The Sensuous Curmudgeon lays it on creationism

Creationists don't follow the evidence, they try to explain it away.

Except when they either ignore evidence and/or its implications, that it. True, similarity doesn't necessarily imply common ancestry, it's the sort of similarities that we actually find in life that confirm evolutionary predictions, and that creationists themselves accept so long as it isn't the sort of "macroevolution" that they neither allow nor can determine using the evidence. You'd think that the difference between evolution and design would be rather noticeable, in fact, while for them the two quite different processes blend seamlessly until fake probabilities supposedly tease them apart.

IDiots are every bit as good as ignoring that inconvenient fact as any other creationists.

Glen Davidson

There are lots of talking points in the Sensuous Curmudgeon's article which can be used by voters who want to ask embarassing questions for Rethuglican candidates at every level, from dog-catcher and school board races to Congressional and Presidential races. The long-running Rethuglican War On Science(TM) has brought all sorts of scientifically illiterate fundagelical ignoramuses out of the woodwork, and their willful ignorance should be exposed at every opportunity. As we get closer to the November elections, Americans who care about science should become informed about the candidates' positions and ask them questions to expose their ignorance. Between now and then, of course, we can practice on our loyal opposition, our resident science deniers and fundagelical trolls.

If I may return the compliment, Richard, this could be your best post ever.

Glen Davidson said: You'd think that the difference between evolution and design would be rather noticeable Glen Davidson

It's not just that creationists come up with ad hoc hypotheses to justify their views. It's that they never attempt rationally to test those hypotheses or even to reconcile one ad hoc hypothesis with another. On the rare occasion that they do, they discover they're wrong and abandon the idea. A good example is the "ice canopy" hypothesis: In an attempt to explain where the water from the Flood came from, some creationists hypothesized a shell of ice surrounding the planet, which came down in the form of rain. A creationist then did some actual calculations of the effect of such a canopy and concluded that the greenhouse effect of such a canopy would make the earth more like Venus. As a result, this has joined Ken Ham's list of "arguments we shouldn't use". Needless to say, they've since invented a scriptural reference that allows them to abandon the idea (Psalms 148:4 says "waters above the heavens", so it couldn't be ice), although this doesn't explain why "waters above the heavens" wouldn't have the same greenhouse effect as "ice above the heavens". Don't hold your breath waiting for a creationist to test that idea.

When has a creationist taken the "speed of light changed" or "radioactive decay has changed" hypotheses and followed the implications on other implied physical phenomena to test it? To take a simple example, a change in the speed of light would change the De Broglie wavelengths of elemental particles. Has any creationist examined the physical consequences of this?

Bill Dembski suggested that he does the same thing SETI did. But SETI didn't look for some signal that might be "intelligently designed" and then say "Ahah! there's intelligent life out there!" They proceeded to try to disprove the "intelligently designed" hypothesis by asking if there's a natural explanation. The result in one case was the discovery of quasars. Dembski would presumably still be running around claiming he found intelligent life and attacking the "quasar theory", because he doesn't "stress test" his hypotheses.

Psalms 148:4 says “waters above the heavens”, so it couldn’t be ice

It’s that they never attempt rationally to test those hypotheses or even to reconcile one ad hoc hypothesis with another.

John_S said: When has a creationist taken the "speed of light changed" or "radioactive decay has changed" hypotheses and followed the implications on other implied physical phenomena to test it? To take a simple example, a change in the speed of light would change the De Broglie wavelengths of elemental particles. Has any creationist examined the physical consequences of this?

Yes, we constantly stress “Where’s the positive evidence for creationism and not just the negatives of why evolution doesn’t work?”

But we should follow that up with the “and not only do you need to show positive evidence, you need to show how all of your evidence from many different disciplines converges”.

harold said:I had one tiny problem with the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He included evolutionary biology is a list of "historical" sciences. It is both a historical and and experimental science.

There are different words in ancient Hebrew for "water" and "ice" and "snow":

Water is mayim Strong's Concordance H4325:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4325

Ice is qerach Strong's H7140:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7140

Snow is sheleg Strong's H7950:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7950

Snow is what King David gets to be washed whiter than.

Psalm 148:4 refers to liquid water:

Psa 148:4 Praise 1984 him, ye heavens 8064 of heavens 8064, and ye waters4325 that [be] above the heavens 8064.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

harold said:I had one tiny problem with the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He included evolutionary biology is a list of "historical" sciences. It is both a historical and and experimental science.

True, but it's the historical part that creationists reject. I guess it's the micro-macro thing.

John_S said: Bill Dembski suggested that he does the same thing SETI did. But SETI didn't look for some signal that might be "intelligently designed" and then say "Ahah! there's intelligent life out there!" They proceeded to try to disprove the "intelligently designed" hypothesis by asking if there's a natural explanation. The result in one case was the discovery of quasars. Dembski would presumably still be running around claiming he found intelligent life and attacking the "quasar theory", because he doesn't "stress test" his hypotheses.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: If I may return the compliment, Richard, this could be your best post ever.

gmartincv said:

John_S said: Bill Dembski suggested that he does the same thing SETI did. But SETI didn't look for some signal that might be "intelligently designed" and then say "Ahah! there's intelligent life out there!" They proceeded to try to disprove the "intelligently designed" hypothesis by asking if there's a natural explanation. The result in one case was the discovery of quasars. Dembski would presumably still be running around claiming he found intelligent life and attacking the "quasar theory", because he doesn't "stress test" his hypotheses.

Well actually I think that you are thinking of pulsars, not quasars. The first pulsars were not found as part of a SETI search, but rather as a search for scintillation of radio sources by the interstellar medium. While Bell and Hewish did nickname their discovery LGM-1 (for Little Green Men), they did not seriously consider that they had found interstellar communication. When they found their second pulsar, they dropped the name LGM-1. George Martin

I read stuff by creationists and it immediately reminds me of the types of arguments that went on between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. I have no doubts that creationists would angrily denounce God for completely misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the words in the bible.

Harold said: SETI seeks a natural “designer” with human-like characteristics. The “designer” that would be detected by SETI, hypothetically, would rely on purely natural radio waves to send a signal into space.

As a YEC i see just the same old accusations that don't work in the modern world.
Its fine to assume a witness origins. The bible has and is been seen this way.
In fact in any history of about conclusions on origins they always stress they beat the bible on evidence.
Not about overthrowing the premise of revealed religion first.
So on the evidence.
Ken Ham, a very effective and notable modern creationist by any measure, is right in stressing origin subjects are not observable and so investigating them is not like regular subjects.
Ones presumptions matter more and distort things.

We say evolution and company don't prove their case and show us we are wrong.
The linked commentator here demonstrates the poverty of evidence for the conclusions about evolution.
a short list of unrelated subjects to biological conclusions.
Past and gone events and processes really do demand careful and strict attention to evidence since the conclusions are not testable or repeatable by any simple understanding of these terms.
Creation science is as much/or little scientific as evolutionism etc.
Figuring great things out from limited data.
Its not just genesis but great Christianity one is dealing with here about truth of origins of the universe.

John_S said:

Harold said: SETI seeks a natural “designer” with human-like characteristics. The “designer” that would be detected by SETI, hypothetically, would rely on purely natural radio waves to send a signal into space.

Exactly. The difference between SETI and what Dembski does is that we already have one indisputable example of an intelligent being capable of producing radio signals. We're just trying to find another one who might be using the same technology. Dembski has no objective evidence that any intelligent designer exists nor is he aware of any existing technology capable of doing what he proposes the designer did.

I love your last two posts, Sensuous Curmudgeon! Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

John Kwok

P. S. What is the matter with the PT Facebook login?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: I love your last two posts, Sensuous Curmudgeon! Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it. John Kwok P. S. What is the matter with the PT Facebook login?

harold said: This is actually germane to a general discussion of creationism. For those who may not know, James Shapiro is an eminent biochemist who now claims, late in his career, that "natural genetic engineering", by which he apparently means seemingly conscious mutation choice by cells, is required to explain biological evolution (I defend this as a fair paraphrase, and if anyone thinks it isn't, please provide a rational rebuttal with an adequate number of citations of recent original statements by Shapiro). He does not make overt religious creationist statements. Technically he is literally a classic Lamarckist. However, he is becoming beloved by creationists for contradicting mainstream evolutionary theory. So far HuffPo is the closest thing to a forum allowing critical feedback that he seems to have ventured into. I tried to leave a comment asking him a few questions, but I was late to the party, and HuffPo comments on his thing are limited to 250 words, without much ability for html formatting. Therefore, I will put some questions here. Either a Shapiro supporter will answer the questions or they will just sit here. 1) If cells have the ability to consciously create mutations, why are there ever any harmful mutations; why don't they use that ability to always repair all harmful mutations? 2) If harmful mutations arise randomly, why not accept the idea that beneficial and neutral mutations arise the same way? Why a cumbersome separate mechanism for beneficial mutations? 3) What would be a good experiment to distinguish between adaptation via random mutation with selection (drift, etc), versus adaptation via "natural genetic engineering"? What about Lenski's E. coli experiments? Why do the cells in those experiments not adapt more quickly, via "natural genetic engineering"? 4) What are some possible mechanisms of "natural genetic engineering"; how do cells "know" which mutations will be beneficial to their offspring in future environments? 5) Why is life so diverse? Why couldn't early cellular life make up its "mind", and use "natural genetic engineering" in a consistent way?

Swimmy said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

harold said:I had one tiny problem with the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He included evolutionary biology is a list of "historical" sciences. It is both a historical and and experimental science.

True, but it's the historical part that creationists reject. I guess it's the micro-macro thing.

In many cases they deny the experimental results too. See, for instance, the Lenski affair.

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: I love your last two posts, Sensuous Curmudgeon! Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it. John Kwok P. S. What is the matter with the PT Facebook login?

This is actually germane to a general discussion of creationism. For those who may not know, James Shapiro is an eminent biochemist who now claims, late in his career, that "natural genetic engineering", by which he apparently means seemingly conscious mutation choice by cells, is required to explain biological evolution (I defend this as a fair paraphrase, and if anyone thinks it isn't, please provide a rational rebuttal with an adequate number of citations of recent original statements by Shapiro). He does not make overt religious creationist statements. Technically he is literally a classic Lamarckist. However, he is becoming beloved by creationists for contradicting mainstream evolutionary theory. So far HuffPo is the closest thing to a forum allowing critical feedback that he seems to have ventured into. I tried to leave a comment asking him a few questions, but I was late to the party, and HuffPo comments on his thing are limited to 250 words, without much ability for html formatting. Therefore, I will put some questions here. Either a Shapiro supporter will answer the questions or they will just sit here. 1) If cells have the ability to consciously create mutations, why are there ever any harmful mutations; why don't they use that ability to always repair all harmful mutations? 2) If harmful mutations arise randomly, why not accept the idea that beneficial and neutral mutations arise the same way? Why a cumbersome separate mechanism for beneficial mutations? 3) What would be a good experiment to distinguish between adaptation via random mutation with selection (drift, etc), versus adaptation via "natural genetic engineering"? What about Lenski's E. coli experiments? Why do the cells in those experiments not adapt more quickly, via "natural genetic engineering"? 4) What are some possible mechanisms of "natural genetic engineering"; how do cells "know" which mutations will be beneficial to their offspring in future environments? 5) Why is life so diverse? Why couldn't early cellular life make up its "mind", and use "natural genetic engineering" in a consistent way?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

9) If cells have this ability, why is the vertebrate immune system still dependent on random mutations?

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he'll drift that far), but even if he does -- so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn't produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn't understand. That doesn't even begin to challenge evolution, and it's certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe's colleagues ignore him. That's the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at. Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

Paul Burnett said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

I respectfully vehemently disagree. Don McLeroy of the Texas State Board of Education is an anti-science/anti-history crank. Ignoring him has been a disaster for science and history. See Katherine Stewart's article at http://www.alternet.org/story/155515/is_texas_waging_war_on_history/

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he'll drift that far), but even if he does -- so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn't produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn't understand. That doesn't even begin to challenge evolution, and it's certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe's colleagues ignore him. That's the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at. Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

harold said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he'll drift that far), but even if he does -- so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn't produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn't understand. That doesn't even begin to challenge evolution, and it's certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe's colleagues ignore him. That's the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at. Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

What SensuousCurmudgeon chooses to write about is his own business. He's a guy with a blog. Cranks can be ignored, that is true. I strongly agree with Paul Burnett and John Kwok that it would be a very poor idea for the science-supporting community overall to ignore James Shapiro. He has is a faculty member at a highly prestigious university, with a long history of scientific achievement, who has chosen to write a book for lay people about evolution. Unfortunately, the book contains very confusing and incorrect ideas, which he also voices in other public forums, mainly where informed critique is either not present, or massively diluted by adulatory comments. That would be bad enough if we were not in the midst of a period of anti-science political activity, but we are.

harold,

Here's a representative example of the kind of nonsense I've had to contend with from Shapiro. (Not only me, but others who have been critical of him too.):

"Lemmingroom,

"Welcome to the blogosphere where too many folks like John feel entitled to show how uncivil they can be. As my wife pointed out, it is almost all guys, not gals."

"On behalf of my blog, I apologize. If you look carefully, I think you'll see that I am also subject to a lot of abuse and misrepresentation."

"This kind of uncivil discourse is the price we have to pay for using the internet to communicate with other people. Think of it as a kind of purification ritual."

"I have to assume that blogging and commenting is worthwhile because many people who do not comment nonetheless read and learn. It's the ones who seem to be incapable of learning who bloviate the most."

"But then serious people like you also show up. That's why I expressed my appreciation for what you are doing. The more we can say in favor of letting people know the facts rather than just expert opinions, the better our society will be."

This is in response to this teacher's observation that he teaches high school biology without using the word "evolution", even if he does teach, for example, some aspects of Natural Selection.

Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

— The Sensuous Curmudgeon

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he'll drift that far), but even if he does -- so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn't produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn't understand. That doesn't even begin to challenge evolution, and it's certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe's colleagues ignore him. That's the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at. Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

the evolutionary biology community

Robert Byers said: In fact in any history of about conclusions on origins they always stress they beat the bible on evidence.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: In fact in any history of about conclusions on origins they always stress they beat the bible on evidence.

Because the Bible doesn't actually have any evidence. It's just one of many "just so" stories from many religions. We have historical connections to the sacking of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, and some connection to Menander's "List of Kings" as reported by Josephus, but these are thousands of years after the supposed creation. You can't expect people to take seriously a "because I said so" argument when it conflicts with arguments from a half-dozen different sources.

Robert Byers said: Saying we is stupid is not persuasive and just dumb silly.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: In fact in any history of about conclusions on origins they always stress they beat the bible on evidence.

Because the Bible doesn't actually have any evidence. It's just one of many "just so" stories from many religions. We have historical connections to the sacking of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, and some connection to Menander's "List of Kings" as reported by Josephus, but these are thousands of years after the supposed creation. You can't expect people to take seriously a "because I said so" argument when it conflicts with arguments from a half-dozen different sources.

Robert

Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science.

It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

Prolonged exposure to the grammatical stylings of one RB is having it effect.

It should read .....how the world is the way that it is, in the period.......

Of course Robert has been asked countless times to present some evidence, any evidence, for creationism. He has consistently failed to do so. Yet he incoherently screams at everyone to look at the evidence. This is your mind on creationism. It makes you do silly things like capitalize North and not capitalize america (even though that was actually a real name). And of course it's useless to try to get him to look at any evidence. You can lead a horse to water, but it still won't be able to read.

Here are a few more questions for Dr. Shapiro:

If directed mutagenesis is possible in nature, explain the following:

1) The observed frequency distribution of mutations (most being neutral or deleterious and only a small fraction being adaptive in any given environment).

2) The existence of molecular clocks (based on random mutations, most of which are neutral).

3) The ubiquity of historical contingency (presumably not a constraint for directed mutagenesis).

4) And as always: Who is doing the "engineering"? Why are they doing it? When are they doing it? How are they doing it?

DS said: Of course Robert has been asked countless times to present some evidence, any evidence, for creationism. He has consistently failed to do so. Yet he incoherently screams at everyone to look at the evidence. This is your mind on creationism. It makes you do silly things like capitalize North and not capitalize america (even though that was actually a real name). And of course it's useless to try to get him to look at any evidence. You can lead a horse to water, but it still won't be able to read.

Carl Drews said: There are different words in ancient Hebrew for "water" and "ice" and "snow": Water is mayim Strong's Concordance H4325: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4325 Ice is qerach Strong's H7140: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7140 Snow is sheleg Strong's H7950: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7950 Snow is what King David gets to be washed whiter than. Psalm 148:4 refers to liquid water: Psa 148:4 Praise 1984 him, ye heavens 8064 of heavens 8064, and ye waters4325 that [be] above the heavens 8064.

Evolutionists have to take on creationism on the merits and can’t just say your not science or stupid or other terms to try to persuade the public creationism is wrong. creationism always ask evolution to make its case and its case against creationism.

Socially and religiously it was, of course, impossible for science to ignore the Bible, and indeed, proto-scientists generally began by assuming that a global flood washed the earth in the past and that life was created.

When the evidence showed differently, science learned. Byers did not, and, lacking in any evidence to support his prejudices, writes contrarily to the truth.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Evolutionists have to take on creationism on the merits and can’t just say your not science or stupid or other terms to try to persuade the public creationism is wrong. creationism always ask evolution to make its case and its case against creationism.

Not listening when we do make our case doesn't mean that we don't do it.

Henry said: Interesting

Carl Drews said: There are different words in ancient Hebrew for "water" and "ice" and "snow": Water is mayim Strong's Concordance H4325: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4325 Ice is qerach Strong's H7140: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7140 Snow is sheleg Strong's H7950: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7950 Snow is what King David gets to be washed whiter than. Psalm 148:4 refers to liquid water: Psa 148:4 Praise 1984 him, ye heavens 8064 of heavens 8064, and ye waters4325 that [be] above the heavens 8064.

Henry said: Interesting

Carl Drews said: There are different words in ancient Hebrew for "water" and "ice" and "snow": Water is mayim Strong's Concordance H4325: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4325 Ice is qerach Strong's H7140: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7140 Snow is sheleg Strong's H7950: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7950 Snow is what King David gets to be washed whiter than. Psalm 148:4 refers to liquid water: Psa 148:4 Praise 1984 him, ye heavens 8064 of heavens 8064, and ye waters4325 that [be] above the heavens 8064.

Robert Byers said: it really comes down to the inability to DISMISS out of hand, as the link did here, a whole system of thought of origins without dealing with the claims/evidence of that system.

Henry said: Interesting

Carl Drews said: There are different words in ancient Hebrew for "water" and "ice" and "snow": Water is mayim Strong's Concordance H4325: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4325 Ice is qerach Strong's H7140: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7140 Snow is sheleg Strong's H7950: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7950 Snow is what King David gets to be washed whiter than. Psalm 148:4 refers to liquid water: Psa 148:4 Praise 1984 him, ye heavens 8064 of heavens 8064, and ye waters4325 that [be] above the heavens 8064.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

Tenncrain said: It was largely the work of Christian geologists like Adam Sedgwick (who recanted Flood geology in the 1830s) that undermined a world-wide Flood within mainstream science.

Gen 8:5 And the waters 4325 decreased 2637 continually 1980 until 5704 the tenth 6224 month 2320: in the tenth 6224 [month], on the first 259 [day] of the month 2320, were the tops 7218 of the mountains 2022 seen 7200 . Gen 8:9 But the dove 3123 found 4672 no rest 4494 for the sole 3709 of her foot 7272, and she returned 7725 unto him into the ark 8392, for the waters 4325 [were] on the face 6440 of the whole earth776: then he put forth 7971 his hand 3027, and took her 3947 , and pulled her in 935 unto him into the ark 8392.

What happened? Here is the link for H776 'erets:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776

harold said:

the evolutionary biology community

I agree strongly with SLC's comment here, but would like to add something. The medical community is part of the "evolutionary biology community" in these types of situations. So are millions of citizens who aren't even directly involved in any type of biomedical field, but who just value intellectual honesty and understand that simultaneously throwing out the constitution and science education would be a terrible idea. The number of scientists whose specific expertise is defined within an academic department as "evolutionary biology" is fairly low. However, the theory of evolution is a major underpinning theory in all biomedical science, even when that isn't obvious. It's possible, now, to be a creationist and competently practice clinical medicine, as, for example, Dr. Egnor demonstrates. But Dr. Egnor's overall education, and the scientific framework he practices in, could not exist if society as a whole adopted his denialism. He can get away with it only because it is an idiosyncratic tendency of his own.

SLC said: I have to agree with Mr. Kwok here. There is a profound difference between clowns like Behe and Dumbski on the one hand and (formerly) respectable biologists like Shapiro. Shapiro, given his bonafides, is someone who has to be taken seriously, just as Peter Duesberg has to be taken seriously on the question of the HIV/AIDS question. Just as the medical community cannot afford to allow Duesberg's nonsense to go unchallenged, so the evolutionary biology community cannot afford to allow Shapiro's nonsense to go unchallenged.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he'll drift that far), but even if he does -- so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn't produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn't understand. That doesn't even begin to challenge evolution, and it's certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe's colleagues ignore him. That's the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at. Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

SteveP. said: So Shapiro was well respected until he decided to let the cat outta the bag. Now he's talking non-sense. What a hoot! Oh yeah, you(pl) will have to struggle with that 'non-sense' alright; just like you(pl) struggle with Behe's, Dembski's, Marks', Axe's, Gauger's, Wells', Minnock's, and Sternberg's 'non-sense'. Tough stuff, that 'non-sense'. P.S. Calling them clowns doesn't help your case. It only highlights your insecurity.

SteveP. said: So Shapiro was well respected until he decided to let the cat outta the bag. Now he's talking non-sense. What a hoot! Oh yeah, you(pl) will have to struggle with that 'non-sense' alright; just like you(pl) struggle with Behe's, Dembski's, Marks', Axe's, Gauger's, Wells', Minnock's, and Sternberg's 'non-sense'. Tough stuff, that 'non-sense'. P.S. Calling them clowns doesn't help your case. It only highlights your insecurity.

TomS said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: In fact in any history of about conclusions on origins they always stress they beat the bible on evidence.

Because the Bible doesn't actually have any evidence. It's just one of many "just so" stories from many religions. We have historical connections to the sacking of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, and some connection to Menander's "List of Kings" as reported by Josephus, but these are thousands of years after the supposed creation. You can't expect people to take seriously a "because I said so" argument when it conflicts with arguments from a half-dozen different sources.

I'd point out that the Bible doesn't have even just so stories on the issues of interest to biologists. It doesn't have a word to say about biogeography, ecology, embryology, paleontology, genetics, etc. Its treatment of medicine is restricted to a very few topics, mostly dermatology, if I recall correctly.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin. It's written by an evangelical Christian

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin. It's written by an evangelical Christian

If you give such credit to these creationists then give more credit to modern ones. A few people saying THEY think the bible is wrong is not relevant today. They simply did poor investigation.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Socially and religiously it was, of course, impossible for science to ignore the Bible, and indeed, proto-scientists generally began by assuming that a global flood washed the earth in the past and that life was created. When the evidence showed differently, science learned. Byers did not, and, lacking in any evidence to support his prejudices, writes contrarily to the truth. Glen Davidson

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

Indeed, the idea of a world wide Flood was already being abandoned long before Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace came up with evolution via natural selection. It was largely the work of Christian geologists like Adam Sedgwick (who recanted Flood geology in the 1830s) that undermined a world-wide Flood within mainstream science. Same with a young-earth. Acceptance in a young-earth was rapidly being discarded long before evolution, not only by Christian geologists, but by Christian astronomers that accurately discovered the speed of light from distant stars.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

Robert Byers said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Socially and religiously it was, of course, impossible for science to ignore the Bible, and indeed, proto-scientists generally began by assuming that a global flood washed the earth in the past and that life was created. When the evidence showed differently, science learned. Byers did not, and, lacking in any evidence to support his prejudices, writes contrarily to the truth. Glen Davidson

Yes you are right the bible was the presumption for conclusions in these subjects and directed thought and investigation. This all came up because evolutionism makes a logical flaw in presentation that we take advantage of. They try to DISMISS genesis etc as worthy as a source for conclusions in origin subjects BUT THEN they announce they defeated us on the evidence. Like you did. Well then its on the evidence and our starting point is a witness to these origins. We can't be dismissed as having no evidence or no right to say we have evidence AND then be said to be defeated on the evidence. If its about raw data then we are on equal terms. Our claims for a witness also are equal. As I said one can't say the evidence beats the bible is our evidence in proposition or opposition of our opponents is dismissed at the starting gate. You can't beat someone who is first disqualified.

Robert Byers said: if you give credit to this former creationist then you must give credit to all these creationist scientists. you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy is just wrong and rare.

Glen Davidson said: It must be sad to be too stupid to understand anything more complex than your simplistic little prattle, Byers.

It's the twin insistance that there was a witness, and that witness testimony trumps all other evidence, that gets me.

There was no witness. Not even Genesis itself says that it was written or dictated by God, and the rest of the Bible says nothing more definite than that all scripture is 'breathed out by God', (2 Timothy 3:16) a Greek expression that almost certainly means the same as 'inspired', English having the same figure in the opposite sense. 'Inspired' or even 'breathed out by' does not mean 'written by' or 'dictated by', and if a thing is inspired, it doesn't mean that it's 'literally factual'.

That's what really drives me crazy about fundies. It's not that they leave stuff out - the Bible is full of contradictions. It's that they put stuff in, easily, readily, without a qualm or a blush. They make claims for scripture that are not only contrary to all outside evidence, but are simply never made by scripture itself.

And to protect those claims, they'll ring in whatever they need. Ice spheres around the Earth. Variations in the speed of light. Altered laws of physics, including nuclear physics, such that matter itself would become impossible. Comets that crash without heat. Millions of cubic miles of water that simply disappear. Pyramids built multiple centuries after the known date. Human populations that continuously expand at exponential rates, while genetically diversifying at a speed that would imply a catastrophic incidence of lethal mutations. Miracle upon uncovenanted miracle, piled high, higher, as high as needed to reach heaven.

And for what? For a doctrine not found in any Creed and never asserted by Christians until nearly the present day: that the Bible is not only factually inerrant but must be read literally as well. And for a theological nonsense: that the Fall of Man must be read as the eating of a literal fruit in a literal garden by a literal couple at the urging of a literal serpent.

It makes no sense, factually, theologically, scientifically or intellectually. It is so poisonously hostile to rational thought that it can only be cultural. The values underlying it - anti-intellectualism, philistinism, xenophobia, parochialism, intolerance and truculence - are cultural ones. It follows, I think, that this perverse reading of Scripture is largely to enforce deliberate distinction on an in-group, and to exclude an out-group. That is, fundies actually know they're being irrational, but this is a feature, not a bug.

And they're doing it for a reason. It's not for nothing that although they are actually radicals, espousing a series of political and religious ideas that would break the mold of Western civilization and incidentally destroy the Constitution of the United States, fundamentalists almost always describe and regard themselves as "conservatives", and their opponents, however closely they hew to classical Christian ideas or old-fashioned constitutionality, as "liberals".

Of course they are not conservatives. I'm a conservative, in the terms of the political discourse of my own country. I distrust radical change, simply because of its propensity for unintended outcomes and its tendency to get out of control. As a conservative, I am bound to oppose fundamentalist radicalism - but as a human being, and an occasionally rational one, I am appalled by such heedless wanton mindlessness deployed in any cause, let alone so corrosively disgusting a one as theirs.

Byers,

What you fail to understand, is that the bible isn't presumed to be false by science. The bible has been shown to be false. By Christians.

A few people saying THEY think the bible is wrong is not relevant today. They simply did poor investigation.

SteveP. said: So Shapiro was well respected until he decided to let the cat outta the bag. Now he's talking non-sense. What a hoot! Oh yeah, you(pl) will have to struggle with that 'non-sense' alright; just like you(pl) struggle with Behe's, Dembski's, Marks', Axe's, Gauger's, Wells', Minnock's, and Sternberg's 'non-sense'. Tough stuff, that 'non-sense'. P.S. Calling them clowns doesn't help your case. It only highlights your insecurity.

SLC said: I have to agree with Mr. Kwok here. There is a profound difference between clowns like Behe and Dumbski on the one hand and (formerly) respectable biologists like Shapiro. Shapiro, given his bonafides, is someone who has to be taken seriously, just as Peter Duesberg has to be taken seriously on the question of the HIV/AIDS question. Just as the medical community cannot afford to allow Duesberg's nonsense to go unchallenged, so the evolutionary biology community cannot afford to allow Shapiro's nonsense to go unchallenged.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he'll drift that far), but even if he does -- so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn't produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn't understand. That doesn't even begin to challenge evolution, and it's certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe's colleagues ignore him. That's the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at. Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

Rolf said: Robert said:

A few people saying THEY think the bible is wrong is not relevant today. They simply did poor investigation.

What do you know about their investigation? it isn't even a question of the Bible being wrong or not, it is simply that the Bible needs to be understood for what it is. But as you have so amply demonstrated, you haven't even got a modicum of scholarship to investigate anything at all. Your "investigation" is not even a joke, it is brain-dandruff.

Robert

Modern day creationists aren't going to get credit for trying to resurrect arguments and ideas that were comprehensively demolished by 1850; it doesn't help any that in the subsequent 150 years, numerous discoveries across a wide variety of disciplines have rendered such necromantic ambitions delusional. That many of the scientists who were involved in this demolition were creationists is an historical irony; but there is a lesson there if you're prepared to heed it.

What distinguishes these creationists from the zombie spawn of Morris and Whitcomb is that they were men of integrity, who were honestly prepared to draw honest conclusions from the actual evidence that actually presented itself in the actual world.

From our point of view, Robert Byers is a pitiful creature that runs on fumes and prayer-like mumbling.

— apokryltaros

What distinguishes these creationists from the zombie spawn of Morris and Whitcomb is that they were men of integrity,...

— A Masked Panda (UAnO)

Robert Byers said: It does address these matters . If all air breathing creatures came off the arek then biogeography has boundaries and predictions. I use this , originally, to demonstrate marsupials could only be placentals with area minor adaptions. Thus the reason for identical looking creatures but with pouches. The bible was the apple on the head for this hypothesis. Genesis sets boundaries and these boundaries are why there is such contention.

DS said:

SteveP. said: So Shapiro was well respected until he decided to let the cat outta the bag. Now he's talking non-sense. What a hoot! Oh yeah, you(pl) will have to struggle with that 'non-sense' alright; just like you(pl) struggle with Behe's, Dembski's, Marks', Axe's, Gauger's, Wells', Minnock's, and Sternberg's 'non-sense'. Tough stuff, that 'non-sense'. P.S. Calling them clowns doesn't help your case. It only highlights your insecurity.

He was well respected when he published the evidence for his hypotheses. If he just spouts nonsense without any evidence, then yes, he should be questioned about it. Unless Steve wants to answer the questions? Thought not.

Robert Byers said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Socially and religiously it was, of course, impossible for science to ignore the Bible, and indeed, proto-scientists generally began by assuming that a global flood washed the earth in the past and that life was created. When the evidence showed differently, science learned. Byers did not, and, lacking in any evidence to support his prejudices, writes contrarily to the truth. Glen Davidson

Yes you are right the bible was the presumption for conclusions in these subjects and directed thought and investigation. This all came up because evolutionism makes a logical flaw in presentation that we take advantage of. They try to DISMISS genesis etc as worthy as a source for conclusions in origin subjects BUT THEN they announce they defeated us on the evidence. Like you did. Well then its on the evidence and our starting point is a witness to these origins. We can't be dismissed as having no evidence or no right to say we have evidence AND then be said to be defeated on the evidence. If its about raw data then we are on equal terms. Our claims for a witness also are equal. As I said one can't say the evidence beats the bible is our evidence in proposition or opposition of our opponents is dismissed at the starting gate. You can't beat someone who is first disqualified.

Shapiro apparently said:

"... I am proud to be there, and I see that an increasing number of people are joining me when they realize that natural genetic engineering, horizontal DNA transfer, interspecific hybridization, genome doubling and symbiogenesis provide solutions to problems recognized to be intractable under the limitations of conventional evolutionary thinking.”

Well, most of those things have been part of evolutionary biology for some time now. There is a lot of evidence for most of them. But, as far as I know "natural genetic engineering" is not a technical term and I have no idea what he means by this. I am aware of no evidence for this concept. It sounds like something that was just made up.

John wrote:

3) Repeated his claim that his “natural genetic engineering” hypothesis could result in irreducibly complex biological structures.

In this he seems to be no better than a typical ID creationist using arguments based on ignorance and personal incredulity. Unless he defines exactly what he means by this and presents some evidence for it, it will remain just another fringe idea without any scientific merit. I am perfectly willing to be convinced of anything by evidence. I am not willing to be convinced of anything in the absence of evidence.

And then there are all those questions. Perhaps Harold can make some progress with them.

DS said: Shapiro apparently said: ...

DS said: So why can't (Robert Byers) address the evidence?

DS said: Shapiro apparently said: "... I am proud to be there, and I see that an increasing number of people are joining me when they realize that natural genetic engineering, horizontal DNA transfer, interspecific hybridization, genome doubling and symbiogenesis provide solutions to problems recognized to be intractable under the limitations of conventional evolutionary thinking.” Well, most of those things have been part of evolutionary biology for some time now. There is a lot of evidence for most of them. But, as far as I know "natural genetic engineering" is not a technical term and I have no idea what he means by this. I am aware of no evidence for this concept. It sounds like something that was just made up. John wrote: 3) Repeated his claim that his “natural genetic engineering” hypothesis could result in irreducibly complex biological structures. In this he seems to be no better than a typical ID creationist using arguments based on ignorance and personal incredulity. Unless he defines exactly what he means by this and presents some evidence for it, it will remain just another fringe idea without any scientific merit. I am perfectly willing to be convinced of anything by evidence. I am not willing to be convinced of anything in the absence of evidence. And then there are all those questions. Perhaps Harold can make some progress with them.

SWT said:

DS said: Shapiro apparently said: ...

Shapiro's Boston Review article here.

Frank J

Maybe. But did Morris and Whitcomb have integrity in comparison to, say, the signatories to the British Association for the Advancement of Science's 1865 manifesto?

John said: Since 1997 Shapiro claims to have the "Third Way" between modern evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design creationism. He was granted permission by the Dishonesty Institue to post at its Evolution News and Views website.

W. H. Heydt said:

John said: Since 1997 Shapiro claims to have the "Third Way" between modern evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design creationism. He was granted permission by the Dishonesty Institue to post at its Evolution News and Views website.

Reminiscent of the scene in one of Kieth Laumer's CDT stories, where the Terran diplomat is complaining about the area they were allowed to build the embassy. The Terrans wanted neutral territory (there are two factions with a long running war) and they get shot at by both sides. The local replies, "What could be more neutral than No Man's Land?" --W. H. Heydt

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

if you give credit to this former creationist then you must give credit to all these creationist scientists.

Todd Wood: [bold text is original] "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

John said: Since 1997 Shapiro claims to have the "Third Way" between modern evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design creationism. He was granted permission by the Dishonesty Institue to post at its Evolution News and Views website.

Reminiscent of the scene in one of Kieth Laumer's CDT stories, where the Terran diplomat is complaining about the area they were allowed to build the embassy. The Terrans wanted neutral territory (there are two factions with a long running war) and they get shot at by both sides. The local replies, "What could be more neutral than No Man's Land?" --W. H. Heydt

Well Laumer's "Retief" series was comedic science fiction. Shapiro's, however, are the often absurd observations of a once brilliant scientist who thinks he knows "The Third Way". I don't know enough on protein evolution to comment effectively here, but not surprisingly, Shapiro's Number One creotard fan, Wendell Read, has already stopped by: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/genetic-engineering_b_1541180.html

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

if you give credit to this former creationist then you must give credit to all these creationist scientists.

Well, even current YECs like Paul Nelson and Kurt Wise openly admit the scientific evidence is way against them at the moment. In fact, YEC Todd Wood says this (click here for full letter) in his own blog. Here's an excerpt:

Todd Wood: [bold text is original] "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."

But as we repeatedly tell you Byers, if per chance your 'scientists' finally start producing real scientific evidence, finally start publishing this scientific evidence in mainstream science peer-review journals, finally start routinely showing up at mainstream science conferences with their evidence, and if per chance your 'scientists' persuade much of the current scientific consensus, your views could rather automatically supplement or even replace evolution. True, it's not exactly an instant process. After the scientific theory of plate tectonics was first introduced in the late 1950s to explain the drifting of continents, it took roughly a decade for the community of geologists to accept the results. But good scientific evidence does tend to win over other scientists sooner or later.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

We look forward to your detailed scientific rebuttal on each part of Young's article [eyes rolled up]. References to journals like Nature would be a plus. Oh, a study taken in the US found there were roughly 480,000 biologists and paleontologists/geologists. About 700 of them rejected evolution. You do the math on what percent of scientists in the earth and life sciences that go against the grain. Care to reconsider your definition of rare? Sure, the Discovery Institute has its 'Dissent from Darwin' list. But many on this list are engineers, meteorologists, computer scientists and other occupations hardly relevant to biological evolution. In contrast, Project Steve currently has over 1200 names using this much more strict criteria.

first what in the world does geology have to do with biology. its a desperate attempt to find evidence in rocks where evidence in biological systems is wanting.

if a subject is taught as truth to kids then the kids would accept it without question. They accept and trust the authority behind it.

If the retard would just look at the link provided he would learn what geology has to do with biology. The fact that he refuses to do so is all the evidence that anyone needs to conclude that he doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't care.

Bobby, go to the link, look at the evidence, examine the past two hundred years of history or STFU. You are just making a fool of yourself and every other creationist. If you have no answer for the evidence, you are toast amigo. Blubbering incoherent nonsense isn't going to work. do you really think that not bothering to use question marks or capital letters is a convincing argument.

Rolf said:

if a subject is taught as truth to kids then the kids would accept it without question. They accept and trust the authority behind it.

You said it; that's why so many people believe like you do - you started with Santa Claus and just went on from there to Genesis and Noah. Nobody told you the truth.

I've been having this back and forth between Wendell Read, a creationist fan of University of Chicago microbiologist James A. Shapiro and myself over at HuffPo:

Last night I issued this challenge to him:

"You have demonstrated consistently ample doubt of evolutionary theory and biological evolution, ever since you started commenting here at Huffington Post. I have yet to get any answer from you for these questions:

"Do you accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution? Do you recognize the necessity for having an evolutionary theory that is the best current scientific explanation for biological evolution and allows scientists to have vigorous research programs in a manner consistent with what Plate Tectonics has done for Geology and Relativity and Quantum Mechanics for Physics? Do you also realize how ridiculous your praise of lemmingroom's teaching of biology is when compared and contrasted with far more effective means of teaching biology at elite science, mathematics and technology-oriented high schools like Fairfax County, VA's Thomas Jefferson High School and New York City's Bronx Science, Stuyvesant and Brooklyn Technical high schools?"

In reply, Wendell Read wrote this:

“John -

This is a blog for the discussion of science. Your statement:
"I have yet to get any answer from you for these questions:
Do you accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution?..." might be appropriate for a religious discussion where we wish ferret out apostate thinking and insure that all participants are firmly committed to the required orthodoxy. Science however does not take this approach. Our concern here is with facts about what is happening and has happened in this fascinating universe we inhabit.

All participants who wish to express their understanding of what is going on in this universe are welcome to join the discussion regardless of their adherence to any 'orthodoxy' as defined by you or anybody else.”

For those who are interested, you can take a look here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/John_Kwok/genetic-engineering_b_1541180_156811128.html

SWT said:

DS said: Shapiro apparently said: ...

Shapiro's Boston Review article here.

DS said:

SWT said:

DS said: Shapiro apparently said: ...

Shapiro's Boston Review article here.

Thanks for the link. There was lots of good stuff cited, almost all of it mainstream evolutionary theory. Besides basically saying that we have learned a lot since the time of Darwin, I don't really find any of the stuff cited objectionable. There was some vague mention of "cellular intelligence" and some crap about "information theory", but nothing other than assertions that evolutionary theory has a long way to go, which is obviously true. One disappointing thing was a distinct lack of discussion about evolutionary development. With the exception of of some vague references to apoptosis, the major discoveries of the last thirty years were pretty much ignored. I wonder why?

John said:

DS said:

SWT said:

DS said: Shapiro apparently said: ...

Shapiro's Boston Review article here.

Thanks for the link. There was lots of good stuff cited, almost all of it mainstream evolutionary theory. Besides basically saying that we have learned a lot since the time of Darwin, I don't really find any of the stuff cited objectionable. There was some vague mention of "cellular intelligence" and some crap about "information theory", but nothing other than assertions that evolutionary theory has a long way to go, which is obviously true. One disappointing thing was a distinct lack of discussion about evolutionary development. With the exception of of some vague references to apoptosis, the major discoveries of the last thirty years were pretty much ignored. I wonder why?

He obviously doesn't think as relevant, the renewed interest in developmental biology as manifested in the advent of evolutionary developmental biology, nor punctuated equilibrium, the Red Queen, etc. etc. Larry Moran has recently reviewed Shapiro's book for NCSE and he is surprised that Shapiro doesn't cite Stephen Jay Gould.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

It's written by an evangelical Christian

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

We look forward to your detailed scientific rebuttal on each part of Young's article [eyes rolled up]. References to journals like Nature would be a plus. Oh, a study taken in the US found there were roughly 480,000 biologists and paleontologists/geologists. About 700 of them rejected evolution. You do the math on what percent of scientists in the earth and life sciences that go against the grain. Care to reconsider your definition of rare? Sure, the Discovery Institute has its 'Dissent from Darwin' list. But many on this list are engineers, meteorologists, computer scientists and other occupations hardly relevant to biological evolution. In contrast, Project Steve currently has over 1200 names using this much more strict criteria.

Impressive that such a poll was taken and such a need. creationism shows its punch. Again however these numbers mislead. first what in the world does geology have to do with biology. its a desperate attempt to find evidence in rocks where evidence in biological systems is wanting. In fact few of these people get paid to think or work with evolutionary ideas. they just get a introductory course like everyone else. then they move on to actual biology and not hypothesis of the origin of actual biology. they just accept what they read in the books. if a subject is taught as truth to kids then the kids would accept it without question. They accept and trust the authority behind it. Yet its not about their ability to investigate it. few biologists investigate anything related to evolution. Just as few pilots investigate the physics of flight. just bare details are touched on.

Rolf said: We have studied the Bible, have you studied our evidence? Why don't you investigate the facts before you write?

DS said:

John said:

DS said:

SWT said:

DS said: Shapiro apparently said: ...

Shapiro's Boston Review article here.

Thanks for the link. There was lots of good stuff cited, almost all of it mainstream evolutionary theory. Besides basically saying that we have learned a lot since the time of Darwin, I don't really find any of the stuff cited objectionable. There was some vague mention of "cellular intelligence" and some crap about "information theory", but nothing other than assertions that evolutionary theory has a long way to go, which is obviously true. One disappointing thing was a distinct lack of discussion about evolutionary development. With the exception of of some vague references to apoptosis, the major discoveries of the last thirty years were pretty much ignored. I wonder why?

He obviously doesn't think as relevant, the renewed interest in developmental biology as manifested in the advent of evolutionary developmental biology, nor punctuated equilibrium, the Red Queen, etc. etc. Larry Moran has recently reviewed Shapiro's book for NCSE and he is surprised that Shapiro doesn't cite Stephen Jay Gould.

Still not a clue what "natural genetic engineering" might be all about.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

A study taken in the US found there were roughly 480,000 biologists and paleontologists/geologists. About 700 of them rejected evolution. You do the math on what percent of scientists in the earth and life sciences that go against the grain. Care to reconsider your definition of rare? Sure, the Discovery Institute has its 'Dissent from Darwin' list. But many on this list are engineers, meteorologists, computer scientists and other occupations hardly relevant to biological evolution. In contrast, Project Steve currently has over 1200 names using this much more strict criteria.

Impressive that such a poll was taken and such a need. creationism shows its punch.

Again however these numbers mislead. first what in the world does geology have to do with biology. its a desperate attempt to find evidence in rocks where evidence in biological systems is wanting.

In fact few of these people get paid to think or work with evolutionary ideas. they just get a introductory course like everyone else. then they move on to actual biology and not hypothesis of the origin of actual biology. they just accept what they read in the books.

if a subject is taught as truth to kids then the kids would accept it without question. They accept and trust the authority behind it.

Yet its not about their ability to investigate it. few biologists investigate anything related to evolution.

Tenncrain said:

Henry said: Interesting

Carl Drews said: There are different words in ancient Hebrew for "water" and "ice" and "snow": Water is mayim Strong's Concordance H4325: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4325 Ice is qerach Strong's H7140: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7140 Snow is sheleg Strong's H7950: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7950 Snow is what King David gets to be washed whiter than. Psalm 148:4 refers to liquid water: Psa 148:4 Praise 1984 him, ye heavens 8064 of heavens 8064, and ye waters4325 that [be] above the heavens 8064.

Henry, you might want to check out Carl Drews's interesting website (click here). This also goes for Robert Byers and the other PT trolls.

Henry said: Thanks for the link. I'll stick to ICR.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

Most creation science is garbage

This gets me in a lot of trouble with a lot of creationists, ... the material that's out there is—uh, I'll hold back and be nice—garbage. It's really atrocious

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

TomS said: Quoting Kurt Wise:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

(Wise 2001). Why does this standard not apply also to geocentrism? I would dare say that the Bible at least as clearly says that the Sun goes around a fixed Earth as that species are fixed, and that the evidence for evolution is at least as accessible as that for heliocentrism. For a couple of thousand years there were no Bible-readers who denied geocentrism, and no Bible-readers who asserted fixity of species; and any change of mind about geocentrism came about solely because of the "naturalistic" evidence and reasoning - and does any modern accept a heliocentric-friendly reading of the Bible for any other reason?

Why the different standards for evolution?

The few Bible-readers who openly deny the Heliocentric theory do so solely because it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible, and they advertize this solely to flaunt how “true” they are to Scripture. Even so, I seriously doubt that there is any Christian alive today who agrees with what Martin Luther, who opined how the Heliocentric theory will destroy the totality of civilization.

— apokryltaros

Robert Byers said: If you give such credit to these creationists then give more credit to modern ones. A few people saying THEY think the bible is wrong is not relevant today. They simply did poor investigation.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: If you give such credit to these creationists then give more credit to modern ones. A few people saying THEY think the bible is wrong is not relevant today. They simply did poor investigation.

And here we have Byers' argument (indeed, the only Creationist argument) in a nutshell. It's all about "authority", or "authorities". It doesn't matter what the evidence is. For a Creationist, "evidence" doesn't exist. It's a meaningless term. (Or rather, it means whatever they want it to mean.) It all boils down to who has the proper "authority" to make pronouncements about the truth. "My Authority is better than your "authority", so I'm right. Neener, neener!" More even than that. It all boils down to validating existing perceptions. It doesn't even matter that their "authority" is a proven liar, or that what is said is pure nonsense, even on its face. As long as the "authority" keeps telling the sheep what they want to hear, that they are special and that everyone else is out to destroy them, then that "authority" is respected and believed. As soon as that same "authority" says something like, "Well, maybe I was wrong about that," then they automatically lose their "authority" status, and nothing they say can be trusted. Until such a time as they "repent" and "recant". Then, of course, everything the rehabilitated "authority" says can again be trusted without question.

IANApsychologist, but that sounds remarkably like some of the symptoms of autism.

And here we have Byers’ argument (indeed, the only Creationist argument) in a nutshell...“My Authority is better than your “authority”, so I’m right. Neener, neener!”

— Scott F

I would dare say that the Bible at least as clearly says that the Sun goes around a fixed Earth as that species are fixed, and that the evidence for evolution is at least as accessible as that for heliocentrism.

As a sideline, it is now thought that the Chaldean astronomers knew that the Earth was approximately spherical by about 600 BCE; they learned that from close observation of lunar eclipses, which they were already predicting by about 1500 BCE. They were certainly very well aware of the retrograde motions of Venus and Mercury, and of Venus's variable brightness as it phases. They might have known of the phases themselves, which are only just beyond naked-eye observation, and the simplest of optical aids - a single lens, for instance - would have revealed them.

From that data they would have been able to deduce a heliocentric solar system. They might actually have done so. But here's the thing: if they did it, they kept it secret, like their knowledge of predicting eclipses and of the shape of the Earth.

They weren't scientists, despite the fact that they were actually doing observational science. They were priests. Maybe they were curious about how the Universe worked - but their knowledge was kept secret, and used for their own benefit. Successfully predicting when the sky dragon was going to eat the moon paid off bigtime in mutton, beer and girls. So you told the rubes that was what was happening, even though you knew perfectly well that it was the shadow of the Earth falling on the moon.

Monks, in the Middle Ages, were famously regarded as being very good farmers. In fact, their prowess was thought to be magical, or proof of the favour of God, which is much the same thing. They sure did work hard at it, but they also worked smart, keeping good records of what worked and what didn't, and of their investments, trying new methods, communicating (via writing) with other monasteries that were doing the same. It was almost certainly the monasteries that pioneered the three-field system; Lenten restrictions led them to develop fish-farming, which boosted protein intake and paid off in extra fertiliser; they were the first to develop rye as a grain crop outside of Scandinavia; even the (European) wheelbarrow and the horsecollar were probably first used on monastery lands.

But much of this was also kept within their communities. It leaked out only slowly. The monks made no effort whatsoever to teach the laity how to grow more food. They were prepared to impart literacy only within their walls, mostly to postulants. It's no accident that "clerk" and "cleric" are really the same word. In the monks' defence, it should be said that they provided hospices, food and shelter for the poorest, of their charity. But the monasteries were not there to help the poor; their job was to pray and glorify God. Jesus would probably have said that the best way of doing the latter was to do the former, but what would he know?

Point, approaching at last: science is actually a far more noble endeavour. Scientists seek knowledge, and can't wait to tell everyone what they've found out. In fact, you can't stop them and you shouldn't try, though governments often do. Yes, you can object that scientists do this out of a desire for accolades, glory and fame. Sure. (It certainly isn't for the money.) But if they get the accolades, it's for doing what they're supposed to do, not for hiding stuff or doing something else. The result is the remorseless advance of knowledge, but more - the remorseless dissemination of it, to everyone's benefit.

And if that isn't a noble calling, damned if I know what is.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

A study taken in the US found there were roughly 480,000 biologists and paleontologists/geologists. About 700 of them rejected evolution. You do the math on what percent of scientists in the earth and life sciences that go against the grain. Care to reconsider your definition of rare? Sure, the Discovery Institute has its 'Dissent from Darwin' list. But many on this list are engineers, meteorologists, computer scientists and other occupations hardly relevant to biological evolution. In contrast, Project Steve currently has over 1200 names using this much more strict criteria.

Impressive that such a poll was taken and such a need. creationism shows its punch.

Such studies show the impotency of YECism within the mainstream scientific community. This despite it being five long decades since Whitcomb & Morris first published The Genesis Flood.

Again however these numbers mislead. first what in the world does geology have to do with biology. its a desperate attempt to find evidence in rocks where evidence in biological systems is wanting.

As has been explained to you countless times, geology/paleontology gives independent confirmation of evolution. BTW, you never explained why there are virtually no PhD geologists/paleontologists within the YEC movement - never mind that the rare ones like Kurt Wise openly admit the evidence is way against them, at least for now. You ignored comments about how leading YECs (Henry Morris, Walter Lammerts, John Whitcomb) were highly embarrassed that there were literally no YEC PhD geologists as recently as the early 1980s. This said, if there was no science of geology/paleontology, if there was not a single fossil in existence, evolution would still be strong (hence how multiple lines of evidence are independent from each other). As has been explained to you countless times, fields like evo-devo are independent of geology/paleontology, yet evo-devo offers some of the most robust evidence for evolution. As has been explained to you, most of the evidence Darwin and Alfred Wallace used (like bio-geography, comparative anatomy of living species, comparative behaviorism among species) was independent of the fossil record.

In fact few of these people get paid to think or work with evolutionary ideas. they just get a introductory course like everyone else. then they move on to actual biology and not hypothesis of the origin of actual biology. they just accept what they read in the books.

Wow, you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. Rather sad. It has been explained multiple times to you that the predictions of evolutionary theory has been successfully used to find many new fossils, including Tiktaalik in your own beloved Canada. The oil industry uses biostratigraphy (note the 'bio') to routinely find new oil deposits. Ex-YEC Glenn Morton learned the hard and painful way that so-called Flood geology is impotent in finding oil. Oh, if you had read Morton's website, you would have learned Morton hired many YEC assistants (many came direct from ICR's Graduate School). As these YEC assistants gained experience in the field, literally every single one of the YEC assistants experienced spiritual trauma, just like Morton experienced. In order for real world scientists (both in private industry and academia) to keep earning their paychecks, they need to get their science right on some regular basis. This is in contrast to creationism/ID; as long as conservative religious flocks keep donating in mass to AIG/ICR/Discovery Institute, the 'scientists' as such organizations can largely say anything they want that they think is 'scientific' but still get continuous financial support.

if a subject is taught as truth to kids then the kids would accept it without question. They accept and trust the authority behind it.

Scientific theories/laws/facts are not taught as 'truth', as least not total truth. They are taught as tentative conclusions. They are taught as the best scientific explanations at the present time, explanations that are capable of being modified or even overthrown if per chance a better scientific theory/law/fact is later found.

Yet its not about their ability to investigate it. few biologists investigate anything related to evolution.

Are you so thick-headed that even you can't comprehend the first and third words in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo)? Well, apparently you really are that dense. As someone mentioned earlier, even the folks at Uncommon Descent must laugh at you. Anyway, others are free to look up evo-devo.

No, Byers. Geology is used as evidence. Period. That's because it is evidence.

Evidence for evolution exists because evolution exists and has an effect on the observable world. Having an effect always produces evidence, which can be found if the right place is searched in the right way.

All creatures are evolving, but there are no "stages" in evolution, which is continuous and seamless, always towards best possible reproductive fitness.

And one does not need a living ancestor, although some of those clearly exist. All one needs is sufficient evidence from the traces that living things leave behind them.

Evolution is an understanding at the very heart of all biology. Without it, biology would be a "kitchen" science. With it, a principle can be applied that has predictive power, and hence can be used to design experiments.

Evolution existed as a fully formed theory, not a hypothesis, largely without fossil evidence (although that supported it more and more as more was found) and without absolute dating methods.

The long geological ages are a matter of unassailable fact, not of faith. Your wilful ignorance doesn't change this in the least.

The biogeography, embryology, linked and ring species, vestigial structures, and other lines of evidence were even more important in the day, as was population genetics once that came along, and finally the DNA and biochemistry.

And your bone-headed idiotic contention that data from one science cannot be used to verify another is so woefully, helplessly, moronically STUPID that it defies description.

Nine sentences, nine foolish untruths. You're batting zero, Byers. Keep it up.

Henry J said:

I would dare say that the Bible at least as clearly says that the Sun goes around a fixed Earth as that species are fixed, and that the evidence for evolution is at least as accessible as that for heliocentrism.

I disagree. The sun, moon and the five other planets that have been known since ancient times are just seven objects, and the shift of their position across the sky (and relative to each other) are directly visible and can be measured. Evolution requires observing a much larger number of objects, looking for clues that are often far more subtle than observed position of something in the sky. Henry

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

A study taken in the US found there were roughly 480,000 biologists and paleontologists/geologists. About 700 of them rejected evolution. You do the math on what percent of scientists in the earth and life sciences that go against the grain. Care to reconsider your definition of rare? Sure, the Discovery Institute has its 'Dissent from Darwin' list. But many on this list are engineers, meteorologists, computer scientists and other occupations hardly relevant to biological evolution. In contrast, Project Steve currently has over 1200 names using this much more strict criteria.

Impressive that such a poll was taken and such a need. creationism shows its punch.

Such studies show the impotency of YECism within the mainstream scientific community. This despite it being five long decades since Whitcomb & Morris first published The Genesis Flood.

Again however these numbers mislead. first what in the world does geology have to do with biology. its a desperate attempt to find evidence in rocks where evidence in biological systems is wanting.

As has been explained to you countless times, geology/paleontology gives independent confirmation of evolution. BTW, you never explained why there are virtually no PhD geologists/paleontologists within the YEC movement - never mind that the rare ones like Kurt Wise openly admit the evidence is way against them, at least for now. You ignored comments about how leading YECs (Henry Morris, Walter Lammerts, John Whitcomb) were highly embarrassed that there were literally no YEC PhD geologists as recently as the early 1980s. This said, if there was no science of geology/paleontology, if there was not a single fossil in existence, evolution would still be strong (hence how multiple lines of evidence are independent from each other). As has been explained to you countless times, fields like evo-devo are independent of geology/paleontology, yet evo-devo offers some of the most robust evidence for evolution. As has been explained to you, most of the evidence Darwin and Alfred Wallace used (like bio-geography, comparative anatomy of living species, comparative behaviorism among species) was independent of the fossil record.

In fact few of these people get paid to think or work with evolutionary ideas. they just get a introductory course like everyone else. then they move on to actual biology and not hypothesis of the origin of actual biology. they just accept what they read in the books.

Wow, you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. Rather sad. It has been explained multiple times to you that the predictions of evolutionary theory has been successfully used to find many new fossils, including Tiktaalik in your own beloved Canada. The oil industry uses biostratigraphy (note the 'bio') to routinely find new oil deposits. Ex-YEC Glenn Morton learned the hard and painful way that so-called Flood geology is impotent in finding oil. Oh, if you had read Morton's website, you would have learned Morton hired many YEC assistants (many came direct from ICR's Graduate School). As these YEC assistants gained experience in the field, literally every single one of the YEC assistants experienced spiritual trauma, just like Morton experienced. In order for real world scientists (both in private industry and academia) to keep earning their paychecks, they need to get their science right on some regular basis. This is in contrast to creationism/ID; as long as conservative religious flocks keep donating in mass to AIG/ICR/Discovery Institute, the 'scientists' as such organizations can largely say anything they want that they think is 'scientific' but still get continuous financial support.

if a subject is taught as truth to kids then the kids would accept it without question. They accept and trust the authority behind it.

Scientific theories/laws/facts are not taught as 'truth', as least not total truth. They are taught as tentative conclusions. They are taught as the best scientific explanations at the present time, explanations that are capable of being modified or even overthrown if per chance a better scientific theory/law/fact is later found.

Yet its not about their ability to investigate it. few biologists investigate anything related to evolution.

Are you so thick-headed that even you can't comprehend the first and third words in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo)? Well, apparently you really are that dense. As someone mentioned earlier, even the folks at Uncommon Descent must laugh at you. Anyway, others are free to look up evo-devo.

Just not so that geology is used only as a independent confirmation. Its largely what they use as evidence when addressing the public. In fact how could there be evidence of evolution? It could only be a line of reasoning since the present is a stage only in a creatures evolution. One would need a previous state of it walking around still. Evolutionary biology has little or nothing to do with biological investigation. Without fossils and time that is "supplied" by geology evolution can not exist as a hypothesis. Darwin said Put down his book if the presumption of long ages is not already a article of faith. I say put down evolutions claim as a biological theory as long as geology is its foundational faith.

DS said: You know absolutely nothing about anything. Why should anyone give a rats hairy ass what you think?

Just not so that geology is used only as a independent confirmation of YEC. Its largely not what they use as evidence when addressing the public. In fact how could there be evidence of YEC? It could only be a line of reasoning since the present is a stage only in a creatures evolution. One would need a previous state of it walking around still, cause fossils no is good.

YEC has little or nothing to do with biological investigation. Without fossils and time that is “supplied” by geology YEC can not exist as a hypothesis. Darwin said Put down his book if the presumption of long ages is not supported by evidence, but it is being so. I say put down YEC claim as a biological theory as long as geology cannot be used as its foundational faith.

DS said: Literally thousands of real scientists study evolution every day. What so you suppose they are all doing, the same bullshit that YEC assholes do?

Well that certainly explains why he refuses to look at the evidence. I guess he must know deep down inside that a single look at the actual evidence will cause his entire make-believe reality to come crashing down. It must be sad to live your life in desperate fear of reality. You have to explain entire fields of science out of existence, even though you are you are reading things by scientists who are actually in the fields you deny exist!

TomS said:

Henry J said:

I would dare say that the Bible at least as clearly says that the Sun goes around a fixed Earth as that species are fixed, and that the evidence for evolution is at least as accessible as that for heliocentrism.

I disagree. The sun, moon and the five other planets that have been known since ancient times are just seven objects, and the shift of their position across the sky (and relative to each other) are directly visible and can be measured. Evolution requires observing a much larger number of objects, looking for clues that are often far more subtle than observed position of something in the sky. Henry

One is accustomed to getting strange responses from creationists, but this stretches the boundaries. Do you really think that it was known since ancient times that the Earth was in motion around the Sun?

Here's some sanctimonius BS written by University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro in reply to a creationist fan of his, Philip Rivera, only a few hours ago:

"Philip,

"I hope I made it clear that I do not share the anti-religious bias of many "evolution" advocates in my April 16 post entitled 'What Is the Best Way to Deal With Supernaturalists in Science and Evolution?' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/evolution-debate_b_1425133.html). As you suggest, placing that bias at the center of arguments on behalf of evolution is a major error."

"I have the impression with both Dawkins and Coyne that they care more about their anti-religious crusade than about finding real scientific answers. That may be why the evolution cause has been doing so poorly in the public arena."

"The upcoming review of my book next month on the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) website is a test as to whether new science is welcomed by the organization that has assumed the role of defending evolution in public. Knowing the reviewer, I am not optimistic. However, I will have a chance to reply."

"Just as scientists do not want theology to interfere in research and education, we need to respect the right of believers to be free from assaults in the name of science. It is wrong, and it is deeply anti-American, as defined by the First Ammendment to the Constitution."

The rest of the thread is here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/genetic-engineering_b_1541180.html

Feel free to post your comments in rebuttal to Shapiro's breathtaking inanity.

SLC said: Yessir, Prof. Shapiro was a well respected biologist until he started espousing rubbish. Just like Peter Duesberg was a well respected virologist until he started denying that HIV causes AIDS. Just like J. Allen Hynek was a well respected astronomer until he started claiming that alien abductions were real. Just like Brian Josephson was a well respected physicist until he started claiming that PK, ESP, and cold fusion were scientifically valid propositions. Just like Linus Pauling was a well respected chemist until he started claiming that vitamin C could cure cancer. Just like William Shockley was a well respected physicist until he started espousing his racist ideas. Mr. SteveP, like booby Byers, is a microcephalic who lacks sufficient intelligence to discern his nether orifice from a hole in the ground.

SteveP. said: So Shapiro was well respected until he decided to let the cat outta the bag. Now he's talking non-sense. What a hoot! Oh yeah, you(pl) will have to struggle with that 'non-sense' alright; just like you(pl) struggle with Behe's, Dembski's, Marks', Axe's, Gauger's, Wells', Minnock's, and Sternberg's 'non-sense'. Tough stuff, that 'non-sense'. P.S. Calling them clowns doesn't help your case. It only highlights your insecurity.

SLC said: I have to agree with Mr. Kwok here. There is a profound difference between clowns like Behe and Dumbski on the one hand and (formerly) respectable biologists like Shapiro. Shapiro, given his bonafides, is someone who has to be taken seriously, just as Peter Duesberg has to be taken seriously on the question of the HIV/AIDS question. Just as the medical community cannot afford to allow Duesberg's nonsense to go unchallenged, so the evolutionary biology community cannot afford to allow Shapiro's nonsense to go unchallenged.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Maybe you can tackle next University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro, who, at HuffPo, seems determined to act like a DI clone, claiming that it is okay for him to post at a DI website when none of his colleagues would dare consent to it.

Why bother? At most, he may evolve into another Behe (I doubt that he'll drift that far), but even if he does -- so what? Like the whole intelligent design movement, Behe hasn't produced any evidence for his claims, he just points to things he doesn't understand. That doesn't even begin to challenge evolution, and it's certainly not an alternative scientific theory. At most, such questions are potential research projects, but no ID research is being done. Behe's colleagues ignore him. That's the proper response until he comes up with something publishable they can look at. Evidence must be dealt with seriously. Cranks can be ignored.

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain sd:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

A study taken in the US found there were roughly 480,000 biologists and paleontologists/geologists. About 700 of them rejected evolution. You do the math on what percent of scientists in the earth and life sciences that go against the grain. Care to reconsider your definition of rare? Sure, the Discovery Institute has its 'Dissent from Darwin' list. But many on this list are engineers, meteorologists, computer scientists and other occupations hardly relevant to biological evolution. In contrast, Project Steve currently has over 1200 names using this much more strict criteria.

Impressive that such a poll was taken and such a need. creationism shows its punch.

Just not so that geology is used only as a independent confirmation. Its largely what they use as evidence when addressing the public.

SteveP. the lying hypocrite bloviated: Ah, I see. You need to put others down to pick yourself up.

So thats the level of rhetoric you are capable of. got it.

So your definition of nonsense is 'its too logical and rational so it makes no sense to you'. Yeah, I can see that.

The likes of you probably do far more harm to Christianity than even militant atheists like Provine, Myers, and Dawkins.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain sd:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Have a go at reading this: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm At the very least it will clear up some of the more obvious misconceptions that you witlessly reproduce regarding the history of science. It's a pretty good account of how scientists, many of whom were creationists, completely dismantled the idea that Genesis could be construed as a literal account of how the world is the way that in the period 1650-1850. Before Darwin.

This evangelical Christian is Dr Davis Young, a recently retired geologist at Calvin College in Michigan. He was a fundamentalist early in his career. At one point, Young even worked with Henry Morris regarding Flood geology. Back then, anti-evolutionists were desperately looking for a Flood geologist with a PhD in geology. Early on, Young showed promise of becoming that person. Alas, Young soon recanted on Flood geology, to the disappointment and dismay of YEC leaders like Henry Morris and Walter Lammerts. Thus, Young is yet another former Flood geologist/former YEC/former fundamentalist - along with the likes of Gordon Glover (click here) and physicist/Canadian native Karl Giberson.

you can't just think they are competent in their ideas because you agree with them. This guy [Davis Young] is just wrong and rare.

A study taken in the US found there were roughly 480,000 biologists and paleontologists/geologists. About 700 of them rejected evolution. You do the math on what percent of scientists in the earth and life sciences that go against the grain. Care to reconsider your definition of rare? Sure, the Discovery Institute has its 'Dissent from Darwin' list. But many on this list are engineers, meteorologists, computer scientists and other occupations hardly relevant to biological evolution. In contrast, Project Steve currently has over 1200 names using this much more strict criteria.

Impressive that such a poll was taken and such a need. creationism shows its punch.

Just not so that geology is used only as a independent confirmation. Its largely what they use as evidence when addressing the public.

I double dare you to look up mainstream biology peer-review journals, or take a class on basic mainstream biology (like I did in college) and see how little geology is discussed. I double dare you to fully read popular level books about evo-devo to see how relatively little geology is talked about, such as Sean B Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here). You likely won't do any of this, as your past history shows. Even with the rare exceptions, you show you are too inflicted with Morton's Demon. In closing, your ilk likely causes many to leave Christianity (and turns off many that were considering converting to Christ [click link here] ). The likes of you probably do far more harm to Christianity than even militant atheists like Provine, Myers, and Dawkins. It may be debatable whether the Gospel is hurt more by the likes of your stupidity, or the likes of FL's bullying and taunting. But I will echo what PT regular (and Christian) 'SWT' has touched on when addressing PT trolls; if you really want to do the Christian faith a big favor, consider this option: Stop posting - both here at PT and elsewhere.

No, Byers. Everyone does not know that. Only the actively delusional, like yourself, think that geology does not provide evidence for the dating of fossils, which in turn provides evidence for the evolutionary change of species over time.

Evolution happened. There are mountains of evidence for it from biology, biochemistry, genetics and paleontology, and the geology confirms the dating and the timescale. Biology can be explained without Genesis or God. Evolution is not a line of reasoning, but a vast set of plainly established facts. It happened. Your ignorance, blind faith, and unreason are in vain. It doesn't matter what your delusions are. It still happened.

I said for the public. They do use “evidence” based on fossil sequence. its most what they do to try to prove evolution is true. Everyone knows that. Anyone trying to make the evolution case quickly invokes fossils based on geology conclusions. They convince themselves by this evidence.

Robert

No. Once again, your utter ignorance of the history of science manifests itself.

There were two to three hundred years of observation and classification of the diversity of living organisms prior to Darwin that increased the numbers of recognised distinct species by orders of magnitude; many of these species were clearly very closely inter-related, and their variations were explicable in terms of their environment. That this profusion could be explained in terms of discrete acts of special creation at a particular point in both space and time was untenable. The concept that some sort of evolutionary process was at work was already in play a good 60-70 years prior to the publicaton of Darwin's work. This had nothing to do with the fossil record, and everything to do with actual observations of the actual diversity of living organisms in the actual world of the present.

The exploration of the Americas from the 16th century onwards, Australasia from the 18th century onwards etc showed that there was a spatial component to the diversity of life, and that variation was connected to geography and environment. Again, this had nothing to do with the fossil record and had everything to do with acutal observations in the present.

Then there was the evidence of heredity - that parents pass on their characteristics to their offspring. And that this is a mechanism for variation. No fossil record needed there either.

Even without a fossil record, there would have been some sort of evolutionary theory that explained the diversity and distribution of living organisms - as it was recognised that life is not fixed, instead, it's mutable, dynamic and intimately connected to its environment.

The fossil record was important, however, because it showed that there was a temporal sequence to the history of life, that the earliest forms of life were marine organisms, that there was a progression towards greater variety and complexity over time, that land-based life was a relatively recent phenomenon, that the same pattern of of progression towards greater variety and complexity over time obtained, and, perhaps most importantly of all, that extinction of species was a continuous phenomenon - and that the particular cases of the very recent extinction of some megafauna such as mammoths and giant sloths was due to environmental factors.

Do you really believe that the "public" thinks about fossils when considering the evolution of drug-resistant pathogens? You shouldn't presume that the public shares your dogmatic incuriosity, love of ignorance and dishonesty. Most people understand that science isn't revelation. The evidence is there for anyone to see, both in the diversity of life in the present, that heredity and environment explain that diversity, and that the history of life is preserved in the rocks; that's the basic evolutionary synthesis, and in the 150 years since, that understanding has only been deepened, broadened and subjected to ever more rigorous confirmation.

And you don't have a shred of evidence, knowledge, logic or reason to bring to the discussion, just a series of ill-informed, poorly expressed whines.

Henry J said: I was talking about what people think today, and the relative amount of analysis needed to understand the two conclusions mentioned.

Robert Byers said: I said for the public. They do use "evidence" based on fossil sequence. its most what they do to try to prove evolution is true. Everyone knows that. Anyone trying to make the evolution case quickly invokes fossils based on geology conclusions. They convince themselves by this evidence. Even if some textbooks, you say, don't invoke geology/fossils then they still invoke other non biological evidence. Evolution never happened and there couldn't be evidence from biological investigation. Its still, since Darwin, a line of reasoning and desire to explain biology without God and genesis. In fact the NSEC (sp) evolutionary organization used the phrase THE FOSSILS SAY SO as their motto to assert evolutionism to the public. Fossilism is based on geology and not biology.

DS said: Now get it straight once and for all. YEC IS WRONG. DEAD WRONG. There is no evidence for it, period. All of your lies will never change this. All of your lies about evolution will never change anything either. SInce you refuse to look at any evidence, everyone cans see that you are just a liar and and a fraud.

You're kidding, right? Of course Byers provides evidence. He said where it is - it's in Genesis. That's evidence. It's eyewitness testimony, in fact. God dictated it to Moses and Moses wrote it down. What more do you need?

I said for the public.
They do not use "evidence" based on fossil sequence. its most not what they do to try to prove YEC is true.
Everyone knows that.
Anyone trying to make the YEC case quickly realizes that they cannot invokes fossils based on geology conclusions.
They convince themselves by this evidence, but no one else is convinceded.

Even if some YEC books don't invoke geology/fossils then they still invoke other non biological evidence.
YEC never happened and there couldn't be evidence from biological investigation.
Its still, since Jesus, a line of reasoning and desire to explain biology without evidence at alls.
In fact the YEC organizations used the phrase THE FOSSILS SAY NO as their motto to assert YECism to the public.
Fossils is based on paleontology and is biology. That's why YEC can't be using thems.

Dave Luckett said: You're kidding, right? Of course Byers provides evidence. He said where it is - it's in Genesis. That's evidence. It's eyewitness testimony, in fact. God dictated it to Moses and Moses wrote it down. What more do you need?

Carl Drews said:

Tenncrain said: It was largely the work of Christian geologists like Adam Sedgwick (who recanted Flood geology in the 1830s) that undermined a world-wide Flood within mainstream science.

And if those Christians had been reading their Bibles carefully, they would have suspected that Noah's Flood was not global. The Hebrew word for "earth" is 'erets, H776: www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776 The most common usage in the KJV is land (country, region), not earth (planet): AV — land 1543, earth 712, country 140, ground 98, world 4, way 3, common 1, field 1, nations 1, wilderness + 04057 1 Genesis 8 states that the 'erets does not include the mountain tops:

Gen 8:5 And the waters 4325 decreased 2637 continually 1980 until 5704 the tenth 6224 month 2320: in the tenth 6224 [month], on the first 259 [day] of the month 2320, were the tops 7218 of the mountains 2022 seen 7200 . Gen 8:9 But the dove 3123 found 4672 no rest 4494 for the sole 3709 of her foot 7272, and she returned 7725 unto him into the ark 8392, for the waters 4325 [were] on the face 6440 of the whole earth776: then he put forth 7971 his hand 3027, and took her 3947 , and pulled her in 935 unto him into the ark 8392.

Verse 9 follows up on verse 5. In the context of Genesis 8 (the Flood), 'erets means the entire known region of that time. See all this great stuff you can learn just by hanging out at Panda's Thumb?

Robert Byers said: I said for the public.

They do use “evidence” based on fossil sequence.

Evolution never happened and there couldn’t be evidence from biological investigation.

Henry said: The problems with a local flood rather than a global one are:

Tenncrain said: The more you keep up this breathtaking inanity of your, the deeper you dig yourself. On the other hand, it's great when anti-evolutionists are their own worst enemy.

Henry said: The problems with a local flood rather than a global one...

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert No. Once again, your utter ignorance of the history of science manifests itself. There were two to three hundred years of observation and classification of the diversity of living organisms prior to Darwin that increased the numbers of recognised distinct species by orders of magnitude; many of these species were clearly very closely inter-related, and their variations were explicable in terms of their environment. That this profusion could be explained in terms of discrete acts of special creation at a particular point in both space and time was untenable. The concept that some sort of evolutionary process was at work was already in play a good 60-70 years prior to the publicaton of Darwin's work. This had nothing to do with the fossil record, and everything to do with actual observations of the actual diversity of living organisms in the actual world of the present. The exploration of the Americas from the 16th century onwards, Australasia from the 18th century onwards etc showed that there was a spatial component to the diversity of life, and that variation was connected to geography and environment. Again, this had nothing to do with the fossil record and had everything to do with acutal observations in the present. Then there was the evidence of heredity - that parents pass on their characteristics to their offspring. And that this is a mechanism for variation. No fossil record needed there either. Even without a fossil record, there would have been some sort of evolutionary theory that explained the diversity and distribution of living organisms - as it was recognised that life is not fixed, instead, it's mutable, dynamic and intimately connected to its environment. The fossil record was important, however, because it showed that there was a temporal sequence to the history of life, that the earliest forms of life were marine organisms, that there was a progression towards greater variety and complexity over time, that land-based life was a relatively recent phenomenon, that the same pattern of of progression towards greater variety and complexity over time obtained, and, perhaps most importantly of all, that extinction of species was a continuous phenomenon - and that the particular cases of the very recent extinction of some megafauna such as mammoths and giant sloths was due to environmental factors. Do you really believe that the "public" thinks about fossils when considering the evolution of drug-resistant pathogens? You shouldn't presume that the public shares your dogmatic incuriosity, love of ignorance and dishonesty. Most people understand that science isn't revelation. The evidence is there for anyone to see, both in the diversity of life in the present, that heredity and environment explain that diversity, and that the history of life is preserved in the rocks; that's the basic evolutionary synthesis, and in the 150 years since, that understanding has only been deepened, broadened and subjected to ever more rigorous confirmation. And you don't have a shred of evidence, knowledge, logic or reason to bring to the discussion, just a series of ill-informed, poorly expressed whines.

Genetics is "too atomic and unproven".

One is used to jawdropping clangers from the sage of Saskatchewan, but that one takes the biscuit.

Robert, the walking self-refutation

You seem to be suggesting that the contention for evolution should be made without reference to, well, evidence. Seeing as the theory of evolution was the product of evidence, as found in the world around us, that's simply not going to happen. Again, you're just following the standard post-Morris & Whitcomb creationist fancy of pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, and that if you wish hard enough for the evidence to disappear then you'll be able to settle the argument; not gonna happen kiddo. Once again, science is not revelation. Try the converse - pretend that there's no bible and deduce a literal six-day scheme of creation and a global flood without reference to it.

You keep harping on about there being very little work or investigation done prior to Darwin - but you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about; I'd suggest that you write us a little precis of the inadequacies of the scientific researches in the period 1550-1850 that both qualifies and quantifies this, giving your critiques of the deficiencies of Gessner, William Turner, Ray, Hooke, Casealpino, the various learned societies that spring up across Europe in the 17th century, van Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, St Hilaire, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, von Humboldt, comparative anatomy et al, but that would actually require you to do some work and get to grips with actual history. You've repeatedly shown that you simply lack the guts, the wit or the honesty to do this.

The star evidence for evolution is the diversity of living things that we encounter in the world around us; and it's not a hunch - it's a well-demonstrated fact that has been repeatedly confirmed. Fossils are a line of evidence - you can't just wish them into non-existence. Genetics is a line of evdience too - again, you can't just wish it into non-existence because it's factually inconvenient.

Robert Byers said: Finding diversity in species is not saying that bugs became buffalos. In fact one would find diversity in people. it was very little work or investigation with conclusions being done with discovering species in close but different locals and variation. this is not about fossils but its trivial investigation done before Darwin. Its minor and in fact creationism would of had no problem with it.

Again when making the case for evolution fossils/geology is the star evidence. They do explain lines of reasoning and now genetics is invoked but still its all in the fossils when trying to persuade/prove evolution. Oh yes it is.

without fossils/geology evolution has little evidence to present to the public. This because evolution has no evidence beyond being a hunch. A open hypothesis. A apple on the head.

Lets try a summer project. all evolutionists who contend for evolution before any audience are to only make the case for its truth without aid of geology/fossils/biogeography or any non biological thing. No genetics either as its too atomic and unproven.

I see the lying coward Robert Byers still insists on supporting his inane lies with impotent assertions.

He appears to be too stupid to realize that he knows nothing about science or history of science or anything at all, and that his pious lies and arrogant assertions make him out to be a monstrously stupid idiot.

Lets try a summer project. all evolutionists who contend for evolution before any audience are to only make the case for its truth without aid of geology/fossils/biogeography or any non biological thing. No genetics either as its too atomic and unproven.

Robert Byers said: Lets try a summer project. all evolutionists who contend for evolution before any audience are to only make the case for its truth without aid of geology/fossils/biogeography or any non biological thing. No genetics either as its too atomic and unproven.

I wonder if he thinks "atomic and unproven" will work in a DNA-backed paternity suit, or a criminal trial with DNA evidence.

Robert, if your spouse, daughter, sister, or other female loved one were raped, and the only physical evidence linking the rapist to the crime was DNA, would you NOT want molecular DNA evidence used to convict the rapist "as its too atomic and unproven"?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert, the walking self-refutation You seem to be suggesting that the contention for evolution should be made without reference to, well, evidence. Seeing as the theory of evolution was the product of evidence, as found in the world around us, that's simply not going to happen. Again, you're just following the standard post-Morris; Whitcomb creationist fancy of pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, and that if you wish hard enough for the evidence to disappear then you'll be able to settle the argument; not gonna happen kiddo. Once again, science is not revelation. Try the converse - pretend that there's no bible and deduce a literal six-day scheme of creation and a global flood without reference to it.

I agree. Robert must prove a six day creation less than ten thousand years ago and a global flood, without reference to the bible.

— DS

DS said: Oh well, at least it's more proof that religious fanatics really do want to throw out all of science and send us back to the dark ages where they can preach to the choir until they all die of the plague.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert, the walking self-refutation You seem to be suggesting that the contention for evolution should be made without reference to, well, evidence. Seeing as the theory of evolution was the product of evidence, as found in the world around us, that's simply not going to happen. Again, you're just following the standard post-Morris & Whitcomb creationist fancy of pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, and that if you wish hard enough for the evidence to disappear then you'll be able to settle the argument; not gonna happen kiddo. Once again, science is not revelation. Try the converse - pretend that there's no bible and deduce a literal six-day scheme of creation and a global flood without reference to it. You keep harping on about there being very little work or investigation done prior to Darwin - but you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about; I'd suggest that you write us a little precis of the inadequacies of the scientific researches in the period 1550-1850 that both qualifies and quantifies this, giving your critiques of the deficiencies of Gessner, William Turner, Ray, Hooke, Casealpino, the various learned societies that spring up across Europe in the 17th century, van Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, St Hilaire, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, von Humboldt, comparative anatomy et al, but that would actually require you to do some work and get to grips with actual history. You've repeatedly shown that you simply lack the guts, the wit or the honesty to do this. The star evidence for evolution is the diversity of living things that we encounter in the world around us; and it's not a hunch - it's a well-demonstrated fact that has been repeatedly confirmed. Fossils are a line of evidence - you can't just wish them into non-existence. Genetics is a line of evdience too - again, you can't just wish it into non-existence because it's factually inconvenient.

Just Bob said: I wonder if he thinks "atomic and unproven" will work in a DNA-backed paternity suit, or a criminal trial with DNA evidence. Robert, if your spouse, daughter, sister, or other female loved one were raped, and the only physical evidence linking the rapist to the crime was DNA, would you NOT want molecular DNA evidence used to convict the rapist "as its too atomic and unproven"?

Self-refutin' Robert

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, again, saying that the evidence of evolution cannot be used to prove evolution until evolution has been proved without recourse to the evidence isn't going to convince anyone of either your thoughtfulness or of your sincerity; once again, science isn't revelation, and we don't learn anything when we get stuck in a cognitive hamster wheel like the one you've imprisoned yourself in. You demonstrate this every time you put finger to keyboard.

I appreciate that it's useful to have a divine flunky to help you out whenever the evidence becomes inconvenient or too difficult for you to understand; speaking personally, if I had a divine flunky, I'd get a stonkingly fast starship, 10,000 volumes of my choosing from the British Library and an excellent wine cellar.

Do you really think that genetics is just an unobserved presumption, and that in the real world we haven't sequenced the genomes of numerous species? Do you really think that we don't know what genes are and what they do? Do you really think that we haven't identified specific genes that cause certain inherited conditions and diseases? 'Cos that's going to come as news to a lot of people, some of whom have things like Nobel prizes.

You make a lot of idiotic statements, but when you say that "genetics is all presumption and not about observed reality" you've dug through the bottom of the barrel of stupidity, and are heading deep into the earth's core. You should retract that one PDQ.

Robert Byers said: Apes have like DNA with people yet its just evidence of having a like body. not anything to do with biological relationship. its a flawed logic to insist only on only one option.

Apes have like DNA with people yet its just evidence of having a like body.

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: I wonder if he thinks "atomic and unproven" will work in a DNA-backed paternity suit, or a criminal trial with DNA evidence. Robert, if your spouse, daughter, sister, or other female loved one were raped, and the only physical evidence linking the rapist to the crime was DNA, would you NOT want molecular DNA evidence used to convict the rapist "as its too atomic and unproven"?

This always comes up. Its just a special case and could only be that we are connected to our immediate relatives and so on. Yet its just because our "parts" are so alike that the dna is so alike. Its a false logic to then say one can determine biological heritage all the way back. The dna just follows the parts. Like structures would have like dna scores. It could only be that way. A creator would just have a single DNA plan. Genetics is all presumption and not about observed reality. Its not a settled biological truth that genetics tells a biological trail. Its just a line of reasoning just as your example to me is. Apes have like DNA with people yet its just evidence of having a like body. not anything to do with biological relationship. its a flawed logic to insist only on only one option.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: You make a lot of idiotic statements, but when you say that "genetics is all presumption and not about observed reality" you've dug through the bottom of the barrel of stupidity, and are heading deep into the earth's core. You should retract that one PDQ.

TomS

Self-refutin' Robert apparently adheres to the Time Bandits school of creationism - it was a rush job, and God had to sub-contract.

My reply to RB is the same as Mehmet's: he needs to use some bogus Turkish nasal spary to enhance his sex life. Or something.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Self-refutin' Robert At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, again, saying that the evidence of evolution cannot be used to prove evolution until evolution has been proved without recourse to the evidence isn't going to convince anyone of either your thoughtfulness or of your sincerity; once again, science isn't revelation, and we don't learn anything when we get stuck in a cognitive hamster wheel like the one you've imprisoned yourself in. You demonstrate this every time you put finger to keyboard. I appreciate that it's useful to have a divine flunky to help you out whenever the evidence becomes inconvenient or too difficult for you to understand; speaking personally, if I had a divine flunky, I'd get a stonkingly fast starship, 10,000 volumes of my choosing from the British Library and an excellent wine cellar. Do you really think that genetics is just an unobserved presumption, and that in the real world we haven't sequenced the genomes of numerous species? Do you really think that we don't know what genes are and what they do? Do you really think that we haven't identified specific genes that cause certain inherited conditions and diseases? 'Cos that's going to come as news to a lot of people, some of whom have things like Nobel prizes. You make a lot of idiotic statements, but when you say that "genetics is all presumption and not about observed reality" you've dug through the bottom of the barrel of stupidity, and are heading deep into the earth's core. You should retract that one PDQ.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: Apes have like DNA with people yet its just evidence of having a like body. not anything to do with biological relationship. its a flawed logic to insist only on only one option.

The other options being what? That an omnipotent God, or some intelligent designers, wanted humans, chimps and other apes to be very much similar to one another, in order to serve similar goals? Or that God or the designers were constrained by the materials they were given to work with, or by the limitations of their imaginations, in making humans, chimps and other apes; or that God or the designers didn't care enough to do different designs?

Rolf said: Robert said:

Apes have like DNA with people yet its just evidence of having a like body.

Which means DNA is not acceptable as evidence in court - it only shows you are human, not that you are related to your parents. That is what you are saying! Why should we believe you, are you qualified to have an opinion on any scientfic issue? You are speaking only for yourself and you have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever, not even in theology or Biblical scholarship. Now tell us how wolves turned into thylacines. Your silence on that reveals that you are a lying idiot. Speak up or disappear from here. You would be an embarassment even to AIG or ICR.

Sez Byers: to have a different body from the general equation of nature would be impossible.

Self-refutin' Robert

"Genetic biological relationships" are well-observed, demonstrable facts that show evolutionary connections between different organisms. The connections are there for anyone to see in the DNA sequences. Pretending that you do not, can not or will not see them is just another instance of your epistemological nihilism, and your evident refusal to know or learn anything about anything - something that you publicly demonstrate on a daily basis. Keep up the good work, self-refutin' Robert!

Do you think that the DNA parts department is run by a gang of disgruntled and underpaid dwarves?

Robert Byers said: The better option is a creator had one blueprint or equation for nature and then diversion from it into kinds. We being made in gods image (in our soul) were then put into nature and could only be of nature. so simply we were given the best body in nature for a being like us. The ape bode is the best! what else! to have a different body from the general equation of nature would be impossible. Our spirit/soul has no physics like nature. Therefore we likewise have the same DNA as apes because we have the like body. Yet unrelated in biology. The bible sets the boundary here.

Just Bob said:

Henry said: The problems with a local flood rather than a global one...

Yes, Henry, the biblical flood story pretty much demands that it supposes the whole earth to have been covered. That's what's wrong with it. The folks who invented and told it, and later wrote it, whether that was Moses (yeah, right) or priestly scribes, didn't have a clue about what "covering the whole earth" would mean. They didn't know what the 'whole earth' was! They thought it was flat, from all biblical evidence, fixed in position, and orbited by sun, moon, and stars. It was pretty small, too. Do you think they had any clue about the extent of Eurasia or Africa? Let alone the existence of, say, North America. They didn't know what continents were. We know more today about Proxima Centauri than they knew about the Pacific. The 'scare people into behaving' flood story might have been somewhat believable to bronze age nomadic goatherds (although I suspect many of them knew it was just a story). But today, taking it literally is just silly, and makes fundamentalist Christianity look silly, and embarrasses other Christians.

Unfortunately for Henry, there never was a global flood, not one, never was. Too bad for Henry and the bible.

Henry said: It looks like the children of Israel were aware of North America.

DS said: Unfortunately for Henry, there never was a global flood, not one, never was. Too bad for Henry and the bible.

Pay attention, Henry. Try to get this distinction. The BIBLE assumes the flood to have been 'global' (wrong word--they didn't know about the globe thing; maybe 'discal' would be more accurate). But that doesn't mean that it REALLY was.

Quoting copy & paste Bible verses doesn't prove that something is true. It only "proves" what the Bible says.

In that particular verse.

In the translation you like.

You know very well that there are Bible verses that YOU don't believe are true in any literal sense. I bet that YOU think it's silly for someone to quote Bible verses to "prove" that the Earth rests on foundations, is flat, is covered by a solid dome, and once harbored unicorns.

apokryltaros said:

Henry said: It looks like the children of Israel were aware of North America.

If the Israelites were aware of North America, how come they didn't name North America, or draw maps of North America, or even write down how they got to North America, or even leave traces of getting to North America?

Yeah, I looked at it, Henry. The Las Lunas stone, henry? Provenance, henry? Any idea of when it was carved? Any idea of who carved it? Has any detailed archeology been done? Analysis of tool marks? Remember the crystal skulls that were ancient Mayan relics, thousands of years old, that were found to have been wheel-abraded using tungsten carbide?

Was there any trace of a literate culture there? No. One elaborately carved stone of unknown origin, found right there in the canyon. Right on top. No non-native potsherds, no other artefacts of non-American origin. Nada.

Now, you tell me, Henry. What's more likely - that a Hebrew who wrote ancient Phoenician somehow got to Arizona in 1000 BCE, and carved this but left no other trace, or somebody in the twentieth century carved it? You know, Henry, the Mormons have been spending mucho time and money trying to prove their holy book for well over a hundred years now. They've made important contributions to American ethnography, linguistics and archeology, but of ancient Hebrew cities, not a trace.

And there still isn't a single mention in the Bible of America, Henry. Nor in any Old World ancient text.

Look, I know you think you can use the Bible to prove the Bible. That's what makes people giggle and point at you, Henry. There was no world-wide flood. The evidence against it is decisive, and it comes from the rocks, not the Bible. The Bible is wrong.

Henry said:

apokryltaros said:

Henry said: It looks like the children of Israel were aware of North America.

If the Israelites were aware of North America, how come they didn't name North America, or draw maps of North America, or even write down how they got to North America, or even leave traces of getting to North America?

Did you look at this website? http://www.asis.com/users/stag/americab.html

Yes my DNA is like my dad but only because being from him makes it so close. Yet this is not evidence at all that one can track back beyond our kind. No reason or hint to think so.

Henry said:

apokryltaros said:

Henry said: It looks like the children of Israel were aware of North America.

If the Israelites were aware of North America, how come they didn't name North America, or draw maps of North America, or even write down how they got to North America, or even leave traces of getting to North America?

Did you look at this website? http://www.asis.com/users/stag/americab.html

Rolf said: Robert said:

Yes my DNA is like my dad but only because being from him makes it so close. Yet this is not evidence at all that one can track back beyond our kind. No reason or hint to think so.

Congratulations, Robert, you have just made a great step! Now please take my hand and let me walk you one more step along: If you follow that thread - from your father to your grandfather (and don't you forget the mothers and grandmothers - they carry an interesting piece of DNA (mitochondrial DNA) that remains virtually unchanged between generations. Which means your mother would have mitochondrial DNA almost identical to Adams mistress, Eve herself! With that in mind, don't you think we might follow your branch of humanity all the way back through Noah to some of Adam and Eve's children (they had to practice incest a lot those days, but couldn't help it as that was the way the world was made.) And finally, Adam and Eve as your grand-grand- something parents? Funny guy, this God of yours;-) But where did Adam and Eve come from? Wouldn't it be the smartest way for God to use what he already had created, say a chimp, to create a human? You know, it doesn't take much engineering to do that. Chimps already know how to walk on two and use their hands. Just a little tweaking of the DNA and presto! you have the first caveman! (But it was hard work anyway, even God had to take a nap after his six days in the workshop!) Yeah, that is what I believe. God is smart, at least as smart as Henry Ford. Creating an assembly line run by DNA, and just modifying existing designs instead of starting afresh for each new model. Now my dear Robert, now you know how it works. Not difficult at all.

apokryltaros said:

Henry said:

apokryltaros said:

Henry said: It looks like the children of Israel were aware of North America.

If the Israelites were aware of North America, how come they didn't name North America, or draw maps of North America, or even write down how they got to North America, or even leave traces of getting to North America?

Did you look at this website? http://www.asis.com/users/stag/americab.html

Yes: the website failed to answer the questions I asked about why, if the Israelites came to North America, why didn't they leave any physical evidence that they got there, or why they did not write about having gotten there. So, tell me, Henry, why should I believe that Israelites made it to North America before Columbus even though you refuse to provide any evidence, and refuse to answer my questions?

Kevin B said: Perhaps they only got as far as Amercia.

Just Bob said:

Kevin B said: Perhaps they only got as far as Amercia.

Easy trip. They stopped off in Atlantis. ...

Rolf said: Robert said:

Yes my DNA is like my dad but only because being from him makes it so close. Yet this is not evidence at all that one can track back beyond our kind. No reason or hint to think so.

Congratulations, Robert, you have just made a great step! Now please take my hand and let me walk you one more step along: If you follow that thread - from your father to your grandfather (and don't you forget the mothers and grandmothers - they carry an interesting piece of DNA (mitochondrial DNA) that remains virtually unchanged between generations. Which means your mother would have mitochondrial DNA almost identical to Adams mistress, Eve herself! With that in mind, don't you think we might follow your branch of humanity all the way back through Noah to some of Adam and Eve's children (they had to practice incest a lot those days, but couldn't help it as that was the way the world was made.) And finally, Adam and Eve as your grand-grand- something parents? Funny guy, this God of yours;-) But where did Adam and Eve come from? Wouldn't it be the smartest way for God to use what he already had created, say a chimp, to create a human? You know, it doesn't take much engineering to do that. Chimps already know how to walk on two and use their hands. Just a little tweaking of the DNA and presto! you have the first caveman! (But it was hard work anyway, even God had to take a nap after his six days in the workshop!) Yeah, that is what I believe. God is smart, at least as smart as Henry Ford. Creating an assembly line run by DNA, and just modifying existing designs instead of starting afresh for each new model. Now my dear Robert, now you know how it works. Not difficult at all.

Byers babbled: Tracking DNA back from me/dad is just a special case of beings being so intimately close in kind that we have the same dna.

No other biology is like this.

Dave Luckett said: There is no magical barrier between any of these, no line that can't be crossed. The differences in dna perfectly correlate with relatedness in humans - the more closely they are related, the greater the similarity in the dna. There exists no rational reason not to apply this principle to all life. And the necessary logical consequence of it is that all life is related.

Robert Byers said:

Rolf said: Robert said:

Yes my DNA is like my dad but only because being from him makes it so close. Yet this is not evidence at all that one can track back beyond our kind. No reason or hint to think so.

Congratulations, Robert, you have just made a great step! Now please take my hand and let me walk you one more step along: If you follow that thread - from your father to your grandfather (and don't you forget the mothers and grandmothers - they carry an interesting piece of DNA (mitochondrial DNA) that remains virtually unchanged between generations. Which means your mother would have mitochondrial DNA almost identical to Adams mistress, Eve herself! With that in mind, don't you think we might follow your branch of humanity all the way back through Noah to some of Adam and Eve's children (they had to practice incest a lot those days, but couldn't help it as that was the way the world was made.) And finally, Adam and Eve as your grand-grand- something parents? Funny guy, this God of yours;-) But where did Adam and Eve come from? Wouldn't it be the smartest way for God to use what he already had created, say a chimp, to create a human? You know, it doesn't take much engineering to do that. Chimps already know how to walk on two and use their hands. Just a little tweaking of the DNA and presto! you have the first caveman! (But it was hard work anyway, even God had to take a nap after his six days in the workshop!) Yeah, that is what I believe. God is smart, at least as smart as Henry Ford. Creating an assembly line run by DNA, and just modifying existing designs instead of starting afresh for each new model. Now my dear Robert, now you know how it works. Not difficult at all.

We said this. Tracking DNA back from me/dad is just a special case of beings being so intimately close in kind that we have the same dna. Yet its a leap to go farther then that since we are different kinds. having like dna with primates is only because we have like type of body. It could only be that we have like dna if there is a simply common physics to biology from a creator. Its in no way logical or hinting to conclude we are related to apes because of DNA. One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not. Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

Robert wrote:

"People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this."

Better read your bible again asshole. According to the bible, EVERY ANIMAL IS EXACTLY LIKE THIS!

You lose again.

DS said:

Robert wrote: "People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this."

Better read your bible again asshole. According to the bible, EVERY ANIMAL IS EXACTLY LIKE THIS! You lose again.

apokryltaros said:

DS said:

Robert wrote: "People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this."

Better read your bible again asshole. According to the bible, EVERY ANIMAL IS EXACTLY LIKE THIS! You lose again.

If what Robert Byers the Idiot For Jesus bloviated about "no other biology is like (people)," then we, humans, would not be able to use animals as test subjects for experimental medicines and medical procedures intended for use in humans, let alone be able to splice human genes into other organisms, or have pathogens from other species mutate and infect us humans.

Robert,

Again: How did thylacines come into being? Didn't God make them the same way he made all other species, including humans?

He created pairs of each species, leaving the propagation to the animals themselves. You learned about the principle and how it is done in school, didn't you you?

TomS said: Were the intelligent designers constrained somehow in their design of the human body to use the hominid pattern? But they were not so constrained in designing insects and octopuses?

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] We said this. Tracking DNA back from me/dad is just a special case of beings being so intimately close in kind that we have the same dna. Yet its a leap to go farther then that since we are different kinds. having like dna with primates is only because we have like type of body. It could only be that we have like dna if there is a simply common physics to biology from a creator. Its in no way logical or hinting to conclude we are related to apes because of DNA. One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not. Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] This always comes up. Its just a special case and could only be that we are connected to our immediate relatives and so on. Yet its just because our "parts" are so alike that the dna is so alike. Its a false logic to then say one can determine biological heritage all the way back. The dna just follows the parts. Like structures would have like dna scores. It could only be that way. A creator would just have a single DNA plan. Genetics is all presumption and not about observed reality. Its not a settled biological truth that genetics tells a biological trail. Its just a line of reasoning just as your example to me is. Apes have like DNA with people yet its just evidence of having a like body. not anything to do with biological relationship. its a flawed logic to insist only on only one option.

How did Robert, himself, start out? As a complete human body, which made his DNA follow a compulsory pattern that recorded the "score" of a human body, or as a few strands of DNA (and a little other goo) long before there were any macroscopic parts of a human body?

How about it, Robert? Which came first, your body or your DNA?

Now which do you think lays down the pattern or code or "score" that the other has to follow?

If we drastically modify your body, say by amputation of all 4 limbs and radical plastic surgery on your face and--what the heck--a "sex change" operation, will your DNA change to keep "score"?

Just Bob said: How did Robert, himself, start out? As a complete human body, which made his DNA follow a compulsory pattern that recorded the "score" of a human body, or as a few strands of DNA (and a little other goo) long before there were any macroscopic parts of a human body? How about it, Robert? Which came first, your body or your DNA? Now which do you think lays down the pattern or code or "score" that the other has to follow? If we drastically modify your body, say by amputation of all 4 limbs and radical plastic surgery on your face and--what the heck--a "sex change" operation, will your DNA change to keep "score"?

Just Bob said: How did Robert, himself, start out? As a complete human body, which made his DNA follow a compulsory pattern that recorded the "score" of a human body, or as a few strands of DNA (and a little other goo) long before there were any macroscopic parts of a human body? How about it, Robert? Which came first, your body or your DNA? Now which do you think lays down the pattern or code or "score" that the other has to follow? If we drastically modify your body, say by amputation of all 4 limbs and radical plastic surgery on your face and--what the heck--a "sex change" operation, will your DNA change to keep "score"?

Marilyn said: If this was to happen to anyone they would have to completely rely on compassion.

Robert Byers said: One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not.

Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

Tenncrain said: If so, it sure gives the appearance that this particular Designer, ...sure loves to yank our chains.

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: There is no magical barrier between any of these, no line that can't be crossed. The differences in dna perfectly correlate with relatedness in humans - the more closely they are related, the greater the similarity in the dna. There exists no rational reason not to apply this principle to all life. And the necessary logical consequence of it is that all life is related.

Your implied analogy is clear, simple, and perfectly apropos. Even Byers could understand it. If he wanted to. I'll make it explicit for him: Biological relatedness is like geographical distance or proximity. You live very near some people. Let's say next door to your father. You can travel to his house quickly and easily, right? Other people live a bit farther away, and it takes you a little longer to get to their houses. Jump to the end: some people live on the opposite side of the Earth, and some live in places that would be even harder for you to reach because of primitive conditions, political boundaries, danger, etc. But there is no place on Earth that you can't physically get to if you're willing to spend the time, effort, and money. Just as you can physically travel to any point on the globe, we can trace a genetic relationship between you and any other living thing on the planet. Some travel is easy, like some relationships are close (you and your parents). Some travel is harder, like some genetics are more "distant" (you and an Australian Aborigine). But there is no "impassible barrier" that keeps you from traveling anywhere on Earth, no matter how distant from home or difficult to get to. Likewise, there is no "impassible barrier" between you and your genetic relationship to a chimp, a seahorse, or a bean sprout. We have just "moved farther away" from those "distant" relatives. but we're still related, if you trace the family tree back far enough. Actually it's hard to talk about this stuff without 'distance' analogies.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] We said this. Tracking DNA back from me/dad is just a special case of beings being so intimately close in kind that we have the same dna. Yet its a leap to go farther then that since we are different kinds. having like dna with primates is only because we have like type of body. It could only be that we have like dna if there is a simply common physics to biology from a creator. Its in no way logical or hinting to conclude we are related to apes because of DNA. One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not. Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] This always comes up. Its just a special case and could only be that we are connected to our immediate relatives and so on. Yet its just because our "parts" are so alike that the dna is so alike. Its a false logic to then say one can determine biological heritage all the way back. The dna just follows the parts. Like structures would have like dna scores. It could only be that way. A creator would just have a single DNA plan. Genetics is all presumption and not about observed reality. Its not a settled biological truth that genetics tells a biological trail. Its just a line of reasoning just as your example to me is. Apes have like DNA with people yet its just evidence of having a like body. not anything to do with biological relationship. its a flawed logic to insist only on only one option.

I think all of you are missing a critical point that Robert is trying to make. He is not saying that we have similar DNA because we are related. He's saying that, because we look alike, because we have similar kinds of body parts, therefore we have similar DNA. He's said it multiple times. Robert's DNA is similar to his father's DNA only because he looks like his father. If I understand Robert correctly, the DNA is just a "score card". Similar body parts lead to similar DNA. The DNA does not drive the body parts. It's the other way around. Do I have that right, Robert? So, Robert, if I correctly understand what you were trying to say, why do dolphins have DNA that is more similar to that of land mammals? Dolphins share almost the identical body parts with sharks. It's hard for the average person to tell sharks and dolphins apart just by looking at them (squinting from a few hundred feet away). But the DNA of sharks is very different than the DNA of dolphins. You say similar body parts lead to similar DNA; that there is only one way for God to create those similar body parts. If that is so, then why did God use vastly different DNA for the same body parts in sharks and dolphins? We see that God *did* use vastly different DNA for the same body parts in sharks and dolphins. Why then did God use only similar DNA for humans and apes? Why didn't God use different DNA for humans and chimps? Clearly God could have used all sorts of different kinds of DNA to generate the same kinds of body parts in chimps and humans. We see evidence where He did this in other creatures. We, mere humans, can imagine and actually use all sorts of different ways to create similar kinds of things. (Have you any idea how many different kinds of ways there are to create the turbine disk in a jet engine?) Are you saying that God was more limited in what he is able to do than mere human engineers and scientists? Are you putting limits on what God can do? Why do you say, "It could only be that way"? Heck, why are you limiting God to using DNA as the "score card" in the first place? Already mere human scientists have already imagined different kinds of biology that is not based on DNA. Where in the Bible does it say that God is limited to only doing things one way and not another way? You see, Evolution predicts that there is only one way to do things: contingency. Creationism would predict that every unique creature could have a unique biology. Yet, that isn't what we see. If we *did* see that every unique creature had a unique biology, that *would* be very strong evidence for Special Creation. But that is *not* what God's actual Creation shows us. You see, God's Creation contradicts "God's Word". We can see God's Creation all about us. We only have the word of mere humans (and those with a conflict of interest at that, a serious vested interest) that "The Word" is actually "God's Word".

Just Bob said: How did Robert, himself, start out? As a complete human body, which made his DNA follow a compulsory pattern that recorded the "score" of a human body, or as a few strands of DNA (and a little other goo) long before there were any macroscopic parts of a human body? How about it, Robert? Which came first, your body or your DNA? Now which do you think lays down the pattern or code or "score" that the other has to follow? If we drastically modify your body, say by amputation of all 4 limbs and radical plastic surgery on your face and--what the heck--a "sex change" operation, will your DNA change to keep "score"?

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not.

Actually, humans are classified as primates. Furthermore, it was a creationist that first came up with this classification (Carl Linnaeus in the 18th Century). Biologist Ken Miller explains these points in this lecture (starts at about the 2:10 mark) while poking hilarious fun at Mike Huckabee - the audience can't stop laughing (at the time, Huckabee had just ended his 2008 USA presidential run).

Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

So, when humans share like genes with other primates, the appearance of a nested hierarchy/common descent is just an illusion? Even when humans and other primates share many of the same defective genes (like the broken Vitamin C and hemoglobin genes)? Even when these defective genes (or pseudogenes) often have exact matching defects)? Really, does an all-knowing Designer purposely put defective genes with exact matching defects in both humans and other primates? If so, it sure gives the appearance that this particular Designer, if not being an inept plagiarist, sure loves to yank our chains.

Getting into the details of genes is beyond what your knowledge is, Byers, or any knowledge that you want to acquire.

The argument is really simple. The DNA of Byers is close to that of his father, any brothers, and his father's siblings if any. It is a little more different from that of any cousins, and diminishes in likeness as the relationship becomes more and more distant. The less the relationship, the greater the difference

This principle applies across the whole of the human species. The ethnic groups most divergent from Byer's group have the most divergent DNA from Byers. But by Byers own doctrine all humans are descended from two people, so he's got no problems with common descent there.

But a higher degree of divergence applies to extinct humans. The DNA divergence - which has been measured - between Neanderthals and any extant human is greater than that between any two extant humans - great enough, in the opinion of most geneticists and cladistics researchers, to distinguish Neanderthalis as a separate species. But Neanderthals were definitely human beings, with tool use, fire, art, culture and even some evidence for religious belief.

So they were human, but a different species. That means - it must mean - that different species descend from common ancestors by Byers' own doctrine!

What about H. erectus, which takes the argument one step further? Erectus was certainly also a hominin, one which also made and used tools and controlled fire. Most creationists call erectus "human"; but there's no doubt that on morphology alone erectus was a different species, and was always recognised as one. So again, different species arise from common ancestors - and the creationists admit it.

The only thing distinguishing these species is that all of them can be called "human". When we move further away, the DNA becomes more divergent - which is exactly what you would expect. But Byers wants the evidence for common descent to stop abruptly wherever he wants to draw the line between "human" and "non-human".

Why? There's no reason for this arbitrary line. DNA is unimpeachable evidence for common descent among humans. A comparison of his own and Byer's father's would establish the relationship, were it ever disputed. If DNA is evidence for common descent between humans, and between humans and Neanderthals, (which are of a different species) why is it not evidence for common descent of all living things? What rational reason is there for refusing to admit it as evidence for that?

There is none. But whoever said Byers was rational?

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not.

Actually, humans are classified as primates. Furthermore, it was a creationist that first came up with this classification (Carl Linnaeus in the 18th Century). Biologist Ken Miller explains these points in this lecture (starts at about the 2:10 mark) while poking hilarious fun at Mike Huckabee - the audience can't stop laughing (at the time, Huckabee had just ended his 2008 USA presidential run).

Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

So, when humans share like genes with other primates, the appearance of a nested hierarchy/common descent is just an illusion? Even when humans and other primates share many of the same defective genes (like the broken Vitamin C and hemoglobin genes)? Even when these defective genes (or pseudogenes) often have exact matching defects)? Really, does an all-knowing Designer purposely put defective genes with exact matching defects in both humans and other primates? If so, it sure gives the appearance that this particular Designer, if not being an inept plagiarist, sure loves to yank our chains.

Robert, if you don’t mind, let’s make a small experiment. Are you game:

What is the eye colour of your father and mother?

Robert Byers said: Getting into the details of genes is beyond what my points are here. Like problems would create like replys however. It all works.

With these latest attempts from Byers, I'm convinced there's something wrong with him other than pathological stupidity. My, "Ohhhh, crap. He really needs help!" alarm is ringing.

People much more perceptive than I have noted this in the past.

Because of this, I'll no longer engage Byers, other than to encourage him to get help.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said: I think all of you are missing a critical point that Robert is trying to make. He is not saying that we have similar DNA because we are related. He's saying that, because we look alike, because we have similar kinds of body parts, therefore we have similar DNA. He's said it multiple times. Robert's DNA is similar to his father's DNA only because he looks like his father. If I understand Robert correctly, the DNA is just a "score card". Similar body parts lead to similar DNA. The DNA does not drive the body parts. It's the other way around. Do I have that right, Robert? So, Robert, if I correctly understand what you were trying to say, why do dolphins have DNA that is more similar to that of land mammals? Dolphins share almost the identical body parts with sharks. It's hard for the average person to tell sharks and dolphins apart just by looking at them (squinting from a few hundred feet away). But the DNA of sharks is very different than the DNA of dolphins. You say similar body parts lead to similar DNA; that there is only one way for God to create those similar body parts. If that is so, then why did God use vastly different DNA for the same body parts in sharks and dolphins? We see that God *did* use vastly different DNA for the same body parts in sharks and dolphins. Why then did God use only similar DNA for humans and apes? Why didn't God use different DNA for humans and chimps? Clearly God could have used all sorts of different kinds of DNA to generate the same kinds of body parts in chimps and humans. We see evidence where He did this in other creatures. We, mere humans, can imagine and actually use all sorts of different ways to create similar kinds of things. (Have you any idea how many different kinds of ways there are to create the turbine disk in a jet engine?) Are you saying that God was more limited in what he is able to do than mere human engineers and scientists? Are you putting limits on what God can do? Why do you say, "It could only be that way"? Heck, why are you limiting God to using DNA as the "score card" in the first place? Already mere human scientists have already imagined different kinds of biology that is not based on DNA. Where in the Bible does it say that God is limited to only doing things one way and not another way? You see, Evolution predicts that there is only one way to do things: contingency. Creationism would predict that every unique creature could have a unique biology. Yet, that isn't what we see. If we *did* see that every unique creature had a unique biology, that *would* be very strong evidence for Special Creation. But that is *not* what God's actual Creation shows us. You see, God's Creation contradicts "God's Word". We can see God's Creation all about us. We only have the word of mere humans (and those with a conflict of interest at that, a serious vested interest) that "The Word" is actually "God's Word".

No. i'm saying there are two forces at work. We have the force of a common dNA with all biology and therefore like parts equal like DNA. A physics is at work in biology too. then we have a different force of having come from Ada/Eve and therefore our DNA is very alike to our parents. Not because of close likeness. Because of indeed being related. Yet still our likeness to our parents is the point for like DNA. only we could be that close. Its been a flawed hunch/guess/intuition to conclude actual DNA/heritage equals all DNA is heritage where its alike. even if true it still would be just a guess. Its just lines of reasoning and not based on scientific evidence.

co said: With these latest attempts from Byers, I'm convinced there's something wrong with him other than pathological stupidity. My, "Ohhhh, crap. He really needs help!" alarm is ringing. People much more perceptive than I have noted this in the past. Because of this, I'll no longer engage Byers, other than to encourage him to get help.

Scott F
Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.
The like parts equals like DNA is from a serious original creation and not later minor adaptations.

I am saying their are two forces going on here and that logically there is no reason to see just one frorce.
Two points I'm making.
It could only be that like parts equals like DNA from a like blueprint and creator.
So all of biology has like parts with variation and like DNA with variation.
So a primate looks like us and has like DNA with us but it could only be this way without it logically meaning we are related.
then the second force is a special case where we being from Adam/Eve have ever since had very close DNA because of actual relatedness.

Its been a logical flaw, if not a actual factual one(though it is that too), to say all DNA can be tracked back to connect creatures.
To insist and be persuaded by this has been wrong.

Both forces can be operating at the same time.

Byers has no answer to the fact that DNA similarities among humans are exactly distributed according to the generational distance of their last common ancestor. This, he is quite happy to concede, implies that all humans are commonly descended. But extinct human species, such as neanderthalis and erectus, show an exactly similar pattern of greater divergence. This implies that extinct human species and our species are also commonly descended. Byers is less happy with that, but he'll probably go along with it.

But chimpanzees, gorillas and ourangutans, in that order, show the same, and then all primates, and then all mammals, and so on for all life.

Which also implies that we and the apes, we and the primates, we and mammals, and we and all life, are commonly descended, with the DNA differences moving in exact lockstep with the generational distance of our last common ancestor. Byers balks at this, and wants there to be some point where common ancestry is no longer implied.

There is no such point. There is no such barrier. It exists only in the Byers imagination, along with his other fantasies, such as that he has the faintest clue what he's talking about, or that his miserable ignorance is not blatantly revealed every time he presses a key.

Robert Byers said: Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines. The like parts equals like DNA is from a serious original creation and not later minor adaptations. I am saying their are two forces going on here and that logically there is no reason to see just one frorce. Two points I'm making. It could only be that like parts equals like DNA from a like blueprint and creator. So all of biology has like parts with variation and like DNA with variation. So a primate looks like us and has like DNA with us but it could only be this way without it logically meaning we are related. then the second force is a special case where we being from Adam/Eve have ever since had very close DNA because of actual relatedness. Its been a logical flaw, if not a actual factual one(though it is that too), to say all DNA can be tracked back to connect creatures. To insist and be persuaded by this has been wrong. Both forces can be operating at the same time.

DS said: Once again Robert, you disprove your own nonsense. So, "dolphins are from land creatures"! So I guess they EVOLVED from land creatures. And according to you, this happened in the last ten thousand years. So how exactly is this compatible with your make believe "barrier"? This is not a "minor adaptation", this is a fundamentally new body plan. The genetic similarity between dolphins and terrestrial mammals completely destroys whatever insane point you think you were trying to make. But then, it was pointed out to you weeks ago that your ignorant idea was not based in reality.

GO away.

Robert Byers said: Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Robert: YOU can't tell the difference between an emerald tree boa (Corallus caninus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tree_Boa]) and a green tree python (Morelia viridis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morelia_viridis]). They look so much alike that it takes knowledge and experience with snakes to tell them apart. They have pretty much identical "parts". So they should have pretty much identical DNA, by your thinking, right?

Well, they don't. The emerald tree boa has DNA much closer to the giant boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), which it looks nothing like. The green tree python has DNA that makes it related to the giant reticulated python (Python reticulatus)--but NOT to the emerald tree boa--which it looks almost exactly like.

Any layman (YOU), asked to decide which of those 4 snakes was related, based on their "parts", would unhesitatingly put the 2 small, green, identical-appearing snakes as maybe brother and sister, and the 2 giant ones as maybe kissing cousins. You would be WRONG.

You see, very different DNA can make almost identical "parts" (that's called convergent evolution), like the two tree snakes. And much more similar DNA can result in very different "parts", like it does with the tree and giant pythons.

So your notion that DNA is similar only because "parts" are similar is just plain wrong.

In the reptile house of our local zoo, the tree boa and tree python are displayed in side-by-side enclosures. Keepers are constantly asked why two examples of the same snake are kept in two separate cages, under two different names. People have a hard time believing that the boa from the Amazon is not closely related to the python from New Guinea. But they're NOT. The boa is related to other boas, and the python to other pythons. Their DNA doesn't lie. And it tells a very different story from their "parts."

Robert,

Which group of land creatures were ancestral to the dolphins? How do you know?

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: One can conclude DNA is a trail from us to primates or conclude it is not.

Biologist Ken Miller explains these points in this lecture (starts at about the 2:10 mark)

Yet its not demanding/logical/hinting that we are related because of like dna. Dna is just atomic scores for parts in a common biological physics. Its been a logical flaw to presume DNA is any biological; trail beyond the minor case of beings of the same kind. Even then its not evidence of coming from a original pair but simply being so alike as to have like DNA. People are a special case because we come from Adam/Eve. No other biology is like this.

So, when humans share like genes with other primates, the appearance of a nested hierarchy/common descent is just an illusion? Even when humans and other primates share many of the same defective genes (like the broken Vitamin C and hemoglobin genes)? Even when these defective genes (or pseudogenes) often have exact matching defects? Really, does an all-knowing Designer purposely put defective genes with exact matching defects in both humans and other primates? If so, it sure gives the appearance that this particular Designer, if not being an inept plagiarist, sure loves to yank our chains.

Getting into the details of genes is beyond what my points are here. Like problems would create like replys however. It all works.

BTW, while were on the topic of genes, many of our PT trolls claim that all humans alive today came from Adam & Eve. Here's a few relatively brief links that explain how both "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" were calculated - and how the dates of both M.E. and Y-C Adam are vastly different, as well the likelihood that there were many other humans living alongside M.E.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam

http://biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondrial-eve

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Robert, Thank you for elaborating. You say, "dolphins are from land creatures". Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don't look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don't have any. Dolphins appear to share only "a few like parts" with "land creatures".

Just Bob said: Robert: YOU can't tell the difference between an emerald tree boa (Corallus caninus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tree_Boa]) and a green tree python (Morelia viridis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morelia_viridis]). They look so much alike that it takes knowledge and experience with snakes to tell them apart. They have pretty much identical "parts". So they should have pretty much identical DNA, by your thinking, right? Well, they don't. The emerald tree boa has DNA much closer to the giant boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), which it looks nothing like. The green tree python has DNA that makes it related to the giant reticulated python (Python reticulatus)--but NOT to the emerald tree boa--which it looks almost exactly like. Any layman (YOU), asked to decide which of those 4 snakes was related, based on their "parts", would unhesitatingly put the 2 small, green, identical-appearing snakes as maybe brother and sister, and the 2 giant ones as maybe kissing cousins. You would be WRONG. You see, very different DNA can make almost identical "parts" (that's called convergent evolution), like the two tree snakes. And much more similar DNA can result in very different "parts", like it does with the tree and giant pythons. So your notion that DNA is similar only because "parts" are similar is just plain wrong. In the reptile house of our local zoo, the tree boa and tree python are displayed in side-by-side enclosures. Keepers are constantly asked why two examples of the same snake are kept in two separate cages, under two different names. People have a hard time believing that the boa from the Amazon is not closely related to the python from New Guinea. But they're NOT. The boa is related to other boas, and the python to other pythons. Their DNA doesn't lie. And it tells a very different story from their "parts."

Those two posts can't be improved upon. For sheer demented refusal to parse reality, they are epic.

The hubris ("There is only one snake kind") is monumental. Byers not only knows more than the world's herpetologists, he knows the mind of God Almighty. Not even the myth in the Bible says that there was only one snake kind, but Byers knows anyway.

Dolphins, which are attested on Minoan vase and wall paintings dated to 1600 BCE, evolved from tetrapodal land animals in less than a millennium! And this is a mind that balks at general evolution!

The man's doolally.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Robert, Thank you for elaborating. You say, "dolphins are from land creatures". Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don't look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don't have any. Dolphins appear to share only "a few like parts" with "land creatures".

I am a yEC who insist marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood. It would be lots of parts despite a few details. Again however DNA change is welcome and is a track only for creatures that are related closely due to reproduction. Yet this does not mean all creatures are related by reproduction heritage because of having like parts. Its just within kinds. Two forces are going on and logically thee is no reason to say only one force is going on. Its just a line of reasoning to connect creatures by DNA backtracking. Even if true it would still just be a line of reasoning and not scientific evidence. A creator of kinds would have a blueprint of like parts equals like dNA yet unrelated by reproduction and then have the special cases of reproduction being a origin for close dNA within kind. evolutionists are too quick to persuade themselves of this dNA stuff. Its all speculation under analysis.

"There is only one snake kind. Only one kind off the ark."

Green anacondas.

Spitting cobras.

Coral snakes.

Diamondback rattlesnakes.

African rock pythons.

Banded sea snakes.

Common garters.

King cobras.

Seriously. All evolved within a few centuries after the Ark. Can you quote a creationist "authority" on that, or did you just make it up? After that 3rd sentence, it became pretty much unreadable--and I have a LOT of practice deciphering illiterate 9th grade writing. But I THINK you're saying that we have DNA like chimps because we look sort of like them. And green tree pythons and emerald tree boas have very different DNA because they look almost exactly alike. Uhh...right.

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said: Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Scott F said: Robert, Thank you for elaborating. You say, "dolphins are from land creatures". Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don't look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don't have any. Dolphins appear to share only "a few like parts" with "land creatures".

I am a yEC who insist marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood. It would be lots of parts despite a few details. Again however DNA change is welcome and is a track only for creatures that are related closely due to reproduction. Yet this does not mean all creatures are related by reproduction heritage because of having like parts. Its just within kinds. Two forces are going on and logically thee is no reason to say only one force is going on. Its just a line of reasoning to connect creatures by DNA backtracking. Even if true it would still just be a line of reasoning and not scientific evidence. A creator of kinds would have a blueprint of like parts equals like dNA yet unrelated by reproduction and then have the special cases of reproduction being a origin for close dNA within kind. evolutionists are too quick to persuade themselves of this dNA stuff. Its all speculation under analysis.

So that would be a no. Robert has no idea what group of land creatures dolphins are descended from and no way to find out. All he has is intuition, uninformed by mere facts. In other words, he is completely worthless.

In the real world, comparative anatomy, paleontology, genetics and developmental biology all give the same answer. Cetaceans are descended from terrestrial artiodactyls. Robert has no clue about any of this evidence and no explanation for any of it. Pity the fool.

I would suggest that this discussion shows one reason why advocates of "Intelligent Design" don't want to get into the details of "what happened and when": When creationists start specifying details, they only raise problems. It's much safer just to say "something, somehow, is wrong with evolution".

Great read! If Creationists truly rely on archeological evidence to bolster their arguments, I wonder what they make of Mrs. God, for whom ample evidence has been piling up for decades. Though Mrs. God was largely written out of Old Testament texts, several dozen references remain. Oh-oh!

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Robert Byers said: Scott F Dolphins and sharks only have a few like parts. their inner parts are quite different. further dolphines are from land creatures and so their DNA changed on different lines.

Scott F said: Robert, Thank you for elaborating. You say, "dolphins are from land creatures". Can you explain that statement a bit more? Dolphins don't look like land creatures. Most land creatures have 4 legs. Dolphins don't have any. Dolphins appear to share only "a few like parts" with "land creatures".

I am a yEC who insist marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood. It would be lots of parts despite a few details. Again however DNA change is welcome and is a track only for creatures that are related closely due to reproduction. Yet this does not mean all creatures are related by reproduction heritage because of having like parts. Its just within kinds. Two forces are going on and logically thee is no reason to say only one force is going on. Its just a line of reasoning to connect creatures by DNA backtracking. Even if true it would still just be a line of reasoning and not scientific evidence. A creator of kinds would have a blueprint of like parts equals like dNA yet unrelated by reproduction and then have the special cases of reproduction being a origin for close dNA within kind. evolutionists are too quick to persuade themselves of this dNA stuff. Its all speculation under analysis.

Robert, thank you for your response. While you're use of pronouns has me a bit confused, one thing seems clear: "marine mammals are land creatures who adapted to the seas after the great flood" Would you agree that "marine mammals" are different species than "land creatures"? Among other things, the "marine mammals" have different numbers of limbs and different breathing systems from "land creatures". These differences seem pretty significant to me, and are not "a few details". Did the marine mammals "adapt" to life in the seas by loosing their legs? Whales and dolphins have been known by human fisherman to exist in their present forms all over the world since the earliest recorded history. Did the marine mammals lose their legs in less than 1,000 years? Yet you say, "Its just within kinds". Are "marine mammals" of the same "kind" as "land creatures"? You say, "Two forces are going on..." Fine. I think we agree that of those two forces, the one "within kinds" is heredity and DNA, like among different groups of humans. Would you agree with that? In your view, what is the other "force"? Did God cause "marine mammals" to "adapt to the seas" in less than 1,000 years? I look forward to your helping me understand your position.

Robert Byers, what makes you think gods exist? As far as I can see, there aren't any.

Robert Byers said: I am here to enlighten. There are kinds. they came off the ark in kinds.

Here to enlighten. Words have completely failed me.

... I am here to enlighten.