Comfort/Cameron Darwin giveaway -- all hat and no cattle?

A pity it couldn't be countered by distributing copies of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, perhaps with a 50-page Foreword by P Z Myers and a free wafer.

Ray Comfort refers to atheists who organized into "gangs" to try to stop the distribution of the books because of Comfort's introduction. However, he does not provide any names. Who are these atheists? And why would they propose or even suggest book burning? Furthermore, why doesn't provide names of universities and dates when the books will supposedly be distributed?
Weird, if you ask me.

B. A. Rainey

Instead of keeping it secret from the atheists, aren't they the ones he should be trying to reach out to? Unless he's only interested in preaching to the choir.

Ray Comfort refers to atheists who organized into “gangs” to try to stop the distribution of the books because of Comfort’s introduction.

Par for the fundagelical modus operandi...

There are no groups of rabid atheists waiting to desecrate his pompous defiling of one of the greatest works of science.

All smoke and mirrors...and has been suggested a singular opportunity for a hand out of contamination...
Probably in some backwood degree mill scam of a shack with grateful students claiming a truthful version at last.

The secret list nonsense is typical though.
Started the bragging to soon methinks!

Run out of cash and instead of the top 50 Unis can only now afford the bottom 10 uncredited...

Totally pathetic attempt at discrediting Darwin that is all it is...they tried and tried everywhere else got nowhere...now the creationist is fulfilling a wish list gambit...if only they had written the damn thing in the first place...
This nonsense is the nearest they can get to twisting the theory into knots!

Ain´t nuthin but a envy thang...the enemy have what they want...and they can´t have it...credibility is a hard won attribute...And Comfart has a fair way to goes methinks!

Wheels said: Instead of keeping it secret from the atheists, aren't they the ones he should be trying to reach out to? Unless he's only interested in preaching to the choir.

Damn it, they better show up to Rice. I've been practicing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" in anticipation of their arrival.

So he's giving these away at universities, and university students are supposed to take them and read them and not think he's stupid?

The list of universities was already published. I looked at it last week to see if this thing was coming to Canada. I know U of Toronto and U of British Columbia (both my old stomping grounds) were on the list.

The actual universities aren't a secret so maybe it is the actual times the books will appear on campus?

It does sound like much ado about nothing though.

The phrase "all hat and no cattle" does convey the meaning, but in my opinion the English version is more apposite: "all mouth and no trousers".

I'm curious, but have been unable to find anything about it, but has Comfort offered any opinions on the Discovery Institute, particuarly Michael Behe, who not only concedes common descent, but has said that reading the Bible as a science text is silly?

From what I've read (and that is a few months ago), the only definite (and first) campus will be Berkeley. The others all seemed dependent on finding someone else to distribute (and preferably buying the books to do so).

I’m curious, but have been unable to find anything about it, but has Comfort offered any opinions on the Discovery Institute, particuarly Michael Behe, who not only concedes common descent, but has said that reading the Bible as a science text is silly?

Karen S. said: The truth is, the DI is too busy in their secret underground labs doing ID research.

386sx said: Intelligent Design cereal: It's "irony deficient", and magically delicious!!

I am a philosophy professor at California State University, Chico. A student of mine, who is a fundamentalist Christian, told me he's irresponsible for distributing copies of this "special edition" of On the Origin of Species at my university. He refused to tell me that exact date he is going to do it, but promised to give me a copy. So think this thing is for real.

I'm currently a grad student at Boston University and we're not on the list of schools. Now I find out that not only do I need to to another school to get a copy but I need to guess the date and even then it might not happen at all? This sucks.

Well, at 170,00 copies, we get the picture.

Ray Comfort and the ID/creationists are simply illustrating their secret motto: "Scientists do all the work; and we bastardize it on a mass production scale."

I'm a grad student at the University of Tennessee and you'd think that Ray Comfort would send a few copies our way since he plagiarized one of our faculty for the introduction. Alas, to date there is no news that we will be graced with free copies of The Origin (which come with a free fire starter kit in the foreword). It's a shame, really, because judging from the Knoxville News-Sentinel Letters to the Editor column, Banana Boy would have a warmly receptive audience.

Ian H Spedding FCD said: A pity it couldn't be countered by distributing copies of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, perhaps with a 50-page Foreword by P Z Myers and a free wafer.

Nick,

Heard about Comfort's shenanigans from fellow Amazon.com customer calmly, who had alerted me to it almost a month ago, saying that Comfort was going to offer his "annotated" version of "On the Origin of Species" as his unique way of "celebrating" the 150th anniversary of its original publication. I sent word of it to both Glenn Branch and Matt Young. Apparently Branch had heard of it by then but wasn't quite aware of all of Comfort's nefarious duplicity.

Regards,

John

Joshua Zelinsky said: I'm currently a grad student at Boston University and we're not on the list of schools. Now I find out that not only do I need to to another school to get a copy but I need to guess the date and even then it might not happen at all? This sucks.

...at the moment I’m wondering if this Origin-into-schools thing will poke above the background noise of random crazies who hand out stuff on the quads of college campuses every day.

— Nick Matzke

The truth is, the DI is too busy in their secret underground labs doing ID research.

— Karen S.

Hopefully Ken will post some of it, if only for laughs, on his website.

— John Kwok

Of course this project of Comfort is all about making money.
He is a religious entrepreneur. I have often thought of starting a church myself. Where else can you get such great support for avoiding reporting income, avoid realty and income tax? These entrepreneurs rarely get audited. The basic skill involved is the ability to dream up a new scheme ever so often to get the faithful to donate. Of course, like any successful scam artist, it helps if you have no principles or morals. Similar to a sociopath.
Canadians can purchase 40 of these books at a time according to the site below, for a mere $65 Candian.
http://www.livingwaterscanada.net/catalog.php/LWCanada/ct/pd1992254/Origin_Into_Schools_Project

Ian H Spedding FCD said: A pity it couldn't be countered by distributing copies of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, perhaps with a 50-page Foreword by P Z Myers and a free wafer.

strangebrew said: Run out of cash and instead of the top 50 Unis can only now afford the bottom 10 uncredited...

Nick Matzke said: In that video, they also said they were working with Campus Crusade, Answers in Genesis, and the Alliance Defense Fund – but I haven’t heard anything about the Origin-into-schools project from those groups.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, at 170,00 copies, we get the picture. Ray Comfort and the ID/creationists are simply illustrating their secret motto: "Scientists do all the work; and we bastardize it on a mass production scale."

TomS said:

Ian H Spedding FCD said: A pity it couldn't be countered by distributing copies of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, perhaps with a 50-page Foreword by P Z Myers and a free wafer.

I suggest that there be a redacted version of Paley's "Natural Theology". There is more there than the analogy of the watch on the heath, and there is plenty that begs for commentary.

Frank J said: What might be a novel approach is to combine a YEC book with an OEC/ID book by living authors, and add a foreword to show how, as a minimum, they can't both be right. The YEC and OEC/ID authors would be compelled to respond, but they'd have to confront their irreconcilable differences.

Frank J said: That might be slightly better than a Bible "foreword" by an atheist, but if Ken Miller and several others are correct, Paley himself would object to how today's ID/creationism have used his ideas.

"Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect of power.

US census: 1 Sep 2009 ... Ratio of U.S. household residents age 3 and over enrolled in schools ... College. 15.9 million. The projected number of students enrolled in ...

Frank J said: What might be a novel approach is to combine a YEC book with an OEC/ID book by living authors, and add a foreword to show how, as a minimum, they can't both be right. The YEC and OEC/ID authors would be compelled to respond, but they'd have to confront their irreconcilable differences. Something they both, especially the IDer, would do anything to avoid.

CharleyHorse said: Canadians can purchase 40 of these books at a time according to the site below, for a mere $65 Candian. http://www.livingwaterscanada.net/catalog.php/LWCanada/ct/pd1992254/Origin_Into_Schools_Project

Less than 50 per university. Looks like the quad preacher scenario, all right.

or 21 x 1000? Good luck with that at UBC, UVic, SFU. Should provide plenty of laughs for the kiddies, though.

What? The list of schools being visited is a closely-guarded secret?

What might be a novel approach is to combine a YEC book with an OEC/ID book by living authors, and add a foreword to show how, as a minimum, they can’t both be right. The YEC and OEC/ID authors would be compelled to respond, but they’d have to confront their irreconcilable differences.

This is a common tactic with YEC groups now Nick, at least here in the UK it is.

they’re going to stick together, and they’re always going to side with any remotely acceptable science denier over any advocate of accurate science.

Much current activity is actually mainly designed to prevent the cults from shrinking.

raven said: That New Dark Age is a tough sell.

1. It isn’t working. Between 1 and 2 million people leave xianity every year in the USA. 2. The areligious now number about equal to the fundies at 60 million each. 3. The young people are leaving when they can at around 70%. 4. Xians are projected to be a minority in around 2040. 5. People are sick and tired of the christofascists annoying everyone else. Xianity made two mistakes. They allied themselves with right wing extremism and anti-science/anti-truth viewpoints. If you like living in a free, secular democracy and value science and truth, you are gone. There were more of those people than they thought. That New Dark Age is a tough sell.

Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical ... www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Mike Elzinga said: Well, at 170,00 copies, we get the picture. Ray Comfort and the ID/creationists are simply illustrating their secret motto: "Scientists do all the work; and we bastardize it on a mass production scale."

Frank J said:

Hopefully Ken will post some of it, if only for laughs, on his website.

— John Kwok

I hope he dismantles it sentence-by-sentence, as he has with other similar nonsense. I don't think Comfort deserves another book, though, because his "God the Charlatan" approach was already torn to shreds in one chapter of "Finding Darwin's God." As you know, Miller's other book, "Only a Theory" was written just before "Expelled" but correctly predicted the continuing "evolution" of the scam away from "we have this 'scientific' evidence against evolution" to "we hate evolution because it (or acceptance of it) leads to Nazism and other bad behavior." It's fascinating how the radically different approaches, YEC, OEC and ID, are nevertheless all "converging" on Godwin's law. Speaking of Miller, he is probably the "Darwinist" that the scam artists are most afraid of. Other than the Behe, who is forced to respond in detail to Miller's point-by-point refutation, most of these people prefer to pretend that Miller doesn't exist (note how he was "expelled" from "Expelled"). At best they dismiss him with "he's just a compatibilist" then move on to safer turf (like Dawkins).

Nick Matzke -

For clarity, although I agree with all of Raven's comments, when I referred to "the cults", I referred only to those religious sects which deny science and/or use political machinations to violate rights or engage in bigotry, in the name of "morality".

I have no problem with anyone else's religion, as long as they respect the rights of others. That's even true if they privately deny scientific reality. (Alternately, if they engage in behavior that violates the rights of others, I disapprove, even if they don't outright deny science - however, for some reason, those two things seem to go together.)

I also strongly agree that many religious people do not deny science, even if they may follow a religion that I do not follow.

Getting a bunch of college kids to actually read a book, especially a book that is "one long argument?" Lots of luck. Of course, for most Americans buying or otherwise acquiring a book is meaningful in itself. Comfort probably figures that he can say that he is giving the evolutionists a chance to make their cases, knowing that virtually no one is going to call his bluff by reading even a truncated version of the Origins. After all, many if not most of his typical followers don't in fact read the Bible, even though they claim to revere it.

Comfort strategy is somewhat similar to Glenn Beck's. Beck endlessly refers to Thomas Paine, even though anybody who actually reads Paine's books will discover Paine was a ferocious lefty who would been more likely to have Beck guillotined than to endorse his politics. Beck is safe.

Getting a bunch of college kids to actually read a book, especially a book that is “one long argument?” Lots of luck. Of course, for most Americans buying or otherwise acquiring a book is meaningful in itself.

This discussion about the how, where and when of the Comfort gesture surprises me from the temporal perspective. Since 'On the Origin' was originally published on 24 November 1859, one should expect Comfort-day to be on that date. Later than 24 would be silly, earlier than 24 would be silly as well... but wait, now I come to think of it, the 24th will be at least as silly too.

According to the article in the link below, 194,000 books are to be given away.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091114/NEWS10/911140326
...Nobody can defend the premise that "nothing created everything," he argued, and once a person concedes that "something" created everything, then that person become "an anti-science knuckle-dragger who believes in intelligent design."

Mr. Comfort's foes are currently mobilizing again in response to his plans to give away 194,000 copies of a special edition of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago this month.....
----------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of the numerous times he has been told no one
claims everything came from nothing, he like all the rest just keep on with that lie. Didn't know he was raised a Jew in New Zealand. Another imported scam artist. Think Ham.

seems like Mr. Comfort is as unaware as many politicans are that we do live in an age of recording devices. What does it say about a religion when its people lie so badly and so constantly?

Hopefully Ken will post some of it, if only for laughs, on his website.

This discussion about the how, where and when of the Comfort gesture surprises me from the temporal perspective.

Karen S. said:

Hopefully Ken will post some of it, if only for laughs, on his website.

Yes, and when it come to analyzing this kind of garbage, Ken Miller is in a class by himself!

How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information? Silly me, I actually was under the impression that this is how science really works. Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins.

Also, "authority" based on mass appeal is irrelevant to the discussion of logical truths, as has been proven in societies throughout our history time and time again.

I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism. One might just as easily surmise that because you deny astrology, you also deny science, the way you unabashedly equate evolution to all of science.

Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here? It seems to me that your arguments really offer nothing but ad hominem attacks, as well as name-calling, and several straw men you set up and easily knock down to stroke your own egos.

anonymouse wrote:

"Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins."

Really? So, if I were to say set up a Jesus on the cross who started crying real tears and it was later revealed to be a hoax, you would give up Christianity? Thought not.

"Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here?"

Pot meet kettle.

creo troll: even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

troll babbling: Also, “authority” based on mass appeal is irrelevant to the discussion of logical truths, as has been proven in societies throughout our history time and time again.

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information?

even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

anonymouse said: I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information?

Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins.

Also, "authority" based on mass appeal is irrelevant to the discussion of logical truths, as has been proven in societies throughout our history time and time again.

I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here? It seems to me that your arguments really offer nothing but ad hominem attacks, as well as name-calling, and several straw men you set up and easily knock down to stroke your own egos.

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information?

creo troll: even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information? Silly me, I actually was under the impression that this is how science really works.

Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins.

Also, “authority” based on mass appeal is irrelevant to the discussion of logical truths, as has been proven in societies throughout our history time and time again.

I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

One might just as easily surmise that because you deny astrology, you also deny science, the way you unabashedly equate evolution to all of science.

Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here?

It seems to me that your arguments really offer nothing but ad hominem attacks, as well as name-calling, and several straw men you set up and easily knock down to stroke your own egos.

Nothing to see here. Drive by troll. Won't be able to comment rationally on the comments by DS, Raven, Wheels, Science Avenger, Robin, Dan, Stevaroni, or Mike Elzinga, because he's got.... nothing.

DS said: anonymouse wrote: "Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins." Really? So, if I were to say set up a Jesus on the cross who started crying real tears and it was later revealed to be a hoax, you would give up Christianity? Thought not. What does Jesus and Christianity have to do with my comment? Not that it matters in the slightest either, but not only has the account of Jesus' death not been proven to be a hoax, it cannot be proven to be a hoax, because it is a belief that requires faith, as is freely admitted by followers who ascribe to the factual nature of the account as is written. "Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here?" Pot meet kettle.

anonymouse said: Thank you for making my point.

Apparently, they predict that somebody will call them on their breathtaking inanity, and then when that prediction comes true, it somehow "proves their point".

Somehow I don't exactly follow that "reasoning".

Henry

raven said:

creo troll: even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

Not lately, like in the last century to two. What is ironic. The people who determined that the universe is billions of years old, the earth is very old, that life evolves, and the sun is the center of the solar system and so on....were almost all xians. One of the early theorists about the Big Bang was an astronomer who was also a Catholic priest. One of the first discoveries of human ancestors was made in China by Teilhard de Chardin, another RCC priest. There are many prominent scientists today who are xians, including some evolutionary biologists such as Miller. There are very few if any who are creationists. 99% of US biologists accept the fact and theory of evolution. It is higher in Europe. These days creationism is the domain of the crazy, stupid, and uneducated religious cultists.

anonymouse said: By the way, Christians (or xians as you call them) are by definition "creationists". Jesus was God, and God created the universe and everything in it. People who ascribe to evolution who consider themselves Christians are being inconsistent, and even according to Richard Dawkins they are incompatible, mutually exclusive concepts.

Wheels said:

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information?

I've read Comfort's introduction (it's available for free online). Care to discuss those legitimate flaws he points out?

anonymouse,

Thank you for making my point. I pointed out that your argument was illogical. You have falied to demonstrate that it is logical. You have failed to address my criticism. If you cannot do this, then kindly piss off and stop pretending that everyone else is illogical except you.

For the hearing impaired, here is the argument in a nutshell:

Anonymouse argued that the existence of hoaxes was somehow evidence against evolution. It also somehow interpreted my methphor as meaning that the resurection of Christ was a hoax. That was certainly not my intent as anyone with a modicum of intelligence could easily tell.

I did point out that the reasoning used was not sound and demonstrated exactly why it is not. First, the motivation of those responsible for the hoaxes is unknown and irrelevant. Second, those who exposed the hoaxes are on the wrong side of the argument for the conspiracy theory to be valid. Third, the existence of hoaxes does not call into question the mountains of valid evidence or the motivations of real scientists.

Anonymouse has completely failed to address any of these points, retreating into religious arguments and defending religious beliefs and yet it still claims victory and intellectual superiority. Yea, right. Dream on. Then it launches into a round of name calling denigrating those who use name calling! Astounding. Looks like another candidate for the bathroom wall.

Science Avenger said:

anonymouse said: I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

They were also sexists, racists, and slaveowners who believed in a flat earth, humours, and the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight. In other words, they were people of their time, as we all are, and are completely invalid as a standard for reasonableness when speaking of people alive today.

anonymouse said: First of all, it is intriguing, and quite telling, that Darwin freely admitted the counter intuitive nature of the conclusion that things which "appear" to have spectacular design (for instance, the eye), are instead simply the result of random, chance processes.

Second, the inconsistency of evolutionary axioms which assume a purely random generation of complex molecular code, are not supported by the evidence. Human DNA contains over 3 billion base pairs of information which could not have arisen by random mutations.

But even assuming for the moment that they could, there is no way to prove this, as all known mutations simply copy or scramble existing information. There is no known mechanism that can spontaneously cause specified information to self-assemble in such large quantities, even assuming the information was readily available, which also has to be assumed by evolution in the first place.

I will admittedly state the obvious, that my presuppositions regarding origins precludes my ability to objectively interpret the evidence. The problem is, that every single person on earth does this, because the position of neutrality is an illogical presumption which leads to fallacious thinking.

anonymouse said: The problem is, that every single person on earth does this, because the position of neutrality is an illogical presumption which leads to fallacious thinking.

Robin said:

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information?

It isn't. We applaud people who point out legitimate flaws and who do so by providing evidence from actual research that demonstrates such flaws. Sadly, Mr. Comfort doesn't do such things and we scoff at his claims because...well...his claims are shown to be legitimate flaws. What would you consider actual research? The presumed response here is something that is peer reviewed and passes rigorous scrutiny by the scientific community. However, this process is not an impartial methodology for publishing critical claims that run contrary to the evolutionary status quo, as you would like people to think. The number you guys throw out regarding the percentage of scientists that believe in evolution (something like 95%) only serves to qualify my argument for the overwhelming bias that emphatically disqualifies any contrary arguments offhand. It's no coincidence that evolution has never been legitimately challenged as a theory, because it precludes the ability to be falsified as a theory in whole.

Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins.

False. There's no such thing in science as indisputable evidence. Folks can dispute anything that comes up, but of course to make a dispute credible, it helps to do some research that demonstrates that there's a valid dispute. In point of fact, the process of science demonstrated said hoaxes to be just that and guess what? Those examples were then disputed, so your claim really has no merit. Well my claim was that they were used as indisputable proof, not that they actually were as such. And the point was that these hoaxes were used for decades at a time to add credibility to the theory where there was none. If a theory is built upon lies and hoaxes, due to the fact that preconceived notions outweigh the desire to rigorously test these supposed evidences before claiming them as support for your hypothesis, then you have to admit that it hurts the credibility of your theory. Examples of Piltdown man, Archaeoraptor, Ida, Lucy, and Ardi are equally relevant.

Also, "authority" based on mass appeal is irrelevant to the discussion of logical truths, as has been proven in societies throughout our history time and time again.

Quite true. And your point would be...? The fact is, Comfort is appealing to mass appearl "authority" - Christianity/God/bible - I find it rather disingenuous to complain about such in any other context. Well, then evolutionists who use the authority of numbers [of scientists] as support for the legitimacy of their theory should really stop using that one then, don't you think? Christians appeal to the authority of Christ/God, because they are Christians, and they believe that He is who He says He is in the documented history of the Bible. Whether or not you or anyone else believes this is irrelevant to the truth value of the claim. It would be disingenuous for me to complain about this if people were being taught this as fact in public schools, but that is simply not the case.

I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

I find it rather ironic that your claim - that the observation that creationists (such as Comfort) deny science is a baseless claim - is itself a baseless claim. Say...here's a thought...got any evidence that demonstrates Ray Comfort didn't say all those erroneous things and actually does practice science? I didn't think so... How is it a baseless claim if it is written several times on this very web page? I don't accept your premise that his claims are erroneous, and I know that he does study science. Your claim is dependent on the presumption that evolution is essentially a necessary belief in order to understand or practice science, which deals with how things operate in day to day life, not millions or billions of years ago in the unobservable past. This presumption is patently false, as people were and are able to practice science just fine without evolution.

Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here? It seems to me that your arguments really offer nothing but ad hominem attacks, as well as name-calling, and several straw men you set up and easily knock down to stroke your own egos.

Oh...you mean besides the links and supporting evidence provided demonstrating that Comfort's claims are bunk? Odd that you didn't address a single one of those points...

bk said: My what big words you have!!! Coupled with so many small ideas.

Mike Elzinga said:

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information? Silly me, I actually was under the impression that this is how science really works.

Why is it that 40+ years of scientists pointing out the misconceptions and misrepresentations of ID/creationism has had no effect on the ID/creationists? Why do ID/creationists keep recycling the same misconceptions and misrepresentations in every new venue despite the fact that they know about these repeated corrections? If you know how science works, why isn’t this behavior of ID/creationists a problem for you? Are you sure you know how science works? Well it's simple, I'm not sure what corrections you are talking about, nor am I sure what misconceptions you are talking about. It could be taken as simply you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting creationist arguments. Unfortunately there is a certain amount of circular reasoning that leads to inevitable conclusions which affirm the consequent. At this point, it becomes nothing but mere semantics.

Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins.

See; there you are doing exactly what all ID/creationists do, namely recycling the same misinformation that has been repeatedly debunked. Here is an example of sidestepping logical conclusions by pronouncing them "repeatedly debunked". This argument is illogical and ultimately breaks down to preaching to the choir.

Also, “authority” based on mass appeal is irrelevant to the discussion of logical truths, as has been proven in societies throughout our history time and time again.

Jealous of authority that conflicts with the “authority” of your holy book? What does “mass appeal” have to do with evidence? Science deals with evidence. Do you know what evidence is? Jealousy is not the issue here, nor is it relevant to the point I was making. Mass appeal is used by evolutionists as evidence that supports their theory (95% of scientists believe in evolution) and is often used to dismiss creationist claims offhand. This is similar to the canned response of all of creationist claims having already been "debunked". They do not substitute for actual critical analysis of contrary claims.

I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

So what went wrong with the current generation of “creationists?” Where are all their discoveries and evidence on which other scientists and technologists build further discoveries and applications? You are revealing that this current generation of “creationists” is, in fact, a bunch of fakes. I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. The claim was that creationists deny science, so it was relevant to the topic for me to mention that many of science's greatest discoveries were made by this same group of people.

One might just as easily surmise that because you deny astrology, you also deny science, the way you unabashedly equate evolution to all of science.

This makes no sense. It is easier to deny ID/creationism because of its remarkable resemblance to astrology. The evidence for evolution is the stuff on which scientific analysis is built. How does science work with the “stuff’ of astrology or ID/creationism? Got any hints? Creationism does not resemble astrology in any sense of the word. Astrology assumes no intelligent cause or reason, whereas creationism specifically defines who the creator is and how he created, which is documented in a historically accurate text that is supported archeologically. Creationism is based on written history and observable evidence which clearly implies an intelligent origin of design. Scientific analysis was around long before the idea of evolution existed, and it would stand just fine on its own if your theory never existed.

Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here?

Logical “arguments” that are out of touch with evidence and reality are irrelevant and go in circles. That is what the exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and word-gaming of ID/creationists is all about. Word games and mind games; these have nothing to do with reality. Evidence has to be interpreted, it does not speak for itself. Logic stands outside of naturalistic descriptions of the universe, and therefore requires a supernatural origin. The fact that logic is transcendental and precludes inductive reasoning implies that something other than materialistic means was behind its creation. Complexity in design infers a designer 100% of the time. Extreme complexity on a universal scale solidifies the logical conclusion of design to near certainty.

It seems to me that your arguments really offer nothing but ad hominem attacks, as well as name-calling, and several straw men you set up and easily knock down to stroke your own egos.

Ah, so ID/creationist “Christians” never taunt, never misrepresent, never set up straw-man arguments, never sneer at scientists, never bypass peer-review, never make unprovoked attacks on the scientific community, and never use political tactics to introduce bogus science into schools where it can’t be properly vetted? ID/creationists never go out of their way to provoke scientists in order to draw out responses they can use to claim ID/creationists are being persecuted? You claim you aren’t doing this with your post? You are just an innocent seeker of truth? We think not. I don't think that I've done any of those, no. I believe it was all of those who left comments after the post that I was referring to. The article was not about me, and I was not the one who attacked Ray's arguments by spewing ad hominem attacks.

"Logic stands outside of naturalistic descriptions of the universe, and therefore requires a supernatural origin."

Oh, dear. Here we go again. Another 100+ pages of Hausam-type definitions of "evidence", Aristotlean mind-wanking, and word-games. Bleh.

Do you even know what ad hominem means?
"You have bad teeth and mistreat your mother, therefore your argument is weak," is ad hominem.

"You are a brainwashed Bible-thumping ignoramus who knows fuck all about how real science is done" is not ad hominem. It's definition.

Well it’s simple, I’m not sure what corrections you are talking about, nor am I sure what misconceptions you are talking about. It could be taken as simply you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting creationist arguments.

— anonymouse

This is similar to the canned response of all of creationist claims having already been “debunked”. They do not substitute for actual critical analysis of contrary claims.

Creationism is based on written history and observable evidence which clearly implies an intelligent origin of design. Scientific analysis was around long before the idea of evolution existed, and it would stand just fine on its own if your theory never existed.

Evidence has to be interpreted, it does not speak for itself.

Logic stands outside of naturalistic descriptions of the universe, and therefore requires a supernatural origin.

The fact that logic is transcendental and precludes inductive reasoning implies that something other than materialistic means was behind its creation. Complexity in design infers a designer 100% of the time. Extreme complexity on a universal scale solidifies the logical conclusion of design to near certainty.

I don’t think that I’ve done any of those, no.

Funny how anonymouse calls us elitists when he smugly elevates his religious creation myth above all the other religious creation myths. Who said irony is dead!

anonymouse the troll: By the way, Christians (or xians as you call them) are by definition “creationists”. Jesus was God, and God created the universe and everything in it. People who ascribe to evolution who consider themselves Christians are being inconsistent, and even according to Richard Dawkins they are incompatible, mutually exclusive concepts.

anonymouse said:

Science Avenger said:

anonymouse said: ... many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

They were also sexists, racists, and slaveowners who believed in a flat earth, humours, and the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight.

This is totally irrelevant to my point. I could just as easily say that prior evolutionists were also mass murderers who used Darwinian concepts to rationalize genocide. How is this a productive line of reasoning?

If Biblical creationism is correct, then the evidence BY ITSELF should point to that explanation. Is there anyone who honestly believes that if someone knew nothing about the Bible, and was presented ONLY with the evidence from paleontology, genetics, developmental biology, etc, etc, that they would inescapably arrive at the Genesis stories? Please!

Mike Elzinga said:

anonymouse said: By the way, Christians (or xians as you call them) are by definition "creationists". Jesus was God, and God created the universe and everything in it. People who ascribe to evolution who consider themselves Christians are being inconsistent, and even according to Richard Dawkins they are incompatible, mutually exclusive concepts.

Now that you have drawn out the kind of response you can exploit, you have an excellent opportunity to lay out the evidence that ID/creationism hasn’t been able to muster in over forty years. All you have to do to make your point is to provide the evidence scientists can work with and build on; not only for ID/creationism, but for your sectarian dogma as well. You have never had a better opportunity than you do now.

Science Avenger said: Every physicist reading my words understands more about physics than did Isaac Newton.

Have you honestly tried examining the literature and reports that have come out since the term "Cambrian Explosion" went out of style over twenty years ago?

Please folks, do not feed the troll. Nothing to see here, move along. Far better information about all of this at http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html and http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html --move along.

anonymouse said: Evidence is interpreted based on preconceived notions of absolute truth. The implication that any one person is neutral in regards to the science of origins is fallacious.

If the truth value of the interpretation of evidence for recent creation was absolute, then it would simply be your interpretation of the evidence that was flawed, which you cannot prove one way or another.

Your assertion that creationists have not been able to produce a single piece of evidence is a premise I do not accept, and has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

Seeing as how Ray Comfort’s Introduction to Darwin’s book was full of these evidences, it simply shows that your preconceived notions will not allow you to process these as evidence against your theory.

In fact, there is in reality nothing that can truly falsify evolution, otherwise it would have been accomplished many years ago.

J L Brown said: Please folks, do not feed the troll. Nothing to see here, move along. Far better information about all of this at http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html and http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html --move along.

anonymouse said: In fact, there is in reality nothing that can truly falsify evolution, otherwise it would have been accomplished many years ago. Things such as the Cambrian Explosion would have helped greatly to discredit evolutionary assumptions.

anonymouse said: Evidence is interpreted based on preconceived notions of absolute truth.

"The implication that any one person is neutral in regards to the science of origins is fallacious."

But we're not talking about "one person" here, clod, we're talking about thousands of working scientists, many of whom are devout Christians, who have, collectively, been studying evolution for over 150 years. In all that time, nothing has overturned the basic foundations on which modern evolutionary theory is built. You'd think that if the house was built on sand we'd have found out by now.

And cue "atheist conspiracy" and "WATERLOO!" in 3, 2, 1...

Also, nice evolution/origins manoeuvre, there, Kim Christensen.

Evidence is interpreted based on preconceived notions of absolute truth. The implication that any one person is neutral in regards to the science of origins is fallacious.

Human DNA contains over 3 billion base pairs of information which could not have arisen by random mutations.

In fact, there is in reality nothing that can truly falsify evolution, otherwise it would have been accomplished many years ago.

This implies that evolutionary precepts run counter to logical inferences of observed phenomena.

Okay, I know I'm the popular guy here, but responding to 15 different people at a time is rather difficult, even for myself.

I do respect and appreciate those who did not respond with virulent name calling and creationist bashing. I wish more of you were like that.

Anyways, there were some good points, to which I will try to respond:

"So, explain to us just why all this is “instead simply the result of random, chance processes.”

Do you understand anything about how matter interacts?"

Random chance is the antithesis of intellectually driven, which is the main thrust of the argument. How else would you describe evolution if not as random chance?

"This is a standard misconception and misrepresentation by ID/creationists.

Why do you think the generation of any kind of molecular “code” or organization is purely random? What is your evidence for this?"

I definitively do not believe that the molecular code was organized randomly, or by chance. It was most certainly designed. Once again, evolution is the theory that relies on random chance bringing about specified complexity. Am I missing something here?

"Are there any liquids or solids in your part of the universe? How about those computer keys you are pounding on? Just for starters, why are there such things as solids and liquids?"

Mike, buddy, I'm not understanding your logic here. I thought it was quite clear what my stance was on where matter came from.

"So you would claim that there is no such thing as objective knowledge; it’s just different interpretations from different “philosophical perspectives?”

Does New York City exist? Is there a justifiable “philosophical perspective” that allows one to conclude it doesn’t? "

I would claim that cohesive rational thought from logical and inductive reasoning standpoints cannot be deduced from evolutionary origins alone. Random chemical reactions producing universal constants which are transcendental properties separate from material existence is a hard pill to swallow, and assume a great deal about why the universe operates the way it does. In fact, in order for the universe to operate at all, there has to be a single ultimate truth and reality that everything can be traced back to. So the question is not what philosophical construct would allow us to agree on the existence of any one thing, but rather why would a happenstance, random process such as evolution produce a single construct of logical, linear reasoning throughout humankind in the first place. Indeed, how can we know anything about anything if our brains are simply randomly assembled chemicals?

"How about a few of the following?

(1) entropy = disorder

(2) Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

(3) There are no transitional fossils.

(4) The formation of complex systems is improbable.

(5) Atoms and molecules require intelligence to assemble into complex systems.

(6) The frequent habit of ID/creationists to quote mine scientists.

(7) The repeated use of the Piltdown hoax.

(8) Genetic entropy and entropy barriers.

There scores of others, but let’s see what you do with these."

1)I don't understand your first point. Is this an equation of some kind? I don't think I've ever summed up any arguments like this.

2)Admittedly, the second law of thermodynamics is not something I am an expert at, so I will resolve to leave that one as it stands. With that being said, I think that there is a great deal of semantics that play into the argumentation on this topic that amount to little more than interpretation of what constitutes a "closed system". As I think that strictly by definition alone, that greatly changes the outcome of the argument.

3)There are no transitional fossils from our perspective, but once again, these lines of evidence must be interpreted based on our presuppositions. Yours would say that every organism shares a common ancestor, so naturally you would see any organisms with similar traits as being transitions of one another, whereas we would see variations of original kinds. Which interpretation is correct is not something that can be proved, it must be assumed.

4)The spontaneous formation of complex systems from nothing is not improbable, it is impossible (conservation of mass). The spontaneous, unguided formation of complex entities from matter is certainly improbable. The cliched example would be a tornado tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747. This is exactly what evolution presupposes though, even though evolutionists tend to want to project rational decision-making skills upon evolution at every turn; in a sense giving evolution cause and motivation to continue.

5)It's not that molecules require intelligence to form complex systems per se, but that the logical inference is that this is the case. Something as complex as a computer is an obvious byproduct of intelligent design, but a more complex biological entity is for some reason off limits when it comes to design inference?

6)Tit for tat. If using your words against you is not a rational tactic of argumentation, then perhaps we should re-write the rules of debate that better suits you; or not. I promise you that many people on here are using my own quotes against me in their argumentation as I write this.

7) It's not just the Piltdown hoax, it is the Piltdown hoax, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Lucy, Ida, Ardi, and every other fossil that is emphatically used as evidence for evolution, prior to any subjective research being done on it.

8) I'm not sure what you mean on this one; could you please elaborate?

"Written history? That’s your evidence? How about Homer’s exploits? These are written.

Where is creationism’s research program? Where is the evidence? Do you know what objectively verifiable evidence is?"

Yes, written history is evidence for the occurrence of historical events. Historical narratives must be examined based on many different factors, including context, archeology, quantity of contributing sources, writing styles, corroborative literary sources, and yes, even myths, legends, and stories that are similar in nature and from around the same time period. All of these methods help support the authenticity of the Bible's historical narrative.

"Funny how anonymouse calls us elitists when he smugly elevates his religious creation myth above all the other religious creation myths. Who said irony is dead!"

It seems you have just elevated your evolutionary spontaneous accidental random exploding matter myth above my creation account; congratulations, you are now part of said irony.

"He also doesn’t like other xians. The majority of xians worldwide don’t have a problem with evolution. Darwin was trained as a xian minister. And a lot of the work on evolutionary biology was and is being done by…xians."

I guess I don't get the inside joke about why you call them "xians", but I'm sure it is very clever and witty. How could you possibly know what a majority of Christians worldwide believe? Not that it matters though, because even though the entire Catholic church probably supports evolution, they also once supported geocentrism, and they weren't any less wrong about that.

"Who gave you the authority to decide who was a xian and/or who was inconsistent? No one. It is also a lie. Most xians simply stick god behind the Big Bang and say he invented evolution. As an all powerful being that would be trivial for him.

Lets see. Hate…check Lies…check Ignorance …check Incoherence…check

Must be a fundie xian creationist."

I never claimed to have the authority, but I can spot logical inconsistencies when they present themselves. Nor did I claim to know who is a Christian and who is not, as I would have to be God in order to know such things. Christianity is based on the inerrancy of biblical doctrine; so the very fact that evolution undermines the whole of Genesis, leads to the inevitable conclusion that any attempt to reconcile these two opposing viewpoints is to essentially destroy the entirety of scriptural truth. After all, if supernatural creation is not possible, why then should any miracle, including the virgin birth, or rising from the dead, be possible?

"If Biblical creationism is correct, then the evidence BY ITSELF should point to that explanation. Is there anyone who honestly believes that if someone knew nothing about the Bible, and was presented ONLY with the evidence from paleontology, genetics, developmental biology, etc, etc, that they would inescapably arrive at the Genesis stories? Please!"

How would the evidence BY ITSELF tell you what happened thousands of years ago, much less millions or billions of years ago? Forensic scientists can hardly piece together what happened in any event that transpired in the past without a credible witness of some kind. How could you possibly know which version of what someone thinks might have happened is the correct one without someone there to observe it? Otherwise we would be able to solve any murder, any disappearance or kidnapping, or any crime that left some kind of evidence for us to interpret. So to answer your question, if someone were to observe the world as we know it (and were not influenced by the Bible OR evolution), they may come to any number of conclusions that may include deities or random events leading to the origins of everything they see, but they most likely infer design, as cultures have been doing for centuries, even without knowledge of the Bible (Indians and remote tribes having gods or spirits, or deities). You seem to have the biased view that evolutionists are not biased, and that they are entirely neutral, and this is simply not the case.

What are the odds that "anonymouse" *is* Ray Comfort?

W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that "anonymouse" *is* Ray Comfort?

Notice, however, that I did get him to state most of the standard misconceptions. He doesn't know it yet. He thinks it's just a matter of redefining concepts to conform to sectarian dogma.

But we already knew that is what they all do.

Anybody want to take up the issue of the second law and entropy with him? I've already had a few whacks at some of the other "clever blokes".

He would love Philip Bruce Heywood.

And then there is the shtick about the tornado in the junkyard. Yawn.

How about that history thing? I prefer to believe Homer (also the Simpson one).

The spontaneous formation of complex systems from nothing is not improbable, it is impossible (conservation of mass). The spontaneous, unguided formation of complex entities from matter is certainly improbable.

— anonymouse

Well, here we go with the tornado in the junkyard again. I'll take a whack at this one.

There is no tornado. There is no junkyard. This is a false analogy that Fred Hoyle made up, and it is misleading. Biological assemblages of parts are not random, because living organisms reproduce with modification. If the modifications are net advantages, they are retained, not by chance, but by selection. If they are net disadvantages, they are discarded, again by selection, not chance.

If there were not one junkyard, but millions of junkyards, all regularly reproducing new junkyards in such a fashion that any of the junk in them were slightly modified with each reproduction, and if the tornado were, say, a mindless machine that randomly fitted two or three parts together, and if that assembly were then tried against any useful function, to be retained if it performed that function better than parts already in the junkyard, and discarded if it didn't, and if that process were to continue for tens of thousands of generations of all the millions of junkyards, then I would be absolutely certain that at the end of it there would be junkyards with some useful assemblies of parts.

Now, if you further modified the analogy so that junkyards with substantially different useful assemblies of parts could not exchange them, you would soon have a situation in which different lineages of junkyards produced different useful assemblies. That is, there would then be different species of junkyards.

No, it wouldn't produce a 747. But if flight were a useful function, eventually the process would produce something that flew. If flying like a 747 were a net advantage, then eventually something that flew like a 747 would be produced.

That's what evolution is. When you concede the facts of reproduction with modification and natural selection, which you must because they are undeniable, that's what must happen. It isn't an unlikely event. It is, in fact, absolutely stone-cold certain.

anonymouse said: Random chance is the antithesis of intellectually driven, which is the main thrust of the argument. How else would you describe evolution if not as random chance?

W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that "anonymouse" *is* Ray Comfort?

Or is Dembski one of Ray Comfort's students?

I'm not saying he is, but why has Dembski never denied that he a student of Ray Comfort?

If I'm wrong, I'm sure Dr Dembski can find the time to come over here and tell us.

W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that "anonymouse" *is* Ray Comfort?

anonymouse,

Thank you for failing to respond to even one of my points. Now everyone can see that your logic was indeed flawed and that you were completely wrong.

As for the Piltdown hoax nonsense, if that invalidates evolution, then the shroud of Turin invalidates Christianity, How do you like that logic?

Here is a hint for you buddy, all of the creationist talking points you have been spouting have long ago been discredited. Spouting them here will get you nothing but ridicule. Your opiinion is not evidence and your ignorance is not evidence. Get a clue.

Here is an idea, if you don't want to respond to fifteen different people calling you an idiot, why don't you just pick one claim from the Comfort misintroduction, just one, and document for us that it has some validity. I would suggest number 3 from above. If you cannot or will not do this, then I for one am done with you here.

I suggest that others try to keep this guy on track instead of letiting him Gish gallop all over the place and preach until the cows come home. If it really is as stupid as it seems to be, then this should be fun. If it is just another Poe, then we''ll find out soon enough. Either way, Nick can pull the plug anytime he wants to.

DS said: Here is a hint for you buddy, all of the creationist talking points you have been spouting have long ago been discredited. Spouting them here will get you nothing but ridicule. Your opiinion is not evidence and your ignorance is not evidence. Get a clue.

anonymouse wrote:

"There are no transitional fossils from our perspective, but once again, these lines of evidence must be interpreted based on our presuppositions. Yours would say that every organism shares a common ancestor, so naturally you would see any organisms with similar traits as being transitions of one another, whereas we would see variations of original kinds. Which interpretation is correct is not something that can be proved, it must be assumed."

OK buddy, I'll make this real easy for you. If cetaceans came from terrestrial ancestors, what woud you expect to see in the fossil record? What do you actually see in the fossil record? See, that isn't so hard now is it?

After we deal with the fossil record we can move on to genetics and development. Of course, the questions will always be the same. The point is that regardless of your "interpretation" the evidence is what it is. No amount of prevarication on your part is going to change that. Your "perspective" is irrelevant and your "presuppositions" can be dispensed with. And just for your information, "any organisms with similar traits" is definately not the criteria used.

Now if you are ignorant of the evidence, you might as well just come out and say so. Then everyone will see that "perspective" is actually worthless if it is limited by ignorance. You may find Comfort in ignorance, but that isn't going to help you here.

Stanton said: But, that is not to say that either Newton or Darwin were fools: that is to say that so much more information has been gathered, examined and studied in physics and biology since their day.

Amadan said: Or is Dembski one of Ray Comfort's students? I'm not saying he is, but why has Dembski never denied that he a student of Ray Comfort?

one statement discredits all of "Anonymouse's" assertions about 'what Christians believe'

he stated that "Christianity is based on the inerrancy of biblical doctrine; so the very fact that evolution undermines the whole of Genesis, leads to the inevitable conclusion that any attempt to reconcile these two opposing viewpoints is to essentially destroy the entirety of scriptural truth. After all, if supernatural creation is not possible, why then should any miracle, including the virgin birth, or rising from the dead, be possible"

to him unless you are a "literalist' you are not a Christian

and, by definition, isn't a miracle be something that happens that is impossible to happen (but happens anyway via divine intervention)? if the event were possible - it's occuring wouldn't be miraculous!

he also conceded that " How could you possibly know what a majority of Christians worldwide believe? Not that it matters though, because even though the entire Catholic church probably supports evolution, they also once supported geocentrism, and they weren’t any less wrong about that."

to him - if you are a Catholic - you are not a Christian (news flash to him more than 50% of Christians identify themselves as Catholic) - he ignores surveys and data that tells us exactly "what a majority of Christians worldwide believe"

anonymouse said:

Robin said:

anonymouse said: How is pointing out legitimate flaws in something seen as "distorting" the information?

It isn't. We applaud people who point out legitimate flaws and who do so by providing evidence from actual research that demonstrates such flaws. Sadly, Mr. Comfort doesn't do such things and we scoff at his claims because...well...his claims are shown to be legitimate flaws.

What would you consider actual research? The presumed response here is something that is peer reviewed and passes rigorous scrutiny by the scientific community.

However, this process is not an impartial methodology for publishing critical claims that run contrary to the evolutionary status quo, as you would like people to think. The number you guys throw out regarding the percentage of scientists that believe in evolution (something like 95%) only serves to qualify my argument for the overwhelming bias that emphatically disqualifies any contrary arguments offhand. It's no coincidence that evolution has never been legitimately challenged as a theory, because it precludes the ability to be falsified as a theory in whole.

Known hoaxes that were used as evidence for decades as indisputable proof for evolution are relevant to the credibility of a theory that presupposes the nature (no pun intended) of our biological origins.

False. There's no such thing in science as indisputable evidence. Folks can dispute anything that comes up, but of course to make a dispute credible, it helps to do some research that demonstrates that there's a valid dispute. In point of fact, the process of science demonstrated said hoaxes to be just that and guess what? Those examples were then disputed, so your claim really has no merit.

Well my claim was that they were used as indisputable proof, not that they actually were as such.

And the point was that these hoaxes were used for decades at a time to add credibility to the theory where there was none. If a theory is built upon lies and hoaxes, due to the fact that preconceived notions outweigh the desire to rigorously test these supposed evidences before claiming them as support for your hypothesis, then you have to admit that it hurts the credibility of your theory. Examples of Piltdown man, Archaeoraptor, Ida, Lucy, and Ardi are equally relevant.

Also, "authority" based on mass appeal is irrelevant to the discussion of logical truths, as has been proven in societies throughout our history time and time again.

Quite true. And your point would be...? The fact is, Comfort is appealing to mass appeal "authority" - Christianity/God/bible - I find it rather disingenuous to complain about such in any other context.

Well, then evolutionists who use the authority of numbers [of scientists] as support for the legitimacy of their theory should really stop using that one then, don't you think?

Christians appeal to the authority of Christ/God, because they are Christians, and they believe that He is who He says He is in the documented history of the Bible.

Whether or not you or anyone else believes this is irrelevant to the truth value of the claim.

It would be disingenuous for me to complain about this if people were being taught this as fact in public schools, but that is simply not the case.

I find it rather ironic how the baseless claim of creationists denying science is thrown about by people here, even though many of the greatest discoveries in history were made by individuals who believed in the historical accuracy of the Bible and creationism.

I find it rather ironic that your claim - that the observation that creationists (such as Comfort) deny science is a baseless claim - is itself a baseless claim. Say...here's a thought...got any evidence that demonstrates Ray Comfort didn't say all those erroneous things and actually does practice science? I didn't think so...

How is it a baseless claim if it is written several times on this very web page?

I don't accept your premise that his claims are erroneous, and I know that he does study science.

Your claim is dependent on the presumption that evolution is essentially a necessary belief in order to understand or practice science, which deals with how things operate in day to day life, not millions or billions of years ago in the unobservable past.

This presumption is patently false, as people were and are able to practice science just fine without evolution.

Is this what is considered a legitimate substitute for logical arguments around here? It seems to me that your arguments really offer nothing but ad hominem attacks, as well as name-calling, and several straw men you set up and easily knock down to stroke your own egos.

Oh...you mean besides the links and supporting evidence provided demonstrating that Comfort's claims are bunk? Odd that you didn't address a single one of those points...

I must have missed the links sorry. But my comment was more directed toward all of the ad hominem attacks by those who left comments regarding Ray.

anonymouse said: Nor did I claim to know who is a Christian and who is not, as I would have to be God in order to know such things.

anonymouse said: Christianity is based on the inerrancy of biblical doctrine;

Amadan said: Or is Dembski one of Ray Comfort’s students? I’m not saying he is, but why has Dembski never denied that he a student of Ray Comfort?

You know what is one BIG thing that could have disproved the theory of natural selection... (note that the term evolution in this context would be incorrect, evolution is a fact of nature, natural selection is the theory) but back to my point, one BIG GIANT thing that could have disproved evolution would be the discovery of genetics. Yet, every single laboratory experiment done has confirmed that natural selection is confirmed on the genetic level. that is amazing in my opinion.

Also, I like how Comfort refers to everyone who believes in evolution as "atheists" In fact, the majority of evolution supporters are religious.

anonymouse said: Christianity is based on the inerrancy of biblical doctrine;

Even if he's Trolling For Grades(TM), this guy just isn't even interesting anymore.
NEXT!

fnxtr said: Even if he's Trolling For Grades(TM), this guy just isn't even interesting anymore. NEXT!

Robin said: There is no substantiation for any of the miracles -resurrection, walking on water, living in a whale, burning bushes, healing lepers, turning water into wine, parting of the Red Sea, sun holding still in the sky, etc, etc. Claiming such is valid and should be taught as such in public school is rather disingenuous.

Stanton said: Well, it's been suggested that the "burning bush" Moses encountered was most likely a gas plant, Dictamnus alba, which constantly secretes a sticky, incredibly fragrant, and very flammable volatile oil that can easily spontaneously combust in very hot weather (Carolus Linnaeus' daughter is said to have had lots of fun with the gas plants in her father's gardens).

A METHOD FOR DISTINGUISHING A POE FROM A TRUE CREATIONIST

I greatly enjoyed reading this thread. I didn't bother to counter the silly arguments put forward by Anonymouse, since others responded with such completeness that my replies would have been redundant.

Related - I hypothesize that there actually is a rather good way to distinguish a "Poe", or parody creationist, from a real creationist.

I don't think it's 100%, but I think it's better than a random guess.

Those who use weaselly language, hiding their true religious position as long as possible, evading questions, and so on are the real creationists.

Those who openly discuss Hell, a six thousand year old earth, stoning as a valid part of the criminal justice system, etc, are nearly always "Poes".

In short, a typical Poe states openly, in parody, what a typical creationist is actually thinking.

A typical creationist is a weaselly sneak, though, and hides his true motivations.

Toidel Mahoney is almost certainly a Poe, if I'm right, and Anonymouse is almost certainly a real creationist.

Oops, better clarify something in advance of expected replies from creationists -

A wrong, illogical argument does not become correct if its proponents feel insulted.

Random chance is the antithesis of intellectually driven, which is the main thrust of the argument. How else would you describe evolution if not as random chance?

I definitively do not believe that the molecular code was organized randomly, or by chance. It was most certainly designed. Once again, evolution is the theory that relies on random chance bringing about specified complexity. Am I missing something here?

The spontaneous formation of complex systems from nothing is not improbable, it is impossible (conservation of mass). The spontaneous, unguided formation of complex entities from matter is certainly improbable. The cliched example would be a tornado tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747. This is exactly what evolution presupposes though, even though evolutionists tend to want to project rational decision-making skills upon evolution at every turn; in a sense giving evolution cause and motivation to continue.

It’s not that molecules require intelligence to form complex systems per se, but that the logical inference is that this is the case. Something as complex as a computer is an obvious byproduct of intelligent design, but a more complex biological entity is for some reason off limits when it comes to design inference?

Anonymouse, I have to point out that your understanding of quote mining is flawed.
It is not a legitimate form of argumentation. Look it up.

anonymouse said: Christianity is based on the inerrancy of biblical doctrine; No it isn’t. Christ never said that Biblical doctrine was inerrant. In fact, the various Christian groups cannot even agree on what the Bible is,

It looks as if Ken Miller has already tackled Comfort's latest crap; take a look here

anonymouse said: Random chance is the antithesis of intellectually driven, which is the main thrust of the argument. How else would you describe evolution if not as random chance?

I definitively do not believe that the molecular code was organized randomly, or by chance. It was most certainly designed. Once again, evolution is the theory that relies on random chance bringing about specified complexity. Am I missing something here?

I would claim that cohesive rational thought from logical and inductive reasoning standpoints cannot be deduced from evolutionary origins alone.

Random chemical reactions producing universal constants which are transcendental properties separate from material existence is a hard pill to swallow, and assume a great deal about why the universe operates the way it does.

In fact, in order for the universe to operate at all, there has to be a single ultimate truth and reality that everything can be traced back to.

So the question is not what philosophical construct would allow us to agree on the existence of any one thing, but rather why would a happenstance, random process such as evolution produce a single construct of logical, linear reasoning throughout humankind in the first place.

Indeed, how can we know anything about anything if our brains are simply randomly assembled chemicals?

3)There are no transitional fossils from our perspective,

but once again, these lines of evidence must be interpreted based on our presuppositions.

Yours would say that every organism shares a common ancestor, so naturally you would see any organisms with similar traits as being transitions of one another, whereas we would see variations of original kinds.

Which interpretation is correct is not something that can be proved, it must be assumed.

4)The spontaneous formation of complex systems from nothing is not improbable, it is impossible (conservation of mass). The spontaneous, unguided formation of complex entities from matter is certainly improbable. The cliched example would be a tornado tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747. This is exactly what evolution presupposes though, even though evolutionists tend to want to project rational decision-making skills upon evolution at every turn; in a sense giving evolution cause and motivation to continue.

Stanton said:

Robin said: There is no substantiation for any of the miracles -resurrection, walking on water, living in a whale, burning bushes, healing lepers, turning water into wine, parting of the Red Sea, sun holding still in the sky, etc, etc. Claiming such is valid and should be taught as such in public school is rather disingenuous.

Well, it's been suggested that the "burning bush" Moses encountered was most likely a gas plant, Dictamnus alba, which constantly secretes a sticky, incredibly fragrant, and very flammable volatile oil that can easily spontaneously combust in very hot weather (Carolus Linnaeus' daughter is said to have had lots of fun with the gas plants in her father's gardens).

And this particular troll doesn’t recognize that he continues to repeat the same mischaracterizations.

harold said: A METHOD FOR DISTINGUISHING A POE FROM A TRUE CREATIONIST ....

GvlGeologist, FCD -

I'm challenging Poe's law, to the extent that I'm saying that if I had to, I could make the distinction, with better than random results.

harold said: GvlGeologist, FCD - I'm challenging Poe's law, to the extent that I'm saying that if I had to, I could make the distinction, with better than random results.

Karen S. said: It looks as if Ken Miller has already tackled Comfort's latest crap; take a look here

Robin said:

Stanton said: blahblahblah(Moses' burning bush = gas plant, Dictamnus alba)blahblahcatsineveryone'spants

Ooookaaaay...but what are the odds of getting a speaking varietal?

eric said:

Karen S. said: It looks as if Ken Miller has already tackled Comfort's latest crap; take a look here

Anonymouse, you should take a look at Miller's 2-pager. It shows through example how several of your claims are wrong. eric

GvlGeologist FCD -

Yes, the hard part is confirmation. I suspect that the data is not available to us.

Still, it's an interesting problem in how to try to apply the scientific method to complex social phenomenae related to cognition. Not that I'm a social scientist of any sort, but it is interesting.

I think in some cases, data might exist that would be suggestive. For example, knowing the other sites that they visit, and what comments they make there.

If it were all creationist or hard core right wing stuff with occasional visits to PT, that's ambivalent, but suggestive of a sincere creationist - especially if they're leaving adulatory comments at the other types of sites. A dedicated parodist might behave that way, but it seems a stretch.

On the other hand, if it turned out to be mainly the Onion or a bunch of other non-religious sites, and comments showed a definitive pattern of parody or sarcasm at other sites, as well, that would suggest a parody poster.

This could probably be quantified in a way that was acceptable to objective observers.

I've stated my hypothesis in advance - basically, I hypothesize that posters who are up front about a "young earth", hellfire, and so on are at least in some substantial proportion parody posters. Overt, up front mention of "Piltdown man", "human and dinosaur footprints", or other widely ridiculed "anti-evolution" arguments also suggests parody. (Note that Anonymouse first tried to refer vaguely and indirectly to "hoaxes", but wasn't eager to volunteer what hoaxes he meant.)

Those who use what can be identified as a deceptive and evasive style of argumentation are more likely to be real creationists.

The point of parody is humor, not perfect mimicry. Rather than mimic the sneaky "stealth apologetics" of a real creationist, I think that a parody poster is far more likely to come out with a bunch of outrageous comments.

The data I've suggested could be meaningful, it we only had access to it :). If Toidel Mahoney turned out to be a groveling regular on UD, AiG, and the Sean Hannity blog, and Anonymouse turned out to mainly visit the Onion, online poker sites, and the like, my hypothesis would be virtually refuted.

So basically all I have is an intuitively appealing but very hard to test hypothesis.

By no means do I suggest that I could ever, even with all the data in the world, distinguish creationists from Poes 100% of the time. But I think that one can do a better than random job of it. And I think that my proposal is in theory, testable.

Ooookaaaay…but what are the odds of getting a speaking varietal?

Robin said: Great summary of the silly tornado argument here: http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/evolution-improb.html

Mike Elzinga said: Rough estimates of the binding energies of solids and liquids can be calculated from E = k_BT, where k_B is Boltzmann’s constant (8.617 x 10^{- 5} eV/K), and T is the melting temperature in Kelvin.

Well it appears taht annoyancemoose can't answer questions about the fossil record any more that he could answer any other questions.

All right troll, I'll make it even easier for you. If, as you claim, it is all only a matter of interpretation, (I do not admit that only assume it for the sake of argument), then please tell us exactly why anyone should trust your interpretation? Are you a trained palentologist? Do you have a degree in anything? Did you discover the fossils? Have you published in the scientific literature, any scientific literature? Why should we trust your opinoin more that the experts who did discover and document the fossils? Are they all idiots, or are they all in on the conspiracy? If they are all in on it, how were those hoaxes exposed? Enquiring minds want to know.

You can evade questions all you want but you will not convince anyone of anything that way. Either answer or go away.

How else would you describe evolution if not as random chance?

Once again, evolution is the theory that relies on random chance bringing about specified complexity. Am I missing something here?

Something as complex as a computer is an obvious byproduct of intelligent design, but a more complex biological entity is for some reason off limits when it comes to design inference?

Forensic scientists can hardly piece together what happened in any event that transpired in the past without a credible witness of some kind.

How would the evidence BY ITSELF tell you what happened thousands of years ago, much less millions or billions of years ago?

Stanton replied to comment from W. H. Heydt | November 17, 2009 7:39 AM W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that “anonymouse” *is* Ray Comfort? Can’t be, he hasn’t brought up how bananas cause atheists nightmares, or how it’s impossible for females to evolve in conjunction with males, yet.

harold said: ... I think in some cases, data might exist that would be suggestive. For example, knowing the other sites that they visit, and what comments they make there. might behave that way, but it seems a stretch. ...

Henry J said:

Stanton replied to comment from W. H. Heydt | November 17, 2009 7:39 AM W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that “anonymouse” *is* Ray Comfort? Can’t be, he hasn’t brought up how bananas cause atheists nightmares, or how it’s impossible for females to evolve in conjunction with males, yet.

Did Comfort really say that? That's a bit like saying that muscle, nerve, bone, etc. cells have to evolve separately.

Kattarina98,

Thanks for the info. I did wonder. After all, this guy has not answered a single question. He even somehow mangled my metaphor of faked tears from a crucifix as meaning that I was challenging the resurrection story! Oh well, I guess a real creationist could act like that. I guess I just didn't want to believe that this guy was for real. Nick can still banish him to the bathroom wall whenever he wants to, even if he does think he has some real point to make.

Henry J said:

Stanton replied to comment from W. H. Heydt | November 17, 2009 7:39 AM W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that “anonymouse” *is* Ray Comfort? Can’t be, he hasn’t brought up how bananas cause atheists nightmares, or how it’s impossible for females to evolve in conjunction with males, yet.

Did Comfort really say that? That's a bit like saying that muscle, nerve, bone, etc. cells have to evolve separately.

Karen S. said: It looks as if Ken Miller has already tackled Comfort's latest crap; take a look here

For those of you who haven't followed Kirk Cameron's end of their dog and pony show, he has said that he plans to distribute 50,000 copies next week:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/kirk-camerons-origin-of-s_n_294349.html

Whatever respect I once had for him has disappeared completely.

You know, I actually was trying to respond to each post, but then there was so many replies that it just got a little overwhelming to answer each and every one. Let's make this a bit simpler then, shall we? Give me your smartest, brightest bulb here; I would guess it is Robin, but some would protest.

Answer me these questions, if you can:

1) If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?

2) Is evolution falsifiable, and if so, what evidence if any would suffice to totally demolish your theory, and the ardent belief in it? Keep in mind that there are many millions of dollars in grant money, jobs, credibility, and egos that are on the line here.

3) How does evolution account for transcendental properties that exist outside of the material realm? Things such as time, the laws of physics, universal logical imperatives, and inductive reasoning (the future reflects the past, why do things remain immutable)?

4) What is the mechanism of evolution that can explain an increase in genetic information from 0 base pairs to 3 billion base pairs? Please give an example of when this has been observed (your evidence) and why this cannot be interpreted as genetic variation in specifically designed organisms instead.

5) If irreducibly complex organisms cannot be used as evidence for design, what evidence CAN be used for design, if you are trying to convince someone by using the created item for reference?

6) If evolution had no cause or reason (i.e. no intelligence), what drove it to continue for several billion years, and when will it stop, and why?

7) Why does evolution create benchmarks for successful steps in biological life? Of course you assume this, but why and how does it do this without reason, cause, or intelligence? For instance, if for some reason the right amino acid sequences lined up to form a single protein, how would evolution know that this was the right protein when it still needs 200 or more specific proteins to make a viable organism?

8) At what point does statistical probability factor into making something so improbable, that it is essentially impossible? Or more specifically, at what point is something so improbable to have happened without an intelligent cause, that it can be inferred that it absolutely requires one?

9) If you had to prove creationism to a group of evolutionists, would any amount of evidence, any legitimate criticism, or any logical argument be accepted at all? More specifically, does belief in evolution preclude the ability of creationism to ever be true, whether or not the evidence exists for it?

anonymouse said: Answer me these questions, if you can:

Mike Elzinga said:

anonymouse said: Answer me these questions, if you can:

You clearly don’t comprehend the answers you are given; so what is the point? And you framed every one of your questions with your pseudo-philosophy and your profound mischaracterizations and misconceptions of science. Why don’t you go back over the thread and read some of the stuff that was posted. Your misconceptions are all elaborated and dissected there. Read for comprehension. Then come back and ask some questions that demonstrate that you have made an honest attempt to understand some science instead of breaking your back to mischaracterize it. Otherwise everyone here would be wasting their time.

So you do in fact admit that taunting is your Christian thing to do.

signsofthelastdays: According to that survey, 15% of Americans now say they have "no religion" which is up from 8% in 1990. That would be bad enough news for evangelical Christianity. But there is some more news from that survey that is much worse. In that same survey, 46% of Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 indicated that they had no religion. Forty. Six. Percent. It is important to realize that not all of those 46 percent are unbelievers. According to a survey by Bohan Advertising/Marketing, the Barna Group and the United Methodist Church, 62 percent of Americans in that age group consider themselves to be "spiritual", and 43 percent of them have prayed to some higher power in the last 2 months. But what it does mean is that almost half of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 do not identify themselves with any particular religion.

Listen Mr. Mike,

Obviously I am a bit outnumbered here. And although I welcome a challenge, I cannot conceivably answer 15 different people who are posting multiple replies to my single post. All I ask, is that the brightest person here (or the least hateful toward creationists) answer a few of my genuine questions with a genuine answer (i.e. not denigrating remarks and egotistical, smug, sarcastic attacks).

Then, they can sum up all of the questions they seem to think that I was "dodging", and I will genuinely attempt to answer them myself. This is how civilized people debate, instead of lambasting the lone critical (to evolution) thinker with hate speech and vitriol. My theory though, is that none of you are capable of this. Perhaps someone will prove me wrong though...

anonymouse said: Perhaps someone will prove me wrong though...

Yes it's off-topic but it came up a few weeks ago and I don't remember the thread anymore. What happened is that I called Tom Gilson a piece of shxt or something and I was told that, no, Tom Gilson is actually a thoughtful guy who is confused about some things.

Just for grins, I checked Tom Gilson's blog to see what other nonsense Tom Gilson peddles. I was right. He is a piece of shxt, specifically, a bigoted piece of shxt (one of the worst kinds):

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/11/on-marriage-in-maine/#comments

With respects to Mike, I will attempt answers to anon's questions. I, too, doubt that these will have any effect; but I would not want it thought that PT could not answer.

The numbers refer to anon's questions in the post above, and should be read in answer to them:

1) a) We would expect to see chimaeras, that is, animals and plants with underlying physical structures that are mixtures of features from several different groups, like Ray Comfort's crocoduck. We do not see chimaeras; we see perfectly nested hierarchies.

b) We would expect to see all the same animals and plants that we see today throughout the fossil record, in due proportion. We do not see this.

c) We would expect to find that most of the life forms found in the fossil record would still be extant. We do not see this; to the contrary, nearly all are extinct.

d) We would expect to find that organisms designed to suit a particular environment (by Almighty God) would be invariably better at surviving in that environment than organisms from different environments. We do not see this. Invasive species are everywhere, and are successful, and threaten native species, demonstrating that survival is environmentally mandated (and that competing species are part of that environment).

e) We would expect to find that all the major groups of animals would appear in all strata, or be sorted by size and density, not by phenotype. We do not see this.

f) We would expect to find that biological structures would be arranged in the most efficient way to perform their functions, and would not exhibit relict flaws. We do not find this. Consider the human vagus nerve, or the entry point of the optic nerve.

There's a few to be going on with. No doubt the biologists here could add more, should they care to.

2) Yes, evolution is falsifiable, but has not been falsified. The evidence for it is very great, and something momentous would have to occur for it to be broken now, but a laboratory demonstration of an absolute barrier to genetic mutation beyond a given level would do it. A definite unimpeachable Precambrian rabbit. Ray Comfort's crocoduck, or any other truly chimaeric species. Probably others.

3) Biological evolution accounts for the origin of the species. Nobody ever said it accounted for anything else. Your examples of other things it does not account for are therefore irrelevant.

4) Random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and the slow accumulation of advantageous properties over very deep time. By "this", do you mean an observed increase in the number of base pairs, or are you asking that all three billion base pairs be produced all at once? The former has been observed many times. The latter would be proof positive against evolution, and has never been observed.

5) A genuinely irreducibly complex mechanism that could not have evolved by dropping parts from some more redundant one would be strong evidence for design. None has ever been demonstrated. All attempts to find an example in living things have failed.

6) Evolution ultimately derives from the laws of physics and hence chemistry. These have always been the same - if they were not, the nature of matter and energy in the deep past would be very different, leaving unmistakable evidence. Apparently these laws will continue to be the same until entropy ends the Universe. Until then, living things that reproduce with variation will continue to exhibit biological evolution.

7) The "benchmark" is survival to reproduce. Selection for this is not done by an intelligence, but by the environment, which is mindless. Evolution (actually, natural selection) doesn't "know" anything, and all organisms that reproduce are already viable. Reproduction is with variation. If the resulting organism also survives to reproduce, the variation is selected. If not, not. Asking how the process "knows" this is like asking how a net "knows" not to catch fish under a certain size.

8) At no point having any relevance to biological evolution. Given the two basic facts, namely reproduction with variation and natural selection by environment, evolution is not merely likely, it is inevitable.

9) See the evidence I listed above. No such evidence exists, and no logical argument from any real evidence has been constructed. Creationism, defined as the doctrine that God created all living things in immutable "kinds", is contradicted by evolution, which necessarily implies common descent. If, however, creationism is defined as the doctrine that God created life but that His method was evolution over deep time, the Theory of Evolution, as such, has no objection.

1) If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?

2) Is evolution falsifiable, and if so, what evidence if any would suffice to totally demolish your theory, and the ardent belief in it? Keep in mind that there are many millions of dollars in grant money, jobs, credibility, and egos that are on the line here.

3) How does evolution account for transcendental properties that exist outside of the material realm? Things such as time, the laws of physics, universal logical imperatives, and inductive reasoning (the future reflects the past, why do things remain immutable)?

4) What is the mechanism of evolution that can explain an increase in genetic information from 0 base pairs to 3 billion base pairs?

Please give an example of when this has been observed (your evidence) and why this cannot be interpreted as genetic variation in specifically designed organisms instead.

5) If irreducibly complex organisms cannot be used as evidence for design, what evidence CAN be used for design, if you are trying to convince someone by using the created item for reference?

6) If evolution had no cause or reason (i.e. no intelligence), what drove it to continue for several billion years, and when will it stop, and why?

7) Why does evolution create benchmarks for successful steps in biological life?

Of course you assume this,

but why and how does it do this without reason, cause, or intelligence?

For instance, if for some reason the right amino acid sequences lined up to form a single protein, how would evolution know that this was the right protein when it still needs 200 or more specific proteins to make a viable organism?

8) At what point does statistical probability factor into making something so improbable, that it is essentially impossible?

Or more specifically, at what point is something so improbable to have happened without an intelligent cause, that it can be inferred that it absolutely requires one?

9) If you had to prove creationism to a group of evolutionists, would any amount of evidence, any legitimate criticism, or any logical argument be accepted at all?

More specifically, does belief in evolution preclude the ability of creationism to ever be true, whether or not the evidence exists for it?

anonymouse said: Answer me these questions, if you can: 1) If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?

anonymouse said: You know, I actually was trying to respond to each post, but then there was so many replies that it just got a little overwhelming to answer each and every one. Let's make this a bit simpler then, shall we? Give me your smartest, brightest bulb here; I would guess it is Robin, but some would protest. Answer me these questions, if you can: 1) If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?

Mike Elzinga said: An additional piece of energy input can come from electromagnetic radiation such as light, infrared radiation, x-rays and gamma rays. The formula, in eV, is E = 1240/(wavelength in nanometers).

anonymouse said: ... 9) If you had to prove creationism to a group of evolutionists, would any amount of evidence, any legitimate criticism, or any logical argument be accepted at all?

anonymouse wrote:

"If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?"

Well, since you have completely ignored all of my questions, I don't see why snyone should respond to you. However, on the off chance that you do actually want to learn something, here goes.

If creation happened the way it was described in the Bible, this is what I would expect to see:

1) No rocks or fossils more that about 10,000 years old

2) All life forms appearing suddenly in the fossil record in the very earliest sediments and no change through time of assemblages of organisms except extinctions and of course no intermediate forms between major groups of organisms

3) No genetic similarity or developmental similarity between organisms, especially those with very different bodies and habitats and especially no nested hierarchy of genetic similarity that corresponds precisely with the fossil record

4) No evidence of common ancestry and specifically no similarites between different species due ONLY to common ancestry

What do we see today:

1) We see that the fossil record, genetics and developmental biology are all completely consistent with the predictions of evolution and completely inconsisrtent with the predictions of creationism

2) There is absolutely no evidence for design, or even foresight or planning, however there is tremendous evidence that organisms have been shaped by responses to a changing environment and that they have reached suboptimal solutions in the few cases where they have been able to survive

3) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a global flood and every reason to believe that such would be impossible in any event

4) There is no evidence for the "fall of man" and no possible way to study it scientifically so on one cares

These are the conclusions of mainstream science as found in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you disagree with any of these assessments, then please provide your evidence. Please note that no one here is interested in discussing your religious beliefs and things like the "fall of man". Stick to the science or piss off.

Karen S. said:

Ooookaaaay…but what are the odds of getting a speaking varietal?

Well, does it have the foxp2 gene?

Mike Elzinga said:

Robin said: Great summary of the silly tornado argument here: http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/evolution-improb.html

That reference is pretty good. I would also suggest supplementing it with some very rough quantitative estimates of some of the binding energies involved at various levels of complexity. I’ve mentioned this on some other thread, but I can’t find the thread; so here it is again.

anonymouse said: 1) If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?

2) Is evolution falsifiable, and if so, what evidence if any would suffice to totally demolish your theory,

5) If irreducibly complex organisms cannot be used as evidence for design, what evidence CAN be used for design, if you are trying to convince someone by using the created item for reference?

does belief in evolution preclude the ability of creationism to ever be true, whether or not the evidence exists for it?

1) a) We would expect to see chimaeras, that is, animals and plants with underlying physical structures that are mixtures of features from several different groups, like Ray Comfort’s crocoduck. We do not see chimaeras; we see perfectly nested hierarchies.

c) We would expect to find that most of the life forms found in the fossil record would still be extant. We do not see this; to the contrary, nearly all are extinct.

d) We would expect to find that organisms designed to suit a particular environment (by Almighty God) would be invariably better at surviving in that environment than organisms from different environments. We do not see this. Invasive species are everywhere, and are successful, and threaten native species, demonstrating that survival is environmentally mandated (and that competing species are part of that environment).

e) We would expect to find that all the major groups of animals would appear in all strata, or be sorted by size and density, not by phenotype. We do not see this.

f) We would expect to find that biological structures would be arranged in the most efficient way to perform their functions, and would not exhibit relict flaws. We do not find this. Consider the human vagus nerve, or the entry point of the optic nerve.

..but a laboratory demonstration of an absolute barrier to genetic mutation beyond a given level would do it. A definite unimpeachable Precambrian rabbit. Ray Comfort’s crocoduck, or any other truly chimaeric species.

3) Biological evolution accounts for the origin of the species. Nobody ever said it accounted for anything else. Your examples of other things it does not account for are therefore irrelevant.

4) Random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and the slow accumulation of advantageous properties over very deep time. By “this”, do you mean an observed increase in the number of base pairs, or are you asking that all three billion base pairs be produced all at once? The former has been observed many times. The latter would be proof positive against evolution, and has never been observed.

5) A genuinely irreducibly complex mechanism that could not have evolved by dropping parts from some more redundant one would be strong evidence for design. None has ever been demonstrated. All attempts to find an example in living things have failed.

7) The “benchmark” is survival to reproduce. Selection for this is not done by an intelligence, but by the environment, which is mindless. Evolution (actually, natural selection) doesn’t “know” anything, and all organisms that reproduce are already viable. Reproduction is with variation. If the resulting organism also survives to reproduce, the variation is selected. If not, not. Asking how the process “knows” this is like asking how a net “knows” not to catch fish under a certain size.

8) At no point having any relevance to biological evolution. Given the two basic facts, namely reproduction with variation and natural selection by environment, evolution is not merely likely, it is inevitable.

9) See the evidence I listed above. No such evidence exists, and no logical argument from any real evidence has been constructed. Creationism, defined as the doctrine that God created all living things in immutable “kinds”, is contradicted by evolution, which necessarily implies common descent. If, however, creationism is defined as the doctrine that God created life but that His method was evolution over deep time, the Theory of Evolution, as such, has no objection.

There are about five people handing them out on the University of Pennsylvania campus today. None of them look like college students; I'd say their ages varied from early 30s to about 70. When I asked they said they weren't affiliated with any particular organization, but were familiar with Comfort's work and shared his interests. They're dressed casually and didn't present themselves as evangelicals or evangelists at all, though one asked me what I knew of Comfort's message and agreed when I said he was presenting Darwin as representing an atheistic evolutionism he disagreed with. Anyone else have fieldnotes?

anonymouse said: You know, I actually was trying to respond to each post, but then there was so many replies that it just got a little overwhelming to answer each and every one. Let's make this a bit simpler then, shall we? Give me your smartest, brightest bulb here; I would guess it is Robin, but some would protest.

Answer me these questions, if you can: 1) If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?

2) Is evolution falsifiable, and if so, what evidence if any would suffice to totally demolish your theory, and the ardent belief in it? Keep in mind that there are many millions of dollars in grant money, jobs, credibility, and egos that are on the line here.

3) How does evolution account for transcendental properties that exist outside of the material realm? Things such as time, the laws of physics, universal logical imperatives, and inductive reasoning (the future reflects the past, why do things remain immutable)?

4) What is the mechanism of evolution that can explain an increase in genetic information from 0 base pairs to 3 billion base pairs? Please give an example of when this has been observed (your evidence) and why this cannot be interpreted as genetic variation in specifically designed organisms instead.

5) If irreducibly complex organisms cannot be used as evidence for design, what evidence CAN be used for design, if you are trying to convince someone by using the created item for reference?

6) If evolution had no cause or reason (i.e. no intelligence), what drove it to continue for several billion years, and when will it stop, and why?

7) Why does evolution create benchmarks for successful steps in biological life?

Of course you assume this, but why and how does it do this without reason, cause, or intelligence?

For instance, if for some reason the right amino acid sequences lined up to form a single protein, how would evolution know that this was the right protein when it still needs 200 or more specific proteins to make a viable organism?

8) At what point does statistical probability factor into making something so improbable, that it is essentially impossible? Or more specifically, at what point is something so improbable to have happened without an intelligent cause, that it can be inferred that it absolutely requires one?

9) If you had to prove creationism to a group of evolutionists, would any amount of evidence, any legitimate criticism, or any logical argument be accepted at all? More specifically, does belief in evolution preclude the ability of creationism to ever be true, whether or not the evidence exists for it?

anonymouse wrote:

"What about the platypus?"

What about it? Is it a crocoduck? Or maybe it is a unique combination of basal and derived mammalian characteristics, exactly what evolution would predict. Not only are there intermediate forms, but many of them are still extant. Get a clue.

anonymouse said:

1) a) We would expect to see chimaeras, that is, animals and plants with underlying physical structures that are mixtures of features from several different groups, like Ray Comfort’s crocoduck. We do not see chimaeras; we see perfectly nested hierarchies.

What about the platypus?

anonymouse said:

1) a) We would expect to see chimaeras, that is, animals and plants with underlying physical structures that are mixtures of features from several different groups, like Ray Comfort’s crocoduck. We do not see chimaeras; we see perfectly nested hierarchies.

What about the platypus?

c) We would expect to find that most of the life forms found in the fossil record would still be extant. We do not see this; to the contrary, nearly all are extinct.

But, if a worldwide flood wiped out every living thing that was not on the ark, why wouldn't entire species (or variations from specific kinds via natural selection) be wiped out?

d) We would expect to find that organisms designed to suit a particular environment (by Almighty God) would be invariably better at surviving in that environment than organisms from different environments. We do not see this. Invasive species are everywhere, and are successful, and threaten native species, demonstrating that survival is environmentally mandated (and that competing species are part of that environment).

You may think that this is a matter of convenience, but this goes back to issue of the Fall of man, where everything was no longer "very good". So these are the type of things we would expect to see, along with mutations, and death and disease.

e) We would expect to find that all the major groups of animals would appear in all strata, or be sorted by size and density, not by phenotype. We do not see this.

This is an assumption that cannot be proven. False. It's basic hydrological physics. Go ahead and test it in any kind of vessel. Get a tub, fill it 2/3 full of sand or other "ground" substance, add in some items of various densities, and then flood it with water. Report your results when you've done this.

One could argue that since the flood started with the opening of the "great deep" that everything from the bottom of the ocean up would be the first to be buried in sediment and fossilized; hence, bottom-dwellers such as trilobites.

That's fine, but this doesn't explain why other "bottom dwellers" such as sea urchins and muscles appear so much higher up in the sediment layers.

Also, it is worth noting that 95% of the billions of fossils found are invertebrate, marine organisms, which are most likely to have been buried in sediment because they cannot escape on land like mammals and such, and they are more likely overall to fossilize due to their body composition (hard shelled organisms).

Umm...if there was a "world-wide flood", how could there be any land to escape on?

Mammals would have had a greater chance of escaping death by burial (hence, less likely to fossilize), and were more likely killed by drowning, volcanic activity and earthquakes (due to plate subduction caused by the flood), and due to their bone structure, were not ideal for fossilization.

It's not a question of how something dies, but what happens to the corpse. Have you ever seen and actual flood? Everything gets buried by whatever the water churns up and burial doesn't really get going until the flooding begins to stabalize, so really everything in a flood gets pretty evenly distributed.

f) We would expect to find that biological structures would be arranged in the most efficient way to perform their functions, and would not exhibit relict flaws. We do not find this. Consider the human vagus nerve, or the entry point of the optic nerve.

Referring to the imperfect nature of design is not an argument against design. As is usually the case, simply because we do not understand the purpose for something, does not automatically imply that it does not have a specific purpose. Vestigial organs were once thought to be useless leftovers from evolution, until one by one, we started to discover functions for these organs. The possibility must be allowed, that in our finite understanding, we simply cannot see at the time what the purpose is/was for the specific design element. If not, then I suppose we have not learned anything from history.

You're missing the point, Anon. The fact is, there is no reason to design a deficient eye for mammals if you've got a great design for eyes on mollusks or some birds. Sure you god could have been a lazy designer or just plain stupid, but then that begs a number of other questions.

..but a laboratory demonstration of an absolute barrier to genetic mutation beyond a given level would do it. A definite unimpeachable Precambrian rabbit. Ray Comfort’s crocoduck, or any other truly chimaeric species.

Who then defines at what "given level" something can be concluded to have an absolute barrier? Is this not purely subjective? If specific "kinds" of organisms were created separately and distinctly different from each other, and have varied from their original forms in color, shape, size, and other superfluous ways, through a specifically designed element of survival known as natural selection and adaptation (which simply selects from already available information/traits), then this fits the evidence perfectly as well.

Physics and chemistry pretty much define the given levels, so that question is moot. And no, it isn't subjective - it's quite specific based on evolutionary theory. But let's take your scenerio of different kinds that have varied over time. The issue of similarity of biology, particularly visa vis humans still exists. Since Genesis indicates humans are a supposded "special creation" from all other animals, how do you explain humans not being biologically different?

Why would a rabbit be at the bottom of the ocean? This would make no sense from any variation of historical origin perspectives, so we would never expect to find that; although if we did, it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for creation accounts, so much as it would be for evolutionists.

That's the thing - if their actually was a global flood, there would be rabbit fossils at the bottom of the ocean. That we don't see this, or whale fossils or even shark fossils at the bottom of sediment layers presents problems for the creation account being valid.

3) Biological evolution accounts for the origin of the species. Nobody ever said it accounted for anything else. Your examples of other things it does not account for are therefore irrelevant.

Why would things outside of the realm of explanation by evolution not be relevant to the topic of creation, and therefore its validity? If you cannot explain transcendental properties and biological origins without a creator, how then can you base an entire theory around the assumption that precludes this possibility? In other words, if it's more likely that an intelligent creator was necessary for the origin of life and transcendental laws of nature, why does this not give credibility to theory of creationism, and ultimately hurt evolution? The logical extrapolation of evolutionary imperatives precludes the usefulness, if not also the existence, of a creator.

This makes absolutely no sense. No theory has to account for components outside it's domain. I do not have to panic because evolution doesn't account for economic models of capitalistic impacts on housing prices. That's just silly, Anon. Whether light speed and time are a part of creation does not in any way impact evolution and the explanation thereof.

4) Random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and the slow accumulation of advantageous properties over very deep time. By “this”, do you mean an observed increase in the number of base pairs, or are you asking that all three billion base pairs be produced all at once? The former has been observed many times. The latter would be proof positive against evolution, and has never been observed.

All of those, by the way, delete and scramble useful information that already exists. In order to accumulate information that is useful, you have to have a mechanism that adds incremental pieces of information that becomes useful down the road. Because we have yet to observe even one such example of this, you simply assume that this happened. For example, we have been doing mutation experiments on fruit flies for almost 50 years, and yet experimental results have produced nothing but rearranged fruit flies. If random information is added to a useful genetic sequence, all observable accounts imply that it harms the organism in question. This then becomes a hindrance to survival, rather then a benefit, and therefore would not be passed on via selection. Also, three billion base pairs being produced all at once was "observed" and was written in the historical account of Genesis; so does that count as proof positive against evolution?

LOL! I'd love to know who "witnessed" 3 billion base pairs being created when, according to genesis, nobody was around when God created the first humans. Good luck with that. As for the rest, you've not explained what you mean by information, so there's no way to respond.

5) A genuinely irreducibly complex mechanism that could not have evolved by dropping parts from some more redundant one would be strong evidence for design. None has ever been demonstrated. All attempts to find an example in living things have failed.

The key words there are "could not have". This is essentially storytelling at its finest. What you are basically saying, is that even if something IS irreducibly complex, but evolution can propose an obscure hypothesis about what COULD have happened, regardless of how unlikely, as long as it is not flat-out impossible, then evolution did it.</blockquote.> What you fail to realize here is that if evolution can be used to provide a "could have" explanation, then you haven't provided an example that is a problem for the process of evolution.

7) The “benchmark” is survival to reproduce. Selection for this is not done by an intelligence, but by the environment, which is mindless. Evolution (actually, natural selection) doesn’t “know” anything, and all organisms that reproduce are already viable. Reproduction is with variation. If the resulting organism also survives to reproduce, the variation is selected. If not, not. Asking how the process “knows” this is like asking how a net “knows” not to catch fish under a certain size.

This does not follow logically. If reproduction had to be created initially, then how are benchmarks defined by you as the ability to survive and reproduce responsible for the creation of the ability to reproduce?

This makes no sense. Reproduction was "created initially"; it is a property of being a living organism. By definition, life reproduces.

The question becomes even more complex when the benchmarks for life are considered, because an organism that is 25% viable life form is not beneficial, AND cannot reproduce.

There is no such thing as an organism with 25% vialble life (or 80% or even 99.99999% viable life for that matter). All living organisms have 100% viable life

8) At no point having any relevance to biological evolution. Given the two basic facts, namely reproduction with variation and natural selection by environment, evolution is not merely likely, it is inevitable.

This is more affirming the consequent. Evolution is inevitable, therefore it is likely. Because it is likely, it happened the way I describe it. Because it happened that way, we see evidence for it, which confirms that it is inevitable.

This does not relate to what the previous poster wrote at all. Try again. The writer noted "not merely likely, [but rather] it is inevitable. different meaning altogether.

Evolution is astronomically unlikely. The major tenets of what constitutes life, the universe, and all of existence are all equally complex, to the degree that an undirected, meaningless process is not the obvious conclusion a logical being would arrive at by observation alone.

This is your opinion. Unless you can base this on some actual physical property, law, or proof by mathematical modeling, such doesn't carry any weight.

9) See the evidence I listed above. No such evidence exists, and no logical argument from any real evidence has been constructed. Creationism, defined as the doctrine that God created all living things in immutable “kinds”, is contradicted by evolution, which necessarily implies common descent. If, however, creationism is defined as the doctrine that God created life but that His method was evolution over deep time, the Theory of Evolution, as such, has no objection.

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that God created "immutable" kinds, only that he created kinds. It would make sense from a design perspective to allow organisms to adapt to their environments for survival purposes, which natural selection allows for. Consequently, this preservative feature selects for traits that are, and always have been present in an organism, leading to a net loss of information in the genome when changes occur. Experimental evidence confirms this, as we have seen through artificial selection methods such as dog breeding.

What this doesn't explain though is why many "kinds" of animals are actually better suited for environments they are no where near. If you god designed kinds to be adaptable to their environment, how is it that they are better designed for other kind's environments?

Platypus?! OK. That's it. Can't read on. I'm finished. I'm going out to turn my compost pile. First I'm going to barf on it. What staggering, willfully intractable ignorance in the face of sincere efforts at education. I at least benefited. Thanks, but I just gotta go outside. David

They're handing out the books today at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

bk said:

Henry J said:

Stanton replied to comment from W. H. Heydt | November 17, 2009 7:39 AM W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that “anonymouse” *is* Ray Comfort? Can’t be, he hasn’t brought up how bananas cause atheists nightmares, or how it’s impossible for females to evolve in conjunction with males, yet.

Did Comfort really say that? That's a bit like saying that muscle, nerve, bone, etc. cells have to evolve separately.

Of course they had to evolve separately -- I mean how likely is it that they could randomly form at the same time? ;^)

Why would a rabbit be at the bottom of the ocean?

What you are basically saying, is that even if something IS irreducibly complex, but evolution can propose an obscure hypothesis about what COULD have happened, regardless of how unlikely, as long as it is not flat-out impossible, then evolution did it.

nmgirl said:

bk said:

Henry J said:

Stanton replied to comment from W. H. Heydt | November 17, 2009 7:39 AM W. H. Heydt said: What are the odds that “anonymouse” *is* Ray Comfort? Can’t be, he hasn’t brought up how bananas cause atheists nightmares, or how it’s impossible for females to evolve in conjunction with males, yet.

Did Comfort really say that? That's a bit like saying that muscle, nerve, bone, etc. cells have to evolve separately.

Of course they had to evolve separately -- I mean how likely is it that they could randomly form at the same time? ;^)

so which came first, the bone or the muscle? LOL

I really hate to feed yet another intellectually-challenged troll like anonymouse, but here's my two cents:

1) If creation happened the way it is described in the biblical account of Genesis, what would you expect to see, that we do not see today, including evidence for design, a global flood, and evidence of the Fall of man?

How do you know that the biblical account of Genesis when others have had equally compelling creation myths from the likes of Hindus, American Indians, Australian aborigines and the ancient Greeks and Romans? Even the Klingons have a more compelling creation myth than what is offered in Genesis.

2) Is evolution falsifiable, and if so, what evidence if any would suffice to totally demolish your theory, and the ardent belief in it? Keep in mind that there are many millions of dollars in grant money, jobs, credibility, and egos that are on the line here.

I have to agree with J. B. S. Haldane. If someone found a rabbit in Precambrian sediments, then that would definitely falsify the scientific veracity of evolution.

But to elaborate further, modern evolutionary theory is the most robuts - hence the most tested - scientific theory I know and does a very good job of explaining everything from population genetics and paleobiology to ecology and epidemiology. Is it perfect? No, no scientific theory is ever regarded as "perfect" and perhaps one day contemporary evolutionary theory will be subsumed within a more expansive, more elaborate evolutionary theory that will taken into account better such phenomena like evolutionary stasis and the relevance of mass extinctions in reshaping the Earth's biodiversity nearly ten times over the past 550 plus million years.

3) How does evolution account for transcendental properties that exist outside of the material realm? Things such as time, the laws of physics, universal logical imperatives, and inductive reasoning (the future reflects the past, why do things remain immutable)?

Evolution doesn't nor should it, since it is a scientific theory, not an elaborate exercise in theological philosophy. No other scientific theory I know of can deal with "transcendental properties that exist outside of the material realm". If they tried to do that, then they wouldn't be scientific, having denied their strict adherence to "methodological naturalism" which IDiots like Philip Johnson and Bill Dembski and Stephen Meyer, among others have been whining and moaning about for years.

4) What is the mechanism of evolution that can explain an increase in genetic information from 0 base pairs to 3 billion base pairs? Please give an example of when this has been observed (your evidence) and why this cannot be interpreted as genetic variation in specifically designed organisms instead.

Evolution does not deal explicitly in increasing "genetic information"; an observation that is completely lost on the likes of Bill Dembski and Robert Marks, among others. It is quite reasonable - and this has been demonstrated via chemical lab experiments and mathematical computer simulations that show that emergent, even hierarchial, structures can arrive via natural means out of apparently random disorder. An eloquent account of this can be found in Ken Miller's "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul".

5) If irreducibly complex organisms cannot be used as evidence for design, what evidence CAN be used for design, if you are trying to convince someone by using the created item for reference?

See my response to question 4) please and read it again if it hasn't sunk through your intellectually-challenged mind.

6) If evolution had no cause or reason (i.e. no intelligence), what drove it to continue for several billion years, and when will it stop, and why?

The need to reproduce successfully and produce the most surviving offspring, the neeed to compete successfully for resources, including food, and of course, the need to protect one self from potential predators are among the major reaons why evolution has acted not completely at random, but instead, in "directions" dictated by the previous phylogenetic histories of the species in question. As long as you have such needs within populations of organisms, then evolution will continue.

7) Why does evolution create benchmarks for successful steps in biological life? Of course you assume this, but why and how does it do this without reason, cause, or intelligence? For instance, if for some reason the right amino acid sequences lined up to form a single protein, how would evolution know that this was the right protein when it still needs 200 or more specific proteins to make a viable organism?

A ridiculous question not worthy of my time to answer.

8) At what point does statistical probability factor into making something so improbable, that it is essentially impossible? Or more specifically, at what point is something so improbable to have happened without an intelligent cause, that it can be inferred that it absolutely requires one?

You've been influenced too much by my dear "pal" Bill Dembski. It is utterly ridiculous to consider such probabilities, though a classic recent example is Michael Behe's breathtakingly inane claim that point mutations in the Plasmodium malarial parasite had to happen all at once, when the very literature that he cites in his elegant example of mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Edge of Evolution", contradict his assertion, by demonstrating how these mutations could have arose gradually over time.

9) If you had to prove creationism to a group of evolutionists, would any amount of evidence, any legitimate criticism, or any logical argument be accepted at all? More specifically, does belief in evolution preclude the ability of creationism to ever be true, whether or not the evidence exists for it?

I am a Deist and a registered Republican and I don't "believe" in evolution. But I do accept the fact of biological evolution and accept - if rather grudgingly - that contemporary evolutionary theory is the last, best theory that we have so far that accounts for all biological phenomena.

The only crestionist myth I would be willing to consider is one that I dubbed KRID (Kwok - Roddenberry Intelligent Design) in which I postulated that the primordial Earth was seeded with microbes over 4.1 Billion years ago by either a single Klingon warship or a fleet that had trekked backward in time using the same slingshot procedure used several times by Captain - later Admiral - James T. Kirk and the crew of the Federation Starfleet heavy cruiser USS Enterprise. Best of all, of course, KRID is consistent with modern evolutionary theory.

Where did all the large mammals already buried at the time of the flood go?

stevaroni said: What about moles and ground squirrels? They bury themselves, and occupy possibly the lowest niche (physically speaking) in the ecosystem. A niche from which, one imagines, it's pretty hard to outrun a flood.

anonymouse said: But, if a worldwide flood wiped out every living thing that was not on the ark, why wouldn't entire species (or variations from specific kinds via natural selection) be wiped out?

So Noah, doing as God commanded, saved every species.

Dan said: Mike: Do you teach from Tom Moore's "Six Ideas that Shaped Physics"? That's the only place I've found that emphasizes this formula, which is really extremely useful.

Uuuhhh…Mike? We’re trying to present why the tornado in a junkyard is fallacious to creationists and other laypersons here. I’m happy when if we get past the silly random disaster with sheet metal vs atoms that naturally bind into compounds and you’re expecting us to digest the magitude of binding energies? C’mon…cut me some slack here! :-P

— Robin

Copies were handed out today at the University of North Texas.

We got some at CU Boulder today...

They were handed out at Univ. Oklahoma today. I got four copies.

That 'tornado in a junk yard' rings a bell with me. Many years ago ('83?) I was taking Human Biology 101 from none other than the infamous Dean Kenyon (author of 'Of Pandas and People'). He covered lots of topics of course, but I remember one segment vividly: he outlined the 'objections' to theories of evolution, and that was his primary argument for why DNA couldn't evolve: if evolution happened 'randomly' it'd be like a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a 747 (they hadn't made bigger planes at the time).

I remember feeling rather flummoxed at the time - what a ridiculous argument! If DNA was unlikely to form that way, then likely it formed another way, yes? But rather than look at possible other ways, he just waved his hand and made the "insert deity here" argument.

At the end of the segment he did a class survey: who agreed with the evolutionary theory, and who with the Spooky Intelligence Behind It theory? About 70% of the class sided with the latter. It was shocking, and when I later understood the context for his approach I felt like I had experience academic abuse.

Kenyon later left of course - apparently nudged out - but I wish it had been covered with tar and feathers

Why is genetic similarity automatically assumed to be the result of common descent? If you were designing similar carbon based life forms that would end up at some point interacting with each other, what possible reason could you have for using completely different genetic and biological materials in each? If plants and animals (not including humans) contained unique DNA structures that made us quite distinct, and, as you all seem to imply, is obvious proof of creation, then how would we gain nutrients and energy from consuming them? So God could have made our DNA so that it helped evolutionists pick up on what is otherwise obvious design, or he could have made it useful to survival; hard choice. Designing based on what evolutionists expect to see = Fail.

"Should a hypothesis about evolution not pan out at this point, the theory itself would be changed to accommodate the anomaly, but the theory itself would not be threatened."

This is a stunningly candid moment for an evolutionist here. At least somebody has the guts to admit that this is how evolution operates, and has operated since its conception.

"However, let’s say that evidence was found that showed that a cat could give birth to a bird. That would put a serious crimp in the theory of evolution because currently evolutionary theory notes that such can’t happen given the way evolution works."

How exactly would that be evidence for anything but evolution? I'm not a fortune teller, but I'm pretty sure if that did happen, it would simply be interpreted as recapitulation theory reborn.

"Similarly, if evidence were found that indicated that the Earth was, in fact, 10,000 years old evolution would be in a fairly precarious predicament given the current evidence for how long it takes for natural selection to develop new species."

I seriously doubt that, based on your own words above about the dogmatic belief in evolution. If that was the case, then things such as Carbon-14 being found in coal and diamonds, excess helium in zircons, magnetic field decay, and soft-tissue found in 60 million year old dinosaur bones and 18 million year old salamanders, would have serious implications for at least a young-er earth than evolutionists predict.

"Time, physical laws, and logical imperatives are all models humans use to relate to phenomenon we see in the universe and thus are mental constructs, not material properties. They aren’t even “trancendental properties” - they are just mental placeholders for conditions. Thus there is nothing about them that has anything to do with evolution."

I'm sorry, but that is simply not a logically consistent viewpoint. Your implications are that these intrinsic, universal laws are dependent upon human perception of reality. This is absurd from both a creationist and an evolutionist perspective. If what you say is true, then the universe could not operate prior to humanity's arrival on the planet. This would preclude human origins, because natural processes rely on the laws of physics to operate and continue doing so (inductive reasoning). They are not materialistic properties either. You can't hold time or logic in your hand, nor can you stub your toe on a law of planetary motion, the speed of light, or gravity.

"Since you’re the one presuming that such a change includes an increase in information, you’ll have to provide your definition of information and demonstrate that 0 base pairs to 3 billion base pairs is an increase in such. Evolutionary theory includes and requires no such presumption."

Information is a collection of data that expresses an idea, performs a function, or both. The more complex the information pattern, the more likely it is that it requires an intelligent cause. For instance, if we picked up a Morse code pattern coming from space, and it translated to "Hi", we may or may not assume it had an intelligent agent behind it. It could mean any number of things, but an idea is not readily discernible from something so simple. But if the signal translated to say "Hi, we are your neighbors in space, we are of peace," there would be no doubt that it had an intelligent origin. This is how we logically deduce intelligence from information content. This information can be represented in any form, even in pictures. If a mass of seaweed was laying on the beach in a pile, and was shaped rather convincingly like George Washington's head, we may be able to discern that it had an intelligent source, but the possibility still remains that it washed up that way naturally. However, if the Mona Lisa was laying on the beach, there would be no doubt that it had an intelligent source, even if we had never seen it before in our lives. I hope that better illustrates what I mean by "information" in the context of DNA base pairs, and why it implies an intelligent cause.

"The “best” eye mechanism being used across all organisms with eyes. The best “wing” mechanism being used across all organisms with wings. The best “water locomotion” mechanism being used across all water going organisms. The key is that for design to be true, we would expect that the ultimate design would be copied across all successful organisms."

This is subjective interpretation again. What if the most awesomely designed eye didn't work under water, but was great for seeing from high within the atmosphere? What if you had the most awesome fins for swimming, but you were primarily a land creature, like a frog, so you couldn't move on land? What if what was considered a perfect mechanism in one environment failed miserably in another? What benefit would it be to the organism then if the environment changed?

"I have no idea what you mean by this. I’m not aware of any benchmarks in biological life. I certainly don’t assume such a thing. I don’t think there are any benchmarks in evolution. But perhaps you can explain what you mean."

Benchmarks would represent points at which evolution was headed in the right direction in reference to the necessary components of life. Say evolution required this sequence in order to make a viable protein: XYRLENRQHUBRGLEIR
Obviously this is only an analogy. If evolution started with X, then somehow added Y, but it had no survival value until it reached the last R, why would it fill in the rest? There has to be place-markers for what is to be considered valuable for future functionality, otherwise why would it even be selected for? If it is not useful, then it is a hindrance to survival.

"Because supposedly Noah grabbed two of every kind. Are you suggesting the bible is wrong on that count?"

Two of every representative kind does not include every variation of that kind (or species) that had been produced over the 1600 years before the flood.

"That doesn’t make sense. If things are designed, there would still be optimal designs for given environments regardless of some “fall of man”, but such things don’t exist. Or are you suggesting that the this supposed fall of man demolished your god’s original “design”? If so, then how can “design” even be detected?"

It didn't demolish the design. When God made everything initially, it was "very good". Because of the Fall of man, sin brought death into the world, which brought about the beginning of entropy, in which all material entities and biological life began to degrade over time.

"False. It’s basic hydrological physics. Go ahead and test it in any kind of vessel. Get a tub, fill it 2/3 full of sand or other “ground” substance, add in some items of various densities, and then flood it with water. Report your results when you’ve done this."

For any of you to lecture me and criticize my intelligence, when you want to be taken seriously about the following, is ridiculous and laughable, not to mention hypocritical:

a magical, random assemblage of chemicals into biological entities that are more complex than present day computers, that supposedly happened billions of years ago, but that you can't really prove other than some slight, inconsequential changes within fully developed organisms which display these changes by losing genetic information, which you can't seem to understand the concept of, even when we give you plenty of examples of what information is, and why it requires an intelligent source, and even though you cannot explain the origins of life, or other things such as transcendental properties, you scoff because evolution doesn't deal with these things, because it is too busy being a made up process that came from nowhere and has no meaning, yet accomplishes great feats of design unparalleled to anything intelligent scientists could ever create, but did it out of some inane need for survival, which you tell stories about and then use these stories as your evidence that it happened, with circular reasoning and haughty talk about how intellectually superior you are to creationists by copying research and conclusions that have been forced down your throat as absolute truth from the time you were first able to speak, so you wouldn't see the gaping holes in evolution, even if they were big enough to fly a 747 through, yet you don't realize that you've developed absolutely no critical thinking skills because you've never even thought to question such a ridiculously improbable, yet highly imaginative process that conveniently alleviates you from believing in an intelligent creator that you might be accountable to, and probably will be, and then you fully support lying to students about things like modifying evidences such as Lucy, by painting her up to look like an ape-woman when she was clearly nothing more than an extinct ape, claiming every single new fossil that is discovered as evidence for evolution before an ounce of critical research is done, such as with Ardi and Ida, trivializing anything that could possibly hurt your theory such as Carbon-14 where it doesn't belong, soft tissue that you know cannot last for multiple millions of years, and whole rock strata "eras" that conveniently do not contain evidence of ancestors of diminishing complexity, and then you hypocritically mock people who believe in one of the most well supported, well documented accounts of written history, which is supported archeologically on many levels, and has more copies in print and in more languages than any other single piece of literature in history, and cannot see the irony of the fact that other similar accounts, including myths and legends from around that time period, actually help support the idea that events that are documented actually did take place, including the fact that almost every major culture has some kind of a flood legend, and you expect me to believe your fairytale over my documented history because 9 out of 10 dentists of the scientific world recommend it? Please.

No wonder 50% of the country doesn't believe this crap. You can keep your elitist dogmatism; just keep wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money on research that has never once helped the advancement of science, and in fact retards it significantly. Name just one discovery, practical to everyday human life, that we couldn't have made without the fairytale of evolution...

That aside, evolution, like all theories is going to be nie impossible to falsify. Why? Because science doesn’t involve trying to falsify theories. In science, hypotheses are readily falsifiable explanations for phenomenon. Theories, in contrast, are explanations that have already sustained the testing of several hypotheses and held up in light of ever increasing evidence. Should a hypothesis about evolution not pan out at this point, the theory itself would be changed to accommodate the anomaly, but the theory itself would not be threatened.

— Robin

“Should a hypothesis about evolution not pan out at this point, the theory itself would be changed to accommodate the anomaly, but the theory itself would not be threatened.” This is a stunningly candid moment for an evolutionist here. At least somebody has the guts to admit that this is how evolution operates, and has operated since its conception.

— anonymouse

anonymouse said: For any of you to lecture me and criticize my intelligence, when you want to be taken seriously about the following, is ridiculous and laughable, not to mention hypocritical: a magical, random assemblage of chemicals into biological entities that are more complex than present day computers, ...

Well, I did say it wasn't going to do any good to attempt education.

anonymouse said: Why is genetic similarity automatically assumed to be the result of common descent?

At least somebody has the guts to admit that this is how evolution operates

you want to be taken seriously about the following, is ridiculous and laughable, not to mention hypocritical: a magical, random assemblage of chemicals into biological entities that are more complex than present day computers

Why is genetic similarity automatically assumed to be the result of common descent?

It appears that there were some of these books being given out in Oxford yesterday. Unfortunately, I found out too late to be able to get one.

anonymouse said: When God made everything initially, it was "very good". Because of the Fall of man, sin brought death into the world, which brought about the beginning of entropy, in which all material entities and biological life began to degrade over time.

anonymouse said: I'm not a fortune teller, but I'm pretty sure if that did happen, it would simply be interpreted as recapitulation theory reborn.

anonymouse said: a magical, random assemblage of chemicals into biological entities that are more complex than present day computers,

Mike Elzinga said: My reasons for suggesting this come from long experience in laying out explanations for beginners and laypersons. The main and most important reason is that the explainer needs a perspective that goes far beyond the level at which he/she is attempting to explain. I think – in fact, I know because I have observed this often and have worked with teachers and their explanations – that the primary difficulty I see in the explanations given by teachers to students is that the teachers are too often teaching at the limits of their own understanding of the concepts. This limits their choices of words and leads to the use of faulty analogies in their explanations. Even experienced and knowledgeable teachers have difficulties in these areas. So I was offering it more to you and the others here than to the current ID/creationist. I have no illusions that this particular creationist would understand any of it.

annoyancemoose wrote:

"Why is genetic similarity automatically assumed to be the result of common descent?"

It isn't "automatically assumed" it is a conclusion based on one hundred years of observation and testiing. Why do you automatically assume that scientists don't know anything? Why do you automatically assume that they are all incompetent or out to fool you? Why don't you learn for yourself why this is true?

You are a combination of your parents genes and you contain about 50% of the genes from each and on average about 25% of the genes from each of your grandparents. As the time since the last common ancestor increases, the genetic similarity decreases. The mechanisms are well known and the process can be modelled mathematically.

This also works on longer time scales, since certain types of genetic data can be used to determine the region of origin of individual humans and thier genetic heritage.

On even longer time scales, there is a direct correlation betwenn genetic similarity and the time to the last common ancestor as well. This produces a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity between all living organisms. The important point is that this hierarchy corresponds precisely to the time of appearance of all major groups in the fossil record. This is of course exactly what one would expect if evolution were true.

Now annoyancemoose, what is your explanation for the observed pattern? Did God do it? If so why? Why are there any genetic similarities if organisms are not really related. Common design will not cut it, since even very different organisms are actually closely related genetically. External appearance is not the important thing, ancestry is.

I find it really remarkable that you have the nerve to show up here again after displaying your ignorance so freely. You never did answer my questions about the platypus. Are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong? Are you willing to admit that maybe scientists have considered these issues and that maybe they know much more than you do?

anonymouse said: Why is genetic similarity automatically assumed to be the result of common descent? If you were designing similar carbon based life forms that would end up at some point interacting with each other, what possible reason could you have for using completely different genetic and biological materials in each?

What if the most awesomely designed eye didn't work under water, but was great for seeing from high within the atmosphere?

"blah blah blah copying research and conclusions that have been forced down your throat as absolute truth from the time you were first able to speak blah blah blah"

anonymouse said: Why is genetic similarity automatically assumed to be the result of common descent?

If you were designing similar carbon based life forms that would end up at some point interacting with each other, what possible reason could you have for using completely different genetic and biological materials in each?

If plants and animals (not including humans) contained unique DNA structures that made us quite distinct, and, as you all seem to imply, is obvious proof of creation, then how would we gain nutrients and energy from consuming them?

"However, let’s say that evidence was found that showed that a cat could give birth to a bird. That would put a serious crimp in the theory of evolution because currently evolutionary theory notes that such can’t happen given the way evolution works."

How exactly would that be evidence for anything but evolution? I'm not a fortune teller, but I'm pretty sure if that did happen, it would simply be interpreted as recapitulation theory reborn.

"Similarly, if evidence were found that indicated that the Earth was, in fact, 10,000 years old evolution would be in a fairly precarious predicament given the current evidence for how long it takes for natural selection to develop new species."

I seriously doubt that, based on your own words above about the dogmatic belief in evolution.

If that was the case, then things such as Carbon-14 being found in coal and diamonds, excess helium in zircons, magnetic field decay, and soft-tissue found in 60 million year old dinosaur bones and 18 million year old salamanders, would have serious implications for at least a young-er earth than evolutionists predict.

"Time, physical laws, and logical imperatives are all models humans use to relate to phenomenon we see in the universe and thus are mental constructs, not material properties. They aren’t even “trancendental properties” - they are just mental placeholders for conditions. Thus there is nothing about them that has anything to do with evolution."

I'm sorry, but that is simply not a logically consistent viewpoint. Your implications are that these intrinsic, universal laws are dependent upon human perception of reality.

"Since you’re the one presuming that such a change includes an increase in information, you’ll have to provide your definition of information and demonstrate that 0 base pairs to 3 billion base pairs is an increase in such. Evolutionary theory includes and requires no such presumption."

Information is a collection of data that expresses an idea, performs a function, or both. The more complex the information pattern, the more likely it is that it requires an intelligent cause.

For instance, if we picked up a Morse code pattern coming from space, and it translated to "Hi", we may or may not assume it had an intelligent agent behind it.It could mean any number of things, but an idea is not readily discernible from something so simple. But if the signal translated to say "Hi, we are your neighbors in space, we are of peace," there would be no doubt that it had an intelligent origin. This is how we logically deduce intelligence from information content.

This information can be represented in any form, even in pictures. If a mass of seaweed was laying on the beach in a pile, and was shaped rather convincingly like George Washington's head, we may be able to discern that it had an intelligent source, but the possibility still remains that it washed up that way naturally. However, if the Mona Lisa was laying on the beach, there would be no doubt that it had an intelligent source, even if we had never seen it before in our lives. I hope that better illustrates what I mean by "information" in the context of DNA base pairs, and why it implies an intelligent cause.

"The “best” eye mechanism being used across all organisms with eyes. The best “wing” mechanism being used across all organisms with wings. The best “water locomotion” mechanism being used across all water going organisms. The key is that for design to be true, we would expect that the ultimate design would be copied across all successful organisms."

This is subjective interpretation again. What if the most awesomely designed eye didn't work under water, but was great for seeing from high within the atmosphere?

"I have no idea what you mean by this. I’m not aware of any benchmarks in biological life. I certainly don’t assume such a thing. I don’t think there are any benchmarks in evolution. But perhaps you can explain what you mean."

Benchmarks would represent points at which evolution was headed in the right direction in reference to the necessary components of life. Say evolution required this sequence in order to make a viable protein: XYRLENRQHUBRGLEIR Obviously this is only an analogy. If evolution started with X, then somehow added Y, but it had no survival value until it reached the last R, why would it fill in the rest? There has to be place-markers for what is to be considered valuable for future functionality, otherwise why would it even be selected for? If it is not useful, then it is a hindrance to survival.

"Because supposedly Noah grabbed two of every kind. Are you suggesting the bible is wrong on that count?"

Two of every representative kind does not include every variation of that kind (or species) that had been produced over the 1600 years before the flood.

"That doesn’t make sense. If things are designed, there would still be optimal designs for given environments regardless of some “fall of man”, but such things don’t exist. Or are you suggesting that the this supposed fall of man demolished your god’s original “design”? If so, then how can “design” even be detected?"

It didn't demolish the design. When God made everything initially, it was "very good". Because of the Fall of man, sin brought death into the world, which brought about the beginning of entropy, in which all material entities and biological life began to degrade over time.

For any of you to lecture me and criticize my intelligence, when you want to be taken seriously about the following, is ridiculous and laughable, not to mention hypocritical:

No wonder 50% of the country doesn't believe this crap. You can keep your elitist dogmatism; just keep wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money on research that has never once helped the advancement of science, and in fact retards it significantly. Name just one discovery, practical to everyday human life, that we couldn't have made without the fairytale of evolution...

anonomouse trolls... Designing based on what evolutionists expect to see = Fail.

annoyancemoose wrote:

"If evolution started with X, then somehow added Y, but it had no survival value until it reached the last R, why would it fill in the rest? There has to be place-markers for what is to be considered valuable for future functionality, otherwise why would it even be selected for? If it is not useful, then it is a hindrance to survival."

And here folks, you have the entire crux of the matter. Annoyancemoose simply cannot conceive of any reality in which everything is not animastic. He assumes intent and purpose in every inanimate object, simply for his own psychological need.

There was a recent article in Science about the propensity of the human mind to construct such a reality. They concluded that most people grow out of it by about ten years old. Howeever, some people never do. Apparently annoyancemoose is one such person.

Every one of this guys misconceptions has been patiently addressed by Robin and others. Until platypus man starts ANSWERING some questions instead of just spouting nonsense that any thinking person can easily refute, I say ignore it.

DS said: There was a recent article in Science about the propensity of the human mind to construct such a reality. They concluded that most people grow out of it by about ten years old. Howeever, some people never do. Apparently annoyancemoose is one such person.

Robin said: All quite true. I was just giving you a hard time. :)

I must say that this has been one of the most interesting threads I've read here for awhile. I have lurked here and at UD for some years but being just a somewhat well educated layperson I've never felt competent to comment.

I often have been annoyed here by the quite uncharitable attitude towards questioners. Insults and name calling are not arguments, but just a form of mutual masturbation between those in the group at the expense of those outside. Of course, at UD they do the same thing, just more politely.

Anomymouse hung in there and finally asked a series of questions that prompted a series of informative responses that I found very valuable for my understanding. I'm quite sure that I cannot be the only lurker with this response. I'm just sorry that anomymouse chose not to learn anything but instead felt compelled to close his mind.

According to Genesis 6, no species were wiped out by the flood:

jerrym,

I agree. However, you cannot seriously expect anyone to feel bad about the way that anonymouse was treated here. Sure he ASKED a lot of questions, but how many did he ANSWER, or even try to answer? That shows you that he was never really interested in discussion or learning anything, he was just rying to make an annoyance of himself.

If someone went into a church during services and started screaming about Jesus doing disgusting things to Mary and refused to shut up but just kept screaming the same nonsense over and over, should that person be treated with respect? Well that is exactly how platypus man has acted here, screaming nonsense at the top of his lungs and not even listening to any reasoned replies. The guy never even admitted that he was wrong! That belies a lack of civility so profound as to negate any reason he ever had to expect to be treated with any civility himself.

At this point I would say that he has earned abuse. No reasoned approach is likely to be productive with such a closed mind. But maybe some day he might eventually realize that the people insulting him were actually correct in their assessments. Perhaps the abuse will chase him away. Perhaps not.

DS writes... Until platypus man starts ANSWERING some questions instead of just spouting nonsense that any thinking person can easily refute, I say ignore it.

That is one of the greatest coverups of Judeo-Xianity. We now know that the Big Boat salvage operation was a near total failure.

Mike Elzinga said: Fundamentalist proselytizers are a lot like “The Old Dope Peddler; spreading joy wherever he goes.”

Mike Elzinga said:

DS said: There was a recent article in Science about the propensity of the human mind to construct such a reality. They concluded that most people grow out of it by about ten years old. Howeever, some people never do. Apparently annoyancemoose is one such person.

This is, in fact, quite likely. Many people have observed that victims of fundamentalism retain many of the psychological traits of pre-teens. Whether it is those kinds of minds that gravitate toward fundamentalism, or if it is fundamentalism that stunts peoples’ intellectual and emotional growth is a bit uncertain. It may be a bit of both; people who are immature and insecure are often targets of fundamentalist proselytizers. And once they are hooked, they are kept that way through fear. Fundamentalist proselytizers are a lot like “The Old Dope Peddler; spreading joy wherever he goes.”

nmgirl said:

Mike Elzinga said:

DS said: There was a recent article in Science about the propensity of the human mind to construct such a reality. They concluded that most people grow out of it by about ten years old. Howeever, some people never do. Apparently annoyancemoose is one such person.

This is, in fact, quite likely. Many people have observed that victims of fundamentalism retain many of the psychological traits of pre-teens. Whether it is those kinds of minds that gravitate toward fundamentalism, or if it is fundamentalism that stunts peoples’ intellectual and emotional growth is a bit uncertain. It may be a bit of both; people who are immature and insecure are often targets of fundamentalist proselytizers. And once they are hooked, they are kept that way through fear. Fundamentalist proselytizers are a lot like “The Old Dope Peddler; spreading joy wherever he goes.”

This may explain why the IDiota think cutting and pasting the most ignorant crap is a persuasive argument, and why no matter how many times the crap is destroyed on this or another thread, they just keep repeating it. I have one on a local thread that has the critical thinking skills of a 6th grader.

stevaroni said:

That is one of the greatest coverups of Judeo-Xianity. We now know that the Big Boat salvage operation was a near total failure.

It was originally reported by Fox news. They used old footage from the Garden of Eden.

stevaroni wrote:

"What’s the big creationist fascination with platypus’s anyhow?

"Platypus evolution was a mystery through the first half of the 20th century, ..."

Well there you went and answered your own question. They haven't read any scientific literature in the last one hundred years, so they think the platypus is still a problem. Pretty common thing for creationists really. The real question is why they never listen when you take the time to explain why they are completely worng. Willful ignorance must really be bliss.

"Because that’s how life works. Common genetic sequences are inherited from ancestors in all the life we see. Does it bother you that your position is so outré that you must deny the facts of heredity?"

Wrong. Genetic similarity says nothing about common descent; it must be extrapolated based on assumptions you have, which we have never observed. If any amount of changes were possible based on the simple allowances of the laws of physics, then we could artificially reproduce evolution in a lab without the time required billions of years. If evolution could piece together atoms to make viable organisms, there's no reason we could not do it with intelligent foresight. Stop using stories as your evidence, and start proving this stuff in a lab.

"It’s how science operates. For some reason though, you’re only whining about evolution. Sorry that science conflicts with your silly superstitions; you should maybe get better ones that don’t conflict with reality if you want to talk to grown-ups about them."

See, this is the problem. Evolution does not equal science, and science does not equal evolution. Stop equating your made up stories, which amount to little more than unsubstantiated hypotheses, with testable, verifiable, and reproducible science. Basically what your theory proposes, is little different than us telling a story about how God did it, but then describing in detail how he pieced together each particle over milliseconds of time instead of billions of years. No difference here, except your assumptions are used as actual evidence, and then the physical evidence is interpreted however best fits this paradigm. Please stop equating these two, it is seriously disingenuous.

"Says the guy who would have us believe in a magic, intentional assemblage of biological entities, without of course providing the slightest scientific hypothesis of how this may have occurred or who may have done it."

See above. Your hypothesis simply replaces an intelligent cause with a made-up non-cause and billions of years. This is mere slight of hand, and is certainly not more scientific. And by the way, yes we have provided the hypothesis of how and who. The difference is, our story about our beliefs is documented and supported by archeological evidence; yours is not.

"What is Hebrew for entropy?

This sudden change in the Laws of Physics rather suggests The Fall was the real point of creation, the moment of switch on, going live, t=0. Anything before must have just been some sort of pre-launch testing."

Well, the assumption has to be made at some point; the universe had a cause. And guess what? It was supernatural. Whether it was the big bang simultaneously creating and breaking the laws of physics, or a designer doing the same, you cannot escape this inevitability. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds, really?

"Self-contradiction. He says “I’m not a fortune teller” and then tells a fortune."

For the reading impaired, I said "I'm pretty sure", which is not a fortune, it is a prediction. Nice try.

"It’s already been pointed out that evolution is neither magical nor random.

Anonymouse’s “argument” boils down to “I hold misconceptions about evolution, therefore it must be false!”"

Well, it's already been pointed out to you that it IS magical and random. Wow, that was easy. See how I just used a statement as my evidence, just like you guys do? I like your circular reasoning though. I hold misconceptions about evolution because I disagree that it happened the way you say it did. Would you like me to define what evolution is straight out of the textbook, and then tell you I disagree with it, so that you don't think I'm holding misconceptions?

"It isn’t “automatically assumed” it is a conclusion based on one hundred years of observation and testiing. Why do you automatically assume that scientists don’t know anything? Why do you automatically assume that they are all incompetent or out to fool you? Why don’t you learn for yourself why this is true?"

Haha. How exactly do you observe and test billions of years worth of assumed processes in a hundred years? I'd like to see that one. If by "scientists", you mean those who create novel inventions and explain repeatable processes through research for the benefit of mankind, then I have no problem with them. However, if you mean those who create hypothesis that cannot be substantiated and then allow for no other interpretations, all the while discrediting other scientist who are just as qualified because they come to opposite conclusions, then no, I would not put much stock into their conclusions. I wouldn't say they "don't know anything", that's just stupid and ignorant. That's something an evolutionist would say about a creationist scientist.

"You are a combination of your parents genes and you contain about 50% of the genes from each and on average about 25% of the genes from each of your grandparents. As the time since the last common ancestor increases, the genetic similarity decreases. The mechanisms are well known and the process can be modelled mathematically."

According to your math, I contain 150% capacity genes. I must be a marvel of evolution then. As for the last common ancestor comment, I disagree with your premise and your conclusion, so observable genetics aside, your assumptions about common ancestors is incorrect, therefore your interpretation of genetic similarities is moot.

"Now annoyancemoose, what is your explanation for the observed pattern? Did God do it? If so why? Why are there any genetic similarities if organisms are not really related."

Well, Dispiser of Science (I'm assuming that's what DS stands for) I thought it was fairly obvious that I think God did it. After all, that's what written history is telling us. As for the why, well, you'd have to ask Him that. There are genetic similarities because they weren't each created by a different designer. You obviously have no experience in designing things, or you'd probably be wasting a lot of time finding new materials to build a universe full of different things. So in a sense, organisms are related in that they were all created by the same architect.

"Common design will not cut it, since even very different organisms are actually closely related genetically. External appearance is not the important thing, ancestry is."

Well, your hypothesis fails miserably when comparing the actual DNA similarities. Otherwise, why would fruit flies share nearly 60% of our genes? Bananas 50%? Why would Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes when humans only have 23? Why on earth would we have 95% similar genes to mice? Try being a little consistent here please, and stop cherry-picking genetic similarities that fit your belief system.

"I find it really remarkable that you have the nerve to show up here again after displaying your ignorance so freely. You never did answer my questions about the platypus. Are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong? Are you willing to admit that maybe scientists have considered these issues and that maybe they know much more than you do?"

I find it even more remarkable that you seriously believe you're being consistent and rational here, when you clearly pick and choose what you deem to be viable evidence, and simply ignore the rest. I probably ignored your question because you're a hateful bigot. Besides that, you also want to define science on your own terms so that no answer I give would pass the test of your elitist ideology anyways. According to you, we must listen to anybody who works in a lab and wears a white coat, because they are never wrong, biased, or ignorant of anything. Wow, please go study history and get back to me on that one.

"To stop interspecies disease transfer from killing your favored species, i.e. humans.

But your parsimony argument doesn’t work for biogeographical reasons. If all blind cave fish had similar genetics, that would imply design. After all, they occupy the same niche, it makes sense to build them the same. But we don’t see that. Instead, what we see is local blind cave fish are most genetically similar to non-blind, non-cave fish from nearby areas. This makes no sense whatsoever if the designer was being parsimonious."

So, we would not be able to consume animals or plants for food and would starve to death, but at least we wouldn't get any diseases like kennel cough. That seems perfectly rational. What is this obsession with cave fish? Natural selection is responsible for the differences within kind parameters, not efficiency of design, which is the argument strictly for similarities in genetic make-up of creation as a whole. This is merely equivocation. When will you learn the difference between kinds and species? Species are variations of kinds that have adapted to their individual environments by losing certain genetic information (there's that word again) that is not necessary, or is a hindrance to survival, and retaining that which is necessary for survival.

"You are simply ignorant of the argument we are making. When we say the squid has a better eye, we mean that the rods and cones are positioned “correctly,” i.e. with the light-detecting part on the inner surface of the eye and the blood and nerve linkages behind them. In the human eye, its backwards; the blood and nerve linkages stand between the light-detecting parts and the surface of the eye."

And you sir, are ignorant of the argument I was making. When I say that certain design features are optimal for some and not others, this means that if the eye was positioned that way for something like, say, protection from light and UV radiation damage, then it is not poorly designed; you simply do not understand the purpose of it.

"Moreover we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that having a blind spot isn’t necessary because animals like squid don’t have one."

Right, just like you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lucy was the missing link, vestigial organs served no purpose, junk DNA was useless leftovers from evolution, etc., etc., etc. Your confident claims have zero credibility from the get-go, so you have no legs to stand on.

"I do have to say I liked your extremely long non-answer to the statement that hydrological physics can be tested in the bathtub and shown to mix, not sort, items. But it was a non-answer. You have yet to explain why we should believe in a hypothesis of hydrological sorting when actual tests show that sorting doesn’t happen."

Okay, well, when you can explain the Cambrian explosion, tightly bent rock strata, polystrate fossils, out of place fossils, mass fossil graves, conflicting dating results, the origins of life, an information gaining mechanism for evolution, galaxies that wind themselves up, lack of comets in the solar system, lack of supernova remnants, 60 million year old dinosaur soft tissue, and 18 million year old salamander soft tissue, then we can talk. Until then, I'll just make something up like you guys do.

"It isn’t assumed to be - that’s the whole point you seem to be missing. Genetic similiarity was one of the predictions of evolution, not an assumption about common decent. Darwin predicted it in fact; he concluded, based on his understanding of how evolution must work, that all organisms would have to have some hereditable similarity. It was a hypothesis that proved accurate. That’s the whole point - there’s nothing in ID that would lead to such a prediction. That’s what makes an understanding of evolution so powerful and useful - as a theory it actually can be used to make accurate predictions about relationships in biology."

If it isn't assumed, that means you must have actually witnessed common descent first hand. That's quite a claim to fame. If a prediction cannot be verified by observation (which would require billions of years), then it must be assumed; hence common descent is assumed. As far as ID not leading to the same prediction, that is false. A common designer logically implies common design; we see this every day in things that people create. Because your prediction is based on the illogical assumption of ordered complexity coming from non-intelligence, your theory is not only NOT useful, it is a hindrance to the advancement of actual science.

"Because there’s no requirement for genetic similarity between species that “at some point will interact.” In fact the only rational reason that species could ever be genetically similar is if there was some breeding relationship; if all organisms really were created separately, the chance of ANY mutation in a given species showing up in any other species would be virtually zero. We’d see uniqure biological structures in nearly ALL species. But we don’t and for the same mutations to show up often as they do throughout the biota on this planet, either all organisms are related or your god is just a wicked prankster. Feel free to worship the latter, but I don’t find that very compelling."

This is just plain wrong. Who cares if there's no "requirement" for genetic similarity? There's also no requirement for the amount of gravity we utilize on a daily basis, even though less gravity would allow us to travel much more efficiently.

Species could, and are genetically similar because they were designed by the same intelligent source, nothing more. Breeding relationships are determined by genetic similarity, but how does this support evolution? What part of evolution's plan defined the inability for cats and dogs to mate? Whales and hippos? Humans and apes? Surely there is a good reason why copulation is suddenly shunted at a certain level of change in the genome. But wait, evolution doesn't reason, so why is this not the same in all species on the planet? One would think being 98% similar to chimps, we should be able to reproduce with them, right? Or are you implying that chimps and humans are distinctly different, despite the percentage of genetic similarity? I'm sure you'll find a way to explain this away.

As for mutational similarities, this only proves that because DNA is so similar throughout all species on earth, that the potential for the same mutations to occur are likely. This is because genetic copying methods are similar, which makes sense, because if you have similar DNA structure, why would you have completely different copying procedures for the same materials?

Nutrient consumption does require biological similarity though. Nobody said anything about hereditary similarities but you. Just because something is similar, doesn't mean it was inherited. That is simply your assumption.

Plants do not "eat" sunlight either. Sunlight is the fuel that drives a designed process by which plants gather nutrients from carbon dioxide and water to make oxygen and carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are essential to human function by providing energy, so it's a good thing that plants have similar DNA structure, otherwise who knows if we could utilize the energy from plants, or the gas that they expel when they go through photosynthesis.

"LOL!!! I’d love to hear your explanation on why you think any of these indicate a young-Earth. However, given your dishonesty with my statement, I’m sure that it would end up not being even remotely valid."

You're right, soft tissue being preserved for 18-60 million years definitely makes more sense then the obvious interpretation of the evidence. And the fact that Carbon-14, which is not detectable by our instruments after a maximum of 100K years, is found in objects assumed to be millions and billions of years old, is completely irrelevant. What could I possibly be thinking?

"False. I did not state anything even remotely similar to this statement. I stated quite specifically what we understand of these laws and similar phenomenon are based on models and constructs. Given your erroneous conclusion visa vis what I actually wrote, I can dispense with the rest of this diatribe. You are welcome to actually address what I wrote rather than what you think I meant or what you wish I’d written if you’d like."

Okay, I'll admit, I went back and read it again, and I must have misunderstood what you meant. I just saw "they are just mental constructs" and figured you meant that they were defined by something similar to solipsism en masse. Surely I have not been misinterpreted on this site at all (rolls eyes). At least I'll admit as much though.

"And you know this…how? Got some mathematical equations that support your contention? Some universal law perhaps? Currently this just sounds like an unsubstantiated opinion and I don’t much care for those."

Let's get past the semantics here and be honest. What do YOU define "information" as, and how would you recognize it in any given circumstance; especially one in which you did not know the origin?

"Silly goose - if we picked up a transmission from space that had a pattern exactly the same as Morse Code, on what basis would anyone conclude that it actually IS Morse Code? We’d certainly know that such a code was artificial, but having no code key we’d have no clue whether it actually contained a specified communication or not, never mind whether it was specified for us."

On the same basis that we can determine if it is the English language, Hebrew language, or even Klingon. See, the point about the code key, is, well...for lack of a better word, the key to language and information. This is why DNA works; because it uses a "code key" to send messages to proteins (or information) to do specific jobs. This is essential for the function of life to occur. This is a problem for evolution, because we know what language is necessary for DNA to work, because we know the language, we have mapped the genomes. But why on earth would evolution even know the right language to use for life to be possible? It would take billions of years just for evolution to accidentally stumble upon the right language for life (C-G-A-T), because there infinite numbers of possible molecules, plus the possibilities for letter/base combinations are endless. There's no way evolution could accomplish this, not even in a trillion, trillion years, without being directed.

"It certainly demonstrates that you don’t really understand how evidence for information and intelligence is determined. For example, in your Mona Lisa example above, what you fail to realize is that we know the Mona Lisa is a created work for a number of reasons, one being that there is distinct evidence of tool use (artificial construction) that natural processes do not (cannot) create. A similar understanding is applied by scientists running SETI who look for artificial patterns that natural processes can’t create."

This is a rather odd confession. Natural processes cannot create less complex objects that appear artificially created, but can create objects that appear created and are irreducibly complex? Why could natural processes not create a painting; do tell?

"Why didn’t the designer then give all underwater creatures that eye? Of course, one of the best eyes in nature, that of cephalopods, particularly octopus and cuttlefish, work equally well above and below water and are far superior to human eyes in numerous ways. If we’re such the apple of your god’s eye (pun intended), why the heck didn’t he give us those!"

I don't know, why don't you ask Him when you see Him next. How could I possibly propose to know what the Creator of everything was thinking when He created specific mechanisms in an organism? This is hardly an argument against creation anyways. This is like telling the company that created your computer that they didn't design it because the hard drive would have been in a more optimal place if you had designed it. There is no logic to this line of thinking. Perhaps you simply don't have the foresight that someone who created all of the matter in the entire universe might have; ever think of that? If you designed the human eye based on your logic, we'd all be blind due to UV sunlight by now.

"Needless to say, the problem with your ‘what ifs’ is that they demonstrate you have very little understanding of actual biology or theology. The point is, if your god is really omnipotent, there is no reason he couldn’t create the ultimate eye that would work in ALL environments. Why such a designer have to deal with any constraints whatsoever? And even you come back with something silly like our current bodies are the result of the fall, that still doesn’t explain why other organisms have objectively superior components that clearly weren’t as nearly affected by this supposed fall."

The problem with your 'just-so' stories, is that they are built upon so many assumptions, that it doesn't even matter if we prove one wrong, because there are literally hundreds of other assumptions that still support your theory. This is the reason evolution cannot be falsified, and this is the reason why you think evolution is so well supported. And my supposed misunderstanding of biology and theology is far outweighed by your essentially non-existent understanding of logic.

"There is no such thing as a “right” direction in evolution. There is no such thing as a “wrong” direction in evolution. There are changes that lead to successes and changes that lead struggles and death and both are correct directions as far as evolution goes. Evolution has no intent and doesn’t care whether any given organisms survive or not. Evolution doesn’t require any given protein combinations or anything like that. Such structures arise because organisms with similar structures survive and pass on similar genetic information that in turn can change. Many times those changes lead to death, but given the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of genetic changes that occur at any given moment, some of them take hold in given populations and thus specific proteins arise. It isn’t the other way around."

So, even though there is a right and wrong direction in reality, evolution is not subject to such things? And even though every occurrence that precludes an intelligent cause has a probability limitation for specific outcomes, evolution does not? And even though there are specific, essential chemical combinations necessary for life, evolution didn't have to get those right? That is certainly a lot of assumptions there.

"It doesn’t matter. If Noah supposedly grabbed two of every kind, we would not see extinctions of entire “kinds” in the lowest parts of the geological strata. Yet, we do. So much for the Noah story being literal."

Why not? For instance, if a certain species variation of a specific kind died in the flood and was fossilized, but the representative of the kind survived on the ark, yet ended up dying out due to the ice age after the flood, or being hunted to extinction, then your claim has no merit. But nevertheless, it seems more likely that you do not understand the meaning of kinds, versus species.

"The degradation of organisms on Earth is not an example of entropy. Try again. This doesn’t even begin to address the issue of optimal design."

Entropy can be seen as a tendency to move toward disorder (oversimplified definition), which would happen if God no longer upheld his creation in a perfect state, as was originally created. Of course you will whine and protest here because you think you know better, but the reality is that this is what the Bible suggests, not me.

"Fine. Then provide us with some positive information for a change. Inform us, please, just what we should expect to see from an intelligent designer.

What specific features and structures should we look for which are specifically indicative of design? "

We would expect to see unimaginable complexity rife throughout the entire universe, which we see. We would expect to see a documented account for history that stops prior to the supposed creation time (6,000 year history), which is what we see. We would expect that transcendental properties that cannot be explained by naturalistic means, such as time, physical laws, mathematical relationships, love, spirit/soul, consciousness/awareness of self, and innate sense of morality, would be present, which is what we observe. We would expect that antithetical relationships would exist such as right and wrong, good and evil, hot and cold, dark and light, matter and anti-matter, and that these would be clearly defined, and based on absolute standards.

"And here folks, you have the entire crux of the matter. Annoyancemoose simply cannot conceive of any reality in which everything is not animastic. He assumes intent and purpose in every inanimate object, simply for his own psychological need."

Well, this would be a difference of two worldviews. You believe in reasonless processes producing large scale complexity, while every bit of evidence we have logically implies the exact opposite conclusion.

The Gish Gallop is strong in this one.

It just keeps plowing ahead as though nothing happened.

That’s an alternate reality alright.

Entropy can be seen as a tendency to move toward disorder (oversimplified definition), which would happen if God no longer upheld his creation in a perfect state, as was originally created.

— anonymouse

anonymouse said: "You are a combination of your parents genes and you contain about 50% of the genes from each and on average about 25% of the genes from each of your grandparents. As the time since the last common ancestor increases, the genetic similarity decreases. The mechanisms are well known and the process can be modelled mathematically." According to your math, I contain 150% capacity genes. I must be a marvel of evolution then. As for the last common ancestor comment, I disagree with your premise and your conclusion, so observable genetics aside, your assumptions about common ancestors is incorrect, therefore your interpretation of genetic similarities is moot.

Well, this would be a difference of two worldviews. You believe in reasonless processes producing large scale complexity, while every bit of evidence we have logically implies the exact opposite conclusion.

annoyancemoose wrote (among about one million other things):

"Genetic similarity says nothing about common descent; it must be extrapolated based on assumptions you have, which we have never observed."

I carefully explained to you exactly the observations on which this conclusion is based. You have not addressed one of my points. If you are too stupid or too pig headed to believe it, no one cares.

"How exactly do you observe and test billions of years worth of assumed processes in a hundred years? I’d like to see that one."

Asked and answered. Please try to keep up. The old "were you there" arguement always has the same answer - were YOU?

"According to your math, I contain 150% capacity genes."

No that's according to your math, which appears to be fundamentally flawed. Here is a question for you, exactly what proportion of your genes come from each of your grandparents? How much from your great grandparents? Do you understand anything about genetics?

Still waiting for a response about your paltypus nonsense, dipstick.

DS said: Still waiting for a response about your paltypus nonsense, dipstick.

All of the foolery spouted by Anon as fact is actually false. The "Cambrian explosion" is an illusion; the period was in fact about thirty million years. It occurred because it marked the first emergence of largish animals with hard body parts. There were no 'soft tissues' found in dinosaur or any fossils. That's a misstatement of fact caused by careless reading of a field report by creationists. No scientist ever said 'Lucy' was "the missing link"; but Australopithecus afarensis was fully bipedal, and no ape, but a hominid. Both that find and others were correctly described in the scientific literature. Carbon-14 found in some mineral deposits is one of the products of the uranium-thorium decay sequence, as is shown by the fact that the C-14 is in the correct proportion to the other decay products. There is nothing odd about this whatsoever.

Anon has picked untruths up from uncritical reading of creationist tracts. Perhaps they were merely misconceptions at one point, but they have been corrected in public so often and so well that it is now impossible to call their repetition anything but what it is: lies.

This troll and FL showing up and bombing us with creationist garbage at the same time that Ray Comfort is distributing YEC crap on campuses looks almost like a coordinated attack; not unlike Al Qaeda.

anonnamouse whines... Genetic similarity says nothing about common descent; it must be extrapolated based on assumptions you have, which we have never observed.

anonymouse said: The problem with your 'just-so' stories, is that they are built upon so many assumptions, that it doesn't even matter if we prove one wrong, because there are literally hundreds of other assumptions that still support your theory. This is the reason evolution cannot be falsified, and this is the reason why you think evolution is so well supported. And my supposed misunderstanding of biology and theology is far outweighed by your essentially non-existent understanding of logic.

in response to : "You are a combination of your parents genes and you contain about 50% of the genes from each and on average about 25% of the genes from each of your grandparents. anonymouse said: According to your math, I contain 150% capacity genes. I must be a marvel of evolution then.

Dave Lovell said: But if "we" disprove ALL your assumptions you will still be correct?

“You are a combination of your parents genes and you contain about 50% of the genes from each and on average about 25% of the genes from each of your grandparents."

According to your math, I contain 150% capacity genes. I must be a marvel of evolution then.

You certainly must. You presumably think you were produced from the union of your parents and two of their parents?

Mike Elzinga said: This troll and FL showing up and bombing us with creationist garbage at the same time that Ray Comfort is distributing YEC crap on campuses looks almost like a coordinated attack; not unlike Al Qaeda.

nmgirl said:

Mike Elzinga said: This troll and FL showing up and bombing us with creationist garbage at the same time that Ray Comfort is distributing YEC crap on campuses looks almost like a coordinated attack; not unlike Al Qaeda.

is this troll FL? or have we discovered a new variety of homo sapiens: homo sapiens IDiota?

"You are a combination of your parents genes and you contain about 50% of the genes from each and on average about 25% of the genes from each of your grandparents."

Sorry, was trying to be humorous, but whatever.
You brighties only have to respond to one person on here, I have to go through 30 posts, trying to keep up. And I was in a bit of a hurry; but it matters not. If all credibility was destroyed by one little mistake, then you guys would have none as well.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Ray Comfort
J/K

anonymouse said: If all credibility was destroyed by one little mistake, then you guys would have none as well.

annoyancemouse wrote:

"Well, your hypothesis fails miserably when comparing the actual DNA similarities. Otherwise, why would fruit flies share nearly 60% of our genes? Bananas 50%? Why would Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes when humans only have 23? Why on earth would we have 95% similar genes to mice? Try being a little consistent here please, and stop cherry-picking genetic similarities that fit your belief system."

You are only one cherry picKing anything. You have just choosen a three out-of context-examples and demonstrated exactly the same behaviour you just objected to. The overall pattern of a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity is clear evidence of common descent. The pattern will not be the same for all parts of all genes, but that does not obscure the overall pattern. Or are you just joking again here? Do you actually really understand that you are really completely wrong, just as you were about the platypus? Or are you really as ignorant of genetics as your comment about 150% of your genes showed?

"I find it even more remarkable that you seriously believe you’re being consistent and rational here, when you clearly pick and choose what you deem to be viable evidence, and simply ignore the rest. I probably ignored your question because you’re a hateful bigot. Besides that, you also want to define science on your own terms so that no answer I give would pass the test of your elitist ideology anyways. According to you, we must listen to anybody who works in a lab and wears a white coat, because they are never wrong, biased, or ignorant of anything. Wow, please go study history and get back to me on that one."

Right. You ignored my question because you called me a name. No evidence, no reason, just name calling. Well I will now feel free to call you whatever I want if that's the way you want to have a conversation. Exactly who do you think that I am bigoted against? Before you answer, please note that you do not know me. You know nothing about my religious beliefs or anything else.

As for my definition sof science, I don't recall defining it. I do recall telling you what the findings of science are. If you choose to ignore them, that's your problem. I don't care if you listen to scientists or not, but if you ignore reality you do so at your own risk.

As for the lessons of history, I would stack up the history of science agains the history of religion any day. You of course are free to disagree, but then again, no one cares what you think, since you have been absolutely wrong about everything so far.

What I find interesting was how childish and simplistic that rant was. He cannot discuss because he does not command any facts.

And I'm baffled why you're a hateful bigot. Only a moron would make that assertion.

Thanks RG.

I am probably a hateful bigot because I can't stand to have ignorant people criticize and denigrate the science they choose not to understand.

Or perhaps I am a hateful bigot because annoyancemoose has no real answers to my questions and tries desperately to find some way to deflect the conversation.

Or perhaps he is hopeing that now everyone will just start calling him names in exasperation and then he can claim that he was treated poorly so he wins.

Who cares? Being labeled a hateful bigot by an ignorant hateful bigot is a good thing. Just imagine if this pompous baboon liked me! No matter what names he calls anyone, everyone can still see that he is completely wrong about everything and cannot even understand basic genetics. Whenever he makes a mistake, by showing that he knows absolutely nothing, he just claims it was a joke. Well it's hard to see the humour when your eyes are full of tears from all the hurtful names. :) :) :)

Rilke's granddaughter said: What I find interesting was how childish and simplistic that rant was. He cannot discuss because he does not command any facts. And I'm baffled why you're a hateful bigot. Only a moron would make that assertion.

We would expect to see unimaginable complexity rife throughout the entire universe, which we see. We would expect to see a documented account for history that stops prior to the supposed creation time (6,000 year history), which is what we see. We would expect that transcendental properties that cannot be explained by naturalistic means, such as time, physical laws, mathematical relationships, love, spirit/soul, consciousness/awareness of self, and innate sense of morality, would be present, which is what we observe. We would expect that antithetical relationships would exist such as right and wrong, good and evil, hot and cold, dark and light, matter and anti-matter, and that these would be clearly defined, and based on absolute standards.

annoyancemoose wrote:

"We would expect to see unimaginable complexity rife throughout the entire universe, which we see. We would expect to see a documented account for history that stops prior to the supposed creation time (6,000 year history), which is what we see."

So, no matter what, we see exactly what we want to see. Great argument. No evidence, no facts, not even any definitions, just bold, unsubstantiated assertations. Of course that's why this is so uncontroversial and why everyone agrees, right?

First, what in the hell is "unimaginable complexity" and how in the world could one possibly see it even if it existed? How can you observe something that you can't even imagine? How in the hell is it "throughout the entire universe" when we haven't even been outside of our own backyard?

Second, there is no "documented account of history" that stops prior to 6,000 years ago. What we see is exactly what one would expect to see if the world was 4.55 billion years old. To deny that is to deny every major discovery of science in the last two hundred years. But then again. what can you expect form someone who thinks that bananas and playtpussys invalidate evolution?

Why is it that creationists never understand the concept of testable hypotheses? Why is it that they never understand the concept of evidence and that it is compatible with one hypothesis and incompatible with alternative hypotheses? Why is it that they think that calling someone names will make them more likely that they will be taken seriously? Oh well, say la v.

Certainly creationist seem to have trouble with basic logic. And evidence.

Why would Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes when humans only have 23?

anonymouse said: "Moreover we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that having a blind spot isn’t necessary because animals like squid don’t have one." Right, just like you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lucy was the missing link,

Dave Luckett said: All of the foolery spouted by Anon as fact is actually false. The "Cambrian explosion" is an illusion; the period was in fact about thirty million years.

Carbon-14 found in some mineral deposits is one of the products of the uranium-thorium decay sequence, as is shown by the fact that the C-14 is in the correct proportion to the other decay products. There is nothing odd about this whatsoever.

Wow... all I can say is wow.

What is it we were taught in Sunday School? You have two ears and one mouth, so listen twice as much as you talk... you might learn something.

Or my personal favorite: It is better to be silent and be thought of as an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Salient and sad: Never argue with an idiot, bystanders may not be able to tell the difference. Although, I think anyone who knows anything about Biology can see that this guy is just stupid.

eric said: In other words, not even granting their assumptions leads to a biblically young earth. The detectable amounts of C-14 found in some coal and oil deposits is about 10,000 times lower than what the YEC model would predict we'd find consistently in all coal and oil on the planet.

anonymouse said: You brighties only have to respond to one person on here, I have to go through 30 posts, trying to keep up.

Dave Lovell said: Not if you postulate coal and oil deposits were formed during the flood, and most of the carbon came from either the biomass of the original creation, or growth before the fall, i.e. when all carbon must have been perfect C-12. Nothing is impossible when God is allow into the explanation.

Sorry, was trying to be humorous, but whatever. You brighties only have to respond to one person on here, I have to go through 30 posts, trying to keep up. And I was in a bit of a hurry; but it matters not. If all credibility was destroyed by one little mistake, then you guys would have none as well. Happy Thanksgiving, Ray Comfort J/K

Rilke's Granddaughter said: If the mouse appears again, I've got a couple of very basic questions for him. In answer to "What specific features and structures should we look for which are specifically indicative of design? “ He said:

We would expect to see unimaginable complexity rife throughout the entire universe, which we see.

Why? For each of your points, why would we expect to find that if an intelligent designer existed? So far as I can see, these are entirely arbitrary conditions.

Science Avenger said:

anonymouse said: You brighties only have to respond to one person on here, I have to go through 30 posts, trying to keep up.

If you would stick to one or two topics and stop constantly introducing new subjects rather than answering the old ones, you wouldn't have that problem. But then that's the idea, isn't it? You're like a kid who punches 5 people and then complains that he was beaten up by a gang. Funny how the vast majority of the people who argue thusly are loyal to the political party that is always spouting off about personal responsibility. Guesss that's just one more moral principle you guys only apply to others.

I hope this does not constitute "hijacking" a thread, but I just read something over at a forum on Amazon that I had not heard of before (that I recall). A paper by Dr Dave Abel (http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247) about DNA that says in its conclusion: "The fundamental contention inherent in our three subsets of sequence complexity proposed in this paper is this: without volitional agency assigning meaning to each configurable-switch-position symbol, algorithmic function and language will not occur. The same would be true in assigning meaning to each combinatorial syntax segment (programming module or word). Source and destination on either end of the channel must agree to these assigned meanings in a shared operational context. Chance and necessity cannot establish such a cybernetic coding/decoding scheme [71]."

I am not a scientist nor am I a creationist, I'm trying to understand as best I can the issues here. In nearly all other cases I see the scientific argument demolish creationist and ID arguments.

Am I correct in reading the above conclusion of Dr Abel to say that some entity that can make decisions must have intentionally arranged a portion of DNA to function as it does? Could anyone explain this to me (if anyone cares to).

jerrym said: A paper by Dr Dave Abel (http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247) about DNA that says in its conclusion: "The fundamental contention inherent in our three subsets of sequence complexity proposed in this paper is this: without volitional agency assigning meaning to each configurable-switch-position symbol, algorithmic function and language will not occur. The same would be true in assigning meaning to each combinatorial syntax segment (programming module or word). Source and destination on either end of the channel must agree to these assigned meanings in a shared operational context. Chance and necessity cannot establish such a cybernetic coding/decoding scheme [71]."

all too common descent: not about ID? And why would you have expected my reply to you to be about the bafflegab-riddled articles that Trevors and Abel somehow got published when all it was intended to do was point out that your earlier response was essentially a non sequitur? But since you are so enamored with Trevors and Abel, perhaps you can explain how it is that an objective reader should take their claims seriously when ALL of their 'conclusions' are premised on a totally unsupported assumption that the genetric code was 'written'?

raven said: His paper is bafflegab, which I figured out in about 5 seconds. It is also just one big Fallacy of Incredulity and Ignorance. The usual BS, nothing to see here, move along.

No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8

Mike E.: I think I know what I will find just from reading the abstract.

raven said:

No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8

Mike E.: I think I know what I will find just from reading the abstract.

It won't be hard, LOL. Good luck. 1. They treat the genome as a computer program. There are similarities but they aren't computer programs. 2. The question they want to answer is who wrote the program? The question assumes the answer already. It is either goddidit or RM + NS. Of course, they come down with goddidit. Because they know evolution couldn't have done it. Because, well they just know it. Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity. Plus a stawperson. They imply that humans couldn't have synthesized a mycloplasma genome. So what? We can almost do that now and who knows what we will be able to do a century from now. But evolution doesn't say the mycoplasma genome was synthesized. It evolved over 3.6 billion years. Really, how many times can they dress up up a 5 word fallacy that is 2 millenia old? 45 pages of bafflegab? Get a life.

jerrym: How did this get through peer review?

raven said: It won't be hard, LOL. Good luck.

raven said:

jerrym: How did this get through peer review?

Channeling...channeling...The reviewers are all drunken Liars for Jesus planning to blow up a biology building. How should I know? Maybe there weren't any. Jerry drop the act. The sincere seeker of knowledge who will turn into a fundie Death Cult xian in about 30 more seconds. We've seen it a million times and it is boring and sort of sick. If it makes you feel better, tell us we are all going to hell, threaten to kill us, and don't foreget to add, "I'll pray for you". Cthulhu, you guys are predictable.

jerrym said: Could anyone explain this to me (if anyone cares to).

"I don’t know how it got by the reviewers, but I’m glad it did."

tresmal said:

"I don’t know how it got by the reviewers, but I’m glad it did."

I don't know if makes it more understandable but it appeared in a special Origin of Life edition.

scienceagogo: Reporting their work in Science, Scripps' Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce explained how their breakthrough began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The ultimate goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication. This involved synthesizing a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that then underwent a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA. Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that was a very efficient replicator. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln.

Mike Elzinga said:

tresmal said:

"I don’t know how it got by the reviewers, but I’m glad it did."

I don't know if makes it more understandable but it appeared in a special Origin of Life edition.

I'm retired from the physics community, so I don't know anything about this particular journal. Maybe some biologists know about it.

SWT said: Or, more positively, perhaps this is an opportunity for one of our biologist friends to get an additional publication credit for a thorough rebuttal.

Interesting that the special issue also had a special guest editor.

Also interesting that the paper in question asked about twenty questions in the abstract and gave absolutely no clue as to what the answers might be. It was as though the abstract was written before the author had any conclusions. Or perhaps it was left purposefully vague so as to deflect attention away from the fact that all of the answers would point to the inadequacy of natural processes to produce life. Of course if you actually read all of the paper, you still might not be sure what the point was.

Also interesting that the paper did not appear to conatain any actual research or data. Maybe a few sequences from other sources and some calculations about proteins, but that was about it. The guy didn't even know how to refer to mitochondrial DNA properly.

I certainly would not feel qualified to criticize this thing. I guess it would take someone who knew about information theory or at least about defining terms, or something.

DS said: I certainly would not feel qualified to criticize this thing. I guess it would take someone who knew about information theory or at least about defining terms, or something.

DS said: Interesting that the special issue also had a special guest editor.

Of course if you actually read all of the paper, you still might not be sure what the point was.

Also interesting that the paper did not appear to conatain any actual research or data. Maybe a few sequences from other sources and some calculations about proteins, but that was about it. The guy didn't even know how to refer to mitochondrial DNA properly.

I certainly would not feel qualified to criticize this thing. I guess it would take someone who knew about information theory or at least about defining terms, or something.

jerrym said: I am spiritual, but I'm not religious.

Science Avenger said:

jerrym said: I am spiritual, but I'm not religious.

Apologies to the group for the OT request, but WTF does this mean?

D. P. Robin said:

Science Avenger said:

jerrym said: I am spiritual, but I'm not religious.

Apologies to the group for the OT request, but WTF does this mean?

It means, "I believe in the BEYOND, but I don't believe in Organized Religion." DPR

Sorry, that should be "Thank you DPR..."

Abel is a great favourite with the IDiots at Uncommon Descent.

Kattarina98 said: Abel is a great favourite with the IDiots at Uncommon Descent.

The question is pursued of whether there might be some yet-to-be discovered new law of biology that will elucidate the derivation of prescriptive information and control.

Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.

A configurable-switch (CS) Bridge traverses this great chasm. But this CS Bridge conveys one-way traffic only (emphasis mine). Prescriptive information flows only from the formal side to the physical side of the ravine. Programming decisions can be instantiated into physical configurable switch settings. But physicality contributes no formal influence on those choices in reverse direction. The choices that set the physical configurable switches are themselves non physical.

Two kinds of selection exist: 1) Selection of existing function (e.g., natural selection; differential survival) VS. 2) Selection for potential function (e.g., artificial selection for formal function). (his italics, pg267)

So-called “evolutionary algorithms” and “directed evolution” strategies are often used to support an evolutionary paradigm. But both strategies amount to artificial selection, not natural selection. They have little or nothing to do with neoDarwinism. (pg258) and... Third, at each iteration (generation) a certain portion of the population of potential solutions is deliberately selected by the agent experimenter (artificial selection) to “breed” a new generation. The optimized solution was purposefully pursued at each iteration. The overall process was entirely goaldirected(formal). Real evolution has no goal (pg268)

Computational methods often employ genetic algorithms (GA’s). The appeal of GAs is that they are modeled after biological evolution. The latter is the main motivation for tolerating such an inefficient awkward process. (pg268)

Where exactly within natural physicodynamic interactions did “control strategy” come from? (pg259) No known mechanism exists in inanimate nature to steer physical events toward algorithmic optimization. Many epigenetic factors notwithstanding, genetics and genomics largely program phenotypes using a symbol system of linear digital prescription.(pg261)

A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.

The degree of three-dimensional computational complexity within a pile of pick-up sticks is staggering. But what exactly does this enormous degree of complexity DO? What sophisticated formal function does this pile of objects generate? Mere combinatorial complexity must never be confused with formal utility.

stevaroni said: (For instance, getting a male preying mantis laid also usually involves getting him eaten. Nature cares not a whit).

I'm going to go lie down now, I have a headache.

Thanks Stervaroni. That's pretty much what I expected from reading the abstract.

All you had to do was recognize the creationist buzz words "chaos" and ""complexity" in the title. I seriously doubt that either of these two terms was rigorously defined anywhere in the paper, let alone all the other made up terms.

I think I know why these guys think that making up big words that no one can understand represents an argument. This is probably the way in which they view all of science. Having never bothered to do the hard work of actually studying or understanding science, just about every scientific argument ultimately boils down to this level of incomprehensibility for them. Therefore, if everyone is as ignorant as they are, this type of argument will work for their side just as well as for the other.

For example, if this guy had ever bothered to read even one real paper, he would have realized that it is properly referred to as mitochondrial DNA not "mitochondrion DNA". Amateur. Couldn't the editor have even corrected that obvious error? Kind of makes you think that no one who knew anything actually reviewed the paper.

The peer review process is usually pretty good at catching this type of nonsense. I wonder why it failed so miserably this time? Also, all of the other 22 papers in this issue seem to disagree with this one. I wonder what the other authors thought of the inclusion of this nonsense. I know I certainly would not want to blong to any club that would have a guy like this as a member.

Life origin science wants to know the capabilities of stand-alone chaos and complexity before any animal consciousness existed. If all known life depends upon genetic instructions, how was the first linear digital prescriptive genetic information generated by natural process?

Both PI and formal organization are abstract, conceptual, non physical entities [1-13]. Scientific endeavors to better understand cybernetic reality in nature are confronted with the uneasy suggestion of its transcendence over the physicality it controls.

At the heart of all naturalistic life-origin models lies the presumption of self-organization of inanimate physicality into sophisticated formal utility.

Admits Mark Bedau, "Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic.” [24].

how was the first linear digital prescriptive genetic information generated by natural processes?

A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.

One other point. Abel's bafflegab and interests are about abiogenesis. Not evolution.

They are different subjects and theories.

Just a point of clarification about “transcendent realities” or “transcendent properties”, whatever those terms might possibly mean

If by “transcendent” one means those emergent properties of complex systems we see everywhere in nature (e.g., the properties of liquids and solids as compared with the properties of their isolated constituents), then the word is redundant. And it certainly doesn’t have a meaning that such transcendence dictates the properties of the constituents of a system.

But if by “transcendent” one means something “supranatural” or supernatural, then one is obligated to establish experimentally the existence of such properties or “realities”. Further, one also has to establish that these “transcendent realities” or rules, or whatever they are, “guide” the behaviors of “lower order” phenomena.

So Abel is already revealing his sectarian agenda of ID/creationism without saying a word about ID or creationism.

Science Avenger said:

jerrym said: I am spiritual, but I'm not religious.

Apologies to the group for the OT request, but WTF does this mean?

The theme of this paper is the active pursuit of falsification of the following null hypothesis: “Physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.”

At first glance the falsification of this hypothesis might seem like a daunting task. But a single exception of non trivial, unaided, spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would quickly falsify this null hypothesis.

Speaking of spirituality:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/07/09/mouth/

Or it can mean, "I don't choose to define my religion at all" or, to more sinister effect, "my religion, being completely undefined, does not constrain or direct me in any particular way".

Many scientists across a wide array of disciplines exercise a surprisingly blind faith in the amazing formal capabilities of spontaneous molecular chaos and combinatorial complexity.

Empirical and rational support for this belief system is sorely lacking.

Achieving sophisticated formal function consistently requires regulation and control.

Control always emanates from choice contingency and intentionality, not from spontaneous molecular chaos.

Thanks to everyone that just ripped the "meat off Abel's bones." I think I understand where a nitwit on another thread I have been involved in is getting his bullshit misconceptions from - and it's not all Mayer's "Signature in the Cell," either. Special thanks to stevaroni - great analysis. Saved me the time of reading Abel - and an icepack.

Thank you all, indeed!

Abel wrote:

"At first glance the falsification of this hypothesis might seem like a daunting task. But a single exception of non trivial, unaided, spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would quickly falsify this null hypothesis."

Of course we have many examples of this, in the laboratory and in nature. All of them can be explained by "natural processes". The only way that one can make such a statement is to completely ignore fifty years of research.

I wonder if this genuis realizes that the mitochondrial sequence he referred to is actually more similar to a purple bacteria than it is to the nuclear genes in the same organism? Maybe he doesn't believe that endosymbiosis counts as "nontrivial" or "unaided" or "spontaneous" or "natural". Tha's funny, we can observe that every day in the laboratory as well.

I thinlk a letter to the editor is in order, if not a formal rebuttal.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Science Avenger said:

jerrym said: I am spiritual, but I'm not religious.

Apologies to the group for the OT request, but WTF does this mean?

It can mean several things. Unfortunately, "religious" and "religion" have become dirty words in some circles. You see it among Evangelicals, who insist that "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion." So what it can mean is: 1. Religion is a bad thing, so I choose to identify my religion as not a religion. 2. Religion is a bad thing, but I still have religious feelings, so I'll just call them "spiritual." 3. My religious beliefs are too undefined to fit in with anything I can find, so I'll just say I'm "spiritual." 4. I don't really have any religious feelings, but it's very trendy to say I'm "spiritual." 5. Since religion is a bad thing, if I say I'm "spiritual" that will make me feel I'm better than those who are religious. Personally, it annoys the heck out of me.

Dave Luckett said: Or it can mean, "I don't choose to define my religion at all" or, to more sinister effect, "my religion, being completely undefined, does not constrain or direct me in any particular way".

jerrym said: In the context that I first made the comment I was trying to say that I was sincere in my question and was not using the question as an entree to a religious diatribe.

jerrym said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Science Avenger said:

jerrym said: I am spiritual, but I'm not religious.

Apologies to the group for the OT request, but WTF does this mean?

It can mean several things. Unfortunately, "religious" and "religion" have become dirty words in some circles. You see it among Evangelicals, who insist that "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion." So what it can mean is: 1. Religion is a bad thing, so I choose to identify my religion as not a religion. 2. Religion is a bad thing, but I still have religious feelings, so I'll just call them "spiritual." 3. My religious beliefs are too undefined to fit in with anything I can find, so I'll just say I'm "spiritual." 4. I don't really have any religious feelings, but it's very trendy to say I'm "spiritual." 5. Since religion is a bad thing, if I say I'm "spiritual" that will make me feel I'm better than those who are religious. Personally, it annoys the heck out of me.

I am spiritual because I have "spiritual" (for lack of a better word) experiences which are important in my life. I am not religious because I do not create a dogma or accept any standard religious dogma relative to my spiritual experiences.

Mike Elzinga said:

jerrym said: In the context that I first made the comment I was trying to say that I was sincere in my question and was not using the question as an entree to a religious diatribe.

Your original question about the Abel paper merely prompted me to look at the paper and try to analyze its misconceptions; misconceptions that were already evident in the abstract of the paper. I was curious, however, about what prompted you to ask about it. You were apparently flummoxed by it. It is none of my business, and you don’t have to answer; but what effect did the paper have on you?

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

jerrym said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Science Avenger said:

jerrym said: I am spiritual, but I'm not religious.

Apologies to the group for the OT request, but WTF does this mean?

It can mean several things. Unfortunately, "religious" and "religion" have become dirty words in some circles. You see it among Evangelicals, who insist that "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion." So what it can mean is: 1. Religion is a bad thing, so I choose to identify my religion as not a religion. 2. Religion is a bad thing, but I still have religious feelings, so I'll just call them "spiritual." 3. My religious beliefs are too undefined to fit in with anything I can find, so I'll just say I'm "spiritual." 4. I don't really have any religious feelings, but it's very trendy to say I'm "spiritual." 5. Since religion is a bad thing, if I say I'm "spiritual" that will make me feel I'm better than those who are religious. Personally, it annoys the heck out of me.

I am spiritual because I have "spiritual" (for lack of a better word) experiences which are important in my life. I am not religious because I do not create a dogma or accept any standard religious dogma relative to my spiritual experiences.

Sorry, dude, but you have a religion. Just because it doesn't line up with other people's beliefs, and just because you don't create dogmas, doesn't mean you don't have a religion. You have a relationship with something that you would describe as "utlimate." That's a religion. Deal with it; it's not a dirty word.

jerrym said: In many ways I, like most people in the world, accept evolution because of your authority. Scientists discover the evidence, scientists describe the evidence, scientists evaluate the evidence. You guys better be telling the truth, or I'm gonna be pissed!

jerrym said: By your definition I guess all people on this planet are "religious" in some way, unless you are also going to redefine "relationship" and "ultimate" to suit your point.

Dave Luckett said:

jerrym said: By your definition I guess all people on this planet are "religious" in some way, unless you are also going to redefine "relationship" and "ultimate" to suit your point.

As the lone objector in the crowd said, when Brian tells them that they are all individuals, "I'm not!" I'm not religious and I'm not spiritual. I have no idea of whether God exists or not, and I don't much care, since it would make no difference to my conduct whether He did or did not. I do agree with Jesus of Nazareth when he remarked, more or less, that it was the practical results that count. Nevertheless, religion does not offend me, as it does some others, and I have a great deal of respect for those who sincerely and genuinely live by some tenets of some religions. It's simply that I want to inspect those tenets, and will not approve in advance.

jerrym said: Thank you Science Avenger, that is essentially correct, even if it was only sarcasm. There are experiences or states of consciousness available to open minded people that are literally indescribable and irrational, yet have a feeling of reality even greater that normal waking consciousness.

I believe these states are the inspiration for religion

One of Ray Comfort's intellectually-challenged acolytes is now "infesting" this discussion thread over at Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's Intersection:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/11/20/ray-comforts-anti-darwinian-travesty/

I wonder if "Adiel Corchado" could be "Slimey" Sal Cordova in disuise.

Just because you thought you were one with the universe doesn't mean you were,

jerrym said:

Just because you thought you were one with the universe doesn't mean you were,

Just because I think now that I am separate from the universe doesn't mean that I am.

For some reason I'm reminded of the pot-smoking scene from "Animal House".

fnxtr said: For some reason I'm reminded of the pot-smoking scene from "Animal House".

DS said: Abel wrote: "At first glance the falsification of this hypothesis might seem like a daunting task. But a single exception of non trivial, unaided, spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would quickly falsify this null hypothesis." Of course we have many examples of this, in the laboratory and in nature. All of them can be explained by "natural processes". The only way that one can make such a statement is to completely ignore fifty years of research.

eric said:

jerrym said:

Just because you thought you were one with the universe doesn't mean you were,

Just because I think now that I am separate from the universe doesn't mean that I am.

My point was only that personal mystical experiences do not prove the existence of the mystical any more than a personal religious experience proves the existence of a specific God.

eric said: My point was only that personal mystical experiences do not prove the existence of the mystical any more than a personal religious experience proves the existence of a specific God.

What constrains my conduct? Two facts. One, that I live in a human society on which I depend for practically all of my needs and comforts. Two, that any action of mine that in any way affects other human beings will affect their actions towards me.

On those two facts - which I find inescapable - I believe nearly all decent ethics can be based, insofar as they can be expressed in actual practice. What remains to religion or, if you like, spirituality?

If there is anything left at all, I don't know what it is. I am moved to tears by some music, and to violent revulsion by other music. The same for some words (or perhaps I should say, some arrangements of words). I don't know why that is. Are they "spiritual" experiences? I don't know. Would it matter if they were? I don't think so. Not to me; not to anyone else.

I don't know. That doesn't satisfy me, but it's all I have; and this I do know: my satisfaction is not required.

I definitely got one on the 19th, 2 days before they advertised it! That said, pretty happy that I have such an iconic pseudoscience tome. ;)

This post is amazing, i just bookmarked this blog and i will send a couple friends here.