis?

How do you dismiss these NT quotes on adam and Noah as figurative, eg

1 Cor 15: 45: And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”[a] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"

In Matt 25:36 Christ said: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,[e] but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."


QUESTION 2: John let me hear from your own pen what you think are the best actual proof of evolution and we will see what you are really made of.

QUESTION 3: Let me also see your explanations for the four points I put forward as evidence supporting creationism, above, addressed to DD.

QUESTION 4: How do you totally reject modern climate change science respectably and then leap on me for being sceptical about evolution science?

When you have answered these points intelligently we will see how qualified you really are to pass such absolute judgement on my views.


PLEASE NOTE ALL POSTERS: If you refrained from all the ad hominem attacks on me and instead distilled all your apparent knowledge into actual intelligent response to the points I raise, then we would all be making much more progress. Instead I fear that the constant barrage of ad hominem attacks are designed to try and camoflage your lack of understanding, which may leave you feeling quite insecure, and which would further explain the nasty edge to many of the posts.

PB

  • 123.
  • At 02:03 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

Doesnt it seem odd that while fossils are very rare, they generally only record *known* animal groups, listed above, and yet consistently leave huge gaps in the record between these known groups?

It requires more faith than I have to accept this record as evidence FOR evolution. It seems much stronger as evidence for creationism. What are the chances of fossils consistently failing to record transitional animals, yet faithfully recording all the known animal groups? Why would they record such a strange pattern if transitional animals were so common?

As for DNA, I was reading how the uniformity in its "language" structure among all organism is argued for evidence of one common ancestor. However I wonder why if we agree there is one common DNA language as a source for all animals, that this could not be explained by the fact they were all created with the words of one supreme being. Scientifically of course I am not allowed to posit this as it assumes a supernatural beginning, which science cannot prove or disprove or consider.

You appear to be quite wrong in opposing my assertion that mutations are normally harmful. Enc Brit says;- "Germinal mutations, however, affectthe sex cells (eggs or sperm) and can be transmitted to the individual's offspring. When germinal mutations alter an organism, the effect is usually harmful. Many genetic diseases are the result of such mutations. Harmful genes eventually may be eliminated from a population if they impair the carriers' ability to reproduce at the same rate as their fellows. A mutation will rarely produce a beneficial change. When this does occur, the percentage of organisms with this gene will increase until the mutated gene becomes the norm in the population. In this way, beneficial mutations serve as the raw material of evolution."

Anyone know of any mutations in humans which have been beneficial? There are certainly plenty which ave caused disease.

We are not going to agree whether or not evolution has been carried out in a lab. However the real debate here is about macro evolution; as a new species has not been created from another species by evolution in a lab, is not repeatable or observable, then macro evolution has not been proven.

Your Chinese takeaway sir;-

Pawson believes we can reconstruct the whole of Genesis 1-11 from the picture language in China; that these people migrated east from Babel and as early languages were pictorial, they took the creation story with them in that form. When they arrived in China they believed in the one true God and only after Confucius and Buddha did they drift into idolatory, he says.

Pawson says the picture language they use includes;-

Word for “Create” = pictures for mud + life + someone walking ie creation of Adam.

Word for “Devil” = pictures for man + garden + picture for “secret”. ie the devil is a secret person in the garden

Word for “Tempter” = pictures for “devil” + two trees + and the picture for “cover”. ie the trees of life and knowledge (and covering up with fig leaves??)

Word for “Boat” = pictures for container + mouth + eight. So a boat is a vessel for eight people, the number of Noah’s family in the ark.

A chinese friend of mine affirms his belief in this analysis. While there is predictably plenty of "sound" and criticism against such ideas it would be interesting to hear actual explanations for why the above pictures have developed in this form. Have you any possible explanations for the form of these four words DD?


good debating with you

sincerely

PB

  • 124.
  • At 02:05 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

JW

whale's "fingers" - why can they not just be internal fin bones required to control the fin?

human ancestor fossils;- I have discussed this before with folks and have never heard of a fossil which is part man and part primate. I understand such things do not exist.

Chromosome evolution? well lets hear your point.

BTW guys I will be away for the weekend, so have a good weekend...

PB

  • 125.
  • At 04:10 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

It is very simple your arguments (actually tired boring old canards) are not in favor of creationism rather they are against science. You are falling into the either/or fallacy. Because those points even if proven do not show evidence in favour of Biblical creationism. I did post plenty of links where you can ask working scientists questions but you are not interested are you? And as you know you cannot be trusted re: the Enc Brit article on Jesus.

Your failure to address the point on Joshua is noted as well.

Now maybe I could draw a picture or something, I would like to see the positive evidence IN FAVOUR of Biblical creationism, and please make it objective, credible and verifiable(just one would do in the meantime).

The four points have been addressed to you many times before with links and people taking the time out to answer you I cannot legislate for your inability to address simple points.

"Alot of heat there DD mot so much light."

Oh the irony!!! how many times have you been asked to produce evidence in favour(look up in the dictionary what in favour means as you do seem to have difficulties).

PB please do look up something on fossils!

"And you did not dispute that Genesis portrays the correct order in which things were created."

Errr no it doesn't, it a primitive bronze age creation myth, you can twist any creation myth for your own purpose. If it does please present evidence to the contrary and make it objective, credible and verifiable.

"You don't seem to get my point on Dover; I am not disuccing whatever evidence IDers did or did not present at Dover; simply that the judge said that any evidence which assumed a supernatural beginning could not be accepted by science.

Why are you contesting this, it is obvious and true and rules creationism out as an acceptbale theory in modern science."

You don't get my point and it is incredibly simple, though obviously not simple enough! The IDists and creationists claim that the empirical evidence backs up their claims. I really don't know how much more simple I can make that.

"I make no apology for not having time to study every link you through up, you have a nerve lambasting me for not doing so."

You are a willfully ignorant creationist and have no intention of learning anything that could possibly challenge your narrow religious opinions-don't worry(unfortunately there are millions like you).


"BTW creationism perfectly well accepts natural variation and differention in labs; that is VERY different to demonstrating how one species can turn into another in a lab or observing it happen. That is an attempted strawman argument."

So you accept evolution as fact! excellent!

"I admitted already today in a post above I am a layman, like you, with limited knowledge on evolution/creationism.

What a straw man argument to suggest I cannot admit what I do not know!"

If I am ignorant about something and sincere in finding out something about it I find out something about it!

Btw Straw man argument is that I construct a mock-up of your evidence but so far you have not presented any evidence in favour of your position so bit difficult to make a straw man out of it!


As for post 121...

Well fossils have been addressed and I cannot legislate for your inability to take in simple points.

"You appear to be quite wrong in opposing my assertion that mutations are normally harmful." Yep most mutations are neutral but those that have a significant effect are harmful but a significant amount are beneficial. The Enc Brit article(hope you have not twisted this one like you did about the one about Jesus?)backs up what I believed anyway.

You do know know that their is a wealth of data on the net, I typed in your question "Anyone know of any mutations in humans which have been beneficial? There are certainly plenty which ave caused disease."

And got this...

https://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

You do know that the net is a powerful tool and they have search engines like Google, here's the link:

https://www.google.co.uk/

Or if you want answers to your canards look them up here yourself:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Now why not look up stuff yourself? instead of wasting peoples time on here, because you are not interested nor sincere nor genuine. Why should I have to look up stuff for you when you can do it yourself-you lazy so and so.

"We are not going to agree whether or not evolution has been carried out in a lab." It has been!

As for ..."However the real debate here is about macro evolution"

see

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

I am really tired about looking things up for you do it yourself in future!

And..."It seems much stronger as evidence for creationism."

Then please back that statement up with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable.

Saw this in your reply to John..."I was reading my IVP New Bible Dictionary last night and while it takes a neutral stance on evolution vs creationism in scientific terms it is absolutely adamant that a real snake spoke in Eden." ha ha ha and you find evolution to be "unbelievable"!? did the snake have a lisp as in 'The Jungle Book' and could the writers back this claim up with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

As for the Pawson stuff it sounds as much guff as the stuff you posted from him in an earlier thread.

You have a good weekend PB!

PB-

Even if the bible is divinely inspired, there is no reason to regard the creation texts as literal. Divinely inspired does not mean written in the historical genre. As I've said before, people made the same mistakes in the past on such issues as geocentricity. Galileo was raked over the coals severely for suggesting that the earth was not the centre of the universe: that went against the theological mood of the time just as you reach against evolution now. But in reality it was the simple fact that the verses they used to defend geocentricity and from which they derived the idea itself were not written in the 'scientific' genre; ie. they weren't intended to be read literally. People read them literally for thousands of years before finally getting it right - I'm surprised you can't easily see the parallel and apply it to your own dilemma. Science is in the process of proving wrong those who, like yourself, hold to a literal account of creation in Genesis. The only question remaining is, 'Who will be the last one standing?' The Catholic church finally admitted that Galileo was right about geocentricity, but it took 400 years for them to do so. How quickly will you acknowledge that you were wrong about evolution PB?

Now let's address a few of the things you said:


"CS said modern scholars were in error because of their arrogance in assuming their knew more than biblical authors. "

That's an invalid criticism in this case. The authors and editors of Genesis 1 knew they were writing allegorically, not literally. It's not got anything to do with trying to change what they were trying to say. It's about honouring their original intent, which was mythological in nature.


"Nor do you recognise or admit, John, the bias of athiests coming to genesis who are completely unable to consider it may be literally true. The same cannot be said of Christians who have an intellectual option of being evolutionary theists (which I am quite comfortable with); athiests have NO option but to believe evolution, therefore they are bound to be much more biased in reading genesis than Christians."

Well, some of what you say is true. But I think it happens the other way around, PB; they start with the facts of science (which support evolution) and then conclude that there's no God. I personally think that's a hasty conclusion and an incorrect one, but the fact of evolution is what leads to atheism rather than the other way around.


“The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"

If Adam was allegorical rather than historical (as I believe he was) then this verse becomes even more of a lesson about Jesus. "The first Adam" refers to the story of man's creation, as life was first breathed into man so Jesus became life-giving. There's no need to see Adam as historical to accept this premise or its lesson, and I don't believe Paul necessarily did. He's making a theological point about Christ, not a historical one about Adam.


Onto your questions:

"QUESTION 1: John what qualifications in science and theology do you have to pass such absolute and uniquivocal judgement on my views and those of IVP and CS Lewis?"

I don't have any more than you do. It's an ad hominem concern in any case, and whether I have formal qualifications in science or theology or not has no bearing on my ability to debate you on this (I've met many a theology graduate who would not have been any better at doing so).


"QUESTION 2: John let me hear from your own pen what you think are the best actual proof of evolution and we will see what you are really made of."

You could start by looking back over the many threads that are here at W&T on the issue, and I happen to know that many such proofs have been offered to you time and time again - all rejected by you. I'll also say that asking for proof of evolution is like asking for proof of oxygen; it's so fundamental to life on this earth that the evidence is all around us (and that, unlike Genesis 1, is a literal statement!). I will further comment, and this is very important, that any proof I offer can instantly be refuted by you by appealing to God's omnipotence. Say, for example, I offer you the whale finger bones. You've already said that no matter what atonomists say about it, God can make a whale flipper any way he wants. If he wants to make it look like it could have been fingers then he's omnipotent and can do whatever he likes! Light created before the sun in Genesis? A 24-hour day occurring before a 24-hour earth? Stars created 6000 years ago yet their light (which takes millions and billions of years to reach us) is already reaching us? The existence of an appendix we don't need? The route of the vas deferens in human males? None of these pointers seem to make any difference to you. So I know I won't convince you by proof, and you know it too. However it would be a cop-out not to give you at least one further example, since you asked for it.

The chromosomes of humans and apes are strikingly similar. Only in this century have we been able to study genetics with such accuracy. There is, however, a difference. Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 from mother, 23 from father), while apes have 48 chromosomes. How to account for this difference? It was initially believed that this could prove to be a problem for evolution. There were only two competing theories: either evolution is wrong and humans and apes do not share a common ancestor, or at some point 2 pairs of human chromosomes must have fused together. These were the only two options. For evolution to be true, the chromosomes must have fused together. If we can prove they didn't, then we have a huge problem for evolution. Now, chromosomes have a pattern, where we can tell where the end of one chromosome is and where the beginning of the next one is. We can therefore test to see whether there is any evidence of a fusion. Well, PB, scientists got looking. And what did they find? Sure enough, right in the middle of chromosome #2, they found a teleomere (the end sequence of a chromosome), showing where the 2 chromosomes fused together. If two distinct chromosomes each with their own centromere were fused together in any case, you would find remnants of those centromeres in the fused result, both above and below the new centromere, and we do PB in the case of chromosome #2 in human beings. (See the comparisons for yourself here.)

Ask a creationist about this, and they have a very interesting answer. 'God is omnipotent. If he wants to create a chromosome in humans that looks as though it fused together in natural selection then he can do so.' :-) Do with this what you will, PB; I'm not expecting any drastic changes in your belief system. But you asked, and you received.


More later.

  • 127.
  • At 08:08 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

John,

Aplogies for intruding on your debate with PB. I would just like to say that your last post(and previous) was(were): well written, infotmative, reasonable that tried to see both sides of the argument, well-reseached and enjoyable to read(but please don't get a big head now!). For those reasons I do not expect you to get far with PB!

Curious that PB should accuse everyone else of ad hominems when after looking through the posts this is a fault that he is guilty of himself-there is a whole litany of them against Peter Klaver and missed that one against you. I think PB should realise that it is impossible to construct or accuse anyone of mounting an ad hominem attack if you do not actually post evidence to back up your position!

Anyway have a good weekend!

DD

  • 128.
  • At 08:38 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Hi folks,
Sorry for the long-term absence - life and all that. Nice to see some things haven't changed, eh? Feeling lonely, PB?

I've been re-reading Robin Lane Fox's "The Unauthorized Version" - it's been a while. What a great book!

John, you're making good points about chromosomes. Humans didn't just evolve *from* apes - we *are* apes (of course). The similarities are even more striking if you browse the actual genome sequences - go to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and have a play. You can even construct trees based purely on the sequence that recapitulate the actual evolutionary trees - powerful evidence indeed, and the basis on which most of our knowledge of genetics and modern medicine are based.

-A

  • 129.
  • At 09:13 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Can I just please defend Prof Norman Nevin here? The man has never written *anything* that supports biblical creationism. It is true that he lent his name to that laughable "Truth in Science" [sic] campaign (which was ultimately a failure), but none of his scientific papers (and I'm referring to the first-author ones, as opposed to the ones put out by junior members of his team, in which he was included as a senior author, which used to be common practice) lend any credibility to creationism.

While he has received a few brickbats (mea culpa too) for expressing himself poorly, or for not being clear enough in distancing himself from "Intelligent Design", he's entitled to defend his views.

PB, if you can post us anything that shows that Norman Nevin supports Intelligent Design creationism, or is anti-evolution, please do so.

If it's any consolation, evolution is a major part of our understanding of human medical genetics, and much of the advice that medical geneticists deliver to patients is fundamentally derived using evolution as a critical underpinning. That's not hyperbole - it's just a fact.

-A

DD, thanks, you didn't intrude at all! It's an open forum and it's quite amazing that PB has been able to maintain a belief in the nonsense of creationism in the presence of all this sheer logic!

Amenhotep, good to see you back. Yes it's been an interesting and enjoyable discussion, and the only reason I persevere is because honestly I would love to be at least partially responsible for at least one staunch creationist seeing the light. Will it happen with PB? Time will tell.

  • 131.
  • At 06:41 AM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • Kale wrote:

Hello all :)
To Bill (Christian Hippy re post #95 )
In my earlier post,(#104) I asked for your opinion of the information regarding the literal interpretation of Genesis on the AiG website. I asked because I would appreciate your opinion on AiG's list of “Arguments we think the Creationists should not use”.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
I would be interested in Pbs thoughts on these AIG's suggestions as well?

Anyone??

In other positive news, a win for the integrity of science education in the UK. :))
From 10 Downing Street:
.
https://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12021.asp
Cheers
Kale

  • 132.
  • At 10:09 PM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

More AIG "Arguments we think creationists should not use" from Ken Ham:

The Earth is about 6000 years old.
Some creationists maintain this, but really it's pants. All the scientific evidence has readily refuted this rubbish - all you have to do is look up at the night sky to see how stupid this notion is. That smudge just below Cassiopeia is the Andromeda Galaxy, 2 million light-years away. Go figure, Hawking.

Evolution doesn't work
This is plainly nonsense. AiG has always maintained that evolution can occur, and speciation can occur *within kinds*. For example, there is no barrier to evolution occurring within the *kind* life forms that use DNA as the carrier of their genetic information. That is clearly OK. The sort of evolution that *cannot* occur is the sort whereby frogs evolve into Freelanders via fridges. The best scientific evidence suggests that this does not occur, so we recommend that creationists should not use it.

The bible is true
No serious Christian can believe this nonsense, otherwise we would have to conclude that 1 Samuel 15 is referring to a good thing! Or that Achan's sin really did justify the brutal lynching of his entire family. Or that Ananias and Saphira really did just drop dead, rather than being murdered by Peter for failing to keep up the protection payments. Or that the Gospels really do agree with each other regarding the resurrection and post-resurrection hauntings. Instead, creationists should open their brains and stop swallowing any old crap as if it were True (big T).

Kent Hovind is a good man
Please.


Thankyou for your consideration.
-Ken Ham.

  • 133.
  • At 12:15 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"PLEASE NOTE ALL POSTERS: If you refrained from all the ad homonym attacks on me and instead distilled all your apparent knowledge into actual intelligent response to the points I raise, then we would all be making much more progress. Instead I fear that the constant barrage of ad hominem attacks are designed to try and camouflage your lack of understanding, which may leave you feeling quite insecure, and which would further explain the nasty edge to many of the posts."

I think you should try to understand what ad hominem actually means-it means that you attack the person rather than the argument however you have done nothing to offer up an argument, so it rather difficult to make an ad hominem! For eg.,s of ad honimem see...your own posts especially those against Peter Klaver in which you attack his apparent lack of knowledge rather than his arguments. You did the same with JW. PB your points have been answered and to post an intelligent response you first need to post intelligent questions. Further the only person who is insecure and shown a nasty edge on this thread has been...you!You have not offered one shred of evidence to back up your position. You have attempted to deflect from this by posting well-known canards(it's a common creationist tactic). The nasty aspect well...posting Peter's work address, your insult to the intelligence of posters on this thread and your deliberate distortion of Enc Brit(you know the one on Jesus!).

More later...

DD

Pb my dear,

Sorry to have neglected you last week, let me make up for that now. You wrote:

"I wonder, just wonder, if you might be a tad embarrassed if any of your superiors could see your puerile "love poems" above.

Who would really take you for a professional scientist working on the following project at QUB, c/o of your own hyperlink;-"

Well I'm deeply hurt! Pb, I can not believe that you're using this very special thing we have together as a weapon in this debate?! That is not a way to maintain a healthy (and also very exciting, isn't it?) relationship. That's it pb, I'm breaking up with you. Your continued dishonesty, manifest most often in the form of repeating ludicrous statements that you know to be incorrect (a.k.a. lying), was enough to make me grow very strong doubts about the honesty of your character. On top of that you now take our love hostage. Nor more pb, it's over between us!

To answer your question: I don't think my boss would be anything surprised. He knows I'm a strong atheist. And while I don't know for sure, I think he's an atheist too. He recommended several books of Dawkins to me. I read the Selfish Gene on his advice. So what would he say if he found out that I was showing the lunacy that religion can inspire in people like you? Or about me using a load of ridiculing with it, because it's just too easy against you and I can afford a bit of fun? He'd hardly be surprised. But why don't you ask him. My boss actually moved to Imperial College London in 2006. But email prof. Finnis there, if you really want to know what he thinks.

Peter

And then the bit about literature. Here pb shows being well versed in creationist tactics. Someone put up a web page listing how creationists generally use less than honest methods to stick to their ludicrous positions. It included
-shift the burden of proof. Never do anything, make claims in your favour, never show anything in support of them and then require others to do the work of disproving them.
-when cornered, move the goal posts or shift attention to a different subject altogether (as pb tries with e. g. global warming).
Both are abundant in pbs post to me. He wrote

"I recall addressing some of those post 1999 finds before, but throw up some hyperlinks for some papers and lets have a look."

When recently pb actually wanted to take a look at a paper in the Journal of experimental zoology B he found out he required a login to access literature, which he didn't want to register for. So there we have it: all links to science journals that have been posted for him over the last 7 months have gone unread, pb has only ever downloaded and opened exactly one scientific paper on evolution in his life. The one I put on my own web server for him. And he says I'm out of my depth on the subject. Nice going pb, especially when the single paper you've read (did you read it in full, probably not right?) then makes you think you can make claims like

"I am currently beating all comers on this entry on **the facts**, not the insults."

Rock on pb, your Nobel prize in biology is virtually guaranteed. After all, you've read (part of) ONE paper on the subject. And an outdated one at that.

Pb, I've put up links to more recent literature loads of times in more than a dozen threads on this blog. So have DD and others. So stop saying ludicrous things like

"throw up some hyperlinks for some papers and lets have a look"

No, YOU do the searching of the literature and do the reading. We've helped you out often enough. Besides, what's there still to look into? You ignorantly shouted your lungs out over a total lack of intermediate feathers. And others and myself have shown you wrong on the issue probably more than 20 times. Let me spell it out once more:

- you claim a total lack of intermediate feathers, quoting AiG etc
- several people point you to literature where you can read up on examples of those, even pointing out the pages that have the fossil photographs on them
- therefore your claim is falsified

What else is there to look into? The issue is settled and you lost. Again. READ SOME SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE FIRST PB!! Then you would know that the debate is settled and you'd not embarres yourself so often and as deeply as you do. And no, I made one copyright violation to give you the article from Prum, if you now actually start reading literature then I'm not going to make it a habit. Fill in the required info and get yourself an account to the relevant journals pb. I'm not your automated literature shopping trolley. Stop using the creationist tactic of shifting the burden of work, YOU look up some literature on evolution and READ IT if you want to make brilliant new claims.

"Its also amusing Peter that higher up this blog you were using the Prum paper to disprove my argument"

Pb, YOU came up with the old Prumn paper (making false quotes from it, remember)? I showed you wrong dozens of times on the issue over a period of 7 months before you brought up Prum, never basing my arguments on his paper. Am I now supposed to defend a paper that YOU brought up? Please.

"By all means bring forward the latest and most up to date paper you can find on the matter, with a link and we will move on to the next stage."

Ah, shifting the burden of work and moving the goal posts at the same time. Ken Ham would be proud of you if he read your posts. What's your next strategy pb, admit there are are fossils but that they are too few in number to support the theory of evolution? Keep shifting those goal posts pb.

"The fact you were so trusting in Prum also underlines again that you are out of your depth in the biological sciences, as a physicist."

From the man who has read (part of) exactly one paper on the subject in his life.

"Peter has been hammering on at me for months on feather fossils issue, so I make no apology for showing this aspect of evolution has very thin evidence, according to what we have looked at here so far."

Again pb, how would you know, not having read anything up-to-date?

But don't forget to invite us all to the ceremony where you accept your next award for your ground-breaking work in the field of evolutionary biology. After all, you're the expert now right, laying claim to having read part of one outdated paper. How dare I challenge anything you say, huh?

Peter

  • 136.
  • At 05:48 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Hi John,

Re: M 128

"and the only reason I persevere is because honestly I would love to be at least partially responsible for at least one staunch creationist seeing the light. Will it happen with PB? Time will tell."

Well PB now admits that evolution is fact and that Biblical creationists do accept it, he did deny this many times. So maybe, just maybe there is a chink of light.

Hi Amenhotep!

Good to see you back!

See you have been re-reading R L Fox, great read! It reminded me off the first chapter in which he relates that the creation myth of Genesis actually contains two distinct and different creation myths(and how Christians first noticed the contradiction). I wonder if the Biblical creationists if they ever came to power would they split into two camps ie., followers of creation myth one and two?-just a thought.

Hi Peter good to see you back and on full form.

Re: post 133

That's pretty much an evisceration!

I came to pretty much the same conclusion that you did ie., I realised that was doing all the work, looking up info on google, checking books, emailing science talk groups etc for answers to PB. Then it hit me why does PB not do this himself!? He has the same tools that I have, and I did provide him a link to google so I think he should not be a lazy so and so in the future and look stuff up for himself!

Yep PB pretty much ticks all the points on the late, great Carl Sagan's Baloney detection kit!

I would humbly request of PB that you post one(just one!) piece of evidence that supports his claims and of course is objective, credible and verifiable(this should not be a problem as creationists do claim that empirical evidence points towards special creation). Could you do this without resorting to special pleading, ad hominems, circular reasoning, appeals to authority?

  • 137.
  • At 07:01 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

The speed of light at creation was infinite, mature and instant, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, the first day. Just as Adam and Eve were mature in age when they were created, though being young.

Thus being young they looked old to the eye. So the Earth may be mature (old earth) in age to the human eye but in actual fact the earth is young in age (young earth).

  • 138.
  • At 07:41 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Bill,

Could you back that statement up with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

It's last Thursday ism by another name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

And I think that you will find that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe!(Bless His Noodly Appendages!)

Ramen.

DD

DD- love the Last-Thursdayism link. It is of course bizarre, unbelievable ridiculous nonsense, presented by people who are too blinded by an unrequired faith to see things for what they are. See also OMPHALOS THEOLOGY, which is exactly what Bill, PB et. al. subscribe to.

Hi DD,

"And I think that you will find that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe!(Bless His Noodly Appendages!)"

I'm a fan too! May everyone be touched by His noodly appendages. I wrote a piece on the almighty, merciful, drunken deity for the local humanist group here. Someone from the Dorset Humanists also published it on his blog at

https://waspofscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/excellent-religion-for-humanists-fsm.html

If you need to relax for ~20 min then go ahead and read it. I'll stay over here for now, your posts to pb are also a joy to read.

greets,
Peter

  • 141.
  • At 11:09 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

John, in fairness it's not really "omphalos theology", as the "omphalos" is the navel. "Rectum theology" is perhaps more appropriate for creationists.

It is nice to note, however, that even old Ken Ham regards Barry Setterfield and the "CDK" (ouch!) brigade as fraudulent idiots too. A mighty accolade indeed, from the meister himself.

Ah, it's nice to be back for a while :-)

-A

A- Glad you are too.

  • 143.
  • At 01:54 AM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Kale wrote:

"And I think that you will find that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe!(Bless His Noodly Appendages!)"
.
May pb and Bill feel the enlightening touch of His Noodly Appendage.
RAmen :)

  • 144.
  • At 02:16 AM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Kale wrote:

Amenhotep
I have a strong interest (and some background) in molecular biology and comparative genetics. Glad to see you post. Also it's great to see you link, what is to my mind, one of the best sites on the internet.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Cheers

  • 145.
  • At 01:17 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

You are playing pretty slippery; can you show me only one scientific paper that demonstrates how a supernatural cause (such as creation) has been reviewed in a mainstream publication?

You are tarring me with other people's arguments, ie that supernaturel origins can stand as a cause in science - and you are wholly wrong on both counts.

As for Pawson, how totally objective and scientific of you to totally reject his arguments on garden of eden pictures in the Chinese written script with no logical argument. Your correct response should have been - I dont know the answer and will have withhold comment until such times as I do. Your response betrays your prejudice.

Also on the either/or argument, your riposte does not apply to me but does backfire badly.

I am not a dogmatic believer in "creationism" because I dont doubt this field will continue to be revised year on year, as is evolution.

I am well aware that huge gaps in evolutionary theory do not in themselves prove genesis creationism.

My position is scepticism of evolution both with my critiques of it and by advancing theories from creationism.

However, when you assert that evolution is fact despite all the gaping holes in the theory, you are guilty of what you accuse me of; you assume w weak and unproven theory of unoberserved or unreplicated processes to be absolute fact simply because you find no more credible theory.

PB

  • 146.
  • At 01:20 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Peter

well you promised me much more on the evolution of feathers and you have delivered... nothing.

I did research further the evolution of feathers on Enc Britt at the weekend (2005 edition) and it confirmed Prum's views that it was all speculation with no actual physical evidence.

So game set and match to PB on the evolution of feathers debate to date... unless you know better, reader.

PB

  • 147.
  • At 01:48 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

BTW JW , DD

JW You challenged me earlier to justify reading genesis 1-11 as literal, citing "genre" as the reason it was not meant to be read so and the Nt readings gave no indication they should be so read. I prove this wrong below.

I now understand that "Adam" is used around 500 times in the OT with the definite article in hebrew where is is translated as man/mankind. There is the difference John, definite article equals type while no definite article equals named person, c/o IVP bible scholars.

You dimissed the relevance and reality of New Testament writers who reated it so.

read on;

eg Jude writes;-
14Enoch, the seventh from ***Adam***, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
QUESTION: How can you be seventh in line from a myth?

Luke 3 gives a complete geneaology from Christ to Adam, part of which included here;-

"the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of ***Adam***, the son of God."
QUESTION: Why include a myth in a geneology, which the Jews are very particualar about?


Also Hebrews 11, very interesting;-
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did... 5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death... 7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family....
8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went... he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob...11By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father...
13All these people were still living by faith when they died."
QUESTION: Why did the NT writer describe these early Genesis characters as people instead of myths?

Peter wrote;-
"who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water"
QUESTION Why did Peter call these myths people?


DD

I see you are now bowing out of the evolution of feathers debate along with Peter, both bowed and bloodied and shell-shocked at the complete lack of actual evidence for the evolution of feathers, unable to believe it yourselves, yet citing the amount of work I was making you do as the reason for ending the debate.

I think that counts as a double-knock out chaps...

BTW DD the Enc Brit ariticles on Christ I posted were self contained articles, one a summary of his life and the other on his mmiracles; I wholly reject any claim of misquoting them and indeed, if you check my posts on the bible as history you will find I have always been consitent; mainstream history treats the bible as a serious and credible historicla source while being neutral or sceptical about its supernatural events. I have always said I believed Enc Brit to be the same, though strangely enough it does actually take a fairly neutral stance on the miracles of Christ, as stated.

curious that.

PB

  • 148.
  • At 02:05 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Amen (and DD)

Welcome back. ref prof Nevin I think the evidence he is a creationist might just be in his active role in Truth in Science and lobbying for creationism in science classes.

You nicely tiptoed round the question but it is not enough to say the whole discipline in based on evoltion; Nevin doesnt believe that and neither did Mendel.

If you can actually put a hyperlink to a paper which Nevin wrote which uses the term evolution in an affirmative context it would be VERY interesting indeed.

BTW DD, your hyperling on mutations benefitting humans was not impressive to me. Can anyone translate that into plain English because I suspect it is another attempt to portray such processes and antibody creation and embryo growth as genuine proof that all species have developed from the same original single celled animals.

While we are on about it, can anyone link to a paper which demonstrates actual proof of DNA ever evolving? Amen???

In the meantime...


PB'S THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

1 How can Natural selection and mutation support the theory of evolution??????


The evolutionist leaves us to think out for ourselves how the limitless number of diversities of organs, members, instincts, etc., in all the millions of living species, came into being. We see in all of them specific organs upon which their existence or welfare depends. Natural Selection tells us that, at a time far back in the past, their ancestors had none of those organs, not even those that are vital. But it does not, nor does it attempt to, trace the development of a single organ, or tell us what the intermediate creatures were like, or how they lived during the long stretches of years during which those vital organs were being evolved. The question is: How did many generations of species live without organs whose functions are vital? That is a hard question even for an evolutionist.


Here then we are in a position to state an objection to which, so far as we are aware, no reply has ever been made. It is this: Inasmuch as the evolution of an organ, such as the wing of a fowl, would require many centuries of time, and many generations from parent to offspring to bring it to a useful stage of development, how is it possible to account for its preservation during the long period when it was an undeveloped and useless appendage? Natural Selection purports to account for the preservation only of such variations as are useful to the possessor in "the struggle for existence." The facts of nature force that limitation upon the theory, inasmuch as the existing organs and members are such as are of some use or advantage. The theory cannot admit of the perpetuation of useless organs and structural features, for such do not exist.


But, upon looking closely at the matter, we perceive that every organ --such as an arm, an eye, an ear--however advantageous when fully developed, must have been preceded (if the theory be true) by an exceedingly long period during which it would have been not merely useless, but often a positive dis-advantage. It follows that Natural Selection, by its own necessary limitations, cannot account for the development of any organ which must needs pass through a period of non-usefulness. Hence the theory breaks down completely.


Take a look again at the peppered-moth example (See figure 13). What did we start with? Dark and light varieties of the peppered moth, species Biston betularia. After 100 years of natural selection, what did we end up with? Dark and light varieties of the peppered moth, species Biston betularia. All that changed was the percentage of moths in the two categories: that is, just variation within kind. (For details, see the master's thesis by one of my students, Chris Osborne. {3} [1445]


As a matter of fact, 24 years before Darwin's Origin, a scientist named Edward Blyth published the concept of natural selection in the Biblical context of corrupted creation. He saw it as a process that adapted varieties of the created kinds to changing environments after sin brought death into God's world. A book reviewer once asked, rather naively, if creationists could accept the concept of natural selection. The answer is, "Of course. We thought of it first."


Mutations are random changes in genes (DNA), often caused by radiation. The mutations in the wings above were produced by X-raying fruit flies. According to the modern, neo-Darwinian view, mutations are the source of new traits for evolution, and selection culls out the fittest combinations (or eliminates the "unfittest") that are first produced just by chance. Mutations certainly occur, but are there limits to extrapolating from mutational changes to evolutionary changes


Then there is the flu virus. Why haven't we yet been able to solve the flu problem? Part of the problem is that this year's vaccine and your own antibodies are only good against last year's flu. (They do not usually tell you that when you get the shot, but it's already out of date.) The smallpox virus has the common decency to stay the same year in and year out, so once you're vaccinated or build up an immunity, that is it. But the flu virus mutates quite easily, so each year its proteins are slightly different from last year's. They are still flu viruses, but they do not quite fit our antibodies, so we have to build up our immunity all over again.

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 10 to the 7th power times 10 to the 7th power, or 10 to the 14th power. That's a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That's a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That's one in a billion trillion (10 to the 21st power). Suddenly, the ocean isn't big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.


It was at this level (just four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time. The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanism--and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were "invented." Genetic variability was "built right into" the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn't mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.


Contrary to popular opinion, drug resistance in bacteria does not demonstrate evolution. It doesn't even demonstrate the production of favorable mutations. It does demonstrate natural selection (or a sort of artificial selection, in this case), but only selection among already existing variations within a kind. It also demonstrates that when the odds that a particular process will produce a given effect get too low, good scientists normally look for a better explanation, such as the plasmid explanation for resistance to multiple antibiotics.


At this point, evolutionists often say that "Time is the hero of the plot." That's what I used to say to my students. "Sure, the odds are low, but there is all that time, nearly 5 billion years!" But 5 billion years is only about 10 to the 17th power seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 10 to the 80th power atoms. So even by the wildest "guesstimates", the universe isn't old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 10 to the 3,000,000 power that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse.

Way back in 1967, a prestigious group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. {10} [1445] All present were evolutionists, and they agreed, as the preface clearly states, that no one would be questioning evolution itself. The only question was, could mutations serve as the basis--with natural selection--as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the mathematicians: No. Just plain no!


Harvard's Stephen Gould {16} quite clearly recognizes the difference between evolution and mutations. Evolution, he says, involves "profound structural transitions", such as a change from fish to philosopher (macroevolution). Mutations, he says, produce only minor variations, like those we see in experiments with "flies in bottles" that start as flies and end up as flies. Then Gould chides his fellow evolutionists for illogical extrapolation. He says that "Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transitions..." For the old line mutation-selection evolutionist, "macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended".

But then Gould asks himself, "How can such processes change a gnat or a rhinoceros into something fundamentally different?" Answering his own question in a later article, Gould {17} simply says: "That theory [orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationalism], as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

And Gould is far from an isolated example. Back in October of 1980, the world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago for a conference summarized popularly by Adler and Carey in Newsweek {18} and professionally by Lewin in Science. {19} According to the professional summary,

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution.

That is, the processes of mutation, selection, and sexual recombination all produce variation within kind (microevolution---or creationist adaptation), but can these processes be logically extended (extrapolated) to explain the presumed evolutionary change generally from simpler to more complex types (macroevolution)?

At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.


One such scientist is Pierre Grasse' . He has been called "the dean of French zoologists", yet he rejects mutation-selection as a means of evolutionary change {22} in scathing words. Mutations are "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect". He goes on to say that mutations "are not complementary..., nor are they cumulative". That is, they do not work together, and they do not add up to anything. "They modify what pre-exists", says Grasse' , which means you can get no more from mutations than variation within kind. In fact, you get even less, because mutations are mostly harmful, says Grasse' , producing "downhill" changes, not "upward-onward" evolution. He strongly condemns attempts to use selection to salvage a few favorable mutations for evolution:

Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence [i.e., "God"] ... which is secretly worshipped.

Grasse' is not (yet) a creationist. But he does say that his knowledge of the living world convinces him that there must be some "internal force" involved in the history of life.
ENDS


  • 149.
  • At 02:07 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


BTW Amen

there is obviously a growing list of hundreds of medical doctors and surgeons from around the world that are at odds with your assertion that evolution is true.


https://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

PB

Hello pb,

"well you promised me much more on the evolution of feathers and you have delivered... nothing."

Ah, the creationist tactics of shifting the burden of work again. Re-read my post pb, from now on YOU make some effort to aquire knowledge instead of us wasting time to point you to info that you then ignore without fail.

"I did research further the evolution of feathers on Enc Britt at the weekend (2005 edition) and it confirmed Prum's views that it was all speculation with no actual physical evidence."

Try reading up on the papers that have been pointed out to you so many times pb. How many times have I not pointed you even to the very pages with fossil photographs pb? And then boldly stating again there are no fossils, not hindered in the least by reality or honesty. Have you ever considerd a career in politics pb? Or in the Church?

"So game set and match to PB on the evolution of feathers debate to date..."

Did I not only point out to you tons of literature but also that your blatant, utterly unfounded, arrogant, self-happy smugness must make your fellow Christians cringe with embarresment? If they even accept being on the same boat as you and not distance themselves from you altogether.

"unless you know better, reader."

Ah, creationist tactics at their finest. No pb, you do some of the work. You look through articles. And once you've done that you can start by trying to explain away all those fossil finds you claim don't exist. Good luck on that!

Peter

  • 151.
  • At 06:15 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Of course I cannot show a single paper that backs up supernatural creation(whether Judeo-creation, New-age Raellian, Hindu etc etc). However(I really do not know how much more simpler I can make this!)Biblical creationists claim that EMPIRICAL evidence backs up their claims ie., fossils, rocks etc etc(now I have explained this to you before and I cannot legislate for your wilful obtuseness). So if they claim that it is backed up by empirical evidence THEN PLEASE present one(just one!?!?) piece of evidence to back it up! how much more simpler can I make it-just one! The only conclusion I can come to is that you do not have any evidence to back up your claim and Biblical creationism is only backed up by religious fundamentalist nutters.

PB, I looked up Pawson's claims and just like his views on science they are twaddle.

PB your repeated use of creationist canards against science in no way give any credence to Biblical creationism. A Hindu creationist, new -age Raellian etc etc could have made them but they in no way give any credence to Biblical creationism-that was shown to be twaddle even before Darwin.

"My position is scepticism of evolution both with my critiques of it and by advancing theories from creationism."

Right so what is the "theory" Of Biblical creationism?

PB FOR GOODNESS SAKE!EVOLUTION IS FACT AND(GOT THAT? AND) THEORY!I did post links tried to frame it in the most simplest terms possible. You even admitted(finally!) that creationist accept evolution as fact! To go over it again...OK(bite lip!) evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation that we have at this moment for the fact of evolution-that's pretty simple!

PB please have a look at feather evolution again!?(pppplleaasseee!)You are(if that is even possible!) making yourself look even more ridiculous!

Right the Enc Brit article! OK!

You said "If you want to talk about the bible and history, here is Enc Britannica take on the life of Christ. You will notice how seriously it takes the gospels as historical documents."

However the first paragraph that you deliberately left out claims...the exact opposite of what you claimed the article as saying. That is incredibly dishonest-it is a form of lying and you bore false witness against the posters on this board-if you cannot see what is wrong with that then I pity you! as for the "neutral stance" on the miracles, well PB the first paragraph that you conveniently left out states that the gospels are more theological in nature rather than historical and acknowledges the difficulties in looking at them as history. I have read reports on Julius Caesar and they report that he said he was descended from the Goddess Venus, I can give other examples. They are all "neutral"-curious that.

PB you do know that ancient Egyptians , Romans, Incas, Viking's etc etc viewed their creation myths as being fact and wrote of their gods as being real and said that some of their rulers were descended from their gods and could produce genealogies to prove this? therefore they are all true!

"BTW DD, your hyperling on mutations benefitting humans was not impressive to me. Can anyone translate that into plain English "

I apologise PB but it is not my fault that you cannot understand big words! buy a dictionary or there are several on-line.

PB what you describe as YOUR thought for the day bit is actually a long unattributed cut and paste from AIG(which has been shown to you to be twaddle). PB claiming someone else's work as your own is plagiarism and dishonest-you would be kicked out of university for such dishonesty(you are that imcompetent you even left in the footnote markings!).

And the link to the opinions of even more dentists! so PB if you find a fossil you go to your dentist? I am more concerned with the opinions of scientists working in related Life sciences.

Now PB there is a lot of bluster from you...could you please provide one piece of evidence that would back up your claims. Just make it objective, credible and verifiable(since Biblical creationists claim that empirical evidence backs up their claims then you will have no problem). If you cannot back up your views then the only possible conclusion I can come to is that you do not have any evidence and that Biblical creationism is only backed up by a bunch of dishonest, religious fundamentalist nutters.

PS. PB when are you getting your Nobel prize? because once your publish your work you will overthrow science as we know it and become the most famous scientist who ever lived!

Is there no beginning to your talents!?

Kindest regards

DD

  • 152.
  • At 07:28 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

I actually stand corrected! your unattributed cut and paste that you described as your thought for the day(when in fact they were other peoples) is from several sources.

https://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dasc/EATB04.HTM

https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp

and

https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp

PB passing someone elses work of as your own is very dishonest!(even if the work that you copied without acknowledging is twaddle).

PB instead of this bluster/cut and pastes/canards why not present the positive evidence for Biblical creationism(and please note I said for that means pro/in favour-it does not mean "evidence" against science/evolution). Just one would do to start and make it objectice, credible and verifiable-that seems fair and reasonable.

Please PB I really do want to read the evidence in favour of your position.

Regards

DD

PB- If it weren't feathers it would be ANYTHING else you could find to try and hold to the nonsense of creationism; see for example your silence on the evidence from human chromosomes which I provided you in good faith in #124 per your request. Since you haven't seen fit to do anything but gloat over a non-victory on feather fossils, I thought I'd just remind you that your main concern does not appear to be truth-seeking but belief-bolstering. To that end, you're on a serious losing streak to which everyone but you is a witness.

Hello DD,

Excellent work on exposing more of pbs dishonest methods. First we had non-existent quotes, then lengthy copy-pastes without a reference. But it's hardly surprising from him anymore. I actually find it less astounding then his statements like

"I am currently beating all comers on this entry on **the facts**, not the insults." while not being up-to-date on literature, having read (part of) ONE out-dated paper.

Or, based on the same single out-dated paper he came up with "I have actually hammered the question of whether or not fossils demonstrate feather evolution right into the ground here"

And then, while not having added one more scientific paper he proclaims "So game set and match to PB on the evolution of feathers debate to date... unless you know better, reader." So he won't add anything to his knowledge on the subject, right there is an open statement that he expects others to build his case for him. A case that has been dead for 7 months.

Oh well.

  • 155.
  • At 09:11 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

PB,

That's an interesting post, and for being complete horsepoo, actually gets one thing *correct*! Natural selection works on variation that already exists within a population! Fancy that - some AnswersInGenesis mindless hack actually stumbles upon a core principle of evolutionary theory all by his wee self.

Now the question shifts to where all this genetic variation comes from. And guess what? It arises by random mutation. This is very familiar to anyone with even a basic grasp of genetics. Moreover, the degree of genetic variation within the population is far greater than can be accounted for in just a few thousand years. It would seem that creationists are even *more* evolutionary than "evolutionists" themselves! Cor blimey.

As for Norman Nevin, I am cutting him some slack here. I may have been unfair in tarring him with the sordid creationist brush.

I cannot find any reference to Norman writing anything about creation or evolutionary biology (which is hardly surprising), so until you can come up with some evidenced writings that he is a creationist, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that he was merely duped into signing that "Truth in Science" [sic] letter. Maybe he thought he was stimulating debate, rather than being used as a stooge. It can happen the best of us. It's up to you: demonstrate that he's a creationist. Until then, I'm happy to assume that he accepts evolution.

-A

  • 156.
  • At 10:21 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

I don't know why I do this but...you asked...

"While we are on about it, can anyone link to a paper which demonstrates actual proof of DNA ever evolving? Amen???"

I took the trouble to ask one of the scientists on one of the links I gave you in previous posts this question. I got this in reply...

"If he means convincing evidence then there's lots of it, if he means
logical proof then he may be asking for the meaningless, but if he means
direct observation, then try

* Kovarik et al, Rapid Concerted Evolution of Nuclear Ribosomal DNA in
Two Tragopogon Allopolyploids of Recent and Recurrent Origin, Genetics
169: 931-944 (2005)
* Pires et al, Flowering time divergence and genomic rearrangements in
resynthesized Brassica polyploids (Brassicaceae), Biological Journal of
the Linnean Society 82: 675-688 (2004)
* Pontes et al, Chromosomal locus rearrangements are a rapid response to
formation of the allotetraploid Arabidopsis suecica genome, PNAS
101(52): 18240-18245 (2004)
* Skalická et al, Rapid evolution of parental rDNA in a synthetic
tobacco allotetraploid line, American Journal of Botany 90(7): 988-996
(2003) "

It wasn't difficult, very easy. So why in the future do you not do this yourself(that's if you are sincere or genuine-on present evidence I say neither)?

BTW that's the last time I am looking anything else up for you.

  • 157.
  • At 10:59 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

I'm a bit concerned as to what PB thinks that "DNA evolving" should look like. That DNA sequence changes over generations is not in doubt. PB, would you care to elaborate? Precisely what would you expect to see if DNA "evolved" on its own?

  • 158.
  • At 11:18 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

BTW, PB, that list of "Physicians and Surgeons who dissent from science" is very revealing. No Norman Nevin, for example. No geneticists at all. Well well well. Not very impressive. Mostly a bunch of GPs and dentists and even vets! There are a couple of familiar names there: Stephen Hayes (who runs the laughable questiondarwin.com blog) and Michael Egnor, who is a very vocal creationist and ignoramus. Yes. Intriguing.

DD,

Your persistence is admirable and the references to journal papers should be an excellent starting point for anyone with even the smallest bit of open-mindedness. This is how it should be done: provide info that is verifyable to all, irrespective of personal beliefs, being based on evidence rather than authority of the speaker/writer, having passed the test of peer-review by an anonymous, knowledgeabe person in the field who may not even like what is being presented, but who does give it a clean bill of health as far as credibility is concerned. Well done. But you don't really think that that will have any effect on pb do you? I've followed that route for months. And after a gazillion references to feather fossils he still goes on to boldy proclaim there is none.

Now if, like me, you're doing it mostly to demonstrate to any readers of this blog that religion is mind poison then please keep it up. It's working very well for that. What else (other than outright swindle to satisfy personal greed perhaps) could make a person spew out the sort of rubbish that religion inspires in pbs mind? It must make other believers cringe to have him in their camp. Or they may distance themselves completely from him, taking the line that their beliefs are of course very different and much more sensible. But then it might at least inspire awareness in the minds of those believers that SOME religions are mind poison.

  • 160.
  • At 11:57 AM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Amen

er, since when were geneticists surgeons?

You tourself make the case "...actual evolutionary trees - powerful evidence indeed, and the basis on which most of our knowledge of genetics and modern medicine are based."

Errrr, so why can so many actual medical doctors disagree with you?

Perhaps for the same reason you are now able to admit that Prof Nevin never once put his name to a paper supporting evolution and yet still became a world authority in genetics; amazing? Not if evolution is actually irrelvant to evolution.

To suggest a world authority in genetics has been "duped" into his assocation with Truth in Science is beneath comment.


-A

  • 161.
  • At 01:26 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD, Peter, John

DD, I have taken your advice and started to use talk.origins website, which seems quite interesting.

Unfortunatley it also neglects to mention any actual evidence for feathers evolving. Talk origins simply uses the term "probably" a lot and presumes it acutally happened.


Further lack of proof of any actual evidence for feather evolution.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html

You guys are spending a heck of a lot of time defending the indefensible when I cant believe if you had a modern paper defending feather evolution with acutal evidence that you wouldnt post it in a flash.

If you cant depend on talk origins to defend your case then who can you depend on?

PB


PS You are quite right I did neglect to cite my sources in my "thought for the day" though in my defence I think anyone reading it would be quite clear that most of it is was way above my ability; and no I did not get it from AIG website but from a CD Rom I was given.

Interesting points though arent they? about the lack of evidence of organs evolving and doubt within evolutionary scientific community about standard tenets of natural selection and mutation?

  • 162.
  • At 02:11 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD, JW, Amen

"Biblical creationists" may or may not claim they can prove their case with empirical evidence, but I guess that depends which ones you are talking to. I dont see how it can be done myself, so it is not a valid argument against me personally. I think the Judge at Dover gave clear reasons why it could not happen.

I certainly dont see how it can be done given the proposed supernatural cause and that seems to be backed up by Amen on Prof Nevin's record on papers published ie it doesnt appear he ever tried ro publish anything on creationism (or evolution) and still became a world authority on genetics.

Didnt you ask me if I hold creationism as a theory in the same manner as evolution. A simple answer would be yes. To qualify that I do hold the bible as divinely inspired though not always precise about numerous matters we may me curious about from time to time. I dont think Genesis is very clear in different sections, but I also note NT authors always saw it has historical. I firmly believe that evolutionary and creationist theory and biblical interpretation pf same will continue to be revised and re-thought, therefore I avoid dogmatism on either.

By the way ref Joshua and the sun stopping, I have never read up on astrophysics, but I recall this anecdote from Newton. A friend came into his room and asked who had made a model of the heavenly bodies to which Newton said "nobody". His friend expressed surprise to which Newton asked why then it was so difficult to imagine that the actual planets did not have an acutal creator.

REF WHALE FINS AND BIRD WINGS

Perhaps the real question is not so much about the appendages themselves but why there is no fossil evidence to bridge the massive gaps between whales and whatever they were meant to come from and between birds and reptiles.
And for that matter why there are such huge gaps between vertabrates and invertabrates, amphibians, birds, plants and simple organisms. If evolution were true, surely we would be looking at much more gradation between species, and much less evidence for these types as distinct species at all. The same should also be reflected in the fossil record. Instead we find that ever since Darwin the fossils that have been found have thrown into ever sharper and sharper focus the distinctions between these species, as is especially demonstrated by Cambrian explosion fossils.


DD
Can you actually explain why any of the alleged human mutations cannot be considered by other normal physiogical processes?

Amen
By DNA evolving I mean this; From my understanding, DNA is found even in the most simple organisms. If evolution were correct would there not be some evidence of living organisms that have a primative form of DNA - or has it always existed in life forms?

Can we really believe that DNA just appeared with no evoluntionary origins? This sounds a bit like the "Cambrian explosion" whereby life forms of so many types just "appeared" with no evidence of any sources.


JW
I will have to come back on your molecular argument. The reason your qualifications are relevant are because you simply rubbished with contempt my theological views without demonstrating your logic. Have you no thoughts on Luke 3, Hebrews 11 and Peter on Noah?

PB

Pb, are you stuck in a time warp?! First you come up with an out-of-date source from 1999. That made you look silly enough, especially when you then shouted out your ludicrously unfounded victory claims. Now you do even worse when you write:

"Further lack of proof of any actual evidence for feather evolution.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
"

Ok, a little tip: if your source from 1999 was out of date, then a source from 1992 will be even further out-of-date. Did you even look at the date of the talkorigins link you posted? It's even older than your previous out-of-date source! What's next pb, citing a source from the 1700s and then shouting out that Darwinism is a lie because it was never mentioned in your 1700s source (Darwinism being only one and half centuries old)?

And no, I am done doing your home work, I am not going to post articles again as you would ignore them anyway. You've done so on about a dozen occasions in the past. YOU DO THE WORK IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY CLAIMS PB. A simple way to start would be to get hold of the paper about the fossils found in Jehol Behota, China. You don't have to look very far for that reference, it's all over this blog, I've posted it more than a dozen times for you already. Let me know once you've found a reason that explains away their existence.

DD, JW, Amenhotep, I strongly suggest you also don't let yourselves be lured into doing pbs work again. Maybe if he has to go out and do some work himself he'll stop producing this nonsense. Or if he would actually do some reading and learn something about evolution. That would not be a bad result either.

  • 164.
  • At 04:09 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

PB, it's called RNA, and if you even remotely grasped the concept of evolution, you would understand why these are stable evolutionarily. The sequence evolves, but it is very very hard to shift the information carrier.

And Norman Nevin may be well known on the topic of clinical genetics (hardly a "world authority"), but he has no track record on evolutionary biology or developmental genetics or comparative genomics *at all*. Why do you want to insist that he is a creationist, when you don't really know? I suggest you go and find some evidence, and come back with it. For all you or I know, he could well be a theistic evolutionist. He's not a member of the "Truth in Science" panel, nor has he signed up to that very short list of vets, dentists, surgeons and physicians who are nevertheless creationists.

There's your homework. Get to it.

-A

Peter I agree.


PB says: "I will have to come back on your molecular argument"

Take your time. Course, you're not dogmatic about creationism, so you'll have no trouble realising that you're wrong and repenting of this nonsense.


"The reason your qualifications are relevant are because you simply rubbished with contempt my theological views without demonstrating your logic."

To the contrary my logic is evident throughout my posts on the topic and I've explained to you very carefully why I think yours are wrong.


Have you no thoughts on Luke 3, Hebrews 11 and Peter on Noah?"

I've already dealt with this several times above. For the love of God, PB! I'll repeat for your benefit: what the authors of the NT think about Genesis ultimately has no bearing on the historical value of something written thousands of years before. You can't argue for creationism by appealing to what early Christians thought about it. What if they were wrong? That's point 1. The second point, just as important, is that you are on very shaky ground to make claims from the verses you cite about whether those people actually did regard the creation stories as literal. In most of those you cite there's little grounds for thinking so.

Is the case for creationism so weak on scientific grounds that you must resort to appealing to other parts of the bible to try and support it on theological grounds? No matter how many verses I could come up with supporting geocentricism, the earth would still be rotating around the sun PB. No amount of crafty interpretation will change the basic facts of science on that, or on evolution.

  • 166.
  • At 05:01 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Please read what the article actually says not what you think it says!

Re: The cut and paste. You said that they were your thoughts-they weren't. You didn't cite your source rather you passed someone else's work of as your own. The cut and paste is interesting in the sense that how could anyone post such twaddle and expect to get away with it! It is also interesting that creationists should constantly misquote the late, great Stephen J Gould as a source against evolution by natural selection! He did say "their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."

Incidentally PB could the article back up what it is saying by citing evidence that is objective and credible?

As for the start of M160, so you do not have any actual evidence except special pleading.

Re: Joshua, please point out where the Bible says the story is allegorical? You admit that you are not a geocentrist so you admit this story is impossible?

"DD
Can you actually explain why any of the alleged human mutations cannot be considered by other normal physiogical processes?"

No! do your own work in future, why should I waste my time. JW is right your concern is belief bolstering not truth seeking.

Peter Klaver M157

Thanks! I am not doing anymore research for PB, it's a complete waste of my time and I do have a life outside of this forum! However on a positive note it does add to my knowledge, which in any circumstance is never a bad thing!

I would like PB to post positive evidence in his favour but so far...diddly!

DD

  • 167.
  • At 05:35 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

During the 1970s I attended a lecture given by Prof Nevin, which was held in Alexandra Presbyterian Church, Belfast, in which he emphasized Biblical creationism as opposed to evolution for the origin's of man.

May I quote from an article written by Prof Norman C Nevin, MD, BSc, FRCP.

“ It is clear that the scientific evidence for evolution, particularly in the field of genetics, does not support the assumptions of the theory, and that the alternative, The Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…......does not contradict any established scientific fact”.

May I also quote Charles Darwin?

“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”

Bill quotes two old sources which ignore the scientific development and understanding gained in the following decades. Seems like PB and Bill have something in common besides creationism: the means by which they support it!

  • 169.
  • At 07:28 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Dear oh dear Bill,

You are engaged in quote-mining again!

what Darwin actually said was...

"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 possible degree...(and the bit that you left out, or to be exact the creationist twaddle website/publication that you had the misfortune to copy it from)Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an 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, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."
(in any case as JW things have moved on from Darwin)

Do you know how dishonest this is? it's a form of lying and it is bearing false witness against other posters. Very UnChrist like behaviour! Since you have no evidence to back up your claims these are the depths that you are forced to sink to.

Really creationism is Satan's big bottom burp! well given creationists tactics that have been exposed on this thread...

"By their fruits ye shall know them".

Bill you need to confess your sin here and to your god, personally I am willing to your forgive, not sure about your god though!

Hello people,

DD, again good work on exposing another creationist scam attempt. Pity that Bill never even got into the game before crashing out. Now that pb seems reduced to repeating yells of 'There are no fossils' followed by victory claims (still laughing), it would have been nice if Bill could have taken over the role of thread fodder. Come on Bill, surely you can do better than that? Take a look at the example of the meister creationist troll right here in this thread. It doesn't require much really.

  • 171.
  • At 08:46 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

PB and Bill,
Well, aren't you chaps interesting! Bill, can you please give a source for what Norman Nevin apparently wrote in the 1970s? And pray tell, what was this evidence that he felt did not support evolution (assuming your quote is correct)? And (again assuming your quote is correct) what is the difference between this and theistic evolution?

Norman Nevin is not a world authority on core genetic science relating to species divergence, nor on evolutionary biology, nor on "creationism" (whatever that means in this context). He has no publication record in these areas - if I'm wrong, please show me where I'm wrong. But to label him a "creationist" still seems to me a tad unfair, given the lack of anything creationistic attributable to him. Again, give us the quotes (source them, please), and we can reconsider. But at the moment I see nothing to suggest that he's not a theistic evolutionist.

Bill, as for that quote of Darwin, I can only advise you to READ ON and all will become clear!

-A

If a scientist quoted a verse of the bible out of context like that, they'd never hear the end of it from Christians who so animatedly point out the folly of reading a verse detached from the writings around it. Bill will probably never apologise for his use of this Darwin verse here, but it's a great insight into the unbelievable closed-mindedness it takes to be a biblical creationist.

  • 173.
  • At 10:32 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

John, "biblical" creationists and similar nutters are no better with the bible than they are with the writings of Darwin or the modern scientific literature. They are quote-miners extraordinaire, as if getting some bundle of words together, and framing it in a context that will make them say what they would like them to say, actually demonstrates their point. They are purely *verbal* thinkers, unable to see the concept behind the descriptions, unable to access that part of their brain (assuming they have one) that deals in abstract thought.

They can't construct a logical argument, because they don't do logic. Similarly, they can't *understand* a logical argument. They want *words* and *authority* and they don't mind how they twist them to make them "support" their positions (as opposed to arguments).

This sort of person is the sort who regards "faith" as a virtue, rather than the worst sort of narcissistic retrogressive lazy vice. Don't expect 'em to change - they don't know how. They don't have that bit of brain.

-A

A- You've put it in a nutshell.

  • 175.
  • At 09:40 AM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Guys

Here is the complete main Enc Brit article on phylogeny. I was quite startled, having only just come to understand this recently, that it reflects entirely the problem with bird feather "evolution" and indeed the actual evidence generally provided by the fossil record and surviving species on all forms of life; ie the more fossil and living species discoveries are made the starker the contrast between evidence for known and very different species, leaving trailing acutal evidence for any transitional fossils or animals.
ie what Newsweek have called a legion of "phantom" and missing animals of evolutionary theory.


The same is also true of archeological finds as I understand it; they only ever confirm the accuracy of the biblical records. This would reflect completely the quote from Prof Nevin.


////////////////////////////////////

Enc Brit main article on
phylogeny (my emphasis added)

the history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups of organisms.

Fundamental to phylogeny is the >>>proposition>>The evidence for such relationships, however, is nearly always incomplete, for the vast majority of species that have ever lived have become extinct, and relatively few of their remains have been preserved>>indirect evidence and cautious speculation>>they often hypothesize different phylogenies>>at least in principle

Taxonomy, the science of classifying organisms, is based on phylogeny. Early taxonomic systems had no theoretical basis; organisms were grouped according to apparent similarity. Since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, however, taxonomy has been based on the accepted >>>propositions

Biologists who >>>postulate

>>>Most of the data used in making phylogenetic judgments have come from comparative anatomy and from embryology

Biochemical investigations carried out in the latter half of the 20th century have contributed valuable data to phylogenetic studies. By counting differences in the sequence of units that make up protein and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecules, researchers have devised a tool for measuring the degree to which different species have diverged since evolving from a common ancestor.

The earliest organisms were >>>probably>>supposed>>said>>not certain

Cyanobacteria (sometimes called the blue-green algae) are >>>thought

After the cyanobacteria there appeared an extensive array of algae, molds, protozoans, plants, and animals. Three groups of algae can be dismissed with passing mention, as they arose from >>>uncertain>>almost certainly>>suggest>>some>>considered>>probable>>unknown

Land plants contain two major groups, bryophytes and tracheophytes, which differ in many ways but which share distinctive characteristics for adaptation to dry land. These include the housing of the plant embryo in maternal tissue.

Bryophytes are descended from green algae and include mosses, liverworts, and hornworts. Only small quantities of water are needed for their reproduction, so that the sperm may travel to the eggs. The fertilized egg matures within the maternal tissue. The plant is protected from dessication by a waxy cuticle. Bryophytes have >>>apparently>>seem

All the dominant plants on Earth are included in the tracheophytes. The tracheophytes' development of large plant bodies has been made possible by having vascular parts that carry water and food inside these plants, and by a dominant sporophyte stage with a microscopic-sized gametophyte. Tracheophytes' tissues have differentiated into leaves, stems, and roots, and in the highest plants seeds and flowers are featured.

In explaining the evolution of tracheophytes, it has been >>>suggested

The >>>problem>>theory>>presumed>>theory hypothesizes>>No decisive information, however, yet exists to sustain either contention

Lower metazoan forms developed the first symmetrical arrangement of body parts about a main axis, thus establishing the bilateral symmetry that characterizes most animals; major exceptions are the echinoderms (e.g., starfishes, sea cucumbers). The development of tissues into an outer ectoderm, which provides protection and carries sense apparatus, and an inner endoderm, servingdigestion and reproduction needs, was an important phase. Another important trend was cephalization (head formation). The anterior end of the body generally holds the central nervous system, sense organs, and mouth.

Two current >>>theories postulate>>suggests>>theory>>proposed>>contends

Humans are included in the chordates. Three basic structures are shared by all chordates: a dorsal nerve tube (brain and spinal cord in vertebrates); a notochord (supporting rod under the nerve tube); and a pharynx perforated bygill slits, >>>at least

The history of evolution is full of examples of primitive groups giving rise to more advanced groups, but it should be noted that it is the more primitive and less specialized members of a group—not the advanced members—that produce new groups. For example, birds and mammals arose not from advanced reptiles but from primitive, unspecialized reptiles.

The data and conclusions of phylogeny show clearly [???????????] that the world of life is the product of a historical process of evolution and that degrees of resemblance within and between groups correspond to degrees of relationship by descent from common ancestors. A fully developed phylogeny is essential for the devising of a taxonomy that reflects the natural relationships within the world of living things.


  • 176.
  • At 09:52 AM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Peter

You know very well that just because a paper is a few years old does not prove it has been superceded by research.


JW
I am not using the NT to prove creationsim is true; I dont believe that is possible.

What I am proving though is that NT writers, and for that matter all OT writers, understood the bible, context and culture much better than you and they all to a man treated the creation story as actual history. That much IS proven.


Peter, DD

So you are both promising to defend your views on evolution by resolutely REFUSING TO USE ANY PROPER, PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS.

That is quite amazing; the creationist is using proper objective proof to demonstrate the lack of evidence for evolution and the evolutionists are relying on ad hominem arguments.

Amazing!

PB


pb,

"You know very well that just because a paper is a few years old does not prove it has been superceded by research."

Indeed, it doesn't have to be. But it can be, and in the example you cite it clearly is. See if you can follow the next few easy steps

- I pointed you towards papers from 2003 with many examples of intermediate feather fossils
- you come up with a reference from 1992 that says there are none
- due to fossil finds after 1992 (like those in 2003), the 1992 source is out of date

That shouldn't be beyond anyones comprehension.

"So you are both promising to defend your views on evolution by resolutely REFUSING TO USE ANY PROPER, PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS."

On the contrary. I have pointed you to more up-to-date papers pb, many times. So have others. Look those up and read them, come back once you've found a way to explain away the many intermediate feather fossils in them. Or better: just admit to yourself you were wrong. We've all done our homework pb, now you do some yourself. References are there, all over this blog. Register for an account to access them, look them up, read them, be wiser. Then post again.

  • 178.
  • At 11:20 AM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"So you are both promising to defend your views on evolution by resolutely REFUSING TO USE ANY PROPER, PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS."

Errr no, now I did say this before and thought I made myself clear, obviously not! here goes...I am sick and tired of looking stuff up for, do it yourself in future! I have the same tools at my disposal as you. I did post papers re: DNA

"That is quite amazing; the creationist is using proper objective proof to demonstrate the lack of evidence for evolution and the evolutionists are relying on ad hominem arguments."

Errr is there something wrong with you?

Where is this objective evidence? and PB again(!?!?) to construct and ad hominem one must first advance an argument!

Now PB please provide one(just one would do to start) piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable in favour of Biblical creationism.

Amazing!

  • 179.
  • At 01:16 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

The following are some very interesting sections from Enc Brit article on "phylogeny"...

The level of proposition, assumption, speculation and hypothesizing is constant, but the level of actual evidence is slim.

This confirms my understanding that every since Darwin, the pattern of fossil finds have actually worked against the theory of evolution, with hughe gaps remainging between simple organisms, plants, fish, amphibians and mammals. why is there not more smooth gradation between species? why dont living speciemns and fossils actually demonstrate evolution?


Enc Brit 2005 says;-

The history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups of organisms.

Fundamental to phylogeny is the >>>proposition


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>The evidence for such relationships, however, is nearly always incomplete, for the vast majority of species that have ever lived have become extinct, and relatively few of their remains have been preserved. Most judgments of phylogenicity, then, are based on indirect evidence and cautious speculation. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even when biologists use the same evidence, >>>they often hypothesize different phylogenies>>>, though they do agree that life is the result of organic descent from earlier ancestors and that true phylogenies are discoverable, >>>at least in principle

...Since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, however, taxonomy has been based on the accepted >>>propositions

Biologists who >>>postulate

>>>Most of the data used in making phylogenetic judgments have come from comparative anatomy and from embryology

The earliest organisms were >>>probably>>supposed>>said

Cyanobacteria (sometimes called the blue-green algae) are >>>thought>>uncertain>>almost certainly>>suggest>>some>>considered>>probable>>unknown

...Only small quantities of water are needed for their reproduction, so that the sperm may travel to the eggs. The fertilized egg matures within the maternal tissue. The plant is protected from dessication by a waxy cuticle. Bryophytes have >>>apparently>>seem

In explaining the evolution of tracheophytes, it has been >>>suggested

The >>>problem>>theory>>presumed>>theory hypothesizes>>No decisive information, however, yet exists to sustain either contention

Two current >>>theories postulate>>suggests>>theory>>proposed>>contends

Humans are included in the chordates. Three basic structures are shared by all chordates: a dorsal nerve tube (brain and spinal cord in vertebrates); a notochord (supporting rod under the nerve tube); and a pharynx perforated bygill slits, >>>at least

The history of evolution is full of examples of primitive groups giving rise to more advanced groups, but it should be noted that it is the more primitive and less specialized members of a group—not the advanced members—that produce new groups. For example, birds and mammals arose not from advanced reptiles but from primitive, unspecialized reptiles.

The data and conclusions of phylogeny show clearly [???????????] that the world of life is the product of a historical process of evolution and that degrees of resemblance within and between groups correspond to degrees of relationship by descent from common ancestors. A fully developed phylogeny is essential for the devising of a taxonomy that reflects the natural relationships within the world of living things.


Ok, in the absence of any substance it seems that pb has now switched to overzealous punctuation to make his point. You wouldn't be showing a degree of desparation, now would you pb?

  • 181.
  • At 01:46 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

So Peter

You are CLAIMING the 1999 Prum paper was out of date, but how do you know this? Talkorigins website would surely be update by now if there was new evidence and you would not hesitate to post it if you had it.

Amenhotep,

These papers quotes on wikiepedia seem to be much more sceptical about DNA evolution than you. As I understand it even the most "primative" life form still alive today still has DNA it is not a very convincing argument for its evolution. Have you actually got any published papers which support your position on this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Evolution of DNA-based metabolism
DNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to function, grow and reproduce. However, it is UNCLEAR how long in the 4-billion-year history of life DNA has performed this function, as it has been PROPOSED that the earliest forms of life MAY have used RNA as their genetic material.[90][102]

90. ^ a b Joyce C, Steitz T (1995). "Polymerase structures and function: variations on a theme?". J Bacteriol 177 (22): 6321–9. PMID 7592405.
102. Orgel L. "Prebiotic chemistry and the origin of the RNA world". Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 39 (2): 99–123. PMID 15217990.
RNA MAY have acted as the central part of early cell metabolism as it can both transmit genetic information and carry out catalysis as part of ribozymes.[103] This ancient RNA world where nucleic acid would have been used for both catalysis and genetics may have influenced the evolution of the current genetic code based on four nucleotide bases. This would occur since the number of unique bases in such an organism is a trade-off between a small number of bases increasing replication accuracy and a large number of bases increasing the catalytic efficiency of ribozymes.[104]

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of ancient genetic systems, as recovery of DNA from most fossils is impossible. THIS This is because DNA will survive in the environment for less than one million years and slowly degrades into short fragments in solution.[105] Although claims for older DNA have been made, most notably a report of the isolation of a viable bacterium from a salt crystal 250-million years old,[106] these claims are controversial and have been disputed.[107][108]

JW

You have ranted quite a bit but have made no explanation as to why NT genelogies would be traced back to a myth. In and of itself the passage I have given you (there are many more) do not prove anything except that biblical authors in biblical times most certainly considered Genesis historical rather than symbolic. Period.

DD

It is you who is special pleading if you expect me to be able to scientifically prove a supernatural cause for creation. No serious scientist would ask this.

And you cannt dismiss my bringing professional scientists into the debate as appeals to authority. Quoting experts in the field is only disqualified by logic I I propose they are infallible on account of their athority, which I never did; I only asked you to explain how they could be creationists when you castigated any such person as stupid etc etc.

And while you are on let us see you post some obkective and verifiable evidence for species to species evolution, preferably from a reputable journal.

John Wright, Peter Klaver, Amen and yourself are heavy on the personal attacks but very light on the evidence which you consider to be "FACT".

JW

You are wittering on about Bill's quotes being out of date but you havent demonstrated this to be the case; flying a kite?

DD

"Quote mining" is a very useful put down term without even addressing the issue presented by Bill.

Amen

So you had no idea Nevin was a creationist? I am getting a bit worried about you. Last week you asserted to me several times that you were the son of God. Before that you repeatedly slated Nevin for his creationist beliefs. This week you suggest he was duped into lobbying for creationism in the classroom. A professor of genetics!!!! enough said.

So creationists are all quote miners? That is a very naughty straw man argument Amen, you darned rightly there are many creationist scientists. a Mori poll on wikipedia says 5% of US scientists are creationists.

So JW - you joing forces with Amen to pour contempt on people of faith - er... as a Christian believer in God yourself John dont you think you are allowing yourself to run with the crowd little while they stab your personal convictions?

PB

  • 182.
  • At 01:51 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


JW
ref chimps and chromosomes

Correlation is not causation.

Similar DNA between a chimp and a human does not actually prove evolution; you have to assume it.

Humans also share around 50% of our DNA with bananas and 60-75 percent DNA similarity with chickens.


BTW Peter
If you look up "feathers" on wikipedia you will see it is equally perplexed about evidence for their evolution.

PB

  • 183.
  • At 02:10 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

that didnt come out too well, sorry - but look at how tenous the basis is for modern evolutionary classification, c/o enc brit. It is all supposition, hypothesis, probablies etc...

phylogeny
the history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups of organisms.

Fundamental to phylogeny is the ***proposition***, universally accepted in the scientific community (????), that plants or animals of different species descended from common ancestors.


*****************************
The evidence for such relationships, however, is nearly always incomplete, for the vast majority of species that have ever lived have become extinct, and relatively few of their remains have been preserved. Most judgments of phylogenicity, then, are based on indirect evidence and cautious speculation. (!!!!!!)
******************************


Even when biologists use the same evidence, they often ***hypothesize*** different phylogenies, though they do agree that life is the result of organic descent from earlier ancestors and that true phylogenies are discoverable, ***at least in principle***.

Taxonomy, the science of classifying organisms, is based on phylogeny. Early taxonomic systems had no theoretical basis; organisms were grouped according to apparent similarity. Since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, however, taxonomy has been based on the accepted ***propositions*** of evolutionary descent and relationship.

Biologists who ***postulate*** a phylogeny derive their most useful evidence from the fields of paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and biochemistry. Studies of the fine structure of cells and geographic distribution of flora and fauna are also useful. The fossil record is often used to determine the phylogeny of groups containing hard body parts; soft parts are generally not preserved.

Most of the data used in making phylogenetic judgments have come from comparative anatomy and from embryology. In comparing features common to different species, anatomists try to distinguish between homologies, or similarities inherited from a common ancestor, and analogies, or similarities that arise in response to similar habits and living conditions.

Biochemical investigations carried out in the latter half of the 20th century have contributed valuable data to phylogenetic studies. By counting differences in the sequence of units that make up protein and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecules, researchers have devised a tool for measuring the degree to which different species have diverged since evolving from a common ancestor.

The earliest organisms were ***probably*** the result of a long chemical evolution, in which random reactions in the primeval seas and atmosphere produced amino acids and then proteins. It is ***supposed*** that droplets containing proteins then formed membranes by binding molecules to their surface, and these membrane-bound proteins are ***said*** to have become organisms when they developed the capacity to reproduce. It is ***not certain whether*** these earliest self-reproducing organisms were proteins, nucleic acid–protein associations, or viruses. There is general agreement that they were heterotrophic organisms—i.e., those that required nourishment in the form of organic matter from early seas. Later, autotrophic forms appeared, having the ability to make their own food from inorganic matter. These organisms were the earliest bacteria; they could store energy as food and release energy as needed through respiration.


Cyanobacteria (sometimes called the blue-green algae) are thought to have been the next evolutionary step (Figure 1) in that they were able to use photosynthetic pigments to manufacture their own supply of food and therefore were not totally dependent on their environment for nutrients.

After the cyanobacteria there appeared an extensive array of algae, molds, protozoans, plants, and animals. Three groups of algae can be dismissed with passing mention, as they arose from ***uncertain*** ancestors and have given rise to no further groups. These groups are the chrysophytes (yellow-green and golden-brown algae, chiefly diatoms); the pyrrophytes (cryptomonads and dinoflagellates); and the rhodophytes, or red algae. Three more groups have greater phylogenetic importance: the chlorophytes (green algae), which ***almost certainly*** gave rise to the land plants, i.e., the bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and the tracheophytes, or vascular plants (including all of the higher plants); the euglenoids (unicellular, flagellate organisms), which ***suggest*** a broad connection between plants and animals at this primitive level; and the phaeophytes (brown algae), which some biologists have considered to be a ***probable*** source of the animal kingdom. Finally, the protozoans (unicellular prokaryotic microorganisms) were derived from unknown, more primitive ancestors, and one or more groups of protozoans have given rise to metazoans—i.e., multicellular animals.

Land plants contain two major groups, bryophytes and tracheophytes, which differ in many ways but which share distinctive characteristics for adaptation to dry land. These include the housing of the plant embryo in maternal tissue.

Bryophytes are descended from green algae and include mosses, liverworts, and hornworts. Only small quantities of water are needed for their reproduction, so that the sperm may travel to the eggs. The fertilized egg matures within the maternal tissue. The plant is protected from dessication by a waxy cuticle. Bryophytes have apparently not advanced far beyond their algal predecessors and do not seem to be the evolutionary source of other groups.

All the dominant plants on Earth are included in the tracheophytes. The tracheophytes' development of large plant bodies has been made possible by having vascular parts that carry water and food inside these plants, and by a dominant sporophyte stage with a microscopic-sized gametophyte. Tracheophytes' tissues have differentiated into leaves, stems, and roots, and in the highest plants seeds and flowers are featured.

In explaining the evolution of tracheophytes, it has been ***suggested*** that a mutant form of green algae developed a primitive rootlike function with which to supply itself with water and minerals. The progeny of this organism eventually developed bundles of vascular tissues, a stem and leaves, and a cuticle for protection. The early vascular plants are called psilophytes. The development of seeds arose from the retention of the embryo inside maternal tissue. Early seed ferns gave rise to the gymnosperm group, including pines, spruces, and firs. Flowering plants, the angiosperms, probably came from the gymnosperm phase and have two subgroups: the dicotyledons and the monocotyledons.

The ***problem*** of the origin of multicellular animals (metazoans) was long dominated by the German embryologist Ernst Haeckel's ***theory*** that the original metazoan ancestor was a spherical protozoanthat was structurally similar to the coelenterates (e.g., jellyfishes, corals). Today there are two alternative explanations. The first traces metazoans back to flagellates, the ***presumed*** ancestors of flattened, ciliated animals (planulas) that eventually led to coelenterates and flatworms. Another ***theory hypothesizes*** that multinucleated protozoans, dividing into subcells, were the original metazoans, which developed into simple flatworms.

****************
No decisive information, however, yet exists to sustain either contention.
*****************


Lower metazoan forms developed the first symmetrical arrangement of body parts about a main axis, thus establishing the bilateral symmetry that characterizes most animals; major exceptions are the echinoderms (e.g., starfishes, sea cucumbers). The development of tissues into an outer ectoderm, which provides protection and carries sense apparatus, and an inner endoderm, servingdigestion and reproduction needs, was an important phase. Another important trend was cephalization (head formation). The anterior end of the body generally holds the central nervous system, sense organs, and mouth.


Two current ***theories postulate*** the lineage of the higher metazoans. The monophyletic sequence suggests that four groups evolved from lower forms to higher: Ameria (unsegmented animals), which includes flatworms, coelenterates, and mollusks; Polymeria (segmented animals), which includes annelids and arthropods; Oligomeria (reduced segmentation), which includes insects and echinoderms; and Chordonia (chordates). The (alternative) diphyletic ***theory*** has been ***proposed*** by many zoologists. It contends that the higher metazoans had two lines of descent, one of which led to annelids, arthropods, and mollusks and the other of which led to echinoderms and chordates, as in Figure 2. Both groups emanated from an ancient flatworm.

Humans are included in the chordates. Three basic structures are shared by all chordates: a dorsal nerve tube (brain and spinal cord in vertebrates); a notochord (supporting rod under the nerve tube); and a pharynx perforated bygill slits, at least during the embryonic stage.

The history of evolution is full of examples of primitive groups giving rise to more advanced groups, but it should be noted that it is the more primitive and less specialized members of a group—not the advanced members—that produce new groups. For example, birds and mammals arose not from advanced reptiles but from primitive, unspecialized reptiles.

The data and conclusions of phylogeny show clearly [???????????] that the world of life is the product of a historical process of evolution and that degrees of resemblance within and between groups correspond to degrees of relationship by descent from common ancestors. A fully developed phylogeny is essential for the devising of a taxonomy that reflects the natural relationships within the world of living things.

  • 184.
  • At 02:29 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

PB, you're such a seething wee mass of conflicting notions; it's no wonder you can't keep them all under control. You're like a mother with 19 kids in Tesco - they're running all over the place, and knocking over the tins of beans.

Nevin and creationism: I had previously assumed that Norman Nevin was a creationist. That assumption was amplified by some of the things that others have written. I admit that I would prefer *not* to have to believe that someone respected in the world of genetics (which is not the same thing as being a "world authority") is grossly ignorant of some of the basic facts and mechanisms of how genetics came about. But neither you nor anyone else has been able to show *what* Norman actually believes, and Norman hasn't written about it himself, so I am backtracking slightly from my position, and prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for DNA, I refer you back to my point on RNA. In many ways we *still* are RNA organisms, and DNA's just the hard drive. But there is no reason to assume that the carrier of genetic information should itself evolve, and very good reasons to assume that it will remain largely constant. You should be able to work this out for yourself. I suggest you go back and learn some basic biology.

-A

Pb,

"You are CLAIMING the 1999 Prum paper was out of date, but how do you know this?"


No pb, I know the paper is out of date because of the fossil finds since then. You would have known too, if you HAD JUST READ the references that have been pointed out to you so often.

"Talkorigins website would surely be update by now if there was new evidence and you would not hesitate to post it if you had it."

As I've stated many times already now, I'm not doing your homework for you any longer. I have given you many references to more up-to-date scientific literature, detailing series of intermediate fossil finds. It's up to you to get hold of them and to read them.

  • 186.
  • At 03:47 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Yes Amen

But if every organism we can examine, right down to the very simplest, all have DNA, then where did DNA come from, and if it evolved ,can you show any of the stages of this evolution?

Crick found this so implausible they he suggested it must have come from aliens in outerspace!!

From everything I have read on it so far it appears to fall into the same category as fossil evidence for evolution; the assumption are made because the theory is assumed to be true, but the assumption is not actually justified by the evidence.

Do **really** believe (as you stated) Nevin was "duped" into signing the letter calling for creationism in UK schools?

PB

PB- To answer your bubbling brew of bull:


"You have ranted quite a bit but have made no explanation as to why NT genelogies would be traced back to a myth."

Yes. I. Have. The NT geneologies were very possibly written by people who believed the creation accounts to be factual, as I've acknowledged several times above. You agree below the irrelevance of this fact:


"In and of itself the passage I have given you (there are many more) do not prove anything except that biblical authors in biblical times most certainly considered Genesis historical rather than symbolic. Period"

I'd certainly qualify your statement to say that some biblical authors probably considered the creation stories historical. Okay. So let's leave that train of thought far behind, since it is irrelevant to the question of whether Genesis 1 and 2 actually are historical. Yet again, you introduce 'evidence' which proves nothing in your favour. If you didn't think it was a proof, why did you bring it up?


"So JW - you joing forces with Amen to pour contempt on people of faith..."

Actually as I understand it Amenhotep is a theist. What I'm happy to identify with here is not contempt for theism itself but rather contempt for the kind of nonsense you've been propagating.


...while they stab your personal convictions..."

Precisely none of my convictions have been threatened by the facts of this discussion: that's the fundamental key difference between you and I. Study that difference and you'll understand why I consider you wrong.


"ref chimps and chromosomes Correlation is not causation."

Agreed.


"Similar DNA between a chimp and a human does not actually prove evolution; you have to assume it."

Of course on its own it doesn't prove evolution.


"Humans also share around 50% of our DNA with bananas and 60-75 percent DNA similarity with chickens."

Did you even read the utterly compelling paragraph I posted above on human chromosome #2? Oh how you are blinded by your desire to read Genesis literally! How church tradition has supplanted all the pointers of basic facts in your mind! I'll propose only 2 possibilities:

(A) you haven't understood the basics of the evidence of human chromosome #2. If this is the case, I'll repost it below so you can study it.

(B) you have understood it already but are willfully ignoring it because it is compelling enough to destroy any real credibility left in creationism.

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

For the sheer sport of it, I'd like to post just a sample few of the multitude of problems for creationism in addition to the evidence from human chromosome #2. The reason I'm dong this is twofold: first, to establish that the argument from God's omnipotence is redundant and illogical ("he can do whatever he likes, therefore he could have done this"), and, second, to show that it is not a single piece of evidence that points to evolution but every single available piece of evidence from every discipline, and the lack of scientific coherence in creationism.

I'd appreciate your shortest available answer to each of these:


1) Whales have flipper bones which atonomists say are clearly transitional; they are, essentially, developmental fingers. Why?

2) In the Genesis creation story, light was created before the sun. How so?

3) In the Genesis creation story, evening and morning (concepts which are purely human, since they rely upon the rotation of the earth) occurred before the earth was created. How so?

4) In creationism, the universe was created 6000 to 10,000 years ago. The light from stars takes millions of years to reach us. How is that light visible today?

5) In creationism, the earth was created 6000 to 10,000 years ago. The Grand Canyon is estimated by geologists to have taken millions of years to form by means of the Colorado River. How did it form in merely thousands of years?

6) In creationism, the cosmos was created basically as it is today. Astronomy proves that the universe is expanding. Why?

7) The human appendix (along with several other pieces of human anatomy) no longer serves any useful function and can be removed when it gives trouble. Why does it exist?

8) The route of the vas deferens in human males indicates that the testicles were originally much higher inside the body than they are today. If God created humans as they are, what explains the route of the vas deferens?

9) All modern dating methods yield evidence of an earth hundreds of thousands of years old and a universe billions of years old. How can you reconcile this with the geneologies of the bible?

10) The chromosomes of humans and apes are strikingly similar. But there is a difference. Humans have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48 chromosomes. How to account for this difference? Either evolution is wrong and humans and apes do not share a common ancestor, or at some point 2 pairs of human chromosomes must have fused together. Chromosomes have a pattern of markings where we can tell where the end of one chromosome is and where the beginning of the next one is. We can therefore test to see whether there is any evidence of a fusion. Sure enough, a teleomere (the end sequence of a chromosome) was found in the middle of human chromosome #2, showing where 2 chromosomes fused together. If two distinct chromosomes each with their own centromere were fused together in any case, you would find remnants of those centromeres in the fused result, both above and below the new centromere, and we have found that in the case of chromosome #2 in human beings. How do you account for this fact?


I look forward to your answers, as I'm sure do the rest of the friendly folks on this thread.

  • 188.
  • At 05:23 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

What a weird little parallel universe you inhabit! Everyone else can understand the simple points being made.

Here we go again (yawn)!

"It is you who is special pleading if you expect me to be able to scientifically prove a supernatural cause for creation. No serious scientist would ask this."

You are right that no serious scientist would consider it! Now PB for the umpteenth time (yawn) Biblical creationists claim that empirical evidence points towards special creation therefore (and I thought this was a very simple point!)Please present evidence to back this up, just one would do and make it objective, credible and verifiable. The only conclusion that I can come to is that you have no evidence to back up your claims-except relying on twaddle web-sites, appeals to authority, special pleading, ad-hominems, etc etc so you confirm what I suspected before that Biblical creationism is backed up by a bunch of dishonest, religious fundamentalist nutters.

PB it is appeals to authority because you are not actually looking at the evidence. Biblical creationists reach their conclusion because they are religious fundamentalist nutters and dishonest to boot.

"And while you are on let us see you post some objective and verifiable evidence for species to species evolution, preferably from a reputable journal."

Do it yourself! I told you that I have the same tools you have and I am fed up with wasting my time looking info up for you. Do what I do ie., ask professional working scientists, read, be sincere and genuine.

"John Wright, Peter Klaver, Amen and yourself are heavy on the personal attacks but very light on the evidence which you consider to be "FACT"."

How many times does it have to be explained that evolution is both fact AND theory! For goodness sake! Do you not understand anything? Well obviously not! You even admitted (finally) that creationist acknowledge evolution to be fact! We cannot legislate for your deliberate obtuseness.

""Quote mining" is a very useful put down term without even addressing the issue presented by Bill."

Err everyone else got the point! It was very simple. Darwin actually addressed the point 150 years ago in the bit that was deliberately left out in the misquote. Indeed creationists are infamous for this dastardly tactic because they have no evidence to back up their own position so they are forced to use such nefarious methods and the Darwn misquote is the most infamous and well-known. Can you really not recognise how dishonest this is? Well given your own past record...

As for your point to JW and I am sure he will ably answer it himself however I would add that JW is intelligent that is why he cannot back up your views (you do love the special pleading fallacy with John).


To Amen, Peter, JW et al watch out when PB "quotes" the Enc Brit, as he has been shown in the past to pervert and twist this book to suit his own purposes-see his bit about Jesus.

In any case I think the problem that you have with the piece that it uses languages like "suggest" etc. Well PB what you put forward in your own inimitable style shows paradoxically the strength of science. This language is used because opinions can change new evidence can come to light. Compare this language to say...Biblical creationists who KNOW and are RIGHT 100% but strangely cannot back up their views with evidence.

Curious that.

PB instead of all this bluster and the shot-gun approach with oft-repeated canards. Why not give us the positive evidence for Biblical creationism (now don't be naughty and use that old either/or fallacy-"evidence" against science does not give credence to Biblical creationism). Just one would do to be starting off with and please make it objective, credible and verifiable-you would really think that would be simple! And since you think that Biblical creationism is a theory in the same sense as natural selection then could you show me how "scientific" creationism is falsifiable?

  • 189.
  • At 05:40 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"So JW - you joing forces with Amen to pour contempt on people of faith - er... as a Christian believer in God yourself John dont you think you are allowing yourself to run with the crowd little while they stab your personal convictions?"

How EXACTLY did anyone on these boards, myself, Peter, Amenhotep "stab" JW;s personal convictions? that's a serious charge and I do resent it! You (if it even possible) have sunk very low!

Now I may be wrong but I would really appreciate JW's opinion on this.

  • 190.
  • At 06:38 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

The missing link is probably the most serious flaw in the evolutionary theory, the complete absence of any transitional form. But the evolutionist in pursuing this empty suppositional theory are still looking for the missing link to back up their hypothetical speculation, yet no transitional fossils have been found to back up their theory of continual transmutation from one form to another, today the forms of creation are as distinct in form as ever they have been over the last 6,000 years, they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature.

Charles Darwin acknowledged this as another flaw in his evolutionary theory, one only has to read “The Origin’s of Species” to find this to be a true and honest observation of Charles Darwin. At least he was honest not like today’s evolutionary freethinkers who fail to acknowledge Charles Darwin’s honesty.

The badly informed evolutionist needs to use the light of the Bible to illuminate their darkness. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him."

The more you read the more things you will know. -Dr.Seuss

Paraphrase from # 184, just to be perfectly clear-

Precisely none of my convictions have been threatened by the facts of this discussion: that's the fundamental key difference between PB and I. Anyone who studies that difference will understand why I consider PB wrong. That is to say, the moment my convictions are proven to be incorrect by science, those convictions will cease to be my convictions!

PB, please, don't let this little aside distract you any further; let's hear your answers to my ten questions above.

  • 192.
  • At 11:26 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Actually, JW, I am an atheist. I used to be an evangelical Christian, but then I started reading the bible too much. In particular, I started reading it without "study aids" and in chunks of greater than one chapter at a time. And the gospels in parallel.

God's cool with this. He doesn't mind me not believing in him.

-A

Amen- LOL! I guess I got that wrong then. That's fine. But it doesn't change a damn thing about the dynamics of our participation in this debate: we both agree that evolution is the only scientifically congruous and proven means of establishing how life came to be as it is. PB has succeeded in distracting from the discussion yet again even though theism/atheism is irrelevant to the conversation we've been having.

PB, answer my ten questions, or I'll do it for you.

  • 194.
  • At 02:16 AM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Yep Bill,

I think you should acknowledge your dishonesty before anyone can take you seriously,

I mean purposefully perverting an author’s work, truly the work of Satan. You should acknowledge this and try to move on.


Kindest regards

DD

  • 195.
  • At 02:24 AM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Bill,

I think you should apologise for your blatant misquote.


PS., there are no missing links but plenty of transitional fossils.

PPS., please acknowledge your sinful use of misquotes.

Kindest regards

DD

Hello John Wright,

"9) All modern dating methods yield evidence of an earth hundreds of thousands of years old and a universe billions of years old."

Consistency demands I make a correction on errors in your posts too :), the earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

  • 197.
  • At 10:02 AM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


a further answer is coming but in the meantime...

DD ref the Enc Brit article on phylogeny, that is the complete article, there is no quote mining.

JW - It is you above who "corrected" me that that I was wrong in reading the genesis story as literal when it was symbolic. Therefore it was you who brought it up and I merely corrected you that it was entirely consistent with the rest of the bible to read it as historic. So please dont accuse me of bringing up irrelevant points.

PB


  • 198.
  • At 10:09 AM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John

Looks like I havent understood completely your chromosome question, do bear with me. (In the meantime maybe you could offer come thoughts on post 180 and the fossil record, which is a complete Enc article, with my emphasis added.)

John (DD, Amen, Peter)

JW, You say you cannot be bothered to share any evidence for evolution because nothing will change my beliefs. That is not necessarily true.

Amen here has forced me to consider how little firm evidence (that I have been able to see) there is for the authors of the four gospels being Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (I don’t see it of much significance though).

DD has forced me to consider how one passage in the Old Testament which regulated the manner of taking of wives in war can be seen through 21st century eyes as condoning “kidnap” and “rape”. (I am still chewing on this one, like slavery I believe I will get there in the end).

(Peter hasnt forced me to see anything yet because he just keeps rabbiting on about how much he loves/hates me and actually doesn’t engage in actual discussion; disappointing for me, I hoped for more from a professional scientist.)

Anyway John, my point is this, if you really are a seeker after truth you would present your best case knowing that it is not your responsibility as to whether or not I change my views, it is merely your responsibility to present the truth. But you are also doing me a grave disservice in presuming I will not bow to convincing evidence; nobody on this blog has yet presented any anyway; it all requires a “faith” assumption that evolution is true eg Prum’s model for feather evolution with no actual evidence it ever happened. No?

Am I determined to believe in “creationism” regardless of evidence? Not necessarily. My position is basically this, I inherently trust the bible and have never seen anyone put one over on it from ANY academic discipline. If I pluck the start of genesis out of context I can possibly give credence to the idea it is symbolic.

However “a verse take out of context is a pretext”; there is no clear dividing line in genesis between which people are myths and real, eg Abraham is certainly regarded as an historical figure by secular history. Also, despite John’s bluster, he has not attempted a rational argument as to why the other biblical authors treat genesis as real history with real people.

1Chron 1:1 begins a lengthy Davidic genealogy beginning with Adam c.400bc

Noah is the eighth person according to Peter;-
2 Peter 4: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;”


Ie whatever scientists may say, the bible does not treat Adam and Noah as symbols, but as real people. There is absolutely no literary device which specifically proves Adam and Noah to be symbols, though that proves nothing scientifically of course.

Anyway, back to the science you guys are comfortable with.
I get the impression of quiet desperation when you guys dismiss the fact that some of us here are pulling apart the fossil record using a verbal technique. That is kinda missing the point. If we have two science phds here and two well read evolutionist laymen you should be more than able to give a verbal defence of the fossil record.

The more I read about it the more I am amazed; the animals supposed to come in chronological order in evolutionary theory actually appear out of sequence in the fossil record; and the “Cambrian explosion” period shows all sorts of animals from the most complex to the most simple living together in the same period – but having come out of nowhere!

Not to mention the fact that the more fossils are found, the more they work against the theory of evolution, confirming ever greater gaps in the supposed sequence ie between species.

You may not be used to taking a few verbal uppercuts, Amen, as you no doubt are used to defining the ground rules in your debates. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is nothing stopping you giving a verbal defence of the fossil record.

And it is no good intimating the fossil record is not that important; it is the whole foundation of evolutionary theory, as per Darwin. Anything else is indirect evidence.

If you want a home turf question Amen, maybe you could suggest the simplest creature you can think of that does NOT have DNA. There isn’t one is there?
There is no actual evidence DNA ever evolved, is there? It is in fact a language of creation which obviously came from a common source for all lifeforms. The question is was that source primeval mud or the mouth of God as he spoke creation into being? DNA is so amazingly complex and yet, just like fossils, are we expected to believe it just appeared out of the blue, fully formed? Or must we take a step of faith in evolution to kick start a theory for its origin, without evidence?

I am not a blind believer in creationism. I suspect secular and faith scientists in the future may well find an increasing amount which may surprise both parties. I also suspect nobody may have the full understanding of genesis.

With my mind I strongly suspect creationism to be broadly true (with my heart I am not so sure) and when I ask you to prove evolution I am testing my suspicions to destruction; ie if you really can provide convincing evidence that one species has previously changed into another then I will have to rethink to maintain any integrity.

If you think I don’t have my doubts about creationism you would be dead wrong though. I am actually earnestly and sincerely inviting you to destroy my beliefs. Only then will know how valid they are. A fluid discussion with real people is hard to beat in this regard I have found. Amen and DD have seriously challenged me to re-examine many of my beliefs and rest more assured in them afterwards. If it were not for the humanist atmosphere of scepticism in Luther’s day we would probably not have had the reformation! I tip my hat to you in that you do see through much religious guff, assumption and sentiment that is not justified by the bible. And I am pretty certain you could tie up most if not all the elders in my church of c400 members on many of the topics we discuss. I know this because I have canvassed their opinions on some topics before.

DD, BTW I also note that although Enc Brit does introduce evolution as a postulated theory it does elsewhere describe it as “fact”; but after reading how Enc Brit also asserts that highly speculative phylogeny species classification affirms evolution, my eyes nearly popped out. But then how could it not be speculative?

None of the evidence for evolution given so far has been anything like convincing and the emotional reactions I am getting – me a plain bloke with a bible and a search engine with no science – is strongly suggesting to me that I am hitting a nerve with you guys.

So if all four of you are so confident of your stance, be men and put your cards on the table. It smacks of serious lack of confidence in your evidence if the only reason you will not display it is because you are afraid I will use it against you; - me someone who is a total science layperson. What little confidence in your evidence you have!

On radio Ulster the Will and Testament theme music is also the Rocky theme music and it is billed as a battle of ideas; well here I am, four against one, me a pleb vs two phds and two self taught evolutionary experts. Bring on your evidence and lets see what its chin is made of [ ie DD verifiable, objective and scientific evidence, preferably from a reputable journal ;-) ]

Sincerely
PB


  • 199.
  • At 01:49 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

All the evidence for evolution is the same evidence for creationism, it just depends on how you interpret it.

Big fossil gaps = we just havent found all the fossils yet or it can mean there never were any there. it depends on which direction you are facing and which type of faith you use.

Peter - like the one about overzealous punction - brought a smile!


Answers to JW - please note, none of them dogmatic. I am not proclaiming them to be true but asking why they cant be.

1) We have already seen how an expert in feather evolution assumed feathers evolved without evidence. This he based on the assumption of evolution which he did not test in his paper and may never actually have tested! So just because *some* academics think the bones in whales flippers are evidence of evolution does not actually mean they are. Using the same rationale you could argue we are evolved from primates because we both have two eyes. Read post 180 agains to see the huge castles in the air that are built on the assumptions of phantom creatures.

2) 1 John 1:5 God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

3) Earth was created in first verse of chapter one, before evening and morning. Also, not sure you cant say evening and morning were not divine concepts first.

4) I have not a firm position on the age of the earth; it is not actually the subject we are actually discussing here, which is the origin of man, evolution. However some translate "the earth was without form" as the "earth became without form". ie why can it not be feasible to have had an old universe with creation on earth happening a long time after the creation of the universe?

5) Again, no firm position on age of the earth, there are differing camps on this. The question here is evolution, does it stackk up?

6) I dont know that you can make such a blanket definition of "creationism" as I dont believe there is a pope or central catehcism. Again, an expanding universe does not prove evolution.

7) I understood that all previously "redundant" organs in the human body were now found to have uses eg tonsils.

8) You have made an assumption that the vas deferens was originally higher but unless you can show the actual evidence for this surely you are talking specualtion and assumption?

9) Not so sure you are right. The best known -Carbon 14- only goes back to a max of 100,000 yrs unless I am mistaken.

10) I dont profess to understand all the details in this question you appear to acknowledge yourself that one feasible viewpoint on this is that "evolution is wrong and humans and apes do not share a common ancestor". From what I can see this always appears to be one "hypothetical" option in interpretating evidence for evolution. Feel free to share any links on this if you want me to consider it further.

DD
It is not irrelevant in any discussion to quote the view of a qualified expert (especially if you are lay people like you and I). It is not invalid to ask for a logical explanation as to how they can reach a different conclusion to another expert. It is invalid to say simply that one opinion is invalid because another expert holds a different one.

And you are really distorting the truth about my quotes of enc brit. I have so far quoted three **complete** articles which DD didnt take to very well;
1) The summary article on the life of Christ
2) The complete articlke on the miracles of Christ
3) The complete article on phylogeny

Any questions?


DD
Let me see you post just one scientific paper which proves EVOLUTION! I hold "creationism" as theory but you hold evolution as fact. So you should have no bother should you?

In post 171 Amen said faith was a vice not a virture. In post 172 John agreed.
john, as a Christian believer in God do you categoricall believe that all faith is a vice?

John you think evolution is "PROVEN" but you still havent given us any proof!

We are still waiting for a scientific paper that proves evolution to be true guys...

PB

PS Using the term "Quote mining" does not actually refute the quote in question.

Hello pb

"Bring on your evidence and lets see what its chin is made of [ ie DD verifiable, objective and scientific evidence, preferably from a reputable journal ;-) ]"

How's the reading going on the papers I've given you the references to, pb? Still stuck at one half of one outdated paper and 1992 webpages? Come on pb, I'm calling you out here. Your persistent fear of reading what you know will show you wrong is showing itself so very clearly. Come on, register at the journal website, download the papers and read them. Explain to us how there are these pictures of intermediate feather fossils from China if you say there are none. Was it the god-less communist Chinese government that fabricated them?

"We are still waiting for a scientific paper that proves evolution to be true guys..."

After providing references many times over we are still waiting for pb to look up the scientific papers that prove evolution to be true guys...

Peter

  • 201.
  • At 04:01 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

It does indeed seem like the complete article-well done! The reason that I asked other posters to be cautious is that you have "previous" on twisting articles from Enc Brit for your own nefarious purpose-but more on that later.

PB our quiet desperation comes from your astounding inability to grasp very simple points but more on that later.

OK PB if you are sincere and genuine and do want to find out about science, why not do what I do and look up the evidence yourself. I gave you plenty of links in which you can ask scientists working in related fields questions. Evidence/links have been presented to you and ignored. As I said before I am sick and tired of looking stuff up for you.

"DD, BTW I also note that although Enc Brit does introduce evolution as a postulated theory it does elsewhere describe it as “fact”;"

Oh really PB! do we have to go over this again(and this is why posters find it difficult to have a conversation with you). The article was on the theory of natural selection. Evolution is fact AND theory-I really do not know how much more simpler I can make that!you even (finally) admitted that creationists accept that evolution is fact! I really do not know what else i can do to make you accept this very simple concept.

PB you are "hitting a nerve" because you are willfully obtuse/ignorant and it is extremely difficult and frustrating to try and debate with you. You commit all the logical fallacies, repeat assertions that have been shown to you to be wrong etc etc.

PB we have put our cards on the table but it has been ignored! what's the bleedin' point? JW is right nothing is going to convince you are otherwise.

"Bring on your evidence and lets see what its chin is made of [ ie DD verifiable, objective and scientific evidence, preferably from a reputable journal ;-) ]"


Errr no problem, well we have actually given you peer-reviewed papers/evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable! ummm 1000's upon 1000's of these exist, do you want all of them? Again you are shifting the burden of proof and falling into the same old either/or fallacy-if the the theory of evolution by natural selection is shown to be wrong it in no way means that Biblical creationism will replace it-that was shown to be twaddle even before Darwin-this has been pointed out to you before.

We have done this for you many, many times to be willfully ignored. Shame that you cannot even provide one(just one!) piece of evidence to back your own claims-curious that ;-) mmm wonder why that is...perhaps because you have no evidence to back up your position-a position that is held only by a bunch of religious fundamentalist nutters.

PB I would love to see the positive evidence in favour of Biblical creationism. You said it was a "theory" so how is it falsifiable? and please if you could provide one piece of evidence that would back it...oh! and please make it objective, credible and verifiable.

Kindest regards

DD

  • 202.
  • At 04:27 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

For those interested in the views of Prof Nevin, here is a snippet click HERE

  • 203.
  • At 04:52 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"All the evidence for evolution is the same evidence for creationism, it just depends on how you interpret it."

Ha ha that old Ken Ham canard!it does appear that you have to be a religious fundamentalist nutter in order to find the "evidence" for Biblical creationism. PB evidence should be standalone, you should not have to rely on special pleading on sectarian grounds to make a point. If the evidence is the same for everyone then you will have no problem finding evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable to back up the "theory" of "scientific" creationism-just one would do!

"and which type of faith you use."

Exactly! your position is about "faith" a narrow-minded religious faith that has nowt to do with science or evidence but everything to do with a very torturous use of the special pleading fallacy.

PB here is a link which shows the difference in science and creationism.

https://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

"Any questions?"

Yes! instead of relying on appeals to authority IE., Prof Nevin, Ken Ham etc etc why not look at the actual evidence rather than stating such and such says such and such is true therefore it's true!

"And you are really distorting the truth about my quotes of enc Brit. I have so far quoted three **complete** articles which DD didnt take to very well;
1) The summary article on the life of Christ
2) The complete articlke on the miracles of Christ
3) The complete article on phylogeny"

Now now PB to put it kindly you are being disingenuous here and digging yourself an even bigger hole. It does appear that you did post all of the excellent article on phylogeny! well done!

However you state that you posted "complete" articles (and you emphasise this)when in fact you did NOT post the complete article rather you deliberately left the first paragraph out (of a short 3 paragraph article) and proclaimed that the Enc Brit piece said something...which it didn't actually say! (I have been over this before as on other things) PB that is really dishonest, it's a form of lying and you bore false witness against other posters(between you and Billy you both not a great ad for Christianity)! and to cap it all of-you did this on an article about Jesus!(Jesus!). And for the record (and I did say this before)I do not have a problem with the Enc Brit articles, I think they are well-written, fair and to the point the **problem** that I have is you willfully distorting and perverting articles by saying they say things that they do not actually say.

"Let me see you post just one scientific paper which proves EVOLUTION! I hold "creationism" as theory but you hold evolution as fact. So you should have no bother should you?"

Well...we have posted papers to you before and they were either ignored or distorted. Also it is difficult to "prove" evolution-absolute proof is more of a mathematical concept-however I can give you(and have)compelling evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection. Goodness PB-do I have to go over this again!how can I make this any more simpler(deep breath and bite lip)evolution is fact AND theory!PB I have on many occasions tried to give you simple info on the distinction between the fact and theory of evolution but...it's useless! It is absolutely no bother giving you such papers (which are objective, credible and verifiable)which attest to the direct fact of evolution(even your fellow creationists acknowledge this which you finally admitted after a long and torturous struggle).

1000's of 1000's upon 1000's of such papers exist why not look at nylon-eating bacteria, flu-vaccine, bird flu, even periwinkles in the North sea! go on do a Google! It is such a large subject!

Here is a link to Google-it's marvellous!

https://www.google.co.uk/

You type in questions and hey presto! very simple to use!

OK I said I wouldn't do this but you are such a charmer I couldn't resist doing a little work for you!(don't know why you could not do this yourself as you have the same tools that I have, if you were sincere and genuine you could do it yourself)

Have a look here on these classic papers:

https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/

That should keep you going for a little while!


"Using the term "Quote mining" does not actually refute the quote in question."

Umm do I really have to explain this again? are you winding me up by being deliberately obtuse? The Darwin misquote totally perverted and distorted the opinion of Darwin, you see Darwin actually answered the point in question. Creationists are infamous for doing this because they have no evidence to back up their own claims so they are forded to use these demonic, depraved, dishonest methods. As I said before if you cannot recognise this as dishonest then I truly pity you.

As the Bible says PB:

"By their fruits, ye shall know them"

Maybe you should actually read the Bible someday, there is a lot of wisdom in it.

Peter- You're right of course; that was my Paris Hilton moment. The accepted age of the earth is of course 4.6 billion years old. My mistake.


PB- Thanks for your reply, in which I detected a little more thoughtfulness than before. On the ten questions, I don't want it to become redundant so I won't repost the originals or all of your replies; I'll just summarise if that's okay with you.

First, starting with question ten, I agree that you haven't understood completely the details of what human chromosome #2 means for evolution. I'd like to be able to explain it better, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to, so have a look at this clip featuring Dr. Ken Miller (a theistic evolutionist) who explains it as part of a presentation on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Disctrict case in 2005. After you watch it, I'd be very interested to hear your response; I think it's conclusive even on its own without the rest of the facts supporting evolution! Creationism has no coherent answer. What is yours?


To the rest of the ten questions.

1) In question one dealing with whale finger bones, you asserted that some experts may have gotten it wrong. The problem is that a majority agree. In the case of an illness would you believe the diagnosis of one doctor out of ten when the other nine agree that he's wrong? Note that your response to the evidence in whale finger bones is to assume the experts are wrong on the basis that you are more likely to be right. I find that bizarre. Dolphins don't have finger bones yet their flippers work very well; whales do have finger bones. Why? Evolution has an explanation; creationism does not.

2) Dealing with the light coming before the sun in the Genesis creation story, you respond that God is light. Hardly a scientific answer; isn't creation 'science' meant to be dealing in actual science and not points of theology? Are you sure that when God says 'Let there be light' in Genesis, it's the same concept as that 'God is light'? In other words, are we dealing with a physical concept of light in both cases? In which case, when Jesus says 'Be the light of the world' does he want us to glow like roman candles? You may need to think harder about this answer, since it's clear to me that you're mixing concepts of 'light'. When we say 'God is light' don't we mean that he is supremely 'good'? In any case, it doesn't deal with the fact that when God says 'Let there be light' in Genesis, he's changing something; note that in verse 2 there was 'darkness' and the light changed that in verse 3. Your answer therefore cannot be valid, because 'God is light' is an eternal truth and not something that had to be switched on. If God is light then he is light irrespective of the darkness upon the face of the deep, and would not require a command to activate it. It's clear to me that the author of the Genesis creation myth was referring to the first act of creation: the creation of light. And we're only scratching the surface of the extent to which there are huge problems in reading Genesis literally!

3) You claim that evening and morning could have been divine concepts before they were earthly concepts. This could be true, but only if you're suggesting that heaven (where I presume you believe God resides) is, like earth, a rotating sphere? The science of 'evening', 'morning' and 'day' relate to the 24 hours it takes for the earth to rotate - a human concept derived from living on earth - and, incidentally, the idea that God would only work during the daytime before evening in the creation myth, again a concept relying upon those planetary bodies from an earthly human perspective - a human concept of what it would take to 'create' the universe. It's absolutely patently obvious that this was written by human beings who didn't yet understand the science of the solar system and therefore whose writings, understandably, reflected that. But this is yet another compelling pointer that doesn't seem to be helping to convince you!

4) & (5) Questions four and five relate to the age of the earth and of the universe. You give a very interesting answer in question 4, which I'll ask you about and then come back to later: you say that it's possible there was a very old universe and then creation on earth occurring long after. Does this mean you accept that Genesis may not have been literal when it claims that God created the universe in six literal days (which is a key doctrine of creation science)? He created man on the sixth day, from which you claim Adam is historical and genelogical, so I think you will instantly see the impossibility of asserting both a literal Genesis and an old universe. I'll allow you to think about this and answer, and we'll come back to it later.

6) You don't really give an answer as to why our universe is expanding. I ask again: why is it expanding? Origins as explained in modern science has a very good reason why, creationism does not.

7) What are the uses of these redundant parts of the body? The tonsils, the appendix, the thymus gland, body hair which is shaved off to no negative effect? You haven't answered, only saying that they do have uses. What are they? Again we know through evolution very well why we have body hair; creationism has no answer.

8) You say that the route of the vas deferens is leading me to assume it meant the testicles were higher at one point in the past. But that is the only logical conclusion. What is your alternative explanation? If you are willing to say that I may not be right, you must at least posit an alternative theory. Evolution explains it very well; creationism, yet again, does not.

9) On dating, you need to research it. Carbon dating is only one of many dating methods being used today, including radiometric and otherwise. In addition, carbon dating can only be used on organic specimens; we have plenty of other methods which are successfully used on volcanic rock forms and lots more. Scientists aren't pulling figures out of their ass to come up with 4.6 billion years as the age of the earth as you seem to assume: it's carefully calculated. Creationism not only contradicts this evidence but does so on the basis of absolutely no empirical data whatsoever! How are creationists coming up with their estimate for the age of the earth? Biblical geneologies. Brilliant. And it's worthwhile pointing out that, for evolution to be true, hundreds of millions of years are required. Yet again the evidence of dating supports the theory and puts another nail in the coffin of creationism.

PB, there is a lot of work for you to do if you even wish to retain an arse-hair of lucid cogency. I suggest credibility itself has been and gone. But I'm willing to work with you on the above questions; surely you admit this is damning? All these pointers and you are willing to dodge all of them?

Thanks in advance.

  • 205.
  • At 06:54 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Bill it appears that Prof Nevin is as dishonest as you in the use of out of context misquotes(have to admit that I am very dissapointed in the Prof, previously I did suspect that he had more integrity than that).

Still waiting for your apology...

In any case there is no excuse for this willful ignorance on the work of Darwin. You can even read the book online in PDF.

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pdf/Origin_of_Species.pdf

Regards

DD

  • 206.
  • At 07:06 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"All the evidence for evolution is the same evidence for creationism, it just depends on how you interpret it."

Ha ha that old Ken Ham canard!it does appear that you have to be a religious fundamentalist nutter in order to find the "evidence" for Biblical creationism. PB evidence should be standalone, you should not have to rely on special pleading on sectarian grounds to make a point. If the evidence is the same for everyone then you will have no problem finding evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable to back up the "theory" of "scientific" creationism-just one would do!

"and which type of faith you use."

Exactly! your position is about "faith" a narrow-minded religious faith that has nowt to do with science or evidence but everything to do with a very torturous use of the special pleading fallacy.

PB here is a link which shows the difference in science and creationism.

https://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

"Any questions?"

Yes! instead of relying on appeals to authority IE., Prof Nevin, Ken Ham etc etc why not look at the actual evidence rather than stating such and such says such and such is true therefore it's true!

"And you are really distorting the truth about my quotes of enc Brit. I have so far quoted three **complete** articles which DD didnt take to very well;
1) The summary article on the life of Christ
2) The complete articlke on the miracles of Christ
3) The complete article on phylogeny"

Now now PB to put it kindly you are being disingenuous here and digging yourself an even bigger hole. It does appear that you did post all of the excellent article on phylogeny! well done!

However you state that you posted "complete" articles (and you emphasise this)when in fact you did NOT post the complete article rather you deliberately left the first paragraph out (of a short 3 paragraph article) and proclaimed that the Enc Brit piece said something...which it didn't actually say! (I have been over this before as on other things) PB that is really dishonest and to cap it all of-you did this on an article about Jesus!(Jesus!). And for the record (and I did say this before)I do not have a problem with the Enc Brit articles, I think they are well-written, fair and to the point the **problem** that I have is you willfully distorting and perverting articles by saying they say things that they do not actually say.

"Let me see you post just one scientific paper which proves EVOLUTION! I hold "creationism" as theory but you hold evolution as fact. So you should have no bother should you?"

Well...we have posted papers to you before and they were either ignored or distorted. Also it is difficult to "prove" evolution-absolute proof is more of a mathematical concept-however I can give you(and have)compelling evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection. Goodness PB-do I have to go over this again!how can I make this any more simpler(deep breath and bite lip)evolution is fact AND theory!PB I have on many occasions tried to give you simple info on the distinction between the fact and theory of evolution but...it's useless! It is absolutely no bother giving you such papers (which are objective, credible and verifiable)which attest to the direct fact of evolution(even your fellow creationists acknowledge this which you finally admitted after a long and torturous struggle).

1000's of 1000's upon 1000's of such papers exist why not look at nylon-eating bacteria, flu-vaccine, bird flu, even periwinkles in the North sea! go on do a Google! It is such a large subject!

Here is a link to Google-it's marvellous!

https://www.google.co.uk/

You type in questions and hey presto! very simple to use!

OK I said I wouldn't do this but you are such a charmer I couldn't resist doing a little work for you!(don't know why you could not do this yourself as you have the same tools that I have, if you were sincere and genuine you could do it yourself)

Have a look here on these classic papers:

https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/

That should keep you going for a little while!


"Using the term "Quote mining" does not actually refute the quote in question."

Umm do I really have to explain this again? are you winding me up by being deliberately obtuse? The Darwin misquote totally perverted and distorted the opinion of Darwin, you see Darwin actually answered the point in question. Creationists are infamous for doing this because they have no evidence to back up their own claims so they are forded to use these demonic, depraved, dishonest methods. As I said before if you cannot recognise this as dishonest then I truly pity you.

As the Bible says PB:

"By their fruits, ye shall know them"

Maybe you should actually read the Bible someday, there is a lot of wisdom in it.


  • 207.
  • At 09:40 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Bill, good work. Norman certainly sounds like a creationist in that. He's utterly wrong, unfortunately, and is misrepresenting "mutation". He looks a lot younger in that photo - is that from the 1970s? Even way back then (before the genetics revolution) he should have known better, but hey.

So, OK, he doesn't (or didn't) accept evolution because of mistakes on his part. Is this still his view? Does he believe the universe is only a few thousand years old?

-A

  • 208.
  • At 10:07 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB,

After looking at your posts again, I agree with JW that there is a little bit more openess on your part and if you are sincere and genuine then I'll cut you some slack.

I think part of the problem that you have is with defintions. I was wondering if you could give me your definitions for these terms:evolution,primitive, natural selection,theory?

When you get a moment after answering JW's, Peter's, Amenhotep's and maybe even a few of my own! perhaps you could let me how you understand these terms.

DD

  • 209.
  • At 11:21 PM on 28 Jun 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

As some one who suffers from a mutation (MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY). I would disagree with you amenhotep, mutations are a backward movement, hardly a forward movement to advance the evolutionary cause. Mutations cause chaos and disorder.

At least you you took time to explore the link.

Bill #205- Natural selection works by rejecting the negative mutations and advancing the positive ones. When a mutation is helpful it will, by definition, aid survival of the species and continue to the next generation. This process is very well understood by science. Both kinds of mutation exist, but only beneficial mutations further the process of evolution.

  • 211.
  • At 06:20 PM on 29 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Guys, have been pretty busy so no time to write today.

next week hope to get over the papers archive and give a review of each one.

Have a good weekend all, cheers for the interesting discussion.

PB

  • 212.
  • At 09:51 PM on 29 Jun 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Hi Bill,
Mutations can indeed be deleterious, such as the trinucleotide expansion that is responsible for myotonic dystrophy. Deleterious mutations are actually very common, and we all carry some.

However, there are many mutations that have only a slight effect on the phenotype of an organism, and these are what seeds a population with *variation*. Ironically, creationists would need to posit a much *higher* rate of mutation than we currently see to explain the extand variation in the human species, if they really believe that crap about the Earth being 6000 years old, or the flood. Quite how all *those* mutations would have got into the sequence without more or less the entire population dying off as a result of the deleterious mutations is a matter that they would do well to explain, because it beats the heck out of me.

But anyway, here's the rub. If a mutation has a *big* effect, it is very likely to be deleterious. However, if it has a *small* effect, it becomes nearly as likely that it might be (slightly) beneficial as (slightly) deleterious. But the judge of that is not *us* - it is natural selection.

The human genome is chock full of such variations (VNTRs, SNPs, CNVs, etc - look them up), and it is these that underpin our essential variability. The critical point is this (and I'm afraid it has been obvious for many many years, even if people like Norman Nevin got it wrong) - these differences between *people* are of precisely the same character as the differences between species. Furthermore, the nature of the differences and similarities shows that a "separate origin" hypothesis is completely untenable - the only way they can be properly explained is by evolution from a common ancestor.

These differences alone do not prove that natural selection was the force that drove evolution (because *in principle* gods could replicate the same pattern if they so wished), but since we know that natural selection is adequate for the task, there is no reason to posit gods to do a job that can be shown to happen naturally anyway.

Where Norman really loses the plot (I amn sad to say) is where he does that classic creationist partial quote of Darwin. That is intellectually dishonest; he knows that, you know that.

BTW, what is the source of that article? In many ways it's quite damning.

ATB,
-A

Amenhotep- It's actually yet another pointer toward evolution to which creationists' only answer is, "God can do it any way he wants." Well nobody is questioning that a God could do whatever he wants, including making it look that, as any reasonable person would conclude, we evolved over millions of years. The problem comes when we assert that he did. That's not only highly unlikely, but entirely without any basis whatsoever except an erroneous reading of an ancient book.

  • 214.
  • At 02:04 PM on 02 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John

This is not an answer to your latest post just some thoughts I had over the weekend.

I will come back and answer you, so do come back.

I appreciate you and DD both acknowledging that I am trying to use my brain (such as it is!)


ref your responses in post 202 I dont have time to answer them today but I dont really think you have fairly read my answers to your questions.

The bones in a whales fin could easily have been created thus; and in my understanding God is literally as well as figurativly light. Remeber how the face of Moses literally shone when he came down from the mountain?

However I have given you other possible thoughs on Genesis below.

Another point was on the chimp chromosomes; you completely ignored the point I raised; in your own question you acknowledged that "creationism" would be a perfect alternaive explanation for the process you have described. You need to adress this.

QUESTION: Would the standard of evidence presented by Darwin in origin of the species pass muster if it was presented afresh today?
My understanding is that it would not and that it has snuck in under the radar in this regard; where it cannot substantiate itself because the fossil record discoveries have moved further and further away from evolutionary theory; the burden of your question assumes evolution to be true in every case because of Darwin's OOTS. But I contest that that theory is weaker now than it ever has been and that you need to revisit your assumption.
You could start by explaining the Enc Brit article on phylogeny; and you could also start by explaining why there is not a shred of evidence that DNA ever evolved. Where did it come from?


The genesis week

1) If, as you do, one believes in an almighty God there is no intellectual barrier to a literal seven day week.
2) However just because one believes the bible to be infallible, it does not follow it is always precise, nor written in scientific terms, as that was never its aim. (A poet may write of a girl singing, but his view does not contradict that of a scientist who sees a young female homo sapien exhaling air from her thoracic cavity over her vocal chords).
3) 1 Corinthians 13 says we see now through “a glass darkly” and only when in God’s presence in the afterlife will man understand everything perfectly. Personally I am not sure anyone fully understands Genesis, and certainly not me.
4) However, many scholars agree that the book shows that God created everything from nothing and also that Adam and Eve were two historical individuals. THIS IS THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF EVERY BOOK OF THE BIBLE WHICH MENTIONS ADAM OR QUOTES GENESIS. There appears to be no passage of scripture that interprets otherwise, so taking Adam and Eve as symbols would appear to do violence to the bible as a whole (quote mining?). Scripture interprets scripture and as far as I can see, any passage requiring to be interpreted as metaphorical is explicitly framed in usc terms; eg Daniel and Revelation, Joseph’s dreams, Christ’s parables.

5) However, let’s look at some *potential* readings of Genesis 1 & 2.

-Genesis 1:1-2 could cover an indeterminate period of time, possibly accounting for an old universe and earth and yet a young creation of life on earth. ( in 1:2 the word “was” can be translated as “became”). Some creationists believe in an old creation.
- If the week itself is read as events seen from man’s perspective in Eden (which seems the correct viewpoint) then 1:3 can be seen as the creation of sunlight/sun.
- Chapters 1 and 2 show the original order had no rain but a thick mist/cloud which watered the plants. Therefore it is not unreasonable to see the creation of the plants in 1:12 as then amending the atmosphere and clearing the skies of heavy mist/cloud in 1:14 to reveal the sun, moon and stars in 1:14.
- The repeated use of terms such as morning and evening during the week make it difficult for me to see the “days” as figurative. The Hebrew term for day (yom) is used 1167 times in the bible as “day”; as “time” 65 times; “weather” once; “daily” twice; “remain” once and “when” once. When it is used in a sense other than a literal day a cursory survey suggests this is normally made clear in the context, with phrases such as “in the process of time”. Using the term “day” would not make sense in these contexts.
- So *at present* I personally can’t see it is logical to interpret yom as anything other than a normal day, though I have an open mind for better scholarship.
- One interpretation however is that the author of Genesis had the creation process revealed to him in seven 24-hour revelations. This could have been Adam in face to face communion with God in the Garden, who passed it on to his children in pictorial writing or verbally. Or it could have been Moses in revelation.
- However, I think it has to be stated that the major problem many critics have with the passages is their utter rejection of the possibility of supernatural or miraculous events. (Such people however may sometimes have a strong curiosity for occult supernatural happenings strangely enough, which would reflect the view of scripture that they do not reject a biblical worldview for “lack of evidence” but because of a deliberate moral choice to reject God). Intellectually, if I believe in Almighty God, there is no real problem in believing he has the power to create everything in 7 days 6000 years ago.
- As ever, the real debate and problem is not about science, evidence or biology but about man’s willingness to recognise God and his justified authority over man. If someone wants to make up their own rules, live their own way and ignore God’s perfect plan for their lives and sacrifice for their sins, evolution is a crucial excuse with which to do so.
- The evidence for this reality is the frequency with which evolutionists explicitly tie their theory to their lack of belief in God in the same discussion, and the vitriol with which they speak of and to people of faith. Not much tolerance or scientific detachment! It also seems to be the case that theistic evolutionists (who believe in the resurrection of Christ) mainly appear to tolerate evolution rather than enthusiastically embrace and defend it.

PB

  • 215.
  • At 04:23 PM on 02 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

BTW "quote mining"????

that is exactly what you do when you pull individual verses out of the bible to try and discredit it, without attention to context.

PB

PB- One thing you said in your post just floored me.

In your point #3 ('the genesis week'), you said we are not meant to understand these things until we die. So let me understand the process. Someone presents problems with your theory of origins. You reply that God can create the universe any way he likes. When someone questions you about the strong evidence suggesting that the universe was not created in the way you assert he did, your reply -- your trump card -- is to say that we're not meant to understand everything anyway!

I don't even know how to begin to address this. Why are we even having the conversation then? What point is there in trying to understand anything? In science? In searching for truth? The evidence points toward a manner in which things came to be as they are. You reject it on the excuse that we're not meant to understand, yet you yourself are positing an entirely different - and much more dogmatic - method by which things came to be as they are, an explanation which totally ignores and in most cases contradicts the evidence! In actual fact, PB, isn't it true that science acknowledges more readily than you that we don't understand everything perfectly? - let's not forget that you are the one claiming that the universe was created in seven days and in this manner detailed in this book in this order by this method! So which discipline, science or creationism, is more ready to acknowledge the fact that we don't know exactly how things came to be as they are???

More pointedly, how can I be assured that this trump card will not be pulled now every time you find creationism unable to give an answer to one of these questions? When any answer gets too difficult for creationism, we just weren't meant to understand? How can I be assured that this isn't all a waste of my time; that in the face of compelling proof you won't simply shirk the responsibility of answering for creationism by pulling the trump card: that we weren't meant to understand everything?


THE TEN QUESTIONS

It would be great to get back to the topic (as long as you won't be using your trump card!) - I know you said that wasn't your reply, so we'll wait for further discussion until you give it.

(On question ten, the human chromosome #2 question, you've misunderstood my "creationism as an alternative" sentence. So let me clarify: creationism could only have been regarded as a viable alternative before the evidence from human chromosome #2 was introduced. Think of this like a pregnancy test - either we're pregnant (evolution occurred) or we're not (creationism occurred). Evolution is substantiated that clearly in human chromosome #2. Two pink lines! I hope you had a chance to view the video clip on this, as it explains it better.)

What I'm looking for from you PB is a direct point-by-point reply to my ten responses in post #202. I know you've been busy; I eagerly await your reply.

PB- In fact, it's worth thinking about the pregnancy analogy further.

Regard my first nine questions in post #185 as the first signs of evolution, in the way that morning sickness, a missed period, a change in appetite etc. are the first signs of pregnancy. Then, regard the tenth question, evidence from human chromosome #2, as the pregnancy test: a verifiable answer written into the genome of every human being.

With the first signs of pregnancy, there is always doubt. Could it be that she's not pregnant but instead has an infection of some sort influencing those things, and that her menstrual cycle is simply irregular? Still, there are definite pointers. So you take a pregnancy test. The pregnancy test will either confirm your suspicions or prove them incorrect. When the pregnancy test proves positive and a doctor verifies it, there is no more doubt. You are pregnant. Nobody takes a doctor-verified pregnancy test and then proceeds to believe that they are not pregnant. It's definitive. That's what human chromosome #2 means for evolution.

There are problems with this analogy, but none that benefit creationism! The main problem is that the first nine questions in post #185 are much more significant proofs of evolution than the early signs are proofs of pregnancy. Even without human chromosome #2 we're confident in the truth of evolution: it's evident in every discipline of science and contradicted by none. But human chromosome #2 means it is unmistakable! It's definitive. There are no other valid ways of explaining it, and any woman with a doctor-verified pregnancy test will proceed with the wholly justified belief that she is pregnant.

Time to get the baby room ready!

  • 218.
  • At 07:19 PM on 02 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB!

What a long exercise in special pleading and circular reasoning!

Darwin has been re-evaluated and re-examined. One has to of course take into account the period in which he wrote and the tools that he had at his disposal. However science does not blindly follow TOOFS, because new evidence comes to light and super cedes previous claims. Imagine PB that people would actually follow blindly a book written years ago and not take into account new developments/evidence-I mean mean who would be so silly and willfully ignorant to do something like that!? oh! I forgot...!

"why there is not a shred of evidence that DNA ever evolved"

Errr you asked this before, I provided papers(which I got by asking a scientist working in a related field-which you could have got yourself)and ignored.

PB you should immediately write your ground-breaking article on how the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution by natural selection-would be earth shattering!

PB you can twist and turn any creation myth into any way you want it to look-Hindu's do it!

"However, I think it has to be stated that the major problem many critics have with the passages is their utter rejection of the possibility of supernatural or miraculous events."

It's the complete lack of evidence!It is for this reason I reject a literal interpretation of ALL the world's creation myths. It has also nothing to do with rejecting your god, as you know intelligent theists have no problem with science. It is to do with rejecting the irrational and ignorance.

Evolution has nothing to do/say about morality, philosophy, way of life-it is simply a scientific theory-would you live your life by Einstein's theory of special relativity or the theory of gravity? well I would hope not!

Oh and PB according to your creation myths your god created the world in 6 days.

And this whole debate is everything to do with evidence and science of which you have not produced a single shred! PB if you are an example of your god's plan-then forget it!

"The evidence for this reality is the frequency with which evolutionists explicitly tie their theory to their lack of belief in God in the same discussion, and the vitriol with which they speak of and to people of faith."

LOL!!! almost fell off my chair at that one! who has constantly in this thread referred to a special reading of the Bible and their faith?-you! As to the "vitriol" that is because you are willfully ignorant, you do listen to points, things are explained to you simply-you ignore them, then repeat them again!. Debating with you is frustrating and depressing-like getting teeth pulled without an anesthetic. You are smug and self-righteous declaring that you are beating all of us on the "facts"!?!? maybe in the odd little parallel universe that you inhabit. You have done nothing but confirm to us that Biblical creationism is supported by a bunch of dishonest, fundamentalist religious nutters. Also PB it is not just atheists having a go at you, looking at the other threads it is the Christians who are taking you to task.

As for the last point look at the work of Ken Miller who did more to destroy the fallacy of ID than Dawkins. JW did post a link but I guess you were "too busy".

As for the mis-quote-JW is again right you Bible-believers love to get on your high horse about the Bible being taken out of context.

It would be great if I could actually meet an honest creationist who would admit that the Darwin "quote" is actually an out of context perversion of what he actually said. As I said it would be great but I have yet to meet an honest creationist.

JW

Just read your posts in full, just like to say...stop posting sense!


  • 219.
  • At 10:02 AM on 03 Jul 2007,
  • b wrote:

John

You have completely misunderstood me about understanding after death, but no probs these are complicated issues and we can cross wires - please extende me the same understanding.

I nowhere said we are not "meant" to understand these matters this side of death.

What I said was that scripture says we will not have perfect understanding of everything until in God's presence after death (those that choose to be there). quite a difference.

We are still told to master the scriptures in study and scientists of all ilks have a professional responsibility to study all apsects of the universe etc.

I am just saying I would not bet that any one person will have a perfect understanding of Genesis this side of eternity. understand?

DD

If you want something to chew over perhaps you could study the cambrian explosion and explain why it undermines evolution and supports creationism?

I double checked last night regarding your accusations that I had misquoted the Enc Brit article on Christ and you were completely wrong.

As I said, I posted the entire article “Jesus Christ, Summary of Jesus’ life” from my 2005 Enc CD Rom. And thus my original point stands; the gospels ARE regarded as authentic records of the life of Christ.

Now what about those “apologies” you were demanding from me regarding this? Furthermore, exactly which scientific papers have I distorted?

Very interested to see you concede this point, and I commend your honesty;-

“Also it is difficult to "prove" evolution-absolute proof is more of a mathematical concept-however I can give you(and have)compelling evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection.”

I have not seen this compelling evidence yet DD…


JW
1) Regarding Chromosomes and chimps, you really first ought to address your concession that creationism is one possible explanation for this before I go watching videos. It is ironic you are directing me to Dover when this was the case which ruled that it was impossible for science to consider that God may have created creation “as is” (note the judge was careful to say he was not finding creationism untrue). I also wonder if there was any point in the trial at all on this basis; even if the judge had found a supernatural cause of creation was scientifically possible to consider, it would then have been unconstitutional (under current interpretations) to teach it in the schools because it mentioned God! So the whole trial seems to have been a moot point. How ironic and yet that takes the whole subject full circle; a secular society creates a secular judiciary creates a secular science sector.


Regarding whale finger bones you base your argument on “majority” scientific opinion. Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says regarding climate change science that “a 10% room for error in ***ANY*** theory is a wide open breach for any modern Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea”.

Note he is not just talking about climate change theory in that last quote. He also says prejudice and arrogance is seriously mitigating against any alternative theories of climate change being published in journals. So science is not always objective and rational!

Considering that just like Calder, you are a climate change sceptic, then I will also claim the same right to scepticism of majority science opinion on whale “fingers”. Of course they were only called fingers post Darwin’s (now incredibly shaky) reading of the fossil record. Is scientific truth democratic anyway?

The fact that whales have five bony “fingers” in their flippers does not “prove” anything. The whale did not call them “fingers” that is interpretation. To my mind the only convincing evidence for evolution would be a fossil record which confirmed the idea of gradually emerging species over time.

ie where are the stages in the evolution of animals up to the whale which show the "fingers" turning into flippers. There are no such links John are there?


Instead we see the Cambrian explosion of life in a single era and ever starker gaps between simply life forms, invertebrates, vertebrates, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and mammals. I notice NOBODY on this blog wants to explore these anomalies, the silence is deafening!!! Why???


2) Regarding light in Eden, you have missed the point when you scorn a “theological” answer to a “scientific” question. How do you expect me to defend divine creationism without mentioning God?????

I will go back to the concept of Moses coming down from the mount and also the transfiguration of Christ on the mountain; The self-sustaining pillar of fire and the burning bush?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee; but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

Isaiah 60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down, Neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.


I see no need to make God’s light figurative at all when you read these passages. I’ll come back to my point; if you pluck verses out of the bible out of context you make a pretext and are easily guilty of “quote mining” to try and prove a misguided point. Let the rest of the bible interpret Genesis, as should be the rule for any passage therein.

3) Why are evening and morning not divine concepts in that God conceived and created them for earth, not because they existed previously in heaven? You seem so sure that you cant understand the science of planetary motion and still believe in God, but certainly this was the exact opposite of Newton’s view on the matter.

4) & (5) I am not claiming there is an old universe and a young earthly creation, I am asking why it is not feasible; or an old universe and an old creation for that matter? Please do not try and pin me down to any school of “creation science” a mistake DD is also making. I know it isn’t comfortable for you guys but I am thinking for myself and not a disciple of any particular teacher. And please stop accusing me of holding Adam as a historical person; until you demonstrate that the bible does anything but this the onus is on you to acknowledge this as the biblical view on the matter.

Post the quotes up here for everyone to see, Chapter and verse please!

Further I don’t see how it is impossible to believe in an old universe and a young earth, you haven’t demonstrated this and please understand this is not my position. I have made it clear I am simply asking why this cannot be the case.

6) Again, like your chimp chromosome question you cunningly avoid my main point; an expanding universe is not directly relevant to the evolution vs creation discussion we are having. I haven’t studied it and I would much prefer you first explain, for example Enc Brit’s phylogeny article first as I did post it first. Why is the fossil record foundation of Dawrinism crumbling and why will nobody talk about it? The emperor’s new clothes?


7) I understand tonsils are now known to have an immune system function. I don’t think this is a water tight case you are making but I will have to come back on it.
What about that uncomfortable fossil record problem?
Leading evolutionists from around the world met for a major conference in Chicago in 1980, reaching some remarkable conclusions about fossils. As Newsweek put it: “Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school…The missing link between man and the apes... is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule... The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.” The current talk origins entry on the fossil record does not dispute this conclusion, on the contrary.


8) In your “opinion” you have reached the only logical conclusion on the position of human testes. I am tired of you dismissing a creationist viewpoint as not having a logical explanation; it is in and of itself a logical conclusion by very definition; that is the whole point which you yourself conceded was a logical option in your chimps chromosome debate.

9) On question 9 there are plenty of professional creationist physicists/geologists/palentologists who do differ on aging techniques, but again I am not taking a position on the age of the earth. However, if you can actually tell me the method used to determine 4.6 billion years I will see if there is a logical alternative. This way you can test yourself to see if you understand what you assert. Did I mention Nigel Calder and that pesky 10% you found useful to dismiss climate change science with? I did, oh sorry.

Please note YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY GIVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT ONE SPECIES HAS PREVIOUSLY TURNED INTO ANOTHER. You have actually carefully avoided discussing the crumbling foundation this entire concept is built on; the fossil record.

To quote a non-scientists I know JW;-

“There is a lot of work for you to do if you even wish to retain an arse-hair of lucid cogency. I suggest credibility itself has been and gone. But I'm willing to work with you on the above questions; surely you admit this is damning? All these pointers and you are willing to dodge all of them?”

Thanks in advance.

********************************
PS JW: QUESTION- As a deist is it theoretically possible to consider that God was capable of making the entire creation in 6 days only 6000 years ago, even if you don’t believe this was what happened? Very interested to hear you on this.
*********************************

Amen
You are giving Bill a bit of a hard time on the age of the earth, but once again you neglected to mention you were zooming way outside your field on that one (remember your Phd is in genetics, I think of you as flapping your arms as you run off a cliff when you do this!); And you still haven’t addressed your speculation that DNA evolved from RNA in your own field.
As read up on it a little and as far as I can see this is pure speculation without a shred of evidence, all based on the “fact” of evolution, which in turn is based on the hugely outdated interpretation of the fossil record 150 years ago. Further, every living creature we have ever known has had this amazing DNA no matter how “primitive” the creature. How?
Furthermore, I will be corrected but didn’t you dismiss Prof Nevin’s stance on evolution because he wasn’t working on human genes?
I am left asking the question “regardless of what field of genetics Prof Nevin was working in, if evolution is the explanation for the origins for *all* living things then whatever field of genetics he was working in he must have seen the lack of evidence himself. This would explain why he never once published anything affirming evolution (which I admit you very graciously revealed to us, to your credit) and yet Nevin is still a world figure in genetics. So Nevin’s field *must* be relevant to the evolution debate. But just like Mendel, he found it irrelevant.

I also pay tribute to your honesty here;-

“These differences alone do not prove that natural selection was the force that drove evolution (because *in principle* gods could replicate the same pattern if they so wished), but since we know that natural selection is adequate for the task, there is no reason to posit gods to do a job that can be shown to happen naturally anyway.”

However as I understand it the very minor “mutations” you are discussing here can also legitimately be considered as completely natural variations around the mean for which there is no actual evidence of actual deviation from the mean (macro evolution) in the longer term.


Sincerely
PB

PS John if you check out wikipedia tonsils are credited with an immune function...

  • 220.
  • At 01:53 PM on 03 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

ref the "dishonest" use of Darwin's quote ref the eye, his paper said the theory would only be acceptable IF it can be shown there are "numeraous gradations" in eye evolution.

This has never been done, as this abstract diagram from wikipedia proves;-


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diagram_of_eye_evolution.jpg


No creatures have been discovered which correspond to the theoretcial diagram shown, ergo, Darwin's theory on the eye is still theory, but ever weaker with each year that passes and still no evidence found to support it.

The key point is that although simple animals have simple eyes, the gradation required as per the diagram as never been seen in reality.

PB

  • 221.
  • At 01:58 PM on 03 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


I have tried to gather all the previous papers posted on this blog ref feather evolution, from here;-


https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/andy_mcintosh_replies.html


I see on the above thread I already made the same point I made ref Prum's papers and indeed ref eye evolution.

I previously said these papers were all based on theory with no actual evidence.

I hope to get a better look at these papers tomorrow.

PB

DD wrote;-

...could it be because one never existed?”
Yawn……There is no such thing as a ‘half-evolved feather’ or a half-evolved anything else – that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (evolution is not ‘striving’ for any distant goal). If however you are genuinely interested in learning what we do know about the evolution history of feathers see here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15637693&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

And here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12949769

And here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12949768&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

And here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15272390

And a non-technical summary (including other Evo-Devo examples as well), see here:

https://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature4/

We don’t know everything about feather evolution. In science it’s OK to say “we don’t know everything”. But we do know quite a bit (and we’re discovering more all the time), and you can’t just blithely ignore what we do know.

Over on the ‘29 evidences’ website that I mentioned in my previous post (no 8), there is a wonderful quotation from the late, great physicist Richard Feynman. He was talking about his own field of quantum mechanics, but his point is a more general one that also applies to a type of mentality commonly shown by creationists:

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

Tony wrote;-

Please read this:

https://www.tccsa.tc/archives/max/fittness_max.htm

  • 222.
  • At 05:29 PM on 03 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"If you want something to chew over perhaps you could study the cambrian explosion and explain why it undermines evolution and supports creationism?"

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

Boring old canards.

In any case this is the old either/or fallacy again!

"I double checked last night regarding your accusations that I had misquoted the Enc Brit article on Christ and you were completely wrong."

Err not at all!

"As I said, I posted the entire article “Jesus Christ, Summary of Jesus’ life” from my 2005 Enc CD Rom. And thus my original point stands; the gospels ARE regarded as authentic records of the life of Christ."

Errr now I know you find it difficult to grasp very simple points but this is getting ridiculous and absurd!

Now I will try again but I an struggling to see how I can make it anymore simpler!

Right(deep breath!) you posted 2 paragraphs of an article and claimed...

"here is Enc Britannica take on the life of Christ. You will notice how seriously it takes the gospels as historical documents."

HOWEVER the first paragraph of the article that you deliberately left our or the CD-ROM that you had left the opening paragraph out(in which case it is dishonest)says:

"Jesus Christ (born c. 6–4 BC, Bethlehem; died c. AD 30, Jerusalem) also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth founder of Christianity, one of the world's largest religions, and the incarnation of God according to most Christians. His teachings and deeds are recorded in the New Testament, which is essentially a theological document that makes discovery of the “historical Jesus” difficult. The basic outlines of his career and message, however, can be characterized when considered in the context of 1st-century Judaism and, especially, Jewish eschatology."

So in fact instead of taking the documents "seriously" the article instead admits that the gospels are theological works rather than "historical" and makes study of said documents difficult. That is very different from what you claimed the Enc Brit article actually said!

So it would be great if you could apologise(or at least recognise)that the Enc Brit article does not actually claim what you claim it says.

Quite simple!

"Furthermore, exactly which scientific papers have I distorted?"

Umm all of them through your wilful ignorance.

"Very interested to see you concede this point, and I commend your honesty;-"

Well PB I was prejudging you on your proven track record of mis-representing articles from the Enc Brit-so you have to excuse me. However once it did become apparent that you did not twist the later article I did admit this-shame a so-called "Bible-believer" could not be so magnanimous!;-)

"I have not seen this compelling evidence yet DD…"

Well we have struggled and strived but you admit that it is your fundamentalist religious that drives you and as such no evidence will convince you! Whats that point? you are typical of the ilk!(same as Hindu creationists, New Age Raellian etc etc)

PS. Who wrote post 218?

It says PB at the top but the post is well-rounded, logical and makes sense!

Could it be a mistake and was actually 'Tony'? if so great post!

  • 223.
  • At 08:28 PM on 03 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Goodness PB!

You really do fail to grasp simple points don't you!

Personally I am growing very tired of repeatedly having to explain to you what others find to be self-evident.

Right the Darwin misquote again!(yawn)

The "quote" as it was portrayed by Bill says that Darwin found the evolution of the eye to be "absurd". However Darwin used the device of the rhetorical question and goes on to explain himself. Therefore a perverted misquote does not accurately defend the views of Darwin.

As I said this is self-evident to everyone else and as I said before I have yet to meet an honest creationist.

And again you back up your "argument" with tired old canards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

And your favourite AIG in their arguments NOT to use cite this "quote"!?!?

PB you should immediately publish your breath-taking work as it will earn you the Nobel prize!

Shame you still cannot name me one(!?)piece of objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back up your claims.

Read the last paragraph by Tony in P219-it neatly encapsulates the utter uselessness in trying to debate with a fundamentalist.

PB- Thanks for your reply.


1) Whale finger bones.

You've decided, on the basis not of education, knowledge or research, but on the basis that it isn't convenient to your position, that the bones present in whale flippers were created that way by God rather than part of the evolution in whales. The sad thing is that this is the strongest of all your arguments: that the fossil record doesn't adequately prove evolution in human beings. Note that, of the ten questions, this is the only evidence of evolution relying upon the fossil record. The fossil record is a minor part of the evidence for evolution, yet creationists like you regard it as your key debating point because your position is so weak on the rest. Since you'll probably dispute that, let's leave the fossil record behind and look at the rest of your position.


2) Light before the sun in Genesis.
3) Evening and morning before planetary bodies.

You've failed to deal with the questions: if 'God is light' is an answer, why did that light need switched on in Genesis? Are you saying that God was dark before then? Are you saying that God's light can be switched on and off? (Note the darkness in verse 2 and the light changing that in verse 3.) Are you claiming that light was not the first act of creation but rather God's own light? When he saw that the light was good, was he referring to himself? I don't know what book you're reading, but my Genesis makes it clear that light was the first act of God's creation. A further question here too for you to answer in your next reply. In verse 5 he called the darkness night and he called the light day. This is again before the creation of the sun! Isn't it absolutely, completely, patently obvious that this was written by human beings on earth who did not understand the science of how night, day, morning and evening actually work? You are on such thin scientific ground here I'm surprised you're still pursuing it! You claim that God may have conceived the concepts first in heaven and then created them. But Genesis is not describing that process; it is describing the actual acts of creation, wherein evening and morning, night and day simply cannot occur without planetary bodies.


4) Evidence of an old earth in starlight.
5) Evidence of an old earth in the Grand Canyon.

You say you're not opposed to an old universe and a young creation, or an old universe and an old creation. But let me tell you the problems with such a belief, and the reason most creationist groups including Answers in Genesis etc. oppose it. If you take the bible literally, you believe the universe was created in seven literal days. Earlier you pointed to biblical genealogies to prove a literal Adam. Fine. But you cannot hold to a literal Adam and simultaneously hold to an old universe. The biblical genealogies descending to Adam only add up to around 6000 years, and you've already said you believe that Genesis is literal when it describes a seven day creation, which precludes the possibility of millions of years preceding Adam. So which is it, PB? (A) Admit you have no answers to why our universe is obviously millions of years old and can't refute that pointer to evolutionary beginnings, or (B) Admit that Genesis should not be taken literally?!


6) The universe expanding.

PB the reason it's relevant is that the account of origins in science relies upon the Big Bang theory, which is supported by all the relevant facts including an expanding universe. If the universe, conversely, was created as we see it, what explains the expanding universe observed in contemporary astronomy? Creationism has no answer, and your attempt to go back to the fossil record is demonstrable of your lack of one.


7) Redundant pieces of anatomy.

You say: "What about that uncomfortable fossil record problem?" I've already explained several times that proof of evolution does not rely on the fossil record, and all you have to benefit your position on that is an argument from silence. Here I am, providing you all this conclusive evidence of evolution, and you are so predisposed to ignore it that all you want to talk about is the fossil record! This is very telling, PB. I ask you again, why were human beings created with body hair, for example? Evolution answers this very coherently along with the rest of the evidence in real science; creationism has no answer.


8) Route of the vas deferens in human males.

I don't understand your answer. You say you gave a logical answer, but I don't see where you gave any answer. I ask you again, very clearly this time: WHY DOES THE VAS DEFERENS TAKE THAT ROUTE? Creationism has no answer, evolution explains it very well.


9) Multiple dating techniques prove an old universe.

You ask me to tell you the method used to determine 4.6 billion years. Again, I note, you're asking others to do your homework for you rather than being eager to find out yourself lest you be wrong about origins! However, I'll entertain your question in spite of that. The age of the solar system is determined to be about 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old by looking at the oldest stars and by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back in time. Scientists can measure the fuel consumption in globular clusters of stars and determine the age of the system, using them as a cosmic clock. This doesn't address how you claim Genesis is literal and yet can't reconcile it with an old universe.


10) The ultimate test: human chromosome #2.

You say: "...you really first ought to address your concession that creationism is one possible explanation for this before I go watching videos." I already did address this PB, above in parenthesis toward the end of #214. I'll summarise: creationism was only a possible explanation before the evidence of human chromosome #2. In other words, this evidence changes that. See post #215 making the analogy of a pregnancy test, which you've studiously avoided. I ask again, what explains the evidence of evolution in human chromosome #2? Can't wait.

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

You end by hilariously asserting that I haven't given you any evidence for evolution, and then ask me a question, which I'll answer. The question you asked is: "As a deist is it theoretically possible to consider that God was capable of making the entire creation in 6 days only 6000 years ago, even if you don’t believe this was what happened? Very interested to hear you on this."

A) My beliefs are based upon reason.
B) Reason is based upon the facts.
C) The facts are substantiated by evidence.
D) The evidence says we evolved in a very old universe.
E) Therefore, my belief is that God DID NOT create everything in six days only 6000 years ago as you suggest.

God could do whatever he likes, but the evidence clearly shows that he didn't do what you suggest he did. I hope this makes sense. An appeal to God's omnipotence does nothing to deal with the evidence of what actually happened, it only supposes what could have happened but which the evidence says didn't.

I await your reply (in point form as above so as to retain a sense of organisation).

PB- Let me explain my last sentence better. I think your question means 'IF the evidence didn't contradict it, could God theoretically have created the universe in six days 6000 years ago?' My answer to that question is: absolutely. I believe that God is capable of doing whatever he likes; he's immensely more powerful than us and therefore we can't even imagine the scope of that creative power. But as soon as any aspect of evidence contradicts a belief, that belief must be expendable if truth is your goal. That's what evolution did with creationism for Christians who are concerned with truth: replaced creationism with a better account of how God created the universe.

  • 226.
  • At 09:54 AM on 04 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


DD

Not that is funny, now Enc Brit is dishonest for its article on Christ. I have heard it all now.

JW

ref appendix, I had a quick scan at this last night. Many animals have appendix including some of the most "primitive".

I dont see how this sits easily with the theory that this feature previously had a function? Surely such animals as rodents would have had a non-vestigal appendix rather than a vestigal one?

Furthermore, I think the vestigal organ debate, while certainly a valid point, is a bit like fixing the aerial on your chimney when the foundations are crumbling.

As I understand it Darwin "proved" evolution to the science community using the fossil record.

And now every other aspect of "proof" relies on his prior assumptions based on the fossil record. eg vestigal organs and evolving feathers.

Just read the enc brit article on phylogeny again to see the level of presumptions needed to make it work.

So in effect, as far as I can see the whole thing is one big circular argument in which the starting point looks increasingly shaky with each year that the fossil record recedes from Darwin's theory.

PB

  • 227.
  • At 02:02 PM on 04 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


John

1) It is not that creationists regard the fossil record as their strongest point; it is the entire foundation that propelled evolution into scientific "fact" and on which all other presumptions in favour of evolution appear to be made in other disciplines since then.
No wonder you are so keen to get off the topic of fossils. I dont think you are being fair or open minded in doing this.

2 & 3) read Isiah 45:7 in post 217.
Please bear in mind I have stressed I am not being dogmatic and that I doubt anyone fully understands genesis fully. Having said that, I have demonstrated there is NO problem whatsover in scripture as seeing God as light. Neither do I see a problem -on the face of it- in seeing the sun created as part of the heavens in 1:1 and yet only revealed after the mists, mentioned in chapt 2, were cleared by the creation of vegetation. I did already present that suggestion I think, but you dont seem to have seen it.

3) The bible NOWHERE says the universe was created in 7 days as far as I can see. To me it seems perfectly feasible that there is a change of tone between the first few verses and the actual week of creation, if you read it again. Again, didnt I already write this? didnt you see it? When the first few verses say the "earth was void" it is equally permissiable, I understand, to translate this as "the earth became void" which could allow for a pre-eden world on earth.
I am not being dogmatic, please note. It has been pointed out that genelogies when they say "son of" do not necessarily mean the direct son of. this is how Jesus can be called "son of David" in the gospels.
Please note I did not say I disbelieved in a young universe and earth, I am just testing the limits of what can be seriously established. There are certainly professionals qualified in geology and palentolgy and physicts who believe in a young earth and universe, and you are none of these things. That is not an argument form authority by the way as I am not asserting they must be correct, just that they are qualfied, where you are not, and that they exist.
You also missed the part where I asked you to explain how we prove the earth is 4.6 billion years old. What is the process I wonder, bearing in mind that every scientific paper published on the matter (like every paper) will have prior assumptions, caveats and recommendations for further tests on the theories.
In other words John, I am not so sure you can be sure of everything you think you are sure of.
The only thing I have stated with certainty is that the bible in its entire context holds Adam to be an historical character, without qualification.

6) Here is an answer. God said the word "bang" and the universe was created. I understand Plantinga is pretty sceptical of big bang arguments in disproving God etc. You are stretching as far away as you can from the crumbling foundation of evolution which is crumbling all around while you hang upon a star. This debate was about evolution and you have not demonstrated how an expanding universe supports evolution over creationism; It is no use to say "creationists believe this" in your defence when I dont believe it. I see no conflict in accepting God created the big bang, though I know others do.

7) I dont see any huge intellectual leap whatsoever in believing that God created me with hairy armpits. I think you are missing my point in that as I see it, scientific papers such as that of Prum which ASSUME evolution to be true and then build an entire model of feather evolution on that untested assumption are working on an outdated and unsustainable assumption which levered evolution into scientific thought. All the examples of evolution proofs you have given require an equal and opposite amount of faith as mine, and perhaps a greater level of interpretation. Where did this assumption come from originally if you trace it back? The fossil record of course!
I will be corrected on this. But the whole deck of cards appears to be based on the fossil record and if it was a new theory today would it be accepted?


8) Creationism IS a logical answer to why animals were formed the way they are John. It is a perfectly coherent worldview even if you do not accept it to be true. Your assumption that the vas deferens has moved is based on the assumption of the fossil record. You actually have no proof for stating it.
Ref the appendix I looked into it and found that many animals have them, including "very primitive ones" like rodents. This is hard to reconcile with it being vestigal. It might also be very interesting to do a similar comparison with other animals eg primates and other mammals to see how the vas deferens compares with the human one.
Nonetheless, tonsils and the coccyx were thought to be vestigal at one time but are now known to have real functions. It is possible to lose chunks of your brain without any apparent harm (this happened my sister) so I can argue that perhaps a function may yet be found for the appendix.
In any case, the whole argument about the vas deferens is a million miles aways from any concrete evidence that one species has previously changed into another; you are tinkering with the aerial on your roof while the house is falling down, as I see it.

All the evidence presented on this thread requires serious interpretation based on prior assumption, ie that the fossil record demonstrates evolution.

9) Dating techniques of the universe, I addressed this previously; I am asking how certain all the assumptions are in the measurement techniques on the one hand and why the first few verses of Genesis chpt 1 cannot allow for a pre-Edeen universe. Please do not accuse me of getting you to do my homework. It was YOU who introduced the expanding universe in support of your onw argument so you better well be sure you know what you are talking about if you think it it so important.


Very interesting to see you concede a 6000 year old universe is not a problem for God but that you dont believe it happened. I have to go now, but I just want to point out I have no significant formal training in astronomy, geology, palentology, astrophysics or physiology.

This is the reason I have been so cautious not to deal in dogma. Perhaps you might also consider your own position in this regard.

If you are comfortable throwing out global scientific consensus on climate change then I too reserve judgement on these issues.

Not finished but have to go.

PB

PB- As I say, evolution does not rely on the fossil record. I know you so badly want it to, and if I were a creationist I'd probably want it to very badly also (since that's creationism's strongest point) but let me be very clear about this.

Genetics
Astronomy
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Geology
Physiology
Paleontology

All rely on the theory of evolution to explain the facts of their findings in each particular work of science (and by the way there are much more; don't read this as an exhaustive list; some have many many sub-areas of specialty), and all of them are contributing to substantiating the claims of evolution week-in and week-out.

Only the last discipline, paleontology, is concerned with the fossil record. Most paleontologists would disagree with you that evolution has not been substantiated in the fossil record (and yet again PB is telling the experts all about their own field of expertise) -- but I don't really care about paleontology PB because the case for evolution does not stand or fall on the fossil record! I know you'd love it to, but there is overwhelming evidence from every other field of science even without the fossil record to substantiate that evolution occurred without worrying about the reason we haven't got hundreds of transitional human forms. If we never found a single fossil, we are sure about the facts of evolution. You seem to place a lot of significance on fossils, and the reason you do this is because you've read creationist literature on the internet that emphasises it. But real science is interested in the big picture: what is every discipline saying, and is evolution contradicted anywhere? Fortunately the field of paleontology and no other field of study contradicts evolution and only confirms it.

I'll wait now for your reply to #222.

  • 229.
  • At 04:48 PM on 04 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

"Not that is funny, now Enc Brit is dishonest for its article on Christ. I have heard it all now."

Errr I am seriously concerned that there is something wrong with you?

That is not what I said and you know it!
I really do not know how I can make it any more simpler-so I won't even try.

What is the use of trying to explain anything to you? when you are wilfully ignorant/obtuse(then again you are a Bible believer-par for the course).

Keep on wallowing in ignorance.

regards

DD

PB- Looks like our posts got crossed somewhere.... your #225 remains to be answered by me, and I'll do that as soon as I have time (probably tomorrow morning).

  • 231.
  • At 07:09 PM on 04 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD, JW

JW

I cant see you have demonstrated that fossils arent the foundation of evolution.

Having said that, can what you think of the phylogeny article and the fact that the fossil record is moving ever further from evolution.

If I were to accept your argument that other disciplines cant stand up evolution without fossils (which I have not seen demonstrated) then it still remains for you to explain why there are such huge gaps between species.

Surely there should be much more gradation between species, and arguably, only one huge species continuum with no real distinctions from one extreme to the other?

I agree with you 223 but I just dont think you can be so sure of your "facts" as you think you can.

DD,

Thanks for post 206 DD, which I forgot;-
"PB, After looking at your posts again, I agree with JW that there is a little bit more openess on your part and if you are sincere and genuine then I'll cut you some slack.

I think part of the problem that you have is with defintions. I was wondering if you could give me your definitions for these terms:evolution,primitive, natural selection,theory?"

I agree that different definitions can be a barrier to understanding. I think this is a very real problem when I talk to Peter about faith.

BTW, I appreciate the Enc Brit issue may be more complicated; perhaps you are looking at it in such a format where what I see as a complete article appears as part of a larger article???

Anyways;-

Evolution: The process of one species developing into another (does not included natural variations around a mean within a species or genetic mixing eg giving different breeds of dogs, which can be easily reversed).

Primitive: Not sure of your context, I probably used it in the evolutionary sense of a primative organism on the evolutionary scale, which I suppose I shouldn't. Simple might be better term for me.

Natural Selection: The idea that mutations can create beneficial variations within a species to such a degree that a new species develops.

BTW John

I see what for me is an annoying trend, in that many evolutionists seem to bandy on about creationists prejudice which only allows them to read the facts in one way etc. I feel you also go one about this quite a bit, but I am very well aware of world views, belief systems, values and prejudices, especially living in Northern Ireland! I dont need any lectures on such things thanks.

My problem is that I dont see convincing evidence to make the jump of faith you do to joing the dots in favour of evolution. For example, Prum on feathers was just comical to me. His whole paper was built on the assumption evolution was correct and yet he went ahead to build a fantatsic model on how feather evolution might have happened - but had to concede its weakness was the lack of any actual evidence to back it.

I mean, can you not see ***at least in this one single isolated case*** [eg if you imagined you knew nothing else outside this academic paper] why this makes much more sense to be sceptical about feather evolution than just to swallow it????

later...

PB

  • 232.
  • At 10:13 PM on 04 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Fossils aren't the foundation of science/evolution. We have gave you plenty of links etc.

The news that the fossil record is moving away from evolution is indeed news! You should print this earth-shattering info!

PB Please on bended knee I beg you read something about fossils!

OK the Enc Brit article...there is more openness on you here PB and I will cut you a bit of slack. To explain myself, the problem that I had was not with the article itself rather your interpretation. The article in whole with the opening paragraph gives an interpretation that is different from what the complete Enc Brit article says. Your article had only 2 paragraphs whereas the whole piece had 3.

I was wondering did you find that piece on the Enc Brit CD-Rom or was the same CD-Rom that you got the AIG pieces from?

PB the thing about science is that it does not rely on special pleading nor "world views, belief systems, values and prejudices" Simply evidence whereas creationism in any form does rely on the things that you mention ie., can you name me a Hindu Biblical creationist? or a Christian who accepts the Hindu creation myth etc etc?

Can't believe you are still going on about Prum! I think you need to go on a crash course of basic science.

Tony did a good post recently-have a look at it.

DD

PB- I'm getting to your post #225 now. Thanks for sticking to the original point order, it really helps avoid confusion.


1) Whale finger bones.

You describe the fossil record as evolution's "foundation". This is nonsense. Certainly it would be helpful to have more fossils (and I remind you that paleontologists could show you many) but the fossil record is just one of many ways to know what happened in the past. You say you doubt that I've proved that. Well of the ten questions we're still debating, only this one has anything whatsoever to do with transitional bones of any kind - the rest are cosmological, geological, biological, radiological and genetics-based; and this is only ten of the hundreds of ways we know evolution occurred. You accuse me of being keen to "get off the topic of fossils"; I say firstly that that fossils are a minute part of the evidence for evolution and have given you plenty else to prove it without even going there. Secondly I say that the best you've got - in other words your only damned hope - is in an argument from silence (ie. it's a lack of evidence for evolution you point to). Why is this? On one hand we have evolution offering hundreds of individual pieces of evidence, and on the other we have creationism with not a shred of evidence and an argument from silence in the fossil record. Being objective, PB, being scientific, being rational.... you know you can't persuade anyone with that. And scientists know even better. (By the way, you still haven't explained the finger bones in whales; evolution has.)


2) Light before the sun in Genesis.

You have completely, entirely, absolutely sidestepped every single question I asked of you in my last response on the idea of 'God is light' being the answer. You say: "I have demonstrated there is NO problem whatsoever..." - you haven't demonstrated a damned thing to explain this and you know it! This is dishonest, PB. Blatant! I gave you a list of problems with seeing 'God is light' as an answer to this question, and you sidestepped Every. Single. Last. One of them. Is this going to be the place we end up on every one of these questions? If so, let me know now so I don't waste my time. I refer you to my last answer on question 2; there are many outstanding questions you have not answered.


3) Evening and morning before planetary bodies.

On the creation of the sun you made me laugh. You claim to read Genesis literally, but under investigation (ie. when you actually are forced to THINK about it) you construct this huge grid of qualifications through which to read it which basically ends up making it totally non-literal! Haha! You qualify the creation of the sun by saying that the sun actually wasn't made on the fourth day, as a literal interpretation of Genesis STRONGLY suggests; you say it was actually created on the first day but only revealed on the fourth. Yet Genesis says clearly on the fourth day: "Let there be" and "God made" and "God set them in the expanse of the sky..." all on the fourth day. Your clutching at straws has become like a circus act. How do you interpret that latter sentence? Did God create the sun on the first day and then store it somewhere so that he could set it in the sky on the fourth day? This is becoming laughable. While I'm at it, I may as well throw you another question (though I see you didn't address the one I threw in last time). This verse also says that God created especially two "great lights" in the sky; the author is describing the sun and the moon of course, but what's interesting is the description of them as greater than the other lights (in other words, the sun and moon appear greater than the stars. In actual fact modern science yields a better answer yet again; the sun is one of the smaller stars. The author of Genesis was simply using his limited knowledge of how these things work to describe how he thinks they work and imagines how God may have created them. It's certainly not meant to be read literally as I would hope these case studies should be beginning to convince you. Speaking of the stars...


4) Evidence of an old earth in starlight.
5) Evidence of an old earth in the Grand Canyon.

Now I've backed you into a tight enough corner on this that you're trying to tell me that the bible does not claim the universe was created in seven days. I really am tired now. Either you believe in a literal Genesis or you do not. Please tell me which one. The part about the earth being "void" does not mean that you can say there were millions of years before the events of a literal Genesis. The verse before that says, "In the beginning." It's describing the first spark of creation! Ladies and gentlemen; this is what happens to creationism when it's subjected to scrutiny - it falls apart. Basically PB you're making the claim that Genesis may not be describing creation! There was stuff that happened before Genesis! Ah but Genesis is still literal when everything was created in the beginning! .........I'm getting exhausted. (You also asked again how we know the earth is 4.6 billion years old. I answered that under my response to question 9, dating techniques.)


6) The universe expanding.

The theory of evolution is crumbling, you say. My good God PB. You may tell the world, then, because the working theory is that evolution happened. I think it's amusing that you posted this under question 6, because you don't address question six whatsoever I ask you again. Why is the universe expanding (third or fourth time lucky?).


7) Redundant pieces of anatomy.

I'll quote you verbatim, since your answer is so brilliant. "I dont see any huge intellectual leap whatsoever in believing that God created me with hairy armpits. Umm. Okay. PB, the question was 'WHY' do human beings have body hair when they don't need it, not whether or not you're okay with the idea. And you're back to the fossil record. Evolution explains very well why we have body hair; creationism gives an irrelevant conception about hairy armpits. No better answers than evolution then?


8) Route of the vas deferens in human males.

You say creationism is a logical answer to why animals are created the way they are (including, I assume, the route of the vas deferens). And you're back to the fossil record, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this point. No, creationism does not provide a logical answer to that question. Your answer to everything is 'God just did it that way.' That requires not only a leap of faith but a veritable rocket launcher made of unfounded theological bull. Again, PB, you miss the point that it is not a single piece of evidence on its own but hundreds upon hundreds of facts which are best explained by evolution. How many pieces did you want? I can keep going but you're having enough trouble with ten. On its own, the route of the vas deferens is a mere curiosity. Combined with the rest of what we know in every scientific discipline, it's yet more evidence of evolution.


9) Multiple dating techniques prove an old universe.

You ask how certain the assumptions of measuring are. Well first, they're not assumptions, they're carefully calibrated estimates. All dating techniques correlate with each other, and - yet again - none of the dating methods contradict the theory of origins as explained by the big bang and evolution. How accurate are they? Well they all yield an answer roughly in the same ballpark, provisionally of course and within a certain window. But they all yield a date a hell of a lot older than 6000 years. How do you reconcile these things? Honestly PB you should regard yourself as lucky to have me to tell you what beliefs are contradictory and why. I'm like your guide through the 'Discover evolution' phase of your life.


10) The ultimate test: human chromosome #2.

Oops! You had to go before you answered this. I'm sure you will next time, though, cause you haven't the last two times. Can't wait.


(By the way, if I sound frustrated above, I am. Don't worry about it, I'll just take a drink of Coke and be okay. Thanks for putting up with it.)

  • 234.
  • At 10:00 AM on 05 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

Talkorigins confirms the scarcity of fossils.

The Enc Brit article on phylogeny posted above confirms what huge and repeated specualtion is required to make tenative connections between species.

The Enc Brit diagram showing the connectivity of all species confirms this, with the vast majority of required fossils "undiscovered".
Enc Brit confirms this in text under its main article on evolution.

And you have not actually posted any links at all that make convincing reading for proving that one species has previously changed into another, in my view.

Prum openly conceded the lack of actual evidence was a major weakness of his model on feather evolution.

There is a major problem here in that you are all preaching to the converted about the dangers and bias of worldviews, which I dont dispute for a second.

The problem is that you are all putting the horse before the car, and completely failing to demonstrate evidence to confirm your worldviews is solid before you go of on your worldview sermons to me.

DD - I am finishe on the Enc Brit article - it is just as I have posted it and I am happy to let it go at that.

JW

I have to pull you up on some thing. You keep affirming that scientists say this whole creationists say that, as though it were as simple as that.

There are many types and degress of scholls of evolutionary theory; some non-faith scientists are sceptical about evolution (eg Denton; Evolution a theory in crisis, also the medical list of evolutionary sceptics posed to Amen above do NOT adhere to creationism, if you read it).

I have another clutch of non-faith scientists who are sceptical of evolution, but I have lent the book to someone.


A MORI poll in wikipedia shoed 5% of US scientists were creationists; you cant just say scientists reject creationism as so many of them are creationists. You need to be more sophisticated in your worldview.

Truth in Science website and AIG websites list professional scientists in ALL sectors that dissent against evolution as you dissent agains climate change.


Argument from silence; John, by definition creationism means that the animals were created as they appear; what evidence can you imagine that would satisfy you about this?

We all have the same evidence, it is how it is interpreted by your worldviews that makes the difference.

You also havent answered this question; dont the assumptions in all evolutionary theory all stand on the original assumption of origin of the species, which in turn was based on the fossil record. You haven taddressed this, but in every argument I have seen so far outside fossils, the assumption that evolution is correct always seems to be assumed - ultimately from origin of the species.

later

Pb

  • 235.
  • At 10:25 AM on 05 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

....argument from silence pt II.

To argue that the evidence shows clear chasms between species have always existed and that there is no evidence of one species morphing into another is NOT an argument from silence John.

If the evidence demonstrates that today's species have existed down through time without variation, that is a demonstration of stasis of species through time.

The existence of other species in other periods does not prove a connection to today's surviving species.

Occam's Razor.

PB


  • 236.
  • At 06:21 PM on 05 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


John

I posted a detailed response to your latest post earlier but I am glad it was lost as now I do not have to apologise for what I said in it.

I have never seen you so arrogant and patronising disrepectful and intolerant of someone's sincerely held views. In fact I dont think I have eevr seen anyone so far gone in this direction in internet discussions.

I have always debated with you in honesty and good faith - always - and I think the tone of your latest post really does *you* a gross disservice.

If you want to continue the discussion I would request you go back and read my answers again as the most charitable thing I can say is that you have not at all understood what I have said in most cases.

Even if you think you have I dont think your asbolute contempt for my honestly held views helps anyone or any cause.

I have not had a chance to read this post, but here is a real, professionally qualified phd in biochemistry talking about chimpanzee chromosomes;-

https://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

PB


  • 237.
  • At 06:28 PM on 05 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

sorry not a phd in biochemistry but a professor of biology at Liberty University...

  • 238.
  • At 06:31 PM on 05 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

sorry, that phd was in neuroscience not biochemistry...

PB- Isn't it entertaining that all of your resources defending creationism come from the very creationists you appear to want to distance your own beliefs from? This latest, for example, from Answers In Genesis, that wonderful defender of the literal Genesis that you're not so sure about anymore. This is very telling. You assert that there are all sorts of 'in between' type beliefs that don't fall under the labels "creation" or "evolution". Well what the hell are they then? I go as far as to say that, if there are, none of them are remotely defendable. In fact your own "universe before genesis but still take genesis literally" idea is one such example: pure nonsense.

I believe that you are willfully looking up only that research which benefits your position and ignoring the rest deliberately. You didn't watch the video, in fact refused to, and you haven't come back with a decent critique of any of the links provided to you in this long thread. Your search is not for truth, PB, no matter how you wish to portray yourself as honest and non-dogmatic (how many times have we heard that?). Your reliance is upon an inaccurate reading of an ancient book and an undue reliance upon the scientific accuracy of that book. You fell apart when we got to specifics; that's all we need to know.

Real science, on the other hand, makes theories which best explain facts. Evolution best explains the facts: creationism barely brushes the surface and is not involved in advancing its own theories, only shoring up its own ad absurdum. Why do we never hear people like you so concerned about the validity of the theory of gravity or arguing about the inherent lack of evidence for the theory of relativity or the tentative ideas contained within quantum theory, string theory, bubble theory or any such other science? Answer: because they don't come into conflict with the traditional interpretations of your religion as passed down to you from your theological ancestors. This is nothing to do with truth or fact: it's to do with helping your zombified religious tradition limp forward in the manner that the church who opposed Galileo 400 years ago did with the idea of geocentricity.

I've tried very hard, gotten very frustrated and failed, again, as has everyone else has who tried, to show you the fundamental weaknesses in believing as you continue to do. You were asked a very good question in a more recent thread: can you show the big bang/evolution to be false? The answer is of course you can't. Until you or anyone else can, it is the theory that best explains the facts of the universe, and nothing contained in the 239 long posts above make an iota of difference to that.

Hello people,

Returning after a bit I find little has changed. Pb is still up to all his creationist tricks, including shifting the burden of proof to others (don't fall for it anymore people!), shifting the goal posts (like moving from his original nag of feathers to the Cambrian when he realises his original point is utterly sunk), distorting what others say (false quote of Prum, distorting partial quote from Darwin, misrepresenting Enc. Brit.). DD said it well in post 216:

"You have done nothing but confirm to us that Biblical creationism is supported by a bunch of dishonest, fundamentalist religious nutters."

Interesting then that pb dares to mention

"argument from silence"

Well pb, you promised to read up on the papers I pointed out to you on intermediate feather fossils. And then you said you'd give your explanation of the feather fossils you say don't exist. Come on pd, in post 4 of this thread I reminded you of how you had boldly entered the debate before and then ran like a weasel when it was your turn. Now you're doing the same. 'No time this weekend you wrote', yet plenty of time for long posts here and on other threads since then. And the day before yesterday you said you'd address the issue yesterday. Why have you still not read anything pb? It's because you know that reading the papers will take away any option of sticking to your disproven views, isn't it? Talk about argument from silence indeed.

I'm once again calling you out pb. Don't try to change the subject, make me do your homework, shift the goal posts, etc. We've seen it often enough from you, it won't work anymore. It's up to you to look up the papers as you said you'd do. And then explain how what you read in them DOESN'T blow away your fairy tale beliefs. Good luck on the latter pb! You have a Mission Impossible ahead of you. Maybe your God can help you out the way Tom Cruise says Scientology helps him do the impossible? Again, good luck.

Peter

  • 241.
  • At 09:46 AM on 06 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John

ref literal understanding of genesis you have seen me saying from the start of this discussion I am not certain of all interpretations.

Prof FF Bruce says the bible is divinely inspired and fully accurate but not always precise.

If you look back to anything I have written on this blog (ever) I have never taken a dogmatic stance on the age of the earth, which Peter Klaver commended me for at one point, because I said I didnt feel I knew enough at present to make a judgement. However I have clearly challenged evolutionists previously to explain why they do not think a young earth is a possibility.

So you can see I have always been pretty consistent and I dont think it fair of you to accuse me of some fault now in maintaining this position.

With my current understanding the best understanding I have of Genesis is that the seven days do appear literal to me because that is by far the normal use of the hebrew term
in this context in the rest of the bible, though there are different opinions from professional scholars.

The biblical context does not give any reason to take Adam as anything other than an historical figure, which you have not refuted.

Now, ref the first few verses in Genesis, the reason I argue that they appear to have different tone to the creation week is because every
other creation day begins with the term "God said". So perhaps there is room for verses one and two to be a different time period.


You seem to think I am yanking your chain on verse 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void"

In Young's Literal Translation of the bible this passage reads as follow;-


1) ¶ In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth--
2) the earth **hath** existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering
on the face of the waters,
3) ¶ and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.


Now the hebrew word for "hath" here is Strong's ref number 1961 and the first two meanings are "to be" and, "become" so there
seems to be no necessity to translate this word as "was".


I hope to get some time this summer to review the big bang and age of the earth a little more.
But John I detect you dont have much breadth in the subjects you are discussing and certainly claim no formal qualifications.
You also seem to have no appreciation for the varied texture of acdemic spectrum on these matters between secular and faith scientists
and also theologians; ergo you think I have being dishonest if I do not take fundamentalist positions. But If look I have alkways rejected the
term fundamentalist for a very good reason; I am not one.
Such thinking does not conceive the AV translation can be improved on by looking at the hebrew or greek.

You also seem to condemn me for having an open mind on some of these matters.

Is your frustration in part because I do not fit easily into your pigeon holes and can recognise my own limitations?

I can assure you I will not for a second be afraid to own a young earth position if I feel it is justified, and I think my willingness to
stand alone in the teeth of vicious opposition on other matters is testimony to that.

"Let God be true and every man a liar".

PB

Strongs hebrew ref 01961 hyh hayah haw-yaw

a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT-491; v

AV-was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee; 75

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) -----
1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
1a1b) to come about, come to pass
1a2) to come into being, become
1a2a) to arise, appear, come
1a2b) to become
1a2b1) to become
1a2b2) to become like
1a2b3) to be instituted, be established
1a3) to be
1a3a) to exist, be in existence
1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
1a3d) to accompany, be with
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

  • 242.
  • At 09:58 AM on 06 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


John

You're not being very fair are you?

You take up all my time answering lenghty questions you pose, that is why I have not had time to watch your video.

But I have given you pretty comprehenisve answers on appendix and you seem to have totally ignored that.

SO my time spent asnwering your questions doesnt count but time not spent answering your questions does.

DD has a very consistent habit of posting hyperlinks he doesnt demonstrate an understanding of in response to points I raise and nobody picks him up on it John.

So let's hear your response to the AIG take on Chimpanzee chromosomes or else tick DD off; in contrast I never even claimed to have read AIG on this.

You are condemning me for having nuanced views on matters JOhn, how fundamentalist of you; that is exactly what they would say of me; "Either you believe in a 6000 year old universe or you are a heretic."

What you say is :" Either you believe in a 6000 year old earth or you are a hereitc." Spot the difference.

Amazing how people who deny the reality of absolute truth or authority so often act as though they emobody it.

You really need to chill out and actually read again what I have written in response to your points John.

Many types of "primitive" animals have appendix which sort of challeneges the evolutionary theory that hangs on it John. And organs such as the tonsils once thought to be vestigal are now known to have immune functions. You never acknowledged or addressed my answers on this, why John?


Your ego is in danger of burying you John, you seem to regard yourself as an expert when you are no more than a layman like me.

And as far as biological evolution is concerned Peter is in exactly the same boat, as he proved with his rush to promote Prum.

later

PB

  • 243.
  • At 04:12 PM on 06 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Of course fossils are "scarce"! gee talk about stating the bleeding obvious!

Please read about fossils!

Indeed before you go off on Prum again please answer Peter's salient points.

PB evidence has been presented to you that does not rely on special pleading, you are rejecting the evidence based on your fundamentalist religious opinion-you have shown this by your repeated use of the Bible(Hindu creationist's do the same with their books). You have a cheek to say that I am putting the horse before the car! when YOU come to this discussion believing that your creation myths are literally true!

As for the Enc Brit article on Jesus. I suspect you copied it from the CD-Rom that you got the creationist cut and pastes from. The big problem is that the *actual* article does NOT say what you claim it says. That is dishonest, perhaps on the part of the makers of the CD-Rom but you should have least have acknowledged this.

As for your points to JW...

Goodness you are obsessed with the opinions of dentists!

As for the 5%, if you look at the % of scientists working in related fields, the scientists in favour of science rises to 99.98%.

The scientists against IE., that list of dentists from AIG are all religious fundamentalist nutters. It was not evidence that formed their opinions but their extremist faith.

As I have asked you repeatedly to give me one(just one!) piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable in favour of Biblical creationism and you cannot even do that! The reason is that their opinion is not based on evidence but their nutty faith.

A creationist using Occam's razor! now I have seen it all!

As for the link to the "scientist" at that 10th rate, glorified, degree mill dump that has the cheek to call itself a "university" IE., Liberty-yes PB he is another religious, fundamentalist nutter-so what-tell me something I don't know! Now if you could name me objective evidence then I would listen.

As for post 234 to John, I know John can answer for himself but gee whizz talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

You know what PB-so what for your "honestly held views"-you are incredibly frustrating to debate with-it is more fun getting teeth pulled. You are wilfully obtuse/ignorant, you shift the burden of proof, commit all the fallacies, repeat canards as if they are "news". People have taken time and effort on this link to post you links/pieces etc only for it to be ignored. It is a complete waste of time in trying to debate with you!

I posted this before but here is how science works and how creationism works...

https://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

Indeed read the quote in the last paragraph from Tony in post 219.

BTW JW if you are reading this and not given up completely I think that out of all the posters on this thread yo have shown the most patience.

G'day

DD

  • 244.
  • At 04:34 PM on 06 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

BTW PB

That "scientist" from Liberty "university is quailfied in neuroscience not biochemistry.

So what were you saying about Peter and Amenhotep writing about things in which you said they were not qualified to do so?-and on just reading your last post to John what you accuse him of.

As for your last post...another case of special pleading.

To everyone else I am ready to give up, don't know about you guys?

PB-


"ref literal understanding of genesis you have seen me saying from the start of this discussion I am not certain of all interpretations."

Maybe I'll wait until you seem sure of the position you want to take and then have this discussion. In the meantime, why don't you go away and do some proper reading on the issue?


"Prof FF Bruce says the bible is divinely inspired and fully accurate but not always precise."

What is the difference between accurate and precise?


"However I have clearly challenged evolutionists previously to explain why they do not think a young earth is a possibility."

I've explained above several times why it's a problem. It's either a literal bible OR an old universe. It can't be both, for the reasons I've explained. That's why some of my ten questions attacked the concept of a young universe, because it proves that it is invalid to read Genesis literally (and, after all, if you can't read Genesis literally on the timeframe, why should it be read literally on the method?) - there are many other problems with reading Genesis literally as I've pointed out at length above. Frankly, the onus is now on you to tell me just how you can continue to do so.


"The biblical context does not give any reason to take Adam as anything other than an historical figure, which you have not refuted."

When are you going to learn that I don't care what the biblical authors thought of Adam - they were everyday blokes like you and me! PB, I can't be more clear about this, so now I'm using street terms to describe theological concepts!


"Now, ref the first few verses in Genesis, the reason I argue that they appear to have different tone to the creation week is because every other creation day begins with the term "God said". So perhaps there is room for verses one and two to be a different time period."

This sounds like nonsensical patchwork theology - plug the holes as fast as you can before the whole thing crumbles. As I said above I think you need to go away and figure out a lot of this stuff yourself; it's clear to me that you're all over the map. I'm not being unkind in saying that; everyone has to figure out how to deal with the problems in their own position (I do everyday) but it's no use trying to have a sensible discussion about it when you don't even know yourself where to start.


"But John I detect you dont have much breadth in the subjects you are discussing"

Excuse me???!!


"You also seem to condemn me for having an open mind on some of these matters."

You have the opposite of an open mind. You desire so strongly to hold to creationism that you will grab at any ammunition, no matter how ineffective, you can get your hands on to help you with it. But it isn't coherent, it isn't even self-consilient, and I don't know how to debate that with you. I can't help it that when I point out flaws in your understanding of Genesis that you offer 'explanations' that make no sense with the rest of what you're saying, or which present even greater problems than the one you were trying to solve! That's your issue to resolve before you come back to debate. Why turn up to a paintball game with a water pistol and no protective gear when you can spend the time going to get it right first?


"Is your frustration in part because I do not fit easily into your pigeon holes and can recognise my own limitations?"

No, my frustration is the inconsistency, the grabbing at straws, the logical fallacies, the dodging the issue and sidetracking and pulling irrelevant data and avoiding the questions and much more. Each of my ten questions remains ENTIRELY unanswered by you. Now, when you read that sentence you find it ridiculous, right? You think you HAVE answered them. You haven't. Go back to the original questions. Everytime you've asked me a question, I've tried to answer it. If you think I haven't, ask them again, in a logical, unconfused order, and I'll do my best. You simply haven't been able to deal with the many problems inherent in your position, and until you do I just can't go any further.


"What you say is :" Either you believe in a 6000 year old earth or you are a hereitc." Spot the difference."

I don't believe in heresy. One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy. But either you believe in a young earth (the 6000 year figure is AIG's, not mine) or you can't believe Genesis is literal. Let's start there, if you want a discussion point.


"Your ego is in danger of burying you John, you seem to regard yourself as an expert when you are no more than a layman like me."

I'm FAR from an expert, and trust me, I know that. But what I AM is as certain as anyone can be that evolution occurred and that the universe as we know it began with a big bang and that it happened billions of years ago. One doesn't need to be an expert to be fairly certain that they are right.

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

So let's summarise your answers to me so far:


1) Whale finger bones.

Your answer is that God can create a whale whatever way he likes. If he wants to create it to make it look like fingers, he can. And he saw that it was good.


2) Light before the sun in Genesis.

Your answer is that God is light. No explanation for why, then, it needed switched on in Genesis. No explanation therefore, as to how God's light can be switched on and off. No explanation as to how God was dark before Genesis 1? No explanation for why it needed separated from the darkness. And of course light was not, then his first act of creation, because it was simply himself. No explanation as to why he named the light "day" if it was in fact himself the light was referring to.


3) Evening and morning before planetary bodies.

Your answer is that God created the sun on the first day (no mention of this in Genesis), stored it somewhere and then set it in the sky on the fourth day. No explanation as to how evening, morning, day and night can occur without the planetary bodies it relies upon. No explanation of the description of the creation of the sun on the fourth day, not the first, in the words "Let there be", and "God made". No explanation as to why the sun and moon are described as "great" lights, as though they are actually bigger than the rest of the stars and planets in space.


4) Evidence of an old universe in starlight.

Your answer is that the universe is actually old, and that Genesis did not occur until millions of years later. No explanation as to why planetary bodies needed created, why light needed to be created if there were already lights in the sky, why lights in the sky needed created for the same reason, or why any action whatsoever was required by God if creation already existed. No explanation as to how the universe actually came to be, since you claim Genesis does not describe its initial creation!!!!!


5) Evidence of an old earth in the Grand Canyon.

No answer.


6) The universe expanding.

No answer.


7) Redundant pieces of anatomy.

Your answer is that God can create anatomy whichever way he likes. If he wants to create us with useless body hair, an appendix we can remove when it causes trouble, troublesome wisdom teeth, painful childbirth, etc., he is God and can create us whichever way he likes. And he saw that it was good.


8) Route of the vas deferens in human males.

Your answer is that God can create human beings whichever way he likes. If he wants to create us so that the vas deferens takes an unusually long route up before it goes back down where it's supposed to, he is God and can do so. And he saw that it was good.


9) Multiple dating techniques prove an old universe including an old earth.

For your answer to an old universe, see question 4. You didn't give an answer to an old earth, but question the effectiveness of dating (with no grounds whatsoever to do so).


10) The ultimate test: human chromosome #2.

Your answer took a long time coming, and then it was just a link to AIG which will, I'm sure, prove to be entertaining. Like your response to the video I provided you on the same topic, I haven't gotten around to your link yet.


Illuminating, isn't it? No wonder we're all exhausted with this! DD, I agree that I'm close to giving up. (By the way, that neuroscience guy is at LIBERTY? I should have guessed. Where are all the scientists at normal, secular universities who aren't biased by religious conviction, who are willing to substantiate creationist claims?)

  • 246.
  • At 08:13 PM on 06 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

"DD has a very consistent habit of posting hyperlinks he doesnt demonstrate an understanding of in response to points I raise and nobody picks him up on it John."

PB I read the articles that I post to you, the problem is that you pick something up from the articles and ignore the rest to suit yourself. Fossils are a case in point IE., you pronounced fossils are scarce-We all know that! Read what the rest of the article has to say!

I am trying to make you do some work for yourself! As I have mentioned before I am sick and tired of looking up info for you IE., you post something I do the research/ask working scientists in related fields and post the answers to you. Besides being fruitless I quickly realised that this was something (if you were sincere and genuine) that you could easily do yourself.

I am also fed up with you constantly accusing Peter and Amenhotep(and John) of answering in areas that is not their "expertise"(when you have NO knowledge!)-which is a handy way of avoiding hard questions!-and then after doing this constantly you refer us to a neuroscientist who wrote a paper on chromosomes!?!?

Why not ask Peter or Amenhotep questions that are within their respective fields(your posts certainly enter their fields)or even better why not post questions to scientists working in related fields-I did put up a post with plenty of links but oh! that's right! you were "too busy"-don't make me laugh!

John re: post 243

"Where are all the scientists at normal, secular universities who aren't biased by religious conviction, who are willing to substantiate creationist claims?"

That is precisely my point!

Pb,

"And as far as biological evolution is concerned Peter is in exactly the same boat, as he proved with his rush to promote Prum."

Lovely, another post to demostrate the mixture of ignorance and dishonesty that forms the contingent of creationists. Pb, YOU brough up Prum (with your false quote, remember), I never held him up in my examples to you.

Pb, read the papers I've pointed out to you, dozens of times now. If you want to regain any shred of credibility after your worst pummeling ever in this thread, then you can't keep dodging the issue. So once more:
- you so often lamented the total lack of intermediate feather fossils.
- I gave you an example of a paper with examples of intermediate fossils found in China, including photographs of them. And I pointed you to where you could find many more examples. Therefore your position has been shown to be wrong.
- ever the true creationist, you maintain there are no intermediate feather fossils.

Then explain to us the examples of them that I have pointed out to you. No more distractions. You have failed this test of your credibility dozens of times now. Will you ever do anything to restore just a small bit of it?

Peter

  • 248.
  • At 02:28 PM on 07 Jul 2007,
  • am wrote:

pb

why is this so important to your faith?

why is rejecting evolutionary theory so important, is it just an intelectual intrest?

best,

am

  • 249.
  • At 07:54 PM on 08 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


AM

Thanks for the honest question.

It is not directly relevant to my personal faith at all actually.

But indirectly it does matter to everyone's ie yours.

If Adam never existed then the resurrection of Christ must certainly come into question, in honest thought.

And if the resurrection did not happen we are all lost.

And if we are lost that means you too; and I am primarily doing this to contend for the faith once delivered for the benefit of other people looking in who must make choices about their destinies.

That might all sound very academic but the athiestic worldview and all the implications of that work off the foundation of evolution.

I also get quite angry about lies and intimidation at the cost of truth generally.

My take on the entire debate above is that despite claiming to be scientists or scientifically minded, the attacks on me are fuelled to a large extent by animosity and prejduice and that none of those concerned have put forward convincing arguments to stand up their case.

Do you believe in evolution am?
Do you believe in Christ am?
Why do you think the guys above are so hostile to me?


BTW John

You can now rest easy, I have discovered the bible (not me!!!) says categorically that the universe was all made in six days, though it doesnt appear to say when this happened.

Please dont attack me for what the bible says in black and white John;-

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&verse=11&version=31&context=verse

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=31&verse=17&version=31&context=verse


PB


  • 250.
  • At 01:59 PM on 09 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD

You are being knowingly dishonest to suggest that only dentists dissent from evolution;-

https://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/


The article I posted on Jesus was from Enc Brit CD rom; you are way out of line accusing me of dishonesty.


You actually have no verifiable evidence yourself that species has evolved into species, only models.
proper science is actually verifiable and can be replicated - species to species evolution cannot be replicated or observed.


DD, you seem to think that yawning, ad hominen attacks and posting hyperlinks actually refutes arguments. None of them do.


Dr David A. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University. Traditionally neuroscience is a biological science.

In any case, neither of you evolution lay people even began to address his arguments about chimp chromosomes. Why?


Peter you are calling me out on feathers - what a laugh - you posted a paper on your own website which you thought would blow me out of the water and it backfired on you totally, as above, because it lamented the entire theory was based on no actual evidence.

As for any criticism that I have not answered all questions posted to me, dont make me laugh. So I must answer every question the four of you come up in your time or else I am discredited? If I had not attaempoted to answer JW's 10 magic questions he would have erupted on me.

What a laugh. Amen NEVER came back to answer my questions about why there is no evidence for the evolution of DNA nor why there are no animals - even the simplest - that do not have DNA.

John has totally mispresented my answers on appendix and vas deferens in a very cynical manner. Rodents also have appendix - so where is the proof they used to be something else?

BTW John, human body hair is thought to help in the promotion of scents according to EB.

And also, when I checked the age of the earth was not primarily calculated on estimates of the expansion of the universe (as you said) but primarily on the decay rates of radioactive materials in rock, which requires a number of explicit assumptions. But as you did not seem aware of that you would doubtless neither be aware of the assumptions nor what possible exceptions there might be or how well grounded the assumptions are.

PB

PS DD The difference between Peter, Amen and I is that I always remember and state I am a layman whereas they dont seem to realise they are also laymen outside their specialised fields.

  • 251.
  • At 02:22 PM on 09 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Peter

while you are calling me out, have a wee glance at this piece on feathers;-

Unlike DD's hyperlinks, I am not lazily claiming it refutes anything, just that it adds to the debate.


PB


https://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=63

  • 252.
  • At 05:26 PM on 09 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

I am being sarcastic when I mentioned dentists! However it does not get away from the fact that the lists that you provide are a pathetically small bunch of religious fundamentalist nutters.

Re: Enc Brit

It is very, very, very simple-you claimed the Enc Brit article said something however the previous, opening paragraph which(since you claim to have the Enc Brit CD-Rom)you deliberately left out says something very different!I have been over this again and again and I cannot legislate for your deliberate obtuseness.

PB Please read how science actually works!

"DD, you seem to think that yawning, ad hominen attacks and posting hyperlinks actually refutes arguments. None of them do."

They do!-not my fault if you cannot understand them.

"Dr David A. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University. Traditionally neuroscience is a biological science."

He is a religious fundamentalist nutter. PB we ALL know that Biblical creationism is backed up by religious fundamentalist nutters! this is NOT news! now if you could find objective evidence to back up your claims that would be good.

"In any case, neither of you evolution lay people even began to address his arguments about chimp chromosomes. Why?"

It's been answered! if you want a fuller answer go ask a scientist working in a related field-I did post the links!

And PB you crticised Peter and Amen for speaking outside their related fields then cite a neuroscientist talking about chromosones!

As to your answer to am in post 247 the short answer is intelligent Christians do not have a problem with evolution/science.

"I also get quite angry about lies and intimidation at the cost of truth generally."

So do I, that;s why I don't like Biblical creationists.

"the attacks on me are fuelled to a large extent by animosity and prejduice "

You know why! IE., your deliberate ignorance/obtuseness etc

And that post illustrates why it useless in trying to debate with you-it is your religious faith that is driving you.


PB-

"John has totally mispresented my answers on appendix and vas deferens in a very cynical manner. Rodents also have appendix - so where is the proof they used to be something else?"

I'm glad you feel this is all I misrepresented you on; my summary of the rest of your answers isn't a problem for you it seems. Ref. the appendix: are you claiming to have some kind of advantage over those who have had their appendix removed?


"BTW John, human body hair is thought to help in the promotion of scents according to EB."

Do you shave? Does your wife?


I love the way you've ignored all the rest of what I've said to you. I think it's obvious that you're well and truly beat.

  • 254.
  • At 11:14 AM on 10 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


John.

I have highlighted the appendix as typical of how you have avoided my rational answers to your questions while focussing on questions I have not yet got time to analyse properly.

ie in my opinion you have actually treated all my answers in this way.

But you are still not explaining why rodents have appendix or where the as defernse is in primates and other simpler life forms.

You dont even give a rational response to the body hair answer I gave.

If you spit on the simplest and most direct answers I give you why would I bother answering the most complex again?

Whil I have repeatedly presented interpretations on Genesis as explicityly not dogmatic, but rather questions, you have insisted on accepting them as my dogmatic view.

Why do you do this John?


PB

  • 255.
  • At 04:42 PM on 10 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

"how you have avoided my rational answers to your questions "

LOL! rational answers!

PB- "Whil I have repeatedly presented interpretations on Genesis as explicityly not dogmatic, but rather questions, you have insisted on accepting them as my dogmatic view. Why do you do this John?"


I'm attempting to show you how weak those answers are, and how it is incoherent to hold them simultaneously and impossible to hold them scientifically. Your position is weak enough that it can't even be a rational position. You seem to want to hold to this idea that if only you can throw out a response that manages to sneak by this scientific test or that, then you've got yourself a position that can uphold creationism. You're not looking at the big picture: I'll repeat what I said earlier. It isn't one but many proofs added together that convince scientists of the fact of evolution.

What do I mean by fact? I mean that evolution is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." In other words, since it is the theory which best explains what we see around us (no other even comes close PB, no matter what you hope for creationism!), scientists proceed with the belief that it occurred, and continue to test it from there. Those tests (perhaps like a few of my ten questions) have substantiated the theory of evolution, not contradicted it. Of course, if some tests start to contradict evolution then we may have a problem. But so far, nothing does. You may point to the fossil record, as creationists love to do. But there are two things that can be said in response: (A) a lack of fossils does not contradict anything, since it is a presence of contradictory evidence that would falsify evolution, not the absence of fossils that could well be missing for other reasons, and (B) paleontologists have found MANY transitional fossils, if not many human ones.

We're working on that. But that doesn't rubbish the theory of evolution or even COME CLOSE to making creationism a viable candidate for its replacement! Why? Because the fossil record is only a tiny portion of evidence for evolution. As I said, there are already plenty of signs in every scientific record that evolution occurred. I think what you're fundamentally not seeing in this debate is that it is foolhardy to deny something on the basis of the 1% you can garner against it while ignoring the 99% that substantiates it.

Let me give you some quotes to further clarify this point. "There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms." - Theodosius Dobzhansky. "It is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution." - Neil Campbell. "The historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved 'facthood' as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality." - Douglas J. Futuyma. "Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)"


Given that, PB, let's look at your "not dogmatic" stance on creationism. There are two ways you might mean this.

If by "not dogmatic" you mean that you are entirely open to considering both creationism and evolution, then at this point, to maintain rationality, you should be leaning heavily toward evolution for the reasons above. In fact, in this sense, all scientists are "not dogmatic"; they are open to all the possibilities which present the best evidence. Evolution has presented the best evidence, therefore they are evolutionists. Therefore, if you wish to be both rational and "not dogmatic", you should be an evolutionist.

If, however, by "not dogmatic" you mean that you are a creationist but not convinced on how to answer all of the devastating questions asked of it, like some of the ones I asked above to which you had no answer, then I can't help you: you are avoiding rational thought in order to prolong your belief in creationism. If this is what you mean by "not dogmatic" then there's no convincing you, since the evidence does not matter to you, you'll only continue to stop-gap with band-aids your outmoded belief.

If you wish to continue this conversation, I think I'm going to need clarification on which of the above definitions of "not dogmatic" you're using.

  • 257.
  • At 09:54 AM on 11 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

yes DD, very funny.

I said previously that yawning does not refute arguments - does it need to be stated that laughing doesnt either?

If the human appendix is a vestigal organ then why do rodents and other "primitive" animals have them?

PB

  • 258.
  • At 05:15 PM on 11 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

Your canards(arguments) have been answered many, many times.

Incidentally PB perhaps you could back up what you are saying with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable-strange that you cannot since you constantly cite sources that rely on empirical sources?

Anyway re: appendix

Why not Google and look it up yourself.

For the moment why not restrict yourself to answering John's points.

  • 259.
  • At 03:26 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

very slippery DD

Syaing my arguments have been answered many many times is not ncessarily the same thing as saying that they have been, nor that they have actually been refuted in any answers you have given.

for example;-

I have stated several times that rodents have appendix and this does not fit in with the theory that man's appendix is a vestigal organ. fact.

It is up to you to explain why rodents and other "primative" animals might have the appendix.

I also challenged Amen, a genetics Phd, to explain why there is no evidence that DNA ever evolved and that even the simplest organisms have it. No answer.


It seems very suspect that you claim such absolute truth on these matters when you are just as much a layman as me.

PB

  • 260.
  • At 04:33 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Errr PB

You are a lazy so and so.

Your canards have been answered and these oft-repeated canards have been answered many times. If you do not want to understand them due to your fundamentalist faith that is not my fault.

PB your question was answered re: evolving DNA. I took the time and effort to ask a working scientist in one of the links I gave further up and I gave his answer and eg.s of papers. As usual this was ignored and it was something that could have been done very easily by yourself if you were sincere and genuine. Also looking back over the posts Amenhotep did answer you. As in so many things it is our fault if you cannot understand points that are given to you.

So you have a PC, access to google so knock yourself out and find some answers yourself!

I am not claiming absolute truth-science is not like that and I am far from being an expert-unlike you sound off on every branch of science as if *you* are an expert.

As JW said you are beat.

Incidentally DNA is empirical evidence so in that case yo will be able to back up the Biblical creationist version with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable...

PB- I see that you've resorted to having absolutely nothing to say to me about anything of any substance anymore. You've resorted to the irrelevance of a rodent appendix (rodents are evolving too, aren't they?) when there's an entire litany of remaining questions for you to answer and a further request for clarification on your "not dogmatic" stance. What's more, it's self-delusional since you seem to believe you've answered my questions about redundant human anatomy (only ONE of the ten questions above, all of which remain unanswered in a coherent way).

Beat, PB, is what you are. Now if you're interested in learning further on the basis of the premise that evolution occurred beyond any reasonable doubt and in the absence of any better theory, then we could have a great conversation about it. But you'll need to admit first that creationism doesn't have the answers evolution has.

Hello pb,

John Wright correctly noted that you are thoroughly beaten, and mostly due to your own doing. So if I continue to point out the errors in your posts it might be perceived as kicking a man who is already down on the ground, merely able to produce last desperate spasms. But as I hadn't paid attention to this thread for a while I do still want to reply to what you wrote earlier.

"Peter you are calling me out on feathers - what a laugh - you posted a paper on your own website which you thought would blow me out of the water and it backfired on you totally, as above, because it lamented the entire theory was based on no actual evidence."

Pb, YOU brought on that paper (you placed a false, non-existant quote from it on this thread remember), but you were too lazy to look it up. So I did it for you. That doesn't make it MY paper that I should defend. On the contrary, I showed you how it was out of date by pointing you to more recent papers about feather fossils found in China. The same stuff I pointed out to you before you came up with the Prum paper. Your false quote was already out of date when you posted it. So how about it pb, have you read the more recent papers yet? Please give us your explanation of the fossil photographs in the paper from 2003 since you continue to claim there are none.

"And also, when I checked the age of the earth was not primarily calculated on estimates of the expansion of the universe (as you said) but primarily on the decay rates of radioactive materials in rock, which requires a number of explicit assumptions. But as you did not seem aware of that you would doubtless neither be aware of the assumptions nor what possible exceptions there might be or how well grounded the assumptions are."

WHAHAHAHA!! Pb, those criticising you are not aware? Care to read the page I linked to IN THE VERY FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD! An extensive explanation on dating methods by a devout christian. Who is embarresed by people like you and who fears that such nuts will drive people away from christianity. As I thoroughly hope it will. As I've stated before, that is the reason why I keep up this fruitless debate, to show the lunacy that religon inspires in some.

  • 263.
  • At 11:05 AM on 18 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


John

If rodents are more "primitive" animals than humans how do they have appendix so like humans?

Isnt this a bit of a cooincidence considering how far apart they are in the supposed phylogenic tree?

Incidentally, I have had some more reading time and have found these references

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=31&verse=17&version=31&context=verse

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&verse=11&version=31&context=verse

As you will see that makes up three explicit references in the bible, including Genesis that state the universe was created in six days.

Using the well established literary rule of attestation, that would make a very strong case for six days creation.

Anything else is taking the passages out of context, it would appear...


Pete

The comments I made about radiocarbon assumptions were primarily directed at John, and you are not contesting he was mistaken in aging the earth by the expansion of the universe.

Having said that, that is an interesting link in post 1 which I have had a quick flick at.

I think the key point is the reliability of the models being used to interpret radioactivity decay over 4.6 billion years to produce dating methods.

Obviously there are perfectly well qualified people on both sides of the debate, old earth vs young earth, obviously with the majority being old earth. Having said that few people believe the bible anyway, so that is not surprising.

One query I do have is the RATE group with Drs Snelling and Austin claim to have radiocarbon dated recently formed rock from lava eruptions and found it dated millions of years of age, using independent labs. They seem to be saying that inconsistencies like this are quietly brushed under the carpet.

Obviously it is beyond me at this time to make an informed judgement.

But what I can say with certainty is this;

Geology previously held a uniformatism viewpoint that said all fossils and rocks were created gradually over millions of years, but in more recent times it has come round to a near creationist viewpoint of neo-catastrophism, which holds fossils and rocks were created by massive catastrophic floods. That is a huge move and not so very far away from Noah's flood.

Science clearly undergoes serious upheavals in its views - it would seem every century - and now quantum mechanics, which is impacting every other discipline, is posing theories which have the potential to do it all again.

So I am not inclined to take mainstream radiocarbon dating at face value.


After all, the former editor of New Scientist, Nigel Calder, says the entire scientific community is censoring dissent on climate change science because of prejudice;-

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

So who are you or I at this point to say that broader truth on radiocarbon dating is not also being censored or that it is about to be revolutionised by new findings?

Physics has undergone some radical changes since its infancy but Jesus Christ said "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away".

(he also affirmed the marriage of Adam and Eve **at the beginning of creation** and Noah's flood as historical events, BTW).

PB

  • 264.
  • At 07:39 PM on 18 Jul 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

We all know that "scientific" Biblical creationism is supported by a bunch of fanatical, religious, fundamentalist nutters. Posting "evidence" from 2 such specimens ie., Snelling and Austin is nothing new(btw they were debunked ages ago). It would be great if you could get some objective evidence to back up your claims, otherwise just like the Hindu creationists your claims are not scientific rather a view held by a bunch of religious, fundamentalist nutters.

Incidentally I have no problem with that, however I do have a problem with you claiming your ideas are "scientific".

"he also affirmed the marriage of Adam and Eve **at the beginning of creation** and Noah's flood as historical events"

Great shame (as in all the world's myths) that not a shred of evidence was left to support such claims.

Hello to those few who haven't grown tired of it yet,

You said it for me DD, just more answers from 'authority' (that is, creationists without a shred of credibility) from pb, no evidence at all that can withstand scientific scrutiny.

"Geology previously held a uniformatism viewpoint that said all fossils and rocks were created gradually over millions of years, but in more recent times it has come round to a near creationist viewpoint of neo-catastrophism, which holds fossils and rocks were created by massive catastrophic floods. That is a huge move and not so very far away from Noah's flood."

Care to produce your evidence for that pb, evidence that meets scientific standards?

PB- I am not mistaken in the slightest in what I said above on dating. If you think I am, do tell.

With regard to your two verses, what you've proved is not that God created the world in six days but that the author of Exodus referred to God creating the world in six days.

If you actually believe that this constitutes explanations on the level demanded by my ten questions above, we aren't even having the same conversation!

  • 267.
  • At 10:15 PM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Hi JW

(since when do you "demand" answers of me to your questions?)


You challenged the biblical record repeatedly above, claiming Genesis is myth and not to be read literally in the creation story.

I am simply pointing out that this is exactly the opposite of how Christ and the rest of the NT authors saw the matter.

In fact Josephus said plainly that Jews of his time - and hence the early church - believed in a young earth, only around 4k years old at that time.

Dont necesarily confuse this with my ultimate opinion, often I state facts without making it clear my own opinion.

(When you dated the earth above you did so by expansion of the universe, not radiation decay, which is the normal practise).


Peter - ref uniformatism, see;-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

I have been looking at radiometric dating and the assumptions and stages of filtering of data are quite surprising, to my mind.

Although we have only been monitoring raditation decay for under 100 years, uniformatism assumes that is fully sufficient to ensure we know it has been completely constant for 4.6 billion years.

It must also assume a known level of daughter product to begin with 4.6bn years ago, a closed system etc etc. ie this is uniformatism, which is already on the way out in geology.

I wouldnt like to bet my life on that sample timespan or those assumptions being the whole story, would you?

There are many, many factors that can affect the level of daughter products tested for, eg extreme heat can reset the radiation clock entirely.

Leaching is a serious factor too, only very select grains out of a whole rock are used in Uranium-pb dating (considered the most accurate method) and dates which do not fit in with expected age ranges are discarded.

Also, such methods cannot date rocks formed in recent decades... that does not inspire my confidence.

Of course these methods are by consensus accurate and mainstream, but of course there is never complete consenus in science and technically all such theories are provisional, arent they?

Alot of this is physics Pete so it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as it is your area.

sincerely

PB

PB- When I use the word "demand" in that sentence, I'm referring to the fact that a valid answer to questions such as I have posed is required to be of a certain kind to qualify as an answer at all. In other words, I'm saying you haven't answered the strict demands of the questions (not that I am demanding that you answer my questions!).

I accept your point that various biblical authors who read Genesis 1 likely regarded them as literal. We could argue about whether there's evidence that Jesus himself believed Genesis 1 to be historical. But all of this is irrelevant. You don't prove that a text is true by appealing to whether other people have believed that the text is true! It's quite simply irrelevant whether Paul or the authors of OT texts believed Genesis to be literal: it doesn't make a case for or against reading it that way.

You're avoiding the consequences of your answers to my ten questions above. They remain unresolved PB! :-) I know you hate to be reminded about that, but I'm still waiting for my outstanding challenges to be met.

You also mention dating, saying: "When you dated the earth above you did so by expansion of the universe, not radiation decay, which is the normal practise." My point is that there are a variety of dating methods which all yield a result within the same ballpark. They all produce results which confirm the others.

  • 269.
  • At 02:39 AM on 25 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John

You appear to be moving the goalposts - or forgetting when you left them.

In earlier posts you said it was incorrect to take the plain reading of genesis 1.

I am simply stating it is completely in keeping with the rest of the bible.

In the quote below you will see Christ quoting passages directly from Genesis about two flesh becoming one, (which is quoted directly from the creation of marriage for Adam and Eve in Genesis).

Christ explicityly puts this at the start of creation in the passage below.

The question you beg about whether this proves creationism is properly another debate; I am simply sayiing, the bible in its entirety clearly holds to a plain reading of Genesis one and that this is the traditional and original view of the Jews and the church.

That being the case, and you are not contesting it, it surely follows that Christians who believe in evolution are placing more trust in science than in the whole counsel of the bible on genesis 1.

I would not for a second fall out with such a person over this, but I still contend my point is true and more faithful to the whole biblical view on the matter.

If I havent answered all your questions to your liking, I have certainly done it to the best of my ability at the time, in good faith.

Even scientists who are qualified in the fields you are discussing would not be as dogmatic as you are, if they were preseting a paper!

You certainly havent explained why rodents and humans have the same "vestiginal" organ, the appendix.

It just doesnt make sense this organ would persist into humans if it had no use.

Have you found out yet whether rodent vas deferens is also similar to humans'?

And on the old starlight point, as I understand it the big bag theory has equally serious problems with starlight ages with no evidence to resolve the problem.

So do we reject both theories or just the one we dont like?

I am always open to better scholarship and of course we do have to expect biblical understanding and science models will likely continue to change...


PB

Mark 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

  • 270.
  • At 02:46 AM on 25 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


ps John

Did you ever give your views on why the fossil record has continually and increasingly accentuated the gaps between animal kinds since Darwin?

Darwin of course said exactly the opposite whould happen, but literally millions of fossil finds later the gaps between kinds are much, much starker than when he began and Darwin is contradicted.

If I have attempted to answer your 10 questions John, can you please tell me why you think this has happened?

Remember, as I understand it, this is the theory which was embraced by science and on which the assumption of the existence of evolution was built.

This in turn is the foundation for the assumption of evolution which allows the microbiological "evidence" for evolution to be interpreted in favour of evolution.

But if this foundation is weakened with every year that passes because the fossil record is working against Darwin, doesnt that mean the possibility of interpreting common descent features as common design features becomes more and more plausible?

PB

  • 271.
  • At 03:19 AM on 25 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

John

I finally got a look at the Dover video on fused Chromosomes.

It does seem my original point that correlation is not causation is a valid point, at least from the debater below.

PB


https://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = common ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history.

Under Neo-Darwinism, the common ancestor of humans and apes is thought to have lived about six million years ago. But under Miller's account, it is entirely possible that this chromosomal fusion event happened only 50,000 years ago. In such a case, this chromosomal fusion event thus needs not have anything to do with making us human-like as opposed to ape-like. Clearly this chromosomal fusion event could be extremely far removed from any alleged ancestry with apes.

In essence, we don't know that this chromosomal fusion event happened on a line which leads back to some alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. All we know is that this fusion event happened in the line that led to you and me. Whether that line has common ancestry with apes is a separate question which cannot be answered by this fusion evidence.

All that evolutionists have claimed is that this fusion event occurred after the split that led to humans, so it occurs only in the human lineage. Evidence of a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence that our line leads all the way back to apes.

PB- Thanks for the reply.


"In earlier posts you said it was incorrect to take the plain reading of genesis 1. I am simply stating it is completely in keeping with the rest of the bible."

But that has no bearing on the truthfulness or falsehood of reading it literally! It's irrelevant. I'm making the claim that Genesis 1 does not describe literal events. Whether or not any of the other biblical authors agree or disagree with me is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I'm right! The question of whether or not I'm right can only be definitively decided on the basis of science. If science contradicts a literal Genesis, then even if every single Jew and every single Christian who ever lived believed it to be literal, it is scientifically impossible that it is literal!


"The question you beg about whether this proves creationism is properly another debate; I am simply sayiing, the bible in its entirety clearly holds to a plain reading of Genesis one and that this is the traditional and original view of the Jews and the church."

Scholars like Ehrman, who we're dealing with in another thread, would disagree with you on that. And of course I'd disagree along with Ehrman in your desire to read "the bible in its entirety". But, again, the question of whether or not all of Jewish and Christian tradition regards Genesis 1 as literal is not really something I'm interested in debating - it really doesn't interest me with regard to this debate and certainly, as you say, doesn't help one iota to prove or disprove creationism.


"If I havent answered all your questions to your liking, I have certainly done it to the best of my ability at the time, in good faith."

I appreciate that. But I haven't yet heard you say that, tentatively, you believe evolution is the theory that best explains the facts (which is the rational position for someone in your position to take). You haven't been able to answer my challenges, and yet evolution answers them all very very well: that alone is enough to pencil in a belief that evolution occurred, until a better theory is posited.


"Did you ever give your views on why the fossil record has continually and increasingly accentuated the gaps between animal kinds since Darwin?"

Well, again, the fossil record is not the key component of evidence in a case for evolution. It's certainly a helpful excess validation of evolutionary theory and it can help immensely in piecing together the jigsaw puzzle. As I understand it, there is nothing emerging in the field of paleontology that does anything but reinforce evolutionary theory. Remember also that much has been accomplished and understood about evolution since Darwin, so it's a little lame to appeal to what he predicted rather than what the best minds since Darwin have discovered and now predict, if you see my point.

  • 273.
  • At 12:45 PM on 25 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Hi again John

It is an unproven assumption which is part of your core belief system that only science can prove you are right on genesis.

IN a strictly scientific worldview you are right but I dont accept that science has all the answers about life. I dont think you do either; you believe in God.

You are also missing the point that strictly speaking all science is provisional (as is biblical interpretation).

Not sure if I said Genesis 1 does not prove anything, to my mind it certainly does.

You can reject this on the basis of naturalistic assumptions but you cant finally reject it in absolute truth.

Undergirding all your assertions is the unproven and unacknowledged assumption that only science can determine ultimate truth for mankind.

I am sorry John but I dont buy that.

It is a very definite belief system.

You dont seem to be even conscious that you have a belief system and worldview, you just seem to think you have abolsute truth, which is funny because only spiritual credos postulate that. That would fit with evolution being a religious belief in its own right of course.

You are absolutely right, evolution is the best theory to fit the facts "rationally" speaking.

I fully accept that, and that it is the mainstream scientific position.

However, all that is conditional on the assumption that God does not do the supernatural.

If we equivocate on that, as I do (and I believe you do to) then just about all evidence for common descent can easily be seen as evidence for common design, IMO.

I also dont know where you get the idea that I have failed to answer all your questions logically.

The big problem with your analysis is that you cant accept that God is and can create light.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept that Genesis was not written to show the minutiae of HOW creation was carried out, jst an overview sequence.


1) Ref fossils, I get the whiff that you really dont know what I am talking about on the fossil record, you made no really attempt to address the point; The fossil record is daily working against the theory of evolution; The Phylogenic tree from the Enc Brit article posted above confirms it; and this undermines the critical assumption of microbiology in assuming that evolution is a valid theory to support. You have not addressed any of this.

2) You have provided no reasonable explanation for rodent appendix.

3) The "horizon problem" in the big bang theory shows light would have to travel much further than it could have done in the postulated 14bn years - exactly the same problem as "old starlight" and yet you are not dumping the big bang theory are you? You cant have it both ways!

4) The fused human Chromosomes you were so strong about do not prove a link to chimps, just that two Chromosomes "appear" to have fused in the human genome. If further such fusions are found in the human Chromosome what will that mean?


got to run

cheers
PB


PB- Thanks again.


"Undergirding all your assertions is the unproven and unacknowledged assumption that only science can determine ultimate truth for mankind."

Not at all. I'm entirely willing to say that one can understand things theologically that can't be understood scientifically. There are plenty such things in Christian theology. But PB, creationism isn't one of them. The reason for that is that creationism details specific, verifiable events that needed to happen in a certain timeframe and a certain order otherwise the theology is invalid. I'm fine with the concept of someone saying that they believe something without evidence on theological faith - I do the same with regard to my belief in God. Without evidence I have chosen to believe in God, which is fine within that concept. But that concept doesn't apply to creationism, because creationism makes claims of both a theological nature and a scientific nature. In other words, it makes claims that can be tested, and which are falsifiable. When we test it, we find it to be wanting.


"...you just seem to think you have abolsute truth..."

No, despite my forthrightness, I don't believe that I'm privy to any special information or am capable of understanding any more than anyone else. All I'm asking of you is your subscription to the statement: "Evolution is the theory which best explains the facts in observable science, and should be regarded as truth unless and until a better theory comes along." That's all I'm claiming, and there's certainly nothing dogmatic or 'absolute' about that. Can you subscribe to that sentence?


I'm out of time, but I'll get to your four questions hopefully later today.

Part II:


"1) Ref fossils, I get the whiff that you really dont know what I am talking about on the fossil record, you made no really attempt to address the point; The fossil record is daily working against the theory of evolution; The Phylogenic tree from the Enc Brit article posted above confirms it; and this undermines the critical assumption of microbiology in assuming that evolution is a valid theory to support. You have not addressed any of this."

Honestly I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The most you can demonstrate from the fossil record is that there is an absence of certain transitional forms - the socalled 'missing link'. Even if this is true, I'm not sure how you want it to be able to invalidate evolution. That's like calling up your cable company to tell them you aren't receiving a TV signal when in fact the only problem is with 1 out of your 200 channels. And, as I pointed out before, it's an argument from silence in the fossil record, where those fossils could be missing for reasons other than the conjecture that evolution did not occur!


"2) You have provided no reasonable explanation for rodent appendix."

First, this was brought into the debate in a list of many redundant parts of anatomy; this is only one. So if you manage to gain a point here, it's merely a sub-clause of a wider subject you haven't been able to deal with, whereas evolution explains it all perfectly! Say I concede that you're right and the appendix has some use in humans. Does that mean evolution didn't occur? Of course not; evolution could still explain it. But say you concede that I'm right and the appendix has no use whatsoever in humans. Does that mean creationism could still have occurred? No, it still creates a huge problem: a creator would not have any reason to install a useless piece of anatomy! Again, no matter what way you slice this, it's deeply, fundamentally, intensely favourable to evolution and very difficult for creationism. To answer your question, I suppose it's possible that the appendix while useless in humans could be useful in rodents (this would actually help rather than hinder the case for common ancestory!). In summary, I'm not all that concerned about losing this point to you if you wish to take it. I still hold the vast majority of the cards in this game. If I'm wrong, it's no big loss to evolution, but if you're wrong, it's a huge loss to creationism, for the above reasons.


"3) The 'horizon problem' in the big bang theory shows light would have to travel much further than it could have done in the postulated 14bn years - exactly the same problem as "old starlight" and yet you are not dumping the big bang theory are you? You cant have it both ways!"

I'm not sure you've quite understood the horizon problem, but let's again grant you the point for the sake of argument. (See how generous I am? Always granting you the point.) Say you're right about this. How does this help creationism? Doesn't this add to the weight of the case against creationism? In other words, if it's a problem for cosmologists who postulate 14 billion years, the problem becomes a hell of a lot bigger for creationists who postulate 6000 years! This point is self-defeating, in other words. An own-goal. To answer your question, physicists are continually working through these issues and understand a lot more than you think about the nature of expansion, the big bang and much more in cosmology. This happens to be one of the many subjects that just don't make sense except in the light of the big bang and evolution of the universe, so it's ironic that you're attempting to use it against evolution!


"4) The fused human Chromosomes you were so strong about do not prove a link to chimps, just that two Chromosomes "appear" to have fused in the human genome. If further such fusions are found in the human Chromosome what will that mean?"

Further such fusions wouldn't make sense unless all of our relatives (the great apes) had them too, in which case it wouldn't disprove common ancestry. The point is that evolution, like any good scientific theory, made testable predictions, and when they were tested, they confirmed the theory. Say the theory of gravity postulates that a ball will drop to the ground when dropped. If a ball is let go and it doesn't drop to the ground, and no other phenomenon can explain it, then the theory of gravity has been disproved. But if the ball drops, then the theory of gravity has been confirmed and validated (the testable prediction it makes turns out to be right). That's what's happened. For common ancestry to be true, only a fusion of two chromosomes could account for the difference between human and ape genome. The fusion was discovered, validating the theory of evolution. To answer your question, if another fusion is discovered in human genome and none is discovered in ape genome, then you've blown a huge hole in the theory of evolution.

But that isn't the case, is it?!

  • 276.
  • At 04:58 PM on 27 Jul 2007,
  • pb wrote:

cheers JW

1) John it is not the absence of “certain” transitional forms, it is the almost total absence of any “transitional” forms. The few that exist are highly debatable.

Can you actually answer the question directly;- Why after 150 years since Darwin and MILLIONS of fossils being found is it only transitional fossils that are never found?
You have also totally missed by point that evolution established itself into scientific theory on the foundation of the fossil record. It is not that there is a problem with 1 in 200 channels. It is the fact that the cable company is going bankrupt.

Every year that passes the gaps where transitional fossils should be remain empty while the known types are "filled in" more and more each year. I am not claiming this proves you wrong, I am asking you to provide a logical explanation for this? That is all I am doing in this entire debate.


2) John you challenged me directly on the appendix and I gave you the direct answer. I also answered you that EB says human body hair disperses pheromes, so it too has a purpose. Tonsils too are now known to have an immune function and the coccyx has a purpose in defacating. As I understand it hundreds of organs previously thought to be vestigal are now known to be not. The vas deferens is not simply a connecting tube, it is also muscular, so its purpose may be more complex than you realise. I am still curious what other “primitive” animals have them similar to humans.


3) Creationists are also still working through these issues. I take your point about scale but once you start counting up from 14 billion years, that is a lot of time to account for. To be consistent in principle it is not an own goal but a common problem for both theories.

4) As far as I understand, this “fused” chromosome but was not precicted but found and then read into the theory of evolution. I admit it can fit the theory but I don’t see that this is proven, and don’t see anyone has actually demonstrated it. I haven’t seen anyone say the DNA around this centromere in the human genome matches the chimp DNA, eg, have I missed that?

Lastly, I also challenge your view that this should be battle for victory; in my view it is a debate to enlighten towards truth, and I do not for a second believe I understand either side of it fully.

PB

PS – Here is a post I wrote earlier but did not get to post, sorry…


JW, interesting discussion...
The resurrection is also a theological and scientific claim... is it to be rejected because it is not rational?
I think you are making artificial distinctions between theology and science. Using your logic we would have to reject every supernatural event in the bible as untrue because it cannot be proven; that would not leave much bible.

How do you think evolution has been falsified?
Generally speaking I accept that evolution is the best theory at present, in that most scientists believe it and that few would consider creationism from a blank sheet because of cultural conditioning generally - similar to your view on man-made climate change.
(BTW If you dont mind me saying, I really think you should address your ability to reject such science but not allow me the same privilege.
I get the sense you are dodging the issue in your own mind never mind on the blog.)
Anyway it does have to be said that Gallup polls consistently find 5% of US scientists to be YECs. It begs the question of what importance is majoritism in discerning scientific or indeed theological truth!

I do agree evolution has a very strong logic as a system and scientifically is the only theory we have under current conditions - in the first place because any supernatural event is a non-starter in modern science.
(incidentally this poses an interesting question as to how you can falsify an unscientific theory, which also begs the question "why bother with the Dover trial at all if a Creator's creation would be excluded from secular schools anyway?")

But there are very serious problems with evolution as a theory;-
1) There is no evidence that DNA ever evolved, every living creature has it, even bacteria - where did it come from? Evolution has no answer but creationism does.
2) Mutations as far as I am aware cannot and do not create new DNA code; all they can do is delete or detroy code or add in repeat sequences from exisiting code. Where does the new code come from then? Evolution cant say but creationism can.
If you look in post 1 Peter added an interesting link for a theistic evolutionary geologist. What is noticeable is that the geologist gives sharp defences of how his processes are secure and valid but very clumsy and general defences of very probing objections from YECs, in his appendix. It does appear as double standards, which we are all guilty of to some extent to shore up our beliefs.
I would appreciate it if you could compare the appendix in Peter's link with this link from AIG.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp
I dont agree with everything on that AIG link, especially the letter writers request for evidence to "back up his argument", but perhaps you could give a brief response to every numbered point on this link in the same manner as I approached your ten questions and the chromosome question.
As I understand it there are some questions as to whether chromosomes can acutally fuse in this manner; whether the "fused" section bears any resemblence to chimp DNA and what possible further "fused" chromosomes (if found) in the human genome mean for the theory you suggest.

Lastly, may I suggest you read a little on the history of science and scientific thought. The revolutions have been constant and astounding and it certainly underlines for me how provision modern science is.
It is far to easy to think we have "got the truth" with evolution but from what I can see this thinking has frequently been totally overturned in many areas of science through the centuries.
One example would be the recent rejection of uniformatism in geology (which asserted fossils were created over millions of years) and the embracing of neo-catastophism, which asserts fossils were created in mini catastopies.
This is certainly over half way toward accepting the Noachian Flood, compared to uniformatism.
This has potentially serious implications for unformatism in relation to the assumption that radiation decay has always been constant for 4.6bn years.
Radiometric dating depends on this assumption, but if it has been given up in one area of geology can it happen in another? Can it not happen?
I remind myself that biblical interpretation has not stood still either of millenia!
Thanks... later...
PB




Amen
Please drop the assumption you have absolute truth on this matter.
I am certainly not approaching it like that and I believe in absolute truth.
Why do so many relativistic thinkers on this blog who do not believe in absolute truth speak as though they were speaking ex-cathedra? it is such a paradox!
If you think the Magnificat cant have been verbatim how narrow are the mansions of your soul! Can one of the most Godly women who ever lived not sing in poetry when she finds she is to give birth to the saviour of the world?
The type of woman she was, she would have been constantly worshipping and praising God during her normal daily duties, even if only inwardly. This practise is scriptural and later a command by Paul. So the magnificat could have been the climax of a life of worship and meditation on the prophecies of the messiah and the psalms.
Historical narrative does not need to be precise at all times to be inspired. This confuses occult automatic writing with holy writ.
You laugh at it but you have given *no* serious answer to the fact that disprepencies are normal from accounts of the same event; newspapers do it all the time and it is completely normal in police investigations; if it does not happen police are very suspicious. You raise valid counterpoints to this but dont pretend you have refuted my argument; you havent even begun.

Can you please stand up your claims the women were going to rebury Jesus?

Can you please explain the unconscious soldiers at the tomb, what knocked out these elite shock troopers of the Roman Empire; bright white robes?

Why were the soldiers bribed by the authorities not to talk about what happened to them if there was nothing to hide?

Why did water pour from Jesus side on the cross when pierced with a spear (a generally accepted sign of death in modern medicine)?
How did Jesus later eat fish and allow Thomas to put his fingers in his wounds if only a ghost arose?
Amen, you are very well read and very intelligent but you have had to climb down on this blog before, as have I, so a little more humility perhaps?
PB

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,

I return from vacation and throw an unsuspecting look at this thread. Only to find that instead of growing some sense and concede, pb has produced another series of posts. The latest one addressed to me reminds me a bit of what my neighbours dog left near my front door. Most unpleasant when you unsuspectingly stumble onto it as I did in this thread. However, the UK whether quickly took care of that nuisance outside my door and similarly I wil try to flush away that latest unpleasant package pb dumped on this thread.

"Although we have only been monitoring raditation decay for under 100 years, uniformatism assumes that is fully sufficient to ensure we know it has been completely constant for 4.6 billion years."

Yes, and since there is no evidence to the contrary that extrapolation is the best we have. And it's actually a lot stronger than you suggest, as radiometric data can be verified against other dating methods like ice core measurements (going back ~100000 years). And you guessed it pb, they completely confirm radiometric dating methods as being accurate, so the assumption is very safe. So safe in fact that 'assumption' is hardly the right word anymore. Unless you consider things like gravity an assumption too of course.

"It must also assume a known level of daughter product to begin with 4.6bn years ago, a closed system etc etc. ie this is uniformatism, which is already on the way out in geology."

Yes, a number of conditions must be met, and they are met pb. If it was all so flawed as you suggest then dating methods using different elements would all give different answers, but they don't. The very fact that all independent methods agree between each other shows their reliability.

"I wouldnt like to bet my life on that sample timespan or those assumptions being the whole story, would you?"

If you would like to bet against it then name the amount pb. I have no moral problem lifting money from religious fools.

"Leaching is a serious factor too, only very select grains out of a whole rock are used in Uranium-pb dating (considered the most accurate method) and dates which do not fit in with expected age ranges are discarded."

Haha! Same answer as previously: if leaching was a problem then different methods would not agree. Leaching of some elements would make those measurements disagree with other methods whose element concentrations had not been changed. And it doesn't.

"Also, such methods cannot date rocks formed in recent decades... that does not inspire my confidence."

A fine display of ignorance there then.

"Alot of this is physics Pete so it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as it is your area."

Happy to have given them to you in this post pb. You on the other hand are still lacking answers on many questions. How is your reading on evolution literature going, still stuck at half a paper? Any thoughts on emus, ostriches and other presently living species with intermediate limbs?

Peter

  • 278.
  • At 09:35 PM on 15 Aug 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Hi Pete

good to chat again.

The first point I would make is that I am not a funadmentalist and am therefore not taking a fundamentalist position on this; I am not by any means certain your view of radiometric dating is wrong.

All I would say at this moment in time is that without any question whatsoever there are very many delicate parameters that must be set to get the "correct" date from radiometric dating. Even then, I understand nowadays only one method out of many is considered relatively accurate, uranium-pb.

Only very carefully selected specks of rock from very select types of rock can be tested; There are so many parameters in the mathematical formula that are estimated to be constant over 4.6 bn years and assumed to be correct; it is assumed there are no other variables that should be included; if answers come out the other end which do not add up to what is expected they are rejected for quite a number of different reasons based on physically geographical processes.

Regarding ice core dating, again, I would not be surprised to find a similarly complex model based on numerous assumptions which must "agree" with expectations or be rejected.

I think the recent rejection of the old "rock solid" assumption of uniformatism in physical geography is a factor which would undermine my certainty in radiometric dating.

Just to repeat, this is quite a significant step away from the idea that fossils were created over a long time towards the idea they were created in mini-catastophes - that is quite a paradigm shift!
This is moving significantly towards the traditional idea that most fossils were created in a worldwide flood.

Who would have anticipated such a shift in mainstream opinion?
I wonder how many of the experts would bet their lives that there would be no further revolutionary theories which might embarrass old theories in future?

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but as you know I do believe the bible first and foremost and according to many passages it does seem to me at this time to point to a young earth.

Exodus says God created the earth in six days an rested as the pattern for man's week; Christ said Adam and Eve were married at the start of creation; the given ages of apparently each man before Abraham do not leave much time before him and creation.

I would just sign off by adding once again, that there are of course quite a number of people -well qualified in this specific field, where you are not- who disagree with you.

And I would also just remind you that we have recently seen significant changes in geology towards a biblical viewpoint.
Most experts obviously agree with you, but not all and we know that the history of science in full of revolutions in understanding. Think how Einstein ( a cultural Jew and uniquivocal believer in God ) revolutionised physics! In fact, it explicitly informed his physics and he railed at people who tried to use him to bolster athiesm.

Can you be certain that quantum mechanics will not shed surprising new light/possibilities on the critical assumptions in radiometric dating?

Theology too changes, and I am watching both it and science with interest.

BTW, the latest online edition of Enc Brit says that it is now generally accepted that feathers did NOT evolve directly from scales. This is echoed by wikipedia.
Sorry, I dont have more time,

God bless
PB

PS Here is an entry I put on intelligent design in scottish syllabus for you while you were away;-


Ref sceathers, the latest entry on feather evolution on enc brit online says feathers did not evolve from scales but that it is all still guesswork (hypothetical).

Enc Brit money quote;-
"Feathers are complex and novel evolutionary structures. They did not evolve directly from reptilian scales, as once was thought. Current ***hypotheses*** propose that they evolved through an invagination of the epidermis around the base of a dermal papilla, followed by increasing complexity of form and function."

This is also echoed by the wikipedia feather entry;-
"Evolution
Feathers most likely originated as a filamentous insulation structure, or possibly as markers for mating, with flight emerging only as a secondary purpose. It has been thought that feathers evolved from the scales of reptiles, but recent research suggests that while there is a definite relationship between these structures, it remains uncertain of the exact process. (see Quarterly Review of Biology 77:3 (September 2002): 261-95). In experiments where a virus was used to reduce the levels of certain proteins in chicken embryos, the chickens retained webbed feet, and the scutes developed into feathers. The scales, however, did not develop into feathers, and the research suggests that feathers did not evolve from reptilian scales. [2]"

Conclusion;- looks we are getting further and futher away from finding evidence of sceathers.


added comment today...

Of course, this is only symptomatic of a much bigger problem;

Why after almost 200 years have the millions of fossils found only strengthened creationism and undermined evolution?

The fossils found since Darwin have all confirmed the kinds and gaping chasms of missing functional transitional forms between them; single celled organisms; fish; amphibian; reptile; bird' mammal; vertebrates; plant - where are all the missing links?

This is all confirmed by the huge amount of speculation in the evolutionary tree article from enc brit which I posted above.

At the microbiological level, it is also confirmed by the lack of evidence of any mutation which has actually added new information to a gene as opposed to deleting or replicating existing code.

Such mutations are required to take a species out of natural variation into new species territory in evolution, but as I understand it there are no known examples of this ever happening.


PB

Hello pb,

I wish I had a pound for every claim on radiometric dating you made up out of thin air. A model of exponential decay is as mathematically simple as can be (except for a straigh line perhaps) and yet you claim all those intricate parameters. Whahaha! Care to list what you say those parameters would be, pb? This should be good. Ladies and gentlemen, pb will give you his insightful lecture series on dating methods, revolutionising both experimental and theoretical physics in the process!

"Regarding ice core dating, again, I would not be surprised to find a similarly complex model based on numerous assumptions which must "agree" with expectations or be rejected."

Ah, you didn't read the entire Wiens page then clearly. If you had read (you are literate pb, aren't you?) it, you would have known that ice core measurements are like counting tree rings. Just counting the layers for every year. What complex model? Another display of your ignorance of how the experiments are done then. And another demonstration how religion poisons a persons mind. Does anyone think pb would be so impossibly foolish if it weren't for his religious beliefs? Anyone? Keep posting pb, an embarresment to christians like you is a gift to atheists like me who want to show what mind toxin religion really is.

And would you care to list for us the scientific literature describing these great paradigm changes you mention please? Yes, adhering to scientific standards as usual, peer-reviewed etc.

"Think how Einstein ( a cultural Jew and uniquivocal believer in God ) revolutionised physics!"

WHAHAHAHA! Standard creationist dishonesty, taking occasions where Einstein metaphorically used the word god to turn him into a believer. Even some of your fellow creationists would be embarresed at that. Here is what Einstein said when he once again expressed his displeasure of having his agnostic views distorted by people like you:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

"BTW, the latest online edition of Enc Brit says that it is now generally accepted that feathers did NOT evolve directly from scales. This is echoed by wikipedia."

So nothing in terms of sources that would come close to scientific literature then from you. As usual. Wikipedia, hahaha.

Regarding the other post on feather evolution I'm glad to hear you at least concede defeat on that issue through your complete silence on the extensive scientific literture on the issue. It's been a long embarrasing climb-down for you but I'm glad to hear (or actually judging it from your silence to my reminders) that you finally accept you had no point all along. Thanks for that.

greets,
Peter

  • 280.
  • At 02:10 PM on 16 Aug 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Pete

I'll come back tomorrow, in meantime,

1) any chance of your thoughts of the gaps in the fossil record?

2) The absence of known mutations leading to more complex designs which result in exits from a known species by any organism?

3) You could also look up the papers cited in the wikipedia article on feather evolution.

cheers

PB

  • 281.
  • At 05:00 PM on 16 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Hi Peter,


I have been away too and goodness! PB is up to his old tricks and obtuseness and for that wilful ignorance again!

"This is moving significantly towards the traditional idea that most fossils were created in a worldwide flood."

Back this up with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable.

"Exodus says God created the earth in six days an rested as the pattern for man's week; Christ said Adam and Eve were married at the start of creation; the given ages of apparently each man before Abraham do not leave much time before him and creation."

So what? other creation myths make other claims. People who grew up in these cultures years later believed in their respective creation myths...so by your way of "thinking" they are all true!? Very heavy dose of special pleading there and argument from authority!

"I would just sign off by adding once again, that there are of course quite a number of people -well qualified in this specific field, where you are not- who disagree with you."

Well, an ad hominem there! the problem is PB is that the people who disagree are all rather dim, dishonest, religious, fundamentalist nutters. There first concern is taking a literal interpretation of a primitive, bronze age creation myth and sweet FA to do with science and evidence. But then again intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution and science.

And I see Peter has called you out about the dishonesty about Einstein.

PB there is a difference with theology and science...science welcomes change, theology doesn't and usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world and even then there are failures ie., Biblical creationists.

PB I think you should provide the positive evidence in favour of Biblical creationism and make it objective, credible and verifiable-just one would do to start.

You are a fundamentalist PB!

Is there any point in trying to debate with you?

  • 282.
  • At 03:23 PM on 17 Aug 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Hi again Pete

(see Einstein the theist, at bottom)

No doubt the formula for estimating the age of the earth from radiation decay is not that complicated, but the physical geography the formula attempts to explain most certainly is. Lets just remember this is not observational science but model building, and who can say if all the assumed constants are correct over 4.6bn years or indeed that there are not others not accounted for? Nobody can say of course, all they can say is that this is currently the most advanced model we have and certainly most experts agree with that.

But many factors are known to effect the concentration of the daughter element being tested for; leaching of elements in or out of rocks, variation in mineral content in different parts of the same rock, intense heat, contamination, inherited “old age”, weathering etc etc.

Exceptional heat in previous ages is known to “reset the clock” in rocks being tested and this must be accounted for.

The process of selecting suitable grains to test for daughter elements is itself very laborious with many criteria to get “suitable” samples. Only igneous rocks are suitable, so rocks containing fossils can never be tested, ironically enough, as they are sedimentary.

And if the final radiometric readings are not what are expected any combination of the above physical influences may be used to reject the reading and keep going until the “correct” reading is achieved. It could be argued that is a bit like repeating an EU integration referendum until the voters get the “right” answer.


Out of 100%, how certain would you be that radiometric dating will not undergo any revolutions which would undermine your viewpoint in your lifetime? Could quantum mechanics give us new possibilities for variable rates of radiation decay?

I think for the record we need to remind ourselves that your physics phd is in a very specialised area and I don’t actually know I have ever seen you speak on your field in relation to the evolution or age of earth debate, probably because it is not directly relevant, unless I am mistaken.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that there are only a handful of labs in the world qualified to carry out radiometric dating, so lets be honest you appear to be absolutely certain about something you are almost a complete layman in, which is what I am of course. The only difference is that I am not dogmatic on this, just sceptical. Our respective certainties would all apply even more so to alleged feather evolution, if we are both honest. I mean, you are really just pulling my leg when you (a physics phd) suggest you know better about the lack of evidence for feather evolution than the real experts Encyclopaedia Britannica drafts in to update their articles - aren’t you???

I wouldn’t suggest you are wrong in your views, which you don’t seem to acknowledge, but lets be honest, all science is provisional and that is why scientists are still in work today. Where would science be today if there had never been any Einsteins willing to dissent from the norm and turn current theories on their heads? But that is actually exactly how science works, isn’t it? One theory stands provisionally until a better one comes along from some upstart. Just like the recent shift from uniformatism to neo-catastrophism in geology. ( What I don’t understand right now is how they can totally throw out the theory of long and constant processes in rock formation without this calling into question the same constancy assumed in radiation decay. Do you know?)

This quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica demonstrates how modern physics was revolutionised by a man whose belief in God was intrinsic to his work, Albert Einstein. Note how Newton and Kepler also worked on theological assumptions, just like Einstein;-

“If the history of science is to make any sense whatsoever, it is necessary to deal with the past on its own terms, and the fact is that for most of the history of science natural philosophers appealed to causes that would be summarily rejected by modern scientists. Spiritual and divine forces were accepted as both real and necessary until the end of the 18th century and, in areas such as biology, deep into the 19th century as well.

“Certain conventions governed the appeal to God or the gods or to spirits. Gods and spirits, it was held, could not be completely arbitrary in their actions; otherwise the proper response would be propitiation, not rational investigation. But since the deity or deities were themselves rational, or bound by rational principles, it was possible for humans to uncover the rational order of the world. Faith in the ultimate rationality of the creator or governor of the world could actually stimulate original scientific work. Kepler's laws, Newton's absolute space, and EINSTEIN'S REJECTION OF THE PROBABILISTIC NATURE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS WERE ALL BASED ON THEOLOGICAL, NOT SCIENTIFIC, ASSUMPTIONS. For sensitive interpreters of phenomena, the ultimate intelligibility of nature has seemed to demand some rational guiding spirit. A NOTABLE EXPRESSION OF THIS IDEA IS EINSTEIN'S STATEMENT THAT THE WONDER IS NOT THAT MANKIND COMPREHENDS THE WORLD, BUT THAT THE WORLD IS COMPREHENSIBLE.”
END QUOTE.


Einstein was in no doubt about God’s existence as the following quotes demonstrate;-

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
[All quotes from] The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p.214.

“I see a pattern but my imagination cannot picture the maker of the pattern. I see a clock but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one.” p208.

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details.” P202.

I don’t know, perhaps Einstein made some atheistic comments in his youth and did a U-turn later on; this would seem to be supported by the following arrogant way he faced death in his youth, contrasting strongly with his attitude when he was old;-

“I have firmly resolved to bite the dust when my time comes with the minimum of medical assistance and up until then I will sin to my wicked heart’s content.” p61

However much later he said he had come to regard death as “like an old debt at long last to be discharged.” He added: “Still instinctively one does everything possible to postpone the final settlement. Such is the game that nature plays with us.” P63.

That last quote sure makes me look at myself and my time left.

Sincerely
PB


  • 283.
  • At 03:27 PM on 17 Aug 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Hi again DD hope you had a good break...

ref my "ad hominem".... that was actually a factual statement about Pete's expertise, so I dont think that really counts. There was no pejorative language whatsoever.

Now look at the last few posts from Pete and yourself however....thats another matter!


Ref the "creation myth" of genesis, its mighty strange how the key six points in it are believed by virtually every culture in the globe. Why would these 6 points be preserved in that level of detail by so many peoples? One answer would be that it was carried by them to every corner of the globe after the great flood.

Have you a better explanation DD?


The proof of my assertions is in this extract from Enc Britannica (dont you know ;-))


"...the existence of a belief in a supreme being among primitive……has been proven and attested to over and over again by investigators of numerous cultures. This belief has been found among the cultures of Africa, the Ainu of the northern Japanese islands, Amerindians, south central Australians, the Fuegians of South America, and in almost all parts of the globe.

"Though the precise nature and characteristics of the supreme creator deity may differ from culture to culture, a specific and pervasive structure of this type of deity can be discerned. The following characteristics tend to be common:

"(1) he is all wise and all powerful. The world comes into being because of his wisdom, and he is able to actualize the world because of his power.

"(2) The deity exists alone prior to the creation of the world. There is no being or thing prior to his existence. No explanation can therefore be given of his existence, before which one confronts the ultimate mystery.

"(3) The mode of creation is conscious, deliberate, and orderly. This again is an aspect of the creator's wisdom and power. The creation comes about because the deity seems to have a definite plan in mind and does not create on a trial-and-error basis. In Genesis, for example, particular parts of the world are created seriatim; in an Egyptian myth, Kheper, the creator deity, says, “I planned in my heart,” and in a Maori myth the creator deity proceeds from inactivity to increasing stages of activity.

"(4) The creation of the world is simultaneously an expression of the freedom and purpose of the deity. His mode of creation defines the pattern and purpose of all aspects of the creation, though the deity is not bound by his creation. His relationship to the created order after the creation is again an aspect of his freedom.

"(5) In several creation myths of this type, the creator deity removes himself from the world after it has been created. After the creation the deity goes away and only appears again when a catastrophe threatens the created order.

"(6) The supreme creator deity is often a sky god, and the deity in this form is an instance of the religious valuation of the symbolism of the sky.

"In creation myths of the above type, the creation itself or the intent of the creator deity is to create a perfect world, paradise. Before the end of the creative act or sometime soon after the end of creation, the created order or the intent of the creator deity is thwarted by some fault of one of the creatures. There is thus a rupture in the creation myth. In some myths this rupture is the cause of the departure of the deity from creation."
END QUOTE

How did that uniformatiy come about across the globe do you reckond DD?

Ref "uniformatism", the truth is out there, why dont you google enc britannica or wikipedia or other. It is a mainstream consensus at this time.

kind regards

PB

  • 284.
  • At 08:54 PM on 17 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Well PB!

You are very arrogant, you seem to know everything about everything!-Indeed you seem to be a bit omniptetent yourself!

As for the special pleading on creation myths, I have read a bit about creation myths and the myths mentioned actually bear little resemblence to Genesis-which in actual fact bears remarkable resemblence to earlier Babylonian creation myths. Indeed it does appear that the various writers of the creation myths of Genesis borrowed heavily(to put it kindly) from this creation myth or indeed plagarised.

So these creation myths state that a magic sky fairy created the world...well whoop de do!!! Primitive peoples looked in the shy and thought emmmm big ball of fire must be the creator who created the world, some said the creator is not happy... well so what. Also other ardent belivers in other creation myths could claim that that their myth and god/s are true and the Hebrews copied them-has the same validity and special pleading of your argument. Also if your creation myth has any validity then you will of course be able to present evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable to back it up-the same goes for the respective flood myths.

VERY unimpressed with this argument, ticks a lot of logical fallacies. More interested in evidence myself.

The quote does not end where you say it does it goes on to mention...

"An African myth from the Dogon peoples of West Africa illustrates this point. In this myth the creator deity first creates an egg. Within the egg are two pairs of twins, each pair consisting of one male and one female. These twins are supposed to mature within the egg, becoming at maturation androgynous (both male and female) beings, the perfect creatures to inhabit the earth. One of the twins breaks from the egg before maturation because he wishes to dominate the creation. In so doing he carries a part of the egg with him, and from this he creates an imperfect world. The creator deity, seeing what he has done, sacrifices the other twin to establish a balance in the world. The creation is sustained by this sacrifice, and it is now ambiguous, instead of the perfect world intended by the god.

This myth not only shows how a rupture takes place within the myth itself but also points out the fact that the characteristics of the supreme creator deity noted above seldom exist apart from other mythological contexts. The widespread symbols of dualism (the divine twins), the cosmic egg, and sacrifice are basic themes in the structure of this African creation myth. In myths of this kind, however, prominence must always be given to the might of a powerful creator sky deity under whose aegis the created order comes into being."


Yep that and the rest fit in with the 2 nudists and the talking snake of the creation myths of Genesis.

Enc Britt also goes onto say...

"The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community. The later doctrines of creation are interpretations of this myth in light of the subsequent history and needs of the community. Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis and of the new creation in Jesus Christ. Doctrines of creation are based on the myth of creation, which expresses and embodies all of the fertile possibilities for thinking about this subject within a particular religious community."

Since you do agree with Enc Britt so much you will agree with their conclusion that Genesis is a myth of course!?

Also you do agree with Enc Britt on their evaluation of Jesus?

"Jesus Christ (born c. 6–4 BC, Bethlehem; died c. AD 30, Jerusalem) also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth founder of Christianity, one of the world's largest religions, and the incarnation of God according to most Christians. His teachings and deeds are recorded in the New Testament, which is essentially a theological document that makes discovery of the “historical Jesus” difficult. The basic outlines of his career and message, however, can be characterized when considered in the context of 1st-century Judaism and, especially, Jewish eschatology"

That the gospels are more theological than historical...oh but thats right, this is the paragraph that you deliberatyely left out even when you stated several times that you had printed the full/complete article-remember then you claimed the article said something it didn't say?

  • 285.
  • At 12:45 PM on 18 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

A thought...to PB and Peter

This thread takes ages to load.

If we want to carry on this discussion about creation myths then why not carry on in the Shibboleth on the Bible thread which has entered the domain of Hebrew myth.

and if you want to carry on talking about creationism then why don't we carry on in the ID on the Scottish syllabus thread?

Regards

DD

Hello pb,

I see it's quantity instead of quality as usual in your latest post.

Just about all of you objections on radiometric dating are already covered by the previous answer of cross-verification. If leaching of the daughter element, resetting of clocks, etc were such a problem, dating methods using different elements wouldn't show a consistent picture as they do. Nor would the radiological dating methods agree with other dating methods, as they also do. And would you care to quantify the small number of labs that do radiometric dating, hahhaha? That should be good.

And it's amusing to see you mention ad hominems to DD when I read your comments directed at my competence as a physicist to comment on a subject in the field of physics.

And you mention feathers again. How is the reading going pb? When will you finally give your explanation for the intermediate fossils that you say don't exist? Did the devil plant them? Come on pb, read the papers and tell us about the intermediate fossils in them that blow away your empty shouts.

"Just like the recent shift from uniformatism to neo-catastrophism in geology."

LOL!! As requested before (and DD did too), care to produce some SCIENTIFIC literture that notes the change? No AiG twaddle, peer-reviewed etc please.

And then the quotes from Einstein. This is where you truly show your desparation again. Pb, when Einstein describes how in the past supernatural forces were accepted in science, that does not make him a believer in those forces in the 20th century. And no, Einsteins initial dislike of quatum mechanics had nothing to do with him being religious (his often-misquoted and abused 'God does not play dice' was methaphorical, as was 'God' in most of his other quotes), but because he disliked the QM model for being based on probability densities.
With your misunderstanding of metaphore in Einsteins quotes you have again demonstrated astounding ignorance. Some of the quotes you posted actually strengthen the case against you. Thanks pb, although I know it was not from the heart but from the empty mind that you gave me these presents.

Quick tip, guys- I use a Mac and this page loads in about 6 seconds. If you're burdened with Windows, try downloading Apple's Safari web browser... it'll load this page in a fraction of the time.

Hello all,

John, I'm on a Mac too, a very old one in fact, and Safari loads the page in seconds, whereas Firefox takes minutes.
If Firefox for Windows doesn't help the others then I'm fine with moving to another thread, although we're likely to fill than one up in no time too. We could move the discussion to the Flying Spaghetti Monster site. pb is already a bit of a celebrity there (fame arising from his hysterics when he found out I had encouraged people there to vote for the man of the year election on this forum, december 2006).

DD, regardless of whether we move this discussion over there, you should check out the FSM site. I think you'd like it. It's at

https://www.venganza.org

I wrote an article summarising the church of the FSM, it's at

https://waspofscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/excellent-religion-for-humanists-fsm.html

greets,
Peter

  • 289.
  • At 10:41 AM on 19 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Many thanks John will give it a go!

Hi John,

I'm on a Mac too (and a very old one at that) and indeed Safari loads this page in second while Fireforx takes minutes. I second Johns recommendatioon for Windows users to try it too. Safari doesn't run on linux, but it is based on khtml, linux user may want to try another khtml-based browser.

  • 291.
  • At 03:24 PM on 19 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Great shout John!

Was using firefox and did take ages, but this Safari is great-couple of secs to load!

Maybe another Mac convert on the way, DD?

  • 293.
  • At 05:06 PM on 19 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Don't push your luck John!

Give you Mac users an inch...foot in the door and your worse than the Mormons!;-)

Oh I can't resist this one.....

"Give you Mac users an inch...foot in the door and your worse than the Mormons!;-)"

You see how DD's mind is compartmentalised too, John? When drubbing pb he's completely rational and goes by well-reasoned, knowledgeable arguments. But switch to a different area and out come the emotional rejection and the clinging to blind faith in Bill-ware. Did you grow up in a Windows family DD, indoctrinated from an early age when you could not think for yourself yet? It is downright child abuse for parents to impose their OS views on their children, wouldn't you agree John?

  • 295.
  • At 06:14 PM on 19 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Look Peter and John!

First off you are both speaking of topics that are obviously outside of your areas of expertise!

How very dare you Peter!

The many experts at AIW(answers in windows) say different-it's fantastic (though you do have to sign a document that you have to agree with Bill).

I can think for myself thank you very much(as long as I it's ok with Bill).

Please see how Microsoft operates...here is CEO Steve Balmer

https://www.paddysworld.co.uk/modules/wfdownloads/visit.php?cid=14&lid=286


https://www.paddysworld.co.uk/modules/wfdownloads/visit.php?cid=14&lid=288

I think that you will find that he is right!

Bill says it, I believe it, that settles it!

Regards

DD

  • 296.
  • At 09:44 PM on 19 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Peter and John,

I would first like to point out that you are both obviously talking about things that are outside your own respective areas of expertise!

How dare you Peter challenge and criticise my own deeply held belief' and belief's may I add that are shared by millions across the world.

I think if you go to AIW(answers in Windows) you will find long lists of experts(all employed and paid by microsoft) who will attest to how great and true microsoft is!

I will leave you with this

Bill says it, I believe it, that settles it!

;-) (just put that in for the sake of Poe's law)https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law

@DD
"I think if you go to AIW(answers in Windows) you will find long lists of experts(all employed and paid by microsoft) who will attest to how great and true microsoft is!"
.
You know perfectly well that that list is becoming shorter all the time. The microsoft os is already on its way out. With every bug unearthed we move further and further away from the monopolistic view of the software market. I think something like 186 of the experts you mention, many with phds and professors titles to their name, have already left microsoft to persue careers as dentists.

Head of the Windows development group Jim Allchin is quoted a saying 'If I were to buy a computer now I would buy a Mac.'. He has a phd in software engineering.

Well all I can say, folks, is that -- as Richard of Dawkinsville has oft pointed out -- truth is not a function of democracy; the majority of people believe ridiculous things and use sub-par operating systems. If only we had an Apple theocracy, Peter, we could benefit society greatly. ;-)

On a serious note, buy a Mac, for the love of God. Come in out of the cold and enjoy your freedom. The new iMacs are stunning, powerful, and even run Windows for those saddled with a sense of masochism. :-)

  • 299.
  • At 05:10 PM on 20 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

I am afraid Peter that you are speaking about matters that are obviously outside of your areas of expertise(sniff)

I will think you will find that the list is exhaustive and if so many smart people think that about Microsoft then it must be true!

Please note what some Mac 'experts' have said...

"Mac users...are...living....a...lie..."

"Mac...is... funded...by Sat...an"

(these quotes may have been cribbed from several publications but that does not demean their veracity)

And there are more...

Indeed the evidence against Mac is growing every day!(I don't have it, but is there-Bill Gates says so)

I think you should look at the fervour with which Steve Balmer(Micro CEO) talks about his company, with such evangelical fervour it must be true!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSIMeRtVebM&mode=related&search=

DEVELOPERS! as I am sure you will agree!

Good day and I hope that you will see the light!

  • 300.
  • At 06:06 PM on 20 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

I am afraid Peter that you are speaking about matters that are obviously outside of your areas of expertise(sniff)

I will think you will find that the list is exhaustive and if so many smart people think that about Microsoft then it must be true!

Please note what some Mac 'experts' have said...

"Mac users...are...living....a...lie..."

"Mac...is... funded...by Sat...an"

(these quotes may have been cribbed from several publications but that does not demean their veracity)

And there are more...

Indeed the evidence against Mac is growing every day!(I don't have it, but is there-Bill Gates says so)

I think you should look at the fervour with which Steve Balmer(Micro CEO) talks about his company, with such evangelical fervour it must be true!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSIMeRtVebM&mode=related&search=

DEVELOPERS! as I am sure you will agree!

Good day and I hope that you will see the light!

  • 301.
  • At 07:57 PM on 20 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Shucks!

I may just give it a go!

Hello DD, John,

"I may just give it a go!"

Maybe fundamentalist irrationalism can be cured after all. Do you think there's hope for you-know-who?

Ahhh, Mac evangelism; my favourite sort.

  • 304.
  • At 04:53 PM on 21 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Well I am a PC Windows user out of convience at the mo ie., have other plans for my money but in the future...

I am aware of the evangelical fervour with which Mac users promote themselves-you are really do get on on like an exclusive cult, tutt-tutting at the rest of us, giving us that 'ahhh bless them, they know what they do' type of look...

However have looked into it, examined dispassionately the evidence and am impressed with Mac(if this Safari is anything to go by!) and when planning to get a future PC will get a Mac! goodness that felt good to get off my chest!

Does that mean that I am a Microsoft apostate?

Ps. Peter re:Maybe fundamentalist irrationalism can be cured after all. Do you think there's hope for you-know-who?-in a word...no

  • 305.
  • At 01:22 PM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • pb wrote:


Pete

The feathers issue is settled; common consenus is now they did not evolve from scales; take it up with encylopaedia britannica.


Ref Einstein, I notice you have avoided discussing all the quotes I provided. perhaps the real issue is that in your quote Euistein discounts the existence of a "personal" God - but not a non-personal God!

I have fully accepted radiometric testing is the current mainstream model, but my last word on it is that it is still a model, not obervational science, and who knows how it wil be developed.

The shift from uniformatism to neo-catastophism is a recent example of this.

The number of labs is certainly very few, check it out yourself.

DD

The evidence for the creation myth I mentioned is that it has been found in so many cultures with these amazing 6 highly specific points common to genesis. I ask again how did this happen? You avoided the question totally.

Yes there are other creation myths, but none of them are worldwide in their consistency like this one and for the most part in my observation they can mostly be viewed as minor parts of the main "myth" we are discussing.

Finally ref the fundementalist accusation, guys, if you look at everything I say, I very rarely make a dogmatic statement.

For the most part I simply ask questions, as in the discussion above on radiometric testing and creation myths.

In my understanding a fundamentalist is someone who takes a dogmatic stance on an issue such a politics or religion; I have gone out of my way above to say IMO radiometric tests may well be correct, but that they are provisional models.

The upshot of this is that anyone who insists they are accurate for all time is taking a fundamentalist position.

IN fact, IMU the only viewpoint that can take such a view is one based on absolute truth, eg the bible, which I have not done.


Pete is a phd in physics but not radiometric testing or the associated geology by the way, so that is not an attack, just a fact to remind us all.

And Pete, as I understand it only Uranium-PB test is now considered accurate.

DD and Pete make much of scientific evidence but I have to make the distinction about Pete's expertise because when you are not pouring forth ad hominems it appears we need to remind ourselves you are saying things about religion etc you could not begin to say in such dogmatic fashion in a scientific paper.

That means you are merely giving opinions, just like me.

Have to run guys, take care of yourselves

PB


DD- I remember a friend of mine saying that he was persuaded to get a Mac solely on the basis that there was such loyalty and fervor amongst its users, when all he ever heard from PC users was moaning and complaining. I think after the short learning curve required with the Mac OS you'll be delighted with your decision, if that's what you eventually decide to do. My dad, several years ago, bought my old Mac off me because he was so frustrated with his PC (in fairness, they've gotten better since then) - anyway, he's never looked back. :-)

Okay, enough gushing. I'm losing my persona. You bloody atheists! You fundies, PB! You asses, the lot o' ye!

  • 307.
  • At 01:00 PM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

I did not avoid the question!

You said that Enc Britt supported your conclusions(well ken ham's to be exact)-they don't!

The Enc Britt article says that some myths share some common points they do not say that they share common points with Genesis!

The points are very broad ie., magic sky fairy creates world, magic sky fairy gets angry etc so what!?

Also fundamentalists from other religions could make excatly the same point but in no way does it back up the veracity of their claims and likewise with yours.

As I said special pleading leaves me unmoved.

PB you are full of dogmatic statements!!!

ie., I believe the Bible first and foremost etc etc ad nauseum!(or you believe Ken Ham's interpretation)

We have pointed out evidence to you and it has been wilfully ignored, you have made your mind up and nothing will change it, I wish you would be honest and say this. You are quite simply wilfully ignorant and you have have given ample evidence of this. You have proved very difficult or impossible to have a debate with.

"For the most part I simply ask questions"

No you simply repeat canards, canards that have been asked many, many times before and answered many times. I did of course give you plenty of links to ask scientists working in related fields but...nothing! you don't want to know anything and it is a complete waste of time attempting to engage with you.

It has been pointed out to you on many occasions that Biblical creationism is complete codswallop but you simply want to stick your head in the ground.(I can back that up that it is codswallop and AIG is unscientific drivel)

Yes we have opinions PB the difference is that we can back up what we are saying with evidence you have made it quite clear that you cannot and have to rely on special pleading, argument from authority, ad hominen etc etc you quite simply do *not* have an argument.

Lets just put this to rest, please give the objective evidence *for* Biblical creationism-just one would do to start and we can move on from there...

As John Wayne once said "Fill your boots...."

Or else put up or shut up.

Regards

DD

Hello DD,

"Ps. Peter re:Maybe fundamentalist irrationalism can be cured after all. Do you think there's hope for you-know-who?-in a word...no"

How right you were DD, judging from PBs latest post!

So we go for another round of demonstrating the lunacy that religion can inspire in some.

"The feathers issue is settled; common consenus is now they did not evolve from scales; take it up with encylopaedia britannica."

I never mentioned evolution specifically from scales, you brought that in. I was just demonstrating once again (as I have done for 8 months now) how hollow and ignorant your shouts of "Why are there no intermediate feather fossils?" have always been. And how dishonest you have been in running away from that. So stop moving the goal posts by expecting me to stand up for things I never mentioned in the first place.
Instead, we are still waiting for your response to the counter example of no less than a complete journals issue full of papers on intermediate fossils. So once again I am calling you out pb: you must admit how utterly and totally wrong you've been all along or provide an explanation for their existance.
And there's also the related issue on presently living animals with intermediately evolved limbs like emus and ostriches that you have persistently cowarded away from.

"Ref Einstein, I notice you have avoided discussing all the quotes I provided. perhaps the real issue is that in your quote Euistein discounts the existence of a "personal" God - but not a non-personal God!"

Again you should read up on stuff before commenting pb. Look up the quote I gave you on the web. Einstein goes on to say his 'god' was methaphore for how reality around us is ordered and how we can capture that order in models. Yes pb, 'god' was methaphore for equations etc. And you claimed Einstein for your side! Hahaha. You've embarresed yourself again almost as badly as with your previous 'I'm beating all comers on the facts'. You do provide excellent free entertainment, thanks for that.

"I have fully accepted radiometric testing is the current mainstream model, but my last word on it is that it is still a model, not obervational science, and who knows how it wil be developed."

You would be no deeper in denial if you expressed your doubt about gravity being real, and how that will develop.

"The shift from uniformatism to neo-catastophism is a recent example of this."

As DD said, please provide some scientific literature rather than just empty positing of hollow claims pb.

"The number of labs is certainly very few, check it out yourself."

WHAHAHAHA!! I'm calling you out on yet another claim, this one about the low number of labs, and you expect ME to provide evidence for what I've just said is rubbish?! Come on pb, you've got absolutely nothing. If you do than show us.

pb (it is short for pea brain, isn't it?), you display the typically dishonest traits of a creationist nutter. Someone listed the low tactics your kind use:

https://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm

Let's look at some points that apply to you.

1) INTERPRET ANY UNCERTAINTY ANYWHERE IN SCIENCE AS IMPLYING TOTAL UNCERTAINTY EVERYWHERE IN SCIENCE. check, see pbs laughable 'there are no intermediate fossils'

3) SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN. check! see how pb claims there are so few labs that do dating and then I'm supposed to produce data against myself

5) BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES. yep, making up a quote from Prum out of thin air, distorting Einstein, etc.

6) USE "CAFETERIA SCIENCE" this means relying on the odd balls dissenters. check! see AiG rubbish pb likes to bring up.

9) WHEN CORNERED, CHANGE THE SUBJECT. check. Global warming was a persistently attempted tangent.

11) WHEN AN EXPLANATION SHOWS YOU TO BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IGNORE THE EXPLANATION AND REASSERT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM. CHECK!! How many times have papers been pointed out to pb? And he has read about half a paper in all.

  • 309.
  • At 02:26 PM on 19 Sep 2007,
  • stephen wrote:

long page!!!

  • 310.
  • At 11:08 PM on 19 Sep 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Can still nobody answer this question;-

Why are the key points of the genesis creation story common to so many cultures? How could this have happened?

PB

  • 311.
  • At 07:28 PM on 20 Sep 2007,
  • pb wrote:

Pete

just google neocatastrophism, it will open your eyes;-

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=neocatastrophism&spell=1


ref Einstein, well if he really belived God was a metaphor for equations, then do produce the quote here please.

cheers

PB

  • 312.
  • At 04:05 PM on 21 Sep 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

We have been over the Genesis myth before-the special pleading leaves me cold. Some of themyths mentioned were written before the creation myths of Genesis and so forth and so forth(yawn). In any case if Ken Ham's interpretation of Genesis actually happened, there would be evidence, but as you know there isn't! don't worry Hindu creationists(etc) are in the same boat! The position is only held by religious fundamenatlist nutters.

Read the ENC BRITT article again, it does not say what you think it says.

Re: neocatrastrophism: no mention of the flood myths from Genesis

Hello peabrain,

Nice to have you back with us after a quiet spell. Although your post was disappointing as usual. You have such a list of unanswered questions and again offer not a single answer. Just to refresh your memory I'll reiterate a few of them:

Care to provide us with the number of labs doing carbon dating? You claimed it was very small. Please enlighten us how small exactly.

Others have asked for some positive evidence for creationism. Still nothing I guess?

Any explanation for the intermediate fossils pointed out to you? Or presently living animals with intermediate limbs like emus or ostriches?

Your latest diversion of neo-catastrophism is actually a present to me. I read the wikipedia entry on it for a very small introduction. The trend is actually the exact opposite of what you claim. Neo-catastrophism was widely accepted once but went out of fashion in the nineteenth century. One exception (not in any way helping the Genesis account or the great flood fable) is the idea that intense volcanicity or a meteor strike upset the worlds ecosystem 65 million years ago. Funny that the only viable piece of neo-catastrophism undermines your YEC view. Thanks for giving me a present peabrain.

And finally, Einstein said the folowing:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
So there you have it peabrain, Einsteins 'God' or religion consisted of capturing the structure of the world in scientific models. It doesn't mention equations explicitly, but I assume even you would know that those are central to physical models.

  • 314.
  • At 10:09 PM on 28 Sep 2007,
  • Amenhotep wrote:

Hi All,
Did old Bill (remember him?) ever provide a reference for that article of Norman Nevin's that he posted, purporting to describe his support for creationism? Would appreciate it, for citation purposes. Google no help.
ATB,
-A

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.