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
     micro to macro
       how does it not work

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:00 AM on September 16, 2009 :
Name some of this evidence.


The fossil record.

Supports evolution.

DNA

What about it?

Protein

What about it?

Lack of evidence for macroevolution.

See fossil record and DNA.

The nature of mutations.

What about them?

The unprovable assumptions of radiometric dating.

Such as?

And on and on and on and on.


You know what supports evolution?

Here:

The fossil record.
DNA
Protein
Evidence for macroevolution.
The nature of mutations.
The sound assumptions of radiometric dating.
And on and on and on and on.


That was easy.



And be prepared to defend it in your own words (remember how poorly you did supporting your claim about molecular genetics not supporting evolution).


No actually I don't remember that but I do remember knowing that molecules can support anything you want to support, you just need to choose the right molecules, line them up according to your prejudice and assume that commonalities in any two molecules suggest a common ancestor rather than a common designer.

You've never seen such data, have you?

Tell you what - I will send you a free DOS based program used to align DNA sequences.  I will take some of the DNA sequences that I have generated, remove any identifiable information, and send themto you.  Then, being completely devoid of any biased informaiton about the sequences, you can align them and have someone you trust run an analysis on your data alignment.

Are you up to that?

Funny story - about 7 years ago, Paul Nelson of the Discovery Insitute showed up (via an intermediary) on another forum and made the same basic argument - that researcher bias makes unreliable molecular analyses.  So, I odffered to do the same thing I just did.  In fact, I sent him the sequences and asked him to put his claim to the test.

That was 7 years ago.  Haven't heard from him since.

Point being, it is easy to hurl accusations of bias and implicit incompetence, but demonstrating it is a bit more difficult.  Of course, I am sure that Nelson's (and yours) accusations magically do not hold for creationists that employ the same sort of analyses.


One thing I have noticed about you Derwood is that what you lack in evidence, you make up for in ad hominems and distraction tactics.


And the usual accusations from the YEC.

I ASK you a question, and you respond by accusing me of ad hominems (I might like to remind you here that it appears that you do not even know what an ad hominem is, and it also appears that you don't know much about molecular analyses).

Since you do not remember your inability to support your claim re: molecular genetics not supporting evolution, allow me to remind you:

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=49600

Rather than supporting your claim, all you seemed able to do was throw up a smokescreeen about your ignorance of whale evolution.

That, just so you know, is not an ad honminem, for it is not an irrelevant characteristic used to counter an argument.  Your antics in that thread make it quite clear that you possess a profound ignorance of the subject.

Which is perhaps why you feel you make good arguments abou tit.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:34 AM on September 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
The evidence is out there, the problem is that it is not scientific evidence, but creation myths.


Or maybe not, maybe it is creation truth. Is there anything in the Bible that you do believe or would you have to ask your priest?

. However, evolution doesn't need habilis and erectus to be vertical on the tree of life. Gradualism is observed everywhere, you don't want to see it because than you will have to throw out your interpretation of the Bible.


Gradualism is nowhere Fencer. In this life we have limited variation as evidenced by the limits of dog breeding and the limits of fruit fly mutation experiments. In the fossil record we have dead bones and no reason to believe that any one thing gave rise to something completely different to itself. It isn’t happening now so how can we know that it happened long ago and far away –unless we have an overriding philosophy that says it must have happened. That is not science and that is not evidential. It’s you that doesn’t want to see that it is a fairy tale wearing thin.

I'm not saying that the world must have a naturalistic origin, only that science can't say anything about the supernatural and so must rely on the natural.


So that is your philosophical blindspot then –because it’s only when you assume a naturalistic origin to life that you are forced to believe that everything evolved to what it is today. There is nothing but philosophy forcing you to believe this; this limitation certainly is not based on the observable evidence.

science can't say anything about the supernatural and so must rely on the natural.


Science has no need of assuming naturalistic evolution –it chooses that as its bias.

Lets say that God made everything, now what? What scientific test(s) can you do to support your hypothesis?


You look for signs of intelligence, like code in DNA. They do that sort of thing in attempting to communicate with extraterrestrial life all the time but refuse to recognize it on our own planet. There’s plenty of science out there that does not depend on life coming about naturalistically and at least you would not be narrowed down to a philisophical assumption as a basis of all your subsequent  reasoning.

I agree that a non-natural explanation could be the correct one, but how would you go about testing it?


Look for specified complexity –if that produces an affirmative result then great, chances are that intelligence has produced life. After that there’s loads of good science to do without wasting time with all the plausible stories that evolutionists make up trying to force the fossils to be the result of random change and increasing complexity. There’s no need for your philosophical assumptions – none whatsoever.

And if there is ultimately no naturalistic explanation for it,
Then science will never find the answer.  


Right and while they’re busy making up plausible stories and insisting that some naturalistic explanation just has to be true, children are being led away from God and are being forced to believe in naturalistic processes as the whole cause of life. Evolutionists have got a lot to answer for.

Yet evolution isn't about the formation of life, but how life diversifies once it was formed.


But still evolution assumes a common ancestor and insists that their explanation is scientific while the Bible is just religious myths. What if all the kinds of animals were created and each kind can only diversify to a point which remains within the kind? If that is not recognized as a possibility then evolution has not just hijacked origins but all subsequent development as well, for naturalism.

So what is this evidence you speak of? If you have said it before I think I missed it somehow.


Well it certainly seems as if you miss everything that does not fall within the ‘evidence for evolution’ domain.
So here it is again:

The fossil record does not support gradualism (if you can’t admit it then let me know and I’ll quote a few top evolutionists on the matter)

No experiments have been done which show that DNA or proteins could have formed naturally.

There is plenty evidence to suggest that life could not form in the presence of oxygen neither could it form in the absence of oxygen. So how did it form? You say this has to do with origin of life –well I say your fairytale has to have a beginning. This theistic evolution may attempt to insert God in some manner but most evos in academia appear to believe in the atheistic variety which is why they do origin of life research. They don’t doubt that that is the way it happened, they are just attempting to find the particular pathway by which it happened.If you believe that God had a role to play, why have you shifted him into the corner refusing him but a tiny portion of the responsibility against all the evidence to the contrary?

Irreducible complexity –not refuted at all, so don’t lets pretend. They just refuse to print or listen to Behe’s responses so that they can continue to wallow in ignorance.

Comment by Michael Behe:

Recently a paper appeared online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled "The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine." As you might expect, I was very interested in reading what the authors had to say. Unfortunately, as is all too common on this topic, the claims made in the paper far surpassed the data, and distinctions between such basic ideas as "reducible" versus "irreducible" and "Darwinian" versus "non-Darwinian" were pretty much ignored.
Since PNAS publishes letters to the editor on its website, I wrote in. Alas, it seems that polite comments by a person whose work is the clear target of the paper are not as welcome as one might suppose.

Mutations are not a good potential source of diversity –evolutionists just believe that because how else can they get evolution. They have to have a mechanism no matter how unlikely this one is.

Coding of DNA and plentiful other signs of intelligent design.

I could carry on, but I doubt you will hear as I have mentioned so many evidences before and you seem to forget very easily.

 



-------
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: 05:10 AM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

You know what supports evolution?

Here:

The fossil record.
DNA
Protein
Evidence for macroevolution.
The nature of mutations.
The sound assumptions of radiometric dating.
And on and on and on and on.


That was easy.


Big jumps in the fossil record do not support gradualism.

DNA does not form naturally in the lab nor anywhere else.

Protein needs coded DNA information to put together a functional protein -they don't form naturally and require DNA that does not form naturally.

Evidence for macromutation - there is no evidence for this -only a belief that this has happened.

Mutations are very rare and must be in the reproductive cells in order to be passed on. The probability of a series of 3 related mutations is one in a billion trillion and three related mutations don't even really make a start toward any real evolution.Mutations are harmful at least a thousand times more often than they are helpful and that is based on the evidence rather than the belief in onward and upward evolution. If mutations were really believed to be helpful, we would be encouraged to inbreed. Mutations presuppose creation since they are only changes in genes that already exist and say nothing about how the gene information got there in the first place.

Radiometric dating methods contradict one another more often than not; if lab technicians aren't given a biased estimate of what the date should be according to where the sample was found, they wouldn't get anything right. More often than not index fossils are used rather than radiometric dating and index fossils are dated according to evolutionary assumptions. These assumptions are not sound.

And on and on and on etc.

Paul Nelson of the Discovery Insitute showed up (via an intermediary) on another forum and made the same basic argument - that researcher bias makes unreliable molecular analyses.


When analysing a variety of different genes from different organisms UCLA Molecular biologists James A Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria A Riviera said that they “found that their relationships to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.”

According to French biologists Herve Phillipe and Patrick Forterre: “With more and more sequences available , it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree.”

Evolutionary biologist W Ford Doolittle, 2005
“We cannot infer a unique tree of organisms from the pattern of relationships among genomes without making further assumptions about evolutionary processes that are just that: still-unproven assumptions. We have, for several decades, thought that our job was to uncover the structure of a Tree of life, whose reality we need not question. But really what we have been doing is testing Darwin’s hypothesis that a tree is the appropriate representation of life’s history, back to the beginning. Like any hypothesis, it could be false.

The main problem with molecular phylogenies is not that they conflict with the morphological evidence or with each other. The main problem is that they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove.

It seems that some molecular biologists and general biologists understand what you are unable to.

Haven't heard from him since.


Might have more to do with your manner than it does have to do with your challenge.



-------
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: 06:10 AM on September 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:10 AM on September 18, 2009 :

Science has no need of assuming naturalistic evolution –it chooses that as its bias.

How do you propose that science proceed should it encompass the supernatural?
Could not everything ultimately just be attributed to miracles?

Lets say that God made everything, now what? What scientific test(s) can you do to support your hypothesis?


You look for signs of intelligence, like code in DNA.

Tell me what in DNA indicates intelligence.  A 'code' you say - but what do you mean?  Do you know what the genetic code is?


They do that sort of thing in attempting to communicate with extraterrestrial life all the time but refuse to recognize it on our own planet.

Who is attempting to communicate with ETs?

Look for specified complexity


Can you define specified complexity in your own words?  How do you find this in, say, an acorn or a fish?
...children are being led away from God and are being forced to believe in naturalistic processes as the whole cause of life. Evolutionists have got a lot to answer for.

Yup...

The Crusades...

The Inquisition...

The slaughtering of pregnant women as ordered by Yahweh...

Witch hunts...

Yeah, we'd best get busy I suppose...

Well it certainly seems as if you miss everything that does not fall within the ‘evidence for evolution’ domain.
So here it is again:

The fossil record does not support gradualism (if you can’t admit it then let me know and I’ll quote a few top evolutionists on the matter)


Sure, let's see your collection of out of context and otherwise misleading quotes that you surely got from reading the original source material.
Of course, I suspect you m ight quote Gould and Eldgridge, those two great YECs, I mean, old earth evolutionists, who complained bitterly about how creationist misinterpreted and misused their work.

YECs always seem to employ an idiosyncratic view of gradualism.


No experiments have been done which show that DNA or proteins could have formed naturally.

You might want to look up 'Robert Hazen'.

Then, I've not heard of any experiments showing how Yahweh the great was able toi make a man from dirt.  

There is plenty evidence to suggest that life could not form in the presence of oxygen neither could it form in the absence of oxygen.

Such as?
By the way - there are many species alive today that die in the presence of oxygen - how did Yahweh make them?  Which day were they made on?
They don't creepeth, they don't have the air in their nostrils - heck, they don't even have nostrils.
Can you point to the chapter and verse that outlines the creation of, say, Clostridium botulinum?
Irreducible complexity –not refuted at all, so don’t lets pretend. They just refuse to print or listen to Behe’s responses so that they can continue to wallow in ignorance.

Is this the same Behe who rants on a blog that does nto allow comments?
Of course, IC has been shown to both evolve and to be useless as a concept.  


Comment by Michael Behe:

Recently a paper appeared online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled "The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine." As you might expect, I was very interested in reading what the authors had to say. Unfortunately, as is all too common on this topic, the claims made in the paper far surpassed the data, and distinctions between such basic ideas as "reducible" versus "irreducible" and "Darwinian" versus "non-Darwinian" were pretty much ignored.
Since PNAS publishes letters to the editor on its website, I wrote in. Alas, it seems that polite comments by a person whose work is the clear target of the paper are not as welcome as one might suppose.


I don't suppose Mikey explained that perhpas his 'response' didn't measure up to the journal's standards?  OF COURSE Behe disagrees with and denigrates the work - it contradicts HIS wild extrapolations and his ideology.


Mutations are not a good potential source of diversity –evolutionists just believe that because how else can they get evolution.

Hey - cool assertion devoid of rationale!  Awesome job!


They have to have a mechanism no matter how unlikely this one is.

Why unliklely?
How much work in genetics have you done to be able to draw such conclusions?



Coding of DNA and plentiful other signs of intelligent design.

You write as if you know someone sat down one day and made DNA and input a code into it.

Let's talk about this DNA coding you find so impressive - inn your own words, of course.  I'll start a new thread later.


I could carry on, but I doubt you will hear as I have mentioned so many evidences before and you seem to forget very easily.

Or, we could just not be impressed by the usual litany of baseless parrotted assertions presented as solid facts?

So, I take it that you are not up to my challenge?  Afraid to test your claim?  Thats OK - a biggie in the field - Paul Nelson - was, too.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:28 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

Evolutionary biologist W Ford Doolittle, 2005
“We cannot infer a unique tree of organisms from the pattern of relationships among genomes without making further assumptions about evolutionary processes that are just that: still-unproven assumptions. We have, for several decades, thought that our job was to uncover the structure of a Tree of life, whose reality we need not question. But really what we have been doing is testing Darwin’s hypothesis that a tree is the appropriate representation of life’s history, back to the beginning. Like any hypothesis, it could be false.

The main problem with molecular phylogenies is not that they conflict with the morphological evidence or with each other. The main problem is that they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove.


Something is screwy with your quote of Doolittle, Lester.  Having read a little about Ford Doolittle, he is certainly an evolutionist - no question.  He's a biochemist and his work seems to be mainly with prokaroytic evolution.  Prokaryotic cells perform lateral gene transfers, so the normal analogy of a tree of life would not apply here.

So I would guess that your quote of Doolittle is another out of context Creationist ploy.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:10 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:10 AM on September 18, 2009 :

Evolutionary biologist W Ford Doolittle, 2005
“We cannot infer a unique tree of organisms from the pattern of relationships among genomes without making further assumptions about evolutionary processes that are just that: still-unproven assumptions. We have, for several decades, thought that our job was to uncover the structure of a Tree of life, whose reality we need not question. But really what we have been doing is testing Darwin’s hypothesis that a tree is the appropriate representation of life’s history, back to the beginning. Like any hypothesis, it could be false.


So you are a Doolittle fan?  Curious.

“Surely a tree is the right model for most multi-cellular animals and plants,” Doolittle explained to PhysOrg.com. “Thus the TOL is great for fossils and museums and dinosaurs and most of visible life, over the last billion years. But unicellular eukaryotes and prokaryotes represent the bulk of the biomass and diversity of life on earth, as well as the first two-thirds of its history.”



-------
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: 11:40 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm, it seems as though Paul Nelson has misquoted W Ford Doolittle.

PZ Myers comments on a 4-person debate between biologist Jerry Coyne, Paul Nelson, Jame Robert Brown,

Nelson fulfills the stereotype: he opens the debate with a quotemine and gross misrepresentation. He claims that W. Ford Doolittle rejects common descent. He claims that this notion that "all living things share a common ancestor" is being challenged; unfortunately and misleadingly, he puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Doolittle would say that "all living things share a common ancestor". Doolittle argues that there was a large pool of organisms down near the root of the tree of life that liberally swapped genes among one another, so that you can't trace life back to a single common ancestor — you can trace it back to a large population where species distinctions were greatly blurred.

I actually find myself agreeing with Doolittle in PZ's statement above.  

For those of you who would like to watch an interview with Jerry Coyne, followed by the debate with Paul Nelson... here it is.

Interview with Jerry Coyne on ToE

The debate is under the 'Science and Religion' tab.  

Of course, I find myself agreeing with Dr. Coyne 100%.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:25 AM on September 19, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:10 AM on September 18, 2009 :
Or maybe not, maybe it is creation truth. Is there anything in the Bible that you do believe or would you have to ask your priest?


??? There are lots of things I believe in the Bible, but I also have to approach it with an open mind and be willing to take things with a grain of salt at the same time. For example when I was 9 years old I no longer believed in the flood. I distinctly remember my mother handing me a children's picture book of the flood and thinking 'how did this happen? this doesn't make any sense at all!' But trying to being a good 'Christian' I suppressed those thoughts thinking that adults with real intelligence knew that it happened so there must be a logical explanation, and when I was older I would understand it too. Of course when I turned nine and the flood came up during lunch in school it finally hit me and I declared to my peers that I did not believe that the flood ever took place.

The Bible is a book written by man, and as such it is fallible, and clearly has certain cultural influences on it that must be respected. With that being said I don't always know if the authors intended the readers to view it as literal history or as allegory, but if I don't know I would think that my pastor would know the answer, or at a minimum lay down the basic facts on why people say it is or isn't.

Gradualism is nowhere Fencer.


Horse evolution and whale evolution show a gradual change.

In this life we have limited variation as evidenced by the limits of dog breeding and the limits of fruit fly mutation experiments.


You are aware that given time these populations would evolve further as to be distinguishable to the original 'kind'.

In the fossil record we have dead bones and no reason to believe that any one thing gave rise to something completely different to itself.


People before Darwin had the idea that animals changed over time, so clearly there is something to the idea that populations change over time.

It isn’t happening now so how can we know that it happened long ago and far away


The problem is that it is happening right now! Only thanks to Darwin we understand how that change occurs.

So that is your philosophical blindspot then –because it’s only when you assume a naturalistic origin to life that you are forced to believe that everything evolved to what it is today. There is nothing but philosophy forcing you to believe this; this limitation certainly is not based on the observable evidence.


My choice is certainly evidence based.

Science has no need of assuming naturalistic evolution –it chooses that as its bias.


No, science must have a naturalistic explanation, or an "I don't know" answer. That is how science works, because the supernatural are not subjected to the scientific method or inquiry.

You look for signs of intelligence, like code in DNA. They do that sort of thing in attempting to communicate with extraterrestrial life all the time but refuse to recognize it on our own planet. There’s plenty of science out there that does not depend on life coming about naturalistically and at least you would not be narrowed down to a philisophical assumption as a basis of all your subsequent  reasoning.


Okay, if you find a DNA sequence that shows prime numbers 1-97, I would say that would be evidence for a supernatural explanation of life.

Look for specified complexity –if that produces an affirmative result then great, chances are that intelligence has produced life.


I think it is too subjective. Exactly what would your experiment look for? Why would this specific complexity support the idea of an intelligent creator?

Right and while they’re busy making up plausible stories and insisting that some naturalistic explanation just has to be true, children are being led away from God and are being forced to believe in naturalistic processes as the whole cause of life. Evolutionists have got a lot to answer for.


And I say BS, I have talked with several people who think that there is a war between science and religion. After a few minutes discussing this with them it becomes clear that their ideas of black and white come from YEC propaganda. They see YEC as nutcases who just hate science, and they don't think there there is a middle ground (God uses natural processes), so it draws them away from God. I truly think YEC hurts Christianity by putting too much effort upon a 6,000 year old earth and the idea that big bang and evolution are contraptions of the devil. At heart this is nothing what Christianity is about and it gives people false impressions of what Christ wants us to do. As a result it turns people away from Christ, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

But still evolution assumes a common ancestor and insists that their explanation is scientific while the Bible is just religious myths.


You do realize that most Biblical scholars view Genesis as myth, even my religion professor (who is Christian) said that Genesis is a creation myth and didn't happen.

What if all the kinds of animals were created and each kind can only diversify to a point which remains within the kind? If that is not recognized as a possibility then evolution has not just hijacked origins but all subsequent development as well, for naturalism.


Well all things are possible, but what is your evidence for this barrier between micro and macro evolution?

The fossil record does not support gradualism (if you can’t admit it then let me know and I’ll quote a few top evolutionists on the matter)


I'm afraid I can't admit that the fossil record doesn't support gradualism. There are gaps, yes, but nothing that supports your ideas.

No experiments have been done which show that DNA or proteins could have formed naturally.


Since Derwood took this one up I'll be happy to defer to him. But on the sideline I again say, evolution is not about the formation of life. That is left to the field of abiogenesis, which is very new. Just because we cannot render an explanation of this front doesn't mean we should turn to the supernatural for our answer. If we gaze up at the sky and don't know how lightning forms, should we throw up our hands and proclaim the power of Zeus?

There is plenty evidence to suggest that life could not form in the presence of oxygen neither could it form in the absence of oxygen. So how did it form?


No idea, but my guess is God used natural processes to create life. Essentially, we will find the answer through research in abiogenesis. My reasons for this are both theological and philosophical and are supported by scientific research today.

You say this has to do with origin of life –well I say your fairytale has to have a beginning. This theistic evolution may attempt to insert God in some manner but most evos in academia appear to believe in the atheistic variety which is why they do origin of life research. They don’t doubt that that is the way it happened, they are just attempting to find the particular pathway by which it happened.If you believe that God had a role to play, why have you shifted him into the corner refusing him but a tiny portion of the responsibility against all the evidence to the contrary?


I'm not entirely sure what your question is. It seems important so I don't want to divert away completely, but I do have a question of my own. Does the sun revolve around the earth, or is it the earth, that revolves around the sun? Whatever your answer to this question I ask you why do agree with that view?

Irreducible complexity –not refuted at all, so don’t lets pretend. They just refuse to print or listen to Behe’s responses so that they can continue to wallow in ignorance.


Behe refused to testify in court that there was IC. Furthermore, a system doesn't have to serve the modern function to evolve, like the bacteria flagellum's original purpose wasn't for locomotion, but injecting toxin if I remember correctly.

Mutations are not a good potential source of diversity –evolutionists just believe that because how else can they get evolution. They have to have a mechanism no matter how unlikely this one is.


I fail to see the problem, life is directed by DNA. Under meiosis DNA gets mutated (the average human zygote has 128 mutations), and the next generation is slightly different.

I could carry on, but I doubt you will hear as I have mentioned so many evidences before and you seem to forget very easily.


I do forget very easily, I wonder if God is punishing me for accepting evolution over the pleasant poetry of Genesis. Hmmm Perhaps a priest needs to come over and perform an exorcist on me. Maybe they'll cast out evolution with the demon and I can read Genesis in the presence of the holy spirit so I understand that Genesis is God's inherent word and all the fossils and strata layers are really the devil trying to trick me. Because God cares more about what we think about evolution than how we conduct our lives and how we treat other people around us.


-------
"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: 03:51 AM on September 19, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

When analysing a variety of different genes from different organisms UCLA Molecular biologists James A Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria A Riviera said that they “found that their relationships to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.”


What organisms do you think these researchers are referring to, Lester?  Lions, tigers, and bears?  Pandas and people?  Birds and bees?  Sunflowers and redwoods?

Once again Lester finds a Creationist quotemine taken out of context.  The 'different orgainisms' that these researchers are talking about are prokaryote ones - you know, bacteria.  

Like w Ford Doolittle - Lake, Jain, and Rivera comments had to do with prokaryote/eukaryote evolution - NOT multicellular organisms.  They were disputing earlier ideas of strictly clonal gene transfer.  Like Doolittle, they were establishing the validity of horizontal gene transfer among single cell organisms.  And like Doolittle, they weren't including organisms that reproduce sexually.  BIG, BIG difference!

 Here is what these researchers REALLY say:
Mix and Match in the Tree of Life


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).

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).



Nice work Lester!  Once again you have been duped by a Creationist quotemine that has as its purpose to intentionally mislead the reader into thinking that ToE is somehow a theory in crisis in the scientific communicty.  It is not.  Researchers like Doolittle, Lake, Jain, Rivera do not deny evolution at all.  

If I understand the premise of their argument correctly, they are indicating that instead of tracing life back to a single ancestor, there would be a mixed population of single celled orgainisms from which life subsequently evolved.  Perhaps you have a mass of roots at the base of the tree of life rather than a single one.

(Edited by orion 9/19/2009 at 10:18 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:07 AM on September 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
There are lots of things I believe in the Bible, but I also have to approach it with an open mind and be willing to take things with a grain of salt at the same time.


So in that case it is not the Word of God? Why bother with it then if it is just the words of men? It claims to be the Word of God so if it isn’t, then it’s a lie, why believe the rest? If the Bible is not the word of God, how do you decide what it true?

With that being said I don't always know if the authors intended the readers to view it as literal history or as allegory


Some is history, some is poetic, some is future revelation, some is parables but then it’s pretty clear. If you’re not sure, ask God and he’ll help you because he knows you. That doesn’t mean that the answer to the question will spring right out at you but God has ways of answering questions. Try talking to him. I’d forget about the ‘higher critics’ and Bible professors though because they’re the ones that lead people away from the truth by telling you that the Bible is a myth. They are not on God’s staff –they are there to lead you away from the truth by declaring themselves to be wise and becoming fools in the process. Usually they are in turn deceived by others that have led them astray; that’s why you need a basic source of wisdom other than men.

The Bible is a book written by man


Men inspired by the holy spirit and told to write it down. One story, many men from different places that were not in contact with one another. It’s like trying to write one story with 40 other people in other countries that you’re not allowed to communicate with –try getting the story down that way and then see how amazing the Bible is. There are penalties that go with changing the meaning of the words. I wouldn’t want to be there on judgement day if I changed the meanings and twisted things around. Maybe you’re letting man’s wisdom get in your way.

Horse evolution and whale evolution show a gradual change.

Know they don’t. They are stories made up by men. In North America the fossils progress from 3-toed to one toed horses and in South America, they are found the other way around. The ribs change from 18 to 19 to 15 and back to 18 –that is not even a plausible story.
Apart from those sorts of obvious problems, no fossil can in principle show you any evolution because all it is, is a dead bone and you don’t know that it had any kids let alone kids different from itself. Without written genealogical records and identifying marks it is impossible to link any two fossils. If they are clearly a different kind of creature, how much less sure can we be? It isn’t happening today so how can we know that it was happening long ago and far away? It is a human invention created after the fact. An illusion;amusing maybe, but not scientific.

Of course you can assume that Darwin’s theory is true and then try to fit the fossil evidence into the picture suggested by the theory. There’s nothing unreasonable about that as long as you realize that that is philosophy not science.

What do you find convincing about whale evolution –it’s just another fairy tale if you look into the finer details.
In this life we have limited variation as evidenced by the limits of dog breeding and the limits of fruit fly mutation experiments.
You are aware that given time these populations would evolve further as to be distinguishable to the original 'kind'.


Well precisely my point. We haven’t observed that they can change in that way; it has never been demonstrated to be possible – so it is a philosophical proposition, but not science.

People before Darwin had the idea that animals changed over time, so clearly there is something to the idea that populations change over time.


Oh yes, the idea is far older than Darwin. He just gave it a supposed mechanism. Philosophers thought of it long before Darwin and there was no science in it, then or now.

The problem is that it is happening right now!


No it isn’t. Like I’ve said before –fruit flies remain fruit flies and bacteria remain bacteria. The rest is a mental illusion made to sound scientific.

There is nothing but philosophy forcing you to believe this; this limitation certainly is not based on the observable evidence.
My choice is certainly evidence based.


No it is philosophical. No one has ever given you any real evidence –you just believed that it was possible but it has never been observed, now or ever. If you do think you have observed it, please show me what convinced you so that we can discuss it –your best evidence.

No, science must have a naturalistic explanation


A naturalistic answer is only suggested as part of a philosophical belief system. If life came into being supernaturally, it would not stop science at all. There is so much science without evolution. Evolution is unnecessary and has been mixed into science as if it were science when it is not.

I have talked with several people who think that there is a war between science and religion.


There is no war between science and religion. I love science. There is a war between 2 religions – evolution and creation – 2 belief systems. One is true, the other is false. They are polar opposites. Science is not evolution, and evolution is not science and mixing it into a science textbook does not make it science by association.

They see YEC as nutcases who just hate science


I don’t know any YEC’s who hate science. Evolution is not science. The YEC’s I know love science! It is evo propoganda that YEC’s hate science. It is a strawman designed to make YEC’s look ignorant and stupid. It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

so it draws them away from God. I truly think YEC hurts Christianity


Surely you mean it draws them away from YEC’s? I don’t draw away from God just because Jehovah’s and Mormons and theistic evolutionists bend the Bible to suit themselves. Why blame God for people? That’s usually an excuse. People are good at looking for excuses to banish God. They become wilfully illogical to serve their own interests and agenda. They feel sorry for themselves far too easily.

You do realize that most Biblical scholars view Genesis as myth, even my religion professor (who is Christian) said that Genesis is a creation myth and didn't happen.


This genesis is a myth thing is common amongst the ‘higher critics’ and professorial types in universities. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” If anything takes people away from Christianity, it is the people that insist that the Bible is full of myths. It is the Word of God and I’d rather not be them on judgement day if I used that to lead people away from God. If someone told me that Genesis was a myth when I was at varsity, it would lead me away from God. Someone told me all about evolution at varsity and it had exactly the same effect.

Well all things are possible, but what is your evidence for this barrier between micro and macro evolution?


You’re the one insisting that it happens –so demonstrate it or admit that you have a philosophy and that what you believe is not science at all.

I'm afraid I can't admit that the fossil record doesn't support gradualism.


Well then you have two problems –you can’t see what is perfectly clear in the fossil record (so you take me up on that suggestion that you visit a natural history museum and look carefully) –even evolutionists admit to the rather large gaps all over the place; and you think that things like whale evolution demonstrate gradualism when it is impossible to demonstrate any relationship between dead bones in principle.

Just because we cannot render an explanation of this front doesn't mean we should turn to the supernatural for our answer.


Similarly, just because we have no answer does not mean that naturalism is the answer by default. Since we don’t know how life got started and cannot demonstrate its natural origin even in a high tech well equipped lab., why should we assume a naturalistic answer to the question?

There is plenty evidence to suggest that life could not form in the presence of oxygen neither could it form in the absence of oxygen. So how did it form?
No idea, but my guess is God used natural processes to create life. Essentially, we will find the answer through research in abiogenesis. My reasons for this are both theological and philosophical and are supported by scientific research today.


No, they are theological and philosophical and that is all.

Does the sun revolve around the earth, or is it the earth, that revolves around the sun? Whatever your answer to this question I ask you why do agree with that view?


The earth revolves around the sun as far as I’m concerned. The Bible verses are not convincingly telling me that it is the other way around so I’ll leave it at that at the moment. It does however tell me about a day being a day, morning and evening very convincingly and not just in Genesis.

Furthermore, a system doesn't have to serve the modern function to evolve, like the bacteria flagellum's original purpose wasn't for locomotion, but injecting toxin if I remember correctly


I think they supposed it had a secretory function but that is a supposition or wishful thinking based on a philosophical belief system that says the flagellar motor had to evolve piece by piece. There’s no actual observable evidence that it did, in the fossils or any other place for that matter.

I fail to see the problem, life is directed by DNA. Under meiosis DNA gets mutated (the average human zygote has 128 mutations), and the next generation is slightly different.


And more than 99%of mutations are observably, demonstrably detrimental in some way so the other portion of a percentage is suspected to be the raw material for evolution but those 'neutral' or 'good' mutations don’t come without the bad mutations so how does that drive evolution onward and upward? It doesn’t make any sense.

Because God cares more about what we think about evolution than how we conduct our lives and how we treat other people around us.


I don’t believe that evolution is a salvation issue as such but I know for a fact that it leads many people away from 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: 11:34 AM on September 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Like Doolittle, they were establishing the validity of horizontal gene transfer among single cell organisms.


And it appears that they are assuming that that accounts for the problems encountered where the results amongst multicellular organisms are totally counter-intuitive and in contradiction to morphological trees of life.

its purpose to intentionally mislead the reader into thinking that ToE is somehow a theory in crisis in the scientific communicty.


Well if there isn't a crisis there really should be.

Researchers like Doolittle, Lake, Jain, Rivera do not deny evolution at all.


I'm fully aware of that and it was not the intention of the quote to suggest that they were denying evolution. Evolutionists just sometimes say things that are supportive of creation even though they are not intentionally being supportive of it. The delusion clears for a second before regrouping.

If I understand the premise of their argument correctly, they are indicating that instead of tracing life back to a single ancestor, there would be a mixed population of single celled orgainisms from which life subsequently evolved.  


They may be suggesting such a thing but I've never heard that suggestion before though obviously I've heard of horizontal gene transfer.





-------
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: 11:52 AM on September 19, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 3:31 PM on July 3, 2009 :
I'm sure this forum has had this discussion before, as it is somewhat common among evolution-creation debates. But I want to see what people here think about it.

Everyone with a tiny bit of knowledge about evolution and half a brain doesn't reject mirco-evolution; changes within species. But what prevents a population, with enough time, from evolving into something so different that it can no longer be considered part of the same kind as what was started with.

Note: I am using kind as an undetermined taxonomic rank higher than species since we have observed populations evolve into different species.

Hi fencer and all,

This turned out to be rather lengthy.  I just ask you to bear with me or do not read it at all.  Especially in light of the fact that there have been accusations on this forum that creationists spit out someone else's arguments.  This is a result of personal research.

Bacterial studies, particularly of E.coli research on adapted citrate digestion are often cited as evidence for evolution, since there are what-- 40,000 generations in the research.  

Detailed study will show you that 4 things are not usually propagated about this.

1. Physiological trade-offs--these are things which decrease fitness in the bacteria, such as cell wall elongation (very detrimental and potentially fatal in some environments) etc.  The bacteria changes genetically for adaptive purposes, but has a decrease in fitness which would discourage selection through changing environments.

2. Ecological specialization--This is an evolutionist term found in journal material.  What is beneficial in one environment may be detrimental in another.

3. Indigenous insertion sequences--These insertions are a rearrangement of the DNA  and not a result of HGT or a viral insertion.  

"Subsequent genetic analysis of some of these E. coli mutants found that they possessed insertion sequences (IS elements; a small segment of DNA that can insert into numerous sites of the chromosome). These IS elements were indigenous to the chromosome, and their activity did not depend on horizontal transfer from neighboring cells. Movement of these elements produced various insertional mutations in the E. coli chromosome.7 In fact, these types of mutations appear to be the primary function of these IS elements.8"  


A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria
by Kevin L. Anderson, PhD, and Georgia Purdom, PhD
May 27, 2009
Technical


Now here's a question.  Is this an an indication of Lamarkian evolution?

In Darwinian evolution mutations are genetic  changes which happen independent of the environment and then are selected for not BY the environment, but BECAUSE of the environment. Then the beneficial mutations should pass on more genes. This is  the difference between Darwinian and LaMarkian evolution.

If Darwinian evolution is correct, and there is truly unguided mutation, there should be multitudes of dead bacteria that are dead BECAUSE multitudes of various unguided mutations  were not selected for. This would be evidence of unguided mutation. The research I have read is strangely silent on this.  Has anyone seen something on this?

I'm looking for millions of dead bacteria in these studies that are dead  BECUASE they have all kinds of mutational "mess ups."  There must be tons of different genetic combinations to show us that there were many many genetic mutations which failed to pass on their genes.

Otherwise, this would indicate that there is a mechanistic regulator in the bacteria which adapts it to the environment for survival.

4.  Revertants--these bacteria revert back to the original DNA.  I have not studied this alot.  This is strange if everything is unguided.  Why would it revert back if the combinations are a result of unguided mutation?  That doesn't make sense to me.

Finally, why is it that evolutionists insist on unguided mutation, when so much of life, even at the "simplest" forms empirically  shows us pattern and "the scaffolding" for all processes?


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:28 PM on September 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jain, Lake, and Rivera....

Jaiin, Lake, and Rivera...

Where have I heard those names before.... Ah, yes, in an Amazon.com review of 'Icons of Evolution':

===

I purchased a copy a month or so ago to see what all the fuss was about. I started reading the section that I have some experience/knowledge in, systematics. I discovered something strange. When I checked one of the quotes Wells had used to 'prove' that molecular systematics is 'in crisis,' I found that it came from a paper dealing not with molecular systematics methodology or something similar, but a paper on the clonal theory of the origin of eukaryotes.
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?

Now, granted, that is the only quote that I have checked thus far, but it is an important one. Should I really give Wells the benefit of the doubt and consider that this one quote was the only one that he improperly uses?

We must give Wells some credit though - he is doing his darndest to fulfill his mission to "destroy Darwinism" that he set out on so long ago. Too bad the American public is so gullible and scientifically ignorant to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

This book is a good example of how a scientist should not write a book, unless that scientist is out to dupe the gullible.

===

Tell us Lester - you did not read about them in Wells' little book of lies for Father Moon, did you?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:58 PM on September 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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.(


I think there is far more than prokaryotic phylogenies that are in trouble. Genetic phylogenies often contradict morphological phylogenies and make strange claims.

What would you do if molecular and morphological data contradicted one another? Use different proteins to see if it will eventually say what you expect it to OR ignore it and go with the morphological similarities as a measure of relatedness OR throw out the morphological tree relationship and go with the genetic results.
If you have to choose, what would you choose and why?

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?


I feel the same way about evolutionists - their metaphysical beliefs tend, in my view, to override common sense and logic, so I view their pronouncements with suspicion and great care,just as I wouldn't trust Reverend Moon nor the latest head of the Jehovah's witness church to explain to me what the Bible has to say about salvation.

Too bad the American public is so gullible and scientifically ignorant to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.


Well that's your problem you see. You see the American public to be gullible and scientifically ignorant when perhaps the whole problem is that you're so swallowed up by the minutiae of your little field that you are not seeing the big picture that they are seeing. The I'm cleverer than you attitude of so many scientists can be offputting to the well informed layman who is seeing the big picture and is not impressed by yours for reasons you don't appear to understand.








-------
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: 03:10 AM on September 20, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:34 AM on September 19, 2009 :
So in that case it is not the Word of God? Why bother with it then if it is just the words of men?


They are the words of men inspired by God. If God came down and told you that he didn't write the Bible, but he inspired those who wrote it, and it was their words, not his, would you still read it?

It claims to be the Word of God so if it isn’t, then it’s a lie, why believe the rest? If the Bible is not the word of God, how do you decide what it true?


Because God gave me a brain to use it to know and understand what He wants me to understand.

Some is history, some is poetic, some is future revelation, some is parables but then it’s pretty clear. If you’re not sure, ask God and he’ll help you because he knows you. That doesn’t mean that the answer to the question will spring right out at you but God has ways of answering questions. Try talking to him. I’d forget about the ‘higher critics’ and Bible professors though because they’re the ones that lead people away from the truth by telling you that the Bible is a myth. They are not on God’s staff –they are there to lead you away from the truth by declaring themselves to be wise and becoming fools in the process. Usually they are in turn deceived by others that have led them astray; that’s why you need a basic source of wisdom other than men.


So you want everyone to discount all Biblical scholars and come to their own conclusion? That sounds like a very bad idea. We have scholars for a reason, because the Bible is complicated and the average person just cannot understand half of what is being said.

Men inspired by the holy spirit and told to write it down. One story, many men from different places that were not in contact with one another. It’s like trying to write one story with 40 other people in other countries that you’re not allowed to communicate with –try getting the story down that way and then see how amazing the Bible is. There are penalties that go with changing the meaning of the words. I wouldn’t want to be there on judgement day if I changed the meanings and twisted things around. Maybe you’re letting man’s wisdom get in your way.


But I doubt none of us know exactly what was said, unless you want to say you're fluent in Hebrew and Greek along with their respected culture and literature methodology. There are so many cultural aspects of ancient Judaism they are just not present in any other culture, especially a modern-western culture like America. To get up and say not to change the written word while reading a translated version; talk about a thorn in thine eye.

Know they don’t. They are stories made up by men. In North America the fossils progress from 3-toed to one toed horses and in South America, they are found the other way around. The ribs change from 18 to 19 to 15 and back to 18 –that is not even a plausible story.


So because you don't think evolution can explain something it automatically proves your interpretation of Genesis?

Apart from those sorts of obvious problems, no fossil can in principle show you any evolution because all it is, is a dead bone and you don’t know that it had any kids let alone kids different from itself.


That... doesn't make any sense at all. Even if that specific organism didn't have kids it still had parents and lived in a community with others that were the same species that would have passed on its genes to the next generation. And because we know that mutations happen all the time, we can safely conclude that each generation was slightly different.

Without written genealogical records and identifying marks it is impossible to link any two fossils.


Unless you know paleontology and genetics.

If they are clearly a different kind of creature, how much less sure can we be? It isn’t happening today so how can we know that it was happening long ago and far away?


The problem here is that you don't realize, or don't want to realize, that evolution is happening now. Only that because humans only live a few decades we can't observe dinosaurs turning into birds over millions of years before our eyes, but we have the next best thing; a working understanding of heredity and fossils.

Of course you can assume that Darwin’s theory is true and then try to fit the fossil evidence into the picture suggested by the theory. There’s nothing unreasonable about that as long as you realize that that is philosophy not science.


You do know that Darwin didn't come up with the idea that animals change into other animals? That idea was around before Darwin, just the means by which they change wasn't understood yet.

What do you find convincing about whale evolution –it’s just another fairy tale if you look into the finer details.


Yes, people wanted to prove Darwin so they made up a fairytale about wolves turning into whales, where's the sanity in that!?! It's so far-fetched that you can't make that up. But seriously whale evolution clearly shows a gradual progression from land to water.

Well precisely my point. We haven’t observed that they can change in that way; it has never been demonstrated to be possible – so it is a philosophical proposition, but not science.


So this is your basic argument: species X didn't evolve into species Y because we can't see that kind of drastic change today in the past thousand years even though evolution requires a few million? Beyond observation what keeps a population from macro evolving?

Oh yes, the idea is far older than Darwin. He just gave it a supposed mechanism. Philosophers thought of it long before Darwin and there was no science in it, then or now.


Not just philosophers, but scientists too. Like Lamarck in the early 1800's had his own idea of evolution. It turned out to be wrong, but it was an idea proposed by science on how evolution works.

No it isn’t. Like I’ve said before –fruit flies remain fruit flies and bacteria remain bacteria. The rest is a mental illusion made to sound scientific.


Bacteria is the most diverse domain! Think about that for a second, that means all the animals, plants, fungi and protists are all more similar than bacteria by itself! If you can say bacteria is still bacteria it's okay that it micro-evolved, I can clearly say that wolves evolving into whales is okay, or dinos to birds, or Australopithecus to man! It's all micro-evolution as defined in the Bible. ;)

No it is philosophical. No one has ever given you any real evidence –you just believed that it was possible but it has never been observed, now or ever. If you do think you have observed it, please show me what convinced you so that we can discuss it –your best evidence.


You can't observe it, it's not real science and only philosophy. Why don't we test this out here. Go and burn down someones house, and when you go to court tell them that no one observed the house catching on fire so it is all philosophy, not science. Tell us how that turned out for you, will ya.

No one has given me concrete proof that God exists, by your logic I should abandon my faith. I'm sure Derwood, Orion and Apoapsis would love the idea of me de-converting to atheism, and with your logic I can finally do it, unless you yourself have concrete evidence of God's existence.

A naturalistic answer is only suggested as part of a philosophical belief system. If life came into being supernaturally, it would not stop science at all. There is so much science without evolution. Evolution is unnecessary and has been mixed into science as if it were science when it is not.


I agree that science doesn't need evolution, but biology would surely be hurting if it weren't around. How naturalism became part of the scientific method, I don't know. Maybe it was philosophy, maybe it was observation, who knows. But since its formation it is because of observation and repeated experiments that has led to the conclusion that it is the natural, and if it is God behind it all science will never detect it.

There is no war between science and religion.


Thanks to YEC propaganda several people I've talked to on campus think there is. People on both sides (creation and evolution) and some in the middle.

I love science. There is a war between 2 religions – evolution and creation – 2 belief systems. One is true, the other is false. They are polar opposites. Science is not evolution, and evolution is not science and mixing it into a science textbook does not make it science by association.


I agree creation and evolution are opposites. One is science, the other is religion; that fact in itself makes them opposites already. One is false, I'll give you that. The other, not so much truth as science never allows such terminology, but rather a best explanation thus far is far more cognitively satisfying than truth. One claims truth, the other does not. Yes, they are indeed quite opposite of one another.

I don’t know any YEC’s who hate science. Evolution is not science. The YEC’s I know love science! It is evo propoganda that YEC’s hate science. It is a strawman designed to make YEC’s look ignorant and stupid. It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.


Only thing is evolution isn't being propagated off the streets. Unless you want to include fiction like X-Men and the T.V. show Heroes, but most people realize that those stories are fiction. The concepts are what people gather from the world around them, they see the outspoken Christians who viciously hate evolution and they know that evolution is backed by science so they put two and two together. That Christians hate science and they don't want to associate with them.

Surely you mean it draws them away from YEC’s? I don’t draw away from God just because Jehovah’s and Mormons and theistic evolutionists bend the Bible to suit themselves. Why blame God for people? That’s usually an excuse. People are good at looking for excuses to banish God. They become wilfully illogical to serve their own interests and agenda. They feel sorry for themselves far too easily.


Think about it from their perspective. They go outside and see a YEC and label all Christians as YEC. They know that YEC is wrong about certain things in science so they shun away from Christianity and anyone who is a Christian. They're not looking for a way to discount God, their trying to look at it rationally. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you look for ways to discredit God, it usually means that they haven't seen convincing evidence that He exists.

This genesis is a myth thing is common amongst the ‘higher critics’ and professorial types in universities. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” If anything takes people away from Christianity, it is the people that insist that the Bible is full of myths. It is the Word of God and I’d rather not be them on judgement day if I used that to lead people away from God. If someone told me that Genesis was a myth when I was at varsity, it would lead me away from God. Someone told me all about evolution at varsity and it had exactly the same effect.


So how would you go about teaching Genesis? What would you call the Hindu creation story, divine truth as well? That kind of religious preference could get you fired. But going beyond university life, what gives your creation story any more credibility than those of the other countless creation stories from way back when?

You’re the one insisting that it happens –so demonstrate it or admit that you have a philosophy and that what you believe is not science at all.


Look up observed instances of speciation for starters. Genetic markers are always welcomed, they clearly show how seemingly unrelated animals are indeed related, unless God just wants to throw in some evidence for evolution in his creation. Maybe it was the devil!

Well then you have two problems –you can’t see what is perfectly clear in the fossil record (so you take me up on that suggestion that you visit a natural history museum and look carefully) –even evolutionists admit to the rather large gaps all over the place; and you think that things like whale evolution demonstrate gradualism when it is impossible to demonstrate any relationship between dead bones in principle.


Sad to say I haven't gone to a museum in a while. Yes there are gaps, and we don't have every lineage covered, but it just does not support a 6000 year old Earth with a mystic jinn poofing everything into existence ex nihilo through an incantation(s). ( I think I would make a great atheist)

Just because we cannot render an explanation of this front doesn't mean we should turn to the supernatural for our answer.


Similarly, just because we have no answer does not mean that naturalism is the answer by default. Since we don’t know how life got started and cannot demonstrate its natural origin even in a high tech well equipped lab., why should we assume a naturalistic answer to the question?


Only we have never seen the supernatural do anything, only the natural, scientifically speaking anyway.

No, they are theological and philosophical and that is all.


What have we seen the supernatural do?

The earth revolves around the sun as far as I’m concerned. The Bible verses are not convincingly telling me that it is the other way around so I’ll leave it at that at the moment. It does however tell me about a day being a day, morning and evening very convincingly and not just in Genesis.


The Bible does state that the Earth doesn't move and that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Being a Bible believing Christian what keeps you from believing His actual word?

Furthermore, a system doesn't have to serve the modern function to evolve, like the bacteria flagellum's original purpose wasn't for locomotion, but injecting toxin if I remember correctly


I think they supposed it had a secretory function but that is a supposition or wishful thinking based on a philosophical belief system that says the flagellar motor had to evolve piece by piece. There’s no actual observable evidence that it did, in the fossils or any other place for that matter.


Well we do see some remnants of that toxin injecting organelle today. Take Yersinia Pestis, more commonly known as the bubonic plague. It has an organelle that has all of the parts of a flagellum with a few missing. In its place is a toxin ejecting syringe-like system.

And more than 99%of mutations are observably, demonstrably detrimental in some way so the other portion of a percentage is suspected to be the raw material for evolution but those 'neutral' or 'good' mutations don’t come without the bad mutations so how does that drive evolution onward and upward? It doesn’t make any sense.


Most mutations are neutral. The genome works as a whole. If a person has both a harmful and beneficial mutation, if the good outweighs the bad than it will be more likely to reproduce. If the bad outweighs the good than it is less likely it will reproduce. Again, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. If they weren't than it would be a miracle that any of us are here seeing as the average human has 128 from birth.

I don’t believe that evolution is a salvation issue as such but I know for a fact that it leads many people away from God.


Similarly I don't view YEC as a salvation issue, but I feel that many people are lead away because of it. However,  I know some people that do think it is a salvation issue, and I'm not just talking about brother Micah.


-------
"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: 04:12 AM on September 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

They are the words of men inspired by God. If God came down and told you that he didn't write the Bible, but he inspired those who wrote it, and it was their words, not his, would you still read it?

I would probably read it but not take it quite so literally. I believe however that the Bible claims to be the infallible Word of God and as such is the only standard we can base our thinking on. That doesn’t mean we don’t think (we were given brains for a reason after all), but that if our basic ideas are contradicted by what the Bible says and confirms, then we should accept the Bible’s word on it since we are fallen man and not to be trusted in the way that God can be trusted. I think God gave us his word as our guide –like an instruction manual for life.I think if a creator, as obviously brilliant an engineer as God must be, made us, then he also found a way to tell us how things got started, how things work and where truth and error lies. His book is the Bible. No other religious book comes close to its claims and its authority on subjects important to our lives. I didn’t always think this way; but in the days that I rejected the Bible, it wasn’t because I had bothered to read it for myself.
Because God gave me a brain to use it to know and understand what He wants me to understand.


How would you know when you are rejecting that which it is inconvenient to accept. We, as humans, are good at self deception. I don’t think that a creator would leave an instruction manual that didn’t give the instructions for optimal life and functioning. I don’t think that he’d allow his basic manual to be corrupted without due punishment either. We have Strong’s concordance if you want to check on the original words and any Christian should recommend that you check the original words for yourself at those points where you are in doubt as to specific meanings. I think your ultimate ideas are between you and God but if you don’t read the manual thoughtfully and accept it’s supernatural origin then you’re on sinking ground rather than on the rock that you should want to be on in life.

So you want everyone to discount all Biblical scholars and come to their own conclusion? That sounds like a very bad idea.


I think it is the only idea that is sound. Do you think that God wouldn’t want the mentally challenged to understand the manual too? There is a supernatural element to reading the Bible as all people that have been led to very specific answers in the Bible will attest. You need to read it with an open heart and ask God, the creator of the world to assist you when you do. He knows your heart, he knows YOU and an honest seeker of the truth will not be ignored. He specifically said that you should become as a little child in your approach to Him, not as an overeducated full of your own ideas, pompous person. That attitude will never get anybody anywhere with God. There are lots of things I don’t understand in the Bible either but with time and application, I hope to understand more and more of it.

We have scholars for a reason, because the Bible is complicated and the average person just cannot understand half of what is being said.


We have scholars and we also have cults and in all cases they tell you what to think. You can’t afford to leave it to them. Remember even the devil quoted scripture to Jesus and there are some proud ‘educated’ people out there saying things about the Bible that I wouldn’t want to take responsibility for.
There’s a story about Charles Templeton and Billy Graham going to Bible school together. Charles Templeton went on to study the ‘higher critics’ (are they closer to God do you think?) and became an agnostic. He tried to persuade Billy Graham that he’d be committing intellectual suicide if he didn’t follow the thinking of the higher critics. Billy Graham gave it some thought (nobody wants to commit intellectual suicide on purpose) and declined and went on to win millions of souls to Christ. He went out with the simple message of salvation and that’s the most important message and you’ll get that by reading it yourself. I think the more you read it, the more you learn about God, but the simple message is the most important one.

To get up and say not to change the written word while reading a translated version; talk about a thorn in thine eye.


Do you think we can’t say the same thing in another language? How do we communicate with other people groups then? There’s also the Concordance for people that want to be very sure. The King James is said to be closest to the original manuscript and that’s the one I trust ultimately.

So because you don't think evolution can explain something it automatically proves your interpretation of Genesis?


No but you only really have two choices, creation or evolution. If creation, then you need to decide if you’re going to do creation with evolutionary meanings attached or give the plain meaning of the Bible a chance. Let it explain things without help from men. You’ll find that you won’t be committing intellectual suicide if you don’t see a ‘day’ as meaning millions of years and if you look in the ten commandments you’ll see that the days of creation are confirmed there as well. The whole order of evolution is opposite to creation which is a clue –the devil loves to get it all back to front to confuse the issue. He panders to men’s pride while screwing with their heads – he uses proud men to achieve his purposes.

Ultimately the Bible says man brought death into the world and evolution says death brought man into the world. They can’t both be right. If death brought man into the world then there was no need for Jesus Christ and you can throw the whole book out.Either Jesus was who he said he was or he was a liar, but his is the only body you won’t be finding anytime soon whereas you can go and pray to Mohammed’s and other religious leaders’ bones anytime you feel like it. The early Christians saw Jesus alive after he died on the cross. They faced death fearlessly after that because they knew what I know. He’s alive.

Got to go –I’ll be back to finish the post.    
 




-------
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: 01:56 AM on September 21, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:56 AM on September 21, 2009 :
Ultimately the Bible says man brought death into the world and evolution says death brought man into the world. They can’t both be right. If death brought man into the world then there was no need for Jesus Christ and you can throw the whole book out.Either Jesus was who he said he was or he was a liar, but his is the only body you won’t be finding anytime soon whereas you can go and pray to Mohammed’s and other religious leaders’ bones anytime you feel like it. The early Christians saw Jesus alive after he died on the cross. They faced death fearlessly after that because they knew what I know. He’s alive.


Honestly, I feel that this is an important issue, and I feel that these ideas in general are central to the YEC position. And if it is okay with you, I would like to start a new thread dealing with these arguments as I think they wouldn't get the attention they deserve in this thread, or they would completely hijack this one. If this is okay with you please feel free to just start a new thread on this.


-------
"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: 08:23 AM on September 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

Apart from those sorts of obvious problems, no fossil can in principle show you any evolution because all it is, is a dead bone and you don’t know that it had any kids let alone kids different from itself.
That... doesn't make any sense at all. Even if that specific organism didn't have kids it still had parents and lived in a community with others that were the same species that would have passed on its genes to the next generation. And because we know that mutations happen all the time, we can safely conclude that each generation was slightly different.


What I mean is that all we ever get these days is bacteria giving rise to bacteria, people giving rise to people. We also have loads of living fossils that show quite clearly that nothing happened to those creatures over those supposed millions of years. So what’s the possibility that the Bible is right and that everything can only vary within the kind and the kinds that are no longer with us went extinct because of environmental pressure or for various reasons did not survive? It is a philosophical argument that says things changed and kept changing until they looked quite different. Scientifically, observably, experimentally that doesn’t happen, so how do we know that it ever did? Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge came up with their theory of punctuated equilibrium precisely because of the problems with the lack of gradualism in the fossil record. Perhaps gradualism is a dream and it never happened? I understand if you think that’s not possible but then you think authority can be trusted even down to telling you what the Bible means so maybe you should question that principle of your life. I know that when I was at University, I believed everything they told me as well but I’m afraid I’ve learned to question everything and I’m not in the least bit sorry that I learned that.
When you say each generation was slightly different, you’re saying what Darwin did about the finches. The sad thing about the finches is that their beaks changed and changed and when the rain returned, they returned to the average. On the basis of those finches, Darwin said something to the effect that isn’t it amazing that everywhere on earth all plants and animals are related. What a conclusion to draw from finches alone. You need a lot more evidence to conclude that in time the galapogos finch might turn into the galapogos elephant.

Unless you know paleontology and genetics.


I’m afraid not.They are working on the same philosophical assumptions that you are. They believe.

Only that because humans only live a few decades we can't observe dinosaurs turning into birds over millions of years before our eyes, but we have the next best thing; a working understanding of heredity and fossils.


And that working understanding does not tell us that dinosaurs turned into birds. It’s all in the philosophy/imagination/ belief system that that extrapolation takes place.

You do know that Darwin didn't come up with the idea that animals change into other animals? That idea was around before Darwin, just the means by which they change wasn't understood yet.


Yes, it appears to have started in the West with the Greek philosophers. It only morphed into ‘science’ long after that. Even primitive tribes have those sorts of beliefs.Why do the American Indians have animal tribal names – Running wolf; leaping Buffalo –you know what I mean?

Yes, people wanted to prove Darwin so they made up a fairytale about wolves turning into whales, where's the sanity in that!?!


It doesn’t have to be sane, it just has to be believable to the masses and what better way to push it than through ‘science?’ It is insane though, I agree. The only difference between the frog and the prince story compared to the unicellular organism to man is in the magical ‘time’ element. Did God create all creatures to procreate within their kind, like he said he did? OR can one kind mutate into another kind given vast periods of hypothetical time? It’s an important question.

But seriously whale evolution clearly shows a gradual progression from land to water.


No it doesn't. That’s supposed to be one of evolution’s very best examples but, first of all, they don’t know whether one of those animals could change into the other in principle - and imagination has filled in the dotted line from the imaginary possibility to the imaginary ancestor.

Do you know that Rodhocetus, displayed in the University of Michigan’s Natural History museum with a fluke and flippers was suspected to have a fluke and flippers despite the fact that those parts were missing that suggested any such thing? It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones. It was all scientific speculation and made the progression look believable. I don’t say that these people were lying, not at all; but the belief in evolution made them speculate the way they did. Now everyone thinks there’s a huge amount of evidence for whale evolution, where there actually isn’t.

Try and get Carl Werner’s book called Evolution: The Grand Experiment – he has all the stories of what they actually possess in the Natural History museums and he methodically goes through what evos believe and what opposers of evolution believe and why. He has loads of photos taken in those museums. Don’t listen to anybody that says you mustn’t read it because it’s no good, because evolutionist’s will tell you that about anything that might enlighten you. Even if Richard Dawkins himself tells you “Fencer my boy, don’t read that book, it’ll only confuse you.” Say “Thank-you sir, but I have my own brain and I’d like to use it.” I’m not telling you you have to believe me either but I’m not stopping you from learning something by looking at the opposing evidence; I’m just suggesting that you might find it interesting.

So this is your basic argument: species X didn't evolve into species Y because we can't see that kind of drastic change today in the past thousand years even though evolution requires a few million?


How do you know that it takes a few million? How do you know it’s even possible? A good way to make sure you never know whether it is possible (in a few million years or ever), is to make sure that the evidence requires far longer than the time that you’ve got. God’s enemies have been around far longer than you have. They’ve had so much time to think of a good story that sounds scientific and leads people astray. Think about it. Doubt the Bible - thanks to evolution, doubt Jesus Christ - thanks to higher critics, off to hell you go if the expected logical progression from Christian to doubter to agnostic ensues. You have to use your brain, that’s the only way.

Beyond observation what keeps a population from macro evolving?


Beyond observation is imagination. Is science observation or imagination?

Not just philosophers, but scientists too. Like Lamarck in the early 1800's had his own idea of evolution.


The philosophical belief came long before the ‘scientific’ belief.

No one has given me concrete proof that God exists, by your logic I should abandon my faith.


No-one has given me concrete proof that kind can give rise to other kind so I wouldn’t throw out the possibility that its not true just as mentioned in the Bible.

I'm sure Derwood, Orion and Apoapsis would love the idea of me de-converting to atheism


Well that would be dumb indeed since atheism is the dumbest position of all. When somebody proves that God doesn’t exist, that’s when you turn to atheism. Till then you rather be an agnostic. You’ll find that generally atheists hate the God they say they don’t believe in –generally they’re blaming that non-existant God for something or running away from him because of how they’re living their lives.
God doesn’t believe in atheists.

and with your logic I can finally do it, unless you yourself have concrete evidence of God's existence.


Look around you Fencer. If you walk through a forest and see a painting hanging on a tree, you know there’s a painter even if you have never seen him. If you see a concrete bridge, you know there’s an engineer. If you look at what has been created in the world, you know there’s a creator. Kids see it easily. It’s only evolutionists and communists with some education/indoctrination that fail to see it.

but biology would surely be hurting if it weren't around.


Only microevolution and microvariation of the Mendel kind are of any value and we have agreement on that point, so we lose nothing if we fail to believe in the ‘bigger’ evolution picture.

How naturalism became part of the scientific method, I don't know.


It became part of the scientific definition not part of the scientific method. Look at older dictionaries and some more recent definitions, and naturalism isn’t mentioned. Neither is it scientific to include it in the definition. It crept in as philosophy.

Maybe it was philosophy, maybe it was observation, who knows.


How could it possibly be observation if it has never been observed? It was philosophy, pure and simple.

But since its formation it is because of observation and repeated experiments that has led to the conclusion that it is the natural


No, science can only work with observation and experimentation which is why evolution is not science. It is metaphysics. A belief system that crept in and attempted to take over masquerading as science. Just because a computer works according to scientific principles does not mean that the same processes working inside it, caused it to come into existence. In the same way natural processes work in the world but that does not imply that natural processes created matter in the first place; and macroevolution is not part of natural law as it has never been observed.

There is no war between science and religion.
Thanks to YEC propaganda several people I've talked to on campus think there is.


There’s no war between science and religion. There is only the ongoing war between 2 religions. It is a very old religious battle that started in the garden of Eden when the crafty serpent caused Adam and Eve to doubt God’s word.

It’s going on today. Evolution is not science, it is a metaphysical belief system and it is at war with a belief that God created. True science has no problem or conflict with creation.
Have you noticed how much evolution propoganda is out there? Just turn on your TV, watch carefully and think – practically any channel will do. All that propoganda makes it much easier to believe when you get to biology class.You start with the cartoons and go on up through the age groups.

The other, not so much truth as science never allows such terminology, but rather a best explanation thus far is far more cognitively satisfying than truth.


But only if it is a naturalistic explanation –which gives you precisely zero chance of getting to the truth if the truth does not happen to be naturalistic.

One claims truth, the other does not. Yes, they are indeed quite opposite of one another.


Or the one says “It is written” and the other says “It is written and rewritten and rewritten ad infinitum”. Instead of asking what the cutting edge research says, it would be better to ask “What has stood the test of time?”

Unless you want to include fiction like X-Men and the T.V. show Heroes, but most people realize that those stories are fiction.


Like I say, it’s a concept which gets into children very young. It makes it easier to believe later on.

they see the outspoken Christians who viciously hate evolution


Viciously….? Since when? You sure know how to pile on the adjectives undeservedly to push your point!

they know that evolution is backed by science so they put two and two together


They think that evolution is science until it is brought to their attention that it is in fact religion, masquerading as science by being stirred into the science books.

That Christians hate science and they don't want to associate with them.


Only if you hate people because of their belief system. Do you hate Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus on campus? Why would you hate YEC’s? Why don’t you try educating other people into what YEC’s actually believe instead of letting their ignorance carry them. Try not to be one of the people propogating the lie that Christians hate science.

Think about it from their perspective. They go outside and see a YEC and label all Christians as YEC.


Think about it like this. I know Germans killed Jews, so I hate all Germans. I know about Muslim homicide bombers, so I hate all Muslims. Mugabe is black and he’s ruined his county and let his people die, so I hate all black people. How dumb is that?? If you have a brain to find out what’s going on instead of using derogatory labels, there’d be less hate in the world. Look at you, you think YEC’s hate science but all that means is that you have been misinformed. If you tell other people that, then you are passing on your misinformation and are part of the problem. Luckily you are educating yourself on the matter and I am helping you.

So how would you go about teaching Genesis? What would you call the Hindu creation story, divine truth as well? That kind of religious preference could get you fired. But going beyond university life, what gives your creation story any more credibility than those of the other countless creation stories


Well it stands apart as the only story where you don’t have to pay for your sin. God comes to you, you don’t have to work your way up to him with your good deeds.
There is punishment for sin and if you’re clever you’ll get your gift from God instead of trying to be good and imagining that you’re doing a great job all on your own.

Apart from that, there’s the historicity of the Bible that sets it apart from all the other religious books. Archaeology confirms the Bible and anything it hasn’t confirmed is because the artefacts haven’t been found yet but there’s enough to go on in the meantime.
As for having a religious preference, everybody has one even the atheists. I have never suggested teaching Genesis in public school; only the science should be taught in the science class; and the lies supporting evolution should be removed from the syllabus. Scientific evidence supporting evolution and scientific evidence supporting creation should be taught together but not a specific religious book.

Look up observed instances of speciation for starters.


Anything that is or used to be capable of breeding is the same kind. Fruit flies that show speciation are still clearly fruit flies; finches that show speciation are still finches and will only breed with other finches. There is a terminology problem here and speciation does not demonstrate macroevolution as much as evolutionists would like to insist that it does. Endless generations of mutational experiments on fruit flies have only ever produced fruit flies (messed up fruit flies usually but no new organs and nothing new and innovative). They generate quickly so we should see something from all of this reproduction. Also Dogs have been bred to produce many different varieties but there are limits and you get a dog every time and all they can ever breed with, are other dogs. Don’t tell me that, given TIME, anything can happen, that is a religion, we have never observed that.

Genetic markers are always welcomed, they clearly show how seemingly unrelated animals are indeed related


Genetic phylogenies assume the relationship they purport to prove. How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor? How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. Some ingredients are the same so the more alike they look, the more likely they are to have similar genotypes. You can’t prove relatedness that way.

unless God just wants to throw in some evidence for evolution in his creation.


Like I’ve mentioned –relatedness might be evidence for creation, not evolution.

Maybe it was the devil!


Maybe it’s the devil that uses men to spread his propoganda that there is no creator, via the lie of evolution? It’s not the evidence itself, it’s the interpretation of the evidence that is faulty.

Yes there are gaps, and we don't have every lineage covered, but it just does not support a 6000 year old Earth with a mystic jinn poofing everything into existence ex nihilo


So we have 100 000 000 + invertebrates in natural history museums and next up  we have 500 000+ fish fossils in the natural history museums; no signs of where they evolved from. Each fish type arose suddenly and disappeared just as suddenly in the fossil record with no sign of what it evolved from. I call that poofing ex nihilo though I draw the line at the mystic jinn so lets just leave the poofer out of this for now. How many invertebrates and fish would you like us to dig out before you decide that a pattern of poofing has been established?

We have 1000+ bats –poof – no pre-bats or anything leading to a bat. If anyone tells you they have a pre-bat, ask to see it, it will be a bat, trust me I’ve tried.

Every invertebrate kind arose suddenly with no sign of immediate ancestors that are recognizably ancestors –poof – and funnily enough you can’t link the different kinds of invertebrates either, no jelly stars or crobsters or trilopods; nothing.

How many of these would you like to hear about? Archaeopteryx was a bird –no half developed wings serving another function, no scale-feathers to speak of. So is it intermediate or is it wishful thinking. Why can’t we find some real intermediate kinds of intermediates? Where are they all, they must be countless. Many things have gone extinct –yes, that’s true, but extinction does not equal evolution.

Most mutations are neutral.


No, they aren’t. Most mutations are demonstrably harmful. Even neutral ones cause loss of information. They make nothing new. They cause loss of information from things that have already been created. The belief that there are many neutral mutations just waiting to poof some new organism or organ into existence by acting as raw material for innovation is a collateral story required by evolution –otherwise how’s this fictitious event going to take place?
Natural selection selects from what already exists. It is a conservative process. It deselects the bad ones and allows the good ones through –much like serious birth defects cause death. If you have a car factory and you have quality control personel checking to see which cars pass and which cars are not good enough, how long do you think it is going to take to turn that car into an aeroplane? I don’t think so.  





-------
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: 09:01 AM on September 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:01 AM on September 21, 2009 :


Most mutations are neutral.


No, they aren’t. Most mutations are demonstrably harmful. Even neutral ones cause loss of information. They make nothing new. They cause loss of information from things that have already been created.


Then demonstrate it right now, because that statement is flat out wrong.

If you can't, creationism is disproved.



-------
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: 10:00 AM on September 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:01 AM on September 21, 2009 :
Unless you know paleontology and genetics.


I’m afraid not.They are working on the same philosophical assumptions that you are. They believe.


It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.  

But seriously whale evolution clearly shows a gradual progression from land to water.


No it doesn't. That’s supposed to be one of evolution’s very best examples but, first of all, they don’t know whether one of those animals could change into the other in principle - and imagination has filled in the dotted line from the imaginary possibility to the imaginary ancestor.


Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.  You are free to dismiss it, as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.  But your out of hand dismissals/rejections premised on idiosyncratic interpretations and a priori philosophical positions does nto negate the evidence.

It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.

Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?



Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.

It was all scientific speculation and made the progression look believable. I don’t say that these people were lying, not at all; but the belief in evolution made them speculate the way they did. Now everyone thinks there’s a huge amount of evidence for whale evolution, where there actually isn’t.

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.

Don’t listen to anybody that says you mustn’t read it because it’s no good, because evolutionist’s will tell you that about anything that might enlighten you.


Right...  Which is why you only read YEC books.  Books which, by the way, tend to contain many documentably misleading claims...


Beyond observation what keeps a population from macro evolving?


Beyond observation is imagination. Is science observation or imagination?


I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'.

Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.

No one has given me concrete proof that God exists, by your logic I should abandon my faith.


No-one has given me concrete proof that kind can give rise to other kind so I wouldn’t throw out the possibility that its not true just as mentioned in the Bible.

You did not even attempt to answer the question.

Evolution is not science, it is a metaphysical belief system and it is at war with a belief that God created. True science has no problem or conflict with creation.


So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of yuears old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'  
What are you left with?

they see the outspoken Christians who viciously hate evolution


Viciously….? Since when? You sure know how to pile on the adjectives undeservedly to push your point!


I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  "Socrates" was actually Jon Sarfati (I'm sure you know who that is).  
'Vicious' is only the beginning, and some of his harshest bile was directed at 'compromising' Christians (i.e., non-YECs).


Genetic markers are always welcomed, they clearly show how seemingly unrelated animals are indeed related


Genetic phylogenies assume the relationship they purport to prove.

Seeing as how I did researchon what you call 'genetic phylogenies' and have published on the subject, I can say with no hesitation or doubt that you simply do not understand a thing about how such work is done.
One can assume or presume anything they want to - when you run data through phylogenetic analysis algorithms, you get the outcome that the data produces.  Then you have a choice - you can accept it and try to interpret it if it did not conform to your hypothesis, or, like the baraminologists, you can simply dismiss it.


How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?

Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures.

That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.

Some ingredients are the same so the more alike they look, the more likely they are to have similar genotypes. You can’t prove relatedness that way.

And more evidence that you simply do not understand how such analyses are done.

We have 1000+ bats –poof – no pre-bats or anything leading to a bat.


So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?

Most mutations are neutral.


No, they aren’t.

It depends on where they occur.
Most mutations are demonstrably harmful. Even neutral ones cause loss of information.

Can you prove this mathematically?  I mean AFTER you define informaiton in a biologically meaningful way in this context.  I've asked you to do so several times, and you never have for some reason.


-------
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 September 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.


It's amazing to me that so-called scientists are so lost in philosophy without recognizing it and seem unable to distinguish between it and actual science.

Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.


'Fraid not. As you very well know, you cannot compare the genomes of extinct creatures to living creatures so there is nothing to check but the whale. Thus the genetic story is not complementing the fossil data because it doesn't exist. The entire fairytale is morphology based and there is no corroborating evidence.

as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.


I have never rejected actual scientific evidence but the rubbish based on philisophical presumption is rejected with good reason.

It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.
Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place. Dr Gingerich Professor of Geological Sciences, Professor of Geology and Director of the Museum of Paleontology, Univ of Michigan  who said on video in "The Grand Experiment' Video series concerning Rodhocetus' tail fluke:

" I speculated that it might have had a fluke...I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail."

And concerning the front and back flippers of Rodhocetus (from the same source)

"Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn't have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale."

That natural history museum however still displays Rodhocetus drawings with the flippers and the fluke.

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.


I only dismiss claims for which there is no actual evidence -so drop the supercilious tone and hear what I am saying.

Why was there so much speculation surrounding Rodhocetus? Because it is in the nature of fossils and the philisophical beliefs surrounding them that people who believe whales must have evolved from a mammal will find missing links somewhere even in animals that may be unsuitable for the job. It is unfortunate that one man's speculation got rolled out as proof. I doubt he meant it to go that far. This happens rather often in the world of evolutionary speculation. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believable much like their stories they knit about how one creature became another.

I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'


No, I meant imagination.

Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.


You wish you had so much to infer from. You should recognize the difference between inference and imagination but I see that amongst evolutionists it is quite common to conflate the two and still call it 'science'.

In your case you have this sort of philisophical inference:
One very old tooth which has the shape 'strongly suggestive' of a imagined link between apes and humans. No blood, no murder weapon, no clothing, no other evidence whatsoever -just the one tooth.So strong is the evidence that a top scientific journal writes an article accompanied by an artist's depiction of the half-human half-ape as well as his wife and family, his home and surroundings showing how this all would probably have looked. Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig) and the story is retracted -usually this happens very quietly in some obscure corner of the journal while the main story is splashed all over the front cover. It has it's expected effect -more people see the image and believe. Seldom does anyone see the retraction.

Why do you think Rodhocetus is still on display with fluke and flippers? Because it is seen by the 'believers' to be representative of the truth they believe in even if they don't quite have the correct bones yet.

In this case, as in so many, the suspect was innocent despite being framed with all sorts of subsidiary imaginative pictorial additions.

So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of yuears old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'


It isn't. It is the incorrect interpretation of the evidence based on philisophical imaginings and the exclusion of anything but naturalism in the definition of the new 'science'.
Don't worry there's lots of good science out there but all of it is based on observation and experimentation unlike evolution which is based on wishful thinking.

I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  


You might be able to find one example out there but in general YEC's are anything but vicious. I've heard some real bombastic, supercilious evos out there though. Actually I've never seen anything that'd amount to vicious from either side. But I suppose as long as there are people on the earth you'll find vicious examples in every line.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?
Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


What 'knowns' are you suggesting here? You need to look again and see if your 'knowns story isn't based on the same old assumptions. I have no doubt they are.

That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.


No, that is your ad hoc rationalization for why you should discount what I'm saying with no proper justification.

So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?


I don't have a clue how many original bats were on the ark -it depends entirely on whether they can procreate or not and how much genetic variability the original bats had programmed into them by their creator.

Most mutations are neutral.
No, they aren’t.
It depends on where they occur.


I tell you what -why don't you show me all your morphological mutations that have occurred leading to something other than distortion of what that gene used to do and I'll direct you to some demonstrably harmful morphological effects of mutation. After all mutations leading to altered morphology is what we need for the raw material of evolution.







 

     

 



-------
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: 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:10 AM on September 20, 2009 :

I think there is far more than prokaryotic phylogenies that are in trouble. Genetic phylogenies often contradict morphological phylogenies and make strange claims.


You think that, do you?  Based on your knowledge of the field and your reading of the literature, no doubt..




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:53 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009 :
It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.


It's amazing to me that so-called scientists are so lost in philosophy without recognizing it and seem unable to distinguish between it and actual science.

Yeah, us poor "so-called" scientists.  I mean obviously we are not actual scientists - like the creation scientists - because we do not immerse ourselves in syllogisms and pseudologic.

Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.


'Fraid not. As you very well know, you cannot compare the genomes of extinct creatures to living creatures so there is nothing to check but the whale.

'Fraid you just keep exposing how little you actually know about the study of evolution and the use of genetic data generally.

We do not need DNA from extinct creatures to infer phylogeny.

Thus the genetic story is not complementing the fossil data because it doesn't exist. The entire fairytale is morphology based and there is no corroborating evidence.

I am always amazed at how confident those are who understand the least.  This is actually
documented , by the way.

Of note, I saw that you never responded to my offer to send you some DNA sequences and a free alignment prgram to see if your amazing lack of bias produced analysis outcomes that differed friom my biased notions.  Wonder why....


as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.


I have never rejected actual scientific evidence but the rubbish based on philisophical presumption is rejected with good reason.

Well, isn't that special - you just label everything as being based on philosophical presumption in order to dismiss it.  How intellectual!

So, why not use your special YEC-philosophy to interpret this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.




Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


or this:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.




Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.


It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.
Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place.


How about you stop misrepresenting what you reply to?  How about you stop butchering what you reply to in order to try to turn the tables (which you are not very good at)?  How about you leave in the context:


Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?





Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.



Think you can do that?

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.


I only dismiss claims for which there is no actual evidence -so drop the supercilious tone and hear what I am saying.

This from the person who wrote about "so-called scientists" and the like.. how rich..
I DO hear what you are saying - you say that if an evolutinist presents somethign as evidence you automatically dismiss it because you feel the evidence was generated/interpreted using a metaphysical worldview that you disdain.
No?

Why was there so much speculation surrounding Rodhocetus? Because it is in the nature of fossils and the philisophical beliefs surrounding them that people who believe whales must have evolved from a mammal will find missing links somewhere even in animals that may be unsuitable for the job. It is unfortunate that one man's speculation got rolled out as proof. I doubt he meant it to go that far. This happens rather often in the world of evolutionary speculation. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believable much like their stories they knit about how one creature became another.


I think you are conflating a museum display with 'proof.'

The speculations were made premised on what was known at the time. NEW INFORMATION showed that the earlier speculations were incorrect.  NEW INFORMATIOn in the form of additional fossil evidence.

Imagine that.

Being 'believable' is not what evidence-based speculation is about in science. Being consistent with the evidence that is available is.  There is a clear and obvious difference.

I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'


No, I meant imagination.

Then you are not talking about science, you are talking about your metaphysic tainted understanding of what you need science to be.
We cannot 'observe' atoms, yet I doubt that you would declare our depictions of atoms to be imagination.


Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.


You wish you had so much to infer from. You should recognize the difference between inference and imagination but I see that amongst evolutionists it is quite common to conflate the two and still call it 'science'.


I see some insults and such, but no real reply.


In your case you have this sort of philisophical inference:
One very old tooth which has the shape 'strongly suggestive' of a imagined link between apes and humans. No blood, no murder weapon, no clothing, no other evidence whatsoever -just the one tooth.So strong is the evidence that a top scientific journal writes an article accompanied by an artist's depiction of the half-human half-ape as well as his wife and family, his home and surroundings showing how this all would probably have looked. Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig) and the story is retracted -usually this happens very quietly in some obscure corner of the journal while the main story is splashed all over the front cover. It has it's expected effect -more people see the image and believe. Seldom does anyone see the retraction.


So, you have to resort to misrepresenting the claims made by one overzealous amateur anthropologist from close to 100 years ago to tar an entire field of science?  
You write that as if you think that is ALL we have for anything.

You are either engaging in this unprecedenmted hyperbole for rhetorical purposes or you really are that uninformed.

Why do you think Rodhocetus is still on display with fluke and flippers?

Perhaps because the museum does not thave the money to change the display?  I've not seen it, myself, so I cannot guarantee that your depiction of it is accurate.  You've seen it, have you?

Because it is seen by the 'believers' to be representative of the truth they believe in even if they don't quite have the correct bones yet.

Well, that must be it.

Perhaps if you had actually addressed the question about the bones I asked above (instead fo lopping off the context and spinning it) you may see that how they were depicted is not that important.


In this case, as in so many, the suspect was innocent despite being framed with all sorts of subsidiary imaginative pictorial additions.

Typical insulting rhetorical insinuations.  Best you YECs have, I guess.

So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of years old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'


It isn't. It is the incorrect interpretation of the evidence based on philisophical imaginings and the exclusion of anything but naturalism in the definition of the new 'science'.


Ah, so NOTHING is 'true' science in your world.

What ID 'true science', I have to wonder -Seeing the blessed Virgin in a water stain on the side of a building?


Don't worry there's lots of good science out there but all of it is based on observation and experimentation unlike evolution which is based on wishful thinking.


More insulting unsupported rhetoric.


I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  


You might be able to find one example out there but in general YEC's are anything but vicious. I've heard some real bombastic, supercilious evos out there though.

I've seen the opposite.  Must be my metaphysical position.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?
Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


What 'knowns' are you suggesting here? You need to look again and see if your 'knowns story isn't based on the same old assumptions. I have no doubt they are.


Imagine that - a non-scientist YEC (let me guess - you maybe have a BS in something non-science-related, yes?) denigrating those in a field he knows demonstrably very little about.  that must be the 'Christian' way.

I've recently posted them, but here you go again:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

and


Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


I can't wait to hear your metaphysical stories about how this is all 'assumptions' and the like...


That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.


No, that is your ad hoc rationalization for why you should discount what I'm saying with no proper justification.


The justification is that the exact same claims can be just as logically made for any mythological construct.  You wrote:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

A person could, with the same justification and rationale, write:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a flying spaghetti monster that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?


I don't have a clue how many original bats were on the ark -it depends entirely on whether they can procreate or not and how much genetic variability the original bats had programmed into them by their creator.

You presuppose that they HAD such "genetic variability... programmed into them by their creator" - you conclude what you seek to support.
Most mutations are neutral.
No, they aren’t.
It depends on where they occur.


I tell you what -why don't you show me all your morphological mutations that have occurred leading to something other than distortion of what that gene used to do and I'll direct you to some demonstrably harmful morphological effects of mutation. After all mutations leading to altered morphology is what we need for the raw material of evolution.


And once again the YEC goal posts twist and shift.

You declared that mutations are not neutral, now you are demanding that show you a mutation that beneficially alters morphology.

How about we stick to one demand at a time?  Perhaps you have heard that Steven Pinker had his genome sequenced and it was compared to Craig Venter's, and you know what was discovered?  Pinker and Venter's DNA differed by many millions of mutations.  According to your folk YEC science, one or both of them should be hideopusly disfigured mutatnts, if alive at all.  Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of genetics?

Oh, and you ignroed this twice:




[where is a] Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.


Posted that twice and you ignored it both times.  I can see why.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:03 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry for getting back so late, had my first two tests of the semester and hadn't had time.

Quote from Lester10 at 09:01 AM on September 21, 2009 :
What I mean is that all we ever get these days is bacteria giving rise to bacteria, people giving rise to people...


The domain bacteria is the most diverse domain in the biosphere. That is like saying every creature in the kingdoms animalia, plantae, fungi, and protista are all more similar than bacteria. If it is okay to say bacteria is only ever going to turn into bacteria, you should be fine bird, whale, horse, tree and flower evolution on this so called philosophical level you speak of.

I understand if you think that’s not possible but then you think authority can be trusted even down to telling you what the Bible means so maybe you should question that principle of your life.


I really have no intention of throwing out all Biblical scholarship, reading it for myself with practically no background knowledge, then claiming I have the one truth creating my own pet religion.

I know that when I was at University, I believed everything they told me as well but I’m afraid I’ve learned to question everything and I’m not in the least bit sorry that I learned that.


This doesn't have a lot to do with what you said, but it just reminded me of how professors react when you ask them questions they don't know, or don't have a good answer. I was crudely introduced to this concept second week of freshmen year when I asked my teacher about the pH of water and why it was seven and not higher with oxygen's electronegativity compared to hydrogen's. Come to think of it I still don't know.

When you say each generation was slightly different, you’re saying what Darwin did about the finches...


Darwin was a smart guy, discovered natural selection, but science has moved on since. We've discovered and increased our knowledge quite a bit since he was around.

Yes, it appears to have started in the West with the Greek philosophers. It only morphed into ‘science’ long after that. Even primitive tribes have those sorts of beliefs.Why do the American Indians have animal tribal names – Running wolf; leaping Buffalo –you know what I mean?


From what little bit I know of Native American culture they don't think that they evolved from prior organisms. But rather their names come from the culture and their reverence for nature. Wolves run fast, so if you can run fast your name could be running wolf. I know at least in some of the tribes you are given one name at birth and another later in life when you become an adult.

It doesn’t have to be sane, it just has to be believable to the masses and what better way to push it than through ‘science?’ It is insane though, I agree.


What better way to push through your doctrine than telling everyone they're going to rot in hell fire for all eternity if they don't conform to your belief system. Nothing like a good ole fire and brimstone sermon to make the masses convert.

The only difference between the frog and the prince story compared to the unicellular organism to man is in the magical ‘time’ element. Did God create all creatures to procreate within their kind, like he said he did? OR can one kind mutate into another kind given vast periods of hypothetical time? It’s an important question.


Can you give us any reason as to why the Earth has to be so young?

No it doesn't. [Whale evolution is] supposed to be one of evolution’s very best examples but, first of all, they don’t know whether one of those animals could change into the other in principle - and imagination has filled in the dotted line from the imaginary possibility to the imaginary ancestor.


I'll leave Derwood to whale evolution as he already started and knows way more than I do.

Try and get Carl Werner’s book called Evolution: The Grand Experiment – he has all the stories of what they actually possess in the Natural History museums and he methodically goes through what evos believe and what opposers of evolution believe and why.


Might be a good read during Christmas brake. If you can remind me around December to get a copy I might get one.

Think about it. Doubt the Bible - thanks to evolution, doubt Jesus Christ - thanks to higher critics, off to hell you go if the expected logical progression from Christian to doubter to agnostic ensues. You have to use your brain, that’s the only way.


Yet the majority of Christians and Jews accept evolution, I wonder why that is so.

Beyond observation what keeps a population from macro evolving?


Beyond observation is imagination. Is science observation or imagination?


Beyond observation is imagination? Care to explain how this is so with evolution?

The philosophical belief came long before the ‘scientific’ belief.


The Greeks had the philosophical belief of atoms, should we discount atoms a philosophical?

No one has given me concrete proof that God exists, by your logic I should abandon my faith.


No-one has given me concrete proof that kind can give rise to other kind so I wouldn’t throw out the possibility that its not true just as mentioned in the Bible.


No real response? To you is the Bible and evolution just as sound?

I'm sure Derwood, Orion and Apoapsis would love the idea of me de-converting to atheism


Well that would be dumb indeed since atheism is the dumbest position of all. When somebody proves that God doesn’t exist, that’s when you turn to atheism. Till then you rather be an agnostic. You’ll find that generally atheists hate the God they say they don’t believe in –generally they’re blaming that non-existant God for something or running away from him because of how they’re living their lives.
God doesn’t believe in atheists.


I haven't really seen atheists blame God for anything, and I know quite a few atheists. Beyond the use of God as a figure of speech, I just don't see it.

Look around you Fencer. If you walk through a forest and see a painting hanging on a tree, you know there’s a painter even if you have never seen him. If you see a concrete bridge, you know there’s an engineer. If you look at what has been created in the world, you know there’s a creator. Kids see it easily. It’s only evolutionists and communists with some education/indoctrination that fail to see it.


Um, never become a traveling preacher to campus to campus, it will not work out well for you with those kinds of arguments. The main thing is that all of those things are inanimate, they don't reproduce, they don't have DNA, and they obviously don't have mutations.

Kids "see" it easily because they don't know any better. And if you try to explain them the evolutionary perspective they will not understand. It is like trying to teach someone calculus but doesn't know how to multiply.

How could [naturalism] possibly be observation if it has never been observed? It was philosophy, pure and simple.


Because people figured out that it wasn't Zeus up in the clouds making thunder and rain. Observation after observation showed that it wasn't because of the supernatural that things happen.

In the same way natural processes work in the world but that does not imply that natural processes created matter in the first place;


So because you want to preserve your idea of God, the formation of the universe couldn't have been natural? Why couldn't God have used natural processes, like the big bang, to create life?

and macroevolution is not part of natural law as it has never been observed.


A law usually involves an equation, and is not a theory in any sense. Evolution on the other hand is not a law, but a theory which explains why we observe what we observe.

There’s no war between science and religion. There is only the ongoing war between 2 religions. It is a very old religious battle that started in the garden of Eden when the crafty serpent caused Adam and Eve to doubt God’s word.


I very much disagree. At the broadest it is two world views colliding, naturalism is not a religion. You just want it to be because it will make it easier for you to attack it.

It’s going on today. Evolution is not science, it is a metaphysical belief system and it is at war with a belief that God created. True science has no problem or conflict with creation.


I agree that science doesn't conflict with God or the creation, that is why I must accept evolution as part of God's creativity and abandon a literal read in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.

Have you noticed how much evolution propoganda is out there? Just turn on your TV, watch carefully and think – practically any channel will do. All that propoganda makes it much easier to believe when you get to biology class. You start with the cartoons and go on up through the age groups.


Haha, I don't have a T.V. in my room. But from watching T.V. and movies earlier in my life you see cartoon versions of evolution. The only problem is that evolution doesn't work the way T.V. promotionals say they do. I actually remembering watching the cartoon version of X-Men when I was a little kid and thought they made up the idea of mutants. It actually never entered my mind that creatures evolve into completely different creatures until my Dad told me when I was around eleven.  

But only if it is a naturalistic explanation –which gives you precisely zero chance of getting to the truth if the truth does not happen to be naturalistic.


While I agree, if there is no natural explanation than science will not have an explanation for it though.

Or the one says “It is written” and the other says “It is written and rewritten and rewritten ad infinitum”. Instead of asking what the cutting edge research says, it would be better to ask “What has stood the test of time?”


I'm sorry to say, but mythology has not stood the test of time. Evolution has though.

they see the outspoken Christians who viciously hate evolution


Viciously….? Since when? You sure know how to pile on the adjectives undeservedly to push your point!


My English teacher said something similar last semester. But viciously can be an understatement in some cases. Although not all YEC viciously attack evolution, it is somewhat common with those who are outspoken.

They think that evolution is science until it is brought to their attention that it is in fact religion, masquerading as science by being stirred into the science books.


So how is it religion?

Only if you hate people because of their belief system. Do you hate Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus on campus? Why would you hate YEC’s?


I don't hate them, but I do have a problem with people destroying science, like YEC. I have friends from all over the spectrum. Everything from atheist to YEC and just about everything in-between.

Why don’t you try educating other people into what YEC’s actually believe instead of letting their ignorance carry them. Try not to be one of the people propogating the lie that Christians hate science.


Those that think that will not listen to anyone who says otherwise, and those that will listen are already aware that Christians don't hate science by default.

Think about it from their perspective. They go outside and see a YEC and label all Christians as YEC.


Look at you, you think YEC’s hate science but all that means is that you have been misinformed. If you tell other people that, then you are passing on your misinformation and are part of the problem. Luckily you are educating yourself on the matter and I am helping you.


While you say that you don't hate science, you don't like the methodology of science and want it removed from the process. You want the very essence of science to be eradicated. If it makes you feel any better I don't think you are doing it on purpose, and I have never expressed such things in casual conversation on campus; most people are just not familiar enough with science as well as the YEC, TE, and atheist world views to understand what is being said here.

Christianity doesn't have the best track record when it comes to science. The Catholic church thought that the devil was corrupting your eyesight when you looked though a telescope and saw the mountains on the moon for a short period of time. Not the best introduction of science and faith ever recorded.

Well it stands apart as the only story where you don’t have to pay for your sin. God comes to you, you don’t have to work your way up to him with your good deeds.


I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that's exactly how it worked in the OT.

There is punishment for sin and if you’re clever you’ll get your gift from God instead of trying to be good and imagining that you’re doing a great job all on your own.


And in Buddhism it states that we are already enlightened, we just need to become aware of it through meditation and study/realization.

Apart from that, there’s the historicity of the Bible that sets it apart from all the other religious books. Archaeology confirms the Bible and anything it hasn’t confirmed is because the artefacts haven’t been found yet but there’s enough to go on in the meantime.


This sounds an awful lot like transitional fossils.

As for having a religious preference, everybody has one even the atheists.


I disagree, atheists have no religion. That is why they are called a-theists.

I have never suggested teaching Genesis in public school; only the science should be taught in the science class; and the lies supporting evolution should be removed from the syllabus. Scientific evidence supporting evolution and scientific evidence supporting creation should be taught together but not a specific religious book.


Only problem is that the Dover trial kind of ruled ID somewhat illegal to teach in the science classroom due to separation of church and state. While it is not a federal court case, it does lend a certain amount of precedence and influence on any future cases. And there have been other court cases on similar things, and the creationist side only won one case, the famous scopes trial.

Anything that is or used to be capable of breeding is the same kind. Fruit flies that show speciation are still clearly fruit flies; finches that show speciation are still finches and will only breed with other finches. There is a terminology problem here and speciation does not demonstrate macroevolution as much as evolutionists would like to insist that it does.


First of all, speciation is macro-evolution. Second, I bring you back to the domain bacteria is more diverse than the domain Eukaryot. Thirdly, what happens to those fruit flies when they can no longer breed with other fruit flies outside their specific population?

Genetic phylogenies assume the relationship they purport to prove. How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor? How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. Some ingredients are the same so the more alike they look, the more likely they are to have similar genotypes. You can’t prove relatedness that way.


If they're not related that is one hell of a coincidence. As derwood clearly knows more about it than I do, I leave the technical side to him.

Like I’ve mentioned –relatedness might be evidence for creation, not evolution.


Only you can't even remotely show that God created everything without evolution.

So we have 100 000 000 + invertebrates in natural history museums and next up  we have 500 000+ fish fossils in the natural history museums; no signs of where they evolved from. Each fish type arose suddenly and disappeared just as suddenly in the fossil record with no sign of what it evolved from. I call that poofing ex nihilo though I draw the line at the mystic jinn so lets just leave the poofer out of this for now. How many invertebrates and fish would you like us to dig out before you decide that a pattern of poofing has been established?


As it stands, soft bodies are very rarely preserved. So the best way to show that evolution is false is to do things like, falsify whale evolution and other presumably known lineages.

We have 1000+ bats –poof – no pre-bats or anything leading to a bat. If anyone tells you they have a pre-bat, ask to see it, it will be a bat, trust me I’ve tried.


While I guess it is a bat, here is a pre-modern-bat without echolocation.

Every invertebrate kind arose suddenly with no sign of immediate ancestors that are recognizably ancestors –poof – and funnily enough you can’t link the different kinds of invertebrates either, no jelly stars or crobsters or trilopods; nothing.


Because of the soft bodies that were there before were never fossilized.

How many of these would you like to hear about? Archaeopteryx was a bird –no half developed wings serving another function, no scale-feathers to speak of.


You obviously don't know what a transitional is than.

So is it intermediate or is it wishful thinking. Why can’t we find some real intermediate kinds of intermediates? Where are they all, they must be countless. Many things have gone extinct –yes, that’s true, but extinction does not equal evolution.


Because you have warped the definition of transitional into something nature would never allow.

No, they aren’t. Most mutations are demonstrably harmful. Even neutral ones cause loss of information.


Than how do you explain the average 128 mutations at birth? Define "information".

Natural selection selects from what already exists. It is a conservative process. It deselects the bad ones and allows the good ones through –much like serious birth defects cause death.


It also lets in neutral ones as well. Once a neutral mutation is in the population it will very rarely be ousted by natural selection.

If you have a car factory and you have quality control personel checking to see which cars pass and which cars are not good enough, how long do you think it is going to take to turn that car into an aeroplane? I don’t think so.


Cars don't go through mutations. All the analogies are pointless or worse beyond a basic conceptual understanding. I really don't know why it is that hard for creationists in general to understand that.


-------
"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: 08:23 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Fencer,
Read an interesting story today. It'd be good for Derwood to read as well since he fits the stereotype so well.
The story admits to everything creationists argue about but still accepts millions and billions of years (fatal error there) and then comes to an amazing (and in my opinion) dumb conclusion in the next attempt to avoid God.
Amusing reading though and only 9 pages or so. Go to Wattpad.com and look for Darwinism: a crumbling theory part 1 and 2


-------
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: 10:41 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:41 AM on September 24, 2009 :
Hey Fencer,
Read an interesting story today. It'd be good for Derwood to read as well since he fits the stereotype so well.
The story admits to everything creationists argue about but still accepts millions and billions of years (fatal error there) and then comes to an amazing (and in my opinion) dumb conclusion in the next attempt to avoid God.
Amusing reading though and only 9 pages or so. Go to Wattpad.com and look for Darwinism: a crumbling theory part 1 and 2



Wow, a Dunning-Kruger datum point says that I fit a stereotype, a negative one, no less.

Lloyd Pye's little story - printed in Nexus magazine (a 'new age' conspiratorial magazine...) is a real hoot.

You know Lloyd Pye  - the guy who thinks aliens planted humans on earth?

Pye isn't all that bright, considering his rather naive claims regarding human evolution:

"Pye counters by saying that humans have only 46 chromosomes, while all other higher primates have 48, which does not sound to him like natural evolution at work. This has recently been explained as the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, see Ken Miller."

I guess Pye didn't bother to learnmuch about genetics before spewing his goo (just like someone else I am familiar with...).

Anyway, Pye's little brain turd seems to have really impressed Lester for the obvious reasons - it is littered with half-truths, rumors, embellishments and the usual martyr complex that YECs so love to promulgate in order to bash evolution.

No wonder Lester likes it; no wonder Lester thinks I fit Pye's paranoid stereotypes - he doesn't know any better.



I note that Lester still can't be honest in his replies, but hey - he's a Christian creationist.







-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:02 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some more of Lester's new hero's idiocy:

A number of the supposedly unanswered mysteries that Pye poses in his book Everything You Know Is Wrong have also been criticised. For example:

Pye claims "humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains". This long-standing myth originated with phrenology.[3] Brain imaging methods appear to refute the 10% brain use statement. For example, positron emission tomography (PET) scans show that much of the brain is active during many different tasks.[4]
Pye claims that the human genetic array as it exists today is "only 150,000 to 200,000 years old". In fact, certain human genes such as those encoding histones are common to all eukaryotes and identical to many other primates' histone genes, and are more than 1.8 billion years old.



-------
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 September 24, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:04 PM on September 24, 2009 :
Some more of Lester's new hero's idiocy:

A number of the supposedly unanswered mysteries that Pye poses in his book Everything You Know Is Wrong have also been criticised. For example:

Pye claims "humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains". This long-standing myth originated with phrenology.[3]


Phrenology! The 'science' that says you can tell things about people due to bumps on the cranium! From that he says we use 10% of our brains, how very misleading and immoral. I learned at a very early age that the 10% thing was BS. For me, it is very hard to take anyone seriously after making such claims.


-------
"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: 11:20 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I really have no intention of throwing out all Biblical scholarship, reading it for myself with practically no background knowledge, then claiming I have the one truth creating my own pet religion.


Well I guess that means you're going to be relying on your selected 'experts' Fencer. You'd make a good cult member deferring to the decisions of the leader and never daring to use your own brain for anything out of your area of expertise. What do you do when the experts contradict one another?

What better way to push through your doctrine than telling everyone they're going to rot in hell fire for all eternity if they don't conform to your belief system.


Have you a fundamental problem with Christianity Fencer? Should we edit out all references to hell for your convenience? This is the problem you see. If you believe that the Bible is a manmade production, where do you draw the line?

If it's a manmade production then anything you don't like, you edit out and you make your own preferred story. The sad side of that is that if objective truth exists and you don't believe in parts of it because it's an inconvenient truth, you'll just have to disbelieve until judgement day (if you believe that part, of course.) and then see what happens and what IS real.
At that point, you can explain to God why you didn't believe the Word of God and how you chose which experts to believe according to what you preferred to believe.

That is what you're doing - you can't rely on yourself, except when it is convenient.
Ultimately you are making the decisions.

Nothing like a good ole fire and brimstone sermon to make the masses convert.


It's almost as effective as the peace and prosperity gospel.

Can you give us any reason as to why the Earth has to be so young?


Well I have mentioned quite a few. Apart from the fact that there's no reason to trust radiometric dating, the Bible gives geneologies of all the generations and it only adds up to thousands of years.
The number of Jews from the time of Jacob to the time before the holocaust (18 million) gives an average population growth rate of 0,44%. The number of people in the world at the time of Christ is estimated at around 300 million. The number alive now, gives an average population growth rate of 0,45% which is pretty consistent with that of the Jews.

If you try the calculation on just a million conservative human years  as according to evolution and take an increase of a measly 0,01% just to be overfair, you have far far more humans than there are atoms in the entire known universe... so where are all the bodies and where are all the people/
What we have now (coming up for 7 billion) is consistent with thousands of years of human history. Millions of years is just out of the question.

Yet the majority of Christians and Jews accept evolution, I wonder why that is so.


Clearly they don't believe the Bible and they defer to the human 'experts' (the ones they prefer to believe) on the most important questions.
They've also been brainwashed into evolution most of their lives so what do you expect?

Beyond observation is imagination? Care to explain how this is so with evolution?


Everyone observes minor variation and mutation is real. Macroevolution is not observable nor do mutations show that this is possible.

If you walk through a forest and see a painting hanging on a tree, you know there’s a painter even if you have never seen him. If you see a concrete bridge, you know there’s an engineer. If you look at what has been created in the world, you know there’s a creator. Kids see it easily. It’s only evolutionists and communists with some education/indoctrination that fail to see it.
The main thing is that all of those things are inanimate, they don't reproduce, they don't have DNA, and they obviously don't have mutations.


That's no reason to believe that living creations don't work the same way. You have just accepted that it doesn't, but on what premise? Even you accept that there is a creator -why isn't it possible that the creator created us fully functional rather than leaving our production to the laws of nature (if the laws of nature were capable of such a thing.)

Because people figured out that it wasn't Zeus up in the clouds making thunder and rain.


Just because thunder and lightening works according to natural law (and we're all in agreement there) doesn't mean that we and the universe were created using the same laws. Even the evolutionist's Big Bang has a mystical supernatural component to it.

So because you want to preserve your idea of God, the formation of the universe couldn't have been natural? Why couldn't God have used natural processes, like the big bang, to create life?


What went bang?
Where did the matter come from?
These sorts of questions suggest a cause.

At the broadest it is two world views colliding, naturalism is not a religion.


If you try to use naturalism to explain where everything has come from, then it is a religious worldview. It cannot be independantly verified since there were no observers, thus it is your religion.

You just want it to be because it will make it easier for you to attack it.


No, it is easy to attack because it is so illogical and ridiculous given what we do know for sure.

that is why I must accept evolution as part of God's creativity and abandon a literal read in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.


You appear to have picked up a cliche which you are finding difficult to abandon. I'm sure you would prefer Genesis to be pleasant poetry but though there are poetic sections of the Bible, Genesis is not one of those. Genesis is a very specific historical account of the world in the beginning. It is actually easy to note the difference between historical accounts and poetic portions. Read it and you will see. Leave it to someone else and you will never know.

The only problem is that evolution doesn't work the way T.V. promotionals say they do.


It doesn't matter, it sets the scene. That's all that's necessary.

While I agree, if there is no natural explanation than science will not have an explanation for it though.


'Science' attempts to explain all sorts of things as though they were natural while having no clue as to whether the real story was natural or not.

I'm sorry to say, but mythology has not stood the test of time. Evolution has though.


The Bible has stood the test of time. It's still a world best seller. Evolution is a relatively new book of unbelievable and unsubstantiated myths and legends. It can't be observed so it is believed. Every week a new story pops up. The stories change all the time. That is not what you call standing the test of time.

So how is it religion?


It is not observed, it is believed.

I don't hate them, but I do have a problem with people destroying science, like YEC.


They don't destroy science, they question current dogma. It's always good for science to be questioned otherwise error will not be corrected.

While you say that you don't hate science, you don't like the methodology of science and want it removed from the process.


No I don't like the philisophical assumption of naturalism. It has no part in science as that is coming to a conclusion before gathering in the evidence. There are two possibilities, natural or not natural in origin - you can't decide one is true by preference. That is not science. Forcefitting natrualism to the evidence is no way of determining what actually happened.

I disagree, atheists have no religion. That is why they are called a-theists.


They believe there is no God, that is a religious belief.

And there have been other court cases on similar things, and the creationist side only won one case, the famous scopes trial.


Yes and that turned out well for evolution. Hopefully the Dover trial will turn out well for creation.

First of all, speciation is macro-evolution.


Only according to evolutionists and that is because they like to think they have proven macroevolution by force. However, you will note, wherever speciation occurs, you still very clearly have the same 'kind' of organism. Once fruitflies, always fruit flies etc. and that is borne out by speciation and by every other observable piece of evidence. Thinking that speciation proves macroevolution is just pretending to be too stupid to see the difference.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor? How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures.

If they're not related that is one hell of a coincidence. As derwood clearly knows more about it than I do, I leave the technical side to him.


What's a hell of a coincidence? You're not listening. I'm trying to tell you that relatedness does not prove a common ancestor, it may prove a common designer. You wouldn't leave it to Derwood unless you'd already decided it had to be something to do with a common ancestor which is what you prefer to believe.

Not because the evidence shows it to be so but because that is the way you prefer to interpet it. The evidence is not forcing that interpretation on you.

Christianity doesn't have the best track record when it comes to science. The Catholic church thought that the devil was corrupting your eyesight when you looked though a telescope and saw the mountains on the moon for a short period of time.


And yet practically every major line of science was started by a Christian so your generalization is out of line. It all boils down to - there are stupid superstitious people and there are logical people. Not all of them are any particular religion.

Only you can't even remotely show that God created everything without evolution.


There are gaps in the fossil record that are now inexcusable and clearly show that gradualism is not true. You can imagine that it is true if you want but if you'd like to draw your conclusions according to the evidence then you're going to have to go with sudden appearance of every new kind fully formed and functional -no gradualism can be demonstrated.

That means that the observable evidence fits my belief system, not yours - so who is being scientific and who is being imaginative?

As it stands, soft bodies are very rarely preserved.


Lots of soft bodied organisms are preserved in the precambrian and cambrian rocks so there is no excuse for all of the hypothetical imaginary ancestors of the cambrian explosion to have been lost. That's an old excuse that doesn't fly. It's only a convenient excuse for those who want to pretend that all the transitionals didn't happen to be fossilized.

While I guess it is a bat, here is a pre-modern-bat without echolocation.


There are all sorts of bats, some with echolocation, some without. So how can you say that a fossilized bat without echolocation is not the ancestor of the modern bat without echolocation? Why presume it is on its way to evolving echolocation?
All bats come fully formed and functional and there are no fossil bats showing the wings evolving nor the fingers elongating in preparation for the membranes. Something of that kind is required if we are to believe that bats evolved their wings.

Because of the soft bodies that were there before were never fossilized.


But the many soft bodied fossils we do find did happen to fossilize and there is still no evidence of gradualism.

How many of these would you like to hear about? Archaeopteryx was a bird –no half developed wings serving another function, no scale-feathers to speak of.
You obviously don't know what a transitional is than.


So... if I don't believe that archeopteryx is transitional (for obvious reasons), I must not know what a transitional is? That's a bright comment.

Actually it's the usual -If you don't believe that evolution happened, then you must not understand evolution.
If you don't believe that something is a transitional then you must not understand what a transitional is.
No, I'm just amazed at how easily satisfied you are with the evidence. Your credulity level is way high.

Because you have warped the definition of transitional into something nature would never allow.


Well nature has to allow a non-winged creature to turn into a winged creature. So a leg must become a wing. We want the transitionals between no wing and a wing. Is that too much to ask? Is that too difficult to understand?

Than how do you explain the average 128 mutations at birth?


Loss of information, like spelling mistakes only compensated for by the good gene on the other parent's genome.

Define "information".


Something that makes sense and has a purpose. The difference between 'I have a cat'
and 'y hase a cmt' (3 mutations there and complete loss of information )

Once a neutral mutation is in the population it will very rarely be ousted by natural selection.


Yes, but some random neutral mutations are most unlikely to morph into the co-ordinated information for a wing.

Cars don't go through mutations.


Neither is

I have a cat
y have a cat
y hase a cat
y hase a cmt
y hase k cmt

likely to produce the co-ordinated information required for a wing in time
or ever. That's how mutations work. Sometimes it doesn't really matter to the protein produced and sometimes it matters a lot.



 


















 






























 






-------
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: 09:31 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
This has recently been explained as the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, see Ken Miller."


Yes, well there should be a distinction made between a plausible story and the objective truth in science lest some poor misguided fool take the plausible story to heart.
Just because Ken Miller can dream something up, only says something about his imagination.
This story sounds much like the story of the eukaryotes that evolved a nucleus by consuming some prokaryotes.

Pye isn't all that bright, considering his rather naive claims regarding human evolution


I could say the same for Ken Miller's intelligence if I had to take it on his rather naive claims about the fusion of 2 ancestral chromosomes.

I guess Pye didn't bother to learnmuch about genetics before spewing his goo


I doubt that Ken Miller really had to know too much about genetics to make up his story either.

it is littered with half-truths, rumors, embellishments and the usual martyr complex that YECs so love to promulgate in order to bash evolution.


Well we don't even appear to be talking about the same article. Give me some specific half-truths, rumours, embellishments....? Not that I'm supporting the man's alien agenda but he's no less confused than you are -which you don't appear to notice for obvious reasons.

I note that Lester still can't be honest in his replies, but hey - he's a Christian creationist.


You're going to have to be more specific Derwood, there's nothing to defend when you make such vague allegations.

Some more of Lester's new hero's idiocy...


So according to your manner of reasoning, because you believe in such a dumb thing as evolution, I should discount everything else you have to say about anything. I don't know that Pye deserves this.

Pye claims "humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains".


Evolutionists come up with even dumber, more ludicrous stories than that, so I wouldn't throw stones here if I were you.






-------
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: 10:05 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do evolutionists bother trying to convert Christians,Or whatever your denomination may be,To they're religion,I as a Christian have nothing to gain.Only lose my salvation.I do not know where God came from (pre existent).But evolutionist do not know where the matter,Energy came from for the universe to start itself.The matter energy must of been pre existing ,Talk about supernatural.In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded..Huh!.And people that believe in God are silly!.Cosmic evolution before organic evolution,Needs to be contemplated by evolutionist.Evolutionists obviously have faith,Just wrongly directed.I believe in the beginning God,You believe in the beginning dirt.Religious are both camps.Are you really going tell your children they are animals,As evolution makes them.Jesus loves us all,And is not willing that any should perish.The absence of time,Is eternity,The universe was locked in eternity.How could it possibly have started itself.God exists in eternity,He is who started it. Incomprehensible amounts of energy,matter appeared to form the universe (totally incomprehensible amounts).Even Albert Einstein had the thought (I could be wrong)at some time in his life.Jesus has changed my life (Honestly)he can change yours.I do not wish to offend anybody,If i have i apologise.  

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:52 PM on September 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:05 AM on September 26, 2009 :
Derwood
This has recently been explained as the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, see Ken Miller."


Yes, well there should be a distinction made between a plausible story and the objective truth in science lest some poor misguided fool take the plausible story to heart.
Just because Ken Miller can dream something up, only says something about his imagination.

Um..

You have no idea what I am even writing about, do you?  You do not even know what the issue of chromosome 2 is, do you?

I can assure you that you can rush over to the AiG or ICR or DI weebvsites and read some silly disinformation about it all, but the facts are that the fusion of chromosome 2 is not now nor has it ever been presented as an explanation for human evolution (which is how the dishonest, incompetent hacks at DI/AiG/etc. will present it).  No - the fusion of chromosme 2 is given as the explanation for WHy we have one less chromosome that chimps.

This story sounds much like the story of the eukaryotes that evolved a nucleus by consuming some prokaryotes.

Your strawman caricatures are becoming less and less inventive and more and more idiotic all the time.  A sign of desperation or ignorance?

I'm curious - what is the YEC explanation for the fact that mitochondria have their own DNA and can replicate like bacteria is?


Pye isn't all that bright, considering his rather naive claims regarding human evolution


I could say the same for Ken Miller's intelligence if I had to take it on his rather naive claims about the fusion of 2 ancestral chromosomes.


And you can make that statement premised on your in-depth understanding of genetics, right?

Yuo kow, instead of making yourself look like a knee-jerk ignoramus, desperately spewing contrarian nonsense just fo rthe sake of disagreeing with your 'enemies', you might actually consider reading up on the science behind karyotypic polymorphisms and chromosome fusions.  It is really quite extensive.


I guess Pye didn't bother to learnmuch about genetics before spewing his goo


I doubt that Ken Miller really had to know too much about genetics to make up his story either.


Your petty insults and bland dismissals are growing tiresome.


it is littered with half-truths, rumors, embellishments and the usual martyr complex that YECs so love to promulgate in order to bash evolution.


Well we don't even appear to be talking about the same article. Give me some specific half-truths, rumours, embellishments....?


The parts about the chromosome fusion, for one.

Not that I'm supporting the man's alien agenda but he's no less confused than you are -which you don't appear to notice for obvious reasons.


Please tell me what I am confused about?

I understand why humans and other apes do not have the same number of chromosomes, just as I understand why all species fo horse do not.

Do you?  Or are you content to just hurl accusatins and insults to prop up your religionism?


I note that Lester still can't be honest in his replies, but hey - he's a Christian creationist.


You're going to have to be more specific Derwood, there's nothing to defend when you make such vague allegations.


I already documented it pretty well, but I see you are content to ignore such things - it was when I provided pictrures of forelimbs and asked you a question about them and in your reply, you simply ommitted the pictures and the introductory statements and pretended as if I was asking you about something else.
Incredible...

Some more of Lester's new hero's idiocy...


So according to your manner of reasoning, because you believe in such a dumb thing as evolution, I should discount everything else you have to say about anything. I don't know that Pye deserves this.


Pye deserves scorn because the things he has claimed are ridiculous, wives' tales essentially and he presents them as truth.

That you see no problem with that helps explain why you accept YECism.


Pye claims "humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains".


Evolutionists come up with even dumber, more ludicrous stories than that, so I wouldn't throw stones here if I were you.

Oh yeah!  Your mother is so fat that when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND the house!

Oye...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:50 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No comment Lester?

Is it OK with you that Moonie Wells' fudged his quote and misrepresented Jain, Lake, and Rivera?

Is that Christian?  


Quote from derwood at 2:58 PM on September 19, 2009 :
Jain, Lake, and Rivera....

Jaiin, Lake, and Rivera...

Where have I heard those names before.... Ah, yes, in an Amazon.com review of 'Icons of Evolution':

===

I purchased a copy a month or so ago to see what all the fuss was about. I started reading the section that I have some experience/knowledge in, systematics. I discovered something strange. When I checked one of the quotes Wells had used to 'prove' that molecular systematics is 'in crisis,' I found that it came from a paper dealing not with molecular systematics methodology or something similar, but a paper on the clonal theory of the origin of eukaryotes.
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?

Now, granted, that is the only quote that I have checked thus far, but it is an important one. Should I really give Wells the benefit of the doubt and consider that this one quote was the only one that he improperly uses?

We must give Wells some credit though - he is doing his darndest to fulfill his mission to "destroy Darwinism" that he set out on so long ago. Too bad the American public is so gullible and scientifically ignorant to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

This book is a good example of how a scientist should not write a book, unless that scientist is out to dupe the gullible.

===

Tell us Lester - you did not read about them in Wells' little book of lies for Father Moon, did you?






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:52 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 12:19 PM on September 21, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 09:01 AM on September 21, 2009 :

It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.

Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?



Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:53 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 6:52 PM on September 26, 2009 :
Why do evolutionists bother trying to convert Christians,Or whatever your denomination may be,To they're religion



You are confusing what we do with what you do.

We are not trying to convert anyone, I certainly am not. What we ARE doing, certainly this is what I am doing, is trying to prevent/counter the dissemination of falsehoods, lies and propaganda by people desperately trying to justify their own beliefs.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:13 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 11:13 AM on September 28, 2009 :
Quote from Think-Twice at 6:52 PM on September 26, 2009 :
Why do evolutionists bother trying to convert Christians,Or whatever your denomination may be,To they're religion



You are confusing what we do with what you do.

We are not trying to convert anyone, I certainly am not. What we ARE doing, certainly this is what I am doing, is trying to prevent/counter the dissemination of falsehoods, lies and propaganda by people desperately trying to justify their own beliefs.



That, and keep silly Biblical myths out of the science classrooms.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:50 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,

sorry for getting back so late on this post, I think it is beginning to rival wisp's exchanges when it comes to length.


Quote from Lester10 at 09:31 AM on September 26, 2009 :
Well I guess that means you're going to be relying on your selected 'experts' Fencer. You'd make a good cult member deferring to the decisions of the leader and never daring to use your own brain for anything out of your area of expertise. What do you do when the experts contradict one another?


The Bible is not some simple piece of literature on anyone's standard. The culture barrier alone is enough to make me go insane. I really doubt there is a lot of similarity between how we interpret the Bible and how the Hebrews who wrote it interpreted it.

Have you a fundamental problem with Christianity Fencer? Should we edit out all references to hell for your convenience? This is the problem you see. If you believe that the Bible is a manmade production, where do you draw the line?


Just stating that a great tactic to convert people is to scare them through reading them those lovely passages of Revelations. I for one detest such tactics. We are supposed to go to Christ out of a love and longing to be with God and do good in His name to our neighbors, not out of fear of eternal torment in Hellfire. I fear that such converts will be out to save their souls, and therefore ultimately loose it. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

If it's a manmade production then anything you don't like, you edit out and you make your own preferred story. The sad side of that is that if objective truth exists and you don't believe in parts of it because it's an inconvenient truth, you'll just have to disbelieve until judgement day (if you believe that part, of course.) and then see what happens and what IS real.
At that point, you can explain to God why you didn't believe the Word of God and how you chose which experts to believe according to what you preferred to believe.


I will never be good enough or have the right doctrine to go to heaven. However, because of the grace of God given to my joyfully and freely by God Himself, I can happily reside in Him and not fear the wrath of Hell.

That is what you're doing - you can't rely on yourself, except when it is convenient.
Ultimately you are making the decisions.


Likewise, you ultimately make the decision as well.

Well I have mentioned quite a few. Apart from the fact that there's no reason to trust radiometric dating, the Bible gives geneologies of all the generations and it only adds up to thousands of years.


This is one of those cultural barriers I was talking about, the Hebrews never meant those geneologies to be taken literally. The geneologies serve a function to present a certain idea and are not to be taken literally.

Similarly if you look in Genesis you will get dimensions for the Ark Noah supposedly created. Those measurements of cubits was never meant to be taken literally, but are just there to show that the Ark was large and could house a large number of people and animals.

If you try the calculation on just a million conservative human years  as according to evolution and take an increase of a measly 0,01% just to be overfair, you have far far more humans than there are atoms in the entire known universe... so where are all the bodies and where are all the people/
What we have now (coming up for 7 billion) is consistent with thousands of years of human history. Millions of years is just out of the question.


I did the calculations and the world can't be more than 5,000 years by that logic. Good luck telling all the people that lived before 3,000 B.C. that they never existed.

Clearly they don't believe the Bible and they defer to the human 'experts' (the ones they prefer to believe) on the most important questions.


Never mind the Jews actually wrote the Bible and have extensive commentary and scholarship on it. But you're probably right, a sect of Christianity with a poor record of Biblical scholarship founded no more than two centuries ago knows better.

They've also been brainwashed into evolution most of their lives so what do you expect?


I've also been brainwashed into Christianity, atomic theory, heliocentrism, men and women have separate roles, T.V. isn't the tool of the devil, I need good grades and a multitude of other things, so what do you expect.

Everyone observes minor variation and mutation is real. Macroevolution is not observable nor do mutations show that this is possible.


Until you see evolution on the Order scale I guess you'll never accept it, I wonder why you never applied such skepticism to your faith.

That's no reason to believe that living creations don't work the same way.


What part of inanimate object don't have DNA, mutations or reproduce do you not understand?

Even you accept that there is a creator -why isn't it possible that the creator created us fully functional rather than leaving our production to the laws of nature (if the laws of nature were capable of such a thing.)


Because the evidence just doesn't point to that conclusion.

Just because thunder and lightening works according to natural law (and we're all in agreement there) doesn't mean that we and the universe were created using the same laws.


If we go on that idea than we can know nothing about anything outside of Earth or before scientific inquiry. That kind of logic erodes curiosity.

Even the evolutionist's Big Bang has a mystical supernatural component to it.


Not really, unless you make a supernatural component out of it.

What went bang?
Where did the matter come from?
These sorts of questions suggest a cause.


No one is saying that it didn't have a cause except your strawman. Nothing went "bang", it was a rapid explosion that is still going on today. Science is perfectly happy with saying things like "we don't know" when it comes to things like where did the energy come from. Maybe we will find an answer later, maybe not, but don't try to force in God into unknowns, that almost always leads to disasters.

If you try to use naturalism to explain where everything has come from, then it is a religious worldview. It cannot be independantly verified since there were no observers, thus it is your religion.


No, you don't make religions out of which party you like better in the political system, and that is not science. A religion needs something supernatural, rituals, things like that, evolution has none of it.

You appear to have picked up a cliche which you are finding difficult to abandon. I'm sure you would prefer Genesis to be pleasant poetry but though there are poetic sections of the Bible, Genesis is not one of those. Genesis is a very specific historical account of the world in the beginning. It is actually easy to note the difference between historical accounts and poetic portions. Read it and you will see. Leave it to someone else and you will never know.


I know Genesis isn't one of the more poetic books, but I liked the wording so I kept it. But I have to disagree that it is an accurate historical account, or was ever meant to be one.

'Science' attempts to explain all sorts of things as though they were natural while having no clue as to whether the real story was natural or not.


I guess that's right, but through experimentation and observation there has been no need to implement a supernatural force yet, so things seem to pretty much work on a natural level.

The Bible has stood the test of time. It's still a world best seller.
As was Harry Potter.
Evolution is a relatively new book of unbelievable and unsubstantiated myths and legends. It can't be observed so it is believed. Every week a new story pops up. The stories change all the time. That is not what you call standing the test of time.


Evolution is considered a fairly mature branch of science, and I'm sorry to say but the Bible just doesn't hold under scientific scrutiny.

It is not observed, it is believed.


It's not believed on blind faith, but evidence.

They don't destroy science, they question current dogma. It's always good for science to be questioned otherwise error will not be corrected.


Should we teach both sides of the geocentric/heliocentric debate in public schools? After all questioning current scientific theories based on archaic ones is beneficial to science right.

No I don't like the philisophical assumption of naturalism. It has no part in science as that is coming to a conclusion before gathering in the evidence. There are two possibilities, natural or not natural in origin...


In other words you don't like the methodology of science.

They believe there is no God, that is a religious belief.


Belief doesn't equate into a religion automatically.

Yes and that turned out well for evolution. Hopefully the Dover trial will turn out well for creation.


Good luck, precedence is not on your side.

First of all, speciation is macro-evolution.

Only according to evolutionists and that is because they like to think they have proven macroevolution by force.


You do realize that evolutionists came up with the term, and creationists warped it into their own version.

However, you will note, wherever speciation occurs, you still very clearly have the same 'kind' of organism. Once fruitflies, always fruit flies etc.


Evolution wouldn't allow anything else in the time scales we see.

What's a hell of a coincidence? You're not listening. I'm trying to tell you that relatedness does not prove a common ancestor, it may prove a common designer. You wouldn't leave it to Derwood unless you'd already decided it had to be something to do with a common ancestor which is what you prefer to believe.


What about ERVs? It is beyond me that God would make it look exactly like this if He created everything through special creation. To test our faith?

And yet practically every major line of science was started by a Christian so your generalization is out of line. It all boils down to - there are stupid superstitious people and there are logical people. Not all of them are any particular religion.


I guess I should forget all about the dark ages as well I suppose, and how it was the Muslims and not the Christians that preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans allowing for civilization to recovery as well as it did from the stunted growth in Christianized Europe. And I can assure you that every Christian scientists who started a new branch of study would be against creationism, and I'm guessing half of the people you are thinking of were more along the lines of deists to atheists than anything else.

Only you can't even remotely show that God created everything without evolution.


There are gaps in the fossil record that are now inexcusable and clearly show that gradualism is not true. You can imagine that it is true if you want but if you'd like to draw your conclusions according to the evidence then you're going to have to go with sudden appearance of every new kind fully formed and functional -no gradualism can be demonstrated.


While we can never account for every species that ever lived let alone every organism, the gaps that do exist are not detrimental to evolution, and gradualism can be seen.



That means that the observable evidence fits my belief system, not yours - so who is being scientific and who is being imaginative?


Well obviously you, everything can fit into creationism because everything is a post hoc rationalization. Plus all you have to say is "God did it" and you explain everything by explaining nothing.

Lots of soft bodied organisms are preserved in the precambrian and cambrian rocks so there is no excuse for all of the hypothetical imaginary ancestors of the cambrian explosion to have been lost. That's an old excuse that doesn't fly. It's only a convenient excuse for those who want to pretend that all the transitionals didn't happen to be fossilized.


Most of them are micro-fossils if I'm not mistaken, and nearly all of them were discovered in the past decade or two. And thanks to technology getting better all the time we are finding more and more of these fossils of the pre-Cambrian. And while I'll agree that there are many "gaps" for the Cambrian and before, evolution has enough evidence from studying things like genetics, heredity, comparative morphology, paleontology and so on.

There are all sorts of bats, some with echolocation, some without. So how can you say that a fossilized bat without echolocation is not the ancestor of the modern bat without echolocation? Why presume it is on its way to evolving echolocation?


Since I know nothing about bat morphology I can't really answer that question.  

All bats come fully formed and functional and there are no fossil bats showing the wings evolving nor the fingers elongating in preparation for the membranes. Something of that kind is required if we are to believe that bats evolved their wings.


While scientists don't have a good grasp on bat evolution, when you actually look at what is known so far it seems that bats would actually harm the creationist position much more than evolutions. With 11,000+ species known today, it is inconceivable to assert that they came from two bats on the Ark 4-5 thousand years ago. Plus you are always talking about how we can never observe morphological changes (which is wrong, we see polydactyly in cats) the morphological differences in bats would seem to disprove that idea.

So... if I don't believe that archeopteryx is transitional (for obvious reasons), I must not know what a transitional is? That's a bright comment.


No, because you think if evolution is right we should see half a wing. You also seem to refuse to see that there are many characteristics of archeopteryx that are more closely related to dinosaurs than modern birds. For example the brain, it mimics dino brains quite well and doesn't look anything like a modern bird's brain.

Actually it's the usual -If you don't believe that evolution happened, then you must not understand evolution.


Well, there is actually a positive correlation that if you understand evolution the more likely you are to accept it. I saw a video of Ray Comfort on youtube which was taken a few months ago and he didn't know what speciation was, the other guy had to explain to him what it was at a very elementary level. Ray Comfort, famous evolution fighter for years now, and doesn't have a basic concept of speciation! I think my point is proven right there.

No, I'm just amazed at how easily satisfied you are with the evidence. Your credulity level is way high.


Surprisingly I've taken multiple analysis of my personality/traits and every time analytical is towards the top, and it says it is hard to persuade me, that I need hard evidence and facts in order for me to believe.

Well nature has to allow a non-winged creature to turn into a winged creature. So a leg must become a wing. We want the transitionals between no wing and a wing. Is that too much to ask? Is that too difficult to understand?


Not at all. I was hoping to copy and past the pictures from this website, but only the words show up, so just go to the website here.

Than how do you explain the average 128 mutations at birth?


Loss of information, like spelling mistakes only compensated for by the good gene on the other parent's genome.


According to your definition of "information": "Something that makes sense and has a purpose." Would lactose tolerance be considered an increase in information when the mutation was introduced into the European populations?

Yes, but some random neutral mutations are most unlikely to morph into the co-ordinated information for a wing.


Of course, most mutations in wing evolution are beneficial, not neutral or harmful.

Neither is

I have a cat
y have a cat
y hase a cat
y hase a cmt
y hase k cmt

likely to produce the co-ordinated information required for a wing in time
or ever. That's how mutations work. Sometimes it doesn't really matter to the protein produced and sometimes it matters a lot.


There are a lot of harmful mutations out there, but natural selection gets rid of them from the population leaving only neutral and beneficial mutations for the most part. Two of the tenants of evolution proposed by Darwin is that there are slight variances among individuals in a population, and organisms tend to over reproduce for their environment. Those two observations alone make evolution an inevitable possibility.


-------
"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: 1:47 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

We are not trying to convert anyone, I certainly am not.


Let's see -you want us to believe what you believe because you consider it to be the objective truth. We also consider what we believe to be the objective truth. Soo.... we are trying to convert people and you are not trying to convert people??? I don't think so. You just never saw yourself as a proselytizer of a new religion (or an old one with new features) -but you are nonetheless.

What we ARE doing, certainly this is what I am doing, is trying to prevent/counter the dissemination of falsehoods, lies and propaganda by people desperately trying to justify their own beliefs.


You couldn't have described yourself better -dissemination of falsehoods, lies and propoganda by people desperately trying to justify their own beliefs - turn your critical eye back upon itself and focus. You have a problem, you teach the stuff so you have no option but to justify it - or get another job.

Orion

That, and keep silly Biblical myths out of the science classrooms.


Nobody wants Bible stories in the classrooms -that's just the propoganda talking. What most non-evolutionists want is to teach the weaknesses of Darwinism along with its strengths - put critical thinking back in the classroom; some want to include the scientific evidence for ID but myths are already in the science class and they were all invented by the evolutionists.



-------
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: 09:49 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm noticing a distinct tendency to avoid replying to substantive posts...
Quote from Lester10 at 09:49 AM on September 29, 2009 :
Derwood

We are not trying to convert anyone, I certainly am not.


Let's see -you want us to believe what you believe because you consider it to be the objective truth. We also consider what we believe to be the objective truth. Soo.... we are trying to convert people and you are not trying to convert people??? I don't think so.

Like i said - I like to correct disinformation.

Having one's head filled with halftruiths, disinformation, and lies and not being exposed to correct informaiton can lead to acceptance of falsehoods.  If YECism and its ancillary myths were so 'true', it seems to me that YEC and ID types would not feel compelled to distort and disinform.



You just never saw yourself as a proselytizer of a new religion (or an old one with new features) -but you are nonetheless.

No, I am not.  Evolution or sicience in general does not meet any of the criteria for being considered a religion, and repeated assertions to the contrary are just that.

What we ARE doing, certainly this is what I am doing, is trying to prevent/counter the dissemination of falsehoods, lies and propaganda by people desperately trying to justify their own beliefs.


You couldn't have described yourself better -dissemination of falsehoods, lies and propoganda by people desperately trying to justify their own beliefs - turn your critical eye back upon itself and focus.


That is quite a charge.

Tell you what - you provide us all with an example of me doing each of those relating to evolution.

Do it Lester - show us all an example of me:

1. Disseminating a falsehood
2. Disseminating a lie
3. Disseminating propaganda

It is easy to make such charges - you and your ilk do so routinely - but you never seem able to support the accusations.

Bearing false witness and all that...

Put up or SHUT UP.
Be a real man - a real Christianman - and let's see you put your money where your big mouth is.


And while you are at it, how about putting up or shutting up on some other issues that you are content to ignore as they expose YOUR dishonesty and incompetnece, maybe?

***
Quote from derwood at 2:58 PM on September 19, 2009 :
Jain, Lake, and Rivera....

Jaiin, Lake, and Rivera...

Where have I heard those names before.... Ah, yes, in an Amazon.com review of 'Icons of Evolution':

===

I purchased a copy a month or so ago to see what all the fuss was about. I started reading the section that I have some experience/knowledge in, systematics. I discovered something strange. When I checked one of the quotes Wells had used to 'prove' that molecular systematics is 'in crisis,' I found that it came from a paper dealing not with molecular systematics methodology or something similar, but a paper on the clonal theory of the origin of eukaryotes.
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?

Now, granted, that is the only quote that I have checked thus far, but it is an important one. Should I really give Wells the benefit of the doubt and consider that this one quote was the only one that he improperly uses?

We must give Wells some credit though - he is doing his darndest to fulfill his mission to "destroy Darwinism" that he set out on so long ago. Too bad the American public is so gullible and scientifically ignorant to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

This book is a good example of how a scientist should not write a book, unless that scientist is out to dupe the gullible.

===

Tell us Lester - you did not read about them in Wells' little book of lies for Father Moon, did you?

***
YOU referred to this paper yourself, did you not?

DID YOU READ IT?


***

Quote from derwood at 12:03 PM on September 22, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009 :
It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.


It's amazing to me that so-called scientists are so lost in philosophy without recognizing it and seem unable to distinguish between it and actual science.

Yeah, us poor "so-called" scientists.  I mean obviously we are not actual scientists - like the creation scientists - because we do not immerse ourselves in syllogisms and pseudologic.

Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.


'Fraid not. As you very well know, you cannot compare the genomes of extinct creatures to living creatures so there is nothing to check but the whale.

'Fraid you just keep exposing how little you actually know about the study of evolution and the use of genetic data generally.

We do not need DNA from extinct creatures to infer phylogeny.

Thus the genetic story is not complementing the fossil data because it doesn't exist. The entire fairytale is morphology based and there is no corroborating evidence.

I am always amazed at how confident those are who understand the least.  This is actually
documented , by the way.

Of note, I saw that you never responded to my offer to send you some DNA sequences and a free alignment prgram to see if your amazing lack of bias produced analysis outcomes that differed friom my biased notions.  Wonder why....


as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.


I have never rejected actual scientific evidence but the rubbish based on philisophical presumption is rejected with good reason.

Well, isn't that special - you just label everything as being based on philosophical presumption in order to dismiss it.  How intellectual!

So, why not use your special YEC-philosophy to interpret this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.




Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


or this:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.




Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.


It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.
Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place.


How about you stop misrepresenting what you reply to?  How about you stop butchering what you reply to in order to try to turn the tables (which you are not very good at)?  How about you leave in the context:


Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?





Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.



Think you can do that?

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.


I only dismiss claims for which there is no actual evidence -so drop the supercilious tone and hear what I am saying.

This from the person who wrote about "so-called scientists" and the like.. how rich..
I DO hear what you are saying - you say that if an evolutinist presents somethign as evidence you automatically dismiss it because you feel the evidence was generated/interpreted using a metaphysical worldview that you disdain.
No?

Why was there so much speculation surrounding Rodhocetus? Because it is in the nature of fossils and the philisophical beliefs surrounding them that people who believe whales must have evolved from a mammal will find missing links somewhere even in animals that may be unsuitable for the job. It is unfortunate that one man's speculation got rolled out as proof. I doubt he meant it to go that far. This happens rather often in the world of evolutionary speculation. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believable much like their stories they knit about how one creature became another.


I think you are conflating a museum display with 'proof.'

The speculations were made premised on what was known at the time. NEW INFORMATION showed that the earlier speculations were incorrect.  NEW INFORMATIOn in the form of additional fossil evidence.

Imagine that.

Being 'believable' is not what evidence-based speculation is about in science. Being consistent with the evidence that is available is.  There is a clear and obvious difference.

I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'


No, I meant imagination.

Then you are not talking about science, you are talking about your metaphysic tainted understanding of what you need science to be.
We cannot 'observe' atoms, yet I doubt that you would declare our depictions of atoms to be imagination.


Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.


You wish you had so much to infer from. You should recognize the difference between inference and imagination but I see that amongst evolutionists it is quite common to conflate the two and still call it 'science'.


I see some insults and such, but no real reply.


In your case you have this sort of philisophical inference:
One very old tooth which has the shape 'strongly suggestive' of a imagined link between apes and humans. No blood, no murder weapon, no clothing, no other evidence whatsoever -just the one tooth.So strong is the evidence that a top scientific journal writes an article accompanied by an artist's depiction of the half-human half-ape as well as his wife and family, his home and surroundings showing how this all would probably have looked. Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig) and the story is retracted -usually this happens very quietly in some obscure corner of the journal while the main story is splashed all over the front cover. It has it's expected effect -more people see the image and believe. Seldom does anyone see the retraction.


So, you have to resort to misrepresenting the claims made by one overzealous amateur anthropologist from close to 100 years ago to tar an entire field of science?  
You write that as if you think that is ALL we have for anything.

You are either engaging in this unprecedenmted hyperbole for rhetorical purposes or you really are that uninformed.

Why do you think Rodhocetus is still on display with fluke and flippers?

Perhaps because the museum does not thave the money to change the display?  I've not seen it, myself, so I cannot guarantee that your depiction of it is accurate.  You've seen it, have you?

Because it is seen by the 'believers' to be representative of the truth they believe in even if they don't quite have the correct bones yet.

Well, that must be it.

Perhaps if you had actually addressed the question about the bones I asked above (instead fo lopping off the context and spinning it) you may see that how they were depicted is not that important.


In this case, as in so many, the suspect was innocent despite being framed with all sorts of subsidiary imaginative pictorial additions.

Typical insulting rhetorical insinuations.  Best you YECs have, I guess.

So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of years old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'


It isn't. It is the incorrect interpretation of the evidence based on philisophical imaginings and the exclusion of anything but naturalism in the definition of the new 'science'.


Ah, so NOTHING is 'true' science in your world.

What ID 'true science', I have to wonder -Seeing the blessed Virgin in a water stain on the side of a building?


Don't worry there's lots of good science out there but all of it is based on observation and experimentation unlike evolution which is based on wishful thinking.


More insulting unsupported rhetoric.


I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  


You might be able to find one example out there but in general YEC's are anything but vicious. I've heard some real bombastic, supercilious evos out there though.

I've seen the opposite.  Must be my metaphysical position.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?
Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


What 'knowns' are you suggesting here? You need to look again and see if your 'knowns story isn't based on the same old assumptions. I have no doubt they are.


Imagine that - a non-scientist YEC (let me guess - you maybe have a BS in something non-science-related, yes?) denigrating those in a field he knows demonstrably very little about.  that must be the 'Christian' way.

I've recently posted them, but here you go again:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

and


Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


I can't wait to hear your metaphysical stories about how this is all 'assumptions' and the like...


That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.


No, that is your ad hoc rationalization for why you should discount what I'm saying with no proper justification.


The justification is that the exact same claims can be just as logically made for any mythological construct.  You wrote:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

A person could, with the same justification and rationale, write:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a flying spaghetti monster that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?


I don't have a clue how many original bats were on the ark -it depends entirely on whether they can procreate or not and how much genetic variability the original bats had programmed into them by their creator.

You presuppose that they HAD such "genetic variability... programmed into them by their creator" - you conclude what you seek to support.
Most mutations are neutral.
No, they aren’t.
It depends on where they occur.


I tell you what -why don't you show me all your morphological mutations that have occurred leading to something other than distortion of what that gene used to do and I'll direct you to some demonstrably harmful morphological effects of mutation. After all mutations leading to altered morphology is what we need for the raw material of evolution.


And once again the YEC goal posts twist and shift.

You declared that mutations are not neutral, now you are demanding that show you a mutation that beneficially alters morphology.

How about we stick to one demand at a time?  Perhaps you have heard that Steven Pinker had his genome sequenced and it was compared to Craig Venter's, and you know what was discovered?  Pinker and Venter's DNA differed by many millions of mutations.  According to your folk YEC science, one or both of them should be hideopusly disfigured mutatnts, if alive at all.  Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of genetics?

Oh, and you ignroed this twice:




[where is a] Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.


Posted that twice and you ignored it both times.  I can see why.



***

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:53 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh my Derwood, such a tone, so ugly, so like you.

Like i said - I like to correct disinformation.


So do I, that's why I'm here.

If YECism and its ancillary myths were so 'true', it seems to me that YEC and ID types would not feel compelled to distort and disinform.


If evolutionists weren't so intent on pushing non-evidential falsehoods, we would not be in this debate at all.

From 'Creation Evolution Headlines':
Speaking of fables, we’re going to coin a new word: fability, the ability to tell fables.  Darwinists are very good at this ability.  It’s closely related to fibility, the ability to tell fibs.  Adding fable upon fable is similar to telling new lies to prop up earlier ones.


If evolution were so true, evolutionists would not be constantly replacing their last absolutely sure, absolute best, stand up knock down, sure thing missing link every other week in the media. It would have been convincing enough already and there would be no need for tall tale upon ever more sure tall tale. We wouldn't be in this debate, it would be over. We would be discussing finer points of the fact of evolution, comparing interesting stories, not debating whether it is even real or imaginary.

Tell you what - you provide us all with an example of me doing each of those relating to evolution.

Do it Lester - show us all an example of me:

1. Disseminating a falsehood
2. Disseminating a lie
3. Disseminating propaganda


Well ok but just one or we'll get bogged down in trivia - lets see, is it you that tells people that hippos and whales have a common ancestor. Ok well that's a lie, falsehood, propoganda disseminated to get people to believe. Evidence never told you that. Bones don't speak. Only philosophy props that one up.



-------
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: 09:12 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:12 AM on October 1, 2009 :
Oh my Derwood, such a tone, so ugly, so like you.


So much projection.

You don't really read your own posts, do you?



Like i said - I like to correct disinformation.


So do I, that's why I'm here.


When do youplan on starting?

All I've seen from you is assertions, accusations, dodging (prime examples in this threrad alone - note how often you've just plain ignored my documentation of Wells' dishonesty and your own re: the limbs).


If YECism and its ancillary myths were so 'true', it seems to me that YEC and ID types would not feel compelled to distort and disinform.


If evolutionists weren't so intent on pushing non-evidential falsehoods, we would not be in this debate at all.


It is so cute and impressive when a guy claiming a doctorate argues by merely writing the equivalent "Nuh uh - you are!'

From 'Creation Evolution Headlines':
Speaking of fables, we’re going to coin a new word: fability, the ability to tell fables.  Darwinists are very good at this ability.  It’s closely related to fibility, the ability to tell fibs.  Adding fable upon fable is similar to telling new lies to prop up earlier ones.

Say look at that - insults and accusations from a CREATIONIST!  Who would have thought?
Let me guess - Casey Luskin, the guy who has had every one of his 'science' claims demolished?


If evolution were so true, evolutionists would not be constantly replacing their last absolutely sure, absolute best, stand up knock down, sure thing missing link every other week in the media.

We don't.  You're reliance upon lying propagandists like Luskin and pals demonstrates your inability to understand the material yourself.


It would have been convincing enough already and there would be no need for tall tale upon ever more sure tall tale. We wouldn't be in this debate, it would be over. We would be discussing finer points of the fact of evolution, comparing interesting stories, not debating whether it is even real or imaginary.


False.

Religious brainwashing would ensure that there are always naysayers.  Like you.


Tell you what - you provide us all with an example of me doing each of those relating to evolution.

Do it Lester - show us all an example of me:

1. Disseminating a falsehood
2. Disseminating a lie
3. Disseminating propaganda


Well ok but just one or we'll get bogged down in trivia - lets see, is it you that tells people that hippos and whales have a common ancestor. Ok well that's a lie, falsehood, propoganda disseminated to get people to believe. Evidence never told you that. Bones don't speak. Only philosophy props that one up.


So, you really think that you've supoported your insulting accusations by using an ASSERTION?

Are you really that much of an intellectual lightweight?

It is not my fault that you are too underinformed to understand the material - you cannot even read a simple cladogram!

I do hope that the readers note that you have been caught - big time - making wild unsupported and insultign accusations and in typical 'christian' YEC fashion, could not support them.


I have already documented how you lied via out fo context quote from me.  I have shown how you unquestioningly disseminate nonsense fomr propagandists - whom you 'favor' as experts solely because they are of the same YEC cult mentality as you are.

I think it is also pretty clear that you have no doctorate, certainly not in any relevant field.  No one with such a claimed background could be so clueless.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:52 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I've seen from you is assertions, accusations, dodging


That’s rich coming from you Derwood –bald assertions of absolute truth backed by your own absolute guarantee that you are to be trusted doesn’t do the trick. You are short on content and long on insults and it doesn’t make a good argument.

It is so cute and impressive when a guy claiming a doctorate

I have one Derwood. You probably have one too but it’s more than you need to be an evolutionist. Lots of imagination is the most important personal strength that is required.

Let me guess - Casey Luskin, the guy who has had every one of his 'science' claims demolished?


Pretty sure it’s not Casey Luskin. Have heard the name though. Whoever it is sure has his finger on the pulse of evolution though.

You're reliance upon lying propagandists like Luskin and pals demonstrates your inability to understand the material yourself.


Speak for yourself Derwood. You’ve assumed Casey Luskin, failed, reasserted your error and you’re getting boring.

Religious brainwashing would ensure that there are always naysayers.  Like you.


You really don’t have a good working knowledge of the plot here Derwood. I was a fully converted member of the evolution religion. God was the furthest thing from my mind. So all the brainwashing was from your cult. Logic and intelligence took me away from your cult and now people like you show me why I’m far better off - free at last!

So, you really think that you've supoported your insulting accusations by using an ASSERTION? …. intellectual lightweight?….. too underinformed to understand the material….. cannot even read a simple cladogram!….. unquestioningly disseminate nonsense….


zzz…. Have you finished ? Breathe deep, feel that pulse, take a sedative….
You’ve come with a brilliant defence of evolution as shown in the condensed version above  

I think it is also pretty clear that you have no doctorate, certainly not in any relevant field.  


Dream on –perhaps I just don’t measure up to your supreme intelligence Derwood, you should ignore me in future. Don’t rise to the bait.

No one with such a claimed background could be so clueless.


Thanks Derwood.

I do hope that the readers note that you have been caught - big time - making wild unsupported and insultign accusations


Dream on. There is no audience - except in your dreams.... and maybe Wisp. Good old Wisp is about the only one that finds your utterings inspiring. If I were a member of your evo club, I'd be embarrassed to be represented by you.




-------
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: 06:19 AM on October 2, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You really don’t have a good working knowledge of the plot here Derwood. I was a fully converted member of the evolution religion. God was the furthest thing from my mind.
careful saying things like this.
I have found that evo's would sooner write three paragraphs about how evolution is not a religion than a single sentence that directly relates to what you actually said.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:56 AM on October 2, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 1:56 PM on October 2, 2009 :
careful saying things like this.
I have found that evo's would sooner write three paragraphs about how evolution is not a religion than a single sentence that directly relates to what you actually said.

LOL, would you like any milk with your cup of irony A-E?





-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 08:15 AM on October 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:19 AM on October 2, 2009 :
All I've seen from you is assertions, accusations, dodging


That’s rich coming from you Derwood –bald assertions of absolute truth backed by your own absolute guarantee that you are to be trusted doesn’t do the trick. You are short on content and long on insults and it doesn’t make a good argument.


Your projection is fairly transparent.


It is so cute and impressive when a guy claiming a doctorate

I have one Derwood.


No you don't.

You probably have one too but it’s more than you need to be an evolutionist. Lots of imagination is the most important personal strength that is required.

Yes, I do have one.  It is from a Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology.  I minored in physical anthropology.  My research was on the molecular phylogeny of Primates.

You?

Let me guess - Casey Luskin, the guy who has had every one of his 'science' claims demolished?


Pretty sure it’s not Casey Luskin. Have heard the name though. Whoever it is sure has his finger on the pulse of evolution though.

Right - because any charge made by a YEC cultist must be 100% true and factual.

Like David Menton's take on the pelvic girdles of Tiiktaalik...

You're reliance upon lying propagandists like Luskin and pals demonstrates your inability to understand the material yourself.


Speak for yourself Derwood. You’ve assumed Casey Luskin, failed, reasserted your error and you’re getting boring.

I fail to see how taking  a guess as to the authorship of some silly blurb from a website that Luskin writes for is equivalent to repeatedly claiming that evolution claims whales evolved from cows or whatever it was.


Religious brainwashing would ensure that there are always naysayers.  Like you.


You really don’t have a good working knowledge of the plot here Derwood. I was a fully converted member of the evolution religion. God was the furthest thing from my mind.


I've said before - I simply do not believe you.  Sorry.  I've seen this Witnessing crap exposed as lies too many times to believe it.  


Logic and intelligence took me away from your cult

And what did this logic and intelligence tell you about the existence of unicorns, as indicated in the bible?

So, you really think that you've supoported your insulting accusations by using an ASSERTION? …. intellectual lightweight?….. too underinformed to understand the material….. cannot even read a simple cladogram!….. unquestioningly disseminate nonsense….

None of what you quote from me is inaccurate.

You CANNOT deciopher a simple cladogram despited a claim to a background in biology.

You DO unquestioningly disseminate nonsense - you have claimed that you "choose" your preferred experts by laughably claiming that they are objective and when shown that this is not so you simply ignore the documentation.

I think it is also pretty clear that you have no doctorate, certainly not in any relevant field.  


Dream on –perhaps I just don’t measure up to your supreme intelligence Derwood, you should ignore me in future. Don’t rise to the bait.

It is true that you do not rise up to my level, not even close.  Shall I start keeping a running tally of the unadulterated BS you have spewn - nonsense that SHOULD embarrass a person with a doctorate form an accredited university?

No one with such a claimed background could be so clueless.


Thanks Derwood.

Radiometric dating is all assumptions - right?

Evos claim whales evolved for hyenas - right?

Because the exact course of whale evolution is not as precise and unambiguous as some dude on the internet demands it should be (not that it would matter), therefore the entire field is just plain wrong and unreliable?

Like I said - clueless.

I do hope that the readers note that you have been caught - big time - making wild unsupported and insultign accusations


Dream on. There is no audience - except in your dreams.... and maybe Wisp. Good old Wisp is about the only one that finds your utterings inspiring. If I were a member of your evo club, I'd be embarrassed to be represented by you.





Funny - the members of your club are too ignorant to be embarrassed.

I note again that you are simply ignoring:

A demonstrating that christian creationist Wells' took Jain, Lake, and Rivera's quote out of context

A demonstration that you purposefully omitted statements from one of my posts to make it look as though I was commenting on
something I was not (i.e. lying)

etc.

Good christian Witnesser, you are.

(Edited by derwood 10/5/2009 at 09:45 AM).

(Edited by derwood 10/5/2009 at 09:48 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:03 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood - it's funny how often Lester gets caught using dishonest quote-mines.  You would think that he would learn from his past mistakes that maybe the YEC sources he relies so heavily upon have a credibility problem!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:30 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:30 AM on October 3, 2009 :
Derwood - it's funny how often Lester gets caught using dishonest quote-mines.  You would think that he would learn from his past mistakes that maybe the YEC sources he relies so heavily upon have a credibility problem!


You would also think that someone claiming a docotrate might be a bit more careful with such 'argumentation', seeing as how things like plagiarism and misrepresentation of sources are major faux pas' in academia.

Which is, in part, why I do not believe the claim.
Then again, look at Menton and Wells.  Both have legitimate doctorates from accredited universities, yet both have documeted histories of, well, lying for their faith.

Maybe it is their worldview that provides the impetus for them to be so intellectually dishonest.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:51 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 09:51 AM on October 5, 2009 :
Maybe it is their worldview that provides the impetus for them to be so intellectually dishonest.


Maybe, but it stems not from the teachings of Christianity, as lying is unbiblical.


-------
"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: 4:28 PM on October 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The YEC doctrine - 'Beliefs in crisis call for desperate measures'.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:37 PM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood,

Radiometric dating is all assumptions - right?


I said there are a lot of assumptions behind radiometric dating. I stand by my assertion.
Why quote me incorrectly? For effect?

Evos claim whales evolved for hyenas - right?


Ever heard of Pachyaena, Derwood? The California Academy of sciences Natural History museum could show you their museum display which suggests that a hyena-like animal (Pachyaena)evolved into a whale. Why? They had similar teeth to the whale. That's all they need you know to suggest that it turned into a whale over millions of years. So, yes, I stand by that one too.

Ever heard of Rhodocetus, Derwood? What do you think of that as a missing link for a whale, Derwood?





-------
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: 07:24 AM on October 6, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
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.