Dean Kenyon: a young-earth creation scientist who was later relabeled an intelligent design proponent

Kenyon defines the main tenet of scientific creationism this way: “In the relatively recent past – 10,000 to 20,000 years ago – the entire cosmos was brought into existence out of nothing at all by supernatural creation.”

I see that the most important part of his belief system is right in line with current ID / televangelist thinking:

"It is a book that can do more to restore the traditional Catholic understanding of origins and human history than perhaps any book written in the past 60 years. Although expensive (roughly 560 pages, $32.95 + shipping),"...

BUY MY BOOK!!!

What's amazing is the hypocrisy. Even in the 70's, he was double talking. If you believe that the universe was created by God the way it says in Genesis, that's what you believe. Say it honestly. But creationists never do, except when they whisper it to each other.

Now he's supposed to be an "ID proponent". Why? For the exact same reason that he denied that he was teaching the Bible 35 years ago. Beady-eyed weasel legal maneuvering. Judges saw through the "creation science" ruse.

I'll say it again, each one of these ID/creationist guys is more nihilist, absurdist, and post-modern than all of the video artists and steam punks in Berlin, combined (no insult to anyone in Berlin is intended). It's a bizarre latter day movement based on obfuscation, denial of logic and evidence, semantic games, and Orwellian pronouncements. The actual sole objective is to bamboozle judges into letting them bamboozle students in tax payer funded public schools.

as usual, "there were questions i couldn't answer" really means "there were questions i chose to not answer"; especially when the questions were so weak. it's a bit sad how often defenders of some true faith lie about the order of their thought processes. strobel is the best example

harold said: What's amazing is the hypocrisy. Even in the 70's, he was double talking. If you believe that the universe was created by God the way it says in Genesis, that's what you believe. Say it honestly. But creationists never do, except when they whisper it to each other.

don't go too easy on Hunter.

his support for OE only goes as far as his personal fantasy allows it to.

He himself said in his response:

"but if you want me to quantify my position more precisely I'd need to take a closer look as the scientific details. "

because, of course, he never has really looked at the science of it himself. However, that fits with how he approaches any issue he poots about.

perfect example of Dunning Kruger, with heaping dose of sheer dishonesty thrown on top.

I recall the whole "photocopy a picture of a thylacine and call it something else, then lie about it" routine he tried to defend here on PT a few years back. That one had me in stitches, it was so pathetic.

The morph into intelligent design didn’t really change the basic, underlying misconceptions, misrepresentations, and tactics

Of course it didn't. Why would it?

I found it revealing that Hunter accepts an old earth because " the whole age question seems to be much less metaphysically laden than evolution". So if somebody convinced him that believing in an old earth risked his soul then he would change his mind

What I'm blown away is that Henry Morris geology bit.

Kenyon admits he didn't know geology, and apparently something of what he does know conflicted with what Morris was saying, but he was nonetheless impressed simply that Morris had a different view of the history of the Earth. That this is an insane view embodying multiple physical impossibilities doesn't enter into it.. he's just impressed that Morris said something different.

Yo, Kenyon, I've got a different view of the shape of the Earth. I say it's really a toroid. Now I'm sure you may disagree with some of this concept, but I'm sure you'll be impressed by my scientific statement about a different view of the topography of the Earth.

Dean Kenyon was also my Human Biology 101 instructor at San Francisco State University, in 1983.

He spent a required segment of the class discussing evolutionary and origin-of-life theories including Oparin et al. Then he spent a chunk of time on debunking those theories using what are now standard ID canards, including the argument that DNA couldn't be formed "randomly" - that it'd be like "a tornado blowing through a junk yard and forming a 747", and stuff about "transitional fossils". I don't remember biblical quotes but it was obvious who his "Intelligence" was.

After that segment he did a little survey, asking how many in the class believed the Darwin explanation, and how many accepted the Creationist view. About 90% of the class raised their hands for the latter. Goes to show how easy it is to sucker people.

I was appalled, and years later when I better understood the context for his 'instruction' I realized I had been the object of educational abuse. I wish I had gone to the administrative offices to complain.

At least I can say that Dean Kenyon gave me an 'A'.

Soft spoken, pleasant, thoughtful (well that's plainly not true), dressed in tweed and grey slacks; sounds like a fraud to me. The proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing.

His students defeded him? Except for a couple who were clued up. This tells me only that the 'hotbed' of liberal thought in the US, in the '60s and '70s was full of nut job flower children high on drugs or Dog.

He has been seriously 'outed.' So what? He won't change, his moronic rantings will continue, albeit in the most pleasant of soft spoken tones; the turd.

Go for the jugular. His pleasant demeanor is the typical reasonable, 'if only we could be allowed to share our views with the closed scientific community' crap. This is where I believe Dawkins and PZ are dead right. Confront the prick, treat him with the contempt we dish out to Rob Byers and his loony rants.

Cheers Nick:)

I have followed Dean Kenyon for many years. He's definitely YEC.

Wilder Smith's books are horrendous for inaccuracy.

He liked to pose behind 3 earned doctorates

The morph into intelligent design didn’t really change the basic, underlying misconceptions, misrepresentations, and tactics Of course it didn’t. Why would it?

“In the relatively recent past – 10,000 to 20,000 years ago – the entire cosmos was brought into existence out of nothing at all by supernatural creation.”

Something has occured to me whilst reading this article, and I'm not sure if it's an original thought (which, to be honest, are rare for me) or if I'm merely repeating that which better minds have realised already (highly likely).

The cDesign movement have a prevelant tendancy to refer to those who agree with the theory of evolution as 'Darwinists', mainly to try and associate in the minds of the public that somehow evolution is a faith based religious opinion headed by a great prophet whom we all adore, despite the fact that the theories and ideas put forwards by Darwin have largely been superceded by newer and more accurate adaptations of his theory.

If Henry Morris is considered the 'father of the creation science movement', perhaps we should refer to the ID/YEC/cDesign movement devotees as 'Morrisists', constantly and incessantly, even after they point out that ID isn't creation science and has concepts of its own. Perhaps then they'll get the idea we're not 'Darwinists'.

How about "Morrons"?

Way too cheap for my taste. I'll stick with insisting that they use the term "EVIL-utionist" instead.

John Vanko said: Can't bring myself to ask them, thought you might know how they justify 10,000-20,000 years instead of 6,014 years.

Ok, after a brief visit the only response to the Salner article (so far) is one person who says the quote could be interpreted as Kenyon describing a form of creationism he doesn't personally believe in (weeeeak. Kenyon also says that's what he teaches). So the poster doesn't accept Kenyon is YEC even with this evidence. To their credit, the poster does admit that Nick's evidence supports Nick's conclusion, it just doesn't convince him.

That's a somewhat amusing admission in a thread that begins "We have work to do if Christianity is going to reclaim the intellectual high ground." Yep, I would say that if you admit the evidence supports a given point and yet still claim the point is wrong, you haven't yet reclaimed the high ground.

Even after multiple examples of this behavior, it still disappoints me when people like Kenyon obfuscate their religious beliefs in an attempt to promote their religion.

I was an undergrad at SFSU in the late '80s, when Crellin Pauling (son of Linus) was chair of Biology. I never met Kenyon. He was a pariah in the department, and considered an embarrassment, for obvious reasons. In fact it took a couple of years before I found out he existed. I think he taught one class, which I didn't take. But he still collected his salary, and I suppose he had an office somewhere.

We have work to do if Christianity is going to reclaim the intellectual high ground.

Many YECs push it back from 6,000 years ago to more like 10,000. This "solves" a few problems like bristlecone pine tree rings and some archeology and the like. (And remember, the bristlecone pines had to have been growing not since creation, but since the Flood, which was 1000 years + after the creation.)

Bishop Usher's number was always a guesstimate anyway. The generations in the Bible aren't all continuous up to Greek/Roman times, and different versions of the Old Testament yield different dates, so he had to rely on other chunks of ancient history from other cultures to fill in the gaps. I guess there was a lot of this back in the 1700s, the problem was called "chronology", and the difficulty was that people were discovering ancient records of various cultures and bringing these to Europe, and scholars there were having great trouble lining it all up with the Biblical record. IIRC this preceded even most of the geological debates.

A little bit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_creation#Book_of_Genesis

Well Dean Kenyon proves the dictum, "Once a liar, always a liar". In that respect he is no different from his fellow YEC/ID convert Paul Nelson, and both have done such "admirable" work in their capacity as Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. IMHO so does Cornelius Hunter, and I agree with Ichthyic that one shouldn't give Hunter the proverbial equivalent of a f "free pass", especially with his past published record of intellectual rubbish which clearly is a putrid case of delusional mental abuse which he's trying to foist upon a scientifically illiterate, quite gullible, public.

My question is, why is this nutcase allowed to teach a class in biology in a publicly funded school like San Francisco State? I find this to be incredible.

Nick (Matzke) said: And remember, the bristlecone pines had to have been growing not since creation, but since the Flood, which was 1000 years + after the creation.)

SLC said: My question is, why is this nutcase allowed to teach a class in biology in a publicly funded school like San Francisco State? I find this to be incredible.

SLC -

Dean Kenyon has achieved the creationist's dream. He kept his mouth shut about creationism until he got himself into an academic job from which it is hard to eliminate him. He gets lots of dough from book sales, and probably from his role as a DI fellow, as well. The benefits of not being straightforward about your intentions until after that contract is signed.

It's harder to get rid of college professors, as they don't have a definitive required curriculum to teach and have greater freedom to voice odd opinions, than high school teachers. It has to be that way, whether the university is private or public. However, as the Freshwater case shows, it can be hard to get rid of high school teachers as well.

Mercifully, there are only a few Dean Kenyons and Michael Behes out there. Baylor was very, very lucky to get rid of Dembski when they did.

John Kwok said: Probably for the same reason that the ever loony Mikey Behe is still allowed to teach at Lehigh University; tenure. Sad, but probably true, alas:

SLC said: My question is, why is this nutcase allowed to teach a class in biology in a publicly funded school like San Francisco State? I find this to be incredible.

Kenyon, Dean (1982). Forward to What is Creation Science? by Henry Morris. San Diego, Creation-Life Publishers. pp. i-iii. [i] Foreword The creation-evolution controversy is entering a critical, perhaps even a climactic stage. Not only does this vital subject have great public visibility due to extensive media coverage of the various trials, hearings, and debates on the subject, but more and more professional scientists holding evolutionary views are beginning to take the creationists' scientific challenge seriously for the first time. The eventual result may well be a major change in the way the subject of origins is taught in our schools and universities. However, there continues to be widespread misunderstanding in the scientific community concerning just what "creation science" is. Many have considered it to be simply religion in disguise and have chosen to shun it altogether, even to the point of refusing to examine any scientific creationist writings. This situation is regrettable and exhibits a degree of closemindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry. [ii] My own initiation into creationist scientific writing came in 1976 with the geological sections of Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood, and somewhat later, A. E. Wilder-Smith 's The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. It soon became apparent to me that the creationist challenge to evolutionism was indeed a formidable one, and I no longer believe that the arguments in Biochemical Predestination (Kenyon and Steinman, McGraw-Hill, 1969) and in similar books by other authors, add up to an adequate defense of the view that life arose spontaneously on this planet from nonliving matter. Over the last number of years I have extensively reviewed the scientific case for creation and now believe that all students of the sciences (at any level) should be taught the major arguments of both the creation and evolutionary views. For professional scientists, teachers and students, and for laymen (including those in the news media) seeking to gain an understanding of the scientific creationist view of origins, I know of no better book that What is Creation Science?. The authors have lucidly set forth the major arguments in favor of the creation model and the major arguments for and against the evolutionary model. As an empiricist I am especially impressed with the authors' superb ability to avoid undisciplined speculation and to keep their reasoning in close conformity with the actual data of nature. Although the book is not written at the level or in the style of a formal scientific treatise aimed only at the professional scientist, it nevertheless conveys the essence of the creationist model vividly, cogently, and with compelling intellectual force. In fact, for those of my colleagues with sufficiently open minds, who are willing to lay aside possible objections to writing style, and the occasional temptation to dispute minor points, this book is sure to be intellectually tantalizing. Especially helpful are the authors' discussions of created order versus the order that arises from inherent properties of matter operated on by time and chance, multivariate analysis of fossils, the punctuated equilibria theory, the concept of the "geological column," and the vexing problem of evolution and Second Law of Thermodynamics. [iii] If after reading this book carefully and reflecting on its arguments one still prefers the evolutionary view, or still contends that the creationist view is religion and the evolutionary view is pure science, he should ask himself whether something other than the facts of nature is influencing his thinking about origins. Dean H. Kenyon Professor of Biology San Francisco State University Dean H. Kenyon, Ph.D., Is Professor of Biology and Coordinator of the General Biology Program at San Francisco State University. He has taught courses on evolution and the origin of life for many years and is co-author of Biochemical Predestination, a standard work on the origin of life. His published research, some of which was carried out at NASA-Ames Research Center, has been primarily on the chemical origins of life.

Science Avenger said: 1656 AA (After Adam), if memory serves. I once tried to recreate Bishop Usher's date, and was surprised to find just how exact the old testment was early on. It was even careful enough to have the death ages of the characters and their birth dates add up to the flood date (poor Methusela might have made 1,000 years otherwise). Alas, at about the point of the twelve tribes the dates got much less exact, and multiple characters with the same names clouded the picture beyond this undergrads ability to resolve. Still, a worthwhile exercise at the time.

It’s gonna be tough to overcome Christian anti-intellectualism as long as you think that things like Noah’s Flood and humans descending from a single specially created pair are reasonable ideas.

For professional scientists, teachers and students, and for laymen (including those in the news media) seeking to gain an understanding of the scientific creationist view of origins, I know of no better book that What is Creation Science?. The authors have lucidly set forth the major arguments in favor of the creation model and the major arguments for and against the evolutionary model. As an empiricist I am especially impressed with the authors’ superb ability to avoid undisciplined speculation and to keep their reasoning in close conformity with the actual data of nature.

FL ... please. Half your postings are "Christianity is not compatible with evolution."

OK, for all I care maybe it's not. But "we heard you twice the first time." I mean, aren't you interested in baseball or carpentry or gardening or something else that's actually interesting?

So, wanna serve Jesus? Then serve Jesus. Wanna serve Darwin? Then serve Darwin. But you know you cannot serve both at the same time. Too many Snags. So choose your deity there, and it better not be the WRONG one baby!!

MrG said: FL ... please. Half your postings are "Christianity is not compatible with evolution." OK, for all I care maybe it's not. But "we heard you twice the first time." I mean, aren't you interested in baseball or carpentry or gardening or something else that's actually interesting?

Mike Elzinga said: What FL just keeps repeating is that, out of something like 38,000 sects within Christianity alone, only FL and his fellow cult members are the “true Christians.”

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the Son also assumed a rational, human soul. 472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. --Catechism of the Catholic Church

raven said: The Dishonesty Institute members frequently refuse to answer or give non-answers if someone asks them how old the earth is or if Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs.... It is a safe assumption that they are YECs and aware of how stupid it is to claim the earth is 6,000 years old.

harold said: FL -

So, wanna serve Jesus? Then serve Jesus. Wanna serve Darwin? Then serve Darwin. But you know you cannot serve both at the same time. Too many Snags. So choose your deity there, and it better not be the WRONG one baby!!

What happens to Christians who accept the theory of evolution? Do they go to Hell? Yes or no? Simple question, but I've asked before. Maybe I'll get a straight answer this time.

Half-Fannied Double-Dealing Darwin-Drooling Boo-Boo-Dog Mess

Wanna serve Darwin? Then serve Darwin.

So choose your deity there, and it better not be the WRONG one baby!!

Aaaah FL! Could mean,'Fucking Loon,' or 'Forget learning'or 'Fortitude Lenient'or perhaps less plausibly, 'Fuck Lhrist,' with Christ spelt with an 'L,' who knows? Apologies to the bretheren whom accept evolution as rational.

Common FL spank me with your dog, sorry god:) Pray that I die a nasty death. Fat lot of good prayer did anyone. Tell me, are you reading this and in your tiny, tiny mind asking the Lord to smite the blasphemer i.e. ME! Hope so! Try this one on for size, 'fuck Jesus up his tiny, gay rectum, until the bitch bleeds.' Have a nice day:) Rob.

FL, you are a bigoted, lying idiot if you think biologists regard Charles Darwin as some sort of god.

And stop using babied profanity, it makes you look childish on top of being moronic.

Well said Stanton. The 'Babied profanity' of religious types is indeed tiresome. They say 'poop' when they actually, far more effectively, mean 'shit.' Profanity, and a well placed expletive, 'fuck' are two of the reasons I love my language. Sure, swearing in other languages I am sure is just as gratifying, but telling FL that he is, 'a lying whore son of a bitch, with the intellectual capacity of cunt in nappies' is just too good to resist.

FL, feel free to quote mine my post on any religious obfuscatory site you infect; sorry propogate.

Are you secretly gay? I don't mind, I'm probably gay myself, at least a little:) All the best to you and your whoring dog, sorry god:)

FL said: From the other blog:

It’s gonna be tough to overcome Christian anti-intellectualism as long as you think that things like Noah’s Flood and humans descending from a single specially created pair are reasonable ideas.

Sorry folks, no disrespect to anyone, but the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, openly affirmed both historical claims. (Noah: Matthew 24:38-39) (Adam & Eve: Matt. 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9) That alone, should settle those two historical issues for His followers. Non-Negotiable. Historically accurate, not a penny less. Permission to speak freely? If folks say they're Christian, if they say they've put all their eggs in Jesus Christ's basket, then folks should at least have the decency to AGREE with Jesus Christ and His claims (including origins claims), yes? Stated simply, Half-Fannied Double-Dealing Darwin-Drooling Boo-Boo-Dog Mess is NOT acceptable!! So, wanna serve Jesus? Then serve Jesus. Wanna serve Darwin? Then serve Darwin. But you know you cannot serve both at the same time. Too many Snags. So choose your deity there, and it better not be the WRONG one baby!! FL

Mr Husband, as an atheist your appreciation of the universe and the omniscience of god (who I don't support even if she does exist, purely on incompetance charges) is refreshing and timely, considering the rants of that troglodite FL. I do so hate to antagonize sensible religious types whom, 'sensibly' keep their god out of my (and everyone's) science; Good for you!

FL! If you are still there you moronic,cowardly, lick-spittal. Dembski is no intellectual foundation upon which to build a big-tent, he and his miserable curs are collapsing everywhere science is burgeoning i.e. the universities of the world. Minus those wacked out christian unis in your crazy country. Are you an Ark-ologist?

MPW said: Is threatening people who disagree with eternal torment part of "reclaiming the intellectual high ground"?

Is FL a new atheist stirring things up?

I'm with Dale, aside from the horribly inaccurate, self referencing and propaganda filled bible, for which there are as many translations, versions and interpretatons as there are christians sects, does FL have any other evidence that Jesus said those things? If not, then it's a matter of faith, and who's to say someone elses faith isn't as good as his?

Troll, I call you, FL. Troll

Jesus did not affirm as historical fact the stories of Adam and Eve, nor of Noah and the Flood. Nowhere does he say "These things really happened", and it is putting words into his mouth to say he did. It is perfectly possible - in fact, far more reasonable, given the major concerns of Jesus's ministry - to see his use of these stories as rhetorical devices, teaching tools, just as his parables were.

FL imagines that he can tell when Jesus is using a story for effect and when he is giving a history lesson. He can't tell that. It's merely a manifestation of his overwheening spiritual pride that he thinks he can.

It is a safe assumption that they are YECs and aware of how stupid it is to claim the earth is 6,000 years old. Hard to say how many of the DI are YECs but the whole ID cover up seems to be devolving back to YECs. ID is too vague and sophisticated for most religious fanatics.

— raven

Michael Roberts said: Is FL a new atheist stirring things up?

SLC said:

John Kwok said: Probably for the same reason that the ever loony Mikey Behe is still allowed to teach at Lehigh University; tenure. Sad, but probably true, alas:

SLC said: My question is, why is this nutcase allowed to teach a class in biology in a publicly funded school like San Francisco State? I find this to be incredible.

I can't swear to this but it is my understanding that Prof. Behes' lectures are carefully monitored by the biology department at Lehigh to make sure that he follows the curriculum.

MrG said: FL ... please. Half your postings are "Christianity is not compatible with evolution." OK, for all I care maybe it's not. But "we heard you twice the first time." I mean, aren't you interested in baseball or carpentry or gardening or something else that's actually interesting?

Dave Luckett said: Jesus did not affirm as historical fact the stories of Adam and Eve, nor of Noah and the Flood. Nowhere does he say "These things really happened", and it is putting words into his mouth to say he did. It is perfectly possible - in fact, far more reasonable, given the major concerns of Jesus's ministry - to see his use of these stories as rhetorical devices, teaching tools, just as his parables were. FL imagines that he can tell when Jesus is using a story for effect and when he is giving a history lesson. He can't tell that. It's merely a manifestation of his overwheening spiritual pride that he thinks he can.

So, wanna serve Jesus? Then serve Jesus. Wanna serve Darwin? Then serve Darwin. But you know you cannot serve both at the same time. Too many Snags. So choose your deity there, and it better not be the WRONG one baby!!

Hey , I wanna know that.

so that I can buy an asbestos suit

FL said:Jesus Christ, openly affirmed both historical claims. (Noah: Matthew 24:38-39) (Adam & Eve: Matt. 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9) That alone, should settle those two historical issues for His followers.

FL said: So, wanna serve Jesus? Then serve Jesus. Wanna serve Darwin? Then serve Darwin.

"TO SERVE DARWIN"

" ... it's a COOKBOOK!"

FL, care to have an exchange of views on my blog?

I'm a serious Christian (Methodist) and an enthusiastic teacher of evolution. (cheerfully) I will wipe the floor with you.

www.monkeytrials.blogspot.com

This is a common sleight of hand creationists use to feign some kind of truth from authority.

— Bobsie

Good luck catching that greased pig, Scott.

Scott Hatfield said: cheerfully) I will wipe the floor with you.

Scott Hatfield said: FL, care to have an exchange of views on my blog? I'm a serious Christian (Methodist) and an enthusiastic teacher of evolution. (cheerfully) I will wipe the floor with you. www.monkeytrials.blogspot.com

Nick Matzke said: I have been challenged on my assertion in several publications (e.g. in this PNAS article) that “intelligent design” leader Dean Kenyon – a coauthor of Of Pandas and People and a Discovery Institute fellow – is actually a young-earth creationist and “creation scientist.”

Scott Hatfield said: (cheerfully) I will wipe the floor with you.

FL's MO is to make a provocative comment based on absolutely no facts, run away for a long time, return and make another provocative comment based on absolutely no facts, and repeat the process several times. Debates with him are indeed useless because he lies outright occationally and he NEVER attempts to either learn or tell objective truth.

I think I called FL too many nasty names using horrendous language. Still seems to have worked the egregious arse appears daunted by mere foul language, how week arse can you get?

I really do apologize to any Christians who come here fighting the good fight, but that dozy, twat FL is a loon unto himself. He's the kind of Xian who says and believes shit like this; 'Just you wait until judgement day, when all your profanity will be laid bare before the Lord in the Book of Life. You will be sundered from the Lord and burn eternally, as I and all the narrow minded, Protestants (my sect only) laugh at your anguish.' If that's your Christianity FL I will burn with pride.

FL said: From the other blog:

But you know you cannot serve both at the same time. Too many Snags. So choose your deity there, and it better not be the WRONG one baby!!

FL

FL … please. Half your postings are “Christianity is not compatible with evolution.” OK, for all I care maybe it’s not. But “we heard you twice the first time.” I mean, aren’t you interested in baseball or carpentry or gardening or something else that’s actually interesting?

What happens to Christians who accept the theory of evolution? Do they go to Hell?

Are you an Ark-ologist?

(FL) used to claim that he had a “three plank theory” that would explain how Intelligent Design is a science, but, never bothered to get around to it.

Jesus is NOT affirming either claim.

FL imagines that he can tell when Jesus is using a story for effect and when he is giving a history lesson.

FL says: The texts quoted are NOT parables, oh no no.

Posted elsewhere here at PT nearly two weeks ago but it is worth repeating:

Hey FL are you willing to take the Jenny McCarthy pledge and promise not to take a flu shot the next time we have a credible influenza pandemic? After all, you wouldn’t want to displease your LORD, the one true CHRIST, by taking medicine produced by some of our fellow evil evilutionists who’ve been corrupted by Lucifer into thinking that evolutionary biology is sound mainstream science, of which epidemiology is merely an applied aspect of it. Am I right?

Looking forward to reading your oh so thoughtful response.

Peace and Long Life (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John

FL said: Actually, Mr. G, from what I've seen, public interest in the Incompatibility Issue is at an all-time high.

Then you might want to also check out the 100 page thread devoted to FL on AtBC.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said:

Then you might want to also check out the 100 page thread devoted to FL on AtBC.

— Mike Elzinga

I have seen several of those pages, and many of his threads here over the past few years. I try to read all comments through the eyes of a fence-sitter, and particularly one with an unabashed bias in falsifying evolution. It's not that hard because while I'm not a fence-sitter in terms of thinking that there's any promise for the (mutually contradictory) alternate "theories" promoted by the usual anti-evolution activists, I do have that bias against evolution. No scientist (I'm a chemist, not a biologist) worth his NaCl doesn't. My conclusion is that most regular evolution-deniers on these boards are probably much better at persuading fence-sitters than FL is, but I still see far too much "bait taking" from critics. I'd really like to see much more discussion about the evolution-denier's particular "theory," especially its details regarding "what happened when." There's no need to tangent onto God, Jesus, the Bible, Klingons (OK maybe the last one occasionally for fun). And no need to keep 99% of the discussion on what's "weak" about evolution; those misleading claims are dealt with elsewhere, where the reader can make up his own mind. Pseudoscience addicts like FL do not like to defend details of their alternate "theory" on its own merits, because they know they can't. Even if they're under the illusion that they can, they are painfully aware that some other evolution-denier might defend a contradictory story better (albeit still poorly), so they do anything to get off that topic. We need to do everything we can to keep them there and watch them squirm. Respectfully of course.

FL said:

(FL) used to claim that he had a “three plank theory” that would explain how Intelligent Design is a science, but, never bothered to get around to it.

That's already been presented and debated in this forum, Stanton. Sorry you missed it. It was also presented at the ATBC forum last year. Sorry you missed that one too. (How come you never catch it when it's being presented and discussed?) However, I'm discussing another issue right now.

FL said: There honestly seems to be much more interest across the board these days--and make no mistake, that interest has been present in THIS particular forum for years. And only seems to be growing.

Now, what about "Going to Hell"? Only if the person passes away from this life without Jesus Christ being their personal Lord and Savior. As for me, I cannot point my finger at any given person and magically proclaim that such will be their destiny. (Remember, even one of the convicted criminals crucified alongside Jesus was able to repent and accept Christ at the last minute despite his very painful situation).

But that's okay, I don't have to dig it up, I need only believe that the Bible is telling the truth and go from there.

Jesus is NOT affirming either claim.

Yes, He is. He's even directly quoting Genesis when it comes to Adam and Eve there. In Matt. 19:5, Jesus even ascribes Gen. 2:24 to God Himself. That's serious affirmation, Jack.

FL imagines that he can tell when Jesus is using a story for effect and when he is giving a history lesson.

The texts quoted are NOT parables, oh no no. You got some serious textual and contextual provin's to do if you want to go that route.

Okay, that should hold it for a bit.

FL said: Now, what about "Going to Hell"? Only if the person passes away from this life without Jesus Christ being their personal Lord and Savior. As for me, I cannot point my finger at any given person and magically proclaim that such will be their destiny.

God wants all to repent and be saved (2 Pet. 3:9), He doesn't want anyone to wind up in Hell.

Having said that, there are some people who have very honestly pointed out that evolution has played a real part in their decision to no longer accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. (Dawkins, EO Wilson, Ricky Gervais, etc.) This tragedy is really happening to people and Christians can no longer afford to ignore it.

The fact is that the erosion and corrosion of faith aided by evolution-belief, CAN reach the point where a person makes a conscious decision to abandon Christianity.

You know, like the erosion process that ultimately consumed Charles Darwin himself.

FL said:

Jesus is NOT affirming either claim.

Yes, He is.

eric said:

FL imagines that he can tell when Jesus is using a story for effect and when he is giving a history lesson.

The texts quoted are NOT parables, oh no no. You got some serious textual and contextual provin's to do if you want to go that route.

Coupling your assertions to a lame attempt at a low-brow accent does not make them more convincing. It just makes you look like a bigot. You know that, right?

Okay, that should hold it for a bit.

Here's hoping that's true.

The trouble with some mainstream scientists and of course, with many creationists, is the belief that the Modern Synthesis does represent the best - and therefore unalterable - explanation for biological evolution at work. Anyone who is, as you noted, a scientist worth his NaCl, would and should recognize this:

— John Kwok

Stanton said: And yet, he always comes back.

Frank J said:

The trouble with some mainstream scientists and of course, with many creationists, is the belief that the Modern Synthesis does represent the best - and therefore unalterable - explanation for biological evolution at work. Anyone who is, as you noted, a scientist worth his NaCl, would and should recognize this:

— John Kwok

And even when they do make it clear that they know that the MS isn't some final, unalterable explanation, they don't always make it clear to a general audience that lacks the time or interest to dig deeper. The same thing goes for science education. When they criticize anti-evolution strategies, a casual read usually suggests that they are defending the status quo in education. Yet most scientists agree that the status quo is nowhere near adequate. In my "perfect world" every student would hear every anti-evolution argument that the activists want them to hear (though not all in science class of course). But they would also hear the thorough refutations of those misrepresentations. Then everyone would know, and the great majority would admit, who the real censors are.

FL said: Okay, Mr. G is up to bat first.

FL … please. Half your postings are “Christianity is not compatible with evolution.” OK, for all I care maybe it’s not. But “we heard you twice the first time.” I mean, aren’t you interested in baseball or carpentry or gardening or something else that’s actually interesting?

Actually, Mr. G, from what I've seen, public interest in the Incompatibility Issue is at an all-time high. (Francis Collins, Biologos website, etc.) That includes this forum and even this thread as an example. (That's not to ignore the Dean Kenyon emphasis, btw.) There honestly seems to be much more interest across the board these days--and make no mistake, that interest has been present in THIS particular forum for years. And only seems to be growing. ***

God wants all to repent and be saved (2 Pet. 3:9), He doesn't want anyone to wind up in Hell.

The texts quoted are NOT parables, oh no no. You got some serious textual and contextual provin’s to do if you want to go that route. I’m willing to listen, but you won’t be able to come up with it. It ain’t about “spiritual pride”, it’s about letting the Bible speak for itself. (And letting Jesus speak for Himself too.)

Jesus wrote NOTHING that survives today. The words put in his mouth by the Gospel writers wouldn’t even be acceptable in a court of law, being merely hearsay. If Jesus used Jewish stories as talking points in debates with his fellow Jews, that’s no more an affirmation of their absolute historical truth than my using one of the original Star Trek episodes in an argument with a fellow Star Trek fan would prove that Captain Kirk and the Starship Enterprise will indeed exist in the 23rd Century. I was in a Christian bookstore yesterday and I was amazed yet again at the stupidity of most of the propaganda in it. The writers ASSUME that everything in the Bible must be the Word of God and literally true and judge all of reality, including other religions, by that. NO! You look at reality and judge the Bible and all other religious works by reality. To make the Bible, the Quran, or any other book the standard for absolute truth is blasphemy and idolatry because it makes a man-made book equal with God. The ONLY thing that could even approach God in grandure would be the universe itself that he created. And it is that which science studies.

Everyone should know (from the Dover, PA trial) that Kenyon is not a proponent of "ID".

The correct term is "intelligent design proponentist"! (Wink, wink...)

And how can anyone possibly justify the statement (empahasis added): "Dr. Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. Biophysics, and formerly one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world..." ???

Well, as an apatheist I can't really comment on FL's (endlessly repeated) insistence on the incompatibility of Christianity and evo science -- might be true for all I know.

But from my point of view it's hard to see any difference between that and claiming that Christianity is incompatible with refusing to admit that the Moon is made of green cheese.

JimboK said: Everyone should know (from the Dover, PA trial) that Kenyon is not a proponent of "ID". The correct term is "intelligent design proponentist"! (Wink, wink...) And how can anyone possibly justify the statement (empahasis added): "Dr. Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. Biophysics, and formerly one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world..." ???

FL said: the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, openly affirmed both historical claims.

Hi Nick,

I didn't read all the comments, so someone may have already suggested this. Just as you asked Cornelius Hunter directly, why don't you just ask Kenyon directly if he's a YEC?

Bilbo said: Hi Nick, I didn't read all the comments, so someone may have already suggested this. Just as you asked Cornelius Hunter directly, why don't you just ask Kenyon directly if he's a YEC?

Bilbo said: Hi Nick, I didn't read all the comments, so someone may have already suggested this. Just as you asked Cornelius Hunter directly, why don't you just ask Kenyon directly if he's a YEC?

It's true that sometimes you don't get straight answers to these questions, e.g. the common dissembling that happened at the Kansas Kangaroo Court in 2005. But more importantly, no contact info AFAIK, he retired long ago and I think moved out of San Francisco.

Over on the Thinking Christian thread it sounded like someone had tried to ask around among ID people, and got the answer back that Kenyon was in poor health. In a perfect world some young graduate student who wasn't (unlike me) a participant in the battles would go around and interview all these people while they are still around and get access to their papers -- like Ronald Numbers did for the scientific creationists -- but even if that happened, I'm afraid that it wouldn't work so well with the ID movement, which has pretty self-consciously tried to tell its own history in maximally rosy terms, consistently obscuring creationist connections.

FL said: After all, I prefer unmoderated back-alleys full of broken glass, switchblade rhetoric, and Darwinian streetgangs. But you Methodists might be a tad too proper to engage in such rowdy-ness. FL

Nick (Matzke) said: It's true that sometimes you don't get straight answers to these questions, e.g. the common dissembling that happened at the Kansas Kangaroo Court in 2005. But more importantly, no contact info AFAIK, he retired long ago and I think moved out of San Francisco. Over on the Thinking Christian thread it sounded like someone had tried to ask around among ID people, and got the answer back that Kenyon was in poor health. In a perfect world some young graduate student who wasn't (unlike me) a participant in the battles would go around and interview all these people while they are still around and get access to their papers -- like Ronald Numbers did for the scientific creationists -- but even if that happened, I'm afraid that it wouldn't work so well with the ID movement, which has pretty self-consciously tried to tell its own history in maximally rosy terms, consistently obscuring creationist connections.

Over on the Thinking Christian thread it sounded like someone had tried to ask around among ID people, and got the answer back that Kenyon was in poor health.

— Nick Matzke

I’m afraid that it wouldn’t work so well with the ID movement, which has pretty self-consciously tried to tell its own history in maximally rosy terms, consistently obscuring creationist connections.

— Nick Matzke

Frank J said:

Over on the Thinking Christian thread it sounded like someone had tried to ask around among ID people, and got the answer back that Kenyon was in poor health.

— Nick Matzke

As much as they do a disservice to science education, I'm never happy to hear that any of them are in poor health.

I’m afraid that it wouldn’t work so well with the ID movement, which has pretty self-consciously tried to tell its own history in maximally rosy terms, consistently obscuring creationist connections.

— Nick Matzke

It's amazing how they leap into "damage control" when critics bring up "cdesign proponentsists," yet mostly bite their tongues when Biblical creationist fans undermine their efforts to obscure the connections.

Frank J said: As much as they do a disservice to science education, I'm never happy to hear that any of them are in poor health.

John

Sorry cannot agree. If we wish to defeat the creationists we need to be both ethical and unrelenting in criticism.

We need to win over "hearts and minds" as well

Michael Roberts said: John Sorry cannot agree. If we wish to defeat the creationists we need to be both ethical and unrelenting in criticism. We need to win over "hearts and minds" as well

I love the website answersingenesis.com. They continually have testimonials from scientist that were former evolutionist who now believe in creation. Amazingly I have yet to read one of them say they now believe in creation because they feared they would lose their souls if they didn't. Majority say they stopped blindly accepting evolution and started critically thinking about evolution and creation and came to the realization that both sides, evolutionist and creationist, have the same evidence, but have different interpretations of that evidence. I myself, though not a scientist, but a former 'blind faith' evolutionist, when reviewing the creationist argument find it more logical and scientific than that of the evolutionist. Not saying the evolutionist are not giving good logical scientific explanations, but saying that for me, the creationist argument/explanation comes across as more well thought out.

Tom said: Not saying the evolutionist are not giving good logical scientific explanations, but saying that for me, the creationist argument/explanation comes across as more well thought out.

There is nothing "scientific" about creationism, Tom. It's all rationalizing. Every bit of it. Oh, and cherry-picking, quote-mining, and... um, what does that book call it... oh, yeah: bearing false witness. You have been lied to, pal.

Tom said: I love the website answersingenesis.com. They continually have testimonials from scientist that were former evolutionist who now believe in creation. Amazingly I have yet to read one of them say they now believe in creation because they feared they would lose their souls if they didn't. Majority say they stopped blindly accepting evolution and started critically thinking about evolution and creation and came to the realization that both sides, evolutionist and creationist, have the same evidence, but have different interpretations of that evidence. I myself, though not a scientist, but a former 'blind faith' evolutionist, when reviewing the creationist argument find it more logical and scientific than that of the evolutionist. Not saying the evolutionist are not giving good logical scientific explanations, but saying that for me, the creationist argument/explanation comes across as more well thought out.

MrG said:

Tom said: Not saying the evolutionist are not giving good logical scientific explanations, but saying that for me, the creationist argument/explanation comes across as more well thought out.

Well then, I finally found someone who might actually believe my theory that complicated machines like cars and PCs can only operate thanks to the intervention of unseen gremlins. If you're interested, I can elaborate.

Tom said: I realize that complicated things like cars and PCs can ONLY be created if an intelligence creates them and operates them.

John Kwok said: Am sorry to disappoint you Tom, but there exists far more "truth" with regards to Klingon Cosmology than for the innumerable lies and distortions posted by Ken Ham and his acolyes at Answers in Genesis:

Tom said: I love the website answersingenesis.com. They continually have testimonials from scientist that were former evolutionist who now believe in creation. Amazingly I have yet to read one of them say they now believe in creation because they feared they would lose their souls if they didn't. Majority say they stopped blindly accepting evolution and started critically thinking about evolution and creation and came to the realization that both sides, evolutionist and creationist, have the same evidence, but have different interpretations of that evidence. I myself, though not a scientist, but a former 'blind faith' evolutionist, when reviewing the creationist argument find it more logical and scientific than that of the evolutionist. Not saying the evolutionist are not giving good logical scientific explanations, but saying that for me, the creationist argument/explanation comes across as more well thought out.

fnxtr said: There is nothing "scientific" about creationism, Tom. It's all rationalizing. Every bit of it. Oh, and cherry-picking, quote-mining, and... um, what does that book call it... oh, yeah: bearing false witness. You have been lied to, pal.

Tom said: But, just because many people repeat a lie over and over, it doesn't then become the truth.

Watch, next we'll get into "c-decay" and "radioisotope dating is unreliable" and "hydrological sorting" and the rest of the usual cargo-cult "science".

Once again the image arises of a bunch of Pakleds in church. "We're doing science!"

fnxtr said: Watch, next we'll get into "c-decay" and "radioisotope dating is unreliable" and "hydrological sorting" and the rest of the usual cargo-cult "science".

Tom -

This isn't a question about "Star Trek", but instead of reality. Does creationism - especially Intelligent Design - have anything as real as this that can be verifiable more than once:

1) Klingon Cosmology is real since we see Klingons on television and in the movies. After all, if we see them in the media, then they must be real. So sayeth Kahless.

2) People speak Klingon and hold religious ceremonies - including marriage vows - speaking in Klingon. So sayeth Kahless.

3) An official Klingon Language Institute exists in North America. So sayeth Kahless.

4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. So sayeth Kahless.

What can creationism offer that is as tangible or as true as Klingon Cosmology? Of course the correct answer is none. So sayeth Kahless.

Qap'la

As for Ken Ham, he, Ray Comfort, Bill Dembski, Casey Luskin, David Klinghoffer, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, John West, Scott Minnich and Guillermo Gonzalez are all destined to spend the rest of eternity in Gre'thor.

Qap'la

So sayeth Kahless.

fnxtr said: Once again the image arises of a bunch of Pakleds in church. "We're doing science!"

Mike Elzinga said:

fnxtr said: Once again the image arises of a bunch of Pakleds in church. "We're doing science!"

"We want to be smart." "We want to make things go."

MrG said:

Tom said: I realize that complicated things like cars and PCs can ONLY be created if an intelligence creates them and operates them.

But they're incredibly complicated, right? Vast numbers of parts and compenents in them, and if they even have a finite failure rate per component, then you wouldn't want to get into a car, would you? You'd be killed. So of course that means that they only keep operating by the intervention of unseen gremlins. I assure that all engineers believe to some greater or lesser degree in gremlins. And, since you claim that that organisms could have only have arisen by the intervention of some unseen Designer -- you can't say which one, Flying Spaghetti Monster or whoever -- or what the unseen Designer did -- it all just went magically "POOF" somehow -- then you shouldn't have any problems with unseen gremlins, right? You certainly can't say it's a silly idea, and I'm surprised that you have any problem with it.

Tom said:

MrG said:

Tom said: I realize that complicated things like cars and PCs can ONLY be created if an intelligence creates them and operates them.

But they're incredibly complicated, right? Vast numbers of parts and compenents in them, and if they even have a finite failure rate per component, then you wouldn't want to get into a car, would you? You'd be killed. So of course that means that they only keep operating by the intervention of unseen gremlins. I assure that all engineers believe to some greater or lesser degree in gremlins. And, since you claim that that organisms could have only have arisen by the intervention of some unseen Designer -- you can't say which one, Flying Spaghetti Monster or whoever -- or what the unseen Designer did -- it all just went magically "POOF" somehow -- then you shouldn't have any problems with unseen gremlins, right? You certainly can't say it's a silly idea, and I'm surprised that you have any problem with it.

As a software engineer, I'm familiar very well with 'bugs', but not 'gremlins'. I have never heard engineers in my line of work make any reference to 'gremlins', but definitely to 'bugs'. Surprisingly, in most cases we find the 'bug' and find it was tied to a creator of the software. I still drive and I still fly, all with the realization that part failures can occur and operator errors can occur, so no I don't have a fear of travel though I no very well my next trip could be my last. Then again, I've no fear of death, which goes a long ways to ease my fears. My dad is a retired industrial engineer. I'll have to ask him if he ever believed in gremlins, but since he never said anything about him, I'm going to be that he is at least one engineer that doesn't believe in them. I guess from just the standpoint of my father, the only problem I have with gremlins is believing that your assurance that all engineers believe to some extent in gremlins is for me, verifiable as being false. Concerning the 'whoever' might be the creator, it is amazing to me, how there are evolutionist that state emphatically that there is no God, but when they get hit with the statistical odds against life occurring spontaneously from primordial soup then they will start talking about some alien being from outer space starting life on earth. To me, it seems crazy to give credit to an alien of superior intelligence and refute that God did it. But, both sides have their evidence, and both sides have their belief systems. For me, I have been on both sides of the fence, and I do, oh I do like this creation side of the fence so much more. Far more logical and understandable and based on more scientific evidence and explanations than the evolution side.

Tom said: My dad is a retired industrial engineer. I'll have to ask him if he ever believed in gremlins, but since he never said anything about him, I'm going to be that he is at least one engineer that doesn't believe in them.

MrG said:

fnxtr said: Watch, next we'll get into "c-decay" and "radioisotope dating is unreliable" and "hydrological sorting" and the rest of the usual cargo-cult "science".

This one's pretty unsophisticated, doing a cut-&-paste from the AIG list. Creationists RARELY bite on my "unseen gremlins" routine ... most of them instinctively recognize it as a trap.

Tom said: But, just because many people repeat a lie over and over, it doesn't then become the truth. Nor if the 'majority' believe something, does it make it the truth.

Tom said: Oh, trying to trap me, eh?

Tom said: Concerning the 'whoever' might be the creator, it is amazing to me, how there are evolutionist that state emphatically that there is no God, but when they get hit with the statistical odds against life occurring spontaneously from primordial soup then they will start talking about some alien being from outer space starting life on earth. To me, it seems crazy to give credit to an alien of superior intelligence and refute that God did it. But, both sides have their evidence, and both sides have their belief systems.

MrG said:

Tom said: My dad is a retired industrial engineer. I'll have to ask him if he ever believed in gremlins, but since he never said anything about him, I'm going to be that he is at least one engineer that doesn't believe in them.

Ah, so you believe it is ABSURD to believe in unseen gremlins. But is it OK to believe in undefined and unseen Designers. And if you feel that creationism is logical, then why would you believe unseen gremlins are illogical?

Mike Elzinga said: What planet are you from?

Stanton said: Because Tom was told to believe that Creationism is logical under pain of eternal hellfire.

MrG said:

Stanton said: Because Tom was told to believe that Creationism is logical under pain of eternal hellfire.

Ah, so he won't buy gremlins unless I can threat? Dang, there goes my argument.

MrG said:

Mike Elzinga said:

What planet are you from? You appear to be just making up stuff. Did you know that matter interacts with matter? Why do you think there are solids and liquids and all forms of matter-matter interactions in the universe? Even the ancient Greeks figured this out. Why do glasses fog up? Why do stars form? Why do elements form in stars? Why are there large fields of research in condensed matter physics and organic chemistry? Do you ever look at the world around you? Why are evolution and atheism synonymous in your mind? Who convinced you of that? Don’t you ever check out anything on your own? Have you ever done any real science? Making weird comments from inside a hermetically sealed bubble makes you look pretty ignorant.

Tom said: I guess I was expecting more of an intellectual debate ...

Tom, are you aware that creationist routinely make the accusation that evolution automatically leads to atheism, as well as to rampant crime, racism, sex and other ungodly behaviors?

I mean, numerous accusations infest the Answers In Genesis website.

Stanton said:

Tom said: But, just because many people repeat a lie over and over, it doesn't then become the truth. Nor if the 'majority' believe something, does it make it the truth.

Why do you assume Evolutionary Biology and the rest of Science are nothing but lies believed by a delusional majority when all of the evidence supports them, and not a literal interpretation of the King James Translation of the Holy Bible? I mean, are you aware that Answers In Genesis is run by Ken Ham, who believes that anyone and everyone who does not believe in God in exactly the way he believes in God will be summarily punished forever in Hell? I mean, that's what he explicitly stated in his eulogy of Steve Irwin, after all.

MrG said:

Tom said: I guess I was expecting more of an intellectual debate ...

Well, weren't you getting one? Aren't the arguments of Unseen Designers and unseen gremlins operating at a pretty close level of intellectual capability?

Tom said:

Stanton said:

Tom said: But, just because many people repeat a lie over and over, it doesn't then become the truth. Nor if the 'majority' believe something, does it make it the truth.

Why do you assume Evolutionary Biology and the rest of Science are nothing but lies believed by a delusional majority when all of the evidence supports them, and not a literal interpretation of the King James Translation of the Holy Bible? I mean, are you aware that Answers In Genesis is run by Ken Ham, who believes that anyone and everyone who does not believe in God in exactly the way he believes in God will be summarily punished forever in Hell? I mean, that's what he explicitly stated in his eulogy of Steve Irwin, after all.

Where do you get the idea that I believe "..rest of Science are nothing but lies"? Come on you guys, don't make stuff up. If you are going to argue a subject, you can't be creating up stuff out of nowhere. Someone who is on the fence is going to read this stuff and start to have serious doubts about your ability to carry on an intellectual conversation. Sheeze! lol

Tom said: Where do you get the idea that I believe "..rest of Science are nothing but lies"?

But, just because many people repeat a lie over and over, it doesn’t then become the truth.

That, and you never came here with the intention of carrying on a debate to begin with.

You're just a typical creationist troll who's come here just to pick fights and fuel his own martyr complex.

MrG said:

Tom said: Where do you get the idea that I believe "..rest of Science are nothing but lies"?

Err ...

But, just because many people repeat a lie over and over, it doesn’t then become the truth.

Oh I know, here comes the GOOD SCIENCE BAD SCIENCE argument ... I'll wait.

Stanton's got it. Why DID you come over here? To have an intellectual discussion? By tossing out old zombie arguments from the standard AIG list and then putting up a front of Invincible Ignorance(TM)?

Stanton said: You're going to have a long wait.

MrG said: Stanton's got it. Why DID you come over here? To have an intellectual discussion? By tossing out old zombie arguments from the standard AIG list and then putting up a front of Invincible Ignorance(TM)?

MrG said: Stanton's got it. Why DID you come over here? To have an intellectual discussion? By tossing out old zombie arguments from the standard AIG list and then putting up a front of Invincible Ignorance(TM)?

MrG said:

Stanton said: You're going to have a long wait.

Nah, I'm expecting it momentarily. GOOD SCIENCE BAD SCIENCE is a standard item on the AIG list.

Mike Elzinga said:

MrG said: Stanton's got it. Why DID you come over here? To have an intellectual discussion? By tossing out old zombie arguments from the standard AIG list and then putting up a front of Invincible Ignorance(TM)?

Agreed. Ship the troll to the Bathroom Wall.

Alright guys.

It's been real talking with all of you. Sometimes unreal when some of you, or most of you?, accuse me of saying things I haven't said. My guess is for some of you it is easier to just lump me in with your predefined believes as to what a creationist is all about.

I'll just end with this. I was a former evolutionist like the rest of you, and I must say I though the account of creation and especially that of a young earth was 'absurd'. I did become a Christian, but not on fear of hellfire as some of you expect. Decided that if God is true, that I should give some time to study this creation part of his Bible. As I studied the subject and heard from folks like Ken Ham and others, I became more aware of the controversies surrounding evolution. Yes, did some of my own scientific studies, not in the lab, but in real life that helped to convince me that there a are gaps in the evolutionary theory that have not been addressed in any meaningful way by the evolutionist.

But, I have no desire to throw rocks at you guys, but I will throw words at you when you try and put words in my mouth that I did not say. Sheeze, that is just unbelievably poor conversation. If you don't think so, then continue on doing what you are doing. I ain't going to convert you to debate rationally.

But, I won't knock you for your evolutionary beliefs because I too held those beliefs. And sorry, nobody threatened me or knocked me over the head about them, they just debated them with me rationally and got me thinking. So, be afraid all of you, if I a former evolutionist could be converted to creationism, you just might too be converted someday, or worse yet, not you, but another evolutionist friend of yours. Be afraid, be very AFRAID! ;)

Alright, even trolls need to eat, so this this troll as I was so affectionately called. I know, that is sarcasm on my part and that doesn't help in the debate either, but come on guys, name calling?!?! Didn't that stuff stop in grade school or at least by high school?? Please tell me I haven't been trying to debate with a bunch of junior high kids, please.

Regardless, have a good day, one and all. :)
Tom

Stanton said: You mean like how GOOD SCIENCE is anything that agrees 150% with a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, and that BAD SCIENCE is anything that doesn't?

Tom said:I myself, though not a scientist, but a former 'blind faith' evolutionist, when reviewing the creationist argument find it more logical and scientific than that of the evolutionist. Not saying the evolutionist are not giving good logical scientific explanations, but saying that for me, the creationist argument/explanation comes across as more well thought out.

Shorter Tom:

"I'm so great because I decided to use God as an excuse to close my eyes forever, and you're all just mean and jealous because you're not as ignorant as I am, so I'm gunna go away because I win!"

So, be afraid all of you, if I a former evolutionist could be converted to creationism, you just might too be converted someday, or worse yet, not you, but another evolutionist friend of yours.

Be afraid, be very AFRAID! ;)

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said:

MrG said: Stanton's got it. Why DID you come over here? To have an intellectual discussion? By tossing out old zombie arguments from the standard AIG list and then putting up a front of Invincible Ignorance(TM)?

Agreed. Ship the troll to the Bathroom Wall.

Thirded and Fourthed.

Stanton said: Shorter Tom: "I'm so great because I decided to use God as an excuse to close my eyes forever, and you're all just mean and jealous because you're not as ignorant as I am, so I'm gunna go away because I win!"

What's the problem, Tom? You're exhibiting the classic symptoms of a typical, quite delusional, "drive by" creationist here at Panda's Thumb. Don't want to debate me over the sad, but true, fact that there is more "truth" to Klingon Cosmology than your risible, half-baked, religiously-derived pseudoscientific nonsense?

I never "believed" in evolution, Tom. I always accepted it based on the overwhelming mountain of data which confirms the reality of biological evolution. Now as a software engineer are you going to tell me that Ken Ham is always right in subscribing to the laughable notion of a "Young Earth" when there is substantial, quite credible, data from physics, chemistry and geology which shows how impossible his concept is.

MrG said: Now did I call you any names, guy?

So, be afraid all of you, if I a former evolutionist could be converted to creationism, you just might too be converted someday, or worse yet, not you, but another evolutionist friend of yours.

Guy, I only accept evolutionary science because the facts demand it. I have no reason to regard it as preferable to any other explanation of the origins of species -- if the sky were violet instead of blue, I would accept that, but all evidence at my disposal tells me it is blue. However, "magic pooferism by Unseen Designers" isn't a reasonable alternative. Particularly when it's being pushed by someone doing a very predictable cut-&-paste from the AIG list. And by the way ... the term is "EVIL-utionism". Get it right.

Be afraid, be very AFRAID! ;)

"The windmills are WEAKENING!"

Tom said: Yes, did some of my own scientific studies, not in the lab, but in real life that helped to convince me that there a are gaps in the evolutionary theory that have not been addressed in any meaningful way by the evolutionist.

Stanton said: As far as I can tell, Tom just wanted to boast about how happy and peaceful he has become being brainwashed, and to mock us for rightly assuming that he has neither the ability or intention to hold intelligent conversation.

Absolutely, eric. After all, if we can't show exactly how Alice walked from her house to Bob's house, then would we be willing to accept that she used a Mystery Teleport (TM) instead?

Stanton said: I always get the impression that alleged "former evolutionists" are lying, as they appear to have no understanding of science or facts to begin with, nor do they care that they obviously have no understanding to begin with.

As a software engineer...

Dang, he ran away.

PS: On software engineers ... I worked with them for two decades. Some are very sensible folks, but even they would admit the truth of:

"What's the difference between God and a programmer?"

"God does NOT think he is a programmer."

My pal Dennis went out to Bell Labs to give a pitch on a product. We asked when he came back: "Did you meet DR?" -- a well-known Bell Labs software type.

"No. They told me: 'You don't want to meet him. He's a fat jerk.' I thought: 'Why am I NOT surprised?'"

Mike Elzinga said: I agree that it is a lie; it is designed solely to make it appear to rubes that the “conversion” was intellectually respectable and done with careful study and deep mental anguish over having been deceived.

Come on guys, even trolls have to eat.

After a satisfying lunch, I've read through the posts.

I will answer some of them, in random order.

Nah, wasn't startled. I didn't realize this room was filled primarily with those from the evolutionist faith, but you guys don't scare me as I used to be an evolutionist. Belive it or not. No, I wasn't born an evolutionist anymore than I was born a creationist. I just believed what wast taught to me. To be sarcastic, I'm sure some of you in here came about believe in evolution strictly by your own intelect, but sorry I'm just not as sharp as some of you. Didn't realize some other creationist walked into this room prior. I normally don't spend the time reading pasts posts unless it is part of a debate I was involved in.

Came to fight? No, just reason. I was met with those wanting to fight though. You guys do fight, not very well. But, I don't think you guys don't debate to try to convert or sway or convince, you just fight to give the other guy a bloody nose so he will leave you all alone. Heck, when you guys are all alone, what do you have to talk about? lol Sheeze, if you are this rough on outsiders who step into your room, wonder how you treat one of your own who says anything contrary to the 'group think' of the room?

To give a final answer to the evolutionist being atheist, when I became a Christian I didn't just whole heartedly accept creation, but had my extreme doubts and questions concering it. The Bible doesn't say one will go to hell for believing in evolution, so will have to disappoint you guys that I'm not preaching fire and brimstone to you. There are evolutionist groups out there composed of Christians that you all would feel very comfortable with and they would most likely join your gang and you join their gang in a heartbeat. So, I don't believe this to be a Christian vs atheist debate. Though, I would think a Christian would be more open to the creation debate, but sadly I have found many a Christian just as close minded to debating it.

Oh, I do like AIG, don't a one of you think that I don't. They have really helped me to understand this debate. And though everything I have written has been my original words, they have not been my original thoughts. I'm sure there MIGHT be a few of you out there foolish enough to say all your thoughts about evolution came from you directly and nobody had any impact upon your thinking, but then you would only be fooling yourself. Heck, even I find myself saying "Billions and billions of years" with a Carl Sagan tone of voice. Sheeze, even I know we are all products of our education.

Um, only a one or two of you called me names. Troll is the one that comes to mind, but there was some other names earlier. Pakled for one. A Star Trek term, but I outgrew Star Trek a long time ago. And arguing about the reality of a TV show, is in my mind and you boys can quote me on this, as silly. If I were to meet one of you in person, I would say, this guy is for real. Does that make the one I meet more real than God because I haven't ever seen God? If I want to take a childish approach to observations, I would have to say that yes, but I have put childish thoughts like that aside, along with my love for Star Trek. Grew up, ya know. lol

Oh, and concerning what God says in the Bible about hell, he says the first thing that will condemn any of us to hell is not believing that God can forgive us of our sins. If you are reading this post and you don't beleive yourself to be a sinner, then heck, what do you have to worry about then. Go back to sleep.

I was thinking about giving the one individual my reasons for believing a young earth. No, not reasons I created up on my own, but the arguments that I have read that have convinced me, but my guess is most of you have read the AIG list (whatever that is) and you have heard all the arguments for a young earth and have promptly dismisssed them away. That is fine. I came on here to just testify that some evolutionist believers do become creationist, but if I believe what SOME of you wrote, I'm apparently not scientifically intellectual enough to be able to make that decision on my own unless I had the s*&t scarred out of me. Many of you have convinced me that whatever I say, you will add to it, subtract from it and twist it so that even though it is a lie, it will be the truth in your mind so there is no convincing you.

Ran away. Funny. Run away from a good debate? Never! Walk away from a usless discussion for sure!

P.S. If any of you are wondering what trolls eat for lunch, I can assure you, not 'evil'utionist. They are too bitter! LOL

Tom said: Nah, wasn't startled.

I came on here to just testify.

most of you have read the AIG list (whatever that is) and you have heard all the arguments for a young earth and have promptly dismisssed them away

I’m sure some of you in here came about believe in evolution strictly by your own intelect [sic]

Tom said: Walk away from a usless discussion for sure!

MrE ... we know creationism better.

I’ll just end with this.

After a satisfying lunch, I’ve read through the posts. I will answer some of them, in random order.

Tom said: Came to fight? No, just reason. I was met with those wanting to fight though.

To give a final answer to the evolutionist being atheist...

my guess is most of you have read the AIG list (whatever that is) and you have heard all the arguments for a young earth and have promptly dismisssed them away.

Tom said: ... but if I believe what SOME of you wrote, I'm apparently not scientifically intellectual enough to be able to make that decision on my own unless I had the s*&t scarred out of me. Many of you have convinced me that whatever I say, you will add to it, subtract from it and twist it so that even though it is a lie, it will be the truth in your mind so there is no convincing you.

Tom said: To be sarcastic, I'm sure some of you in here came about believe in evolution strictly by your own intelect... Came to fight? No, just reason. I don't think you guys don't debate to try to convert or sway or convince, you just fight to give the other guy a bloody nose so he will leave you all alone.

Heck, when you guys are all alone, what do you have to talk about?

Tom said: ... Came to fight? No, just reason. ...

Well, I did go to that webpage, but didn't

Okay, thought I would call it a day, but decided that since I have been accused of

You were the one who implied that scientists keep repeating that evolution is true with the express intent of making it true.

If you don’t think that all scientists are delusional, then why did you talk about “repeating a lie doesn’t make it true”?

There is a

There is a notion going with you guys that somehow I have a disbelief in science. Funny how some of you, careful not to say all of you, or I will be just as guilty as some of you as to making assumptions, but it is funny how some of you hold to Klingons as being real, though totally a fanatsy creation brought to the tv screen, and some of you believe in gremlins. I never and I will never ever look at my laptop and wonder how the 'gremlins' get those windows to work. Sorry, I'm past the stage of awe over computers and over people that claim to be intelectual and prove over and over that they are not. There is good science and bad or crappy science. I don't believe in evolution, but I haven't thrown science as a whole out because of the "THEORY" of evolution for which I don't agree with.

MrG said...
“If science can produce vaccines and lasers and put astronauts on the Moon and demonstrate other undeniable capabilities, that’s GOOD SCIENCE …”

I agree with that statement. But, as I have read from scientist, yes, creation scientist, is they say when creating lasers, etc., in no way or fashion do they have to accept the theory of evolution as true for them to contemplate and design and create a laser or a vacine. They don't have to say, well since man evolved from an ape, we better make sure this space rocket engine incorporates... The acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is not needed to create great things via scientific research. Accepting the theory may be a requirment to associate with those scientist that hold it as a fact, but for a competent scientist to go about doing his work, not needed. You might say, but Tom, geologist need to believe in an old earth and evolution to do their work. I would say, yes if only for them to write their research papers to confirm to everyone that something is millions of years old, but how many geologist are using evolution to find untapped oil for instance. Scientist who preach evolution are doing just that, they are trying to determine men's origins with the attempt to discredit Adam and Eve as being the origin. Yes, I know there are Nasa scientist that believe in life on other planets which is why they send recordings into outer space, but they have yet to prove there is life on other planets.

I keep mentioning "Theory of Evolution", because I think all of you guys realize that if it was a fact, and if in fact you had evidence to disprove those scientist that don't believe in evolution and to convince those us that are non-intellectuals that God is dead and evolution reigns supreme, you would be very, very rich, indeed. Right now, still is a theory. You have facts that can be disputed and argued intelligently against. If you have the facts to just blow everyone away, don't hide them and you can be rich beyond your dreams.

It was asked my opinion about how old life is on earth. When I accepted creation, I had problems with a young earth. Come on, doesn't take a scientist to know that the earth is old...or does it? When I picked up a rock, I hadn't the feintist idea as to it's age. Science told me it was old. Science says a diamond is millions if not billions of years old, but science has learned how to create a man made diamond in the labortory in just about a days time. For me, to reason says if man can do it in a day, why must it take the earth millions if not billions of years to make a diamond? Likewise, man uses the components of the earth to make concrete. Why is it the rocks(concrete) of the earth has to be created over hundreds of thousands of years. This sort of stuff is what helped me to question the age of the earth.

But, the question posed to me was how old did I think life is on the earth. The population of the world help me to become a believer in a young earth. No, I should say it helped me to have disbelief in the idea that man originated hundreds of thousands of years ago. I went to the talkorigins website and looked at this page that addressed the population. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html#growth
I won't cut and paste the AIG information and such concerning this discussion, but will say I conducted my own labotory tests using excel and I found that if man came on the scene hundreds of thousands of years ago, there would be a whole lot more people on this earth than we have now, a WHOLElot more. Now, don't ask me to quote facts and figures, this test you have to do ony your own. You know and I know, that many evolutionist have different ideas as to when the first monkeys turned to men, and those ages from hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. You have to pick the time frame that gives you a warm and cozy feeling. So, you have to pick how many years ago seems reasonable to you, then decide what mathmatical algorithm you are going to use, and then you are going to have to figure out how to kill them off by the trillions so that you can get to the current world population count http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=current+earth+population Now don't trust me, do it yourself and be very, very creative in your math to determine when man came on the scene to be reasonable with the current earth population. I would be interested if you can come up with a better response than the one from talkorigins.org

Now, I don't know this for certain, but I believe most evolutionist discount the world wide flood. Just what I have read, but I haven't polled every evolutionist to confirm they think this. But, I found it interesting that the oldest tree to be found does not exceed 5 thousand years old. If the earth has been around billions of years, with billions of years devoted to growing vegatation, why or why is the oldest tree to be found to date is less than 5 thousand years old? It would seem reasonable if the earth had been around for billions of years and there was no world wide flood, then there would be plenty of examples of very, very old trees. I found this explanation on http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html and would concur with response 1, but then I think most evolutionist would not go with the global cataclysm happening. But, I might be wrong, maybe some of you believe in the flood.

So, though I could talk about other areas that have caught my interest, the above, diamonds, population and oldest trees help to confirm in my mind that evolution is not true, and that the earth is not that old. Can I prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, heck no, if I could I would be filthy rich myself I suppose.

But, hey, I would love to hear what you guys give as an explanation as to why man can create diamonds and concrete in a day, but that it takes the earth millions of years to do so. Why is there not many old trees out there, and granted not all of the earth has been explored so there is a remote possibility a tree older than 5 thousand years might still be found. But what about the population, can any of you provide the mathmatical formula and the reasoning behind it to justify the current earth's population? Please leave out the ideas about the Klingon's beaming the earth's population to other planets.

Oh, and do tell how belief in evolution is necessary to understand the other sciences. Why is it I can work with and program a computer all the while not believing in evolution?

SWT said:

Tom said: ... Came to fight? No, just reason. ...

Tom, OK, let's talk. I'm an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), so we can avoid any possible issues of "evolution = atheism"; we agree, as a point of theology, that the universe is an expression of the divine will. I'm also a working scientist, although not a biologist; I thus have a working knowledge of the scientific process. After reviewing the objective evidence, it's clear to me that modern evolutionary theory is the best available scientific theory to explain the observed diversity of life on earth. It appears that you are convinced that there is some alternative to modern evolutionary theory that provides a better scientific explanation for the observed diversity of life on earth. (I think I know what that explanation is, but I don't want to put words into your mouth; instead, I'll be asking you to articulate your theory incrementally.) If you in fact have a reasonable scientific explanation, we should be able to reach it based on objective evidence. We can have a reasonable discussion if you're willing to (1) Accept that an acceptable scientific explanation must be developed from objective data and have testable consequences. (2) Assume for the sake of discussion that modern evolutionary theory was never developed ... and thus there is no reason to refute evolution. (3) Make positive assertions based on your explanation ... invalidating an alternative doesn't work unless your knowledge of the universe is perfect and complete enough to know conclusively that youve exhausted all possible explanations. (4) Present explanations in your own words (no arument by cut-and-paste). I will, of course, play by the same rules. If you can assent to these principles, I would first like to know (a) how old the universe is, based on your explanatory framework; (b) how old the earth is, based on your explanatory framework; and (c) what objective evidence leads to these specific ages. I am looking for positive arguments, based on objective physical evidence. that support the ages in your explanation, not arguments against ages proposed in other frameworks. I await your response.

Tom said: Funny how some of you, careful not to say all of you, or I will be just as guilty as some of you as to making assumptions, but it is funny how some of you hold to Klingons as being real, though totally a fanatsy creation brought to the tv screen, and some of you believe in gremlins.

Tom said: Hi SWT, ... Let me answer post in another way, since based on you being an elder, I can assume, but definitely don't know for sure that you are a Christian. ... So, I'm not accusing of of being an atheist, but just question why you would discredit the Genesis account that in my humble opinion requires all sorts of scientific THEORY to prove, where as you can take any lay person off the street and I believe most of them will tell you it don't take a PhD to know that a virgin can't get pregnant and anybody that has been dead three days ain't going to get up walking and talking.

Tom said: ... and some of you believe in gremlins.

Tom said: I love the website answersingenesis.com. They continually have testimonials from scientist that were former evolutionist who now believe in creation. Amazingly I have yet to read one of them say they now believe in creation because they feared they would lose their souls if they didn't. Majority say they stopped blindly accepting evolution and started critically thinking about evolution and creation and came to the realization that both sides, evolutionist and creationist, have the same evidence, but have different interpretations of that evidence. I myself, though not a scientist, but a former 'blind faith' evolutionist, when reviewing the creationist argument find it more logical and scientific than that of the evolutionist. Not saying the evolutionist are not giving good logical scientific explanations, but saying that for me, the creationist argument/explanation comes across as more well thought out.

Oh, and may I add, guy, that there is a difference between me and you.

When I am silly, it is on purpose.

Tom said: I'll just end with this. I was a former evolutionist like the rest of you, and I must say I though the account of creation and especially that of a young earth was 'absurd'. I did become a Christian, but not on fear of hellfire as some of you expect. Decided that if God is true, that I should give some time to study this creation part of his Bible. As I studied the subject and heard from folks like Ken Ham and others, I became more aware of the controversies surrounding evolution. Yes, did some of my own scientific studies, not in the lab, but in real life that helped to convince me that there a are gaps in the evolutionary theory that have not been addressed in any meaningful way by the evolutionist. Regardless, have a good day, one and all. :) Tom

Tom said: Funny how some of you, careful not to say all of you, or I will be just as guilty as some of you as to making assumptions, but it is funny how some of you hold to Klingons as being real...

Dale Husband said: It's amazing how many Creationists claim to be former evolutionists ...

You gotta hand it to Ken Ham and the rest of that scam organization; they sure know a mark when they see one.

If it weren't for their hiding behind freedom of religion, these frauds would be nailed by any consumer protection agency and they would be in jail by now.

Mike Elzinga said: You gotta hand it to Ken Ham and the rest of that scam organization; they sure know a mark when they see one.

Tom said: For me, to reason says if man can do it in a day, why must it take the earth millions if not billions of years to make a diamond?

Wow. I thought for second there that we might have a real live intellectual creationist on our hands, but he's just a closet "FL"-type incompatible-ist. How disappointing.

Dale, I have to disagree with you. Creationists don't have the same evidence. They have the bits and pieces they want to rationalize their faith (not that faith needs rationalizing to most, but whatever), then the rest they ignore, distort, or just plain lie about.

Also an omphalos man, apparently.

fnxtr said: Also an omphalos man, apparently.

You're as delusional as two young Ken Ham supporters whom I met, by accident, on a New York City subway train exactly two Monday evenings ago. I can excuse them a little because of their youth - they were teenagers visiting New York City on some "Christian" retreat - but you can't be.

Again, as a Deist and as a Conservative Republican with strongly pronounced Libertarian biases, I don't "believe" in evolution. I don't believe in it nor do I believe in the Periodic Table of Elements in chemistry, the law of gravity, the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics in physics, or the Theory of Plate Tectonics in geology. No, I accept them all based on the ample preponderance of scientific data that supports them, not because I harbor some metaphysical whim or feel the need to pay homage to my "master", Kahless the Unforgettable.

You were never an "evolutionist" Tom. You merely pretended to be one until it was time for you to "decloak" and reveal your true beliefs as the pathetic Romulan-like Xian creationist that you most certainly are.

Science Avenger said:

Tom said: Funny how some of you, careful not to say all of you, or I will be just as guilty as some of you as to making assumptions, but it is funny how some of you hold to Klingons as being real...

The point Kwok was making Tom, is not that Klingons are real, but that the evidence for their reality is comparable, if not superior, to what you are peddling here. No one here believes Klingons are real. That point should have been obvious, yet you missed it. Still think you are qualified to criticize scientists on their science?

Tom said: So, if you do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and you do believe he died and rose again on the third day then I would question you as to why you believe those two things from the Bible, but don't believe the account in Genesis?

How do you accept the scientifically impossibility of Mary getting pregnant as a virgin?

How can you believe that Jesus died and arose the third day when it is physically impossible to occur?

If you have faith in these two things, then how is it you don't have faith that God used creation to bring everything into existence within 6 days?

bobsie said: It's theology not science. Theology you believe; science you understand and accept the facts. You believe the virgin birth without evidence but on faith alone. You believe the divinity of Jesus without evidence but on faith alone. There is overwhelming evidence explaining the natrual world processes that results the Universe as we observe it today.

John Kwok said: Exactly, Science Avenger. Thanks for pointing it out, which should be obvious to anyone who is clearly able to think for him or herself and not rely on the gross lies and distortions of that Xian Nazi Ken Ham:

Science Avenger said:

Tom said: Funny how some of you, careful not to say all of you, or I will be just as guilty as some of you as to making assumptions, but it is funny how some of you hold to Klingons as being real...

The point Kwok was making Tom, is not that Klingons are real, but that the evidence for their reality is comparable, if not superior, to what you are peddling here. No one here believes Klingons are real. That point should have been obvious, yet you missed it. Still think you are qualified to criticize scientists on their science?

By invoking Klingon Cosmology, I am merely using the same absurd logic with Tom and his fellow creos have been making to support their "scientific" creationist views, not realizing that via such absurd logic, the "proof" of Klingon Cosmology can be established much better than for any of the pseudoscientific nonsense known as "scientific" cretinism.

Tom said: Sheeze, I've been hoping that Scotty will beam me up in the transporter and get me away from this site. lol

John Kwok said: You're as delusional as two young Ken Ham supporters whom I met, by accident, on a New York City subway train exactly two Monday evenings ago. I can excuse them a little because of their youth - they were teenagers visiting New York City on some "Christian" retreat - but you can't be. Again, as a Deist and as a Conservative Republican with strongly pronounced Libertarian biases, I don't "believe" in evolution. I don't believe in it nor do I believe in the Periodic Table of Elements in chemistry, the law of gravity, the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics in physics, or the Theory of Plate Tectonics in geology. No, I accept them all based on the ample preponderance of scientific data that supports them, not because I harbor some metaphysical whim or feel the need to pay homage to my "master", Kahless the Unforgettable. You were never an "evolutionist" Tom. You merely pretended to be one until it was time for you to "decloak" and reveal your true beliefs as the pathetic Romulan-like Xian creationist that you most certainly are.

Mike Elzinga said:

Tom said: Sheeze, I've been hoping that Scotty will beam me up in the transporter and get me away from this site. lol

No will of your own? You could just stop coming here if you have nothing to contribute. If all you want to do is preach, do it in your church. It’s out of place here; especially since you have no credibility. Why should anyone be interested in your sectarian dogma if you continue to insult the intelligence of the people you know nothing about and presume to talk down to?

MrG said: PS: On software engineers ... I worked with them for two decades. Some are very sensible folks, but even they would admit the truth of: "What's the difference between God and a programmer?" "God does NOT think he is a programmer." My pal Dennis went out to Bell Labs to give a pitch on a product. We asked when he came back: "Did you meet DR?" -- a well-known Bell Labs software type. "No. They told me: 'You don't want to meet him. He's a fat jerk.' I thought: 'Why am I NOT surprised?'"

fnxtr said:

I’ll just end with this.

Sorry, I thought that meant you were gone. Silly me. An hour later:

After a satisfying lunch, I’ve read through the posts. I will answer some of them, in random order.

Not betting you're going to surprise any of us here, Tom.

Tom said: Please, be real. If I offend you so much, just don't reply and I'll stop talking to you. Honest! :)

Tom,

You said you came here to reason.

I thought I was pretty respectful in my responses to you and asked what I thought was a fairly well-focused question about a relevant scientific issue. So far, you seem to have effectively ignored it.

Well, color me disappointed ... but not surprised.

Mike Elzinga said:

Tom said: Please, be real. If I offend you so much, just don't reply and I'll stop talking to you. Honest! :)

You are building a profile whether or not you like it. You continue to avoid the really tough questions that have been asked. You think nobody notices? You still haven’t demonstrated you have any capability or desire to learn any science. Therefore any comments you make about what scientists know or don’t know are completely irrelevant. Blow all the smoke you want. The tradition here on Panda’s Thumb is to send people like you to the Bathroom Wall where you can rant and preach to anyone who will pay attention to you. There is one like you over there right now. He’s not doing so well and could use some company.

Tom, you have a terrible disadvantage in this "discussion". (It's not actually a discussion, because the parties are actually talking about completely different things, but let that go.)

The disadvantage is that you have come armed with a bubblemaker to a tank battle. You have nothing. No evidence; not the faintest notion of what the evidence might be; in fact, no concept of what evidence is.

But that disadvantage confers on you a corresponding immunity. The fact that you neither know or care what the evidence is, and lack the basic mental frameworks for arguing from it, means that the tank shells whistle through you as if you weren't there, and don't affect you in the slightest.

What do you care from morphology, or embryology, or the SINE insertion data, or observed speciation, or the principle of superposition, or stratigraphy, or exaption, or population genetics, or any of the rest of the mountain ranges of data collected by thousands of evolutionary biologists over the last hundred and fifty years? You don't understand most of it, and the parts that you do understand you ignore, because a pack of snake-oil merchants at AiG, led by Ken Ham, an itinerant preacher from Ipswich, Queensland, who has never in his life done any actual science, tells you to.

But here's the thing, Tom. You're a bloody fool, but do you know what? The world will go on, and science will advance, and matters will slowly improve for most of us despite the fact that you're a bloody fool. You're forty-eight? Be glad. Quite likely, the same science that has the Theory of Evolution as its underlying organising principle will extend your life far beyond its natural limits before you reach your three score years and ten. And you'll accept that, because consistency never was a creationist characteristic.

So be as much of a fool as you like. It won't make any difference. By being a fool, you also become an irrelevance.

And an irrelevance, by definition, doesn't matter.

SWT said: Tom, You said you came here to reason. I thought I was pretty respectful in my responses to you and asked what I thought was a fairly well-focused question about a relevant scientific issue. So far, you seem to have effectively ignored it. Well, color me disappointed ... but not surprised.

Tom asks Would like to see how one of you can explain to me or even to another fellow evolutionist, just what happened to the trillions upon trillions of people that should be on the face of this earth if man appeared on the earth hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago. Why aren’t they here now?

Tom... To support what Mr. Luckett said about population controls, look up data on the 19th century Irish Potato Famine. The population of Ireland *still* hasn't completely recovered.

Second point... From your remarks, I am dubious that you understand what is meant in a scientific context by the term "theory". I suggest that you do some research on what a theory is, and how it contrasts to (for instance) a hypothesis.

Third point... If Newton's work on gravity and motion were done today, it *would* be the "Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Motion", rather than "Laws of ...".

Fourth point... You have been conflating the FACT of Evolution--the OBSERVED fact that species change over time--with the THEORY of Evolution--the best explanation we have of how these changes occur.

Fifth point... You still have no answered the fundamental questions: How old is the universe? How old is the Earth? How old is life on Earth? Surely in your understanding, these questions have numerical answers, even if they include ranges of values rather than single values.

Once you have given the answers to the basic questions about age, I may have additional questions, but please answer those questions. (And if AFTER you have answered them, you wish me to provide the answers I accept as factual, I will be happy to do so.)

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Tom said: The really tough questions? Somebody, maybe it was you that said I was purposely avoiding the tough questions and only answering the antagonism directed towards me. Hmmm, maybe I have. I won't offer an excuse as I will just be called a liar as I have been called many a time. Still, feel free to re-post the tough questions I have been avoiding (and leave out the name calling and the Trekie terms and the gremlins) and I will do my best to answer those tough questions within the realm of my ability.

Tom said:

fnxtr said:

I’ll just end with this.

Sorry, I thought that meant you were gone. Silly me. An hour later:

After a satisfying lunch, I’ve read through the posts. I will answer some of them, in random order.

Not betting you're going to surprise any of us here, Tom.

Fnxtr, Oh, but you guys have surprised me. I'm still reading through the posts to catch up, but I have yet to see the post that knocks me flat that proves evolution is true and creation is false. I went to the one webpage, and I picked for subjects that caught my interest, but I can say that webpage is pretty weak. Comparing it to AIG, AIG reads like a textbook. I'm sure many on here will disagree, but I don't know if a meaningful discussion will come from the evolution side on here.

fnxtr said: Wow. I thought for second there that we might have a real live intellectual creationist on our hands, but he's just a closet "FL"-type incompatible-ist. How disappointing. Dale, I have to disagree with you. Creationists don't have the same evidence. They have the bits and pieces they want to rationalize their faith (not that faith needs rationalizing to most, but whatever), then the rest they ignore, distort, or just plain lie about.

Dale Husband said: Yes, they have the same evidence but interpret it differently. But only one interpretation can be right. The interpretation that is most likely to be right is the one that follows rules consistently. Rules like: 1. The same laws of chemistry and physics apply everywhere and in all times. This has never been disproven by anyone. 2. The scientific method can be used to discover and confirm all physical and chemical laws. Millions of scientists in many thousands of labs around the world can testify to that principle. 3. Observations of physical evidence in the present can be used to determine what may have happened in the past, relying on the physical and chemical laws previously discovered. 4. Applications of physical and chemical laws can also be used in conjunction with human creativity to produce technology, which drives our entire civilization forward. Creationists do NOT follow those rules consistently. They use the terminology of science, but reject its methods when they lead to conclusions that contradict their religious dogmas. But those religious dogmas are themselves based on NO empirical foundation at all. Answers in Genesis, like the Institute for Creation Research before it, is a massive scam operation.

Dale Husband said: It's amazing how many Creationists claim to be former evolutionists who end up repeating endlessly the same old outright lies that were debunked decades ago by those who really ARE evolutionists and really HAVE done research on the subject. Clearly, you are a fraud.

(and leave out the name calling and the Trekie terms and the gremlins)

Oh, and I again ... there is a big difference between you and me: When I am being silly, it is on purpose.

And another thing ... where are the trillions and trillions of people? I ask back: where are the mice?

If you started with two mice and the came up with a new generation of four every year, in about 70 years they would cover the entire Earth. In about a century total they would weigh as much as the entire planet.

Figure it out for yourself -- make some assumptions on the surface area and mass of a mouse and then play with logs a bit. It wouldn't require any real technical skill to figure it out.

So if evilutionism is true, then shouldn't we have been buried in mice, or soon will be? Or is this just a case of ceationists blowing smoke?

And again, I ask the question: Is "magic pooferism by Unseen Designers" a fair description of your views? If not, why not? You don't seem to like that question.

Tom said: Oh, John. I was never an evolutionist. Hmm, I would try to deduce how you come up with that belief, but my question is for you, "Uh like what country are you from John?" In the US, if you go to public school like I do, they teach evolution. If you watch PBS like I do, they teach evolution. If you read the news in the US like I do, they promote evolution all the time. You should be accusing me of lying if I said I've always been a creationist. Sorry John, you must be sleeping as are school system and our government teaches evolution. Most likely you can assume that everyone comes out of our school system an evolutionist. Oh, and if you think I went to parochial school, my gf's daughter goes to a Catholic school and guess what, even she believes in evolution as that is what the private school system teaches. If you are surprised, then I am very surprised about you! lol Yes, I will have to remember your 'pathetic' name calling. Sheeze, John. I'm nearly 48 years old. Name calling stopped in school and then started up again in politics and apparently in 'intellectual' scientific inquiry groups.

Tom said: Hey SWT, please don't think I'm ignoring you. Your original post comes across like you want me to formulate my own theory for origins from scratch. Or, at best regurgitate what I have read from AIG, just not cut and paste it. Heck, that is a lot of information to regurgitate. I wouldn't even dream of asking you to do the same for evolution as there is so much to cover. Even that website talkorigins.org doesn't even adequately argue evolution to the extent it would need to be argued. I know and you should know too, that what each of us is discussing on here did not originate from anyone in this here room. Even Darwin wasn't the first to talk to come up with the theory of evolution. He just mainstreamed it. Each of us has learned through education, upbringing, and self study and have accepted and tossed aside things that we have learned.

Appreciate you referring to evolution as a 'theory' in your original post. ... Getting back to the "Law of Gravity". Nobody dismisses it, nobody offers up an alternative theory to Gravity and it is accepted as a Law, not a Theory. Where as the Theory of Evolution has those who offer alternative theories, but their beliefs in an alternative theory will be derided. If there was irrefutable proof to evolution, we would be calling it the "Law of Evolution" and there would be no debate.

Yes, I didn't reply to your questions but came back with some questions of my own, which I duly noted you have yet to reply to either. Yes, I noted that you wanted to talk science, not theology. But I would guess there is many scientist and non-scientist that would say it is scientifically impossible for a virgin to give birth and scientifically impossible for a man who has been dead three days to get up and walk. If science has in your mind provided you the most excellent theory to explain origins, you should be able to use that same scientific mindset of yours to blow away the virgin birth and the resurection as impossible. And more so as factually impossible, not theoretically impossible. I want to find out how much you hold to your scientific belief system or whether you pick and choose.

W. H. Heydt said: Tom... To support what Mr. Luckett said about population controls, look up data on the 19th century Irish Potato Famine. The population of Ireland *still* hasn't completely recovered.

Tom said: Oh, yes, agreed wars, famines, etc., can all have a impact and at times a significant impact upon populations. No dispute concerning that. Still, if you start with two people and you agree that the population count never gets lower than two, and if you go extreme and say it say takes 200 years for the population to double. In 5800 years at that very low rate of doubling you already have a billion people. What, today the pop is getting close to around 7 billion or so. I would ask you what year would you choose that man came into existence on this earth? You would then have to believe that man is resilient enough not get get totally wiped out, but to never really gain a foot hold to do any serious population growth. It would seem you would have to be killing off the majority of the population every few hundred years or so to keep to the low number of people that we currently have on this earth today. To do so, whether they die as adults or infants, there should be a fair number of graves or bones to humans to be found. Just read another post comparing the population to mice. There are checks and balances in the animal world to keep animals at check. Remember Australia having a problem with mice in the past. But, mice are not men, mankind has proven it's ability to adapt and defend itself and has proven that man is the dominant animal if you are to call him an animal, and that just didn't happen in the past 100 years or so. And if you think of man in the beginning as an uncivilized animal, you know he would be unrestrained in his sexual practices (i.e. meaning he won't practice family planning) so he will be reproducing and even if he can't feed his young, there have got to be bodies to be found and some of them have got to live long enough to reproduce again. I don't see how anyone can just wave this population thing off as easily answered by population die off.

Second point... From your remarks, I am dubious that you understand what is meant in a scientific context by the term "theory". I suggest that you do some research on what a theory is, and how it contrasts to (for instance) a hypothesis.

Tom said: Did my research, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis.htm, and this site which supports the evolution as factual. Problem arises in our disagreements here and they will probably never be resolved is that there are scientists that dispute (i.e. poke holes) in the hypothesis for evolution. Granted, there is a good chance many on this site will claim they are not real or good scientists, so their arguments don't hold water. What I like on AIG's site (which I'm careful not to cut and paste links from there to here for risk of antagonizing those on here who don't like cut & paste) is they quote the evolutionists. They even quote evolutionists who poke holes in other evolutionists hypothesis.

Third point... If Newton's work on gravity and motion were done today, it *would* be the "Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Motion", rather than "Laws of ...".

Tom said: Okay. You could elaborate why that would be the case, but I'm guessing I either won't get the point or I will disagree with your point. All that comes to my mind is politically correctness impacting what we say and do today that might influence that, but don't think that is what you are trying to imply.

Fourth point... You have been conflating the FACT of Evolution--the OBSERVED fact that species change over time--with the THEORY of Evolution--the best explanation we have of how these changes occur.

Tom said: Yes, I agree there are changes within a species, but not a species evolving into another species. Transitional forms. The evolutionist lack the transitional forms. Sure, they have a fish with fins in the water, a fish that walks out of the water using it's fins, and then a land animal with feet, but all the micro transitions don't exist. Yes, I know some evolutionist explain it away with mutations exploding very quickly. That is blowing smoke to hide the fact that transitional forms don't exist. If they do, get your hands on it and you know it would sell for millions.

Fifth point... You still have no answered the fundamental questions: How old is the universe? How old is the Earth? How old is life on Earth? Surely in your understanding, these questions have numerical answers, even if they include ranges of values rather than single values.

Tom said: Oh, I have to go back to the 6 to 7 thousand years for the age of universe/earth. Did I originate this answer on my own? Heck no, just like none of you came up with evolution on your own. I read the book, Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Russ Humphrys who used Einstein's theory of relativity to argue the 'theory' for a young universe. I thought it was excellent. So, life itself on the earth is younger than the earth and has not had the millions of years to evolve. Sure, let me know what say, I can probably take an 'educated' guess and google to find out what wikipedia says is the age, but you may have a age for all of this that is totally unique and of your own development.

Once you have given the answers to the basic questions about age, I may have additional questions, but please answer those questions. (And if AFTER you have answered them, you wish me to provide the answers I accept as factual, I will be happy to do so.) --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

I don’t see how anyone can just wave this population thing off as easily answered by population die off.

Sorry Tom, that's not an old show, but rather, a two-hour long PBS NOVA special documentary entitled "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" (And if you want an accurate account of that program, then read my Amazon.com review of it. Yours doesn't even closely approach the truth.):

"Appreciate you referring to evolution as a 'theory' in your original post. I watched an old PBS show concerning the Dover school board, and during the recreation of the trial, I thought it shrewd how the lawyers for the prosecution (the pro-evolution anti-creationist side) referred to the 'theory of gravity' in the same breath with the 'theory of evolution'. Shrewd, shrewd. Even in public school I learned about the 'Law of Gravity', not the 'Theory of Gravity'. Went over the judges head though. But, I digress. You say it is clear to you that evolutionary theory is the 'best available scientific theory'. You have allowed yourself to review any and all theories and make a selection as to which theory you wish to accept. Funny how many, and I don't think I'm wrong to say many, but many of those that accept the evolutionary theory go haywire when somebody else after reviewing the different theories does not jump on the bandwagon of evolutionary theory with them."

Scientific ideas aren't democratic, Tom. No one goes to a room filled of physicists or chemists or biologists or geologists to ask them to vote on two competing theories of science and then, by majority vote, the accepted theory is the one which wins the most votes. Scientific theories are constantly tested over time as scientific evidence is uncovered. Those that can be verified countless times may be viewed as "laws" like the the law of gravity. I would also contend that evolution be viewed as a "law" too since I know of no other scientific theory that is a well corroborated as evolution (Notice that I didn't say the theory of evolution via natural selection - which while it itself is extremely well corroborated, was deemed incomplete enough to be incorporated in a larger, more expansive, Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution, better known as the "Modern Synthesis". And today we have some biologists who contend that we need an "Extended Modern Synthesis".).

There are no scientific "thought police". Instead, they exist, where they have always been, in the Xian creationist community, of which one of the most notably pathetic examples is Ken Ham (I read a chilling account of Ham trying to educate eight year old children about why evolution isn't true, that bears an all too familiar resemblance to the Nazi Nuremberg Rallies and other forms of Nazi ideological indoctrination.

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it is a duck. Ken Ham is, for all practical purposes then, a Nazi:

"No choice. No freedom of thought. To accept a theory other than that of evolutionist then the person is lampooned as un-intellectual. Not accusing you of this, but you obviously must see it when it occurs as it is doesn't quite get more blatant as it does on this webpage. Though, I have read accounts of professors losing their tenure and grants because they have questioned the 'evolutionary theory'. One guy on here accused Ken Ham of being a Nazi. Then you have the 'thought control police' that have those who don't believe in evolution removed from their jobs."

No "creationist" scientists I know of - including those touted by your fellow intellectually-challenged creationists - have lost their jobs. There are quite a few, like, for example, Kurt Wise and Michael Behe, who have reasonably "respectable" careers in academia still. And I know of at least one creationist, Behe's Dishonesty Institute colleague Scott Minnich, who still publishes in peer-reviewed scientific journals (He has never attempted to publish on his creationist leanings; in other words, on his support of Intelligent Design.).

As I just said before (see above) there is so much ample scientific evidence supporting evolution that it too, like gravity, should be seen as a "law":

"Getting back to the 'Law of Gravity'. Nobody dismisses it, nobody offers up an alternative theory to Gravity and it is accepted as a Law, not a Theory. Where as the Theory of Evolution has those who offer alternative theories, but their beliefs in an alternative theory will be derided. If there was irrefutable proof to evolution, we would be calling it the 'Law of Evolution' and there would be no debate."

Truly sincere religiously-devout scientists like cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller and planetary scientist - and Vatican Astronomer (and Jesuit Brother) - Guy Consolmagno recognize that the subject of the Virgin Birth is one that falls outside the realm of science. Why? Scientifically they recognize that it is impossible, since we know of no mammals which are capable of parthenogenesis (the scientific term for "virgin birth"). They recognize instead that that is an issue that must be dealt by Christian theology, not science. Unfortunately this is a distinction not recognized by so-called "creation scientists", whether they belong to Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, or some other creationist "research" entity, such as, for example, the Dishonesty Institute:

"Yes, I didn't reply to your questions but came back with some questions of my own, which I duly noted you have yet to reply to either. Yes, I noted that you wanted to talk science, not theology. But I would guess there is many scientist and non-scientist that would say it is scientifically impossible for a virgin to give birth and scientifically impossible for a man who has been dead three days to get up and walk. If science has in your mind provided you the most excellent theory to explain origins, you should be able to use that same scientific mindset of yours to blow away the virgin birth and the resurection as impossible. And more so as factually impossible, not theoretically impossible. I want to find out how much you hold to your scientific belief system or whether you pick and choose."

Yours is an acute intellectually-challenged mind. I take pity on your mind, but not on you.

Live Long and Prosper (as an AIG Dalek clone),

John Kwok

Tom said: Appreciate you referring to evolution as a 'theory' in your original post. I watched an old PBS show concerning the Dover school board, and during the recreation of the trial, I thought it shrewd how the lawyers for the prosecution (the pro-evolution anti-creationist side) referred to the 'theory of gravity' in the same breath with the 'theory of evolution'. Shrewd, shrewd. Even in public school I learned about the "Law of Gravity", not the "Theory of Gravity".

Went over the judges head though. But, I digress. You say it is clear to you that evolutionary theory is the 'best available scientific theory'. You have allowed yourself to review any and all theories and make a selection as to which theory you wish to accept. Funny how many, and I don't think I'm wrong to say many, but many of those that accept the evolutionary theory go haywire when somebody else after reviewing the different theories does not jump on the bandwagon of evolutionary theory with them.

No choice. No freedom of thought. To accept a theory other than that of evolutionist then the person is lampooned as un-intellectual.

I have read accounts of professors losing their tenure and grants because they have questioned the 'evolutionary theory'.

Getting back to the "Law of Gravity". Nobody dismisses it...

...nobody offers up an alternative theory to Gravity...

...and it is accepted as a Law, not a Theory.

Where as the Theory of Evolution has those who offer alternative theories, but their beliefs in an alternative theory will be derided.

If there was irrefutable proof to evolution, we would be calling it the "Law of Evolution" and there would be no debate.

Hmm. I could be wrong, but I always thought a "law" was just a description of what happens, like d=1/2 (at²), and a theory explains why it happens (the shortest geodesic in space-time).

Tom says: Still, if you start with two people and you agree that the population count never gets lower than two, and if you go extreme and say it say takes 200 years for the population to double. In 5800 years at that very low rate of doubling you already have a billion people.

Tom wrote:

"Where as the Theory of Evolution has those who offer alternative theories, but their beliefs in an alternative theory will be derided."

Well, go right ahead, offer a scientific alternative theory. Please present your evidence and demonstrate how your alternative has more explanatory and predictive power than the theory of evolution. Please explain why none of the experts in evolutionary biology accept this alternative theory.

"If there was irrefutable proof to evolution, we would be calling it the “Law of Evolution” and there would be no debate."

OK then, let's call it the Law of Evolution. Fine by me. If you were familiar with the evidence you would know that the Law of Evolution is well supported by all of the evidence. Go on over to the thread on mistakes in pseudogenes for a discussion of some of the evidence. This is why we call it a theory. This is why we should v=call it a law. Get a clue.

MrL, it might be pointed out that the amount of land under cultivation is roughtly equivalent to the area of South America. That supports, not entirely adequately, over six billion people.

And we can ask our friend here if some catastrophe, say abrupt climate change, made it a struggle to maintain even half that arable land for a generation. Are we going to still have a population of over six billion when the crisis ends? Unfortunately, I think the number will be distinctly less.

And we have more land under cultivation -- thanks to power machinery and irrigation and all that -- under cultivation than we did 500 years ago, and our agricultural productivity is far greater. Agriculture has been slowly improving through our history, which means the farther we go back into the past the less population could be supported. Then we go to the era of hunter-gatherers,
and studied of MODERN hunter-gatherers show the land can support a population density AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than it will for an agricultural society.

This is not some whizzy theory. This is simple arithmetic: you can't get ten kilos of rice out of a five-kilo bag. But simple arithmetic or no, I despair of thinking that the response to this will be any more than a display of Invincible Ignorance (TM).

Cubist said:

Cubist said: Are you speaking out of ignorance, or are you just lying? Do any of these 'professors' have actual names? If so, name them. Let's see exactly who they are, and whether or not the facts of their respective cases agree with what you're asserting about them. One guy on here accused Ken Ham of being a Nazi. Then you have the 'thought control police' that have those who don't believe in evolution removed from their jobs.How dreadful. Do any of those victims of the Darwinian 'thought control police' have names? If so, name them. You're an honest, upstanding, Truth-seeking Christian, and not a follower of the Father of Lies, right? So I'm sure you won't have any trouble ponying up the details to support your accusation here.
Unless, of course, you actually are a follower of the Father of Lies, in which case you have your reward...

* Richard Sternberg, biologist where officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get him expelled from his position * Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University * Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university * Dr. Raymond Damadian who was denied the Nobel Peace prize for his MRI invention due to his creationist views. Oh, possibly there are other sinister reasons he was ignored by the committee, but it seems pretty reasonable that his stance concerning creation is what kept him from earning the prize. Granted, you may state that these scientists were not really scientists, or that some other reason exists other than their views on creationism that resulted in their downfall, but why should I believe you and not what others have said about them? Am I to take the notion that you alone tell the truth and the others are all liars? Please. Oh, "Father of Lies", now you are the one who sounds like you are preaching from a pulpit. lol

I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

MrG said: MrL, it might be pointed out that the amount of land under cultivation is roughtly equivalent to the area of South America. That supports, not entirely adequately, over six billion people. And we can ask our friend here if some catastrophe, say abrupt climate change, made it a struggle to maintain even half that arable land for a generation. Are we going to still have a population of over six billion when the crisis ends? Unfortunately, I think the number will be distinctly less. And we have more land under cultivation -- thanks to power machinery and irrigation and all that -- under cultivation than we did 500 years ago, and our agricultural productivity is far greater. Agriculture has been slowly improving through our history, which means the farther we go back into the past the less population could be supported. Then we go to the era of hunter-gatherers, and studied of MODERN hunter-gatherers show the land can support a population density AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than it will for an agricultural society. This is not some whizzy theory. This is simple arithmetic: you can't get ten kilos of rice out of a five-kilo bag. But simple arithmetic or no, I despair of thinking that the response to this will be any more than a display of Invincible Ignorance (TM).

Tom said: Yes, as with the virgin birth and Jesus's divinity and rising from the grave, the same with Creation was that I accepted it all based on faith. ... I still know they are scientifically impossible, unprovable, but fundamental to the Christian faith.

Tom said:

Cubist said:

Cubist said: Are you speaking out of ignorance, or are you just lying? Do any of these 'professors' have actual names? If so, name them. Let's see exactly who they are, and whether or not the facts of their respective cases agree with what you're asserting about them. One guy on here accused Ken Ham of being a Nazi. Then you have the 'thought control police' that have those who don't believe in evolution removed from their jobs.How dreadful. Do any of those victims of the Darwinian 'thought control police' have names? If so, name them. You're an honest, upstanding, Truth-seeking Christian, and not a follower of the Father of Lies, right? So I'm sure you won't have any trouble ponying up the details to support your accusation here.
Unless, of course, you actually are a follower of the Father of Lies, in which case you have your reward...

* Richard Sternberg, biologist where officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get him expelled from his position * Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University * Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university * Dr. Raymond Damadian who was denied the Nobel Peace prize for his MRI invention due to his creationist views. Oh, possibly there are other sinister reasons he was ignored by the committee, but it seems pretty reasonable that his stance concerning creation is what kept him from earning the prize. Granted, you may state that these scientists were not really scientists, or that some other reason exists other than their views on creationism that resulted in their downfall, but why should I believe you and not what others have said about them? Am I to take the notion that you alone tell the truth and the others are all liars? Please. Oh, "Father of Lies", now you are the one who sounds like you are preaching from a pulpit. lol

SWT said: I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

John Kwok said: No Tom, you are not only absolutely wrong, but you are also lying:

Tom said:

Cubist said:

Cubist said: Are you speaking out of ignorance, or are you just lying? Do any of these 'professors' have actual names? If so, name them. Let's see exactly who they are, and whether or not the facts of their respective cases agree with what you're asserting about them. One guy on here accused Ken Ham of being a Nazi. Then you have the 'thought control police' that have those who don't believe in evolution removed from their jobs.How dreadful. Do any of those victims of the Darwinian 'thought control police' have names? If so, name them. You're an honest, upstanding, Truth-seeking Christian, and not a follower of the Father of Lies, right? So I'm sure you won't have any trouble ponying up the details to support your accusation here.
Unless, of course, you actually are a follower of the Father of Lies, in which case you have your reward...

* Richard Sternberg, biologist where officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get him expelled from his position * Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University * Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university * Dr. Raymond Damadian who was denied the Nobel Peace prize for his MRI invention due to his creationist views. Oh, possibly there are other sinister reasons he was ignored by the committee, but it seems pretty reasonable that his stance concerning creation is what kept him from earning the prize. Granted, you may state that these scientists were not really scientists, or that some other reason exists other than their views on creationism that resulted in their downfall, but why should I believe you and not what others have said about them? Am I to take the notion that you alone tell the truth and the others are all liars? Please. Oh, "Father of Lies", now you are the one who sounds like you are preaching from a pulpit. lol

For the real facts as to what happened to them, you must look here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth Here's what it says about Sternberg, who is now a Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer, working out of its Seattle, WA-based office: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg Here's what it says about Gonzalez, whose tenure was denied for sound professional reasons, not because he was an ID creationist: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez And lastly, here's the truth about Crocker: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker As for Damadian, I strongly doubt that being a "creationist" was the reason why he was denied the Nobel Prize. Other scientists who are creationists like Scott Minnich, for example, still have productive scientific careers. Creationist inventor Forrest Mims was acknowledged by Scientific American for his achievements as an inventor; his support of creationism did not enter into Scientific American's consideration.

Tom said: So, MrG alias Mr. Invincible Intelligence, where are the bodies? Where are the graveyards?

Don't tell me people in the past new they only had so much food so they tempered their sexual indulgences to only produce enough children for which they could support.

Assuming you are well read, you realize that evolutionist are not finding lots of human bones dating back to hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Tom,

Even when I present you the truth without relying upon URL links, you seem incapable of acknowledging it. I thought you were delusional. But you are not merely delusional. You are also a delusional liar for spreading the canard that creationist "scientist" have been persecuted by mainstream scientists for holding onto their beliefs. The links I provided also document medical school professor Michael Egnor, who is still a professor of medicine at Stony Brook University, not far from New York City.

Live Long and Prosper (as an AiG Dalek Clone),

John Kwok

OK, guy, let's break this down into a form into which you will not have so much difficulty understanding:

% You claim that if humans had been around a long time, their inevitable geometric progression would have carpeted the Earth by now.

% I claim that as long as humans have been around, their population has been rigidly restricted by their food supply and that your geometric progression argument is irrelevant.

So let's forget about how old you think the Earth is, okay? Let's just ask the question: will the population grow at a rate greater than the food supply permits?

It is an obvious FACT that it cannot. If your car gets 30 MPG, you cannot drive 100 miles on a gallon of gas.

bobsie said:

Tom said: Yes, as with the virgin birth and Jesus's divinity and rising from the grave, the same with Creation was that I accepted it all based on faith. ... I still know they are scientifically impossible, unprovable, but fundamental to the Christian faith.

A literal acceptance of the Genesis science is not fundamental to the Christian faith. Many Christians understand that Genesis accommodates to the ancient science of the Hebrews of a three tiered universe and cannot be a modern science truth. For example, the Genesis firmament was understood in ancient science to hold back the above waters thus explaining the visually dominant blue “structure” overhead. The Genesis firmament blue sky phenomena was the science of the times and was an accomodation to the ancient Hebrew intellect. The theological Genesis message will be lost unless you factor out the ancient science accomodation. You believe your God could never lie and that is your sole reasoning for rejecting science and insisting that an ancient science must be the modern truth. However, isn't it God's very own handwriting in the natural world. Aren't you rejecting this very personal direct connection to your Creator by refusing to understand accept the natural world fingerprints of God?

Tom said:

SWT said: I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

SWT, of all people on this website I expected better of you. I am truly surprised. Are you accusing me of creating words and saying the cubist said them? Calling me a liar? Your not the first to say that about me on here. Like I said, nothing is original from either side. Still, you don't have to go far back to read that what I quoted of the cubist is what the cubist wrote.

MrG said: OK, guy, let's break this down into a form into which you will not have so much difficulty understanding: % You claim that if humans had been around a long time, their inevitable geometric progression would have carpeted the Earth by now. % I claim that as long as humans have been around, their population has been rigidly restricted by their food supply and that your geometric progression argument is irrelevant. So let's forget about how old you think the Earth is, okay? Let's just ask the question: will the population grow at a rate greater than the food supply permits? It is an obvious FACT that it cannot. If your car gets 30 MPG, you cannot drive 100 miles on a gallon of gas.

Tom said:

bobsie said:

Tom said: Yes, as with the virgin birth and Jesus's divinity and rising from the grave, the same with Creation was that I accepted it all based on faith. ... I still know they are scientifically impossible, unprovable, but fundamental to the Christian faith.

A literal acceptance of the Genesis science is not fundamental to the Christian faith. Many Christians understand that Genesis accommodates to the ancient science of the Hebrews of a three tiered universe and cannot be a modern science truth. For example, the Genesis firmament was understood in ancient science to hold back the above waters thus explaining the visually dominant blue “structure” overhead. The Genesis firmament blue sky phenomena was the science of the times and was an accomodation to the ancient Hebrew intellect. The theological Genesis message will be lost unless you factor out the ancient science accomodation. You believe your God could never lie and that is your sole reasoning for rejecting science and insisting that an ancient science must be the modern truth. However, isn't it God's very own handwriting in the natural world. Aren't you rejecting this very personal direct connection to your Creator by refusing to understand accept the natural world fingerprints of God?

Bobsie, I will acknowledge that by faith I accepted the account of Genesis, and I believe because of that faith it allowed me and challenged me to look more deeply into what the creationists said. I do not believe Genesis is written with a hidden theological meaning, but believe it is historical as are many other stories in the Bible. Yes, it does address the first sin, but the account of creation itself is plainly, in my mind, just historical. Yes, I agree, you can believe in evolution and you can believe in God. I find nothing in the Bible to say you can't. It just seems incongruous that a Christian would reject the Genesis account on scientific grounds, but still accept the virgin birth, the Resurrection and for that matter, God Himself, who cannot be proven. So, for me, if God lied in Genesis, why should I trust him to tell the truth anywhere else in the Bible? Got to be careful here though, getting too much into theology and not enough into science and I'm learning that is considered a 'no no' on this webpage. :)

Tom said:

MrG said: OK, guy, let's break this down into a form into which you will not have so much difficulty understanding: % You claim that if humans had been around a long time, their inevitable geometric progression would have carpeted the Earth by now. % I claim that as long as humans have been around, their population has been rigidly restricted by their food supply and that your geometric progression argument is irrelevant. So let's forget about how old you think the Earth is, okay? Let's just ask the question: will the population grow at a rate greater than the food supply permits? It is an obvious FACT that it cannot. If your car gets 30 MPG, you cannot drive 100 miles on a gallon of gas.

Alright, so every few hundred years or so, there is a famine that wipes out the majority of the population. Very few survivors are left, so they don't bury the dead allowing them to fully decompose/decay to non-existence. The few survivors move on to avoid any disease from the dead. The few survivors will die in the next famine and will never ever quite figure out that they need to be storing food in preparation for the next famine. No, that will not happen until the last few thousands years of current history. Prior to that, people just won't get this thing about famines. And fortunately, the famine will never ever take it's toll upon everyone. Note: famine could mean plague, freezing temperatures, any calamity to wipe out most, but not all of the people. There will always be a remnant that remains to continue another try at re-populating the earth. Hmmm. You didn't say those words, but that is how I have to simplify it to understand why we don't have trillions of people on the face of the earth. I may have to dwell on this for a while to fully appreciate your views on this. Oh, I must ask MrG. When do you believe that man came upon the face of the earth? You know, when did he first walk up right? What time frame do you guess it to be? Feel free to quote a number from someone else. I won't fault you for doing so.

Tom said: Alright, so every few hundred years or so, there is a famine that wipes out the majority of the population. Very few survivors are left, so they don't bury the dead allowing them to fully decompose/decay to non-existence. The few survivors move on to avoid any disease from the dead. The few survivors will die in the next famine and will never ever quite figure out that they need to be storing food in preparation for the next famine. No, that will not happen until the last few thousands years of current history. Prior to that, people just won't get this thing about famines. And fortunately, the famine will never ever take it's toll upon everyone. Note: famine could mean plague, freezing temperatures, any calamity to wipe out most, but not all of the people. There will always be a remnant that remains to continue another try at re-populating the earth. Hmmm. You didn't say those words, but that is how I have to simplify it to understand why we don't have trillions of people on the face of the earth. I may have to dwell on this for a while to fully appreciate your views on this. Oh, I must ask MrG. When do you believe that man came upon the face of the earth? You know, when did he first walk up right? What time frame do you guess it to be? Feel free to quote a number from someone else. I won't fault you for doing so.

Tom said: So, for me, if God lied in Genesis, why should I trust him to tell the truth anywhere else in the Bible?

Anyone else notice how Tom has refused to demonstrate how a literal reading of the english translation of the Book of Genesis is supposed to be a better scientific explanation than Evolutionary Biology?

Tom,

You seem to forget that for the vast majority of their history humans were hunter gatherers trying to survive in harsh environments. They lacked modern sanitation, medicine or agriculture. Their population densities were extremely low for many hundreds of thousands of years. They had short miserably lives were prone to all sorts of diseases. They had very low survivorship, fertility and fecundity. They had lots of predators and lots of competition for resources.

If you think that your logic will somehow magically transform the earth into being only a few thousand years old, you are sadly mistaken. Just ask yourself this, if fruit flies, which can mature in two weeks and can lay up to fifty eggs a day for over a month, have been around for thousands of years, shouldn't they have covered the earth knee deep in fruit flies by now? Now do you see the logical flaw in your thinking?

The fundamental problem Tom has is a gross lack of understanding of just how much is known about all the issues he raises. He speaks as if he thinks scientists just sit around bouncing ideas off each other and occasionally reach a consensus by all saying "yeah, that sounds reasonable". He simply doesn't understand what is known.

Tom, you remind me of a buddy who could never accept that I could count cards in blackjack successfully. To him all systems were scams, the house always had the edge, and no matter how much my chip stack piled up, he refused to change his views because it didn't make sense to him.

There's a lot that is true that isn't going to make sense to him, or you. Deal.

SWT said: I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

MrG said:

Tom said: Alright, so every few hundred years or so, there is a famine that wipes out the majority of the population. Very few survivors are left, so they don't bury the dead allowing them to fully decompose/decay to non-existence. The few survivors move on to avoid any disease from the dead. The few survivors will die in the next famine and will never ever quite figure out that they need to be storing food in preparation for the next famine. No, that will not happen until the last few thousands years of current history. Prior to that, people just won't get this thing about famines. And fortunately, the famine will never ever take it's toll upon everyone. Note: famine could mean plague, freezing temperatures, any calamity to wipe out most, but not all of the people. There will always be a remnant that remains to continue another try at re-populating the earth. Hmmm. You didn't say those words, but that is how I have to simplify it to understand why we don't have trillions of people on the face of the earth. I may have to dwell on this for a while to fully appreciate your views on this. Oh, I must ask MrG. When do you believe that man came upon the face of the earth? You know, when did he first walk up right? What time frame do you guess it to be? Feel free to quote a number from someone else. I won't fault you for doing so.

Hang on, I don't know what you are saying. What I think you are claiming is: "The Earth cannot be old because the geometric progression of the growth of human population would have carpeted the world by now." Is this your argument or not? I reply: "This argument proves nothing because, no matter how long you think the Earth has been around, human population cannot grow at a greater rate than allowed by the available food supply. You cannot have a population greater than the food available to feed it." Forget about how old the Earth is. What is the case? Human population expands continuously? Or is it limited by the supply of food? I say it is limited by the supply of food. Am I wrong? Just a YES or NO answer will do.

Tom said: Yes, of course. Can't survive on just air and water.

So, Tom, tell us how many people were on the Earth 4,000 years ago, back when Noah's Flood ended, and the Pyramids of Giza were built.

Science Avenger said: The fundamental problem Tom has is a gross lack of understanding of just how much is known about all the issues he raises. He speaks as if he thinks scientists just sit around bouncing ideas off each other and occasionally reach a consensus by all saying "yeah, that sounds reasonable". He simply doesn't understand what is known. Tom, you remind me of a buddy who could never accept that I could count cards in blackjack successfully. To him all systems were scams, the house always had the edge, and no matter how much my chip stack piled up, he refused to change his views because it didn't make sense to him. There's a lot that is true that isn't going to make sense to him, or you. Deal.

Tom says So, for me, if God lied in Genesis, why should I trust him to tell the truth anywhere else in the Bible?

Tom said: I have to agree. Deal me in. I'm not, nor will I ever be at the point that everything that is true makes sense to me. For those who can say with all honesty "that all truth makes sense to them" let them please stand up and be counted.

Dave Luckett said: Honest, what in the name of Phut is so hard about this?

Dave Luckett said: Tom's silly enough to think that human population growth depends on their sexual practices. It doesn't. It depends on whether the increase has enough to eat. If some proportion of them don't have enough to eat, that proportion dies and ceases to be population ... Honest, what in the name of Phut is so hard about this?

MrG said:

Tom said: Yes, of course. Can't survive on just air and water.

Great. We are in agreement that human population does not grow exponentially indefinitely and so that cannot be used as an argument for the age of the Earth. Now I am sure that you have other arguments for the short age of the Earth, but I was only really interested in this one -- it just seemed to have such an obvious hole that I couldn't let it ride. Carry on.

Tom said: MrG, I agree that human growth does not continue to grow exponentially indefinitely without a supporting food supply.

Stanton said: Anyone else notice how Tom has refused to demonstrate how a literal reading of the english translation of the Book of Genesis is supposed to be a better scientific explanation than Evolutionary Biology?

Why should we tell you anything, when you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no intention of listening to what we have to say?

Why can't you explain to us how Noah and his family were able to miraculously repopulate the world 4,000 years ago, while building the Pyramids of Giza and rebuilding all of the cities of Mesopotamia?

MrG said:

Tom said: MrG, I agree that human growth does not continue to grow exponentially indefinitely without a supporting food supply.

Well, that was the only point I was making -- I felt that you were making an argument on a false premise, and you acknowledge that you were. What other premises you have, false or otherwise, are not of much interest to me. Carry on.

Tom said:

Stanton said: Anyone else notice how Tom has refused to demonstrate how a literal reading of the english translation of the Book of Genesis is supposed to be a better scientific explanation than Evolutionary Biology?

Stanton, I noticed. Didn't realize that it was for me, the uniformed, to prove to anyone else here the truth about anything. I've been called so many things on this site that all of you should, if not already, question each word I say as whether it is true or not. :)

Stanton said: Why should we tell you anything, when you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no intention of listening to what we have to say? Why can't you explain to us how Noah and his family were able to miraculously repopulate the world 4,000 years ago, while building the Pyramids of Giza and rebuilding all of the cities of Mesopotamia?

Tom said: Once again, quoting me as saying something I did not say. Funny.

Would like to see how one of you can explain to me or even to another fellow evolutionist, just what happened to the trillions upon trillions of people that should be on the face of this earth if man appeared on the earth hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago.

Tom said:

MrG said:

Tom said: MrG, I agree that human growth does not continue to grow exponentially indefinitely without a supporting food supply.

Well, that was the only point I was making -- I felt that you were making an argument on a false premise, and you acknowledge that you were. What other premises you have, false or otherwise, are not of much interest to me. Carry on.

Once again, quoting me as saying something I did not say. Funny.

Stanton said:

Tom said:

Stanton said: Anyone else notice how Tom has refused to demonstrate how a literal reading of the english translation of the Book of Genesis is supposed to be a better scientific explanation than Evolutionary Biology?

Stanton, I noticed. Didn't realize that it was for me, the uniformed, to prove to anyone else here the truth about anything. I've been called so many things on this site that all of you should, if not already, question each word I say as whether it is true or not. :)

If you want to demonstrate how magically superior you are to all the scientists in the world, whom you believe are delusionally repeating lies to make them true, then please do so immediately. If you do not, then please go away and stop bothering us.

MrG said:

Tom said: Once again, quoting me as saying something I did not say. Funny.

Fraud:

Would like to see how one of you can explain to me or even to another fellow evolutionist, just what happened to the trillions upon trillions of people that should be on the face of this earth if man appeared on the earth hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago.

Tom said:

Stanton said: Why should we tell you anything, when you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no intention of listening to what we have to say? Why can't you explain to us how Noah and his family were able to miraculously repopulate the world 4,000 years ago, while building the Pyramids of Giza and rebuilding all of the cities of Mesopotamia?

Oh, heck, I don't know. But Stanton, I'm pretty sure someone other than yourself came up with your above question. You are not the first to ask that questions, so let me answer the question from somebody other than myself. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/people-build-pyramids Yes, that despised Answers in Genesis group I'm quoting from.

Since you have not answered any of my questions or responded to any of my posts, consider yourself ignored. Now go away like you promised.

Tom said:

Stanton said:

Tom said:

Stanton said: Anyone else notice how Tom has refused to demonstrate how a literal reading of the english translation of the Book of Genesis is supposed to be a better scientific explanation than Evolutionary Biology?

Stanton, I noticed. Didn't realize that it was for me, the uniformed, to prove to anyone else here the truth about anything. I've been called so many things on this site that all of you should, if not already, question each word I say as whether it is true or not. :)

If you want to demonstrate how magically superior you are to all the scientists in the world, whom you believe are delusionally repeating lies to make them true, then please do so immediately. If you do not, then please go away and stop bothering us.

Stanton, I will quit replying, excuse me, bothering you fine folks, if you quit replying to my posts. lol Truly, I will go away when you all stop talking to me. ;)

DS said: Since you have not answered any of my questions or responded to any of my posts, consider yourself ignored. Now go away like you promised.

But Tom says he will go away if we stop replying. I take him at his word. He's going to declare victory in the end no matter what happens.

Tom said: So, my question is, regardless of the earth's age, if man has been around for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, why is there only recorded history that goes back around 5 thousand years?

I won't squabble about dating methods, but do explain why there is no long term history from cultures and recorded written language is so extensive from the start?

Why does recorded history go back only 5 000 years?

How do you record history? Yes, that's right. You write stuff down.

And what do you need to know before you can write stuff down? Yes, you need to know what you want to write down, sure, but to write it down you need...?

Yes, that's right. You need a writing system. You know, signs for words or sounds. Ordered pixels. Paper. Quill pens. Brushes and ink. Clay tablets and a little pointed stick. That stuff.

And when were the first writing systems being developed?... let's not always see the same hands...

Uh-huh. Five or six thousand years ago. And, paradoxically, which were the first places where history is known? That's right, the places where writing first developed.

So. What causes recorded history? Writing causes recorded history. When does recorded history start? When writing is developed.

That's why recorded history only goes back 5 000 years.

How long has 'man' been on the Earth?

Well, that would depend on what you define as "man". The fossil record on our own species and our immediate precursors demonstrates that there's no hard-and-fast point where our lineage became "human".

I'll take a flyer at it. If we define "man" (can we say "humans" please?) as "a species that makes tools requiring more than one process, and with language that has grammar", then probably we can call H habilis "human", because the chances are pretty good that habilis had those characteristics. This would put "human" occupancy of (some of) the Earth about 1.6 to 2.0 million years old.

But H habilis was certainly not our species. There is even a chance that it was not a direct ancestor. Humans of our species, H sapiens, appeared around 100 000 years ago, and have developed since then.

Tom said:

Stanton said: Why should we tell you anything, when you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no intention of listening to what we have to say? Why can't you explain to us how Noah and his family were able to miraculously repopulate the world 4,000 years ago, while building the Pyramids of Giza and rebuilding all of the cities of Mesopotamia?

Oh, heck, I don't know. But Stanton, I'm pretty sure someone other than yourself came up with your above question. You are not the first to ask that questions, so let me answer the question from somebody other than myself. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/people-build-pyramids Yes, that despised Answers in Genesis group I'm quoting from.

Tom said:

MrG said:

Tom said: Once again, quoting me as saying something I did not say. Funny.

Fraud:

Would like to see how one of you can explain to me or even to another fellow evolutionist, just what happened to the trillions upon trillions of people that should be on the face of this earth if man appeared on the earth hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago.

When I did my little excel spread sheet. I started with 2 people, and had the population doubling ever 200 years. Did that to account for deaths by plague, old age, whatever. So, I had it taking 200 years before the population got to 4 and 400 years before the population got to 8. Seemed fair enough. Would have loved to seen a mathematical algorithm from you or anyone else that I could use along with the number of years that man has been on this earth. So far, nobody has provided that information to me. Do I dare accuse you or anyone else on here as to avoiding the 'tough questions'? lol

Tom said:

W. H. Heydt said: Tom... To support what Mr. Luckett said about population controls, look up data on the 19th century Irish Potato Famine. The population of Ireland *still* hasn't completely recovered.

Tom said: Oh, yes, agreed wars, famines, etc., can all have a impact and at times a significant impact upon populations. No dispute concerning that. Still, if you start with two people and you agree that the population count never gets lower than two, and if you go extreme and say it say takes 200 years for the population to double.

Several other posters have adequately rebutted your point. There are natural constraints on unlimited human population growth, and they have been more severe in the past. Whether the bottleneck events (look up Toba and read the August 2010 issue of _Scientific American_ for two outstanding examples) are taken into account or not.

Second point... From your remarks, I am dubious that you understand what is meant in a scientific context by the term "theory". I suggest that you do some research on what a theory is, and how it contrasts to (for instance) a hypothesis.

Tom said: Did my research, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis.htm, and this site which supports the evolution as factual. Problem arises in our disagreements here and they will probably never be resolved is that there are scientists that dispute (i.e. poke holes) in the hypothesis for evolution. Granted, there is a good chance many on this site will claim they are not real or good scientists, so their arguments don't hold water. What I like on AIG's site (which I'm careful not to cut and paste links from there to here for risk of antagonizing those on here who don't like cut & paste) is they quote the evolutionists. They even quote evolutionists who poke holes in other evolutionists hypothesis.

Of course there are scientists that poke hole in the Theory of Evolution. However, bear in mind that they are poking holes in *details* of it. Beware of AIGs proclivity to quote mine statements out of context.

Third point... If Newton's work on gravity and motion were done today, it *would* be the "Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Motion", rather than "Laws of ...".

Tom said: Okay. You could elaborate why that would be the case, but I'm guessing I either won't get the point or I will disagree with your point. All that comes to my mind is politically correctness impacting what we say and do today that might influence that, but don't think that is what you are trying to imply.

The simplest way I can put it is: With the degree of confirmation we have, by the standards of past nomenclature, it would be "the Law of Relativity", rather than "the Theory of Relativity". Calling something a "Law" has fallen out style. In my personal opinion, this is because there is a greater awareness of scientific theories never being "proven" in the sense that mathematical theorems can be proven. *All* scientific theories are subject to being overturned and replaced. The likelihood of this happening for major, well supported theories (like Evolution) is vanishingly small, but still possible.

Fourth point... You have been conflating the FACT of Evolution--the OBSERVED fact that species change over time--with the THEORY of Evolution--the best explanation we have of how these changes occur.

Tom said: Yes, I agree there are changes within a species, but not a species evolving into another species. Transitional forms. The evolutionist lack the transitional forms. Sure, they have a fish with fins in the water, a fish that walks out of the water using it's fins, and then a land animal with feet, but all the micro transitions don't exist. Yes, I know some evolutionist explain it away with mutations exploding very quickly. That is blowing smoke to hide the fact that transitional forms don't exist. If they do, get your hands on it and you know it would sell for millions.

FACT: speciation has been observed in both laboratory and the field. FACT: creationists make the canard about "not enough transitions" because unless every single individual in a transitional sequence can be found and shown, they will still claim insufficient detail. FACT: Transitional forms *do* exist. Go look them up (TalkOrigins has a lot of data on this).

Fifth point... You still have no answered the fundamental questions: How old is the universe? How old is the Earth? How old is life on Earth? Surely in your understanding, these questions have numerical answers, even if they include ranges of values rather than single values.

Tom said: Oh, I have to go back to the 6 to 7 thousand years for the age of universe/earth. Did I originate this answer on my own? Heck no, just like none of you came up with evolution on your own. I read the book, Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Russ Humphrys who used Einstein's theory of relativity to argue the 'theory' for a young universe. I thought it was excellent. So, life itself on the earth is younger than the earth and has not had the millions of years to evolve. Sure, let me know what say, I can probably take an 'educated' guess and google to find out what wikipedia says is the age, but you may have a age for all of this that is totally unique and of your own development.

I accept that the researchers in the relevant fields are honest and report honestly what their findings are. At my last check, that puts the age of the universe around 13.5 billion years, the Earth at about 4.55 billion years. Life is trickier, since not everyone accepts all findings. Life on Earth is virtually certain to be at least 2 billion years old and could easily be 3+ billion years old. (Single cells don't "fossilize" readily and some claimed remains are in dispute....see my remarks above on scientists disputing other scientists theories.) I will address some specifics about your age claim separately.... --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Stanton said:

Tom said:

Stanton said: Why should we tell you anything, when you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no intention of listening to what we have to say? Why can't you explain to us how Noah and his family were able to miraculously repopulate the world 4,000 years ago, while building the Pyramids of Giza and rebuilding all of the cities of Mesopotamia?

Oh, heck, I don't know. But Stanton, I'm pretty sure someone other than yourself came up with your above question. You are not the first to ask that questions, so let me answer the question from somebody other than myself. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/people-build-pyramids Yes, that despised Answers in Genesis group I'm quoting from.

Tell me why I should trust what Answers In Genesis says, when the site's owner specifically stated that Steve Irwin is burning in Hell forever for the unforgiveable sin of believing in Evolution? The people at Answers in Genesis also deliberately misconstrued one non-native English speaker's attempt at politeness to be a condoning of cannibalism and human sacrifice, and then proceeded to ignore his original complaint so they could condemn him as an evil man who supported murder and cannibalism. And then there was the times they wrote how Evolutionism was somehow the direct cause of the Columbine shootings, 9/11, and virtually every tragedy and massacre that makes headlines. Tell me again why anyone should trust such a maliciously dishonest website, run by slanderers for Jesus.

Didn’t this guy say somewhere that he was 48? Fascinating.

I have slogged through many of the videos over AiG, and I have been reading creationist arguments for over 40 years.

What really stands out at AiG is that all of its “arguments” are aimed at children and adolescents. They bamboozle children and pre-adolescents easily. The reading levels, the forms of reasoning, the absolutist logic, and the air of authority are all aimed at the level of kids.

Even the PhD experts pushing this crap on AiG think like children.

On would think that adults would have gained enough experience to at least wonder if what is being pawned off on them is really true; are the speakers really informed about this stuff or are they playing games.

Yet here we have a supposed adult, Tom, who thinks like a pre-adolescent. I think many people have noticed that many fundamentalists are locked into a young adolescent stage of thinking and reasoning. They still depend on daddy and mommy telling them what is true or false. But now Ken Ham and his cadre of “PhD experts” become daddy and mommy for those who get swept up in this bullshit.

As I said earlier, you have to hand it to Ken Ham and his crew; they can spot a mark miles away.

Tom said:

W. H. Heydt said: Fifth point... You still have no answered the fundamental questions: How old is the universe? How old is the Earth? How old is life on Earth? Surely in your understanding, these questions have numerical answers, even if they include ranges of values rather than single values.

Oh, I have to go back to the 6 to 7 thousand years for the age of universe/earth.

DS said: Tom, You seem to forget that for the vast majority of their history humans were hunter gatherers trying to survive in harsh environments. They lacked modern sanitation, medicine or agriculture. Their population densities were extremely low for many hundreds of thousands of years. They had short miserably lives were prone to all sorts of diseases. They had very low survivorship, fertility and fecundity. They had lots of predators and lots of competition for resources. If you think that your logic will somehow magically transform the earth into being only a few thousand years old, you are sadly mistaken. Just ask yourself this, if fruit flies, which can mature in two weeks and can lay up to fifty eggs a day for over a month, have been around for thousands of years, shouldn't they have covered the earth knee deep in fruit flies by now? Now do you see the logical flaw in your thinking?

Tom said: I have to agree. Deal me in. I'm not, nor will I ever be at the point that everything that is true makes sense to me. For those who can say with all honesty "that all truth makes sense to them" let them please stand up and be counted.

Science Avenger said:

Tom said: I have to agree. Deal me in. I'm not, nor will I ever be at the point that everything that is true makes sense to me. For those who can say with all honesty "that all truth makes sense to them" let them please stand up and be counted.

Well then why aren't you like me, accepting (as the best we've got) the opinions on scientific matters from those who have spent their lives studying the subject, instead of claiming they are all wet based on something you read from someone who HASN'T been studying the subject scientifically? If you asked me and a professional plumber how to best fix your clogged sink, who's opinion are you going to trust? And what's more complicated, biology or plumbing?

Stanton said:

Science Avenger said:

Tom said: I have to agree. Deal me in. I'm not, nor will I ever be at the point that everything that is true makes sense to me. For those who can say with all honesty "that all truth makes sense to them" let them please stand up and be counted.

Well then why aren't you like me, accepting (as the best we've got) the opinions on scientific matters from those who have spent their lives studying the subject, instead of claiming they are all wet based on something you read from someone who HASN'T been studying the subject scientifically? If you asked me and a professional plumber how to best fix your clogged sink, who's opinion are you going to trust? And what's more complicated, biology or plumbing?

That is because Tom is a lobotomized idiot who is here just to mock and antagonize us because we haven't become Idiots for Jesus, too.

Tom said: Stanton, Wow! So, we have gone from a scientific question about the population to a theological question about Steve Irwin's final destiny. Hmmm. I went to read about Steve Irwin on AIG http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0904irwin.asp and I do believe you are reading more into it than it says. But, that is my viewpoint, not yours. You sound pretty emotional about it, so I won't ask you to reread it and prove to me that it says what you say it says. I can be harsh, but not that harsh.

Tom said:

MrG said:

Tom said: Yes, of course. Can't survive on just air and water.

Great. We are in agreement that human population does not grow exponentially indefinitely and so that cannot be used as an argument for the age of the Earth. Now I am sure that you have other arguments for the short age of the Earth, but I was only really interested in this one -- it just seemed to have such an obvious hole that I couldn't let it ride. Carry on.

MrG, I agree that human growth does not continue to grow exponentially indefinitely without a supporting food supply. But, it would appear to me that you believe man's past calamities to be of such a nature that the majority of the population is continually being wiped out. Think we will never agree on this one. Though, I'm still interested what your opinion is concerning how many years ago man appeared first on the earth and would like to hear from you or from somebody else on here who would be willing to share what they believe. I realize nobody can factually say, man appeared 3.2 million years ago, as it can't be proven, but I know I'm not the only one that has beliefs on here, that can't be backed by scientific proof. Prove me wrong if anyone can state factually when man appeared. Please. Okay, a while back in my post I mentioned the world wide flood. Not sure if I really posted a question to the group, but I thought I might hear some groans concerning a world wide flood. My understanding is most, not all, never say all, most evolutionist dismiss the idea of a world wide flood and only believe in localized floods here and there. So, my question is, regardless of the earth's age, if man has been around for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, why is there only recorded history that goes back around 5 thousand years? Sure, if you say there is writing on a stone that has been dated back 10,000 years, I won't squabble about dating methods, but do explain why there is no long term history from cultures and recorded written language is so extensive from the start?

John Kwok said: I'm sure he's not as cute as the two teenagers I met on the New York City subway two Mondays ago, who admitted to me that they've become intellectual prostitutes of Ken Ham.

Dave Luckett said:

Tom says So, for me, if God lied in Genesis, why should I trust him to tell the truth anywhere else in the Bible?

And there we have the fundamentalist Heart of Darkness. Total black-and-white. Genesis must be a severely literal account of the history of the Earth, or else God's a liar.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said:

Tom says So, for me, if God lied in Genesis, why should I trust him to tell the truth anywhere else in the Bible?

And there we have the fundamentalist Heart of Darkness. Total black-and-white. Genesis must be a severely literal account of the history of the Earth, or else God's a liar.

Tom has swallowed Ken Ham’s AiG dogma hook, line, and sinker. This is hammered home in video after video after video. The lines are droned and repeated in every interview of the young “PhD’s” I have seen. This suggests to me that Ham has found a mantra that is good for business. That business is not just Ham’s new empire; it’s the home schooling market as well. I think that is why their language levels and reading levels are primarily for children and adolescents.

Tom said: So, for me, if God lied in Genesis, why should I trust him to tell the truth anywhere else in the Bible?

This is straight from the AIG site under their mission statement.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Whatever AIG is talking about, it most certainly is not science. This is a public statement that AIG will lie about science to dishonestly prove their theological interpretation bias.

I'll address this to any lurkers here vs. Tom specifically

periodical famine/war/plague etc. are not the only factors that keep a population (of people) in check- actually these occurrences are relatively rare.

if total available calories/food/resources "x" will support population of "y" individuals, then, when there is less than "x" food etc. population growth slows/people start to die/ less children get born/ less children live to reproductive age.

so, when population exceeds resources, what happens (especially in pre-industrial societies)?

1) the old/sick/weak - don't live as long/die

2) fecundity goes down (people have less children because there are more miscarriages/stillbirths etc- starving mothers tend not to have healthy children/successful pregnancies)

3) fertility goes down ( starving potential mothers have difficulty getting pregnant)

4) Migrations- people try yo go to where the food/space/resources are. Sometimes this works - sometimes they encounter other groups that don't want to share and this leads to conflicts

these factors don't lead to populations doubling every 200 years then catastrophically dropping off - these factors tend to lead to a population that grows until food (or some other resource) tends to become a limiting factor and then remaining stable (births = deaths). For Humans, that means that population size is limited by technology - Hunter/Gatherer societies can get "x" amount of calories per sq. mile so their population is limited to what "x" will support. The Invention of agriculture lead to more food available and population grew. Further innovations lead to more resources available and greater populations.

bobsie said: This is straight from the AIG site under their mission statement. "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." Whatever AIG is talking about, it most certainly is not science. This is a public statement that AIG will lie about science to dishonestly prove their theological interpretation bias.

JASONMITCHELL said: I'll address this to any lurkers here vs. Tom specifically periodical famine/war/plague etc. are not the only factors that keep a population (of people) in check- actually these occurrences are relatively rare. if total available calories/food/resources "x" will support population of "y" individuals, then, when there is less than "x" food etc. population growth slows/people start to die/ less children get born/ less children live to reproductive age. so, when population exceeds resources, what happens (especially in pre-industrial societies)? 1) the old/sick/weak - don't live as long/die 2) fecundity goes down (people have less children because there are more miscarriages/stillbirths etc- starving mothers tend not to have healthy children/successful pregnancies) 3) fertility goes down ( starving potential mothers have difficulty getting pregnant) 4) Migrations- people try yo go to where the food/space/resources are. Sometimes this works - sometimes they encounter other groups that don't want to share and this leads to conflicts these factors don't lead to populations doubling every 200 years then catastrophically dropping off - these factors tend to lead to a population that grows until food (or some other resource) tends to become a limiting factor and then remaining stable (births = deaths). For Humans, that means that population size is limited by technology - Hunter/Gatherer societies can get "x" amount of calories per sq. mile so their population is limited to what "x" will support. The Invention of agriculture lead to more food available and population grew. Further innovations lead to more resources available and greater populations.

Tom said: And I don't believe he just finally wised up in the past 5 thousand years or so. From that standpoint, I will probably never get a satisfactory answer from any of you concerning population.

D'oh! Apologies for the repeat post...

John Kwok said: Which is exactly why human population growth - or that of any animal population (but for other, related reaons) - can only be modeled accurately via some logistic model of population growth:

JASONMITCHELL said: I'll address this to any lurkers here vs. Tom specifically periodical famine/war/plague etc. are not the only factors that keep a population (of people) in check- actually these occurrences are relatively rare. if total available calories/food/resources "x" will support population of "y" individuals, then, when there is less than "x" food etc. population growth slows/people start to die/ less children get born/ less children live to reproductive age. so, when population exceeds resources, what happens (especially in pre-industrial societies)? 1) the old/sick/weak - don't live as long/die 2) fecundity goes down (people have less children because there are more miscarriages/stillbirths etc- starving mothers tend not to have healthy children/successful pregnancies) 3) fertility goes down ( starving potential mothers have difficulty getting pregnant) 4) Migrations- people try yo go to where the food/space/resources are. Sometimes this works - sometimes they encounter other groups that don't want to share and this leads to conflicts these factors don't lead to populations doubling every 200 years then catastrophically dropping off - these factors tend to lead to a population that grows until food (or some other resource) tends to become a limiting factor and then remaining stable (births = deaths). For Humans, that means that population size is limited by technology - Hunter/Gatherer societies can get "x" amount of calories per sq. mile so their population is limited to what "x" will support. The Invention of agriculture lead to more food available and population grew. Further innovations lead to more resources available and greater populations.

SWT said: I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

Tom said:

SWT said: I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

SWT, of all people on this website I expected better of you. I am truly surprised. Are you accusing me of creating words and saying the cubist said them?

Calling me a liar?

Your not the first to say that about me on here. Like I said, nothing is original from either side. Still, you don't have to go far back to read that what I quoted of the cubist is what the cubist wrote.

JASONMITCHELL said: periodical famine/war/plague etc. are not the only factors that keep a population (of people) in check- actually these occurrences are relatively rare.

Aren't abrupt population booms and busts fairly normal for small, fast-breeding animals with short lifetimes? Rodents being the typcial example. They have a good year thanks to rains that produce a bumper crop of food, they breed like crazy and they're all over the place. A few years later, there's a drought and the population crashes. The cycle begins all over again.

Just from a systems point of view, large, slow-breeding animals like ourselves have "inertia" that would tend to damp out oscillations -- the system response time is slow.

MrG said: Just from a systems point of view, large, slow-breeding animals like ourselves have "inertia" that would tend to damp out oscillations -- the system response time is slow.

MrG said: Aren't abrupt population booms and busts fairly normal for small, fast-breeding animals with short lifetimes? Rodents being the typcial example. They have a good year thanks to rains that produce a bumper crop of food, they breed like crazy and they're all over the place. A few years later, there's a drought and the population crashes. The cycle begins all over again. Just from a systems point of view, large, slow-breeding animals like ourselves have "inertia" that would tend to damp out oscillations -- the system response time is slow.

JASONMITCHELL said:

John Kwok said: Which is exactly why human population growth - or that of any animal population (but for other, related reaons) - can only be modeled accurately via some logistic model of population growth:

JASONMITCHELL said: I'll address this to any lurkers here vs. Tom specifically periodical famine/war/plague etc. are not the only factors that keep a population (of people) in check- actually these occurrences are relatively rare. if total available calories/food/resources "x" will support population of "y" individuals, then, when there is less than "x" food etc. population growth slows/people start to die/ less children get born/ less children live to reproductive age. so, when population exceeds resources, what happens (especially in pre-industrial societies)? 1) the old/sick/weak - don't live as long/die 2) fecundity goes down (people have less children because there are more miscarriages/stillbirths etc- starving mothers tend not to have healthy children/successful pregnancies) 3) fertility goes down ( starving potential mothers have difficulty getting pregnant) 4) Migrations- people try yo go to where the food/space/resources are. Sometimes this works - sometimes they encounter other groups that don't want to share and this leads to conflicts these factors don't lead to populations doubling every 200 years then catastrophically dropping off - these factors tend to lead to a population that grows until food (or some other resource) tends to become a limiting factor and then remaining stable (births = deaths). For Humans, that means that population size is limited by technology - Hunter/Gatherer societies can get "x" amount of calories per sq. mile so their population is limited to what "x" will support. The Invention of agriculture lead to more food available and population grew. Further innovations lead to more resources available and greater populations.

Correct - population growth is a logrihmic progression (not a aritmetic progression like Tom did in Excel) - if you plot population vs time on a graph the slope goes up predicably (until there is a rate limiting resource) where the line tend to plateau

Mike Elzinga said:

MrG said: Aren't abrupt population booms and busts fairly normal for small, fast-breeding animals with short lifetimes? Rodents being the typcial example. They have a good year thanks to rains that produce a bumper crop of food, they breed like crazy and they're all over the place. A few years later, there's a drought and the population crashes. The cycle begins all over again. Just from a systems point of view, large, slow-breeding animals like ourselves have "inertia" that would tend to damp out oscillations -- the system response time is slow.

The logistics equation that is sometimes used to describe population growth is a first order differential equation. The solution is a smooth function with only one constant determined by initial conditions. However – and this is an extremely important point – such a description works within an extremely limited regime. In general, population growth is a highly non-linear process in which reproduction is strongly coupled to environment; each changes the other. When everything is “cozy” within the right temperature range and with adequate resources, the growth can be a pretty smooth exponential. But ultimately it slams up against a resource shortage. Other climate and environmental factors can have a huge impact. So the logistics equation is but a very special case of a much more complex, non-linear process that can go chaotic or shut down altogether. When you look at the energetics of life on this planet, you see it is precariously positioned within a very narrow energy window in which water is a liquid. Given the process of hypothermia and hyperthermia, this window is further narrowed to within a few tens of degrees Celsius. This is why the issues of climate change, for example, need to be taken seriously. The main reason that there are over 6.5 billion humans on this planet at the moment is because we are living in a fairly comfortable temperature range, and we are expanding our food and resource supplies by burning the sequestered carbon of the past. This is not a very stable situation; and it could be catastrophically tipped by a relatively small perturbation as perturbations go in this universe. I don't think many people appreciate the razor's edge on which we exist.

Tom said:

DS said: Tom, You seem to forget that for the vast majority of their history humans were hunter gatherers trying to survive in harsh environments. They lacked modern sanitation, medicine or agriculture. Their population densities were extremely low for many hundreds of thousands of years. They had short miserably lives were prone to all sorts of diseases. They had very low survivorship, fertility and fecundity. They had lots of predators and lots of competition for resources. If you think that your logic will somehow magically transform the earth into being only a few thousand years old, you are sadly mistaken. Just ask yourself this, if fruit flies, which can mature in two weeks and can lay up to fifty eggs a day for over a month, have been around for thousands of years, shouldn't they have covered the earth knee deep in fruit flies by now? Now do you see the logical flaw in your thinking?

I agree that a fruit fly has predators. And I believe man is far more than a fruit fly in that he can think how to overcome his elements and predators. And I don't believe he just finally wised up in the past 5 thousand years or so. From that standpoint, I will probably never get a satisfactory answer from any of you concerning population. Spare me, please. Nobody has yet came back with an answer that has made me say, "Gee whiz, guys! I never thought of that." That being famine, plague, calamity. Heck, if you said they were suffering from ED back then, I MIGHT believe that could account for the current low population. ;)

John Kwok said: What Mr. G is describing are organisms which follow r-strategies (those that produce many offspring in unstable environments), whereas horses, for example, tend to be k-strategists (those that produce few offspring in stable environments). The differentiation between r and k-strategy organisms grew out of mathemathemical modeling of populations in island biogeographies done by the ecologists Robert MacArthur and E. O. Wilson in the early to mid 1960s. But I should note that this should be seen as an oversimplification since most organisms don't follow exclusively r and k strategies.

Tom said: When I did my little excel spread sheet. I started with 2 people, and had the population doubling ever 200 years.

Tom said: Nobody has yet came back with an answer that has made me say, "Gee whiz, guys! I never thought of that."

Tom said: Nobody has yet came back with an answer that has made me say, "Gee whiz, guys! I never thought of that."

bobsie said:

Tom said: Nobody has yet came back with an answer that has made me say, "Gee whiz, guys! I never thought of that."

Dale Husband said: Did you notice that Tom STILL didn't bother to answer my arguments? I'll repeat them, one more time:

Dale Husband said: Yes, they have the same evidence but interpret it differently. But only one interpretation can be right. The interpretation that is most likely to be right is the one that follows rules consistently. Rules like: 1. The same laws of chemistry and physics apply everywhere and in all times. This has never been disproven by anyone. 2. The scientific method can be used to discover and confirm all physical and chemical laws. Millions of scientists in many thousands of labs around the world can testify to that principle. 3. Observations of physical evidence in the present can be used to determine what may have happened in the past, relying on the physical and chemical laws previously discovered. 4. Applications of physical and chemical laws can also be used in conjunction with human creativity to produce technology, which drives our entire civilization forward. Creationists do NOT follow those rules consistently. They use the terminology of science, but reject its methods when they lead to conclusions that contradict their religious dogmas. But those religious dogmas are themselves based on NO empirical foundation at all. Answers in Genesis, like the Institute for Creation Research before it, is a massive scam operation.

Dale Husband said: It's amazing how many Creationists claim to be former evolutionists who end up repeating endlessly the same old outright lies that were debunked decades ago by those who really ARE evolutionists and really HAVE done research on the subject. Clearly, you are a fraud.

Tom said: I felt I asked some ‘tough’ questions. One really tough one, that in regards to the population gap. Would like to see how one of you can explain to me or even to another fellow evolutionist, just what happened to the trillions upon trillions of people that should be on the face of this earth if man appeared on the earth hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago. Why aren’t they here now? If they were killed off, where are all the graves for these masses of people. In my personal opinion, the population GAP alone refutes the belief that man evolved from apes. That is unless you or someone else can proof that man evolved from apes just less than 6 thousand years ago.

Tom said:

bobsie said:

Tom said: Yes, as with the virgin birth and Jesus's divinity and rising from the grave, the same with Creation was that I accepted it all based on faith. ... I still know they are scientifically impossible, unprovable, but fundamental to the Christian faith.

A literal acceptance of the Genesis science is not fundamental to the Christian faith. Many Christians understand that Genesis accommodates to the ancient science of the Hebrews of a three tiered universe and cannot be a modern science truth. For example, the Genesis firmament was understood in ancient science to hold back the above waters thus explaining the visually dominant blue “structure” overhead. The Genesis firmament blue sky phenomena was the science of the times and was an accomodation to the ancient Hebrew intellect. The theological Genesis message will be lost unless you factor out the ancient science accomodation. You believe your God could never lie and that is your sole reasoning for rejecting science and insisting that an ancient science must be the modern truth. However, isn't it God's very own handwriting in the natural world. Aren't you rejecting this very personal direct connection to your Creator by refusing to understand accept the natural world fingerprints of God?

Bobsie, I will acknowledge that by faith I accepted the account of Genesis, and I believe because of that faith it allowed me and challenged me to look more deeply into what the creationists said. I do not believe Genesis is written with a hidden theological meaning, but believe it is historical as are many other stories in the Bible. Yes, it does address the first sin, but the account of creation itself is plainly, in my mind, just historical. Yes, I agree, you can believe in evolution and you can believe in God. I find nothing in the Bible to say you can't. It just seems incongruous that a Christian would reject the Genesis account on scientific grounds, but still accept the virgin birth, the Resurrection and for that matter, God Himself, who cannot be proven. So, for me, if God lied in Genesis, why should I trust him to tell the truth anywhere else in the Bible? Got to be careful here though, getting too much into theology and not enough into science and I'm learning that is considered a 'no no' on this webpage. :)

Cubist said:

SWT said: I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

Tom said:

SWT said: I rather doubt the cubist wrote the things attributed to him immediately above ...

SWT, of all people on this website I expected better of you. I am truly surprised. Are you accusing me of creating words and saying the cubist said them?

SWT was commenting on your reply to my post. If you review your reply, you will note that it start off with "Cubist said", but before the blockquoted section which also begins "Cubist said". So yes, you did attribute words to me which I didn't write.

Calling me a liar?

Personally, I think SWT was merely calling your attention to an error on your part. Getting the quotes messed up is no great crime; it happens, and nobody hereabouts really minds too much about innocent errors.

Smitty said: What you can no longer do is assert that your position is based on the evidence. You've admitted that your faith, and therefore the salvation of your immortal soul, is dependent on a literal reading of Genesis. How can your "reasoning" be anything but discredited with so much on the line?

I continue to puzzle over the frenetic outrage over alternative views for the origin of life (ie, information-laden biomolecules). What are naturalists/secularists worried over? Can we not have an open and mutually respective discussion over this important topic? No one has offered a reasonably plausible naturalistic mechanism for the origin of specified information that hard wires all living cells.

Anthony Joseph said: No one has offered a reasonably plausible naturalistic mechanism for the origin of specified information that hard wires all living cells.

Anthony Joseph said: I continue to puzzle over the frenetic outrage over alternative views for the origin of life (ie, information-laden biomolecules)... Can we not have an open and mutually respective discussion over this important topic?

Anthony Joseph said: I continue to puzzle over the frenetic outrage over alternative views for the origin of life (ie, information-laden biomolecules). What are naturalists/secularists worried over? Can we not have an open and mutually respective discussion over this important topic? No one has offered a reasonably plausible naturalistic mechanism for the origin of specified information that hard wires all living cells.

Cubist said:

Anthony Joseph said: I continue to puzzle over the frenetic outrage over alternative views for the origin of life (ie, information-laden biomolecules). What are naturalists/secularists worried over? Can we not have an open and mutually respective discussion over this important topic? No one has offered a reasonably plausible naturalistic mechanism for the origin of specified information that hard wires all living cells.

I'd love to have an open and mutually respectful discussion of these matters, Tony. Unfortunately, you do yourself a disservice by dragging that word "secularist" in by the heels, because in my experience, only Creationists do that. So right off the bat, you're tingling my 'Creationist sense'. But okay, maybe you genuinely are the disinterested truthseeker you'd like me to believe you are; maybe whatever doubts you may have about evolution genuinely are rooted in real concerns about scientific issues that you genuinely do comprehend, as opposed to the dogmatic religious beliefs which underpin Creationist rejection of evolution. I'm inclined to doubt that, for reasons analogous to why I'm inclined to doubt that the Sun rises in the North -- but hey, if you're not actually a Creationist, you shouldn't have any trouble at all demonstrating that my doubts are totally unfounded, right?
So here are some questions for you, Tony:

First question: Why did you drag the word "secularist" in by the heels, Tony? When a Creationist does that, it's because they're trying to sneak in an "evolution = atheism" argument without explicitly stating it. Why did you do it?

Second question: You say that living cells have "information" "hard wire(d)" into them. How, exactly, do you measure the stuff? Please describe your information-measuring protocol, in sufficient detail that I could use your information-measuring protocol myself to determine how much "information" in contained within any arbitrary cell.

Third question: According to you, living cells don't just contain "information" -- they contain "specified information". What's the difference, and how can you tell 'specified information apart from plain old garden-variety 'information'? Please describe the criteria which distinguish one from the other, in sufficient detail that I could use that criteria myself to tell which arbitrary chunk(s) of information are, or are not, 'specified'.

Hi. I do believe in Jesus, completely. I believe in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc.

I have an excellent education from the top college in the US. I am a thinking person, not one to follow a crowd.

I think that the facts speak for themselves. For example, the polonium rainbows and the Van Allen radiation belt are a good start. The world expert on polonium rainbows said they have to occur in granite that has cooled in the time it takes to melt an ice cream cone. That means all the granite on Earth containing the polonium rainbows had to cool in a few minutes. Impossible. What do you do with the world expert? www.halos.com.
The radiation levels of the Van Allen belt have been decreasing. According to the rate of decrease, by reversing the timeline, if you go back over 10,000 years the radiation was too high for life on Earth.
There's two.
Just saying maybe the facts are wrong, but maybe not.
I like to base my science on facts, and it doesn't hurt to base my religion on scientific facts, either.

What do you do with the world expert?

flashdrive said: I have an excellent education from the top college in the US. I am a thinking person, not one to follow a crowd.

flashdrive said: The world expert on polonium rainbows said ...

Mike Elzinga said: William Dembski is the “Isaac Newton of information theory.” Did you know that?

MrG said:

Mike Elzinga said: William Dembski is the “Isaac Newton of information theory.” Did you know that?

In all fairness, Dembski did not say that about himself. I think I can cut him a little slack on that ... ... which he has unfortunately used up by saying things like: "I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail." WD, you don't even care if anyone takes you seriously, do you?

Mike Elzinga said: Yup; I should have been a little clearer about that.

MrG said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yup; I should have been a little clearer about that.

I didn't mean to snipe. I was just saying that, given the extended list of WD's frontal assaults on sensibility, there's no particular motive to make the list longer.

flashdrive said: I have an excellent education from the top college in the US.