Some polling data on evolution

They're also having a wonderful time with that poll at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/discovery-commissions-zogby-poll-design-trumps-darwin/

Lets see if John's email address forwarding is fixed.

Oh, I see. It's a popularity contest.

Any poll that involves the Discovery Institute in any way is less dependable than a one legged horse.

I'm not sure why they are getting worked up over this. No one is disputing that science education in the US is lousy.

Of course we're thinking, what's new?

More sinister is how they worded the poll, though. Instead of asking if people accept evolution and god, they ask: "Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design." Frankly, I'm surprised that 33% would take the other choice, unguided evolution, which is higher than what's seen in polls that allow the choice of "theistic evolution" under that or some other term.

This is not unlike the "scientists who dissent from Darwinism," which is so worded that almost anyone could agree with the literal wording of said "dissent."

Obviously a lot of people in the 52% would claim to agree with the scientific theory evolution and that god guided it, no matter that the two ideas really aren't compatible in the usual understanding of evolutionary theory. The IDiots exploit such confusion to throw god believing evolutionists into the ID column.

Gee, dishonesty from the DI? The novelty of it is staggering.

Glen Davidson

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

henry said: The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

henry said: The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

Henry whines... The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

Henry,

Read that paper yet, or even the abstract? It is fair and balanced. You're for that right? Next time you demand evidence, be prepared to deal with it. That's what fair and balanced means in science. If you are not willing to do that, then it would be fair say that you are unbalanced.

I suppose that Zogby and his colleagues must be hard up for money. What else could explain their willingness to work on behalf of the Disco Tute? Thought today was April 1st, then I realized that it wasn't....

Well, shocking, two things:

1) Call me back when science is a popularity contest.

2) People are stupid...or as Nietzsche once said: Insanity in individuals is rare...but in Nations, groups and even ages it is the rule.

Glen Davidson said: Of course we're thinking, what's new? More sinister is how they worded the poll, though. Instead of asking if people accept evolution and god, they ask: "Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design." Frankly, I'm surprised that 33% would take the other choice, unguided evolution, which is higher than what's seen in polls that allow the choice of "theistic evolution" under that or some other term. This is not unlike the "scientists who dissent from Darwinism," which is so worded that almost anyone could agree with the literal wording of said "dissent." Obviously a lot of people in the 52% would claim to agree with the scientific theory evolution and that god guided it, no matter that the two ideas really aren't compatible in the usual understanding of evolutionary theory. The IDiots exploit such confusion to throw god believing evolutionists into the ID column. Gee, dishonesty from the DI? The novelty of it is staggering. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Polls on what the general public "believes?!" Really? How does what a majority believes affect the facts? Oh that's right, it doesn't. The DI can tout what people think all they like, it doesn't change reality any more than the creation museum's inane displays do.

henry asked some 'questions'. I'll use his numbers.

4) Assumes that there is an academic freedom to teach lies. There isn't. There are no 'weaknesses' in the Theory of Evolution, if by that is meant scientific evidence opposed to it. The only scientific evidence is for it.

5) Assumes that what was true of the Theory in Darwin's day is true now. It isn't. There are no "two sides". All of the evidence is on one side, and all arguments against the Theory are invariably based on ignorance, simple incredulity, false reasoning, or straight-out untruths. Again, the fundamental assumption is that there is a right to demand that lies be taught.

6) Assumes that there is evidence against the Theory of Evolution. There is none. Again, the assumption is that there is a right to demand that lies be taught.

7) There is no evidence for Statement B at all, and therefore it isn't even a hypothesis, scientifically speaking. Statement A is attested by evidence, except for the words "unguided process". If you substituted the words "a process in which no design is discernable", it would be correct.

So, to reword:

4) Do you believe that science teachers should be required to teach only scientific theory and the evidence for it, or should they be free to evangelise their own religious beliefs?

5) A hundred and fifty years ago, Darwin said that the "facts and arguments" behind the Theory of Evolution should be weighed. Since that time, no fact has been found that contradicts it, and all the facts found have supported it. Should science teachers explain this to students?

6) Should biology teachers teach the only evidence-based explanation for the development of life, or should they teach explanations for which no evidence exists?

7) Should science teach only propositions for which there is empirical evidence, or should it teach propositions for which no evidence exists?

henry said: Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Perhaps Henry would like to give some examples of evidence against evolution? I am betting that this would consist entirely of quotes from creationists and not one bit of real evidence. Certainly it would not include any scientific articles from peer reviewed journals. Henry has shown that he is emotionally and intellectually incapable of even reading an abstract let alone understanding anything scientific. Now would that be the "fair and balanced" treatment that Henry is advocatiing? Maybe Henry wants astrology taught along with astronomy as well. Would that be "fair and balanced". Behe seems to think so.

Perhaps Henry would like to give some examples of evidence against evolution?

What is their point? Wouldn't Las Vegas win the poll question "what is the state capital of Nevada"?

I seem to recall that another Zogby poll in 1542 showed that 97% of Europeans thought the Sun went around the Earth and in 1911 a separate poll had 98% of geologists believing that the continents were static.

Bottom line is that science is never influenced by polls, only science education and science policy are. For these reasons we really should be concerned about these numbers, regardless of the biased way in which the question was asked.

henry said: Here are the four questions. How would you word them?

This looks like fun. I want to play.

Here are the four questions. How would you word them?

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of germ theory as a scientific theory?

5. Pasteur obtained evidence for the germ theory of disease. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Pasteur’s position?

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching the germ theory of disease. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only the germ theory of disease and the scientific evidence that supports it. Statement B: Biology teachers should teach the germ theory of disease, but also the scientific evidence against it.

7. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: The development of disease can come about through an unguided process of random infection. Statement B: The development of disease must be guided by an intelligence in order to punish the wicked.

Now, would you answer these questions in the same way you would answer the evolution questions? Why or why not?

"Evidence"

We use that word quite often, implying that the DI/creationists have none - and they don't. But I heard of a site that supposedly does creationist work - the biologic_institute.org. I went to the site and of course it was all anti-evolution nonsense. But what was most interesting is if you do a wikipedia search on biologic_institute, you find the history of this site. It was set up by none other than the DI itself as a tax-exempt front organization so the DI could answer their detractors who say they're (the DI) is not engaged in doing actual research. Interesting reading.

henry repeating the Discovery Institute's lies: 6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Strictly speaking teachers shouldn't teach Darwin's theory of evolution at all, except as an introduction to what they should teach: Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Is There Some Truth to Dragon Myths?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Over a decade ago, a creation scientist wrote, “The creation model of origins makes many predictions, one of them being that evidence will be found that tells us that in the recent past, dinosaurs and man have co-existed.”2 Indeed, evidence continues to fulfill this prediction.5 Whereas most of the Harry Potter world is grounded firmly in fancy, the concept that certain “strangely familiar”1 dragon-looking dinosaurs existed with humans has a broad foundation in history.

References

1.Dinosaurs and Dragons, Oh My! Stanford Fossil Historian Links Dinosaur Bones to Mythological Creatures. Stanford University Humanities press release, October 2008.
2.Cooper, B. 1992. The Early History of Man – Part 4. Living Dinosaurs from Anglo-Saxon and other Early Records. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 6 (1): 49.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on July 2, 2009.

henry, if you're interested in myth, legend and folkstory, there's lots of places to hang around on. It's a perfectly legitimate field of study, but it isn't what we're interested in here, as a group. We're interested in the actual evidence of the history of the Earth as attested by nature. You know, fact.

Have you had a look at any of the real scientific papers you've had recommended to you yet? If not, why not? If so, how about some substantive comment on them, addressing the actual facts, eh?

Yet, Mr Thomas' non-peer reviewed paper can't explain why the legends don't match up with the actual descriptions of the various dragons with the compared dinosaurs, like, why would Triceratops would be the basis of the Tarrasque legend, or how people would remember Tyrannosaurus as being a strong-armed descendant of Cain, or why these same legends don't match up with where the fossils are found, like why would people say that Saint George slew his dragon, allegedly Baryonyx, in Libya, even though Baryonyx is only found in England, or why we would have the Tarrasque in France, and Grendel the T. rex in Denmark even though Triceratops and T. rex were restricted to North America.

And then there's the fact that Mr Thomas also doesn't explain why there is no physical evidence of humans interacting with nonavian dinosaurs, i.e., no deliberate burials, no items designed specifically for use by dinosaurs ever found (toys, collars, jewelry, saddles, weapons to kill them, etc), and no nonavian dinosaur fossils with signs of being butchered.

So, tell us, henry, why did Mr Thomas neglect such vital information in his "report"?

Dave Luckett said: Have you had a look at any of the real scientific papers you've had recommended to you yet?

If not, why not?

If so, how about some substantive comment on them, addressing the actual facts, eh?

Annnd... having looked at the articles involved, I see that ICR are engaged in straightforward misrepresentation. Good heavens, who'da thunk it?

Adrienne Mayor thinks that ancient peoples might have seen enough fossil dinosaur bones to construct the dragon legend on them. She's correlated some Native American myths with other fossils, but of course dinosaurs are the most spectacular fossils out there, so it seems likely that they'd be noticed, especially by folks who were intimately familiar with a particular piece of terrain. Having been noticed, the well-understood explanatory function of myth comes into play.

Seems fair. So what? Well, ICR wants us to believe that this means that ancient humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

Stop sniggering back there! That's what they're saying, for Pete's sake! And henry wants it brought to our attention.

Consider it attended to, henry. Now I've had a look at your articles. How about you look at ours?

Only 8% of Egyptians believe in evolution. Proves you don't have to be a Xian to reject evolution. (There are, of course, upto 10 million Coptic Xians).

Good luck Henry J.

novparl said: Only 8% of Egyptians believe in evolution. Proves you don't have to be a Xian to reject evolution. (There are, of course, upto 10 million Coptic Xians). Good luck Henry J.

Congratulations, novparl. You've found the weakness in the Theory of Evolution, which is that accepting it requires education. Three out of ten Egyptians can't read or write, which gives you a flying start. That's how it should be, too. Literacy only leads to uncontrolled thinking, after all. I bet you can't wait to get into power in the US, so you can put an end to that sort of nonsense.

Henry,

While others are busy answering your questions about evolution and how it ought to be taught, I have a few questions about your alternate "theory":

1. Per your "theory," how many years ago did life first appear on earth?

2. Per your "theory," do humans share common ancestors with other species?

3. Given that public school students are already free to discuss "weaknesses" of evolution for ~99.9% of their waking hours, please feel free to use this thread to discuss the weaknesses of your "theory."

henry whines... Only 8% of Egyptians believe in evolution. Proves you don’t have to be a Xian to reject evolution. (There are, of course, upto 10 million Coptic Xians).

No, it proves that 92% of Egyptians are either deluding themselves or are ignorant of the scientific evidence supporting the ToE.

News alert: the sheep of Scotland are shrinking! On Soay Island, off the western coast of Scotland, wild sheep are apparently defying the theory of evolution and progressively getting smaller. Why? In short, because of climate change. Generally, the sheep's life cycle goes like this: they fatten up on grass during the fertile, sunny summer; then the harsh winter comes, the grass disappears and the smallest, scrawniest sheep die off, while their bigger cousins survive. That's how you end up with big sheep, which — according to Darwin's laws of natural selection — will pass on their big genes to the next generation.

novparl wrote:

"Only 8% of Egyptians believe in evolution. Proves you don’t have to be a Xian to reject evolution."

Right, you don't have to be a Christian to reject evolution, you just have to be ignorant, anyone can do that. Likewise, you don't have to reject evolution just because you are a Christian, you just have to be intellectually honest enough to follow the evidence. The Bible makes it very clear that your salvation does not depend on any scientific theory but that you should be honest if you want to follow the teachings of Jesus. Why do so many creationists get that wrong?

henry said: Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

henry regurgitated: Some creationist nonsense ...

Keelyn said:

henry regurgitated: Some creationist nonsense ...

Still serving up that casserole from the creationist’s kitchen, huh henry?

Congratulations, Dave Luckett. You don't have to be stupid to be an evolutionist, but it helps. How precisely will I, who have never visited the US, get into power there? Also, as I'm not a believer in the Bible, how will I get the support of the religious right? By making my jokes about Jebus?

Congratulations, Stevaroni. I said that, not Henry J.

Otherwise, the usual abuse from dishonest people who can't even face the fact that you don't have to be an Xian to doubt evolution.

Novparl said: Congratulations, Dave Luckett. You don't have to be stupid to be an evolutionist, but it helps. How precisely will I, who have never visited the US, get into power there? Also, as I'm not a believer in the Bible, how will I get the support of the religious right? By making my jokes about Jebus? Congratulations, Stevaroni. I said that, not Henry J. Otherwise, the usual abuse from dishonest people who can't even face the fact that you don't have to be an Xian to doubt evolution.

Congratulations, Stevaroni. I said that, not Henry J.

stevaroni said:

henry whines... Only 8% of Egyptians believe in evolution. Proves you don’t have to be a Xian to reject evolution. (There are, of course, upto 10 million Coptic Xians).

Roughly 85% of Eqyptians identify themselves as muslims, far exceeding the 9% or so that identify themselves as Christians. Gee henry, that's a wide margin. According to your logic, henry, this conclusively demonstrates that Islam is a much better religion than Christianity. I suppose you'll be converting soon?

DS said: This looks like fun. I want to play. Here are the four questions. How would you word them? 4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of germ theory as a scientific theory? 5. Pasteur obtained evidence for the germ theory of disease. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Pasteur’s position? 6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching the germ theory of disease. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only the germ theory of disease and the scientific evidence that supports it. Statement B: Biology teachers should teach the germ theory of disease, but also the scientific evidence against it. 7. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: The development of disease can come about through an unguided process of random infection. Statement B: The development of disease must be guided by an intelligence in order to punish the wicked. Now, would you answer these questions in the same way you would answer the evolution questions? Why or why not?

Didn’t Pasteur show that spontaneous generation was not possible, thereby proving that Darwin’s abiogenesis, the basis of his theory of evolution, is false?

Oh, and henry, while I'm at it, abiogenisis is not the same thing as evolution.

Another point that creationists love to gloss over.

Well, you've already dragged out two classic DI misrepresentations.

Would you like to mischaracterize the 2nd law of Thermodynamics while you're at it and go for a DI trifecta?

Henry wrote:

"Didn’t Pasteur show that spontaneous generation was not possible, thereby proving that Darwin’s abiogenesis, the basis of his theory of evolution, is false?"

No Henry, he didn't. As stevaroni has already pointed out, Pasteur proved that organisms do not arise spontaneously at any appreciable frequency under the conditions of the present earth. His work was not on abiogenesis and did not have anything whatsoever to do with Darwin's ideas or abiogenesis under the conditions of the primitive earth. He did however disprove "poof" as a hypothesis. That would be a weakness of creationism not evolution.

Now Henry, do you really want to teach the "weaknesses" of germ theory in public science classes? You do know that it could cost millions of lives right? I noticed that you did not have a scientific reference to back up your claim that Pasteur had disproven abiogenesis, why is that Henry?

Now Henry, if you want to discuss science you have to at least read a science paper. Have you read that abstract yet? Why not? I'll keep asking every time you show up here just so that everyone can see that you have no interest in real science.

DS said: I noticed that you did not have a scientific reference to back up your claim that Pasteur had disproven abiogenesis, why is that Henry?

Mike wrote:

"These characters are getting boring. Novparl, henry, FL, and the rest are little more than bundles of raw emotion reduced to hurling feces."

Agreed. I mean come on, does Henry really think that all scientists are so stupid or so delusional that they would really ignore the implications of one of the greatest experiments in history? Now that is a serious case of projection. After all, Henry is the one who won't read a scientific paper, not scientists. These guys really need to get a clue.

The presentation and interpretation of the poll results are dubious. Apparently the questions were "Think it is possible to believe in a God and evolution simultaneously" and "Agree the scientific evidence for evolution exists." The numbers just don't make any sense. There is no way of identify who the people are. No, poll results indicates only the percentage without indication the base or the number of people. This poll should be ignored.

stevaroni said:

Didn’t Pasteur show that spontaneous generation was not possible, thereby proving that Darwin’s abiogenesis, the basis of his theory of evolution, is false?

Um, no. In the 1860's Pasteur demonstrated the the prevailing theory of how bacteria and mold got into spoiling food - that they magically "poofed" into existence de novo - was wrong. Pasteur demonstrated that once all the bacteria inside a sealed container were killed (through, say, boiling), the food inside would not spoil. No matter how you'd like to conflate it, the demonstration that complex organisms with millions of genes don't magically poof into existence inside the tiny volume of a sealed can of beans over the tiny time span of a few decades is significantly different from demonstrating that over 300 million years, in the entire volume of all the worlds seas, with all the energy input of the sun churning them, it was impossible for a single self-replicating molecule to form. Especially since experiments along these lines have already demonstrated they can.

DS said:

Mike wrote: "These characters are getting boring. Novparl, henry, FL, and the rest are little more than bundles of raw emotion reduced to hurling feces."

Agreed. I mean come on, does Henry really think that all scientists are so stupid or so delusional that they would really ignore the implications of one of the greatest experiments in history? Now that is a serious case of projection. After all, Henry is the one who won't read a scientific paper, not scientists. These guys really need to get a clue.

henry said: Pasteur conducted experiments comparing organic material that was exposed to air with organic material that was not. Nothing grew in the sealed or filtered vessels. This empirically demonstrated that the fermentation in the open containers was caused by the growth of microorganisms from the air, not spontaneous generation, thus proving biogenesis (life begets life).

henry, can you point out where in that paper that Pasteur called living bacteria as "self-replicating molecules," too?

Henry wrote:

"Here’s the next paragraph from Ms. Dao’s article.'

Great, an article from "Acts and Facts" a real powerhouse scientific journal. So is this a scientific fact or just an act by someone pretending to be a real scientist? Henry, why would anyone want to read anything you post when you won't even do us the courtesy of reading the abstract of the paper you demanded? Read the abstract I posted first if you want anyone to take you seriously.

By the way Henry, Pasteur did his work more than a hundred years ago. Do you really think that every real scientist would ignore it, or is it more likely that you and Dao are mistaken about the implications? How could proving biogenesis in a few days in an oxygen rich atmosphere possibly disprove abiogenesis in millions of years in an atmosphere with very little free oxygen? You both seem to be a little confused. I suggest that you not accept creationist publications as if they were gospel.

Nothing grew in the sealed or filtered vessels. This empirically demonstrated that the fermentation in the open containers was caused by the growth of microorganisms from the air, not spontaneous generation, thus proving biogenesis (life begets life).

stevaroni said:

Nothing grew in the sealed or filtered vessels. This empirically demonstrated that the fermentation in the open containers was caused by the growth of microorganisms from the air, not spontaneous generation, thus proving biogenesis (life begets life).

Well, that's certainly earthshaking. "Life begets life". In other words, if you allow a bunch of organisms access to your organic goo, they'll eat it and breed. Shocking. Of course, henry wants to conflate this to mean that just because new, complicated organism's don't spring into existence inside every jar of jelly in his cupboard, 200 years of biology is wrong. Of course, henry omits a couple of significant facts, like Pasteur looked for large organisms like maggots and mold. What Pasteur did not do is look for the things that biologists think would be found in actual abiogenesis, specifically, simple, self-replicating molecules. Had Pasteur looked for simple things, like amino acids, he might have found something. Had Pasteur run the experiment for a longer time, he might have found something. Had Pasteur supplied some energy source - thereby providing for that pesky 2LOT issue - he might have found something. In fact, had he done these things, He would have beaten Urey and Miller by 70 years and we'd be talking about the way he found "only" 22 amino acids in his results. Like, um, they did. How come you don't mention those experiments henry? Claiming nothing is going on in a flask of broth because flies don't magically pop into existence in front of you is like looking at a farm from an airplane and claiming nothing is alive down there because you don't see any cows. Non-life might not beget maggots, henry, but it has in fact already been shown that it does beget amino acids. That's all we claim, henry. But guess what? That's enough.

stevaroni said: "Life begets life". In other words, if you allow a bunch of organisms access to your organic goo, they'll eat it and breed. Shocking. Of course, henry wants to conflate this to mean that just because new, complicated organism's don't spring into existence inside every jar of jelly in his cupboard, 200 years of biology is wrong. Of course, henry omits a couple of significant facts, like Pasteur looked for large organisms like maggots and mold. What Pasteur did not do is look for the things that biologists think would be found in actual abiogenesis, specifically, simple, self-replicating molecules.

Toidel wrote:

"No, it’s not enough."

Enough for what? The Miller experiment proved that the building blocks of life were exactly the types of molecules that would be most likely to form spontaneously under the conditions of the primitive earth. Exactly how is that supposed to disprove "Darwinism"? It may not by itself prove that abiogenesis occurred, but then again it is not the only evidence either.

Toidel chimes in... No, it’s not enough. Amino acids aren’t alive like Jesus; they’re dead like Darwin.

Novparl said: Congratulations, Dave Luckett. You don't have to be stupid to be an evolutionist, but it helps. How precisely will I, who have never visited the US, get into power there? Also, as I'm not a believer in the Bible, how will I get the support of the religious right? By making my jokes about Jebus?

So how will I get the support of the religious right? I dare you to answer without abuse. Ya can't do it.

Novparl said: So how will I get the support of the religious right? I dare you to answer without abuse. Ya can't do it.

So how will I get the support of the religious right? I dare you to answer without abuse. Ya can’t do it.

tresmal said: Strictly speaking teachers shouldn't teach Darwin's theory of evolution at all, except as an introduction to what they should teach: Modern Evolutionary Theory.

henry said:

tresmal said: Strictly speaking teachers shouldn't teach Darwin's theory of evolution at all, except as an introduction to what they should teach: Modern Evolutionary Theory.

What are the major differences between the two?

henry, that's like asking the difference between Dalton's theory of the atom and the standard model.

My first question to you is: do you really want to know?

Or you just here to yank chains?

If the former, you will be pointed to plenty of resources.

If the latter, you are going to get a pasting. Again.

Just sayin'.

Henry wrote:

"What are the major differences between the two?" (Referring to Darwin's theory of evolution and modern evolutionary theory).

The difference is one hundred and fifty years of evidence. If you want to know about the evidence just start reading some scientific papers. If you are unwilling or unable to do so then you will never appreciate the differecnce between a hypothesis and a well developed theory that has been tested in millions of ways.

Why don't you start with the abstract I provided in response to your demand for evidence? After all, you will never be able to converse intelligently with scientists unless you are willing to read the relevant literature. Apparently you have over one hundred and fifty years of catching up to do.

For those who are genuinely interested in some of the major developments in the theory of evolution over the last one hundred and fifty years, here are a few highlights (feel free to add your own):

1) Population genetics, including HWE and molecular population genetics

2) Neutral theory, including genetic drift

3) Punctuated equilibrium

4) Molecular evolutionary genetics, including mechanisms of mutation and evolutionary development

5) Phylogenetics, including cladistics and molecular phylogenetics

henry said:

tresmal said: Strictly speaking teachers shouldn't teach Darwin's theory of evolution at all, except as an introduction to what they should teach: Modern Evolutionary Theory.

What are the major differences between the two?

delete "admittion" - insert "admission" ...dumb fingers. sorry

OK, 4 separate replies to henry [two of them (DS and Keelyn) actually taking the time to be helpful, and two of them (mine and fnxtr) critical but fairly polite] in the space of 22 minutes.

Any bets on whether they will be taken to heart? Any bets on whether henry will actually try to learn?

GvlGeologist,

I bet no. Henry has already accomplished his mission, that is to get people to waste time responding to off-topic nonsense. I don't know if he does it to get attention or just to get people mad. Notice that the "helpful" part of my post was not even addressed to Henry. Until he proves that he has read the abstract I provided, I don't see why I or anyone else should respond to any more of his nonsensical questions.

Of course what Henry doesn't seem to realize is that no one here really gets angry with ignorance, we're just mainly bored with it. We are also willing to let Henry display his own ignorance and lack of desire for knowledge for all to see. It really highlights the difference between the honest quest for truth that real scientists adhere to and the closed minded approach that Henry seems to favor.

Oh yea, I am almost forgot, I predict that instead of trying to learn any real science, Henry will now try to deflect the conversation in another amazingly ignorant way by trying to claim that punctuated equilibrium disproves "Darwinism" or some such nonsense. Was this the same guy who blubbered on and on about "punctured equilibrium"? He will probably use quotes from all sorts of disreputable creationist sources as if they will convince anyone of anything other than his own dishonesty and duplicity. Of course he could easily prove me wrong by reading just one short abstract, but I really don't think that that is ever going to happen. Que lastima.

Adrienne Mayor thinks that ancient peoples might have seen enough fossil dinosaur bones to construct the dragon legend on them.

The Discovery Institute is touting a poll that they commissioned from Zogby which claims that 52% of the American public believe that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.”

All the poll shows is that many Americans get one thing wrong.

Many have been duped into believing that there is some scientific controversy surrounding evolution. They mistakenly believe what they have been told by the right-leaning and dumbed-down corporate media - that some evolution deniers are respectable sources (which is not the case).

The poll also demonstrates the irrelevant (in this context) fact that, while Americans do not behave in a more religious manner than the residents of other rich countries, a higher percentage of Americans claim to "believe in God".

This incongruous claim of "faith in God", in the abscence of any evidence of religious behavior, is very commonly observed in US society.

Recent well-known examples include a beauty queen with breast enhancement, nude exposure on the internet, and irresponsible habits, and "family values" state governor who literally tried to sneak to Argentina to indulge in sexcapades with his Latin lover, both of whom claim to be extremely religious. Less outrageous examples include frequent observations of lottery or game show winners, or athletes, attributing their victories to favor from God, often in the complete abscence of evidence that they are more observant in behavior than their opponents.

However, the poll also shows that a surprisingly high percentage of Americans now accept evolution flat out, and that a majority (probably overlapping with the former) accept theistic evolution as a valid position.

This poll is terrible news for creationist con men. Despite their managing to dupe the public to a considerable degree, thanks to the favoritism shown to them in the dumbed-down mainstream media, only a small minority of Americans actually rejects the theory of evolution outright.

henry trolled..... What are the major differences between the two?

Happy Independence Day.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

...

henry ...???????

stevaroni,

Good point. That certainly explains why Henry refuses to read a single scientific paper. It does not however explain how he can then claim that modern science somehow disproves "Darwinism" with a straight face.

stevaroni said:

henry trolled..... What are the major differences between the two?

In fairness, henry may not see, or maybe not be able to see, a difference - it's a creationist blind spot.

Don't forget, to a true creationist, science is nothing but a competing religion. They purposely portray evolution as wholly being the gospel of one man, Charles Darwin. Partly they do this because that's their model of authority, but largely, they do it deliberately because if you can reduce evolution to a religion, you can fight it on religious terms.

DS said: GvlGeologist, I bet no. ....

Back in 1859 Back before electricity. Before radio. Before heavier than air flight (heck largely before lighter than air flight).

The Montgolfier brothers made a hot-air balloon tethered ascent in, I believe, 1784 or so, and by 1800 it was being done regularly, sometimes using hydrogen obtained from acid-iron filings reactions. Some flights were untethered, but until modern materials and meteorology, it was very, very hazardous.

Research. The first untethered flight that we know of was in November 1783, in fact. Memory fails.

Henry -

I hope you enjoyed Independence Day. Nice quotes from the Declaration of Independence.

Meanwhile, the Constitution guarantees your personal right to be a science-denying fanatic, and I strongly support that right.

However, to your ultimate benefit, the Constitution also prevents you, or anyone else, from teaching your narrow sectarian ideology in tax-funded public schools.

This is to your benefit, because if it weren't for this, some other guy with more power, money, and brains would very likely be forcing his sectarian ideology on you, and you'd just have to take it or endure the violent consequences of resisting.

I certainly hope that you took some time on Independence Day to be grateful for your constitutionally protected rights - even though the "price" of having them is that rest of us have rights, too.

The Montgolfier brothers made a hot-air balloon tethered ascent in, I believe, 1784 or so, and by 1800 it was being done regularly...

Harold writes... Henry - I hope you enjoyed Independence Day.

henry wanked: ...To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...

stevaroni said:

Toidel chimes in... No, it’s not enough. Amino acids aren’t alive like Jesus; they’re dead like Darwin.

Interesting choice of example there Toidel. Laying aside that the current metabolic status of Jesus is hotly debated,

I didn't say amino acids are alive, I said they can self replicate. There's a difference.

Modern abiogenis theories all work with the idea that before there was complicated life, there were simpler things that did little more than duplicate themselves. There are things in between "live" and "not live", Tiodel, even today. Look at prions and viruses, for example. "Blowing up a bunch of bricks" is a valid exercise if you know that many of these particular bricks have sticky edges and if you roll them around long enough they tend to form small panels of walls.

Can we have Toidel Mahoney banned or at least restrict his posting privileges to the Bathroom Wall, given as how his only purpose here is to troll, and laugh about his make-believe prophecies of damnation?

Some conservative goals are actually illegal (bringing back prayer to public schools), some are non-sensical (widespread drug testing), but the problem with most of the conservative agenda is that the electorate as a whole are moderates, and they don’t want to have abortion banned outright or make homosexuality a crime.

Consequently, actually implementing a conservative agenda is hard work and burns a huge amount of political capital with the moderate middle, so even deeply conservative administrations, like the last one, don’t actually do very many of the bold-stroke things their conservative supporters really want, preferring to nibble around the edges on fringe issues like gays-in-the military and throw their supporters the occasional bone, like Terry Schaivo.

It will not be hotly debated when you stand before him and he casts you into the eternal darkness of the flames of Hell! It will be fun to watch PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and yourself all bound together in everlasting torment!

Stanton said: Can we have Toidel Mahoney banned or at least restrict his posting privileges to the Bathroom Wall, given as how his only purpose here is to troll, and laugh about his make-believe prophecies of damnation?

Chip Poirot said: Stevaroni wrote

It will not be hotly debated when you stand before him.....

So Christianity is just cosmic Sadism?

Dave Luckett said: Research. The first untethered flight that we know of was in November 1783, in fact. Memory fails.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: I do believe you've got Stevaroni mixed up with Mr. Toilet Mahoney there, Chip. I don't think Stevaroni will be amused!

Chip Poirot said: Stevaroni wrote

It will not be hotly debated when you stand before him.....

So Christianity is just cosmic Sadism?

I got a pleasant note from a friend of mine in London wishing me a happy Independence Day, or, as they call it back in the motherland, “Thanksgiving”.

harold, I have to say that outside the Creationist circle-jerk, almost no-one has any clue who she is. At least on Vancouver Island. Maybe it's different out east.

Stealth Creationism just isn't as much of an issue in this country.

Denyse Who is free to dream otherwise.

I have an apology to make. I had thought creationism and anti-science (in the West) was largely an American phenomenon, and had assumed that my own country was, in general, less afflicted. I now have doubts, and I owe an apology to Americans for thinking as I did.

A creationist and anti-science letter appeared in the local paper, citing near-death experiences as absolute proof of an afterlife. With others, I replied to it, in moderate terms - even more clement than I would use here - citing the evidence for evolution and for the physical and natural explanation for NDE's. My letter duly appeared.

I have just put the phone down on an abusive caller who had found my private number and wished to tell me that science had brought on the holocaust, and that I, personally, and everyone who thought like me, was hell-bound.

I must admit to being disturbed. I really did think that it wouldn't happen here. But more than that, I am ashamed. I can only offer my regrets and apologies for having thought as I did.

Dave Luckett said: I have an apology to make. I had thought creationism and anti-science (in the West) was largely an American phenomenon, and had assumed that my own country was, in general, less afflicted. I now have doubts, and I owe an apology to Americans for thinking as I did. A creationist and anti-science letter appeared in the local paper, citing near-death experiences as absolute proof of an afterlife. With others, I replied to it, in moderate terms - even more clement than I would use here - citing the evidence for evolution and for the physical and natural explanation for NDE's. My letter duly appeared. I have just put the phone down on an abusive caller who had found my private number and wished to tell me that science had brought on the holocaust, and that I, personally, and everyone who thought like me, was hell-bound. I must admit to being disturbed. I really did think that it wouldn't happen here. But more than that, I am ashamed. I can only offer my regrets and apologies for having thought as I did.

Sort of makes me glad I can not answer phone calls, Dave.

There's no need to teach creationism in bio classes. What is needed is threefold

1 - Teach Darwin's survival of the fittest
2 - Teach Darwin's application of it to "savages"
3 - Teach Darwin's view of gender equality

Avoid any comment, just quote the primary source.
Ask students what they think of it, without leading them in any way.

In the name of Jebus, the Bad Shepherd.

DS said: Henry, Read that paper yet, or even the abstract? It is fair and balanced. You're for that right? Next time you demand evidence, be prepared to deal with it. That's what fair and balanced means in science. If you are not willing to do that, then it would be fair say that you are unbalanced.

All the poll shows is that many Americans get one thing wrong. Many have been duped into believing that there is some scientific controversy surrounding evolution.

— harold

Henry,

So that would be a no. you still haven't read the paper I recommended. Look dude, quote mining papers is not going to get you anywhere. The paper you cited is at least a real paper, but it in no way proves that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. On the contrary, the paper that I cited, which was published more than ten years before the paper you cite clearly shows that it was possible.

Let me spell it out for you. The theropods did not fly, therefore they did not need the efficient type of lung that birds eventually evolved. As for the position of the thigh, that certainly could have evolved during the process of birds evolving from theropods as they became more and more efficient fliers. This is like saying that birds could not evolve from reptiles because reptiles don't have feathers!

Thanks for playing. Next time try to remember that quoting a paper is not an argument, especially when the authors probably do not agree with you. And don't quote anyone from ICR, it only reduces your credability. Maybe some day you will read the papers I recommended about development. When you do we can move on to genetics, that's my favorite. Until then all you got is "I choose not to believe". If you really think that that is a valid argument, then I choose not believe you.

DS said: Maybe some day {henry the quotemining troll} will read the papers I recommended about development.

And as this thread sadly shows, we defenders of science are mostly part of the problem....dishing out the bait, and most responders have been taking it.

There’s no need to teach creationism in bio classes. What is needed is threefold 1 - Teach Darwin’s survival of the fittest 2 - Teach Darwin’s application of it to “savages” 3 - Teach Darwin’s view of gender equality Avoid any comment, just quote the primary source. Ask students what they think of it, without leading them in any way.

It is also valuable to rebut their false claims about science, though.

— harold

2) You illogically imply that, if students reject science for an emotional reason, whatever version of creationism you peddle is the automatic default.

— harold

Harold writes... I actually got to celebrate both Canada Day and Independence day, as I’m a US/Canadian dual citizen and was up there on July 1, for an enjoyable but cold and rainy bonfire on a rocky Nova Scotia beach

Popular impressions notwithstanding, I think most of us Canucks are quietly confident enough in our national identity to laugh at other people's jokes about us. We can afford it. :-) Besides, that movie was frickin' hilarious.

How do you get 100 angry Canadians out of a swimming pool?
Say "Could everyone please clear the pool".

DS said: Henry, So that would be a no. you still haven't read the paper I recommended... ...As for the position of the thigh, that certainly could have evolved during the process of birds evolving from theropods as they became more and more efficient fliers. This is like saying that birds could not evolve from reptiles because reptiles don't have feathers!

henry said: References 1. Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links. Oregon State University press, June 9, 2009. 2. Quick, D.E. and Ruben, J.A. Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs. Journal of Morphology. Published online before print May 20, 2009.

Toidel Mahoney said:

stevaroni said:

Toidel chimes in... No, it’s not enough. Amino acids aren’t alive like Jesus; they’re dead like Darwin.

Interesting choice of example there Toidel. Laying aside that the current metabolic status of Jesus is hotly debated,

It will not be hotly debated when you stand before him and he casts you into the eternal darkness of the flames of Hell! It will be fun to watch PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and yourself all bound together in everlasting torment!

Tiodel rants... It will not be hotly debated when you stand before him and he casts you into the eternal darkness of the flames of Hell!

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Science Fiction Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

@ Harold the Hysterical

Life was created by a god or gods unknown. The fact that that there are millions of species does not prove that they could not be created.

What was there before the Big Bang (which I find probable, tho necessarily you must ignore that)?

No time to correct all your distortions, just one - Darwin endorsed the phrase "s. of the f." invented by his close mate (and probable lover) Herbie Spencer.

Try and comment with abuse. You can't, can you?

Monday 6th 17:50.... PS Jebus loves you

Life was created by a god or gods unknown.

Novparl said: What was there before the Big Bang (which I find probable, tho necessarily you must ignore that)?

Stevaroni and fnxtr -

The US differs very much from region to region, and so does Canada.

Some parts of the US are very similar, culturally, to nearby parts of Canada. Nova Scotia has a lot in common with northern New England. I would assume that no-one would deny that Vancouver shows quite a bit of cultural overlap with Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco, and is less similar to most other US cities.

Canada does not have anything that is similar to the region made up of the states of the former Confederacy, of course.

By the way, I like Texas, although I despise all recent Texas politicians and politics that I am aware of.

stevaroni said:

Tiodel rants... It will not be hotly debated when you stand before him and he casts you into the eternal darkness of the flames of Hell!

Um, how can it be "eternally dark" if it's full of flame?

I think Hell is a Black Body whose peak frequency is high in the gamma range–around 10^100 Hz. Therefore, there is not much light in the visible range.

Novparl pooped: No time to correct all your distortions, just one - Darwin endorsed the phrase "s. of the f." invented by his close mate (and probable lover) Herbie Spencer. Try and comment with abuse. You can't, can you?

Novparl poops some more: What was there before the Big Bang (which I find probable, tho necessarily you must ignore that)?

Novparl continues more poop: Life was created by a god or gods unknown. The fact that that there are millions of species does not prove that they could not be created.

Dave Luckett: I have just put the phone down on an abusive caller who had found my private number and wished to tell me that science had brought on the holocaust, and that I, personally, and everyone who thought like me, was hell-bound. I must admit to being disturbed.

The OSU paper on bird dinosaur links and "fixed thigh bones" was widely ignored by the scientific community and sank without a trace. I've yet to even see anyone blog about it.

For good reasons:
1. The fixed thigh bone is a derived character that evolved late. You can't use a derived character to infer a basal group affinity.

2. Not all birds have fixed thigh bones anyway. Ostriches have thighs that move by 60 degrees. Last I heard, ostriches could run and breath just fine.

3. Rubin et al. base much of their theory on an old fossil called Longisquama that may have feathers. Or may not. There is only 1 specimen, it isn't in great shape, and really, it doesn't yield enough data to support an extraordinary claim.

Novparl -

There is no chance of a coherent answer, I'm addressing you mainly for fun and the benefit of third parties, but...

I'd have no problem with god or gods unknown individually creating every living being, if I had some definitive evidence for that. I also have no problem with god or gods in general, as long as they leave me alone - I'm an apatheist.

However, we have massive amounts of evidence that modern life shares common ancestry -

1) The nested hierarchy observed since ancient times and recognized in all taxonomic systems.

2) The fossil record.

3) Classical genetics/population genetics - fields which demonstrated mechanisms of evolution before molecular genetics was even invented.

4) Massive amounts of evidence from modern molecular genetics.

5) Observed speciation on many occasions.

6) The success of agricultural breeding.

Etc, etc, etc.

All of the new things we have learned about biology since circa 1855 have been compatible with, clarified, extended, and reinforced the theory of biological evolution

Why should anyone ascribe something to "unknown god or gods" when a clear scientific explanation is available?

A problem for you is that you want to deny evolution, yet are completely ignorant of what the term means. If I get any response at all, I'm sure it will make reference to the Big Bang, the origin of life on earth*, Darwin's personal characteristics (inaccurately described), or something else that is completely irrelevant to the evolution of life.

*This is related but not entirely relevant to evolution; any serious model for the origin of life must be compatible with the subsequent evolution of life.

raven said: The OSU paper on bird dinosaur links and "fixed thigh bones" was widely ignored by the scientific community and sank without a trace. I've yet to even see anyone blog about it.

For good reasons: 1. The fixed thigh bone is a derived character that evolved late. You can't use a derived character to infer a basal group affinity.

2. Not all birds have fixed thigh bones anyway. Ostriches have thighs that move by 60 degrees. Last I heard, ostriches could run and breath just fine.

3. Rubin et al. base much of their theory on an old fossil called Longisquama that may have feathers. Or may not. There is only 1 specimen, it isn't in great shape, and really, it doesn't yield enough data to support an extraordinary claim.

If I get any response at all, I’m sure it will make reference to the Big Bang, the origin of life on earth*,

— harold

Robin said:

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Science Fiction Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

There...fixed the by-line for you Henry.

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Fantasy/Fiction Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

There Robin, I fixed your fix of Henry's runny excrement. WKM

I think you’re confusing this with the study of the digits. Quick and Ruben analyzed a handful of theropods,....

Aaahhh ignorance and the manipulation of statistical data.
It's a great alternative to actually doing science isn't it?
;-)

It’s a great alternative to actually doing science isn’t it?

WKM said:

Robin said:

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Science Fiction Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

There...fixed the by-line for you Henry.

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Fantasy/Fiction Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

There Robin, I fixed your fix of Henry's runny excrement. WKM

KP said:

WKM said:

Robin said:

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Science Fiction Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

There...fixed the by-line for you Henry.

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Fantasy/Fiction Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

There Robin, I fixed your fix of Henry's runny excrement. WKM

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is a Lying Liar at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009. Fixed everyone's fixes. There.

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is a Lying Liar For Jesus at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 22, 2009.

Novparl said: What was there before the Big Bang ?

Sylvilagus said:

Novparl said: What was there before the Big Bang ?

Your question is not meaningful. The concepts of "before" and "after" are temporal concepts, but time/space originate with the Big Bang. Asking what came "before" is like asking what is father North than the North Pole... it's a nonsensical question since North is only defined relative to the North Pole which is the limit of "northness". You can't get farther north, no matter how far you walk. There can't be a "before" outside the metric of time/space. Trying to use ordinary concepts to "think" about cosmology usually doesn't work... hence all the hard work of learning higher mathematics.

Maybe there's some hyperspatial dimension that's analogous to the time dimension in space-time?

Yeah, it is kind of weird that at t=0 time and space are apparently indistinguishable from each other. Then something breaks the symmetry, and since duct tape hadn't yet been invented it stayed broken. :)

Henry J

I knew that there was a beginning to time, although I wouldn't know the mathematics from a bar of soap. I had even heard the analogy about the North Pole, and it helped me understand why I didn't understand, though not to understand the thing itself, if you follow me.

I wouldn't have blamed novparl for not understanding the concept of a beginning to space/time - I don't, myself. I do understand the red-shift and cosmic background radiation evidence reasonably well, and follow the logic to the Big Bang, but the implications of such a singularity to general relativity defeat me.

But to know that one doesn't understand is one thing. That's merely to confess to ignorance. To ignore the fact of the ignorance is something worse. That makes the ignorance intractible. To lurch blindly on into a series of confident assertions based on that ignorance is foolhardy. And to do it while operating in the implicit belief that only one's own lights are reliable, dismissing without understanding the profound labours of generations of scientists and mathematicians, is nothing more than towering, overwheening arrogance.

fnxtr said: That is a tough one to wrap your brain around, though. There was a beginning to time? Doesn't make sense. But neither does a constant c, regardless of motion.

YECs don’t know any physics no matter how contorted their fakery.

— Mike Elzinga

OK. So how did Darwine date the following

1 - origin of universe
2 - origin of life
3 - origin of man

He did know, din' he? Simple questions. To be evaded with abuse. - Oh yes - and what did he say about the ice ages? Wouldn't they have made svival of the fittest a teensy weensy bit more difficult? I seem to be the only person who's thought of that.

Tuesday 12:10 GMT

Read The Descent of Man.

Also, watch the movie Ice Age.

All your questions will be answered.

He didn't date any of them. The dating evidence wasn't available to him. The evidence he had was sufficient to support the Theory he proposed, however, and that evidence, including firm absolute dating, has grown mountainous in the time since.

About the Ice Ages, he said nothing whatsoever that I know of. They were barely suspected in his day.

I suppose it's possible that you believe that you're the only person to whom it has occurred that the glaciations made life more difficult. The logical deduction, however, is that they put pressure on life to change and adapt, which it did, hence demonstrating the power of natural selection and strengthening the theory. But by all means set out the reasoning by which you reach another conclusion.

Now, how does modern science date those events? 1 - 13.5 billion years ago, plus or minus 2 billion. 2 - 3.5 billion years ago, plus or minus .5 billion years. 3 - Depends on what you call "man". Modern Homo sapiens sapiens, about 160 000 years, plus or minus 20 000 years. Genus Homo, about 1.5 million years.

Now, how about you answer the questions? When did these various creations take place? What evidence can you advance for your views?

Now, how about you answer the questions? When did these various creations take place? What evidence can you advance for your views?

— Dave Luckett

OK. So how did Darwin date the following 1 - origin of universe 2 - origin of life 3 - origin of man He did know, din’ he? Simple questions. To be evaded with abuse.

- Oh yes - and what did he say about the ice ages?

Wouldn’t they have made svival of the fittest a teensy weensy bit more difficult?

I seem to be the only person who’s thought of that.

Novparl wrote:

"OK. So how did Darwin date the following"

Um, he didn't. He was a married man.

Novparl said: I seem to be the only person who's thought of that. Tuesday 12:10 GMT

Novparl -

As I predicted, your next post was incoherent, irrelevant, and consistent with the fact that you have no clue as to what evolution actually means. This isn't abuse, by the way, it's merely an objective description.

Mike Elzinga -

Thanks very much for that post. It was very enlightening.

Dave Luckett -

I don't think anyone intuitively "understands" much of higher physics. Our common sense intuition only gets us so far.

Funny - I know a lot more about physics than a typical creationist does about evolution, even though all I know comes from basic required courses and an amateur interest. It would never occur to me start denying basic theories of physics without even bothering to get an advanced degree first.

DS | July 7, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Edit Novparl wrote: “OK. So how did Darwin date the following” Um, he didn’t. He was a married man.

I don’t think anyone intuitively “understands” much of higher physics.

Henry J wrote:

"I considered pointing that out, but managed to resist."

Obviously I lack you incredible will power. Oh well, it seemed a fitting response to such a question.

Novparl said: I seem to be the only person who's thought of that. Tuesday 12:10 GMT

That may be a side effect of their habit of judging arguments primarily by how they feel about the conclusion.

Henry J said: That may be a side effect of their habit of judging arguments primarily by how they feel about the conclusion.

Sylvilagus wrote:

"Then at some point they realize that the rest of the world thinks their core beliefs are nonsense. Some start, sooner or later, the hard work of sorting out the truth. Most go into a defensive attack mode:"

Well said. That explains perfectly the attitude that these jokers have toward science. They think they are so smart that they don't have to actually know anything to argue with real scientists. They are so sure they are smart that they never question whether they are right or not. Now if they were really smart they would realize that in science the evidence is all that matters. They would put in the hard work of actually performing experiments or at least reading the scientific literature. They would at least be intellectually honest enough to try to read the papers presented to them. Their failure to even attempt to do so is all the evidence that is required in order to conclude that their ego is all that they are really defending. All they can do is launch personal attacks and try to goad others into retaliation. In their minds I guess this somehow levels the playing field. If they cannot even face the evidence then they have no real argument to make in science. If only they would use their staggering intellects for good instead of evil.

Sylvilagus said: Now novparl doesn't quite fit this description because he doesn't appear that bright, but I suspect that in his own family circle and the world of his church or whatever other social world he occupies, he's seen as a brain.

According to Sylvilagus, speculation about the ante-Big-Bang is "not meaningful". But according to fnxtr, it's a "tough one". Mike "Toilet" Elzinga seems to agree. Who is right?

Similarly, DS says that the answer to Darwin's dates is in the Descent of Man, which I'm reading. Dave Luckett says (not unreasonably) that Darwin din' know. So who is right?

Stevaroni seems to be wrong about the dates. 4.5 bya is usual for the earth (I'm not entirely sure, but I'm OK about billions rather than thousands). Neanderthal man is said to have disappeared about 35,000 years ago, I don't recall anyone saying it was due to an ice age, most writers don't seem sure of any cause.

As a non-Christian I don't go to church. How d'you know I don't go to a mosque or shul? Answer: it wd make things slightly complex.

Wednesday 11:00 bst

Novparl,

Thanks for finally answering a "when" question. Although curiously you did what the majority I ask do, i.e. give the age of the Earth, not first life on Earth (or the Big Bang that you mentioned). Please feel free to share your best guesses on those too. Also, I noticed that you wrote "...said to have disappeared 35,000 years ago..." do you think 35,000 years ago is a good estimate, and if not do you have a better one? As you know, there are some old-Earth-young-life types who like to qualify their answers with "scientists say".

As for you not going to church, I find that irrelevant because there are many devout Christian "evolutionists" and some agnostic anti-evolution activists.

FWIW I noticed that the 2 other "evolution-deniers" have become scarce.

Novparl,

I have no idea whether The Descent of Man has any estimates for the dates or not. Glad to hear that you are reading it though. I'm sure that you will find some passages to complain about. Just remember, nobody cares if Darwin was wrong about some things. What age did Jesus give for the origin of man? You don't care? Fine, now you know how everyone feels about your off-topic questions. Perhaps you can enlighten us about the attitude the apostle Paul had toward women. What, you don't care about that either?

As for the ice ages, the movie Ice Age clearly documents how an unlikely friendship between the last mammoth and the last saber tooth tiger temporarily saves many animals from extinction. Why do you feel that the ice age is a problem for evolutionary theory and why should anyone care? Why don't we take a poll? That was the topic of this thread before you mucked it up.

Bet you can't answer with abuse, (or any scientific evidence for anything).

Mike E writes... I don’t get the impression he cares about anything he is posting. He appears more like a zombie just hurling feces and getting some kind of immature pleasure from the responses he gets.

According to Sylvilagus, speculation about the ante-Big-Bang is “not meaningful”.

But according to fnxtr, it’s a “tough one”. Mike “Toilet” Elzinga seems to agree. Who is right?

Similarly, DS says that the answer to Darwin’s dates is in the Descent of Man, which I’m reading. Dave Luckett says (not unreasonably) that Darwin din’ know. So who is right?

Stevaroni seems to be wrong about the dates. 4.5 bya is usual for the earth (I’m not entirely sure, but I’m OK about billions rather than thousands).

Neanderthal man is said to have disappeared about 35,000 years ago, I don’t recall anyone saying it was due to an ice age, most writers don’t seem sure of any cause.

As a non-Christian I don’t go to church. How d’you know I don’t go to a mosque or shul?

Answer: it wd make things slightly complex.

stevaroni said: The only reason I engage them is to try to expose the inanity of their Gish Gallops for the lurkers.

Mike wrote:

"They felt he was an overwhelming bully and an arrogant bastard."

Kind of like the guy who accused "Darwinists" of being "conformist" and then complained when he got different answers from different people? Like the guy who changed the subject again and again without ever responding to any evidence in any substantive way? Kind of like that guy? You know, the guy who claims to know more about science than anyone else but yet can't be bothered to read a single paper? You know, the guy who keeps poking fun at Darwin like someone thinks he was some kind of flawless saint or something? The guy who complains about abuse while hurling insults and personal attacks, that guy?

Who cares what you’re “okay” with?

— harold

"Irrelevant" "so what?" "who cares" - the 3 top comments.

Obviously you lying liars care, or you wdn't bother to type out your lies-for-Darwin.

Looking forward to climate change, sweethearts? That'll wipe out a lot of folk. But presumably the survivors will be fitter and more fascist.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and pray to Ganesh.

17:42 bst

DS said: They would at least be intellectually honest enough to try to read the papers presented to them. Their failure to even attempt to do so is all the evidence that is required in order to conclude that their ego is all that they are really defending. All they can do is launch personal attacks and try to goad others into retaliation. In their minds I guess this somehow levels the playing field. If they cannot even face the evidence then they have no real argument to make in science. If only they would use their staggering intellects for good instead of evil.

PS Missed the previous comments from the ever dishonest DS with his irrelevant links and Harold's ref. to Lillian Gish while I was typing.

Hey - with so many of your "gay" friends dying of AIDS, does that mean the "gay" community is getting fitter? (seems Jacko died of too many opioids rather than Aids).

17:50 bst

Obviously you lying liars care, or you wdn’t bother to type out your lies-for-Darwin.

Novparl yammers thusly... Hey - with so many of your “gay” friends dying of AIDS, does that mean the “gay” community is getting fitter?

(from wikipedia)...HIV lacks proofreading enzymes to correct errors made when it converts its RNA into DNA via reverse transcription. Its short life cycle and high error rate cause the virus to mutate very rapidly...

Obviously you lying liars care...

— Novparl

If HIV didn’t evolve as rapidly as it does...

— stevaroni

Novparl said: Neanderthal man is said to have disappeared about 35,000 years ago, I don't recall anyone saying it was due to an ice age, most writers don't seem sure of any cause.

Point? Novparl has no point. Never did, never will. It's just here to muddy the waters. Notice how it never gives straight answers to any direct questions put to it.

I wrote:

" ... The guy who complains about abuse while hurling insults and personal attacks, that guy? ... Like the guy who changed the subject again and again without ever responding to any evidence in any substantive way?"

Then Novparl wrote:

"PS Missed the previous comments from the ever dishonest DS with his irrelevant links and Harold’s ref. to Lillian Gish while I was typing."

Then he tried to change to subject yet again, this time to homosexuality and AIDS. Notice that he did not provide even an example of dishonesty let alone any evidence. And if he never looked at the papers, how can he claim that they are irrelevant? You can look high or you can look low, but you will never find a paper that novparl will actually read.

Someone should contact John and inform him that it is time to close this thread before novparl starts spitting on Darwin's grave again.

The Discovery Institute is touting a poll that they commissioned from Zogby which claims that 52% of the American public believe that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.”

Unfortunately for them, science is not based on popular opinion.

Yeah, acceptance of a theory by scientists is based on its success and usefulness among those scientists whose work is related to that theory.

Popularity outside that group isn't the determining factor. For that matter, it also isn't relevant whether the scientists in that field like the conclusions of the theory they're using, either. If the theory works, it doesn't matter if they hate the conclusions (e.g., global warming), if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter if they love it (e.g., steady state cosmology).

Henry J

You think the DI and lawyers like Luskin care about reality?

Lawyers aren't paid to be right, they're paid to win.

As long as everyone believes what they believe, they don't give a shit what's real.

Secondly, your dates are off by about 8,000 years.

— Chip Poirot

So I don’t get your point.

— Chip Poirot

There's no pt in arguing with people who don't know the diff. between an OEC and a YEC but I can't resist pting out that no-one answered Frank J's pt that viruses evolve into viruses (not lickle animals).

10:30 bst in (R1B1-land)

So, novparl, instruct us. When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this?

Novparl said: There's no pt in arguing with people who don't know the diff. between an OEC and a YEC but I can't resist pting out that no-one answered Frank J's pt that viruses evolve into viruses (not lickle animals). 10:30 bst in (R1B1-land)

Novparl trolls.... ... but I can’t resist pting out that no-one answered Frank J’s pt that viruses evolve into viruses

Novparl wrote:

"There’s no pt in arguing with people who don’t know the diff. between an OEC and a YEC..."

Exactly. So, demonstrate to us that you know the difference. Answer the questions. When did life appear on earth? How did this happen? How did the diversity of life arise? When did this happen? Document the evidence that you used to obtain your answers. Note that we are not asking for you to provide the answers accepted by the scientific community. We are asking for your personal opinion.

If you are unable or unwilling to answer then no one should be willing to respond to your personal insults any further. And don't try changing the subject yet again either.

The Life of Brian "Judean People's Front" scene comes to mind.

"Splitters"

DS said: Novparl wrote: "There’s no pt in arguing with people who don’t know the diff. between an OEC and a YEC..." Exactly. So, demonstrate to us that you know the difference. Answer the questions. When did life appear on earth? How did this happen? How did the diversity of life arise? When did this happen? Document the evidence that you used to obtain your answers. Note that we are not asking for you to provide the answers accepted by the scientific community. We are asking for your personal opinion. If you are unable or unwilling to answer then no one should be willing to respond to your personal insults any further. And don't try changing the subject yet again either.

Keelyn,

Well said. I agree. Of course I don't expect that we will ever get any clear answers from novparl. All he is interested in is laughing at one of the greatest minds in science because he didn't have all the answers one hundred and fifty years ago. Darwin had an excuse, novparl does not. More is the pity.

stevaroni said:

No, it proves that 92% of Egyptians are either deluding themselves or are ignorant of the scientific evidence supporting the ToE.

Sadly, not just in Egypt are people ignorant about how evolution works. Even science writers for international news magasines still get it stunningly wrong. Today's issue of Time magazine has an article, The Incredible Shrinking Sheep of Scotland, recaps a Science paper about how sheep are getting smaller because they don't need to bulk up as much for winter in a warming climate. It opens with this jaw dropper...

News alert: the sheep of Scotland are shrinking! On Soay Island, off the western coast of Scotland, wild sheep are apparently defying the theory of evolution and progressively getting smaller. Why? In short, because of climate change. Generally, the sheep's life cycle goes like this: they fatten up on grass during the fertile, sunny summer; then the harsh winter comes, the grass disappears and the smallest, scrawniest sheep die off, while their bigger cousins survive. That's how you end up with big sheep, which — according to Darwin's laws of natural selection — will pass on their big genes to the next generation.

The article then, of course, goes on to lay out the perfectly observable factors selecting for smaller sheep in a textbook example of environmental adaptation. In perfect concordance with MET. Arrrrgh!

Henry,

You evilutionists are all the same. If the sheep get bigger it's because of evolution. If the sheep get smaller it's because of evolution. You just can't lose. They're still sheep Henry.

Now how about reading a real scientific paper insteat of the Act Instead of Facts?

DS said: Henry, You evilutionists are all the same. If the sheep get bigger it's because of evolution. If the sheep get smaller it's because of evolution. You just can't lose. They're still sheep Henry. Now how about reading a real scientific paper insteat of the Act Instead of Facts?

henry said:

DS said: Henry, You evilutionists are all the same. If the sheep get bigger it's because of evolution. If the sheep get smaller it's because of evolution. You just can't lose. They're still sheep Henry. Now how about reading a real scientific paper insteat of the Act Instead of Facts?

You're right, they're still sheep.

Stanton said: And you're still a close-minded troll who refuses to understand actual science.

Henry,

And you're still reading Act Like You Have the Facts. You didn't actually read this paper either did you? Get a clue lad. You don't want to be just another sheep do you? You better pray for global warming to save you.

fnxtr said:

Stanton said: And you're still a close-minded troll who refuses to understand actual science.

Actually, I think "sheep" says it quite succinctly.

Dave Luckett said:

Novparl said: [...]

Oddly enough, nov, it's not about your religion or your place of residence. It's about your invincible ignorance amounting to active malevolence. It's malevolent because you want the rest of the world to be like you: ignorant, irrational, superstitious, scientifically if not actually illiterate, and on the path to a new dark age. It's not going to happen on my watch. Not if I've got anything to say about it.

Novparl said: There's no pt in arguing with people who don't know the diff. between an OEC and a YEC but I can't resist pting out that no-one answered Frank J's pt that viruses evolve into viruses (not lickle animals). 10:30 bst in (R1B1-land)

Novparl said: There's no pt in arguing with people who don't know the diff. between an OEC and a YEC but I can't resist pting out that no-one answered Frank J's pt that viruses evolve into viruses (not lickle animals). 10:30 bst in (R1B1-land)

Henry, You evilutionists are all the same. If the sheep get bigger it’s because of evolution. If the sheep get smaller it’s because of evolution. You just can’t lose.

Frank J - yeah, sorry, mea culpa.

One doesn't particularly mind these witty insults if they weren't so repetitive. Could you change the disc? Please?

(Predictable answer : you, Nov, shd change the record and stop laughing at us just because we have no answers.)

This is comment 201. 9:40 bst

Oh, he's back. Come on Novparl, enlighten us. When did life appear on Earth, was it in the current forms seen now, and by what means did it appear and develop? You say we're wrong. All right, then - tell us how it actually did happen.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, he's back. Come on Novparl, enlighten us. When did life appear on Earth, was it in the current forms seen now, and by what means did it appear and develop? You say we're wrong. All right, then - tell us how it actually did happen.

Don’t you find it odd that Nonpareil attempts to mock us for being repetitive, yet, consistently refuses to answer any of our questions...

jdg said: The Discovery Institute is touting a poll that they commissioned from Zogby which claims that 52% of the American public believe that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.” Unfortunately for them, science is not based on popular opinion.

henry said: 78-80% of Americans want a fair and balanced treatment,

henry,

You know why "only evolution" is taught in school?

Because there isn't anything else.

There is no other valid, tested explanation of life that doesn't resort to crypto-creationism, and that's forbidden by your constitution.

Suck it up, princess.

78-80% of Americans want a fair and balanced treatment, which means that those who are undecided or disagree with intelligent design want the good and the bad about evolution.

And who is to judge what is "good and bad" about evolution?

The world's life scientists have for six generations now been testing the Theory of Evolution, adding line after line of evidence to it, checking and verifying again and again every part and implication of it against data hard-won from nature. By slow degrees life itself has given up its fabulously complex secrets - not all of them, by any means, but enough to confirm that the main heads of the Theory of Evolution are unassailable. Throughout that tremendous labour, it has acted as guide and framework, and it has never failed. It could have been falsified over and over, but every test has only established it more securely.

This effort, this enormous achievement and legacy, is not to be judged, approved or disapproved by secondary school students, nor by their parents, nor even by their teachers. They are simply not equipped for that task. Scientific theory is to be judged by those who understand the science behind it, and only by them.

Those judges are the researchers who place the evidence they win before their peers so that it can be tested and tested again. No other judge is competent. No other is acceptable. Certainly not ill-wishers and demagogues running a political campaign that has produced not one iota of evidence from investigation of nature, and whose product is vacuous fact-free theorising at best, but far more typically is malevolent misrepresentation and straightforward falsehood.

The main heads of the Theory of Evolution are fact. There is no controversy about them. To teach that there is one is to teach falsehood. Since when was it "fair" or "balanced" to tell lies to schoolchildren?

henry once again quoted the LYING LIARS at ICR: Will Solar Inactivity Lead to Global Cooling? by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.* ......

78-80% of Americans want a fair and balanced treatment, which means that those who are undecided or disagree with intelligent design want the good and the bad about evolution.

— henry

Evolutionists should be happy that both are taught...

— henry

fnxtr said: henry, You know why "only evolution" is taught in school? Because there isn't anything else. There is no other valid, tested explanation of life that doesn't resort to crypto-creationism, and that's forbidden by your constitution. Suck it up, princess.

By "anything else", fnxtr meant "any other explanation that actually has evidence for it". The only one that has any evidence is "evolution". It has multiple lines of evidence. No other explanation has any evidence whatsoever. None. Not a scrap, not a jot, nada, nothing, zip, zilch, zero.

Dr Scott wants a scientific theory to be taught in science classes. You want something else to be taught.

You lose.

78-80% of Americans want a fair and balanced treatment, which means that those who are undecided or disagree with intelligent design want the good and the bad about evolution.

No other explanation has any evidence whatsoever. None. Not a scrap, not a jot, nada, nothing, zip, zilch, zero.

— Dave Luckett

henry said: Dr. Eugenie Scott [is] wasting her time and spreading her carbon footprints, trying to force evolution only.

ben said:

78-80% of Americans want a fair and balanced treatment, which means that those who are undecided or disagree with intelligent design want the good and the bad about evolution.

6 in 10 americans cannot find Iraq on a map of the world. Should geography classes teach that Iraq's physical location is unsettled science? Should alternate theories on its location be taught?

henry said:

fnxtr said: henry, You know why "only evolution" is taught in school? Because there isn't anything else. There is no other valid, tested explanation of life that doesn't resort to crypto-creationism, and that's forbidden by your constitution. Suck it up, princess.

Somebody should tell that to Dr. Eugenie Scott. She wasting her time and spreading her carbon footprints, trying to force evolution only.

Henry,

All you have to do is present a scientific alternative to evolution, complete with scientific evidence from the scientific literature and everyone will want to teach it. In fact, if you have evidence, then the Constitution cannot prevent you from teaching it. So now all you have to do is stop reading Act Like You Have the Facts and just get some real facts. You can do that by reading the real scientific literature or by performing experiments and publishing the results in the scientific literature. Unfortunately, you have shown a marked aversion to both methods. So why don't you go spread your carbon footprint elsewhere?

henry said:

fnxtr said: henry, You know why "only evolution" is taught in school? Because there isn't anything else. There is no other valid, tested explanation of life that doesn't resort to crypto-creationism, and that's forbidden by your constitution. Suck it up, princess.

Somebody should tell that to Dr. Eugenie Scott. She wasting her time and spreading her carbon footprints, trying to force evolution only.

Frank J said: Actually many other "explanations" have evidence - if you play favorites with the evidence, including using discarded data (e.g. Piltdown Man), and bolster it with redefined terms, mined quotes etc.

All you have to do is present a scientific alternative to evolution, complete with scientific evidence from the scientific literature and everyone will want to teach it.

— DS

With respect, none of that is evidence. Piltdown Man is not ‘discarded data’. It wasn’t data at all, being simply a forgery.

— Dave Luckett

DS said: Henry, All you have to do is present a scientific alternative to evolution, complete with scientific evidence from the scientific literature and everyone will want to teach it. In fact, if you have evidence, then the Constitution cannot prevent you from teaching it. So now all you have to do is stop reading Act Like You Have the Facts and just get some real facts. You can do that by reading the real scientific literature or by performing experiments and publishing the results in the scientific literature. Unfortunately, you have shown a marked aversion to both methods. So why don't you go spread your carbon footprint elsewhere?

henry said:

DS said: Henry, All you have to do is present a scientific alternative to evolution, complete with scientific evidence from the scientific literature and everyone will want to teach it. In fact, if you have evidence, then the Constitution cannot prevent you from teaching it. So now all you have to do is stop reading Act Like You Have the Facts and just get some real facts. You can do that by reading the real scientific literature or by performing experiments and publishing the results in the scientific literature. Unfortunately, you have shown a marked aversion to both methods. So why don't you go spread your carbon footprint elsewhere?

Do you have any favorite websites which you can recommend?

Dave L writes... By “anything else”, fnxtr meant “any other explanation that actually has evidence for it”. The only one that has any evidence is “evolution”. It has multiple lines of evidence. No other explanation has any evidence whatsoever. None. Not a scrap, not a jot, nada, nothing, zip, zilch, zero.

henry said:

DS said: Henry, All you have to do is present a scientific alternative to evolution, complete with scientific evidence from the scientific literature and everyone will want to teach it. In fact, if you have evidence, then the Constitution cannot prevent you from teaching it. So now all you have to do is stop reading Act Like You Have the Facts and just get some real facts. You can do that by reading the real scientific literature or by performing experiments and publishing the results in the scientific literature. Unfortunately, you have shown a marked aversion to both methods. So why don't you go spread your carbon footprint elsewhere?

Do you have any favorite websites which you can recommend?

Do you have any favorite websites which you can recommend?

stevaroni said:

Dave L writes... By “anything else”, fnxtr meant “any other explanation that actually has evidence for it”. The only one that has any evidence is “evolution”. It has multiple lines of evidence. No other explanation has any evidence whatsoever. None. Not a scrap, not a jot, nada, nothing, zip, zilch, zero.

Speaking of polling data, with us coming up on the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, it should be noted that some 8% of Americans still think the moon landings were a hoax. If ever there was a more obvious parallel to denying evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence, I can't think of it. Today's New York Times has an interesting article about the most durable "moon hoax" proponents that delves a bit into the psychology of rabid denial, and it sounds mighty familiar to anyone who has ever dealt with a truly ardent creationist.

Dan said:

henry said:

DS said: Henry, All you have to do is present a scientific alternative to evolution, complete with scientific evidence from the scientific literature and everyone will want to teach it. In fact, if you have evidence, then the Constitution cannot prevent you from teaching it. So now all you have to do is stop reading Act Like You Have the Facts and just get some real facts. You can do that by reading the real scientific literature or by performing experiments and publishing the results in the scientific literature. Unfortunately, you have shown a marked aversion to both methods. So why don't you go spread your carbon footprint elsewhere?

Do you have any favorite websites which you can recommend?

Google. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Henry,

Piss off. No one is going to read your tired oud Act Without Facts until you read the papers we have provided to you.

Henry J said:

Do you have any favorite websites which you can recommend?

http://www.talkorigins.org/ http://www.pandasthumb.org/ http://tolweb.org/

Why do you insist on quotemining and quoting known Lying Liars for Jesus even though we've already taking you to task and taken you apart for doing so?

Did your spiritual handlers physically lobotomize you as well as brainwash you?

If it were 80% of the American public that believes the moon landings were a hoax, you might have a case.

Henry,

Bite me. I'll read your Big Act Instead of Facts crap as soon as you prove that you read the abstract I provided for you. Until then, why should anyone read anything you post? You're just another rebel without a clue.

henry said: If it were 80% of the American public that believes the moon landings were a hoax, you might have a case.

Henry is conflating two very spurious arguments, except that he isn't clear about it.

Firstly, he is saying that if many people doubt a scientific theory, there must be reason to do so. He even maintains that the doubters are in the majority.

Secondly, he is saying that since there is doubt, it should be taught when covering the Theory of Evolution in the public schools.

But the first argument is false. There is no reasonable doubt that the Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the origin of the species. All life evolved; all life is commonly descended. As stevaroni points out, it doesn't matter how many people believe otherwise, or how many people doubt those propositions. The evidence for them is overwhelming and unanswerable within the bounds of reason. There is no evidence, none at all, for any other.

The purpose of science classes is to teach science. Not popular opinion. Not demogogery. Not rhetoric or debating technique or Bible study or mythology. Science. And science consists of naturalistic explanations for nature based on measurable, repeatable, material evidence.

Oh, and I had a look at the article he's quoting. It tries to sell the idiotic proposition that because molecular biology is causing some revisions to taxonomy, there is no substance to common descent. It commits the obvious own-goal of arguing that scientists are desperate for any evidence that would support evolution and also that they are bringing forward evidence that destroys it, both at once. At least one of these must be wrong, but being ICR, they've gone the quinella. Both of them are.

Back when morphology was the only guide to taxonomy, morphology was used. Now molecular biology is revising some of the conclusions reached from morphology. This is news? Call me when molecular biology shows that I'm more closely related to a cabbage than to a chimpanzee. Because - here's the thing - if common descent were not fact, and all living things were separately created, you'd expect some relationships like that to show up.

Reading the full New Scientist story requires a subscription. Dollars to donuts, it doesn't say what henry wants it to say.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Oh. That one. The one that Larry Moran kicked up a shitstorm over.

henry said: Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster 'Link' by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

henry said: * Mr. Thomas is Bullcrap Writer and Mr. Sherwin is Senior Bullcrap Lecturer at the Institute for Creation Bullcrap. Cite this article: Thomas, B. and F. Sherwin. 2009. Darwin's Withering Tree of Life. Acts & No Facts. 38 (5): 16.

Keep at it Henry. They never get tired of bellowing, do they?

Re the moon. How long did it take the astronauts to travel thru the van Allen belt? In hours & minutes, not bellows.

#242. 11:05 BST

Do you really enjoy posting creationist crap on here knowing full well that informed people are going to relentlessly pummel that steel reinforced concrete block that encases your head?

— Keelyn

novparl said: Keep at it Henry. They never get tired of bellowing, do they? Re the moon. How long did it take the astronauts to travel thru the van Allen belt? In hours & minutes, not bellows. #242. 11:05 BST

Frank J said: I have yet to hear Henry post anything about his own alternate "theory." No basic "whats" or "whens," let alone any details of "how" for anyone to critically analyze.

KP said: (snip) and I am currently completely disgusted by insidious creationist liars. (so bad I'm starting to sound repetitive with the LYING LIARS bit)

henry said: If it were 80% of the American public that believes the moon landings were a hoax, you might have a case. The Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster 'Link' by Brian Thomas, M.S.* What was Ida, then? Other than a few different teeth, a single ankle bone that is unlike that of modern lemurs, and the absence of modern lemurs' "toilet claw," she appears very lemur-like. To be an evolutionary link, "Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably."4 She appears to be just what biblically-informed science would predict--a fully-formed distinct creature with no transitional features that was buried in a catastrophic event. 4.Beard, C. Why Ida fossil is not the missing link. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com May 21, 2009, accessed May 21, 2009. * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Cite this article: Thomas, B. 2009. The Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster "Link." Acts & Facts. 38 (7): 17.

Nice. Did you cc "Mr. Thomas"? Will you please post his reply? We'd love to see it!

novparl writes.... Re the moon. How long did it take the astronauts to travel thru the van Allen belt? In hours & minutes, not bellows.

henry said: . . . Cite this article: Thomas, B. 2009. The Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster "Link." Acts & Facts. 38 (7): 17.

fnxtr said: Nice. Did you cc "Mr. Thomas"? Will you please post his reply? We'd love to see it!

Don’t you know? Henry subscribes to an unthinking, unquestioning literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, as was commanded by his spiritual handlers.

— Stanton

@ Stevaroni - thanks for the informative reply. But did you realize that I asked because I'm sceptical about flying thru the van Allen without being irradiated, in 1969? By the time of Hubble they may have had time to sort out proper protection. Still, 2 hours 50 - that's what I asked and that's what I got! (Wikipedia is vague on this, English & French.)

Novparl said: @ Stevaroni - thanks for the informative reply. But did you realize that I asked because I'm sceptical about flying thru the van Allen without being irradiated, in 1969? By the time of Hubble they may have had time to sort out proper protection. Still, 2 hours 50 - that's what I asked and that's what I got! (Wikipedia is vague on this, English & French.)

Novparl said: I'm sceptical about flying thru the van Allen without being irradiated, in 1969?

phantomreader42 said: And everyone ALSO noticed that you dodged Dave's question, yet again. When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this? Why are you too much of a coward to answer that simple question, novparl?

But did you realize that I asked because I’m skeptical about flying thru the van Allen without being irradiated, in 1969?

By the time of Hubble they may have had time to sort out proper protection.

Phantomreader writes... You already think all of modern science is a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said: And everyone ALSO noticed that you dodged Dave's question, yet again. When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this? Why are you too much of a coward to answer that simple question, novparl?

Maybe he's afraid we'll ridicule his genuine answers, and hurt his feelings.

I'm disappointed.

I thought newspeak (I keep thinking how a propos that name is) was a deluded, programmed creationist robot.

Now I see he's just another candidate for the jacket with the arms that tie in the back.

mplavcan said:

henry said: The Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster 'Link' by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

My goodness. You ARE a genius. I must consult you for your expertise. We have been debating the origins of anthropoid primates for over 100 years now. Until the discovery of Eosimiids in the 1990's most debates centered on whether adapid or omomyid primates were the stem group. The problem has always been that members of these groups are particularly primitive postcranially and dentally. So, how do you feel we should deal with levels of homoplasy in the dentition and postcranial skeleton between these groups? Do you feel that premolar root orientation and symphyseal structure in Eosimiids is enough to link them them to anthropoids, or do you feel that the enlarged paraconid precludes direct ancestry? And while the characters of the tarsal bones discussed by Gebo and Dagasto and friends appear to be compellingly anthropoid-like (or do you disagree?), do you withhold judgement until we have an associated skeleton? Do you think that the evidence is strong that Eosimiids should be linked to basal omomyids, or should we wait for further analysis? ...snip... Oh, and while you are at it, could you provide us with a list of the specimens that you examined, and whether they were originals or casts? Thanks!

@ Stevaroni -thanks for the additional info, which I shall study later. As for the moon landing (which I saw - or didn't! - at the time, about 3 a.m. Brit-time) I'm undecided - not a state known to evolutionists. I'll study what you've written and it may well persuade me. To make matters worse - I also believe that the Bush fascists had prior knowledge of the 9/11 and told their $1,000,000,000,000 USAAF to do nothing. Yep, I'm more wacko than Jacko.

As for the first man (eoanthropos? Urmann?) - I'm undecided. It's like my question - what was there before the big bang. Fnxtr foolishly admitted that that's a tough question before taking fright before his "friends" and claiming that "tough" = "meaningless". Not a definition found in dictionaries, but I s'pose they're all part of the WCC (World Creo Conspiracy).

Hasta la vista.

stevaroni said:

If it were 80% of the American public that believes the moon landings were a hoax, you might have a case.

Um I do have a case. The moon landings are far more front-and-center in American culture than evolution will ever be. They're so familiar, they're a cliche'. A moonwalking astronaut is used for the MTV awards statuette. Aerospace technology, in the form of flying machines and communications satellites are everyday objects that average people have actual experience with. On major anniversaries of the landings, the news networks broadcast interviews with the men who actually landed. Unlike evolution, there is no particular theological objection which makes churches indoctrinate children to ignore reality about the moon program. And yet, even with all this, somehow 1 in 11 Americans steadfastly believes that we have not been to the moon and believes it in fierce defiance of a gargantuan mountain of evidence before their very eyes. So my case henry, is that people will unshakably believe wrong things to the very fiber of their sould regardless of how baseless those things are. Ergo, what large numbers of people, in this case somewhere north of 25million people, decide they want to believe has been shown to be immaterial to the actual facts of the event.

henry, you don't appear to get it.

It doesn't matter that 8% of Americans (or whoever) don't believe that a man walked on the moon. One did, and that's a fact. The converse is a lie. Schools shouldn't teach lies.

It also doesn't matter how many people think that there's a controversy about the evidence for evolution. There isn't one, and that's a fact. To say that there is, is a lie. Schools shouldn't teach lies.

It's a matter of principle, both ways. Schools shouldn't teach lies.

Is that clear enough?

Novparl said: I'm more wacko than Jacko.

henry said: The 8% which believes that the moon landings were a hoax would fit better with the 17%/18%/7% which did not want a fair and balanced approach.

Dan said:

henry said: The 8% which believes that the moon landings were a hoax would fit better with the 17%/18%/7% which did not want a fair and balanced approach.

henry admits to thinking that truth or falseness is determined by public opinion poll. According to Ohio’s Academic Content Standards in English language arts, subsection "Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard", students in grade 3 should know "the difference between facts and opinions in presentations and visual media". The only possible conclusion: henry is thinking at the second-grade level. Or below.

Henry and novparl,

When do you think that a human being first walked on the moon? Has one yet? I do not want the currently accepted official position. I want your best guess and the evidence on which you base your conslusion.

Also, if no one believed that a human has walked on the moon when they actually had, would it still be true? Inquiring minds want to know.

Novparl said: It's like my question - what was there before the big bang. Fnxtr foolishly admitted that that's a tough question before taking fright before his "friends" and claiming that "tough" = "meaningless". Not a definition found in dictionaries, but I s'pose they're all part of the WCC (World Creo Conspiracy). Hasta la vista.

Novparl said: As for the moon landing (which I saw - or didn't! - at the time, about 3 a.m. Brit-time) I'm undecided - not a state known to evolutionists. I'll study what you've written and it may well persuade me.

It's like my question - what was there before the big bang. Fnxtr foolishly admitted that that's a tough question before taking fright before his "friends" and claiming that "tough" = "meaningless".

henry sez... The 8% which believes that the moon landings were a hoax would fit better with the 17%/18%/7% which did not want a fair and balanced approach. But since the polls are not related, I wouldn’t put much weight on it.

Dan said:

henry said: The 8% which believes that the moon landings were a hoax would fit better with the 17%/18%/7% which did not want a fair and balanced approach.

henry admits to thinking that truth or falseness is determined by public opinion poll. According to Ohio’s Academic Content Standards in English language arts, subsection "Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard", students in grade 3 should know "the difference between facts and opinions in presentations and visual media". The only possible conclusion: henry is thinking at the second-grade level. Or below.

Dave Lovell writes... Not only faked to fool the geologists of the day, but faked well enough to still be fooling today’s geologists equipped with a scientific toolbox which could not even have been imagined in the late sixties.

stevaroni said:

henry sez... The 8% which believes that the moon landings were a hoax would fit better with the 17%/18%/7% which did not want a fair and balanced approach. But since the polls are not related, I wouldn’t put much weight on it.

OK, what if more than 8% disbelieved in the moon landings? what if it was 40%? What would we do in school then? Should we then 'teach the controversy' about the moon landings or should we simply teach that all the evidence clearly shows it happened? You're British, I assume. A few years ago, I saw a poll that something like 10% of your country's youth have serious doubts that WW-II happened as advertised. (I'm not quite sure what they do believe) What if that number got to 40%? Would you then advocate that schools in the UK should teach an alternate version of history where Hitler and Churchill conspired to keep a war going for political reasons?

stevaroni said: (um Dave.. no relation to Jim Lovell, I assume?)

henry said: Classic evolutionism--false assumptions lead to false conclusions.

stevaroni said:

henry sez... The 8% which believes that the moon landings were a hoax would fit better with the 17%/18%/7% which did not want a fair and balanced approach. But since the polls are not related, I wouldn’t put much weight on it.

OK, what if more than 8% disbelieved in the moon landings? what if it was 40%? What would we do in school then? Should we then 'teach the controversy' about the moon landings or should we simply teach that all the evidence clearly shows it happened? You're British, I assume. A few years ago, I saw a poll that something like 10% of your country's youth have serious doubts that WW-II happened as advertised. (I'm not quite sure what they do believe) What if that number got to 40%? Would you then advocate that schools in the UK should teach an alternate version of history where Hitler and Churchill conspired to keep a war going for political reasons?

henry said: Why should people with no children pay for the education of someone else's children?

Novparl said: ...Yep, I'm more wacko than Jacko.

Novparl said: As for the first man (eoanthropos? Urmann?) - I'm undecided. It's like my question - what was there before the big bang.

Novparl said: As for the moon landing (which I saw - or didn't! - at the time, about 3 a.m. Brit-time) I'm undecided - not a state known to evolutionists. I'll study what you've written and it may well persuade me.

henry said: Born in the USA

What stevaroni said.

Henry appears to think that the general education of the entire population does not benefit everyone in that population. I'd like to think that this is only another aspect of henry's invincible ignorance. Alas, the blank unreason required to believe that proposition surely cannot be explained by ignorance alone, and actual malevolence must be inferred as well.

henry said: Classic evolutionism--false assumptions lead to false conclusions.

henry said: Frankly, all public schools should be closed. The evolutionists can start their own schools and parents who want evolution taught to their kids can pay for it. Likewise, for the parents who want scientific creationism. Why should people with no children pay for the education of someone else's children?

Oh, and by the way, henry, everyone noticed that you changed the subject again.

Why do you keep doing that, do you think?

fnxtr said: Oh, and by the way, henry, everyone noticed that you changed the subject again. Why do you keep doing that, do you think?

KP said:

fnxtr said: Oh, and by the way, henry, everyone noticed that you changed the subject again. Why do you keep doing that, do you think?

It's really ridiculous. He cited an ICR report. A few of us provided a refutation, with evidence and more evolutionary detail than he demanded. Furthermore, we flat-out PROVED that the ICR LIED about science. He ignored our calls for a response, instead choosing to cite more ICR articles by the SAME LIAR. When pressed on those he changes over to opinion polls. Talk about your Gish Gallop, henry has sure studied that technique well.

mplavcan said: But then, the original post was about opinion polls. The evasive concept seems to be that opinion polls measure public ignorance (in this case) about academic knowledge, and not the body of academic knowledge itself. People like Henry exemplify the bizarre logic that ignorance constitutes scientific evidence against a theory. Logic like that is not to be argued with. It is to be gawked at.

mplavcan said:

henry said: Frankly, all public schools should be closed. The evolutionists can start their own schools and parents who want evolution taught to their kids can pay for it. Likewise, for the parents who want scientific creationism. Why should people with no children pay for the education of someone else's children?

Yeah Baby! At last someone with an opinion I can respect! I completely agree. We need to get back to the good old days, when poor people worked their jobs and didn't get an education because they didn't need one. Back when high childhood mortality and crime ensured a steady supply of recruits for the army, and made abortion obsolete. Back to the days when education was reserved for the elite who had all the property and money. Back when a man could hold to his cherished superstitions proudly, without some damned government (such as it was) telling him what to believe. Back when women shut up and raised the kids and worked until they died. You don't need to read to milk a cow (or vote, but then, no one was burdened with that responsibility anyway). Peasants back then weren't asked to pay for their Lord's education (well, OK, they did pay taxes, which paid for the education). They didn't need an education, so they didn't have to pay for one. Yeah baby. What a utopia. And by the way, I'm still waiting for that data. I know that this is a busy time for all of us, but it seems that the field is moving so fast that I wouldn't want to be left behind.

henry said: Back in the days of the American Revolution, literacy was at 100%. Only 1 in 1000 couldn't write legibly. English speaking people could read the King James Version for nearly 400 years. Today, most Americans find it too hard to read. American education have been declining steadily, losing one grade every 2 decades, according to the Secretary of Education's report a few decades ago. If you looked at an eighth grade book from a hundred years ago, most college students wouldn't understand it. Some high school drop out rates are over 70%, not to mention gangs, drugs, sexual immorality, homosexuality,and shootings. But it doesn't matter as long as evolution is taught and the students behave like animals. Of course, if the public schools were to actually close, the evolutionists would be at a severe disadvantage. Christians are already sending their kids to private schools, and even home schooling them.

If you looked at an eighth grade book from a hundred years ago, most college students wouldn’t understand it.

Some high school drop out rates are over 70%, not to mention gangs, drugs, sexual immorality, homosexuality,and shootings. But it doesn’t matter as long as evolution is taught and the students behave like animals.

henry said: Frankly, all public schools should be closed.

henry said: Back in the days of the American Revolution, literacy was at 100%. Only 1 in 1000 couldn't write legibly. English speaking people could read the King James Version for nearly 400 years. Today, most Americans find it too hard to read.

Dan said:

henry said: Back in the days of the American Revolution, literacy was at 100%. Only 1 in 1000 couldn't write legibly. English speaking people could read the King James Version for nearly 400 years. Today, most Americans find it too hard to read.

So states henry. The fact that the data completely disagree does not bother him in the least. I stated previously that henry doesn't even know how to distinguish fact from opinion, and now he's neatly come around to prove, yet again, that he can't.

Henry wrote:

"Back in the days of the American Revolution, literacy was at 100%."

And yet you still can't read a single scientific article! Amazing. You can keep changing the topic all you want wonder boy, but that won't change the fact thet you are willfully ignorant and proud of it.

What, you don't like the "abuse"? Read the paper and shut up already. You've had two weeks and still you can't even read an abstract? Pathetic. You can't even act like you can read a fact.

"...in the days of the American Revolution, literacy was at 100%."

Garbage. Most children had some schooling in the northern colonies, less in the south (and none at all for slaves, of course). No measures of literacy were made before the 1860s, but going on the general level of schooling, it's likely that genuine literacy rates did not exceed 70% until the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Kenneth Lockridge, going on evidence from wills and testatory documents, finds that about 85% of males in New England (by far the best area) could sign their names, but this was not true for women, and of course it is not a measure of genuine literacy. Moreover, data from wills is skewed by the fact that they are only needed by those with worthwhile property - ie, not the poor. See Lockridge, "Literacy in Colonial New England", Norton and Co, New York, 1974.

Even these modest results were achieved by exactly the measures that henry objects to - raising a 'school tax', mandated by law. The tax was local, and it varied, but it was a tax, and its collection was enforced.

All of which is actually beside the point. That a simple majority of the population was basically literate, meaning that they could spell through a primer, or read (some of) their Bibles, doesn't mean that they had received an education as we understand it.

Most knew no geography outside the local district, or history other than what was in the Bible. Most could count, but numeracy was very limited beyond that, and mathematics was not taught beyond basic arithmetic, if it was taught at all. (Sea officers had to learn navigation, mostly on-the-job.) The classics, philosophy and theology were the province of the learned and far beyond most people's reach. Science? It hadn't been invented in 1776, but the idea that one should teach "natural philosophy" (as opposed to classical philosophy or theology) even in Universities had hardly occurred to anybody; and a University education was the privilege of very few, and they almost exclusively from the landed gentry.

But this is the society that henry wants to return to. Probably henry thinks that he would be among the very few who would benefit. He's almost certainly wrong.

henry, I never know what to think of you, I can't decide whether you're playing Poe, or just plain crazy.

I need some more data points.

We know you don't think much of evolution, but this whole conspiracy theory thing is new ground.

Indulge me for a moment, and answer one question.

Who killed Kennedy?

We've already got you down as skeptical about the moon landings and doubtful about 9-11, I'm wondering if you're going to go for the conspiracy trifecta.

stevaroni said: henry, I never know what to think of you, I can't decide whether you're playing Poe, or just plain crazy. I need some more data points. We know you don't think much of evolution, but this whole conspiracy theory thing is new ground. Indulge me for a moment, and answer one question. Who killed Kennedy? We've already got you down as skeptical about the moon landings and doubtful about 9-11, I'm wondering if you're going to go for the conspiracy trifecta.

stevaroni said: We've already got you down as skeptical about the moon landings and doubtful about 9-11, I'm wondering if you're going to go for the conspiracy trifecta.

henry the bot's routine:

{If (baseless claim != fact)
and (lie=exposed)
then (subject=subject+1) }

henry writes... Skeptical about the moon landings and doubtful about 9-11? No.

Oh, and crop circles. And the Bermuda Triangle. And Von Daniken.

stevaroni said:

henry writes... Skeptical about the moon landings and doubtful about 9-11? No.

My mistake. I meant to direct that comment to Novparl Since we had that enlightening conversation yesterday about his skepticism concerning the Apollo program and 9-11, I was curious as to where he stood on the Kennedy assassination.

I wondering if he wanted to swing for the fences and go for the triple crown of conspiracy theories.

— stevaroni

Speaking of conspiracy theories, right on cue, NASA today released photographs showing - oops, make that proporting to show the Apollo landing sites.

The photos were supposedly taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which was allegedly launched in June into a hypothetical orbit around the so-called "moon".

Gentlemen... start your tinfoil hats!

I don't have any tin; would aluminum foil do?

fnxtr said: Oh, and crop circles. And the Bermuda Triangle. And Von Daniken.

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

fnxtr said: Oh, and crop circles. And the Bermuda Triangle. And Von Daniken.

What about Bigfoot, Nessi, Chessie, and the Abominable Snowman?

Henry J said: I don't have any tin; would aluminum foil do?

henry posted this LIE from ICR on June 22, 11:31 am Fixed Bird Thigh Nixes Dino-to-bird Development by Brian Thomas, M.S.* New research from Oregon State University revealed that a bird’s bone configuration is essential to the unique way it breathes. The study, published online in the Journal of Morphology, effectively determined that if a bird’s legs or ribs were removed or significantly altered, it would suffocate. The discovery demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds.

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

fnxtr said: Oh, and crop circles. And the Bermuda Triangle. And Von Daniken.

What about Bigfoot, Nessi, Chessie, and the Abominable Snowman?

KP said: AN OPEN LETTER TO henry

henry posted this LIE from ICR on June 22, 11:31 am Fixed Bird Thigh Nixes Dino-to-bird Development by Brian Thomas, M.S.* New research from Oregon State University revealed that a bird’s bone configuration is essential to the unique way it breathes. The study, published online in the Journal of Morphology, effectively determined that if a bird’s legs or ribs were removed or significantly altered, it would suffocate. The discovery demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds.

henry, since you've chosen to ignore the unambiguous evidence that I provided that Mr. Thomas lied about the OSU paper and lied about the fossil record, here's a different perspective. JA Clarke, Z Zhou, F Zhang. 2006. Journal of Anatomy 208:287-308. They report on a new clade of Early Cretaceous birds from China, featuring Yixianornis grabaui. To demonstrate the new clade, the authors analyzed ~ 200 anatomical features from the Yixianornis fossil specimen and compared them with 25 other known fossil & extant taxa using PAUP. Just for your edification, henry, here is a list of known intermediates between Archaeopteryx and modern birds using their analysis: Archaeopteryx, Sapeornis, Confuciusornis, Cathayornis, Concornis, Neuquenornis, Gobipteryx (the last 4 are part of a paraphyletic clade), Vorona, Patagopteryx, Yixianornis, Songlingornis, Yanornis, Apsaravis, Hesperornis, Baptornis, Ichthyornis, Limenavis, Iaceornis, MODERN BIRDS. (not as good as mplavcan's smackdown of the ICR Darwinius analysis. In a just world, ICR would have just lost another drone in henry, but somehow I think he'll go right on quoting their lies. Maybe he is a Poe and I wouldn't be the least embarrassed because it got me to the heart of how insidious ICR can be.)

henry said:

KP said: AN OPEN LETTER TO henry

henry posted this LIE from ICR on June 22, 11:31 am Fixed Bird Thigh Nixes Dino-to-bird Development by Brian Thomas, M.S.* New research from Oregon State University revealed that a bird’s bone configuration is essential to the unique way it breathes. The study, published online in the Journal of Morphology, effectively determined that if a bird’s legs or ribs were removed or significantly altered, it would suffocate. The discovery demonstrates that, in spite of popular belief, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds.

henry, since you've chosen to ignore the unambiguous evidence that I provided that Mr. Thomas lied about the OSU paper and lied about the fossil record, here's a different perspective. JA Clarke, Z Zhou, F Zhang. 2006. Journal of Anatomy 208:287-308. They report on a new clade of Early Cretaceous birds from China, featuring Yixianornis grabaui. To demonstrate the new clade, the authors analyzed ~ 200 anatomical features from the Yixianornis fossil specimen and compared them with 25 other known fossil & extant taxa using PAUP. Just for your edification, henry, here is a list of known intermediates between Archaeopteryx and modern birds using their analysis: Archaeopteryx, Sapeornis, Confuciusornis, Cathayornis, Concornis, Neuquenornis, Gobipteryx (the last 4 are part of a paraphyletic clade), Vorona, Patagopteryx, Yixianornis, Songlingornis, Yanornis, Apsaravis, Hesperornis, Baptornis, Ichthyornis, Limenavis, Iaceornis, MODERN BIRDS. (not as good as mplavcan's smackdown of the ICR Darwinius analysis. In a just world, ICR would have just lost another drone in henry, but somehow I think he'll go right on quoting their lies. Maybe he is a Poe and I wouldn't be the least embarrassed because it got me to the heart of how insidious ICR can be.)

The next paragragh of the ICR article states: One conclusion that directly follows from this research is that without the precise configuration of ribs, pelvis, and thigh bones, as well as musculature—all of which remain nearly stationary even while birds are walking or running—the air sacs would collapse and the birds would die. The study’s co-author, OSU zoologist Devon Quick, stated in a university news release, “It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.”1 Specifically, “in birds, normal lung function requires extensive…air-sacs ventilated by an expansive sternum and specially hinged costal ribs…[as well as a] specialized femoral-thigh complex.”2 1. Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links. Oregon State University press, June 9, 2009. 2. Quick, D.E. and Ruben, J.A. Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs. Journal of Morphology. Published online before print May 20, 2009. This includes a quote from the co author Quick.

Not 'states', henry. The word is 'lies'. No such conclusion follows.

Reptiles with reptilian lung capacity and function are capable of extremely fast motion, but not of prolonged fast motion, as anyone who's chased down a racehorse goanna knows. But that much will do for a creature that flies in short bursts between trees.

Already we have a feathered creature that has protowings, and that's well-attested. A little improvement to the protowings, and it will be able to glide, then fly a little. Hmm, feathered, lives in trees, can fly a little. Sounds like a starter bird, to me. Without improved lung function, it can only fly in short bursts, sure, but that's already an advantage in its environment. Now it evolves the improved lung function, by exapting structures already adapted to bipedal running.

There's no challenge to evolution in that, henry. None at all. The ICR is telling fibs again.

Oh, and I take it that you have conceded that your statement that literacy in Revolutionary America was 100%, is contradicted by the evidence. Or, in other words, WRONG.

Henry,

Go screw yourself. I have already provided documented evidence that this is pure and utter bullshit. You have refused to look at the evidence. You are doing exactly what you condemn others of, presupposing conclusions and cherry picking the evidence to fit. It is most certainly not true that "no one ever thought of this" since the article I cited predates this piece of crap. Also, the very title of the article you cite shows that the authors most certainly do not agree with you, despite whatever "quote" the craporama ICR comes up with.

Also, you have yet to address the developmental and genetic evidence that birds are indeed descended from reptiles. You can keep quoting ICR vomit all you want, but you are just blowing smoke in the wind. At least everyone can see the totally dishonest and illogical manner in which you approach reality. Now if you don't want to be insulted, quit being a moron and piss off. Your act does not have a fact to stand on.

Oh and next time you try changing the subject, get your facts straight about the new subject as well. Making up nonsense does absolutely nothing for you except to expose your moral banckruptcy and intellectual dishonesty for all to see.

DS said: Henry, Go screw yourself. I have already provided documented evidence that this is pure and utter bullshit. You have refused to look at the evidence. You are doing exactly what you condemn others of, presupposing conclusions and cherry picking the evidence to fit. It is most certainly not true that "no one ever thought of this" since the article I cited predates this piece of crap. Also, the very title of the article you cite shows that the authors most certainly do not agree with you, despite whatever "quote" the craporama ICR comes up with. Also, you have yet to address the developmental and genetic evidence that birds are indeed descended from reptiles. You can keep quoting ICR vomit all you want, but you are just blowing smoke in the wind. At least everyone can see the totally dishonest and illogical manner in which you approach reality. Now if you don't want to be insulted, quit being a moron and piss off. Your act does not have a fact to stand on. Oh and next time you try changing the subject, get your facts straight about the new subject as well. Making up nonsense does absolutely nothing for you except to expose your moral banckruptcy and intellectual dishonesty for all to see.

mplavcan said:

henry said: If it were 80% of the American public that believes the moon landings were a hoax, you might have a case. The Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster 'Link' by Brian Thomas, M.S.* What was Ida, then? Other than a few different teeth, a single ankle bone that is unlike that of modern lemurs, and the absence of modern lemurs' "toilet claw," she appears very lemur-like. To be an evolutionary link, "Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably."4 She appears to be just what biblically-informed science would predict--a fully-formed distinct creature with no transitional features that was buried in a catastrophic event. 4.Beard, C. Why Ida fossil is not the missing link. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com May 21, 2009, accessed May 21, 2009. * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Cite this article: Thomas, B. 2009. The Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster "Link." Acts & Facts. 38 (7): 17.

My goodness. You ARE a genius. I must consult you for your expertise. We have been debating the origins of anthropoid primates for over 100 years now. Until the discovery of Eosimiids in the 1990's most debates centered on whether adapid or omomyid primates were the stem group. The problem has always been that members of these groups are particularly primitive postcranially and dentally. So, how do you feel we should deal with levels of homoplasy in the dentition and postcranial skeleton between these groups? Do you feel that premolar root orientation and symphyseal structure in Eosimiids is enough to link them them to anthropoids, or do you feel that the enlarged paraconid precludes direct ancestry? And while the characters of the tarsal bones discussed by Gebo and Dagasto and friends appear to be compellingly anthropoid-like (or do you disagree?), do you withhold judgement until we have an associated skeleton? Do you think that the evidence is strong that Eosimiids should be linked to basal omomyids, or should we wait for further analysis? While cercomoniine adapids like "Ida" have been known by extensive remains for many decades, do you feel that the "anthropoid-like" characteristics are primitive retentions or homoplasy driven by adaptation? For that matter, do the features of Amphipithecid primates represent adaptive parallelisms or, do they support the hypothesis that adapids were the stem anthropoid group? As an experienced comparative anatomist who knows so much about early primates, do you feel that the analysis of "Ida" is a viable test of these hypotheses given the exclusion of key taxa? Oh, and of course I forgot (pardon me!) -- you seem to have found the stem group for modern lemurids. Could you elaborate? While the rest of us who study these things have felt that adapids represent a primitive "lemur-LIKE" animal, you appear to have found characters the uniquely link them to lemurs. If you could just post a character list from your analysis along with details of any character weighting and polarity, I would be deeply appreciative. If you have already carried out your analysis in PAUP, could you post the details in a separate message? Otherwise we would be happy to have a student enter the matrix so that we can corroborate the analysis. Oh, and while you are at it, could you provide us with a list of the specimens that you examined, and whether they were originals or casts? Thanks!

Dan said:

henry said: The 8% which believes that the moon landings were a hoax would fit better with the 17%/18%/7% which did not want a fair and balanced approach.

henry admits to thinking that truth or falseness is determined by public opinion poll. According to Ohio’s Academic Content Standards in English language arts, subsection "Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard", students in grade 3 should know "the difference between facts and opinions in presentations and visual media". The only possible conclusion: henry is thinking at the second-grade level. Or below.

henry said: Is all that relevant to the Ida article?

Henry wrote:

"Was Quick misquoted or was he misprinted?"

Dpesn't matter, either way he was just plain wrong, period. But then you will never know that if you don't read the scientific literature now will you?

I'd bet that he was misquoted, since the only source you have for the quote is decidely unreliable. Now if he really didn't believe that birds had evolved, how do you explain the title of the article? Did he not have any control over the title of his own article? Did the other authors agree with his supposed sentiments? Why should anyone care when he was demonstrable wrong anyway?

Look dude, if you want to use the scientific literature and the opinions of scientists to support your preordained conclusion, they you have to consider all the literature and the majority opinion. Why can't you do that? Why are you so willfully ignorant? Why are you still making off topic comments about a subject we dispensed with days ago? Who do you think you are fooling?

DS said: Henry wrote: "Was Quick misquoted or was he misprinted?" Doesn't matter, either way he was just plain wrong, period.

Many of these skeletal specializations are not apparent in the earliest birds, including Archaeopteryx, confuciusornithine or enantiornithine birds (Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). Their presence is also questionable in even Early Cretaceous ornithurines but well developed in the Late Cretaceous hesperornithiform birds (Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). The femur most likely did not attain its subhorizontal position until the Late Cretaceous in ornithurines as indicated by the presence of the antitrochanter, although some enantiornithine birds may have achieved this femoral orientation (Hertel and Campbell, 2007).

KP wrote:

"If you read the original paper, henry ..."

Hey man watch it. I almost fell off my chair laughing at that one. This guy has never read any scientific article, even the ones he quotes. And this is the same dude who claimed that literacy was once 100%. Obviously that did not include scientific literacy after his birth.

Funny how he found time to watch every episode of Star Trek ever produced though. (Not that there is anything wrong with that). You'd just think that someone with that much time on their hands would at least read an abstract before repeating the same crap over and over. Instead he continuously gives everyone an opportunity to ridicule him for his obvious lack of sincereity. He could easily avoid this ignominious fate by simply attempting to read the abstract, but even that doesn't seem to have occured to him. So we should value his uninformed opinion why?

Does anyone else here get the impression that henry may in fact be a sock puppet of bobby/jobby/balanced/hamstrung/jacob, what with his preference for gigantic quoteblocks in conjunction with inane one-line replies, moronic conclusions, and his trust of his own stupidity over scientists' experience and observations?

Henry discloses his sources with his phrasing. "The Darwin Delusion" is the title of a number of tawdry creationist pamphlets and at least two deeply deluded books, one of them emanating from the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, aka the Hare Krishnas. This is where he's getting his nonsense from.

He has no knowledge of the actual science, nor any plans to acquire any, as his abject attempt at a response to actual science demonstrates. Is a detailed knowledge of the comparative anatomy of lower primates, fossil and current, relevant to the Ida article? I started laughing, and then I realised that I shouldn't be. Anybody with so deluded a view of reality shouldn't be laughed at. They might turn violent.

Dave Luckett said: ...I started laughing, and then I realised that I shouldn't be. Anybody with so deluded a view of reality shouldn't be laughed at. They might turn violent.

Stanton, I didn't mean that the violence would necessarily be used against you, or us.

Dave Luckett said: Stanton, I didn't mean that the violence would necessarily be used against you, or us.

Dave Luckett said: Henry discloses his sources with his phrasing. "The Darwin Delusion" is the title of a number of tawdry creationist pamphlets and at least two deeply deluded books, one of them emanating from the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, aka the Hare Krishnas. This is where he's getting his nonsense from. He has no knowledge of the actual science, nor any plans to acquire any, as his abject attempt at a response to actual science demonstrates. Is a detailed knowledge of the comparative anatomy of lower primates, fossil and current, relevant to the Ida article? I started laughing, and then I realised that I shouldn't be. Anybody with so deluded a view of reality shouldn't be laughed at. They might turn violent.

henry said: The Ida article criticizes the publicity promoting Ida as a missing link, when both creationists and some evolutionists state that it isn't. The article quotes "Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History", "Duke University paleontologist Richard Kay", and "Harvard-trained paleontologist Kurt Wise." All of them reject Ida as a missing link. Are they mistaken or is the big promotion of Ida as a missing link a big lie?

And as for Kurt Wise: please tell us why we should give weight to a man who went through the motions wasting thousands of dollars to be educated as a paleontologist, only to tell the world that his pious devotion to his interpretation of the Bible leads him to say that evidence means less than crap to him?

mplavcan said: The violence is shown in the numbers. An evangelical who is lauded for his incompetent misunderstanding of behavioral ecology, evolutionary biology, and animal psychology is being appointed to head a major government science agency. Go to Answers in Genesis. They gleefully review the numbers showing that a majority of Americans reject science. Henry is nothing more than a symptom of the aggressive anti-science proselytizing in America today. The violence that he perpetrates is the apologetics of ignorance masquerading as "science." It takes little effort to see how the propaganda hurled at evolutionary biology translates into an easy rejection of any inconvenient science. Look at the parallels between the tactics used to attack the science of global warming and the science of evolutionary biology. Look at the easy dismissal of ecological and environmental science when it might cost a business money, or have consequences for an individuals exploitation of a piece of property or common territory. This is deadly stuff. Henry is the voice of America, and it is deeply disturbing.

Dave Luckett said: Stanton, I didn't mean that the violence would necessarily be used against you, or us.

henry, rejecting evolution(ary biology) IS rejecting science. I would ask you to "demonstrate how evolution is not science," but, you've demonstrated that all you can do is quotemine, lie for Jesus, and repeat other people's lies for Jesus.

So please get lost, already.

Henry,

84% of Americans think you don't exist. The other 16% think you are full of crap. I read it on a web site.

henry said: A majority (84%) of Americans do not reject science, but agree that science had a mostly positive effect on society, according to the Answers in Genesis website. It's a mistake to equal science with evolution. Also, global warming is now known as climate change because global warming isn't happening.

It would be a mistake to "equal science with evolution", or even to equate it. They're not equal. Evolution is an observed process. The Theory of Evolution describes that process, and the Theory of Evolution is part of science. It's an important and integral part of biology, supported by evidence from all the other sciences including mathematics, and as such is part of an actually seamless web, an understanding of a Universe that is beautiful and filled with wonder.

And henry, you know nothing of it, and you don't want to know. You prefer ignorance. Your choice. Your loss.

Dave Luckett said: And henry, you know nothing of it, and you don't want to know. You prefer ignorance. Your choice. Your loss.

henry sez... A majority (84%) of Americans do not reject science, but agree that science had a mostly positive effect on society

sswitaj said:

henry sez... A majority (84%) of Americans do not reject science, but agree that science had a mostly positive effect on society

Well, that's mighty magnanimous of them. Of course, that means that 16% of those surveyed by AIG do reject science. Yeah, now that I think of it, I suppose that there's no evidence for the actual existence of science as a tool of progress. I mean it's not like modern crops, or medicine, or computers or electricity or radio or television or heating or air-conditioning, or cars, or airplanes or eyeglasses are a demonstrable boon to civilization or anything. I mean, average lifespan has only doubled since biblical times. Pshaw! what kind of shabby progress is that? After all, most science deniers would be equally happy doing things old-school right? Ah, the good ol' pre-science days, living in stone buildings heated by burning animal dung, lit by animal fat, with lice and fleas for company till they died in their 30's form an abscessed tooth, right? Ya think so henry? You know what I think henry? I think that even the nuttiest science-deneyer from smack in the middle of of the bible-thumpinist church smack in the middle of Kansas would pop a cork if you took their science away and they actually had to give up their engineered seeds and weather satellites. Not to mention engines, electricity, and Viagra. I think 16% of people are crotchety, and grumpy, and think the country is going to hell in a handbasket and they say stupid things when you ask them poll questions, and I think you've just proved my point. That's what I think, henry, and that's why I'm not impressed when you roll out surveys about evolution. Really, do you think that 16% of people think we'd be better off in caves? Or maybe it's just that 16% of people have absolutely no imagination or critical thinking skills and their opinions to poll questions are worthless as public policy.

What a foolish conversation.

Facts are not subject to approval. Evolution happens. Suck it up.

According to the Pew Research Center study, 83% of the American public believes in God and 17% are atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular. That seems to match your 16% better.

stevaroni said:

According to the Pew Research Center study, 83% of the American public believes in God and 17% are atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular. That seems to match your 16% better.

Problem is, there's significantly less evidence for the existence of God than there is for the efficacy of science.

This same study, which included scientists, shows that “chemists are distinctly more likely than those in any other scientific specialty to believe in God

Henry,

According to a poll I saw somewhere, the most likely to believe in God are those raised since birth by the Amish. According to the same poll, no one thinks you are qualified to even appear on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.

Now oh great oracle of wisdom, oh great master of irrelevance, perhaps you can use your staggereing intellect and tell us the air speed of a swallow.

John are you out there? Time to close this thread John. Someone is spreading monkey feces again.

henry said: Also, the study included a quiz that was given to public. Those identified as Republicans scored higher that those identified as Democrats.

henry said: This same study, which included scientists, shows that "chemists are distinctly more likely than those in any other scientific specialty to believe in God (41 percent, about ten percentage points higher than in all other fields surveyed)". Also, the study included a quiz that was given to public. Those identified as Republicans scored higher that those identified as Democrats. I missed only one question.

OK Henry. Let's get to the core of the issue. On the one hand are polls. They say what people believe, and incidentally, what they may or may not know. On the other hand is what people actually know. Sometimes what people believe flies in the face of what they know. For example, Answers in Genesis requires its "scientists" to sign a statement that says that they will believe in a young earth creation regardless of ANY evidence to the contrary. Polls do not equal evidence for or against a scientific theory.

Now, let's take YOU as an example here. You toss off several remarks about "Ida" that suggest to me, who studies these fossils and animals, that you know nothing about the actual issues, animals, fossils, topics, debates, history etc. You know NOTHING. Following this, when I point out that denial of evolutionary biology is associated with a denial of other "inconvenient" science -- like global warming -- you pop off and immediately deny global warming. What do you know about it? Anything? I am not an expert on it like I am on the fossils, but I do read the primary literature when I have questions (that's the actual literature, not a column in the Wall Street Journal, a Wikipedia article, or Discover magazine), I follow up claims by comparing the primary data and analyses of those involved (remarkably easy to do, actually), and most importantly, I place some degree of trust in the consensus view offered by the climatological community. While I won't say that it is completely proven fact, all the evidence suggests to me that anthropogenic global warming is real and is leading to climate change. As a non-expert, though, I would not feel at all comfortable challenging the climatologists on their home turf and calling them deluded fools.

So where do you fit in this? Apart from boring us with irrelevancies and stupid quips, why don't you provide us with some REAL information? Give us any indication at all that you have an informed opinion. Why don't you ask questions that might indicate a faint glimmer of understanding, and even an openness to learning.

I am not holding my breath here. You have failed miserably to provide even the most rudimentary response to requests for actual information. My conclusion is that you know nothing. You have your faith, and that is it. If you want to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, and evolution never happened, fine. Lots of people believe lots of things. But don't go wandering into the realm of science and try to tell us that we don't know what we are talking about on the basis of your complete and utter ignorance. The only use that you serve here is to illustrate to other readers the type of person that endorses creationism. If you like dressing up in a clown suit and being the fool at the party, fine. But understand that people will grow tired of it and get irritated at you.

mplavcan said: So where do you fit in this? Apart from boring us with irrelevancies and stupid quips, why don't you provide us with some REAL information?

henry refuses to understand that what is and isn't true is not determined by popularity, or even voting: it's determined by evidence, and there is no evidence that supports any of the claims made by evolution-deniers.

DS said: Henry wrote: "Was Quick misquoted or was he misprinted?" Dpesn't matter, either way he was just plain wrong, period. But then you will never know that if you don't read the scientific literature now will you? I'd bet that he was misquoted, since the only source you have for the quote is decidely unreliable. Now if he really didn't believe that birds had evolved, how do you explain the title of the article? Did he not have any control over the title of his own article? Did the other authors agree with his supposed sentiments? Why should anyone care when he was demonstrable wrong anyway? Look dude, if you want to use the scientific literature and the opinions of scientists to support your preordained conclusion, they you have to consider all the literature and the majority opinion. Why can't you do that? Why are you so willfully ignorant? Why are you still making off topic comments about a subject we dispensed with days ago? Who do you think you are fooling?

Henry wrote:

"If Quick was misquoted or just plain wrong, why wasn’t that pointed out before by you or anybody else?"

You lying twit. I did point it out, and so did several others, weeks ago. I even provided a reference. You can't rewrite history, the posts are there for all to see. Assuming you are not some sort of dysfunctional schizpophrenic, you are just a a lying sack of excrement. Obviously you have no intention of ever reading the reference I provided, but to now claim that I never provided one is delusional bordering on complete and utter insanity.

Why in the world would you ever assume that anyone was ignored because they were correct? Are you a paranoid schizophrenic as well? How in the world does this jackass being ignored invalidate the claim that ICR lies? They lie constantly about everything. You have been given plenty of examples, you have not refuted a single one. You are just a plain clueless dupe.

You still have not answered the questions I posed either. How do you explain the title of the paper? You can't can you? Just go away and play with children of your own intellectual caliber. You think polls are somehow proof of something. Well I just took a
poll of my own and everyone thinks you are just plain nuts. Must be true if that's what the poll says, right?

eric said: This is just my opinion, but I think he is trying to provide you with real information the best way he knows how. To make a generalization, the fundamentalist perspective is authoritarian (real information is what comes out of the bible, and fundamentalist organizations such as AIG), and tribal (the "realness" of the information can be judged by a person's religious or political affiliation). Of course we are all probably tribal to some extent, but fundamentalists moreso. When Henry cites AIG or states that mainstream climatologists are deluded fools, he's giving you the realest information he knows, because whereas scientists put a premium on the reproducibility of empirical experimentation and regularly tell each other they are wrong, fundamentalists put a premium on whether the speaker is in-group or out-of-group. To the scientist, the primary question to ask when deciding whether to believe some new claim is 'show me how you arrived at that conclusion.' To the fundamentalist, its 'are you part of my tribe, and therefore trustworthy?'

henry said: KP sent an open letter so I replied. If Quick was misquoted or just plain wrong, why wasn't that pointed out before by you or anybody else? It appears that he was ignored because he was correct which meant that Brian Thomas was correct in his analysis and not lying in this article and other articles as well. That would invalidate the claim that ICR lies.

It appears that henry and the other trolls we are seeing here at the moment are simply slinging feces.

They have apparently learned through operant condition that they get fed when they sling shit. They don’t know or care what’s in the shit; all they know is that they get fed when they sling it.

If they are starved in one forum, they go away and sling feces on some other forum.

stevaroni said:

This same study, which included scientists, shows that “chemists are distinctly more likely than those in any other scientific specialty to believe in God

OK, henry, I went to Pew (pewresearch.com) and looked at the detailed results of the June 9th study, and guess what, it's complicated and you're cherry picking. I'm shocked, shocked. (Also, I recently found out that there's gambling at Ricks.) Anyhow, dozens of posts later, I have absolutely no idea of your actual point anymore, so help me out here, complete this sentence... "My point is...."

henry said: What would you like to point out from the study?

What would you like to point out from the study?

mplavcan said: OK Henry. Let's get to the core of the issue. On the one hand are polls. They say what people believe, and incidentally, what they may or may not know. On the other hand is what people actually know. Sometimes what people believe flies in the face of what they know. For example, Answers in Genesis requires its "scientists" to sign a statement that says that they will believe in a young earth creation regardless of ANY evidence to the contrary. Polls do not equal evidence for or against a scientific theory.

mplavcan said: ...Go to Answers in Genesis. They gleefully review the numbers showing that a majority of Americans reject science.

Dave Luckett said:

The Pew Research Center study shows that a majority of Americans accept science and scientists. How come you think Americans reject science? It isn’t based on this study

Henry,

Did you want to share something from the study with us Henry? What would you like to point out? Why haven't you mentioned this before?

Just as soon as you answer all our questions and read all of the references we have provided we will be happy to listen to you.

Evidence? He don't need no steenking evidence!

fnxtr writes... Evidence? He don’t need no steenking evidence!

Henry, to paraphrase one of my favorite movie quotes, reading your posts just makes me feel tired all over.

DS said: Henry, Did you want to share something from the study with us Henry? What would you like to point out? Why haven't you mentioned this before? Just as soon as you answer all our questions and read all of the references we have provided we will be happy to listen to you.

As a scientist age[s], will [s/]he abandon his[/her] belief in God, or are the next generation of scientists rejecting atheism?

DS said: Henry, 84% of Americans think you don't exist. The other 16% think you are full of crap. I read it on a web site.

henry said: I'm sure 99.99999999% of Americans don't know I exist.

Oops! Speaking of innumeracy...my last sentence should say that its possible 0.000000001% of Americans don't know Henry's positive evidence...

henry said: I’m sure 99.99999999% of Americans don’t know I exist.

42 percent for scientists 18 to 34 years old; the fraction steadily drops to just 28 percent for those 65 years and older

I wonder what it looks like when you compare the stats before and after graduation from college?

say, 18-22 vs. 22-34.

I think people smarten up as they learn more, and realize there simply is no reason to postulate the existence of a deity to explain anything.

btw, just to clarify, it's not that college forces the god outta folks (the correlative conclusion anti-ed folks often make), it's just exposure to general, non-filtered knowledge that does that.

To the scientist, the primary question to ask when deciding whether to believe some new claim is 'show me how you arrived at that conclusion.' To the fundamentalist, its 'are you part of my tribe, and therefore trustworthy?'

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996

yup.

mplavcan said: ... Let's turn it around. What he is doing here is the equivalent of me barging into a seminary and telling the scholars and theologians that they are all fools and idiots because I think they are, and backing up my claim with "I read it on a blog." ...

henry said: Are you suggesting that this is like a seminary or a shrine for Darwinian orthodoxy?

Ichthyic said: I wonder what it looks like when you compare the stats before and after graduation from college? ...I think people smarten up as they learn more, and realize there simply is no reason to postulate the existence of a deity to explain anything.

henry said:

mplavcan said: ... Let's turn it around. What he is doing here is the equivalent of me barging into a seminary and telling the scholars and theologians that they are all fools and idiots because I think they are, and backing up my claim with "I read it on a blog." ...

Are you suggesting that this is like a seminary or a shrine for Darwinian orthodoxy?

KP said:

henry said: KP sent an open letter so I replied. If Quick was misquoted or just plain wrong, why wasn't that pointed out before by you or anybody else? It appears that he was ignored because he was correct which meant that Brian Thomas was correct in his analysis and not lying in this article and other articles as well. That would invalidate the claim that ICR lies.

I pointed out that Quick may not have been misquoted. I'm sure he *did* say "why hasn't anyone thought of this before?" as applied to the available pelvic capacity. Brian Thomas applied that quote to a subject NOT addressed by the Quick and Ruben paper, the thighbone position. The Quick and Ruben paper measured available capacity of the pelvic area for abdominal airsacs. It did NOT test whether "removal of the thigh would cause suffocation." That was Mr. Thomas' misrepresentation. It was not an especially high impact paper, so that's probably why it didn't stir up a lot of fuss. Except among creationist LIARS like ICR who managed to find an opportunity to bend the facts to support something completely out of the sphere of the research paper. There is a *direct refutation* of Thomas' claim right in the discussion section of the paper which I've quoted for you TWICE and am NOT going to do it again. Mr Thomas' blatant lie was that there are no transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. Several times, we've shown you that this is a lie by supplying you with the names of many many transitional forms. I assume that there hasn't been a big fuss about Mr. Thomas' LIES because ICR is a lunatic fringe group of YEC fundamentalists who aren't taken seriously by anyone other than other lunatic fundamentalists. If the Quick and Ruben paper had started any kind of serious scientific debate, you would be hearing it.

Henry,

Does the OSU research call into question the reptilian orignis of birds, or just their affinity with dinosaurs? See the thing is that all of your physiology stuff is a completely worthless argument, with which the OSU research does not agree, if they only question the relationship of dinosaurs to birds.

Perhaps you could come up with a direct quote, and the published data that supports it, that documents that any real scientist at OSU, or anywhere else, actually disputes the reptilian origin of birds, or the reptilian origin of mammals for that matter. There is no genetic evidence from dinosaurs, so that hypothesis might be wrong. But that still would not call into question all of the evidence that birds evolved from reptiles.

See, the thing about quote mining is that sometimes you can step on your own mines At least here we have proof positive that scientists are willing to question and test even their most treasured hypotheses. So much for the guy who tried to claim that they are all conformists.

DS said: ... So much for the guy who tried to claim that they are all conformists.

henry said:

DS said: ... So much for the guy who tried to claim that they are all conformists.

You got the wrong guy.

mplavcan said: ... Following this, when I point out that denial of evolutionary biology is associated with a denial of other "inconvenient" science -- like global warming -- you pop off and immediately deny global warming. What do you know about it? Anything? I am not an expert on it like I am on the fossils, but I do read the primary literature when I have questions (that's the actual literature, not a column in the Wall Street Journal, a Wikipedia article, or Discover magazine), I follow up claims by comparing the primary data and analyses of those involved (remarkably easy to do, actually), and most importantly, I place some degree of trust in the consensus view offered by the climatological community. While I won't say that it is completely proven fact, all the evidence suggests to me that anthropogenic global warming is real and is leading to climate change. As a non-expert, though, I would not feel at all comfortable challenging the climatologists on their home turf and calling them deluded fools. ...

So what do these 31,000 scientists have to say about the fact that the world's glaciers have almost completely melted away, the fact that temperatures have risen so high that the North Pole has no ice during the summer, and much of the ice shelves of the Antarctic coasts have broken away?

That, and what is the benefit of allowing the economy to grow if the population suffers due to environmental destruction that directly results from pollution? You are aware of the numerous environmental catastrophes in China and India due to industrial pollution, right?

Henry, nice scholarship there. I should learn from you to improve my own academic endeavors. To begin, please note that the headline of the website you refer to states that only 9029 of the signatures hold Ph.D's. But apart from that, you can read this little summary for a start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Apart from the fact that the article was not peer reviewed (though misleadingly presented as such), the statement was misleading, and many of the names were fraudulent, the petition is estimated to include only a small fraction of climatologists.

But that is just the petition. Even cursory background research on the article's claims shows that they have been largely debunked as shoddy science by the climatological community. I have every confidence that you will immediately delve into the primary literature and publications by climatologists to confirm this.

It is reassuring to see that, as I noted before, you apply the same high standards of academic excellence in your assessment of climate science as you do to evolutionary biology and related disciplines. The more you talk, the more assured I am in this.

henry said: petitionproject.org has a petition signed by at least 31,000 American scientists, including several hundred holding PhDs.

henry is back, changing the subject thusly.... petitionproject.org has a petition signed by at least 31,000 American scientists, including several hundred holding PhDs.

Hmmm. We seem to be on the same wavelength here. Of course, it's not hard to figure out. It's a shame Henry can't.

mpclavan writes... But apart from that, you can read this little summary for a start…

Henry wrote:

"You got the wrong guy."

Really? Please point out specifically where I stated that I was referring to you. In fact, I was not. Have you got some kind of a guilty conscience? Are you guilty of this as well? If so, you have unwittingly fallsified your own position.

Oh, and by the way, everyone can see that you completely failed to answer my questions. Why is that Henry? Did you get the research completely wrong again? Did you just read the news release and fail to read the actual paper again?

Just keep on quote mining polls Henry. Everyone can see your deluded approach to reality. You confirm all of the generalizations and sterotypes of the ugly creationsit for us. Thanks dude.

Three detailed rebuttals posted in the space of 8 minutes. It's a shame Henry didn't do any research before making his claim. But also typical.

{If (content=total_bullshit) then (subject=subject)1;}

So what's your next diversionary tactic, henry? AIDS=HIV denial? Come on, we're all a-quiver with antici....

oops. Syntax error:

(subject=subject+1)

{If (caught_bullshitting = TRUE) then (subject = subject+1;}

There, fixed it for you.

You had the wrong conditional. with henry, Content is always bullshit.

I stand corrected. Thanks, stevaroni. )

It seems to me that many PT posters spend a lot of time rebutting creationist or other denialist postings and posters. What I wouldn't give to have one of the denialists (sincerely) say something like, "Wow, I was really misguided. I've read your links, done some research, and found that I really was ignorant and misguided. I can now see that many of the people I've been listening to have not been telling me the truth, and I really have to re-evaluate my beliefs in light of the real world". And then come over to the pro-science side?

I don't remember ever seeing this in several years of following PT. Can anyone report any epiphanies like this, either personal or reading one here?

A takedown of Ruben and Quick's paper here. Don't be dissuaded by the title.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: I don't remember ever seeing this in several years of following PT. Can anyone report any epiphanies like this, either personal or reading one here?

mplavcan said: Henry, nice scholarship there. I should learn from you to improve my own academic endeavors. To begin, please note that the headline of the website you refer to states that only 9029 of the signatures hold Ph.D's. But apart from that, you can read this little summary for a start... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition Apart from the fact that the article was not peer reviewed (though misleadingly presented as such), the statement was misleading, and many of the names were fraudulent, the petition is estimated to include only a small fraction of climatologists. But that is just the petition. Even cursory background research on the article's claims shows that they have been largely debunked as shoddy science by the climatological community. I have every confidence that you will immediately delve into the primary literature and publications by climatologists to confirm this. It is reassuring to see that, as I noted before, you apply the same high standards of academic excellence in your assessment of climate science as you do to evolutionary biology and related disciplines. The more you talk, the more assured I am in this.

This is from www.globalwarmingheartland.org.

Fraud and Climate Change
News Releases > July 2009
Environment > Climate: NIPCC

Written By: Steve Williams
Published In: News Releases > July 2009
Publication date: 07/10/2009
Publisher: Victorville Daily Press

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

Ice will melt and polar bears will die. Humans are destroying the planet, global warming is the bomb, and it’s getting so hot that members of Congress couldn’t bother to read the massive Waxman-Markey pork bill that will save us by controlling CO2.

...

Tuesday we received, from the Heartland Institute in Chicago, the results of a study titled, “Climate Change Reconsidered.” The Heartland Institute, you may not know, conducted the study because it felt the original evidence regarding climate change should be examined, with an eye to providing a second opinion about the massive changes Congress is contemplating. What the Institute concluded is that catastrophic global warming theory appears more fraudulent by the day, and without a global warming crisis the government can’t sell this oppressive tax on prosperity.

The Institute says that, “There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather or landscape.”

...
What Waxman-Markey -- “cap and trade” -- is doing is trying to suppress the release of this CO2, at terrible cost to people in the form of regulating energy producers, business and the like. It is a fool’s errand.

At this point in the debate, Americans are starting to feel deceived, as they should, and scientists are speaking out. In the face of the skepticism, of course, Waxman-Markey marches on in true liberal tradition, i.e., we don’t care what you think, or what the facts are, we’ve got the votes so we’re going to do as we please.

For "Heartland Institute", read "Big-industry Greedoids without morals or conscience".

For "examined" read "buried".

For "second opinion", read "evidence-free statement of personal prejudice".

For "this oppressive tax" read "any tax at all, really".

For "prosperity" read "rip-off profits".

For "no experimental data" read "no evidence that we can't shut our eyes to".

For "liberal" read "non-insane".

For "i.e." read "This is our real attitude".

For "votes" read "money".

henry, Tell us again why we should trust any word you quotemine when you have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you have less integrity and less honesty than a used car salesman?

Stanton said: henry, Tell us again why we should trust any word you quotemine when you have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you have less integrity and less honesty than a used car salesman?

In this book, Hulme comes clean about the uncertain state of scientific knowledge about global warming

Honestly Henry, this is silly. Your quote comes from "icecap.us", which is a denialist web site. It has an article, at least this morning, written by Senator Inhofe, who's opinions and behavior towards science have left me less than impressed in the past, to say the least. The book review that you cite pulls a few quotes from Hulme's book to make him look bad. Note the prominent display of Hulme's statement that he is a "socialist" -- a word used by the right in this country to scare people, akin to "communist", "atheist", "mass murderer", "child molester", and, dear God Martha hide the children in the root cellar -- "liberal." In point of fact Hulme is arguing against media and activists *over*-reaction (as he views it) to climate change, which he clearly and unambiguously feels is happening, and is anthropogenic in cause.

But this is way off-topic. It started as a point that people who deny evolutionary biology tend to deny other sciences that conflict with their religious or ideological views. You have confirmed this point with a glorious vigor. But if you want to further deny-- er, discuss -- climate change, why don't you go over to RealClimate.org and "debate" some climatologists.

mplavcan said: But if you want to further deny-- er, discuss -- climate change, why don't you go over to RealClimate.org and "debate" some climatologists.

Caught bullshitting, again, henry.

Time to change the subject.

phantomreader42 said:

Stanton said: henry, Tell us again why we should trust any word you quotemine when you have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you have less integrity and less honesty than a used car salesman?

Don't you know? Anything some nutjob posts on the Internet magically becomes true! And we owe it all to henry, admitted embezzler and pedophile, for showing us this amazing life-changing principle! :P

henry requrgitated: (a load of bullshit propaganda beloved of paranoid homophobic closet cases)

And henry, in case you're actually stupid enough to think you've stumbled upon some top-secret document detailing the plans of Teh Ghey Agenduh, let me point out to you the whole thing's a farce, a satire, a fantasy. And has been known as such for years, in fact it says so in the first few lines that psychotic homophobes such as yourself always omit when they post this trash. This shit you're posting is as credible as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And since you're obviously a stupid, delusional, paranoid conspiracy theorist, I should also remind you that the Protocols were an anti-semitic hoax.

Henry,

I suppose it never occurred to you (or Dobson) that a guy who chooses the pen name "Swift" might be attempting satire?

In any event, your diatribe doesn't refute phantomreader's point, it reinforces it. Just because its published does not make it true. Which is why scientists insist on peer review and independent reproducibility wherever possible, and why a quote from a Dobson book is not as valuable as a peer-reviewed journal article on climate change.

eric said: Henry, I suppose it never occurred to you (or Dobson) that a guy who chooses the pen name "Swift" might be attempting satire?

fnxtr said: Caught bullshitting, again, henry. Time to change the subject.

phantomreader42 said: And henry, in case you're actually stupid enough to think you've stumbled upon some top-secret document detailing the plans of Teh Ghey Agenduh, let me point out to you the whole thing's a farce, a satire, a fantasy. And has been known as such for years, in fact it says so in the first few lines that psychotic homophobes such as yourself always omit when they post this trash. This shit you're posting is as credible as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And since you're obviously a stupid, delusional, paranoid conspiracy theorist, I should also remind you that the Protocols were an anti-semitic hoax.

stevaroni said:

Didn’t Pasteur show that spontaneous generation was not possible, thereby proving that Darwin’s abiogenesis, the basis of his theory of evolution, is false?

Um, no. In the 1860's Pasteur demonstrated the the prevailing theory of how bacteria and mold got into spoiling food - that they magically "poofed" into existence de novo - was wrong. Pasteur demonstrated that once all the bacteria inside a sealed container were killed (through, say, boiling), the food inside would not spoil. No matter how you'd like to conflate it, the demonstration that complex organisms with millions of genes don't magically poof into existence inside the tiny volume of a sealed can of beans over the tiny time span of a few decades is significantly different from demonstrating that over 300 million years, in the entire volume of all the worlds seas, with all the energy input of the sun churning them, it was impossible for a single self-replicating molecule to form. Especially since experiments along these lines have already demonstrated they can.

Ah, henry, I see you've noticed you were caught bullshitting yet again, so you have to regurgitate more bullshit lies from creationist strawman factories.

I'm starting to wonder if there's a real human being typing on your end at all, or just a poorly-written computer program.

henry said:

phantomreader42 said: And henry, in case you're actually stupid enough to think you've stumbled upon some top-secret document detailing the plans of Teh Ghey Agenduh, let me point out to you the whole thing's a farce, a satire, a fantasy. And has been known as such for years, in fact it says so in the first few lines that psychotic homophobes such as yourself always omit when they post this trash. This shit you're posting is as credible as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And since you're obviously a stupid, delusional, paranoid conspiracy theorist, I should also remind you that the Protocols were an anti-semitic hoax.

The age of consent for homosexual intercourse between adult males was lowered to 16 in the UK. 14 in Canada, 15 in Sweden, 15 in France, 14 in Germany, Iceland, Italy, San Marino, and Slovenia, and 12 in Spain, Holland, Malta, and Portugal. It looks like a very militant gay agenda.

henry regurgitated outright lies from the Idiotic for Creationist Racket: Our September 2008 issue featured the article "Werner Arber: Nobel Laureate, Darwin Skeptic" by Dr. Jerry Bergman

Although Dr. Arber indicates that he supports the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution

henry said: Our September 2008 issue ...Acts & Facts. 38 (6): 6.

Oh, henry has issues, all right.

Plenty of issues.

Oh, by the way, henry: Q.E. effin' D. :-)

So henry has, once again, demonstrated that he is a textbook example of the typical creationist, a hybrid of idiot and liar.

henry prattles... "Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about.... How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." While not an admission that God is Creator, Dr. Arber demonstrates a level of genuine intellectual honesty that other evolutionists are afraid to reveal.

stevaroni said: But henry, enough quotemining and homophobia. When are you going to put some evidence on the table? [cue change of subject]

after Cthullu finally wakes up.

phantomreader42 said:

henry said:

phantomreader42 said: And henry, in case you're actually stupid enough to think you've stumbled upon some top-secret document detailing the plans of Teh Ghey Agenduh, let me point out to you the whole thing's a farce, a satire, a fantasy. And has been known as such for years, in fact it says so in the first few lines that psychotic homophobes such as yourself always omit when they post this trash. This shit you're posting is as credible as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And since you're obviously a stupid, delusional, paranoid conspiracy theorist, I should also remind you that the Protocols were an anti-semitic hoax.

The age of consent for homosexual intercourse between adult males was lowered to 16 in the UK. 14 in Canada, 15 in Sweden, 15 in France, 14 in Germany, Iceland, Italy, San Marino, and Slovenia, and 12 in Spain, Holland, Malta, and Portugal. It looks like a very militant gay agenda.

I'd ask you to check if this is consistent with the age of consent for heterosexual relationships in those countries, but I know that would involve research and you'd rather die than learn anything. And everyone noticed that you're dodging the fact that the "manifesto" you cited is a fake, satire presented as fact to gullible morons such as yourself by a professional liar.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying. Why do theists lie so much? Don't they know they're going to get caught? Isn't it against the Christian faith to lie?

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying.

mplavcan said: I did a quick (emphasis on quick) check on the web, and as far as I can see, what Henry appears to be referring to is the change of age of consent laws to equalize ages for homosexual and heterosexual age of consent in at least some of these countries. Anyone with more time have details? Now apart from the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, I would ask Henry again if he has any actual evidence for any scientific questions presented to him? I am dying to know, but not holding my breath here.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying.

Henry wrote:

"If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public’s ignorance would be confirmed."

You're doing a fine job of that all by yourself lad.

As long as you are so into statistics, perhaps you could tell us what percentage of Americans derive benefits from science and technology and the percentage of those who merely tolerate it or those who reject it outright. Perhaps you could then inform us of the word that would properly describe these individuals contained in both sets. Perhaps you could then inform us why that term should not be applied to you as well.

henry said:

mplavcan said: I did a quick (emphasis on quick) check on the web, and as far as I can see, what Henry appears to be referring to is the change of age of consent laws to equalize ages for homosexual and heterosexual age of consent in at least some of these countries. Anyone with more time have details? Now apart from the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, I would ask Henry again if he has any actual evidence for any scientific questions presented to him? I am dying to know, but not holding my breath here.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying.

Thanks for doing the quick check. I still don't understand why you claimed the Pew Research study showed that a majority of Americans reject science. Was it because the percentages were not high enough? [84% positive toward science and 70% positive toward scientists were not high enough] Or was it because the percentages were not low enough? If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public's ignorance would be confirmed.

Okay, now that we've established that henry's posts are approximately 100% bullshit, can we just state that fact every time he takes a dump here, refer back to previous exposed bullshit, and move on? Really, he's not worth arguing with over and over and over...

fnxtr said: Okay, now that we've established that henry's posts are approximately 100% bullshit, can we just state that fact every time he takes a dump here, refer back to previous exposed bullshit, and move on? Really, he's not worth arguing with over and over and over...

fnxtr wrote:

"Okay, now that we’ve established that henry’s posts are approximately 100% bullshit, can we just state that fact every time he takes a dump here, refer back to previous exposed bullshit, and move on? Really, he’s not worth arguing with over and over and over…"

How about:

Henry said it, I don't believe it and that's that.

What, you think that isn't an appropriate response for a real scientist. Well I know someone you should inform. He runs a real scientifical museumy thingy.

henry said: Thanks for doing the quick check. I still don't understand why you claimed the Pew Research study showed that a majority of Americans reject science. Was it because the percentages were not high enough? [84% positive toward science and 70% positive toward scientists were not high enough] Or was it because the percentages were not low enough? If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public's ignorance would be confirmed.

DS said: How about: Henry said it, I don't believe it and that's that. What, you think that isn't an appropriate response for a real scientist. Well I know someone you should inform. He runs a real scientifical museumy thingy.

fnxtr said:

DS said: How about: Henry said it, I don't believe it and that's that. What, you think that isn't an appropriate response for a real scientist. Well I know someone you should inform. He runs a real scientifical museumy thingy.

How about: "henry, everything you've posted so far is utter bullshit (insert link to anything henry has posted), we're not believing this new bullshit either. Please go away."

mplavcan said: Once again, your selective reading leaves me a bit perplexed. My original post noted that Answers in Genesis celebrated the fact that a majority of Americans reject science. This is based on the fact that only 32% accept the fact that humans evolved. It is as close to proven fact as any science can come. Science has demonstrated that humans evolved. Only 32% of Americans accept this. Ergo, the majority of Americans reject science. Answers in Genesis is happy with this result. Is this so hard to understand? Let's put it this way -- if a poll found that 84% of Americans claimed to respect laws against drunk driving, but only 32% of them believed that they were obliged to and actually did follow them, would you then conclude that Americans respected laws against drunk driving? Of course, you reject evolution, and therefore science (as well as climatology, apparently), while claiming to support science, serving as an exemplar of the problem. As for the (irrelevant) gay numbers. Yes I did fact check them, albeit weakly. However, let's be extremely clear that my view is that these countries are simply implementing a fair justice system by making age of consent equal without regard to the gender or sex of the individuals involved in a consensual act. There is no indication that this represents anything like a militant gay agenda, and in no way supports the vile hate-filled filth that you endorse. I am still waiting for ANY evidence about any scientific topic. I assume that your failure to provide any, in spite of your willingness to post comments, indicates that you have none. End of discussion.

henry said: Thanks for doing the quick check. I still don't understand why you claimed the Pew Research study showed that a majority of Americans reject science. Was it because the percentages were not high enough? [84% positive toward science and 70% positive toward scientists were not high enough] Or was it because the percentages were not low enough? If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public's ignorance would be confirmed.

henry, we already know every word from you is a lie. No one here is falling for your bullshit.

150 years later and Henry has still to read a real scientific paper. He just keeps quoting creationist nonsense that he knows full well is rejected by every real scientist. Way to go Henry. Just keep your head stuck in the sand while people come by and whack your ignorant behind.

Henry said it, I don't believe it and that's that.

henry said: Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

It's pointless responding to henry. He's just a cut-and-paste robot. Nothing to see here...

If anyone questions why we don't respond to Henry anymore, just read some of the crap this fool has posted over the last three months. He hasn't read a single reference or even answered a single question. All he is capable of is quoting long discredited creationist nonsense.

If anyone is interested in transitional forms, here is a link with references to hundreds:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

When Henry sees fit to give his explanation for this evidence maybe then someone will take him seriously, or maybe not.

eric said: Riiiiight. And there are no transitional states between "baby" and "adult" because every 10-year-old has fully formed limbs and a torso. Henry, when are you guys going to ditch your 18th-century crocoduck definition of 'transitional' in favor of one that considers 20th-century genetics and development?

DS said: If anyone questions why we don't respond to Henry anymore, just read some of the crap this fool has posted over the last three months. He hasn't read a single reference or even answered a single question. All he is capable of is quoting long discredited creationist nonsense. If anyone is interested in transitional forms, here is a link with references to hundreds: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html When Henry sees fit to give his explanation for this evidence maybe then someone will take him seriously, or maybe not.

"Creation Wiki" !???!??!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Thanks, henry, that made my day.

henry said:

DS said: If anyone questions why we don't respond to Henry anymore, just read some of the crap this fool has posted over the last three months. He hasn't read a single reference or even answered a single question. All he is capable of is quoting long discredited creationist nonsense. If anyone is interested in transitional forms, here is a link with references to hundreds: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html When Henry sees fit to give his explanation for this evidence maybe then someone will take him seriously, or maybe not.

The talkorigins website has a link to Creation Wiki rebuttal, which has a response to each point.

fnxtr said: "Creation Wiki" !???!??! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Thanks, henry, that made my day.

Trolling for Grades, more like. Notice there were no quality criteria for the posts, just quantity.

stevaroni said:

henry prattles... "Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about.... How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." While not an admission that God is Creator, Dr. Arber demonstrates a level of genuine intellectual honesty that other evolutionists are afraid to reveal.

Intellectual honesty? What are you talking about? Strip out all the elliptical speech and Arber says "I don't know about abiogenesis. Therefore I presume God". Fair enough. That's the man's position, and he's entitled to it. But there are three elephants in the room. First, he has no actual evidence of the hand of God, now does he? His presumption is entirely negative, based wholly on, well, something other than observable fact. Secondly, I assume this means he's OK with everything after the first cells. This conveniently, is the entirety of Darwininan evolution Your expert, Dr Arber, is, in fact, a Darwinist! The Horror! Thirdly, just for the record, Science doesn't know how the first cells came about either. That was long ago and far away and left precious little evidence in the sands of time. Nobody (outside of creationist circles) tries to hide the admission that science doesn't know everything. But what science has done is demonstrate that there are several plausible paths to those first cells (actually more like those first organelles), and that demonstration torpedoes the basic tenant of Arber's brand of creationism, that there's no conceivable mechanism except for God. But henry, enough quotemining and homophobia. When are you going to put some evidence on the table? [cue change of subject]

henry said: The beginning of life experiments that you think provide paths to those first cells must not be adequate to Dr. Arber. The gap is too great to reach the first living self replicating cells. If Dr. Arber has to insert a Creator into the picture at the beginnning of life, could there be other gaps that evolution can't handle?

Dave Luckett said: But to say that nobody knows, and therefore that it must be God, is to argue from ignorance. It doesn't follow.

Henry wrote:

"The talkorigins website has a link to Creation Wiki rebuttal, which has a response to each point."

Great. So you shouldn't have any trouble giving your response now should you? Notice that:"God wanted it that way" is not an argument since it does not allow one to distinguish between hypotheses. You must explain exactly why God wanted it to appear that organisms had indeed evolved and why all of the evidence is consistent with this hypothesis.

"One man’s scientific fact is another man’s leap of faith."

Perhaps, but ignoring all scientific facts in order to make unwarranted leaps of faith has not proven to be a productive approach. If you don't think that a scientific conclusion is supported by enough evidence fine, but you can't just assume an alternative for which there is no evidenc whatsoever. That would be a double standard so blantatly obvious as to remove you from condsideration in any rational discussion.

henry said: One man's scientific fact is another man's leap of faith.

Henry reaches back to a 2 week old comment to equivocate thusly... One man’s scientific fact is another man’s leap of faith.

The beginning of life experiments that you think provide paths to those first cells must not be adequate to Dr. Arber.

The gap is too great to reach the first living self replicating cells.

Since this has

a) gotten off the original topic,
b) turned into a beat-down of Henry, and
c) been going on for over six weeks now,

I'm going to shut-down comments.

Run along and play in another thread :)