Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind

Genesis 2:7 ~ "And the LORD GOD FORMED MAN [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."



"This is not an anti-religious book"..."God, to repeat this point, which ought to be obvious, but isn't, never made a tiny wing in his eternal life."

Young Earth creationists are, he writes, "deluded to the point of perversity"..."all but the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution".

Atheist and evolutionary evangelist Dr. Richard Dawkins recently sought to advance evolution and do his part to stamp out creationism with the presentation of what he calls the "facts of evolution" in his new book 'The Greatest Show On Earth'. The author of several books, the most recent being "The God Delusion" in which he claimed that all Christians were deluded for believing in God.

In this book, though leveling insults at Christians, especially those who believe in the Old Testament and the creation narratives, in almost every chapter, Dr. Dawkins has supposedly "evolved" to believe that belief in evolution and belief in God are compatible relationships. He recently said this to Newsweek.com:

"No, I don't think they're incompatible (belief in God & evolution) if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind."
Two things are for sure, similar to his predecessor, Charles Darwin, Dr. Dawkins does not deal with 'first life' (how life first began) within any of his theories. In fact he would rather claim that we came from 'aliens' than attribute life on this planet to God. Secondly Dr. Dawkins is frustrated that large numbers of the general populous doubt whether evolution actually does what it claims. The  problem is that more and more scientists  are realizing that the human  genome and the universe and life in general is far too complex to simply have arisen by the process of time, environmental conditions and random chance as the "theory" of evolution holds. 


When combined with the fact that there is no modern archaeological evidence of any transitional form between humans, apes or chimps and their supposed common ancestor, (which Dr. Dawkins says really isn't necessary for evolution to be true-wouldn't ya know it?) the theory of evolution is being quickly reconsidered, repackaged and rethought on almost every front.

The Beginnings

What began 150 years ago in approximately 1859 with naturalist scientist Charles Darwin (2/12/1809- 4/19/1882) quickly became the 'rational man's' way to think of his origins and relive himself of any connection or responsibility to or with God or a creator.  Probably developed with many of the underpinnings of his Grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who was an materialist evolutionist, the theory of evolution, would change the approach to understanding the world that we live in. The backbone of his theory was to repudiate the idea that divine assistance was necessary for any apparent design in the origin of the species or humankind. Please keep this in mind: Darwin’s claim was that all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor. This is called the theory of Common Descent.  Important note: The theory of evolution as set forth by Darwin does not deal with first life (how life came to be) it merely deals with how existing life changes into new species and manifests itself. This is a point often misunderstood by most creationists or those who hold to a biblical worldview of the origin of life. This proves to be the most fatal self-inflicted wound of evolutionary theory as we will see in this writing.

Essential Components Of Evolution:

There are several components of  the evolutionary process. It's basic 'faith statements' can be found in understanding the following items: Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift & Natural Selection all combine with Time to affirm the MACROevolutionary process. I have applied links for you to discover these terms and find how they are defined by modern evolutionists.

There were many observable issues that evolution addressed or attempted to settle regarding changes within species, such as the adaptation of species over time to particular environments. The adaptation of species to their environments over time is a type of evolution. That kind of evolution has been readily observed and is not denied by most individuals. That  type of evolution is called MICROevolution. MICROevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. However, the type of evolution claimed to have occurred and ultimately produced man is called MACROevolution. The difference between these two types of evolution are as vast as the difference between midnight and high noon. MACROevolution is supposedly evolution on a grand scale; what is said to be seen when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. MACROevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. (you'll hear this again) What is amazing to me is that most individuals who hold to evolution as the process by which man came into existence consider MICROevolution to be the only process necessary to confirm  MACROevolution. In fact this is what a scientist says regarding the MICROevolution he observed:
"I was fascinated to learn that, in 1971, Belgian scientists transferred a group of lizards from one small island off the Yugoslav coast to another, free of native members of that species, nearby. During that same summer, a few miles inland in the wild backwoods of Croatia, I myself was hard at work moving thousands of snails between habitats in the hope of picking up differences in survival. Thirty-seven years later, the descendants of the transferred lizards had changed – evolved – to gain stronger jaws and a modified gut to deal with their new and more vegetarian diet; but, alas, just a year after moving the molluscs I could find almost none of them (which proves not that evolution is wrong but that experiments in the wild usually do not work)" ~ Dr. Steven Jones professor of genetics at University College, London hailing Richard Dawkins at Telegraph.co.uk 9.19.2009
What Dr. Jones described and observed is MICROevolution. Stronger jaws and a modified gut  confirms that the species changed or adapted to it's environment. However, what most evolutionists do is take this sort of observation to confirm MACROevolution. Once again, MACROevolution is supposedly evolution on a grand scale; what is said to be seen when looking at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. MACROevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. Therefore Dr. Jones' observations do not affirm MACROevolution only MICROevolution. The evolutionist simply says that multiple series of MICROevolutions add up to MACROevolution on a grand scale. This is the "catch" in the view of the evolutionist...The evolutionist claims that all that is necessary is additional time and since we've already observed change on a MICRO scale we will definitely and eventually observe change at a MACRO scale if we simply allow the necessary time.

The problem is however is that if MACROevolution had occurred, this species would become something else other than the lizards they were to begin with. In other words, the lizards Dr. Jones observed continued to be lizards, they did not become ducks, geese, or pekingese swine, they remained lizards. What Dr. Jones wants us to believe is that eventually these lizards will become a totally new species. The evolutionist simply claims that time  is the necessary element to complete the process (there is no completion under their construct however things just continue to change) and since we can't observe it within our finite lifetimes, we can reasonably conclude that by observing MICROevolution and what fossil records that do exist that  MACROevolution is true. This is the type of 'snake-oil salesmanship' that Dr. Phillip Johnson (who is not a scientist) exposed regarding evolution in his book "Darwin On Trial" This is what Dr. Johnson has to say about the element of natural selection which is the primary component of  this little opiate of the masses that evolutionists continue to assert regarding the origin of the species:

"None of the proofs [for natural selection] provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce a new species, new organs, or other major changes or even minor changes that are permanent." Dr. Phillip Johnson, 'Darwin On Trial' (Downers Grove, IL. :Intervarsity Press, 1993) p. 27. 

Is the previously mentioned type of adaptation and change within species what evolution as it is taught and proclaimed, limited to? Absolutely not. Evolution claims that given the millions of years necessary for the process to continue, those lizards may even become men or a completely different animals. From a 'fish in the sea to an astronaut I can be'  given enough  time and the right blind chance mutations and environmental pressures. This is known as speciation and is commonly called the "smoking gun" of Darwinism.  However top scientists confirm that primary speciation, which is the type of speciation that Darwinism and modern evolutionists claim, has  never taken place not even in a created or controlled environment:
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another" ~ Alan H. Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), Book Section, p. 29. Frederick M. Cohan, “What Are Bacterial Species?” Annual Review of Microbiology 56 (2002): 457-482. Available online (2009)
Evolution further proclaims that not only do men and mammals share similar DNA, they also share a common ancestor, and over time and through the process of natural selection have become the thinking, rational and communicable beings that we currently are.

The basis for evolutionary theory is nothing less than scientism. The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.Why is this approach and the resulting naturalistic worldview bankrupt? I've done my part to present at least 5 compelling reasons why, without merely invoking the bible or biblical texts as proof for my assertions:

I: DNA Screams For Intelligent Design

Every programmer knows that code is essential to make anything function properly. Top scientists even know this such as J. Craig Venter who's claim to fame is having been one of the two men responsible for having mapped out the human genome. This is what Time says about their efforts:

"Venter stitched together the 582,000 base pairs necessary to invent the genetic information for a whole new bacterium. Step two is to boot up that DNA programming in a living bacterium to see if it takes charge of the organism. That's next on Venter's agenda — and he has little doubt it will work. As any software designer will tell you, once you know how to write the code, you can make it do almost anything."
According to Telegraph.co.uk scientist Richard Dawkins:
"criticises the simplistic idea of DNA as an instruction manual, and the embryo as a sort of Ikea flat-pack that assembles itself through a set of simple (or not so simple) rules."
Now one thing is certain, being in competitive sales is about maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses and when opponents strengths are exposed, you always give those strengths less time, for to dwell on the competitors strengths indicates just how strong their hand really is...so what do you do? You trivialize the opponents strengths and understate their value. This is just what Dr. Dawkins has done with the foundation of life, DNA. It is even more amazing when it is considered that Dr. Dawkins is a microbiologist and must be fully aware of the absolute and essential importance of DNA and it's coding and formulation. Without DNA there is no life and without it being ordered there is no human functionality.


What Are Some Of The Functions Of DNA?

DNA is the code of life. It can be described as miniature information/nanotechnology, digital code with error correction capacity, hierarchical filings systems within the genome, distributive storage and retrieval systems for data modules. There is also non coding DNA, previously though to be junk,  which functions like an operating system telling other coding regions when to turn on and off and how to regulate and express itself etc...even more incredibly this is upon layers and layers of complexity within each cell. Further, DNA can be described as a language or a message that is not merely repeating but telling a story similar to various columns in a newspaper.

The question is where does all this code come from? Secondly how and who ordered the code? Random chance and time as evolution and naturalism claims? Hardly. To think so is pure fantasy. As if this weren't bad enough for evolutionary dogma, the point can be further driven home by asking where does the "information" come from to begin with? As we have discovered, in order for life to occur information must be present. It is wishful fantasy to believe that complex information systems would somehow compose themselves from primordial soup and advance to what science agrees that are super highly complex information systems.

There's a better possibility of chopping your computer up into a million pieces, throwing it into the air, and expecting it to come down and form a new fully functional PC or MAC with totally new and better configurations and operating system than before you destroyed it. This is a complete fantasy. Everyone knows that complexity does not come from the uncomplex and what random complexities that do arise are generally very limited in scope and highly  unusual. DNA is the story of life from intelligence, God, to each and every human being and all of his creation. 

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of The Discovery Institute (expanding  upon the work of Dr. Francis Crick and Dr. James Watson) has studied this topic for over 25 years and produced a "peer reviewed" scientific article advancing Intelligent Design, says:
“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.” Dr. Stephen  C. Meyer, 'Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design', (Harper Collins 8/2009)pg. 347)
The smallest unit of functional advantage in life are new proteins. What evolution overlooks is that natural selection, which has been and remains a staple of evolutionary  thought, claims that  to select for  functional advantage,  new proteins through random processes. This is proclaimed against the backdrop of the incredible difficulty of  random mutations to generate new proteins number one and those proteins to be ineffective without having a "blueprint" of action to follow. In other words evolution is the transfer of complex specified information (CSI) by random chance. The fact is that the generation of new proteins through random process is equivalent to finding a tiny needle  in a haystack the size of our galaxy. Remember, these type of "transactions" are essential to the concept of natural selection as it is currently proclaimed. One would think that these occurrences would be readily observable and a reasonable standard instead of the extreme exception that they are within the human genome.

A MUST SEE: To watch Dr. Meyer's C-Span presentation on his book. Click HERE.

II: Systems Of Irreducible Complexity

Dr. Michael Behe, professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh Universtity, (who is not a creationist) wrote the book, 'Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution' in which he examined what Darwin couldn't examine when the theory of evolution was set forth in 1859, the inner workings and molecular structure of the cell. In Darwin's day the cell was thought to be simple and  uncomplex, however with the rise of microbiological  analysis it has been found that the cell is a fertile soil of complex items that  can be best described as machines that perform numerous  functions of life. What he further discovered was that when one of these machines within the cell is not in the right place, wrong size or is functioning improperly the complete system fails to function. There is a breakdown. This is known as irreducible complexity. If there is a change within the cell, Dr. Behe noted that everything must change at the same time for anything to function at all.

Dr. Behe argues as follows:
"The  idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science. There is no publication in scientific literature-in journals or books-that  describe  how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but  absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can be truly said that the assertion of darwinian molecular evolution is merely  bluster." ~ Dr. Michael Behe, 'Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems' in William Dembski, ed., 'Mere Creation Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design' (Downers Grove, IL. Intervarsity Press,  1998) pg. 183
Not only do the cells have complex code, they can't arbritrarily change and still function. From both the functional and programmable perspective evolution fails the necessary tests required to support molecular evolution of  slight successive changes over long periods of time.

DON'T MISS THIS: Dr Behe takes on all critics and goes deeper at TrueOrigins.org

III: The Mind Body Interface Or Consciousness

Because  of the approach of the scientific practice over history, science did not lend itself to understanding  how and why we have consciousness. There seems to be a blind and empty-face stare into what science doesn't address under the current paradigms of scientific discovery. As Dr. Meyer states within his book, previously (19th Century) science sought to explain everything on the basis of matter and energy. Physics (Late 20th century)however discovered the awareness of the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics and even quantum phenomena. This led to the thoughts that agency or mind or what we describe as intelligence could be behind the material world. The  fact is that there is no physical  mechanism by which consciousness is achieved from the physical process of  the body.

All of this leads to a question just begging to be answered. How and why do we have consciousness? Current studies have shown that the material functions of  the body do not arbitrarily nor automatically produce consciousness or self awareness. The leap from the material functions of evolution to DNA and irreducible complex systems do not address issues at an even more fundamental level. How does the body interface with the mind? Does material existence have a necessity of consciousness? NO. Why? we can look at dirt, which is material, or rocks, which are material and clearly examine the fact that they do not have consciousness. What makes us any different if all is only material or the world is limited to naturalism?


"Now because consciousness exists in us, the most reasonable explanation for the origin of consciousness is that the universe began with a conscious being,"  J.P. Moreland Saddleback Church 9/5/2009

This argument takes on more of a theological  tone and can provide a direct argument for the existence of God. In fact Theologian and  philosopher Dr. J. P. Moreland makes  that exact case in his book ' Consciousness And The Existence Of God: A Theistic Argument' In this landmark work Dr. Moreland views the common concepts of and reasons why we are conscious beings and takes to most popular beliefs and assertions to task.


IV: Abundance of Archaeological Finds  But A Lack Of Archaeological Proof

During his time Charles Darwin admitted the weakness of the archaeological record. This is known as Darwin's dilemma:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."~Charles Darwin, On the Origin Of Species p.280
“By the theory of natural selection,” he wrote, “all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day.” Thus in the past “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” ~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 266
But Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since
“if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp.  285-288
Did those scientific observations disuade Darwin in his theory? NO. He simply argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed by heat, pressure, and erosion. Others postulated that Precambrian fossils were simply too small and soft to have fossiled. Similarly Richard Dawkins in his new book, does not think this to be an issue either (minimize your weakness) as he presents evolution and in particuarly rehashes Darwinian evolution through common descent hailing it as a fact.

Precambrian and even microscopic fossils have been found:
The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials… [is] now recognized as incorrect.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was “even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”~ American paleobiologist William Schopf  “The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin’s dilemma,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9 (1994): 375-377.
There seems to have been an abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago—which modern biologists call “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology’s Big Bang. Even more so digging up fossils tells us little about the actual relationships of the fossils themselves:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”~ Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.
More recently evolutionist the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, the father of Punctuated Equilibera (PE) , asserted this in order to promote his theory of (PE):

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism 1) Stasis. most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2)Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed"~Stephen Jay Gould, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace' Natural History 86(1977) pg. 13-14.

Robert B. Carroll reaffirmed Dr. Gould's position in 2000. What makes that significant? Carroll is the curator of vertebrate palentology at the Redpath Museum at McGill University and one that certainly has modern qualifications to be credible with archaeological findings...Additionally, not all scientific writers are  convinced that what is found is properly handled or disseminated without predjudice or bias:
“no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.”... "When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.”...“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” ~ Henry Gee, 'In Search of Deep Time.' [New York: Free Press, 1999], pp. 5, 32, 113-117.
a. Nonviability Of Transitional Forms:
"No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage". ~ Dr. Jonathan Wells The Discovery Institute.
In other words, in order to make things work transitional forms would have to lose certain characteristics before becoming a subsequent form or evolving into something else. This directly flies in the face of evidence for irreducible complexity and what  we now know about DNA and it's viability and use. What it would take to make a fish a fish and a bird to fly are two different systems and to expect to find both systems fully functional in one is ludacriss. In addition for a fish coming from the water to live on land, there would have to be a very complex set of lungs and extremities developed and all functions would have to be present at the same time. Such notions are mindless.

b. No Human Common Ancestor Or Transitionals

Recently a 4.4 million–year–old skeleton of what was claimed to be "a likely human ancestor" known as Ardipithecus ramidus (abbreviated Ar. ramidus aka "Ardi" ). What this discovery did was set evolutionists, at least those who place great weight upon archaeological evidence, back a few million years in their thinking.
"Ardi is the earliest and best-documented descendant of that common ancestor. But despite being "so close to the split," says White, "the surprising thing is that she bears little resemblance to chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives." The elusive common ancestor's bones have never been found, but scientists, working from the evidence available — especially analyses of Australopithecus and modern African apes — envisioned Great-Great-Grandpa to have looked most nearly like a knuckle-walking, tree-swinging ape. But "[Ardi is] not chimplike," according to White, which means that the last common ancestor probably wasn't either. "This skeleton flips our understanding of human evolution," says Kent State University anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy, a member of the Middle Awash team. "It's clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity." So what does that mean? Based on Ardi's anatomy, it appears that chimpanzees may actually have evolved more than humans — in the scientific sense of having changed more over the past 7 million years or so." Time Online Magazine
The evidence of Ardi at best is only additional evidence against young earth creationism and nothing more.

c. Most All Change Is Cyclical

Changes and mutations within life forms are not directional toward the development of new life forms as required required by macroevolutionary theory but they simply shift back and forth within a limited range. This is what Dr. Jones (referenced above) observed in the lizards. What could be assumed is that those same lizards when taken off of the island and given a better or different  diet will produce offspring that will eventually return to the original jaw size and gut size of the original set of lizards. As stated at no point do they or will they become chickens or any other animal, or even human for that matter.

V: Darwinian Evolution's Sexist & Racist Assertions

Although most modern evolutionists say that they don't hold to Darwins failed theories of bias against women and racism against blacks in general, it is worth noting if  for no other reason, than to explain the foundation and influence of many of Darwin's scientific notions as carried out by evolutionary evangelists through the years. Remember, these theories were considered scientific at one time and even today have their influence within society. Though their scientific application has been debunked and certain laws instituted and modified to minimize the harmful influence to society that these type of postulations have they still exist and influence many in varios forms.

As noted in my blog Women, Mathematics & Evolution, some gender bias, much of which exists today had it's root in Darwinian evolutionary biology. The facts are that Darwin assumed that because women's heads were generally smaller than men's, they (women) were inferior in not only ability, but also intelligence.
[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women”whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, history, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages... [that] the average mental power in man must be above that of women." ~ Charles Darwin, 'Mental Powers Of A  Man & A Woman Ch. XIX' [The Descent of Man and selection  in Relation to Sex] (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896), 327
Dr. Gould thought this issue was important enough to undertake refuting Gustav Lebon (another past proponent of Darwinian evolution) after he repeteated and tried to affirm the same part of Darwin's theory:
"Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and...are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt, there exists some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads. Consequently, we may neglect them entirely." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105
Distinguished women are an exception like a "monstrosity"  or a "gorilla with two heads"? WOW! This was evolutionary theory at work. Scientist  reaffirming one another and setting forth propositions based on what they considered science. Now the critic asserts that things have changed in light of new scientific findings. But that begs the question, Did we really have to find or come up with new science in order to debunk these outlandish and crazy ideas? How about civil rights? Did we really need to lose so many so that blacks could be liberated and share the same rights as whites? Some say the laws were established that don't reflect Darwin's ideas, but the facts are that Dawinian evolutionary thought is still yet a holdover in modern society. In fact, the title of the book commonly simply called Origin Of Species, was titled exactly as follows: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life." That was the complete book title which can be found HERE. There was a racist implication that couldn't be missed. The following is a quote from pre-Darwinian literature that sums up the canvass upon which Darwin undertook his studies and made his theories regarding race:
"Mr Lawrence has collected, in the eighth chapter of his admirable Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, a great variety of facts tending to prove that the Negroes, though morally and intellectually inferior to the white race, are by no means near the bottom of the scale of humanity; and he expresses the well-grounded opinion, "that of the dark-coloured people none have distinguished themselves by stronger proofs of capacity for literary and scientific investigation, and, consequently, that none approach more nearly than the Negro to the polished nations of the globe."~ Combe, George. 1847. The Constitution of Man and Its Relation to External Objects. Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart, & Co., Longman & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., W. S. Orr & Co., London, James M'Glashan, Dublin. pg. 322
As we discussed in our previous blog We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves, these were common racist sentiments considering that  Blacks and non-whites who were thought to be less moral than anyone else. This is in part why such thoughts should be repudiated expecially amongst clergy. These are ungodly sentiments and fall in line with an ungodly and godless culture.

Here's another thought that exists about the seed of interracial relationships especially between Blacks and Indians, who were normally cast together historically this little blurb against 'race mixing' still holds true in practice for many today:
"When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad. Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.[49] From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared. ~ Darwin, C. R. 1875. 'The variation of animals and plants under domestication.' [London: John Murray. 2d edition. Volume 2.] pg. 21 [49]~Dr. P. Broca, on 'Hybridity in the Genus Homo,' Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.
"Zambo" also known as "Sambo" the child of a Black and Indian...I guess Darwin was referring to me all the way around...Darwinian evolution framed the attitudes and opinions of the people even when laws were changed to reflect human rights. Individuals yet today breath out many of the misinforamtion in Darwinian evlution and people have lost their lives fighting for rights that the founding  fathers of America said were "self-evident".

We could go on, but the facts are that Darwinian evolution was probably the worst type of science available when it came to race and gender issues. For any individual to simply resurrect it in another form is like  putting a pretty bow on a pig. It's still ugly.

Did the science change or did the scientists change? If the scientists changed, then I guess we could say that they evolved. Is evolution a fact? If that question refers to changes within a species the answer is yes, of course it is...But if the questions entails, do apes become  human or do fish become birds or any other combination, the answer is an emphatic NO. There is no evidence to support any such statement and what evidence that does exist is  either exaggerated or undermines the concept of evolutionary theory in this area.

Final Thought

Last week on ABC's The View the discussion of evolution and creationism was undertaken.  It was obvious to see almost  immediately the "Dawkinization" of host Joy Behar, who said regarding evolution:

"It's not a religious fervor thing. There's proof! Scientific proof! You want your children to go into the world and be ignorant? That's child abuse in my opinion."



With misinformation such as Joy's so common and encouraged by the media I  encourage every  Christian to be about dispelling the resurrection of this aweful myth and Godless fantasy . When God made man in his likeness and image, that likeness and image wasn't  the image of an ameoba, ape or chimpanzee. None of those beings  had what  Adam had from his beginning, the ability  to communicate with God and with others.

When man reduces himself to an accident of primordial slime, chance and time, he not only does himself a disservice, he does society  in general  a disservice. Random chance and time  do not lend or yield themselves to purpose. Our streets in many  places are amuck because children and  people have been told that they are animals and they act like animals by killing, murder, sexual  promiscuity, living  riotously etc, We have had enough of atheistic science and godless encouragements that life is  purposeless and meaningless or that the present reality is the only reality..Those are ridiculous notions  to say the least as we live in a world where immaterial realities exist such as  thoughts, hopes and dreams. These things do not have extension in space neither are they constrained by time but their existence  is without question.

The atheistic and naturalist days of scientific control are over. God allowed them to do things their way for so long and look at the mess their thoughts and programs have created. It's time for Christian scientists  to rise and take the classroms back and science back placing scientific discovery back into it's proper  place of discovering the beauty, glory and majesty of God's creation.

Blessed!

323 comments:

  1. Seriously

    What is the point?

    As in this blog https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=7184107630543699239

    Science is not developed by attacking its founders, the best sellers lists, or in blogs, but hard work in developing new ideas in the laboratories and the field.

    Science is not a democracy you need to have your claims analyzed in peer reviewed journals.

    If you feel that evolution is incorrect or the bible interpretation is the correct then I would write a paper and have it reviewed. Answers in Genesis has such an outlet.

    Thanks for you time.

    PS Since this your house and you have read my previous posts am I going to be blocked?

    ReplyDelete
  2. W'sup Jonathan

    Why is it when a Christian points out how absurd some Atheists can be you call it attacking?

    If there is ever gonna be a fair debate on this subject, shouldn't we be allowed to bring up inconsistencies? Skeptics often mock a Creationist over the story of Noah and his ark. But when someone like Carl Sagan who was believed to be one of the "smartest" people ever think a spaceship must have come down and dropped off all these animals instead of just giving God the credit makes one wonder their motives? He was a devout Atheist and after his studies he realized there were a lot of "gaps" in the theory of evolution and figured Noah's Spaceship was the only reasonable explanation.

    I don't want to stereotype all you Atheists.. but seriously

    Jonathan sir, would you be disappointed if you found out you were created in God's image?

    You are a very bright guy, but are you smarter than your boy Sagan?

    Peace to you brah, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonathan,

    I won't block you as long as you don't try to continue to make a stupid argument sucha as the one you're making...

    You look for a one to one correllation between darwinism and anti-civil rights sentiment and there IS when you look at the effect of Darwin both on the mindset of the people and, their actiosn and the struggle of certain classes of people that tried to get equal protections under the law...

    Facts are clear, Darwin help white superiority...Darwin held to the inferiority of women...Civil rights wasn't effective until 1964 and we still struggle as a people even though a black President was elected...Women yet suffer despairity in pay and opportunity in fact this is yet so pronounced that the major news media NBC undertook the subject last year asking why?

    Why is it? darwinian evolution's INFLUENCE if nothing else. That system taught all these differences and created many of the struggles that we see...

    Who agreed with it by majority? White men some Christian and some materialists...

    Who was in control of the application of law through American history? White men some Christians some materialists...

    What did all of them have in common? Darwinian evolutionary theory, that was said to be the "smart man's" way of thinking...

    Be a fundamentalist, but while you do that look at all the people who went to the grave fighting for their rights and ask, what was so deeply seeded in the minds and hears of individuals that they would rather kill people than let them have their rights???

    The teachings and dogmas of evolution is the backbone and foundation if nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Meyer's claim that Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.” is clearly false.

    Consider weather prediction. Unless you are going to claim that meteorologists somehow magically make their forecasts without using any information, they rely on information gathered from the natural world: temperature, pressure, wind speed, wind direction, etc., to make their forecasts. But this information doesn't arise from an intelligent source.

    Meyer's claim is clearly bogus. You should be more skeptical of your sources.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonmyous,

    You must have been on something to make this statement about information:"But this information doesn't arise from an intelligent source."

    Obviously you don't get your information from any intelligent sources...but for the rest of humanity, we understand that things such as weather forecasts etc are only as good as the sources from which information is received, and we've learned that certain climates and conditions produce certain observable phenomena...this is scientific methodology that has existed for years, gather information and order it...

    In the zeal to disavow things, haters such as you will leave their brains at the trash dump of rational thought.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Have you read Dawkin's book? It refutes all of this and easily. Do you think if you post several thousand words someone else has written, you can undo all of science? You would do better to open your MIND and read TRUE things than flail against accepted standard real science. Just read Dawkin's latest book, pp. 364-365 and tell me why GOD would design your plumbing that way? Evolution from fishlike creatures (macro by the way) to mammals DOES explain the way that plumbing is now. I dare you to read the book.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous,

    I said in the section above this box:"Anonymous commentors please place your name or a handle within the comment if possible."

    You obviously must be afraid of the light???

    Use your name please, I use mine on atheist sites such as yours don't be afraid...

    So far as what you're now arguing (aside from the mormom "read the book and feel the burning in the bosom") you're saying if we are designed there's an inadequacy of design and proof is in things such as vestigial organs like the appendix or tailbone...

    The problem is that this type of thought places you in an awkward position of attempting to say how your could have designed us better, (considering all the complex things that we know already, you'd be done) and secondly you're basing design flaws on your understanding which you and every evolutionist MUST admit that is limited...Another little caveat is that if our we are mere products of random chance and mutations as your world view claims we doing good to have any type of form and could have legs growing out of our heads.

    Back to the subject, the appendix was long held as nonessential and a holdover from common ancestry...only to find that the appendix is very useful:

    "In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens." ~ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t

    So evidence of bad design? NO. Not for anyone actually willing to look at the science...What we don't know is being found out, only that most things that are being found out don't affirm Darwinism or atheistic belief systems.

    Like I've said elsewhere, you don't know me or my background, you only assume because I am a Christian you can figure me out...As I see you've been surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  8. He said "read TRUE things" that's a laugh...READ the bible for a change without flesh and criticism...you might learn what you need to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have to say that someone who doesn't know the difference between archaeology and paleontology is not someone I'd trust to give an accurate account of evolutionary theory.

    Feeno wrote

    But when someone like Carl Sagan who was believed to be one of the "smartest" people ever think a spaceship must have come down and dropped off all these animals instead of just giving God the credit makes one wonder their motives?

    Can you provide a specific reference to where Sagan said that he believed that? I've read a good deal of Sagan's work and don't recall ever reading that he believed that a spaceship dropped off all the animals.

    ReplyDelete
  10. RBH,

    You said:" have to say that someone who doesn't know the difference between archaeology and paleontology is not someone I'd trust to give an accurate account of evolutionary theory."

    Is that your only complaint or do you just "belly-ache" for a living?

    Obviously you trust much worse information for to believe in evolution, especially darwinian version of common descent, is about the most illinformed thing anyone can do for the reasons I've outlined in the post and many more.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I encourage every Christian reading this blog page to go to RBH's site by clicking his name...find out why this information is essential and what we do is NOT about affirming our egos and human knowledge.

    He needs no sympathy and he asks for none, but as Christians let's offer our prayers.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
    You look for a one to one correllation between darwinism and anti-civil rights sentiment and there IS when you look at the effect of Darwin both on the mindset of the people and, their actiosn and the struggle of certain classes of people that tried to get equal protections under the law...

    i think their biggest fight was against the bible thumpers pushing the "biblical truth" of slavery and female submission.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tony,

    I'll give credit where credit is due and I believe you deserve it for that one.

    Christians did their share of damage "in the name of the Lord" by using the scripture to justify the slavery, mistreatment and dissasociation with ethnic classes and superiority over women historically...but none of that affirms the true biblical message.

    I will say the Christians aren't exempt though. My son brought home a history book, and I must say that I haven't reasearched it thoroughly yet but it said something to the effect that when the Pilrgims came to America the relationship between them and the Native American's was just fine...but when the Puritans showed up, everything went wrong...the book didn't say it but it hinted at the selfrighteousness of the Puritans as being the obsticle...

    Selfrighteousness and wrong information goes a long way to obscuring the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of The Discovery Institute (expanding upon the work of Dr. Francis Crick and Dr. James Watson) has studied this topic for over 25 years and produced a "peer reviewed" scientific article advancing Intelligent Design.

    Meyer spends time decrying Crick and Watson, and I'm not sure that qualifies as "expanding on" their work. Meyer has never done any laboratory research close to that of Crick or Watson, nor similar to, and I'm not sure he's even in the same fields.

    Where has Meyer published a peer-reviewed paper that hasn't been retracted?

    The bottom line is that faith is not science, and we shouldn't be using the same tools in both fields.

    ReplyDelete
  15. District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

    Is that your only complaint or do you just "belly-ache" for a living?

    Oh, your post is full of mistakes and misrepresentations, but life is finite. The web has many good resources on the science -- you even know where some are since you link to them (e.g., the Berkeley site) in your original post.

    Obviously you trust much worse information for to believe in evolution, especially darwinian version of common descent, is about the most illinformed thing anyone can do for the reasons I've outlined in the post and many more.

    Once again, life is finite, so I'll commend your attention to the resources you yourself link to.

    As it happens, I personally know Christians ranging from evangelicals to 'liberals' who accept (the appropriate phrase is not "believe in," but "accept") the modern theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation of the diversity of life on earth.

    Common descent? Sure. Even many intelligent design proponents (e.g., Michael Behe of irreducible complexity fame, cited by Burnett in his OP) accepts common descent.

    Natural selection? Sure. Even some scientists who are evangelical Christians (e.g., Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health) accept the efficacy of natural selection in producing the array of lifeforms on earth. I commend Collins' book The Language of God to Pastor Burnett's attention to learn how one fervent evangelical Christian who actually knows the science handles the issue.

    Pastor Burnett poses a false dichotomy: Be a Christian or accept evolution. But there are tens of thousands of scientists who are both Christian and who accept evolution. Are they all deluded? For another example, check out the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists and theologians who are Christians and most of whom accept evolution. There are some knowledgeable people who argue that evolution is not inconsistent with their Christian faith and that one can accept both science and their faith. Are they deluded?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow, it seems quite clear that the author of this article understands neither DNA nor computers and doesn't understand that analogies almost always break down once your scratch the surface. DNA is very inelegant and doesn't compare to computer programming beyond the superficial. Any programmer could come up with a much better solution than the highly flawed way DNA is encoded and used in a cell. He also seems to be completely unaware that genetic algorithms (avoiding the flaws in DNA, typically, but not necessarily) literally evolve solutions to many complex problems. It's commonly used in aerospace, automobile design, wind turbine design, black-box stock market trading and even artificial lifeforms in game systems that evolve flocking, packing and swarming behaviors to solve tasks no one "creature" can do alone. None of which requires the programmer to specify anything but the virtual environment in which things evolve and it's still able to produce many species of artificial life with different ways of surviving in the environment provided.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, faith is not science, but we have allowed science to become faith - a religion taught in our schools with evolution being it's bible.

    The most obvious case in point is zero evidence for ANY species evolving into another species - it takes a ton of faith (or a deep hatred of God) to hold onto the evolutionary belief and to teach the theory to our kids as FACT.

    Pardon me while I yawn over how great science is when it can't even explain how a single somatic cell becomes a whole plant. Science, who has no answer as to why, at the neutron level of atoms, parts that should repeal themselves and blow us apart are held together against all reasoning by an invisible force, properly named "the Strong Force" by science.

    Funny how an old dusty Book gave us these answers 2000 years before science sought (unsuccessfully) the answer.

    The Supremacy of Christ
    "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
    ~Colossians 1:15-17

    ReplyDelete
  18. RBH,

    You pose some interesting questions and make some interesting observations...Now, if any info is wrong, as you've cited it comes from the sources themselves and just about everything I've said I've cross referenced...from more than one source so the arguments are as reasonable and accurate as posible.

    But you pose these points:

    Pastor Burnett poses a false dichotomy: Be a Christian or accept evolution. But there are tens of thousands of scientists who are both Christian and who accept evolution.

    Obviously you missed or overlooke dthe part of my article in which I said: The adaptation of species to their environments over time is a type of evolution. That kind of evolution has been readily observed and is not denied by most individuals.

    The evolutionist takes that type of evolution and extends it further into common descent. I reject common descent as no evidence exists for it as I've explained. Why should I or you have a scientific belief for which there is no science?

    You also said so far as Christians who believe in common descent: Are they all deluded? For another example, check out the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists and theologians who are Christians and most of whom accept evolution.

    Once again this is a "strawman". IF these individuals believe in common descent as spelled out under Darwainian and mordern evolutionary theory, I believe they are at best deceived into believing a lie. That is quie understandable from a Christian worldview as there is an untimate "enemy" that we all face who's aim is to spiritually deceive.

    You also said: There are some knowledgeable people who argue that evolution is not inconsistent with their Christian faith and that one can accept both science and their faith. Are they deluded?

    Please refer to my previous answer, but the knowledgeable people who say that evolution as taught by Darwin or modern evolutionists, is inconsistent with a Christian worldview cannot be overlooked or minimized.

    These are the days when men "fall away" from the truth. I wouldn't expect to see any different in the educated group of christians.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pastor, it's good to be back. I have a praise report - God is in control.

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

    When I saw the news story of the young honor student being beat to death, I thought they looked like animals. More like the insane.

    We are becoming a Godless nation, and to those who say "You Christians think you're more moral than non-believers", I would have to (now) reply, "yes". Not because of who I am, but because of He who lives inside me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Laura wrote

    The most obvious case in point is zero evidence for ANY species evolving into another species ...

    Observed instances of speciation.
    Speciation currently in process. And another one.
    Evolution of a new metabolic capability.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Protocol6,

    You said:Any programmer could come up with a much better solution than the highly flawed way DNA is encoded and used in a cell. He also seems to be completely unaware that genetic algorithms (avoiding the flaws in DNA, typically, but not necessarily) literally evolve solutions to many complex problems.

    Then you see and know more than Bill Gates. Gates is an atheist (at least an agnostic) this is his quote:" We have all had teachers who made a difference. I had a great chemistry teacher in high school who made his subject immensely interesting. Chemistry seemed enthralling compared to biology. In biology, we were dissecting frogs - just hacking them to pieces, actually - and our teacher didn't explain why. My chemistry teacher sensationalized his subject a bit and promised that it would help us understand the world. When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced then any software ever created."~ Bill Gates "Education: The Best Investment"(Gates 1995, p. 188)

    I guess that would include the software you refernce that supposedly is so much more effecient?

    Gates was talking about how his teacher made what was a boring subject good and easy for him to understand, but the fact is that the NO 1 computer guy in the world hails DNA' extravagance...And he's even an atheist probably like you...

    Now, who are you and how in the world do any of your observations compare to his? I don't believe I'm using your operating system today for anything...

    I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or at least in the presuppositional bias of an argument ey?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Laura,

    Glad to have you back...Jump right in...and yes, when you believe you're a savage and animal you act like one...who can penalize anyone for acting like what their "common ancestor" said they are?

    Evolution as taught by Darwin and accepted by modern evolutionists is a total deception and I don't mind saying it...it's in the science....then we it's results played out in the streets and everyone says, "I don't know why that happened". Please!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I claimed

    Be a Christian or accept evolution. But there are tens of thousands of scientists who are both Christian and who accept evolution.

    Burnett responded

    Obviously you missed or overlooke dthe part of my article in which I said: The adaptation of species to their environments over time is a type of evolution.

    The people to whom I referred -- e.g., Francis Collins and most of the membership of the ASA -- accept the full account of evolution offered by modern evolutionary theory, including common descent and the efficacy of the mechanisms invoked in that theory -- mutations,natural selection, genetic drift, recombination, etc. -- in accounting for the diversity of life on earth. And some are both evangelical Christians and biological scientists.

    Burnett said

    I reject common descent as no evidence exists for it as I've explained. Why should I or you have a scientific belief for which there is no science?

    But there is evidence for it in the fossil record, in molecular data (e.g., the distribution of pseudogenes and the distribution of endogenous retroviruses), and evidence from comparative anatomy, among other sources. To be blunt, there is as much or more evidence for common descent as there is for the claim that the earth orbits the sun.

    Burnett wrote

    That is quie understandable from a Christian worldview as there is an untimate "enemy" that we all face who's aim is to spiritually deceive.

    So anyone who believes differently from Pastor Burnett is deluded by Satan? That's a remarkably arrogant stance.

    ReplyDelete
  24. RBH said "-links-"

    I'm quite familiar with the talk origins blog/website - so full of mistruths and half truths - they appeal to the common denominator only looking for something on the web to back their opinion.

    Simply tell me one species that has evolved into another species, and I'll notify the press. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  25. And while I have time, consider this from Dr. Todd Wood, scientist, young earth creationist, and professor at Bryan College:

    Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

    I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

    Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.


    (All emphases are original; "scientific" is italicized in the original but is bolded here.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Laura wrote

    Simply tell me one species that has evolved into another species, and I'll notify the press. :-)

    The TalkOrigins links I provided list a number of them, together with the appropriate references to the scientific publications describing them. Do you claim those publications don't exist, that the TalkOrigins authors are lying about the existence of those publications? The publications are available in any good university library, so they can be easliy checked. And I linked to two actual papers in the scientific literature. Did you read them to see their research on speciation in process?

    ReplyDelete
  27. RHB said "So anyone who believes differently from Pastor Burnett is deluded by Satan? That's a remarkably arrogant stance."

    That would be remarkably arrogant if that's what he said, but he didn't, did he?

    Just like it would be remarkably arrogant of you if you said you have never been blinded from the truth. Well, there can only be one truth, right?

    Funny how teachers and professors who teach to "question everything" draw the line at evolution and demand it be accepted by pure faith. A religion indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. RBH said "The TalkOrigins links I provided list a number of them.."

    I'm asking you to tell me one species that has been proven to have evolved into another species.

    ReplyDelete
  29. RBH,

    I studied the first article you presnted some time ago...the problem is that these guys can't scientifically agree on what a species is...there are over 26 definitiona that I'm aware of...secondly we're talking about PRIMARY speciation which HAS NOT been observed...

    Once again a little evolutionary slight of hand is to claim that secondary speciation is the evolution that darwin claimed to validate his claims...that is inaccurate.

    You did an article on Sympatric speciation which I understand fascinates scientists but leaves something to be desired so far as the subject is concerned.

    You introduced another which ended like this"Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection."

    Now that's problematic for what darwinian evolution says it proves...I'm not a scientist, but I see the problems presneted and read throuygh them quite easily here.

    Now I've noticed that those who hold evolution are quick to say that Christians lie about these points but as I've read and come to bones of the arguments I have found it's the other way around.

    The ungodly tend to overstate claims and mesh things together in effort to bully intellectually and obfuscate the truth...

    Those types of tactics aren't good for anyone trying to get to the real deal.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I read another critic trying to minimize the importance of DNA...Like I said "snakeoil salesman".

    He said this:But, we have learned that massive amounts of human DNA are genetic "left overs," non-coding segments and duplications. In short, Human DNA has fewer working instructions than Windows software, and even its total 3 billion bases are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's 280 terabyte database (the equivalent of 1,120,000 billion DNA bases). Gary S. Hurd, Ph.D.

    So here we are told that DNA is so insignificant and woefully inadequate...but what's this?

    I can walk, talk and chew gum, a computer no matter what the programming takes much more than what it can currently be programmed to do to even do those functions...I can eat and digest food...a computer can't...in fact a system hasn't even been produced to allow a computer to function as we can no mater how many terabytes it's programming is...

    Man will do whatever it takes to minimize what God has done and at the same time living on HIS grace and functioning by what he did...I thought that was funny.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In response to the claim regarding Darwin "created" racism and misogny then I would question whether Christianity is responsible for that.

    After all, throughout it's history Christianity taught racism, misogny, anti-semitism, that slavery was acceptable, and all manner of ills. It taught them at various times.

    So are you going to blame Christianity?

    And as for you Feeno, why is it when a person, Christian or otherwise, points out the absurdities of Creationists it's called attacking or "anti-Christian" or "anti-God"?

    The problem is your side isn't interested in a fair debate. You want to bring religion to a science discussion. The reason is simple..your side of the argument has no science to rest on. One no more criticizes science with religion then one criticizes Latin with Calculus.

    Believe in Creationism if you want, but it's not science. And neither is Intelligent Design. Both are religious dogmas..dogma's that this Christian considers false. One simply doesn't teach religion in science class.

    Evolution is merely one of the tools that God used. Your problem with that thought is what? And considering that gee..not everyone in this country is Christian where exactly do any of you get off thinking that Christian religious instruction, which is what teaching Creationism and it's mutant bastard child Intelligent Design is, belongs in any public school in the country?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Laura wrote

    I studied the first article you presnted some time ago...the problem is that these guys can't scientifically agree on what a species is...there are over 26 definitiona that I'm aware of

    That's correct -- there are a number of species concepts. Here is an excellent reference. However, the biological species concept is entirely appropriate for sexually reproducing populations, and it's generally used in this context.

    Laura went on to say

    secondly we're talking about PRIMARY speciation which HAS NOT been observed...

    Once again a little evolutionary slight of hand is to claim that secondary speciation is the evolution that darwin claimed to validate his claims...that is inaccurate.


    Assuming you mean the standard definition of "primary speciation" as speciation by lineage splitting -- also known as allopatric speciation or cladogenesis -- it has in fact been observed. The Rhagoletis pomonella reference I provided above is lineage splitting in process.

    And Darwin didn't make that distinction; it came well after him and he made no claims about "primary" speciation versus "secondary" speciation. I'd like to see Laura provide a reference to Darwin's writings that says otherwise. Darwin thought that most speciation was sympatric (= anagenesis). He was wrong. Darwin was wrong about several things -- the mechanism of heredity is another -- which is why we don't teach "Darwinian" evolution. We've learned a good deal since 1859. If you think modern evolution is just what Darwin wrote you're more than a century out of date.

    I strongly suggest that Laura read the quotation from Tod Wood that I provided above. She's deep into the creationist trap that Wood identifies. Recall that Wood is a Biblical literalist, a young earth creationist, earned a Ph.D. from a secular university, and teaches at a fundamentalist Christian college. But he's at least honest about why he does not "believe" in evolution. It's purely on faith grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi District Supt. Harvey Burnett.

    Goodness me,theres a real party going on here when are the scones and sandwiches arriving for refreshment.I know our friend Feeno`s always keen.

    Thanks for the invite off DC https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=7184107630543699239 .A blog site you dont suggest you follow on your profile, yet seem to have followed a whole lot.

    Glad you found some folks to discuss these matters with.Like i had said i dont know enough about these things.But i do enjoy reading and learning.

    But i see you said ."Anonymous,

    I said in the section above this box:"Anonymous commentors please place your name or a handle within the comment if possible."

    You obviously must be afraid of the light???"

    I was thinking maybe some folks are not so much scared of the light,but more scared of possibilities of being demonized for their personal opinions.Maybe they are worried about somebody starting a specialized blog up aimed entirely at them for this purpose.Im talking about kinda like that blog you do admit following on your profile,where i once saw you had also posted atleast once.

    Coming into the light can be scary sometimes.Sometimes you get kicked for it.Faith believers understand persecution too,right?.

    Infact id say Darwin would maybe be kinda glad he`s passed on,specially if his heads up for the chop still even now for anything he might have got a bit wrong.Poor fellow,i havent yet read anywhere where he actually claimed to be guided by any holy spirit.

    But anyhow,glad to see after some discussion you afford him some grace.That religion had something to do with slavery mistreatment and dissasociation with ethnic classes and superiority over women as well.

    Before i read on through the comments, for awhile i was kinda wondering hold what came first the chicken or the egg?.Or am i missing something like Darwins thoughts came before those of the bible?.You really had me wondering for a moment or two,that maybe Darwin was the earliest messiah.

    Anyway i look forward to continuing reading your blog to see how the discussion pans out.

    Hope my comment goes through ok but i`ll keep a copy just incase i need to try again later.

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gandy,

    Welcome my friend...I will do MY BEST to NOT blast anyone that doesn't deserve it...I don't mind counter opinions and contrary to what RBH says the world doesn't stop with me and my thoughts (it may revolve around however-LOL-just kidding)

    Anyway, you know that I'll try to argue my positions as poignantly as possible but you also know I'm a Christian so as long as you can work with that we're good...

    You have my permission to put me in check IF I stray from my committment and for those reading, I'm not into castigation and I'm comfortable trying to allow alernate views as long as they are reasoned and not personal attacks...

    So thanks and let's talk this out because there is much to learn and everyone willbe the wiser IF we can have good and 'robust' convo-(I got that word from Obama-LOL)

    Anyway...I hope my friend Nightmare comes back to join us also, I'd like to hear his points as he seemd rational, but I probably did go somewhat ballistic on him previously...I'm coming out of that "funk"

    ReplyDelete
  35. Harv ...May i call you that?...Please dont go arresting me :) ...You are welcome to call me Gandy !! ..Infact call me what you wish ... Just as long as its not late for lunch! :) .

    Ahh my friend you and i we have the odd go here and there ..But i was honest when i talked about trying to see the best side of everyone rather than just looking at what we see as bad in each other (all the time)...And what i really like very much about you my friend is even though i might dislike some things you think ...

    What i love is your great sense of humor !.

    I agree my friend there is much we can still learn from each other.

    And i will simply say i dont think i will ever be able to dislike you for too long at a time.Because underneath everything i know you honestly mean well.

    With love and best wishes !

    ReplyDelete
  36. RBH,

    I'm sorry my friend, what you deliver as speciation is highly debated among scientists for this reason...what you render only appears to be variation and not a evidence of primary speciation.

    Let me give a definition here...the Rhagoletis pomonella that you reference went through what is called sympatric speciation by host plant shifts.

    Short of the long these buggas learned how to smell or something of the sort to identify their host...biologists still don't know what mechanism they use to distinguish the difference but observed that they do...

    The question is are they anything other than what they were? Did they change into something else or something new? Of course they do new things, but the answer to both previous questions is NO...they are still fruit flies...

    What happened? MICROevolution that we AGREE that occurs...did they add legs, wings, change in physical appearance to something else NO!

    This is what I call evolutionary "slight of hand" and this is what Trueorigin says about what you present:

    "Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution (“micro-evolution”), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

    Sorry my man but your best evidence doesn't quite fit the bill...

    I will agree for sake of argument that evolution occured, however we are WAY short of creating something new or radically transorming what was there into something completely new...That later is and was Darwin's premise and the premise of evolutionary scientists and it's not quite right.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I appreciate that Gandy, You haven't seen anything...I've got another friend who's an atheist and he and I have had some knock down drag outs, but he's real and stick to the bone, and like you, I may not like what he asserts at times, but he brings me into better focus (I'll say it like that)...his name is Dingodave and I may ask him to return again if he's got time...

    Like I said, don't be afraid to check me if you have to...I can get pretty caught up at times.

    Laura, is the one to watch out for though...she's a sleeper...when you think you've made a good argument, she'll blow it out of the water and send you packin'...she's harmless though, but watch out.-LOL

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now one thing among many, that I'm looking to discuss, is the difference between variation, mutation and evolution...

    Is there a definitive way to distinguish the difference between these?

    That's open to all, I'm taking notes because I believe have a good understanding of that is essential to the convo.

    ReplyDelete
  39. District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
    "Laura, is the one to watch out for though...she's a sleeper...when you think you've made a good argument, she'll blow it out of the water and send you packin'...she's harmless though, but watch out.-LOL"

    Harv thats something i dont like so much about preachers,they always like to scare the hell out of ya....And try ta spoil any fun.

    Here i was thinking man, who`s that sweet lookin chick i think im in love

    Now im worried ill have nightmares tonight.

    Do ya always gotta be so rough on us?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Burnett wrote Let me give a definition here...the Rhagoletis pomonella that you reference went through what is called sympatric speciation by host plant shifts.

    As a consequence of which a new variety, on its way to being a species, has appeared. There's research to show that the two varieties -- the haw variety and apple variety -- show mating preference for their own 'kind' -- apple flies prefer to mate with apple flies and haw flies with haw flies. There is research to show that there are host preferences, with the two kinds of flies preferring to lay eggs in their natal hosts. And there is evidence of genetic differences between the two races. The conclusion seems inescapable: the original population, hosted on haws, has budded off a subpopulation that is in the process of differentiating from the parent population. If the mating preferences and host preferences and genetic differences continue to accumulate, I have no doubt that in some generations we'll have two species of fruit flies.

    And yes, they're still flies. Every speciation results in two very similar species -- we can think of them as siblings. Over time, though, as both the fossil record and molecular data show, those species in turn give rise to new offspring species that are more different from their distant ancestors and their first and second and third cousin species, all of them considerably more varied than the original two sibling species.

    Burnett wrote Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information). (Bolding original)

    That's wrong. Evolution does not require progressive change; it requires only change. Some will be "progressive" in the sense above, some will not. Read Steven Jay Gould's Full House for an explanation of why there is a superficial appearance of progress, and why that appearance is illusory.

    And just as soon as Burnett provides an operational definition of "genetic information" I'll be happy to discuss it. We know processes that increase both Shannon information in genomes and algorithmic information (complexity). Polyploidy is one such mechanism, and it is known to have produced new species. But until Burnett tells us what "genetic information" actually is in operational terms that allow its measurement we're aground.

    Burnett went on

    I will agree for sake of argument that evolution occured, however we are WAY short of creating something new or radically transorming what was there into something completely new...That later is and was Darwin's premise and the premise of evolutionary scientists and it's not quite right.

    No, in fact that is not Darwin's "premise" nor is it the premise of current evolutionary scientists. Evolution is descent with modification, with the modification typically occurring in incremental steps through thousands of generations. The structures we see in current life forms are modified versions of earlier structures, and those in turn were modified versions of still earlier structures, all of which takes a great deal of time and a whole lot of generations.

    Nevertheless, there is evidence for the 'creation' of new structures. For example, there is a beautiful fossil series showing the transformation through a long series of modification of reptilian jaw bones into the three bones that transmit sound in mammalian ears. See here for an overview. In general new structures do not appear sudddenly in one fell swoop -- that's the creationist notion.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Burnett remarked Now one thing among many, that I'm looking to discuss, is the difference between variation, mutation and evolution...

    Here's a quick and dirty start off the top of my head:

    "Variation" is a quasi-statistical term that refers to the distribution of traits among members of a population, or the distribution of alleles across the population. It refers to the fact that the members of populations differ from one another in both morphological and genetic characteristics. In biological populations some of that variation is heritable; that is, offspring inherit traits, to a greater or lesser degree, from their parents via DNA transmitted in egg and sperm. Variability across individuals in a population is the raw material of evolution by natural selection.

    "Mutation" in modern biology refers to changes in the DNA transmitted from parent to offspring via egg and sperm. The replication process that produces the 23 (in humans) chromosomes from mother that are in an egg and the 23 chromosomes from father that are in a sperm is not perfect. So each of us carries on the order of 150 mutations -- random changes in the DNA we inherited from mother and father. Many mutations are neutral, in the sense that they don't affect the probability of survival and reproductive success in the offspring. Some are deleterious, in the sense that they reduce the probability that the offspring will survive and reproduce. A few are beneficial, in the sense that they raise the probability that the offspring will survive and reproduce.

    All three sorts -- neutral mutations, deleterious mutations, and beneficial mutations -- must be determined with reference to a given selective environment. A given mutation might be neutral in one selective environment, deleterious in another, and beneficial in a third. In general, "neutral," "deleterious," and "beneficial" are properties of the intersection of mutation and selective environment. They are not properties of mutations considered in isolation from some selective environment (except in the case of those that are lethal prior to reproductive age, of course).

    Mutations are one of the mechanisms that generate variability in populations (recombination is another), and that variability, as mentioned above, is the raw material of evolution by natural selection.

    I'll stop there, since if those concepts -- heritable variation and mutations -- are misunderstood then nothing beyond them will make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. But when someone like Carl Sagan who was believed to be one of the "smartest" people ever think a spaceship must have come down and dropped off all these animals instead of just giving God the credit makes one wonder their motives?

    This is the point though - youve mischaracterised what Sagan said, just as the OP mischaracterised what Dawkins said about aliens.

    You can only point out inconsistencies if you're willing to not dodge/avoid/ignore evidence. Behe's views on the bacterial flagellum, for example, have been consistently and comprehensively debunked, and yet he ignores the evidence and continues with the line of thought.

    Just for clarification of the OP: Dawkins did not suggest aliens seeding life here as a credible theory - his point was that, if it were true, then those aliens themselves would have had to evolved in some near-Darwinian way in order to be there in the first place. The overall point is that complexity is born out of simplicity - and God must be a very very complicated thing indeed to have achieved all that is claimed in the bible.

    Therefore it could be claimed that, if it were proven that life was seeded on this planet, that aliens (who would have evolved themselves) would be a much better and believable hypothesis than God (assuming that your definition of God doesnt include evolution from a simple beginning).

    My point is, if you want to argue for the sake of argument, that is one thing - but if you want your ideas to be taken seriously then mischaracterisation of ideas, ignoring evidence, special pleading etc will not get you there.

    ps. BTW, I was unable to login with my OpenID account - you should probably check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  43. When I read the zillionth "Darwinism is on its last legs" bit, I have to wonder why anybody would go to so much trouble just to be wrong. After all, there are very, very few things that human beings can be sure of, but the great antiquity of the earth, kinship of all living things, and the transmutation of species are among them.

    Cheer up. Nobody has any obligation to believe something just because it is true, so you can go on denying the reality of evolution as long as you like.

    ReplyDelete
  44. -The problem is that more and more scientists are realizing that the human genome and the universe and life in general is far too complex to simply have arisen by the process of time, environmental conditions and random chance as the "theory" of evolution holds. -

    Are they? That will be news to the people working in genetics. In fact it will be news to most scientists. Perhaps you can cite where this amazing piece of news came from.

    ReplyDelete
  45. -When combined with the fact that there is no modern archaeological evidence of any transitional form between humans, apes or chimps and their supposed common ancestor-

    ugh, helloooo, neanderthals. Also homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithecus...Exactly how many different human-like creatures must we dig up before you accept that the human animal didn't always look like we do today?

    ReplyDelete
  46. I'm also confused how an animal can change a bit (micro-evolution) but isn't allowed to change a lot (macro). What boundaries exist to stop an animal from changing even more? A cat is not a dog, yet it shares pretty much the same bone structure. How much do you really need to change to make for a new species? Not a lot apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm also confused how an animal can change a bit (micro-evolution) but isn't allowed to change a lot (macro). What boundaries exist to stop an animal from changing even more? A cat is not a dog, yet it shares pretty much the same bone structure. How much do you really need to change to make for a new species? Not a lot apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  48. -->Harvey
    In this blog you stated https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=7184107630543699239

    This

    LIE, it was good ole Darwinian evolution that had control of the law and any preferential treatment of men over women was promoted by IT, as they did with legislation on blacks. Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.

    Q1 What do you mean "Darwin Evolution" had control of the of the law regarding treament of men over women?
    What examples of legislation can you provide to reinforce this statement?


    Q2 Regarding property, blacks and cattle The slave trade started in North American around 1619 and Christians were the dominant religion of that time, the only way to get a slave is by purchasing them, wouldn't it be safe to safe Christians already have accepted Africans as purchasable goods? Darwin's book Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859 what sources do you have available to explain the connection?

    Thanks Jonathan.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Young Earth creationists are, he writes, "deluded to the point of perversity".

    Dawkins was being too nice. Creationists are the most stupid people in human history. They are a bunch of uneducated hicks, including the moron who owns this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dr. Phillip Johnson is a lawyer (and an idiot). He knows nothing about science.

    To the owner of this blog: grow up and educate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  51. From a previous comment:

    "I'm also confused how an animal can change a bit (micro-evolution) but isn't allowed to change a lot (macro)."

    According to uneducated Christian morons and Muslim terrorists, new species can't develop naturally, despite overwhelming evidence that this has happened repeatedly, because then their magic god fairy would never have had anything to do.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Name a species that has evolved?

    1. Broccoli
    2. Radishes
    3. American apple maggot
    4. Modern bovines (from the now-extinct aurochs)
    5. Grapefruit

    How many examples are asked for?

    ReplyDelete
  53. -Name a species that has evolved?-

    umm, all of them. It's kinda hard to stop it since it's a natural and obvious effect of a slightly unstable breeding process.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Pastor Harvey said "Laura, is the one to watch out for though...she's a sleeper...when you think you've made a good argument, she'll blow it out of the water and send you packin'...she's harmless though, but watch out.-LOL"

    That's right. I wouldn't hurt a mutated fly. (devil smiley)

    Gandy said "Here i was thinking man, who`s that sweet lookin chick i think im in love"

    (angel heart smiley)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Richard said "What boundaries exist to stop an animal from changing even more? A cat is not a dog, yet it shares pretty much the same bone structure. How much do you really need to change to make for a new species? Not a lot apparently."

    Evidentiary boundaries. Otherwise, you're just some guy on an island sitting on a rock making guesses.

    How many ape bones do they have to dig up? Just one - the one that links apes to man.

    They tried real hard with the horse/donkey/mule thing, but that didn't pan out as all male mules are infertile. After observing bone structure, successful mating with fertile offspring was the mainstay of dividing the species for years.

    So you would think that with the advances in microbiology and DNA mapping, there would have been an avalanche of evolutionary evidence. On the contrary, species that were formerly grouped and regarded as one species were discovered to be separate species.

    Couple that with the "species problem" in that science still can't decide on a concrete method to determine species because they are trying so hard to make evolution work, the whole thing starts to look like a big joke. That's why advocates for evolution point christians to websites like talkorigns to do the talking for them. Websites like those prey on people's ignorance.

    For instance - I'm sure you've heard the phrase "share a common ancestor" spouted like fact when speaking of different species. Well, the truth is, any guess about evolutionary relationships is just that - a guess.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ed Darrell said..."American Apple Maggot"

    In spite of the flashy headline, Science Daily reported this as to the so-called evolution of the apple and hawthorn maggots:

    There are no morphological differences between the two, so they are still the same species, but two races...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030923065326.htm#

    ReplyDelete
  57. -Evidentiary boundaries.-

    Huh? What does that even mean? Again. If all mammals share a very similar bone structure, organs, skin, hair etc...but are different species, why then is it so hard to go from one species to another through small changes over time? What is this apparent "block" that prevents it?

    -Couple that with the "species problem" in that science still can't decide on a concrete method to determine species because they are trying so hard to make evolution work-

    Wrong way round, it's BECAUSE of our inability to define species AS DISTINCT that made us stop believing in the "kinds" nonsense from the bible and realise that animal populations blend into each other. Evolution EXPLAINS why classification of species is so difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  58. A quick correction...

    "The author of several books, the most recent being "The God Delusion" in which he claimed that all Christians were deluded for believing in God."

    Actually if you'd read the book (have you?), you'd know that he was attacking ALL religion, not just Christianity.

    Why is it that Christians take things so personally? Why can't you accept that someone is lumping you in with all the other nasty cults out there? Dawkins did not single you out for special treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anony said "Again. If all mammals share a very similar bone structure, organs, skin, hair etc...but are different species, why then is it so hard to go from one species to another through small changes over time? What is this apparent "block" that prevents it?"

    Evidence. That's what I was saying. No evidence in the fossil record, no evidence of transition as one animal evolves into another, etc.

    If I cut my finger off, it would upset me terribly and I could hope and guess that it would grow back, but there's no evidence backing that. Evolution is like that - they want it so badly, they'll never stop hoping and guessing. Unfortunately for them, science and history are not on their side.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sorry TLB, I meant that post to you, not Anony.

    ReplyDelete
  61. To this Bobxxx IGNORAMOUS...

    Did that make you feel good? Did you get your tension out?...Probably had a big fat cigar after that one right?

    NOW, if you can't add something I mean ANYTHING that's even pertinent to the subject, you can exit the blog entirely...We won't be saddened AT ALL!

    Just don't get banned, because I'll be glad to...

    We've got some people who disagree fervently but also favorably and respectfully and that's the type of conversation we need...We DON'T need folk like you...

    You do make a good case for evolution though as you're unevolved for sure...as evidenced by your comments.

    Maybe that wasn't nice huh? Ooh well!

    ReplyDelete
  62. RBH,

    You said:That's wrong. Evolution does not require progressive change; it requires only change.

    That's what I've been able to identify here and identified in the article...evolution is change, I'll grant that, however those changes do not create new forms only variations within species...ie: those fruit flies are not pigs, cows or ducks. evolution holds that given the right amount of time and pressure they will be or could possibly be...I and most Christians reject that notion and THAT'S the notion that evolution fails to prove.

    There are far too many complexities to overcome along the way for that sort of evolutionary change to occur...Now deal with, the vast systematic changes that must occur at the molecular level BEFORE any sort of change along those lines can be.

    So, I'm sorry, but I'm still unconvinced in the least bit.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Harvey wrote: In other words, the lizards Dr. Jones observed continued to be lizards, they did not become ducks, geese, or pekingese swine, they remained lizards.

    Harvey,

    After reading this, I gave up reading your post.

    Evolution does not claim that lizards turn into pigs. You're using a mischaracterization of the theory in an attempt to discredit it.

    Why should I continue reading when you've either intentionally, or though lack of understanding, mischaracterized the theory?

    This would be as If I said "God does not turn everything I own into gold, therefore God does not exist." Clearly, this would be a mischaracterization of theism that has no real impact.

    So, why should I take this as anything more than a desperate attempt to discredit a scientific theory that conflicts with your religious beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Jonathan,

    Thanks for bearign along with me and my slow responses here, but I think I've made the answers to your questions clear. This is what you asked:

    Q1 What do you mean "Darwin Evolution" had control of the of the law regarding treament of men over women?

    There was a book written some time ago by the late David Breese called 7 Men Who Rule The World From The Grave here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Men-Rule-World-Grave/dp/0802484484#noop

    ...Darwin is one of those men.

    His concepts set the stage for many actions that exist today. Once does NOT have to point to anyting that has been legislated to know that it had it's effect. It shows your literalist interpretation of fact to require that a law correspond with actions...look at the evidence...racism was prevalent, there were many factors and the teaching against mixing races and sub classes was a part of the opposition against desegregation...this was Darwinism. and what he wrote about people such as myself called "Zambos" did you read the article?

    You asked: What examples of legislation can you provide to reinforce this statement? and Darwin's book Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859 what sources do you have available to explain the connection?

    As you MUST belive I only play to sympathy and obviously know little of real Americal history, read this as it's not written by me but it's what I and most black people in the USA from my generation already know:

    "The Grandfather Clause 1898-1915 was enacted by seven southern states during and after the reconstruction era to prevent freedmen from voting. The clause, designed to negate the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which allowed black men to vote, significantly reduced African American political participation well into the 20th Century. Starting in Louisiana in 1898 and working its way into laws and constitutions in seven other states by 1910, the Grandfather Clause stated that all men or lineal descendants of men who were voters before 1867 did not have to meet the educational, property, or tax requirements for voting then in existence. This effectively allowed all white males to vote while denying the franchise to black men and other men of color. The Grandfather Clause, with its voting denial, became the centerpiece of a much larger system of discrimination and racial segregation.

    The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), newly formed in 1909, mounted the first legal challenge to the Grandfather Clause. It filed suit in Guinn v. United States, a case which reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1915. The Court ruled that Grandfather Clauses in Maryland and Oklahoma were null and void because they violated the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/grandfather-clause-1898-1915

    End pt. 1

    ReplyDelete
  65. Pt. 2 (cont)

    Jonathan,

    Now one can say this was simply and extension of slavery etc...NO it was an extension of Darwinian evolutionary thought that was still in the minds of many EVEN IF they rejected evolution as a premise against the bible.

    You act as if you've been living in a vaacum...I find it hard to se what you want other than a history lesson on African-American history...

    Were Christians to blame? YES for not knowing the bible, but far and large liberation was LED and ENJOINED by white Christians...This is where the term called "Campmeeting" came from...Whites who decided that laws and customs (supported by evolutionary thought) was not going to keep them from worshipping Jesus together.

    There were places in the South in particular in which the blacks and whites had to sit in seperate sections in church or the POLICE would seperate them and take them out of the churches...

    Don't ask me or puch this anymore as it really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Darwins words mean what he said they mean and those are facts that he thought evolution was to deal with.

    An interesting thing is that Darwin also called for either separation from blacks or repairations to blacks to avoid, "divine judgement"...Now THAT'S interesting.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Scott,

    I reciprocated the sentiment when I read this:

    Evolution does not claim that lizards turn into pigs. You're using a mischaracterization of the theory in an attempt to discredit it.

    FALSE...evolution claims that random mutations, time and environmental pressure create NEW things not just variations...Whether it's pigs or not is aside from the point...Why look for a "crossover" or a "transitional" in the fossil record IF that's NOT what youm expect to find?

    You don't want evolution to say that but IT DOES, The process is MICROevolutionary changes that add up and accumulate over time to something totally new and or different.

    Humans are totally differnt than chimps and apes but evolution says they came from a common ancestor because they have a 95% DNA similarity...read this and see how close it is:

    Scott is a good looking god.

    Scott is a good looking dog.

    What percentage of these letters are the SAME Scott? Actually 100%...What percentage of these letters are out of order? only 14%

    How close is the meaning of these two sentences?...Not even close. They mean two entirely different things.

    Evolution claims that differences share the same root and man and animals are connected...what that is, is a sort of Panentheism of science...That's the teaching of universal connectedness that exists in Darwinism.

    Darwinism is clearly a religious pronouncement based on naturalism. It's chiefest proponents handle it that way. You can't try to redefine it and say that it doesn't believe that the offspring of fish ultimately over time, and through genetic mutations turn into astronauts...I correctly represent Darwinism and what modern evolution believes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Thanks "District Supt. Harvey Burnett" for the info I will respond later, but in the mean time..

    Hit and run links

    Southern Baptists Apologize For Slavery Stance
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112329862


    If the SBC had to apologize for its stance of promotion of slavery it did it without Darwin and evolution. the SBC used the bible to support its position on slavery and its racisam against Black Americans.

    What about this?

    Loving v. Virginia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    The trail judge Leon Bazile repeating Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's statement on race...

    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

    Regarding Blacks as property lets try the...
    The Zong massacre in 1781 where they tossed there "Cargo" of sick Africans off the ship into the sea to drown in order to collect the insurance money. The crew was charged with insurance fraud and not murder.

    And lets not forget about Dred Scott in 1858. Again Christians thought of their salves as property like cattle.

    Remember in 1860 "Origin of Species" was published in Great Briton what was going on from 1861 to 1865 in the USA, the Civil war.

    Q Between 1859 and 1865 can you give a accounting of how many copies of the "origin of species" were published in the USA?
    The books there were published who read them? How long would it take to disseminate Darwin's work in mainstream America during this time? Can you even tell me the best selling books during the Civil war, I bet it wasn't "origins of species".

    Philadelphia convention of 1787
    where 3/5 of of the slave population of slaves states regarding taxes and representatives in the house.

    Again is another example of the treatment of Blacks during Colonial America. No Darwin or evolution.

    Origins of species sold in Great Briton
    1st ed 01/07/1860 4250 copies sold

    Quickly in regarding to point out this book "7 Men Who Rule The World From The Grave "

    Come on give me a break, this is someones opinion. His choice of people are no better than someone else's If Darwin himself picked 7 people, so what! Again it would just a opinion. but thanks anyway.

    The article you mention, I didn't read it I am not sure which article you mean in all honestly.

    During the 1860's the American Civil war, people didn't need Darwin to be racist, they already were. I have never heard anyone historically make the excuse why they were racists because of evolution or Darwin.

    Thanks for your time

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi good morning Laura you said ,"They tried real hard with the horse/donkey/mule thing, but that didn't pan out as all male mules are infertile. After observing bone structure, successful mating with fertile offspring was the mainstay of dividing the species for years."

    Its all very interesting to read about what happens and doesnt happen anyway,and you might like to read through this artical a little http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-equines.htm

    It doesnt seem to suggest all of these crossbreds are always unable to keep breeding.It seems to suggest sometimes it can actually happen.

    I thought the first paragraph under the heading FERTILE MULES AND HULES ,was interesting about the superstition bit.

    What i find interesting is though many/most of these things come about by human breeding programs,there has also been times when it has been all about chance.And i dont find it impossible to understand how situations could come about in the wild where the very same things could quite easily occur.

    I dont really begrudge faithful folks their faith beliefs, although personally i have experienced how very dangerious these faith beliefs can sometimes be when folks reading books translate a need to treat people worse than their animals (for instance) because supposedly some god said so.And im far from alone in this experience.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi TLB you said .."Wrong way round, it's BECAUSE of our inability to define species AS DISTINCT that made us stop believing in the "kinds" nonsense from the bible and realise that animal populations blend into each other. Evolution EXPLAINS why classification of species is so difficult."

    I still like many faithful folks and have some as friends,usually its the more libral ones that can handle my cheek better.Those who dont simply totally excommunicate away from me to spend time in prayer for my quick painful demise.Simply because you are not faithful like them.

    But i have to agree with you TLB.

    If i didnt agree with you, i might have to think we must have real need to quickly rename the bird Dodo to the Dumb dumb.

    And one would be wondering why god would create a bird with wings that it never ever used.Hence the need for the new name of Dumb dumb

    ReplyDelete
  70. One of the frustrating things about discussing evolution with committed creationists is the "Gish Gallop" style of argumentation they engage in. They throw out a slew of claims, one after the other, never pausing to discuss one in sufficient detail and breadth to get a good handle on it.

    So I'd like to return to a claim Burnett made earlier in this thread:

    Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

    I asked for an operational definition of "genetic information":

    And just as soon as Burnett provides an operational definition of "genetic information" I'll be happy to discuss it. We know processes that increase both Shannon information in genomes and algorithmic information (complexity). Polyploidy is one such mechanism, and it is known to have produced new species. But until Burnett tells us what "genetic information" actually is in operational terms that allow its measurement we're aground.

    So once again, what is an operational definition of "genetic information" that allows us to assess that "quantity and quality" that Burnett claims is necessary. If I go into my lab, or into the field, or build a math or computer model, how do I specify "genetic information" in a way that allows me to measure whether its "quantity and quality" have increased, decreased, or stayed the same? How can I do research on "genetic information" in Burnett's meaning?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Morning Harvey ...Ahhh i do love to wake up to discuss things with folks,who i can see still retain their humor even in times when they might feel a little angry.

    Like ive already said im no expert on this evolution issue myself,and so im glad you started this thread even though you seemed to give poor old Darwin a swift smack around the ear with a large base ball bat in the process .Dont think it will give him much of a headache where he is now anyway.
    But im enjoying reading what everyones saying here cause i want to learn more about it.

    Harv you and maybe even Laura seem to be telling us you are very sure evolution is supposedly also thought to cause very dramatic change,such as cows turning into pigs or humans into flying fish and suchlike.

    I think thats what others here seem to be trying to say to remind you,that this is not really what is meant by whats called macro evolution.

    Can you or Laura please find us some info to prove that scientists or Darwin really actually thought Humans would ever be very likely to turn into flying fish or something with this macro evo.

    The thing is as far as i know they are only really talking about possibilities of macro evo happening over long long periods of time between monkey type animals and humans who are known as Homo sapiens and bipedal primates.

    For instance its easy to see very big differences between humans and blinking flying fish,i mean that seems like a real slam dunk for sure doesnt it.

    But is it totally (honest) to be suggesting this is what Darwin etc are talking about?,if it is please provide good evidence because i think thats whats upsetting some folks a little here.Without evidence provided it also seems to me to be slightly deceitful.

    The simularity between us and some other bipedal primates is quite remarkable maybe you would even agree?,when considering how we can see them doing stuff they do.Like walking on two legs and caring for each others children and grooming and learning how to use new tools and coming up with new ideas like swimming in hot water pools to keep warm etc.The list of simularities is most likely vast.

    And another thing this macro evo we have to remember dont we,that its not exactly something we will be able to see in a life time or even a few life times ...Its about a very long process of thousands or even millions of years thats whats meant by macro evo isnt it?.

    ReplyDelete
  72. RBH,

    I'll answer another question that you didn't ask in addition to the one you did. Here's the contrast of what's called "genetic information" or the information contained within DNA itself.

    Evolutionists believe that information came out of nowhere...suddenly appeared or at the least came in coordination with the beginning of the universe. In an interview with the highly credentialed Dr. David Deamer Professor of Biomolecular Engineering and Research Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, Santa Cruz He stated the following:


    Suzan Mazur: What do you think the origin of the gene is?

    David Deamer: I think genetic information more or less came out of nowhere by chance assemblages of short polymers. We don’t know that these polymers were exactly like RNA and DNA of contemporary life, but in the laboratory we use those polymers as experimental model systems.

    Most people are open to the possibility that there are simpler molecules that we haven’t discovered yet that could contain what we now call genetic information. There may also have been specific sequences of monomers within a polymer that happened to allow it to fold into a catalytically active molecule. One idea is that RNA could have acted both as a catalyst and as a genetic molecule, so that at one stage in evolution life existed in an RNA World.

    Suzan Mazur: So you see the line between life and non-life as being arbitrary?

    David Deamer: Yes. There was probably an extensive mixing of genetic information at that time, as Carl Woese and others have suggested. This means that there was no tree of life at that time, instead just countless numbers of microscopic experiments occurring everywhere as the first catalysts and genes learned to work together in cellular compartments.

    The Dr. believes that information necessary for the establishment of all life was simply mixing in some quasi-mixed and shaken together form and advanced somehow to what we see and experience as life. he believes that simple gives rise to the complex etc.

    The whole premise of this artice is exactly the opposite. there is no reason to believe that 1- there was any information floating around in a disorganized fashion that came together in an undirected manner to create the process of natural selection and evolution...to believe so is a faith statement certainly not science.

    But thinking of what he says kinda shoots his whole premise in the foot. He ADMITS information existed from which genetic information was put together.

    So if your inquiry was based on my statement of "genetic information" being unusual, I think that terminology is well understood in the evolutionary realm of terms.

    Here's more of that interview and a further comment.

    Suzan Mazur: Then does life have a beginning or is it just part of a process inherent to the universe?

    David Deamer: It’s part of a process.

    Suzan Mazur: Evolution starts when the universe is born?

    David Deamer: It depends on what you want to call evolution. The universe is over 13 billion years old, but life originated on the Earth around 4 billion years ago. Biological evolution began with the transmission of genetic information between generations, and selective processes acting on variations within microbial populations.

    This answers why creationists and religious folk such as myself are so interested in this argument entire argument. Not only does evolution establish itself as a process whereby life proliferates itself on the earth it also establishes itslef as a universal worldview and overarching premise of all life. So any link between CREATION and evolution is a natural placement or positioning of evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You may want to bother to keep in mind that the theory of evolution doesn't talk about how life started. It only describes what happened after life started. The scientific theory that explains how life began is the theory of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution. So once again, Burnett, you are caught being woefully ignorant.

    And you may want to learn that there is a difference between something not mentioning God one way or the other and that something saying God doesn't exist. Science is not meant to be the crutch of your religious beliefs or anyone elses.

    But tell me...if you don't accept evolution then explain exactly how we share 95+% of the same genetic structure as the chimpanzees?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Jonathon said "I have never heard anyone historically make the excuse why they were racists because of evolution or Darwin."

    I agree that evolution was a convenient excuse for any man looking to bolster his race's supremacy. In Ben Steins movie Expelled, he tries to connect the dots that Darwin's theory helped Hitler come to the same conclusions about the Jews, leading to the holocaust.

    The point being, if someone was looking for a reason to treat their fellow man as sub-human, evolution was a convenient excuse. With the invention of the rotary press in 1843, it wouldn't have been necessary to have the book in hand, as most people got their information from newspapers. It would be interesting to look at those old accounts of Darwins new theory.

    A side note - John Newton, the writer of our hymn "Amazing Grace" continued in the slave trade business for a couple years after his dramatic conversion on the high seas (another example of morality through conviction of the Holy Spirit indwelling us) before becoming a preacher.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Gandy said "What i find interesting is though many/most of these things come about by human breeding programs,there has also been times when it has been all about chance.And i dont find it impossible to understand how situations could come about in the wild where the very same things could quite easily occur."

    But see...there is no evidence that these things occur, and the laws of nature have taught us that even if you can successfully mate a horse with a donkey to achieve an offspring mule, the males will always be infertile so there can be no self-populating new species.

    We can speculate all we want about what could possibly happen, but science requires evidence, and that's why evolution remains just a theory.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ah, yes. Deamer and Mazur. Another favorite quote mine of creationists.

    For the record, that interview is here. I suggest that Burnett read all of it, rather than the snippets published on creationist sites. For example, there's this:

    Deamer: No one denies the factual basis of evolution, but we are still learning how evolution takes place, particularly in animal and plant populations in ecosystems.

    I have debated creationists and intelligent design people in public forums, and my impression is that they are not looking for scientific truth. Instead they are working to advance their political aim, which is to get Christian fundamentalism taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution.


    and

    Deamer: No matter what we do, the creationists are going to focus on things we don’t know and forget about all the things we do know. I’m not sure there is any fundamental disagreement among scientists about the basic facts of evolution.

    And again I note there's no operational definition of "genetic information" such that one could do research to test Burnett's claim that "quantity and quality" increase. I still don't know how I'd measure it in the lab or in the field. Deamer is using the term informally, colloquially.

    Deamer is right, though: the organic molecules that are basic constituents of life do form by "chance" in the sense that ordinary chemical reactions under a variety of conditions produce them. We even see organic molecules in space, 141 "biologically relevant" molecules so far. Of course, we don't know all the steps between those organic molecules and a self-replicating molecule with heritable variation, the necessary condition for evolution to occur, but we're on the road to it.

    And Deamer goes on:

    Deamer: On the other hand, I consider it to be very plausible that the organic compounds required for life to begin on the Earth were delivered to the Earth by comets and meteorites during late accretion, and that synthetic reactions were producing complex organic molecules in the early Earth environment. I think life most likely began on the Earth by a self-assembly process in which moderately complex chemicals self-assembled into vast numbers of microscopic encapsulated systems. By a yet unknown process, a very few of these happened to be able to capture energy and nutrients from the environment and began to grow by polymerization reactions. There is much more to the story, but this is my guess about how life began.

    We know comets and meteors have organics, and they date back to the formation of the solar system. It's plausible that they were a source of organic chemicals on earth.

    The net is that Deamer, operating at the edge of what we know, is constructing plausible hypotheses that are testable. And people are testing them in laboratories. Whether they'll pan out isn't known, but there's good research going on.

    Burnett wrote

    But thinking of what he says kinda shoots his whole premise in the foot. He ADMITS information existed from which genetic information was put together.

    What he "admits" is that chemistry exists and that ordinary chemical reactions produce organic molecules that are implicated in the origin of replicating molecules that are capable of evolution. He also "admits" that there are self-organizing processes in chemical systems that can generate more complex systems out of simpler systems, and that's very easy to demonstrate in the lab. So his "admission" is essentially that we know about some of the processes that could generate "genetic information" if the latter is taken to mean "structured systems that can evolve by natural selection."

    ReplyDelete
  77. Gandy.."I dont really begrudge faithful folks their faith beliefs, although personally i have experienced how very dangerious these faith beliefs can sometimes be when folks reading books translate a need to treat people worse than their animals (for instance) because supposedly some god said so.And im far from alone in this experience."

    Now you're talking religion, and I don't do religion. I hope you aren't using this as an excuse to keep from seeking the salvation of Jesus. That would truly be a shame, and such a Great loss for you.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Laura wrote We can speculate all we want about what could possibly happen, but science requires evidence, and that's why evolution remains just a theory.

    "Just a theory." Man, it's discouraging. Here from the National Academy of Science is what a "theory" is in science:

    A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

    Yup. "Just a theory." Like the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric theory of the solar system. They're "just theories" too, Laura.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Gandy,

    Thanks my friend, and I understand where you're coming from. The whole concept of Darwinian evolution is that we all come from a common root. That common root is similar to the base of a tree. From there we all split, seperated etc into the forms that we are now.

    I understand your thought is saying that once those branches are spread that they don't grow back together and i hope that evolutionists agree with that also.

    But it appears that they don't and at least the proponents of the argument today don't either.

    So far as Darwin's thoughts on this issue here are some:

    "If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then as man agrees with them, not only in all those characters which he possesses in common with the whole Catarhine group, but in other peculiar characters, such as the absence of a tail and of callosities and in general appearance, we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. It is not probable that a member of one of the other lower sub-groups should, through the law of analogous variation, have given rise to a man-like creature, resembling the higher anthropomorphous apes in so many respects. No doubt man, in comparison with most of his allies, has undergone an extraordinary amount of modification, chiefly in consequence of his greatly developed brain and erect position; nevertheless we should bear in mind that he "is but one of several exceptional forms of Primates."" Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition.[referencing Mr. St. G. Mivart, 'Transact. Phil. Soc.' 1867, p. 410.]

    We know that phrase would mean give rise to instead of giving actual physical birth althout that meaning may not be excluded...

    I won't beat a dead horse...unless it's Mine That Bird! (I wanted that horse to win soooo bad) ANYWAY, here's another,

    "The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers; for instance by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Büchner, Rolle, &c.,1 and especially by Häckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work, 'Generelle Morphologie' (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edit. in 1870), published his 'Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man.~Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition.pgs.3-4

    I think to say that Darwin didn't think or teach that man came about through what we call lower species is redefining Darwin to be more palatable to general society. In addition those who promote this brand of evolutionary theory follow in the same modus unless they disavow the basis of his teaching...the ONLY way to do that would be to say that life began another way and that leads back to religion (Christianity in my view) as being the only viable explaination.

    In short Darwin's beliefs can't be simply washed out or glossed over no matter how people think Christians and religious folk don't understand him or evolutionary theory...I believe we do.

    ReplyDelete
  80. James,

    Did you even read the post right above your comment? that is from a top EVOLUTIONIST which says that evolution can't be separated from creation or the beginning of man...

    I know what the theory set forth and I explain that in my article so I see you DIDN'T read BEFORE you try to call me ignorant...since I LIKE you I'll let you slide but I do have a Reader Rabbit CD i can offer you for a smooooth and super cool low price of $29.99 PLUS S&H of only $20.99...

    I order the spelling CD and kool ta em I'm goind ustj fyne!!!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Pastor Harvey said "This answers why creationists and religious folk such as myself are so interested in this argument entire argument. Not only does evolution establish itself as a process whereby life proliferates itself on the earth it also establishes itslef as a universal worldview and overarching premise of all life. So any link between CREATION and evolution is a natural placement or positioning of evolutionary theory."

    Yep! There it is in a nutshell, thank you. Evolution in man's attempt to disprove God, the Creator of all things in heaven and on earth.

    Let's not forget that Darwins theory is only part of the evolution theory - there is more evidence that life was "planted" and then so-called evolved. You don't have to believe that we came from some primal ooze to be a member of the evolution religion. They got a little somethin' for everyone, except evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  82. RBH said "'Just a theory'." Man, it's discouraging.

    I'm sure it is. :-)
    In 160 years, the evidence mounts against the theory of evolution, yet it's taught in our schools as fact to young minds, unquestioning of the teacher's authority. THAT'S discouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  83. RHB, a quick grab from Wikipedia - if you don't agree, let me know:

    Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation.

    Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Laura, your commitment to being fractally wrong is breath-taking :)

    ReplyDelete
  85. Laura said: "In 160 years, the evidence mounts against the theory of evolution"

    This is provably false.

    The evidence FOR evolution grows by the week including new fossils filling in previous gaps, genetics, embryology, etc.

    Speaking of your claim of "no transitionals" (which has been refuted so many times, most creationists don't debate it anymore except maybe amongst themselves), have you read about the incredibly complete record of whales? If so, what do you think is missing there specifically?

    Have you read about Lenski's continuous experiments over the past 20 years on E. coli? If so, why do you think that doesn't provide support for evolution?

    Laura, how about some specifics instead of old generalizations?

    scott

    ReplyDelete
  86. Laura said.."Now you're talking religion, and I don't do religion. I hope you aren't using this as an excuse to keep from seeking the salvation of Jesus. That would truly be a shame, and such a Great loss for you."

    No not looking to excuse anything,just see no reason to have faith in any of the many god/s.Feel i personally see very little if any evidence of gods work on this planet and plenty of evidence of the absence of god/s even when observing how his supposed followers show little positive effect and plenty of negative effect. Have nothing against Jesus never me the man in person,dont believe in resurections but know the world is still full of modern day phophets even today.

    :-) You not religious Laura well thats good news,i feel a little easier now!kinda relieved a little after our friend Harvey tried to put the fear of god up me yesturday by telling us look out! Laura will sort you lot out pretty quick.Why for a moment i thought ohh no! now ive gone and done it,those folks will be having a church meeting right now deciding how best to deal to the devil in Gandy.

    My skins already got widespread callouses from getting belted with hard version bibles,and large whipping shunning sticks a plenty.

    But like ive said i still like honest kind people of faith,specially the understanding kind.And as far as belief or non belief of god/s well for the moment atleast im probably only a agnostic/atheist

    I understand you feel there is little real evidence available for this evo thing,and im not here to try and convince you or anybody really.Im just interested.

    Hey what do you think of this..I know i know, i cant offer you a breeding pair for your own back yard.And this is (only) wiki,but for interest sake maybe take a peak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid

    ReplyDelete
  87. I prefer the National Academies of Science to Wikipedia.

    Once again, how do you feel about the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric theory of the structure of the solar system, Laura?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Harvey wrote: FALSE...evolution claims that random mutations, time and environmental pressure create NEW things not just variations...Whether it's pigs or not is aside from the point…

    A pig is a species that already exists. We do not expect one existing species to evolve into another existing species. Yet this is the goal you've set that must be reached for evolution to be true.

    It's a clear mischaracterization, which indicates either…

    A. You're unintentionally repeating bad arguments which other people have fed you…

    B. You're intentionally repeating bad arguments because your only other option is to accept that evolution is true, which threatens your particular religious beliefs.

    Again, why should I even continue with your comment when it's clear you do not have a grasp of the theory of evolution?

    Why look for a "crossover" or a "transitional" in the fossil record IF that's NOT what youm expect to find?

    Again, this is NOT what evolution states. Nor does it suggest we should find a crockaduck or a octapanther. These are not NEW things. They are more mischaracterizations.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Scott,

    Then please summarily characterize evolution for us.

    Like a good arm-chair quarterback you sem to know how everything "should" go but you failto tell us the gospel of evolution at least according to your understanding...

    2 parts

    1- the origin of man

    2- the future of the human race

    In evolutionary terms of course.

    ReplyDelete
  90. RBH,

    Aside for the fact that the national academy website definitions are the most scrubbed and diluted evolutionary definitions I've ever seen, they at least managed to get one thing right...the definition of genetic information that you questioned me about it's called DNA once again...Maybe you'd like their definition:

    DNA:
    Deoxyribonucleic acid. A large biological molecule composed of subunits known as nucleotides strung together in long chains. The sequences of these nucleotides contain the information that cells need in order to grow, to divide into daughter cells, and to manufacture new proteins. Changes in DNA result in mutations, which may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious to the organism. If these changes occur to DNA in sperm or egg cells, they could be passed onto the next generation.

    Now it's interesting that evolutionists would try to minimize DNA as is done especially since Dr. Meyer's argument, because that's the SEAT of the mutations that are essential for Darwinistic evolution to occur...If there are no "random' mutations, then there can be NO evolutionary process, at least according to evolutionists.

    That's interesting...what say ye regarding these things?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Gandy, I really appreciate that you are searching for evidence. I have to say, that's more than any pro-evo I've spoken to has done.

    I get so tired of those same 'ol sites that try to lead you like sheep with a hook in their nose.
    And I'm sure they feel the same way about Creationism and Intelligent design sites, to be fair. Sites like talkorgins (to use the religious term) are apologetics sites, which would be fine if they were truthful, which they aren't.

    As to your Bible beatings, I'm sorry to hear that. It's my opinion that some christians go through life never grasping the full meaning of Grace, and just exactly what Christ did for us on that Cross; that even at our very best, living as near-perfect as we can, we bring nothing to the table as far as God is concerned. It's all Jesus.

    Gonna go check out that link you posted.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oh, and inspite of my lack of religion, many times I've been called a "thumper" for simply sharing the Message.

    I thought the atheist Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller fame said well what is in the heart of most christians, and a burden some of us carry:

    "If you believe that there's a Heaven and Hell and that people could be going there...
    how much do you have to hate somebody to NOT tell them?"

    ReplyDelete
  93. Gandy, I'm not sure what you're showing me in that link to Panthera hybrids. It looks like more of the horse/donkey/mule experiments, only done with lions, tigers, jaguars and leopards.

    In order for these hyprids to become a distinct species, the hybrid would have to be able to mate successfully with another hybrid, but the laws of nature being what they are won't allow this because of the odd number of chromosomes that prevent a successful pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  94. RBH said "Once again, how do you feel about the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric theory of the structure of the solar system, Laura?"

    Don't mean to answer with a question, but what if science determined tomorrow that the germ theory was wrong all this time? Not that I believe this will be the case, but for example, it hasn't been that long since science was sure the atom was the smallest particle and that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity.

    The germ theory is not confusing and misleading young, impressionable minds in our schools, and I'd have to read up on the heliocentric theory to answer in any intelligent way on that one.

    What do you think about the scientific theory that the universe is dying, and how do you equate this to evolution, which supposedly is speeding up?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Back by invitation, but short on time at the moment due to personal and family issues. Thusly, I just gave this article a quick once over and (though I'd like to delve further into point 3 since it is a matter of interest) I must say that this doesn't seem much different than most other Christian's arguments against evolution (relying mainly on a false dichotomy between "micro" and "macro" evolution, and on claims that such complexity requires design).

    The main point could easily be boiled down into this sentence:

    "The question is where does all this code come from? Secondly how and who ordered the code? Random chance and time as evolution and naturalism claims? Hardly. To think so is pure fantasy."

    The problem here Harvey is, yet again, you lack proof. You claim random chance and time cannot account for the species of life we see today and decry any other view as fantasy BUT you provide no solid reason (ie a reason that could not be easily debunked) for that conclusion. Nor do you give us any reason as why your preferred explanation (ie creationism) is any less of a fantasy than you decry evolution as. In short, you have simply made a statement and expect us to take your word for it (again, as you did with your so-called "discoveries" at the end of our last discussion).

    The real issue here, of course, has nothing to do with evolution. What this debate (both on this article and in society at large) is truly all about is defending Christian dogma against demonstrable fact, by any means necessary. And so we go round.

    I may be back in a few days, once things settle down, but for now ta ta.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Laura said...
    "It's my opinion that some christians go through life never grasping the full meaning of Grace, and just exactly what Christ did for us on that Cross; that even at our very best, living as near-perfect as we can, we bring nothing to the table as far as God is concerned. It's all Jesus."

    Just noticed and thought I'd comment. This is, of course, an excellent excuse for inactivity - after all, if Jesus is going to do everything, why bother doing anything? Been there, done that.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Nightmare!
    I never thought I would be happy to see a satanic star, but when I saw yours, my heart jumped. :-)
    Hope all is well and you are happy.

    "What this debate (both on this article and in society at large) is truly all about is defending Christian dogma..."

    As opposed to defending evolution dogma? You can't point a finger without three pointing back at 'cha.

    Good to see you. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  98. Harvey and Laura,

    I have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford; my wife’s Ph.D. is in biology. I’ve helped her with some of her research relating to evolution; I’m also well-acquainted with a good deal of evidence in physics (radiometric dating, the evidence for the Big Bang being over ten billion years ago, etc.) relevant to evolution.

    You seem to think that you are going to get serious scientists to debate you over evolution.

    I think you will be disappointed.

    Would you expect a mathematician to debate you over the truth of the Hahn-Banach theorem?

    I doubt either of you know what that theorem states, and, while you can learn the statement of the theorem from Wikipedia, I very much doubt that you have the background to really understand what the theorem means, much less its proof.

    With all due respect, most of us who are actual Ph.D. scientists view you critics of evolution in the same light. It takes years to learn all of the relevant science. It is quite clear, from what you have posted here, that neither of you knows that science.

    Not a crime – no one can know everything.

    However, those of us who are real scientists tend to take the attitude that folks like you can either go to the trouble to truly learn science, or…

    Well, we cannot very well give you a solid scientific education in comment threads on your blog, now can we?

    Science is not a high-school debate in which you get twenty minutes or a thousand words to make your case, and whoever does the best job of zinging the other guy wins.

    I do not wish to be rude, but the fact is we really know this stuff, as a result of many, many years of very detailed study and very hard work, and you really, really don’t.

    And you clearly do not want to learn from us; you merely wish to show that, for some reason, your very meager knowledge of science trumps our vastly greater knowledge of science.

    You are free to express your opinions.

    But you are going to find almost no scientists who take your opinions seriously and almost no scientists who are willing to seriously debate you once they find out where you are coming from.

    Oh, and I agree with you that the implications of modern science are indeed elitist, anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic, etc. To tell you the truth, that was part of what attracted me to science in the first place – that it makes so clear that human beings are not equal.

    Yes, as science sweeps away the remnants of Christianity (Christianity is nearly dead in most countries in Europe, for example), that most surely will also erode support for Christian ethics. Fine by me – I’ve never believed in that “turn-the-other-cheek” stuff either.

    David Miller, Ph.D. in Sacramento

    ReplyDelete
  99. Laura wrote:
    >What do you think about the scientific theory that the universe is dying, and how do you equate this to evolution, which supposedly is speeding up?

    Laura, this is an example of the point I made in my previous post.

    The increase in entropy of the universe (the universe “dying” as you put it) is precisely what makes evolution (and indeed life itself) possible. I know this seems weird to people who do not know science.

    Well… it does not seem weird to anyone who has fully understood an introductory course on statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, where you actually learn the scientific details about such things.

    Why can’t I explain this to you in a thousand words in this comment thread?

    For the same reason, I cannot prove the Hahn-Banach theorem to you in this thread.

    I’m sorry, but some things really take hard work.

    But, if you ever do bother to learn thermo and stat mech, you will find, to your surprise, that what I have said is correct.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    ReplyDelete
  100. Nightmare said "This is, of course, an excellent excuse for inactivity - after all, if Jesus is going to do everything, why bother doing anything? Been there, done that."

    Yes, I've heard that before on an online religious forum. It seems logical, but (keeping with theme of this discussion) I see no evidence of that in real life.

    Perhaps a new believer who reads Romans 8, then shuts his Bible never to read again would be more suited to that description. Have they grasped the full meaning of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and Grace? No, but they may be more free to go onto a deep relationship with our Creator than most who continue in bondage.

    So I would guess that with the free and deep relationship with God, he would eventually return to His Word to fill in the missing pieces and not have lived half his life in self-condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hi Dave! "Why can’t I explain this to you in a thousand words in this comment thread?"

    That's not necessary, don't worry!
    Please just name one species that has been proven to have evolved into another species.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Laura wrote to me:
    >Please just name one species that has been proven to have evolved into another species.

    Sorry, Laura. I’ve played this game before on the Web: I know well how it goes. It’s a sucker’s game.

    If I give examples of such species, you will argue about whether they *really* count as separate species, what the *real* meaning of the word species is, whether the evidence for their having evolved from each other is *real* evidence, etc.

    I’ve been through this, and observed this, oh so many times before.

    If you really are sincere in checking this out, here’s a hint: polyploidy.

    But, no, I will not debate this with you.

    What interests me about you, Harv, et al. is how radically different your way of thinking is from how good scientists think. I’m not just talking evolutionary biology here, but also my own field of physics.

    The way you folks argue, what you think of as really strong “logical” points, etc. …. well, let me just say politely that you live in a very different cultural milieu than that of either physics or biology.

    And, yes, I know you will take this as an admission that I cannot successfully debate you and Harvey. That is absolutely correct. I can’t – no more than a mathematician can successfully debate you on the Hahn-Banach theorem.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  103. Someone asked for an example of evolution, and I posted several. Laura took issue with one, the American apple maggot. She cited a story that says the apple maggot is morphologically the same as the hawthorn maggot.

    The origin of the two is uncontested. Contrary to the bizarre creationist claim that we can't tell speciation because there are different definitions (none of which creationists can deny, by the way), the gold standard has always been whether two populations interbreed commonly. The article Laura points to notes the facts, that though two populations of the maggots may live side by side, they do not interbreed. We can quibble about morphological and DNA differences between the two maggots -- but that is a treacherous slope for a creationist. By those standards, humans and all species of chimpanzee are just separate races of the same species, not really separate species at all.

    I'll allow Laura to say that apple maggots and hawthorn maggots are the same, if she allows me to point out that standard indicates that we are close cousins to chimps, and that we are family with shared ancestry, exactly as evolution theory predicts on the study of modern living examples.

    In any case, the Science Daily story demonstrates the use of evolution theory to find new ways to fight pests. You may not "believe" evolution theory, but it works in the real world. Some people don't believe in gravity, either, but we stay grounded on Earth and don't float into space. And we can't cite a story that demonstrates the validity of evolution theory overall to refute the very theory itself.

    Someone else said: "Evidence. That's what I was saying. No evidence in the fossil record, no evidence of transition as one animal evolves into another, etc."

    There's no evidence of transitions, only if one is intentionally blinded. Philip Gingerich was at SMU yesterday noting again the clear evidence of transitions, brilliantly and clearly portrayed in the evolution of whales from seaside dwelling carnivore to modern, ocean-going mammal. Worse for creationists, there is DNA corroboration of the evolution -- two completely independent paths that demonstrate evolution. Gingerich's work has almost single-handedly destroyed much of the favored denialism creationism revels in.

    Or you could look at Niles Eldredge's collection of trilobytes at the American Museum of Natural History. More than 2,000 species covering 300 million years of evolution, showing the rise of limbs, eyes and other organs, and together demonstrating transitions in greater detail than a Disney animation demonstrates motion of a cartoon character.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Laura said: "Please just name one species that has been proven to have evolved into another species."

    Did that already. You cited the article that says evolution is valid theory and has uses in fighting insect pests to try to pick on the minor point that American apple maggots are not too far from hawthorn maggots, morphologically.

    There were several other examples there.

    But if you really care about the issue, you should track down the dozen or so papers on speciation observed in real time, by Peter and/or Rosemary Grant at Princeton. Pick your poison: They have tracked every individual in several different species of bird over more than 30 years, and they have the DNA, the mating songs, the diets, the genealogy charts, morphology, and everything else, to demonstrate evolution occurring before their eyes, and under a scanning electron microscope.

    Generally it requires just one example to disprove a claim, in this case the ungrounded claim that evolution has not occurred. I've offered a half-dozen, none denied here.

    Jonathan asked "what's the point?" How many posts later, that's still a valid question to creationists here. Denialism runs strong in this thread, Obi Wan.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Laura said: "So you would think that with the advances in microbiology and DNA mapping, there would have been an avalanche of evolutionary evidence. On the contrary, species that were formerly grouped and regarded as one species were discovered to be separate species."

    Buried by the avalanche of DNA evidence that shows humans close cousins to chimps, both with a shared ancestor with other great apes, Laura claims not to be able to tell?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Dr. Miller,

    Thanks for coming and posting to the blog but you said this:And you clearly do not want to learn from us; you merely wish to show that, for some reason, your very meager knowledge of science trumps our vastly greater knowledge of science.

    First, and aside from the fact of your arrogance who the HECK is us? You travel in a group or something with scientists in your back pocket, or are you like the borg...7 or 9...????

    I've done NOTHING but post SERIOUS scientists who REFUTE SERIOUSLY every notion that you and your educated self espouses...you like others don't even deal with their arguemnts neither do you deal with ours, but yet try to intellectually bully as if there's some superior perspective that you paid for when you paid for your education...

    I reject the whole notion that evolution is simply closed to the masses...why? individuals such as yourself wouldn't be so upset IF we were wrong...

    Now you can believe your ancestor was a monkey all you want, but I live a higher existence and the EVIDENCE, scholarly and all, confirms what we say...

    So bring your PHD and relate something that ATTEMPTS to refute the DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS I referenced besides..."You're wrong and I'm right because I gots me degree"

    Do that for us would you...I would be very interested.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Welcome back Nightmare my friend, I look forward to hearing from you...

    ReplyDelete
  108. Dr. Miller,

    You also said this:The increase in entropy of the universe (the universe “dying” as you put it) is precisely what makes evolution (and indeed life itself) possible. I know this seems weird to people who do not know science.

    That's a good agreement and not wierd to those of us who've studied God, and glad you know it because it cuts to the heart of a lot of things on a theological and philosophical point of view...

    The finiteness of the universe is supported by entropy as you agree, and also the "big bang" as we call it...

    The question that NONE of you have addressed is what makes you think that NO information is necessary to create or sustain life when the whole universe breaths information...

    Said another way, if we can determine beginnings and observe entropy then we are observing a form of information as the universe is revealing itself to us...

    I postulate that it is irreconcilably illogical to think that the universe with all of it's vast knowledge that we readily know exists somehow operates BLINDLY when it comes to man and establishment of life...

    That's a case of special pleading in my book, and the only reason one would do that is to support a presuppositional bias as that bias is not founded in GOOD and EVIDENTURY science as DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS have asserted and continue to assert.

    What say ye kind Dr.?

    ReplyDelete
  109. -it is irreconcilably illogical to think that the universe with all of it's vast knowledge that we readily know exists somehow operates BLINDLY when it comes to man and establishment of life...-

    Teh rocks... They speak to me!!!! They tells me what to do!!!

    Grind a human into dust, sift through it and you will find no elements called "reason", "logic" or "information".
    Nor will you find it in the rocks, or the oceans. You will simply find complex patterns brought about by simple processes and systems over time.
    These are human words for describing our world. They do not influence it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. --> Thanks Ed Darrel

    What is the point?

    Harvey...Suggestion

    Visit a local university ask to speak with a professor regarding biology, evolution, paleontology, or whatever, offer lunch or dinner, have a set of questions you would like answered.

    Don't debate this person, just ask a couple of questions. I would explain your position ahead of time so he/she knows ahead of time of what to expect or not to expect.

    The same thing goes for Laura as well.

    Next thing

    No one here is going to convince you no matter what they say. I also am convinced what has been said on this board has been said on other boards you have been a part of. So again what is your point?

    It doesn't matter what, Darwin, Dawkins, or Gould say so you can quote mine all you want. the Theory of evolution doesn't stop with these men or many others. Science is a on going process. Their words are not written in stone and I am quite sure they would tell you the same.
    There are many in the field of biology, paleontology, and etc-ology who do research in or with evolution everyday whose names you will never know. the humdrum work in evolution research that never gets noticed by the outside world that takes place in universities across the globe every day.


    Suggestion

    You really need to have some sort of statement page regarding your position on the origins of life on our little blue marble. Quite frankly all you do is rank on Darwin but your thoughts on the matter or quite unknown. I don't know if you are a young or old earth creationist. Ken Ham Answers in Genesis or Hugh Ross Reason to believe? Do you think intelligent design because some Christians are not on board with this idea.

    Adam Eve, Noah's Ark, Dinosaurs on the Ark,etc.

    So please, can you explain your position in detail, which again is not a invitation to rank or Darwin or evolution. It just means explain your position.

    Thanks.

    PS
    Get Firefox
    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/personal.html

    Because it has a built in spellchecker and there is a ton of addon's you would find very helpful that is not offered in Internet explorer.

    Firefox Addons great stuff
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

    Portable Firefox on a flash drive
    http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable

    ReplyDelete
  111. Harv wrote to me:
    >I've done NOTHING but post SERIOUS scientists who REFUTE SERIOUSLY every notion that you and your educated self espouses...you like others don't even deal with their arguemnts neither do you deal with ours, but yet try to intellectually bully as if there's some superior perspective that you paid for when you paid for your education...

    Harv, if I were teaching a course and got a term paper with the sort of nonsense that Dembski has posted about information theory (this is one of my theories of expertise – I hold some patents in the field), I’d flunk the student.

    Look… you are expressing outrage at my daring to express my “superior perspective.” I know your outrage is sincere, and, hey, it’s your blog! Be outraged if you like.

    But I *do* have a truly superior perspective, a perspective shared by the overwhelming number of scientists who agree with me and not Dembski, Behe, et al.

    Sorry, but we actually know this stuff.

    You also wrote:
    > I reject the whole notion that evolution is simply closed to the masses...why? individuals such as yourself wouldn't be so upset IF we were wrong...

    Do you reject the idea that the Hahn-Banach theorem is closed to the masses?

    Indeed, neither evolution nor the Hahn-Banach theorem is truly closed to the masses, but if and only if the masses want to go a great deal of very, very hard work.

    Most of the masses do not wish to do that.

    Fine. Your choice.

    Laura illustrated this nicely with her comment about the universe “dying” supposedly contradicting evolution. I am sure this makes sense to her. But it does not make sense to any human being who actually fully grasps the concept of entropy.

    We are at the heart of the matter here: I very much doubt that you consider yourself qualified to do heart surgery or brain surgery. I think you know that it would take years and years of training, excruciatingly hard work, to learn to be competent at heart surgery or brain surgery.

    But, for some reason, you will not concede that the same is true of science.

    You could actually test this fairly simply in my own field, physics. Go to your local university library and pull out the last year of “The Physical Review, Section D,” the primary journal in my own field. See how much of it makes sense to you.

    I suspect you will readily concede that you do not understand quantum field theory and superstring physics!

    Well… as someone married to a biologist, I can tell you that biology is actually more complex than physics – it only seems simpler because we have all been around plants and animals since our birth.

    You also wrote:
    > So bring your PHD and relate something that ATTEMPTS to refute the DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS I referenced besides..."You're wrong and I'm right because I gots me degree"

    Harv, the guys you reference, Dembski, Behe, et al., are not generally respected in the scientific community because their claims have been proven false by other scientists. Indeed, some of their claims (especially Demski’s) are so absurd to anyone educated in science and math that no one would see a need to refute them in dealing with competent scientists.

    But you do not understand enough science to understand that.

    I honestly do not know what to do about this.

    I just cannot force you to acquire a scientific education, as much as I would like to see you do so.

    I realize that you will respond to this with further expressions of outrage. But what can I do? I can no more force you to learn science than I can force you to learn brain surgery!

    I am, alas, helpless to solve your problem – unless you are willing to work very, very hard to actually learn science.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  112. Harv wrote to me:
    >The finiteness of the universe is supported by entropy as you agree, and also the "big bang" as we call it...

    See, Harv, that is my central point. I said *nothing* of the sort, but, somehow, from your very limited knowledge of science, you convinced yourself that that is what I meant!

    No, as a physicist I do not agree with that at all, and indeed your belief that these issues are connected to increasing entropy is simply bizarre.

    The current evidence is consistent with the universe being infinite in extent, and, indeed, that is the simplest structure consistent with the evidence we have. I am not sure how we could ever conclusively prove that the universe is truly infinite, rather than simply extraordinarily large.

    Also, the multiverse, out of which we suspect the observable universe came, may well have existed for an infinite amount of time: Google “inflationary cosmology” and “eternal inflation” to learn more about this.

    I don’t want to fill your comment thread with millions of words trying to teach you stuff that is available on the Web and in any decent university library.

    But you cannot understand this stuff unless you actually try very hard to learn it.

    See the problem, Harv?

    I know you think I am being extraordinarily arrogant in not teaching you all of this in a thousand words or so, right here on your blog. I know you are angry.

    Would you get similarly angry at a brain surgeon who told you that he could not teach you brain surgery in a thousand words on your blog?

    Dave Miller

    ReplyDelete
  113. Laura wrote:
    >I'd have to read up on the heliocentric theory to answer in any intelligent way on that one.

    Yes, I’m afraid you would.

    Laura, the “heliocentric theory” is the theory that the earth moves around the sun, rather than the sun moving around the earth (the “geocentric theory”).

    And, I have myself run across believers in Christ who seriously do claim that the sun moves around the earth, and who can quote chapter and verse from the Bible, quite convincingly, in support of their view that this belief is mandated by the Bible.

    I frankly doubt that you do know the evidence that we have for the heliocentric theory: in my experience, almost no Americans, aside from scientists, know what that evidence is.

    Which again illustrates the problem with lacking an education in science.

    You also wrote:
    > I thought the atheist Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller fame said well what is in the heart of most christians, and a burden some of us carry:
    >"If you believe that there's a Heaven and Hell and that people could be going there...
    how much do you have to hate somebody to NOT tell them?"

    I quite agree. Indeed, I agree with Penn on a lot of things – a good and honest man, I think.

    Dave Miller

    ReplyDelete
  114. 1, of 2Posts

    Nightmare says..."What this debate (both on this article and in society at large) is truly all about is defending Christian dogma against demonstrable fact, by any means necessary. And so we go round."

    Anonymous said... Harvey and Laura,
    However, those of us who are real scientists tend to take the attitude that folks like you can either go to the trouble to truly learn science, or…

    Well, we cannot very well give you a solid scientific education in comment threads on your blog, now can we?

    And you clearly do not want to learn from us; you merely wish to show that, for some reason, your very meager knowledge of science trumps our vastly greater knowledge of science.

    You are free to express your opinions.

    But you are going to find almost no scientists who take your opinions seriously and almost no scientists who are willing to seriously debate you once they find out where you are coming from.

    David Miller, Ph.D. in Sacramento

    Sorry, Laura. I’ve played this game before on the Web: I know well how it goes. It’s a sucker’s game.

    If I give examples of such species, you will argue about whether they *really* count as separate species, what the *real* meaning of the word species is, whether the evidence for their having evolved from each other is *real* evidence, etc.

    I’ve been through this, and observed this, oh so many times before.

    If you really are sincere in checking this out, here’s a hint: polyploidy.

    But, no, I will not debate this with you.

    And, yes, I know you will take this as an admission that I cannot successfully debate you and Harvey. That is absolutely correct. I can’t – no more than a mathematician can successfully debate you on the Hahn-Banach theorem.

    Dave

    Ed Darrell said..I'll allow Laura to say that apple maggots and hawthorn maggots are the same, if she allows me to point out that standard indicates that we are close cousins to chimps, and that we are family with shared ancestry, exactly as evolution theory predicts on the study of modern living examples.

    In any case, the Science Daily story demonstrates the use of evolution theory to find new ways to fight pests. You may not "believe" evolution theory, but it works in the real world

    There's no evidence of transitions, only if one is intentionally blinded. Philip Gingerich was at SMU yesterday noting again the clear evidence of transitions, brilliantly and clearly portrayed in the evolution of whales from seaside dwelling carnivore to modern, ocean-going mammal. Worse for creationists, there is DNA corroboration of the evolution -- two completely independent paths that demonstrate evolution. Gingerich's work has almost single-handedly destroyed much of the favored denialism creationism revels in.

    Jonathan asked "what's the point?" How many posts later, that's still a valid question to creationists here. Denialism runs strong in this thread, Obi Wan.

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

    Hi, Nightmare

    David Miller, Ph.D. in Sacramento

    Ed Darrell ,Jonathan and a number of others.

    First of all i honestly want to thank you all very much for taking the times to try to discuss these things.

    And i understand what you are saying about how almost hopeless it is trying to discuss and fully explain such things on a blog.Im also kinda hearing one of you trying to explain that scientists etc give up trying,why?...Well sometimes the best/only chance you have left is just to get back to work on finding out more about these things.

    And its kinda like standing on the shore and climbing a hill,and then trying to get superstitious people to understand how you can have worked out that the world is not flat but infact its round.

    I understand how frustrating this would feel.How after awhile you`d say ahhh im just giving myself a blinking severe case of laryngitis,what the??#@%*## will that ever achieve?.If i keep this up ill end up driving myself mad in the process.

    Im sorry about this big problem you have to try dealing with.

    ReplyDelete
  115. 2,of2


    Harvey and Laura my friends i really dont know what to say to you both .I dont know where to start because i cant help feeling that no matter how honest i am about my opinion you will just decide ive picked sides against you.Or ive done so much evil stuff in my life im simply just trying to believe there is no god/s etc.
    Or these people who have even bothered to try once again to discuss these things, have been able to deceive me with unfactual evidence.

    Laura i understand the conspiracy theorys idea,i understand they do happen.But Laura even though that was only a wiki artical it gave real names of zoo`s etc ,where these animals actually are!.Its not alway just rubbish when things are reported,holy mackerel! peoples jobs and livelyhoods are on the line.How many lies can one tell before they get found out?.People would soon create a job for themselves by debunking them!.

    Take the moon landing for instance and alien and their space ship sightings.People hear about these things and go after them to find out if theres much truth to it,like rabid fox terriers chasing a bitch on heat.

    Guess i could still be wrong but it just seems strange that supposedly there is so much lies being told about these things everywhere.Whats up when they (fully name zoos) and places where these animals etc are able to be seen?....Somebody could make a huge million dollar film just outa going to all these places and showing these people up to really be the supposed pathetical fibbers they all honestly are if its for real!.

    Harvey and Laura even if you end up hating me for it, ive gotta at least try to be honest about such very serious matters.Such important matters.

    Harvey my friend when i talked about how if one bets on a lame duck,one cant get angry if you end up winning the wooden spoon.That what its about with these serious matters, we cant bet on the lame duck because we think he`s cute and we love him.

    If these evolution things have some factual evidence,we as humans need to not put the breaks on.We need not go out of our way try to keep convincing people the lame duck will win,even if we have to be a little deceitful when doing it by not giving all the evidence.Or even by misrepresenting it.

    Of course this is only my opinion Harv, and nobody need agree but ill try to explain one reason why.The problem for me is if im willing to bet on a lame duck,ive got a couple of kids in their teens and it could end up kind like the family heirloom i unwittingly leave for them.

    Cause its important isnt it if we think we can learn from some of these things,well lets hurry now and get on with it.

    And like somebody else (sorry to long a thread to look back) on this thread also stated evolution hasnt got much to do with how the world started,or whether gods did it anyway.

    Even if we are close to monkeys genes etc,god/s could have still created us.

    So if evolutions real whats even achieved by fighting against it?.

    And another thing i see the mistrust of scientists on this evolution matter,the thinking seems to be..Ahh you just cant go looking at all these things they come up with,they will try and tell you anything.

    Yet when it comes to fancy new cars and computers and vet procedures or heart transplants or jet plane travel or lastest technology for micro elec power or water well systems for Africa etc etc etc.

    All of a sudden these experts can most often be trusted.No longer do they find fun in keeping up a hobbie of posting a whole lot of useless bull CraP on the net to pass the time away.

    Harvey who ever we were created by dont we need to still be careful not to use deceitful measures to try and help prove what WE believe.After all this world is not just about i me or my group etc,and we all need to be responsible about what ever future there might or might not be for our childrens sake.

    Surely we atleast need to try to be honest.How much good really ever came by dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I want to put this in context.

    District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

    LIE, it was good ole Darwinian evolution that had control of the law and any preferential treatment of men over women was promoted by IT, as they did with legislation on blacks. Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.


    What do you mean "Darwin Evolution" had control of the of the law regarding treatment of men over women?


    7 Men Who Rule The World From The Grave
    This is just an opinion. If Darwin himself picked 7 men it still would be an opinion. It still doesn’t answer the question

    literalist interpretation of fact
    What in darnation is a “Literalist interpretation of fact” :(

    Is this used in historical context or biblical?

    Start from His concepts … the article
    Nothing is mentioned about the question?

    Regarding Zamboe You find a British author of any book during the 18th and 19th century that had “not” used some form of derogatory term towards another race. It is 1860 in the British Empire, which basically controls a good portion of the planet. Terminology of other races is not going to be very pretty. So your argument regarding his choice of works is “petty”.

    You never answered the question regarding Darwin and control over women.

    Regarding property, blacks and cattle The slave trade started in North American around 1619 and Christians were the dominant religion of that time, the only way to get a slave is by purchasing them, wouldn't it be safe to safe Christians already have accepted Africans as purchasable goods? Darwin's book Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859 what sources do you have available to explain the connection??

    Ugh, you even took my original question of context! Argh!

    Grandfather Clause
    There isn’t any mention of Darwin or evolution, where are your facts?

    In fact in the entire site there is no mention of Darwin or evolution, funny that!

    End of part 1


    Pt. 2 (cont)

    Huh? I have no clue what you are trying to say.

    End of part 2

    My response

    You didn’t even bother to try to answer the questions. You gave some rambling response that has consistency of wet tissue paper, and then you claim it’s not part of the discussion. It should have been easy to provide documentation to prove your point, but you offered nothing. Questioning events that occurred million of years is one thing. But it fails when you try to revise history from the last 150 years.

    --> Laura
    You said…
    The point being, if someone was looking for a reason to treat their fellow man as sub-human,

    Ah, people did treat their fellow man as subhuman it was called slavery. Which had nothing to do with Darwin or evolution.

    About newspapers we are in the eve of the civil war do you think people seriously debated the book Origin of species? I think not.



    Christianity and Racism

    NEWS: Pentecostals Renounce Racism
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1994/december12/4te058.html

    Books: Racism's Faces of Faith
    The use and abuse of Christianity in the civil-rights struggle.
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/february9/8t2070.html

    NEWS: SOUTHERN BAPTISTS
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1995/august1/5t9053.html

    No Darwin or Evolution found here.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Harvey wrote:

    1- the origin of man

    2- the future of the human race

    In evolutionary terms of course.


    Harvey,

    I couldn't help but notice how your questions are not about evolutionary theory per se, but specifically address areas where implications of the theory conflict with your religious beliefs. While it's true that evolution does overlap these questions, it's a very small part of the entire theory.

    Given this observation, do you think it's merely a coincidence that you accept micro-evolution as true but not macro-evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Dr. Miller,

    You set science back well over 200 years with stuff like this:

    "The current evidence is consistent with the universe being infinite in extent, and, indeed, that is the simplest structure consistent with the evidence we have. I am not sure how we could ever conclusively prove that the universe is truly infinite, rather than simply extraordinarily large."

    When current evidence says that the universe is finite and winding down...

    If I were in your class, obviously I'd demand another teacher so that i could learn current science instead of this stone age routine you're trying to seel us...

    There are all kinds of techniques that scientists use to determine the age of the universe and analyze it's cirrent condition and those things have received news so I don't know what's happening in your neck of the woods but this is a mess...

    What college do you teach at again please?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Scott,

    My friend, I don't hide or try to reinvent what I believe...the questions simply afford you the opportunity to set the record straight as it seems that you want to create an evolutionary theory that doesn't say what evolution has traditionally and more recently said...

    So forget religion or my beliefs simply and summarily set the record straight...

    ReplyDelete
  120. Jonathan,

    What are you on? Crack, speed or just plain ole STUPID?

    1st no matter what, NONE of what you say removes racism from what Darwin taught, whether that racism was the standard of the day or not (which it was)...So in short, Darwinism WAS STILL a sexist and racist teaching and theory...

    2nd, you're brain must be disconnected from anything called common sense...I don't have to point to a particular law in time, DARWIN INFLUENCED the social climate, I don't care what was written, laws that affirmed equality were overlooked and rearranged as the EVIDENCE shows. The gov't had to force equality in ediucation andn all...and Darwin was one reason why...he gave racists the "right" to be racist...They felt good reading that blacks were less superior and among many that sentiment spread...

    So far as your use of the word it WAS a derogatory term as it is today...don't come here trying to tell ME what's derogatory and not...

    I'm trying real hard to hold it with you, but you're pushing the envelope like a crack dealer in a drug rehab...don't bring this RIDICULOUS argument up again...

    FOCUS on evolution and what we're talking about or you'll get banned...Loftus does it and I will too. I don't mind people who disagree but historical revisionists and idiots, I can't handle...which one are you?

    You've already proved yourself to be one, I'm holding out that you're not both...but we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Gandy,

    What's that? A pep talk at halftime?

    Just tell'em to get out there and present more bad arguments like they are used to doing...only an evolved leapord changes his spots...

    Well I guess they could have evolved from leapords under evolutionary belief-LOL

    Anyway...let's get this party started...

    I want the Dr. to straighten us poor, hard to grab ahold of the concept Christians out...One thing's for SURE...if a MAN invented it, put it in a book then ANYONE even me can learn it...so don't try to come here with this lifetime of studying garbage...

    This junk is taught to most since kindergarten and the general public is well aware of it's tenets, which is something that seems to be overlooked here...

    Anyway, let's get to it...

    ReplyDelete
  122. Ed Darrell,

    Since I respect the elderly and don't want you to get a heart attack at least while parousing my site (Somebody might try to sue me) I'll simply refer you to prior arguments as you present no new material or material that hasn't already been DEBUNKED in scientific journals or current studies...that whale thing was a laugh...

    Plus Laura doing extremely well being patient with you and others anyway, so I've got no complaints and you've got no argument...but if I see something of interest I'll get back to ya.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  123. Gandy,

    You and I wholeheartedly agree my friend. There doesn't need to be deceit to get to the real truth and answers that shape peoples lives.

    The evolutionary crowd HAS BEEN deceitful about what they believe and how...Look, there are so many definition to the words evolution and species (according their own scientists) that all it is is an inexact and convenient science...

    In other words when it's convenient to say something evolved, that's what it means, however on the other hand when they're pressed as we've seen in this comments section, THEY (the evolutionists) want to redefine and claim "intellectual superiority" or that us little folk "don't know enough"

    They can't even claim speciation because the word has 26 DEFINITIONS and some of them are in conflict...they don't build on one another.

    Evolution is is unscientific, is a religious premise that affirms naturalism, eg the god of evolution is MAN himself and he worships HIMSELF as God...

    It has tenets of universalism, has a convenient statement of origins (of life), although it claims to only deal with origins of existing and extinct species (whatever that means to the next one talking)

    The slight of hand is done by evolutionist as they take a chapter from the chameleon to simply try to be whatever popular sentiments say they can be...

    That's not science by any means. Don't hate me 'cause I'm pretty!

    ReplyDelete
  124. If you had provided an article or book or something other than your opinion then fine. But you have provided absolutely nothing.

    I know were the door is, thanks for the hospitality.


    Cheers mate.

    ReplyDelete
  125. -That was a good one!-

    So. What's my prize Mr. Burnett?

    It's quite clear that some of the people arguing with you have not dealt with creationism and it's proponents much before. It is amusing watching them flounder somewhat in an attempt to outsmart you. But then i'm an evilutionist.

    Unfortunately the post is rather long now so i will simply point out that there is nothing technically stopping micro-evolution (given time) from completely changing the bone size and shapes... and the brain capacity of an animal population through the generations. If that animal population is separated off from the original population of animals, there is no reason why they eventually will be unable to mate due to incompatibilities (already pointed out with horses in another post). Thus leading us to see them as separate species.

    There is not as much difference between animals as you first think.
    If you want to play further we could do with new blood at hardtruth.squarespace.com

    ReplyDelete
  126. Richard,

    you said:"nothing technically stopping micro-evolution (given time) from completely changing the bone size and shapes... and the brain capacity of an animal population through the generations."

    Now THAT'S an honest answer and I appreciate it. That can be discussed and we can reason together over things like that...I don't know why other adherants to evolution wan to dress it up in other clothes rather than call their belief what it is. If it's based on science that's ok let's look at that but at least be honest rather than saying..."everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot"...

    I was born at night but NOT last night...

    So THANK YOU for your open assessment and if you stick around maybe we can get some further opinions on how this type of scientific belief shapes worldviews and human actions.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Hi...Sorry :-) about the pep talkin Harvey my friend,i had quite forgotten that if i went and said what i honestly felt.If it happened it was different to your thoughts well it was still just dang diddly dang plain straight jolly no good d*mm pep talkin!!.

    Im repentant!.Please forgive me ill try to do better.

    You said."It has tenets of universalism, has a convenient statement of origins (of life), although it claims to only deal with origins of existing and extinct species (whatever that means to the next one talking)"

    Yeah well because it only deals with the existing and extinct ,i guess thats why these silly crazy scientist and people who spend hours learning about things like creating mules zonkys zetlands asses poodles pekamese puppys fresian cows etc.Like i think you are trying to say they are not involved in any type of future type thing.

    And of course its easy to see why you wouldnt think it a bit strange or even slightly silly,if say for instance some silly git who had hardly ever read a bible came along and started tryn to tell you how to read the bible properly.

    No i can tell you would likely pull up a chair and say well dang i didnt know that.Come and sit right down here i need to learn some more..I studdied this book for hours and hours and near worn out me knobbly knees, and to think all i needed to do was read the stuff less than somebody else did.

    So no you are right these people who study other specialized fields shouldnt be likely know much more than any other jolly punter.

    Keep given em heaps my friend.Specially that Darwin fellow! grrrr was he the egg or the chicken? no wonder the bibles full of hard stuff beliefs/faiths/thoughts of the time when these messiahs arrive effect people.Hence why faithful folks ever today are always so kind and lovely.

    Harvey you know i wont get angry if you kick me off your blog,why would i get angry?.

    You prefer me to be honest with you right?.You dont just want people to simply agree with you all the time?.

    If you think its right that i need kickin off well just do it.

    But like i said it becomes all part of the heirloom .Our family history we pass on.

    And we can all make mistakes so what ever way it was and happened its a low blow isnt it to hammer Darwin cause Darwins not expected to be perfect either is he.Just because hes a scientist that doesnt mean his ideas wont also have effects from existing attitudes around him.Even though it be wrong.

    Do we need to be fair Harvey?.

    ReplyDelete
  128. To all who post here:

    This is a topic upon which there is much distrust as we've seen in this thread. I am trying to help differentiate this blog to not merely smear campaigns, but an honest assessment of the records and scientific evidences.

    I've placed a long listing of evidences along with videos and links to the scientists addressing questions themselves and very few of you have even bothered addressing the scientists arguments, some even claiming that we wouldn't understand anyway...that's poppycock!(whatever that is)

    Just as others say that evolutionary scientists have too much to lose to be involved in a conspiracy theory, the scientists who disagree with evolution do too and their living is just as important...

    What I would like to see is some refutation of the facts I present through the scientists who do this everyday and make it around the world presenting their data...

    There has been some good counter evidence presented and the dialogue from those who are personable has been well accepted but as for the most significant parts of the arguments the evolutions have come up short and have only merely ranted and complained.

    So far as DNA is concerned, all I've gotten is an attempt to minimize DNA, while DNA it is the MOST essential element in the 'evolutionary' process as outlined by those who believe in common descent.

    And as some have confirmed, my arguments do not misrepresent evolutionary teaching and what I consider dogma...

    in all this I do blame something for letting this go so far without challenging it earlier...I blame the church, for not engaging in this in a much better and more clear way from the beginning of the popularization of these notions...of all the readers that I have of this blog with the exception of Laura, many of them are ill-equipped to deal with this argument and it may well be one of the most important subjects of our lifetime. That's in my opinion is the FAULT of the church, as it's center has been drastically and dramatically misplaced...

    This is why evolution thrives and atheism catches attention of the masses...the church is unequipped and asleep living off of it's own accolades instead of ministering and meeting needs even if they are intellectual needs.

    Excuse me for ranting just a little bit and thank you all for your continued input. We may disagree but believe me I don't hate you and I'm here for the long haul.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Harvey wrote: I've done NOTHING but post SERIOUS scientists who REFUTE SERIOUSLY every notion that you and your educated self espouses…

    NOTHING?

    First, you've clearly posted a number of comments that argue evolution must be false because of personal views that Darwin exhibited during his discovery. Do I need to repeat these here?

    Furthermore, if a evil scientist discovered a new kind of energy energy source with the intent to use a weapon to kill millions of people, this in no way means that his research must be false and that his energy source is pseudo science. This is clearly irrelevant.

    …you like others don't even deal with their arguemnts neither do you deal with ours, but yet try to intellectually bully as if there's some superior perspective that you paid for when you paid for your education..

    please see…

    Ken Miller on Intelligent Design.

    This video shows how these arguments have been refuted in a number of forums. They fail on multiple levels and are obviously motivated by religious beliefs, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Gandy,

    I'm trying to figure out if I really like you or not?

    (LOL-Just kidding ok!!!)

    Anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  131. Scott,

    Thanks for the link...I'll tell you what, I'll review Dr. Miller's vid but please promise to review Dr. Wells vid at

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raW6BQscwh4

    I'm getting ready for a production meeting that will take the greater part of the day, but I'll respond with my thoughts on Dr. Miller's presentation this evening.

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Scott,

    Also wheras mine is almost 10 minutes and yours 2 hours, don't expcet a detailed refutation from Wells...you can offset the rest of your time by assessing Meyer's argument and his video on front page...that's about an hour also.

    That would be a good place to start if we're seeking truth.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Shouldn't a dentist arguing evolution carry the same weight as a lawyer arguing intelligent design?

    I wanna know.

    ReplyDelete
  134. District Supt. Harvey Burnett said... Gandy,

    I'm trying to figure out if I really like you or not?

    (LOL-Just kidding ok!!!)

    Anyway..."

    :-( If it was the knobbly knees bit,i was just remebering how often priests wear their knees out when praying all the time for people.

    Please like me :-)

    ReplyDelete
  135. -Shouldn't a dentist arguing evolution carry the same weight as a lawyer arguing intelligent design?-

    Well, i definitely wouldn't trust the lawyer...heheh

    This post has become rather long now. Perhaps another post on which bits of Dawkins book you don't agree with or pull out the comments scientists made so we can look at them individually. You seem quite happy to accept the premise but not the evidence of evolution which is certainly the oddest thing i've heard in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Ed, the Science Daily report stated the maggots were the same species.

    Gandy, they can impregnate cross species, but the offspring is infertile, so no new species.

    I asked a simple question, and other than Ed and Gandy who at least tried, these are the general answers:

    1. I know what I'm talking about and you don't.
    2. I know more, but I'm not telling.
    3. Go look at this website.
    4. Go talk to someone.
    5. What's the point if I did tell you?
    5. My intellect is superior to yours/You're a flat earther.

    I'm not trying to trick anyone with my question. If evolution happened, there must be some evidence of it outside a petri dish and tampering with fruits and vegetables, which is no different than breeding physical traits out of dogs. We all agree that's possible, and not at all what I'm asking.

    I hope that my question to show one species that has been proven to have evolved into another species has got some of you thinking about the total lack of supportive evidence for evolution as guessed by Darwin.

    In Romans 1, God tells us:
    "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

    The actual Greek is stronger than this, meaning more like nature "screams out". Man is without excuse to fully understand that God is, and He created all things. In other words, when we stand before Him, "I didn't know" isn't going to work.

    Now as adults, we are free to choose. I respect anyone's choice if I agree with it or not. But when we TEACH young impressionable minds junk like evolution that is basically a joke, well...it's wrong. But I guess until parents want to get involved in what their kids are being indoctrinated into, nothing will change.

    As a matter of fact, I've heard more outrage from parents about school kids singing the praises of Obama than I ever had heard from parents about evolution. Guess mother's don't like to be called flat earthers...

    ReplyDelete
  137. Laura I can't show you evolution happening in front of your eyes. Well, technically we have already seen that in the petri dish, it just wasn't a "lot" of evolution.

    What I can show you are at least 5 different species of "humanoid", which if put in chronological order get more apelike, the older the fossil. There are no answers for that in any holy book I know of.

    Thing is, if you plot the age of fossils found, as you go further back, the creatures get simpler (generally). Why? and why do mammals have such a similar bone structure to fish and birds?
    Why can we put creatures today into a "tree of life" connected by creatures from the past but we can't define distinct "kinds" or "species" properly in animals?

    Evolution explains why, it does so better than any genesis story as far as I can see. Does ID explain why? or does it just say "it's tooooo complex for me to understand so let's say it was designed. Let's stop investigating..."

    ReplyDelete
  138. Harvey,

    Here's a list of instances where you've mischaracterized the theory evolution. I've also included additional comments where appropriate.

    the theory of evolution is being quickly reconsidered, repackaged and rethought on almost every front.

    Specific details about the exact path and exact mechanism is changing, but not the overall theory. This is no different than physics, etc.

    [Evolution] quickly became the 'rational man's' way to think of his origins and relive himself of any connection or responsibility to or with God or a creator.

    Whether this is true or not does not is irrelevant to the factual nature of evolution.

    [That evolution does not explain the origin of life] proves to be the most fatal self-inflicted wound of evolutionary theory as we will see in this writing.

    False. Evolution does not need to explain the origin of life for it to be valid. That you combine these two things in your religious belief does not mean science must do so as well.

    MACROevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. (you'll hear this again) What is amazing to me is that most individuals who hold to evolution as the process by which man came into existence consider MICROevolution to be the only process necessary to confirm

    This is not the only fact. Here's just one of many examples, which is a short clip from the video I posted earlier today.

    Fused chromosome in human DNA.

    The problem is however is that if MACROevolution had occurred, this species would become something else other than the lizards they were to begin with. In other words, the lizards Dr. Jones observed continued to be lizards, they did not become ducks, geese, or pekingese swine, they remained lizards.

    You're inventing problems where none exist. We do not need macro-evolution to occur in a 35 year time span for evolution to be true. Yet you say that, since macro-evolution did not occur during Jones' observations, then evolution must be false. Instead we would expect micro-evolution, which is exactly what we observed. Again, you're setting goals based on mischaracterizations, then claiming evolution is not true when they are not met.

    Evolution claims that given the millions of years necessary for the process to continue, those lizards may even become men or a completely different animals.

    Again, false. Evolution does not predict that Lizards will not become men. Hominoids are a species that already exists. The theory of evolution does not predict that lizards will turn into human beings. You're intentionally portraying evolution this way in an attempt to make it sound ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  139. It is wishful fantasy to believe that complex information systems would somehow compose themselves from primordial soup and advance to what science agrees that are super highly complex information systems.

    This argument has many problems...

    First, you're discussing the origin of life. This is NOT part of the theory of evolution.

    Second, you're not just suggesting that any intelligence designed the mechanism of our cells; you're assuming the intelligence of an omnipotent, omniscient being was the designer. While our cells may be complex, they do not exhibit the kind of design that we would expect from such a being.

    Example: if a man was shot from a distance of 1000 yards by a high powered rifle, you'd be justified in calming that only a sharp shooter who had access to such a weapon could the the culprit. But if the victim was shot a point blank range with a handgun, no such claim can be made.

    The idea that the complexity of the cell could only be explain by God is an argument from ignorance (we currently can't think of an answer, therefore God did it.) This is in contrast to simply saying we don't know.

    Third, if information used to create first life must have a designer, then who designed God? If he was responsible for designing the cell, then the information God used in the process must have come from somewhere. What is this source?

    Dr Behe takes on all critics and goes deeper at TrueOrigins.org

    Ken Miller addresses Behe's arguments in the video posed earlier. Including his argument about the immune system.

    How does the body interface with the mind? Does material existence have a necessity of consciousness? NO

    How does a non-material soul interact with our material body? How does it do so without creating more energy? We simply do not know enough about how conciseness works to use it an a definitive argument about evolution.

    A Lack Of Archaeological Proof

    This also was addressed in the video I posed earlier. Specific examples are provided.

    Darwinian Evolution's Sexist & Racist Assertions

    Please see my earlier comment. What ever views Darwin may have held do not invalid any discoveries he might have made.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Harvey wrote: Also wheras mine is almost 10 minutes and yours 2 hours,

    Ken's lecture is only an hour. The rest of the video was a Q&A session.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Richard said "What I can show you are at least 5 different species of "humanoid", which if put in chronological order get more apelike, the older the fossil. There are no answers for that in any holy book I know of."

    No answers for what?
    You just stated as fact (basically) that science can put them in order, so we should make the giant leap of faith that man is next without the missing link that proves it?

    Let me get this straight...You are asking a Christian to put away her faith in the God she knows and believe you instead based on nothing but pure faith?

    Please tell me you see what I'm saying.

    This one example alone shows that evolution is a anti-God faith based religion and not true science. What's more, it is not allowed to be questioned and held to the same scrutiny as the other sciences without a great deal of intimidation. Why is that? If science is really trying to get to the truth, why not open evolution up to questioning and/or teach the other possibilities?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Laura said: "Let me get this straight...You are asking a Christian to put away her faith in the God she knows and believe you instead based on nothing but pure faith?"

    You're assuming creationism is a Christian belief. No, we're not asking any Christian to put away faith. We are asking Christians not to offer testimony counter to God's creation, however. God's creation -- the Second Testament of God -- offers evidence of evolution. Who are you to contradict the work from God's own hand?

    And why would contradicting God's creation be, in your words, "putting away faith?" Don't you trust God to get it right, however God does it?

    We're asking you to trust God's creation, and stop offering testimony that requires we put away faith in God to believe in magic that is unsupported in scripture or tradition.

    That's the religious side. On the rational side, we're asking only that you not decide the evidence is all wrong, without any contrary evidence.

    "Please tell me you see what I'm saying."

    Oh, I see what you're saying, and it's not pretty. You're saying that in your view God cannot be God unless God dances to your tune, the steps you dictate. Or if not your tune, the tune some creationist fellow dreamed up that you like the look of because it doesn't require thought, but only the satisfying denialism that allows you to say to people who know a lot more than you do, "You're wrong, I believe."

    I don't believe that you fully appreciate the position you're taking, at least not from the theological view. You've assumed creationism to be a default Christian view, when neither Christian tradition nor scripture supports that. Creationism is a relatively late idea, not really formed until the late 19th century as a reaction to perceptions that science had too much credibility. Creationism assumes there is little in Christianity that can compete with hard science for answers, an assumption that at its core denies God's role in creation.

    No, as a practicing Christian, I don't accept a claim that understanding evolution requires one to give up faith. It requires that you give up ignorance. Christianity should not be slandered by an implicit assumption that ignorance supports the faith, nor especially that ignorance equals to faith in God. Ignorance is not supportive of faith, let alone a stand-in for faith.

    "This one example alone shows that evolution is a anti-God faith based religion and not true science. What's more, it is not allowed to be questioned and held to the same scrutiny as the other sciences without a great deal of intimidation. Why is that? If science is really trying to get to the truth, why not open evolution up to questioning and/or teach the other possibilities?

    Evolution is open to questioning 365-1/4 days a year, 24 hours a day, 60 minutes an hour, plus leap days, leap hours, leap minutes and leap seconds.

    But you're again confusing ignorance with searching for answers. You're not arguing from evidence achieved by experiment or observation that contradicts evolution. You're trying to proof text evolution.

    Proof texting God's Second Testament is just as blasphemous as proof texting scripture.

    But if you have hard data that contradict evolution, bring it forward -- the Nobel Committee is on special alert for it, and might announce a special award off the usual schedule for someone who finds those data.

    One of many places you'll find skepticism welcomed is at the annual convention of biological societies, Evolution (insert year here)(next year in Portland, Oregon, hosted by Portland State University). In the past 20 years, creationists have showed up to make a case twice, and then not with new research, but with a rehash review of old documents.
    [Conclusion, next post]

    ReplyDelete
  143. [Continued from immediately previous post of mine, assuming no one else intervenes]


    If creationism has some goods, why are there no laboratories anywhere on Earth doing research with a creationism paradigm? Since we know from past litigation that science journals do not discriminate against creationism research, why are there so few articles published supporting creationism?

    Why are you asking Christians to put away their belief in an everlasting, ever-careful, creating God, in order to put faith instead in a magic poof? And, aren't you afraid that'll rile the Baptists with their knee-jerk opposition to all forms of magic?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Morning Laura you said...
    "Ed, the Science Daily report stated the maggots were the same species.

    Gandy, they can impregnate cross species, (but the offspring is infertile, so no new species.)

    I asked a simple question, and other than Ed and Gandy who at least tried, these are the general answers"

    :-) ok ill give it another crack,no harm done in window shopping huh :) you can look but there`s absolutely no need to buy.

    This site

    http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-cats.htm

    Under here http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/new-species.htm

    Says : "They are unlikely to occur in the wild except in unnatural situations e.g. in very isolated populations where there is no mate of the appropriate species available"

    (((((((((("Believing that hybrids are always sterile, some keepers have housed a hybrid big cat with pure-bred big cats only to discover that hybrid females are fertile.")))))))))))

    "Hybrids do not generally give rise to new species. Because hybrid males are mostly infertile, ((((((female hybrids are mated back to pure-bred animals.))))) In only a few generations, the "alien genes" are absorbed into the gene pool of the species she is bred back to. Theoretically, a new sub-species may arise if the population is isolated, but they will only have subtle differences such as lions retaining spots into adulthood as a result of a few lurking leopard genes in the gene pool from a leopon many generations back."

    And theres heaps of other type mutations this site mentions.

    :-) you could be very right Laura. All im saying Laura is there just seems to be a lot of this type of evidence being suggested and filed away.

    Its ok if it is actually science fiction and totally silly.But who going to look even more very totally silly later on if its found to be actually not.

    The papers might read .. Thanks to stubborn pride and ignorance of a need to always be right.The faithful religions of this world have now been proved to have stunted human knowledge for thousands of years through denying evolution happened between species.

    You rightly say hey no monkeys turn into men ...But thats the thing i think scientists are trying to explain to us,yes there is gaps in the genes thing which can make species move to far apart to easily breed..Just as that mostly happens between tiger and lion etc..But that doesnt say humans and monkeys are not actually quite closely related still.Compared to how many years have past over time.

    I know i know you are saying whats Gandy on this morning.The mans mad.He`s off his rocker.Flipped his lid and moved to the wrong side of the coin.

    Hey ive got no real worrys have i,its you that needs to be very sure you are really right.Specially when you stand for the real truth of matters supposedly.

    Thats all im saying.What good is hiding from it?,Christians should be keen as!! to check it out as much as possible head on.So you really know you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Ed said "And why would contradicting God's creation be, in your words, "putting away faith?" Don't you trust God to get it right, however God does it?"

    I was trying to make a point about religious faith vs evolution faith. I see by your next paragraph that you missed it completely. Watch as I explain again by changing one word in your post:

    On the religious side, we're asking only that you not decide the evidence is all wrong, without any contrary evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I phrased that badly. I apologized.

    I should have said, "And why would contradicting creationism be, in your words, "putting away faith?" Don't you trust God to get it right, however God does it?"

    In short, creationism contradicts God's creation, and asking scientists not to talk about what science can tell us about origins of the universe, or planets, or atoms, or species, isn't supportive of Christianity in any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Gandy said "(((((((((("Believing that hybrids are always sterile, some keepers have housed a hybrid big cat with pure-bred big cats only to discover that hybrid females are fertile.")))))))))))

    Gandy, think.
    If some females are fertile, but the males are always infertile, who are they going to mate with?

    Even if they could produce a fertile male, the odd amount of chromosomes would not allow for a successful pregnancy (that laws of nature thing again).

    Gotta walk the dogs and get dinner, but I appreciate your persistence in trying to find SOMETHING that supports the fundamentals of evolution. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  148. Laura said:
    Ed, the Science Daily report stated the maggots were the same species.


    Your creationist counterparts here complain about the several different definitions of "speciation" -- and then you go and hide behind that skirt to find fault with ONE of the FIVE examples I offered.

    So, I guess we've proven evolution 80%?

    My earlier comment noted that while Science News does indeed say they are the same species, SN goes on to describe the fact that the two populations do not interbreed in the wild, which is generally the gold standard rule for speciation. And more damaging to the creationism cause, SN goes on to some lengths describing the principles of evolution on the table with the little bugs, and how use of evolution theory is leading to new, safer and more effective pesticides.

    You can't call a theory invalid by citing someone using the theory to advance science. By definition, a theory's practical uses testify in an unrebuttable way to the validity of the theory.

    Want more? See here:
    K.E. Filchak, Roethele, J.B. and Feder, J.L. 2000. "Natural Selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella." Nature 407: 739-742.

    See Jonathan Weiner's discussion of the apple maggot, in The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time, on about p. 233 (Weiner's book is one of a handful to have won the Pulitzer -- why is it creationism books never win?)

    And finally, here:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/fearful-idists-cant-meet-ethics-challenge-in-dallas/#comment-23094

    ReplyDelete
  149. "material that hasn't already been DEBUNKED in scientific journals or current studies...that whale thing was a laugh..."

    What debunking? The research is solid, and more whale transitionals turn up year by year.

    It's one thing to utterly fail to have any evidence, as most creationists do. But to try to hoax an answer against evidence that does exist pushes the ethical boundaries a bit far, I think.

    What debunking do you claim? There is nothing in any science journal, nothing in any science course, nothing from anyone who is a paleontologist.

    Whatever are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Harv wrote to me:
    >When current evidence says that the universe is finite and winding down...
    >If I were in your class, obviously I'd demand another teacher so that i could learn current science instead of this stone age routine you're trying to seel us...
    >There are all kinds of techniques that scientists use to determine the age of the universe and analyze it's cirrent condition and those things have received news so I don't know what's happening in your neck of the woods but this is a mess...

    Harv, this is a prime example of the extraordinary discourtesy that you Christians show to scientists, and the reason most scientists simply throw up their hands, declare that “Christians are simply ineducable!” and have as little contact with Christians as possible.

    There is, in fact, a growing movement among scientists, which I support, to simply deny creationists admission to any good colleges – Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc.

    Look, you are simply and plainly factually mistaken here. Modern physicists and cosmologists simply do not think the Big Bang was the Grand Beginning of Everything. We now think that the inflationary universe existed before the Big Bang – millions, billions, trillions of years before the Big Bang, perhaps forever.

    I knew the discoverer of inflationary cosmology, Alan Guth, when he discovered it nearly three decades ago: Alan was a postdoc at Stanford when I was a doctoral student.

    I know that you have not heard of this before. That is not my fault, and your ignorance does not justify your discourtesy.

    I have told you what subjects to Google to learn about this.

    You have refused.

    That, too, is not my fault.

    Do you see, Harv, that you are acting in the way that scientists have come to expect from you Christians? Even when we politely tell you where and how to get information to correct your ignorance about science, you merely respond with discourtesy and ridicule.

    Do you also understand that anyone reading this who wonders whether I am correct or whether you and Laura are correct can simply Google “inflationary cosmology” and “eternal inflation” and find out that you are indeed factually wrong?

    I want to thank you for behaving in this way, because, quite frankly, it helps to delegitimize Christianity in the eyes of any educated person. You are providing any intelligent persons who reads our exchange with an opportunity to check for themselves and see whether it is Christians or scientists who are telling the truth.

    They will discover that Christianity, as you present it, is false.

    More and more Americans are coming to reject traditional Christianity, and, for me, that is a cause for great joy.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  151. Ed,

    You said:We're asking you to trust God's creation, and stop offering testimony that requires we put away faith in God to believe in magic that is unsupported in scripture or tradition.

    I must say I like that approach. It's helpful and not destructive. But since you are a Christian and I honor and appreciate that how do you rationalize the bible stating that God created man in HIS image and HIS likeness...

    now we're seasoned and we know that wasn't fingers toes etc...but please tell me how you come to grips with that against the evolutionary backdrop that you basically came about as a process of random mutation.

    I'm not trying to lambast or be critical towards you either, but I've never heard a Christian actually expound on that.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Laura said... "Gandy, think.
    If some females are fertile, but the males are always infertile, who are they going to mate with?"

    I had pasted this

    "Hybrids do not generally give rise to new species. Because hybrid males are mostly infertile,

    Ok Laura so yes so far you are correct!.

    But you cast aside this next bit.

    "(female hybrids) are mated back to (pure-bred animals.) "

    So no "hybred males" needed.

    It suggests.

    "In only a few generations, the "alien genes" are absorbed into the gene pool of the species she is bred back to."

    Meaning they then breed back and back.Toward the "pure bred line",because of having to breed with the "pure bred male" as the hybred males are mostly sterile.

    "Theoretically, a new sub-species may arise if the population is (isolated), but they will only have (subtle differences) such as lions retaining spots into adulthood as a result of a few lurking leopard genes in the gene pool from a leopon many generations back."

    So depending on how (secluded) this new sub? species stays(ie whether it crosses back over the "pure bred" male species only a few times then stays in its own little pocket of land somewhere where it then will tend to keep more new traits on,or mingles widespread with the "pure bred line" then returning to the original pure bred line ,will depend on how much of the different traits carry on remaining or re reverting back.

    But isnt this abit trivial? ... These finer points we question ..Because doesnt the fact remain species have still interbred and evolution is real.

    Of couse maybe the big problem arises when the dreaded man/monkey connection comes up.

    :-) My good friend Harvey reckons grrrrr that damm Darwin was blinking racist.He was.

    :-) But im wondering if its a bit of racist thoughts against distant relations still even happening here.

    L.o.L .... not that i blame folks because admittedly the idea seems a little weird .

    But though its not quite the same as Darwins problem with others a little different to him,its still could be kinda the same here but with relations that are far more distant and different looking etc etc.

    Worth atleast thinking about more.

    Its window shopping but you actually check out the clothes properly this time,but theres still no law saying you need to agree to buy.

    But the bonus is,at least you dont get made to look very very very full of pride and much ignorance and stupidity further on down the line if these scientific ideas are finally found to be very true!.

    While your teams has been so busy trying to stop folk even taking a peak.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Dr. Miller,

    Among most of the other garbage that you spoke, you also said this:
    "Harv, this is a prime example of the extraordinary discourtesy that you Christians show to scientists, and the reason most scientists simply throw up their hands, declare that “Christians are simply ineducable!” and have as little contact with Christians as possible

    What do you have Christianaphobia? I don't know what your deal is but what university do you teach at?

    Secondly, what do you teach?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Fossil evidence is unconvincing to say the least and as darwin himself knew in his day was the weakest part of evolutionary theory. Fossils don't come with tags or grave markers.

    "99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in it's soft anatomy which is inacessible in a fossil"~Dr. Michael Denton 'Evolution a Theory In Crisis' pg. 286

    "The fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variey of ways and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendent relationships."~Dr. Jonathan Wells 'Icons Of Evolution' Pg. 219

    "Not only is the fossil record inadequate to establish ancestoral relationships; in light of what we know about the irriducibly complex nature of biological systems, the fossil record is irrelevant to the question"~ Geisler & Turek 'I don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist' pg. 154

    This is IN PART what I reject crossovers, not to mention al the recants over the years saying that such and such was missing link only to find out that it was something differenct all together...Ed, you act as if these whales died in a graveyard in order...you have much confidence in some of these people I see...maybe a little too much in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Gandy said "But the bonus is,at least you dont get made to look very very very full of pride and much ignorance and stupidity further on down the line if these scientific ideas are finally found to be very true!

    Gandy, my pride is not an issue here. It might be interesting to note that "Darwinian pride" has been suggested to be at the root of why this evolution myth continues to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Pastor Harvey said "But since you are a Christian and I honor and appreciate that how do you rationalize the bible stating that God created man in HIS image and HIS likeness..."

    At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, slam dunk and high five Pastor!!

    ReplyDelete
  157. "99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in it's soft anatomy which is inacessible in a fossil"~Dr. Michael Denton 'Evolution a Theory In Crisis' pg. 286"

    Pastor, you know what I find really funny is when they make a new pre-historic beast discovery somewhere, and it's big news and always comes with an artist redition of what the beast would have looked like... and then they show what was actually found - a bone sliver.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Fossil evidence is unconvincing to say the least and as darwin himself knew in his day was the weakest part of evolutionary theory. Fossils don't come with tags or grave markers.

    Darwin thought that all the fossils that could be found were mostly found in his day. He didn't say the evidence was weak. He said it was sparse.

    But since then, we've found 23 different species forming neat transitional steps from seaside-dwelling, even-toed, carnivorous ungulate, to modern life-long sea-dwelling whales. That's in whales. As I noted earlier, Eldredge has 2,000 transitionals covering a part of the lives of trilobytes. We have a score of creatures between modern humans and our last common ancestor with chimps. Some of these species have thousands of individuals in evidence.

    Fossil evidence is only unconvincing if we ignore it, or deny it, or lie about it. In a court of law, it would be very solid. We know more about Lucy and her species than we know about Judge Crater -- a lot more. Are you willing to claim Judge Crater didn't exist?


    "99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in it's soft anatomy which is inacessible in a fossil"~Dr. Michael Denton 'Evolution a Theory In Crisis' pg. 286

    And yet we have some soft forms fossilized, against all odds, and they corroborate evolution. And we have trace evidence from other soft forms, which also corroborates evolution. The DNA is gone from the fossils, but not from living relatives. The DNA evidence allows us to use modern species to look at the soft-tissue history from a much more solid scientific foundation. DNA is completely apart from fossils, and yet it corroborates the story of evolution thoroughly. In an interesting little sidefar, it was the molecular guys who predicted whales would be related to an even-toed ungulate. The paleontologists didn't think that was right, since we don't have any carnivorous ungulates left today. But there's a tell-tale ankle bone in even-toed ungulates -- and Gingerich's team unearthed a whale in a Pakistan dig a couple of years later that -- sure enough -- had that tell-tale anklebone. DNA predicts future fossil finds.

    The fossil record, bad as it is, contains millions of data points and paints a clear picture of evolution. Denton's complaint about a lack of soft tissue fossils is eclipsed by two decades of fossil finds.

    [much more in next post, continued]

    ReplyDelete
  159. [continued from previous post]

    "The fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variey of ways and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendent relationships."~Dr. Jonathan Wells 'Icons Of Evolution' Pg. 219

    I'll thank you not to use any of Dr. Wells' claims on an otherwise ethical discussion board. His veracity is no better than Jon Lovins' Pathological Liar character, and much less funny on evil alone.

    In that quote as well, Wells tells bald-faced lies. Why do you repeat them? Surely you are aware of his record of falsehoods.

    Academic frauds on the evolution side are dealt with by prosecution (if federal funds are involved), or retractions and apologies, and corrections of the record. That Wells is still cited by creationists demonstrates the power of moral corruption of the entire creationism scheme.

    Besides, Wells is no paleontologist, and his claim here is pure bunk. Paleontologists argue about some issues, but they do not argue about the fact that evolution occurs and fossils show it clearly.

    "Not only is the fossil record inadequate to establish ancestoral relationships; in light of what we know about the irriducibly complex nature of biological systems, the fossil record is irrelevant to the question"~ Geisler & Turek 'I don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist' pg. 154

    So far as we know, there is no irreducibly complex system in biology. Anyone who makes such a claim is liable to be wrong in anything else they say. These guys are grasping desperately at any sciency sounding thing they can.

    DNA does establish ancestral relationships clearly, and DNA corroborates the fossils.

    Now I'm really curious -- you've cited three publications that are not grounded in research, not peer-reviewed, and not even offered to scientists for criticism and further study. I'd think you'd put your best rebuttals up front.

    I gather, then, that you have no rebuttal grounded in science.

    This is IN PART what I reject crossovers, not to mention al the recants over the years saying that such and such was missing link only to find out that it was something differenct all together...

    Recants? More imaginary frauds. Anyone would reject a recanting -- but the only recants I know of in recent decades was the recanting of the intelligent design article in the Washington journal, and the retraction of the polonium haloes article in the geology journals.

    If you're rejecting recantations, creationism would be gone from your claims.

    But then you claim there are recantations in science? Cite five for me, can you?

    Ed, you act as if these whales died in a graveyard in order...you have much confidence in some of these people I see...maybe a little too much in my opinion.

    I have great confidence in the dating of the fossils. The dating is corroborated with relative locations, and by radio-isotope dating. Radioactive decay is, as you know, the most consistent rhythm in God's universe. God's clocks. They can only be reset by action in a star, or another nuclear reactor. Why would we not have faith in God's clocks?

    I'm surprised you give credence to the tellers of falsehoods, to people who obviously don't know the science they disdain, and not to the story God's creation tells so abundantly, so consistently, and so thoroughly.

    Who to believe, a verifiable liar like Wells, or God's creation? How could anyone choose so wrongly on such an easy choice?

    ReplyDelete
  160. Laura said:

    "99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in it's soft anatomy which is inacessible in a fossil"~Dr. Michael Denton 'Evolution a Theory In Crisis' pg. 286"

    Pastor, you know what I find really funny is when they make a new pre-historic beast discovery somewhere, and it's big news and always comes with an artist redition of what the beast would have looked like... and then they show what was actually found - a bone sliver.


    Do you reject all forensic anthropology? Or just that which runs counter to your biases? Reconstructions use the same methods other forensic anthropologists use to recreate a face from a found skull.

    There's a package of peer-review literature supporting the science.

    Let me guess: Jonathan Wells says it can't work, and he's testifying as an expert for murderers across the nation?

    ReplyDelete
  161. I must say I like that approach. It's helpful and not destructive. But since you are a Christian and I honor and appreciate that how do you rationalize the bible stating that God created man in HIS image and HIS likeness...

    now we're seasoned and we know that wasn't fingers toes etc...but please tell me how you come to grips with that against the evolutionary backdrop that you basically came about as a process of random mutation.

    I'm not trying to lambast or be critical towards you either, but I've never heard a Christian actually expound on that.


    I start from the Christian view that God is the creator of everything (even if not the proximate cause of any particular thing).

    From that I take the Christian principle that creation does not lie, because God is not a deceiver.

    From that I note that what nature reveals to us must be accurate so far as we can tell. Of course this would not apply in instances where humans have interfered with nature, either with or without intention to change the story that creation tells.

    Where are fossils found? Where are animals found? Evolution theory rests completely on what we know from nature, from artifacts and structures untouched by human design.

    Don't they still teach that in seminaries?

    ReplyDelete
  162. Ed said "But since then, we've found 23 different species forming neat transitional steps from seaside-dwelling, even-toed, carnivorous ungulate, to modern life-long sea-dwelling whales."

    "Neat transitional steps" by who's account? The all of science? No.

    If a Jehovah Witness comes to my door and wants to convert me, they are basing their witness on what tradition says and a Bible spoiled by the hands of man. To THEM, they are doing everything right.

    Like Jehovah Witnesses, scientists interpret "neat steps" because their faith-view is based on the premise that evolution is true and correct.

    Anything considered a "transitional" in the fossil record is highly debatable within the scientific community itself. They are just guessing, and if we are just going to guess, then (since you brought it up) I'm sure Creationist and Intelligent Design have a few guesses themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Laura said...
    Pastor Harvey said "But since you are a Christian and I honor and appreciate that how do you rationalize the bible stating that God created man in HIS image and HIS likeness..."



    At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, slam dunk and high five Pastor!!

    Laura ohhh you are tough on us some times, im starting to get a bit of the old swollen laryngitis of the typing fingers.Sadly im only a one finger typer, not that i dont still have all fingers, But more this monkey :-) only learned how to type with one.

    But heres my opinion on how maybe it could work.Still fit in with the scripture.

    Ok "how do you rationalize the bible stating that God created man in HIS image and HIS likeness..."

    Compare monkey.
    1,We walk on two legs and the genes thing
    2,Sometimes we see the wee bugga`s smile and think ohh aint he cute look his face shows heaps of human type expression.
    3,oh and he look after others monkey kids just like we look after our friends kids.
    4,oh an he just love to play with toys if we give them too him to play with.
    5,An like us he can be very naughty sometime,he will fight and pinch other monkeys food,an hell he even learn how to use sticks for weapons.
    6,And sometimes he and his mates will kill other mokeys too.Man i even reckon if he could make a atomic bomb he would use it.
    7,But mostly he live with his family and friends and keep a eye on everyone if he can,An try and warn if something bad gonna happen.
    8,oh and in cold places he even enjoys taking monkey hot tubs over there in Japan i think it is.

    I have an opinion we really could make this list quite long if we compared everything.

    So.How different is the extremity of difference between the image of him the monkey(our very distant relation) and us really?.

    Looks? .... He dont go to church?.......He`s a real rudey and dont wear any clothes?

    If our differences are not really that different.

    Then the idea/theory "God created man in HIS image and HIS likeness"

    Still remains.

    Like we have said...Nobodies saying anyone need to accept it...Its only i idea.

    But with our friend Harv having already got so peeeeeeedd off about that naughty nasty Darwin fellow for poking fun at how differnt different folks looked and what not.

    How would Harv feel if somewhere down the track we start finding out more we really were not so very different after all.

    And what if the pain of it all gets dragged out so long.That opinions dont change until Harvs gone,and its the christian kids that are thinking man how freaking dumb and slow were we.

    Just opinions! ... Costs nothing to considder and hear ....You still dont have to buy anything.Nobodies gonna bother trying to put you in a sleeper hold ...there is no need to.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Ed, I think you like to argue for the sake of argument.

    Got things to do.
    BBL

    ReplyDelete
  165. Laura wrote: Please just name one species that has been proven to have evolved into another species.

    And…

    Gotta walk the dogs and get dinner, but I appreciate your persistence in trying to find SOMETHING that supports the fundamentals of evolution. :-)

    Larura,

    You seem to be suggesting that the theory of evolution depends on someone actually observing one species evolving into another species.

    Of course, I don't want to put any words in your mouth. Is this your position?

    Furthermore, are there any other scientific theories you reject despite their overwhelming support from the scientific community? If so, for what reason? For example, what about geology, quantum mechanics or stellar evolution?

    Last, are their any other non-scientific beliefs you reject because no one has observe them directly?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Ed, I think you like to argue for the sake of argument.

    I argue to increase the influence of knowledge, in a quest for victory over damaging ignorance.

    So, of course, I rely on valid sources. They make the point, don't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  167. Like Jehovah Witnesses, scientists interpret "neat steps" because their faith-view is based on the premise that evolution is true and correct.

    Unlike JWs, scientists show their work. Anyone can join in the discussion, just bring data. Scientists don't have a faith view, except a bias for accuracy. Their faith view is that evolution is conditionally correct -- got any evidence to the contrary? Bring it on. That's what publication is all about.

    Do you have some data to contradict Gingerich's analysis? Let's see the fossils you have.

    Anything considered a "transitional" in the fossil record is highly debatable within the scientific community itself.

    Then, kindly show me the debate in the science community that says Gingerich's finds are not whales, or do not demonstrate evolution. Certainly they are open to debate, and such debates do occur with great regularity -- but it would be a false claim to say that scientists disagree that these 23 separate species do not tell the story of the evolution of the whale.

    Can you find a paper to the contrary in a journal? Here, check to see what you can find in PubMed, or Nature, or Science.

    If there is controversy, it will show up in those indices. Can you find anyone who contests the validity of evolution there? Anyone who says the whales are out of sequence, and therefore not suitable for evidence of evolution?

    They are just guessing, and if we are just going to guess, then (since you brought it up) I'm sure Creationist and Intelligent Design have a few guesses themselves.

    No, they don't guess. Guesswork doesn't get published.

    Can you find guesswork there? Show us.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Ed,

    You said:"But since then, we've found 23 different species forming neat transitional steps from seaside-dwelling, even-toed, carnivorous ungulate, to modern life-long sea-dwelling whales. That's in whales. As I noted earlier, Eldredge has 2,000 transitionals covering a part of the lives of trilobytes."

    What is the ratio of so called transitionals to other animals as a whole?

    I know there are NO trransitionals for humans as that's the concern but generally speaking what is the ratio for all life period? hoepfully I'm framing the question accurately.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Ed,


    What you did is as ad-hominem on Well and I don't appreciate that so far as God's creation if it doesn't lie neither should you engage in the practice of it.

    You may not agree with Wells but he's on point even by all evolutionist standards I've read. They all agree that ANY change within a species is considered evolution...

    Now I point that out clearly in my article, beginning with Phillip Johnson's accusation...NONE of you dealt with it but you continue to confirm EXACTLY what's been said...

    So character destruction isn't the best argument for evolution as there are charlatans who've been exposed for fraud over the years many of which you probably said did something great when they brought their lies to public light (before they were exposed)

    Also, you really provided no light on the biblical text or a scriptural reconciliation of your view...you may not wish to do so, but what answer you rendered said nothing...

    If you'd like to answer, I'd like to know, how do you believe that God breathed the breath of life into man OR formed him of the dust? By what process was that done?

    Since this materialistic philosophy of evolution DOES NOT account for a soul, how does a Christian, I suppose a bible believer, account for the spiritual aspect of man which evolution either does not address or teaches that doesn't exist...

    I'd like to know more, your supposed evidence REMAINS unconvincing and you might try another method as your song is getting tired.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Harv wrote to me:
    >[Harv]Among most of the other garbage that you spoke, you also said this:
    >>[Dave}"Harv, this is a prime example of the extraordinary discourtesy that you Christians show to scientists, and the reason most scientists simply throw up their hands, declare that “Christians are simply ineducable!” and have as little contact with Christians as possible

    Harv, another example of your discourtesy right there: accusing me of speaking “garbage,” when what I have done is to offer you information as to how you could correct some of your misconceptions about physics and cosmology!

    Ah, no good deed goes unpunished.

    Really, Harv, have an adventure and Google “inflationary cosmology” and “eternal inflation” and actually learn some science.

    It will do your soul good – that is, it will weaken your faith in Christianity.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  171. Burnett asked I know there are NO trransitionals for humans as that's the concern but generally speaking what is the ratio for all life period? hoepfully I'm framing the question accurately.

    The only estimate I know of is from 10 years ago here. The author is a Ph.D. biologist, in case you wonder. Elsberry concludes:

    Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences. According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more forthcoming [of transitional fossils] than one would expect, not less.

    The actual numbers and how the estimates were made are in the linked article. The 1974 paper referred to is by Roger Cuffey, a Christian paleontologist who published it to support his argument that Christians should stop using the false claim that there are no transitional fossils. Cuffey listed hundreds of transitional fossils at the species, genus, and higher taxonomic levels. That was in 1974. We have thousands more now.


    BTW, Ed's comment about Wells is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of fact. Wells lies about evolution. I've read his book and it's full of misrepresentations and falsehoods. What do we call someone who persistently asserts a falsehood in the face of evidence that it's false? A liar. Wells has zero respect in the scientific community, of which, by the by, I'm a member. Like Dave, I'm a Ph.D. scientist who has worked with computer models of evolution for nearly 20 years and has taught both evolutionary modeling and the history of the religious conflict over evolution at the college level. That's why I was a little amused to be lectured by Laura about what science is. I've done it for more than 45 years!

    ReplyDelete
  172. Gandy,

    Somebody out to take you out back of the wood shed and at lest beat you with a packet of spaghetti for that answer...what the John Hay was that?

    As I suggested to Scott the differences between monkeys and humans are similar to the difference between the place of Lazarus and the beggar in hell. They are close but irreconcilably far apart and do not or have not ever crossed.

    The similarities between humans and monkeys only show a similar creator, not a common descent.

    As I illustrated to Scott:

    Gandy is a good looking god of a man!

    Gandy is a good looking dog of a man!

    How close are they to being the same? There is only the placement of 2 letters that changes everything. Yet anyone should recognize that they mean two entirely and irreconcilably different things.

    I'm beginning to think that you guys have a little mysticism in you...Why? because mystics look for appearances and similarities "show me a sign" in things and immediately they say it's true.

    For some reason it seem when it comes to the philosophical reasoning of evolution you guys lose ALL critical thinking skills...what is that?

    ReplyDelete
  173. What you did is as ad-hominem on Well and I don't appreciate that so far as God's creation if it doesn't lie neither should you engage in the practice of it.

    I gave you the link to see how Wells lied about Kettlewell and the moths.

    It's not ad hominem. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe him because he kicks his dog. I'm saying no Christian should give the man credence because he tells bald-faced lies about scientists and science, and I've offered the proof.

    Each and every one of Wells' claims about Kettlewell is false. Worse, each footnote in his book, in the chapter on Kettlewell, goes to a paper which denies precisely what Wells claims. He's banking that neither you nor I will bother to track down his footnotes -- he's bluffing.

    Don't take my word for it. Get his book. Check his footnotes, and track down the sources.

    When he testified to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003, he "updated" his hatchet job on Kettlewell with footnotes to the then-new book, Of Moths and Men. I had the book with me at the hearings, and I confronted Wells with it. He said it was "just debate."

    In the book, Judith Hooper writes about scientists complaining that her work would be used by creationists to claim Kettlewell was wrong (a point she does not support precisely). She spent a couple of pages noting how such a claim would be absolutely false.

    Wells cited her, of course, or should I say "mis-cited" her. He claimed she said Kettlewell's work was falsified, which she does not say. Confronted with the book, Wells and the Discovery Institute claim "difference of opinion."

    But it's not. It's academic fraud. I ask that you check with a local university on their policy of academic fraud, and what it is, and see if Wells' citations to papers, claiming they say the opposite of what they say, isn't academic fraud.

    I worry about the corrosive effect creationism has on good people. Here we have a guy who lies with impunity, and you accuse me of ad hominem when I call him on it.

    When do you call the liar for the lies he tells? When will your "yes" be a yes?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Harv wrote to me:
    > What do you have Christianaphobia?

    Well… “Christianphobia” would mean fear of Christians, and I’m not afraid of you guys. I think you are a rapidly vanishing breed.

    If you are asking what I dislike about Christianity, two things:

    First, that it teaches things that are untrue: Creationism, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, etc.

    Second, and more importantly, my objection is moral.

    You remember the Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32? Moses had the sons of Levi go through the children of Israel and randomly murder about 3000 people. Those people’s crime? They had exercised their freedom of religion in a way that Moses, and, supposedly, Yahweh did not like.

    I’ve mentioned this to a number of Bible-believing Christians, and have yet to find one who is willing to condemn that mass murder as a horrific atrocity and an obvious violation of freedom of religion.

    I’m not frightened of you Christians doing that today, simply because we non-Christians so overwhelmingly out-number you, taking the world as a whole. True Bible-believing Christians are probably only a few hundred million world-wide; even here in the US, one of the last bastions of Christianity in the developed world, Bible-believing Christians are a minority.

    But it does bother me that children of Bible-believing Christians are taught that the mass murder in Exodus 32 was the morally right action.

    I think it stunts their children morally.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  175. Dr. Miller,

    Thanks for selecting what you wanted to answer but please expound on this:"First, that it teaches things that are untrue: Creationism, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, etc."

    How do you determine it's untruth? What your basis for your reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Ed,

    Have you ever figured out if Wells’ bizarre claim to have discovered the well-known fact about maternal influence in embryological development was simply a lie or if Jonathon was simply a really, really poor student?

    For the details and cites, see Pim van Meurs’ comment (first comment) at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/these-guys-cant.html .

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  177. Since we talk truth and representation, let's see what Dr. Behe has to say about the Rotwieler in question concering the response to his 2007 NY Times article:

    "At the end of his review Dawkins chides me for lack of peer-reviewed publications. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If Dawkins himself has many peer-reviewed research publications in the last few decades, he must be writing them under a pseudonym. Dawkins’ hypocritical complaint makes a nice little example of Darwinian gate-keeping. The nebulous, wooly-minded scenarios Dawkins spins in his books, of the origins of bat echolocation, spider webs, and so on, have no real justification in peer-reviewed publications. Yet Dawkins is free to write trade books without howls of protest from the scientific community because his stories fit the way many scientists want the world to be. But if (ahem...) someone publishes a book critically analyzing the data from a different perspective, the reaction is dramatically different."~Dr. M. Behe 2007 at http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK1LX6R18AF0EE6

    It would also seem that nobody in evolutionary biology was doing any theories on the development of biological machinery necessay for the evolutionary process to work except Behe (at least at the time)

    Who's doing any modern work in that area evolutionary scholars?

    BTW, those rates, I'll have to interpret them, but my initial is even given millions of years there's not enough fossil evidence to justify the speciation that evolution says exists.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Harv wrote to me:
    > How do you determine it's untruth? What your basis for your reasoning?

    Science, young man, science.

    (I take it you are a decade or two younger than me, Harv, so “young man” is not an insult!)

    Seriously, I think you are again homing in on the real difference among us here.

    Anyone who reads your blog in detail will find careful detailed musings over the exact meaning of individual words in the Bible.

    I must tell you, to a scientist, this is rather like visiting a village of headhunters in Borneo! Very few scientific papers do that sort of thing. What seems to you and Laura a perfectly sensible way of making your case seems to most scientists rather like the writings of medieval scholastic philosophers. I suppose that is no coincidence, since the medieval period was the peak of Christian thought. (I assume you agree with me that Bultmann, Barth, et al are not real impressive.)

    I judge the truth of something by how it coheres with the large body of very well-established results in science. Science says that a human male cannot be born as a clone of a human female (the Y chromosome problem). So, it did not happen.

    Since myths of half-divine, half-human children were a dime-a-dozen in the ancient world, it is easy to see where the Christians got this idea.

    Can’t science be wrong?

    Well… when there is a huge amount of evidence for a scientific law, there would have to be very solid evidence of a counter-example to invalidate that law. Since the Gospels disagree among themselves on numerous points, and since it is easy to see how the myth of the Virgin Birth could be fashioned out of pre-existing pagan myths, on the face of it, it is clear what really happened.

    Now, I know you can cite Isaiah, and we can debate the meaning of the words ‘almah” and “parthenos” and so on, but that just demonstrates the enormous cultural gulf between science and Christianity.

    When Einstein claimed to prove Newton wrong, scientists did not spend decades arguing over the exact meaning of the words Newton had used! We looked at the evidence for Einstein’s theory: Einstein wins; Newton loses. Game over.

    You traditional Christians do not want a decision of “Game over.”

    One reason I am reluctant to get down in the mud with you folks is that I think it is all moot.

    Bright college kids or young adults nowadays just tend to have the attitude: “Some Jewish girl got pregnant outside of marriage, she claimed it was an action of God, and people believed her? C’mon!”

    The culture has shifted. Bright well-educated people are no longer inclined to argue about the truth of Christianity any more than they’d seriously argue about astrology or “pyramid power.”

    It’s over.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  179. Gods walk on two legs if we made in their image, my friend from mein kampf aaa laa no way Hosea ill never admit evolution.

    Dogs walk on four legs :-) and at the moment you soooo lost in the woods with so many trees, you hardly know which leg you should stand on.

    "RBH said ...."BTW, Ed's comment about Wells is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of fact. Wells lies about evolution. I've read his book and it's full of misrepresentations and falsehoods. What do we call someone who persistently asserts a falsehood in the face of evidence that it's false? A liar. Wells has zero respect in the scientific community, of which, by the by, I'm a member. Like Dave, I'm a Ph.D. scientist who has worked with computer models of evolution for nearly 20 years and has taught both evolutionary modeling and the history of the religious conflict over evolution at the college level. That's why I was a little amused to be lectured by Laura about what science is. I've done it for more than 45 years!"

    Harvey ive gotta have a break,i think you got plenty to think about.

    But i gotta say all these people with lots of knowledge between them have all been prepared to come by and show they can honestly try discuss these things.When some of them have likely got far better fun things they could do,and some already tried many times before to talk about this stuff honestly with you.

    I got to understand how it could frustrate people and make them want to call you names.You think hard about that for awhile.

    Think how it would feel when its like you on some type of merry go round rides,here we go again round and round getting no where ...What about this what about that ... oh but this and that ... and this fellow reckons this....And the type of stuff you put forward is like this.

    Gandy is a good looking god of a man!

    Gandy is a good looking dog of a man!

    Hey like the peotry and shuffling words trick.

    But it doesnt help.

    Cause just face it we are supposedly made in gods image so we walk on two limbs.....Dogs dont really do they.

    Harvey my friend you like hosea the prophet might yet be one of the hardest to understand :-)

    ReplyDelete
  180. Harv,

    By the way, in some ways, you and I are actually on the same side here.

    I quite agree with you that there is an insurmountable contradiction between establishment science and Christianity. I use the phrase “establishment science” to refer to the science taught at, say, Urbana-Champaign or U. of Chicago, so we can avoid arguing about whether Behe and Dembski are engaged in “real” science or not: hopefully, we can at least agree that their work is not “establishment science.” (If you doubt that, take a trip to Urbana-Chamapign or to U. Of Chicago and ask some professors there!)

    If establishment science is correct, then the opening chapters of Genesis are not literally true.

    And, if we concede that the opening chapters of Genesis are myth, metaphor, or mistakes, then what is to stop us from viewing the Gospels in the same way?

    Of course, “liberal” and “moderate” Christians try to hold on to the Gospels, while dumping Genesis, but that really makes no sense.

    As they say, “moderate” Christianity is simply a feather bed to catch Christians who have fallen away from real Christianity.

    Someone here mentioned Ken Miller, one of the best-known scientists who claims that evolution is consistent with Christianity.

    Recently, “Discover Magazine” reported that Ken has recently “suggested that the virgin birth of Christ could be a metaphor…” ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/06/15/world-science-festival-science-and-religion-panelists-agree-on-science-if-not-religion/ ).

    Hopefully, it will not be too long before Ken admits that the Resurrection, the Incarnation, and the existence of God are also metaphors and declares himself to be an outright atheist.

    Yep, Harv, on the central point, you are right: it’s either establishment science or Christ.

    People have to choose: Darwin or Christ.

    No honest compromise is really possible.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  181. Harv,

    While I’m in a friendly mood, let me mention one other point where I agree with you.

    In your original post, you wrote:
    > Because of the approach of the scientific practice over history, science did not lend itself to understanding how and why we have consciousness. There seems to be a blind and empty-face stare into what science doesn't address under the current paradigms of scientific discovery.
    [snip]
    > All of this leads to a question just begging to be answered. How and why do we have consciousness? Current studies have shown that the material functions of the body do not arbitrarily nor automatically produce consciousness or self awareness.

    I actually pretty much agree with everything I just quoted: indeed, it is my professional opinion as a physicist that physics as we now understand it cannot account for consciousness.

    I have a review on amazon.com of Colin McGinn’s book “The Mysterious Flame” which goes into detail as to why I have reached that conclusion (http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Flame-Conscious-Minds-Material/dp/0465014232 ).

    Colin, incidentally, is a professor of philosophy who is also an atheist, and he also agrees with you and me on this.

    There are, indeed, an increasing number of both scientists and atheists who acknowledge that the problem of consciousness is the key issue that modern science has not yet successfully addressed.

    Of course, maybe science will address this eventually by some major change in the structure of science: I expect this; Colin is more pessimistic.

    And, the fact that consciousness is not explained by physics does not prove that God exists. There are many possible alternatives. Perhaps, we are all part of one vast universal ocean of consciousness. Perhaps, the consciousness of each of us has existed eternally and is continually being reincarnated. Or, perhaps the answer is something else (personally, I vote for “something else”).

    Anyway, scientists and atheists are not as dogmatically materialist as you seem to think. Most of us are willing to admit that there is much that the human race does not understand.

    We just do not think that crying out “God!” provides an answer.

    I hope you’ll read my amazon review or, better yet, Colin’s book: I think you’ll find both interesting.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  182. Here's a little question for you to chew on:

    http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-evolution-science.html

    Scott,

    I'll get with you on the lecture, I've only got through part of it so far.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Harv,

    In the post you tried to link to (blogger is truncating both your and my URLs), you wrote:
    > I'm sorry my evolutionist friends, your dogma and philosophical metaphysical naturalism has caused the damge that we currently see played out in our children, families and social environments. How is this so?

    The problem with that statement is that a lot of us who are scientists or atheists simply are not adherents of “philosophical metaphysical naturalism”: a lot of us, both Colim McGinn and I, for example, are sympathetic to the famous statement from J. B. S. Haldane (I quote from memory – this may not be exact):
    >The universe may not be only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we *can* imagine.

    (And, to tell you the truth, an awful lot of scientists and atheists have no idea what “philosophical metaphysical naturalism” even means: they simply do not think God exists, at least not your Christian God.)

    Scientists have said the following many times: science is methodologically naturalist, simply because that is what has worked. If any real evidence appeared for the supernatural, of course we would consider naturalistic explanations, because such explanations have worked so well in the past. However, it is easy enough to imagine events that could occur that would be pretty tough to explain naturalistically (the supposed “Rapture” for example), and then we would look for supernatural explanations.

    We have not done so, simply because we have never run across any such event.

    Anyway, evolution is far from such high-flying philosophical issues. When I was a kid, I attended a Southern Baptist church: the Baptists back then took no stand on evolution. From various places, I heard about lots of curious, kind of weird ideas: von Daniken’s ancient-gods-as-aliens idea, Velikovsky’s worlds-in-collision theory, evolution, etc.

    So, I checked them out. Von Daniken and Velikovsky turned out to have no real evidence.

    Evolution turned out to have a huge amount of evidence.

    I did, of course, apply to all of these things the same criteria of evidence that I learned to apply in physics, chemistry, etc.: i.e., don’t argue about the ‘real” meaning of words, don’t look for the secret interpretation of ancient texts, etc., but just look for well-verified evidence, make sure it is well-verified, and see if the theory is the simplest theory that explains such evidence.

    By those standards, evolution passed with flying colors, just as relativity did (I was initially skeptical of Einstein – but the theory checks out), the atomic theory, etc.

    Von Daniken, Velikovsky, the Bible, etc. failed that test.

    As I said earlier, Bible-believing Christians are using a different mode for judging truth, based on dithering over the exact meaning of words, etc., that has never proven to have any value.

    This is, I think, an unbridgeable cultural gap between science and religion (and I see no reason why it should be bridged). I think the young people, and certainly most of the world, are moving away from the religious culture and towards the science culture, and that seems to me all to the best.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  184. Harvey wrote

    It would also seem that nobody in evolutionary biology was doing any theories on the development of biological machinery necessay for the evolutionary process to work except Behe (at least at the time)

    That's past ludicrous. Behe has never published a single word on the "development of the biological machinery necessary for evolutionary processes to work." I've read both of his books and a fair number of his articles in various venues, and all he does is claim that evolutionary processes can't do something or other. The only "theory" -- speculation, really -- that he has ever offered is that all the "genetic information" necessary for all the biological structures in all the organisms alive was front-loaded into the very first cell some 3.5 billion years ago and has been passed down unchanged until it's needed. And that's also past ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  185. RBH wrote:
    >The only "theory" -- speculation, really -- that he [Behe] has ever offered is that all the "genetic information" necessary for all the biological structures in all the organisms alive was front-loaded into the very first cell some 3.5 billion years ago and has been passed down unchanged until it's needed. And that's also past ludicrous.

    Do you think Behe really takes that seriously??

    I’m a physicist, not a biochemist or molecular biologist, but I can think of a huge number of things wrong with that claim!

    Or do you think he was just playing games again with the word “information” so that by the magical meaning of “information” his statement somehow becomes true, even though in the ordinary sense it is obviously false?

    Of course, all those folks who have adopted as an article of faith that it is impossible to create new biological information are, I suppose, driven to such absurdities.

    Of course, as a physicist, I recognize that the new biological information comes ultimately from the negentropy supplied by the sun, but I’ve never been able to get any creationist to learn enough thermodynamics to understand that point. Sometimes, I think that the definition of “creationist” is “someone who flunked Thermodynamics 101 – or would have, if not for grade inflation.”

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  186. -Anything considered a "transitional" in the fossil record is highly debatable within the scientific community itself-

    Transitionals are hard to place EXACTLY. Placing them generally in a lineage is easy. I mean you take a half dino-half bird fossil and you know to put it in the general area between dinos and birds in the evolutionary tree.

    I find it amusing that i tell Laura I can name 5 different humanoid species between humans and apes and her response is
    'so we should make the giant leap of faith that man is next without the missing link that proves it?'

    I offered you 5 missing links Laura. How fine a gradation do you want? I can probably find more if you need more.

    ReplyDelete
  187. It seems like some folks here aren't being completely truthful and I hope I'm wrong and it's only ignorance of the facts, not out-right deceptiveness.

    There's so much - I don't know where to start so I'll try to kill a couple birds with one stone.

    "The 1974 paper referred to is by Roger Cuffey, a Christian paleontologist who published it to support his argument that Christians should stop using the false claim that there are no transitional fossils. Cuffey listed hundreds of transitional fossils at the species, genus, and higher taxonomic levels. That was in 1974. We have thousands more now."

    I'm sure what you meant to say is that this was an essay published in 1974 in the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) magazine that describes itself as a fellowship of men and women in science and related disciplines, whose stated goal is to share a common fidelity to the Bible and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. Its stated purpose is "to investigate any area relating Christian faith and science" and "to make known the results of such investigations for comment and criticism by the Christian community and by the scientific community.

    This young paleontologist (like Ross on "Friends") grouped together drawings of fossils by how similar they were using his best guess and nothing more. The essay was not picked up by any accredited scientific publication because there was nothing scientific about it, but yet his essay from 35 years ago is posted all over the internet as proof of transitions.

    Let's get real here. Why do you think there have been so many hoaxes about transitions? Each one being press-worthy, making a big splash until they discover they were duped. Because there aren't ANY fossils that have been proven to be transitional. Zero.

    You're buying into the "it looks right so it must be right" myth.

    So what would science expect to see in a macro transitional? Caught changes in the middle of being created like
    random mutations, failed growths and parts under construction.

    What have they found? Nada. Zip.

    ReplyDelete
  188. -
    You're buying into the "it looks right so it must be right" myth.-

    It is also dated and compared with other specimins.

    -So what would science expect to see in a macro transitional? Caught changes in the middle of being created like
    random mutations, failed growths and parts under construction. -

    No, we would expect to see bone structures that inefficiently do a new job. Fish with fin-legs, but the legs are poorly developed for being on land and still function mostly for swimming. Or bird-like wings but which would only allow the animal to "fall gracefully" rather than fly. The animal will be fully functional and the slight development will be an advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Laura wrote:
    > So what would science expect to see in a macro transitional? Caught changes in the middle of being created like random mutations, failed growths and parts under construction.

    No, young lady, that is *not* what science would expect to see, and I doubt you can find any competent scientist who said he expected to see that.

    And, somehow, I think you know that.

    You just make this stuff up.

    Easier than actually studying science, isn't it?

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  190. Ed said "Do you have some data to contradict Gingerich's analysis? Then, kindly show me the debate in the science community that says Gingerich's finds are not whales, or do not demonstrate evolution."

    More than you can shake a stick at. Took me all of 2 minutes to find that paleontologists debunked his whale of a story 7 years later.

    http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale

    Then, kindly show me the debate in the science community that says Gingerich's finds are not whales, or do not demonstrate evolution. Certainly they are open to debate, and such debates do occur with great regularity -- but it would be a false claim to say that scientists disagree that these 23 separate species do not tell the story of the evolution of the whale.
    Can you find a paper to the contrary in a journal? Here, check to see what you can find in PubMed, or Nature, or Science.


    Lol, I believe it said the debunking paper was published in Nature.

    "I argue to increase the influence of knowledge, in a quest for victory over damaging ignorance.
    So, of course, I rely on valid sources. They make the point, don't you agree?"


    You can dish it, but let's see if you can take it. Oh course, your will come back with something like "He was wrong there, but right all the other times".
    Yawn.

    "Let's see the fossils you have."

    They're in my other purse.

    "No, they don't guess. Guesswork doesn't get published."

    Umm, lol, nevermind. I'm trying to be nice. Just tell me you're not so naive as to believe only facts are published, and science isn't based on beginning hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  191. "Let's get real here. Why do you think there have been so many hoaxes about transitions?"

    Okay, let's get real: How many such hoaxes have there been? One. Piltdown, which was uncovered because it did not fit into any evolution schema.

    Maybe one other accidental "hoax," with a misidentification of two of dozens of feathered dinosaur fossils out of China.

    Compare that with more than 10,000 species of dinosaur solidly identified in literature. The error rate is incredibly small.

    Contrast that with predictions of the return of Christ . . .

    Yes, let's get real. You're not using science, but instead you're using false claims about science. That's what creationism is.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Harv wrote:
    > Then please summarily characterize evolution for us.
    [snip]
    >2 parts
    > 1- the origin of man
    > 2- the future of the human race

    1. Humans are descended from fish: all vertebrate tetrapods are.

    2. Dumb people are having more kids than smart people in the USA; therefore, the population of the USA will get much dumber.

    This is already observable.

    I advise Americans to learn how to say, in Mandarin Chinese, “Would you like fries with that, sir? Extra ketchup?”

    Glad I could help.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  193. Gandy, sorry about your swollen typing finger. :-)

    What you're talking about has been done, and rejected by science. Take horses, for instance. In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. I'm pretty sure I remember the chart from elementry school.

    (taken from the internet)
    "Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes.

    "Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found. The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.

    Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish."

    Evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry shown in this chart...

    But evolutionists want you to believe that changes do happen, merging gradually into new kinds of species. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in because there is zero evidence of that.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Regarding: "This young paleontologist . . . like Ross on 'Friends' . . .'"

    Cuffey's Ph.D. in paleontology was 1966 -- so he was eight years post-doc when he wrote up this paper for ASA in 1974.

    Not like Ross -- already well established in his career.

    But it's not the subtle, unfactual denigration of the guy who did the work that gets me (this is real ad hominem argumentative error) so much as Laura's failure to deal with the evidence the guy presented. So what if it was a survey paper? Creationism has zero factual response.

    Are you really sure that transitionals don't exist? Take Wes Elsberry's Transitional Fossil Challenge, see if you can do better than the other dozens who have failed it.

    I was reminded of it because Elseberry starts it out with a quote from Cuffey:

    [quote]Sometimes a SciCre-ist rashly proclaims that no transitional fossils exist. There are some good reasons to suppose that these people do not quite have the wherewithal to back up their claims, like the existence of transitional fossils.

    "Because of the critical role which transitional fossils played in convincing scientists of the occurrence of organic evolution, paleontologists have been appalled that many otherwise well-informed persons have repeated the grossly misinformed assertion that transitional fossils do not exist. Consequently, after a relatively brief and non-exhaustive search of the literature available to me, I compiled the examples of transitional fossils presented here."

    -- Roger J. Cuffey, Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution, in Science And Creationism, ed. A. Montagu, 1984.

    Cuffey's paper was originally published by the American Scientific Affiliation. This is the group that the ICR splintered off from many years ago. Cuffey gives several different categories of transitional fossils. The first two sets are called "transitional individuals," because the record is essentially complete enough that one can see each gradual shift in the transition. There are fifty-nine references for sequences in the group that record transitions within the same genus. There are forty references for sequences that record these fine-grained transitions crossing higher taxa.

    Recall that Cuffey's survey is not exhaustive.

    The following text is my standard challenge that I present to people who claim that there are no transitional fossils.

    * * * * * * *

    The Challenge:

    If SciCre-ists are "well-informed" enough to comment on evolution and evolutionary mechanism theories, why is it that so few seem to have even a passing familiarity with the biological evidence?

    Look at this reference:

    Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence described therein fails to show transitional fossils. After you outline your objections to this sequence, I have another 100 or so sequences showing fine grained transitions ready to go, one at a time, until either you demonstrate that none are actually transitional, or you give up your ludicrous claim.

    Consider yourself challenged.

    The bibliography comes from the examples in Tables 1 & 2 in Roger Cuffey's excellent paper, "Paleontologic evidence and organic evolution," which can be found in Montagu's "Science and Creationism" or the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 24(4), just in case you want to get a jump-start on the rest of the entries.

    Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a tacit failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences -- the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences, and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
    [end quote]

    ReplyDelete
  195. Laura brings up one of the oldest and boldest of creationist hoaxes: Take horses, for instance.

    Please do. A brilliant series of transitional fossils. Creationists have claimed for 80 years that it's false somehow, but not a single creationist paper has ever explained how or why -- nor has any creationist ever produced a scintilla of evidence to support any claim of error.

    Please, Laura, this is a friendly discussion. Don't try to hoax us. Some of us have been at this a while and know better.

    Here's a lay (and flawed) summary that lays out much of the evidence:
    http://darwiniana.org/horses.htm

    Scientists unmasked the Piltdown hoax, and it is never mentioned by scientists as evidence for anything anymore. It's time for creationists to cowboy up and admit their hoax on horse evolution, and stop using it in polite company.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Pastor Harvey said "For some reason it seem when it comes to the philosophical reasoning of evolution you guys lose ALL critical thinking skills...what is that?"

    Hey Pastor! Haven't you and I heard something similar? Another proof that evolution is a faith-based religion.

    ReplyDelete
  197. -Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.-

    I see...so those dinosaurs with wings...those fish with legs...those pesky humanoid fossils...nope nothing to see here. Not halfway between 2 known species or animal groups at all.

    -The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.-

    I should point out that the basic body plan for mammals was laid down a long time ago by nature. Nothing needs to be added to a dog to make it different to a cat, it's bone structure has just been pushed and pulled a little differently. The animals have different habits..and obviously they can't breed together. That's about it. However they are very distinct apparently. Funny that.

    Creating a new body part is actually quite easy for DNA. Humans born with "extra" external bits (nipples, toes, fingers) are actually quite common. I don't see the problem with it happening. It's practically guaranteed to my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Ed "Consider yourself challenged.

    Did you run out of arguments so fast that you have to take up RBH's argument?

    I'll pass on your so-called challenge. Frankly, it would be a waste of my time, wouldn't it?

    I haven't seen where you answered Harvey's question about how God breathed life into Adam. Wondering to myself if you believe in the virgin birth.

    A n y w a y...Got a couple quotes of my own I saw while looking for your whales:

    Ernst Chain (1906-1979) and two others were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance. He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics. Concerning Darwin's theory of evolution, Chain found it to be "a very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that "it can hardly be called a theory." He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts." He wrote: "These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.


    Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology: "There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. The fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level."

    "We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equlibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells." "We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution."

    Sean B. Carroll, of the Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin--Madison, wrote in a 2001 edition of Nature: "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue."

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.