Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Creationism = anti-science, anti-human rights
Does an attack on evolution mean “a serious attack on human rights”? That is what the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly will decide this week when it votes on a resolution that urges its 47 member states to oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline.
Creationism is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-democracy, the resolution declares. It is rooted in “forms of religious extremism.” Its proponents are “supporters of a radical return to the past,” and some of them are “out to replace democracy by theocracy.” Muslim creationism is taking hold, the resolution cautions, and countries should “resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion.”
Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute and former UN ambassador to Vienna, said he can’t see the urgency. He said there is no European push to teach either creationism or intelligent design, and he thinks the Council of Europe is “responding to Darwinist organizations and their pressure tactics.”
Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days, while intelligent design theory merely states there is evidence of an intelligent designer. The resolution called intelligent design “the latest, most refined version of creationism … [but] no less dangerous.” That statement indicates to Mr. Chapman that the council does not understand the issue: “They are trying to broad brush anyone who is critical of Darwin’s theory as a creationist.”
Chapman adds that even setting aside the difference between intelligent design and creationism, “What they say about both of them is untrue about either of them.” The council is taking a political shot, he said, but “they don’t know what they’re shooting at.”
back to top918 Comments to “Creationism = anti-science, anti-human rights”
Well it is straight forward to show that creationsim as apparently defined in the start to this discussion is not science: there is no scientific evidence for the world being created in six days. And it follows relatively quickly then that creationsim as apparently defined in this discussion is religion.
Now intelligent design is a more refined question. As presented in both this discussion, the Disccovery Institute materials, and by Behe, intelligent design assumes:
1) an old earth
2) descent of all complex organisms form a common ancestor
Further the descent is by genetic modification. The only question is whether an intelligent designer is required.
Intelligent design in this form, however, is not science, since it has provided no testable hypotheses. By the nature of how the question is formulated there is no objectvie way to distinguish between mutations driven by random mutations under slective pressure and the intelligent designer.
So again Intelligent Design should also not be in a science class.
Now I suggest that it is not Creationism or Intelligent Design which is anti-democratic. It is the insistence that, in a society in which religious intervention in government is prohibited, Creationsim or Intelligent Design should be taught in scinece class. Since they are not science, it seem clear they should not be.
Report comment to moderator
Intelligent design in this form, however, is not science, since it has provided no testable hypotheses.
The same is accurately said of evolution, which is why it may rightly be called a “theory.” Instead, it is treated as dogma.
Every evolutionary “testable hypothesis” I’ve ever seen has involved circular reasoning, as in “primordial soup.”
BUT, as to the issue of human rights, it is ridiculous to allege that a philosophy in which men, goats, and bacteria are cosmic chemical coincidences holds human rights in higher esteem than one which posits that man is uniquely created in the image of a loving creator.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: there is no scientific evidence for the world being created in six days.
That’s about the same as saying that “there’s no scientific evidence for the world arising from bacteria over millions of years.”
The dating methods used by Evolutionist scientists are intended to back up their theories.
How do they determine that something is 6 million years old? Because they’ve placed it on their evolutionary scale as being older than something they’ve decreed to be 5 million years old!
Ask them what the original “base” date is, and they cannot give a scientific basis.
What a load.
Report comment to moderator
The Catholic Church demonstrated in Galileo’s day that legislating science was a bad idea.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: there is no scientific evidence for the world being created in six days.
A much stronger statement can be made. Abundant and overwhelming evidence from many independent lines of observation confirms that the world was NOT created in only six days and is MUCH OLDER than the 6,000 year figure given by creationists.
As for intelligent design as currently configured, it is religion or philosophy, but not science. The Discovery Institute ploy is to overthrow the conclusions of legitimate scientific institutions in favor of the beliedf of religio-political organizations. This is nothing less than an effort at the political establishment of religion. If ID is so scientific, let them argue it in the scientific arena. It isn’t, so they can’t. Their efforts are plain old anti-science and constitute a full-out assault on truth inferred from the natural world.
Report comment to moderator
The dating methods used by Evolutionist scientists are intended to back up their theories.
How do they determine that something is 6 million years old? Because they’ve placed it on their evolutionary scale as being older than something they’ve decreed to be 5 million years old!
Ask them what the original “base” date is, and they cannot give a scientific basis.
This is a lie that is frequently told by YE creationists. Repeating it doesn’t make it true. Please learn some real geology before you go spouting it off!
Report comment to moderator
Stubob post 2,
no actually evolutionary theory has presetned a number of hypothese and tested them. the simplest of course is the test for anti-biotic resistance of e-coli. The hypothesis is that when challenged with anti-biotics, evolutionary thoery would suggest that the colony would develop resistance. It does.
We can go further, but I need only one example to disprove your categorical here.
Do note that I have given a categorical regarding Intelligent Design, so you have the same opportunity to challenge my observations on Intelligent Design.
Report comment to moderator
“Does an attack on evolution mean “a serious attack on human rights”?”
No, but the promotion of evolution is a serious attack on human rights. What does a lion care for the rights of a gazelle? What does a strong man care for the rights of a weak man? Why not “cull the herd” of vagrants, homeless, crippled, old, and anyone else deemed worthless?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 3m
well I like Sponza’s response but I will add one item. None of the dating methods used to date the earth were developed with the intent of backing up evolution.
I typically provide four:
1) heat transfer from the earth
2) plate tectonics
3) radiological dating
4) nuclear physics models of the sun
None of these have anything to do with evolution. Each of them uses different physics. All of them yield ages of the earth which are at least 100 million years which is 10,000 times the typical 10,000 years old numbers used by most Young Earth Creationists.
Now outkast, you and I have had this conversation before, and in the end you said your evidence was Genesis. If you stay with your earlier position that Genesis is your source and it is a religious, not a scinetific position, then I have no quarrel with you on this point.
You seem to be reverting however, in which case it would seem that we need to walk through the syllogism again.
To reiterate, YEC is a religious not a scientific position.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney post 8,
evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, it is not a moral theory. And all the available scientific evidence to date has not been able to falsify the basic tenants of evolutionary theory.
You appear to be raising moral questions, and morality does not appear to be the rightful domain of science. Science deals only with the objective world as it can be validated through observation (and yes we can observe the past).
Report comment to moderator
musing – anti-biotic esistance is an example of micro-evolution, which no one seriously disputes.
The only fight is over macro-evolution (the quadropedal predeccessor mammal becomes, over time, dogs, cats and bears as separate non-interbreedable species with different numbers of chromosomes and such).
Report comment to moderator
KRM post 1,
ah but in saying that it is micro-evolution, you admit that there is evolution. By the way there are people who challenge even micro-evolution.
Now I believe your second paragraph defines what you mean as macro-evolution. If this is true, then how does this defintion apply to single celled organisms (e.g. bacteria) and plants?
Neither of these have breeding in the sense of animals. Both of these entities appear to share DNA rather willi-nilli.
So how does your definition work with the sharing of plasmids in bacteria and in hybridization of plants?
When we get this clear we can then explore animals.
Report comment to moderator
Think back to Medieval Europe, when the church “decreed” rules which all were required to follow, with severe penalties for heresy. I suppose that’s what the parliament is afraid of: a return to a powerful church ruling by decree – theocracy. But was religion the real problem in that Medieval scenario, or was it simply that a small group of people had power to issue decrees for all the rest? And here is the European parliament, a small group attempting to decree what can and cannot be taught for all of Europe! Sounds like history repeating itself to me.
Report comment to moderator
This is another question that will be answered when we die. Until then, you say tomato and I’ll say tomato.
I need to go to my apartments and give an old lady a Lead Paint Hazard notice and put in some doorknobs and deadbolts. Life goes on.
Report comment to moderator
Eaton post 13,
Now as I read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
it sounds to me like the Parliament is directly elected by the populous. As such it does not sound to me like it is comparable to the clerical aristocracy of medieval Europe.
Report comment to moderator
If I want to believe that God created the Earth in six days that’s my own affair. If I’m in the majority and want to make it a part of the school curriculum so be it.
To claim it is that my beliefs are not scientific and discredit them based upon another set of beliefs is inherently dangerous. Who judges? What set of beliefs or ideas will be next?
Report comment to moderator
Musing (7):The hypothesis is that when challenged with anti-biotics, evolutionary thoery would suggest that the colony would develop resistance. It does.
When you say “evolutionary theory” do you mean Darwin? Lamarck? Both would predict bacterial resistance. Are both then proved valid? For that matter, Learning Theory could predict colony resistance. It that valid? Do colonies of E. coli learn not to metabolize antibiotics?
But the real issue here is that the Parliamentary Assembly is establishing “evolution” as unassailable dogma. I don’t think, and neither do you, that such a position encourages scientific enquiry.
Report comment to moderator
But the real issue here is that the Parliamentary Assembly is establishing “evolution” as unassailable dogma. I don’t think, and neither do you, that such a position encourages scientific enquiry.
No. They are correctly teaching the role of evolution in science as follows:
“From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.”
This statement is absolutely true. They are also correctly identifying “creationism” as NOT part of science and its teaching as science is imposition of religious belief. E.g.,
“Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.
However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution. From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.
The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.”
(from the draft summary)
Report comment to moderator
a return to a powerful church ruling by decree – theocracy
In Europe? Gimme a break! I think your post is right on.
ah but in saying that it is micro-evolution, you admit that there is evolution. By the way there are people who challenge even micro-evolution.
As you’ve demonstrated, it’s important to define tems. If “microevolution” is natural selection, causing changes within species via the filtering out of non-useful DNA, then I believe in microevolution. If microevolution is evolution (as the term would indicate), then I believe in evolution.
However, YE Creationists like me and several others here obviously do not except “macroevolution”, which we would define as significant generation of new information over time, causing species to separate and become irreconcilably distinct in obvious ways.
Therefore, I do believe in limited evolution. However, I trust the Bible’s record that evolution was not the origin of life, nor of the human race, nor of the various “kinds” of animals. (”Kind” is defined as a category of animals normally capable of breeding with each other, but distinct from and incompatible with all other “kinds”.)
As has been stated many times before, the past can not be proven. It must be inferred from the present.
YE Creationists base their view of the past primarily on the Bible and secondarily on human inference.
Non-YE Creationists (e.g. theistic evolutionists) tend to base their view primarily on human inference and secondarily on the Bible.
Strict evolutionists base their view only on human inference, coming to a conclusion that excludes a designer.
Strict ID backers base their view only on human inference as well, coming to a conclusion that includes a designer.
Please correct me if my analyses are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob post 17,
good questions. And of course as stated it arguably supports both. Of course I can continue to elaborate. The simplest approach would be to track the genetic material in the bacteria and determine how the antibiotic resistance continues. The studies so far suggest that it is the genetic material of the offspring which is different, not the genetic material of the parent, providing support for the Darwinian model, but of course we then have to ask what we mean by offspring in bacteria. There is also that annoying behavior of plasmids etc. This is why the subject is interesting and not nearly as simple as most people would suggest.
And we can of course continue down this path item by item should you so choose.
Now I am not suggesting that the Parliamentary Assembly action is per se good. If you look at my post 1, I am preemptively establishing that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. As such it should not be taught in a science class. I specifically note that neither of these concepts is in and of itself undemocratic as the European Parliament seems to suggest.
Report comment to moderator
Me: But the real issue here is that the Parliamentary Assembly is establishing “evolution” as unassailable dogma. I don’t think, and neither do you, that such a position encourages scientific enquiry.
Spinoza: No. They are correctly teaching the role of evolution in science as follows:
“From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.”
In what way is “unassailable dogma” different from “absolutely no doubt”? What other scientific theory has ever been declared beyond doubt?
Only when discussing evolution is it considered unscientifically doubtful to ask questions. In any other field, doubt leads to discovery.
Report comment to moderator
Musing–We are not very far apart. I agree completely that creationism is not science.
When it comes to education, it’s entirely possible to teach that which is demonstrable (bacterial antibiotic resitance and its transmission) without pretending that the unprovable (primordial soup) is factual.
Report comment to moderator
cuthalion post 19,
I suggest that instead of your form:
“YE Creationists base their view of the past primarily on the Bible and secondarily on human inference.
Non-YE Creationists (e.g. theistic evolutionists) tend to base their view primarily on human inference and secondarily on the Bible.
Strict evolutionists base their view only on human inference, coming to a conclusion that excludes a designer.
Strict ID backers base their view only on human inference as well, coming to a conclusion that includes a designer.”
with the following:
“YE Creationists base their view of the past primarily on human inference regarding the Bible typically using a strict interpretational model. this is a strict version of authority.
Non-YE Creationists (e.g. theistic evolutionists) tend to base their view primarily on human inference regarding the Bible and objective data.
[but we must be careful here with respect to what kind of theistic evolutionist we are talking about]
Scientific evolutionists base their view only on human inference regarding the objective data, coming to a conclusion that a designer is not required.
Strict ID backers base their view only on human inference regarding the objective data as well, coming to a conclusion that a designer is required.”
We must also add, however, the the human inference process between the groups is also different: most theistic evolutionists and scientific evolutionists are attempting to utilize the scientific method to guide their human inference.
YE Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters are demonstrably not trying to use the scientific method to guide their human inference.
And in the discussion of whether it is science, the nature of the process used makes all the difference.
Report comment to moderator
stubob post 22,
ah but I never postulate on the primordial soup. I continue to state that origins of life is not yet a scietific endeavor.
My personal speculation here is that Venter in his experiments with “dead” bacteria shells and man made DNS strands will be the first breakthrough of real interest, but that is speculation.
And it is important to remember that origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution posits that there was a life form and all organisms, complex and otrherwise, are descended from it.
And even here we undoubtedly will see further elaboration as we learn more.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Yes, we have been over this many times before, but I have NEVER stated that Genesis is the ONLY evidence of YE creation.
A literal reading of the Bible reveals that God created the earth with an “appearance of age.” In other words, Adam and Eve were not created as fetuses, and the full-grown trees and plants in the Garden of Eden were not just seeds, and the animals in the garden were not newborns.
It therefore logically follows that, just as the first humans and animals and plants had an appearance of age, so did the rest of the earth.
Hence, the Evolutionists’ ’scientific dating methods’ do not have a base of “O.”
Report comment to moderator
Science is not democratic. It is simply one way of knowing, not to be confused with the content of the knowledge. It is as limited as other human endeavors in knowing but more practical than most because it is systematic and based on observation and logic. Opinions not based on observations and logic hold little value in science.
In one sense creationism is anti-human and anti-democratic in that it doesn’t begin with humans but with God. But which explanation for the beginning of things is more degrading to humans? Certainly not the explanation that God made people special and in His image. By comparison the evolutionary explanation is a sad tale indeed.
Report comment to moderator
It therefore logically follows that, just as the first humans and animals and plants had an appearance of age, so did the rest of the earth.
While I agree that God made the earth mature, I would disagree with any implication that He altered things to give the appearance of decay. Why would He do that? What would be the point? Why would He insert fossils or remove carbon isotopes? Just to confuse us? I doubt it.
Report comment to moderator
If “microevolution” is natural selection, causing changes within species via the filtering out of non-useful DNA, then I believe in microevolution. If microevolution is evolution (as the term would indicate), then I believe in evolution.
However, YE Creationists like me and several others here obviously do not except “macroevolution”, which we would define as significant generation of new information over time, causing species to separate and become irreconcilably distinct in obvious ways.
This is Ham/Hovind nonsense. Micro-evolution is regular old evolution within species. Macro-evolution is the same thing at a higher taxonomic level. The mechanisms are the same. All this pseudo-science babble about loss or creation of “information” from people that don’t know the first thing about the biochemistry of evolution or the mathematics of information theory is complete hooey. Natural selection works because organisms adapt to the properties of a changing environment which functions as all the “designer” one would ever need.
Report comment to moderator
“From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.”
In what way is “unassailable dogma” different from “absolutely no doubt”? What other scientific theory has ever been declared beyond doubt?
If you read carefully, you see that there is “no doubt” that “evolution is a central theory …” ID, on the other hand, is not even couched in a scientifically acceptable theoretic form, and YE Creationism is a falsified theory. Science is full of questions, testing, and probing of the mechanisms of evolution. Consequently, the theory has changed quite a bit, unlike a “dogma,” which never changes.
Report comment to moderator
A literal reading of the Bible reveals that God created the earth with an “appearance of age.” In other words, Adam and Eve were not created as fetuses, and the full-grown trees and plants in the Garden of Eden were not just seeds, and the animals in the garden were not newborns.
God apparently also gave the cosmos an appearance of having evolved in direct contradiction to a literal reading of the events in Genesis. Empirical evidence argues strongly against human origin from one set of parents 6,000 years ago, or of any of the “appearances” of life or celestial objects happening in the Genesis order (much less the Genesis timescale). Your God is essentially a liar.
Report comment to moderator
16. by dlloyd90: If I want to believe that God created the Earth in six days that’s my own affair. If I’m in the majority and want to make it a part of the school curriculum so be it.
This is why creationists are causing more harm to this country than the 9/11 terrorists ever could.
Dlloyd90 wants to force science teachers to teach religion. This is a violation of the First Amendment, a violation of common sense, and I can’t imagine anything more immoral than lying to students.
From Spinoza: Natural selection works because organisms adapt to the properties of a changing environment which functions as all the “designer” one would ever need.
Right, the designer is natural selection. Evolution is guided by natural selection, not by some magic man.
Creationism is just another word for magic. Magic certainly doesn’t belong in any science class, despite the wishes of some creationists who don’t understand science and never will understand science. Their idea of them deciding what should be taught in a science class would be like letting somebody who couldn’t add 2 numbers together deciding what should be taught in a math class.
Report comment to moderator
This comment is a test only.
Report comment to moderator
Musing (24):I continue to state that origins of life is not yet a scietific endeavor.
Then we agree with one another, but we disagree with the PA.
Spinoza–What about this “absolutely no doubt” thing? Sounds pretty dogmatic to me, and discouraging to enquiry.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob, There is absolutely no doubt the earth circles the Sun.
Is that dogmatic to you?
Here’s another science fact: There is absolutely no doubt Stubob is related to all life, and his closest, but still very distant, non-human relatives are chimpanzees.
This fact we developed from the same ape-like ancestors chimpanzees evolved from, has as much, if not more, evidence than the fact our planet orbits a star.
Don’t believe that? Then you are willfully ignorant and you should consider educating yourself. Just watch out for the liars who spread anti-science nonsense to gullible creationists. You can never hope to learn anything if you believe liars. Hint – the liars are Christians and the fake scientists who work for the Discovery Institute, Bible websites, & Christian colleges. The liars have to lie to justify the fairy tales in Genesis. They have no evidence but they never stop lying about the hard work of real scientists who have made the important discoveries that have established evolution as a proven fact.
Report comment to moderator
16. by dlloyd90: “If I want to believe that God created the Earth in six days that’s my own affair. If I’m in the majority and want to make it a part of the school curriculum so be it.”
This is why creationists are causing more harm to this country than the 9/11 terrorists ever could.
Dlloyd90 wants to force science teachers to teach religion. This is a violation of the First Amendment, a violation of common sense, and I can’t imagine anything more immoral than lying to students.
From Spinoza: “Natural selection works because organisms adapt to the properties of a changing environment which functions as all the “designer” one would ever need.”
Right, the designer is natural selection. Evolution is guided by natural selection, not by some magic man.
Creationism is just another word for magic. Magic certainly doesn’t belong in any science class, despite the wishes of some creationists who don’t understand science and never will understand science. Their idea of them deciding what should be taught in a science class would be like letting somebody who couldn’t add 2 numbers together deciding what should be taught in a math class.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerts – Where’s your chimp-face avatar?
“The fool hath said, There is no God….Let God be true and every man a liar.”
Who are the liars?
Report comment to moderator
Response to post #2;
“Intelligent design in this form, however, is not science, since it has provided no testable hypotheses.
The same is accurately said of evolution, which is why it may rightly be called a “theory.” Instead, it is treated as dogma.”
You have no idea what “theory” means in science, then. It does NOT mean a guess or belief. It means an explanation of how something works.
A hypothesis is a supposition that is then tested. When it bears out over several tests, being refined as needed, it becomes a theory. Then further tests may continue to strengthen it, or someone may refute it.
The idea that the planets revolve around the sun is a theory, just one that is so well proven by now that it is accepted as fact. Evolution is quite well supported by all available evidence, and is contradicted by none of it — no matter what the Creationists tell you.
It is not dogma, it is fact.
Young Earth creationism has no place in any school except possibly in a mythology course.
As someone else noted, intelligent design is a different matter. We know the Earth and all life on it was not created in six days 6,000 years ago. Science cannot say one way or another whether an intelligence design the physical laws of the universe in such a way so that planets supporting life would form, life would emerge and evolve.
That is a matter of philosophy, and as such might have a place in an advanced “Philosophies of Science” course. That might be a good thing. But it is not science itself; it is a philosophical view for interpreting science.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
Any post using the word “liar” more than four times in one paragraph may safely be ignored, for the thinking has stopped.
Now, in light of the fact that the PA says “there is absolutely no doubt” about evolution, how is it that evolution is not “unassailable dogma”? And while we’re at it, how does such thinking promote human rights?
Report comment to moderator
“Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days, while intelligent design theory merely states there is evidence of an intelligent designer.”
Intelligent Design (ID) is most definitely God Did It creationism and ID was invented for only one reason – to disguise a proven wrong religious belief to look like science in a failed attempt to force science teachers to teach religion.
The Discovery Institute which spreads the God Did It lies, keeps saying invoking Intelligent Design is not the same as invoking God.
This is just more evidence the fake scientists at the Discovery Institute are liars. Even creationists, if they are honest, will admit ID is invoking God.
Mr. Chapman said: “They are trying to broad brush anyone who is critical of Darwin’s theory as a creationist.”
Bruce Chapman is the president of Discovery Institute. Everyone knows the only people who deny evolution are the same people who invoke God (the creationists). Chapman is a liar.
Are there any honest creationists here? I doubt it. If there are any honest creationists here, I suggest it would be nice if you admitted right now that the Designer the Discovery Institute talks about is God. A little honesty won’t kill you creationists. Why don’t you give it a try? Tell the truth about ID. The Designer is God, it’s a religious belief, and it’s not science.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only source.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is, however, an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
testing
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this concusion? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
The Council of Europe’s resolution has some good information about evolution. The willfully ignorant evolution deniers here should read the whole thing.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is ancient. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only source..
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age, however, is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis is your only source.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
Well for sonme reaosn the system accepts this post but wont show it.
Let me try one last tijme.
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only source.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
The Word of God has some excellent information about your past, your present and your future. The willfully ignorant creation (and Creator) deniers here should read the entire text.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty- where’s the evidence? Can you give me any legitimate evidence that people evolved from the same ancestor as chimps?
You say creationism is religion and not science? How about evolution? The belief that no God exists is just as dogmatic and religious as the belief that a God does exist.
As for evolution in general, where’s the proof? Truthfully, there is none. The facts support creation.
Report comment to moderator
So, according to the resolution, how is it that evolutionism is more protective of human rights than creationism?
And, out of curiosity, are you ever civil? Please answer the first question first.
Report comment to moderator
Evolutionists say we were formed RANDOMLY from sludge, while creationists say we were formed SPECIALLY from dust. I’d say that while neither seems too flattering, creationism suggests more human value than evolution. Also, evolution claims the only differences between us and other animals are random accidents, while creationism states that humans are unique, not just from each other, but also from other creatures. We have free will, not just instinct.
Creationism definitely supports human rights much better than evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob: “And, out of curiosity, are you ever civil?”
Stubob, if somebody is a liar, like the entire Discovery Institute, it would be immoral to be quiet about it. It would be like living in the 1930’s and not speaking out against Hitler.
Stubob: “So, according to the resolution, how is it that evolutionism is more protective of human rights than creationism?”
Because the fact that all life evolved is the truth and creationism is a lie. Also, creationists include the Muslim terrorists and I think you would agree terrorists don’t much care for human rights.
I’m not that concerned about “Creationism = anti-human rights”. It’s more important to talk about “Creationism = anti-science”.
Report comment to moderator
Discovery Institute = Hitler. Welcome to the discussion, Mr. Godwin.
honestly. . . .
Report comment to moderator
38. Logical: “Qwerty- where’s the evidence? Can you give me any legitimate evidence that people evolved from the same ancestor as chimps?”
The most powerful evidence we share a common ancestor with all life, including our closest non-human relatives, the chimps, is the genetic evidence. This DNA evidence can be understood, but it requires thinking and some hard work, like for example reading an entire book, or looking things up on the internet. Instead of wasting my time explaining something that has already been explained by the biologists who have seen the DNA evidence with their own eyes, I suggest read this book “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution” by Sean B. Carroll.
You asked “where’s the evidence?” It’s in the book I recommended. Sean Carroll explains the genetic evidence and explains evolution for the non-scientist. This book proves evolution is a fact beyond any doubt.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob: “Discovery Institute = Hitler.”
I didn’t say that. Hitler was a very bad Christian, but at least Hitler was honest. The Disco Institute’s fake scientists are the most dishonest people in human history. Ask any biologist if you don’t believe me.
Report comment to moderator
Logical said “Evolutionists say we were formed RANDOMLY from sludge”
Logical, This is why you and other evolution deniers need to educate yourselves.
Natural selection is the non-random selection of favorable random mutations. Did you get that? Natural Selection is NOT random. OK? This has been explained before, yet the same misconceptions keep getting repeated over and over. Doesn’t anyone here pay attention?
And what is this about “sludge”? We are talking about evolution, not how life began. Scientists have some good ideas about how life began, but they are still working on it. It’s important to understand evolution must have life to evolve from. Evolution is not about how life began. It about how life evolved after life began. OK? This has also been explained before countless times, yet this same misconception is repeated constantly. How nice it would be if creationists actually made an attempt to at least understand what biological evolution is.
Just one more thing Mr. Logical – there is no sane scientist in the world who thinks life might have begun magically, also known as God Did It.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney had a great point back at #8.
Survival of the fittest is incompatible with human rights, since helping the weakest survive would hinder the ascent of man from pond scum to cab driver.
Evolution is presented as a kind of natural eugenics, where the weak are killed off billions of times, lacking traits necessary to survive. This of course, ignores numerous favorable traits that would not have helped anyone survive. We are told that the universe made us, yet the abundance of subtle helpful traits make it seems more like the universe was made for us. But I digress …
Everything in nature is called natural, except what man does, which is called artificial. Man feels out of place from nature and must decide how to behave and what morality to adopt. The morality of an evolutionary purist who wants to see his species advance would be a purposeful eugenics that mimics that of nature (supposedly).
From wpedia …
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering. More controversially, some, such as the Nazi regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for racial discrimination.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only supporting data.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25:
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only supporting evidence.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only source.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion, however..
What passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
Report comment to moderator
post 25:
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only source.
However, your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
Ok – the system is not accepting my post.
Now for some debugging.
****************************************
outkast post 25,
Report comment to moderator
Ok – the system is not accepting my post.
Now for some debugging.
********************************************
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only supporting evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Ok – the system is not accepting my post.
Now for some debugging.
********************************************
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only supporting evidence.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion, however.
Report comment to moderator
Debugging next statement.
*************************************************
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
Report comment to moderator
Ok – the system is not accepting my post.
Now for some debugging.
********************************************
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only supportin source.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to the conclusion that the earth was created with the appearance of age? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment to moderator
More debugging:
********************************************
outkast post 25,
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
Report comment to moderator
More debugging:
*****************************************
outkast post 25,
Report comment to moderator
More debugging:
*****************************************
outkast post 25,
The statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion. What verses in Genesis support this model?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
so what verses in Genesis indicate that the earth was created to look ancient?
And are you arguing that the earth will give a perfect impression of being old?
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty 45
Natural selection may not be random, but neither is it evolution. Natural selection is basically mutations in the DNA. While we have observed beneficial mutations in species, we have yet to see one that causes a genetic increase in DNA information. Obviously, the transformation from sludge to man requires that some extra information be added. We have never observed that happening on any level. Basically, Natural selection is a decrease in genetic information, while evolution is an increase in genetic information. Thus, natural selection is not part of nor evidence for evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty 45
“No sane scientist”
Sir Isaac Newton
Carolus Linneaus
Johann Kepler
Francis Bacon
Blaise Pascal
Michael Faraday
Samuel F.B. Morse
Louis Pasteur
Report comment to moderator
SteveG post 33,
well lets start with the first comment.
Evolutionary theory has provided a number of testable hypothese which have been tested numerous times. I provided the classic e-coli test which at least at one point was a classic science fair experiment. Spinoza correctly points out that the simple version does not differentiate between Darwian and Lamarckian evolution, but that is a quibble: it clearly validates evoultion.
When we get to intelligent design, we can quite simply say that Intelligent Design has provided no testable hypotheses. As such it is not science. Now you are correct, it can not be proven that it is not the process. But one can’t prove that it is. And further, the available evidence suggests that the assumption is not necessary.
Which is the key. When using the scintific process it is generally best to minimize the number of assumptions to those truly required to address the question at hand. Additonal assumption lay the ground work for future errors. The classic, of course, was the Newtonian assumption that there was one fixed time frame. The Michaelson-Morley experiment refuted this assumption and only by dropping the assumption were we able to establish the framework for special relativity.
Report comment to moderator
To MUSING # 15
Good point, they are not comparable in that parliament is popularly elected, and the church leaders were not. Although, they are comparable in that they want to decree what everyone must think, with no room for dissent. They want to make a single decision on ID in schools, which everyone must follow on pain of penalty (I am assuming this will be a law, rather than a suggestion. Maybe I am wrong.)
Report comment to moderator
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a common American blog posting on the age-old creation-versus-evolution debate. Please refrain from feeding trolls – such as that strapping young specimen over there labeled ‘Qwerty’ – as this can result in an imbalance in the ecological biosphere that our hosts have so kindly created.
Report comment to moderator
StevG post 33,
but of course intelligent desing has provided no testable hypotheses. In fact, looking at theoretical models with and without Intelligent Design it is not clear that adding the assumption of an Intelligent Designer adds any information to the science of the effort.
Report comment to moderator
OK this dicussion seems to be accepting none of my postsd.
Report comment to moderator
Intellectual Gorgon post 53,
I tried very hard at the beginning to staunch the flow, but people love to tal about this subject even when such issues as whether Creationism is science havebeen clearly resolved many times before.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty 41
“Also, creationists include the Muslim terrorists and I think you would agree terrorists don’t much care for human rights.”
That is a Logical Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
Rather self explanatory, this fallacy occurs when a person states the characteristics of a part of a group, and then concludes that the whole group must have those characteristics. Some creationists may be Muslim terrorists, but that doesn’t mean all are.
Report comment to moderator
Logical post 56,
a very critical isight about approaches which seem to happen a lot in this blog!
Perhaps we should, for example, see if we can go for one whole day without using the words liberal or conservative/Republican or Democrat?
Report comment to moderator
Logical post 38,
you seem to be challenging the common ancestry of chimps and humans.
So first step: we need to agree that the earth is old. If we disagree here, we need to resolve this first.
Second, we can look at the DNA. Now I will for the moment accept that active genes may have been used by a creator to simplify the effort. But there would have been no use for the non-active portions of the DNA. This will also possibly come into latter discussions.
Now it is observed that significant portions of the non-active DNA is common between chimps and humans. This is suggestive that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. More correctly, it does not refute that chimps and humans had a common ancestor AND the fact that it is not active would tend to refute that it was used as common starting point by a creator.
Further humans had already established a taxonomy of relationships of various animal forms, and it is found that the percetnage of genetic commonalities seems to match the basic structure of these taxonomical relationships.
So we have a case in which the parsimonious explanation is that chimps and humans had a common ancestor.
By the way, if you disagree with this logic, you also disagree with DNA paternity tests, at least for daughters!
Now you are free to suggest an alternative explanation. If you have an alternative explanation, though, you will need to provide objective evidence AND your model needs to be testable.
Report comment to moderator
stubob post 21,
I suggest rahter that in all fields of science the questions need to be constructed in a scientific manner. Astronomy does not, for example, accept questions of the form: which god is driving the sun around the earth.
So in evolution you may ask all sorts of questions, and many scientists are. There is very vigorous debate about the processes ocurring during what is thought of as Darwiniain evolution. But it is not scientific to say lets us assume magic.
Report comment to moderator
and posts are n ow disappearing again.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, first of all, I do not agree that the earth is old.
Secondly, the similarities between a chimp and a man and the similarities between a man and his daughter are very different. A chimp is an entirely different species from a human, but a man and his daughter are much more similar.
Third, we have no missing links. There is a significant gap between human and monkey, and we still have not found a (LEGITIMATE) example of a missing link. Many evolutionists have claimed to have found one, but in the end it is always either a hoax or really not a missing link at all.
Take Lucy for example. Lucy’s body is identical to a monkey except for the knee joint. That knee joint is human. Guess where they found the knee joint. 2 kilometers away and 200 feet deeper than the rest of the skeleton! Anyone with common sense would accept that the human knee joint does not belong to Lucy. However, evolutionists are so desperate to find some evidence for their hypothesis that they are willing to do this.
I will concede that the DNA in a chimp is similar to the DNA in a man, but there is still too much difference. Unless we find a species in which the differences are smaller, we really have no reason to believe that they came from the same ancestor.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #56
“Perhaps we should, for example, see if we can go for one whole day without using the words liberal or conservative/Republican or Democrat? ”
It’s not possible.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 59,
so lets start at the beginning.
How old do you believe the earth is?
Report comment to moderator
The earth is approximately 6000 years old.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 632,
excellent.
Let me round your number to 10,000 years.
Now Lord Kelvin has shown that based on heat trasnfer arguments, the earth must be 100 million years old.
Plate tectonics yields an age for the motion of collision between Indai and Asia of about 200 million years.
Radiological dating yields an estimated age of the earth of about 4.6 billion years.
Nuclear physics models of the sun yield an age of the sun of about 5 billion years.
I have provided references for these previously.
Now what is worth noting is that these numbers about 10,000 larger than yours.
We can then say with confidence that all the available objective scientific data falisifies the model of a 10,000 or less years old earth.
So what data do you have to support your posited date?
Report comment to moderator
The magnetic field of the earth, at its current rate of decrease, would become impossible even 10,000 years ago.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.
No carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years (half-life~ 5,700 yrs) Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for about 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built huge monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would they wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
excellent comments but:
1) you have not refuted my data points
- I can if you like tackle each of yours one by one, but this has ben done before and is a bit tedious
2) the only one truly germane is your magentic field, and we have excellent evidence that rather than being monotonic, it oscillates. As such you 10,000 years number is but one portion of the oscillation
- I can provide references if you insist
And note that, except for the magnetic field argument (which still exceeds the 10,000 year number), none of them yield an age of 10,000 years or less.
Data for 10,000 years or less?
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
the following article is a non-evolutionary but certainly science focused discussion of the flipping of the earth’s magnetic field:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0927_040927_field_flip.html
What becomes clear is that the earth’s magnetic field is a very dynamic process and a simple linear model as you suggest does not appear to fit the available data.
Report comment to moderator
“The earth is approximately 6000 years old.”
That would have been a big surprise to the ancestors of Native Americans, who crossed the Bering Land Bridge 25,000 years ago to get from Asia to Alaska.
Logical, why don’t you educate yourself. Your ideas are wrong, completely wrong, you have no understanding of evolution, and you don’t seem to know anything about the history of our planet.
Are you unable to understand simple things, or are you just too lazy to do any research? I don’t get how anyone can claim a 6,000 year old earth when we know dinosaurs went extinct 65,000,000 years ago, and life began here almost 4,000,000,000 years ago.
Somebody did the math, and he determined your 6,000 year old earth is equal to saying New York City is 24 feet from San Francisco.
Your complete lack of knowledge of the most simple scientific facts is just giving your religion a terrible reputation. Try getting some education please. It won’t kill you to learn something.
Report comment to moderator
logical psot 64,
And here is another nice article with diagrams of the layering in the Atlantic ocean due to earth magnetic field reversals:
http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/reversal.htm
This is from a NASA site.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
now your observations on comets is indeed valid; many of seem to make only a single appearance.
what is nice about orbital mechanics is that it is a very precise exercise, so when a comet appear we can indeed tell where it came from.
The following article descirbes the oort cloud, which appears to be the source of many comets:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/oort.htm
It does not seem that your comet suggestion says anything about the age of the earth.
Besides it is planetary physics, not evolutionary thoery, which argues that comets are about the same age as the solar system.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
now your argument about written records is very puzzling. So Hawaii had no written language until the missionaries landed, for example.
Lack of a written language provides absolutely no informaton about either the age of the earth or the age of homosapiens.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
and of course the super nova conjecture is contradicted by your own statement: “the nearby parts of our galaxy”. The Millky Way is huge.
We can also have some fun analyzing your 25 year statement, but that is not needed to refute your argument.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
now without references it is hard to analyze your carbon-14 statement.
However, we can turn your argument on its ear:
1) carbon -14 dating has been established against historical record back at least to about the first century CE.
2) using tree ring calibrations it has been calibrated back to about 20,000 years ago
3) carbon-14 dating has been used to date objects back to perhaps 30,000+ years ago
In short, carbon-14 dating itself refutes your 10,000 years or less age thoery.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
so I am left ot ask again for your data showing that the earth is 10,000 years or less old.
Report comment to moderator
While carbon 14 dating may not support creationism, it is only relatively accurate to ages of 50,000 years. Thus it does not support evolution either.
Report comment to moderator
I hope this link works. I miss the preview button.
Evidence from radiometric dating indicates that the Earth is about 4.570 billion years old.
Also, common sense indicates the Earth is extremely old. Mountains, oceans, and countless animal & plant species take a vast amount of time to evolve.
The problem Mr. Logical and others have is their belief in supernatural magic. Their strong and very strange belief in magic has made it impossible for them to understand anything.
Is there any cure for their disease? Education doesn’t help. Reasoning doesn’t help. Being nice and patiently explaining everything doesn’t help. Well deserved ridicule doesn’t help.
The only possible conclusion is the creationism disease is incurable and it always will be incurable. The next generation gets the same disease at age 5 or younger. Look at this news item from Iowa. Christians, who are the most immoral people on earth, lie to kindergarten students about science.
Recent news item from a Christian school in Iowa:
‘‘We teach creationism here in school starting right in kindergarten”
Report comment to moderator
Limiting factors can tell us when the earth was NOT formed.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/age-of-the-earth-c.htm
Report comment to moderator
logical post 64,
now lets look at your 10,000 earth assumption with respect to the plate tectonic data.
Now we can in fact map the starting point and ending point of say India. The present rates of motion suggest that this travel would take on the order of 200 million years. If you say it is 10,000 years, then we are asking a speed up of about 10,000. Now the present background seismic rate is about 1 on the richter scale: essentially undetectable. If I increase the rate of all the plate motions by 10,000 then we have what amounts to magnitude 4 earthquake worldwide continuously for 10,000 years.
There is no evidence of these continuous earthquakes.
And what we are demonstrating is that these physics are releasing energy at a given rate. If we speed the processes up, we also speed up the energy release rate, and the increased energy release rate should be manifest in the geological record.
Dr. Morris of ICR understood this, and spent perhaps 20 years searching for this evidence. Most of this work was in the RATE and RATE II efforts. No evidence for the increased energy release rate was ever found.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 76,
but do note you started with insisting that the earth was 6000 years.
I have presetned clear evidence falsifying your assertion. Do you accept that your assertion is falisified?
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty 75
According to the Biblical perspective, the Flood could have created the mountains, rivers, valleys. Consider that much water- it would have created huge powerful currents.
The debate should not be “Which theory has more evidence to back it up”
It should be “Which theory explains the evidence better.”
Through this perspective, which happens to be the most logical, the creation account explains everything with no problem.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 77,
oh I was so hoping I could give you the benefit of the doubt by having you not introduce the flood. It was, however, probably inevitable.
Do you coordinate your posts with uncommon sense?
Any way since you have now introduced the assumption of a Biblical flood (recorded as being world wide and above all the mountains), please:
1) provide evidence that everywhere in the world has seen a flood
2) that you can date this flood evidence to show that it all occurred at the same time: a few thousand years ago
- of course if you introduce a dating system, I am free to use it to date the age of the earth as well
And your data?
After we review your data we can then perhaps examine the physics which would govern such a world wide flood.
Report comment to moderator
logical post 77,
oh I was so hoping I could give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you have introduced the assumption of a world wide flood. Please provide your flood evidence showing that a flood was everywhere and that it all occurred at the same time.
And your data?
Report comment to moderator
logical post 77,
oh I was so hoping I could give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you have introduced the assumption of a world wide flood. Please provide your flood evidence showing that a flood was everywhere and that it all occurred at the same time. And your data?
Report comment to moderator
logcoal post 77,
and you data and dating to show there was a world wide flood?
Report comment to moderator
logical post 77,
but as we have noted, you have provided no evidence at all. You have however introduced the Bible, which is suggestive that your approach is not based on evidence and is not scientific. From an objective perspective, it also happens to be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible is not contradictory to science. It is bibliographically the most accurate and reliable document in history. It has not changed once in the time since it was written. It was written by many different authors in many different cultures at many different times, yet it still does not err not contradict itself. No other document is that accurate.
Report comment to moderator
Please keep it up Mr. Logical. What you are saying is the best possible advertisement for atheism.
Why would I say that? Imagine some young educated person reading your wild claim one flood could create the one mile deep Grand Canyon and the almost 4 mile high Mount Everest. If this educated young person was considering joining your religion, he would read your strange know-nothing comments, and he would conclude: “These people are out of their minds. What was I thinking? The Christian religion is for people who don’t know anything.”
So, Mr. Logical, please continue scaring educated people away from your religion. Then the only people left will be people like you.
Sometimes Mr. Logical I think you are joking with us, and you really don’t believe anything you say. You are just having some strange kind of fun wasting our time.
Report comment to moderator
As the posts in this thread show, the subject of evolution – creation – intelligent design is multifaceted. Getting terminology straight is often critical. For example, I note that in post #24 MUSING defines out of his defense of evolution the question of the origin of life. The origin of life is, of course, an important part of the evolution/creation debate.
For whatever it is worth, I fall into the intelligent design camp and do not believe in a young earth.
To dogmatically state that intelligent design is not scientific seems to show a lack of understanding of its premise: irreducible complexity. Certainly it is scientific to achieve an understanding of how biological processes work, such as the blood clotting mechanism discussed by Behe. From this understanding, it is science to determine the minimum number of beneficial mutations necessary for a particular biological system to evolve based on its presumed starting point. It is also scientific to perform experiments to create mutations to measure how many are beneficial. It is also scientific to measure the rate of mutation in the observable world to compare to the labratory rate to estimate the amount of time that it would take for evolution to produce the new system starting with the old one. If the result is a conclusion that the amount of time is insuffient to support evolution, that is a scientific result.
To legislate that such questions should not be taught seems to repeat, in the name of science, the mistakes made by the Church which forbid inquiry that was thought to challenge God. This is particularly disengenuous given that science, other than in this area, proceeds by promoting inquiry into new matters.
Regarding C14 dating, it critically depends on an unprovable assumption, that the rate of C14 creation has been essentially constant over the time periods involved. If there have been significant changes in the atmosphere that allowed significantly more or less solar energy to reach the surface of the earth, that assumption could lead to very significant errors – the “evolutionists” should at least acknowledge the limit of the science they rely on.
Report comment to moderator
qwerty post 80,
I always love noting that this means there was 5X more water than is prently on the surface of the earth.
So some idle musings:
1) where did all this water go?
- if it went there, why can’t we find it?
20 why are the Great lakes freash then since they would have been ocvered by an ocean?
It goes on, but these are my favorites.
I observe that one of the issues that often crops up in dicussions with creationists is the innumeracy of people in general.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 25,
your thoughts on whether the appearance of age would be “perfect”?
Report comment to moderator
I’m not feeding you anymore, Musing. Have a wonderful day, and look into Jesus Christ sometime.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 83,
I look into Jesus Christ regularly!!
Thanks for asking!
Report comment to moderator
So it has been suggested that the earth may have been created with an “appearance of age”.
Generally this is modeled as a perfect “appearance of age”.
But of course if the “appearance of age” is perfect, then all objective tests will be indistinguishable from an earth which is old.
And this has the following consequences:
1) scientifically the earth will be old: all the scientific test will show that it is
2) assuming that it was created with the “appearance of age” adds an additional assumption which is not necessary to explain the data
3) if it was created with the “appearance of age” then why have it created 6000 years ago, why not “last Thursday”?
In short, positing that it provides the perfect “appearance of age”, unless you can provide an objective process to show that it wasn’t old, provides absolutely no new information whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
So it has been suggested that the earth may have been created with an “appearance of age” as an alternative to an old earth.
Generally this is modeled as a perfect “appearance of age”.
But of course if the “appearance of age” is perfect, then all objective tests will be indistinguishable from an earth which is old.
And this has the following consequences:
1) scientifically the earth will be old: all the scientific test will show that it is
2) assuming that it was created with the “appearance of age” adds an additional assumption which is not necessary to explain the data
3) if it was created with the “appearance of age” then why have it created 6000 years ago, why not “last Thursday”?
In short, positing that it provides the perfect “appearance of age”, unless you can provide an objective process to show that it wasn’t old, provides absolutely no new information whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 84,
you never did provide the Bible verses demonstrating that God created the earth with the appearance of age so that it looked like an old earth, even though it is in fact a young earth.
Your references here?
Report comment to moderator
So it has been suggested that the earth may have been created with an “appearance of age”.
Generally this is modeled as a perfect “appearance of age”.
But of course if the “appearance of age” is perfect, then all objective tests will
be indistinguishable from an earth which is old.
And this has the following consequences:
1) scientifically the earth will be old: all the scientific test will show that it is old
2) assuming that it was created with the “appearance of age” adds an additional assumption which is not necessary to explain the data
3) if it was created with the “appearance of age” then why have it created 6000 years ago, why not “last Thursday”?
In short, positing that it provides the perfect “appearance of age”, unless you can provide an objective
process to show that it wasn’t old, provides absolutely no new information whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
So it has been suggested that the earth may have been created with an “appearance of age”.
Generally this is modeled as a perfect “appearance of age”.
But of course if the “appearance of age” is perfect, then all objective tests will
be indistinguishable from an earth which is old.
And this has the following consequences:
1) scientifically the earth will be old: all the scientific test will show that it is old
2) assuming that it was created with the “appearance of age” adds an additional assumption which is not necessary to explain the data
3) if it was created with the “appearance of age” then why have it created 6000 years ago, why not “last Thursday”?
In short, positing that it provides the perfect “appearance of age”, unless you can provide an objective process to show that it wasn’t old, provides absolutely no new information whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
Testing …
I wrote some really heady stuff that answers all the difficult questions of the universe, but I haven’t been able to get the new WMB to post it and then it was all lost!
I’m still trying to get through … testing …
Report comment to moderator
Hooray!
Report comment to moderator
xion post 86,
I am having perhaps a third of my stuff lost also.
It is received by the server and it records a duplicate post if I try to poast again, but it never shows up in the blog.
Sigh… Sob….
Report comment to moderator
Musing: See what I told you in post 83. It’s obvious you’re not here to learn but only to twist people’s words, so I’m not feeding you anymore.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 89,
and pray tell what is the problem with my response to post 83?
I am hear to learn and have learend a great deal. Someimtes I do find it a bit of a drag to rehash what has already been discussed, but it does help me refine the message and make it crisper and more precise.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 89,
perhaps I see. In post 25 you said:
“A literal reading of the Bible reveals that God created the earth with an “appearance of age.” ”
which is where I ask you for Biblical references.
And you follow with:
“It therefore logically follows that, just as the first humans and animals and plants had an appearance of age, so did the rest of the earth.”
So again what references say that animal and plants had an appearance of age?
So we have Genesis 1:11-13 [NIV]:
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Genesis 1:24-25 [NIV}:
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 [NIV}:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Genesis 2:19-20 [NIV]:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
Now possibly you can argue that Adam and Eve (even though they are not mentioned in Genesis 1 – I have alwyas marveled at that) were formed as adults.
But I see nothing in the rest of the verses that suggests this.
Nr do I see how logically this would also suggest that the earth ewas created with the appearance of age.
I have this sense that you are outrunning the actual words of the text with your own personal intepretaton.
Can you help me out here?
Report comment to moderator
#81 Musing: “I observe that one of the issues that often crops up in dicussions with creationists is the innumeracy of people in general.”
Whenever I have to look up the meaning of a word, it becomes my word of the day. My word for today is “innumeracy”.
innumerate: A person who is unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods.
I suppose you were talking about, for example, the amount of water required to flood the entire earth. The believers in the Noah’s Ark genocide myth, don’t ever think about these things. Actually they don’t ever bother to think about anything.
There is no limit for the number of reasons this supernatural flood they imagine could never have happened. I also like the Great Lakes example. I used to swim in Lake Michigan, I also swim in oceans, and I can say for certain the oceans are salty and Lake Michigan has no salt at all. How do the Bible believers explain that?
Bible believers have an explanation for everything, but their explanations are even worse than the incredible nonsense in the Bible.
There is something about the magic man belief that makes it impossible for people to think. Perhaps the god belief rots people’s brains.
You would think these people would worry about wasting their entire lives being wrong about everything. I just don’t understand why they believe so many lies. I could never let my life be wasted like these creationists.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty 45
“No sane scientist”
Sir Isaac Newton
Carolus Linneaus
Johann Kepler
Francis Bacon
Blaise Pascal
Michael Faraday
Samuel F.B. Morse
Louis Pasteur
Ah – the creationist list of famous “creationist scientists,” most of which pre-dated Darwin and none of which lived in this or the previous century. What a great way to illustrate that no current “sane scientists” believe the creationist program!
Report comment to moderator
According to the Biblical perspective, the Flood could have created the mountains, rivers, valleys. Consider that much water- it would have created huge powerful currents.
According to geological evidence, there has never BEEN a global flood.
Report comment to moderator
I noticed that also Spinoza. Most of those scientists dropped dead before Darwin was born, and probably none of them were biologists. It’s also likely the few who died after Darwin provided evidence for his brilliant natural selection ideas, did accept evolution. Creationists are liars, so it would not surprise me if they claimed some scientist denied evolution when the exact opposite is true. I have noticed dishonest creationists love to take quotes from biologists out of context to distort their meaning. Why are creationists so dishonest? I think it has something to do with the immorality of Christians.
It is very interesting there is a small handful of biologists (I know of only one but there might be as many as a few dozen out of hundreds of thousands) who deny evolution. These biologists are not famous for anything, they have made no important discoveries.
There is one evolution denier (the Discovery Institute’s Michael Behe, who works at a University that is ashamed of him), who doesn’t even deny evolution, he just invokes magic all over the place to explain things he is either to dumb to understand, or he’s a liar, or both. He is most definitely famous, but he’s not famous for any important discoveries. Behe is only famous for his incredible dishonesty, which is a job requirement to work for the Discovery Institute, which exists only to spread lies, lies that gullible, unable to think, Americans believe.
Report comment to moderator
That must have been one heck of a “huge powerful current” to cut thru one mile deep of solid rock in a few weeks to create the Grand Canyon, instead of a fast flowing Colorado River taking millions of years to do the same thing.
There is no question about it, religious beliefs rot people’s brains.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty: The heavens and earth opening and sending onto the earth’s surface a huge torrent of water, and then having that swirl around for 40 days and nights, and then having those waters continue to swirl around until the water retreated into the seas that we have today, could indeed create the Grand Canyon.
Report comment to moderator
I rest my case.
Report comment to moderator
#98: Promise?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 97,
actually no, a world wide flood could not have made the grand canyon.
Now this rests on a number of logical steps BUT the simplest is that there is no objective evidence for a world wide flood. Specifically:
1) there is no evidence of a flood everywhere
2) what evidence there is of floods around the world: you will now need to show that they all came at the same time. And what ever dating system you use to show they were from the same time is available to me to consider dating the age of the earth. Scientifically based dating methods do not put this flood evidence at the same point in time
Then we can go into the erosion process, the layering of the Grand Canyon, the uplift oourring as part of the plate tectonics etc.
Nope, outkast, if we stick to objective evidence, there is no where to hide here.
Report comment to moderator
outkast, I was expecting a response from my post 91.
Amusingly I believe the result of pursuing this part of the discussion results in points which are arguably relatively favorable to your position.
Report comment to moderator
musing, you’re not going to receive a response from me to any of your posts from now on, regardless of the favor of my positions. got it yet?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 102,
this seems a peculiar post as written. and you will not respond to any of my posts because?
Report comment to moderator
qwerty post 92,
I sympathize with yor thoughts here.
So let me try to work with you within an objective context on this.
Look at the human brain. What was it developed for? Does it do logic quickly and reliably? No. It is rapid and reliable at retrieving data? No. Does it do math quickly and easily? No. Is the storage of data in the brain reliable? No: human memory is amazingly faulty.
What the human brain does do is perform fuzzy matches incredibly well: computers are so far behind this, that in fact research in this area is at a crawl Deep Blue is the best chess player in the world, not because it can recognize chess patterns as well as a human, but rather because it can exhaustively test more chess patterns than a human.
So why would we expect a cybernetic device which evolved to perform fuzzy matching would be able to perform well at logic or math well?
I personally find it amazing that humans can perform logic or math at all!
Report comment to moderator
From OUTKAST:
The heavens and earth opening and sending onto the earth’s surface a huge torrent of water, and then having that swirl around for 40 days and nights, and then having those waters continue to swirl around until the water retreated into the seas that we have today, could indeed create the Grand Canyon.
I live next to the Grand Canyon and teach geology field trips there. The above statement is complete and utter nonsense! You could only think that if you either 1) you knew nothing about geology or the Grand Canyon or 2) you’re just lying. The deposits in the Grand Canyon show a diverse range of depositional environments, including a vast dune desert! And they end before the Mesozoic (e.g., no dinosaurs in the grand canyon – have to go to the rocks eroded away above – according to creationists the dinosaurs climbed to avoid the flood to the elevation of mesozoic rocks, but not high enough to avoid eventual drowning – what a lood of hooey!). Creationists claim that the 1,000’s of feet of rock that were above the top Grand Canyon layer (still uneroded to the north in Utah – the “Grand Staircase” – just got back from a class field trip there as well) were also laid down in the flood. These show an even more diverse range of environments and fossils including an even bigger desert dune environment (the “Navajo Sandstone” of Zion).
The claim you made in #135 isn’t even the slightest bit close to the truth, given the actual rock record. I know there are creationist liars out there claiming what you have repeated, and you obviously want to believe them without checking the facts directly. But they are outright LIARS! You owe it to yourself to learn some actual geology and fact check them. This is what I did years ago when I was a YE creationist myself. I am one no longer!
Report comment to moderator
I love the new site. Much more content.
I will eventually get around to doing a bio.
Eventually.
I’m about half-way through the thread, and I haven’t seen the usual poster, who baits me into wasting time refuting his assertions, rather than stating my own.
So, at the risk of getting in a mud-slinging contest with Mr.Ed, (of cousre, of course)
I’ll just throw out my opinion.
I am an old-Earth creationist, but a young-Earth “regenerationist” (OK, I made that name up, but it pretty much sums up my belief)
I believe that the Earth is indeed around 4 billion years old, unless “science” changes their collective mind on that.
I also believe that man is a relatively new creation. I tend to think it was more than 6000 years ago. ( I base this totally on my own Biblical interpretation, applying the day=1000 years formula in II Peter 3, to the days of creation.
I’ve discussed how the first two verses in Gen. Ch.1 doesn’t specify the actual age of the Earth. The translation of the 2nd word translated “was” in verse 2 should be translated “became”.
And “void and without form” translated “ruined and desolate”
That is when I believe the Creation “days” of Genesis began.
As far as life origins and evolution being two sepearate issues, how does this even make sense?
You have to have something before it evolves.
You have to have a creature before you can have mutations.
You guys never even explained how to overcome the mathematical impossibilities of cellular life originating from a pool of random nucleic acids.
And you never answered how this pool of ooze was able to sustain these acids for a long enough period of time for the complex systems that cellular life requires to have evolved.
And before you blow this off, do some research. This would be, without a doubt, a mathematic impossibility.
I must say
I don’t believe in any of this macro-tripe.
I just wanted to point out that the evos “proof” is pitifully lacking.
Report comment to moderator
OUTKAST said
The heavens and earth opening and sending onto the earth’s surface a huge torrent of water, and then having that swirl around for 40 days and nights, and then having those waters continue to swirl around until the water retreated into the seas that we have today, could indeed create the Grand Canyon.
I live next to the Grand Canyon and teach geology field trips there. The above statement is completely false! You could only think that if you either 1) knew nothing about geology or the Grand Canyon or 2) are just lying. The deposits in the Grand Canyon show a diverse range of depositional environments, including a vast dune desert! And they end before the Mesozoic (e.g., no dinosaurs in the grand canyon – have to go to the rocks eroded away above that are still intact to the north and east – according to creationists the dinosaurs climbed to avoid the flood to the elevation of mesozoic rocks, but not high enough to avoid eventual drowning before the cenozoic rock record – what a lood of hooey!). Creationists claim that the 1,000’s of feet of rock that were above the top Grand Canyon layer (the “Grand Staircase” in Utah and N AZ – just got back from a class field trip there as well) were also laid down in the flood. These also show a diverse range of environments and fossils, including an even bigger desert dune environment (the “Navajo Sandstone” of Zion Canyon).
The claim you made in #135 isn’t even the slightest bit close to the truth, given the actual rock record. I know there are creationist liars out there claiming what you have repeated, and you obviously want to believe them without checking the facts directly. But they are outright LIARS. You owe it to yourself to learn some actual geology and fact-check them. This is what I did years ago when I was a YE creationist myself. I am one no longer!
Report comment to moderator
I just spent twenty minutes composing what I thought was an insightful post.
I hit submit…nothing.
That really chaps me.
Not going to bother doing it again if this doesn’t go through
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about 2 similar posts above – first one didn’t show up for quite awhile so I re-submitted. Then both showed up. Should we always expect a delay?
Report comment to moderator
One more time.
(No way this will be as good as the one that was lost)#:^\
I would have to call my self an old-Earth creationist. But, I would call myself a young-Earth “regenerationist” (OK, I just made that term up, as far as I know…but it pretty well sums up my position)
I’ve commented before on the first two verses in Gen 1. Namely, how the 1st “was” in vs. 2 should have been translated as became, and is usually translated in other parts of the Bible as the phrase “come to pass”.
And, how “void and without form” would be better translated desolate, and completely ruined.
(IMO, this is what Jer.4: 20-28 is alluding to)
I believe that this is the point where the creation “days” of Genesis began.
So, in a way, both sides can be right…on that topic
As far as evolution and the origins of like being separate issues, how so?
You have to have an object of creation before it can mutate.
How smart is it to base a theory without so much as a possibility of a starting point?
And then call it science?..Thank God for mothers who home-school.
And none of you guys ever answered the question I had the other day about how this primodial ooze, even if just ripe with nuceic acids, sustained itself for a long enough period of time for all of these varios building blocks to assemble in perfect order, then form systems that enable a cell to exist?
And remember, even if just by some wacky, kooky other-worldly reason these systems could actually form, how did they survive long enough to merge with the other systems, and simultaneously form a membrane in which to reside?
No progeny mutations without a creature.
No creature without life origins.
Report comment to moderator
Can someone tell me why my posts won’t go through?
I have now wasted 40 minutes of my life trying to contribute to this topic.
Is this a technical problem?
You’re losing me.
Report comment to moderator
Well thats just crazy.
Now I see the posts. Is it a deal where the preview process is still pending when you are returned to the thread?
If so, thats OK.
Report comment to moderator
MR_Meaner:
I also believe that man is a relatively new creation. I tend to think it was more than 6000 years ago. ( I base this totally on my own Biblical interpretation, applying the day=1000 years formula in II Peter 3, to the days of creation.
I’ve discussed how the first two verses in Gen. Ch.1 doesn’t specify the actual age of the Earth. The translation of the 2nd word translated “was” in verse 2 should be translated “became”.
And “void and without form” translated “ruined and desolate”
That is when I believe the Creation “days” of Genesis began.
So you are a literalist about man, but not “days”? You believe science for earth, but not for man? This is completely inconsisten (but admittedly quite a popular view).
As far as life origins and evolution being two sepearate issues, how does this even make sense?
You have to have something before it evolves.
You have to have a creature before you can have mutations.
Yes but the theory of evolution is only about what happens after life begins!
You guys never even explained how to overcome the mathematical impossibilities of cellular life originating from a pool of random nucleic acids.
And you never answered how this pool of ooze was able to sustain these acids for a long enough period of time for the complex systems that cellular life requires to have evolved.
And before you blow this off, do some research. This would be, without a doubt, a mathematic impossibility.
No modern theory of life’s origin (and there are several in very young stages – all may be wrong, but they are not yet proven impossible) works they way you describe above. A good place to start to familiarize yourself with the field is here:
Origin of Life Links
I just wanted to point out that the evos “proof” is pitifully lacking.
Evidence for evolution of life is overwhelming. Your simplistic claims about origin of life theories is both wrong and irrelevant.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 148,
there is an erratic behavior to accepting posts.
I am finding long posts less stable thatn short posts.
My sense is it has to do with the form of the paragraph breaks, but this is not conclusive.
Dr. NO (what a strange name: I am reminded of James bond) is working on it.
Report comment to moderator
I’m finding a lot of bad links in my suggested URL above for origin of life links. A better one is the NASA link page to existing research programs:
Origin of Life, Exobiology, Astrobiology
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 141,
but I believe I noted in this thread that at this time science does not have a model of how life originated.
That does not mean that it will not, just that it hasn’t yet.
As I noted, I am betting on Venter to make the first breakthrough here. He is positing taking an “inert” bacterial shell and placing man made DNS inside it to see what the minimum structure is requird for life.
At best, however, this will be one small step on a very long road.
But do note that it was ralistically only since about 2000 that we could even conceive of this road, so there has not been much research time devoted to this model yet.
There are some things which science can show will never be known. The origins of life does not appear to be one of them.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
I am all for science learning what it can.
I just would respect their findings more readily if they weren’t wrong so often.
I, too have heard about a group being close to “creating” cellular life. But they still have to use existing components and structure.
If anything, they will have proven that creation is possible.
That is the problem that those who try to prove life as having evolved are faced with. Unless they can re-create those first stages.
All of their efforts will only prove what IDers have been saying all along.
BTW, Sorry for not replying to your question a few days ago.
I just didn’t want to get in the middle of all the name-calling going on. And I appreciate the tone of your debate.
We’re all adults here. Hopefully, others will allow me to conduct myself in that manner.
(I hate slamming people…even though I’n pretty decent at it) #8^D
Report comment to moderator
Mr meaner post 154,
we need to separate the concepts of origins off life and evolution of life.
I suggest that science has made little headway so far on the origins of life.
I suggest by contrast, evolution has a very strong scientific basis.
I suggest, however, that intelligent design, unless it strengthens it fundamental abstract structure, is not in a position to be considered a science.
Have a good weekend, and thanks for your post!
Report comment to moderator
“So you are a literalist about man, but not “days”? You believe science for earth, but not for man? This is completely inconsisten (but admittedly quite a popular view).”
Actually, if I told you what I believed in regard to human remains dated before the days of creation, I probably would lose future crediblity when trying to make points in discussion my Bible-loving friends.
My reasons for not being surprised that there are human remains that date even past the time of the “beginning” in Gen 1:1,2, are also based on Biblical research. There are places where this is alluded to, but you have to take a very literalist approach to interpretating.
This is where I’m going to lose my friends:
No where does it say that before the Earth was rendered void and without form, there wasn’t angelic or even human activities occurring on Earth.
In fact, if there was a major destruction “from on high”, wouldn’t there be someone, or something that would bring about the kind of wrath to destroy a planet?
One of the places that backs up the point I’m trying to make is Jer 4: 20-28.
Yes, I realize that on one level this passage is about the Assyrians and Babylonian invasions.
But there is a reference there about a catastrophic destruction. Yahveh, through Jeremiah in v. 23: “I beheld the Earth, and, lo, it was void and without form: and the heavens, and they had no light.
Obviously, we are talking about the beginning of the Genesis creation,here… This is the only other place that the phrase translated “void and without form”is in the Bible. Does this not sound like “In the beginning”?
vs.24&25 nails it down.
“I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.”
26 I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.”
No man. Not even a dove to bring back an olive leaf. This isn’t Noah’s flood.
27- “For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. 28-For this shall the Earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.”
Sounds like the groanings of a “regeneration” does it not?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 144,
so what mathematical impossiblities of cellular life forming from a pool of random nucleaic acids?
Actually, as Spinoza suggests, this is probably not how life originated. I merely note that the simplest bacteria appears to be about 80 genes and we are within a hair breadth of being able to assemble this structure from scratch. This is not a big mathematical stretch.
Also remember the first life was very unlikely to be DNA based.
So while we do not have a model yet, we are beginning to see the outlines. And the outlines so far do not appear to provide mathematical impossiblities.
And yes, origins studies is very very different than evolution. Once we have a starting life form, the process of mutation (in its various forms and there are many) is being explored in a variety of experimental venues. While there have been big surprises in the varieties of mutation which can occur, there have been no big surprises that I am aware of in the overall high level process.
Report comment to moderator
Wow,
I have to make a correction
In #144
“translation of the 2nd word translated “was””
should read
translation of the first word translated was
(slaps self in face with phone book)
Report comment to moderator
“I, too have heard about a group being close to “creating” cellular life. But they still have to use existing components and structure. If anything, they will have proven that creation is possible.”
Do you mean that if scientists can create life in the lab, they are providing evidence that life began magically? That sounds like typical God Did It non-logic. How can people think this way?
“I just wanted to point out that the evos ‘proof’ is pitifully lacking”
Really? You obviously have made zero effort to look anything up.
I will save you some time and point you to one of the best explanations of the genetic evidence that you, Mr. Meaner, are a member of an ape species. It’s a book published last year. You could read it and educate yourself. Or you could remain willfully ignorant and keep repeating this “proof is pitifully lacking” lie. To save time, don’t read the book, just read the well written comments from people who read the book on amazon.com.
The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic
Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll
Spinoza: “I live next to the Grand Canyon and teach geology field trips there.”
Then you are the blog expert on the Grand Canyon. I remember seeing the Grand Canyon when I was very young. Imagine something that vast, and one mile deep, being formed in a few weeks instead of a few million years. These young earth believers are a disgrace to their religion. They are announcing to the world, “look at us Christians, we know nothing, we are dumber than dogs, come join our fantasy world.”
Mr. Meaner, at least you accept the age of the earth. Now you need to work on getting rid of your crazy idea that humans were created magically.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner post 150,
ok you appear to have made the statement that man was a recent creation.
As I read your post, it seems that we need to understand what you mean by man is a recent creation.
If we look at this genetically, then the record suggests that modern human have been around for something on the order of 100,000 years. The comparison of the DNA from modern man and neanderthal man from the cave in Israel would seem to be one example of such a study.
So since it would not appear that the genetic creation of humans was recent (~6000 years), I must assume you have another meaning when you make this statement.
Report comment to moderator
Ah it is not accepting posts again.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_meaner post 150: so if you suggest that humans were a recent (~6000 creation), then my sense is we need to understand what you mean by creation of humans. the genetic evidence suggests that modern man has been aro9und for perhaps 100,000 t0 150,000 years: the genetic study of neanderthal and modern h uman DNA from the cave is Israel would be an example.
So what do you mean by the creation of humans was recent?
Report comment to moderator
so lets consider a nuymber of issues which have arisen during this discussion.
First, if one wants to make an objective claim, and have it considered seriously, then one needs to provide evidence or data to support your assertion. Saying that the “world wide” flood could have caused the grand canyon is informationless unless you can:
1) demonstrate that there was a world wide flood
2) show that the erosion behavior of a world wide flood would develop structures of the form of the grand canyon
Next we can make some observations regarding science:
1) in its present form (arguably in any form to be called science) it is a relatively recent invention: perhaps 400 – 500 tyears old
2) it is generaly considered difficult: most college students are warned to avoid the sciences because they are hard and it is noted that scientists generally require significant post-fgraduate education
3) people seldom bcome scientists latter in life. One can decide to become a writer and perhaps succeed just by writing. One does not become a scientist because on a Saturday afternoon it seems like it would be fun
So given the relative difficulty of science, it is perhaps not surprising that so few seem to be able to master it.
But that should also give us pause before we make a suggestion abot how science “is wrong” on one point or another. The scientific process is not perfect, and the process has resulted in any number of errors, but it is also highly self-correcting and increasingly it is unlikely that a non-scientist will have the training and background to effective understand even what will be required to challenge many scientific understandings.
This does not mean that one can not become a scientist. If you want to become one, I fully encourage you to do so. If you are latter in life and you either did not have a bachelors degree in science or your degree was from sometime back, I suggest you re-enroll in a bachelors degree in a field of science and plan on adding on the requisite graduate work to master which ever field of science you would like to work in.
Report comment to moderator
“we need to understand what you mean by creation of humans”
He means it was magic.
Report comment to moderator
The most important reason many people deny the fact of evolution is because evolution conflicts with the stupidity of Genesis. The worst enemy of religion is science. The magic man believers know this, and that’s why they are constantly spreading lies about science.
Report comment to moderator
Lets see if we’re taking posts today.
Musing
I’m saying that the recent creation of man was perhaps not the first time that man has had a go at it.
That is what I meant when I said “young-Earth regeneration”, as opposed to creation. As I’ve said before on other topics. Something obviously happened prior to this age that would give God cause to love some yet-to-be-born entities, but hate others.
In the NT, there are things that are said to have happened before “the foundation of the earth”
foundation is the compound Greek word pronounced
Kat-ab-ol-ay’. It means down (Kata)+ throw (ballo).
I’d rather not make any declarations as to what this means. I think the words speak for themselves if you put it in to context.
(especially on subjects relating to the elect, or being “chosen” from before the foundations of the earth)
This is a very literal interpretation of the texts, regardless of what various doctrines may say on the subject.
Jer.Ch 4
23 I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Does this sound familiar? It should, as it is the only time this phrase “void and without form” is used, except Gen.1:2.
24 I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Could this be the event that brought the prior age to a close?
25 I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
Some would say that this is referring to Noah’s flood. Notice that there were no survivors for a dove to bring back a plucked olive leaf to. And all of the birds had fled.
This is not Noah’s flood.
26 I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all of the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD.
cities?..what can this mean?
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet I will not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
It reads just like the first chapter of Genesis
And all of that is smack-dab in the middle of prophecy.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Report comment to moderator
I’m just wondering, why would anyone use Bible quotes in a thread about science?
Report comment to moderator
Because someone asked in post 159
And since neither of us was there, I thought I would use an actual text to make my point.
But..just keep on with the bile-spewing.
It makes you look so mature and confident.
Report comment to moderator
Asking a simple question is bile-spewing? Thanks for the answer anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, one more simple question please (this also is not bile-spewing): how exactly do you think humans got here, and what evidence do you have? Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
The magic-man, invisible sky-daddy.
(Insert favorite derogatory title_____here)
I was just browsing the other threads, and I notice that you are trying to make an effort to be civil. So..I propose a truce.
(I don’t have to be mean.)
Can I believe what I want without being labeled stupid?
If so, I can accept that you think I’m stupid. We’re all entitled to think that about each other. But we don’t necessarily have to express it on a blog.
Can’t we all just get along?
Report comment to moderator
“Can’t we all just get along?” Yes, most definitely. I think you just misunderstand me sometimes. What you call “derogatory” is to me just simple definitions. For example I define the God invention differently from the way you might define it, that’s all. Also, it’s true I think some beliefs are a bit dumb, but that doesn’t change the fact the people who have those beliefs are often many times smarter than I could ever hope to be. Heck, I can’t be too bright, I can barely afford to buy groceries now because I blew a quarter of a million dollars in the stock market.
Mr. Meaner, back in #157, since you said the proof for evolution is “pitifully lacking”, I provided you with a link to customer comments about a book I am now reading, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll
The next time you are in a library or a bookstore, and if you see that book, you don’t have to buy it or check it out. Just read pages 99 thru 103. This part of the book talks about the impossible to deny, smoking gun proof that we share a common ancestor with the other primates.The DNA evidence Carroll explains, is not just powerful evidence, it’s the strongest possible proof there ever could be for anything. Since it’s not possible to cut and paste from a book, and since it’s complicated enough that you should get the information directly from the biologist Carroll instead of from me, you really should try to find this and read it.
I will just give you his summary, and if that’s not good enough for you, then you have to either get the book, or look for the same information on the internet, or just live the rest of your life never knowing the truth.
Here it is, and I hope you appreciate I am trying to do you a favor here.
The number of unique shared SINES is evidence of kinship and, when plotted, yields the tree shown in figure 4.4. The tree depicts chimpanzees are our closest relatives, bonobos as the chimps’ closest relative, and the gorilla and orangutan lines diverging before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. There is no doubt about the accuracy of this tree.
Just one more thing, Carroll’s explanation of SINES:
Particular chunks of junk DNA, called long interspersed elements (LINES) and short interspersed elements (SINES), are very easy to detect. Once a SINE or LINE is inserted, there is no active mechanism for removing it. The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and is then inherited by all species descended from it. They are really perfect tracers of genealogy. These insertion events are very rare; therefore, their presence in the same place in the DNA of two species can be explained only by the species sharing a common ancestor. The inheritance of variable markers in DNA is the same principle applied to paternity testing in humans. By surveying the distribution of a number of elements that arose at different times in different ancestors, biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species’ kinship beyond any doubt.
Report comment to moderator
I respect your opinion, and will do my best to research Carroll’s work. Of course, I can’t respond to something I haven’t investigated.
Thanks for your polite comment.
So…
Are we cool?
Wow…It feels good being nice.
I’ll have to try it more often.
Report comment to moderator
Good luck with it. I suggest a good place to start are the readers’ comments I linked to in #157. This kind of stuff is why I love evolution. In my opinion the history of life is the most interesting story in science, and scientists are learning more about it every day.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner post 162,
but the Bible is hardly what will be considered objectvie scientific evidence. I can understand that you might use the Bible as the startinh point for reaching a conjecture, but it is not proof.
So do you have objectvie data that humans “had a second go of it” some few thousnad years ago?
The archaeological evidence seems to indicate an unbroken presence of modenr humans for perhaps 150,000 years.
Do you have archaeological evidence for thisposition?
Report comment to moderator
Mrt_Meaner post 164,
actually I don’t think I asked for Bible references in my question of post 159. What I was asking for is what you mean by your posiiton that the recreation of humans was recent.
I do find it interesting that your response was Bible quotations: I was asking for an objective definition, and I am not sure that Bible quotations satisfy this request. Certainly the ones you provided did not seem to answer my question of what you meant by recent recreation.
Report comment to moderator
Adn at the end of the day as has been noted by several posters, if we are going to discuss science, then we need objective scientific evidence.
The Bible as source does not qualify.
And the resounding lack of objective scientific evidence for many of the creationists claims in fact portrays the story: there is no objective scientific evidence for these claims.
The last person who I would credit for making even an attempt at producing objective scientific evidence for YEC claims was Dr. Morris at ICR. In the twenty or so years in which I followed his efforts, even Dr. Morris admitted that the scientific evidence for his claims was weak: hence the RATE and RATE II study efforts.
Report comment to moderator
OK,Musing
This is a little ridiculous.
I guess I’ll have to go out and dig that 20000 year old skull I have in the attic, carry it to the local university, do some tests, and get back to you.
If you don’t want my opinion, don’t ask me a question.
You asked what I meant in my earlier post.
That was what I meant.
I’m sorry that I don’t know any sites operated by guys with pointy beards that back up my opinion, with piles of data. It is what it is. It is my opinion based on Biblical text. Thats all.
How else would you think that I could answer your question?
“So do you have objectvie data that humans “had a second go of it” some few thousnad years ago?”
No…but your own evidence makes my claim possible.
Report comment to moderator
“Certainly the ones you provided did not seem to answer my question of what you meant by recent recreation”
trying to be nice…
Can you not see the similarities in the first chapter of Genesis and that reference from Jeremiah Ch.4?
We have two direct quotes that say the earth was completely ruined and empty. Don’t you think that is a little coincidental?
One quote, if we’re to take that quoted phrase literally, would seem to be more detailed, including the destruction of all man and their cities.
I know that I’m asking the wrong person this question, but, what else can these passages mean?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 174,
I am still waiting for an objective definition of what you mean be a recent recreation of humans.
And your defintion?
And I believe it is you who have been arguing for not making personal statements about the posters.
So far I have made no personal statements about you at all.
Your comment:
““So do you have objective data that humans “had a second go of it” some few thousnad years ago?”
No…but your own evidence makes my claim possible.”
would seem to belie your stated preferred approach here.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, I’m glad you are still here (or maybe you are not returning?)
I just wanted to point out one very minor thing. You said “I respect your opinion”.
Well, thanks, but please understand when I talk about science, I am not talking about my opinions. The fact of evolution is not an opinion or viewpoint for the same reason the fact the earth circles the sun is not an opinion. Facts are facts. They are not opinions. It’s a minor point, but important enough to point out.
Back in #168 I copied two important paragraphs from the book I am reading. If you read those 2 paragraphs carefully, and if you understand them, you would have to agree we are an ape species. Just those 2 paragraphs is all the smoking gun proof a person should need to accept evolution.
What do you think Musing? Did you see those 2 paragraphs? I know scientists like to say nothing is proven in science, but some things, like our planet’s orbit around our star, and our close relationship to the other Great Apes, are just plain facts. And just the small part of the book I copied in #168 should be enough for anybody to agree. There’s tons of more information available for everyone to see, but #168 sums it up good enough. DNA does not lie. Carroll said “By surveying the distribution of a number of elements that arose at different times in different ancestors, biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species’ kinship beyond any doubt.” He is right of course. There can’t be any doubt about it. Evolution is fact and the creationists are just plain wrong.
Report comment to moderator
qwerty post 176,
I have not read this book, but am familair with the material. As I understand it, from a rigorous cladistic analysis, humans are in fact just a third type of chimpanzee. See Jared Diamond “The Tird Chimpanzee”.
It is also interesting to see some recent reaarch on ape and human toddlers:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906144113.htm
It looks like humans are not so much smarter than other apes, but rather we are more socially adept than the other apes.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
I’m sorry if you feel that I’ve slighted you in some way. You wanted to know my “objective definition of what I mean be a recent recreation of humans.”
I honestly don’t see what is so hard to understand about what I am trying to imply.
I have stated my opinion and provided evidence from text to support it.
I’m not sure I can put it in any simpler terms than the text that I quoted.
The idea in basic terms:
Man kind created.
Man kind destroyed by God.
repeat.
(who knows how many times?..see earlier quote from Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Of course, I can not prove this, as it is, once again, my opinion.
Ed,
I know.
facts are facts and theories are facts.
wait…that isn’t right is it?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 178,
I still have not seen your defintion. It is not obvious from post 162 what you mean by this statement.
As to evidence, if you make a statement about what is arguably objective fact, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence.
And all my evidence has suggested an old earth and old humans.
Report comment to moderator
“And all my evidence has suggested an old earth and old humans”
which would serve as evidence for my point.
Do you not see what I’m trying to say?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 180,
no I dont.
All my evidence suggests that humans as we know them are genetically identical with humans perhaps 150,000 years ago.
There is no eviudence that all humand died out a few thousand years ago and were recreated (if that is waht you mean).
So no at this point it is unclear to me what you are trying to say.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, sounds like you might have the usual misunderstanding of the scientific definition of theory. I’ll let talkorigins.org explain it for you: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Because of the massive rapidly growing overwhelming powerful lead-pipe genetic evidence described in the book I’m reading, and described in countless other books, science websites, and thousands of other sources, we now know for absolute certain beyond ANY doubt we are an ape species (and of course all creationists are wrong about everything).
Just once it would be nice if a creationist was able to figure this out. What’s the deal with creationists? Why can’t any new information get into their heads? I think part of the problem is the denial of the proven fact of evolution has become a big business in America. There is no shortage of fake scientists who make easy money spreading lies about science, especially the Discovery Institute, the most dishonest immoral organization in history.
Musing, thanks, I added to my amazon wish list: The Third Chimpanzee
Humans are a type of chimpanzee, or chimpanzees and bonobos are a type of human, whatever, these 3 species are very closely related, as proven by the genetic evidence I hope our friend Mr. Meaner gets around to studying some day.
Mr. Meaner, take a look at this please: “The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and is then inherited by all species descended from it. They are really perfect tracers of genealogy.”
There it is. Carroll’s statement above is a widely known fact. There are countless examples of this being used to show evolutionary relationships, and the results scientists know are absolutely correct. The level of detail is too great for there to be any doubt.
Biologists got the rock solid proof we are an ape species. Why don’t you accept this? I don’t get it. What could possibly be the problem? Is this fact you’re just an animal, just an ape, difficult for you to accept? Or what? Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
I’m saying that it is a possibility that the reason there are human remains 150,000 years ago, might be given in a literal translation of Bible text.
IIPet.Ch 3
9-The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
maybe even if it takes 200,000 years, and multiple undeserved chances given to us by a loving God who wants nothing more than the love of his children
10-But the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass awaywith a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the Earth also, and all the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Paul is basically saying what I said, only referring to a future event rather than a past one, which takes us back to Ecclesiastes 1:9
Another thing that comes to mind is the fact that Paul said that flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Read Malachi Ch.4
Is this becoming clearer?
(I’m not being sarcastic..I realize these answers are somewhat evasive. I am trying to present evidence to see if it leads some reader to eventually come to the same conclusions that I have. You’re ruining my subtility.)
Report comment to moderator
Yuck, I just wrote some long comments, including 2 links, it took a lot of time, I submitted the comments, they disappeared, and I can’t recover them. They might appear again some day, or maybe not. What a waste of time.
I will just type a quick summary of what disappeared.
Musing, thanks for the book suggestion. I added it to my amazon wish list.
Mr. Meaner, The following widely known fact from #168, “The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and is then inherited by all species descended from it. They are really perfect tracers of genealogy.” is solid proof of what creationists call macroevolution. It’s proof Mr. Meaner. Real proof. Not just powerful evidence. It proves it beyond ANY doubt.
So I’m just wondering, why have you not yet accepted the fact you’re just an animal? Biologists are certain humans are an ape species. This is not an opinion, not a viewpoint. It’s proven fact and it’s been proven over and over again countless times. It’s pointless to deny it. So what is the problem my friend? Is being just an ape too much for you to accept, despite all the massive evidence for it? I’m just wondering why somebody would deny a proven fact. Perhaps you think all biologists are liars. That wouldn’t make sense because the evidence is available to anyone who wants to study it. I ask you because I have been trying to figure out for a long time, what is the problem? Why do creationists continue to deny what every biologists knows for certain? I just don’t get it. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Comments are disappearing again. This is a test.
Report comment to moderator
My comments disappeared. I rewrote them and saved them and submitted them and they disappeared again. Since I saved them I submitted them again and they were rejected as duplicate comments even though the comments never went thru.
What a waste of time.
Report comment to moderator
Well I just had another long complicated post not make it.
Musing,
I’m not going to re-type these references. I’ll list them, you can check them out if you want.
II Pet. 3:9-10- There, Peter lays out the exact same scenerio that I have, only referring to a future event rather than a past one. And there you’ll find the reason that God would do this, in the first place.
What did we do that would require repentance to begin with? Who knows?
I’d bet that whatever it was, is has something to do with the reason that God hated Esau before he was even in the womb. Or why there are archangels who apparently aren’t subjected to being born in the flesh during this age.
Malachi Ch.4-Probably what Peter was drawing from with his words.
Isaiah Ch 66 “For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with” (pronounce judgement on) “all flesh”
Report comment to moderator
I wish my last post attempt had made it.
I noted how the presence of 150,000 year-old human remains doesn’t necessarily negate the truth of the Bible. If anythoing, it gives text like II Peter Ch. 3 more “punch”.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.
This would be the period of time described in Gen 1:6-10
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
this would be the event that rendered the earth “void and without form” in Gen 1:2, and IMO, what is described in Jer.4:23-28.
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the samw word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
This is what I’ve been trying to say..I couldn’t possibly make it any clearer than Peter
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, You’re also having problems with this blog. I hope they fix the problem. It’s not fun to waste time.
“I noted how the presence of 150,000 year-old human remains doesn’t necessarily negate the truth of the Bible.”
Would our close relationship to the other Great Apes negate the truth of the Bible? I’m guessing the fact we are an ape species just might have some serious religious implications. Whether or not you agree with the biologists about evolution, what do you think Mr. Meaner? If humans are nothing more than animals, if we are an ape species (we are), would this conflict with anything in the Bible? Just wondering. I ask you because you’re the Bible expert, not me.
Report comment to moderator
Honestly Ed,
Yes. As I see it, there is no way for both to be true. And I’d like to think that I’m open to any possibilities that scripture allows or science proves to my satisfaction. I’ve seen the evidence. I grew up in a fairly secular environment. I still have my copy of the old Time-Life’s “History of Man” complete with the diagram of perceived changes in “hominoids”.
To be honest, when I saw that they based these drawings on,in most cases, bones from one limb and some fragments, or a skull that could have easily been from an extinct ape, I just am not convinced. It has been said that 90%+ of all species that have ever existed are extinct. That leaves a whole lot of room for some odd creatures.
I think that it is a huge leap of faith to make aa ancestral connection from humans to what could be anything.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 185,
as I read your post, I must say that I do not find it clarifying. One of my observations of scripture is that it can be interpreted in many different ways. In the case of the New Testament, this appears to have been in part due to lack of precision of Koine Greek and in part it would appear to be because it was not obvious that the writeres were trying to be precise.
In any event we have clear human evidence going back several million years, with modern humans going back perhaps 150,000 years and no evidence that during this time a world wide flood or any similar natural catastrophy wiped out humans and humans started over.
So I am unsure where you are taking this part of the discussion. I sense that more specificity on your part on what you are referring to would be helpful here.
Report comment to moderator
“I think that it is a huge leap of faith to make aa ancestral connection from humans to what could be anything.” You say that based on an OLD book. Please see what Carroll wrote, or you could even google “genetic evidence for evolution” and do the hard work of learning the truth.
No way fo both to be true? That’s good! I know evolution is a fact, and I’m pleased it disproves the magical nonsense in the Bible. The Bible is good for nothing but rotting people’s brains.
Report comment to moderator
Oh well yet another post eaten.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 187,
when the only evidence was partial fossil remains, perhaps you skepticism may have been justified. With the advent of the DNA data, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor back about 7 million years ago, and the final split occurred about 5 million years ago:
Report comment to moderator
reference won’t post.
Report comment to moderator
Further there were a number of early hominids coexisting for an extended period of time:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/14_early_hominids.htm
In fact only about 40,000 years ago or so Neanderthals, Cromagnon, and the “hobbit” from Indonesia all coexisted on earth.
So while the details remain a point of discussion, the overall picture is very well supported:
1) apes and humans had a common ancestor
2) there were several different hominids of which modern humans are the only ones which remain
3) humans are, under rigorous cladisitic analysis, a third type of chimpanzee.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 187,
when all we had were bone fragments, it was not unreasonable to hold some degree of scepticism regarding the proposed lineal relationships of the various early homonids. In fact, if you look closely at scientific discussions today you will find that there is still controversy over the details of the relationships of the various fossil remains.
As we combine the fossil remains with the genetic evidence, however, the overarching picture has become quite solid and we are down to arguing the details.
And the overall picture appears to be that perhaps as early as 7 million years ago pre-chimpanzees and early hominids starting splitting:
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
with the split beig complete perhaps 5 million years ago.
The evidence suggests that there were a number of early hominids, several existing simultaneously:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/14_early_hominids.htm
with recent evidence suggesting that Neanderthals, Cromagnon, and the “hobbit” from Indonesia all existing simulataneously perhaps 40,000 years ago.
So while the details are in doubt, the evidence is quite clear:
1) apes and humans had a common ancestor
2) there were a number of different hominds in the 5 million years or so since we split from apes
3) only one of the hominids has succeeded into modern times
4) oh yes, and cladisitically we are just a third type of chimpanzee
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 187,
when the only evidence was partial fossil remains, perhaps you scepticism may have been justified. With the advent of the DNA data, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor back about 7 million years ago, and the final split occurred about 5 million years ago:
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Further there were a number of early hominids coexisting for an extended period of time:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/14_early_hominids.htm
In fact aonly about 40,000 years ago or so Neanderthals, Cromagnon, and the “hobbit” from Indonesia all coexisted on earth.
So while the details remain a point of discussion, the overall picture is very well supported:
1) apes and humans had a common ancestor
2) there were several different hominids of which modern humans are the nly ones which remain
3) humans are, under rigorous cladisitic analysis, a third type of chimpanzee.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 187,
when the only evidence was partial fossil remains, perhaps you scepticism may have been justified. With the advent of the DNA data, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor back about 7 million years ago, and the final split occurred about 5 million years ago:
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Further there were a number of early hominids coexisting for an extended period of time:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/14_early_hominids.htm
In fact only about 40,000 years ago or so Neanderthals, Cromagnon, and the “hobbit” from Indonesia all coexisted on earth.
So while the details remain a point of discussion, the overall picture is very well supported:
1) apes and humans had a common ancestor
2) there were several different hominids of which modern humans are the nly ones which remain
3) humans are, under rigorous cladisitic analysis, a third type of chimpanzee.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 187,
when the only evidence was partial fossil remains, perhaps you scepticism may have been justified. With the advent of the DNA data, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor back about 7 million years ago, and the final split occurred about 5 million years ago:
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Report comment to moderator
r Meaner post 187,
when the only evidence was partial fossil remains, perhaps you skepticism may have been justified. With the advent of the DNA data, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor back about 7 million years ago, and the final split occurred about 5 million years ago:
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Further there were a number of early hominids coexisting for an extended period of time:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/14_early_hominids.htm
In fact only about 40,000 years ago or so Neanderthals, Cromagnon, and the “hobbit” from Indonesia all coexisted on earth.
So while the details remain a point of discussion, the overall picture is very well supported:
1) apes and humans had a common ancestor
2) there were several different hominids of which modern humans are the only ones which remain
3) humans are, under rigorous cladisitic analysis, a third type of chimpanzee.
Report comment to moderator
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Report comment to moderator
Reference:
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Report comment to moderator
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Report comment to moderator
Stuck on reference:
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Report comment to moderator
primatology.net/2007/02/24/reassessing-the-time-at-
which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Report comment to moderator
Well that was tough. Back to the reference.
Looks like WMB is refusing primatology data?
http://primatology.net/2007/02/24/
reassessing-the-time-at-which-human-chimp-lineages-diverged/
Report comment to moderator
You say that based on an OLD book.
LOL, from Ed, who makes all his outrageous claims based on suppesedly OLD rocks!
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 194,
but the rocks are demonstrably old from a variety of data sources. The layering allows us to esdtablish a chronology. The type of rocks allow us to establish key aspects of the physics surrounding the layering, and a variety of radiological dating systems allow us to provide quite reasonable exact dates to specfic events.
My favorite here is the AR-AR dating of the Pompeii eruption in which they achieved an excellent match between the AR-AR dating and the historical record:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r83124036272n13k/
In short, while we do not have anything like the accuracy of a stop watch with which to date rocks, we have excellent tools which allows us to validate the chronologies and to provide dates which are of adequate accuracy for the long periods of time typically under consideration. It is also woth noting that there are a wide variety of radiological dating technicques which in enough cases to be interesting allows one to cross check the techniques:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
What is also nice about radiological dating procedures is that the radioactive decay curve is everywhere self-similar: if I measure a small part of the curve, the entier curve is fully defined.
Report comment to moderator
LOL, from Ed, who makes all his outrageous claims based on suppesedly OLD rocks!
You are seriously logic-challenged. Rocks and books about history are in completely unlike categories. The rock evidence doesn’t change, though what we know about it improves with time. What we know about the Bible improves as well – it’s much easier today to see that it is a large mythic work that should be classed with similar religious texts like the Koran or Upanishads, but not taken as a repository for scientific conclusions, especially since it was written a LONG TIME before relevant scientific discoveries in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., etc., etc.
Report comment to moderator
Just had a failed post – here’s a brief retry:
OUTKAST is logically challenged in 194. Rock evidence doesn’t change, but science has made vast progress since the writing of the Bible. Ergo, the Bible should not be taken as a science text.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: For the study of science I study science books. For the study of ORIGINS I study the Bible, because science doesn’t take up that question.
Also, while science is constantly changing (in light of new discoveries and new theories) God is immutable.
Mr. Meaner: I think you believe in what they refer to as the Gap Theory, correct? That there was a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? I know Christians who hold that position.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 218,
then I trust you are studying science books to gain a deeper understanding of geology and rock dating.
As to God being immutable, that may be, but is our understanding of God immutable?
So origin of the universe as it is presently understood is not a subject suitable for science and a statement of what occurred before the big bang is not presently suitable for science. There is no such indication that origin of life is not suitable for science.
What is interesting about science is that it can make some interesting statements about what it can and can not address. Origin of life so far does not appear to be a topic which can not be addressed by science.
Report comment to moderator
That’s weird, post #219 is blank on my screen. That’s neat how this new site allows us to ignore posters after we’ve notified them we won’t be responding to their silly inquisitions anymore. Thanks Lynn!
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
I just looked “Gap theory” up, and yep, that pretty well describes my belief.
Its good to know that there is an actual name for that position. Sometimes I feel like the Lone Ranger.
Of course, there are other details involved that I didn’t see the gap theory avdocates get into, but I can’t disagree with anything I’ve read about them.
Report comment to moderator
From OUTKAST:
Spinoza: For the study of science I study science books. For the study of ORIGINS I study the Bible, because science doesn’t take up that question.
Science routinely takes up origins questions: Origin of the universe, origin of the solar system (separate questions), origin of life, origin of species, etc., etc., One of the largest science wings of NASA is the ORIGINS program: NASA/Origins
The Bible is a mythic imagined view of origins, a story woven by ancient cultures. Man wrote it, not God. True that it doesn’t change; it stays constantly errant and flawed, like other similar religious texts.
Report comment to moderator
I just noticed that all of my priod posts that didn’t make it are now on the thread.
Just letting everyone know that I don’t normally repeat myself so often.
Sorry for thr redundancy.
#8^)
Report comment to moderator
prior..
sheesh
(stupid fingers!)
Report comment to moderator
205: “With the advent of the DNA data, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor back about 7 million years ago, and the final split occurred about 5 million years ago”
All correct. “becoming increasingly clear” is also correct, but it would be more accurate to say “absolutely true beyond any doubt”.
Mr. Meaner, your gaps are meaningless. Nobody cares that much about fossils any more. Well they do care about fossils because they help explain evolution, but if you want rock-solid smoking-gun proof, you can have all the proof you want from the DNA. It’s all there in our DNA and the DNA of other creatures. It’s now impossible to deny evolution without lying.
Report comment to moderator
QWERTY – it is interesting that evolutionists such as yourself have become so dogmatic that anyone who disagrees is a liar. This is your loss.
It is particularly interesting that you are so adamant about evolution based on DNA measurements without, apparently, even thinking about why that doesn’t get you there. Let me see if an analogy will help. You have been tasked with determining whether two people are related and if so how they become separated by about 200 miles. You state as a premise that only human explanations are allowed, no “magical” explanations are permitted. You take DNA samples which show that, in fact, the two humans are twins – their DNA is identical. You therefore conclude that one of the twins must have walked the 200 miles in question – the DNA shows they are related and no other explanation for how they could be separated is permitted. When the creationist tries to point out that your “they must have walked” theory has a serious problem, some intelligently designed mechanism must be at work, you laugh and call them liars. Thus you vigourously defend the position that an astronaut orbiting the earth in the international space station walked there, leaving their twin on the surface of the earth. Great science! If that was my analysis, I wouldn’t want rocketry taught in my classrooms either.
Without a mechanism, DNA similarities don’t prove anything. Random mutation doesn’t get you there because 1)irreducible complexity, 2) the beneficial mutation rate is too low and 3)the number of necessary mutations is too high. Of course, DNA similarities doesn’t even differentiate between evolution and creation because you haven’t explained why God needed to make genes with similar purposes different.
BTW, I am an “old earth” creationist and do believe that scientific evidence, not the Bible, provides the answer to these questions. The problem with the evolutionary position is that a little evidence that can be explained by evolution (the DNA similarities noted above) is wrongfully taken as disproving creation.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: But every time a Creationist on this blog asks an Evolutionist where that very first particle in the universe came from, they cannot give an answer.
Can we expect one from you?
Do you believe that everything (or at least something) has existed from eternity past? If not, where did it come from?
Mr. Meaner: Glad I’ve helped you find out there are others who believe as you do. I personally don’t, but I can respect those who believe in a literal interpetation of the Bible while holding to the Gap Theory’s explanation of why things appear so ancient.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 227,
and this is supposed to be a refutation of the science behind eviolution?
Outkast you can no more provide objective evidence for the beginning of the universe than any scientist can.
If you argue your Bible, many other religions can argue their holy texts and from an objective perspective, none can be proved to be objectively true.
What is known is:
1) the best objective evidence to date indicates thatthe universe is very old
2) the best objective evidence to date indicates thatthe earth is very old
3) the best objective evidence to date indicates that the rocks on the earth are very old
4) the best evidence to date indicates that all of life descended from a common ancestor
If you challenge these with any degree of seriousness, please provide objective scientific evidence for your objection.
And as we have discussed many many times, you won’t produce any evidence because you don’t have any.
Report comment to moderator
Codeblue post 226,
so please provide an objective scientific definitoon of irreducible complexity which is testable.
I wish you luck. Behe has not provided an objective testable definition.
Dembski has not provided an objective testable defintion.
And arguing that DNA is irreducibly complex is not sustainable. Even Behe admits that the junk DNA demonstrates that DNA is not irreducibly complex. While we can not show that something is irreducibly complext, we can easily show that DNA is reducibly complex (c.f Venter’s experiemnts with genes in bacteria).
In short, if intelligent design depends on irreducible complexity as its foundation then it has no foundation.
And of course since no one has been able to pose intelligent design in a testable form, intelligent design is not science.
And you were saying?
Report comment to moderator
Codeblue, your comments are almost as dumb and almost as ignorant as the nonsense that comes from the clowns at the Discovery Institute. In fact, I bet that’s where you get your ignorance from, the Discovery Institute liars. You are willing to believe anything that supports your belief in supernatural magic.
Why don’t you read and understand the book I recommended earlier instead of making a fool out of yourself.
“DNA similarities”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. I suggest stop spreading ignorant lies until you educate yourself. Any biologist reading your worthless comments would probably being saying “There’s another know-nothing American hick who believes in magic.”
Sorry, but I’m quite sick of creationists and their constant lying. It’s interesting Christians think science is such a threat to their religion that they lie about science and scientists constantly.
The Christians are right about one thing: The greatest enemy of the stupidity of Christianity is science.
Report comment to moderator
“objective scientific” = “self-supporting humanistic, Evolutionist theories”
Ed/Qwerty: VS and I are still praying for you!
Report comment to moderator
I’ll define “irreducible complexity” for you Musing. It’s an invention of the incredibly stupid incredibly dishonest fake scientist Michael Behe, who of course works for the Disco Institute, which is the laughing stock of the entire scientific community.
Here is Behe’s stupidity (or dishonesty, take your pick):
Behe: “I’m too bloody stupid to figure out how this thing evolved, therefore GOD DID IT”.
Behe, like the other Disco Institute subhumans, calls God the DESIGNER MAN. This is the most stupid attempt in world history to disguise GOD DID IT stupidity to look like science.
Report comment to moderator
One more thing Codeblue. Please stop calling the garbage you believe in “creation”. Let’s call it what it really is: MAGIC.
You believe in magic, Mister, and that makes you as smart as any 2 year old.
Magic instead of science. Pathetic.
Report comment to moderator
Good Lord, Musing!
The test is for your side to conduct. Our side says that the process that your side proposes is impossible.
How can we prove a negative?
We’re saying that it can’t happen.
You’re side says it can. You have the burden of proof.
Report comment to moderator
And why do you guys always refer to this Behe fellow.
Its funny that the only people who ever bring his name up are evolutionists.
I’ve figured this out.
Creationists don’t use his argument to defend creation, Evolutionists use his words to try to use his off-beat ideas of design, then evolution, to give you guys an “in” when the opportunity to rebuff literal creationists presents itself.
That is pretty pathetic usage of psycology.
It doesn’t work, by the way.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 234,
in science we frequenmtly use negative proofs.
In this case, however, I am asking you to prove a positive: there was a recreation of humans a few thousand years ago.
Right now the evidence does not support it, or more correctly the hypothe3sis that humans were recreated a few thousands years ago is falsified by the archaeological evidence showing that modern humans have an unbrokewn line for perhaps 150,000 years.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 235,
actually Behe is most often brought up by the Intelligent Design community (see the Discovery Institute).
Behe is the closest so far to have proposed a viable scientific argument for Intelligent Design.
His efforts, however, do not appear to have been sufficietn to establish Intelligent Design as a viable scientific alternative.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 231,
but of course you now appear to have admitted to your basic internal conflict here.
Based on your posts, you apparently would like to be seen as arriving at your conclusions based on objective data and logic. In short you would appear to like to have a seat at the table in scientific discussions.
You however appear to have made an asusmption regarding the inerrancy of the Bible which makes accepting objectvie scientific evidence difficult.
And under these conditions you now revert to castigating objective evidence? But of course you use objective evidence every day, and I suggest possibly hence your conflict.
You would appear to be struggling with your own assumption set outkast. You appear to have made a decision regarding this assumption set, and based on this decision, it would seem that you have no interest in objective logical discussions. You would seem to have an infallible source of truth and you will not allow any other evidence to the table.
In short, I guess, qwerty may be right.
Report comment to moderator
outkast,
and while you are at it you might want to consider your statement about God being immutable. You never did answer my question of whether human understanding of God would be immutable.
And of course here we again see a set of behaviors which does not seem to allow one to explore and gain new understandings: after all the important understandings are immutable.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 234,
perhaps the most interesting case of science proving a negative is the Michelson-Morley experiment.
In this experiment they were trying to detect the “ether” which permeated space to carry light waves.
In the course of this experiment, they proved the following negatives:
1) there was no ether
2) the speed of light did not vary depending on the speed of the observer
3) there was not fixed reference point in space: all reference points are relative
Three negatives with a single experiment.
Science also has proved the following negative:
- one can not measure both momentum and positon precisely at the same time (Heisenberg uncertainty principal)
And some more of my favorites:
- it is impossible to predict the behavior of an hyperbolic system (typical of many dynamic systems) precisely into the future
- no set of assumptions will be sufficient to prove all possible theorems in a given solution space (Goedel’s theorem)
So of course if you can not prove that determining the origins of life is impossible, it must be conceded that determining the origin of life may be possible.
And of course if something has some probability of happening, then in an infinite universe, it will eventually happen.
Report comment to moderator
So lets explore irreducible complexity a bit more.
Note that Behe raises this question in the context of complex biological systems for which, he argues, removal of any piece will cause the system to fail.
Let us put aside for the moment this question, which has some key hidden assumptions in it, and look at a second part of Behe’s abstraction: the process by which the genome produces the phenome is a black box. That is, no one has a good model for exactly how a given genetic structure results in a given physical structure. We know that it does and can show this with “gene knockout” experiments, but the process is still poorly understood.
But of course, this also deflates Behe’s assertion that these complex physical systems are irreducibly cmplex. The system may or may not be irreducibly complex, but the genetic code producing these systems is, even by Behe’s admission, not irreducibly complex. There is much junk DNA. And the junk DNA, and for that matter parts of the non-junk DNA which is not be activated, may, under certain conditons, be activated in the future. As such we have potential for presently unrealized physical structures hidden throughout the genome. And given enough time, chance has the opportunity to activate multiple potential physical structures which will be selected for if the envionrment finds these structures favorable to survival.
And we immediately see that all the systems that Behe has considered are, since they are a product of the genome which is admitted to not being irreducibly complex, are not themselves then irreducibly cmplex in the process of their construction.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You seem to be more concerned with the structure of the debate, than the actual content.
The question is legitimate. How can we prove that macro-evolution is impossible?
What possible experiment on Earth could be done that would disprove it? The notion is your’s to prove. I can’t prove that a long-term biological hyothesis is untrue. I have never said that I could prove that it isn’t true.
You have to prove that it is.
See?
Report comment to moderator
here’s that missing “p”
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 242,
but that is indeed my point.
There are a number of people who argue that the laws of thermodynamics will not allow macro-evolution. They are clearly wrong in that they misunderstand the limitations of the laws of thermodynamics.
Indeed one of your arguments appears to be a variant of a third law argument.
But if you can’t prove that it can’t occur, and I have given you several examples of proving that things can’t occur, we must allow the possiblity that it did occur.
And in admitting that macro-evolution (which is itself I suggest a misnomer: there is only evolution) we can now examine:
1) is there any evidence that what you call macro-evolution does occur
- there is quite a bit
2) quantify how much time would be required for the presently observed complex life forms to appear
- which leads to the importance of an old earth
3) exploration of “are there structures which can not be explained by evolution”
- the difference between bacteria, plants, and animal cells is an example
4) exploration of the kinds of mutations which are observed to occur and the impact on the evolutionary process
- this is the modern scientific critique of classic neo-darwinism
So I don’t have to prove that it does occur to show that it is a viable arena for science. I merely must provide hypotheses and demonstrate testability to make it a viable arena for science, and when I get successful tests, it provides credibility to continue the effort. remember, as long as succesful tests occur and the subject remains interesting, the subject reminas viable.
Now your argument for the “recreation of humans in the relativley recent past” can be examined under the same lens. First: it is not arbitrarily impossible, so it may be considered. Second: as you have posed it, it is arguably testable. Do we have any evidence that it did occur. And now you must provide the evidence.
Note that I have provided evidence that evolution occurs. I have actually provided evidence in this blog of increasing structural variation eventually leading to inability to interbreed (I will provide the reference again when I get home).
So I do believe, Mr Meaner, that the ball is in your court.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner: Musing is ALWAYS more concerned with the structure of the debate than the actual point under discussion. That’s why I no longer play her games.
Report comment to moderator
So I have located the following reference:
http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/science/articles/darwin.html
which is a article critical of evolution. The article, however, explores the case of leopard frog, Rana pipiens, which demonstrates what the author asserts is a clear case of evolution leading incrementally to what many term speciation.
We also have the interesting case of Ligers and Tigons.
In short, what is often thought of as speciation is observed in nature. Further, however, it becomes clear under rigorous inspection that what is thought of as speciation is arguably more correctly termed increased structural divergence. Species appears to be a concept which is convenient for humans, but does not seem to be rigorously honored by nature.
Report comment to moderator
From OUTKAST:
But every time a Creationist on this blog asks an Evolutionist where that very first particle in the universe came from, they cannot give an answer…. Do you believe that everything (or at least something) has existed from eternity past? If not, where did it come from?
I’m agnostic on that question – science doesn’t know, and I don’t know. But the fundamentalist Christian answer to this question is mythological and patently false in literal detail. I’d rather have no answer than maintain an unjustified one and push (and its consequences) it on other people.
In any case, your question is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Many scientists maintain an essentially religious answer to this question (i.e., “Why is there something and not nothing?”) without doing any violence to scientific principle. It’s fundamentalist belief in the Bible that is the problem, together with the need to see divine intervention wherever we are ignorant (ID). There may indeed be a God that created everything – I would like to believe it. But He/She/Them either did NOT do it literally as outlined in the Bible, or they deliberately falsified evidence to make it look like He/She/Them did not do it that way. Christian mythological accounts of the beginning are no more scientifically accurate than any other religious creation stories. The answer you believe to this question is assuredly wrong in many details that matter.
Report comment to moderator
“So I do believe, Mr Meaner, that the ball is in your court.”
Well, I’m going to let it bounce out of bounds, where it belongs.
This isn’t a debate anymore.
It is just a filibuster. It is the same old thing wrapped up in a cheap package.
You just keep changing the bows.
You still haven’t proven anything.
A last piece of handy off topic advice:
If you ever decide to build a house, be sure you don’t start hanging shutters and painting first. Material things, unlike theories, have to have an actual foundation before you can start decorating.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 248,
well let me see:
- I have provided evidence of evolution resulting in changes which make interbreeding difficult to impossible
- I have provided evidence of evolution
- I have posed the challenge which Intelligent Design needs to address to become science
- I have addressed the problem with irreducible complexity in the context of biological systems and the known reducible complexity DNA
- I have provided several examples where science clearly proves a negative, with the ensuing large impact on our understanding of nature
And you have provided Bible verses to make your point regarding recreation of humans.
In the large majority of my posts I add additional supporting information.
I am waiting for evidence for your recreation model.
And at this point we again reach the classic situation which occurs with most creationists of any form: there is no evidence for your position.
Shall I continue with examples of evolution? What will be the point if you reject the clear materiial provided, amusingly enough, by an anti-evolutionist demonstrating not just evolution, but evolution leading to what some would call speciation.
And I note that for every piece of evidence I provide you provide no refutation.
So at this point we usually do end up with a refrain: Mr Meaner, where is your evidence?
Report comment to moderator
(blinks twice)
Uhhh
I don’t have any proof for my opinion. If I did, it wouldn’t be an opinion, now would it?
You are the one making concrete declarations, here. My evidence is based on interpretation of a text.
If I could prove the validity of the text, or of my interpretation of it, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, now would we?
(sigh)
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 248,
now you actually do raise an interesting point regarding building a house: foundations are important.
I have presented this several times before in thie blog, so I will shorten the discussion:
1) from what I call the Cartesian tautology, I suggest the only thing we can prove from first principals is that the entity thinking exists: cogito ergo sum
2) the entity will observe, however, that there are repeated correlations of certain observations; it gets light when day starts, for example. This does not prove that these correlations exist, only that we observe them.
3) further, while we can not prove that other entities exist, we find that we observe that other entities in a number of cases agree with our observed correlations. Again, we can not be sure that the entities exist or that they actually agree with our observations, we can only observe that they do.
4) and the critical step: for these observed correlations for which we observe consensus among other entities, we observe that accepting these observations as true is observed to prolong the existence of the entity: e.g. jumping off cliffs is observed to generally be a bad idea
What we have here is a pragmatic derivation of what is typically called the objective world. We have not proved that it exists, but we have demonstrated that it is pragmatically useful to act as if it exists.
And of course once this is establshed (and I observe that even bacteria have a primitve notion of this syllogism) we can act as if the objective world exists and open up the opportunity for the development of most of what we call science and technology.
And of course, once we raise the value of predicting these correlations in the objective world it places a premium on developing the process to rigorously understand and predict this objective world, and mankind developed the scientific process as the best known process to date to study this objective world.
And in fact, as one pursues the development, our understanding of the objective world and the scientific process become intimately entwined: science becomes our tool for understanidng the objective world.
Notice, however, that our proof starts with the subjective world: the objective world is posited for pragmatic reasons. This is where I differ from many objectivists, but I suggest that operationally this model is indistinguishable from an objectivist model but does not require the assumption that there is in fact an objective world. It has the interesting corrallary that since the subjectvie world is all that is unequivocally proved, the study of the subjective (arguably religion being one form) is the study of the only thing we can prove to exist.
Tis would appear to be a firm foundation Mr. meaner, although I cnintue to reifne it. What I do not have is the assumption, which you appear to have, that the Bible is in fact inerrant. And given the mental gymnastics which you appear to have to go through to reconcile your interpretation of the Bible with the scientific data (e.g. your thoughts on recreation), my sense is that your assumption set is too complex.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 250,
but if you could prove the validity of the text we would be having this conversation and you would be educating me.
Opinions are wonderful things and we should all have thme.
I am, however, a pragmatist, the opinion regarding the objective world should in my eyes either:
- be found to be supported by data so that the opinion can be established as a fact
or
- provide interesting tests to establish new facts to support the opinion
To have opinions about the objective world without either having evidence or establishing a process for developing evidence is indeed idle effort.
This is quite different for the subjective world: in large measure the subjective world is soley about opinions (or thoughts or meditations).
Evolution, the age of the earth, a positied world wideflfood, and your model of recreation are objective constructs.
So I look for either evidence or for tests to establish evidence. This is in fact a key component of the scientific process.
And Behe raises such ire among scientists because he will provide neither evidence nor tests to obtain evidence for his ideas, hence the majority of scientists consider his work either unscientific or bad science.
P.S. so for amusement, where does the beauty of a sunset fit in to this model?
Report comment to moderator
My eyes are tired.
Must be all of those mental gymnastics.`
By that I mean forcing my way through your entire posts. I’m not really in the mood to debate the nature of debate.
I’m sure you would win, though.
Report comment to moderator
But I suspect you will admit that I do try to bring new items and ideas to the discussion with each post.
Report comment to moderator
“And Behe raises such ire among scientists because he will provide neither evidence nor tests to obtain evidence for his ideas, hence the majority of scientists consider his work either unscientific or bad science.”
Behe is laughed at by real scientists because Behe claims whatever he doesn’t understand was created magically. I would expect a retarded child to believe in magic. When somebody who claims he is a scientist, and invokes magic, which is all Behe ever does, that is somebody to laugh at, and certainly not somebody to take seriously.
Report comment to moderator
First I want to make something clear. Whenever I say “evolution” I am talking about what creationists call “macroevolution”. I noticed macroevolution is a word rarely used by biologists because macroevolution is merely microevolution repeated many times. There rarely is a good reason to use the words macroevolution and microevolution. These are favorite words of creationists because creationists pretend there’s an invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop whenever a species is about to change so much it could be called a different species. The change from one species to another takes a very long time, many thousands of generations, and the change is extremely gradual. Creationists don’t want to accept this fact because creationists think supernatural magic is more likely, and because creationists refuse to study the genetic evidence that proves they are completely wrong.
I often refer back to previous comments by their number, but since a problem with this blog has been corrected, some comments that disappeared before, have now appeared, making every comment number I was talking about incorrect.
Now that this blog has been fixed, I would like to point out comment number 173, which has 2 paragraphs from the book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll.
These 2 paragraphs contain in a nutshell an example of the kind of proof that creationists pretend doesn’t exist. If an intelligent creationist (I’m sure at least some creationists are very smart, but very wrong about science) read those 2 paragraphs, and if he understood what he read, how could he possibly still say there was no proof of evolution? If he was honest and able to understand the evidence, he would have to accept the fact we are an ape species.
So I suggest to creationists, get to work and learn what you have to learn. If you can’t understand the 2 paragraphs in #173 from Carroll’s book, then you need to either buy the book, or use google to find the same information, or get the information from somewhere else.
What creationists do instead, if they bother to do anything at all, is instead of trying to learn anything, they look for nonsense that they think proves all the biologists wrong. Their goal is not to learn anything, they only want to defend their belief in God Did It magic.
If a person is willfully ignorant, and that’s what all creationists are, then they look bad, very bad. It’s a character flaw to want to be uneducated. It’s a problem creationists could fix if they wanted to, but I have never seen it happen. I have never heard of a creationist who made an honest attempt to understand what biologists have been trying to explain. This is strong evidence religions harm people. Religious beliefs make people unable and unwilling to educate themselves.
I suggest to creationists, instead of denying what I just said, prove me wrong. Really surprise me and study the genetic evidence, not to look for problems that aren’t there, but to actually understand it. Find out why, in #173, Carroll said “The inheritance of variable markers in DNA is the same principle applied to paternity testing in humans. By surveying the distribution of a number of elements that arose at different times in different ancestors, biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species’ kinship beyond any doubt.”
Report comment to moderator
#247: Thanks for proving, once again, my point. You criticize Creationists for not offering “scientific proof” of the earth’s origins, yet you hypocritically offer none of your own.
See Jared Diamond “The Tird Chimpanzee”.
I’d rather not!!!
Report comment to moderator
I have now joined those whose posts have been lost. I am sure World is working on it.
Anyway, QWERTY, your ad hominem attacks to nothing to convince or persuade. Neither you nor anyone else has responded to point that without a mechanism, DNA similarities don’t prove evolution.
I have ordered Carroll’s book and will see if he actually has an explanation of this point. Hopefully I will be in a better position to discuss the current thinking the next time there is a new evolution/creation topic to discuss. I would also add that it is at least curious that those who criticize Christianity for being close-minded are so adamant that they are right beyond any possibility of even allowing an alternative view to be presented. Think about it!
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 247,
no actually outkast, from a scientific perspective, the typical request is for proof of a Young Earth. Young Earth Creationists have none.
As spinoza, qwerty, and I have noted, at this point science does not claim to have an ability to understand the origin of the universe. And science is honest here.
Science so far has not explained the origin of life and is honest here.
Science does argue that they have a supported model for how, once life formed, the complex organisms one earth developed, and they provide evidence here. As well as, of course, evidence for the age of the earth and the formation of the Grand Canyon.
The typical Young Earth Creationist insists that they have a valid model for:
- origin pof the universe
- origin of life
- age of the earth
- creation of the Grand Canyon
- formation of the complex varieties of organisms from an original life form
but will not provide any objective evidence for their claims.
In fact, when pushed, some Young Earth Creationists have been known to denigrate objective evidence, even though they demand it and use it regularly.
And when you compare the position of the scientists and the typical Young Earth Creationists, the intellectual dishonesty of the typical Young Earth Creationists is apparent to all.
Report comment to moderator
CODEBLUE post 258,
you are technically correct so far as your statement goes: DNA similarities do not prove evolution.
But there are a series of logical issues with the statement as you have made it.
First, in science you typically never prove something is true. Typically what you argue is that you have failed to prove somthing is false. This misunderstanding also appears in some of Mr meaners posts. What actualy occurs is that rigorous efforts to disporve an hypothesis fail enough times that it is not considered useful to continue testing, although typically some scientists will continue testing and at intervals there are surprises. So gravitational attraction has never been proved: rather efforts to disprove gravitational attraction have all failed (there are some deep questions here if one is so inclinced).
So when scientists discuss evolution they typically combine a large number of disparate pieces of evidence:
1) lab experiments on rapidly maturing organisms (fruit flies, bacteria, plants, finches)
2) fossil records showing structural relationships
3) observations on orgainisms which are presently alive: see the leopard frog example I posted
4) geologic data on the age of the earth and age of geological strata
5) DNA data
It is then hypothesized that evolution would explain the variety of organisms on this earth and it is compared against the known data.
The experiments do not falsify the evolutionary hypothesis.
The fossil record does not falsify the evolutionary hypothesis.
The observations on presently living organisms does not falsify the evolutionary hypothesis: see the leopard frog example.
The geologic record in showing a very old earth, does not falsify the evolutionary hypothesis.
And so we get to the DNA data. Now DNA in most organisms contains a small amount of active DNA material interspersed with large amounts of “junk” DNA which serves no known purpose.
Now commonalities in both the “junk” and active DNA between different organisms does not falisify the evolutionary hypothesis: it is exactly what one would expect if the variations in the DNA were caused by random processes. Further, comparison of the DNA commonalities matches in the majority of cases the relationships first postulated by the skeletal remains. Finally, the changes in DNA can be very crudely dated and the dating is consistent with much of the dating of relationships which had been derived from fossil record. In short, the DNA evidence does not in the main falsify any significant portion of the prvious theoretical results and in fact was very consistent with previous results. Those arguing for the evolutionary hypothesis assert quite rightly that this is a very critical test which could quite easily have upended the evoltuionary hypothesis: it did not.
Now you are correct, there are other possible explanatons for the DNA commonalities. For the moment I will assume that you accept the rest of the scientific data, just not the interpretation of this data with respect to evolution. Further we will for the moment assume you are a supporter of the traditional Behe form of intelligent design: common descent occurred it was just driven by an external intelligence. There are other forms of intelligent design, and if you have a different model we can explore those as well.
If you follow the traditional Behe model of intelligent design you are left with the following observatons:
1) you accept the entire scientific explanation of how the complex forms of life arose EXCEPT that you insist it was driven by an external intelligent agent
2) you are left with the observation that “junk” DNA serves no known use and provides a metabolic load to the organism: if the agent was intelligent why would it add reducible complexity to the design? This is a partial falsificaton of the intelligent design assertion (although it would support an unintelligent designer assertion!
).
3) you of course must also provide an approach to falsifying your model of an intelligent designer: without the ability to effectivley test this concept it is only a conjecture
Most scientists, including Behe who structured the present traditional design abstractions, argue that point 2 is a serious flaw in the intelligent design argument.
All scientists operating from a scientific perspective argue that until point 3 is addressed, intelligent design is not science (by the way this is a tautology).
There are a few scientists actively working to see if intelligent design could be structured in a testable manner: so far as I know, no one has been successful.
So in short, DNA evidence not only did not falsify the evolutionary hypothesis but, by providing such a potentially challenging test, it greatly strengthened the hypothesis to the point where few serious scientists of today challenge it.
Alternate explanations of the DNA data are possible, but they are either challenged by portions of the data or are not testable.
Report comment to moderator
Codeblue, your “alternative view” is magic and that is just plain childish. We are talking about science here. Your god magic is not science and it’s not sane.
Also, your “alternative view” has not one shred of evidence. Your lies about science is not evidence for anything.
Why don’t you admit your god did it ideas are nothing more than a childish belief in magic and have nothing to do with science.
Report comment to moderator
“Hopefully I will be in a better position to discuss the current thinking the next time there is a new evolution/creation topic to discuss.”
Is that all you want? How about hoping to learn the truth?
It sounds like you are only interesting in debating something that has been settled a long time ago. All sane biologists accept evolution, and none of them accept your magical creation. There is NO debate about evolution being a fact. Only people ignorant about science and who prefer magical explanations instead of evidence, think there is some debate. But there is no debate. The issue is settled. We are an ape species and every educated person knows that.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like Ed/Qwerty is back to his old ways of ad hominen attacks on all those with whom he disagrees (calling them insane, childish, believers in magic, etc.).
Wonder how long before he’s banned once again? It would be nice to limit these debates to those who at least TRY to respect the opinions of others . . .
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 263,
ah we have had this conversation once before.
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
And your comment in post 231:
“objective scientific” = “self-supporting humanistic, Evolutionist theories”
is respecting the opinions of others??
Report comment to moderator
Musing post 260
I appreciate the tone and content of your post. It has been a while since I considered these matters carefully and am doing so. It seems to me that you point to an important distinction regarding proof. It is easy to see the point that, for example, the DNA evidence doesn’t prove evolution false. That seems a far cry from proving evolution true which is how it is frequently argued. Part of the point of my first post was that some evidence that doesn’t disprove evolution has to be weighed against remaining, significant questions. For example, no one here has argued that there is a scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life. Thus, as far as science gets us today, creation of the first cell by an “intelligent designer” has not been proven false. Until that happens, it seems to me should be room for continued inquiry in the direction of an external actor – not the vilification of the likes put out by QWERTY. Thanks for your post and participation. I just wish I had more time to spend on these matters.
Report comment to moderator
codeblue post 265,
but if you look at science carefully it never proves something is true. Rather it attempts to falsify until it seems unreasonable to keep attempting to falsify: then science calls it a law.
And evolution as the method for the arrising of complex life forms is the best fit to the evidence, and has yet to be disproved.
Now science has made no claim about the origin of life other than there is no fundamental reason why it should not be a subject suitable for scientific inquiry based on what we know now.
If you are to go the next step and posit that it requires an intelligent designer, then in making this hypothesis, if we are to remain in the sphere of scinece, we need to provide a test for this hypothesis. No such test has been described or develooped.
Since origin of life is not yet testable, it is reasonable to make all sorts of conjectures on how life began on earth. The examples are:
1) an outside designer (your model)
2) life came here on cosmic dust/comets/…
3) life arose spontaneously
4) DNA floated accross the universe and …
but all of these are, at this time conjectures and untestable.
Now there are an additional logic problems that arises when one posits an intelligent designer:
a) how could we even tell: the desiger would appear as either a natural law OR would be lost in the statistical variaton of measurement (Collins in “The Language of God” alludes to this issue in his discussion of miracles).
b) if there was an intelligent designer, who designed the designer?
among others. In short most scientists will invoke an Occam’s razor argument to suggest that the intelligent designer assumption is not neccessary and just makes the analysis more complex.
But you are correct: at this point the origins of life discussion is pure conjecture.
P.S. what is the definition of life?
- there actually does appear to be a rigorous definition
P.P.S. based on this definition what is meant by artifical creation of life?
- and the answer often posed here can be very amusing
P.P.P.S. and does any of this relate to how life arose on earth?
- probably not
P.P.P.P.S. but do look at Venter’s proposed experiment!
P.P.P.P.P.S. and also look at the alternatives to natural DNA which have been investigated. Things are about to get very very interesting!
Report comment to moderator
Codeblue: “an external actor”
Codeblue, instead of using all these fancy words like “external actor” why don’t you call it what it really is:
Report comment to moderator
Last comment repeated because I didn’t finish it.
Codeblue: “an external actor”
Codeblue, instead of using all these fancy words like “external actor” why don’t you call it what it really is: THE MAGIC MAN
You want to use THE MAGIC MAN to explain the diversity of life and your idea is incredibly dumb. Magic is for 2 year olds, and it’s disgraceful that you believe in it.
“It is easy to see the point that, for example, the DNA evidence doesn’t prove evolution false. That seems a far cry from proving evolution true which is how it is frequently argued.”
OK, now codeblue you are lying. You may not know you’re lying, but your ignorance is no excuse for spreading lies.
Did you even bother to read what Carroll said in #173?
Did you read it or are you unable to understand it?
Which is it? Are you lazy or just dumb?
Despite your ignorant spreading of lies, evolution is a fact, and it’s a fact that all humans, including me, including you, and including your stupid dead preacher man Jesus, are animals of an ape species. There is NO debate about this. This is NOT an opinion. It’s a proven fact, and you not being able to understand the evidence does not change anything. Babble about your MAGIC MAN all you want, your magician did not have anything to do with life, and it’s just pure insanity to think it was magic.
Report comment to moderator
codeblue/qwerty,
I suggest that Collin’s “The Language of God” may be useful here.
Colins is an evangelical Christian.
He is also an extremely good scientist. I do have a quibble on the details of one of his statistical points regarding miracles.
It is arguably worth reviewing how Collins views this form of the discussion.
He accepts all aspects of what we consider science and its knowledge AND believes in God AND believes in the Bible. His insights here provide one way of addressing qwerty’s objections to a belief in God without abandoning a persepctive on science which objectively appears subject to little challenge.
Report comment to moderator
#247: Thanks for proving, once again, my point. You criticize Creationists for not offering “scientific proof” of the earth’s origins, yet you hypocritically offer none of your own.
In 247, I was answering your question about theory, not about “proof.” You are both extremely ignorant (of origins science) and utterly confused, OUTKAST. The origin of earth (and planetary systems, generally) is fairly well understood and supported by evidence from solar system chemistry, dynamics, and observations of disks around nearby young stars. Planets are forming now in nearby molecular clouds under conditions that are observed. My point is not that fundamentalists have no proof that Genesis 1 is literally true, but that science has lots of proof that it isn’t.
Moreover, lots of evidence supports the big bang theory that the universe arose out of an unimaginably hot and dense state. This is a completely separate event (and concomitant theory) from the origin of solar systems – our solar system formed when the universe was already ~2/3 of its present age. What science doesn’t know is what (if anything) happend before the big bang. Genesis 1 doesn’t really say anything about this either.
Now what was your point exactly???
Report comment to moderator
I want to start saying the word “behe” sometimes too.
Is there some kind of euphemism that “behe” can mean.
I mean, he has no use to creationists, Evolutionists seem to despise the guy.
….hmmm…
developing
Report comment to moderator
Musing said:
As spinoza, qwerty, and I have noted, at this point science does not claim to have an ability to understand the origin of the universe. And science is honest here.
Science so far has not explained the origin of life and is honest here.
I would revise this slightly. Astronomical observations of the expanding universe, Cosmic Microwave Background, and cosmic abundances are powerful consilient lines of empirical evidence for the origin of the universe from an unimaginably hot dense beginning. This is what scientists mean by origin of the universe, and they would not relinquish conclusions about it from their turf! Of course, BB theory says nothing about an ultimate previous cause like that articulated in religious mythologies – in that sense you are right.
Also, a single origin of life theory is by no means agreed on yet, but unlike the notion of an “ultimate cause,” this topic is not beyond the bounds of science, in principle. Lots of progress is currently being made and lots of top scientists work on this.
Report comment to moderator
Behe is a lot like you Mr. Meaner. He believes in magic.
“he has no use to creationists”
Behe has no value, and the world will be better off when he drops dead, but many creationists like the idea of Behe’s pathetic attempts to make god-did-it magic look like science.
Report comment to moderator
spinoza post 272,
you are correct, science has a wonderfully complete explanation from perhaps 10E-42 seconds or so on.
At time zero, however, it is still unknown and it is not even clear what physical meaning there is to time before time zero.
You and I are in complete agreement that there is no intrinsic reason why science will not have a model for the origin of life.
One might want to go to the Venter thread to see some of the activity going on here.
Report comment to moderator
Clarifying to OUTKAST:
Your question in 227:
Do you believe that everything (or at least something) has existed from eternity past? If not, where did it come from?
has NOTHING to do with your “point” in 257.
Thanks for proving, once again, my point. You criticize Creationists for not offering “scientific proof” of the earth’s origins, yet you hypocritically offer none of your own.
I’m guessing that you don’t really think very carefully about this subject at all, but just like making snide comments.
Report comment to moderator
274 – yes I was quite sure that we agree – but I just wanted to point that, when making concessions to unbelievers in science – as I did in 247 – one must be careful not to give an impression that underestimates what science can and has accomplished in Origins. This is very difficult since, as OUTKAST illustrates above, evangelical capacity for misunderstanding and superficially denigrating science knows no bound!
Report comment to moderator
“science has a wonderfully complete explanation from perhaps 10E-42 seconds or so on.”
The god nuts will hide their magic man anywhere they can. They could hide their invisible man before Musing’s 10E-42 seconds, but it would be pointless to do so, because if they wanted to be honest, they would have to explain and prove how the magic man got there.
This is the problem the god nuts always ignore. How was the invisible man in the sky created? Since god nuts are unable to think, and since they have no common sense, they just ignore the problem they create when they claim a magician did it.
God nuts, who made your magician? Answer that question, provide strong evidence for it, and then and only then can anybody take your magic man claims seriously. Of course there could never be any evidence for magic. The god nuts have nothing to back up their wild claims.
Report comment to moderator
qwerty post 277,
I am afraid I must disagree to some extent with you. I suggest that a more correct model is that those who insist on supernatural intervention are thinking from an entirely different perspective than either you, spinoza or I are using n approaching this discussion.
We are approaching this in an evidence based objective model resting heavily on the scientific process.
It is an observational fact that not all people think this way. In fact, this approach to thought was, until very recently, very unusual.
There are clearly some non-objective areas of thought whcih almost all humans employ: I love my wife and daughter for example. And love is clearly non-objective. If you look at the cartesian tautology, you might consider that the only self-consistent proof is in fact a proof of the subjective.
What is fair to say, however, is that if individuals are going to particpate in the discussions of science, then they either need to particpate using scinece as the model for thought OR they need to admit up front that they are approaching the discussion in a non-scientific arguably subjective model.
What I find interesting is that so few Creationists are willing to be intellectually honest on this point.
Report comment to moderator
querty post 173,
“This part of the book talks about the impossible to deny, smoking gun proof that we share a common ancestor with the other primates. The DNA evidence Carroll explains, is not just powerful evidence, it’s the strongest possible proof there ever could be for anything.”
Hmmm…..
Report comment to moderator
querty post 173,
Perhaps you would care to comment on the following article by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D., director, Center for Creation Studies, Liberty University:
Chimp genome sequence very different from man
For many years, evolutionary scientists—and science museums and zoos—have hailed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative” and have pointed to the similarity in DNA sequences between the two as evidence. In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA.1 However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.
Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome.2 No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.”3
So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years!4 The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.
Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40–45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.
To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.
Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations—a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.” This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.
Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.
It is the differences that make the difference. The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.
Report comment to moderator
(Above article was written in 2005)
Report comment to moderator
trail dog post 280,
it is good to see you are keeping up on the literature: you are correct, after doing a full genetic mapping of humans and chimpanzees, the differences were indeed closer to 4% than 2%. And you are futher right, this is a lot of differences. And observationally these genetic differences are at least partial drivers for why humans fly jets and chimpanzees are restricted to small areas in Africa.
Of course, using your own math, this means there are a lot of similarities.
So lets take an example analogy, I have book A and book B. When I do a cmparison, the difference between book A and book B is ony 4%. The conclusion most would draw there is a great deal in common between the two books and there is a strong liklihood that much of the material then must have had a common source. In fact, in most cases you could win a legal case based on this.
Of course, it is not the just the DNA which makes the case for evolution. We have the following:
1) we observe evolution in the laboratory
2) we can observe the impact of evolution in nature: see the leopard frog example
3) we can see the structural relationships in the fossil record which support evolution
4) the geologic data indicates that the earth is very old (billions of years)
5) the DNA data in most cases matches the structural relations developed by naturalists before the DNA data was available
So we have a large body of knwledge from a variety of different fields which is mutually reinforcing, does not falsify evolution, and raises serious problems with all other proposals suggested so far.
And remember, the DNA data demonstrates a high level of commonality in regions of the “junk” dna: that is DNA with no known use and which if removed does not appear to change the structure or function of the organism. This “junk” DNA is consistent with an evolutionary model driven by random mutations but, as Behe noted, is challenging to proposals positing an intelligence driving either evolution or creation.
Now it would appear that you are from an environment which is comfortable with a creationist model, although whether this is a Young Earth or Old Earth creationism is unclear. However, creationism must come to grips not with a single specific scientific finding, but rather the mutually reinforcing set of scientific findings which so far support the evolutionary model quite well, but are challenging to creationist models. This incidently was a point that Dr. Morris well understod and struggled with for at least 20 years without measureable success.
But also note you have approached this discussion, quite correctly, in the context of a scientific discussion. Which means your last sentence:
“The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.”
must also viewed scientifically. Where is your objective scientific evidence that man was created in the image of God?
Report comment to moderator
QWERTY,
This is like a trial with circumstantial evidence for both sides. We are two jurors that would normally be removed from the jury box during jury selection because your anti-God bias colors your conclusion that the evidence “proves” single ancestry and my God bias colors my conclusion that the evidence “proves” design. We end up forever in the jury deliberation room with a hung jury.
Genetic mutation is a perfect example. The circumstantial evidence from my side of the fence would make me conclude that genetic mutations result in a net loss of genetic information. There is no naturalistic source for genetic information. Genetic mutation simply causes existing genetic information to become corrupted – genetic mutations follow a downward trend. Genetic information is always lost: the original pair of “dogs” had all of the potential characteristics of all their various progeny, while the descendants (dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, jackals) themselves have lost that same potential.
As far as the original blog subject, human rights are violated by both Christians and non-Christians alike. I can give you just as many examples of non-religious wars as you can give of religious wars. It is because we are human and it is impossible for us to follow just two basic commandments – love God and love others.
Report comment to moderator
savedby grace post 283,
probabilistically mutation, it can be argued, should be equally skewed towards creation or reduction of information, with no new information being the most common outcome. Observationally this is what appears to occur.
When new information is created, however, if it is advantageous, then the environment selects for the new information and new information gets added.
There are several requirements for this:
1) an external energy source (the sun) to avoid third law arguments
2) an active process which is selecting for new valuable information: natural selection
Both appear to be present. It is documented, for example, in humans (resistance to cholesterol) that new information has appeared.
The interesting challenge to Dawinism as traditionally understood appears to be around does the new information appear by single point random mutations or are there other processes occurring? It is observational, for example, that retroviruses carry a significant information load which can get incorporated permanently in the genome (a number of presently inactive retroviruses are found in the human genome):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020802075138.htm
So I am confident that our understanding of how the new informaton appears will continue to refine. But it is clear that new information is appearing.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING,
It can be argued that the resistance to cholesterol you refer to is not new information. The gene that makes the protein that produces HDLs mutates to a gene that makes a protein that produces antioxidants. Antioxidants are not new information, just in a new location. The reason the mutation is beneficial is the HDL protein (good cholesterol) was programmed to go to sites of LDLs (bad cholesterol). So the mutated protein sends antioxidants directly to the bad cholesterol sites. Possibly a better combination of existing information but not new information.
Report comment to moderator
savedbygrace post 285,
actually the single gene mutation which results in improved cholesterol metabolism is not present anywhere else in the local population and does not appear elswhere that we know of in the global human population.
The genetic mutation is traced to the mid 18th century and its inheiritance is clearly demonstrated. Further, it does result in new physiological pathways in humans which were not there previously:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1585/is_n7_v21/ai_18246471
Remember, we need to look at the DNA for information, not the physical structures (this is one of the errors made by Behe). And the evidence to date is that this was new genetic information. If you argue otherwise at this point, it would seem you need to show that the DNA sequence leading to this improved metabolism existed before this mutation.
Now arguably there is an interesting and deep question here behind this question, but it does not affect the queston as posed.
Report comment to moderator
Genetic mutation is a perfect example. The circumstantial evidence from my side of the fence would make me conclude that genetic mutations result in a net loss of genetic information. There is no naturalistic source for genetic information.
Genetic mutation simply causes existing genetic information to become corrupted – genetic mutations follow a downward trend.
This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both natural selection and “genetic information.”
Genes mutate regularly – frequently in a neutral fashion (changes at 3rd codon position have virtually no impact), and often in good and/or bad ways. Natural selection sifts out the best ones in a non-random process. In this way, properties of the environment give rise to corresponding changes in the genome that increase fitness and drive evolution. The energy flow that drives life also drives its evolution and there is no violation of thermodynamics.
Your conceptions of genetic mutation and “information” are so off the mark that you are talking nonsense in the above statement. I realize it’s not entirely your fault, since the above is canned ID/creationist rhetoric.
Learn science from real scientists!
Report comment to moderator
savedbygrace post 285,
but you have not answered my question from post 282.
Where is your objective scientific evidence that man was created in the image of God?
Report comment to moderator
MUSING,
“Where is your objective scientific evidence that man was created in the image of God?”
Sorry, didn’t know this was a general question. By adding “in the image of God” you change the debate. Don’t have any nor do you have any that disproves it. There is evidence for micro-evolution and then you infer common ancestry. So I would suggest that you don’t have any observable scientific evidence to prove common ancestry. Be careful how you interpret the evidence and whether you are truly being objective. You are pushing us toward that jury deliberation room that I mentioned to QWERTY where we can’t agree on a verdict.
Report comment to moderator
So I would suggest that you don’t have any observable scientific evidence to prove common ancestry.
Scientists don’t so much “prove” things as infer the most probable explanation. Common descent is far and away the most probable interpretation of 1) the fossil record, 2) genetic similarities, and 3) homological (e.g., anatomical) similarities between species. These 3 lines of evidence are completely independent, yet they are all a logical consequence of the same thing – we evolved from a common ancestor. No alternate theory comes even close to explaining these!! Fixed-species creationism does not require any of these things to be true and is negated by one of them (the fossil record). Therefore it is necessarily discarded as a scientific explanation.
Report comment to moderator
More data on the Italian chlesterol protection mutation:
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2002-05/dbnl-tmm061302.php
and
http://www.thefutureforum.com/ClinicalPaper/
Cardiovascular-status-of-carriers-of-the-apolipopr.aspx
and
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0735109704014494
etc.
Report comment to moderator
SPINOZA,
I’m talking nonsense and rhetoric so I need to “Learn science from real scientists!”
As usual these kind of discussions revert to personal attacks or my scientists are better than your scientists. Sir Peter Medawar CBE, MA, BsC, and fellow of the Royal Society as well as Nobel Prize winner (a real scientist) admits that “there is no genetic process that science knows of that could produce the changes required for the process of evolution. I feel sorry for lay people who must feel very confused when they discover that there are NO PROOFS for evolution in the normal sense. All of the evidence which has been offered as proof of evolution is actually either CIRCUMSTANTIAL or OPEN TO ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION. The proof of evolution is that it must be true because we have no better explanation.”
“It must be true!” Sounds like a religious faith statement to me. Its open to interpretation but you just don’t like the alternative explanation.
Will the court let us order out for lunch while we deliberate?
Report comment to moderator
SPINOZA,
Your three lines of evidence can be a logical consequence of a Creator – fossil record, genetic similarities and homological similarities. Common ancestor is not the only explanation.
Is everyone ready to vote again?
….Some guilty and some not guilty! We’re going to be here a while.
Report comment to moderator
saved by grace post 290,
but of course it was you who changed the discussion from a scinetific one to a religious one with this comment in your post 280.
When you bring religious concepts into a scientific discussion you will inevitably get bizarre and counter-intuitive behvaiors.
So my question was intended to point out that if you want to being this into the discussion, then you will need evidence.
At the end of the day, science is an objective evidence based exercise.
Report comment to moderator
musing post 282,
“Where is your objective scientific evidence that man was created in the image of God?”
The last statement in Dr. DeWitt’s article, “The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God”, I take as a statement of faith on the part of Dr. DeWitt. Nothing more, nothing less. As with any such statement, it resonates with those who hold the same conviction and often irritates those who do not. I count myself as part of the first group.
Report comment to moderator
saved by grace post 280,
but of course the following are scientific observations on your point of evolution and common ancestory:
1) it does not appear that nature is very kind to our insistence for establish a clear demarkation between species. As noted in the leopard frog example:
http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/science/articles/darwin.html
what is often called speciation is arguably more accuratley called increasingly large differences in structure and possibly behavior
2) given this, the disctinction between microevolution and macroevolution disappears
3) and given that the fossil record provides a proposed linkage of common descent which is closely correlated with the DNA record
the common ancestory is not falsified AND is the most parsimonious proposal for explaining the combined evidence including the DNA evidence.
All propsoals which consider an intelligent force behind either common descent (Behe Intelligent Design) or any form of unique creation (most Creationisms) must answer the question of why is their commonality in the “junk” DNA which serves no useful purpose.
And at this point from a conventional perspective evolution from a common ancestor may be considered “proved”.
Charley Dewberry asks an interesting alternate question which is probably worth pursuing. It is a variation of the question was their one unique beginning to life or were there several. There is an interesting arguement based in part on the commonalities but also some interesting statistics, which suggest that at this point even if there were more than one oringial life, only one original life has descendents which have survived to the present.
Report comment to moderator
trail dog post 295,
ah but we are talking science here, not faith.
I have posted here the scientific process and one version of the objectvie model that it rests on, and no where does faith play into the discussion.
Objective data as tested by the scientific process yes, but not faith.
Report comment to moderator
musing post 295,
You incorrectly attribute post 280 to savedbygrace.
Report comment to moderator
saved by grace/trail dog,
My apologies for the misattribution. My error.
Report comment to moderator
musing post 296,
“ah but we are talking science here, not faith”
I do not confuse the two, neither do I pretend that the two do not inform one another.
Report comment to moderator
Your three lines of evidence can be a logical consequence of a Creator – fossil record, genetic similarities and homological similarities. Common ancestor is not the only explanation.
Yes it is a logical possibility that there is a Creator who made things look as if they happened in a way totally unlike the way they actually happened. Such a god is more of a demon, and such an idea is a really lousy one in science and theology! This kind of god is not only not “good,” but a deliberate liar.
Report comment to moderator
SPINOZA,
Never said that the Creator made things look differently than they actually are – that wouldn’t be “logical”. It looks like everything was designed. Just stating a possible explanation for the scientific evidence. It is a supernatural explanation rather than natural and that’s what gets your adrenaline going.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING,
post 296 – ah but we are talking science here, not faith.
When someone says “it must be” evolution because we have no other explanation, that sounds like a faith statement to me.
post 295
I’m surprised by your link about the leopard frog. I think everyone should read it. The reviewer of Darwin realizes that there are presuppositions and assumptions made prior to looking at evidence. He says “What we need are philosophically sophisticated scientists who recognize the role of presuppositions in coming to knowledge about the question of origins. Such scientists are rare; most have been trained in the traditional view of science. They are quick to see assumptions in others, but they are BLIND TO THEIR OWN ASSUMPTIONS.” And he says the “kinds” of Genesis are not necessarily species which I would agree with. It’s more likely what we call family – He created the “family” of dog and now we have dogs, wolves, foxes, dingos, jackals, etc.
Report comment to moderator
savedbygrace: “assumptions”
Saved from what?
“assumptions” is a favorite word of the everything-is-magic creationists. Another favorite word of the creationists is “worldview”. They use these words as an excuse for their nutty belief in magic.
The only assumption I make is people who deny the rock-solid proof all life evolved (the massive and rapidly growing genetic evidence) have many problems, including laziness, delusions, and a defective brain.
Report comment to moderator
QWERTY,
Thanks for supporting my point in post 291 – “As usual these kind of discussions revert to personal attacks”
“Saved from what?” – would like to answer but not the appropriate thread to discuss theological issues and I also know it is asked sarcastically.
“Assumptions” was used in the link that MUSING referred to – not my own word – and the link is not to a creationist article.
Your characterization of the evidence as “rock-solid proof” shows that you haven’t been reading any of my posts.
Report comment to moderator
“As usual these kind of discussions revert to personal attacks”
Look it. I just tell the truth here. The truth is creationists are very sick. There is something wrong with them, and they are never going to be able to cure their disease unless they know how sick they are. You should thank me for my honesty. If you listen to me, instead of complaining about me, you might be able to save your wasted life.
I do read comments written by people who believe in magic like you do, even though it’s a waste of time to read nonsense. All creationists have is their constant lying about science and their childish claim the magic man did it.
“Saved from what?” I was not asking for a long discussion about theology, an answer of a few words would have been good enough. I’m guessing you’re talking about being saved from torture in your make-believe hell by your make-believe invisible man in the sky. This hell belief the god nuts think they need to be saved from is disgusting and only a sick person could believe in it.
By the way, theology is a bunch of words about nothing.
“Your characterization of the evidence as rock-solid proof”
That’s not just my characterization. Every biologist in the world knows the genetic evidence is incredibly powerful proof all life evolved.
Does it not bother you that the entire scientific community agrees all creationists are nuts? Do you ever wonder why there are virtually no scientists who believe in your magic?
Yeah, I know about the incompetent dishonest and incredibly stupid fake scientists who support your childish magic nonsense. Those small handful of fake scientists are not scientists. In my opinion they are subhumans. They disgust me. They are liars like Behe who make money off of gullible people like you who want to pretend your magic is science.
Report comment to moderator
Hang in there, Savedbygrace. Ed/Qwester knows full well that God is chasing after him, and using the means of VS and yourself and myself to accomplish His aims. And God never fails!
Report comment to moderator
wow my first post on the new format. can’t say i think it’s an improvement. but at least i can see what outkast looks like now. yep, fornicator, that one.
I want any one of the creationists here that are yammering on about genetic information to give me a definition of ‘genetic information’, including ‘How it is measured’.
Please note that there is no such measure used by scientists. So, you are treading on Nobel territory here. You are from the comfort of your cushy armchair and the safety of the KJV 1611 singlehandedly advancing the cause of science so please articulate carefully.
Ed, although i more or less generally agree with you about the subject of god-beasts I wish you would read Descartes and the subject of empirically equivalent hypotheses. It really isn’t necessary to stomp baby chickens when letting them starve will suffice.
Report comment to moderator
“It really isn’t necessary to stomp baby chickens when letting them starve will suffice.”
Stomping baby chickens is just a hobby of mine. Everyone needs a hobby.
I had to look up what KJV 1611 was. Now I know. Then in a KJV 1611 website I clicked on “Genesis”, and I found this, the first sentence of the boring Bible: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Interesting. The very first sentence of the Bible makes a scientific claim: our planet was magically created. Well, that’s not really science, it’s more like what I would expect a mentally retarded 2 year old to say. Anyway, I thought it was interesting the very first sentence of the Bible is a lie. Reading further, I discovered every single sentence of Genesis is a lie. What kind of deranged person could believe this crap? Also, is it ok to say “crap” here? Too bad I have to be constantly concerned about breaking some blog rule. Censorship is a bad thing.
Report comment to moderator
Does stomping and/or starving baby chickens dull or intensify one’s conviction?
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, you don’t believe any of the crap in Genesis or in the rest of the idiotic Bible, do you?
Report comment to moderator
‘..in the rest of the idiotic Bible, do you?
nah..
not me
I like the King James Version, myself
Report comment to moderator
saved by grace post 303,
actually please reread my postings, it would appear that you have misunderstood one key point:
1) evolution has not been falsified by the available evidence
2) all other proposals are either falsified by the available evidence or are challenged by the available evidence
And the efforts to challenge the core of evolution have gone on for perhaps two hundred years during which the model of evolution has been strengthened not weakened, so that scientists consider directly challenging evolution an area of scientific inquiry which is unlilkley to bear much fruit.
However, you are always free to try and if you are able to show a true falsification of evolution, then scientists will attempt to duplicate your work and if they agree that you are correct, you can indeed argue that evolution is in error scientifically.
I invite you to make the effort. Do remember that you will have to show errors in geology, biology, atomic physics, and astro[physics, as a minimum, before a falsification is likely to be cons