The truth hurts

Eh, well now it's open again, and post #32 is on a 3rd or 4th version. I'm off to do laundry though...

I swear; it never fails. Gilson’s immediate “rejoinder” is to jump right into the exegesis-hermeneutics-etymology-word gaming shtick.

And the “different conclusions from different philosophical perspectives” is alive and well.

I guess New York City exists or doesn’t exist depending on your “philosophical perspective”.

That would mean that the denizens of New York City, like Schrödinger’s poor cat, remain in a superposition of quantum states of existence and non-existence. Only one state falls out depending on one’s “philosophical perspective.”

Commentors there are saying things variously from "Dover and the Wedge don't matter in a post-2005 world," to accusations of bigotry.
Still, I'm lending my voice for a case of ID=Creationism. I pointed out that there are other kinds of "Creationism" that don't depend on Genesis at all (Vedic), then went into why the ID movement has always been Creationists a la Creation Science. It's all been said before in the thread, but eh. Maybe something will click.

The Dishonesty Institute has pretty much given up trying to pretend ID isn't creationism and the Designer isn't Jesus. They just hired 3 new people, some or all of them are YECs.

They spend a huge amount of time speaking to fundie xian church groups.

There are many more “genetic” connections between ID and creationism than Gilson realizes or can comprehend. The politics of morphing to avoid the 1987 Supreme Court decision still can’t hide these connections; it’s in their “genes” just like the genetic markers in the descendants of common ancestors.

Going back into the 1970s with Gish, Morris, and the Creation Research Institute, the misconceptions about scientific concepts have remained pretty consistent. When the misuses of second law of thermodynamics and entropy were pointed out to the creationists, these same misuses simply found their way into the concepts of “irreducible complexity” and “complex specified information” in the way these pseudo-science concepts latch onto uniform samplings of random sets. There are those invented terms “genetic entropy” and “entropy barriers” that keep popping up a few months after they are repeatedly slapped down.

Then there is the genetic inheritance of that propensity to quote-mine and misrepresent the words of scientists and the evidence of science. I wonder if Gilson approves of this constant misrepresentation by people who are admonished by their bible not to bear false witness.

The “philosophical materialism” shtick may have been formalized by Phillip Johnson, but its roots still go back to the creationists’ insistence on the literal reading of the Christian bible, along with the seven or eight “fundamental truths” against which all else must be compared.

Assuming these “fundamentals” automatically implies that the evidence and conclusions of science are wrong. There has never been any such thing as objectively verifiable evidence to the fundamentalist. That theme continues to run through the “different conclusions from different perspectives” shtick. This theme in itself continues to be hard evidence that these fundamentalists still don’t understand science and that creationism is genetically linked to ID.

I wonder how Gilson explains away these genetic markers.

raven said: The Dishonesty Institute has pretty much given up trying to pretend ID isn't creationism and the Designer isn't Jesus. They just hired 3 new people, some or all of them are YECs. They spend a huge amount of time speaking to fundie xian church groups.

Gilson warns about "rhetorical approaches" while conveniently being duped by ID which is itself a "rhetorical approach" to creationism. There are none so blind as those who are too conveniently duped!

386sx said: Gilson warns about "rhetorical approaches" while conveniently being duped by ID which is itself a "rhetorical approach" to creationism. There are none so blind as those who are too conveniently duped!

I long called intelligent-design creationism by the name its advocates prefer. But Dembski and Marks have a section entitled "Intelligence Creates Information" in their chapter of the forthcoming "Nature of Nature" volume. They hold that information is physical stuff, and maintain that unobservable, non-material intelligence is natural. If you say that something invisible and immaterial creates physical stuff out of nothing, it doesn't matter if the stuff is a bit of physical information or a gram of gold -- you are a neo-creationist, and the neo- is clear enough in intelligent-design creationist. A vacuous declaration that intelligence is natural, reversing without explanation the long-held position that intelligence is non-natural, does not make IDC into science.

BTW, the shift in stance on the status of intelligence came about the time of the "Nature of Nature" conference, as best I can tell. To my knowledge, no one announced or explained the logically and theologically atrocious change. In my opinion, many Christians who will accept the global search-and-replace transition from creation science to intelligent design as realpolitik will not forgive redefinition of the supernatural Creator's intelligence as natural. If you know something about what actually happened, first click on my name to go to my website, and then on "send email." Thanks.

Tom -- that's a really interesting insight. For awhile I have been noticing a subcurrent in ID which sort of admits that methodological naturalism is actually OK, and that ID doesn't violate it. This contradicts a major ID current, which is death on methodological naturalism. Your observation may help explain it.

Another factor may well be that it was quite hard to argue against methodological naturalism, and also assert that ID wasn't an argument for supernaturalism.

(Also, they basically think that the human mind is a supernatural soul, and from that perspective it may be no great loss to take the supernatural soul, call it "natural", and get supernaturalism into science that way.)

I'll run with that just a bit further, Nick, not to derail your thread. You probably have seen the transcript of Dembski's talk at a Baptist church, in which he indicates that angels might have done the designing for God. He can also get mileage out of the Trinity. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is with us, and Dembski may feel comfortable treating it as an immaterial, purposive, creative intelligence pervading nature.

I believe that the shift from non-natural to natural intelligence was politically expedient. Federal case law prohibits teaching about the supernatural in public-school science classes, and saying "non-natural" instead of "supernatural" was a lame dodge. Surely the IDC strategists realized this.

The change makes "sciencey" rhetoric easier for IDC proponents. But it really places IDC on no better scientific ground. To claim that something immaterial and invisible has created physical stuff out of nothing is to invoke a miracle. All who oppose IDC, be they theistic, non-theistic, anti-theistic, deistic, or agnostic, agree that scientific explanations cannot include the famous "then a miracle occurs" step — even those who believe that miracles really do occur.

To claim that something immaterial and invisible has purposefully created physical stuff out of nothing is to invoke a miracle.

I used to be confused but now I don't know what to think...

It would seem like they haven't bothered to think through this idea of redefining God on the back end as natural. That might let creationism get taught in school, but then we'd actually be able to head on address the issue and actually say this is wrong because... Instead of being able to say only evolution happened because...
It seems like a small change on some level, but in terms of improving pedagogy that freedom could be quite profound.

Somehow I cannot understand how anyone could read C@$ey Lu$k1n or Deny$ 0'Le@ry and think that ID was anything more than old creation science in "disruptive camouflage". (That's a military type term involving camo paint applied in deliberately irregular patterns, but it somehow seems particularly apt here.)

However, the primary difference between ID and old creation science is that ID is evasive about the nature of the Designer (though for various reasons less and less so over time), and that IS a big deal to many old-line creationists.

I rub along well enough with fairly conservative Christians, but I used to work with a guy who could not blow his nose without consulting the Lord on the matter. Never was the term "God botherer" more apt, I kept wondering why the Lord didn't tell him: "I appreciate the regard, but you might be able to figure out most of these things on your own, you know."

Anyway, it makes no sense to such folk to avoid talking about God even if they realize it's counterproductive to do so.
I find that referring to Mysterious Alien Designers (or Functional Equivalent) seems to get a DOES NOT COMPUTE reaction from them.

i tend to think of ID as an umbrella term (and movement) for any and all kinds of Creationism, which could range from YEC, to OEC to Progressive Creationism, to some kind of guided salationist evolution, or even, evolution guided and planned by space aliens or committees of evil demons (or of course the flying spaghetti monster).

That as I understand was more or less the explicit goal: unite all the anti-materialists together and try to persuade the theistic evolutionists they are wrong. A lot of ID arguments at least implicitly seem to accept some evolution.

I think its fair to call them Creationists though because they are still arguing for some kind of special act of Creation somewhere, sometime. And they clearly play to the YEC base.

Chip Poirot said: i tend to think of ID as an umbrella term (and movement) for any and all kinds of Creationism, which could range from YEC, to OEC to Progressive Creationism, to some kind of guided salationist evolution, or even, evolution guided and planned by space aliens or committees of evil demons (or of course the flying spaghetti monster).

wile coyote said: Somehow I cannot understand how anyone could read C@$ey Lu$k1n or Deny$ 0'Le@ry and think that ID was anything more than old creation science in "disruptive camouflage". (That's a military type term involving camo paint applied in deliberately irregular patterns, but it somehow seems particularly apt here.) However, the primary difference between ID and old creation science is that ID is evasive about the nature of the Designer (though for various reasons less and less so over time), and that IS a big deal to many old-line creationists. I rub along well enough with fairly conservative Christians, but I used to work with a guy who could not blow his nose without consulting the Lord on the matter. Never was the term "God botherer" more apt, I kept wondering why the Lord didn't tell him: "I appreciate the regard, but you might be able to figure out most of these things on your own, you know." Anyway, it makes no sense to such folk to avoid talking about God even if they realize it's counterproductive to do so. I find that referring to Mysterious Alien Designers (or Functional Equivalent) seems to get a DOES NOT COMPUTE reaction from them.

"Creationism is rooted in design, not the other way around. Falsify design, and you falsify creationism. The converse is not true, therefore, creationism does not equal ID. This is basic logic." ---Salvador Cordova

There are many more “genetic” connections between ID and creationism than Gilson realizes or can comprehend.

They hold that information is physical stuff, and maintain that unobservable, non-material intelligence is natural.

I found the whole thread disturbingly similar to a "how many angels..." debate.
Yeah, okay, so there might be some theoretical definition of ID which separates it from creationism. So what? Many things are possible in theory, but in actuality the people throwing around the ID hypothesis DO use it to attempt to sneak religion into HS science curricula. At the same time, they DO NOT use it as a basis for scientific work. Could they? Hypothetically, yes. DO they? No. Not for the 20+ years of the term's history.

If we accept Tom Gilson's claim that there is an "honest ID" which is entirely separate from creationism, the best we can say is that its proponents are completely drowned out of the debate by the much more prominent and vocal "cynical ID" proponents, who merely use the term to get around the 1st amendment restrictions on teaching religion.

It almost doesn't matter whether this "honest ID" exists if its proponents continue to remain absent from the public debate. Furthermore, I have to say that it completely undermines their credibility when - as in Tom's case - the people who claim to be part of the "honest ID" movement absolutely refuse to admit the cynical ID folk exist and refuse to argue against them.
I'd get royally ticked off if someone were to misuse a scientific term in order to push their social agenda. Where is Tom's anger, his indignation, at people who are doing the same thing to the term Design? If he is a supporter of a non-creationist ID, then he should be excoriating the authors of Pandas for what they did, not avoiding the subject.

"Looks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Walks like a duck. Swims like a duck. Might be a duck."

One of my impressions from perfunctionary skimming of ID "theories" is that there isn't one, more like a huge number. In the absence of research and data, it is just myth making.

In some formulations, jesus pops another species into existence ex nihilo every once in a while when no one is watching.

In others, jesus is the puppetmaster behind the scenes, somehow guiding species to evolve in the direction he wants them to go.

Some IDists are YECS. Presumably jesus created everything all at once and the biosphere is running down from the fall. Soon, it will resemble a huge collection of plant, animal, and human zombies, deformed creatures lurching about on their daily activities. Then god will show up and kill everyone. Quite the warm fuzzy version of the xian religion.

Most of them just leave the how and when details blank.

How long must we suffer this charade? We know the designer = God, that's what the Bible says too. ID, RIP.

Rolf Aalberg said: How long must we suffer this charade?

Look, guys, the difference is obvious.

To a Creationist, God created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it.

To the ID proponent, Intelligent Designers, who just incidentally had Godlike powers but for the sake of argument may or may not have actually been God, created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it.

There. Understand the difference now?

Rolf: How long must we suffer this charade?

Soon, it will resemble a huge collection of plant, animal, and human zombies, deformed creatures lurching about on their daily activities.

eric said: At the same time, they DO NOT use [the ID hypothesis] as a basis for scientific work. Could they? Hypothetically, yes.

stevaroni said: There. Understand the difference now?

As with many of these kinds of debates it really comes down to definitions. It is apparent to me that people on either side of the debate are using different definitions of the word "creationism".

One restricts the term to the narrowest possible definition: what is commonly referred to as Young Earth Creationism. This definition states that a theory can only be considered creationist if it relies entirely on the book of Genesis for it's premises and conclusions. Without that key ingredient a theory must be considered something other than creationism. It's clear that this is the definition that TC is using. According to the TC post: "Creationism begins in Genesis and argues for certain conclusions based on a certain understanding of the Scriptures." By this definition ID is certainly not creationism because belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is not required to believe that ID is accurate.

The other broadens the definition to include any hypothesis/theory that requires some independent act of creation to occur, whether that be the creation of the entire universe in 6 days by The Almighty, the creation of each individual species over time, or the creation of each individual beneficial mutation in our DNA. There are many theories that fall under this definition (Young Earth Creationism, Progressive or Old Earth Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, etc...). The common thread is that they each state that creation occurred, but they each differ on exactly when and where. By this definition ID is certainly creationism because it requires multiple independent acts of creation to account for the existence of "certain features of the universe and of living things".

The real argument in the end is over which definition is the more accurate one. In my personal opinion the less restrictive definition is the more accurate one since it encompasses all acts of creation, not just the literal 6 days of Genesis. That is, after all, why it's called "creation"-ism and not "biblical-literal"-ism. On the other hand, I can understand why ID proponents try so hard to enforce the more restrictive definition. The term "creationism" has immediate and well deserved negative overtones. TC admits as much in the original post: "It is known for its persistence in seeking scientific data that fits that interpretation of Genesis, and for finding creative but irregular interpretations to help in that search. As such it has gained an unsavory scientific reputation." It is imperative for ID to distance itself as much as possible from the term, and using the most restrictive definition possible ensures that ID is left far outside of the creationist sphere. For that reason I doubt that ID proponents will ever admit to any other definition, whether they believe it to be the better descriptor or not.

Venture Free said: It is imperative for ID to distance itself as much as possible from the term, and using the most restrictive definition possible ensures that ID is left far outside of the creationist sphere. For that reason I doubt that ID proponents will ever admit to any other definition, whether they believe it to be the better descriptor or not.

SWT said:

eric said: At the same time, they DO NOT use [the ID hypothesis] as a basis for scientific work. Could they? Hypothetically, yes.

Really? How would that work?

Whether or not separation from creationism is an imperative for ID, the fact remains that they get the science wrong in the same fundamental ways.

It is significant that "Young Earth Creationism" was nearly non-existent for much of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. But there certainly was a popular anti-evolutionary movement deserving of the name "creationism". YEC revived with "The Genesis Flood" of Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in 1961.

If "Intelligent Design" is not creationism because it does not insist upon a "young earth", then people such as William Jennings Bryan were not creationists, either.

stevaroni said:

Whether or not separation from creationism is an imperative for ID, the fact remains that they get the science wrong in the same fundamental ways.

Actually, Mike, it's not that they get the science wrong, it's that they don't actually use any science to begin with.

I was going to post a follow-up comment, but I see Gilson has basically shut his mind to further discussion while trying to appear otherwise. He's basically admitted that ID is "Creationism" when that's used to mean something other than "begins with Genesis," but insists that he's not going to use that valid definition and instead stick to his/the DI's own definition. He argues that Thaxton used the c-word as a placeholder in Pandas, but ignores that Kenyon did not. So it appears his problem is one of being overly-selective. He thinks he has a new kind of lizard just because the lizard shed its skin and pretty much won't listen to arguments to the contrary.

Maybe I'll follow up after some time away from it.

Yeah, I thought about asking him to cite his definition for ID. Its hard to argue convincingly that the definition of ID has changed significantly from the Pandas one without citing some new formal definition.

But then I thought, what would be the point? I know that if he bothers to answer, it'll be squishy, and he'll probably just punt.

I've added this comment explaining the "C" in "IDC" to the Sidewiki at Uncommon Descent. (Google Sidewiki is a new tool that allows you to augment the content of webpages in a sidebar.)

I believe that Sidewiki will catch on. The order in which comments appear in the sidebar is determined by votes on their usefulness. I would appreciate your votes.

This reminds me of the early days of the Internet when anyone who broke into other peoples' computers was called a "hacker". The people who did this for sport objected to being lumped in with the ones who did it with criminal intent and tried to make a distinction between "hackers" and "crackers". Few people were interested in that distinction; if you break into computers, you're a hacker, regardless of your motive. I doubt Gilson will succeed, either. To me, and I suspect most people who follow this issue, if you think something supernatural happened, you're a creationist, regardless of what the supernatural "designer" was or when the work was done.

They just put different labels on the same rot.

It is known for its persistence in seeking scientific data that fits that interpretation of Genesis, and for finding creative but irregular interpretations to help in that search. As such it has gained an unsavory scientific reputation.

Does anyone know TC's opinion on the age of life and common descent? If he agrees with Behe ("~4 billion years" and "yes" respectively) and has stated clearly that both young-earth and old-earth interpretations of Genesis do not fit the evidence, that might help his ID vs. creationism case. At least to make it a little more than a cheap bait-and-switch of definitions.

Venture Free said: Mike:

They just put different labels on the same rot.

On that note, I found the following quote particularly hilarious (referring to his own definition of Creationism):

It is known for its persistence in seeking scientific data that fits that interpretation of Genesis, and for finding creative but irregular interpretations to help in that search. As such it has gained an unsavory scientific reputation.

Tell me that's not a near perfect description of Intelligent Design. Just delete "of Genesis" and it's ID exactly (and most cdesign proponentsists would probably be content to leave that part in, though they'd never admit it publicly).

I recently got a book from the library on a lark. It's "The 10 things you should know about the Creation vs Evolution Debate". Page 142 is incredibly eye opening. The little section dealt with the criticisms that Young Earth Theorists throw at ID (basically that under the assumption that anything could be the designer, it opens the door to new age religions like Scientology). The author basically explains that the language of ID is set up to say whatever it takes to be heard in the social and legislative arena and that if some non-Christians are involved, it may help to deflect charges of religious bias. He basically states that "Intelligent Design theorists have prepared the turf; creationists now need to build on that prepared turf". The fact that this author doesn't even hide the fact that this stuff is intellectual garbage and just about forcing religion on people...well I thought he would at least try to sugar coat it. To be able to morally say or do anything to justify your position...that's a frightening place to be if you ask me.

Sorry about the long posting and kind of hijacking the thread here.

Mike Elzinga said: I swear; it never fails. Gilson’s immediate “rejoinder” is to jump right into the exegesis-hermeneutics-etymology-word gaming shtick. And the “different conclusions from different philosophical perspectives” is alive and well. I guess New York City exists or doesn’t exist depending on your “philosophical perspective”. That would mean that the denizens of New York City, like Schrödinger’s poor cat, remain in a superposition of quantum states of existence and non-existence. Only one state falls out depending on one’s “philosophical perspective.”

John Kwok said: Yeah Mike, I'm from New York City, so obviously I must exist as a figment of Gilson's imagination:

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: Yeah Mike, I'm from New York City, so obviously I must exist as a figment of Gilson's imagination:

Something else appears to be a figment of Gilson’s imagination. He is insisting that people stay on topic; as if they are off topic. It was Gilson who raise the description of intelligent design as “seeing the high information content in biological organisms”. It was Gilson who brought up “irreducible complexity” and “fine tuning of the cosmos.” It was Gilson who brought up “a completely different starting point in observations of nature” and “both empirical and philosophical interpretations of scientific data.” Now he is accusing Nick, you and others of changing the subject and going off topic. Just what does he think he is describing with the term “intelligent design?” How does he think that the interpretation of objectively verifiable evidence is simply a matter of “philosophical perspective?” Either this guy is seriously duped and confused, or he is attempting to find another “respectable” interpretation of ID. I have seen this behavior before. Whenever someone makes a valid criticism about the pseudo-science of ID, supporters who are in control of the discussion shut it down.

Mike Elzinga said: I get the impression he (Tom Gilson) really wants to believe that ID from the clowns at DI is somehow intellectually honest.

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: I get the impression he (Tom Gilson) really wants to believe that ID from the clowns at DI is somehow intellectually honest.

Even the most casual observer of these pages will likely do a double-take on seeing mention of the Dishonesty Institute and the term "intellectually honest" in the same sentence. Everybody should understand by now that the entire farce of intelligent design creationism is a deliberate scam by the DI (and their dupes and minions) to get Genesis back into the curriculum, and by the way, destroy biology and all other sciences because science disagrees with their Bronze Age creation mythology.

Mike Elzinga said: Either this guy is seriously duped and confused, or he is attempting to find another “respectable” interpretation of ID. I have seen this behavior before. Whenever someone makes a valid criticism about the pseudo-science of ID, supporters who are in control of the discussion shut it down.

Yes of course IDC is Big Tent Creationism, or "Let's table the question of the age of the earth while we unite against our common enemy, science." For years during the nineties and early this century the Disco Boys repeated the claim "Creationism = YEC so ID can't be creationism". This was irksome because

1. They were well aware that there were and are OECs and YECs arguing with each other.

2. They were well aware that creationism had for years been "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism" (SciCre) meaning a suite of negative arguments against evolution, and they were using reworded versions of the same refuted arguments. IDC was obviously (to those who were not new to the issue) SciCre with a better publicity agent.

3. ID claimed to be scientific, (like SciCre) but the Wedge made it clear that science was the enemy to be destroyed and replaced with a Christian science that of course would not be science. (as SciCre-ists really wanted too)

4. They also knew all along what the rest of learned at Dover: they had created an ID textbook by substituting "Intelligent Design" and "Design proponents" for creationism and creationists in an existing SciCre book.

And note that of all the big name professional creationists, only Behe (evidently a true believer in himself) would testify under oath at Dover. Others made excuses they would not have made if they believed they had the goods, or just kept quiet until there was no danger of being called to testify. Then about a year after the rout at Dover Disco staged a series of big "Evidence for Design" rallies, repeating the same old BS.

So it is a scam. But we knew all that.

What is not emphasized enough imho is that SciCre aka ID is political creationism. First of all it is church politics: anti science churches vs accommodationist churches. The anti-scis hope to cut the legs off their more reasonable brothers by convincing kids in public schools that the anti-sci theology is really science. Second, it has been absorbed into party politics. In Florida during the big battle for school science standards, the powerful pressure group in favor of lying to kids that SciCre aka ID is really science was the Southern Baptists. But recall that they used to be on our side. Then the Reagan administration staged a coup on the Southern Baptist Convention as an extension of Nixon's Southern (actually racist wherever they are) strategy. This Southern / religious right strategy is finally falling apart. Dembski & Behe only get small audiences of mostly the choir.

Aside: "literal interpretation" is not such a big limitation. "Literal" and "interpretation" are words that don't go together well. In particular those words do not determine a unique translation of the Bible. Old & young earthers alike can claim to be literal!

Just to add my two cents worth to the discussion regarding ID and creationism being synonymous.

I think that ID 'theory' (more properly hypothesis) is indeed NOT synonymous with creationism based on the bald arguments presented by Behe et al.

Yes, there is no doubt that the origins of ID lie in creationism itself. I think that with the Wedge Document and the actual recorded public statements of such people as Johnson and Dembski there can be no question of that.

Also there is the way that various individuals & organisations have used ID. Some examples include the cited obvious theological leanings of many of the Design Institute's staff. Also there is the now (in)famous example of the Dover School Board.

I agree that this sets ID squarely in the camp of creationism.

However in the interest of sounding reasonable in any debate I think it would be wise to differentiate between the origins, use and THEORY of ID (as logicaly flawed as that theory is).

Doing that undercuts the major contention that many cdesignproponentists use about lumping ID with creation.

So the theory that underpins ID isn't necessarily creationist - but ID was formed by a committee of people wedded to pushing through creationism in schools (by their own admission), and to a secondary extent to attack evolutionary science.
In addition ID has been co-opted by many blatantly creationist groups and individuals.
One could also note that ID has almost exclusively promoted itself through non-scientific publications, public propaganda, and more specifically through conservative Christian organisations.

These are actions which show the direct link betweeb creationism and the actual disemination of this theory rather than the theory itself.

Miguel said: Yes, there is no doubt that the origins of ID lie in creationism itself. I think that with the Wedge Document and the actual recorded public statements of such people as Johnson and Dembski there can be no question of that.

Well, I did my bit again. Hopefully something clicks and makes sense for him this time, otherwise I probably won't bother.
I pointed out that ID has no "empirical" method, it's the same argument about complexity that Scientific Crationists made, just substitute Blood Clotting for the Eyeball and ta-da. I also attacked his assertion that Creationism was used as a placeholder by citing the two authors of Pandas versus the editor, Thaxton.

ravilyn.sanders said: One thing that struck me was how much effort he putting in telling the science supporters, "oh, no! That is the Old definition of ID. I am talking about this spanking new definition. blah blah blah". Does he put in that much effort to educate the typical ID supporters? Does he tell them, "You support the old ID as it was defined before Dover? Then you are wrong. It is this new definition that is scientific. The old one is not". No Way. It is only us the science supporters who should suddenly develop an amnesia and forget all the old shenanigans they have pulled before. And they will continue to have a big tent, gloss over difference between 6000 years and 4.5 billion years, and agree to magnify and make a big deal about minor differences of opinion among the biologists.

I admit it, I see NO difference in any creation myth when it comes to ignoring facts. Different iconography, just a facade.

And why should i? The ideology evolved from a term 'Creationism' to 'ID' we have that on numerous records. and IF they create minute alterations in the various creationist Sects, what does that accomplish?

I can grab a thesaurus and alter the word hearsay to conjecture.... it doesn't magically turn untestable hypothesis into something that could hold up in court.
And certainly does not validate the effort to minimize human error when you barf presupposition and call it "purpose".

Miguel said:

Miguel said: Yes, there is no doubt that the origins of ID lie in creationism itself. I think that with the Wedge Document and the actual recorded public statements of such people as Johnson and Dembski there can be no question of that.

Sorry folks - I meant Johnathan Wells rather than Dembski.

If “Intelligent Design” is not creationism because it does not insist upon a “young earth”, then people such as William Jennings Bryan were not creationists, either.

— TomS

Wheels said: Well, I did my bit again. Hopefully something clicks and makes sense for him this time, otherwise I probably won't bother. I pointed out that ID has no "empirical" method, it's the same argument about complexity that Scientific Crationists made, just substitute Blood Clotting for the Eyeball and ta-da. I also attacked his assertion that Creationism was used as a placeholder by citing the two authors of Pandas versus the editor, Thaxton.

Doesn't this settle the matter pretty decisively? ID is the umbrella paradigm for any and all forms of creationism-including Creation by space aliens.

http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/selected.html

Even leaving this aside: doesn't the word design substitute in for creation in many instances. I wouldn't say they are perfect synonyms and they do have some different connotations at times.

But how do you "design" without creating and how do you "create" without in some sense designing.

And if ID is not about looking for evidence of some specific act(s) of Creation then what is it's point? They've been pretty upfront about rejecting the materialistic methods of Theistic evolutionists like Dobzhansky and Miller.

Chip Poirot said: Doesn't this settle the matter pretty decisively?

The interesting thing about the thread was that TC's original proposal was that people who thought ID was a form of creationism were suffering from "worldview blindness" – immune to any counterevidence. Yet when some of the counterevidence to his position was raised, Thinking Christian first insisted that he was right, whatever the evidence showed, and then shut down the discussion.

I'll add this to the thousands strong database of xians that project instead of think.

seriously, there isn't ONE supporter of creationism I've ever seen that doesn't use projection and denial as common defense mechanisms.

not one.

FL said:

"Creationism is rooted in design, not the other way around. Falsify design, and you falsify creationism. The converse is not true, therefore, creationism does not equal ID. This is basic logic." ---Salvador Cordova

Oh Floyd... Slimador Cordova giving lessons on logic is like you giving lessons on how to quote sources responsibly.

slp said:

FL said:

"Creationism is rooted in design, not the other way around. Falsify design, and you falsify creationism. The converse is not true, therefore, creationism does not equal ID. This is basic logic." ---Salvador Cordova

Oh Floyd... Slimador Cordova giving lessons on logic is like you giving lessons on how to quote sources responsibly.

Ichthyic said: The interesting thing about the thread was that TC's original proposal was that people who thought ID was a form of creationism were suffering from "worldview blindness" – immune to any counterevidence. Yet when some of the counterevidence to his position was raised, Thinking Christian first insisted that he was right, whatever the evidence showed, and then shut down the discussion. I'll add this to the thousands strong database of xians that project instead of think. seriously, there isn't ONE supporter of creationism I've ever seen that doesn't use projection and denial as common defense mechanisms. not one.

The difference between the two terms is straightforward. Creationism begins in Genesis and argues for certain conclusions based on a certain understanding of the Scriptures. It is known for its persistence in seeking scientific data that fits that interpretation of Genesis, and for finding creative but irregular interpretations to help in that search. As such it has gained an unsavory scientific reputation.

Intelligent Design has a completely different starting point in observations of nature, and in both empirical and philosophical interpretations of scientific data. It sees phenomena like the high information content in biological organisms,

instances of apparent irreducible complexity,

or fine-tuning of the cosmos for life,

and argues that the best explanation for them is to be found in a designing intelligence.

I have also noticed that none of them understand any science whatsoever; and then they have the audacity to tell a scientists that they don’t understand science.

Ah, it's always fun when Dave joins the party. I just wish he'd actually read things before responding to them.

Nick: "The whole dirty history of the ID movement seemed to be news to [Tom Gilson]."

No, it was not. I and others had brought it explicitly to his attention since shortly after the Kitzmiller trial. Always with the same result. Every time the subject was brought up, Tom was surprised, then dismissive.

I finally gave up over a year ago. I'm probably still persona non grata there.

Tom Gilson is smoother than most creationist bloggers, but no less blinkered.

Olorin said: Nick: "The whole dirty history of the ID movement seemed to be news to [Tom Gilson]." No, it was not. I and others had brought it explicitly to his attention since shortly after the Kitzmiller trial. Always with the same result. Every time the subject was brought up, Tom was surprised, then dismissive. I finally gave up over a year ago. I'm probably still persona non grata there. Tom Gilson is smoother than most creationist bloggers, but no less blinkered.

The less Tom responds, the less I feel I have to do.
Hmm, I didn't know he'd been doing this for a while. At least I can call attention to his continued use of dishonest sources like the Discovery Institute.

In the 40+ years I have been watching ID/creationists, I have never once seen any of them make an effort to learn any science.

Wheels said: The less Tom responds, the less I feel I have to do. Hmm, I didn't know he'd been doing this for a while. At least I can call attention to his continued use of dishonest sources like the Discovery Institute.

Henry J said: Makes me think that people willing to learn science don't become Creationist, or don't remain so. Or aren't vocal about it if they do. (Am I putting in too many "or"'s?) Henry

Sheesh! That Fafarman character is sure full of himself (as well as a bunch of other “stuff”).

He hasn’t changed; nor has he learned anything.

Oh yes, rhetoric it was. Just in the remote case I was a little too oblique:

When will they bury ID and come out of the closet: "God did it, that's what the Bible says" like a decent creationist like Kurt Wise?

Isn't that even what most of Dembski's "ID community" already is saying?

Considering myself more like a not entirely detached observer than an agent in this Kafka'esque 'marketplace', I tend to see the current activity of Dembski and his associates at UD as the last spasms of a landed fish.

But is it possible for Dembski or the Discovery Institute to stop beating around the bush and bury ID? The example of even an outstanding scientist like Fred Hoyle shows how hard it may be for people to change their mind. If that also impacts on career and livelihood, it may become “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.”

Hi, I'd like to know who are the main authorities either persons or institutes of Id (2 or 3 names), kind of that all Id supporters agree with their opinions.

In the 40+ years I have been watching ID/creationists, I have never once seen any of them make an effort to learn any science.

— Mike Elzinga

Nick: “The whole dirty history of the ID movement seemed to be news to [Tom Gilson].” No, it was not. I and others had brought it explicitly to his attention since shortly after the Kitzmiller trial. Always with the same result. Every time the subject was brought up, Tom was surprised, then dismissive.

— Olorin

hector said: Hi, I'd like to know who are the main authorities either persons or institutes of Id (2 or 3 names), kind of that all Id supporters agree with their opinions.

Frank J said: I don't yet see an answer to my question, so I'll try again. Does anyone know TC's opinion on the age of life and common descent? Surely the questions have been asked if not answered in all the years he has been blogging.

FL said:

"Creationism is rooted in design, not the other way around. Falsify design, and you falsify creationism. The converse is not true, therefore, creationism does not equal ID. This is basic logic." ---Salvador Cordova

386sx said:

Frank J said: I don't yet see an answer to my question, so I'll try again. Does anyone know TC's opinion on the age of life and common descent? Surely the questions have been asked if not answered in all the years he has been blogging.

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C228303755/E20051230102943/index.html "While I do not personally hold to YEC, it illustrates clearly how the judge overstepped his bounds." http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/12/the-latest-face-of-creationism-in-the-classroom-scientific-american/ "As to common descent, I’ve already written about my views on that. I think common descent might very likely be the explanation for the ERV patterns noted in the video. The evolution/ID debate is not over common descent, though; it’s about whether design was involved."

386sx said:

Frank J said: I don't yet see an answer to my question, so I'll try again. Does anyone know TC's opinion on the age of life and common descent? Surely the questions have been asked if not answered in all the years he has been blogging.

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C228303755/E20051230102943/index.html "While I do not personally hold to YEC, it illustrates clearly how the judge overstepped his bounds." http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/12/the-latest-face-of-creationism-in-the-classroom-scientific-american/ "As to common descent, I’ve already written about my views on that. I think common descent might very likely be the explanation for the ERV patterns noted in the video. The evolution/ID debate is not over common descent, though; it’s about whether design was involved."

Secondly, it seems to me that common descent is something you are either in for 100%, or out 100%. And once you accept common descent, it seems to me that the need for specific acts of Creation that are discernible through empirical investigation fall by the wayside.

— Chip Poirot

Chip Poirot said: I'm not sure that the person posting this is advocating these views or just reposting in response to a question. Regardless, I think that the views expressed in the links are at best confused, and at worst, misleading.

hector said: Hi, I'd like to know who are the main authorities either persons or institutes of Id (2 or 3 names), kind of that all Id supporters agree with their opinions.

hector said: Hi, I'd like to know who are the main authorities either persons or institutes of Id (2 or 3 names), kind of that all Id supporters agree with their opinions.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Top IDists are: Philip Johnson (the Godfather of ID), Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Mike Behe, Jonathan Wells, and ID evangelist Paul Nelson.

Is it just me or does TC's lates post ("Learning As I Go" look awfully like a notpology?

I have problems finding anything he's "learned" in the process, or anything he's willing to concede after this alleged learning process. Uh, TC honestly did not know about e.g. OECism... is that really something that he's only recently learned? Yet, he still purports to know that OECs are excluded from "IDC" when used by "ID detractors" (now there's an interesting label for advancing productive dialogue)...

Besides, it is very typical of TC to try and scope out relevant issues, as he has done here. There is so much, much more to "advancing productive dialogue" than what he is willing to admit or discuss.

eric said:

Pete Dunkelberg said: Top IDists are: Philip Johnson (the Godfather of ID), Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Mike Behe, Jonathan Wells, and ID evangelist Paul Nelson.

Don't forget Dembski! He's also got to be included in any short list of prominent design proponents. Though I wouldn't use the word "top" to describe the members of such a list.

wheels,

Ask Gilson if he can think of any example where a scientific paper with original scientific research has been published that "confirms" any Intelligent Design "hypothesis" in notable peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Ecology, Evolution, American Naturalist, Cell, Paleobiology, or Cladistics? Ask Gilson too if he knows of any research on Intelligent Design that has been funded by NIH, NSF, or any other government or NGO (Non Government Organization)? I tried posting these questions at Gilson's blog, but he's definitely blocked me from posting there again.

Thanks,

John

P. S. You're doing a great job over there. Keep at it. Hope there others here at PT who will join in the fray.

Chip Poirot said: They could resolve that problem right off the bat by having some kind of conference and setting forth a general statement of principle as to what they and do not accept on a few basic issues: age of earth[snip]... common descent, etc. Then they wouldn't have to complain incessantlythey are being misrepresented.

Esko Heimonen said: Besides, it is very typical of TC to try and scope out relevant issues, as he has done here. There is so much, much more to "advancing productive dialogue" than what he is willing to admit or discuss.

Wheels said: The less Tom responds, the less I feel I have to do. Hmm, I didn't know he'd been doing this for a while. At least I can call attention to his continued use of dishonest sources like the Discovery Institute.

Chip Poirot said: How can these people claim with any kind of straight face that ID is not an umbrella term for generic Creationism? They could resolve that problem right off the bat by having some kind of conference and setting forth a general statement of principle as to what they and do not accept on a few basic issues: age of earth, role of natural selection, change in the fossil record, speciation, common descent, etc. Then they wouldn't have to complain incessantlythey are being misrepresented.

Paul Burnett said:

hector said: Hi, I'd like to know who are the main authorities either persons or institutes of Id (2 or 3 names), kind of that all Id supporters agree with their opinions.

For a good summary of the "main authorities" involved with intelligent design creationism, please read Dr. Barbara Forrest's paper "Undestanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement - Its True Nature and Goals" available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

Olorin said: They'll never define ID precisely. Note that no IDist, when using the strawman argument, has ever offered his own definition of "true" ID. The strategy is that you can't fight what you can't see, and they're not about to let you see it.

[ID] sees phenomena like the high information content in biological organisms, instances of apparent irreducible complexity, or fine-tuning of the cosmos for life, and argues that the best explanation for them is to be found in a designing intelligence.

eric said: IDers do nothing with their explanations. They basically just sit on them. So its hard to say how they could be scientifically best when no additional scientific finding arises out of them.

I remember Thinking Christian from a few years back. He also gave me the impression of being able to debate things more openly and honestly than most -- but then I left a comment on his blog and he just removed it. I then found I could no longer comment on anything.

It wasn't necessarily a dishonest debate tactic, my blog has a content warning because of one post I made. I think he just assumed it was a porn site without checking.

Off topic a bit - if anyone is interested, I'm on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYW6cTWng-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEwkeH2XiTQ

I haven't posted on Panda's Thumb in a long time.

*everyone in the bar cheers* NORM!

There, that's my last post. The video I sat through did have an interesting perspective on Darwin's rhetorical prowess, btw, it was only at about the last 1/4 that he went into the usual "Blah blah Darwinian dogma you guys should give ID a fair shake!" schtick.

Ask Gilson too if he knows of any research on Intelligent Design that has been funded by NIH, NSF, or any other government or NGO (Non Government Organization)? I tried posting these questions at Gilson’s blog, but he’s definitely blocked me from posting there again.

— John Kwok

eric wrote:

"Part of how scientists decide “best explanation” is by actually using the explanation to do more science, to make more discoveries. After all, an explanation that only applies to stuff you already know might be philosophically interesting, but it isn’t very useful if your goal is to learn something you don’t already know."

Precisely. For example, on another thread there is a discussion about human chromosome 2 and whether or not the data is consistent with ID. Well, all other data sets pointed to chimps as the proper sister group to humans. That hypothesis predicted that human chromosome 2 was produced by a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Therefore, it made sense to sequence chromosome 2 and look for telomeric sequences in the region where the fusion presumably occurred. ID did not predict this. ID supporters did not look for this. ID supporters did not find this. ID supporters are merely trying to come up with a post hoc explanation as to why this doesn't necessarily make them look bad. As Judge Jones pointed out, that ain't the way to do science.

Of course, it would be really easy for ID supporters to do some real science. All they would have to do would be to come up with some money and some real scientists to do the work. Oh, and also some predictive and explanatory theory. Now which one of those things do you suppose they lack?

Frank J said: ... You know he'll just do the "we wuz expelled" nonsense.

Frank wrote:

"C’mon, John, that’s the easy question. You know he’ll just do the “we wuz expelled” nonsense."

Right. If he does that, just ask him how many grant proposals were submitted and how many papers were submitted for publication. Also, how much research is actually being done or how much research is published in-house. What, did they expel themselves?

Lack of a predictive and explanatory theory should get you expelled. All you have to do is get the cause and effect relationship right.

Stanton said:

Frank J said: ... You know he'll just do the "we wuz expelled" nonsense.

You ever notice how the Intelligent Design proponents refuse to wrap around their little heads that there is a profound difference between "we wuz expelled for our belief in ID" and "we wuz fired for not doing our job correctly as stipulated in our contract," or between "we wuz expelled for being an IDer" and "we cud no longer work at our job because our contract expired"? Doesn't seem very intelligent of them.

Frank J said:

Stanton said:

Frank J said: ... You know he'll just do the "we wuz expelled" nonsense.

You ever notice how the Intelligent Design proponents refuse to wrap around their little heads that there is a profound difference between "we wuz expelled for our belief in ID" and "we wuz fired for not doing our job correctly as stipulated in our contract," or between "we wuz expelled for being an IDer" and "we cud no longer work at our job because our contract expired"? Doesn't seem very intelligent of them.

Alas, they get away with it because ~99.9% of their target audience never had to do what I did 30 years ago, and what ~99.9% of real scientists have to do sometime in their career. That is "expel" my own "breakthrough" hypothesis because the data were not supporing it.

DS said: Frank wrote: "C’mon, John, that’s the easy question. You know he’ll just do the “we wuz expelled” nonsense." Right. If he does that, just ask him how many grant proposals were submitted and how many papers were submitted for publication. Also, how much research is actually being done or how much research is published in-house. What, did they expel themselves? Lack of a predictive and explanatory theory should get you expelled. All you have to do is get the cause and effect relationship right.

John Kwok said: Yes DS, that would have been a follow-up question if Gilson had allowed me to continue posting at his blog:

DS said: Frank wrote: "C’mon, John, that’s the easy question. You know he’ll just do the “we wuz expelled” nonsense." Right. If he does that, just ask him how many grant proposals were submitted and how many papers were submitted for publication. Also, how much research is actually being done or how much research is published in-house. What, did they expel themselves? Lack of a predictive and explanatory theory should get you expelled. All you have to do is get the cause and effect relationship right.

Frank J said:

John Kwok said: Yes DS, that would have been a follow-up question if Gilson had allowed me to continue posting at his blog:

DS said: Frank wrote: "C’mon, John, that’s the easy question. You know he’ll just do the “we wuz expelled” nonsense." Right. If he does that, just ask him how many grant proposals were submitted and how many papers were submitted for publication. Also, how much research is actually being done or how much research is published in-house. What, did they expel themselves? Lack of a predictive and explanatory theory should get you expelled. All you have to do is get the cause and effect relationship right.

Even if he let you ask, his target audience - and not even just the hopeless fundamentalists - would care little about how many proposals were submitted.

Well, Nick has been patiently plowing along over on Gilson’s 5 part series.

Gilson still wants ID not to be creationism.

Nowhere in that 5 part series did the question of the genetic links comprised of common misconceptions and misrepresentations of science ever come up.

Even though the discussion constantly hits around the ID arguments that intelligence is required to be behind what we observe, not once did the question come up about why they think our current scientific understandings can’t account for these observations.

Had such specific objections about science come up, it would then be obvious who has the misconceptions about science.

ID/creationists cannot argue from knowledge of science; they never learn it. All their arguments are agonizing word games and interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of what other people have allegedly said or not said.

One never converges on anything about science by remaining in a hermetically sealed discussion that completely excludes real evidence and any deep understandings of scientific concepts.

Armchair philosophers are among the most annoying creatures to occupy the “chairs” in philosophy whether they be ID/creationists or post modernists.

I also noticed that Gilson coyly avoided being specific about the age of the earth and life.

Curious discusion, but the outcome was already predetermined by Gilson. Science be damned.

Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationists cannot argue from knowledge of science; they never learn it. All their arguments are agonizing word games and interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of what other people have allegedly said or not said. One never converges on anything about science by remaining in a hermetically sealed discussion that completely excludes real evidence and any deep understandings of scientific concepts. Armchair philosophers are among the most annoying creatures to occupy the “chairs” in philosophy whether they be ID/creationists or post modernists. I also noticed that Gilson coyly avoided being specific about the age of the earth and life. Curious discusion, but the outcome was already predetermined by Gilson. Science be damned.

'Thinking' and 'Christian' oxymoron maketh!

As to the described case, WGAF?

Gilson has resorted to censorship now:

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/10/questions-for-those-who-believe-intelligent-design-is-creationism

John said: Gilson has resorted to censorship now: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/10/questions-for-those-who-believe-intelligent-design-is-creationism

stevaroni said: Look, guys, the difference is obvious. To a Creationist, God created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. To the ID proponent, Intelligent Designers, who just incidentally had Godlike powers but for the sake of argument may or may not have actually been God, created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. There. Understand the difference now?

stevaroni said: Look, guys, the difference is obvious. To a Creationist, God created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. To the ID proponent, Intelligent Designers, who just incidentally had Godlike powers but for the sake of argument may or may not have actually been God, created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. There. Understand the difference now?

Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

The difference is that evolution theory explains some consistently observed patterns in the evidence, patterns that can be used to predict limits on what might be observed in places they haven't yet looked (i.e., they make testable predictions).

I.D. doesn't do that, and the simplest interpretation of I.D. is contradicted by the evidence. Also, afaik, they only interpretation of I.D. that isn't contradicted by evidence is the assumption that the "designer" used evolution to do all of it. Of course, that model is indistinguishable from evolution without the assumption of "design", and one basic rule of thumb in science is drop assumptions that don't add anything to our understanding of the subject.

Henry

Tray said: No evidence? Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

Tray said: No evidence? Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

Tray said: No evidence? Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

stevaroni said:

Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

Fine. Let's deal with some of that "same evidence" and see how the creationist "interpretation" works. Over the last 100 years, a succession of hominid fossils have been dug out of the soil of Africa. This statement is an objective fact, not conjecture, and is devoid of framing bias. The bones are factually known to exist. Because of the properties of certain radiological elements, it is possible to sort the bones by age. This statement is an objective fact, not conjecture, and is devoid of framing bias. Because we have an entire branch of the sciences devoted exclusively to things like nuclear medicine, we understand radiological dating well and are able to date certain isotopes reliably. When you sort the skeletons by age, you find a distinct pattern which, as you go backwards, sees the skeletons change slowly from anatomically modern humans to more apelike versions. past about 500,000 yrars, the skeletons start to turn distinctly less human. Eventually, at about the 5 million year mark, the change is so marked, that the only vestige of humanity left is a bipedial hip and foot. The important thing to note is that the change is gradual and universal. Given a skeleton, a skilled anthropologist can estimate the age quite accurately. Given an age, a skilled anthropologist can tell you exactly what kind of bones should be found. It is important to note that no anatomically modern human has been ever found out of sequence. This statement is an objective fact, not conjecture, and is devoid of framing bias. Again, the bones are factually known to exist and facsimiles and photographs are easily available for examination, even by laypeople. Parallel fossil records exist for a variety of animals demonstrating what certainly appears, at least, to document a gradual transition from ancestral forms to modern forms, small antelope-like animals to modern horses, and a racoon-like creature to whales, to name but a few. Once again, the bones are factually known to exist and, once again, facsimiles and photographs are easily available for examination. Now, Tray, here's the question... From a Creationist viewpoint, please explain the "interpretation" that leads to any of the evidence supporting a unique creation event, for the sake of argument, traditionally taken to be around 4004BC.

Tray said: Before we start let me ask you some questions; how is it a fact (something known to be true) that we can sort these bones by age? Don't we see the very same physical characteristics in some humans or apes today that are in this hominid fossils evolutionists use as evidence?

Stanton said:

Tray said: Before we start let me ask you some questions; how is it a fact (something known to be true) that we can sort these bones by age? Don't we see the very same physical characteristics in some humans or apes today that are in this hominid fossils evolutionists use as evidence?

Over the past 300 hundred years, scientists have devised numerous ways to accurately date and sort fossils and rocks. The fact that you are more interested in trolling with your odious nonsense, and the fact that it's obvious that your spiritual handlers lobotomized you can not, in any way, invalidate the fact that scientists can and do accurately date fossils. So, if you do have evidence that the world really is 6000 years old, or that Noah's Ark is real, please spit it out, or go away.

Tray said: Before we start let me ask you some questions; how is it a fact (something known to be true) that we can sort these bones by age?

So is this how you treat someone asking questions about the evidence used by evolutionists?

Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

Isn’t the burden of evidence on the one who makes the claim that fossils are a certain date?

Tray wrote:

"You say that I can not invalidate the fact that scientists can and do accurately date fossils, but tell me how scientists can validate that their dates of fossils are true? Isn’t the burden of evidence on the one who makes the claim that fossils are a certain date?"

That is a fair question and one that does deserves an answer. However, before I answer, I do want to point out that the question belies a fundamental ignorance of science in general and palentology in particular. Anyone who was actually interested in these issues could easily educate themselves, why have you not done so? Also, the question implies a fundamental distrust of science and scientists. It essentially assumes that no one has ever thought of this before, that no one has ever really tried to address this issue. I can assure you that science simply does not work that way. So you can see that the question is actually condescending and insulting, that is why it was met with skepticism and ridicule. Now, assuming you really care, here is the answer.

We are never absolutely certain of any date assigned. All dates are presented as a range. However, the accuracy of dating methods is confirmed by cooboration with independent data sets. For example, the relative ages of strata were first determined using the law of superposition - in undeformed sedimentary strata the youngest fossils or on the top and the oldest fossils are on the bottom. The absolute ages of the strata were then determined using radiometric dating techniques. The dates obtained are entirely consistent with the relative dates obtained previously. Also, the radiometric dates can be confirmed using independent time markers, such as overlapping fossils, volcanic eruptions, etc. For example, in the case of carbon 14 dating, the scale was calibrated using tree ring data and other historical time markers. I can provide references for all of this if you are actually interested in learning.

By the way, this is the same general approach used in phylogenetic reconstruction as well. Independent data sets from palentology, morphology, genetics and development should all yield the same answer, thus increasing confidence in the topology.

So you see Tray, science doesn't settle for guess work. All assumptions must be challenged and all possibilities explored. If you don't like the results of science, that's too bad. However, ignorance will not change the facts.

Tray said: Isn't the burden of evidence on the one who makes the claim that fossils are a certain date?

Tray said: How do you know that dating methods of fossils and rock are accurate? So is this how you treat someone asking questions about the evidence used by evolutionists? You say that I can not invalidate the fact that scientists can and do accurately date fossils, but tell me how scientists can validate that their dates of fossils are true? Isn't the burden of evidence on the one who makes the claim that fossils are a certain date? ...

ben wrote:

"No, the burden of proof rests on the crackpot who wishes to dispute standard scientific methods–the burden to understand the science and the methods behind it, as well as the burden to demonstrate that it’s incorrect. Fire away."

Exactly. Also notice that real scientists publish their results in the scientific literature where everyone is free to criticize and contradict. If Tray wants to "invalidate" any particular date, all he has to do is publish a rebuttal. Of course to do that he'll need a little more evidence than "I don't want to believe it".

This also demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of creationists who refuse to publish anything in the scientific literature. If they won't open themselves to such criticism, then who is it that really has something to hide? (Cue conspiracy accusation in 3, 2, 1 ...)

eric said:

Tray said: Isn't the burden of evidence on the one who makes the claim that fossils are a certain date?

Limiting my argument to the constancy of half-lives, that burden of proof is met every day in your very own living room. Those who theorize half-lives weren't constant bear the burden of explaining why uranium ores all over the world did not spontaneously go critical 4000 years ago.

Tray said: So how do you know that the assumptions are accurate?

Tray said: Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: *The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. *The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. *The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. So how do you know that the assumptions are accurate?

GvlGeologist, FCD said: You know, I was going to write a long response to this tripe, to educate Tray, but I don't have the time.

Tray said: Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: *The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. *The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. *The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

Tray said: Since radioisotope dating uses both types [observational and historical] of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something.

* The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. So how do you know that the assumptions are accurate?

ben said:

Tray said: ....plagiarized material....

All of which is an unattributed, verbatim quote lifted from the unimpeachable science reference site, Answers in Genesis. Do you have any thoughts of your own, or are you just a C&P troll?

Tray said: So is this how you treat someone asking questions about the evidence used by evolutionists?

Tray copied:

"Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

*The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.

*The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.

*The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

So how do you know that the assumptions are accurate?"

I already answered that question, before you even asked it. Please refer to my post above. Cutting and pasting is not an argument. Do try to at least use your own words when misrepresenting science.

Now that Tray has been busted and shown the error of his ways, I predict that:

1. he will post an apology for deliberately using someone else's words without attribution - a career ending error in science.

2. make a sincere effort to look up and understand the actual science referenced in the numerous posts replying to him.

3. come to realize that what he's been reading in AIG and other creationist/ID literature is not true and in fact is deliberately so.

Oh, wait....

Nevermind.

I came to this site just to see why you were so certain that evolution is true, and have asked questions, and purposefully posted what I found on Answers In Genesis site to just see what your response would be. What I have found is many who have attacked me personally rather then truly give answers to the questions I posted. There is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty the age of the earth. I don't even believe many of the so-called origin and evolutionary theories qualify to even be called a theories, because in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist some test that can prove it either right or wrong. There is no way of observing or testing what actually happened in the past. You have every right to believe anything you want, but what I have found is that most origin and evolutionary science is based on assumptions and logical fallacies.

Let me leave you with another verbatim quote:

Romans 1:25-32

25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

"You don't need to see his identification. These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. Evolutionary science is based on logical fallacies." The FORCE gives power over the weak minded!

Tray said: There is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty the age of the earth.

wile coyote said: PS:

Tray said: There is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty the age of the earth.

And there's no way people can build nuclear weapons, either.

Tray said: Logical fallacy!

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.

Tray said: So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics.

I came to this site just to see why you were so certain that evolution is true,

wile coyote said:

Tray said: Logical fallacy!

Really? Can they or can't they? Can physicists figure out how to build a nuclear weapon but not figure out how to reliably perform radioactive dating? Are you saying they are too incompetent to figure out radioactive dating but can build fusion bombs, which are actually a much more difficult problem? (Thankfully or everybody would have them.)

wile coyote said:

Tray said: So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics.

Interesting. So you say we CAN determine the age of younger rocks, which easily gives a bottom limit of a billion years, which encomposses most of the fossil record of the evolution of life.

Tray said: Building a nuclear weapon is testable, and provable as we have seen with a nuclear blast.

Tray said: No I didn't say that you can test younger rocks, but according to the USGS Scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth.

But you can admit that it's at least a billion years old, right?

Tray said: There is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty the age of the earth.

in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist some test that can prove it either right or wrong.

scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age

Tray, word of advice:

"Were you there?" and bible-thumping will get you nothing but annoyed responses here. I really, really suggest you go actually learn something before pissing these guys off even more. They do know what they're talking about. These are the guys who actually, you know, do the work, instead of armchair-quarterbacking like the wackos at AIG.

Just sayin'.

fnxtr said: "Were you there?" ... will get you nothing but annoyed responses here.

Of course, I use the collective "guys" in the non-gender-specific way.

Tray said: Building a nuclear weapon is testable, and provable as we have seen with a nuclear blast.

Tray said: I came to this site just to see why you were so certain that evolution is true, and have asked questions, and purposefully posted what I found on Answers In Genesis site to just see what your response would be.

What I have found is many who have attacked me personally rather then truly give answers to the questions I posted.

There is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty the age of the earth.

I don’t even believe many of the so-called origin and evolutionary theories qualify to even be called a theories, because in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist some test that can prove it either right or wrong.

There is no way of observing or testing what actually happened in the past.

You have every right to believe anything you want, but what I have found is that most origin and evolutionary science is based on assumptions and logical fallacies.

Let me leave you with another verbatim quote:

Mike Elzinga said: You are a despicable idiot for your sectarian dogma; and you love it.

Instead Tray choose door number three, accuse others of abuse and start preaching. Here is a news flash for you Tray, I didn't abuse you. I answered your questions, you ignored all of my responses. Kindly piss off until you learn how to have an adult discussion about science.

And oh yea, were you there?

Q.E.D.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Now that Tray has been busted and shown the error of his ways, I predict that: 1. he will post an apology for deliberately using someone else's words without attribution - a career ending error in science. 2. make a sincere effort to look up and understand the actual science referenced in the numerous posts replying to him. 3. come to realize that what he's been reading in AIG and other creationist/ID literature is not true and in fact is deliberately so. Oh, wait.... Nevermind.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: How sad.

wile coyote said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: How sad.

Every time I get one of these guys pushing WERE YOU THERE DID YOU SEE IT I immediately let them have it with PROVE YOU HAVE A BRAIN. It works. As best I can remember, they alwasys refuse to acknowledge me from then on.

Sigh, these guys are amusing but not a good use of time. It's always the same stuff over and over and over again, the same AIG blockquotes; even hitting them in the head with the nerf hammer gets boring.

I keep telling myself: I REALLY have better things to do with my time than to argue with the lunatic fringe. Bad habits are hard to break ... but enough is enough.

I have a few questions: Why do many of you get angry when your views are challenged? If you are so certain that evolution happened and that there is no God, then why are you concerned about my posting a scripture from the Bible? You have every right to believe or accept anything that you want, and I have never condemned or personally attacked any of you. But the truth is that all knowledge known by man is minuscule, are any of you really certain that there is no God?

The Nobel laureate Dr Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA with James D. Watson), in his book Life Itself, insists that the probability of life’s chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick, says: "What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events ...He goes on to state, an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Crick concludes that the first living organisms on earth may have been "seeded" in our oceans by intelligent beings from another planet!

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Itself-Touchstone-Books-Paperback/dp/067125563

Do some study on the probability of life, and you will find that it is impossible without a creator.

Tray: we're not upset because you're "challenging" our views.

We get upset because you are rude, disrespectful, and, you're repeating lies that have been repeatedly debunked for decades.

I mean, honestly, why should we be respectful you, when you not only demand that we respect you for the lies you repeat, but that you also demonstrate that you have no interest in learning anything?

Also, Tray, please get this through your thick little Internet fanatic's skull of yours:

A) Evolution occurs. This has been observed and documented for thousands of years (i.e., antibiotic resistant bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, strains of domestic plants and animals, fossil lineages, etc)

B) The fact that evolution occurs has absolutely no bearing or concern with the existence or disproof of God. (i.e., "evolution =/= atheism")

c) Copying and pasting demands for respect has been done before, and is unworthy of anyone's respect. Try actually studying the things you blindly rail against for a change.

Also, please explain to us why we should deign to respect you when you not only copy and paste lies, but, like other creationists such as Ken Ham, assume that we will burn in Hell simply because we refuse to submit to your lies?

I have a few questions: Why do many of you get angry when your views are challenged?

If you are so certain that evolution happened and that there is no God, then why are you concerned about my posting a scripture from the Bible?

But the truth is that all knowledge known by man is minuscule

are any of you really certain that there is no God?

Tray said: I have a few questions: Why do many of you get angry when your views are challenged?

Stanton said: Also, please explain to us why we should deign to respect you when you not only copy and paste lies, but, like other creationists such as Ken Ham, assume that we will burn in Hell simply because we refuse to submit to your lies?

eric said:

Tray said: I have a few questions: Why do many of you get angry when your views are challenged?

Because you state presposterous claims and questions. Then, when someone uses their precious time to show why its preposterous, you don't even bother to respond. Its rude to ask a question and then ignore someone who goes to the trouble of answering it. Like your misquotation of Crick. Crick thinks that very primitive life - i.e. single-celled eukaryotes and prokaryotes - evolved elsewhere and fell to earth. This primitive life then evolved over millions of years into what we see today. And yet you claim he is somehow supporting your notion that life cannot evolve. That's preposterous. Crick clearly does not think whales, dogs, and cats fell out of the sky, whole and complete. Crick is talking about single-celled organisms. So it is simply preposterous to think that his opinion in any way supports your position on evolution. And if I get angry in a future post, it will likely be because you will utterly ignore the simple and easily verified points I've made here and go on repeating that Francis Crick supports your belief that evolution doesn't happen. You are too much in love with the idea that a famous scientist agrees with you to bother think through what his words mean. Just think about it Tray - what does it mean for Crick to say that single-celled organisms arrived in meteorites? What exactly do you think Crick would say happened between then and now to produce all of the multi-celled organisms we see around us?

The problem with the reasoning that life came from a creator would only transfer the problem of the creator's origin to another place in the universe

The Creator always was:):):)

A Theory in Crisis
by John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D.

The 1986 book by Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," is a secular critique of orthodox Darwinism. It is thoughtful, logical, empirical and well-written. Denton is sympathetic and fair, showing rare insight and compassion towards Charles Darwin. He distinguishes "microevolution" from "macroevolution." The first occurs within genotypes. Darwin's Galapagos finches illustrate microevolution, as does the circumpolar overlap among species of gulls, and the many varieties of fruit flies in the Hawaiian islands. However, selective breeding of pigeons, chickens, turkeys, cattle, horses, dogs, cats, and many other domestic animals yields similar results over less time.

Macroevolution, the second type, had to occur if evolution were to get to the first cell, or to leap across genotypes, say, from a reptile to a bird. While microevolution is evident in the geographical distribution of many living species[2] and in selective breeding, it sustains only Darwin's "special" theory of evolution--variation within genotypes. The "general" theory, change across types on the other hand (macroevolution), requires upward rather than lateral movement.

For macroevolution the problem is how fully developed viable life-forms might arise completely by accident. Denton cites Monod who said, "Chance `alone' is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind."[3] Chance supposedly gave rise to the first organism--perhaps a bacterium, alga, or protozoan. Later, the theory says, chance resulted in complex invertebrates and plants, followed by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, birds, and, finally, mammals.

According to Denton, proof of such a sequence requires at least one of two kinds of evidence: either an unbroken chain of transitional fossils or surviving intermediates; or, plausible reconstructions of such series together with their respective ecological niches. The trick is to show how each link could be viable long enough for the next to get going. Only by establishing complete transitional series can the hypothesized connectedness in the hierarchy of genotypes be made plausible--empirical proof, of course, is a much taller order. Here the issue is mere plausibility. If such transitions ever happened, intermediate forms should be found in the fossils and in living organisms. Existing classes should overlap. Clear boundaries ought to be exceptional rather than normative.

Though Darwin hoped fossil transitions would appear eventually, none did. Only trivial cases of microevolution, hardly rivaling selective breeding, were evident. Nor for more than a hundred years would any accurate measure of distances between existing classes become possible.

Or, take the Coelacanth. On the basis of fossil evidence, evolutionists believed it was intermediate between fish and amphibia. Reconstructions showed Coelacanth to have both amphibian and fish-like characteristics. Later, live Coelacanths turned up in the Indian Ocean near Cape Province, South Africa. They were fish. The reconstructions had been wrong. All of which shows that fossils provide a poor basis for detailed inferences about proposed links between classes.

However, Denton points out that advances in microbiology make possible a new sort of evidence. It is now possible to compare directly the basic building blocks--the proteins--of living things. Denton notes that proteins determine "all the biology of an organism, all its anatomical features, its physiological and metabolic functions. . . ."[4] It is hard to believe that protein structure and evolution could be unrelated. Denton writes: The amino acid sequence of a protein from two different organisms can be readily compared by aligning the two sequences and counting the number of positions where the chains differ. [5]

And these differences

can be quantified exactly and provide an entirely novel approach to measuring differences between species. . . .
As work continued in this field, it became clear that each particular protein had a slightly different sequence in different species and that closely related species had closely related sequences. When the hemoglobin in two dissimilar species such as man and carp were compared, the sequential divergence was found to be about fifty percent. [6]

Such comparisons make possible the testing of hypotheses suggested by neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. For instance, suppose bacteria have been around much longer than multicellular species, e.g., mammals. Suppose further that bacteria are more closely related to plants than to fish, amphibian, and mammals, in that order. If so, we should see evidence of these facts in the sequences of amino acids of common proteins. For example, all the mentioned groups use cytochrome C, a protein used in energy production. The differences in that protein should fit an evolutionary sequence. However, bacterial cytochrome C compared with the corresponding proteins in horse, pigeon, tuna, silkmoth, wheat, and yeast show all of them to be equidistant from the bacterium. The difference from bacterium to yeast is no less than from bacterium to mammal, or to any of the other classes.

Nor does the picture change if we choose other classes or different proteins. The traditional classes of organisms are identifiable throughout the typological hierarchy, and the relative distances between them remain similar regardless of hypothesized evolutionary sequences. For example, Denton observes that amphibia do not fall between fish and terrestrial vertebrates. Contrary to the orthodox theory, amphibia are the same distance from fish as are reptiles and mammals. [7]

In all comparisons, the hypotheses of general evolution are false. Denton writes:

The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series. [8]

The upshot is that

the whole concept of evolution collapses[9] [because] the pattern of diversity at a molecular level conforms to a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated, and unlinked by intermediates. [10]

Moreover, accidental design adjustments, as necessary for general evolution, are logical disasters. Random mutations from radiation, replication errors, or other proposed sources, rarely result in viable design adjustments, never in perfect more advanced designs.

Evidence for general evolution is altogether lacking and predictions from the theory are false. Darwin confessed that

the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty. [11]

Still he insisted on gradual change due to natural selection which he said

can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps. [12]

More than a century later the fossil record still does not fit Darwinian orthodoxy. Ironically, by admitting this "trade secret of paleontology"[13] Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould has achieved fame and glory. From Darwin forward, everywhere in the biological hierarchy researchers came to uncrossed chasms. Yet they pretend the gaps did not exist. This set the stage for Gould's saltational theory--an idea Darwin explicitly rejected.

Gould's idea is like the fantasies of Fred Hoyle [14] and Francis Crick [15] about extraterrestrial civilizations. While Gould, along with colleague Niles Eldridge, proposes miraculous sudden leaps in evolutionary progress,[16] Hoyle and Crick propose panspermia--life seeds from some extra-terrestrial civilization. All such theories merely postpone thinking. Denton rejects them and concludes that perfect design implies supreme intelligence. But, unlike Gould, Eldridge, Hoyle, and Crick, he does not reach his own proposal by wild imagination, but by a ruthless application of logic.

He notes that the design problem and its solution find a nearly perfect analogy in the difficulty of generating texts in a language. While the number of possible texts is large, the number of nonsensical strings is larger by orders of infinity. It is an understatement to say that the probability of generating by chance even one grammatical text of just a few hundred words is vanishingly small. Any such string implies intelligence.

In the same way, viable sequences of life's material are an infinitesimal proportion of possible arrangements. The question is how a viable sequence could arise by accident. Denton considers the odds. He cites Hoyle and Wickramasinghe who estimate the chance of a single living cell spontaneously coming into existence as 1 in 10/40,000 tries--"an outrageously small probability . . . even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." [17] Referring then to the "elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so militates against the idea of chance, . . ." he asks:

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which--a functional protein or gene--is complex beyond . . . anything produced by the intelligence of man?"[18]

In the end, Denton suggests, the advocates of orthodox evolution are like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen. When Alice protested that there's no use trying to believe impossible things, the Queen said:

"I dare say you haven't had much practice. . . . When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."[19]

Please read and respond, I would love to hear you thought about this.

This is pointless. Tray is another godbot and is clearly not really interested in learning any science, he's just here to play word games and do some philosophical masturbating.

Tray, you have been corrected several times concerning the lie that "everyone has the same facts". You do not have the same facts, you have the lies and misrepresentations from your overlords.

If you really want to have the same facts, read a fucking science book, already.

But really, no-one here really cares if you accept the facts or not, Tray. Including you, obviously. Just go away.

These are the references for the above post:

REFERENCES
[1] This paper is a review of Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler, 1986, 368 pgs. Denton is a molecular biologist and medical doctor. He is not a creationist and none of his arguments and evidences relate to religious considerations.
[2] The geographical distribution of organisms was, Denton says, Darwin's main source of inspiration: "the origin of all my views." See Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed., 1872, reissued in New York: Collier, 1962, p. 25 (as cited by Denton, op. cit., p. 45).
[3] Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, London: Collins, 1972, p. 110 (as cited by Denton, op. cit., p. 43).
[4] Denton, op. cit., p. 303.
[5] Ibid., p. 275.
[6] Ibid., p. 276.
[7] Ibid., p. 285.
[8] Ibid., p. 289.
[9] Ibid., p. 291.
[10] Ibid., p. 290.
[11] See Charles Darwin, op. cit., p. 307 (as cited by Denton, op. cit., p. 56).
[12] C. Darwin, op. cit., p. 468 (as cited by Denton, op. cit., p. 57).
[13] Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb, New York: Norton, 1980, p. 181 (as cited by Denton, op. cit., p. 194).
[14] Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, London: Michael Joseph, 1983. Also see, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, London: Dent, 1981.
[15] Francis Crick and L. E. Orgel, "Directed Panspermia," Icarus 19, 341-346; and also see Francis Crick, Life Itself, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981.
[16] Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould, "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism," in T. J. M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology, San Francisco: Freeman, 1973, pgs. 82-115.
[17] Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, C. 1981. Evolution from Space. London: Dent and Sons, p. 24 (as cited by Denton, op cit., p. 323).
[18] Denton, op. cit., p. 342.
[19] Lewis Carroll, Alice Through the Looking-Glass, London: Macmillan, 1880, p. 100 (as cited by Denton, op. cit., p. 342).

Wow. You really have no ideas of your own, do you?

Cut and paste is the best way to prove you're just here to annoy people.

You are garnering less and less respect with every post, Tray. Time to pack it in, buddy.

fnxtr said: This is pointless. Tray is another godbot and is clearly not really interested in learning any science, he's just here to play word games and do some philosophical masturbating. Tray, you have been corrected several times concerning the lie that "everyone has the same facts". You do not have the same facts, you have the lies and misrepresentations from your overlords. If you really want to have the same facts, read a fucking science book, already. But really, no-one here really cares if you accept the facts or not, Tray. Including you, obviously. Just go away.

fnxtr said: Wow. You really have no ideas of your own, do you? Cut and paste is the best way to prove you're just here to annoy people. You are garnering less and less respect with every post, Tray. Time to pack it in, buddy.

fnxtr said: This is pointless. Tray is another godbot and is clearly not really interested in learning any science, he's just here to play word games and do some philosophical masturbating. Tray, you have been corrected several times concerning the lie that "everyone has the same facts". You do not have the same facts, you have the lies and misrepresentations from your overlords. If you really want to have the same facts, read a fucking science book, already. But really, no-one here really cares if you accept the facts or not, Tray. Including you, obviously. Just go away.

Okay.

The whole radio-isotope dating conversation never happened.

Got it.

What part of read a fucking science book are you unable to parse?

Is there a library where you live?

Start with anything by Zimmer, for example.

Or watch Nova instead of The People's Gospel Hour or whatever.

Put down the Bible and get a grip on the real world, in other words.

Or just stop bothering people who have.

Thank you.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X

Why don't you try reading this book.

fnxtr said: Wow. You really have no ideas of your own, do you? Cut and paste is the best way to prove you're just here to annoy people. You are garnering less and less respect with every post, Tray. Time to pack it in, buddy.

Tray read from the standard fundagelical script thusly:

What I have found is many who have attacked me personally rather then truly give answers to the questions I posted.

This is a lie, plain and simple(minded), and the proof that you are lying is right here in the numerous posts in which several respondents have indeed tried to answer your questions directly, with facts, logic, and explicit references to source material. All of which you ignored, and all of which you now pretend simply never happened.

You now stand exposed as a liar, Tray. Isn't lying something your religion forbids? What do you have to say for yourself?

Raging Bee said: Tray read from the standard fundagelical script thusly: What I have found is many who have attacked me personally rather then truly give answers to the questions I posted. This is a lie, plain and simple(minded), and the proof that you are lying is right here in the numerous posts in which several respondents have indeed tried to answer your questions directly, with facts, logic, and explicit references to source material. All of which you ignored, and all of which you now pretend simply never happened. You now stand exposed as a liar, Tray. Isn't lying something your religion forbids? What do you have to say for yourself?

Tray said: The problem with the reasoning that single-celled eukaryotes and prokaryotes came from somewhere else in the universe would only transfer the problem of origins to another place in the universe

It's a statement of fact, boy, and you've been explicitly directed to the proof you claim you seek but can't find. Your continued insistence that the proof we've offred doesn't exist, merely compounds your lie. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Seriously, are all so-called Christians this infantile? Beneath all the indiscriminate pasting, Tray's argumentative tactics are no different from those I got tired of in junior-high school: when you lose an argument, simply keep talking, repeat the same points over and over until everyone gets sick of arguing with a liar, and then pretend you've won.

I don't agree with Crick's position that current life evolved from single-celled organisms over millions of years. But, even Crick begin to question the probability of the origin of life by natural causes here on earth.

Henry J, gave answers and didn't attack personally, but most others have.

Raging Bee said: It's a statement of fact, boy, and you've been explicitly directed to the proof you claim you seek but can't find. Your continued insistence that the proof we've offred doesn't exist, merely compounds your lie. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. Seriously, are all so-called Christians this infantile? Beneath all the indiscriminate pasting, Tray's argumentative tactics are no different from those I got tired of in junior-high school: when you lose an argument, simply keep talking, repeat the same points over and over until everyone gets sick of arguing with a liar, and then pretend you've won.

Do you have proof that life forms have evolved into new and different life forms? macro-evolution

Do you have proof that life came from non-living matter?

Can you create life from non-living matter?

How is it known to be true that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? If it is truly a fact then provide the proof that it is true.

Raging Bee said: Tray read from the standard fundagelical script thusly: What I have found is many who have attacked me personally rather then truly give answers to the questions I posted. Did I say all? no I said many right?

FACT:
micro-evolution - changes within species (adaptation, mutation)

ASSUMPTION:
Macro-evolution - one life form changing into a completely different life form by natural causes, and with common decent one life for changing into a higher life form by natural causes.

I have to go, but I will post what I consider facts and assumptions later on, you can post your thoughts.

Tray the Persecuted whines... Give me one lie that I copy and pasted, demonstrate to me with proof that it is a lie?

Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element.

Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed.

there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: *The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.

*The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.

*The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

“Thou shall not bear false witness”.

Tray said: Do you have proof that life forms have evolved into new and different life forms? macro-evolution Do you have proof that life came from non-living matter? Can you create life from non-living matter? How is it known to be true that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? If it is truly a fact then provide the proof that it is true.

He's got nothing.

As if it's not obvious, every time he tries to substansively answer a question he can only cut and paste entire blocks from ICR and AIG.

His latest screed is copied verbatim from here - http://www.icr.org/article/theory-crisis/

he's not only a liar, he's a plagiarist.

stevaroni said:

Tray the Persecuted whines... Give me one lie that I copy and pasted, demonstrate to me with proof that it is a lie?

Of course you're posting lies, because you're cutting and pasting from AIG, and they are objectively known to have a challenged relationship with the truth. Now, AIG would contest this charge, and they've been caught shading the truth so many times that they've learned not to lie outright, they have instead, learned to speak like politicians with a law degree. AIG, for instance, would never directly say “The sky is red, not blue”. No, instead, they would say “We believe the sky is red, and no Nobel-Prize-winning scientist has ever published a peer reviewed paper definitively demonstrating that the sky is, in fact, blue”. This statement may have the technical property of being true, however it's clear purpose is evasion and misdirection. Now, let's look at what you posted yesterday when you first challenged radiometric dating by cutting and pasting AIG babble (instead of, perhaps, the excellent Wikepedia article Wikipedia article which actually explains the methods, applications and limitations of radiometric dating in substantial detail) As always, the AIG propoganda starts out with grain of truth...

Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element.

But then immediately throws in a red herring..

Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed.

A true-ish statement which is purposely misleading. Specifically, what does it mean that history “cannot be (directly?) observed”? AIG would clearly like to leave that conclusion hanging out there that there's something deeply flawed with this, but that's just plain misdirection. It is simply incorrect that proper scientific analysis can't be done on something that is not observed directly. People do it all the time. The entire court system works almost exclusively with forensic evidence. Nobody ever goes to jail because he commits a crime in front of a jury. Even if you have witnesses the people doing the actual judging weren't there. ( It would make for weird episodes of CSI - “Sarge, we can't charge this one. He's a mime – nobody saw him do it, and he's not talking”). But seriously, forensic science is applied to engineering issues all day long. Why did the plane crash? why did the bridge fall? What did the Romans make their concrete out of? Haley's Comet is known to be Haley's Comet not because of any modern day mathematical magic, but because of ancient Chinese astronomical records. If you have some reason to think that there's some magical reason that science easily measure the radioactive decay of batch of fresh carbon-14 created yesterday, but that it somehow can't measure the decay of some carbon-14 dug out of an old campsite, please do explain your thinking. I'm all ears. AIG then goes on to talk about “historical science” another of those AIG grammatical constructions meant to give people something to point to when there's actually nothing there. It's like “different perspective” or “Specified Complex Information”. It means nothing till you tell people exactly what you mean by it, but they're perfectly willing to let it hand out there as some sort of bogeyman. After a while, they finally get to their bullet points...

there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: *The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.

This is true. Sadly for science, some of the best isotopes for radiometric decay testing are useless for deep-time dating precisely because the initial conditions are unknown. For example, did a given galena sample form with the lead 208 in situ or did it form with uranium and thorium and decay to it's present state? Since the initial conditions can't be known, in this case, no definitive conclusion can be drawn. That is precisely why radiometric dating is only used on decay chains where the initial conditions are known. Examples are where the isotope is known to exist at a steady state, typically because it's a “fast” decaying isotope continually replenished by solar and gamma ray flux. One such isotope id carbon-14, which, known to exist in the biosphere at a steady state (this is not speculation, first, a change in solar flux significant enough to change C14 creation rates would induce climate changes that would make the ice ages look like a cloudy day, and this would be reflected int eh fossil record, and second, there are numerous known historical reference objects of know antiquity (think Roman ruins and Ramses the great) against which C-14 decay rates can be tested and verified). Other examples are where the initial conditions are clearly understood. OSL dating, for example, makes use of accumulated changes that can only occur once a material cools past a certain point. The OSL clock for volcanic rock only starts ticking once the lava is erupted and solidifies; re-melt the stuff and the clock resets. In practice radiometric dating is only used in situations where the initial conditions are known, but conveniently, AIG omits that point.

*The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.

Again, this is true. In fact, there are some nuclide decay events that are affected by outside influences. Examples of such are the decay of Beryllium-7, Strontium-85, and Zirconium-89. These elements decay via electron capture and can be influenced by their environment and cannot be used for radiometric dating. On the other hand, there are many elements which are known to decay only by internal nuclear processes. the decay of these elements is known to be uninfluenced by pressure, temperature or magnetic fields. We know this because there is an entire branch of science, nuclear engineering, which investigates such things precisely because they expect to expose things to extreme environments (like, say nuclear reactors and bombs) and they need to know how they're going to react. Radiometric dating is only done with nuclides which decay due to internal nuclear properties, but AIG conveniently ignores this point.

*The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

Yes, radiometric ddoes does depend on the decay rate being constant. But that's the equivalent of saying that Newtonian physics depends on gravity being constant, or radio depends on the speed of light being constant. You're talking about phenomena at the core of working physics. These are not lab constructs, radioisotopes have been used in everyday products as varied as glow-in-the-dark watches, smoke detectors and atom bombs for a century. Isotope decay lights half of France and Japan via nuclear power plants. Decay rates have been measured exhaustively by people haevily invested in the task for purely non-ideological reasons. Decay rates are physical properties of the nucleus, like electrical charge, and have simply never been demonstrated to vary. But, um, you wouldn't know this from AIG, now would you? So, in conclusion... What we have seen you do is repeatedly post long-discredited screeds from people who professionally shade the truth in order to purposely mislead others. I'm not scholar, but I believe this behavior rather clearly violates Genesis 20:16,

“Thou shall not bear false witness”.

I call liar.

Raging Bee said: It's a statement of fact, boy, and you've been explicitly directed to the proof you claim you seek but can't find. Your continued insistence that the proof we've offred doesn't exist, merely compounds your lie. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. Seriously, are all so-called Christians this infantile? Beneath all the indiscriminate pasting, Tray's argumentative tactics are no different from those I got tired of in junior-high school: when you lose an argument, simply keep talking, repeat the same points over and over until everyone gets sick of arguing with a liar, and then pretend you've won.

... and this comes as a surprise to whom?

Tray pretended to be the innocent seeker of Truth, but he's just another Bible-thumping ignoramus.

That's not an insult, Tray. That's a fact.

Prove me wrong. Go read a book.

What a waste.

stevaroni said: He's got nothing. As if it's not obvious, every time he tries to substansively answer a question he can only cut and paste entire blocks from ICR and AIG. His latest screed is copied verbatim from here - http://www.icr.org/article/theory-crisis/ he's not only a liar, he's a plagiarist.

I've got to go, but I will read posts when I get back and try to respond, you do know that I am trying to respond to several posters, but you are currently just responding to my posts. Keep that in mind!!!

Ah yes the traditional Swedish football move from evolution to abiogenesis. Classic manouevre. Well played, sir, well played.

fnxtr said: ... and this comes as a surprise to whom? Tray pretended to be the innocent seeker of Truth, but he's just another Bible-thumping ignoramus. That's not an insult, Tray. That's a fact. Prove me wrong. Go read a book. What a waste.

Tray said:

fnxtr said: Wow. You really have no ideas of your own, do you? Cut and paste is the best way to prove you're just here to annoy people. You are garnering less and less respect with every post, Tray. Time to pack it in, buddy.

So, are you saying that you don't reference the work of others? I posted A Theory In Crisis to hear your thoughts. Maybe you can't respond the A Theory In Crisis.

Please read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html and the links here.

Tray said: I don't agree with Crick's position that current life evolved from single-celled organisms over millions of years.

It’s true that forensic scientists test historic evidence, but it is validated by a tested and proven standard of observational facts. Let say a dead body is found, we know that certain things happen to the body after death, it begins to decompose, various insects begin to live off of the body, etc…

I have a suggestion, guys.

Ignore this troll; he has just derailed the thread anyway.

If it posts anything else, we can analyze it and profile it among ourselves without responding to the troll. Don’t give the troll anything it wants.

Is "tray" a word that means "troll" in some other language?

Wheels said: Is "tray" a word that means "troll" in some other language?

Tray said: I've got to go, but I will read posts when I get back and try to respond, you do know that I am trying to respond to several posters, but you are currently just responding to my posts. Keep that in mind!!!

Mike Elzinga said:

fnxtr said: ... and this comes as a surprise to whom? Tray pretended to be the innocent seeker of Truth, but he's just another Bible-thumping ignoramus. That's not an insult, Tray. That's a fact. Prove me wrong. Go read a book. What a waste.

I would guess that this troll is a student at one of those so-called “Christian” schools or "colleges". His level of discourse seems typical of that of an immature teenager or pre-teen. It’s the dogma that keeps them stunted at that mental age. They will never grow beyond that.

ben said: But none of that will stop Tray from getting super secret double extra credit for his blog trollery, in Dr. Dr. William Dr. A Dr. Dembski's Theologidiocy 304 class, at the Northsoutheastwestern Central Texarkana College of Advanced Retarded Bible Floggery. Therefore Jesus.

fnxtr said: Ah yes the traditional Swedish football move from evolution to abiogenesis. Classic manouevre. Well played, sir, well played.

Let's watch him flunk. He's well on his way.

eric said:

Tray said: I don't agree with Crick's position that current life evolved from single-celled organisms over millions of years.

Then how can you possibly think that his 'directed panspermia' theory has any value? How can you ethically cite a theory you think is fundamentally incorrect as proof of anything? If you think single-celled organisms arriving on earth billions of years ago is baloney, say so. Do not tell us we should think about it as a viable explanation when you yourself don't believe its viable.

It’s true that forensic scientists test historic evidence, but it is validated by a tested and proven standard of observational facts. Let say a dead body is found, we know that certain things happen to the body after death, it begins to decompose, various insects begin to live off of the body, etc…

We know that certain things happen to uranium atoms in different chemical matrices. We know how they act when put next to others. There is no difference between how forensic scientists view bodies and geologists view radioactive minerals. Its the exact same methodology. Both are equally justified. A claim that we can't know that half-lives were the same 100 years ago is the equivalent of claiming we can't know that bodies decomposed the same way 100 years ago.

Most boring creationist troll. Ever. Usually you recognize the Poes by how over-the-top their behavior is. In this case, I almost want to call Poe because of how incredibly, singularly dull and unoriginal Tray is.

Tray, we've heard Every. Single. One. Of your vapid, dishonest, cookie-cutter objections to evolution literally hundreds of times before. Your ilk are so predictable that a whole extensive index of the nonsensical claims you typically make has been compiled and debunked here. Go read the thorough responses to your predictable, canned complaints about science, or maybe catch up on some old Charles in Charge reruns. Just go away.

Next!

Could it be that AIG and ICR are actually true scientists that you won't accept because of their views? Could it be that you call them liars or misrepresenting the facts, because their interpretation of the evidence is different then yours.

Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence, and facts, but there are different interpretations of the same evidence.

Could it be that AIG and ICR are actually true scientists that you won’t accept because of their views?

If that was the case, you'd be naming names and citing peer-reviewed work they've done. Your failure to do so proves you're bluffing.

Show us ONE peer-reviewed paper by these alleged "true scientists" that supports ID and/or disproves evolution.

You can't, can you? That's because those "true scientists" you speak of don't exist, and no one at AIG or ICR or any other creationist organization has done ANY actual science.

Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence, and facts, but there are different interpretations of the same evidence.

Lot's of things could be Tray. You could be a 5-year-old girl. The question is: what does the evidence support? (hint: evidence =/= interpretations. This is science, not poetry). At the moment, the evidence for 'Tray is a 5-year-old girl' far outweights the evicence for anything you've wondered if it could be.

HERE IS A LINK:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
(tell me how it is known to be true)

* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
(micro-evolution, adaptations, mutations)

* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
(tell me how this is known to be true)

* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
(I believe in adaptation)

Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence, and facts, but there are different interpretations of the same evidence.

Once again, we see the creationist falling back into grade-school argument tactics: in this case, pretending facts and long-established hypotheses are nothing but "opinions" and everyone's opinion is equally valid. Back in grade-school, this line of "reasoning" was commonly known as "crybaby subjectivism."

Sorry, Skippy, but the observable fact is, some interpretations of the facts are saner, more useful, more mature, more honest, and just plain BETTER than others. Grow the fuck up and deal with it already.

It isn’t reading or understanding anything; just taunting.

Raging Bee said: Could it be that AIG and ICR are actually true scientists that you won’t accept because of their views? If that was the case, you'd be naming names and citing peer-reviewed work they've done. Your failure to do so proves you're bluffing. Show us ONE peer-reviewed paper by these alleged "true scientists" that supports ID and/or disproves evolution. You can't, can you? That's because those "true scientists" you speak of don't exist, and no one at AIG or ICR or any other creationist organization has done ANY actual science.

Raging Bee said: Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence, and facts, but there are different interpretations of the same evidence. Once again, we see the creationist falling back into grade-school argument tactics: in this case, pretending facts and long-established hypotheses are nothing but "opinions" and everyone's opinion is equally valid. Back in grade-school, this line of "reasoning" was commonly known as "crybaby subjectivism." Sorry, Skippy, but the observable fact is, some interpretations of the facts are saner, more useful, more mature, more honest, and just plain BETTER than others. Grow the fuck up and deal with it already.

The persecution complex is one of the clear hallmarks of pseudo-science.

Place a real scientist in the crucible of peer-review and what emerges is better science and a better scientist.

Expose an ID/creationist or any other form of pseudo-scientist to even a hint of that crucible, and what emerges is a crybaby with a persecution complex.

Sternberg? Please. That persecution story was exposed as crap long ago -- Sternberg stealth-published a paper in violation of specific policies; and he didn't even lose his job over it. If that's "persecution," you have no case.

And once again, the creationist follows the same tired old script: point out the lack of actual science or scientific work from his side, and he immediately starts reciting "persecution" stories. "How can we publish anything when Darwin's Black Helicopters are strafing our creation-science labs??!!"

I'm with ben: this guy is getting boring. Larry Fafarman was clearly mentally ill and in need of professional help; but he was more entertaining.

I'm done with this cement head. Have fun.

Oh, except for the fact that of course he has it backwards about more useful / matching worldview. My worldview accepts the useful. How about yours?

Hello Tray.

I know this may be a pointless waste of time, but I can't help myself.
First, a little background.
I am agnostic. I am not a scientist. I have lurked on this forum for over 4 years.
I accept the Modern Evolution Theory (MET) as the best answer to the evidence that has been collected.

Tray, I have seen posters come here like you over and over again.
Same misrepresentations, same bad logic.

First, no one here brought up evolution disproving God. MET has nothing to say about it and any "believer" of MET that claims otherwise is lying.
So God has NOTHING to do with it. So you shouldn't feel that God needs defending from the "evil" evolution theory. Not that God needs defending by a puny human anyway.

Micro and Macro evolution. They are the same thing. They are really just made up words to confuse reality in my opinion. You will never see a half duck half alligator. MET does not predict such an animal. No one will ever find this mythical "Macro" evolution. It doesn't exist. Evolution is too gradual. I kind of think of evolution like making a stop-motion movie with clay. Evolution from a very early form of a monkey/ape-like animal to a human-like animal is going to require many 1000's of "frames". You cant view all of the 1000's of "frames" at once so you cannot witness "macro" evolution. I hope I am presenting this idea clearly.

Evolution has nothing to say about how life began on earth.

I am just repeating the same thing thats been said on this blog repeatedly and MUCH more eloquently than I, but I thought maybe it might sink in with you if it came from a less educated source.

Tray, I just don't understand why you and others like you come and post on this site the same poorly thought out arguments. I know little about science but can tell right away that you know less.
I have some questions for you. Why do you come here an attack MET and the people who are actually educated in the science behind it? Are you worried that your faith is too weak to withstand reality? Are you afraid if you lose your belief in God that you will do things you will feel guilty about? Seriously. I am just curious about your true motivations. I am curious because you ask the same questions, act exactly the same way ALL of the posters who come here to attack MET do. If I didn't know any better I would say you are all one person. I say this with all sincerity from my 4 years of experience following PT. Can you enlighten me?

Could it be that AIG and ICR are actually true scientists that you won’t accept because of their views?

Tray whines.... Could this be why many scientists are afraid to speak up against evolution? Could it be why we don’t see peer reviews on creationism? SEATTLE–The demotion of a well-published evolutionary biologist critical of Darwinian evolution....

Tray said: Could it be that AIG and ICR are actually true scientists that you won't accept because of their views? Could it be that you call them liars or misrepresenting the facts, because their interpretation of the evidence is different then yours. Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence, and facts, but there are different interpretations of the same evidence.

stevaroni said: This leads inexorably to the conclusion that people who actually get paid to produce results act as though practices based on ID simply don't work, while those based on evolution do.

John said: Gilson has resorted to censorship now: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/10/questions-for-those-who-believe-intelligent-design-is-creationism

stevaroni said:

Could it be that AIG and ICR are actually true scientists that you won’t accept because of their views?

No. Because it forms the basis of actual profitable industries (like medicine and agriculture), there is a the vast, vast, vast amount of raw information available about virtually every aspect of evolutionary biology and genetics. There are literally 200,000 papers online now at the CDC's PubMed database concerning this sort of stuff, most of them freely searchable for anyone with a passing interest. If AIG or ICR had any actual scientists on staff, it should be trivial for them to sort through this pile of research and find some evidence, any evidence supporting Intelligent design. The digging has already been done for them, all they have to do is examine the results and find the fingerprint of God. It would be massively more efficient for them to spend their money that way. Once they had the tiniest piece of hard evidence in their hands, they could demand that ID be taught in any school in the land, and never again have to worry about those pesky constitutional Lemon tests (they'd get an automatic pass if they could demonstrate the tiniest degree of factual backing, because ID would no longer legally be religion). They have done no such thing, which leads inexorably to the conclusion that they can't. More significantly, the ranks of real scientists who work for all the worlds seed growers and medicine makers, companies who have no axe to grind other than they want to make money, all go about their business working with evolutionary concepts rather than ID concepts. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that people who actually get paid to produce results act as though practices based on ID simply don't work, while those based on evolution do.

The Crick quote Tray made is an obvious and shameless quote mine. Here is a more honest in-context quote:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

That is, Tray was lying by omission about Crick's views. Lying by omission is lying. Tray thus reveals the nature of his true father, as Jesus called it.

More significantly, the ranks of real scientists who work for all the worlds seed growers and medicine makers, companies who have no axe to grind other than they want to make money, all go about their business working with evolutionary concepts rather than ID concepts. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that people who actually get paid to produce results act as though practices based on ID simply don’t work, while those based on evolution do.

Dave Luckett said: The Crick quote Tray made is an obvious and shameless quote mine. Here is a more honest in-context quote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." That is, Tray was lying by omission about Crick's views. Lying by omission is lying. Tray thus reveals the nature of his true father, as Jesus called it.

John Kwok said: He resorted to censorship a few days ago when he stopped allowing me to post there after I compared Bill Dembski to Yasir Arafat:

John said: Gilson has resorted to censorship now: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/10/questions-for-those-who-believe-intelligent-design-is-creationism

Tray said:

More significantly, the ranks of real scientists who work for all the worlds seed growers and medicine makers, companies who have no axe to grind other than they want to make money, all go about their business working with evolutionary concepts rather than ID concepts. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that people who actually get paid to produce results act as though practices based on ID simply don’t work, while those based on evolution do.

Again this is a fallacy, because there are many real scientists who believe in creation. What are you referring to in practices based on ID simply don't work, while those based on evolution do? This is a silly statement!!!

Tray said: So what have I omitted that changed Crick's quote, your post actually confirms what I've been saying all along. We have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against, which confirms what I have been saying all along! Thank you for posting. Check out wikipedia to learn more about Crick's ideas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

there are many real scientists who believe in creation.

The Crick quotemine Tray originally posted has rightly disappeared, but the reason that it was a lie is because he purported to represent Crick's views as allowing creationism or admitting a supernatural causation for life. That was a gross misrepresentation. In short, a lie.

Crick was only saying what we have said, over and over again: we don't know exactly how life began. The evidence is too scant, the possibilities too many; but we have no reason to think that it began by any means other than the natural, indeed, the unremarkable.

What we do know is that once the first self-replicating molecules appeared, evolution by natural selection (with its other emergent properties) is sufficient to explain the origin of species and the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, given the deep time that all the evidence points to.

You lied, Trey, and you were caught in a lie.

Tray weasels... Again this is a fallacy, because there are many real scientists who believe in creation.

Stanton said: Please name some "real" scientists who have done peer-reviewed research using Creationism and or Intelligent Design, or go away.

Stanton said:

Tray said:

More significantly, the ranks of real scientists who work for all the worlds seed growers and medicine makers, companies who have no axe to grind other than they want to make money, all go about their business working with evolutionary concepts rather than ID concepts. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that people who actually get paid to produce results act as though practices based on ID simply don’t work, while those based on evolution do.

Again this is a fallacy, because there are many real scientists who believe in creation. What are you referring to in practices based on ID simply don't work, while those based on evolution do? This is a silly statement!!!

Please name some "real" scientists who have done peer-reviewed research using Creationism and or Intelligent Design, or go away.

Dave Luckett said: The Crick quotemine Tray originally posted has rightly disappeared, but the reason that it was a lie is because he purported to represent Crick's views as allowing creationism or admitting a supernatural causation for life. That was a gross misrepresentation. In short, a lie. Crick was only saying what we have said, over and over again: we don't know exactly how life began. The evidence is too scant, the possibilities too many; but we have no reason to think that it began by any means other than the natural, indeed, the unremarkable. What we do know is that once the first self-replicating molecules appeared, evolution by natural selection (with its other emergent properties) is sufficient to explain the origin of species and the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, given the deep time that all the evidence points to. You lied, Trey, and you were caught in a lie.

There's that persecution complex again.

stevaroni said:

Tray weasels... Again this is a fallacy, because there are many real scientists who believe in creation.

Sigh. Then. Go. Ahead. And. Name. Them. Already. But please, Don't use Michael Behe. When he was on the stand at Dover two years ago he had all the opportunity in the world to explain his precious "Irriducable Complexity". He not only abjectly failed to do so, but during cross examination was forced to actually dothe math he had been advocating. Far from being "too remote to ever occur" after actually totting up the sums Behe was forced to concede that certain mutations were so common they were actually happening inside the courtroom every 50 minutes or so. And, please, don't name "wild Bill" Dembski, the self-proclaimed "Isaac Newton of Information Theory", at leaset until Dembi himself actually gets around to writing down exactly just what "Specified Complex Information" is,a nd exactly how we measure it. He's been working on it for 15 years so that should happen any day now. So aside from Michael Behe, who was pubically disgraced on the witness stand, and Bill Dembski, who's been weaseling about his details for a decade and a half, you can go ahead and name those scientists, now. Oh, and a list of their published, peer reviewed work, please. And no Crick. He believes in "directed panspermia", so unless your God is an amoeba clinging to an asteroid, it doesn't really count as "creation", now does it? Any time you're ready. I'll wait.

I believe that lying and then saying you didn't lie is simply compounding the lie.

Bearing false witness is a sin I am told. The troll sinned, and continues to compound the sinning by continuing to bear false witness while denying it is bearing false witness.

Tray tries to explain.... Another fallacy, scientists don’t use creationism or intelligent design to do research.

Creationists are scientists who believe that a Creator created the universe, but they still using the same scientific methods that all scientists use.

Ah, the infamous
"Dissent From Darwinism" list.

Nothing against the esteemed "Dentist Dr. Henry M. Morris (deceased 2006)" and I'm sure that "Engineering (satellite specialist) Dr. George Hawke" is a nice guy but you should be advised that that particular list was debunked years ago.

(Which is why it's so infamous a hoax that it has it's own Wikipedia page. Ya know, hoax, like Piltdown Man and the Cardiff Giant.)

At one point, near the Dover trial Dr. Barbera Forrest and her groop tried to contact a representative sample of names from said list and found that more than 80% were...

* unidentifiable

* in fields not related to biology in any direct way

* mis (or misleadingly) credentialed

* or (the vast majority of qualified respondants) adamant that they signed something to the effect of "there are still tings to find out in evolution", definitely not "evolution is wrong".

So, um. No, Tray.

You'll have to do better thn that.

Please provide us with the names of scientists who support creationism that we can actually verify through their published work.

That shouldn't take but a trice for a man of your Googling ability.

Trey lies again. This is the statement that the scientists on that list were asked to endorse:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Trey says this means that they "have accepted the biblical account of creation". It means no such thing, and the untruth is blatant. It only means that as scientists, they are skeptical and encourage examination of the evidence, which is exactly what a scientist should say.

The list is a lie, a bearing of false witness. Do the words of Jesus mean nothing to you, Trey?

There is a pattern in the troll’s lying here.

I once heard a fundamentalist preacher produce some of the strangest rationalizations of lying and bearing false witness. It came up in the context of spreading gossip.

The argument was that if you didn’t know you were bearing false witness when spreading the gossip, you weren’t sinning. You were acting with a “pure heart” (that was the term used by the preacher); therefore you weren’t guilty of sin.

It’s kind of a perversion of claiming to be innocent if you commit a crime because you didn’t know it was a crime.

Now the consequence of this line of reasoning is to keep oneself ignorant of the truth in order to “keep a pure heart”. As long as the “Christian” is making statements with a so-called “pure heart”, it is not a sin. “Innocent gossip” is passing along misinformation with a “pure heart”; believing oneself to be innocently informing others of some fact or truth.

I would bet that our current troll has learned this technique of never checking out the truth about what he spreads around. He is “keeping a pure heart” by not only refusing to check anything out, but he is also maintaining his own belief that what he is saying is true. Therefore, he feels no guilt.

Thus, if he believes what he is saying is true, he believes he is “speaking with a pure heart” and is not sinning by bearing false witness. He can only maintain this belief by never studying science or checking the veracity of the sources he uses or what he is gossiping about when taunting “the enemy.”

I believe we have nailed this troll.

stevaroni said: Ah, the infamous "Dissent From Darwinism" list. Nothing against the esteemed "Dentist Dr. Henry M. Morris (deceased 2006)" and I'm sure that "Engineering (satellite specialist) Dr. George Hawke" is a nice guy but you should be advised that that particular list was debunked years ago. (Which is why it's so infamous a hoax that it has it's own Wikipedia page. Ya know, hoax, like Piltdown Man and the Cardiff Giant.) At one point, near the Dover trial Dr. Barbera Forrest and her groop tried to contact a representative sample of names from said list and found that more than 80% were... * unidentifiable * in fields not related to biology in any direct way * mis (or misleadingly) credentialed * or (the vast majority of qualified respondants) adamant that they signed something to the effect of "there are still tings to find out in evolution", definitely not "evolution is wrong". So, um. No, Tray. You'll have to do better thn that. Please provide us with the names of scientists who support creationism that we can actually verify through their published work. That shouldn't take but a trice for a man of your Googling ability.

If all you're going to do is lie, make moronically flimsy accusations, copy and paste and quotemine, then go away.

why don’t you google the names on the list, and see if you can find them?

why don’t you google the names on the list, and see if you can find them?

— Tray the Pure Hearted

What does "misgivings about evolution" mean, anyway? I have what might be called misgivings about being distantly related to several of the species out there (e.g., parasites, disease carriers, digger wasps, some types of cuckoo birds, etc.), but that's in no way an argument against the accuracy of the theory.

Henry

Henry J said: What does "misgivings about evolution" mean, anyway? Henry

stevaroni said:

why don’t you google the names on the list, and see if you can find them?

Sigh. This has actually been done, Tray. Barbara Forrest did it in 2007 and published her results. 80% of the people her team were able to find were either not working in a pertinent field, or didn't have pertinent credentials (oddly, the "life sciences" category contained a large number of dentists, IIRC). As I recall, when it was all boiled down, there were something like six working biologists or geneticists that were willing to say that their views were presented accurately and they had some misgivings about evolution. Six, out of the hundreds of thousands of working biologists on the planet. None of them had published any work substantiating their claim.

illicit

I’ll post more later

Troy,

The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches. With GPS stations in North America and Europe (like a car navigator) the spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been directly measured at ~1 inch per year. Do the math. Is the Earth young or old? No radioisotope dating required.

Rob

was to find out why you actually accept Darwin’s Theory.

Why don’t you research these people for yourself.

The fact that Tray would ost this demand, immediately after pasting the results of just such research, is proof of his deliberate ignorance and knowing doshonesty. (Not to mention his hypocricy -- did Tray do any research into the claims he pasted from other sources?)

...I’m sure that there are many scientists that believe in creation who hold their beliefs to themselves because of fear of discrimination.

Did it ever occur to you that they "hold their beliefs to themselves" because they don't want their unsubstantiated beliefs to interfere with their ability to observe and reason?

I believe my Gods love me and want the best for me, but I hold this belief to myself when making spending decisions, because it has nothing to do with my income and expenses. People of all faiths (sensible people anyway) do this sort of thing every day.

I find it silly on your part that you attack me because of things I have posted to get a response from you.

You posted all that crap to get a response from us, but you think it's silly that we responded to it? Boy, you're a fucking idiot, and your religion has done you absolutely no good at all. Grow the fuck up and take a good look at yourself.

Why don’t you research these people for yourself. Do you always have to take the word of someone else? Isn’t that what you would tell me?

I actually looked up some of the names on the list and they are indeed scientists.

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: The Crick quotemine Tray originally posted has rightly disappeared, but the reason that it was a lie is because he purported to represent Crick's views as allowing creationism or admitting a supernatural causation for life. That was a gross misrepresentation. In short, a lie. Crick was only saying what we have said, over and over again: we don't know exactly how life began. The evidence is too scant, the possibilities too many; but we have no reason to think that it began by any means other than the natural, indeed, the unremarkable. What we do know is that once the first self-replicating molecules appeared, evolution by natural selection (with its other emergent properties) is sufficient to explain the origin of species and the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, given the deep time that all the evidence points to. You lied, Trey, and you were caught in a lie.

I didn't lie!!!

John Kwok said: He resorted to censorship a few days ago when he stopped allowing me to post there after I compared Bill Dembski to Yasir Arafat:

John said: Gilson has resorted to censorship now: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/10/questions-for-those-who-believe-intelligent-design-is-creationism

The thread dedicated to FL over at AtBC has gone on for something like 63 pages. FL is just as vacuous now as when he began, yet just as arrogant; as though he is the top dog talking down to children over there. Nothing has changed. Everything known about FL was already known before the thread was set up for him; nothing new has been learned.

These trolls seem to have a need for followers that hang on their every word. When anyone even tries to parse any of this troll crap, the troll begins to imagine itself as an adored cult leader fulfilling its destiny as was revealed to him by its deity.

This current troll has taken the easy copy/paste route and is dancing around just like any wannabe cult leader who believes himself to be gifted in verbal jujitsu and deep insights.

I’ll go back to my previous suggestion; take away what the troll wants, starve it. I don’t think anything more can be learned from profiling this one.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And that, of course, is yet another lie. You lied, you were caught, and now you want to deny it. Get over it. You're blatantly ignorant of this topic, and I'm sure you're posting for grades on some Dembski course. But realize that you've said nothing new; you've presented no actual arguments. You're not even smart enough to have your own argument. Think about that.

Rob said: Troy, The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches. With GPS stations in North America and Europe (like a car navigator) the spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been directly measured at ~1 inch per year. Do the math. Is the Earth young or old? No radioisotope dating required. Rob

Mike Elzinga said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And that, of course, is yet another lie. You lied, you were caught, and now you want to deny it. Get over it. You're blatantly ignorant of this topic, and I'm sure you're posting for grades on some Dembski course. But realize that you've said nothing new; you've presented no actual arguments. You're not even smart enough to have your own argument. Think about that.

I’ve been trying to imagine what must go through the “mind” of any instructor who would be looking over such an assignment and grading it. What grading criteria would he use? From what I have seen of fundamentalist instructors, there are no particular criteria; the student just has to hand something – anything – in, relevant or not. There are no such things as objective grading standards among these characters.

Tray said:

Rob said: Troy, The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches. With GPS stations in North America and Europe (like a car navigator) the spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been directly measured at ~1 inch per year. Do the math. Is the Earth young or old? No radioisotope dating required. Rob

So, are you trying to say that the earth is 180 million years old? Don't origin scientists say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Isn't that a problem for you? Now let me ask you this, have you taken into account earthquakes, and other catastrophic events and how they would affect continental drift?

Stanton said:

Tray said:

Rob said: Troy, The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches. With GPS stations in North America and Europe (like a car navigator) the spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been directly measured at ~1 inch per year. Do the math. Is the Earth young or old? No radioisotope dating required. Rob

So, are you trying to say that the earth is 180 million years old? Don't origin scientists say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Isn't that a problem for you? Now let me ask you this, have you taken into account earthquakes, and other catastrophic events and how they would affect continental drift?

No, Tray, he's saying that the Atlantic Ocean is at least 180 million years old, which is evidence against the claim that the world is less than 6,000 years. So, why don't you try presenting actual evidence support your ridiculous claims, instead of quotemining, copying and pasting, lying, and then lie about quotemining, copying and pasting and lying?

Rilke's Granddaughter said: I'm curious - why are you bothering to reply to Tray? What do we know about him? 1. He will ignore whatever you say. 2. He will present arguments copied from somewhere else - arguments he neither understands nor supports. 3. He is woefully ignorant of biology, evolution, and anything else related to science. 4. He is not interested in learning anything about science. 5. He will lie. These are simply facts. There is no changing them. Why bother to reply to Tray, given these facts? I'm really curious.

Rilke's Granddaughter... I’m curious - why are you bothering to reply to Tray? What do we know about him?

stevaroni said: Actually, things are improving. The last time Tray posted, responding to Rob, he wrote something original instead of cutting and pasting ten irrelevant paragraphs from AIG. It was wrong, because he didn't read for comprehension, but hey - at least it was original

Rilke's Granddaughter said: These are simply facts. There is no changing them. Why bother to reply to Tray, given these facts? I'm really curious.

Indeed; it appears to be a “control thing”...

This is probably true. Also, people like him tend to gum up blogs like this in order to create an appearance of "controversy" where none really exists. Then they go back to their equally ignorant and dishonest friends and brag about how they questioned the big-time science establishment and -- to quote the Bible -- "confuted the Pharisees" or some such. Of course, they're being just as dishonest to their chums (and probably themselves) as they are to us; but as we've already established, that's all the ID camp can do.

I didn’t lie!!!

Raging Bee said: Indeed; it appears to be a “control thing”... This is probably true. Also, people like him tend to gum up blogs like this in order to create an appearance of "controversy" where none really exists. Then they go back to their equally ignorant and dishonest friends and brag about how they questioned the big-time science establishment and -- to quote the Bible -- "confuted the Pharisees" or some such. Of course, they're being just as dishonest to their chums (and probably themselves) as they are to us; but as we've already established, that's all the ID camp can do.

Rob said: Troy, The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches. With GPS stations in North America and Europe (like a car navigator) the spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been directly measured at ~1 inch per year. Do the math. Is the Earth young or old? No radioisotope dating required. Rob

GvlGeologist, FCD said: That to me is one of the great things about science - that we can make a study that has implications for things not even invented yet, and when the invention occurs, often the new discovery supports the previous hypotheses.

Ah, but atoms didn't do so much for phlogiston theory, did they? :)

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: These are simply facts. There is no changing them. Why bother to reply to Tray, given these facts? I'm really curious.

Well, until the higher-ups finally decide that Tray has overstayed his welcome, I'm going to indulge in SIWOTI syndrome a little.

Henry J said: Ah, but atoms didn't do so much for phlogiston theory, did they? :)

Urban Dictionary: SIWOTI Apr 25, 2008 ... SIWOTI - 1 definition - Acronym for "someone is wrong on the internet." Describes the compulsion to post rebuttals to online nonsense, ... www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SIWOTI - Cached - Similar

Raging Bee said: Indeed; it appears to be a “control thing”... This is probably true. Also, people like him tend to gum up blogs like this in order to create an appearance of "controversy" where none really exists. Then they go back to their equally ignorant and dishonest friends and brag about how they questioned the big-time science establishment and -- to quote the Bible -- "confuted the Pharisees" or some such. Of course, they're being just as dishonest to their chums (and probably themselves) as they are to us; but as we've already established, that's all the ID camp can do.

Henry J said:

Urban Dictionary: SIWOTI Apr 25, 2008 ... SIWOTI - 1 definition - Acronym for "someone is wrong on the internet." Describes the compulsion to post rebuttals to online nonsense, ... www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SIWOTI - Cached - Similar

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Dave wasn't like that. On some key things, he knew perfectly well that he was lying.

"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." - Jeremiah 29:11

I wish the best for all of you, and may God bless you.

Henry J - you were respectful and a gentleman. Thank you for your answers.

Tray said: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." - Jeremiah 29:11 I wish the best for all of you, and may God bless you.

Tray sez... “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD - Jeremiah 29:11

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. - John 8:32

In other words, "I'm getting my ass handed to me here, but I'll never admit it. I'm going to run back to the herd where I don't have to think so much."

Tray can't be bothered actually follow the teachings of Christ, or set an example of virtue in his own behavior; nor does he have anything to offer in the way of divine wisdom or spirituality; so he'll compensate by quoting the Bible, just to sound kinda Christy long enough to kinda run away.

The stench of hypocrisy hangs heavy in the air every time I hear one of these sign-offs.

The parents of these children have never taught them about rudeness and respect. The children act like stinking brats, barging into a conversation taunting and scheming to get themselves smacked down so that they can whine and demand that they be treated with respect.

Then they sign-off by pretending the rudeness they experienced was the fault of the people they attacked.

It’s like the little kid taunting and hitting his big sister until she gets fed up and defends herself by smacking him; and then he goes screaming to mommy that sister hit him for no reason. These children never grow up.

How many posts did he make? Isn't there some number that Dembski demands for his class?

Tray said: I have a few questions: Why do many of you get angry when your views are challenged? If you are so certain that evolution happened and that there is no God, then why are you concerned about my posting a scripture from the Bible? You have every right to believe or accept anything that you want, and I have never condemned or personally attacked any of you. But the truth is that all knowledge known by man is minuscule, are any of you really certain that there is no God

WOW!!! You were the ones who told me to leave weren't you? I quoted you a wonderful scripture, and ask God whom I happen to believe in to bless you, but you post that I am running away? With you people I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. I post opposing views to your views and its disrespectful, I post views of other scientists and you accuse me of plagiarism, I'm called a liar because I posted a comment of Crick I found on the internet, which by the way I never changed, I didn't know that the entire quote wasn't there, even though the found that the entire quote was better then the one I found, yet instead of debating the quote most of you attacked me as a hypocrite and a liar. Are you really that defensive of your position? are you really that uncertain that your are correct? Do you think that I'm judging you because of your views? I have been told, and now I have found it out to be true, that most evolutionists get very angry when confronted with opposing views, it's like how dare you even question my precious scientific theory, yet you would laugh and scoff at the beliefs of Christians.

So, my reason for leaving is that it just got to the point that you were calling me a liar and a hypocrite with virtually every post, so tell me what would you do in the same situation? Would you continue to stay where you were told to leave? What would the point be?

If you are thinking that I gave up and was running to my mommy (which by the way died a few years ago and is in Heaven) then you are sadly mistaken.

I again wish you the best, and ask God whom I believe in to bless all of you.

Tray, you came here being rude, while trying to pick a fight: you then demonstrated that you were not only dishonest, but got huffy whenever we caught you being dishonest, as well as demonstrating that you have no intention of trying to converse with us or even learn anything.

So, when we assume that you're being insincere when you say "God bless," well, it's your own fault.

I quoted you a wonderful scripture, and ask God whom I happen to believe in to bless you, but you post that I am running away?

An insincere person dodges all of our arguments and then offers an obviously insincere "blessing"...looks like running away to me.

With you people I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.

Forget "us people." With your God, you are damned for being a liar, using your God's name in vain, and substituting useless bogus fake-science for true morality and spirituality.

Believe me, I'm acting in Christian charity when I say that, while you use your religion to make yourself look good, you only end up making your religion look both stupid and evil.

Tray said: No evidence? Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

This is my first post stevaroni said: Look, guys, the difference is obvious. To a Creationist, God created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. To the ID proponent, Intelligent Designers, who just incidentally had Godlike powers but for the sake of argument may or may not have actually been God, created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. There. Understand the difference now?

stevaroni said: Look, guys, the difference is obvious. To a Creationist, God created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. To the ID proponent, Intelligent Designers, who just incidentally had Godlike powers but for the sake of argument may or may not have actually been God, created everything at some undefined point using some undefined method leaving no obvious evidence and you shouldn't try to understand it. There. Understand the difference now?

Tray said: Before we start let me ask you some questions; how is it a fact (something known to be true) that we can sort these bones by age? Don't we see the very same physical characteristics in some humans or apes today that are in this hominid fossils evolutionists use as evidence?

This was my second post stevaroni said:

Creationists have the same evidence as Darwinists, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence.

Fine. Let's deal with some of that "same evidence" and see how the creationist "interpretation" works. Over the last 100 years, a succession of hominid fossils have been dug out of the soil of Africa. This statement is an objective fact, not conjecture, and is devoid of framing bias. The bones are factually known to exist. Because of the properties of certain radiological elements, it is possible to sort the bones by age. This statement is an objective fact, not conjecture, and is devoid of framing bias. Because we have an entire branch of the sciences devoted exclusively to things like nuclear medicine, we understand radiological dating well and are able to date certain isotopes reliably. When you sort the skeletons by age, you find a distinct pattern which, as you go backwards, sees the skeletons change slowly from anatomically modern humans to more apelike versions. past about 500,000 yrars, the skeletons start to turn distinctly less human. Eventually, at about the 5 million year mark, the change is so marked, that the only vestige of humanity left is a bipedial hip and foot. The important thing to note is that the change is gradual and universal. Given a skeleton, a skilled anthropologist can estimate the age quite accurately. Given an age, a skilled anthropologist can tell you exactly what kind of bones should be found. It is important to note that no anatomically modern human has been ever found out of sequence. This statement is an objective fact, not conjecture, and is devoid of framing bias. Again, the bones are factually known to exist and facsimiles and photographs are easily available for examination, even by laypeople. Parallel fossil records exist for a variety of animals demonstrating what certainly appears, at least, to document a gradual transition from ancestral forms to modern forms, small antelope-like animals to modern horses, and a racoon-like creature to whales, to name but a few. Once again, the bones are factually known to exist and, once again, facsimiles and photographs are easily available for examination. Now, Tray, here's the question... From a Creationist viewpoint, please explain the "interpretation" that leads to any of the evidence supporting a unique creation event, for the sake of argument, traditionally taken to be around 4004BC.

Stanton said:

Tray said: Before we start let me ask you some questions; how is it a fact (something known to be true) that we can sort these bones by age? Don't we see the very same physical characteristics in some humans or apes today that are in this hominid fossils evolutionists use as evidence?

Over the past 300 hundred years, scientists have devised numerous ways to accurately date and sort fossils and rocks. The fact that you are more interested in trolling with your odious nonsense, and the fact that it's obvious that your spiritual handlers lobotomized you can not, in any way, invalidate the fact that scientists can and do accurately date fossils. So, if you do have evidence that the world really is 6000 years old, or that Noah's Ark is real, please spit it out, or go away.

Go back and read the posts and check for yourselves, now tell me who was rude first?

Read above the first two posts and tell me where I was rude?

Tray said: *snip* This is a response to my second post

Tray said: Go back and read the posts and check for yourselves, now tell me who was rude first?

Stanton said:

Tray said: *snip* This is a response to my second post

And yet, you never did provide evidence that Evolution is wrong, or that Creationism is right. So, please take your insincere piety and bugger off.

Tray said: Go back and read the posts and check for yourselves, now tell me who was rude first?

Stanton said:

Tray said: Go back and read the posts and check for yourselves, now tell me who was rude first?

Your first post here was how "Darwinism" was a loathsome screed on one of the threads about Ken Ham's "museum." So, tell us why "Darwinism" is loathsome, but lying to children in order to make a profit is not.

Before we start let me ask you some questions;

If you were genuinely coming to PT seeking answers, then Stanton was very rude to you. If, OTOH, you were pretending to be seeking knowledge so that you could spout off your AiG talking points, then you were the first to be rude, by dissembling and wasting honest people's time. Your subsequent behavior is straight out of the 'trolling for grades' playbook - so Stanton's call was correct.

Notice that stevaroni's description of the data anticipates and refutes the "radiodating controversy" talking points that you subsequently cut and pasted. You cannot possibly deny that you are a troll, and you were spotted as such immediately. Trolling is per se rude.

So, my reason for leaving is that it just got to the point that you were calling me a liar and a hypocrite with virtually every post, so tell me what would you do in the same situation?

Tray: WOW!!! You were the ones who told me to leave weren’t you?

This is because the religion of evolutionism was invented by Satan to justify unconstrained buggery....

Kinda wonder why Total Baloney is so obsessed with buggery. Maybe he grew up in a bus station or something.

Tray sez... So you think that you even deserved a response after you stated that I was lobotomized? So that was not rude?

Excuse me for belaboring the obvious for Tray's benefit: lying is rude; pretending you're smarter than people you know nothing about, and insulting their intelligence in subjects where they have years of education and experience, is rude; calling a well-established and useful theory a "loathsome lie" (with no proof of this assertion) is rude; and pretending you're not thereby attacking any of the people who support or use that theory, is even ruder.

Refusing to educate yourself, and mindlessly parroting idiotic and/or dishonest assertions that have been debunked long ago, is rude; ignoring the substance of our responses to those assertions is rude; and on top of all that, behaving this way and then pretending you can lecture others about manners, only makes all of the above offenses even ruder. It also proves, once again, that you're just following exactly the same script used by other creationist liars like Salvador T. "Wormtongue" Cordova and others: lie with a silver tongue, then complain about "rudeness" and "incivility" when we show impatience with your lies.

Has this gotten to the point that you are going to debate what is rude or not. You people don't even know what rude is do you? You are the ones who call me an idiot, lobotomized, liar, hypocrit, dishonest, etc... but that isn't rude huh? I have never once called any of you an name, not once!!! You are the ones doing the judging.

You are the ones who state that I don't know what I'm talking about, yet I'm lying, isn't that a contradiction?

To continue the comments of others about the alleged rudeness of PT commenters:

I've been to many national conferences in the geologic sciences. At these conferences, there are many talks and poster sessions about research that a person (often a graduate student) has done. Although it's unusual to hear actual name calling, it is very common to hear, in the Q&A after a talk ends, a thorough, explicit, and uncompromising dissection of a speaker's entire research process. Is it difficult to hear something like that? Yes. Does the researcher who's work has been filleted whine about how mean everyone is? I've never heard of anyone complaining about rudeness or meanness. Instead, by and large the criticism is understood to be constructive, pointing out problems in the understanding of the researcher.

Whether you realize it or not, most of the responses to you have been (had you been willing to listen and learn) constructive criticism, pointing out defects in your logic, understanding, or facts.

Even some of the "names" you have been called ("liar", "troll", "hypocrite"), although harsh, are used because they are descriptive of your behavior. The others (I believe I said you act as if you had no brain, or at least did not use it) are out of frustration for your inability or refusal to understand reality, and because of your own (as Raging Bee points out) rudeness. Get over yourself.

fnxtr said: Kinda wonder why Total Baloney is so obsessed with buggery. Maybe he grew up in a bus station or something.

Tray's complaints of "rudeness" sound remarkably similar to the response one gets when criticizing the behavior of a drug-addict: denial, defensiveness and diversion. Point out that a drug-user's behavior is irrational and hurtful and must therefore change, and the first, predictable, response, is almost always along the lines of "How can you be so mean and heartless and judgemental?! You don't understand me! You have no respect for my feelings, so why should I listen to you?!" When faced with a truth that causes fear or disruption in one's life, a standard respone is to try to shout it down with shrill emotion, drama, hurt feeelings, and self-pity. And when we get this response from creationists, it strongly implies that their reality issues are every bit as bad -- and sometimes visibly worse -- than those of a drug-addict.

Follwing on to Gvl's comment, I'd say that science is a bit like New York: the people aren't rude so much as BUSY; they have their work to do, their bills to pay, their problems to solve, and only 24 hours in a day, so they don't have the time or patience for stupid tourists bending their ears with useless BS.

Total Baloney: if you want to blither about buggery, you can do so all you want -- in the privacy of your own bathroom. Oh, and please rewind, okay?

Also, try to remember that Darwin didn't invent buggery; Christian, Muslim and other clerics have been practicing it -- and using religion to cover for them -- long before Darwin was born. So have both Roman and Christian slaveowners.

Tray said: You are the ones who state that I don't know what I'm talking about, yet I'm lying, isn't that a contradiction?

Tray said: You are the ones who call me an idiot, lobotomized, liar, hypocrit, dishonest, etc... but that isn't rude huh?

Think of it this way Tray: if you were at a conference of people who do whatever you do for a living, and someone showed up claiming that the theories you used every day were false, and that things you did and witnessed daily were impossible, and asked you the sorts of questions that you only asked on your first day of work as if they were some sort of challenge to the profession, how would you respond? And wouldn't you consider this person rude?

Your objections to evolution stated here are akin to someone objecting to modern plane design by quoting sources from 200 years ago on how heavier-than-air flight is impossible, while never bothering to ask any pilots or air traffic controllers about what they know about the subject.

That was not my first post on this thread, and I do believe Darwin’s theory is loathsome and a lie, that is not directed against any of you, but Darwin’s theory.

Mike Elzinga said: ... Is this is the new face of “Christianity”?

Mike Elzinga said: Just who does he think works on these theories and puts in the long hours accumulating evidence, parsing it, vetting it, and doing their damnedest to get it right?

Tray whines... You people don’t even know what rude is do you? You are the ones who call me an idiot, lobotomized, liar, hypocrite, dishonest, etc… but that isn’t rude huh?

Damn you Science Avenger!

You got to the airplane analogy while I was still composing my missive!

Science Avenger said:

Tray said: You are the ones who call me an idiot, lobotomized, liar, hypocrite, dishonest, etc... but that isn't rude huh?

Not when the statements are true, no, it isn't. That's what all you creotrolls can't get through your neanderthal skulls. In science, reality matters more than feelings, and denying reality is, de facto, rude.

stevaroni said: ... Now imagine the group is approached by someone who insists that heavier-that-air flight is impossible – and he's going to prove it to you by waving a stack of printouts of purposely misleading arguments he's gotten from known flight-conspiracy websites, printouts that you've seen for years, with arguments that were discredited decades ago. You try to explain to him the details of how airplanes actually work, details which he himself can easily verify with a little research and experimentation, yet all he wants to do is wave more printouts, and all the while studiously avoiding any substantive discussion of aerodynamics or physics. ...

Tray,

Well, when you refuse to acknowledge the answers to your idiotic questions, when you refuse to discuss the science, when you just keep asking the same stupid questions over and over even after they have already been answered, when all you can do to respond is to cut and paste then scream abuse and start preaching, then I guess that's about all there is left now isn't there?

Now, do you or do you not admit that it is possible to date biological remains accurately? Do you or do you not admit that your ignorance of scientific methods does not invalidate these studies? Do you or do you not accept the major findings of science? If so then quit your whining. If not, the quit using your computer.

Science Avenger, I don’t think you should insult good, honest Neandertals

Raging Bee said: Total Baloney: if you want to blither about buggery, you can do so all you want -- in the privacy of your own bathroom. Oh, and please rewind, okay?

Also, try to remember that Darwin didn't invent buggery; Christian, Muslim and other clerics have been practicing it -- and using religion to cover for them -- long before Darwin was born. So have both Roman and Christian slaveowners.

Toidel, the noise in your head is starting to bother me. Should I expect to find your name in the next edition of "High Wierdness by Mail?"

I have been told, and now I have found it out to be true, that most evolutionists get very angry when confronted with opposing views, it’s like how dare you even question my precious scientific theory, yet you would laugh and scoff at the beliefs of Christians.

stevaroni said: Damn you Science Avenger! You got to the airplane analogy while I was still composing my missive!

Mike: yes, they do spend a LOT of energy inducing the "victimization." Part of it is because they desperately want to think they're all happy and going to Heaven, and everyone else is seething with rage 'cause they're just jealous of The Elect. Part of it is that they can't handle reality, so they do everything they can to keep everyone's attention focused on the self-pity instead. It's a standard predictable formula: lie until people call you a liar, act like an idiot until people call you an idiot, then pretend you're the very model of politeness amid all the name-calling. And of course, redefine "politeness" to mean "never openly disputing anything a thin-skinned religious idiot says."

The Southern nationalists are famous for this schtick too: they flaunt that alleged Southern hospitality and manners while blithering about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery (which the negroes actually enjoyed, donchaknow); then when you try to correct their obvious distortions of history, they bitch about how rude and uncultured us Yankees are, and cut loose with their very uncivil anti-Northern and anti-everyone-else bigotry.

Creationist: I don't believe the theory of evolution, I believe that life was created by God.

Evolutionist: You are an lobotomized idiot, if you had half a brain you would know that evolution is true, the evidence is overwhelming!!!

Creationist: Why do you call me a lobotomized idiot?

Evolutionist: There you go with the victim mentality, you creationists are all alike.

Sound familiar?

Now what I have found is this:
Evolutionists have chosen to impose their belief about evolution on everyone, because they think it is important. It is taught in almost every school, mentioned often in the media. It is constantly thrown in our face from school to tv. It is an important issue, but isn't it only fair that another point of view gets heard. If Christians express their point of view, then we are preaching. And don't say that I have a victim mentality, because that isn't true.

Tray said: ... And don't say that I have a victim mentality, because that isn't true.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4408,Endless-forms-most-beautiful-indeed-,Michael-Ruse----John-Barber----The-Globe-and-Mail

Famously, Richard Dawkins has said: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

This clearly shows how many evolutionists believe and treat those who don't believe Darwin's theory.

It's not a "victim mentality," it's an intentional strategy of baiting people into a negative reaction so you can act wronged.

When you argue with people smarter than you about things they know more about than you do, then tell them they're wrong even though you've demonstrated you don't have a firm grasp of what it even is you're claiming they're wrong about, people get annoyed. You keep it up, and they get more irritated and eventually berate you, not for your beliefs but for your actions. Then you complain about the tone of the discourse, as if you ever had any intention of having an actual conversation. You came here to preach and quote the bible on a site which asks people not to do that, and now you're acting the martyr and the victim. Acting. We don't buy it.

If I went to a Bible-study site and pretended to ask questions about Christianity, only to post canned responses to those answers that I had obviously clipped from rabid atheist sites, and made it clear that had never read the bible and had no interest in learning about it while loudly declaring it to be completely invalid, how would you expect I would be treated? Would you have any patience for me whining I had been wronged when I was told to piss off? No.

You are whining about the reaction you sought to provoke, and many of us think you're doing it because you believe your actions are somehow pro-jesus or something. Nobody cares about your act. Go away.

Tray said: http://richarddawkins.net/article,4408,Endless-forms-most-beautiful-indeed-,Michael-Ruse----John-Barber----The-Globe-and-Mail Famously, Richard Dawkins has said: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” This clearly shows how many evolutionists believe and treat those who don't believe Darwin's theory.

ben said:

Tray said: http://richarddawkins.net/article,4408,Endless-forms-most-beautiful-indeed-,Michael-Ruse----John-Barber----The-Globe-and-Mail Famously, Richard Dawkins has said: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” This clearly shows how many evolutionists believe and treat those who don't believe Darwin's theory.

Tray, you fit right into that classification. You. Are. Ignorant. You claim that evolution is wrong, but the arguments you make demonstrate that you don't understand what evolution even consists of, and you make the error of asserting it's something people "believe in". That's ignorance. You're ignorant. Sorry.

Tray said: Creationist: I don't believe the theory of evolution, I believe that life was created by God. [Scientist: The theory of evolution describes how life changes over time, not how it was created. Creationist: That's not what I read on a creationist site. Scientist]: You are an lobotomized idiot, if you had half a brain you would know that evolution is true, the evidence is overwhelming!!!blockquote> Fixed it for you.

Science Avenger said:

Tray said: Creationist: I don't believe the theory of evolution, I believe that life was created by God. [Scientist: The theory of evolution describes how life changes over time, not how it was created. Creationist: That's not what I read on a creationist site. Scientist]: You are an lobotomized idiot, if you had half a brain you would know that evolution is true, the evidence is overwhelming!!!blockquote> Fixed it for you.

Tray said: This comment by Dawkins is not referring to someone being ignorant of evolutionary theory, he goes on to say insane or wicked. All because I don't believe in evolution.

When it comes to believing that all life came from non-living matter, it really is faith.

Even if one were to see life appear in a place where there was previously no life (without importing it from elsewhere, that is), how would one distinguish between "it came from non-living matter" versus "it was created"? As far as I can tell, there isn't even a logical contradiction between the two.

Henry

Tray said: This clearly shows how many evolutionists believe and treat those who don’t believe Darwin’s theory.

Science Avenger said:

Tray said: This comment by Dawkins is not referring to someone being ignorant of evolutionary theory, he goes on to say insane or wicked. All because I don't believe in evolution.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, do you know what "or" means?

When it comes to believing that all life came from non-living matter, it really is faith.

When it comes to believing that all life came from non-living matter, you are not talking about evolution, but abiogenesis. You can whine about being called ignorant all you like, but as long as you keep making ignorant statements in the process...

Tray said: Not every scientist believe in Darwinism.

Not every scientist believe in Darwinism.

Tray said:

Science Avenger said: When it comes to believing that all life came from non-living matter, you are not talking about evolution, but abiogenesis. You can whine about being called ignorant all you like, but as long as you keep making ignorant statements in the process...

Wait a minute, are you saying that God created life and then it evolved?

No one has ever witnessed life come from non-living matter, but they assume that it happened. You can call it anything you want, but it is still faith.

Brian P said:

Not every scientist believe in Darwinism.

Please explain what on earth 'Darwinism' actually is.

Brian P said:

Not every scientist believe in Darwinism.

Please explain what on earth 'Darwinism' actually is.

There is a pattern of bullying and name calling with many creationists.

So what.

Another helpful hint:

When citing a reference, it is expected that you read it.

From the wikipedia article, "In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term."

and,

"While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

WAAAAH!!! WAAAAHHH!!! The big bad scientists are being mean to me!

Just because I recycled old long-refuted arguments, without knowing the first thing about the subject in which the big bad scientists have been working professionals for years and years!!

BOOO HOO POOR ME I'M SO PERSECUTED.

Stop your pathetic whining, little girl. Present some evidence or fuck off.

Tray said: So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

Tray said: So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

Tray said: So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

Tray said: So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

Translation: I can't be bothered to reply to any of the posts about evolution, so I'm going to ask a question about abiogenesis instead. Then I'm going to try and argue that you are all just 'believers' in something that I will compare to a religion.

Does that approach the intent of your question?

I don't know if life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution. I am quite happy to say "I don't know" and move on to asking for the available empirical evidence. It is possible that answers to the origin of life will be discovered in my lifetime. It is possible that they will not. I do not lose any sleep over it. In any case we do know that the probability of life arising in this universe is 1.0, because life exists. Not being sure of how life arose does not mean we automatically leap to the conclusion that it was magicked into existence.

Rob said:

Tray said: So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

It is not a question of belief. It is a question of evidence. I have two truth hurts questions for you: 1) Is your God all powerful? 2) Is your God unconditionally loving and ethical? Rob

Tray said:

Rob said:

Tray said: So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

It is not a question of belief. It is a question of evidence. I have two truth hurts questions for you: 1) Is your God all powerful? 2) Is your God unconditionally loving and ethical? Rob

The answer to both questions is yes Now do you know what the work believe means? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

Tray since you answered yes to both of those questions (and assuming you are talking about the Christian god here rather than one of the numerous others that humanity has come up with over the years) I humbly suggest that you go and actually read the bible. Especially the old testament. Then look up the words 'unconditional' 'loving' and 'ethical' on your online dictionary.

Good luck.

Here is my point of contention, if God created life to start with, then wouldn't it still be creation? I don't believe that is what happened.

I believe that God created different kinds of life, and then gave each the ability to adapt to their environment, and to be unique from one another. It would be silly for God to create life without the ability to change, because then we would all be identical if there were absolutely no change.

Over 100 years of scientific study of fruit flies for evolution, there have been over 3,000 mutations recorded, but none of them actually were beneficial. This time period would compare to about 100,000 years of human evolution. Yet there have never been any fruit flies evolve into different life forms, much less a higher life forms.

My point about abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, life coming from non-living matter whatever you want to call it is that either life came from abiogenesis, or by a Creator.

Brian P said: Tray since you answered yes to both of those questions (and assuming you are talking about the Christian god here rather than one of the numerous others that humanity has come up with over the years) I humbly suggest that you go and actually read the bible. Especially the old testament. Then look up the words 'unconditional' 'loving' and 'ethical' on your online dictionary. Good luck.

Brian P...I want to know what you personally find unethical and unjust.

Tray said: So how many here believe life came from non-living matter through chemical evolution?

Tray said: Over 100 years of scientific study of fruit flies for evolution, there have been over 3,000 mutations recorded, but none of them actually were beneficial.

Yet there have never been any fruit flies evolve into different life forms, much less a higher life forms.

Tray said:Brian P…I want to know what you personally find unethical and unjust.

Brian P said:

Tray said: Over 100 years of scientific study of fruit flies for evolution, there have been over 3,000 mutations recorded, but none of them actually were beneficial.

I don't work in fruit fly genetics so I'm suspicious of this claim and would like to see references to actual research. Note that a mutation which is not beneficial right now may become beneficial if the organism finds itself experiencing new conditions. Look up neutral mutations, genetic drift, etc... Also please go and read: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/10/mismatch-of-the.html Joe Thornton's work is exceptional.

Yet there have never been any fruit flies evolve into different life forms, much less a higher life forms.

Wrong, there is plenty of evidence of evolution in the lab. Just because a fruit fly evolves into a different type of fruit fly (rather than a crocoduck) doesn't make it any less real. There are plenty of examples of evolution being observed, look them up.

Tray said:Brian P…I want to know what you personally find unethical and unjust.

How about the whole theme of a perfect creator making humanity, deliberately making them imperfect, then drowning most of them (including their children, and all those animals) because the all-powerful god didn't like the choices they had made. It is both unethical and unjust to force your expectations of perfection on someone else, especially when you know them to be imperfect. To then go on and murder men women and children for not obeying your commands? Petty, jealous, unethical, unjust, unloving... Need I go on? Should I pick another of the numerous examples? Now, stop derailing this thread Tray.

Tray,

My definition of unconditionally loving and ethical does not include killing innocent people. Does yours?

Rob

Rob said: Tray, My definition of unconditionally loving and ethical does not include killing innocent people. Does yours? Rob

Tray said: God is just! He is so loving that He sent His only son to die to redeem us back into relationship with him.

Why haven’t fruit flies evolved into a higher life form?

Well folks, in Tray’s case I don’t think there is enough basic understanding here to work with. This troll sees only that it is told to see by its religious handlers; and it is too frightened to consider anything like science, or even delve into what scientists and educated humans have discovered and understood.

He says that life came either from abiogenesis or it was created.

Given that he has absolutely no awareness about what atoms and molecules do all around him at this very instant in his existence; given that he cannot offer up any explanation about how things got created, how can he possibly weigh the probabilities of these alternatives?

He sits on a chair banging away on a computer (solid things), he drinks and excretes fluids (liquid things), he breathes air (gaseous things), and he believes that atoms and molecules don’t do anything remarkable all by themselves.

His computer came about by magic (there were no scientists or science involved at any point), so there is nothing there that relates to the way science works and what an understanding of science produces.

So, given that science and scientists are evil deceivers working for Satan, given that atoms and molecules just bang off each other and do nothing else, given that his computer can’t possibly exist, what choice is left for him?

This troll barged in here with both barrels blazing. That is a toll that can no longer be educated.

Whether it was done mechanically or by the use of sectarian dogma, lobotomized is a close enough description of the state of its brain.

There is nothing accessible to it beyond the fog of its sectarian dogma. Too bad. Not worth the effort to attempt to educate.

There are some more interesting threads to peruse.

God created us for the purpose of loving Him. Any that were innocent would have went to be with God when they died anyway. Death was brought on man because of his fall, and was not God's fault. God gave all of us a free will to either love and serve Him, or to choose to go our own way. That is our choice, but with all decisions we have to face the consequences for those decisions.

Mike Elzinga said: Well folks, in Tray’s case I don’t think there is enough basic understanding here to work with. This troll sees only that it is told to see by its religious handlers; and it is too frightened to consider anything like science, or even delve into what scientists and educated humans have discovered and understood. He says that life came either from abiogenesis or it was created. Given that he has absolutely no awareness about what atoms and molecules do all around him at this very instant in his existence; given that he cannot offer up any explanation about how things got created, how can he possibly weigh the probabilities of these alternatives? He sits on a chair banging away on a computer (solid things), he drinks and excretes fluids (liquid things), he breathes air (gaseous things), and he believes that atoms and molecules don’t do anything remarkable all by themselves. His computer came about by magic (there were no scientists or science involved at any point), so there is nothing there that relates to the way science works and what an understanding of science produces. So, given that science and scientists are evil deceivers working for Satan, given that atoms and molecules just bang off each other and do nothing else, given that his computer can’t possibly exist, what choice is left for him? This troll barged in here with both barrels blazing. That is a toll that can no longer be educated. Whether it was done mechanically or by the use of sectarian dogma, lobotomized is a close enough description of the state of its brain. There is nothing accessible to it beyond the fog of its sectarian dogma. Too bad. Not worth the effort to attempt to educate. There are some more interesting threads to peruse.

Tray said: Why haven't fruit flies evolved into a higher life form?

Tray said: You still have never explained where first life came from, why don't you enlighten me:)

Stanton said:

Tray said: Why haven't fruit flies evolved into a higher life form?

Have you ever bothered to study or even read about fruit flies, or even look at the summaries of the experiments done on them? It's statements like these, as well as the facts that you mindlessly repeat the same debunked, stupid Creationist screeds, as well as fling URLs that harm your own stupid claims as though they were Darwinist kryptonite, or instinctively auto-absolve yourself of any obligation to support your moronic claims that I state that you're "lobotomized."

If science had witnessed a fruit fly evolving into another life form other then a fly, boy that would be news:) It hasn't happened:)

Tray said: If science had witnessed a fruit fly evolving into another life form other then a fly, boy that would be news:) It hasn't happened:)

Tray said: So, are you saying that fruit flies have evolved into another life form?

Tray said: If science had witnessed a fruit fly evolving into another life form other then a fly, boy that would be news:) It hasn't happened:)

You still have never explained where first life came from, why don’t you enlighten me:)

So, let’s see if life wasn’t created by a Creator, and it didn’t come from non-living matter by chemical evolution (mathematically an improbability) then how else did life get here? (my emphasis)

Stanton said: If you want Mike to enlighten you, it would help a great deal if you demonstrated a genuine interest in learning.

So, let’s see if life wasn’t created by a Creator, and it didn’t come from non-living matter by chemical evolution (mathematically an improbability) then how else did life get here?

— Tray

Fruit flies have been exposed to xray to increase mutation rate by 15,000 percent in an effort to speed up mutations thus speeding up the evolutionary process,

Why haven’t fruit flies evolved into a higher life form?

Mike Elzinga said: ...I wouldn’t even give such a student a hint as to why he is being allowed to flunk. You seem to have more patience for this kind of hopelessness than I do.

Henry J said:

Why haven’t fruit flies evolved into a higher life form?

There's no such thing as a "higher" life form. What fruit flies have already works for them, or they'd be extinct already.

Tray said:Over 100 years of scientific study of fruit flies for evolution, there have been over 3,000 mutations recorded, but none of them actually were beneficial.

Dave Luckett said: Trey, again, is merely repeating what he's picked up from creationist sites, and of course he has no attribution. And he's wrong. It's most likely simple ignorance on his part, but it is quite likely to be mendacity on the part of his sources. In other words, he's been lied to, and he's repeating those lies.

I've gotten pretty bored with Trey's robotic, and, of course, long-debunked comments. I think that each and every one of them has been listed in TO's Index to Creationist Claims.

My (I hope!) last comment on this particular thread is that I find it incredibly ironic that the thread started talking about another blog, the "Thinking Christian" and has devolved into proof positive of the lack of thinking ability of at least one "Christian".

Indeed.

Tray, it's idiotic assholes like you that drove me away from the church.

Do you think Jesus is proud of you, little man?

Henry J said:

Fruit flies have been exposed to xray to increase mutation rate by 15,000 percent in an effort to speed up mutations thus speeding up the evolutionary process,

Speeding up mutations that much wouldn't produce faster evolution, it would produce dead flies. If there's more than a few mutations in functional areas of the DNA in the offspring, that is just too apt to break something critical.

Why haven’t fruit flies evolved into a higher life form?

There's no such thing as a "higher" life form. What fruit flies have already works for them, or they'd be extinct already. Henry

Dave Luckett said:

Tray said:Over 100 years of scientific study of fruit flies for evolution, there have been over 3,000 mutations recorded, but none of them actually were beneficial.

Trey, again, is merely repeating what he's picked up from creationist sites, and of course he has no attribution. And he's wrong. It's most likely simple ignorance on his part, but it is quite likely to be mendacity on the part of his sources. In other words, he's been lied to, and he's repeating those lies. Bauer, Goupil, Garber and Helfand, "An accelerated assay for the identification of lifespan-extending interventions in Drosophila melanogaster" in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August 2004, Vol 101, 35. As the title indicates, this is a study of a mutation in fruit flies that extends the fly's life span. Whether it would be actually beneficial for the species would, of course, depend on the entire environment. Cue for Troy to rejoin, "But it's still just a fly!" Oh, and Troy, once more with feeling: we don't know how life began. There are many possible ways, including, almost certainly, many that we haven't thought of. There isn't enough evidence to say, so none of them are generally accepted by scientists. But there is no evidence at all for a supernatural cause, so that one isn't accepted by scientist, either. Asking the same question over and over, getting the same answer over and over, Troy. It gets boring after a while.

If life didn't evolve in higher more complex life forms then Darwin's theory of evolution isn't true.

Tray said: You don't know how life began, but you believe that life forms evolved into more complex high life forms right?

Tray said: So are you saying that flies can't evolve into a higher life form? How do you know that? Don't you believe that we evolved from lower life forms? If all life evolved from single celled organisms by common decent, then lower life forms would have to evolve into higher more complex life forms right?

Tray said: If life didn't evolve in higher more complex life forms then Darwin's theory of evolution isn't true.

fnxtr said: Indeed. Tray, it's idiotic assholes like you that drove me away from the church. Do you think Jesus is proud of you, little man?

Henry J said: There’s no such thing as a “higher” life form

Tray said: So are you saying that flies can’t evolve into a higher life form?

God don't care how smart u are.

Tray wrote:

"Over 100 years of scientific study of fruit flies for evolution, there have been over 3,000 mutations recorded, but none of them actually were beneficial."

Really? Care to explain this Tray:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_25_158/ai_68951557/

A mutation that doubles the lifespan of a fruit fly. Hum, sure sounds "beneficial" to me. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Fruit flies have been successfully selected for increased fertility, fecundity, lifespan, etc. If you had read even one real scientific paper instead of wasting your time at lying creationist web sites you would know this.

Now Tray, I have warned you before about spouting off about things you know nothing about. Really dude, it makes you and your religious beliefs look quite ridiculous. Now I'm sure that's not what you want. This is not abuse, it is just a friendly warning that you should go away and never come back, at least until you know something about what you are trying to talk about.

Stanton said:

Tray said: You don't know how life began, but you believe that life forms evolved into more complex high life forms right?

What he's trying to say is a definite understanding of abiogenesis is not a necessary prerequisite for understanding how life evolves. In other words, it is unnecessary and pointless to demand that we must first understand how life began in order study bacteria developing novel genes, insectivorous lizards developing adaptations to herbivory, or lineages of dogs, cats, fish, vegetables, orchids, fruit trees, brontotheres, trilobites, snails, or brachiopods.

Tray said: So are you saying that flies can't evolve into a higher life form? How do you know that? Don't you believe that we evolved from lower life forms? If all life evolved from single celled organisms by common decent, then lower life forms would have to evolve into higher more complex life forms right?

He's trying to say that flies do not magically evolve into non-flies like how your strawman is demanding. That, and the terms "higher life form" and "lower life form" are considered to be antiquated, arbitrary, and not very descriptive, especially since many "lower life forms" have features more complicated or advanced than "higher life forms," like the way decapod cephalopod eyes are vastly superior than vertebrate eyes, or the fact that complex lifeforms can evolve into deceptively simpler forms, like the fact that the Myxozoa are essentially single celled cnidarians adapted to a parasitic lifestyle. Perhaps if you were to somehow, some day, magically overcome your raging, piety-induced stupidity, you could try reading about the concept of "nested hierarchy"

Tray said: If life didn't evolve in higher more complex life forms then Darwin's theory of evolution isn't true.

No, if flies magically evolved into non flies or if cats could give birth to dogs, then the Theory of Evolution would no longer be true. Even so, then one would still need to explain all of the evidence that suggested it was true, also. That, and "higher lifeform" is, like I said before, not a helpful, or even descriptive term. So, before you intend to lecture or chide us in matters of Evolutionary Biology again, it would greatly help your case if you actually made an effort to learn about Evolutionary Biology, first, rather than spend all this time being a Stupid Jerk for Jesus.

sorry nested hierarchy:)

Tray wrote:

"I know what nest hierarchy is, i.e. camels and whales are related by common ancestor, humans and chimpanzees are related by common ancestor, lizards and snakes are related by common ancestor, birds and crocodiles are related by common ancestor. If a fly will always be a fly, then why aren’t whales and camels which have the same ancestor according to theory classified as the same. My contention is that similar body structures, DNA, etc… could also be evidence of a creator."

Actually, hippos are the proper extant sister group to the cetaceans and yes cetaceans are artiodactyls. No matter how they are currently classified, the fact reamins that there is a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity between them and all other living things. Exactly how is this evidence of a creator? Exactly how is this exact pattern, predicted by evolutionary theory, evidence for anything else?

You do know that the nested hierarchy is also seen in the SINE insertions between artiodactlys and cetaceans as well right? Exactly how is that evidence of a creator? Did God copy the mistakes? Common design won't cut it this time.

Oh and by the way, if you can answer that then you can also explain why we get exactly the same answer from morphology, palentology and development as we do from genetics. Unless of course you want to claim that everything is evidence of a creator, in which case it becomes a meaningless statement.

Tray said: If life didn't evolve in[to slightly different] life forms then Darwin's theory of evolution isn't true.

Tray said: You don't know how life began, but you believe that life forms evolved into more complex high life forms right?

Tray Wrote:

"My contention is that similar body structures, DNA, etc… could also be evidence of a creator."

In reality they are a strong evidence of a common ancestor. About a creator, they have no much to say. Sure they are strongly against the hypothesis that the different kinds have been "created/designed" independently. Why does a creator/designer need to build the animals with a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity? Only to confuse us?

Tray said: Over 100 years of scientific study of fruit flies for evolution, there have been over 3,000 mutations recorded, but none of them actually were beneficial.

Tray: This quote from St. Augustine applies to you.

similar body structures, DNA, etc… could also be evidence of a creator

Tray wrote:

"My contention is that similar body structures, DNA, etc… could also be evidence of a creator."

Yes, we know that's your contention, we just don't know why.

Why is the fact that cetaceans have terrestrial ancestors evidence for a creator? Why is the fact that they are genetically more similar to mammals than to sharks or fish evidence for a creator? Why is the fact that they have early developmental stages more similar to mammals than to other organisms evidence for a creator? Why is the fact that they share the same genetic mistakes as mammals evidence for a creator? Why is the fact that all of these types of data give the same answer evidence for a creator?

Why is the fact that you know absolutely nothing about fruit fly mutations evidence for anything but your own ignorance? Why would anyone care what you think if you don't know the first thing about anything? You should take the advice of St. Augustine.

So are you saying that flies can’t evolve into a higher life form? How do you know that?

Don’t you believe that we evolved from lower life forms?

If all life evolved from single celled organisms by common decent, then lower life forms would have to evolve into higher more complex life forms right?

Henry J said:

So are you saying that flies can’t evolve into a higher life form? How do you know that?

I see no reason to expect them to do so.

Henry J said:

So are you saying that flies can’t evolve into a higher life form? How do you know that?

I see no reason to expect them to do so.

Don’t you believe that we evolved from lower life forms?

I acknowledge that we evolved from earlier life forms.

If all life evolved from single celled organisms by common decent, then lower life forms would have to evolve into higher more complex life forms right?

More complex would have evolved from less complex, yes, but only because variations of earlier species would produce variations in the amount of "complexity" (however that's defined). Later species can be more, or they can be less, complex than their predecessors - but there's no requirement for them to be such. Henry

Tray said: Okay, let me ask you this, since you believe that we came from an common ancestor, why can't a fruit flies be the common ancestor of different life forms in the future?

Tray,

OK, let me ask you this, why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Are you willing to admit that biological remains can be accurately dated? Are you willing to admit that beneficial mutations have occurred in fruit flies? Are you willing to admit that cetaceans have terrestrial ancestors? Are you willing to admit that St. Augustine had a point?

When you answer these questions then maybe someone will care about answering your questions.

Especially since we are not given a description or definition of exactly what a “higher life form” would be like in the first place.

DS said: Tray, OK, let me ask you this, why haven't you answered any of my questions? Are you willing to admit that biological remains can be accurately dated? Are you willing to admit that beneficial mutations have occurred in fruit flies? Are you willing to admit that cetaceans have terrestrial ancestors? Are you willing to admit that St. Augustine had a point? When you answer these questions then maybe someone will care about answering your questions.

He did correctly calculate the approximate age of the North Atlantic Ocean:)

Henry J said:

Especially since we are not given a description or definition of exactly what a “higher life form” would be like in the first place.

Presumably erect biped. ;) Henry

Rob said: He did correctly calculate the approximate age of the North Atlantic Ocean:)

Tray said: You don't know how life began, but you believe that life forms evolved into more complex high life forms right?

Higher life form - Humans

Lower life form - Bacteria

If we evolved from single cell organisms then more highly evolved life forms would have had to have emerged wouldn't they?

It's been pointed out here, that out of all of the mutations observed in fruit flies,there has been one beneficial mutation that increases the life span. I find this comical, fruit flies lay on average 500 eggs producing approx 280 offspring their life cycle is about 2 weeks, scientists have exposed fruit flies to heat, cold, exposed to xray radiation, yet no real meaningful beneficial mutations. Taking into consideration of how many offspring, how many generations within the almost 100 years of experimentation, why haven't any new organisms emerged? This time period would be equivalent to 1,000,000 years of human evolution. Flies are clearly much less complex the we humans.

Troy says "humans = higher, bacteria = lower"

How many times, Troy? There is no higher and lower, no up and down. Present-day bacteria and present-day humans are just as evolved as each other. Your persistence in this muddle-headed misconception only demonstrates invincible ignorance - ie, not only that you don't know, but that you don't want to know.

And the rest of your last post is a classic move-the-goalposts. "No beneficial mutations" becomes "not enough beneficial mutations to suit me", a number which can be increased to any one you want. As I predicted, it amounts to "it's still just a fly".

The funny part and the not-funny part of this is essentially the same. It's not just your ignorance, and it's not just that you want to remain ignorant. It's that you don't get reason. You can't use rational thought because you simply don't understand the rules by which it operates. I don't doubt that you actually think you have a point because no fruit fly has laid eggs that have hatched out into squid. Or tortoises. Or centaurs.

But for the rational people who might be reading this - not you, Troy - what hatches out of mutated fruit fly eggs is mutated - that is, changed - fruit flies, some of which are better at something or other than their parents. And that's all that evolution needs.

What on earth does that idiot Tray mean by "no meaningful beneficial mutations"?

Is he that stupid to expect mutations like telepathy, eye-beams, or the development of an adamantium endoskeleton?

They're not "meaningful" to him (even though he doesn't really understand anything about mutations to begin with). Therefore jesus.

Tray said: Higher life form - Humans Lower life form - Bacteria

Tray,

You are apparently incapable of understanding even the most basic aspects of biology and emotionally incapable of admitting that you are completely wrong and completely clueless. There really is no reason to continue to respond to any of your ignorant nonsense. Really, I can be ignored by someone much more intelligent and intellectually honest than yourself.

Oh well, at least you finally admitted that you were completely wrong about something. That fact doesn't seem to have affected your argument much however. More is the pity. If you are such an intellectual giant Tray, tell us, what is the capital of Oklahoma?

Nick, I suggest that you move all future comments by this troll to the bathroom wall. He will ask stupid questions, demand answers, ignore answers and ask even more stupid questions until hell freezes over. He is emotionally incapable of learning anything. He just wants company in ignoramus land.

Tray said: Flies are clearly much less complex the we humans.

Science Avenger said:

Tray said: Flies are clearly much less complex the we humans.

By what measure? If we took a scaled snapshot of a human and a fly and took a poll on which was more complex, you really think it's clear that flies would win? They have more legs, complex eyes, and wings, sure seems more complex than us. And yes, science isn't done by polls. It also isn't done by ignoring crucial issues via baseless assertion. So again I ask, what, exactly, is your measure of determining complexity? This is one of the major flaws in IDspeak - tossing around the term "complexity" as if it ha a clear, objective definition, when simple observation of IDer usage suggests a Humpty Dumpty approach.

Tray sez... It’s been pointed out here, that out of all of the mutations observed in fruit flies,there has been one beneficial mutation that increases the life span.

This time period would be equivalent to 1,000,000 years of human evolution.

Tray said: Flies are clearly much less complex the we humans.

(snip) It's been pointed out here, that out of all of the mutations observed in fruit flies,there has been one beneficial mutation that increases the life span.

I find this comical, fruit flies lay on average 500 eggs producing approx 280 offspring their life cycle is about 2 weeks, scientists have exposed fruit flies to heat, cold, exposed to xray radiation, yet no real meaningful beneficial mutations. Taking into consideration of how many offspring, how many generations within the almost 100 years of experimentation, why haven't any new organisms emerged? This time period would be equivalent to 1,000,000 years of human evolution.

Flies are clearly much less complex the we humans.

Science Avenger said: This is one of the major flaws in IDspeak - tossing around the term "complexity" as if it ha a clear, objective definition, when simple observation of IDer usage suggests a Humpty Dumpty approach.

Tray,

Here are some questions for you:

1) If you were not there when the bible was dictated by god, then how do you know she really did it?

2) If your bible has been translated at least three times, then how can you be absolutely certain of anything it says?

3) If god gave his word to man and the bible was written, how come there have been no new chapters in the last 1500 years? Is your god dead?

Now Tray, if you find these questions offensive, then now you know how scientists feel about your crap. The lies you have been reading have deceived you, they have been shown to be incorrect. Why can you not see that? If you will not read any real science or discuss any real evidence then just go away. If you don't you will have to answer these questions. The ridicule stage is over, now the real abuse will begin.

stevaroni said:

Tray sez... It’s been pointed out here, that out of all of the mutations observed in fruit flies,there has been one beneficial mutation that increases the life span.

Um, no. It's been pointed out here that AIG's propaganda that "there has never been a single beneficial mutation in fruit flies" is wrong. There have, in fact, been thousands. It took DS all of seconds to find an example. But again, even this is a red herring because fruit flies live in an weird, unnatural environment that selects not for the benefit of the fly, but for the benefit of the researcher, like this fly, bred to have a specific type of gene useful in human cardiac research. if you're carrying around a heart inside your chest at the moment (which I know is tough for you to believe, because you can't directly observe it), the existence of this fly is, I daresay, beneficial to you. But these mutations are also beneficial to the fly. Flies having mutations like this get to breed in climate controlled comfort in an environment that actively looks out for their reproductive success, unlike their brethren without the gene who are unceremoniously destroyed, or their wild cousins who die at such a prolific rate without breeding that successful flies have to lay hundreds of eggs each just to keep up. In the environment in which laboratory fruit flies live, being born with a unique mutation is a distinct survival advantage because it dramatically increases your chances of being selected to breed. In 1907 a single white-eyed fly was picked out of a fly culture in a Columbia biology lab and became the progenitor of the first line of mutant research flies. That was 102 years ago, and while that mutation might have been useless in the wild, because of it, that fly has been the patriarch of maybe 2000 generations and had billions of offspring - while his siblings are long-forgotten. Now that is a reproductive benefit, Tray. Besides, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that small mutations might have big survival advantages. For instance, I grew up in an area of the northeastern US that saw extensive coal mining in the 40's and was covered extensively with piles of dark coal slag. These areas are "rehabilitated" of late by planting hardy trees that grow in the otherwise blank black "soil". In such an environment, this guy, a gray squirrel with a mutation that gives him a black coat, might have a significant survival advantage indeed.

This time period would be equivalent to 1,000,000 years of human evolution.

Well, how many really significant differences are there between man and our apelike brethren, Tray? I hate to pop your bubble about "higher" life forms, but current research mostly shows our differences to be more a matter of degree than any real unique faculty, but if you have to name pinpoint mutations, you end up with precious few. You end up with ... * Bipedialism, freeing hands to become dextrous * Ability for symbolic communication * Sense of self and the ability to understand the perspective of others. Granted, those are important to us, but over 5000 millenea we've had 250,000 generations to achieve it, how small could the individual steps have been if you take the differences between us and the apes and divide by a quarter million?"

DS said: Tray, Here are some questions for you: 1) If you were not there when the bible was dictated by god, then how do you know she really did it? 2) If your bible has been translated at least three times, then how can you be absolutely certain of anything it says? 3) If god gave his word to man and the bible was written, how come there have been no new chapters in the last 1500 years? Is your god dead? Now Tray, if you find these questions offensive, then now you know how scientists feel about your crap. The lies you have been reading have deceived you, they have been shown to be incorrect. Why can you not see that? If you will not read any real science or discuss any real evidence then just go away. If you don't you will have to answer these questions. The ridicule stage is over, now the real abuse will begin.

Tray said: I have a busy day today, and can't possibly answer all of these posts, but let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

No Tray, you don't get to ask any more stupid questions until you answer my questions first.

Now Tray, when I showed that you were wrong about no beneficial mutations in fruit flies, you said that there was only one, even though I already pointed out that that was not correct. Well Tray, perhaps you could address some of the following:

Genetical Research (1991) 58:145-156

Mol Bio Evo (2007) 24(11):2566 - 72

BMC Evo Bio (2008) 8:334

Now Tray, the first reference details a method for detecting such muations. Now why do you think that that is necessary if none occur? The second reference describes evidence that many amino acid subsitiutions in fruit flies are acted on by positive selection. Now how do you suppose that that occurs if the mutations are not beneficial?

Face it dude you are just plain wrong, those guys lied to you and you bought it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Trying to ask endless inane question in order to deflect attention away from this fact is not going to fool anyone. Claiming that you are too buzy to respond is not going to fool anyone. You can cut an past creationist nonsense all you want but you will be shown to be wrong again and again and again. Since you refuse to discuss any real science, just shut up an go away.

And by the way, copying a huge block of text without responding in any substantial way to any questions therein is just palin rude. You should read your bible more carefully.

If any of you guys want to answer the latest BS question be my guest, but I certainly don't intend to.

So, are we to believe the fact that you believe God to be good and just and merciful gives you license to act like an arrogant asshole who wallows in his own stupidity?

Tray,

Wrong dip stick. The difference between you and me is that I answered your questions. So you can't even answer my questions about the bible! Thought so. Piss off.

Tray said:

DS said: Tray, Here are some questions for you: 1) If you were not there when the bible was dictated by god, then how do you know she really did it? 2) If your bible has been translated at least three times, then how can you be absolutely certain of anything it says? 3) If god gave his word to man and the bible was written, how come there have been no new chapters in the last 1500 years? Is your god dead? Now Tray, if you find these questions offensive, then now you know how scientists feel about your crap. The lies you have been reading have deceived you, they have been shown to be incorrect. Why can you not see that? If you will not read any real science or discuss any real evidence then just go away. If you don't you will have to answer these questions. The ridicule stage is over, now the real abuse will begin.

Actually the difference between me an you is that I don't find these questions offensive:) Even though I don't view things like you do, I respect your God given right to believe however you want. The difference is that with Bible we have eyewitness testimony, and I absolutely admit that I believe God by faith, I admit it. But, I am a witness to the goodness of God, back when I was 15 I had a very serious case of the flu, and ran a fever of 105 for a week straight, after which my heart stopped beating and I died, my mother called an ambulance, while my dad worked on me. When all hope was lost my dad laid his hands on me and rebuked death in the name of Jesus in front of the EMT personnel who arrived and found me unresponsive with no pulse. I came back to life right in front of them, I was transported to the hospital where a team of doctors examined me, after which my parents were told that I had to be dead for quite a while, because I still had no reflexes what-so-ever, none. Doctors said that reflexes are the last thing to go after death. So, I have experienced that God does truly exist.

If your bible has been translated at least three times, then how can you be absolutely certain of anything it says?

What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it's validity?

Many of the ancient manuscripts still exist, there are copies of the original Greek and the other languages that made up the Bible.

If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

...but let me ask you a question:

Stanton said:

Tray said: I have a busy day today, and can't possibly answer all of these posts, but let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

You're too busy to answer us, yet, you're never too busy to demonstrate that you're a Stupider than Excrement Troll for Jesus. Do you honestly think that no human has ever died, or that human women can give birth to children every single year past puberty? If you intend on continuing to ask such maliciously stupid questions like these, then we are obligated to point out that you are nothing but a lobotomized, moronic fanatic who delights in having absolutely no science, arithmetic, or social skills whatsoever. And if you intend on whining about how rude we are despite the fact that you continue parading your stupidity around, then get lost.

The difference is that with Bible we have eyewitness testimony,

stevaroni said:

If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

What a dumbass question, Tray. Seriously. I know that there's an old saying that "there are no dumb questions", but still, every once in a while a creationist actually finds one. Seriously, you don't understand the concept that, bereft of technology, agriculture and medicine it might actually be hard for a pair of human beings to raise 4.2 children to sexual maturity? How many children do you think you could raise during the last Ice Age? You don't understand that the conditions that make life so easy for generation 2,499,999, ya know, like indoor plumbing and towns bereft of predators, might not apply to generation 10? You don't understand the concept that for most of our history we were a slow-breeding, vulnerable animal that had a relatively small population footprint, like, oh, all the other large apes? You don't understand that for most of our history females regularly died in childbirth and animals ate us? There have been 50000+ generations of flies since the year one, tray. And each fertile female lays hundreds of eggs, not just the puny five or six children a typically fertile human female might have. But yet, somehow, magically, we are not ten feet deep in flies yet - how could this possibly be? It's right up there with "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" which has all the intellectual fortitude of "If Americans came from Europe, then why are there still Europeans"?

...but let me ask you a question:

No. No more questions, especially of this caliber. We want out of you are some answers Tray. You came here saying you were going to provide them and then you weaseled out. You told us that you were going to explain who a "different perspective" was going to provide a coherent explanation of the observable evidence in biology and paleontology. You told us that you were going show how creationism offers a coherent story about why the hominid fossil record exists int he first place, and why it's sorted so unerringly by age. And you have not yet done this. You have instead evaded. Now answer the questions you said you were going to answer when you first came to this thread, troll. Explain how a "different perspective" gives you a testable hypothesis that supports creationism. Start with "what does creationism offer as a cogent explanation for fossil sorting, and how do I test it?" See if you can find that to cut and paste from the AIG website.

The idiot Tray continues to copy and paste from Answers In Genesis, which is essentially "Lying to Children About Science Inc."

And yet, he doesn't understand why I say he's a lobotomized idiot.

Tray The Idiot said: So are you saying that China has had the greatest of living conditions over the last century, with indoor plumbing (1.2 billion people) what about India with it's horrible living conditions over 700,000 people.

Tray,

One last question for you genius, if you had died when you were 15, would that have convinced you that evolution was true?

Oh yea, and fruit flies are "complete", so there.

If we doubled the earths population every 150 years over just the last 4500 years starting with 8 people we would have 8,589,934,592. Currently the population is doubling every 40 years. Do you see that there is a problem?

Tray said: Do you see that there is a problem?

Answer the question genius.

You don't even know the capital of Oklahoma do you?

By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies

This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

Tray said: If we doubled the earths population every 150 years over just the last 4500 years starting with 8 people we would have 8,589,934,592. Currently the population is doubling every 40 years. Do you see that there is a problem?

If we doubled the earths population every 150 years over just the last 4500 years starting with 8 people we would have 8,589,934,592. ... Do you see that there is a problem?

Do you see that there is a problem?

stevaroni said: Well, I bet it was a mighty busy time for those 64 people who had to built the pyramids in 2100BC. Actually, to get to the know population of just Egypt at the time of the pyramids, Noah's descendants would have had to double their number every 10 years or so.

ben wrote,

"Your whole shtik boils down to, Tray doesn’t know what he’s talking about, therefore jesus."

You got it all wrong man. It's like this:

Tray survived the flu - therefore jesus (and evolution is not true)

Now if Tray had not survived the flu - therefore evolution is not true (and therefore jesus)

See how it works, no matter what, evolution is not true and jesus is. You can't miss man. If anyone gives you any trouble, you know evidence or scientific type stuff, just keep asking idiotic questions implying that the mere asking somehow calls evolution into question. If someone asks you a question, just ignore it. If a real answer is actually provided to your question, ignore that to, just pretend that you never made whatever claim was just falsified and ask another stupid question. Sure, everyone will fall for that.

Wrong about radiometric dating, so what? Wrong about mutations, who cares? Wrong about demographics, no one will really notice. Just keep piling it higher and deeper, the guys who really want to believe will play along. As for the other guys, just claim they are abusing you, everyone will be completely fooled.

Remember, there is an infinite amount of crap that can be cut and pasted from AIG. No matter how many answers you get you can always cut and paste something else. Eventually everyone will give up and declare you are a hopeless cause, That's when you declare victory in the name of jesus. Who cares if real christians are disgusted by your foolishness? What do they know? You almost died. Surely no one else can say that!

Tray said: I have a busy day today, and can't possibly answer all of these posts, but let me ask you a question...

DS said: You almost died. Surely no one else can say that!

Mike Elzinga said:

DS said: You almost died. Surely no one else can say that!

But the brain remains trapped in early adolescence. Whatever its chronical age, all its reasoning and responses are those of someone who just entered middle school and is still dealing with the angst of pre-teen development.

Tray wrote:

"Currently the population is doubling every 40 years. Do you see that there is a problem?"

Wait, why yes I see it now. If the doubling rate is constant and the doubling has been going on for 4000 years, then there should be approximately 1,267,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 humans beings alive now. Man, you're right. The bible can't possibly be true! Who could have guessed.

Oh wait, the doubling rate is not a constant! But you already knew that. So I guess the whole line of reasoning is just blowing smoke in the air, right? What was your point again? I'm so confused. You're way too smart for scientists to understand.

Just out of couriosity, how long has it been since you were fifteen years old? What was the capital of Oklahoma again?

Tray said: let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

Dan said:

Tray said: let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

Because of the black death. etc.

tresmal said:

Tray said: If we doubled the earths population every 150 years over just the last 4500 years starting with 8 people we would have 8,589,934,592. Currently the population is doubling every 40 years. Do you see that there is a problem?

On the other hand, if the population doesn't double anywhere near that fast then we wouldn't. For thousands of years human population growth ( AND here)was a hair above flat, sometimes in some places actually dropping. Ever hear of the Black Death? In a 3 year period in the 1340's Europe's population dropped by somewhere between 25 and 35 percent. The population growth we see today is the result of modern sanitation, the Green Revolution and modern medicine (especially vaccines and antibiotics.)

Tray said:

tresmal said:

Tray said: If we doubled the earths population every 150 years over just the last 4500 years starting with 8 people we would have 8,589,934,592. Currently the population is doubling every 40 years. Do you see that there is a problem?

On the other hand, if the population doesn't double anywhere near that fast then we wouldn't. For thousands of years human population growth ( AND here)was a hair above flat, sometimes in some places actually dropping. Ever hear of the Black Death? In a 3 year period in the 1340's Europe's population dropped by somewhere between 25 and 35 percent. The population growth we see today is the result of modern sanitation, the Green Revolution and modern medicine (especially vaccines and antibiotics.)

I find this to be a ridiculous claim, which reveals the nonsense with world population models created by evolutionists, and you think that information from creationists sites are nonsense. This is all based on unprovable speculation. So, this is how world population got down to the level of the actual population after the time of creation, it funny after creation that's when population suddenly took off:):):) http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/themes/keytheme1.htm "Population growth has by no means always been smooth. Over the long term, demographic dips have occurred, some of them severe. Recent genetic research in human DNA has shown that about 100,000 years ago the existing Homo sapiens population took a headlong dive. We can only hypothesize about the reasons for this decline, but it may have left as few as 10,000 adult men and women in the world. Numbers recovered,but it took thousands of years"

Stanton said:

Dan said:

Tray said: let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

Because of the black death. etc.

Also famine, pestilence, bad sanitation, war, too.

Stanton said:

Tray The Idiot said: So are you saying that China has had the greatest of living conditions over the last century, with indoor plumbing (1.2 billion people) what about India with it's horrible living conditions over 700,000 people.

No, dumbshit, if you actually read about anthropology and archaeology, human population growth did not skyrocket until after the advent of agriculture, which allowed a surplus of food to be distributed to most, if not all members of the population. That, and exactly how do you expect us to believe that we humans were able to go from 8 people to over 6 billion people in less than 4,000 years like moronic creationists like your spiritual handlers demand us to believe? Are we supposed to believe that one of the first things Noah did after getting off of the Ark and getting drunk on homemade wine, was to direct his family to build the Pyramids?

Tray wrote:

"Tell my why it took man who was considered just as intelligent as he is today, 175,000 years to discover agriculture?"

That's easy. Superstitious people like you held to beliefs contrary to evidence and held back science for thousands of years. You're still trying to do the exact same thing. Grow up little boy.

Still don't know the capital of Oklahoma do you?

Ladies and gentle men, it would appear that we have our first black plague denier. Oh well, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

That’s not much of a definition, it’s more like examples. Where do I put an amoeba on your scale? An ant? A snake? A whale? A frog?

Tray,

You know we have written records from the thirteen hundreds right? There were eye witnesses you know. That was good enough for you when it came to the bible, remember? You are really only 17 years old right? Were you home schooled? Did your parents enforce this level of ignorance on you deliberately?

Stanton said: Dan said:

Tray said: let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

Troy sez:

"Many of the ancient manuscripts still exist, there are copies of the original Greek and the other languages that made up the Bible."

Wrong. Worse than wrong.

Not one of the original manuscripts exists. Not one. Not even close.

The oldest copies of some of the Old Testament books we have are among the so-called Dead Sea scrolls, and they are written in a Hebrew and a script typical, so far as anyone can tell, of the first century AD - that is, about five or six centuries after our best guess for when the originals were written. Even the originals are most likely not entirely in the original language. The second chapter of Genesis, for example, shows signs of having been translated into Hebrew from another language, possibly ancient Edomite, from its sentence structure and vocabulary. Deuteronomy and Numbers are certainly not direct transcriptions of the speeches of Moses, as they purport to be. And that's the least of it, for the OT.

With the New Testament, it is thought that the oldest manuscripts we have are the Syriac and Coptic copies of Mark and Matthew. These are possibly second century, that is, at least one hundred and fifty years removed from the events they report. They differ substantially from other, younger manuscripts like the fifth century Codex Vaticanus. These oldest mss, as recent translations of the Bible admit with some embarrassment, do not include the last twelve verses of Mark, nor the episode in John where Jesus prevents the stoning of the woman taken in adultery. The first of these omissions is particularly telling: it confirms the impression Bible scholars have had for some centuries that these verses were added much later by a different hand or hands. And these twelve verses contain all the references in Mark to Jesus's appearances after death.

What's more important is that not even the most ancient mss of the Gospels are in the original languages. They are in Koine Greek, and Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. There are hints, here and there, that the authors of the Gospels were redacting texts in that language, and struggling with the translation. There are at least two passages where it is plain that they've got it wrong.

What are said to be Paul's letters were actually the earliest parts of the New Testament to be written, and these were indeed written in Greek originally. But our earliest mss of these are fifth century, about four hundred years later, and it has long been known that at least four, and probably seven, of the fourteen Epistles are pseudonymous - that is, not written by Paul. Nobody knows who wrote them.

In other words, when dealing with the Bible, we are dealing with unknown numbers of generations of copies of works that are often themselves redactions and translations of earlier material, now lost, of unknown provenance. Most of the original authors are unknown; some are definitely not who they pretend to be. The nearest mss we have are still far removed in place and time from the original events.

None of this bothers Troy and his merry band of fundamentalists, of course. God made a miracle, you see - as many miracles as is required to faithfully and infallibly preserve His word through this impossibly tortuous process. This succession of miracles happened because, well, because we say it did; and the obvious differences between the manuscripts (usually referred to as "witnesses") from which whatever translation of the Bible we use (nearly always the 1614 KJV) was derived are, well, they're not really there, because we say so.

Those who are ignorant of one field are likely to be ignorant of others. And invincibly ignorant, to boot.

DS said: Tray wrote: "Tell my why it took man who was considered just as intelligent as he is today, 175,000 years to discover agriculture?" That's easy. Superstitious people like you held to beliefs contrary to evidence and held back science for thousands of years. You're still trying to do the exact same thing. Grow up little boy. Still don't know the capital of Oklahoma do you?

Tray said: Tell my why it took man who was considered just as intelligent as he is today, 175,000 years to discover agriculture?

Tray said: So, you actually believe that man couldn't see other animals eating vegetation, and eat vegetation also? If man did eat vegetation, you really believe it took 175,000 years to learn how to grow crops? Man at this time was creating elaborate drawings, and making weapons but he took 175,000 years to learn to grow crops:)

Tray,

Well perhaps oh fount of historical knowledge, you can enlighten us as to the earliest evidence of agriculture. Here is a hint, until about 160,000 years ago humans were still living in Africa and hadn't even migrated to other areas of the earth yet. Anyway, no matter what you answer you can't help yourself here. Your illogical argument has already been completely destroyed, you are just too stupid to realize it yet. Just keep arguing about irrelevant nonsense, everyone can see you are completely clueless.

But then again you were completely wrong about the bible. You wer completely wrong about the black plague. You were completely wrong about whales and fruit flies. Why on earth would anyone accept anything you say about anything?

Got a guess about the capital of Oklahoma yet? Man that home schooling must have been brutal.

Tray said:

DS said: Tray wrote: "Tell my why it took man who was considered just as intelligent as he is today, 175,000 years to discover agriculture?" That's easy. Superstitious people like you held to beliefs contrary to evidence and held back science for thousands of years. You're still trying to do the exact same thing. Grow up little boy. Still don't know the capital of Oklahoma do you?

So, you actually believe that man couldn't see other animals eating vegetation, and eat vegetation also? If man did eat vegetation, you really believe it took 175,000 years to learn how to grow crops? Man at this time was creating elaborate drawings, and making weapons but he took 175,000 years to learn to grow crops:)

Tray,

Check this out. It ain't a creationist site, but it will do:

http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/BSCI124/lec24.html

You don't even know how to google do you? The best apology for being proven wrong yet again would be to just go away:):):)

DS said: Tray, Check this out. It ain't a creationist site, but it will do: http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/BSCI124/lec24.html You don't even know how to google do you? The best apology for being proven wrong yet again would be to just go away:):):)

Tray said: I have a busy day today, and can't possibly answer all of these posts, but let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

Any chance you play hockey, Tray?

'Cause you're sure good at the dekes, old shoe.

Tray said:

stevaroni said:

Tray sez... It’s been pointed out here, that out of all of the mutations observed in fruit flies,there has been one beneficial mutation that increases the life span.

Um, no. It's been pointed out here that AIG's propaganda that "there has never been a single beneficial mutation in fruit flies" is wrong. There have, in fact, been thousands. It took DS all of seconds to find an example. But again, even this is a red herring because fruit flies live in an weird, unnatural environment that selects not for the benefit of the fly, but for the benefit of the researcher, like this fly, bred to have a specific type of gene useful in human cardiac research. if you're carrying around a heart inside your chest at the moment (which I know is tough for you to believe, because you can't directly observe it), the existence of this fly is, I daresay, beneficial to you. But these mutations are also beneficial to the fly. Flies having mutations like this get to breed in climate controlled comfort in an environment that actively looks out for their reproductive success, unlike their brethren without the gene who are unceremoniously destroyed, or their wild cousins who die at such a prolific rate without breeding that successful flies have to lay hundreds of eggs each just to keep up. In the environment in which laboratory fruit flies live, being born with a unique mutation is a distinct survival advantage because it dramatically increases your chances of being selected to breed. In 1907 a single white-eyed fly was picked out of a fly culture in a Columbia biology lab and became the progenitor of the first line of mutant research flies. That was 102 years ago, and while that mutation might have been useless in the wild, because of it, that fly has been the patriarch of maybe 2000 generations and had billions of offspring - while his siblings are long-forgotten. Now that is a reproductive benefit, Tray. Besides, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that small mutations might have big survival advantages. For instance, I grew up in an area of the northeastern US that saw extensive coal mining in the 40's and was covered extensively with piles of dark coal slag. These areas are "rehabilitated" of late by planting hardy trees that grow in the otherwise blank black "soil". In such an environment, this guy, a gray squirrel with a mutation that gives him a black coat, might have a significant survival advantage indeed.

This time period would be equivalent to 1,000,000 years of human evolution.

Well, how many really significant differences are there between man and our apelike brethren, Tray? I hate to pop your bubble about "higher" life forms, but current research mostly shows our differences to be more a matter of degree than any real unique faculty, but if you have to name pinpoint mutations, you end up with precious few. You end up with ... * Bipedialism, freeing hands to become dextrous * Ability for symbolic communication * Sense of self and the ability to understand the perspective of others. Granted, those are important to us, but over 5000 millenea we've had 250,000 generations to achieve it, how small could the individual steps have been if you take the differences between us and the apes and divide by a quarter million?"

I have a busy day today, and can't possibly answer all of these posts, but let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

Wheels said:

Tray said: I have a busy day today, and can't possibly answer all of these posts, but let me ask you a question: If there have been 250,000 generations of humans, why do we only have 6 billion people on earth?

Nitpick: The modern human species has only existed for about 200,000 years (give or take a thousand), so you're figuring a rate of about one and a quarter generations per year.
Seems a little off, no? Actually human generations are more like 20-30 years, so you'd have to reduce the number of generations in human history by a significant factor. As if it weren't clear enough that Tray has no idea what he's talking about...

Tray:

Answer the questions. Data. Evidence. Citations. Analyses. I want to hear specific critiques of population genetic models, with specific and detailed rebuttals of the assumptions, models, analyses and interpretations. I want specific details of your critique of the evidence for the development of agriculture. You can nit-pick about little details that someone hear may or may not of said, evading the substance of the questions, but if you want to play science, let's see some actual science. I'm waiting....

Stanton said:

Tray said:

DS said: Tray wrote: "Tell my why it took man who was considered just as intelligent as he is today, 175,000 years to discover agriculture?" That's easy. Superstitious people like you held to beliefs contrary to evidence and held back science for thousands of years. You're still trying to do the exact same thing. Grow up little boy. Still don't know the capital of Oklahoma do you?

So, you actually believe that man couldn't see other animals eating vegetation, and eat vegetation also? If man did eat vegetation, you really believe it took 175,000 years to learn how to grow crops? Man at this time was creating elaborate drawings, and making weapons but he took 175,000 years to learn to grow crops:)

Tray, have you ever tried growing plants to feed yourself and your family, before? Or better, have you ever tried to grow plants to feed your family without understanding what they are? I mean, can you muster enough brain-power to imagine the sort of effort that would go into growing enough grains or vegetables to feed a settlement with no modern farming equipment? It's quite obvious that you're too stupid realize that ancient agriculture was a labor-intensive activity that required a great deal of time and man-power. And if you think that a handful of Stone Age hunter-gatherers would magically get the idea to instantaneously invent agriculture simply from observing wild animals eating plants, well, you're an idiot. That suggestion of yours is even more stupid and idiotic than claiming that God doesn't exist because angels never bothered to tell Adam and Eve how to build iPods. Or, have you tried asking some of the various hunter-gatherer cultures still in existence, like the !Kung, or the Masai why they were too stupid to take up agriculture until the mid to late 20th Century?

Tray babbled: So, modern man was here for 185,000 years? Even though he is said to be as intelligent as man today, yet for some reason he never discovered agriculture for 175,000 years around 8,000 BC, then suddenly within the next 10,000 years he developed written language, fabulous architecture, discovered mathematics, discovered natural laws of science, created scientific theories, invented steam engines, combustive engines, nuclear weapons, computers, cell phones, medical advances, etc... I'm sorry it just doesn't add up:):):)

Tray,

You're right. It just doesn't add up. Now let's see, according to you, all I have to do to be saved is to:

1) Ignore all of science

2) Ignore all of history

3) Deny dinosaurs, HIV, global warming, the black plague and 150,000 years of human history

If I do all of that, baased on the advice of a 17 year old illiterate, then I can go to see the big guy who planted all of the evidence that almost fooled me into believing in evolution. Got it.

I CALL POE. I refuse to believe that anyone is really this stupid. Good bye Troy. Have a nice ignorant life:):):):):):)

If man did eat vegetation, you really believe it took 175,000 years to learn how to grow crops?

ben said:

If man did eat vegetation, you really believe it took 175,000 years to learn how to grow crops?

I'd like to see you grow enough food to sustain yourself and your family on the plains of Africa, using only native seeds and the tools you could make out of available materials there. Keep in mind that you need to protect your crops from pests, and from being eaten by animals and other people (which may also become a threat to you), and that you are subject to drought and other bad weather. It will be very labor-intensive, so the time available for seeking other sources of food will be greatly reduced, as will your skills at those tasks when you do resort to them. Assume your expertise at farming is above average. How long do you think you will survive? I would predict not long enough to see your first harvest, and that that harvest would never happen even if you did live that long, as you would have long since abandoned the project to hunt and gather available food as you need it (which is all the time). Agriculture didn't develop until (among other things) there was 1) a need for more food than could be extracted from the environment (i.e. high population density) and 2) the social stability and security (i.e. proto-civilization) to be able to invest large amounts of skilled labor in food-generating activities that take long time frames to pay off and carry significant risk. Development of language was probably a key too. I could probably teach my daughter to hunt frogs and snakes with a crude spear and forage for raspberries and edible mushrooms (I use those examples because those are the first things I would do if I had to learn to live off the land I live on now) using no language whatsoever. Do like I do, and when you do it right we get to eat. From then you learn by doing. But even if I was an expert farmer, passing on those skills without language would be very difficult, because of the sophisticated concepts involved and the very long time spans between demonstrating a task and seeing the results of applying it, sometimes months or years. But you don't really want answers to your silly questions, you're just here to complain that science won't give your imaginary friend credit for everything. Troll.

Well Tray is apparently still stuck on the plains of Africa. Apparently you had to be there to know anything but he didn't. What a dolt. Let him wallow in ignorance.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in those beneficial mutations that Tray claimed do not exist, here is another good reference:

Barrick, J.E., Yu, D.S., Yoon, S.H., Jeong, H., Oh, T,K., Schneider, D., Lenski, R.E., and Kim, J.F. (2009) Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature Oct 18.

Thanks to Arthur on another thread.

DS said: Tray, You're right. It just doesn't add up. Now let's see, according to you, all I have to do to be saved is to: 1) Ignore all of science 2) Ignore all of history 3) Deny dinosaurs, HIV, global warming, the black plague and 150,000 years of human history If I do all of that, baased on the advice of a 17 year old illiterate, then I can go to see the big guy who planted all of the evidence that almost fooled me into believing in evolution. Got it. I CALL POE. I refuse to believe that anyone is really this stupid. Good bye Troy. Have a nice ignorant life:):):):):):)

I was answering the point made by Stevaroni, he is the one that stated that there have been 250,000 generations of human evolution.

I CALL POE. I refuse to believe that anyone is really this stupid.

I wrote... Poe’s just don’t have this much energy, and, unlike trolls, there is no limit to how far True BelieversTM will go to evade an awkward question.

stevaroni said:

I was answering the point made by Stevaroni, he is the one that stated that there have been 250,000 generations of human evolution.

I'll be the judge of whether or not you answered my question. Um, no, you did not, you evaded. In fact, you evaded all our questions, even though we go through great efforts to respond to your most evasive missives, if for not other reason than to prove there's nothing up our sleeves. But, as always, the conversation goes like it always goes with creationists... Science: "You claim that there's something wrong with our calculations for the speed of light? Well, it's been tested pretty thoroughly, what do you think the issue is?" Tray: "First, prove that light exists." Science: "Um, you see it all around you." Tray: "Then prove that math exists." Science: "What are you talking about?" Tray: "Those are questions. Questions might not exist." ... And so it goes, forever....

I CALL POE. I refuse to believe that anyone is really this stupid.

Naw, there's something weird about this one. I think he has to be a True Believer^TM, Poe's just don't have this much energy, and, unlike trolls, there is no limit to how far True Believers^TM will go to evade an awkward question. Besides, he takes way too much offense at being called a liar, that's a Believer^TM thing because in their mind, you can't actually lie to heathens (It doesn't count since they are heathens. In fact, I don't want to start any rumors here, but they might not even have souls. Regardless, it won't matter after they're left behind on judgment day.) And our little troll has finally learned the first rule of Creationism: "Creationist Rule # 1, Evade, Evade, Evade. Always evade. Resist at all cost the temptation to defend your position with facts. You have none, since we've made all of ours up, and they have boxfulls that they've been rigorously testing for centuries, and you will get shellacked. Under no circumstances ever answer a question that can be analyzed for truth, we have none of that either and you will be revealed to be Lying For Jesus^TM"

Tray Sez... I don’t know what you are referring to, if you are referring to stars that are out of our universe...

Now, tell me how you know that we are indeed seeing light from stars that are billions of light years away?

stevaroni said:

Tray Sez... I don’t know what you are referring to, if you are referring to stars that are out of our universe...

I'm referring to how your posts never have any actual answers, only irrelevant. misdirecting questions to give the appearance of answering while actually avoiding at all costs any actual substance. But you wouldn't do that sort of thing, now would you, Tray? Because that would be dishonest and... huh?...

Now, tell me how you know that we are indeed seeing light from stars that are billions of light years away?

Oh, um, Nevermind.

Tray said: Now, tell me how you know that we are indeed seeing light from stars that are billions of light years away?

Tray:

Data Tray. Answers Tray. Where are your data and analyses Tray?

Let's put it this way... to everyone watching here, see the creationist. He makes blanket condemnations and denials. He is provided with answers, and either ignores or denies them. when challenged, he diverts by asking a different question. But when asked to put his money where his mouth is....nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I'm waiting. Where are your data and analyses Tray?

Well Our good friend Tray has reached a new low, even for a Poe. He admits that you don't really nedd to reject science in order to be saved and yet he proudly displays his ignorance of every topic anyway. With every post he denies another whole field of science. What a retard. It's really hard to play "ha ha made you look on the internet", this guy has it down though. I guess this is your brain on AIG.

Time for Nick to pull the plug. Nick man, is you out there? This guy makes us all ashamed to be from the same species. Please put a stop to this carp before the poor boy blows a blood vessel.

Unless of course he is really an evil genius trying to drive people away from religion, if so, bravo, well done.

eric said: Now that I've answered your question, why don't you answer mine: what evidence do you have that the stars aren't at the distances astronomers tell us they are? If you think they are much closer, what supporting observations do you have for your belief?

mplavacan,

Good luck. I asked this jerk a simple question about SINE insertions days ago, he never answered. He obviously read my post about fruit fly mutations since he misquoted it later, but he never actaully responded to that either. As long as people keep trying to answer his foolish questions he will keep up the routine. Why play along?

It does make one wonder what he actually hopes to accomplish by making himself look foolish and ignorant. Who cares?

So, you actually believe that man couldn’t see other animals eating vegetation, and eat vegetation also?

— Tray

Tray Wrote: So, you actually believe that man couldn’t see other animals eating vegetation, and eat vegetation also?

Mike Elzinga said:

So, you actually believe that man couldn’t see other animals eating vegetation, and eat vegetation also?

— Tray

This is really silly. Humans have to learn from animals how to eat vegetation? Apparently the animals were “more advanced” than humans. So in the ID/creationist scheme of things, humans are not the pinnacle of creation; they are so dumb that animals have to show them how to eat. This could get really funny with animals having to show stupid humans how to do everything; including reproduction. This guy is a Poe.

Tray said:

stevaroni said:

Tray Sez... I don’t know what you are referring to, if you are referring to stars that are out of our universe...

I'm referring to how your posts never have any actual answers, only irrelevant. misdirecting questions to give the appearance of answering while actually avoiding at all costs any actual substance. But you wouldn't do that sort of thing, now would you, Tray? Because that would be dishonest and... huh?...

Now, tell me how you know that we are indeed seeing light from stars that are billions of light years away?

Oh, um, Nevermind.

LOL

Tray wrote:

"That wasn’t my point!!!"

Right. And my point about the SINE insertions was that it was NOT common design. Sure burns when people don't get your brilliant point eh Tray? Now if this jerk had a real point to make and could make it in a way that people could understand, then maybe someone would care. Maybe not. Either way, asking foolish questions that make you look foolish and quoting foolish web sites won't really cut it. But then again, what can you expect from a black plague denier?

How's that garden coming along Tray? Are you smart enough to feed yourself yet? LOL

I'm finished with this, you people are the most disgraceful human beings I have ever known. To you I am considered rude, because I don't answer every one of your questions, but you aren't rude when you call me every name in the book. I have no qualms with observational science, but when it comes to the science of origins, the truth is that it is really a dogma, and a form of religion. You won't admit it I'm sure, but I really don't care. Let me point out the evolution started out as a religion by the Totems and many other cultures.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 (New International Version)

10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Tray said: I'm finished with this, you people are the most disgraceful human beings I have ever known. To you I am considered rude, because I don't answer every one of your questions, but you aren't rude when you call me every name in the book. I have no qualms with observational science, but when it comes to the science of origins, the truth is that it is really a dogma, and a form of religion. You won't admit it I'm sure, but I really don't care. Let me point out the evolution started out as a religion by the Totems and many other cultures. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 (New International Version) 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

To you I am considered rude, because I don’t answer every one of even a single one of your questions.

I’m finished with this

Tray said: That wasn't my point!!! My point was the humans would have eaten vegetation. If they had eaten vegetation it wouldn't have taken 175,000 years to discover that they could plant seeds and they could grow crops.

Tray said: I have no qualms with observational science,

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 (New International Version) 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Tray the lying hyocrite wrote:

"I’m finished with this, you people are the most disgraceful human beings I have ever known. To you I am considered rude, because I don’t answer every one of your questions, but you aren’t rude when you call me every name in the book. I have no qualms with observational science, but when it comes to the science of origins, the truth is that it is really a dogma, and a form of religion. You won’t admit it I’m sure, but I really don’t care."

Right Tray, you're all about the science, insults are beneath you, right. Look little boy, I tried desperately to discuss science with you, you ignored me. I provided answers, I provided references, you just quoted bible verses. Go back to your slimy hole and think about your behavior here. You have insulted people with your rudness and your worship of ignorance and you haven't learned one thing. Please do leave, but don't delude yourself for one second that you were not the one who behaved poorly here.

Oh and you better read your bible a little more closely. It has lots to say about who you should try to save and how you should go about it. Guess you skipped that part huh?

Before you go, just one last question for you, have you even learned the capital of Oklahoma yet? Here is a hint, I capitalized it for you!

stevaroni said:

To you I am considered rude, because I don’t answer every one of even a single one of your questions.

There. Fixed it for you, Tray. And given the amount of effort we've expended patiently answering your missives. Um, Yes.

I’m finished with this

As the minstrels of old said... "Brave, Brave, Brave Sir Robin! Bravely ran away, away! Bravest of the brave, Brave Sir Robin!" (I've now used that twice in one day, gotta love trolls.)

Tray blithered thusly: 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 (New International Version) 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Tray said:

Mike Elzinga said:

So, you actually believe that man couldn’t see other animals eating vegetation, and eat vegetation also?

— Tray

This is really silly. Humans have to learn from animals how to eat vegetation? Apparently the animals were “more advanced” than humans. So in the ID/creationist scheme of things, humans are not the pinnacle of creation; they are so dumb that animals have to show them how to eat. This could get really funny with animals having to show stupid humans how to do everything; including reproduction. This guy is a Poe.

That wasn't my point!!! My point was the humans would have eaten vegetation. If they had eaten vegetation it wouldn't have taken 175,000 years to discover that they could plant seeds and they could grow crops.

To you I am considered rude, because....

I’m finished with this

Tray said: I'm finished with this, you people are the most disgraceful human beings I have ever known. To you I am considered rude, because I don't answer every one of your questions, but you aren't rude when you call me every name in the book. I have no qualms with observational science, but when it comes to the science of origins, the truth is that it is really a dogma, and a form of religion. You won't admit it I'm sure, but I really don't care. Let me point out the evolution started out as a religion by the Totems and many other cultures. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 (New International Version) 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

ben said:

To you I am considered rude, because....

....because you pontificate about things you don't understand and dismiss whole branches of science using crappy plagiarized arguments and non-existent evidence. You show that you don't know anything whatsoever about the relevant science, yet presume to be able to demolish it with nothing but flip rhetorical questions which exposes nothing but your own ignorance.

I’m finished with this

Liar. You can't get enough of this, ya god-bothering narcissist. Prove me wrong. Show us you don't really want the negative attention you've provoked and are now whining about, and just go away.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Yes, I also don't think Tray is leaving. He gets too much masochistic fun out of being kicked in the head by reason.

ben said:

To you I am considered rude, because....

....because you pontificate about things you don't understand and dismiss whole branches of science using crappy plagiarized arguments and non-existent evidence. You show that you don't know anything whatsoever about the relevant science, yet presume to be able to demolish it with nothing but flip rhetorical questions which exposes nothing but your own ignorance.

I’m finished with this

Liar. You can't get enough of this, ya god-bothering narcissist. Prove me wrong. Show us you don't really want the negative attention you've provoked and are now whining about, and just go away.

"Tray, stop arguing online with the Atheists and come up for dinner. For goodness sakes, put some clothes on, you can't just sit around down there in your underwear all day! And didn't we agree you'd get a job once you turned 25? Whatever happened to that Burger King application I brought home for you?"

Tray = Toidel Mahoney when he's on his (heavy) meds.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Yes, I also don't think Tray is leaving. He gets too much masochistic fun out of being kicked in the head by reason.

Man, it's a good thing that guy left before he could get around to denying the holocaust. You know it was coming, you just know it.

Here are the possibilities, Tray:

1) None of the actual scientists here, you know, the people who have studied this information for years and years who constantly test their ideas, who have tried to point out your mistakes again and again, really knows what they're talking about, and just enjoy insulting you, or are jealous of your salvation,

or

2) You really are ignorant of the actual facts, and you believe willful ignorance and self-righteous arrogance are actually piety.

Which is more likely, do you think?

God wrote the rocks. Men wrote the Scripture. You are ignoring and insulting God's work and worshipping the false idol of Scripture.

DS said: Man, it's a good thing that guy left before he could get around to denying the holocaust. You know it was coming, you just know it.

ben,

Ya got me there man. My hand man, my hand. Man, now I believe. The colors, the colors man. Wait man, that ain't my hand.

Anyway, maybe I was there. And you can't prove different.

As for that Burger King application, I bet he didn't get the capitals right on that either.

I’m sure that part of their shtick is to become a martyr by taunting the evil scientists into scolding him so they can “prove” that scientists are rude and defensive about the “gentle lamb’s exposure of the shambles of evolution.”

What I have seen with other such characters is that if you make any kind of suggestion that they go look up something, they will turn that into an insult that they are being called stupid.

And even if you don’t say anything, if you don’t even reply, they will twist your nonresponse or your demeanor and claim you insulted them or were defensive and unable to respond.

It’s the game of an extremely childish mind.

I still get e-mails forwarded by some of these religion freaks who believe every rumor the Tea Party Movement sends to them. Most are quite bizarre.

The science is one thing, and there are many here from whom I learn something about it every day; but my field is history, and I, too, experienced something like the gobsmacked mind-bogglement that, say, a physicist must feel when the whole basis of radiological dating is dismissed with an airy wave. It was when Tray asked, in all seriousness, what the translation has to do with what the Bible actually says.

It simply proved, definitively and certainly, that Tray not only has no clue about anything to do with physics, astronomy, archaeology or anthropology, let alone biology or paleontology (which he could be expected to automatically reject). He also has no clue about other languages, history, or, well, reading text. The idea that the Bible is (partly) the product of the essentially transformative processes of selection, redaction and repeated translation has never crossed his mental horizon. Good grief!

I think the earlier suggestion, that he's a product of a particularly limited home-schooling, is possibly true. Or of a very narrow "Christian" private school. But if not that, then of an impoverished education altogether.

But he is not only ignorant. He is unaware of his ignorance (in some fields) and actually proud of it (in others). In any case, his ignorance is intractable and invincible.

It is desperately tempting to mock him. I think I have to go the harder route, and pity him. But I also think that if there are enough like him, there's reason to be concerned.

Dave Luckett said: ... It was when Tray asked, in all seriousness, what the translation has to do with what the Bible actually says. ...

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: ... It was when Tray asked, in all seriousness, what the translation has to do with what the Bible actually says. ...

Yeah; I’m not a historian, but I love history, and that dismissal just blew me away One doesn’t get to hear much about their distortions of history; but I know it goes on routinely in their sectarian “educations.”

Tray said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: ... It was when Tray asked, in all seriousness, what the translation has to do with what the Bible actually says. ...

Yeah; I’m not a historian, but I love history, and that dismissal just blew me away One doesn’t get to hear much about their distortions of history; but I know it goes on routinely in their sectarian “educations.”

I didn't say "in all seriousness, what the translation had to do with what the Bible actually says" I said: "What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?"

Tray wrote:

"I said: “What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?”

Translation:

Yea, what difference does it make whether anybody made any mistakes in the first or second translations? The third for fourth translations would certainly be lots better. No way could any real errors be introduced just by three or four rounds of poor translating. Even if none of the words were actually correct any more, the original meaning would certainly still be clear. The words aren't actually tht important to the meaning. And my explanation has the added advantage of explaining why there are no beneficial mutations either!

See what a little translation can do for the original meaning Tray. Now aren't you glad you asked?

Points to RGD for predicting that the troll just couldn't stay away.

Oh yea, I almost forgot, way to address the scientific issues genius.

Uh, Tray, the Bible can only be valid if we accurately understand its meaning (that's taken from your playbook, not mine). And what the Bible means depends on what its words mean. What its words mean is a very, very fraught question concerned with, among other things, exactly how those words are translated (and in the case of the Gospels, how they were first translated from Aramaic into Koine Greek, a question which is essentially imponderable). So how the Bible is translated affects its validity. QED.

Sorry, Tray, but this is so simple and so basic that merely to ask the question is to advertise a misunderstanding rooted in enormous and embarrassing ignorance.

Stanton said: Because repeated translations of translations will distort the original message, as well as introduce errors.

Tray said: I said: "What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?"

Wheels said:

Stanton said: Because repeated translations of translations will distort the original message, as well as introduce errors.

Well, to be frank it doesn't work like that. Translations are based on manuscripts in the original Greek (language-wise: none of the original documents themselves survive) wherever possible for the modern NT in English, and the OT has two separate potential sources that represent similar but slightly different Judaic traditions; the Septuagint in Greek and the later Masoretic text in Hebrew. We don't really do "translations of translations" unless you want to count the Septuagint-sourced versions of the Old Testament, where the source may more closely match the traditions referenced in the NT than do the Masoretic texts.

Medieval translations into the vernacular were rare, and mostly from the Vulgate, I believe. (Although Wycliffe's into English was taken from the original languages, I think.) The medieval church very strongly discouraged vernacular translation, because it was aware of the schism that would necessarily follow if everyone could interpret the scriptures for themselves - and it was, of course, absolutely correct in this. The church used only the Vulgate Latin translation. This was Jerome's fifth-century translation of the documents preserved as the "Codex Vaticanus".

Erasmus, the Dutch humanist scholar, spent twenty years in the early sixteenth century collecting the best original-language mss together - there were many bad variants - and Luther, I believe, used this for his German translation. The KJV translators used it too. They were also very strongly influenced by Wycliffe and Tyndale.

As more and earlier mss became available in the nineteenth and twentieth century - the Sinaic and Coptic gospels, for example - it became more and more difficult to defend the idea that there is an authoritative text from which the Bible should be translated, let alone the idiotic notion that there is only one correct translation. The fact that it's an idiotic notion, however, has not prevented the fundamentalists from insisting on it.

Tray said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: ... It was when Tray asked, in all seriousness, what the translation has to do with what the Bible actually says. ...

Yeah; I’m not a historian, but I love history, and that dismissal just blew me away One doesn’t get to hear much about their distortions of history; but I know it goes on routinely in their sectarian “educations.”

I didn't say "in all seriousness, what the translation had to do with what the Bible actually says" I said: "What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?"

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And so Tray's claim that he was "done here" turns out to be just another one of his innumerable lies. How predictable.

Tray said: I said: "What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?"

And now we come full circle to the point that was made in the original posting. Instead of a text that has errors that contradict your deeply held beliefs, we have science that contradicts them. The response to both cases by the hard-core literalist (if there is such a thing as a true literalist) is to simply ignore the evidence and the data, and let faith justify whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to reconcile the disconfirming evidence.

ben said: ...even as he continually demonstrates that he doesn't know what the facts are.

Tray said: I'm finished with this, you people are the most disgraceful human beings I have ever known.

mplavcan said: This should be very simple. No translation is perfect. All distort meaning. This is why Biblical scholars (like my wife) need to learn the languages that the documents were written in. When someone comes along and calls a text the inerrant word of God, the interpretation of the text becomes crucial. And NO text is read without interpretation. For example, you are aware, I assume, that John and the synoptics differ on the day that Jesus was crucified? You are aware that Matthew and Acts offer starkly different stories about the death of Judas. You are aware that John and the synoptics differ in the length of time of Jesus' ministry, the reason for his crucifixion, and so on. You are aware that the end of Mark was clearly added long after the original text was written? All of these conflicts and distortions in the text have tremendous meaning to many people. Fundamentalists who believe that there can be no contradictions in the Bible go to great lengths to try to explain these and many other contradictions away. Why? Because to them they clearly undermine the validity of the Bible. How can God contradict himself? And if the meaning of the text has been altered in translation, then how can you be sure that the message that is read, understood, and itself translated by someone like yourself has any validity at all? God's word should be inerrant, right? Corruption of the text would therefore be corruption of God's word. But how can we know God's word if it is distorted in the translation? You really should do some introspection about your faith and your sources. A lot of Biblical Scholars are reviled by Fundamentalists. Why? Because they ask questions. And when they do, very disturbing answers come about. The problem with the hard-line, though, is that while it may work well for those who can consistently subsume themselves to a singular faith that ignores conflicts and contradiction, for those who one day wake up and connect the dots, their faith is shattered forever. And now we come full circle to the point that was made in the original posting. Instead of a text that has errors that contradict your deeply held beliefs, we have science that contradicts them. The response to both cases by the hard-core literalist (if there is such a thing as a true literalist) is to simply ignore the evidence and the data, and let faith justify whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to reconcile the disconfirming evidence.

Tray said: I said: "What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?"

Tray, you've demonstrated that your word has less value than used toilet paper, given as how this is the second time you've claimed that you were "done with us."

Well, at least Tray applies the same level of rigor to Biblical scholarship that he applies to science.

*sigh*

Tray,

Way to address the scientific issues. Yea, we can all see that you are all about the science. Great job man.

Now look, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should stop contradicting yourself. First you claim that translations have nothing to do with the validity of the bible, then you go to great lengths to attempt to show that the translations are accurate. If you claim this is not an issue, why bother? Who cares anyway? We are here to discuss science, remember? If you really want to discuss the bible, I'm sure others will start giving examples of self contradictions and mistakes in the bible soon enough.

Anyway, no one is going to read anything you post until you demonstrate that you have read the references we have already provided. Have you done that Tray? If so, please provide evidence that you have read and understood them. If not, kindly piss off once again, and this time stay pissed.

Still waiting for the capital of Oklahoma, genius.

DS said: Tray, Way to address the scientific issues. Yea, we can all see that you are all about the science. Great job man. Now look, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should stop contradicting yourself. First you claim that translations have nothing to do with the validity of the bible, then you go to great lengths to attempt to show that the translations are accurate. If you claim this is not an issue, why bother? Who cares anyway? We are here to discuss science, remember? If you really want to discuss the bible, I'm sure others will start giving examples of self contradictions and mistakes in the bible soon enough. Anyway, no one is going to read anything you post until you demonstrate that you have read the references we have already provided. Have you done that Tray? If so, please provide evidence that you have read and understood them. If not, kindly piss off once again, and this time stay pissed. Still waiting for the capital of Oklahoma, genius.

Dave,

I believe that Tray was quoting from the New Interantional Version of the bible, which I believe is based on some kind of translation from the King James version. Does that count as another round of replication error?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Thanks for demonstrating that Tray is as clueless about the bible as he is about science.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/

Tray said: The same care was taken to preserve the writings of the New Testament. As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn't be believable.

Tray,

You answered a question! Good for you boy. Unfortunately you got it wrong once again. The capital of Oklahoma is "O". Everybody knows that. Oh well, at least you finally learned to google.

See, that wasn't so tough now was it? Now that you know how easy it is, you can get to answerin all them science questions that you claim you is so fond of. You know, the ones about SINE insertions, nested genetic hierarchies, beneficial mutations, medieval demographics, modern agriculture, etc. It's all about the science right?

Here, let me make it easy for you. Here is a list of things for you. Is there anything on this list that you do not deny?

1) Evolution

2) Global warming

3) HIV/AIDS

4) Contentinal drift

5) Sun centered solar system

6) Black plague

7) Dinosaurs

8) Radiometric dating

9) Errors in biblical translation

10) Modern agriculture arising 10,000 years ago

Funny how that least one was 4000 years before you claim that the earth was created and yet it still wasn't fast enough for you. Go figure.

Way to cut an paste Tray. Do you even understand any of the words you pasted? If you think that quoting ICR constitutes an argument then you are sadly mistaken. Here is a web site that proves that all that crap is just a lie:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

The site documents over one thousand transitional forms, complete with scientific references. You are wrong yet again.

Look little boy, changing the topic again is not going to work. Evading questions is not going to work. Asking stupid questions is not going to work. Keep your word and go away.

Oh yea, some more things for the list. Do you deny:

1) Round earth

2) Germ theory of disease

3) The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution

Go for the trifecta man. Don't stop with "there ain't no transitional fossils". The Gish horse can also gallop backwards don't ya know.

Tray said: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well. According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions: 1. wholesale change of organisms through time 2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms 3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms. However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record. Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites. Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms. Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside. Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record. In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed. The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created. http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

WHILE(knowledge=0)
{
IF (bullshit_exposed=TRUE)
{(subject=subject+1)}
}

(I've forgotten where the ;'s are supposed to go.)

DS said: Way to cut an paste Tray. Do you even understand any of the words you pasted? If you think that quoting ICR constitutes an argument then you are sadly mistaken. Here is a web site that proves that all that crap is just a lie: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html The site documents over one thousand transitional forms, complete with scientific references. You are wrong yet again. Look little boy, changing the topic again is not going to work. Evading questions is not going to work. Asking stupid questions is not going to work. Keep your word and go away. Oh yea, some more things for the list. Do you deny: 1) Round earth 2) Germ theory of disease 3) The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution Go for the trifecta man. Don't stop with "there ain't no transitional fossils". The Gish horse can also gallop backwards don't ya know.

Tray said:

mplavcan said: This should be very simple. No translation is perfect. All distort meaning. This is why Biblical scholars (like my wife) need to learn the languages that the documents were written in. When someone comes along and calls a text the inerrant word of God, the interpretation of the text becomes crucial. And NO text is read without interpretation. For example, you are aware, I assume, that John and the synoptics differ on the day that Jesus was crucified? You are aware that Matthew and Acts offer starkly different stories about the death of Judas. You are aware that John and the synoptics differ in the length of time of Jesus' ministry, the reason for his crucifixion, and so on. You are aware that the end of Mark was clearly added long after the original text was written? All of these conflicts and distortions in the text have tremendous meaning to many people. Fundamentalists who believe that there can be no contradictions in the Bible go to great lengths to try to explain these and many other contradictions away. Why? Because to them they clearly undermine the validity of the Bible. How can God contradict himself? And if the meaning of the text has been altered in translation, then how can you be sure that the message that is read, understood, and itself translated by someone like yourself has any validity at all? God's word should be inerrant, right? Corruption of the text would therefore be corruption of God's word. But how can we know God's word if it is distorted in the translation? You really should do some introspection about your faith and your sources. A lot of Biblical Scholars are reviled by Fundamentalists. Why? Because they ask questions. And when they do, very disturbing answers come about. The problem with the hard-line, though, is that while it may work well for those who can consistently subsume themselves to a singular faith that ignores conflicts and contradiction, for those who one day wake up and connect the dots, their faith is shattered forever. And now we come full circle to the point that was made in the original posting. Instead of a text that has errors that contradict your deeply held beliefs, we have science that contradicts them. The response to both cases by the hard-core literalist (if there is such a thing as a true literalist) is to simply ignore the evidence and the data, and let faith justify whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to reconcile the disconfirming evidence.

Tray said: I said: "What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?"

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/scribeswritingoldtestament.php http://www.chabad.org/library/howto/wizard_cdo/aid/339595/jewish/The-Scribe.htm http://www.chabad.org/library/howto/wizard_cdo/aid/351655/jewish/Torah-Scroll-Facts.htm The same care was taken to preserve the writings of the New Testament. As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn't be believable.

Tray wrote:

"over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? there should be billions of transitional forms if life evolved with many extremely small transitions, where are they?"

Still getting your captitals wrong, eh boy.

Look, Tray, you claimed that there were NO transitional fossils, now you claim that one thousand are not enough! Do stop trying to move the goalposts lad. The presence of even one transitional form falsifies all your creationist nonsense. Do try to keep up with your own arguments.

Now everything you have cut and pasted has been a complete and utter lie. Just admit it and move on. And just for your information, there are living transitional forms as well. You really should look at the web site I recommended, then at least you would know what you are denyiing.

Funny that you do not deny the germ therory of disease and yet you still refuse to believe in the black plague. Oh well, consistency was never your strong point was it? Perhaps the fact that you only believe in god because you survived the flu has something to do with it. Once again, if you had not survived, would you then have been willing to accept evolution?

Oh and you is wrong about entropy too:

Bunn (2009) Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. American Journal of Physics 77(10):922-925.

No beneficial mutations, no transitional forms and entropy prevents evolution - the trifecta folks, you gotta love this guy.

Tray said:

DS said: Way to cut an paste Tray. Do you even understand any of the words you pasted? If you think that quoting ICR constitutes an argument then you are sadly mistaken. Here is a web site that proves that all that crap is just a lie: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html The site documents over one thousand transitional forms, complete with scientific references. You are wrong yet again. Look little boy, changing the topic again is not going to work. Evading questions is not going to work. Asking stupid questions is not going to work. Keep your word and go away. Oh yea, some more things for the list. Do you deny: 1) Round earth 2) Germ theory of disease 3) The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution Go for the trifecta man. Don't stop with "there ain't no transitional fossils". The Gish horse can also gallop backwards don't ya know.

over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? there should be billions of transitional forms if life evolved with many extremely small transitions, where are they? Why would I deny that the earth is round? We can observe that the earth is round. Why would I deny germ theory? I don't know if the second law of thermodynamics would prevent evolution, but I do believe that entropy would be a problem for chemical evolution.

Tray said: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? there should be billions of transitional forms if life evolved with many extremely small transitions, where are they?

Tray said: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of “living fossils,” where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

First Tray pastes this nonsense:

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

Then, when that assertion is proven flat-out wrong, he retreats to this:

over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is?

This incident alone -- with no admission that he's changed his position -- proves that Tray is so dishonest, at such a deep level of "thought," that he is simply not worth arguing with. Disprove one lie, and all you'll get for your trouble is a thousand more. Sooner or later, one has to simply stop arguing with the con-artist -- or raving street-lunatic -- and just walk away.

Why would I deny that the earth is round?

We just thought we'd mention that because Biblical literalists/inerrantists such as yourself used to do just that. And yes, they also used to deny heliocentrism (can you look that word up yourself?) and germ theory. So tell us, little man, how does it feel to be a part of such a long tradition of stupidity and failure?

Frankly, I find it amazing how radically, and how often, people can change their opinions when they're defending a supposedly inerrant and unchanging truth.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2009/10/nparticle.2009-10-14.2283094886?searchterm=Frustratingly,%20these%20events,%20which%20are%20responsible%20for%20much%20of%20the%20variety%20of%20life%20that%20we%20see%20all%20around

“*Darwinopterus* came as quite a shock to us” explained David Unwin part of the research team and based at the University of Leicester’s School of Museum Studies. “We had always expected a gap-filler with typically intermediate features such as a moderately elongate tail – neither long nor short – but the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms”.
Dr Unwin added: “The geological age of Darwinopterus and bizarre combination of advanced and primitive features reveal a great deal about the evolution of advanced pterosaurs from their primitive ancestors. First, it was quick, with lots of big changes concentrated into a short period of time. Second, whole groups of features (termed modules by the researchers) that form important structures such as the skull, the neck, or the tail, seem to have evolved together. But, as Darwinopterus shows, not all these modules changed at the same time. The head and neck evolved first, followed later by the body, tail, wings and legs. It seems that natural selection was acting on and changing entire modules and not, as would normally be expected, just on single features such as the shape of the snout, or the form of a tooth. This supports the controversial idea of a relatively rapid “modular” form of evolution.

Didn't Charles Darwin believe that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil record, create a problem with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection?

ben said: Tray = Toidel Mahoney when he's on his (heavy) meds.

Tray,

"Why would I deny that the earth is round? We can observe that the earth is round."

Ah, Tray, you do know that the black plague is still with us right? We can still observe it to.

Oh and when have you ever observed the earth to be round? Were you there? Do you mean to tell me that it took intelligent humans thousands of years to figure out what is obvious to you? It just doesn't add up Tray, it just doesn't add up.

Raging Bee said: First Tray pastes this nonsense: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms Then, when that assertion is proven flat-out wrong, he retreats to this: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? This incident alone -- with no admission that he's changed his position -- proves that Tray is so dishonest, at such a deep level of "thought," that he is simply not worth arguing with. Disprove one lie, and all you'll get for your trouble is a thousand more. Sooner or later, one has to simply stop arguing with the con-artist -- or raving street-lunatic -- and just walk away. Why would I deny that the earth is round? We just thought we'd mention that because Biblical literalists/inerrantists such as yourself used to do just that. And yes, they also used to deny heliocentrism (can you look that word up yourself?) and germ theory. So tell us, little man, how does it feel to be a part of such a long tradition of stupidity and failure? Frankly, I find it amazing how radically, and how often, people can change their opinions when they're defending a supposedly inerrant and unchanging truth.

Raging Bee said: First Tray pastes this nonsense: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms Then, when that assertion is proven flat-out wrong, he retreats to this: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? This incident alone -- with no admission that he's changed his position -- proves that Tray is so dishonest, at such a deep level of "thought," that he is simply not worth arguing with. Disprove one lie, and all you'll get for your trouble is a thousand more. Sooner or later, one has to simply stop arguing with the con-artist -- or raving street-lunatic -- and just walk away. Why would I deny that the earth is round? We just thought we'd mention that because Biblical literalists/inerrantists such as yourself used to do just that. And yes, they also used to deny heliocentrism (can you look that word up yourself?) and germ theory. So tell us, little man, how does it feel to be a part of such a long tradition of stupidity and failure? Frankly, I find it amazing how radically, and how often, people can change their opinions when they're defending a supposedly inerrant and unchanging truth.

Tray said:

Raging Bee said: First Tray pastes this nonsense: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms Then, when that assertion is proven flat-out wrong, he retreats to this: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? This incident alone -- with no admission that he's changed his position -- proves that Tray is so dishonest, at such a deep level of "thought," that he is simply not worth arguing with. Disprove one lie, and all you'll get for your trouble is a thousand more. Sooner or later, one has to simply stop arguing with the con-artist -- or raving street-lunatic -- and just walk away. Why would I deny that the earth is round? We just thought we'd mention that because Biblical literalists/inerrantists such as yourself used to do just that. And yes, they also used to deny heliocentrism (can you look that word up yourself?) and germ theory. So tell us, little man, how does it feel to be a part of such a long tradition of stupidity and failure? Frankly, I find it amazing how radically, and how often, people can change their opinions when they're defending a supposedly inerrant and unchanging truth.

The Bible doesn't state that the earth is flat. I really don't get the point you are attempting to make. I believe that the earth is the center of God's creation in our universe though, as the earth is where life is. I believe that our universe including laws of gravity, thermodynamics, planetary motion, etc... was for the purpose of sustaining life on earth.

Tray wrote:

"I really don’t get the point you are attempting to make."

Truer words were never written.

Oh and the bible did claim that the earth was flat, until the translators got hold of it.

Tray, you claimed you were leaving 'cause we're such meanies. Lied about that, did ya?

Tray said: http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2009/10/nparticle.2009-10-14.2283094886?searchterm=Frustratingly,%20these%20events,%20which%20are%20responsible%20for%20much%20of%20the%20variety%20of%20life%20that%20we%20see%20all%20around “*Darwinopterus* came as quite a shock to us” explained David Unwin part of the research team and based at the University of Leicester’s School of Museum Studies. “We had always expected a gap-filler with typically intermediate features such as a moderately elongate tail – neither long nor short – but the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms”. Didn't Charles Darwin believe that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil record, create a problem with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection?

mplavcan said:

Tray said: http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2009/10/nparticle.2009-10-14.2283094886?searchterm=Frustratingly,%20these%20events,%20which%20are%20responsible%20for%20much%20of%20the%20variety%20of%20life%20that%20we%20see%20all%20around “*Darwinopterus* came as quite a shock to us” explained David Unwin part of the research team and based at the University of Leicester’s School of Museum Studies. “We had always expected a gap-filler with typically intermediate features such as a moderately elongate tail – neither long nor short – but the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms”. Didn't Charles Darwin believe that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil record, create a problem with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection?

*Sigh* THINK. Dear God man, THINK. First off, a press release is not the paper. I have it right here beside me. The form is wonderfully transitional. Spectacularly. This is what we call "mosaic evolution". The fact that not all traits change simultaneously. The fact that news reporters sensationalize is a constant bug-a-boo for scientists. That is why we refer to the papers, not the reports. Fully formed animals. Think about that. Fully formed. What animal is not "fully formed." Creationists have taken that term and twisted the meaning (c.f. "Bibilical Interpretation") to pretend that if you find a functional animal, it must have been "fully formed" and therefore not transitional. It is so nonsensical that it almost makes my brain hurt.

More Total Baloney: Dear ben ...People still love Jesus and talk to him no matter how much poison their doctors force them to swallow in order to get them to stop.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Tray is a joke and a waste of time. Personally, I think he's a Poe. No one NO ONE could be this dumb.

Dan replied to comment from Tray, October 27, 2009 7:38 AM Tray said: I said: “What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?” Or, ask the related question: “What would the confusion between ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ have to do with its validity?”

Henry J said:

Dan replied to comment from Tray, October 27, 2009 7:38 AM Tray said: I said: “What would the translating of the Bible have to do with it’s validity?” Or, ask the related question: “What would the confusion between ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ have to do with its validity?”

Maybe he was just having an apostrophe?

fnxtr | October 27, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Edit WHILE(knowledge=0) { IF (bullshit_exposed=TRUE) {(subject=subject+1)} } (I’ve forgotten where the ;’s are supposed to go.)

Oh, and "while" and "if" should be lower case. Oops.

And the braces are mismatched. Another oops.

Tray said: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? there should be billions of transitional forms if life evolved with many extremely small transitions, where are they?

I don't know if the second law of thermodynamics would prevent evolution, but I do believe that entropy would be a problem for chemical evolution.

RGD wrote:

"Tray is a joke and a waste of time. Personally, I think he’s a Poe. No one NO ONE could be this dumb."

It does seem to defy all logic that in a post defending his claim that there are NO transitional forms, he cut and pasted a news releaase about a transitional form detailing exactly why it was transitional. Then of course he asked a moronic question implying that he had somehow stumped the scientists once again.

Is it actually possible to be too dumb to know you are a Poe, or is that a contradiction in terms? Oh well, we can just refer to him as Edgar Allan from now on. He won't get it anyway. In order to change the subject, I expect he will start blubbering about alien abduction next.

Tray said: I believe that the earth is the center of God's creation in our universe though, as the earth is where life is. I believe that our universe including laws of gravity, thermodynamics, planetary motion, etc... was for the purpose of sustaining life on earth.

DS said: Dave, I believe that Tray was quoting from the New Interantional Version of the bible, which I believe is based on some kind of translation from the King James version. Does that count as another round of replication error? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Thanks for demonstrating that Tray is as clueless about the bible as he is about science.

eric said:

Tray said: I believe that the earth is the center of God's creation in our universe though, as the earth is where life is. I believe that our universe including laws of gravity, thermodynamics, planetary motion, etc... was for the purpose of sustaining life on earth.

That seems utterly wasteful. If I were to design a universe to sustain human life, I would make that universe at standard gravity, temperature and pressure throughout, rather than making 99.9999999999....% of it 4 kelvin, 0-g vacuum. Here's a philosophical conundrum for you Tray: if habitat rarity is a sign of specialness in God's eyes, then surely oceanic vent life are more special than us; their habitats are much rarer than ours. Yet if habitat commonality is a sign of design, then shouldn't we conclude that this universe is designed for 4-kelvin-vacuum-loving aliens?

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

Henry J said:

fnxtr | October 27, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Edit WHILE(knowledge=0) { IF (bullshit_exposed=TRUE) {(subject=subject+1)} } (I’ve forgotten where the ;’s are supposed to go.)

If that's supposed to be C then the comparison for equality is == instead of = which is the assignment operator. WHILE(knowledge==0) { IF (bullshit_exposed==TRUE) {subject=subject+1; };

Tray said: You and I aren't God, He can create however He wants.

Tray said: You and I aren't God, He can create however He wants.

Henry J said:

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

In that case you've got no reason to object to evolution.

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

So how do you justify lying about his creation, and pretending it's something other than what we, with our God-given senses, observe it to be?

Did someone say "Ye have eyes to see with and do not see?"

Tray Said; You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

or I will slap you with a noodle.

Henry J said:

fnxtr | October 27, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Edit WHILE(knowledge=0) { IF (bullshit_exposed=TRUE) {(subject=subject+1)} } (I’ve forgotten where the ;’s are supposed to go.)

If that's supposed to be C then the comparison for equality is == instead of = which is the assignment operator. WHILE(knowledge==0) { IF (bullshit_exposed==TRUE) {subject=subject+1; };

See, Tray, you really can learn stuff here.

stevaroni said: You have no idea where this end of the keyboard might be.

Stanton said: What about the medieval French, German and King James' translations?

Tray said: You and I aren't God, He can create however He wants.

eric said: So you need to pick, because you can't have it both ways. Either concede that ID is theology, and I'll agree with you that observations which appear to contradict the design argument are irrelevant.

Rilke's granddaughter said: The Bible does say the earth is flat. And supported by 4 pillars. What a liar you are. Are you also ignorant of the BIBLE? LOL

Tray said:

Raging Bee said: First Tray pastes this nonsense: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms Then, when that assertion is proven flat-out wrong, he retreats to this: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? This incident alone -- with no admission that he's changed his position -- proves that Tray is so dishonest, at such a deep level of "thought," that he is simply not worth arguing with. Disprove one lie, and all you'll get for your trouble is a thousand more. Sooner or later, one has to simply stop arguing with the con-artist -- or raving street-lunatic -- and just walk away. Why would I deny that the earth is round? We just thought we'd mention that because Biblical literalists/inerrantists such as yourself used to do just that. And yes, they also used to deny heliocentrism (can you look that word up yourself?) and germ theory. So tell us, little man, how does it feel to be a part of such a long tradition of stupidity and failure? Frankly, I find it amazing how radically, and how often, people can change their opinions when they're defending a supposedly inerrant and unchanging truth.

The Bible doesn't state that the earth is flat. I really don't get the point you are attempting to make. I believe that the earth is the center of God's creation in our universe though, as the earth is where life is. I believe that our universe including laws of gravity, thermodynamics, planetary motion, etc... was for the purpose of sustaining life on earth.

bk said:

Tray said: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? there should be billions of transitional forms if life evolved with many extremely small transitions, where are they?

Previous post:

Tray said: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of “living fossils,” where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

You have just admitted being in error by a factor of infinity (thousands over zero), and yet still you want more? Do you have a contractor on call to move the goalposts, or do you do it all by your lonesome?

There should be many so-called transitional fossils, where are they?

Tray said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: The Bible does say the earth is flat. And supported by 4 pillars. What a liar you are. Are you also ignorant of the BIBLE? LOL

Tray said:

Raging Bee said: First Tray pastes this nonsense: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms Then, when that assertion is proven flat-out wrong, he retreats to this: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? This incident alone -- with no admission that he's changed his position -- proves that Tray is so dishonest, at such a deep level of "thought," that he is simply not worth arguing with. Disprove one lie, and all you'll get for your trouble is a thousand more. Sooner or later, one has to simply stop arguing with the con-artist -- or raving street-lunatic -- and just walk away. Why would I deny that the earth is round? We just thought we'd mention that because Biblical literalists/inerrantists such as yourself used to do just that. And yes, they also used to deny heliocentrism (can you look that word up yourself?) and germ theory. So tell us, little man, how does it feel to be a part of such a long tradition of stupidity and failure? Frankly, I find it amazing how radically, and how often, people can change their opinions when they're defending a supposedly inerrant and unchanging truth.

The Bible doesn't state that the earth is flat. I really don't get the point you are attempting to make. I believe that the earth is the center of God's creation in our universe though, as the earth is where life is. I believe that our universe including laws of gravity, thermodynamics, planetary motion, etc... was for the purpose of sustaining life on earth.

Revelation 7:1 (New International Version) After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. This is referring to the North, South, East, and West, and is figurative not literal. Psalm 75:1-3 1 We give thanks to you, O God, we give thanks, for your Name is near; men tell of your wonderful deeds. 2 You say, "I choose the appointed time; it is I who judge uprightly. 3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm. Selah This again is meant as a figurative description, and not literal.

There should be many so-called transitional fossils, where are they?

This again is meant as a figurative description, and not literal.

Henry J said:

There should be many so-called transitional fossils, where are they?

Museums. That is, those run by scientists, not AIG, etc.

Picky, picky! :)

Tray said: There should be many so-called transitional fossils, where are they?

Tray said: I never admitted that there were transitional fossils, but if you are to believe that evolution is indeed true one thousand so-called transitional fossils wouldn't be enough.

Hey Tray, you might want to give a careful reading to the advice of a much wiser Christian than yourself: (Both bits from the Wikipedia entry on St. Augustine)

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

And here's another good bit too...

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

Tray said: There should be many so-called transitional fossils, where are they?

Tray said: This again is meant as a figurative description, and not literal.

Tray wrote:

"There should be many so-called transitional fossils, where are they?

Many of the ones that have been discovered can be found in natural history museums around the world. The ones that have not been found yet are still in the ground. The ones that have been destroyed already are gone forever. Of course the living transitional forms are all around you. Ever seen a velvet worm Tray? Since you can't refute any of the examples I provided and every one of them proves you are completely wrong, you lose again genius.

Now, if you admit that the germ theory of disease is true and you concede that the black plague is still around, on what basis do you deny that approximately one third of the human population in Europe died during the mid 13 hundreds? Oh yea, that's right, on the same basis that you concluded that there are no beneficial mutations, no transitional fossils and no evolution due to entropy. You read it on a creationist web site, bought it hook line and sinker, cut and pasted it without even reading it, then ignored all evidence to the contrary. Well, I'm convinced. You can stop now Tray. Really you can.

mplavcan,

Don't be too hard on the boy, I'm sure it's just the translation he's using. Oh wait, that doesn't matter according to Tray. Never mind.

And you are right about the laughter. Not so much about the pity. Willful ignorance deserves no quarter.

mplavcan said:

Tray said: This again is meant as a figurative description, and not literal.

Says you. Dear God, can't you even see yourself? You adhere to a literal interpretation, except where you can't deny it, at which point you declare it figurative!!!!!! I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you. I am sure that people reading this blog are doing both.

Tray, if you're going to try to play Bible study with us, you're admitting that your locker is empty on science. This is not a Bible study site, so I'd suggest quitting while you're behind.

Man Tray really knows his science. What a genius.

If he read this passage:

Whatsoever a man soweth that also shall he reap

he would probably think it was agricultural advice. You know cause on accounta it took so long to develop agriculture and all.

Tray probably thinks that:

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth

is proof of the existence of the tooth fairy. And the eye fairy!

How about these Tray, literal or "figurative":

Let your women keep silence in the church, for it is not permitted for them to speak

But you, when you pray, pray in silence and you father who hears you in silence will reward you openly

If a man have long hair it is a shame to him but if a women have long hair it is a glory to her

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's

When you are done answering those, we can get back to the science you keep ignoring. Or maybe others will have more long lists of scripture for you to interpret for us. Can't wait for you to explain how the sun stood still.

D. P. Robin said: Tray, if you're going to try to play Bible study with us, you're admitting that your locker is empty on science. This is not a Bible study site, so I'd suggest quitting while you're behind.

DS said: Tray wrote: "There should be many so-called transitional fossils, where are they? Many of the ones that have been discovered can be found in natural history museums around the world. The ones that have not been found yet are still in the ground. The ones that have been destroyed already are gone forever. Of course the living transitional forms are all around you. Ever seen a velvet worm Tray? Since you can't refute any of the examples I provided and every one of them proves you are completely wrong, you lose again genius. Now, if you admit that the germ theory of disease is true and you concede that the black plague is still around, on what basis do you deny that approximately one third of the human population in Europe died during the mid 13 hundreds? Oh yea, that's right, on the same basis that you concluded that there are no beneficial mutations, no transitional fossils and no evolution due to entropy. You read it on a creationist web site, bought it hook line and sinker, cut and pasted it without even reading it, then ignored all evidence to the contrary. Well, I'm convinced. You can stop now Tray. Really you can.

Undisputed by whom? People who actually know what they're talking about?

Because reality will always be disputed by ignorant assholes like you, Tray.

Tray wrote:

"Can you give one example of an undisputed transitional fossil, and remember I said undisputed!!! "

Yes. I gave you one thousand examples already. You even quoted an article describing exactly why real scientists consider Darwinopterus transitional. Can I give you one example that YOU will not dispute? I doubt it, seeing as how you already claimed there were no beneficial mutations and no transitional fossils. But then again, no one cares what you think.

Now Tray, if you want to discuss the bible then answer my bible questions. If you want to discuss science, then get to it boy. We is a waitin. Remember asking stupid questions is not discussing anything. If you don't intend to actually discuss anything, then just leave.

Tray, please give me one, just one, example of an undisputed supernatural event, performed by any deity, anywhere, ever. Remember, an undisputed example--one that everyone, even me, agrees was a supernatural act.

If you cannot do this, clearly your whole divine-creation-based belief system is invalid.

Undisputed.

Tray said: Can you give one example of an undisputed transitional fossil, and remember I said undisputed!!!

Tray sez:
"As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn’t be believable."

Wrong again, Trey. The only Gospel writer who might have seen or heard Jesus was John, and that's only if you reject modern opinion that John's gospel is a heavy redaction with much additional material of the recollections of the original disciple, probably in extreme old age, written by others, and not dating before 90 AD.

You don't know much about the Bible, do you? Or about reading text generally, either. For example, you don't understand the difference between "identical" and "consistent".

As a great Australian comedian was wont to say, "You're a dill, Cecil."

Tray wrote:

"Can you give one example of an undisputed transitional fossil, and remember I said undisputed!!!"

Can you give one example of a question you answered that where anyone agreed with your answer, and remember I said ANYONE??? Hell boy ya even got the capital of Oklahoma wrong, musta lost something there in the translations I guess. Even TM didn't want to be associated with you.

Not only have you been completely wrong about every science question, but you have been completely wrong about the bible as well. To paraphrase Bart SImpson, your knowledge is powerful weak.

Tray said:

D. P. Robin said: Tray, if you're going to try to play Bible study with us, you're admitting that your locker is empty on science. This is not a Bible study site, so I'd suggest quitting while you're behind.

I was just answering a claim that the Bible says the earth is flat!

Dave Luckett said: Tray sez: "As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn’t be believable." Wrong again, Trey. The only Gospel writer who might have seen or heard Jesus was John, and that's only if you reject modern opinion that John's gospel is a heavy redaction with much additional material of the recollections of the original disciple, probably in extreme old age, written by others, and not dating before 90 AD. You don't know much about the Bible, do you? Or about reading text generally, either. For example, you don't understand the difference between "identical" and "consistent". As a great Australian comedian was wont to say, "You're a dill, Cecil."

Tray said: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? there should be billions of transitional forms if life evolved with many extremely small transitions, where are they?

Tray said:

D. P. Robin said: Tray, if you're going to try to play Bible study with us, you're admitting that your locker is empty on science. This is not a Bible study site, so I'd suggest quitting while you're behind.

I was just answering a claim that the Bible says the earth is flat!

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Tray sez: "As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn’t be believable." Wrong again, Trey. The only Gospel writer who might have seen or heard Jesus was John, and that's only if you reject modern opinion that John's gospel is a heavy redaction with much additional material of the recollections of the original disciple, probably in extreme old age, written by others, and not dating before 90 AD. You don't know much about the Bible, do you? Or about reading text generally, either. For example, you don't understand the difference between "identical" and "consistent". As a great Australian comedian was wont to say, "You're a dill, Cecil."

There is a serious flaw with the argument that the gospels were written at the much later date, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," Luke 21:5, Matthew 24:1 and Mark 13:1.

Trey, you're moving the goalposts again. The point was not when the Gospels were written, but to contradict your assertion that the Gospel writers "wrote what they saw and knew". They did not. Three of them never saw or heard Jesus, and the early Church fathers say the same. John is the only one who could have; and John is by all testimony late, redacted and very sophisticatedly Greek. It is very difficult to see it as the product of a Galilean fisherman, but maybe of someone who knew him in old age.

But to rebut: your quote of Jesus's prophecy is usually taken as evidence that the Gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 75 AD, since they make such a big deal of it. They'd be sticking their necks 'way out if it wasn't already a done deal, now wouldn't they?

Do try to overcome your upbringing, child. Logical thought really isn't all that hard.

D. P. Robin said:

Tray said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: The Bible does say the earth is flat. And supported by 4 pillars. What a liar you are. Are you also ignorant of the BIBLE? LOL

Tray said:

Raging Bee said: First Tray pastes this nonsense: Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms Then, when that assertion is proven flat-out wrong, he retreats to this: over one thousand transitional forms? is that all there is? This incident alone -- with no admission that he's changed his position -- proves that Tray is so dishonest, at such a deep level of "thought," that he is simply not worth arguing with. Disprove one lie, and all you'll get for your trouble is a thousand more. Sooner or later, one has to simply stop arguing with the con-artist -- or raving street-lunatic -- and just walk away. Why would I deny that the earth is round? We just thought we'd mention that because Biblical literalists/inerrantists such as yourself used to do just that. And yes, they also used to deny heliocentrism (can you look that word up yourself?) and germ theory. So tell us, little man, how does it feel to be a part of such a long tradition of stupidity and failure? Frankly, I find it amazing how radically, and how often, people can change their opinions when they're defending a supposedly inerrant and unchanging truth.

The Bible doesn't state that the earth is flat. I really don't get the point you are attempting to make. I believe that the earth is the center of God's creation in our universe though, as the earth is where life is. I believe that our universe including laws of gravity, thermodynamics, planetary motion, etc... was for the purpose of sustaining life on earth.

Revelation 7:1 (New International Version) After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. This is referring to the North, South, East, and West, and is figurative not literal. Psalm 75:1-3 1 We give thanks to you, O God, we give thanks, for your Name is near; men tell of your wonderful deeds. 2 You say, "I choose the appointed time; it is I who judge uprightly. 3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm. Selah This again is meant as a figurative description, and not literal.

No Tray, the time the Psalm was written predates the first suggestion by Pythagoras that the earth is round by at least 300 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ancient_Near_East http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/from_a_flat_to_a_round_earth ). While the 1st Century CE intelligentsia accepted round earth theory, it is impossible to know if St. John the Divine did or not. Your tap dance about this is common for the Fundamentalist--explain away the embarrassing by calling it figurative. This sort of haphazard gymnastics is why I could never be a fundamentalist.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Got any proof of that, liar? Remember, you're the one who called us meanies and threatened to leave. I note that you haven't left. Do you really like being wrong in EVERY SINGLE POST?

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Tray sez: "As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn’t be believable." Wrong again, Trey. The only Gospel writer who might have seen or heard Jesus was John, and that's only if you reject modern opinion that John's gospel is a heavy redaction with much additional material of the recollections of the original disciple, probably in extreme old age, written by others, and not dating before 90 AD. You don't know much about the Bible, do you? Or about reading text generally, either. For example, you don't understand the difference between "identical" and "consistent". As a great Australian comedian was wont to say, "You're a dill, Cecil."

There is a serious flaw with the argument that the gospels were written at the much later date, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," Luke 21:5, Matthew 24:1 and Mark 13:1.

Dave Luckett said: Trey, you're moving the goalposts again. The point was not when the Gospels were written, but to contradict your assertion that the Gospel writers "wrote what they saw and knew". They did not. Three of them never saw or heard Jesus, and the early Church fathers say the same. John is the only one who could have; and John is by all testimony late, redacted and very sophisticatedly Greek. It is very difficult to see it as the product of a Galilean fisherman, but maybe of someone who knew him in old age. But to rebut: your quote of Jesus's prophecy is usually taken as evidence that the Gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 75 AD, since they make such a big deal of it. They'd be sticking their necks 'way out if it wasn't already a done deal, now wouldn't they? Do try to overcome your upbringing, child. Logical thought really isn't all that hard.

Tray,

So your answer is no, you cannot provide a single example of anyone who ever agreed with you about anything. Now why do you suppose that it Troy?

So your answer is no, you can't tell me which of those bible quotes are literal and which are figurative. Thought so Trey.

So your answer is no, you still can't discuss any science whatsoever. All you can do is quote scripture from some fourth generation worthless translation that you apparently don't even understand. Oh well, atl least it beats the cut and paste jobs from creationists web site that you don't understand Tree.

Tray said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Got any proof of that, liar? Remember, you're the one who called us meanies and threatened to leave. I note that you haven't left. Do you really like being wrong in EVERY SINGLE POST?

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Tray sez: "As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn’t be believable." Wrong again, Trey. The only Gospel writer who might have seen or heard Jesus was John, and that's only if you reject modern opinion that John's gospel is a heavy redaction with much additional material of the recollections of the original disciple, probably in extreme old age, written by others, and not dating before 90 AD. You don't know much about the Bible, do you? Or about reading text generally, either. For example, you don't understand the difference between "identical" and "consistent". As a great Australian comedian was wont to say, "You're a dill, Cecil."

There is a serious flaw with the argument that the gospels were written at the much later date, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," Luke 21:5, Matthew 24:1 and Mark 13:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

I meant to say that it wouldn't make any sense to not include the destruction of Jerusalem in the gospels

Tray said: I meant to say that it wouldn't make any sense to not include the destruction of Jerusalem in the gospels

Rilke's granddaughter said: And I asked for evidence of this. You supplied nothing but a broken link. Tray, your inability to reason is more disturbing than your continual lying. I call Poe.

Tray said: I meant to say that it wouldn't make any sense to not include the destruction of Jerusalem in the gospels

Tray said: I meant to say that it wouldn't make any sense to not include the destruction of Jerusalem in the gospels

Rilke's granddaughter said: Look, Tray, I realize you're unable to construct a coherent thought, but I didn't know you couldn't read, either. I asked for evidence that your assertion - that the destruction of the temple would have been included had the gospels been written after 70. Apparently you're illiterate, as well as rude and fond of bearing false witness. That's a sin, Tray.

Tray said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Got any proof of that, liar? Remember, you're the one who called us meanies and threatened to leave. I note that you haven't left. Do you really like being wrong in EVERY SINGLE POST?

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Tray sez: "As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn’t be believable." Wrong again, Trey. The only Gospel writer who might have seen or heard Jesus was John, and that's only if you reject modern opinion that John's gospel is a heavy redaction with much additional material of the recollections of the original disciple, probably in extreme old age, written by others, and not dating before 90 AD. You don't know much about the Bible, do you? Or about reading text generally, either. For example, you don't understand the difference between "identical" and "consistent". As a great Australian comedian was wont to say, "You're a dill, Cecil."

There is a serious flaw with the argument that the gospels were written at the much later date, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," Luke 21:5, Matthew 24:1 and Mark 13:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

Rilke's granddaughter said: And I asked for evidence of this. You supplied nothing but a broken link. Tray, your inability to reason is more disturbing than your continual lying. I call Poe.

Tray said: I meant to say that it wouldn't make any sense to not include the destruction of Jerusalem in the gospels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

Wow that is strange that it changes the link when it is posted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

copy and pasted the above link in to your browser.

“Can you give one example of an undisputed transitional fossil, and remember I said undisputed!!! “

Tray said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Look, Tray, I realize you're unable to construct a coherent thought, but I didn't know you couldn't read, either. I asked for evidence that your assertion - that the destruction of the temple would have been included had the gospels been written after 70. Apparently you're illiterate, as well as rude and fond of bearing false witness. That's a sin, Tray.

Tray said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Got any proof of that, liar? Remember, you're the one who called us meanies and threatened to leave. I note that you haven't left. Do you really like being wrong in EVERY SINGLE POST?

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Tray sez: "As far as the four gospels, they are a historical record of the life and ministry of Christ from the perspective of four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all identical they wouldn’t be believable." Wrong again, Trey. The only Gospel writer who might have seen or heard Jesus was John, and that's only if you reject modern opinion that John's gospel is a heavy redaction with much additional material of the recollections of the original disciple, probably in extreme old age, written by others, and not dating before 90 AD. You don't know much about the Bible, do you? Or about reading text generally, either. For example, you don't understand the difference between "identical" and "consistent". As a great Australian comedian was wont to say, "You're a dill, Cecil."

There is a serious flaw with the argument that the gospels were written at the much later date, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," Luke 21:5, Matthew 24:1 and Mark 13:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

Why wouldn't it have been included? It was a prophecy of Jesus that was fulfilled! Acts which documents the history of the early church doesn't even mention the destruction the Jerusalem and the Temple, and Acts was written by Luke after he wrote the book of Luke. Tell me why wouldn't the book of Acts include the destruction of the Temple? Wouldn't you agree that this was a very important event in Jewish and Christian history?

Tray said: Wow that is strange that it changes the link when it is posted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70) copy and pasted the above link in to your browser.

Oh, and Tray? No evidence that Luke's Gospel was written by Luke. No evidence any of the gospels were written by the chappies they're named for.

And answer my question: you said we were rude meanies and called you names and hurt your feelings and you were leaving.

Why did you lie about that?

tresmal: What the fossil record should show is a succession of fully formed species.

Tray,

Have you read the first part of the Bible?

I mean the part before Genesis, where there is a description of how the Bible is assembled, edited and update by people?

The Bible is in transition too.

Rob

Henry J said:

tresmal: What the fossil record should show is a succession of fully formed species.

Then there's the obvious question of what would a non-fully formed species even look like? Would its members all look like juveniles, or what? Henry

Tray said: Why wouldn't it have been included? It was a prophecy of Jesus that was fulfilled! Acts which documents the history of the early church doesn't even mention the destruction the Jerusalem and the Temple, and Acts was written by Luke after he wrote the book of Luke. Tell me why wouldn't the book of Acts include the destruction of the Temple? Wouldn't you agree that this was a very important event in Jewish and Christian history?

Henry J said:

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

In that case you've got no reason to object to evolution.

SWT said:

Henry J said:

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

In that case you've got no reason to object to evolution.

By the way, Tray, you never responded to this post or several like it. I, for one, want to know what constraints you're willing to put on the methods that the Almighty is able to use.

Matthew the Evangelist is not the Matthew who was Jesus's disciple, and he never said anything to suggest that he was. The name is common. Whoever he was, he was unfamiliar with Palestinian geography, history and the Aramaic language, and also formal Hebrew, since he used the Septuagint translation into Greek for his OT references. This could hardly be anyone who lived in Palestine and spoke to Jesus. The best guess is that the Gospel originates in Alexandria, or possibly Syria, where there were large Jewish communities that spoke the Koine, and that it used Mark as the major source, but added other material, possibly from Aramaic sources.

Oh, and to put this as simply as possible: the Gospel writers put such emphasis on Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem because it had already happened at the time of their writing, and claiming that Jesus had prophesied it enhanced his status as a true prophet. This would argue that the Gospels were written after 70 AD.

SWT said:

Tray said: Why wouldn't it have been included? It was a prophecy of Jesus that was fulfilled! Acts which documents the history of the early church doesn't even mention the destruction the Jerusalem and the Temple, and Acts was written by Luke after he wrote the book of Luke. Tell me why wouldn't the book of Acts include the destruction of the Temple? Wouldn't you agree that this was a very important event in Jewish and Christian history?

Acts ends with Paul in prison; since Paul died before the destruction of the Second Temple, a reference to the destruction of the Second Temple would be an anachronism in the narrative. Similarly, the narratives found in the synoptic gospels and in John end shortly after the resurrection, well before the destruction of the Second Temple; again, an outright mention of the destruction of the Second Temple would be an anachronism. The fact that the destruction of the Second Temple is not included in these books as historical fact provides no information about the date the books were written. However, there is convincing evidence that the prophetic statements about the destruction of the Second Temple that were included in later versions of the Q document (which was used by the authors of Matthew and Luke) were written in response to that event. Mark was written after 70, probably by a disciple of Peter Matthew was written sometime between 70 and 100, author unknown Luke/Acts was written 85-90, probably by a companion of Paul John was written 90-100, author unknown but probably not an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry

Dave Luckett said: Matthew the Evangelist is not the Matthew who was Jesus's disciple, and he never said anything to suggest that he was. The name is common. Whoever he was, he was unfamiliar with Palestinian geography, history and the Aramaic language, and also formal Hebrew, since he used the Septuagint translation into Greek for his OT references. This could hardly be anyone who lived in Palestine and spoke to Jesus. The best guess is that the Gospel originates in Alexandria, or possibly Syria, where there were large Jewish communities that spoke the Koine, and that it used Mark as the major source, but added other material, possibly from Aramaic sources.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and to put this as simply as possible: the Gospel writers put such emphasis on Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem because it had already happened at the time of their writing, and claiming that Jesus had prophesied it enhanced his status as a true prophet. This would argue that the Gospels were written after 70 AD.

SWT said:

Henry J said:

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

In that case you've got no reason to object to evolution.

By the way, Tray, you never responded to this post or several like it. I, for one, want to know what constraints you're willing to put on the methods that the Almighty is able to use.

"The destruction of Jerusalem and the total destruction of the Temple is the best evidence that the Gospels were penned before 70 A.D."

Tray, both the authors and the target audience were perfectly aware of the destruction of the temple - therefore including it in the narrative would only serve to diminish the power of the prediction. Think of it this way: which would be more impressive - an (undated) history of the 19th century in which a prophet predicted Hitler and space exploration, or a history of the 20th century with the same predictions? Reading the former, the reader gets apparently independent confirmation of the accuracy of the prediction.

Now, scurrilous people may suggest that the prediction was added post-70.

I think most of your problems, Tray, stem from this "Bible as the inerrant Word of God" thing, which leads to all sorts of inconsistencies. That and the teenage anoxia.

Proof, Troy? You again betray your ignorance, and your inability to understand the concept of evidence.

For the authorship, date, or provenance of virtually all the books of the Bible, there is no "proof" of anything. There is evidence, but it is infuriatingly scant and often equivocal. Hence differing opinion.

But it is you who make confident assumptions without proof or evidence. You said that the Gospel writers were "four different men from different walks of life, they wrote what they saw and knew."

You're the one making this assertion as part of an argument that the Bible is authoritative. You're the one who has to back it up. But, for argument's sake, even if we accept that Matthew and John are the same as the disciples of those names (which is most unlikely), you're wrong about the others, at least, which is sufficient to invalidate your statement.

(I could go into tedious detail about why it is doubtful that the Gospels of Matthew and John are actually the productions of the disciples of that name. But since your statement is already invalidated, it isn't necessary.)

As to the argument about Acts, you have in the first place been offered excellent reason why it doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem. To this I would add that anyone who depends on the silence of an ancient source is clutching at the weakest of straws.

You have also been offered evidence that the Gospels were written after 70 AD, which is the almost universal opinion of modern scholars. That evidence is their apparent knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem.

But proof? There is none. You're the one saying that the Bible is inerrant, Troy. The evidence is that it isn't, but even if there were no such evidence, it's not up to us to show you're wrong, it's up to you to show you're right. Let's see your evidence. So far all you've come up with is bluster and unsupported assertions.

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and to put this as simply as possible: the Gospel writers put such emphasis on Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem because it had already happened at the time of their writing, and claiming that Jesus had prophesied it enhanced his status as a true prophet. This would argue that the Gospels were written after 70 AD.

The problem again with your argument is that if this was true it would have been mentioned in the book of Acts, which was the history of the early church after Jesus died and ascended into heaven. Why would it have been left out of the book of Acts? If it would enhance Jesus' status as a true prophet, then why would it be left out of the book of Acts? Acts is the historical book of the early church, and recorded the events after Christ was gone, why leave out one the most important events in the history of the church which would as you put it enhance Jesus as a true prophet?

Tray said:

SWT said:

Henry J said:

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

In that case you've got no reason to object to evolution.

By the way, Tray, you never responded to this post or several like it. I, for one, want to know what constraints you're willing to put on the methods that the Almighty is able to use.

I can't put any constraints on anything that God does. I don't know the methods that God used to create, but I don't believe evolution or abiogenesis is how we got here. I believe God created all of the different kinds of creatures, with the ability to adapt and change within their kind. I don't believe creatures evolve into entirely different kinds of creatures.

SWT said:

Tray said:

SWT said:

Henry J said:

You and I aren’t God, He can create however He wants.

In that case you've got no reason to object to evolution.

By the way, Tray, you never responded to this post or several like it. I, for one, want to know what constraints you're willing to put on the methods that the Almighty is able to use.

I can't put any constraints on anything that God does. I don't know the methods that God used to create, but I don't believe evolution or abiogenesis is how we got here. I believe God created all of the different kinds of creatures, with the ability to adapt and change within their kind. I don't believe creatures evolve into entirely different kinds of creatures.

So if you believe that the Almighty could accomplish the work of creation using abiogenesis and biological evolution, why (other than personal incredulity) do you take a position that requires you to reject large portions of modern biology?

DNAJock said: Tray wrote

"The destruction of Jerusalem and the total destruction of the Temple is the best evidence that the Gospels were penned before 70 A.D."

meaning, if I understand correctly, that the best evidence that the Gospels were written before 70 is that they omit the destruction of the temple, but include Jesus's prediction.

Tray, both the authors and the target audience were perfectly aware of the destruction of the temple - therefore including it in the narrative would only serve to diminish the power of the prediction. Think of it this way: which would be more impressive - an (undated) history of the 19th century in which a prophet predicted Hitler and space exploration, or a history of the 20th century with the same predictions? Reading the former, the reader gets apparently independent confirmation of the accuracy of the prediction.

Now, scurrilous people may suggest that the prediction was added post-70.

I think most of your problems, Tray, stem from this "Bible as the inerrant Word of God" thing, which leads to all sorts of inconsistencies. That and the teenage anoxia.

SWT said:

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and to put this as simply as possible: the Gospel writers put such emphasis on Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem because it had already happened at the time of their writing, and claiming that Jesus had prophesied it enhanced his status as a true prophet. This would argue that the Gospels were written after 70 AD.

The problem again with your argument is that if this was true it would have been mentioned in the book of Acts, which was the history of the early church after Jesus died and ascended into heaven. Why would it have been left out of the book of Acts? If it would enhance Jesus' status as a true prophet, then why would it be left out of the book of Acts? Acts is the historical book of the early church, and recorded the events after Christ was gone, why leave out one the most important events in the history of the church which would as you put it enhance Jesus as a true prophet?

As I noted above, a major problem with this argument is that the author of Acts chose to end the narrative at a point where Paul was still alive, but Paul was executed prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. I could write a brief history of World War I this year without mentioning World War II. If you received a copy of it, would you assume my account was written between the two wars?

Tray said:

Dave Luckett said: Matthew the Evangelist is not the Matthew who was Jesus's disciple, and he never said anything to suggest that he was. The name is common. Whoever he was, he was unfamiliar with Palestinian geography, history and the Aramaic language, and also formal Hebrew, since he used the Septuagint translation into Greek for his OT references. This could hardly be anyone who lived in Palestine and spoke to Jesus. The best guess is that the Gospel originates in Alexandria, or possibly Syria, where there were large Jewish communities that spoke the Koine, and that it used Mark as the major source, but added other material, possibly from Aramaic sources.

Where is you proof that Matthew was not the disciple? First I'm am told that the Bible is translation upon translation, and then we can't even accept the validity of the authors of the gospels. I really don't care what language was the language of choice when Matthew was written, because Matthew was baptized with the Holy Spirit. The disciples of Jesus were from very different walks of life, and were both Jew and Gentile. The whole attack against the credibility of the Gospels is a sham. Acts 2:5-12 (New International Version) 5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

Tray, the lying liar who lies and then lies about his lying lies, lied: I can’t put any constraints on anything that God does

I don’t believe evolution or abiogenesis is how we got here

I don’t believe creatures evolve into entirely different kinds of creatures

Yo, Tray, I notice you're completely ignoring those quotes from St. Augustine I posted. Given your past track record, I'll take that as an admission that you know Augustine was right, and had shown you to be wrong, about how to interpret the Bible. You don't even have the guts to admit another Christian might have known something you don't.

PS: we're not saying the Bible actually says the Earth is flat; we're saying that ignorant one-dinensional literalists like you used a literal (mis)interpretation of a few passages in the Bible to back up their claim that the Earth was flat. Just like you're misusing a few bits of obviously literary/rhetorical language in the Bible, and misrepresenting them as literal scientific truth. Same dull-witted mindset, same mistake, different century, same refusal to learn from past mistakes.

Tray said:

SWT said: I could write a brief history of World War I this year without mentioning World War II. If you received a copy of it, would you assume my account was written between the two wars?

Paul is said to have died 64 A.D. more evidence of it being written earlier.

Don’t you agree that including the fulfillment of a prophecy would be important?

Tell me why would the author leave out the destruction of the temple...

Why do you keep asking questions that have just been answered? Can you not read, man?

Give me proof! Just because some Bible scholars say something is so, doesn't make it so, this would be a logical fallacy of appeal to the expert.

Raging Bee said: Yo, Tray, I notice you're completely ignoring those quotes from St. Augustine I posted. Given your past track record, I'll take that as an admission that you know Augustine was right, and had shown you to be wrong, about how to interpret the Bible. You don't even have the guts to admit another Christian might have known something you don't. PS: we're not saying the Bible actually says the Earth is flat; we're saying that ignorant one-dinensional literalists like you used a literal (mis)interpretation of a few passages in the Bible to back up their claim that the Earth was flat. Just like you're misusing a few bits of obviously literary/rhetorical language in the Bible, and misrepresenting them as literal scientific truth. Same dull-witted mindset, same mistake, different century, same refusal to learn from past mistakes.

eric said: While I've learned some interesting things about biblical authorship in the last 60 posts, I think you guys have chased Tray down the rabbit hole.

I guess it would take all the fun out of this Bible quote game to note that the Gospels are clearly NOT eyewitness accounts because they contain:

1) The contents of dreams
2) The contents of unspoken thoughts
3) Descriptions of events where supposedly only one person was present

...none of which a Johnny-on-the-spot eyewitness could know. Cue Tray now redefining what "eyewitness" means...

Tray said: Tell me what I have misrepresented from the Bible as literal scientific truth?

Tray wrote:

"Tell me what I have misrepresented from the Bible as literal scientific truth?"

Well, let's see Troy, when you claimed that earth was only 6000 years old, when you claimed that the black plague never happened, when you claimed that evolution never happened, when you claimed that there are no beneficial mutations, when you claimed that there are no transitional fossils, well just about anything you have ever claimed has been based solely on biblical misinterpretation as far as anyone can tell.

Here is a question for you Trey, what is the major cause of ignorance and apathy in society today? Look it up in the bible if you have to.

DS said: Tray wrote: "Tell me what I have misrepresented from the Bible as literal scientific truth?" Well, let's see Troy, when you claimed that earth was only 6000 years old, when you claimed that the black plague never happened, when you claimed that evolution never happened, when you claimed that there are no beneficial mutations, when you claimed that there are no transitional fossils, well just about anything you have ever claimed has been based solely on biblical misinterpretation as far as anyone can tell. Here is a question for you Trey, what is the major cause of ignorance and apathy in society today? Look it up in the bible if you have to.

Tray,

Well lad, ya never provided any scientific references for any of your nonsense, so naturally it must have come from the same place that all your cut and pastes came from, namely AIG and ICR. Those guys claim that the bible is the source for all that crap they were feeding you. Looks like ya bought it.

So now you do admit that there are beneficial muations and there are transitional forms? You claimed there were none before. We're definately making progress here. Oh and you did definately state that you did not believe the demographics of europe in the 1300 when presented with them. Ya know, the reason you were wrong about the doubling rate and all. Do try to keep up.

As for the proof you demand, well I already provided that as well little one. Remember those SINE insertions shared between artiodactlys and cetaceans? Ya still have provided no answer for that one genius. What has ya gots amnesia as well as terminal stupidity?

Oh and I noticed that from my list of thirteen different scientific theories that the flat earth is the only one you said you would not deny. Interesting, but not surprising.

Now, as for the major cause of ignorance and apathy, I thought for sure you would know that one. The correct answer is of course - don't know don't care. Fits your attitude perfectly.

NOTE TO OBSERVERS: we're now entering the phase where the troll tries to deny all of the things he implied for the last two weeks based on hair splitting and semantic games. Won't work, but at least he seems to realize that he has already lost big time. OF well, at least he has stopped quoting the bible for now.

Tray said: I don't know of a single so-called transformational fossil that hasn't [been] disputed, with the exception of the latest that are just now being studied.

Tray betrayed his ignorance thusly: Where is your proof that evolution [of] one organism or creature evolving into another completely different creature.

Tray said: Where did I claim that the earth is 6,000 years old? I don't know how old the earth is, and never claimed to actually know how old it really is.

Where did I claim that the black plague never happened?

Where is your proof that evolution one organism or creature evolving into another completely different creature.

I said that there were no beneficial mutations with fruit flies.

What does that have to do with the Bible?

I don't know of a single so-called transformational fossil that hasn't disputed, with the exception of the latest that are just now being studied.

eric said: *snip* Does that sound intermediate enough for you?

Stanton said: Not for Tray, no: Tray would deny that Tiktaalik, or any other example we provide, was a transitional form even if God, Himself, strode out of the Heavens in order to explain the very concept of "transitional form" with magic handpuppets.

Stanton said: Tray would deny that Tiktaalik, or any other example we provide, was a transitional form even if God, Himself, strode out of the Heavens in order to explain the very concept of "transitional form" with magic handpuppets.

Tray wrote:

"Tell me what I have misrepresented from the Bible as literal scientific truth?"

Just out of curiosity, exactly what did you think that AIG stood for when you cut and pasted that crap from their web site?

Look Trey, if the bible is not a scientific text, why do you keep quoting it when trying to answer scientific questions? Remember, you are the one who claimed to be all about the science, just before you started quoting long irrelevant passages from a faulty translation of a faulty translation. Are you just trying to avoid the questions, or are you really only interested in preaching? Doesn't matter of course. You apparently don't understand the bible any better thatn you do science.

eric said:

Tray said: I don't know of a single so-called transformational fossil that hasn't [been] disputed, with the exception of the latest that are just now being studied.

I'm sorry this is just another example of a lobe-finned fish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth Tiktaalik. Exactly how much more transformational do you need something to be? Let me put the question another way. What characteristics would a fossil need to have for you, Tray, to admit its an intermediate (e.g. between fish and tetrapod)? I'll start you off: fish scales, but with a neck that allows it to move its head around, since fish don't have necks. Gills and lungs both. Oooh, how about: fins with wristbones! Does that sound intermediate enough for you?

The Tiktaal is just another example of a lobe-finned fish:

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

Tray said:

eric said:

Tray said: I don't know of a single so-called transformational fossil that hasn't [been] disputed, with the exception of the latest that are just now being studied.

I'm sorry this is just another example of a lobe-finned fish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth Tiktaalik. Exactly how much more transformational do you need something to be? Let me put the question another way. What characteristics would a fossil need to have for you, Tray, to admit its an intermediate (e.g. between fish and tetrapod)? I'll start you off: fish scales, but with a neck that allows it to move its head around, since fish don't have necks. Gills and lungs both. Oooh, how about: fins with wristbones! Does that sound intermediate enough for you?

http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml

Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

And I see Tray is now Gish-galloping; throwing out random crap without ever addressing questions. Probably to cover up his ignorance, stupidity, and lies.

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124969.stm: While it has been dubbed a dinosaur "mummy", the dinosaur is actually fossilised into stone. But unlike the collections of bones found in many museums, this hadrosaur came complete with fossilised skin, ligaments, tendons and possibly some internal organs, according to researchers.

Tray, the lobotomized twit said: The Tiktaal is just another example of a lobe-finned fish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

Rilke's granddaughter said: You claimed you were done here 'cause we're meanies. Why did you lie?

Rilke's granddaughter said: It wasn't. How stupid are you? Fossilized tissue is NOT soft tissue. Stupid, Tray. That's all you're showing right now; that you're too stupid to read the articles you cite; too stupid to realize that what you've written is preserved here; too stupid to answer questions such as You claimed you were done here 'cause we're meanies. Why did you lie?

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

Tray said: Read the story for yourself. It clearly states: Fossil hunters have uncovered the remains of a dinosaur that has much of its soft tissue still intact. Skin, muscle, tendons and other tissue that rarely survive fossilisation have all been preserved in the specimen unearthed in North Dakota, US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124969.stm

I still suspect this guy is a Poe.

Anyone that dumb wouldn't know how to use a computer.

Tray the Lobotomized Twit said: Read the story for yourself. It clearly states: Fossil hunters have uncovered the remains of a dinosaur that has much of its soft tissue still intact. Skin, muscle, tendons and other tissue that rarely survive fossilisation have all been preserved in the specimen unearthed in North Dakota, US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124969.stm

"...acidic, waterlogged sediments collected around the dinosaur, triggering the rapid deposit of minerals, and trapping organic molecules before they decayed."

Tray wants to argue over the provenance of the Gospel of Matthew.

Uh-uh, Tray, not going there. Do some reading. It's enough that you said the evangelists were all four men who "wrote what they saw and knew."

That isn't true, and the untruth is obvious to anyone who bothers to take the first steps. It betrays the bumptious confident ignorance that St Augustine recognised in the fools and fanatics of his own day.

The Gospels and the Bible are the productions of fallible humans. Because they were fallible, the Bible is fallible. As history and biography it is, like all historical sources, fallible and subject to criticism. It is even, to my mind, deeply fallible (and inconsistent) on the subjects it is most usually cited on, morals and ethics.

But that is to the side, really. The point is, the Bible is not, never was, and should never be treated as, a useful witness to the age of the Earth or the Universe, or the development of life. And that's flat, like it implies the Earth is.

I still suspect this guy is a Poe.

stevaroni said:

I still suspect this guy is a Poe.

Waaaay too much energy for a Poe. And he takes being called a liar too personally. He's gotta be a True Believer^TM who thinks he's fighting the good fight by being purposely obtuse to the heathens.

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

Tray said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: It wasn't. How stupid are you? Fossilized tissue is NOT soft tissue. Stupid, Tray. That's all you're showing right now; that you're too stupid to read the articles you cite; too stupid to realize that what you've written is preserved here; too stupid to answer questions such as You claimed you were done here 'cause we're meanies. Why did you lie?

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

Read the story for yourself. It clearly states: Fossil hunters have uncovered the remains of a dinosaur that has much of its soft tissue still intact. Skin, muscle, tendons and other tissue that rarely survive fossilisation have all been preserved in the specimen unearthed in North Dakota, US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124969.stm

Mike Elzinga said:

stevaroni said:

I still suspect this guy is a Poe.

Waaaay too much energy for a Poe. And he takes being called a liar too personally. He's gotta be a True Believer^TM who thinks he's fighting the good fight by being purposely obtuse to the heathens.

I do, in fact, know people just like this; and, yeah, they can use a computer. But the ones I know personally display genuine characteristics of mental illness. One, who is a computer teacher no less, denigrates other religions to his class, gets caught on video or digital recordings doing it, and then actually denies it as he is watching the video. He has a lot of other characteristics that remind one of a child that hasn’t grown much beyond puberty. And he repeats and repeats mistakes. Maybe this troll has similar issues.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Now, why are you still here, liar, when you claimed you were leaving? Why did you lie? Why do you keep lying? Really - tell me, I'm fascinated by your continual, unending, ignorant, lying.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Now, why are you still here, liar, when you claimed you were leaving? Why did you lie? Why do you keep lying? Really - tell me, I'm fascinated by your continual, unending, ignorant, lying

Raging Bee said:

Stanton said: Not for Tray, no: Tray would deny that Tiktaalik, or any other example we provide, was a transitional form even if God, Himself, strode out of the Heavens in order to explain the very concept of "transitional form" with magic handpuppets.

He'd probably try to crucify the handpuppets. That's what rigid dogmatic theocrats did to God's last magic handpuppet.

Tray,

Are you a Titanic denier as well?

I mean look, you seem to think that throwing out random questions about irrelevant issues, whether or not they support you erroneous claims, constitutes an argument. I just wanted to know if you also thought that things like walking on the moon and other historical events were real or whether you also deny all of them just because you feel like it.

See we really need to figure out if you are indeed insane or just plain stupid. Either way, what can you possibly hope to accomplish here? Displaying your ignorance and lack of reading and logical thinking skills isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Whether you realize it or not, every one of the people you are arguing with know way more than you do about, well everything.

Do you just like getting attention or what? Do you like being proven wrong over and over again? Do you like lying to people? Do you think that anyone will ever believe anything you say, even if somehow it happens to be true? Does your mother know what you're doing?

Looks like blind panic to me.

Tray is bravely trying to convince himself that his house of cards isn't collapsing.

Look, Tray, there are thousands, probably millions of devout, pious Christians who have no problem reconciling their faith with real world facts. You can join them and still be "of the body". Really. It's okay.

;)

Tray Allan Poe

:):):):):):)

I had that suspicion; especially since, as I mentioned earlier, he hits exactly every wrong note.

All the fundamentalists I know have these kinds of issues, but not all of them all at once.

And if Tray really is a Poe, it’s a pretty good embodiment of what goes wrong in the tortured psyches of some of these blind followers of ID/creationism. The clowns at DI, ICR and AiG couldn’t make a living if they couldn’t count on such followers.

And creating such an army of these kinds of rubes is good for politics. They will believe and do anything on command.

Well, you guys have all very effectively taken Tray to task for linking to an article without reading it, then posing a question the article answers.

But everyone failed to mention that you, Tray, were also wrong in your first response. Tik is not a lobe-finned fish because fish do not have working necks: their heads attach directly to their shoulders. lobe-finned fish included. Tetrapods have necks. Tik has a neck. Thus it has features of a tetrapod and features of a fish. And that is what makes it transitional.

Look, I don't think you're going to change your mind any time soon. But I hope you wil be open to this suggestion: read the primary sources that you cite. If that's a scientific article, read it. If that's Gould, read Gould. But stop relying on AIG to tell you what things mean, because if that huge boner about fossilized cells didn't already make this point obvious, I will: AIG is lying to you.

You've got nothing to lose. If AIG is honest, reading the primary source material will give you more arguments against us and bolster your faith, right? If AIG is not representing people like Gould truthfully, then don't you want to know that? Don't you want to know if some group is manipulating your religion for false purposes?

D. P. Robin said:

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

You did not even bother to read the article to which your link pointed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124969.stm: While it has been dubbed a dinosaur "mummy", the dinosaur is actually fossilised into stone. But unlike the collections of bones found in many museums, this hadrosaur came complete with fossilised skin, ligaments, tendons and possibly some internal organs, according to researchers.

You bring the name of Christ into such shame one could cry. I'll say again; As a Christian myself, I have to say I find your entire production here a disgrace to the church of Christ.

Toidel Mahoney said:

D. P. Robin said:

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

You did not even bother to read the article to which your link pointed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124969.stm: While it has been dubbed a dinosaur "mummy", the dinosaur is actually fossilised into stone. But unlike the collections of bones found in many museums, this hadrosaur came complete with fossilised skin, ligaments, tendons and possibly some internal organs, according to researchers.

You bring the name of Christ into such shame one could cry. I'll say again; As a Christian myself, I have to say I find your entire production here a disgrace to the church of Christ.

You can not hide the wolf of Darwin by dressing him in the clothing of the Lamb of God Christ Jesus. "Christian" evolutionists beguile the gullible by keeping the outward forms of the faith while replacing the bread of life with the rancid meat of evolutionism.

Toidel Mahoney said: You can not hide the wolf of Darwin by dressing him in the clothing of the Lamb of God Christ Jesus. "Christian" evolutionists beguile the gullible by keeping the outward forms of the faith while replacing the bread of life with the rancid meat of evolutionism.

What, is it full moon already?

For the benefit of the onlookers who are (unlike the voices in Toid's head), really there, Toidel just doesn't get this weird schtick that people with actual minds do, the stuff called "rationality". He is trying to intimate that all "Christian evolutionists" are kiddie diddlers, because this was revealed to him in a dream. Or something. Whatever, he thinks (for certain values of "think") that it's a great discovery. Well, it excites him no end, anyway.

Toidel is, of course, in the rococo stage of being unhinged. We now return you to our regular program.

Ah, but remember that the rationals are but a minuscule subset of the set of real numbers, and the rest of them are all irrational. (Hee hee.)

Somebody ought to keep watch on Gilson's blog. I've found he rather regularly takes potshots at American science and education, and anyone who does serious thinking that might in any way contradict his views of scripture and the way Gilson insists they should be read.

But it takes someone with the calmness of Nick Matzke to keep up the arguments there in the lions' den. I've been banned a couple of times for comments I thought to be factual challenges to Gilson's claims, but otherwise innocuous.

Somebody who doesn't make Gilson so angry as I do ought to drop by more often, maybe.

Toidel Mahoney said:

D. P. Robin said:

Tray said: http://geology.com/news/2007/dinosaur-with-fossilized-soft-tissue-discovered.shtml Explain how soft tissue can be preserved in a supposedly 70 million year old fossil.

You did not even bother to read the article to which your link pointed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124969.stm: While it has been dubbed a dinosaur "mummy", the dinosaur is actually fossilised into stone. But unlike the collections of bones found in many museums, this hadrosaur came complete with fossilised skin, ligaments, tendons and possibly some internal organs, according to researchers.

You bring the name of Christ into such shame one could cry. I'll say again; As a Christian myself, I have to say I find your entire production here a disgrace to the church of Christ.

You can not hide the wolf of Darwin by dressing him in the clothing of the Lamb of God Christ Jesus. "Christian" evolutionists beguile the gullible by keeping the outward forms of the faith while replacing the bread of life with the rancid meat of evolutionism.

u r blog Is very nice

Lots of various persons know some techniques of comparison contrast essay writing, but that does not mean they are able create high quality research papers, nevertheless a custom comparison essay service should assist to create the comparison contrast essay of high quality and demonstrate writing ability of some students.