PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution Indoctrination
       how much evolution indoctrination is there?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:14 AM on July 3, 2009 :
Your example is very rare.

Almost as rare as professional scientists rejecting evolution.


I read the whole thing of "How I walked Away" and noticed there was not one scrap of science in it. A telling thing.


Almost as telling as how when one reads anti-evolution screeds and actually decides to check on the veracity of quotes provided or to seek out the original sources to see if they were accuratley represented, one finds that christian conservative creationists have a well-documented tendency to..um.. how to say it - LIE to further their cause.  That ir they are monumentally incompetent.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:44 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:31 AM on July 3, 2009 :
The fossil record does not support evolution.


Right- because only Malcolm Bowden - with a degree from a program that does not exist - and a lawyer truly understand the fossil record.  That Gould guy - what did he know!


Molecular genetics does not support evolution.

Gee... You mean I wasted 5 years in grad school studying evolution by looking at DNA because some creationist says genetics does not support evolution?

Goodness me!

Please explain - I'll start a thread for you to do this.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:49 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:53 AM on July 4, 2009 :
Evolution indoctrination by YEC professors.


Was it indoctrination or education? Usually it is the evolutionists that refuse to teach anything but evolution. In my experience the Creationists tend to teach both and want both to be taught. I know I do.


Right...  And in terms of evolution, what is it you want taught?  The lies and disinformation found in books written by Discovery Institute hacks?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:56 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:53 AM on July 4, 2009 :
Where do you get this crap - it sounds as if it was made up for a soapie. (softly and with a tear etching a line down his face.)


Yet I bet you believe without questin that Jack Cuozzo, creationist dentist, really was chased and shot at by shady figues in Paris after he looked at a Neanderthal fossil....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:58 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:57 AM on July 7, 2009 :
You freely peddle falsehoods from Wells and others that can't stand 10 minutes of research.  


Your ad hominems are a distraction.


Another creationist that does not seem to know what an ad hominem is...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:59 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:17 AM on July 17, 2009 :

Shall i post a DNA sequence so you tell me if you see all that, and guess if it belongs to a human being or not?


That won’t really tell me enough –we don’t know enough to interpret the DNA code in a meaningful enough way and we all have DNA whether plant or animal because we have a common designer.


Please don't assume that everyone is as ignorant as you or as deceptive as your creationist handlers are.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:02 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:03 AM on July 18, 2009 :
That's a bat -just like the 999 or so others in the fossil record. And your point is...



How many 'kinds' of bat were on the ark?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:03 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 3:56 PM on July 18, 2009 :

The animals that were buried en masse died at one particular time in history so there are no ‘many generations’ fossilized. It was a worldwide once off catastrophe.    



So please explain how it is that there is a temporal progression in the fossil record.
Why is it that no triceratops are found in the same strata as hippos?  Why no humans in the same strata as pelycosaurs?
Why no modern shrimp alongside trilobites.






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:06 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Almost as telling as how when one reads anti-evolution screeds and actually decides to check on the veracity of quotes provided or to seek out the original sources to see if they were accuratley represented, one finds that christian conservative creationists have a well-documented tendency to..um.. how to say it - LIE to further their cause.


You've got it all wrong I'm afraid Derwood. You see creationists don't need to lie in order to further their cause. Evolutionists on the other hand need to resort to general vilifications in order to try to prevent others from listening to creationists. If creationists had nothing worthwhile to say, this common and unpleasant evolutionist's tactic wouldn't be necessary.

Right- because only Malcolm Bowden - with a degree from a program that does not exist - and a lawyer truly understand the fossil record.  That Gould guy - what did he know!


The lawyer would be Phillip Johnson I presume. Brilliant man, very clear headed about the issues. Why wouldn't it be good to have a lawyer without the evolution bias weigh the evidence? Seems to me you think that the layman is too stupid to read and think but considering the fact that every scientist is a specialist in a very narrow field, he remains essentially a layman in every other field. Not all clever people reside in universities you know!You seem to have the mindset of the Roman Catholic church in the days when they kept the Bible from the common people by not translating it from Latin for everybody to read. That way the commoner had to defer to their judgement in all things spiritual and were not allowed to think for themselves.

As for Gould, he’s been enormously helpful in inadvertently exposing weaknesses in the evolutionist thread even though he was a true believer and never lost faith. He didn’t seem to see how he was giving the game away but we appreciate his honesty.

As for Bowden, never heard of him.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:27 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:27 AM on July 23, 2009 :Why wouldn't it be good to have a lawyer without the evolution bias weigh the evidence? Seems to me you think that the layman is too stupid to read and think but considering the fact that every scientist is a specialist in a very narrow field, he remains essentially a layman in every other field.



You've answered your own question.  Lawyers, in general, will have very little science training.  

As for layman, it is not a matter of being stupid, but knowledgeable and skillful. One of the things that any good science education program will do is teach students how to think like a scientist.

My own experience has shown me that very few people without this sort of training think the way a scientist does when doing research.  





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:03 PM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You've got it all wrong I'm afraid Derwood. You see creationists don't need to lie in order to further their cause.

Then how come they do it so frequently.  Creationists are infamous for quote mining, using half of a quote, usually by a real scientist, to claim that the quoted scientist is saying the opposite of what he really is saying.
And there are literally thousands of examples.

The lawyer would be Phillip Johnson I presume. Brilliant man, very clear headed about the issues.

You say clear headed and brilliant, I say typical creationist shill who doesn't understand the evidence and uses dishonest tactics like quote mining to try and convince uninformed laymen.
He's a religioud fantatic who draws his faulty conclusions, not from the evidence but from his personal fantasies.

Why wouldn't it be good to have a lawyer without the evolution bias weigh the evidence?

For the same reason I wouldn't want a lawyer to perform open heart surgery on me, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Seems to me you think that the layman is too stupid to read and think but considering the fact that every scientist is a specialist in a very narrow field, he remains essentially a layman in every other field.

Right, so why do you expect the misinformed claims of a lawyer with a fantatical bias to be more valid than the objective conclusions of experts in the field?

Not all clever people reside in universities you know!You seem to have the mindset of the Roman Catholic church in the days when they kept the Bible from the common people by not translating it from Latin for everybody to read. That way the commoner had to defer to their judgement in all things spiritual and were not allowed to think for themselves.

All anyone has to do is study the evidence and support their claims, creationists can't do this.  They avoid science like the devil.

As for Gould, he’s been enormously helpful in inadvertently exposing weaknesses in the evolutionist thread even though he was a true believer and never lost faith. He didn’t seem to see how he was giving the game away but we appreciate his honesty.

Ha hahaha!!!  Doesn't even deserve a resopnse it's so assinine.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:58 PM on July 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:27 AM on July 23, 2009 :
Almost as telling as how when one reads anti-evolution screeds and actually decides to check on the veracity of quotes provided or to seek out the original sources to see if they were accurately represented, one finds that christian conservative creationists have a well-documented tendency to..um.. how to say it - LIE to further their cause.


You've got it all wrong I'm afraid Derwood. You see creationists don't need to lie in order to further their cause.


THEN WHY DO THEY SO OFTEN???

Here is an example from an Amazon.com review of creationist Jon wells' book "Icons of Evolution":

===

Wells seems to imply that because 'deep' phylogenies of prokaryotes have yielded conflicting results and that there is evidence of lateral gene transfer in them and eukaryotes that therefore the entire field of molecular phylogenetics has been plunged into crisis.(p.51).

On p.49, Wells quotes an article by Lake, Jain and Rivera to bolster his claim, in a section titled The growing problem in molecular phylogeny:

"But the expectation that more data would help matters "began to crumble a decade ago," wrote University of California molecular biologists James Lake, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera in 1999, "when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."

Reading the article (Mix and Match in the Tree of Life, James A. Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria C. Rivera, 1999), we see that Wells' quote is plucked from this paragraph (Wells' quote bracketed by **):

"The clonal theory **began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.** To explain the differences between the evolutionary trees reconstructed from eukaryotic rRNAs and from proteins, Sogin (2) proposed a chimeric origin for eukaryotic genomes, with rRNA genes coming from one organism and genes encoding proteins coming from another. Analyses of DNA-dependent, RNA polymerases (3) and heat shock protein (hsp70) gene sequences from different organisms (4) supported theories of chimeric evolution (5-10)."

The way Wells uses the quote, in, again, a section titled "The growing problem in molecular phylogeny", it appears that the problem is a field-wide one, as he explicitly writes elsewhere. Yet, is that a proper interpretation of the article in question? The abstract:

"The evolutionary relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes has long been viewed from the perspective of a single molecule: ribosomal RNA (rRNA). Analyses of rRNA from many different organisms provided the basis for the clonal theory of the evolution of eukaryotic genomes from prokaryotes. This theory holds that genes have been passed directly from generation to generation, with modifications in the genes resulting in the appearance of new organisms. But like a color-blind friend who admires your ability to observe the nearly invisible little "green" flowers on a rose bush, rRNA genes cannot be used to distinguish genomes that are mosaics (mixtures) of genes from different sources. By relying too heavily on rRNA, scientific attention has been diverted away from considering the impact of gene acquisition from other species (horizontal gene transfer) on the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. Viewed now from the vista of completed genome sequences for a number of bacteria and for the yeast Saccharomyces (a eukaryote), the clonal theory of eukaryotic genome evolution contains evident flaws(1)."

It seems that the authors were/are referring to the "clonal theory," not molecular systematics or evolution as a whole. It is important also to note that in this article - indeed, in this entire 'debate' (re: e.g., lateral gene transfer) - 'eukaryotes' refers to singler-celled eukaryotes, not multicellular organisms.

To paraphrase/borrow the dust jacket endorsement from Behe, if we can't trust Wells to use published material in an honest way, why should we believe anything else he has to say?

===

Lie?

Or incompetence?


Evolutionists on the other hand need to resort to general vilifications in order to try to prevent others from listening to creationists. If creationists had nothing worthwhile to say, this common and unpleasant evolutionist's tactic wouldn't be necessary.

By 'villification' I assume you ean documenting the dishonesty of creationist propagandists?  
Steve Meyer was recently caught is a lie, too.  Duane Gish made a business out of lying to people (google gish bullfrog).  I've seen Hovind caught in a lie at a debate.  

It is well documented, so sue us for getting upset at having to counter lies put forth by people who claim the moral high ground.


Right- because only Malcolm Bowden - with a degree from a program that does not exist - and a lawyer truly understand the fossil record.  That Gould guy - what did he know!


The lawyer would be Phillip Johnson I presume. Brilliant man, very clear headed about the issues. Why wouldn't it be good to have a lawyer without the evolution bias weigh the evidence?

Why is he 'brilliant'?  Have you read anything about Johnson - like how he is connected to Christian Reconstructionism?  Harldy a 'clear head' when it comes to evolution.  Have you read any of the criticisms of his claims?  Or do you just accept what he has to say at face value because you agree with it?

Seems to me you think that the layman is too stupid to read and think but considering the fact that every scientist is a specialist in a very narrow field, he remains essentially a layman in every other field.

I think that laymen can become well versed in nearly any topic, providing they have the backgound knowledge and discipline to do so, and the humility to know when they are in over their head.  Reading a few creationist books and websites does not make one an expert.  And while it is true that scientists are very specialized, it is also true that in order to become specialized the scientist must develop learning strategies that aid in their understanding of other related issues.  I know that Johnson wrote as much as you indicate in his book (I read it), but of course this means that Johsnon is a layman on EVERY subject he wrote about.  I've met and talked to a number of layman on the issue of evolution over the years.  Without exception, the only ones that took offense to having an erroneous belief corrected were those who 'doubted' evolution.

Why is that, I wonder?

Not all clever people reside in universities you know!


I know, and not all clever people work for 'think tanks' or religious organizations, either.  However, when discussing a scientific specialization, does it not make sense to confer with a scientist with such an area of specialization as opposed to some lawyer or journalist or fake-degree hawking advocate at a think tank who is pushing an agenda or trying to sell a book?
Or is that just elitism?

Tell me - if a loved one were diagnosed with a terrible disease, do you go see an elitist egotistical doctor, or someone without expertise in the disease in question but who wrote a book about alternative therapies?

You seem to have the mindset of the Roman Catholic church in the days when they kept the Bible from the common people by not translating it from Latin for everybody to read. That way the commoner had to defer to their judgement in all things spiritual and were not allowed to think for themselves.


You seem to have the mindset of that dude who tried to build a rocket in his backyard to go to the moon and was killed during his first test launch.

I am not keeping knowledge from anyone as the Church did - quite the contrary.  I will gladly disseminate what I know to those who ask, but in venues liek this, I am rarely asked, rather I am usually accused.  
Unlike many laypeople, I do not pontificate on matters that I know I do not possess in-depth knowledge of, and I am humble enough to realize that I cannot know and understand everything in specialized areas of science that are not my own.  This is why I tend not to comment on things like physics or geology.

 Odd how laymen with no formal education or experience in ANY such subjects nevertheless feel fully capable of engaging - 'taking on' - actual experts on the issues.  Such folk also have a tendency to come away from such encounters claiming victory...


As for Gould, he’s been enormously helpful in inadvertently exposing weaknesses in the evolutionist thread even though he was a true believer and never lost faith. He didn’t seem to see how he was giving the game away but we appreciate his honesty.


If that is your interpretation of Gould's writings, then I would have to stand by my previous assessments.


As for Bowden, never heard of him.


Good for you.

How about Kurt Wise?

Wise is a Harvard PhD trained geologist and YEC who has stated that were it not for his religious faith, he would be an evolutionist because that is what the evidence indicates.



(Edited by derwood 7/24/2009 at 12:50 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:43 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Steve Meyer was recently caught is a lie, too.  Duane Gish made a business out of lying to people (google gish bullfrog).  I've seen Hovind caught in a lie at a debate.  


I’ve seen evolutionists in debate calling creationists out for lying –it is their most common running claim - but if you listen to the debate, it is not agreeing to what the evolutionists state erroneously as fact that brings these accusations.

Creationists only have to say “There is no evidence for macroevolution” and they’ll be called a liar. Generally the problem is that evolutionists can’t see the difference between what they ‘believe’ and what they can demonstrate to be true. I just think it’s amazing how the average creationist manages to keep his sense of humour amidst all the disgraceful unfounded accusations brought against them quite without merit. The creationists certainly have far better manners in debate than does your average evolutionist.

It is well documented


You wouldn’t even have to check it out to know for a fact that it has to be true. Documention by evolutionists,wow, considering that their brains apparently evolved into existence by chance, it’s a wonder that they can even think.

Have you read anything about Johnson


I’ve read everything by Johnson, I’ve read a lot about Johnson and I’ve watched and listened to quite a few of his debates. He’s brilliant!

like how he is connected to Christian Reconstructionism?


Who cares what he is connected to –have you ever listened to the man? Why not judge him on the content of his arguments instead of looking for reasons not to listen to him?

Reading a few creationist books and websites does not make one an expert.


Nor does reading a few evolutionists’ books and looking for answers on their websites make one an expert.

but of course this means that Johsnon is a layman on EVERY subject he wrote about.


While every ‘scientist’ is an expert on one subject and a layman in every other. So it all boils down to how much they’ve read and understood. It is quite clear that Johnson is exceedingly bright and he understands the big picture better than most.

Without exception, the only ones that took offense to having an erroneous belief corrected were those who 'doubted' evolution.


Maybe you became offensive in attempting to convert them? Maybe you wouldn’t take no for an answer? Maybe you weren’t listening to what they had to say? It’s always easier to get on with the people that agree with us.

does it not make sense to confer with a scientist with such an area of specialization as opposed to some lawyer or journalist


From what I’ve seen, submerging oneself in evolutionary suppositions takes away one’s objectivity. Some of the stuff that science ‘specialists’ come up with is packed with assumptions and they don’t even notice where truth has ended and imagination has taken over. Ever since I got into this debate, I listen far more carefully to what scientists are saying and what their presuppositions are –it’s extremely enlightening to start drawing a line between what is invention and imagination and what is observable fact.

Tell me - if a loved one were diagnosed with a terrible disease, do you go see an elitist egotistical doctor, or someone without expertise in the disease in question but who wrote a book about alternative therapies?


There’s a difference between someone who knows something and someone like an evolutionist who believes something and knits lots of plausible stories around it. Evolution is completely useless to science and there are no innovations out there that ever relied on macro-evolutionary theory for its invention. All they’ve done is invent a creation myth in opposition to Christianity and then expect the rest of us to join their religion.

I do not pontificate on matters that I know I do not possess in-depth knowledge of, and I am humble enough to realize that I cannot know and understand everything in specialized areas of science that are not my own.


Well then you are certainly better than the rest of us. Well done.

Odd how laymen with no formal education or experience in ANY such subjects nevertheless feel fully capable of engaging - 'taking on' - actual experts on the issues.


It’s amazing how you can root out their presuppositions by asking a few simple questions. It’s not what they say but how they came to that conclusion that is enlightening. You shouldn’t be too quick to let the ‘experts’ bamboozle you. I’m sure you have ‘experts’ that you have confidence in and others who you take with a pinch of salt.

Wise is a Harvard PhD trained geologist and YEC who has stated that were it not for his religious faith, he would be an evolutionist because that is what the evidence indicates.


Well then Wise is not all that wise – if all the evidence indicated to me that evolution is true, then I’d switch over and support evolution. I wouldn’t even bother to be a theistic evolutionist under those circumstances because I’d know that the Bible obviously had nothing to say that I’d want to listen to. Evolution and the Bible are in complete contradiction and being a fencesitter on the issue is counterproductive.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:46 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:46 AM on July 25, 2009 :
Well then Wise is not all that wise – if all the evidence indicated to me that evolution is true, then I’d switch over and support evolution. I wouldn’t even bother to be a theistic evolutionist under those circumstances because I’d know that the Bible obviously had nothing to say that I’d want to listen to. Evolution and the Bible are in complete contradiction and being a fencesitter on the issue is counterproductive.


I'm  sure you are a MUCH better Christian than he is.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:14 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:46 AM on July 25, 2009 :
Steve Meyer was recently caught is a lie, too.  Duane Gish made a business out of lying to people (google gish bullfrog).  I've seen Hovind caught in a lie at a debate.  


I’ve seen evolutionists in debate calling creationists out for lying –it is their most common running claim - but if you listen to the debate, it is not agreeing to what the evolutionists state erroneously as fact that brings these accusations.


Bullshit.

Gish out and out lied - he was backed into a corner on amino acid sequence data and to save his pet religion, he blurted out that some studies put bullfrogs closer to humans than chimps were.  He was challenged to produce the study - for YEARS - and he never did.  He finally admitted that he had made an error, yet he continued to make the claim at 'debates' because it so impressed the rubes in the audiences.

By the way - not all opinions are valid.  

Creationists only have to say “There is no evidence for macroevolution” and they’ll be called a liar.

Rightly so.  Their not accepting the evidence does not mean it does not exist.  If they truly believe that there is no such evidence, then they are just delusional.


Generally the problem is that evolutionists can’t see the difference between what they ‘believe’ and what they can demonstrate to be true.

And creationists seem to think that merely tossing out an assertion or opinion trumps evidence.
Creatinists, in my experience, never even try to demonstrate the veracity of their position.  Ask a creationist for evidence that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and without expection you will get some copy and pasted/paraphrased rant about problems with radiometric dating, or not enough salt in the seas.  NOTHING actually supporting a young earth.


I just think it’s amazing how the average creationist manages to keep his sense of humour amidst all the disgraceful unfounded accusations brought against them quite without merit.

Except that most of the accusations are founded and premised on documentable acts.  There are websites set up that do nothing but document false claims and out of context quotes made by creationists.

Speaking of which, I notice that you did not comment on the clear cut example of Wells fudging to prop up his cause...


The creationists certainly have far better manners in debate than does your average evolutionist.


Ah, the old 'manners' gambit.

Let me guess - you think Limbaugh and Coulter are 'right' and make great points, yes?

It is well documented


You wouldn’t even have to check it out to know for a fact that it has to be true. Documention by evolutionists,wow, considering that their brains apparently evolved into existence by chance, it’s a wonder that they can even think.

You're right - YECs certainly are not only more humble that 'evilutionists', but they are much more polite.  At least you didn't call me a condescending ass.

Have you read anything about Johnson


I’ve read everything by Johnson, I’ve read a lot about Johnson and I’ve watched and listened to quite a few of his debates. He’s brilliant!

Brilliant - funny, the only people who say things like that are lay creationists.  Wonder why that is...

like how he is connected to Christian Reconstructionism?


Who cares what he is connected to –have you ever listened to the man? Why not judge him on the content of his arguments instead of looking for reasons not to listen to him?

I have read a couple of his books and I've read many of his online essays.  Pure uninformed - but rhetorically lovely - propaganda.

As for his ties to Christian Reconstructionism - do you know what that is about?  

Do you really think that agenda-pushing culture warriors put more stock in facts or rhetoric?  Johnny Cochrane was 'brilliant', too - does that mean OJ really was innocent?

Do you really think that the IDcreationism movement is all about evidence and facts?  Are you familiar with the 'Wedge document'?



Reading a few creationist books and websites does not make one an expert.


Nor does reading a few evolutionists’ books and looking for answers on their websites make one an expert.

Right.  It is a good thing that I spent 5 years in grad school doing original research and have been teaching at the university level for 10 years now so that I do not have to rely on books and websites to do my thinking for me.  Having had first-hand experience with scientific literature and even having caught creationists distorting some of my work for their own purposes, it is all too easy to spot creationist misinformation and rhetoric.

but of course this means that Johsnon is a layman on EVERY subject he wrote about.


While every ‘scientist’ is an expert on one subject and a layman in every other. So it all boils down to how much they’ve read and understood. It is quite clear that Johnson is exceedingly bright and he understands the big picture better than most.


To the layman, it may seem that way.  He does talk a good talk, but like a politician, he relies on the fact that his target audience is going to believe him without question and 'protect' him from from the deserved scorn heaped upon him by those catching him making unsupportable claims.
Without exception, the only ones that took offense to having an erroneous belief corrected were those who 'doubted' evolution.


Maybe you became offensive in attempting to convert them?

After catching YECs making lie-filled claims on multiple discussion boards after having their errors explained to them, you might become a bit short as well.  In fact, one YEC I have encountered used his misinterpretation of a paper on butterfly coloration on multiple discussion boards to claim that 'evolution couldn't explain it'.  The author of the paper actually showed up on one board, explained what his paper actually found, and told the creationist to stop misrepresenting his work.  The creationist STILL makes the same claims he did more than 3 years ago when told he was wrong.
Then there was the creatinist graphic artist I encountered who innsisted that he was an expert on genetics.  I had mentioned that one of the ways genomes are built up is via segmental duplication events, as indicated in the human genome project.  He declared this was not possible, that such events are detrimental.  To support this, he linked to a paper describing the difficulty in aligning multiple overlapping segments during genome sequencing.  I explained that the paper was irrelevant to my point, he declared that I was ignorant.

And I could trot out DOZENS of such instances.
Do we sometimes get 'mean'?  'Impolite'?  Damn right - your brethren engage in such hubris and disinformation peddling and ego stroking that it wears on us.

Too bad.


Maybe you wouldn’t take no for an answer?

Why should I accept a false claim?
If you declare that your beliefs tell you that the sky is not blue, but red, should I 'accept' that?  'Oh, gee, this fellows 'beliefs' are just as valid as mine, and if he believes that the sky is red, who am I to disagree?'

Nope, sorry.  That is one of the reasons that ignorance is so rife in this country.



Maybe you weren’t listening to what they had to say?


I listen plenty.  The problem is that so many of you people just "KNOW" you are 100% correct and that anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong and think this way SOLELY based on whether or not they agree with your 'worldview.'


It’s always easier to get on with the people that agree with us.
Which is why you like Johnson so much.

does it not make sense to confer with a scientist with such an area of specialization as opposed to some lawyer or journalist


From what I’ve seen, submerging oneself in evolutionary suppositions takes away one’s objectivity.

While submerging yourself in biblical doctrine makes you an open-minded free-thinker, right?


Some of the stuff that science ‘specialists’ come up with is packed with assumptions and they don’t even notice where truth has ended and imagination has taken over.

But not the lay creationist, nosirree!  They know where the bear poops in the buckwheat, you betcha!


Ever since I got into this debate, I listen far more carefully to what scientists are saying and what their presuppositions are –it’s extremely enlightening to start drawing a line between what is invention and imagination and what is observable fact.

Do you do the same for your worldview/religion?

When I ask a creationist for evidence and I get a bible verse, I know I've won and that I am dealing with a child-like mind.

Tell me - if a loved one were diagnosed with a terrible disease, do you go see an elitist egotistical doctor, or someone without expertise in the disease in question but who wrote a book about alternative therapies?


There’s a difference between someone who knows something and someone like an evolutionist who believes something and knits lots of plausible stories around it.

And what about the someone who has at best a cursory understanding of something but then employs their prejudices in making a caricatire of what people who subscribe to that something do?


Evolution is completely useless to science and there are no innovations out there that ever relied on macro-evolutionary theory for its invention.


And what has biblical literalism done for anyone?
When your kids get sick will you take them to a priest who can fire up some burnt offerings to Yahweh, or maybe kill some pigeons over running water, or do you go to someone whose knowledge base is premised on science and experience?

The concept of evolution is no good because it hasn't helped produce kitchen gadgets?

I fail to see the rationale in this latest 'kitchen sink' argument - but at least you haven't sunk to the Darwin=Hitler stupidity...

All they’ve done is invent a creation myth in opposition to Christianity and then expect the rest of us to join their religion.

Uh oh...  You caught us!

You got it all right - all these people doing research over the last century or so are all involved in a big plot to destroy the Christian Values of conservative Americans!

I do not pontificate on matters that I know I do not possess in-depth knowledge of, and I am humble enough to realize that I cannot know and understand everything in specialized areas of science that are not my own.


Well then you are certainly better than the rest of us. Well done.

Certainly better than some, that is for sure.


Odd how laymen with no formal education or experience in ANY such subjects nevertheless feel fully capable of engaging - 'taking on' - actual experts on the issues.


It’s amazing how you can root out their presuppositions by asking a few simple questions.

And those questions usually expose their level of understanding of the subject matter.


It’s not what they say but how they came to that conclusion that is enlightening. You shouldn’t be too quick to let the ‘experts’ bamboozle you.


Right, because folk science - gut instinct - trumps all.


I’m sure you have ‘experts’ that you have confidence in and others who you take with a pinch of salt.

Of course - a big hint is whether or not they are writing about their actual area of expertise or knowledge.

Take a look at the Discovery Institute's 'Dissent from Darwin' list.  It is very informative to see what the backgrounds of the 'scientists' on that list really are.  Dentists... Physicians... Park Rangers... LOTS oif engineers... Lawyers... And of the folsk that actually have relevant credentials, we see the real fringe types - like the fellow at Moscow University whose research is on 'water memory'...


Then compare those names/credentials with those that signed the Project Steve list...

Wise is a Harvard PhD trained geologist and YEC who has stated that were it not for his religious faith, he would be an evolutionist because that is what the evidence indicates.


Well then Wise is not all that wise – if all the evidence indicated to me that evolution is true, then I’d switch over and support evolution.


I don't believe you.

I have seen many such claims, and the claimant always finds a reason not to follow through.

I once had a YEC claim that if she were shown a data matrix indicating a smooth gradation of DNA identity change from species to species that followed evolutionarty predictions, she would be 'very troubled' and would have to re-evaluate her stance.  I showed her just what she was asking about, and suddenly she wanted more information and eventually bowed out claiming that shew would wait until 'all of the animals' had had their entire genomes sequenced and compared.

Copout.


I wouldn’t even bother to be a theistic evolutionist under those circumstances because I’d know that the Bible obviously had nothing to say that I’d want to listen to. Evolution and the Bible are in complete contradiction and being a fencesitter on the issue is counterproductive.


Which is why you will never change.  Which is why Wise is a YEC.

The evidence doesn't really matter to you people.  You KNOW - via life-long indoctrination, that your interpretation of the bible is 100% correct and nothing will ever change your mind on that.

Which mkakes one wonder why you people are so afraid of evolution - if you are so correct and your faith is so strong, why does it matter?




(Edited by derwood 7/27/2009 at 3:35 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:27 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood -
Let me guess - you think Limbaugh and Coulter are 'right' and make great points, yes?


HaHaHa!  As far as credibility goes, Limbaugh and Coulter are right down there in the gutter with the National Enquirer.  I have to wonder how anyone with any sense and intellect could take anything they say seriously.  

I was rather apalled that my brother-in-law pulled out one of Coulter's books.  I think it was 'Godless', or maybe it was 'Treason'.  On the other hand, I'm not surprised he reads her books.  He's a typical fundamentalist rignt-winger.  Creationist all the way.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:05 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would still like a response to the Jon wells book from Lester, he skipped it nicely.

But it's clear, Jon Wells lied, how does Lester deal with a person that knowingly lied like that?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:38 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
Gish out and out lied


You know if that makes you happy then you carry on thinking that Gish lied but personally I’m responsible for what I say and you’re responsible for what you say. If I’m convinced that a creationist intentionally lied then I won’t listen to that creationist without checking out why he says what he says. I am satisfied on a scientific level that evolution is not true and that creation must be true and I’m sorry but I never used to believe this. I was all for evolution until 3 years ago and used to sprout it merrily. My father is a scientist and he believes that evolution is true, I really like my father but I can’t agree with him and we battle it out everytime I see him and one day he’ll either say something to change my mind or I’ll say something to change his. One way or the other, they can’t both be true, they are not complementary belief systems but neither are they science as such since they are both based on once off past events that cannot be observed or repeated.

Science is great but evolution is not science, it is a religion, a belief system as is creation. Neither can be proven but creation has more going for it in the here and now than does evolution.

By the way - not all opinions are valid.


But then neither is it valid for evolutionists to attempt to baffle the general public with bullshit. They are true believers in unobservable historical events but in their enthusiasm to have others believe they are not always honest either –you have to go back to their presuppositions to see how they got from point A to point B and how they do it is hidden when they make their statements of ‘fact’ under the guise of their educated opinion. That they can continue to call evolution a ‘fact’ tells me a lot about how much truth means to them.

Creationists only have to say “There is no evidence for macroevolution” and they’ll be called a liar.
Rightly so.  Their not accepting the evidence does not mean it does not exist.  If they truly believe that there is no such evidence, then they are just delusional.


There you go –your ‘educated’ opinion has just been presented as ‘fact’. You know perfectly well that macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated because, as the excuse goes, it takes too long. So where’s the delusion and who exactly is delusional?

And creationists seem to think that merely tossing out an assertion or opinion trumps evidence.


Actually that’s what you’ve just done with macroevolution.

Ask a creationist for evidence that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and without expection you will get some copy and pasted/paraphrased rant about problems with radiometric dating, or not enough salt in the seas.  NOTHING actually supporting a young earth.


What would you like, a birthdate pasted on it’s backside? How do you support an old earth?

I notice that you did not comment on the clear cut example of Wells fudging to prop up his cause...


I’m more interested in how you’ve been fudging about macroevolution to prop up your cause actually. As for Wells, if I feel convinced that he’s been fudging, I’ll check out anything he has to say more carefully in the future.

I have read a couple of his (Phil Johnson) books and I've read many of his online essays.  Pure uninformed - but rhetorically lovely - propaganda.


Sounds like what I think of Richard Dawkins –rhetorically lovely propoganda –abusing his position to push a religion on the rest of us.

Right.  It is a good thing that I spent 5 years in grad school doing original research and have been teaching at the university level for 10 years now so that I do not have to rely on books and websites to do my thinking for me.  


Great so since you’re so educated, please could you answer this question for me –how did different sexual organs develop for male and female and happen to be complementary in function. Thank you. I can’t wait.

he relies on the fact that his target audience is going to believe him without question and 'protect' him from from the deserved scorn heaped upon him by those catching him making unsupportable claims.


You are quite obviously assuming that his target audience is somewhat retarded, for one, and that they are desperate to be lied to in the interests of their own belief system being verified. Well it turns out that Phil Johnson has plenty connections in every field of academia and he always sends out his thoughts and writings to people in the fields he writes about, in order to make sure that he is factually correct because he is a lawyer you see and he knows that his work will be criticized, so first he checks with those in the know in every topic and gets them to criticize his conclusions and tell him why. You seem to be saying that a lawyer is incapable of weighing the evidence, but that is his job. You are talking like a member of the Vatican that doesn’t credit his illiterate congregation with a brain. That’s a religious trick. ‘Sorry, I hold all wisdom and you guys can’t even assess it because you’re stupid!”

Do we sometimes get 'mean'?  'Impolite'?  Damn right - your brethren engage in such hubris and disinformation peddling and ego stroking that it wears on us.


Often we think the same of your brethren.

Speaking of which, I notice that you did not comment on the clear cut example of Wells fudging to prop up his cause...


Speaking of fudging to prop up a cause, have you ever observed macroevolution? Has anyone ever observed macroevolution?

Why should I accept a false claim?
If you declare that your beliefs tell you that the sky is not blue, but red, should I 'accept' that?  'Oh, gee, this fellows 'beliefs' are just as valid as mine, and if he believes that the sky is red, who am I to disagree?'


I couldn’t agree with you more. If somebody tells me the sky is red and I can observe that it is blue, I won’t suck it in and swallow either. The truth is the truth and I’m totally in agreement with you there.
You do realize though, I hope, that there’s a difference between observable truth and varying interpetations of evidence observed in the present which are being used to prop up beliefs about the past?

I listen plenty.  The problem is that so many of you people just "KNOW" you are 100% correct and that anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong and think this way SOLELY based on whether or not they agree with your 'worldview.'


I may be quite wrong but that is how you come across in your writing which is unfortunate –it makes people less inclined to listen –you come across almost bombastic.

While submerging yourself in biblical doctrine makes you an open-minded free-thinker, right?


Well I’ve believed in evolution all my life until recently so I’ve been on both sides of the fence. I’m guessing you’ve only ever been on the one side and have never really considered the other. Being submerged in evolution at universities and schools is great for one-sided non-objective thinking. You could liken it to a child steeped in the Jehovah’s witness religion – what else must he believe and everything he sees is confirmation that what he was taught is exactly right.

They know where the bear poops in the buckwheat, you betcha!


Your stereotype of the creationist is a figment of the combined consciousness of the evolutionist. It sounds really silly and makes you appear very unobjective in your thinking.

When I ask a creationist for evidence and I get a bible verse, I know I've won and that I am dealing with a child-like mind.


You may be wrong. You may be dealing with something way beyond your current understanding. Some of the best wisdom comes in childlike packages.

And what about the someone who has at best a cursory understanding of something but then employs their prejudices in making a caricatire of what people who subscribe to that something do?


Neither of us was talking of such a thing but I’d certainly go to the doctor or the pathologist or the engineer or the botanist or the geneticist if I wanted an opinion in their field but I would still be inclined to use my own brain and experience in deciding whether I was going to act on their advice. I wouldn’t go to an evolutionist for anything unless I was looking for new stories for my book of fairytales.

And what has biblical literalism done for anyone?


Well we won’t know for sure until times up – but I still find that far more credible than stories made up entirely by men, which are interpretations of the evidence not the evidence itself.

When your kids get sick will you take them to a priest who can fire up some burnt offerings to Yahweh, or maybe kill some pigeons over running water


I didn’t know people did that still –where did you say you came from?

The concept of evolution is no good because it hasn't helped produce kitchen gadgets?


Well yes and to be quite truthful, it hasn’t helped produce anything at all that’s independently verifiable, just a bunch of hard to believe stories about a strange past billions of years ago where the laws of thermodynamics weren’t followed, everything was produced from nothing and strange laws not existing today were apparently operative. You could call it the history of the unimaginable past. Evolutionists shouldn’t be in any science department, they should be trying their luck out in the history department.

I fail to see the rationale in this latest 'kitchen sink' argument - but at least you haven't sunk to the Darwin=Hitler stupidity...


Well not yet but nobody asked.

All they’ve done is invent a creation myth in opposition to Christianity and then expect the rest of us to join their religion.
Uh oh...  You caught us!


That’s right and we’re quite fine with our own story, we don’t feel the need for your mumbo-jumbo as an alternative plot.

You got it all right - all these people doing research over the last century or so are all involved in a big plot to destroy the Christian Values of conservative Americans!


You might actually be right about something here so I’m going to give you ten points for perception. The only way I differ from what you’re thinking is “whose plot is it anyway?”

Well then Wise is not all that wise – if all the evidence indicated to me that evolution is true, then I’d switch over and support evolution.
I don't believe you.


Well you’re going to have to because it’s true.

Which is why you will never change.  Which is why Wise is a YEC.


Well Wise sounds monumentally stupid and I won’t change until I see some evidence that I find convincing – all I ever see if people presenting evidence that is not at all convincing and trying to make it sound convincing based on their presuppositions which they don’t acknowledge.

Which mkakes one wonder why you people are so afraid of evolution - if you are so correct and your faith is so strong, why does it matter?


The truth matters, I don’t like being deceived nor do I like children being deceived by people who are preaching another history of the world and another religion in the name of science.








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:32 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please ignore my typos - this was too long for me to take the time to proofread...
Quote from Lester10 at 08:32 AM on July 28, 2009 :
Derwood
Gish out and out lied


You know if that makes you happy then you carry on thinking that Gish lied but personally I’m responsible for what I say and you’re responsible for what you say. If I’m convinced that a creationist intentionally lied then I won’t listen to that creationist without checking out why he says what he says.


So, you're basically ignoring what I wrote about...


I am satisfied on a scientific level that evolution is not true


Based on what I've read from you on here, I'd say that you are satisfied because you get your information from sources that tell you what you want to hear.

and that creation must be true

False dichotomoy much?

and I’m sorry but I never used to believe this. I was all for evolution until 3 years ago and used to sprout it merrily.

Spare us.

Every time that I have heard one of these tales of conversion and bothered dig deeper, I have discovered that they have been embellished substantially.

Another example of creatinist dishonesty in this arena - YEC geologist Steve Austin.  He claims the have been an atheist evolutionist until he did research after Mt.St.Helens and he amazingly not only concluded that the Grand Canyon coul dhave formed quickly, but he decided to become a biblical literalist!  Proeblem is, he was writing YEC articles under the pseudonym Stuart Nevins for YEARS before Mt.St. Helens even erupted.

So, again, sorry, I don't but these tales of conversion.



One way or the other, they can’t both be true, they are not complementary belief systems but neither are they science as such since they are both based on once off past events that cannot be observed or repeated.


And yet we can observe the mechanisms of evolution in action, not creation.  We can observe the evidence left behind by evolutionary events, not creation.  We can predict what we should find if evolution occurred, and we often do, not so creation.
Of course, we cannot directly observe atoms or what fuels stars - but I'll bet you accept that atoms exist and that stars run on nuclear fusion...


Science is great but evolution is not science, it is a religion, a belief system as is creation.

If so, it is the one religion that can boast of having multiple lines of evidence supportive of its tenets.

Neither can be proven but creation has more going for it in the here and now than does evolution.


OK - name one solid positive piece of evidence for a no more than 10,000 year old earth.  Name one independantly corroborated piece of evidence indicating that there was a single global-catastrophic flood about 4,500 years ago - keeping in mind that this evidence will need to account for the fact that there are written records from civilizations that were in existence at that time and did not seem to notice a flood...

By the way - not all opinions are valid.


But then neither is it valid for evolutionists to attempt to baffle the general public with bullshit.

Who does that?  It is the creationists at the Discovery Institute that like to ramble on about 'information' and embellish their credentials, not evolutionists.

I saw Dr.Werner Gitt, YEC 'information theory expert' give a talk a couple years ago.  The talk was purportedly about how 'information theory' refutes evolution.  Yet 1/3 of his 'scientific' talk was purely religiouus inn nature, of the remainder, about 3/4 was an attempt to awe the audience with allusions to big numbers, none of which had anything to do with evolution OR information theory (he went on and on about howmuch DNA was in a nucleus, for example).  When he FINALLY got to the supposed main purpose of his talk, he prattled on with bafflegab for about 10 minutes and then 'concluded' that evolution was impossible.  Yet when I and a couple of my colleagues from the local university (I don't think he planned on anyone being there that could actually understand the arguemnts and tear them down) asked him poinnted pertinent questions about his claims, he had no real answers.  He was trying to baffle with bullshit.
Just like Dembski and Meyer and Wells and Behe and Johnson and Gish and Berlinski et al. do.

They are true believers in unobservable historical events but in their enthusiasm to have others believe they are not always honest either –you have to go back to their presuppositions to see how they got from point A to point B and how they do it is hidden when they make their statements of ‘fact’ under the guise of their educated opinion.


And the presupposition that what was borrowed from other cultures and molded to fit tribal cultural mores and jotted down thousands of years ago by Bronze Age nomads is 100% absolutley true and the the Hebrew tribal deity is the One true deity - that presupposition is OK to have?

And is it better to accept an UNinformed opinion?

That they can continue to call evolution a ‘fact’ tells me a lot about how much truth means to them.

Do you know WHAT is being called a 'fact'?  Evem YECs admit that evolution occurs, they just place Scripturally-based constraints on it.  Surely you have heard of Baraminology?
Creationists only have to say “There is no evidence for macroevolution” and they’ll be called a liar.
Rightly so.  Their not accepting the evidence does not mean it does not exist.  If they truly believe that there is no such evidence, then they are just delusional.


There you go –your ‘educated’ opinion has just been presented as ‘fact’. You know perfectly well that macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated because, as the excuse goes, it takes too long.

There you go, presenting your religion based folk understanding of science as some arbiter of truth.
My opinion that there is evidence for macroevolution IS a fact.  Even YEC PhD geologist Kurt Wise admits this.
I said NOTHING of 'demonstrating' macroevolution, I said (indirectly) that there is evidence for it.
Just as there is EVIDENCE that things we call atoms exist but we cannot directly observe them.

And, again, not all opinions are valid.

So where’s the delusion and who exactly is delusional?

The delusional person is the one who believes that their 'gut feelings' trump the opinions of those with legitimate, recognized expertise.  This is not to say that experts are never wrong, but it is to say that non-experts are far more likely not to be correct when rendering 'opinions' on the experts' fields.

And creationists seem to think that merely tossing out an assertion or opinion trumps evidence.


Actually that’s what you’ve just done with macroevolution.

No, it isn't, and for you to claim so tells the reader how shallow your knnowledge of this issue really is.

Again, reading YEC literature is hardly what one should read to learn about evolution.

Shall I present more evidence that creationist sources are dishonest?  I will start a new thread, but briefly, there is a website maintained by a 'rocket scientist' YEC - actually he is a computer guru at NASA.  I have caught him on sevral occasions distorting and even lying about evidence to prop up his cause by denigrating evolution and evolutionsts.  When I have presented this evidence to YECs on other boads, they dismiss it and claim that they simply believe him because he is a YEC.

Will you do the same?  You seem inclined to such a position.

Ask a creationist for evidence that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and without expection you will get some copy and pasted/paraphrased rant about problems with radiometric dating, or not enough salt in the seas.  NOTHING actually supporting a young earth.


What would you like, a birthdate pasted on it’s backside? How do you support an old earth?
Classical stratigraphy, radiometric dating, fission-track dating, etc.

I notice that you did not comment on the clear cut example of Wells fudging to prop up his cause...


I’m more interested in how you’ve been fudging about macroevolution to prop up your cause actually.

That is quite an accusation.  Perhaps you can present documentation that I have been fudging anything?  Or is this the standard Christian moralist comeback?

As for Wells, if I feel convinced that he’s been fudging, I’ll check out anything he has to say more carefully in the future.

OK, so you DON'T think that leaving off the phrase "clonal theory" (and not indicating that this was even done) did not alter the meaning of the following paragraph that he quoted?

OK, here is an analogy.


I read an article on Darwin by a bible person - lets call him Lester - in which I see the phrase "Jesus Christ was the greatest person in history," followed by the usual Darwin bashing.

I write an article myself, in which I claim to have evidence from'the creationists themselves' in which they admit Darwin was a great person by quoting the article thusly:

"Even Lester, a creationist, admits that Darwin was "the greatest person in history."

Would it be an accurate depiction of Lester's position?

According to your treatment of my documentation of Wells' little problem with accuracy, you would HAVE to, in order to avoid being a hypocrite, write " As for Derwood, if I feel convinced that he’s been fudging, I’ll check out anything he has to say more carefully in the future."
Meaning, of course, that you are not convinced...

I have read a couple of his (Phil Johnson) books and I've read many of his online essays.  Pure uninformed - but rhetorically lovely - propaganda.


Sounds like what I think of Richard Dawkins –rhetorically lovely propoganda –abusing his position to push a religion on the rest of us.


What position is that?  
Why do you assume that I adore Dawkins as you adore and worship the lawyer Johnson?

Right.  It is a good thing that I spent 5 years in grad school doing original research and have been teaching at the university level for 10 years now so that I do not have to rely on books and websites to do my thinking for me.  


Great so since you’re so educated, please could you answer this question for me –how did different sexual organs develop for male and female and happen to be complementary in function. Thank you. I can’t wait.


Classic creationist tactic.
I don't know.  I guess that this means that Yahweh the Hebrew tribal deity really did create the universe in 6 24-hour days and made humans from dirt!  Brilliant!

i do know that male and female external genitalia arise from the same embryonic primordia and that female is the default.  It requires a single protein expressed during development to cause a differential growth pattern in these primordia to produce male genitals.  This is in mammals.  In birds and reptiles, the reporductive organs are much less divergent, and in fish and 'lower' chordates, even less so, with some, such as the hagfish, having both (one set typically degenerates).  Some species of 'lower' chordate actually start out one sex and 'transform' into the other as they go through the equivalent of puberty.  Quite interesting and an area of active research, but as I do not have an answer to your question this very minute, you, being a YEC, will smugly convince yourself that this means there will never be an answer, and so the real answer is Magic ala Yahweh.
As such, perhaps you can explain how Yahweh made a fully formed human male from dirt.
Can't wait!

he relies on the fact that his target audience is going to believe him without question and 'protect' him from from the deserved scorn heaped upon him by those catching him making unsupportable claims.


You are quite obviously assuming that his target audience is somewhat retarded, for one, and that they are desperate to be lied to in the interests of their own belief system being verified.

Well, one need only look at what you wrote re: Wells.
Exhibit 1:

" As for Wells, if I feel convinced that he’s been fudging, I’ll check out anything he has to say more carefully in the future."

What more convincing would a rational, non-retarded person really need?  

Well it turns out that Phil Johnson has plenty connections in every field of academia and he always sends out his thoughts and writings to people in the fields he writes about, in order to make sure that he is factually correct because he is a lawyer you see and he knows that his work will be criticized, so first he checks with those in the know in every topic and gets them to criticize his conclusions and tell him why.

Really?

To whom did he send his manuscript for 'Darwin on Trial' to?  Does he actually inicorporate their criticisms, or does he just ignore them, as Dembski and Behe do?
Did he send his manuscript to like-minded fellows who would only agree with his take no matter what, as most YEC wrioters seem to do?
Or do you just believe that Johnson did/does this because he says so?

I don't particularly like Wikipedia, but the better entries are well sourced, and the one on DoT is no exception:

===
The legitimacy of Johnson's evaluation has been disputed by many biologists and commentators on the creation-evolution controversy.

Stephen Jay Gould reviewed the book for Scientific American. He concluded that the book contains "...no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points."[3] Gould's writings are quoted frequently in the book, but Gould stated complained that the book does not fully cite sources and employs poor chapter transitions; held up Theodosius Dobzhansky as a counterexample to Johnson's assertion that naturalism undergirds Darwinism; criticized Johnson's decision to include recombination as a form of mutation and his assessment of sexual selection as a relatively minor component of Darwinian theory in the late twentieth century; pointed out an error in the use of the term "polyploidy"; stated that Johnson incorrectly refers to Otto Schindewolf as a saltationist, "attacks" outdated statements of Simpson and Mayr; fails to point out that Henry Fairfield Osborn corrected his own mistake regarding Nebraska Man; and stated that Johnson overlooks "self-organizing properties of molecules and other physical systems" that, in Gould's opinion, makes the self-assembly of RNA or DNA plausible. Also, in contrast to Johnson's positions in the book, Gould states that Darwinism's bringing together of "widely disparate information under a uniquely consistent explanation" implies that it is a successful theory, that amphibians have features that imply a "fishy past", and that the genealogical tree of Therapsida is a convincing example of macroevolution.[3] In an epilogue to the second edition of the book, Johnson denounces Gould's review as a "hatchet job" that did not accurately describe the book, and an "attempt to distract attention from the main line of argument."[citation needed] In "research notes" in the second edition, Johnson provides answers to most of Gould's criticisms, but acknowledges that his use of "polyploidy" was indeed incorrect, the error having been missed by his "diligent scientific consultants"; it is corrected in the text. Johnson also replied in an online posting, essentially repeating the assertions he made in the book.[4]

Robert T. Pennock rebutted Johnson's belief that science was improperly defined within Edwards v. Aguillard, stating that the dual model of science established by Johnson (either creationism, or evolution is correct and true, and by disproving any part of evolution, creationism 'wins' by default) is a false dilemma, a type of logical fallacy.[5]

Johnson's claim to impartiality has been contradicted by reviewers who state that "the driving force behind Johnson's book was neither fairness nor accuracy",[6] and that the claim of impartiality is contradicted by Johnson's stated aim "to legitimate the assertion of a theistic worldview in the secular universities".[7]

Eugenie Scott has pointed out that the book repeats many arguments by creationists that were previously discredited:

“ It would take a very long essay to criticize all or even most of Johnson’s scientific errors. Many are recycled from earlier, long since refuted critiques of evolution presented by "scientific" creationists. As in creationist literature, we find the familiar "gaps in the fossil record", "natural selection is a tautology", "there are no transitional fossils", "mutations are harmful", "natural selection is not creative", "microevolution does not explain macroevolution", "natural selection only produces variation within the ´kind´", and "proof" of special creation by demonstrations of structural complexity such as the vertebrate eye and strands of DNA, as well as many other old saws.[1] ”

Scott further criticizes Johnson's approach, which assumes science and evolution can be treated the same way as a criminal trial. Scott points out that the uses of three critical terms in both science and law are completely divergent. Within science, a law is a descriptive generalization, while a theory is the explanation of the law, and the term "fact" is rarely used (in favour of "observation"). In comparison, the legal term law refers to a rigid set of behavioral proscriptions, a theory is presented by a lawyer in an effort to convince a judge or jury, and facts are assertions that lawyers make and attempt to prove to the court. Scott points out that in science, facts and theories are changeable as knowledge accumulates, and laws are less important than theories, while in court cases laws are immutable, theories are secondary to the laws. Also demonstrated is how the adversarial process works in each profession; during trials lawyers will actively conceal weaknesses in their cases and relevant information from the jury, while science is strongest when it actively attempts to disprove its own theories; a scientist concealing information will ultimately be exposed and disproven. Scott also points out that Johnson criticizes the theory of evolution for changing to accommodate new data, indicating a profound misunderstanding of this strength of science, which must adjust theories in order to explain contradictory or new information. Scott also points out the false dilemma used by Johnson as well as his use of straw men.[1]

Henry Bauer, Professor of Chemistry and Science Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, reviewed the book saying Johnson "misleads about science and about what science says about evolution." Bauer explained, "Johnson lumps evolutionists together as Darwinists...but Johnson doesn't understand that even Darwin's original 'theory' contains at least five separate concepts that can be held independently." In his case studies, for example, "with the Velikovsky affair, there is much more rhetoric than substance." Bauer noted that when "archaeopteryx cannot be explained away...Johnson calls it 'a point for the Darwinists, but how important ...?' - as though science were suggesting something else."[8]
===

But such things won't matter to a committed YEC, will they?

You seem to be saying that a lawyer is incapable of weighing the evidence, but that is his job.

No, it is not.  I suggest you find out what a lawyer actually does.

You are talking like a member of the Vatican that doesn’t credit his illiterate congregation with a brain. That’s a religious trick. ‘Sorry, I hold all wisdom and you guys can’t even assess it because you’re stupid!”


You've tried that before, I guess you ignored my response.

Do we sometimes get 'mean'?  'Impolite'?  Damn right - your brethren engage in such hubris and disinformation peddling and ego stroking that it wears on us.


Often we think the same of your brethren.

I'm sure you do.  Problem is, you folks don't seem to be able to actually document any of it.

Speaking of which, I notice that you did not comment on the clear cut example of Wells fudging to prop up his cause...


Speaking of fudging to prop up a cause, have you ever observed macroevolution? Has anyone ever observed macroevolution?

Have you ever observed a tree growing?
How do you know trees actually grow and are not simply replaced every few days by tree fairies?

Speaking of retarded, one must realize that direct observation is but one of several means of engaging in scientific pursuits.  Continually harping on the 'necessity' of direct observation only indicates a shallow grasp of science.

Why should I accept a false claim?
If you declare that your beliefs tell you that the sky is not blue, but red, should I 'accept' that?  'Oh, gee, this fellows 'beliefs' are just as valid as mine, and if he believes that the sky is red, who am I to disagree?'


I couldn’t agree with you more. If somebody tells me the sky is red and I can observe that it is blue, I won’t suck it in and swallow either. The truth is the truth and I’m totally in agreement with you there.
You do realize though, I hope, that there’s a difference between observable truth and varying interpetations of evidence observed in the present which are being used to prop up beliefs about the past?

There are also such things as invalid interpretations.
For example, I have previously linked to a study documenting the generation of a known phylogeny of viruses whose DNA was then sequnced and analyzed.  The analysis produced a phylogenetic tree that matched the known relationships.  

Would you accept that such analyses can tell us about the ancestor-descendant relatioships of these viruses?

I listen plenty.  The problem is that so many of you people just "KNOW" you are 100% correct and that anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong and think this way SOLELY based on whether or not they agree with your 'worldview.'


I may be quite wrong but that is how you come across in your writing which is unfortunate –it makes people less inclined to listen –you come across almost bombastic.


So, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh?  Watch 'Hannity'?

Frankly, my experience shows me that it doesn't matter how 'nice' people are.  YECs dismiss anything presented to htme no matter who is presenting it and no matter how they do it.  

On the other hand, I am not the one declaring that I know that I am absolutley right on any and every topic I discuss and that anyone who thinks they know more than me is just boasting.

While submerging yourself in biblical doctrine makes you an open-minded free-thinker, right?


Well I’ve believed in evolution all my life until recently so I’ve been on both sides of the fence.

And this was preceeded by a religious conversion, yes?  Just like Dean Kenyon?  Just like John Sanford?  Just like your hero, Phil Johnson?


I’m guessing you’ve only ever been on the one side and have never really considered the other.

Well, I considered myself a Christian until I was 20.  I was never deeply religious, it was not something we did in my family.  I distinctly remember what I said to the first actual atheist I ever met - "How can you NOT believe?"  That embarrasses me to this day, for I had never actually read the bible until I was 20.  And it was after reading the bible that I concluded that it was all just.... fluff.
I never doubted evolution - it always made sense to me.  But I was not "indoctinated" as many YECs seem to believe we all were.


Being submerged in evolution at universities and schools is great for one-sided non-objective thinking.

Right, because homeschoolers or private religious schools are so much more open and even-handed when dealing with such material..
I attended a rather conservative school, and my undergard major, while science-based, was not evolution-oriented at all.  Evolution was mentioned in a couple classes as asides, but I was never once tested on it.  Even in graduate school, no evolutoion, certainly not explicitly.  In fact, two of the professors in my department in grad school were creationists.  I had planned ot do researchon brain injury, until I saw the techniques employed to study it, and then I looked for something to do that did not require animal experiments.  One guy was doing DNA research, and I did a rotation in his lab and stayed.  It was here that the research focused on evolution.  

Sorry to destroy a stereotype.

You could liken it to a child steeped in the Jehovah’s witness religion – what else must he believe and everything he sees is confirmation that what he was taught is exactly right.

Which is what happens in fundy/evangelical circles all over the country.

They know where the bear poops in the buckwheat, you betcha!


Your stereotype of the creationist is a figment of the combined consciousness of the evolutionist. It sounds really silly and makes you appear very unobjective in your thinking.

And aren't you the fellow that just claimed that I must have been indoctinated all though my education and that is why I am an evolutionist?
Actually, I just paraphrased a very famous creationist - must be embarrassing to know what sort of dufuses espouse your belief system.  I'll bet Palin thinks because one cannot see macroevolution happeneing it must not have, too.
When I ask a creationist for evidence and I get a bible verse, I know I've won and that I am dealing with a child-like mind.


You may be wrong. You may be dealing with something way beyond your current understanding.


No, I don't think so.


Some of the best wisdom comes in childlike packages.

So does some of the stupidest nonsense you can imagine.
I was at a public pool the other day, and a 5 year old told me that his boogers tasted like cinnamon.  


And what about the someone who has at best a cursory understanding of something but then employs their prejudices in making a caricatire of what people who subscribe to that something do?


Neither of us was talking of such a thing but I’d certainly go to the doctor or the pathologist or the engineer or the botanist or the geneticist if I wanted an opinion in their field but I would still be inclined to use my own brain and experience in deciding whether I was going to act on their advice. I wouldn’t go to an evolutionist for anything unless I was looking for new stories for my book of fairytales.

Your book of fairy tales - you mean your bible?

And what has biblical literalism done for anyone?


Well we won’t know for sure until times up – but I still find that far more credible than stories made up entirely by men, which are interpretations of the evidence not the evidence itself.

'Nuff said...

When your kids get sick will you take them to a priest who can fire up some burnt offerings to Yahweh, or maybe kill some pigeons over running water


I didn’t know people did that still –where did you say you came from?

It is in your bible.

You've read it, right?

The concept of evolution is no good because it hasn't helped produce kitchen gadgets?


Well yes and to be quite truthful, it hasn’t helped produce anything at all that’s independently verifiable, just a bunch of hard to believe stories about a strange past billions of years ago where the laws of thermodynamics weren’t followed, everything was produced from nothing and strange laws not existing today were apparently operative.

Laws of thermodynamics, eh?

So, is a 100-foot redwood more or less complex than the seed that it came from?


You could call it the history of the unimaginable past. Evolutionists shouldn’t be in any science department, they should be trying their luck out in the history department.

You should stop pontificating about things that you are too ignorant to be discussing.

Learn a little humility.


But you won't, because you are a YEC and you've got your heroes whom you trust without question to tell you what you want ot hear.

I fail to see the rationale in this latest 'kitchen sink' argument - but at least you haven't sunk to the Darwin=Hitler stupidity...


Well not yet but nobody asked.

Go ahead and trot it out - and I'll trot out the actual facts - which you will ignore.

All they’ve done is invent a creation myth in opposition to Christianity and then expect the rest of us to join their religion.
Uh oh...  You caught us!


That’s right and we’re quite fine with our own story, we don’t feel the need for your mumbo-jumbo as an alternative plot.

- rolling eyes'

You got it all right - all these people doing research over the last century or so are all involved in a big plot to destroy the Christian Values of conservative Americans!


You might actually be right about something here so I’m going to give you ten points for perception. The only way I differ from what you’re thinking is “whose plot is it anyway?”

RECIPE FOR A MODERN AMERICAN CREATIONIST:

1 dose paranoia
2 shakes ignorance
1 pound gullability
10 pounds unwarranted confidence
2 more doses paranoia
1.5 spoons nationalism
3 spoons doublethink

Mix well, turn on FOX news, read bible.

Well then Wise is not all that wise – if all the evidence indicated to me that evolution is true, then I’d switch over and support evolution.
I don't believe you.


Well you’re going to have to because it’s true.

I doubt it.

You just mentioned the laws of thermodynamics, for crying out loud...



Which is why you will never change.  Which is why Wise is a YEC.


Well Wise sounds monumentally stupid and I won’t change until I see some evidence that I find convincing – all I ever see if people presenting evidence that is not at all convincing and trying to make it sound convincing based on their presuppositions which they don’t acknowledge.


Right - Harvard trained geologist and steadfast YEC is "stupid" because he doesn't spew the same goo you do.

And I an called 'bombastic'...

Amazing


The truth matters, I don’t like being deceived nor do I like children being deceived by people who are preaching another history of the world and another religion in the name of science.


Had you considered that you are the one that is deceived?






(Edited by derwood 7/28/2009 at 9:13 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:59 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Well I’ve believed in evolution all my life until recently so I’ve been on both sides of the fence.


Is that why you have demonstrated again and again throughout this forum that you have such keen understanding of how science works?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:43 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was a creationist all my life until I was 9 years old. I've been on both sides of the fence too! What really got me thinking was the flood story, even at 9 I just thought it was too implausible. And as always, the talking snake didn't help out too much in validating a literal read of Genesis.

Edit: Just noticed; this is my 100th post!

(Edited by Fencer27 7/29/2009 at 05:11 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:18 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no room for dissent.  Numerous testimonies attest to this.  You read and write an evolutionary paradigm if you want to pass, or if you want a career in science.  

Now you can learn a double paradigm system, which creation believing scientists have to in order to function.  

But the entire system is formatted in evolution.  No there are no police forcing us to believe it, but if you would enter into a science field, you have to function in the evolution paradigm, and keep the creation paradigm on a personal level.

And as far as implausibility--fencer says the flood cataclysm was too implausible while believing in abiogenesis, I presume, or the collasping nebulae theory.  It's still  order out of chaos without an intelligent organizer.

Please don't say these are separate theories.  They along with evolution operate by naturalism-- that is by natural processes to create the natural realm.

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 11:00 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 11:01 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:53 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:53 AM on July 29, 2009 :
And as far as implausibility--fencer says the flood cataclysm was too implausible while believing in abiogenesis, I presume, or the collasping nebulae theory.  It's still  order out of chaos without an intelligent organizer.


Grant it I didn't know about evolution when I was 9, let alone what abiogenesis was, or even what a nebulae was. But since I have gotten older and able to understand such things I have accepted it.

What do you mean by order out of chaos without an intelligent designer? Is covalent bonding of oxygen and hydrogen to form water order out of chaos without an intelligent designer? Even though we can explain covalent bonding, and hydrogen bonding of water through natural laws?  

As to the flood story, how is it not implausible? Abiogenesis, evolution, and solar nebulae hypothesis are all based on observable evidence and laws of nature.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:53 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Is that why you have demonstrated again and again throughout this forum that you have such keen understanding of how science works?


Yes Orion, why? Isn't it working?

Fencer27
I was a creationist all my life until I was 9 years old. I've been on both sides of the fence too!


And after that you realized that if you wanted the approval of your teachers you needed to rebel against your upbringing? How do your family feel or don't they really know the difference?

What really got me thinking was the flood story, even at 9 I just thought it was too implausible.


Why because the earth is only 3/4's filled with water -wasn't that enough to make it plausible? Some scientists believe that there were floods on Mars and Mars doesn't even have any water now so maybe it's not as implausible as you tell yourself it is.

And as always, the talking snake didn't help out too much in validating a literal read of Genesis.


Well they were talking directly with God as well in those days so obviously they could cmmunicate directly with the spiritual realm. That snake's still talking only you can't hear it as loud and clear but he's usually out there giving you all your bad ideas.

Is covalent bonding of oxygen and hydrogen to form water order out of chaos without an intelligent designer?


That's chemical law but DNA and RNA translation and transcription are something else again. DNA and RNA are not possible by chemical law alone. They are coded and decoded and they need each other.

Abiogenesis, evolution, and solar nebulae hypothesis are all based on observable evidence and laws of nature.


How is abiogenesis based on observable evidence? it's here therefore life came from non-life? It's the old disproven spontaneous generation theory only now that that is disproven, as in it can't happen quickly and now, the story changed and now it happened very slowly and long ago.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 1:36 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:53 AM on July 29, 2009 :
There is no room for dissent.  Numerous testimonies attest to this.  You read and write an evolutionary paradigm if you want to pass, or if you want a career in science.  


It is a matter of competence.

An historian claiming the holocaust never happened wouldn't (shouldn't) be an historian for very long.  To deny the evidence for evolution is to demonstrate an irrational position and to deny what is apparent.  



Now you can learn a double paradigm system, which creation believing scientists have to in order to function.  


Right - so when a creationist scientist works for the petroleum industry, he employs old earth tenets in performing his job, then turns aroiund and demies those effective relaity based tenets when rantoing about their religion.


But the entire system is formatted in evolution.  No there are no police forcing us to believe it, but if you would enter into a science field, you have to function in the evolution paradigm, and keep the creation paradigm on a personal level.


This needs to be done to be productive.  It is no coincidence that one's productivity drops off precipitously upon adopting a creationist paradigm - because it doesn't work.  Look at Dean Kenyon, look at Mike Behe, look at Gonzalez.  When you devote all your energy to propping up your religion, you do not have the time to engage in real sceintific research.

And as far as implausibility--fencer says the flood cataclysm was too implausible while believing in abiogenesis, I presume, or the collasping nebulae theory.  It's still  order out of chaos without an intelligent organizer.

Which happens all the time.  Look up 'convection cell' or 'emergent complexity.'


Please don't say these are separate theories.  They along with evolution operate by naturalism-- that is by natural processes to create the natural realm.

What is wrong with that?  We see the natural acting on the natural.  We do not see magical ethereal beings poofing fully-formed humans out of dirt.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:56 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 1:36 PM on July 29, 2009 :

What really got me thinking was the flood story, even at 9 I just thought it was too implausible.


Why because the earth is only 3/4's filled with water -wasn't that enough to make it plausible?


Wow...

Um, no, the earth is NOT '3/4 filled' with water.  For crying out loud, where do you people get this fluff?


Some scientists believe that there were floods on Mars and Mars doesn't even have any water now so maybe it's not as implausible as you tell yourself it is.

Global floods on Mars?  Really?

And as always, the talking snake didn't help out too much in validating a literal read of Genesis.


Well they were talking directly with God as well in those days so obviously they could cmmunicate directly with the spiritual realm.

No they weren't.  They just didn't know how to diagnose mental illness.

Is covalent bonding of oxygen and hydrogen to form water order out of chaos without an intelligent designer?


That's chemical law

It is a law that H and O must covalently bond to form water?
Make that up, too?


but DNA and RNA translation and transcription are something else again. DNA and RNA are not possible by chemical law alone.

Please explain this in detail.


They are coded and decoded and they need each other.

They are just molecules.

Abiogenesis, evolution, and solar nebulae hypothesis are all based on observable evidence and laws of nature.


How is abiogenesis based on observable evidence?

Look up Robert Hazen.


it's here therefore life came from non-life? It's the old disproven spontaneous generation theory only now that that is disproven,

Except that abiogenesis is not quite what was disproved, now was it?


as in it can't happen quickly and now, the story changed and now it happened very slowly and long ago.

Imagine that - science changing in light of new evidence, somoething religion will NEVER do.


So, how is your explanation for people from dirt via Jehovah the Hebrew tribal deity coming?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:04 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 1:36 PM on July 29, 2009 :
Yes Orion, why? Isn't it working?


No.

And after that you realized that if you wanted the approval of your teachers you needed to rebel against your upbringing? How do your family feel or don't they really know the difference?


I was 9, I wasn't concerned about any approval from my teachers. In fact, as a 9 year old boy approval from teachers was frowned upon in most cases.

This wasn't a rebellion against my upbringing as my church isn't a creationism congregation, and although most of my extended family are essentially YEC's, my immediate family isn't.

Why because the earth is only 3/4's filled with water -wasn't that enough to make it plausible?


Um, that's not entirely accurate. 3/4 of the earth is not filled with water, but 70% of the earths surface is covered in water. But it's not just the water issue with the flood, it's the animals, and the ark too. Just one of these issues makes it very implausible if not impossible with our current level of understanding about the world, let alone when you put all of them together. And now in another thread it's being claimed that comets came from the flood. WTF, don't you people have enough problems with the flood as it is, or do you think that the more implausible scenarios you can come up with the greater your faith is? That is not faith, that is a lack of faith, or just plain stupidity.

Some scientists believe that there were floods on Mars and Mars doesn't even have any water now so maybe it's not as implausible as you tell yourself it is.


There are geological indicators that suggest that water flowed on Mars and water maybe trapped at the polar ice caps, but I doubt there was a global flood as you suggest. Not to mention if water did escape the atmosphere it would have taken more than 10K years to get rid of all the water if the planet was completely covered in it.

Well they were talking directly with God as well in those days so obviously they could cmmunicate directly with the spiritual realm. That snake's still talking only you can't hear it as loud and clear but he's usually out there giving you all your bad ideas.


So you don't believe in a literal snake either? How very un-fundamentalist of you.

That's chemical law but DNA and RNA translation and transcription are something else again. DNA and RNA are not possible by chemical law alone. They are coded and decoded and they need each other.


I'm not aware of any law about covalent bonding, to me it's just chemistry. Same with RNA to DNA transcription and DNA to protein translation. What in chemistry prevents this, or inadequate  to explain?

How is abiogenesis based on observable evidence?


Experiments.

it's here therefore life came from non-life?


Cell theory states that life only comes from life. On a first glance abiogenesis is a hard sell. Also because as you pointed out spontaneous generation has been disproven.

It's the old disproven spontaneous generation theory only now that that is disproven, as in it can't happen quickly and now, the story changed and now it happened very slowly and long ago.


I haven't seen wisp in a while, too bad, because wisp likes that little chart about the difference between what creationists say abiogenesis is (random chemicals-poof-life as we see it today), and what the real scientists are saying about abiogenesis. Which is a long series of steps that is really to long and complicated for the laymen to understand fully.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 5:50 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27

Um, that's not entirely accurate. 3/4 of the earth is not filled with water, but 70% of the earths surface is covered in water.


Um forgive me for not expressing that very well. Does it make a difference, do you think, to the point I am making?

But it's not just the water issue with the flood, it's the animals, and the ark too.


Well I really don’t think the water is any issue –flatten it out a bit (the mountains did rise up and the valleys sank down after the flood according to the Bible) and you’ll be under water. A little imagination, no serious stretch, should suffice. As for the animals and the ark –how big was the ark, how many kinds had to fit on? How big is God? The evolution story is far more incredible to my mind –especially in the light of the lack of evidence for it.

don't you people have enough problems with the flood as it is


You sound as if you’re embarrassed by your family’s faith and crave acceptance in the bigger world out there – very few of my family are Christians so I was only ever a part of the world system until I chose to believe in the Biblical creator. Some Christians do make it embarrassing to be part of what they stand for but then so do some Muslims and some atheists, some biologists, some cult members and some families in general. Hopefully you’ll get over it.

That is not faith, that is a lack of faith, or just plain stupidity.

Really?
but I doubt there was a global flood (on Mars) as you suggest.

Global? Who said global? But don’t worry, Derwood also picked up my comment as ‘global’ instead of just ‘floods’ as I actually said.
So you don't believe in a literal snake either?

No, I do think it was a snake but I think somebody more significant to the fall of man was using the snake as a conduit –much like these new-agers and their channelling of ‘benevolent’ so-called spirits.
Same with RNA to DNA transcription and DNA to protein translation. What in chemistry prevents this, or inadequate  to explain?

The code of DNA says what amino-acids have to line up and that code has to be moved out of the nucleus and translated into amino-acids, that then bond to form specific proteins with specific shapes that are needed in specific amounts in specific places to do specific actions that are needed for the overall functioning of the organism. How can you not see that that is code not just chemistry? You could call it coded chemistry.Try using your computer without ‘windows’ –that’s how necessary that code is and it’s not just chemistry - just like the information in a book isn’t just to do with the chemical properties of paper and ink.
How is abiogenesis based on observable evidence?
Experiments.

You mean experiments as in ‘intelligent design’? Do you think you can really apply those experimental results to dilute primordial soup and random chemical activity –as for the lightning energy required to zap those chemicals, since when did lightning energy become usable as opposed to destructive?

On a first glance abiogenesis is a hard sell.

And on a second and on a third and so on…. I still don’t buy it and intense detail shouldn’t get in the way of your common sense. It still requires faith far greater than believing that an intelligent supernatural creator had something to do with the organization and intelligence of life.You’re putting your faith in the words of men rather than in the Word of God.
because wisp likes that little chart about the difference between what creationists say abiogenesis is (random chemicals-poof-life as we see it today), and what the real scientists are saying about abiogenesis.

You appear to have fallen into that little trap that evos are so keen on –the division between creationists (aka stupid people) and real scientists (aka more intelligent than to believe in God people). You have more faith in man and his dumb ideas than I do –you’re young and easily baffled by bullshit. I understand it. My parents were divided on this issue –I followed the ‘scientist’ (my father –he was a scientist after all) and listened to the evo stories which he believed and believed them too. Mother was the less educated one (in human terms, though I’d hate to take her on in general knowledge) and she believed that God was out there. So we left her to her cloud of happiness. I had one proviso in my younger days, I’d go with her anywhere but not to church because that was just boring and weird.
Until 3 years ago, I thought that the world was old and evolution was scientific –I changed my mind.
Which is a long series of steps that is really to long and complicated for the laymen to understand fully.


There we go, baffle them with bullshit –it’s like going under the dominion of the pope and the church. Don’t ever hand over your critical thinking. God gave you that brain, it didn’t evolve –he’d like you to use it.

P.S. Wisp went away for 2 weeks but he should be back shortly to help you to keep the faith. In the meantime, you have people like Derwood and Demon to keep you on the straight and narrow.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:51 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:51 AM on August 2, 2009 :

The code of DNA says what amino-acids have to line up and that code has to be moved out of the nucleus and translated into amino-acids, that then bond to form specific proteins with specific shapes that are needed in specific amounts in specific places to do specific actions that are needed for the overall functioning of the organism. How can you not see that that is code not just chemistry? You could call it coded chemistry.Try using your computer without ‘windows’ –that’s how necessary that code is and it’s not just chemistry - just like the information in a book isn’t just to do with the chemical properties of paper and ink.



DNA works based on chemistry.  That's all there is to it (unless you want to go subatomic!). You seem to be thinking that there is such a thing as "code" that is immaterial or whatever.  There's not.  Molecules , paper and ink, computer languages are all physical arrangements of physical things.  I should add, this includes neuronal systems as well.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 2:56 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:51 AM on August 2, 2009 :
since when did lightning energy become usable as opposed to destructive?


I donno, maybe since Ben Franklin?  You do know that you are using "lightning energy" to communicate on this forum, right?  Most of us call it electricity.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 2:59 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:51 AM on August 2, 2009 :
the division between creationists (aka stupid people) and real scientists (aka more intelligent than to believe in God people).



And you are invoking the fallacy of the false dichotomy.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:01 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:51 PM on August 2, 2009 :
Um forgive me for not expressing that very well. Does it make a difference, do you think, to the point I am making?


There's nothing to forgive, a simple mistake, nothing more. However, I do think that it does make a difference to the overall argument simply because surface area of objects like the Earth doesn't say anything about the volume needed to cover such an object.

Well I really don’t think the water is any issue –flatten it out a bit (the mountains did rise up and the valleys sank down after the flood according to the Bible) and you’ll be under water. A little imagination, no serious stretch, should suffice.


That is a lot of imagination there and a lot of geological activity you are speaking of.

As for the animals and the ark –how big was the ark, how many kinds had to fit on? How big is God? The evolution story is far more incredible to my mind –especially in the light of the lack of evidence for it.


If you ever figure out what a kind is, you would be able to tell us many of those questions. Unless you just want to say 'God did it', the "How big is God?" question seems a little out of place.

You sound as if you’re embarrassed by your family’s faith and crave acceptance in the bigger world out there


Well St. Augustine did basically say creationists give Christianity a bad name. I am not embarrassed of my families faith, but rather creationism in general.

Hopefully you’ll get over it.


While I would take a few creationist nut cases over some Islamic suicide bombers any day, I doubt I'll get over it.

That is not faith, that is a lack of faith, or just plain stupidity.

Really?


Really really.

but I doubt there was a global flood (on Mars) as you suggest.

Global? Who said global?


Well one line you were talking about Noah's flood than the very next line you were talking about floods on Mars and how it shows Noah's flood isn't that unreasonable. What else am I supposed to take from that?

No, I do think it was a snake but I think somebody more significant to the fall of man was using the snake as a conduit –much like these new-agers and their channelling of ‘benevolent’ so-called spirits.


You would think since Adam and Eve were stronger, smarter, and very close to God as they are uncorrupted and perfect, they would have done things a little differently. What I find really strange is that Adam and Eve are 100% innocent and don't have the concept of right and wrong before they eat the apple, so when they actually eat the apple they don't know that what they are doing is wrong, and God (being the fair God that He is) punishes them. It is about the equivalent of abandoning an infant because it cried in a movie, or a play, or church.

How can you not see that that is code not just chemistry?


The code is not something intangible, it is all explained by chemistry. It is like saying that water has codes in it telling the hydrogen to bond with the oxygen through covalent bonding, while hydrogen bonding with other water molecules.  

- just like the information in a book isn’t just to do with the chemical properties of paper and ink.


So true, it also involves light to see the information, eyes (photon sensitive organs), biochemical neuronal agents to get the signal from your eyes to the occipital lobe and various other chemical reactions with in the brain for you to recognize that the book says "See Spot run, Spot run fast."

You mean experiments as in ‘intelligent design’?


If I were to say yes, and you agreed with me, you would basically be saying that God could have created life through entirely naturalistic means while calling it 'intelligent design'. While I would support the basic idea that God created life through entirely naturalistic means, I don't think it is called intelligent design, nor do I think you would support such a statement.

Do you think you can really apply those experimental results to dilute primordial soup and random chemical activity –as for the lightning energy required to zap those chemicals, since when did lightning energy become usable as opposed to destructive?


Thank God chemistry is not random, because if it were we all would be in trouble. As for the lightning energy, Mustrum hit right on point, electricity!

And on a second and on a third and so on…. I still don’t buy it and intense detail shouldn’t get in the way of your common sense. It still requires faith far greater than believing that an intelligent supernatural creator had something to do with the organization and intelligence of life.


Why couldn't God have used natural means to create life, other than the bible doesn't say so?

You’re putting your faith in the words of men rather than in the Word of God.


Men wrote the Bible, influenced the Bible, and determined what was in the Bible.

You appear to have fallen into that little trap that evos are so keen on –the division between creationists (aka stupid people) and real scientists (aka more intelligent than to believe in God people).


Because I have seen time and time again creationists make the same faulty claim about abiogenesis. One video says that evolution (not even using the right term) claims we came from a rock! These aren't baseless accusations, but what has been seen from the creationist movement for years. And creationists aren't more stupid than evolutionists, most of the youth are just ignorant and most of the creationist veterans are willfully ignorant. And it is true that those who are real scientists are much smarter on average and highly more educated.

You have more faith in man and his dumb ideas than I do


The irony, as the Bible was written by man.

you’re young and easily baffled by bullshit.

This, is bullshit

I understand it. My parents were divided on this issue –I followed the ‘scientist’ (my father –he was a scientist after all) and listened to the evo stories which he believed and believed them too. Mother was the less educated one (in human terms, though I’d hate to take her on in general knowledge) and she believed that God was out there. So we left her to her cloud of happiness. I had one proviso in my younger days, I’d go with her anywhere but not to church because that was just boring and weird.
Until 3 years ago, I thought that the world was old and evolution was scientific –I changed my mind.


What changed your mind?

There we go, baffle them with bullshit –it’s like going under the dominion of the pope and the church. Don’t ever hand over your critical thinking. God gave you that brain, it didn’t evolve –he’d like you to use it.


Why not give me a brain through evolution?

P.S. Wisp went away for 2 weeks but he should be back shortly to help you to keep the faith. In the meantime, you have people like Derwood and Demon to keep you on the straight and narrow.


I only hope my evoness can survive until all the evos are united again.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:31 AM on August 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27 and Mustrum

Fencer 27

That is a lot of imagination there and a lot of geological activity you are speaking of.


Yes, well there’s a lot of thick sedimentary layers and much vast graveyard out there. I think the dead things number in the billions –it wasn’t a very pleasant time to be living on the planet especially if you were too clever and ‘scientific’ to be falling for Noah’s last warning. After all it had never rained till then and here’s that loser Noah hammering in nails trying to tell you there’s a problem up ahead.
After all when you know you’re related to the banana distantly and the orangutan more recently, you’re definitely not going to fall for Noah’s story!

Unless you just want to say 'God did it'


Well lets face it, either goddidit or evolutiondidit –that pretty much covers all your choices.

Well St. Augustine did basically say creationists give Christianity a bad name.


Well I don’t have a lot of faith in St Augustine then –he obviously was one of those ‘higher critics’ –too clever for God, re-interpreting God’s word with his own words and those of his ‘clever’ friends.

. I am not embarrassed of my families faith, but rather creationism in general.

Who exactly is your God? How do you decide what he wants you to know? How does he fit in with evolution? I don’t really understand how anyone can have it both ways –I know they try but I really don’t get it. Give me some indication please –maybe it’ll help me with my sister who’s of a similar persuasion and very anti my ‘ridiculous’ stance. Of course she hasn’t even looked at any of the evidence so of course I don’t take her seriously but she can sure rage when the topic comes up as if she has something personal invested in the reality of evolution –she’s an advocate, her biological training is nil, I really can’t see the attachment. I think she cares too much what the neighbours think.
While I would take a few creationist nut cases over some Islamic suicide bombers any day, I doubt I'll get over it.

Well, I’d take the evolutionist nutcases over the Islamic suicide bombers anyday as well.
Well one line you were talking about Noah's flood than the very next line you were talking about floods on Mars and how it shows Noah's flood isn't that unreasonable. What else am I supposed to take from that?

What I meant was, if we can believe there was any flood on a landscape presently devoid of water, why refuse to countenance a global flood on a planet 70% covered in water and thick with dead bodies in the dirt? Everything not on the ark drowned remember –suspicious this mass graveyard thing… also that our historical records only stretch back such a short time and that the Bible tends to be historically correct with so many events and people groups that existed.
What I find really strange is that Adam and Eve are 100% innocent and don't have the concept of right and wrong before they eat the apple, so when they actually eat the apple they don't know that what they are doing is wrong, and God (being the fair God that He is) punishes them.

According to my reading of it, they had free will and every reason to trust God and he warned them, for their own good to eat anything else but not anything from that tree. They were probably there quite long before they broke down and decided to try it though. It’s like your mother telling you, “Fencer, my boy, use any medicine you want but don’t touch the penicillin and you listen; for years you have healthy respect for that penicillin but one day you break down when your girlfriend says “Oh crap, she’s got to be joking, there’s nothing dangerous about penicillin –I know, I’ve tried it and so has my whole family, just have some.” So you do, even though you know your mother really loves you, you forget you can trust her (under the influence of peer pressure) and so you go into anaphylactic shock, stop breathing and die. Dumb move but it’s been done before.
And now God says in the Bible, listen Fencer, here’s your family tree, there’s Adam and Abraham and David and Daniel and this one lived this long and that one lived that long and married that person and then there was this one who lived till he was 425 before he finally snuffed it and ….. and he warns you in the family ancestral book –“Don’t listen to men, they like to think they’re far cleverer than I am and they’ll do anything to pretend to themselves that I don’t exist so that they can do what they like…” and by the time Fencer’s parents get born, they’ve been pretty good sticking by God but they’ve forgotten that God inspired that book and told men to write it down and copy it faithfully word for word with dire threats for anyone who tries to change one word in the book. Fencer’s parents are weakening and listening to the evolutionists or at least not standing firmly on God’s word - and what happens –there goes Fencer eating from that forbidden tree because somebody didn’t make it quite clear to him that that wasn’t the tree to eat from. It’s the snake that’s got you boy –you’re just as disobedient as old great great great …..grandpa Adam - and his rib.
It is like saying that water has codes in it telling the hydrogen to bond with the oxygen through covalent bonding

It’s not even near the same level. DNA has individual molecules that combine by chemical bonding, that’s plain chemistry. How those nucleotides line up however is the trick. They line up in order to line specific amino-acids up, so that they link in a special order and can be folded into a special needed shape for a function that needs to be carried out for the good of the entire organism in concert with many other proteins whose production is switched on and off according to the body’s needs. Hydrogen and oxygen just bond whether that bond is needed or not, they just do what comes naturally, but not DNA. Without DNA, the enzymes don’t get manufactured, the translation mechanism doesn’t happen, nothing works without that programmed DNA. Without that programme, you can’t exist.
As for the lightning energy, Mustrum hit right on point, electricity!

I think Mustrum wasn’t thinking straight –electricity conversion requires intelligent planning, lightning just isn’t the sort of thing you want to get zapped by. I use electricity every day but I get inside when lightning gets close.
Why couldn't God have used natural means to create life, other than the bible doesn't say so?

Well he could have I suppose but he said what he did and there’s no hint of evolution in there. I have no reason not to hear his words nor to turn them into what I’d rather hear. He also said don’t eat from that tree and I know what happened last time the snake said “Did God really say…..?” making men doubt God’s word.
And that’s not even getting into mentioning the lack of gradualism in the fossil record; nor can I get my head around that hippo to whale conversion just to mention a few superficial hiccups in the story.
Men wrote the Bible, influenced the Bible, and determined what was in the Bible.

The Jehovah’s converted Bible sure, the Koran definitely, but if you feel so sure about the lack of authenticity of the Christian Bible then why bother to believe any of it? Why think you can pick and choose which parts you prefer? I’d dump the whole thing if I didn’t think I could trust parts of it. It’s not always a nice story but then life on this earth has not always been pretty.
The snake’s plan is to make you believe that that Bible can’t be trusted, that that God can’t be trusted and that you should rather use your brain to follow the words of men.
Because I have seen time and time again creationists make the same faulty claim about abiogenesis.

How can you say it’s faulty when you admitted that the alternative explanation of abiogenesis is too complicated for you to quite understand? Don’t let bullshit baffle you and all those stories about creationists lying, misquoting, deceiving –I don’t believe any of it.Evo’s use it as a smokescreen when they have no real answers. If any of it is true, I don’t believe it is intentional because I know that those people aren’t getting a pat on the head for going against the flow; they are fighting the tide and it’s wearisome and not conducive to promotion and adulation. If you examine the stories carefully, it’s usually the evo’s that are trying to baffle with bullshit in defence of what they are sure must be true but have no way of really proving. It’s the modern creation myth.
The irony, as the Bible was written by man.

I’m sorry but it’s far too clever and co-ordinated for men to have written on their own. Why bother to be a Christian if you think men wrote the book? I wouldn’t even think of it – nor would I bother to keep the bits I preferred if that was my feeling about the book.
What changed your mind?

I was exposed quite by chance to the creationist arguments –I had never heard a word of it before, not even a hint or not that I remember. Suddenly this whole other world view was up for examination. I was a Christian by that time but quite happy with Christianity and evolution. What bugged me the most was that none of these creationist arguments ever get to see the light of day without a struggle. Why suppress it if it’s not threatening? I find it so logical and so completely sane and it means that my brains and my faith can be on the same side which didn’t ever seem to be an option before that. I must admit though that in the beginning I was horrified by this new possibility. It seemed so crazy compared to what I had been believing for years, that I never said a word outside of real close family until I’d spent about three months reading it up. Finally I mentioned it outside of those closest to me and did I get bullets. It was like an Islamic converting to Christianity, your own family is supposed to roast you and mine did –they still don’t get it. Problem is they won’t even listen to any argument or even attempt to defend their belief , so I know that their evo belief is religious not scientific. They’re just believers and that’s that. My father does listen a bit but he really gets riled up unnecessarily. I stay calm, they generally can’t which is weird; they’re not normally like that.

Why not give me a brain through evolution?


Not possible, the wiring is programmed not chemically combined.

I only hope my evoness can survive until all the evos are united again.


You don’t appear to be having a problem keeping that fantasy alive.


Mustrum

And you are invoking the fallacy of the false dichotomy.


You make it sound like you believe in the false dichotomy. It’s the evo’s favourite fallacy.

You do know that you are using "lightning energy" to communicate on this forum, right?  Most of us call it electricity.


Ah, but there was no stepping-up and stepping-down control here, just raw lightning energy hitting primordial soup!

It is about the equivalent of abandoning an infant because it cried in a movie, or a play, or church.


Except that God loved that infant so much that he personally got himself a body and came down to die in it’s place. I don’t think we’re talking about the same God.







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:18 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:18 AM on August 4, 2009 :
Fencer 27 and Mustrum

Fencer 27

That is a lot of imagination there and a lot of geological activity you are speaking of.


Yes, well there’s a lot of thick sedimentary layers and much vast graveyard out there. I think the dead things number in the billions –it wasn’t a very pleasant time to be living on the planet especially if you were too clever and ‘scientific’ to be falling for Noah’s last warning. After all it had never rained till then and here’s that loser Noah hammering in nails trying to tell you there’s a problem up ahead.


Never rained before the flood....

Amazing - so how did people raise crops?
How did grass grow?

A CHILD can see that plants wither and die without water.  Why can't an adult YEC?

As for these graveyards - any dinosaurs mixed with modern mammlas in them?

No?

Gee....

After all when you know you’re related to the banana distantly and the orangutan more recently, you’re definitely not going to fall for Noah’s story!


Why would you when the borrowed Babylonian myth was written about a couple thousand years before Darwin was born?


Unless you just want to say 'God did it'


Well lets face it, either goddidit or evolutiondidit –that pretty much covers all your choices.

Why not the Titans?
Rael?
Zeus?

You folks are accused of employing fallacious false-dichotomy arguments because... YOU DO IT.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:51 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mr. Derwood,
In answer to your question on never raining before the flood.

Genesis 2:6
For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;  6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.


As far as the subject of the thread, I never felt forced to accept evolution but....  People are obviously influenced by scientists.  After all, they are considered our greatest minds.  They are for our good and the good of humanity.

Then there is separation of church and state which evolved through court system and finally made it's mark with all reference of God censored from official public education.

Then the media--have you ever seen a  ID documentary on Discovery channel?

SO--not forced, but kind of one sided osmosis.  Everybody just kind of accepts it and it's no big deal.  Most kids are more concerned with who they are going out with or with basketball, or the next party.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:46 PM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:18 AM on August 4, 2009 :
Yes, well there’s a lot of thick sedimentary layers and much vast graveyard out there. I think the dead things number in the billions –it wasn’t a very pleasant time to be living on the planet especially if you were too clever and ‘scientific’ to be falling for Noah’s last warning. After all it had never rained till then and here’s that loser Noah hammering in nails trying to tell you there’s a problem up ahead.


While there is a lot of sedimentary, there is no layer of sediment covering the world dating back 4K years, or whenever you claim the flood took place.

To Noah's warnings, there is no indication that Noah ever warned anyone other than his family. In fact several Jewish teachings that explicitly teach the exact opposite in that Noah completely isolated himself from society, so he wouldn't have even told anyone about the flood.

And to it not raining before the flood? What a load of BS.

After all when you know you’re related to the banana distantly and the orangutan more recently, you’re definitely not going to fall for Noah’s story!


And if you're married you are related to your spouse. Isn't there something about incest in the Bibe, and I don't think it talks about it in a friendly manner.

Well lets face it, either goddidit or evolutiondidit –that pretty much covers all your choices.


What if I want to believe evil hyena demons from the future with halo swords and armor from the covenant did it? On a more serious note, we can explain evolution, however we will never be able to explain a god did it answer or than repeating the phrase.  

Well I don’t have a lot of faith in St Augustine then –he obviously was one of those ‘higher critics’ –too clever for God, re-interpreting God’s word with his own words and those of his ‘clever’ friends.


Never mind he was an instrumental force in Christianity, and had major influences on modern sects in Christianity. Not to mention I would say it is false witness to say that he is "too clever for God", he clearly was a believer. Just because people don't ascribe to creationist absurdity doesn't mean they reject God, just the limited interpretation presented by fundamentalists.

Who exactly is your God?


God is God.

How do you decide what he wants you to know?


Can you expand on this a little?

How does he fit in with evolution?


Basically I share the Catholic view on this issue. Essentially God created all organisms including humans through evolution.

I don’t really understand how anyone can have it both ways –I know they try but I really don’t get it.


I think the main difference (theologically) is the issue of the Bible being inherent or not. Creationists usually believe in an inherent Bible that is literally true of all accounts, most theistic evolutions do not. Most creationists realize that the Bible can't be literally read, it has certain literary devices and poetry in it that make it insane and incoherent to interpret it literally. I see it as everyone interprets the Bible metaphorically, just how far one interprets this way that defines creationist or evolutionist. While I don't think the best time to bring this up is in a debate with your sister about evolution, as it has nothing to do with biology, I think understanding her position on how Genesis should be interpreted would give you some indication.

I can't say why your sister is pro-evolution, my guess is that she has heard some things (possibly the Dover trial, not the best press for creationism/ID), or has seen some polls of scientists who accept evolution (over 99%).

What I meant was, if we can believe there was any flood on a landscape presently devoid of water, why refuse to countenance a global flood on a planet 70% covered in water and thick with dead bodies in the dirt?


I suppose the big question is where did all the water go? How would you explain the Earth being completely covered by water and 150 days later water levels lowering to what we see today?

Everything not on the ark drowned remember


Did God poof all the marine life back after the flood? Or did Noah have whales on the ark too?

suspicious this mass graveyard thing


As Derwood said, we don't see animals deviating from the strata evolutionary theory predicts them to be in. There should be a hodgepodge of fossils in the strata if the flood story was true, however we just don't see it.

also that our historical records only stretch back such a short time


The Egyptians didn't notice a flood when you say it happened. Not to mention Jericho was doing fine for the past 11K years, while YEC believes the universe to be less than 10K years.  

and that the Bible tends to be historically correct with so many events and people groups that existed.


I'm sure you can provide an example with a scholarly outside sources confirming such a claim.

According to my reading of it, they had free will and every reason to trust God and he warned them, for their own good to eat anything else but not anything from that tree.


While they had free will, they didn't know right from wrong until after they ate from the tree of knowledge. So they didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. And once they realized that what they did was wrong and was ashamed of it, God punished them. While God was pissed he then decides to punish an entire kind even though they had nothing to do with anything. And according to original sin that many creationists accept, we inherit that sin from birth, although original sin was never discussed until recently, and there are scriptures that directly go against the notion of anyone inheriting sin from birth.

They were probably there quite long before they broke down and decided to try it though. It’s like your mother telling you, “Fencer, my boy...


It doesn't matter how long of a time period this took place. The fact is according to Genesis Adam and Eve didn't know that eating the fruit was evil until after they ate it. It doesn't matter that God told them not too, they didn't know, or possibly didn't understand, that disobeying God is evil.

And now God says in the Bible, listen Fencer, here’s your family tree...


It was very important for all ancient people back then to be able to trace family trees back to deities. Christianity isn't exempted here, why not use ancient Roman family trees to show ancestry to Zeus?

there goes Fencer eating from that forbidden tree because somebody didn’t make it quite clear to him that that wasn’t the tree to eat from.


I don't think you understand the problem with this interpretation of the story, although you have told me not to eat this, I have no concept of right and wrong. I don't know that disobeying you is wrong, no matter how many times you tell me not to eat the fruit, until I already eat it.

It’s the snake that’s got you boy –you’re just as disobedient as old great great great …..grandpa Adam - and his rib.


And the snake has you around your throat.

It’s not even near the same level. DNA has individual molecules that combine by chemical bonding, that’s plain chemistry. How those nucleotides line up however is the trick.


How the nucleotides line up is still plain chemistry.

Without DNA, the enzymes don’t get manufactured, the translation mechanism doesn’t happen, nothing works without that programmed DNA. Without that programme, you can’t exist.


Without a duodenum your kinda screwed too, but what specifically can't be explained by chemistry.

I think Mustrum wasn’t thinking straight –electricity conversion requires intelligent planning, lightning just isn’t the sort of thing you want to get zapped by. I use electricity every day but I get inside when lightning gets close.


That is because when electricity actually hits you the amps can stop your heart. I doubt you would put water in your electrical outlet to make a current from the wall to your body. The reason why you aren't afraid to use electricity in your home, or at the store is because humans have learned to control such energy safely (for the most part).


And that’s not even getting into mentioning the lack of gradualism in the fossil record; nor can I get my head around that hippo to whale conversion just to mention a few superficial hiccups in the story.


This has been explained to you many times, hippos didn't evolve into whales, they have a common ancestor. Whales and hippos are cousins on the tree of life.

The Jehovah’s converted Bible sure, the Koran definitely, but if you feel so sure about the lack of authenticity of the Christian Bible then why bother to believe any of it? Why think you can pick and choose which parts you prefer? I’d dump the whole thing if I didn’t think I could trust parts of it.


By lack of authenticity I assume you mean I don't think the Bible is the literal word of God. Because I still think the Bible is inspired by God and it has everything we need for salvation and it is a very good way to establish and continue a lasting relationship with God. I don't see it as pick and choose process, but a process to see what parts are cultural and what parts are timeless and how we can apply both to our lives appropriately. It is not that you can't trust the Bible, you just have to understand that theistic evolutionists don't view the Bible so literally nor do they require such interpretation. Many of them feel that a literal translation robs the Bible of its eternal meaning by degrading the meaning of the story through focusing on the story itself, as well as getting in the way of science when we (TEs) see no conflict. Plus I have seen many people get the wrong impressions that it is so black and white, and that impression made by creationist media has turned so many people away from God, many of them friends.

The snake’s plan is to make you believe that that Bible can’t be trusted, that that God can’t be trusted and that you should rather use your brain to follow the words of men.


Than the snake shall fail.

How can you say it’s faulty when you admitted that the alternative explanation of abiogenesis is too complicated for you to quite understand?


I don't understand gravity, does that mean I can't say any alternative to gravity is faulty?

Don’t let bullshit baffle you and all those stories about creationists lying, misquoting, deceiving –I don’t believe any of it.


Too bad, I've experienced it first hand many times.

Evo’s use it as a smokescreen when they have no real answers. If any of it is true, I don’t believe it is intentional


I think that many average creationists don't do it intentionally, although I have been very surprised before where creationists willfully misquote in an effort to mislead all who read.

If you examine the stories carefully, it’s usually the evo’s that are trying to baffle with bullshit in defence of what they are sure must be true but have no way of really proving. It’s the modern creation myth.


Just because creationists can't, or refuse to, understand real science doesn't mean that it is BS, it just means they creationists need an education.  

I was exposed quite by chance to the creationist arguments –I had never heard a word of it before, not even a hint or not that I remember. Suddenly this whole other world view was up for examination. I was a Christian by that time but quite happy with Christianity and evolution.


Try to imagine your mindset back then, that is probably what your sister is like. I don't know if that will help you understand it or not, just an idea I had.

What bugged me the most was that none of these creationist arguments ever get to see the light of day without a struggle. Why suppress it if it’s not threatening? I find it so logical and so completely sane and it means that my brains and my faith can be on the same side which didn’t ever seem to be an option before that.


Well you can always post this information/evidence in the evidence for creation thread, or start your own thread for this.

Problem is they won’t even listen to any argument or even attempt to defend their belief , so I know that their evo belief is religious not scientific. They’re just believers and that’s that.


Well very few people in the world are scientists, and an appeal to authority is a necessity of society. For the most part if the experts says that X is true, unless we ourselves are experts what else can we do but accept that they know more about the subject and they are correct? While many laymen try to understand basic concepts, they can never get to the level of competency of real scientists.  

Not possible, the wiring is programmed not chemically combined.


What in the brain can't be explained through natural processes?

You don’t appear to be having a problem keeping that fantasy alive.


The fantasy will never die, from depths of the ocean we will rise and slaughter all who oppose us. Creationism is fought in the name of evilution! Fantasy of fantasies, lord of all the metaphysical, Son of Lucifer. Children of Cain, I call thee to the everlasting light that once shown so brilliantly. Through the destruction of Ba'al Zebub, we shall outlast them. Through the binding darkness we shall prevail, and the illuminating hilltop will be seen by all.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 07:25 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then there is separation of church and state which evolved through court system and finally made it's mark with all reference of God censored from official public education.


Um, no.    For example, it can be in a class on religions, or a philosophy class.   Religious freedom merely means that the state can't promote religion.   So the law allows reference to God.

Then the media--have you ever seen a  ID documentary on Discovery channel?


Haven't seen one on "Our Flat Earth" either.   For the same reason.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:06 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:46 PM on August 6, 2009 :
Mr. Derwood,
In answer to your question on never raining before the flood.

Genesis 2:6
For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;  6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.


Oh, well, one uncorroborated source - an ancient religious text of unknown authorship - why didn't you say so!
I'm totally convinced now!  



As far as the subject of the thread, I never felt forced to accept evolution but....  People are obviously influenced by scientists.  After all, they are considered our greatest minds.  They are for our good and the good of humanity.

Then there is separation of church and state which evolved through court system and finally made it's mark with all reference of God censored from official public education.


And that is not quite true, but it does make for good Witnessing and recruitment, don't it?
[qwuote]

Then the media--have you ever seen a  ID documentary on Discovery channel?


No - fact checkers pretty much make sure that such pure propaganda does nto get throgh.


SO--not forced, but kind of one sided osmosis.  Everybody just kind of accepts it and it's no big deal.  Most kids are more concerned with who they are going out with or with basketball, or the next party.

Exactly, but to hear the right wingers tell it, from kindergarten on, those evil public school government tools are forcing all children to accept evolution!




(Edited by derwood 8/10/2009 at 12:26 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:19 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27

While there is a lot of sedimentary, there is no layer of sediment covering the world dating back 4K years, or whenever you claim the flood took place.


Yes there is, only you have different dates based on radiometric dating based on presuppositions about evolution occurring. You need those dates to add credibility to your story.

To Noah's warnings, there is no indication that Noah ever warned anyone other than his family. In fact several Jewish teachings that explicitly teach the exact opposite in that Noah completely isolated himself from society, so he wouldn't have even told anyone about the flood.


You don’t think building a boat that size wasn’t a warning in itself? You think the people didn’t ask what the hell he was up to? If you read the book of Jasher that is referred to in a couple of books in the Bible, it says that God told Noah about the flood he would send 120 years before he sent it. He told Noah to warn the people and if they turned from their evil ways God wouldn’t send the flood. He warned them apparently constantly but they didn’t want to believe him. They preferred, much like your average evolutionist, to persuade themselves that God did not even exist so of course there could be no coming flood. It’s the same as Christians warning people today that Jesus is coming back; that this time there’s not going to be a flood, but fire that’s going to wipe us out. Do the people listen? No, they invent stories about evolution that denies God as our creator and worry about things like global warming that they try to control with their human wisdom. They see the fossil graveyards and persuade themselves that these creatures died over millions of years. Like it says in the Bible, “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the son of man….” People choose to believe that God does not exist or that God didn’t say this or that or God actually meant billions of years when he said “on day one”. Just like in the book of Jasher when the rain started to fall and thousands of people stood at the ark saying let us in, so will it be when Jesus comes back. Evolution is a delusion designed to replace the Bible as our creation story and God as our creator.

And to it not raining before the flood? What a load of BS.

There was only a fine mist –why don’t you take the time to read it over. You could do with a rereading of the book of Genesis but while you’re at it, try not to twist any of the words to mean something else, it could be instructional if you do it with the right spirit.
And if you're married you are related to your spouse. Isn't there something about incest in the Bibe, and I don't think it talks about it in a friendly manner.

Well you see there was a problem in the beginning which is why Adam had to marry his own rib and produce children. Only after the flood were the people told not to marry their close family and it makes sense because the bloodline was getting mutated due to the curse that was on humanity and the earth. Everything was running down and the closer related you are, the greater possibility of producing a dominant mutation. It was simply good advise at that stage.
On a more serious note, we can explain evolution, however we will never be able to explain a god did it answer or than repeating the phrase.

What?
Never mind he was an instrumental force in Christianity, and had major influences on modern sects in Christianity.

Oh well then a spot of minor heresy shouldn’t allow us to dim his image. I wonder what God thinks?
Who exactly is your God?  
God is God.

Well that’s a bit vague. A lot of evolutionists say God doesn’t exist and it’s usually the Christian God that they’re opposed to and pretending doesn’t exist. Is your god Jesus Christ or is it another god?
Who exactly is your God? How do you decide what he wants you to know? How does he fit in with evolution?
Can you expand on this a little?

What I mean is how does God talk to you? Through a priest, through a specific church or through His Word? If you read the Bible (particularly Genesis) without advice on how to translate it, it is pretty self explanatory. We were given a brain so that we could read it ourselves and not be deceived by men’s opinions.
Most creationists realize that the Bible can't be literally read, it has certain literary devices and poetry in it that make it insane and incoherent to interpret it literally. I see it as everyone interprets the Bible metaphorically, just how far one interprets this way that defines creationist or evolutionist.

I know that some of the Bible is clearly metaphorical but those parts are clear to all. There are different styles in the Bible. There are historical portions though that are meant to be read literally as history. To me there is no doubt that that is what Genesis is, an historical narrative.
I can't say why your sister is pro-evolution, my guess is that she has heard some things (possibly the Dover trial, not the best press for creationism/ID), or has seen some polls of scientists who accept evolution (over 99%).

I know why she’s pro-evolution. She doesn’t think that a literal reading of the Bible can be scientifically supported but then she has no science training and she doesn’t want to hear any evidence against evolution, so she’ll never know. The topic gets her boiling like a kettle so I don’t bother to say anything anymore. I barely managed to get a word in edgewise when we ever did have a conversation about it. I think she likes to think of herself as scientifically informed but she has given up on “New Scientist” since it’s anti-Christian agenda has become so clear and radical - so that’s a good thing.
How would you explain the Earth being completely covered by water and 150 days later water levels lowering to what we see today?

Well Noah was on the ark for a year before the water levels dropped sufficiently for them to land on the mountains of Ararat and it does say in the Bible that in the time of Peleg, the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down.
Did God poof all the marine life back after the flood? Or did Noah have whales on the ark too?

Aquatic life didn’t have to go on the ark because although billions of fish, invertebrates etc. were covered in sediment and died, obviously a significant portion of marine life would survive quite easily while the earth was covered in water.
As Derwood said, we don't see animals deviating from the strata evolutionary theory predicts them to be in. There should be a hodgepodge of fossils in the strata if the flood story was true, however we just don't see it.

Actually we do see major deviation from the predicted strata. In most places, a lot of strata are missing (called unconformities –watch for the word) or are mixed up; you find ‘older’ layers are on top of the younger layers in every mountainous region on every continent on the globe but because evolutionists are believers, they just invent an inversion sequence which explains why that is so – eg. overthrusts. They find fossils too low in the strata but instead of falsifying the theory, they are just called ‘downwashed’. If they are found too high in the strata, they are called ‘reworked fossils.” Any other problems will be easily explained by a newly invented plausible story because the theory is utterly non-falsifiable. It actually is far more hodge podge than any evolutionist is prepared to admit in public.
The emperor has no clothes but the people are pretending not to notice.
Not to mention Jericho was doing fine for the past 11K years

How did they date Jericho do you think? Clearly not by the historical account given in the Bible or else they would have e pretty exact date and there’d be no need to invent it.
I'm sure you can provide an example with a scholarly outside sources confirming such a claim.

For loads of historically confirmed dates and occurrences, refer to Josh McDowell “A Ready Defense” –excellent book documenting the reliability of the Bible over the changing words of men.
The fact is according to Genesis Adam and Eve didn't know that eating the fruit was evil until after they ate it.

It wasn’t evil, it was wrong and God told them that –he warned them not to. How can you say they didn’t know? We all know what is wrong and is right.It’s written in our consciences and if we say we don’t know, we deceive ourselves in the interests of continuing with whatever it is that we know is wrong. The best way to continue in purported ignorance of right and wrong is to just pretend God doesn’t exist and the Bible can’t be understood without the aid of a pope or a priest, that leaves us not personally accountable –how convenient.
It was very important for all ancient people back then to be able to trace family trees back to deities.

The Bible traces us humans all back to Adam and Eve with names and dates –very specific. It doesn’t trace us back to deities except insomuch as our creator created the first people.
I have no concept of right and wrong. I don't know that disobeying you is wrong, no matter how many times you tell me not to eat the fruit, until I already eat it.

I fear you have heard this stupid story somewhere and now you believe it. That sounds like if your parents tell you not to do something, you don’t know that it’s wrong until you’ve tried it. That is illogical.
Without a duodenum your kinda screwed too, but what specifically can't be explained by chemistry.

How your body came to have the programme to make the duodenum which has a purpose and fits in with the whole big functioning organism and everything it needs to do to stay alive.
The reason why you aren't afraid to use electricity in your home, or at the store is because humans have learned to control such energy safely (for the most part).

So how do you imagine the primordial atmosphere managed to harness the lightning power in order to acquire the energy to make molecules and not destroy them? Anything that needs energy also needs it in controlled amounts.
This has been explained to you many times, hippos didn't evolve into whales, they have a common ancestor. Whales and hippos are cousins on the tree of life.

So have they found the hypothetical common ancestor or is it just a necessary element of the story that you have never seen the bones of but believe in in any case? You’ll find many trees of ancestry in fossil stories but all the ancestors are hypothetical and have never been found. If they were forced to number the specimens found on the family tree, they’d have to write 0 0 0 0 0 and so on for the links and thousands to millions for the fully formed and functional members of the tree. Only the tips of the branches existed, the rest is inference with no evidence.
Because I still think the Bible is inspired by God and it has everything we need for salvation

If we evolved then we have no need of salvation. What for?
It is not that you can't trust the Bible, you just have to understand that theistic evolutionists don't view the Bible so literally nor do they require such interpretation.

The theistic evolutionists do require interpretation. They need to know that the first day is actually a very long period of time and ditto for the other days. If they didn’t have the fallible words of men to supply them with that information then they wouldn’t even know that it had a concealed meaning.They depend on evolution for their interpretation and often they need their minister or the pope or some other member of the clergy to tell them what the simplest words mean and what they should think. They surrender the brain God gave them and then think or hope that they will not be held accountable for misunderstanding the plain words of scripture.
Many of them feel that a literal translation robs the Bible of its eternal meaning by degrading the meaning of the story through focusing on the story itself, as well as getting in the way of science when we (TEs) see no conflict.

Do you even understand what you are saying here?
Plus I have seen many people get the wrong impressions that it is so black and white, and that impression made by creationist media has turned so many people away from God, many of them friends.

Maybe that was their excuse –everybody has one. Mine was that the Bible couldn’t be true because evolution was true and there was too much conflict in the stories. Evolution sounded much more scientific and intelligent so I went with the words of men over the Word of God.
Than the snake shall fail.

He’s doing a great job with the evolutionists though. “Did God really say…” whereupon he proceeds to twist the words of God so that a day means millions of years and creation  ‘by my Word’ means ‘via evolution.’ That snake’s as sharp as ever.
I don't understand gravity, does that mean I can't say any alternative to gravity is faulty?

We’re talking about two totally different things here. Gravity’s effects can be observed and measured and repeated in the here and now. Abiogenesis is history (or not) depending on whether it happened or whether God created by His Word just like he said He did, rather than by evolution, as some men say he did.
Too bad, I've experienced it first hand many times.

Usually the people who make these accusations fail to mention the specifics so as to make sure that the accused won’t have the opportunity to reply.
I think that many average creationists don't do it intentionally, although I have been very surprised before where creationists willfully misquote in an effort to mislead all who read.

Examples please.
Just because creationists can't, or refuse to, understand real science doesn't mean that it is BS, it just means they creationists need an education.

The only time creationists are accused of not understanding science is when they fail to agree with the evolutionists on the interpretation of the evidence which is the exact same evidence for both. As for the creationist needing an education, these are scientists that I am talking about so I fail to see why they would need an education just because they don’t agree with the evolutionist as to the meaning of the evidence.
Try to imagine your mindset back then, that is probably what your sister is like. I don't know if that will help you understand it or not, just an idea I had.

The only problem is that never before has she behaved in such a radical manner with no good argument –it’s like something spiritually sick comes out when the topic comes up. It’s quite scary and weird.
For the most part if the experts says that X is true, unless we ourselves are experts what else can we do but accept that they know more about the subject and they are correct?

Well I’m pretty much talking about the creationist expert in a particular field compared to the evolutionist expert in the same field. There are lots of creationists extremely well trained in multiple fields you know, though it seems no evolutionist ever thinks that it is possible to be both an expert and a creationist in the same breath.
What in the brain can't be explained through natural processes?

Consciousness? Intelligence? Emotions?
The fantasy will never die, from depths of the ocean we will rise and slaughter all who oppose us.

Well you shall surely try!
 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:38 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Lester, I'll say this for you - you have quite a passion for the Bible.  Good for you.  I believe everyone should have a passion for something.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:03 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:38 AM on August 12, 2009 :
Yes there is, only you have different dates based on radiometric dating based on presuppositions about evolution occurring. You need those dates to add credibility to your story.


Radiometric dating has its own evidence, and doesn't need evolution for it to work. Beyond a he said she said argument I think a new thread is in order for this.

You don’t think building a boat that size wasn’t a warning in itself? You think the people didn’t ask what the hell he was up to? If you read the book of Jasher that is referred to in a couple of books in the Bible, it says that God told Noah about the flood he would send 120 years before he sent it. He told Noah to warn the people and if they turned from their evil ways God wouldn’t send the flood. He warned them apparently constantly but they didn’t want to believe him...


Okay, what did Noah do to prove to the other people that he was on a mission from God rather than a local nut case?

Evolution is a delusion designed to replace the Bible as our creation story and God as our creator.


I'm afraid your a little out of touch on the ToE, it only explains the diversity of life, nothing else.  

There was only a fine mist


Fine, all the more reason to logically assume Noah was a nut case, unless he actually did something before the flood to show that he was on a mission from God.

try not to twist any of the words to mean something else, it could be instructional if you do it with the right spirit.


So only if I read it in the right spirit can I see what it really means. And of course the only way to know that I'm in the right spirit is to accept your version of the story. So how do I know it is not you who needs to read it in the right spirit?

Well you see there was a problem in the beginning which is why Adam had to marry his own rib and produce children.


Does that make him a hermaphrodite? Since he basically did it with a female version of himself, from himself.  

Only after the flood were the people told not to marry their close family and it makes sense because the bloodline was getting mutated due to the curse that was on humanity and the earth.


So God looked on favor of Noah, saw that he was the only righteous person alive, spared him from a flood and charged him to carry on the human race. And as a little extra reward he cursed him and his offspring by making them mutate, or was there mutations before hand and now they were getting to be a bit much, or did God make them mutate faster with worse mutations? Although I personally would have liked a reward where God would have stopped all the bad mutations myself, but that's just me.

Everything was running down and the closer related you are, the greater possibility of producing a dominant mutation. It was simply good advise at that stage.


It was simply good advise, I thought it was a sin.

On a more serious note, we can explain evolution, however we will never be able to explain a god did it answer or than repeating the phrase.

What?


We know about DNA, mutations, natural selection ect. ect. If we see something we can explain it through evolution, like nylon eating bacteria, but all you can say is 'God did it'. You will never be able to give a more in-depth explanation than that for many of the scientific findings.

Oh well then a spot of minor heresy shouldn’t allow us to dim his image. I wonder what God thinks?


For the most part everyone is a heretic to everyone else. To say that you have the only right way is very childish.

Who exactly is your God?  
God is God.

Well that’s a bit vague. A lot of evolutionists say God doesn’t exist and it’s usually the Christian God that they’re opposed to and pretending doesn’t exist. Is your god Jesus Christ or is it another god?


Well I never said that there was no God, in fact I stated the exact opposite. My original statement was going off the notion that there is no god but God. Since I've already stated I was a Christian I thought it was obvious that I was implying the God of the Bible which includes Jesus as part of the trinity.

What I mean is how does God talk to you? Through a priest, through a specific church or through His Word?


Why not all the above plus more. How does God talk to you?

If you read the Bible (particularly Genesis) without advice on how to translate it, it is pretty self explanatory.


Not so much, there's a reason why people disagree with interpretation.

I know that some of the Bible is clearly metaphorical but those parts are clear to all. There are different styles in the Bible. There are historical portions though that are meant to be read literally as history. To me there is no doubt that that is what Genesis is, an historical narrative.


Of course there is always the problem that many people from that time period and region didn't distinguish between historical fact and fiction, because it wasn't the actual event that was important but the meaning. This is evident in Genesis through the two creation accounts, both contradict each other on a literal ground so it must be for other reasons why the ancient Hebrews decided to add both to the Torah.

I know why she’s pro-evolution. She doesn’t think that a literal reading of the Bible can be scientifically supported but then she has no science training and she doesn’t want to hear any evidence against evolution, so she’ll never know. The topic gets her boiling like a kettle so I don’t bother to say anything anymore. I barely managed to get a word in edgewise when we ever did have a conversation about it. I think she likes to think of herself as scientifically informed but she has given up on “New Scientist” since it’s anti-Christian agenda has become so clear and radical - so that’s a good thing.


Well you never want to talk about religion and politics with people too much. I'm guessing that people on this forum shouldn't get together for afternoon lunch.

Well Noah was on the ark for a year before the water levels dropped sufficiently for them to land on the mountains of Ararat and it does say in the Bible that in the time of Peleg, the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down.


I guess the next question is how the **** did Noah and all the animals get fresh water and food to survive for a whole year at sea?

Aquatic life didn’t have to go on the ark because although billions of fish, invertebrates etc. were covered in sediment and died, obviously a significant portion of marine life would survive quite easily while the earth was covered in water.


What about fresh water marine life?

Actually we do see major deviation from the predicted strata. In most places, a lot of strata are missing (called unconformities –watch for the word) or are mixed up; you find ‘older’ layers are on top of the younger layers in every mountainous region on every continent on the globe


Sounds like it could all be explained by tectonic plates from continental-continental conversion. Plus I think Yehren posted a thing on why we sometimes see the geological column all messed up.  

Any other problems will be easily explained by a newly invented plausible story because the theory is utterly non-falsifiable.


So it can never be that that is what the evidence suggests?

How did they date Jericho do you think? Clearly not by the historical account given in the Bible or else they would have e pretty exact date and there’d be no need to invent it.


Why not go with the Hindus on how old the universe is? Ya know they don't like the 13.7GA dating either. Although their teachings point to a much older universe than what any scientist would dare say.

For loads of historically confirmed dates and occurrences, refer to Josh McDowell “A Ready Defense” –excellent book documenting the reliability of the Bible over the changing words of men.


Not a big reader, I don't even read the evolutionist books. Everything I learned about evolution I learned from playing pokemon!

Seriously I don't have the free time to pick up a new book right now. But I'll look into it later this week.

It wasn’t evil, it was wrong and God told them that –he warned them not to.


So you can disobey God and it's not evil?

How can you say they didn’t know?


Because the Bible clearly states that they were innocent and didn't know right from wrong, good from evil.

We all know what is wrong and is right.It’s written in our consciences and if we say we don’t know, we deceive ourselves in the interests of continuing with whatever it is that we know is wrong.


I agree, which is also why I think the Genesis account must be metaphorical.

The best way to continue in purported ignorance of right and wrong is to just pretend God doesn’t exist and the Bible can’t be understood without the aid of a pope or a priest, that leaves us not personally accountable –how convenient.


I think the atheists would disagree with you. They don't believe in God or the Bible and they have morals, and in many ways express them better than the average Christian.

The Bible traces us humans all back to Adam and Eve with names and dates –very specific.


I've never looked at dates from other religions but I've been told it is very intricate and made as if it was real. I know in ancient Rome the family trees were very elaborate and very much detailed.

I fear you have heard this stupid story somewhere and now you believe it. That sounds like if your parents tell you not to do something, you don’t know that it’s wrong until you’ve tried it. That is illogical.


That's not what I'm saying. It clearly says in the Bible that Adam and Eve don't know right from wrong until after they eat the fruit. So until they eat the fruit they don't know it is wrong.

How your body came to have the programme to make the duodenum which has a purpose and fits in with the whole big functioning organism and everything it needs to do to stay alive.


And it is still all explained by natural phenomenon. What specifically can't be explained?

So how do you imagine the primordial atmosphere managed to harness the lightning power in order to acquire the energy to make molecules and not destroy them? Anything that needs energy also needs it in controlled amounts.


Well I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about abiogenesis, but I don't think there is a lightning crash anywhere in the modern hypotheses.

So have they found the hypothetical common ancestor


Not that I know of, but is that really a strong position to take? Let's say in three months scientists found the missing link of whales and hippos, what than? Such things have happened before.

If we evolved then we have no need of salvation.


Why, if we evolved do you think that frees us from moral obligations? Because it doesn't.

The theistic evolutionists do require interpretation.


But not your interpretation.

They need to know that the first day is actually a very long period of time and ditto for the other days. If they didn’t have the fallible words of men to supply them with that information then they wouldn’t even know that it had a concealed meaning.They depend on evolution for their interpretation


You do know that such interpretations of the Bible were around long before evolution was ever on the scene.

and often they need their minister or the pope or some other member of the clergy to tell them what the simplest words mean and what they should think. They surrender the brain God gave them and then think or hope that they will not be held accountable for misunderstanding the plain words of scripture.


If you think that the Bible is written very simplistically than you are just plain wrong.

Many of them feel that a literal translation robs the Bible of its eternal meaning by degrading the meaning of the story through focusing on the story itself, as well as getting in the way of science when we (TEs) see no conflict.

Do you even understand what you are saying here?


Yes, but how do you interpret what I'm saying?

Maybe that was their excuse –everybody has one. Mine was that the Bible couldn’t be true because evolution was true and there was too much conflict in the stories. Evolution sounded much more scientific and intelligent so I went with the words of men over the Word of God.


If that is true than you are the first person that I've met that rejected God because of evolution. Personally I see physics as the greatest friend to the atheist, not biology.

He’s doing a great job with the evolutionists though. “Did God really say…” whereupon he proceeds to twist the words of God so that a day means millions of years and creation  ‘by my Word’ means ‘via evolution.’ That snake’s as sharp as ever.


Ludo mentis aciem.  

We’re talking about two totally different things here. Gravity’s effects can be observed and measured and repeated in the here and now. Abiogenesis is history (or not) depending on whether it happened or whether God created by His Word just like he said He did, rather than by evolution, as some men say he did.


Both rely on the same type of evidence. And we understand evolution better than gravity.

Usually the people who make these accusations fail to mention the specifics so as to make sure that the accused won’t have the opportunity to reply.


Well the people aren't on this forum to respond, and I'm not accusing you at the moment of anything.

I think that many average creationists don't do it intentionally, although I have been very surprised before where creationists willfully misquote in an effort to mislead all who read.

Examples please.


I've seen several post real scientific articles from decades ago out of context and spinning off on creationism from that. One of the most common, but has stopped for the most part, is in the origin of species where Darwin writes about the evolution of the eye. Another is that Darwin confessed on his death bed that he made evolution up.

The only time creationists are accused of not understanding science is when they fail to agree with the evolutionists on the interpretation of the evidence which is the exact same evidence for both.


Like the flood made the asteroids? And then on this forum someone said that the flood made the comets. The big bang was an explosion. We don't know anything about stars. All of these are things creationists have said, and none of them are correct. Yes, creationists for the most part need an education.

As for the creationist needing an education, these are scientists that I am talking about so I fail to see why they would need an education just because they don’t agree with the evolutionist as to the meaning of the evidence.


Well we have people on the creationist side that claim to have real degrees, but really it is from degree mills and their not education is not really there. Although there are a few exceptions, but they make up less than 1% of the scientific community.

The only problem is that never before has she behaved in such a radical manner with no good argument –it’s like something spiritually sick comes out when the topic comes up. It’s quite scary and weird.


It sounds as if she is scared. She is probably afraid that learning the science will destroy her faith.

Well I’m pretty much talking about the creationist expert in a particular field compared to the evolutionist expert in the same field. There are lots of creationists extremely well trained in multiple fields you know, though it seems no evolutionist ever thinks that it is possible to be both an expert and a creationist in the same breath.


I'm sure you can provide some examples.

What in the brain can't be explained through natural processes?

Consciousness? Intelligence? Emotions?


A swing and a miss. The only one might be consciousness, but probably someone who knows more about the brain will quickly correct me.

The fantasy will never die, from depths of the ocean we will rise and slaughter all who oppose us.

Well you shall surely try!


As shall you.  


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:30 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually we do see major deviation from the predicted strata. In most places, a lot of strata are missing (called unconformities –watch for the word) or are mixed up; you find ‘older’ layers are on top of the younger layers in every mountainous region on every continent on the globe but because evolutionists are believers, they just invent an inversion sequence which explains why that is so – eg. overthrusts.


We can see the overthrusts and where they occur.   Geologists (not evolutionists) have worked these out very well, in most places.

They find fossils too low in the strata but instead of falsifying the theory, they are just called ‘downwashed’.


So you think that geologists have no way of figuring out when fossils are washed out of deposits and carried elsewhere?   Are you very sure?
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:16 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.