Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

CON Forum
» back to
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     cowardly lester ran away
       'doctor' lester..LOL

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin


|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

Another one you ran away from - I know it is long, and probably too much for your limited attention span and all...

For Lester the science doctorate-earning creationist to address...

Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 :
It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...

Have you ever read it? This is all the usual tripe that people who have never read it come up with.

Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.
The usual tripe from bible worshippers is to claim that those who recognize the internal inconsistencies and nonsese just haven't read it.
In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.

No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.

If there was any evidence available to convince us, that would be great.

The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.

Your wonderfully confused ‘scientific’ mind asserts that a land mammal’s ears randomly evolved; the ears then happened to suit the water as well as the fins and flippers and blubber and a blowhole, as it turns out, that it later acquired quite by accident. At what point did it decide to go swimming –before or after the blowhole arose by accident? Before or after the fins arose by accident? Did it have to kick its legs to begin with? And the oh so many other coordinated changes all occurred quite by accident? The best mistakes were slowly selected by natural selection and a whale was born. I’m sorry, that’s a fairy tale and I’m sad that you believe it, but unfortunately Santa is no longer part of my life and nor can the frog turn into a prince.(even over millions of years).

Santa is not a part of your life yet Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts, who mooned Moses, who was one of many deities, who could conjure only a swarm of fleas that Pharoah's magicians couldn't match, who slaughtered untold millions of innocents for doing what he must have known they would do, who cursed us all to extinction, THAT disgusting thing is still part of your life, and belief in that mythical thug drives you to toss out caricatures and argument via personal incredulity to prop up said beliefs.

It is the best you can do, but you are really in no position to comment on my 'scientific mind', as we may recall that you, despite claiming to have a science-related doctorate, did not know what 'phenotype' means, among other things.

A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.

The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...

The evidence is all in your imagination. You have to really want to believe it.

Living in so constant a state of denial will eventually take its toll.

Why two contradictory orders of creation?

To play around with the god rejecters of our day who throw aside a common designer and insist on randomness and no plan instead? It certainly shows how evolutionists are not put off by pictures that contradict evolution –they make up fresh new stories instead, stories that make the non-believers mouths drop open in astonishment.

So much nonsense, yet not even an attempt to address a major problem with taking Genesis literally.
That cognitive dissonance will catch up to you one day.

But since you are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?

Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

Well first, you will need to provide a rationale for why we actually need one new protein per new structure, then I would like to know just what counts as a 'new' structure
- what does a whale have that, say, a hippo does not have that is not simply a rearangment of 'old' parts?
Then I wouuld have to know why you want to discuss probability, how you would apply it to this scenario, etc.

for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.

Surely since you can’t even show me one macro beneficial mutation, you are indulging in baseless assertion?

I don't know what a 'macro beneficial mutation' is, since you are so averse to actually explaining what you mean.

There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it. Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? ...?
Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?

You appear to be changing the subject here –

No, I am just showing how naive - and idiotic - your demands are.

where are these intermediate whales?

Where are all the biblical patriarchs?  Where is the ark?  Where are all the intermediates between the original bat kind and the extant 900+ species?

The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing?

Legs mixed with fins?  What does that mean, precisely?  You expect it to have a fin on one side and a limb on the other?
As we have seen with Archaeopteryx, your criteria are set in jello and are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily for the sole purpose of never having to acknowledge what those with actual education, knowledge, and experience in the appropriate fields accept.  You never did, for example, try to discuss Archaeopteryx's actual anatomy (e.g., the sternum) despite claiming an understanding of anatomy.  It is almost as if you just claimed such knowledge to make others think you had actually thought this stuff through, yet when you get caught demonstrating that your knowledge of these issues is not what you tried to make it out to be, well, you come across like a TROOO Christian Creationist - you just avoid discussing it.

We’re talking about evolution. Does not believing in my story make yours sound better to you?

Not at all.  But throwing back absurd demands sometimes shows how absurd your own demands actually are.

Why would you expect there to be a fossil of every possible intermediate - and more precisely, every possible intermediate that happens to meet your ever changing, idiosyncratic criteria?

What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow: ….and this one: Or were they created seperately?

I have no idea.

And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.

Something seems inconsistent.  Is it because you have not yet come across a creationist propaganda book dealing with guenons?

you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years

Can these bats interbreed or not? Are they the same kind? Could they at one stage interbreed? We need to know the answers to the questions to get anywhere on this.


So the ability to interbreed is your big criterion is it?

Tell me - with your vast knnowledge of reproductive physiology, what are the first few steps in fertilization in amniotes?


Is it , maybe, the sperm binding to the zona pellucida?  
Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro.
On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. ===

There are many different groups of people as well and they used to be divided into different species

Who did this?

but they can interbreed so they all have the same origin. How about the bats?
I suppose you’ve noticed how rapidly different kinds of dogs are bred out –obviously it needed a bit of human interference or the intelligence factor but there is clearly a vast amount of variation present in the original ‘dog’ genome.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?

Maybe the same is true of the bats, maybe they started with only two or maybe four –who knows –but they probably had a lot of built in variation and rapidly diversified.

Yeah, probably.  Anything beyond 'probably'?

If my take on evolution was premised on caricatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.

Well did the land mammal start swimming and adapt to its environment or not? Did it get in the water or adapt for the water first? How did these coordinated changes occur if the environment can’t be responded to? How do random mutations happen upon all the features required for swimming in one animal that lived on land and then went swimming. This is not child like, this is practical and not distorted at all. Please try to explain it to me so that I can cease to be childlike about it.

See what I mean?
No, Lester, such 'questions' are indeed child-like, especially coming from someone claiming advanced education on these very subjects.
The naivete just oozes from your every post, and you are too prideful and Dunning-Krugerized to get it.

Just because you can hand wave over it with “I know that it happened because I know’ does not mean that you know anything at all about how it could have/might have happened.

It is true that I personally do not have any idea what the steps were that lead to the production of whales.  But I need not know every step if I can see the evidence left behind showing that it happened.  
If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?
The morning after Halloween, my son had a fit because most of his candy was gone - his candy bag was on the floor, and there were torn up wrappers and half eaten candy bars strewn about, and there were slimy bite marks on nearly everything.  Did we really have to observe the dog biting into each and every candy bar to understand that the dog did it?
We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.  Does that tell us exaclty what steps occurred getting a whale from a non-whale? Not at all, but it tells us that it did happen, and it is up to other researchers to try to fill in the voids with things like fossils (all of which you reject in favor of some uncorroborated tall tales, I know).

Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....

These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist.

No, you wouldn't.  When I see a YEC making this claim, I know they are lying - they are lying to us, and to themselves.
Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would find it 'troubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did not cover ALL animals, and did not inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the very evidence she claimed she would accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no indication that you would do anything different.

You have made it clear that you accept the bible in part because it never changes and never will change.  Many weak-willed people NEED such stability and see the tentative nature of all science as a threat to their emotional and psychological security.  

These 'ridiculous' people as you call them are, unlike you, highly educated and trained individuals with graduate degrees from accredited well-known legitimate institutions - Wise received his PhD in paleontology from Harvard University, for example, and actually studied fossils.  He KNOWS that there is evidence for evolution, that there ARE transitonals.  He simply rejects the scientific, rational interpretation of them due to his Faith and has said so.
Aside from some vague allusions to having had a few science classes in your graduate education, you've not said what your area of specialization is.  What do YOU know that a Harvard-trainined paleontologist does not such that you can call him 'ridiculous'?

But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-
existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.

I do enjoy seeing YECs attack each other with logical fallacies.  It shows how weak their position actually is.

Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence presented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.

Ahem… where is the other evidence…apart from a fossil record that supports creation?

The fossil record supports creation?  Is that an assertion?  
Right - I forgot how we find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as modern birds, and how we find human fossils in the same strata as saddle-wearing stegasaurs...

Molecular phylogenetics supports evolution quite nicely.  Comparative embryology.  Physiology.  Anatomy. Etc...

Nitpicky distractions huh???

Yes indeed.  Like how when I started a thread for you  to explain how 'genetics' does not support evolution - your claim -  the first - and only - thing you did was prattle on about whale fossils.
You seem quite incapable of discussing even issues YOU bring up beyond a few throw away assertions and strawmen.

It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
Projection at its laughable best.

You obviously haven’t looked very closely at what you believe, have you?

Yes - I've actually done original research on what I 'believe'. Have you actually looked at YOUR beliefs skeptically?  

To make sure men can treat women as property and own slaves?

You make it sound as if God condoned slavery and wife abuse –obviously you haven’t actually read the Bible.

Right....  And here you are doctoring my words.  I said nothing of wife abuse, I said treating them as property, and the owning of slaves is a given in the  bible.  Or haven't YOU read your precious fairy tales?

Exodus 21

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Slavery treated as an everyday thing, AND women as property, in just one chapter.

It is quite easy to find many verses in the bible both condoning slavery and treating women as property.  Surely, you know and have been programmed to gloss over this?

Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.

Who the hell is Timmy?

Yeah, exactly.

Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?

By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

Oh - a HOBBY! Well, of course.

I've commented before that it is almost more instructive to see what people like you do NOT respond to as to what you do - for your new hero to have studied evolution for 30 years - albeit as a hobby - and to write things like what you decided not to respond to:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

then he did not actually learn much in all that time.

You see, when I see someone write something as ignorant as that, and this someone has claimed to have studied evolution for decades (I see this quite a bit, actually), we can conclude a couple of things:

The person is just plain lying to prop up his faith.

The person really did study for decades, but only studied YEC propaganda.

Combinations of both of the above.

The saddest part is, such folk really impress people like Lester, who, if he is actually telling the truth about his doctorate, should be able to see how naive and plain silly such claims are.

we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.

Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.

And by 'modern appearing' - let me guess, the YEC medical doctor then wildly extrapolated that to mean ACTUAL modern living things, right?

As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….

Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.

And here you are again with your museum displays as "evidence".

You know, at the creation museum, they show a Triceratops with a saddle on it.
I guess that means that some 'scientists' think that ceratopsians were domesticated.  Funny how no mention of any such creature is found anywherere, not even in scripture....

But you know - you inadvertendly made a fool of yourself yet again - apparently you are unaware that dogs and bears are actually very closely related...

I know you cannot decipher those sciencey- things, but if you look closely, you can see a group called the Caniformia (dog-like), and the OTUs have names like Ursus and Canis...

What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Sure.  Real science is tentative.  Real science, unlike YEC pseudoscience, does not start with the conclusion then try to force obeservations to fit the pre-determined outcome.  
But nitpicking over museum displays that on the one hand show a dog-like forerunner and on the other show a bear-like one only shows how little you truly understand.  Perhaps it is you, not Drs Wood and Wise, that is the 'ridiculous' person?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).

Right, just guessing.  So, you got that from your YEC medical doctor's book, right (I can google, too)?  

Looking though Google books, Werner's book
comes across as no better than any of jailbird Kent fake-PhD Hovind's nonsese.

Lester's new hero's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

If Werner believes that, he is a class A moron.  Then, he is a YEC with an agenda to push, so we should not expect any sort of rational treatment of the material.

Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.

So, you've just admitted that neither you nor your YEC medical doctor hero understand what 'allied' means - hilarious!

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)

I'd say what we have here is just another example of a sleazy YEC propagandist butchering and manipulating honest people's words.

Why would a mustelid have evolved into a seal when that is not what is proposed or indicated by the evidence?

5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

At this point, I have little reason to believe that your YEC doctor hero is a reliable source.

Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

On this or in general?

Well, let's see... There was the PhD in science who didn't know what phenotype mean, the guy who employs logical fallacies as evidence, the guy who wonders why there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence that is not proposed, the guy who declares that museum displays are at odds because one shows a dog-like animal and the other a bear-like one,  the guy who seems to think that all transitionals should have both fossilized and been discovered yet who reserves the right to dismiss anything presented as a transitional if he can conjure up some structure that he can claim does not meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence for revolution are 'ridiculous people' and likley closet evolutionists because they are honest and he is not, etc.

Shall I go on?

(Edited by derwood 1/1/2010 at 3:00 PM).


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

Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:47 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP

|     |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:


Your assertion that 'all people who have read the Bible in any detail reject it' is patently untrue and does nothing to enhance your credibilty as an objective protagonist in this debate.

The point really lies in the different ways that people read the Bible. Biblical literalists read the Bible one way, historians read it another and scientists, if they do read it at all, read it another way again (and incidentally find little of any scientific value in it... which I will assume is the point you are making about 'rejecting' it).

You are clearly a 'scientist' of some sort and such of your posts as I have read in this forum have dealt with essentially scientific argments.

I think you have mentioned somewhere that you teach science. This would explain the passionate intensity with which you have engaged in the argument given that the battle is largely being fought in your space. This whole debate is political, not scientific. It is about power and the church (or certain fundamentalist churches).

Charis kai Eirene

Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:42 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP

|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 6:42 PM on January 1, 2010 :

Your assertion that 'all people who have read the Bible in any detail reject it' is patently untrue and does nothing to enhance your credibilty as an objective protagonist in this debate.

First, I have never claimed ot be objective - far form it.  Dealing with creationists for more than 15 years has shown me that being objective is a waste of time and is seen as a weaknees by those for whom authority - real or perceived - is far more important than objectivity or actually understandinng what you are talking about.

Second, let us talk about credibility for a moment, Waterboy - and while we are at it, I might add a bit about reading comprehension.

I did not write ''all people who have read the Bible in any detail reject it'  - that is pure fabrication on your part.  I wrote:

"Yes, I did read [the bible].  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.
The usual tripe from bible worshippers is to claim that those who recognize the internal inconsistencies and nonsese just haven't read it.
In my experience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail."

Please note - apparently for the first time - the part I bolded.  That IS my experience.  Unlike the typical creationist, I do not pretend to possess universal knowledge, so when I wrote "in my experience", it was not indicated or implied that I meant ALL.

How does misrepresentation help out YOUR credibility, eh?


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

Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:36 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP

|     |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:


Given the vehemence of your reply I am tempted to respond in kind but the fact is I find myself on the same side of this argument as you.

As I pointed out in my original post this whole debate is about political power and the church. It is actually much more serious than a mere difference of opinion among scientists.

Squabbling about the science is all very well but, as you have observed, the issue is authority, not science! The churches that are supporting the 'creationist' push want to extend their influence 'beyond the church gate' as it were.  They seek to act politically and IMO they are potentially dangerous.

President Bush appeared at times to be pandering to an evangelical, fundamentalist political power base. The last thing the world needs is an American government beholden to a religiously fundamentalist constituency be it christian, muslim, jewish or whatever.

I criticised your post because I believe the way we engage this debate is important and your assertion (albeit one qualified by the extent of your experience) about readers of the Bible in general marked your post as emotional and, dare I say, somewhat irrational. It seemed to me an unfortunate digression from the usually high standard of your contributions to this forum.

(Edited by waterboy 1/4/2010 at 05:57 AM).

Charis kai Eirene

Posts: 218 | Posted: 5:32 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin

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


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