Monday, October 18, 2010

Framing the Debate With Frans de Waal

Frans de Waal’s piece in the New York Times this week examines what he believes are mistakes in past attempts to explain how evolution created altruism. The emphasis, according to de Waal, has been inappropriately focused on selfishness. The result is that altruism is viewed as not genuine, but ultimately hypocritical. In this flawed view morality is, explains de Waal, “just a thin veneer over a cauldron of nasty tendencies.” While he provides plenty of criticism of this “Veneer Theory,” as he dubs it, de Waal fails to provide much detail on just how evolution so cleverly produced the incredible spectrum of behaviors we find in nature (not to mention everything else). Not to worry though, de Waal first ensures the reader is properly intimidated so as not to be in a questioning mood.

Before presenting the meat of his thesis (which apparently isn’t very meaty), de Waal ensures that the reader is properly oriented. Could it be that behavior in general, and altruism in particular, pose any sort of a problem for evolution? Could it be that there are any serious problems for evolution, at all? Of course not. Right up front de Waal writes:

Don’t think for one moment that the current battle lines between biology and fundamentalist Christianity turn around evidence. One has to be pretty immune to data to doubt evolution, which is why books and documentaries aimed at convincing the skeptics are a waste of effort.

There you have it. The battle is between biology and fundamentalist Christianity. These are the battle lines. Those who doubt evolution are religious “fundamentalists,” while evolutionists are merely scientists in white lab coats busy following the data, as Huxley prescribed. There is no religion in evolution, none at all.

And failure to convince skeptics could not be a sign of anything problematic in the theory of evolution. After all, it is undeniably true. The problem, of course, lies with the skeptic, err that is, fundamentalist. Got it.

260 comments:

  1. There you have it. The battle is between biology and fundamentalist Christianity. These are the battle lines.

    You got that one right, Cornelius. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oleg Cornelius:

    'There you have it. The battle is between biology and fundamentalist Christianity. These are the battle lines.'
    -----

    "You got that one right, Cornelius. Keep up the good work."
    =====

    Off hand I'd say no matter which one perceives itself the winner, the natural world and our environment is the real loser.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That would be one more than you, oleg.

    Also it seems you did a bit of quote-mining- no surprise there either.

    Unfortunately there are many Muslims, Hindus, etc., who disagree with the ToE.

    The problem here is people lump all of evolution into that word "evolution".

    One can accept "evolution" as in the change in allele frequency withi a populatuion and still doubt the theory of evolution.

    One can accept universal common descent and still doubt the ToE.

    And in the end there STILL isn't any data which demonstrates that an accumulation of genetic accidents- the ToE's proposed mechanism- can construct a functional multi-part system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another worthless evolutionary hypothesis. That and 6 dollars will buy them a Big Mac meal.

    Evolutionary explanations of how altruism evolved would be like NASA presenting plans for delivering fresh milk to gas stations on Pluto.

    It would seem like evolutionists should focus on more practical things first, like actually providing evidence for macro-evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. YUMMMMM BIG mac meal-

    Oh wait I'm still a vegetarian...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Neal Tedford said...

    It would seem like evolutionists should focus on more practical things first, like actually providing evidence for macro-evolution.


    You mean besides the thousands of papers and articles that have been published in the last 75 years clearly presenting the evidence?

    Maybe you should try reading a biology textbook and learning just a teeny bit on the subject before spouting off. But you won't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius Hunter said...

    de Waal "Don’t think for one moment that the current battle lines between biology and fundamentalist Christianity turn around evidence. One has to be pretty immune to data to doubt evolution, which is why books and documentaries aimed at convincing the skeptics are a waste of effort."

    There you have it. The battle is between biology and fundamentalist Christianity. These are the battle lines. Those who doubt evolution are religious “fundamentalists,” while evolutionists are merely scientists in white lab coats busy following the data, as Huxley prescribed. There is no religion in evolution, none at all.


    de Waal is not talking about a battle over the scientific validity of ToE. That battle ended 150 years ago, Creationism lost. de Waal is talking about the political battle with the Creationists still trying to back-door their religious beliefs into science classrooms without actually doing any science.

    That doesn't make evolutionary biology into a religion any more than loud empty rhetoric makes IDC into science.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thorton says to read a biology textbook...

    Let's see... would you refer me to the Peppered Moth pictures? Or, Haeckel's embryo sketches? Or, the ascent of man masterpiece?

    You mention all the mountains of evidence, but give me just ONE piece of unequivocal evidence for macro-evolution.

    Don't make excuses, just give the world your very best. Just One. Forget the whole mountain for a minute and give us one unequivocal article of evidence for macro-evolution. Give us your best...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting, Thorton says the battle was won 150 years ago in one post, however, in his previous post the "evidence" has only been clearly published in the last 75 years.

    So even he acknowledges that evolutionary theory became accepted before the evidence was presented. Fasinating.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tedford the idiot said...

    Don't make excuses, just give the world your very best. Just One. Forget the whole mountain for a minute and give us one unequivocal article of evidence for macro-evolution. Give us your best...


    As has been explain to you ad nauseum, the strength of ToE is that there is not any one "best' piece of evidence but hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces of evidence that all fit into a consilient and logically consistent pattern.

    It's like demanding to see the 'best' piece of a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that unequivocally shows the whole picture on the box.

    But you're an idiot, so you'll never get it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tedford the idiot said...

    Interesting, Thorton says the battle was won 150 years ago in one post, however, in his previous post the "evidence" has only been clearly published in the last 75 years.

    So even he acknowledges that evolutionary theory became accepted before the evidence was presented. Fasinating.


    No idiot, I was talking about two different things. The evidence presented 150 years ago by Darwin and his contemporaries was enough to clinch the scientific case for evolution. The additional evidence of the last 75 years includes the genetic record that added an additional level of understanding and confirmation.

    Reading the scientific literature before blustering won't hurt you Tedford, honest. Try it some time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thorton said, "As has been explain to you ad nauseum, the strength of ToE is that there is not any one "best' piece of evidence but hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces of evidence that all fit into a consilient and logically consistent pattern."

    That is indeed fasinating. I wonder if all the other evolutionists on this blog would agree with Thorton on that. Is that their official position?

    Thorton, so your saying that evolutionary theory derives its strength from a mountain of little evidences arranged like a puzzle?

    I think you would agree with that. Yes?

    Let's go a step further and ask, are these little evidences in themselve and individually considered "weak" evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Don't make excuses, just give the world your very best. Just One. Forget the whole mountain for a minute and give us one unequivocal article of evidence for macro-evolution. Give us your best..."

    Neal, the pattern that becomes apparent when reading these threads for an extended period of time is that any single piece of evidence that is presented is always met with the objection: "Well, that, by itself, doesn't prove anything!" All the consilient lines of evidence are seen as circumstantial when viewed separately. Or, as Joe G proclaimed just a few minutes ago in another thread, you come back with the answer "Ya see the "evidence" for common ancestry can also be explained by a common design." I agree with that statement 100%. Any possible feature you could ever conceivably find in nature could be explained by design. Even features that are consistent with an evolutionary process. You can always say: "God just made it in such a way that it looks like it evolved." That's why 'design' explains nothing; it explains anything

    It just so happens that everything we find is what we more or less what we expect if the theory of evolution is true. (not 'only if')

    I'd like to make a list of evidences that I find convincing, but first I must ask, what would convince you of evolution, or more specifically common ancestry, short of a time machine? If you say "Nothing, would convince me of common ancestry," then it really would just be a waste of my time to compose such a list.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tedford,

    The fossil record is unequivocal evidence for macroevolution. Sorted by age, fossils naturally group into a nested hierarchy. So do extant organisms. This is what led, hundreds of years ago, to the idea of evolution in the first place. The modern far more detailed fossil record has strengthened the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Modern molecular phylogenies confirm the same evolutionary patterns to a degree that only uneducated and brainwashed idiots such as yourself refuse to acknowledge. In addition, the rate of (macro)evolution is consistent with rates of observed (micro)evolution.

    Therefore, the case for macroevolution is extremely solid, and is consistent with cumulative microevolution.

    Natural selection is the only known mechanism that can explain adaptation, but other known mechanisms, such as genetic drift, play an important role as well.

    Moreover, there is a very sophisticated collection of mathematical models that support these empirical findings.

    In order to overturn this scientific consensus, you need to provide a new theory that can explain as least as much. What have you got?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Derick said, "I'd like to make a list of evidences that I find convincing, but first I must ask, what would convince you of evolution, or more specifically common ancestry, short of a time machine"


    First, evolutionists must answer the most basic and fundamental objection and that is what are the detailed pathways for the evolutionary development of complex organs. It needs to be demonstrated how an eye, for example, is not irreducibly complex. How a complex organ can be built in a stepwise evolutionary process. Development of Complex organs would require saltation events and this contradicts evolutionary theory. The reality of life deals in the details. Those that are involved in re-programming bacteria are neck deep in details. Natural processes would not be any less detailed. Stepwise incremental evolutionary building of complex organs is a contradiction in basic engineering logic. Evolutionists obviously object, but they can't even show conceptually in detail how a complex organ can be built from zero to fully functioning, let alone how the right mutations and natural selection would orchestrate such a process.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Troy, the fossil record is something that evolutionists have to defend and accommodate. For the unbiased it does not fit the evolutionary model. Cambrian Explosion? Rapid appearance of new body plans? Stasis and extinction? Get real

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neal:
    the fossil record is something that evolutionists have to defend and accommodate. For the unbiased it does not fit the evolutionary model.

    Which model does it fit then?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tedford:

    "Troy, the fossil record is something that evolutionists have to defend and accommodate."

    The fossil record shows that macroevolution occurred, and that answers your original question.

    "For the unbiased it does not fit the evolutionary model."

    It fits the generic evolutionary model of descent with modification just fine. You are the first unbiased biblical creationist I've ever met.

    "Cambrian Explosion? Rapid appearance of new body plans? Stasis and extinction? Get real"

    No you get real. These examples indicate a non-uniform rate of macroevolution - far from contradicting macroevolution.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ring Species

    While probably not the "best" evidence, it is pretty good. Which means it will undoubtedly be summarily rejected by most ID proponents.

    From...
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

    "Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.

    One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.

    In concept, this can be likened to a spiral-shaped parking garage. A driver notices only a gentle rise as he ascends the spiral, but after making one complete circle, he finds himself an entire floor above where he started.

    A well-studied example of a ring species is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii of the Pacific Coast region of the United States.
    ...
    Ring species, says biologist David Wake, who has studied Ensatina for more than 20 years, are a beautiful example of species formation in action. "All of the intermediate steps, normally missing, have been preserved, and that is what makes it so fascinating."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal Tedford says,
    First, evolutionists must answer the most basic and fundamental objection and that is what are the detailed pathways for the evolutionary development of complex organs.

    Neal FYI,

    Mistake #1: Evolutionists = Those who treat evolution as ideology = Creationists and science deniers = Members of AiG, Discovery Institute, likes of Bill Dembski, Behe, Seelke. You can correct that by demanding these evolutionists to come up with a positive theory. It ain't gonna happen. Because there is no way to build a theory like that. Ideologues lost the battle 150 years ago.

    Mistake #2: What is a complex organ? What is a simple organ? - psychobabble, that's all. Get your terms right. Use terms that make scientific sense. Anything else will be given the short shrift.

    Mistake #3: Science deniers don't get to ask questions of science advocates and scientists. When you haven't done any research, published zilch, trained no grad students, run no labs, presented zero evidence, you don't get to do the interrogating. You ask to clear your doubts. Have a problem with the theory, do your research and present it before the forum that counts. We advocates and scientists get to ask the questions. We have the mountains of evidence and >150 years of it. You have a problem with it, get to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Neal said "what are the detailed pathways for the evolutionary development of complex organs. It needs to be demonstrated how an eye, for example,"

    Neal, I had a feeling that you would ask something like this, that's why I said 'short of a time machine.' The exact pathways are often lost to history. It would be like asking a geologist to explain precisely which rainstorms caused the Grand Canyon to erode the way it did. That much detail is not necessary to demonstrate the principles of erosion, or evolution. It's the old "if science can't explain everything, it can't explain anything," canard.

    "It needs to be demonstrated how an eye, for example, is not irreducibly complex. How a complex organ can be built in a stepwise evolutionary process."

    And it has been demonstrated to you time and time again how the eye could have evolved. And forget hypothetical examples of what intermediate eyes would look like, we have real world examples that those intermediate states are functional, all the way from light sensitive patches on micro-organisms, to the pinhole camera eye of the nautilus, all the way up to the lensed eyes of vertebrates. Not even the DI IDers argue anymore that the eye is irreducibly complex. Take away almost any part, say the lens, or even the round shape of the eye itself, and you'll still find a creature with a functioning eye. Irreducibly complex means that you can't take away any part and still have a functioning system. Darwin himself addressed the eye 150 years ago; try to keep up.

    "Development of Complex organs would require saltation events and this contradicts evolutionary theory."

    We've been over saltation events before too, Neal. Is echolocation a saltation event? You claimed it was. I dare you to name something else that would have to be a saltation event, and show your ignorance again. I dare you. We have not found one single feature in nature that requires a saltation event, not one. In the framework of evolution, every single feature in nature is the modification of a previously existing structure.

    "Evolutionists obviously object, but they can't even show conceptually in detail how a complex organ can be built from zero to fully functioning, let alone how the right mutations and natural selection would orchestrate such a process."

    Neal, why don't you send us a receipt to your subscriptions to all the current scientific journals. Are you claiming that none of the pathways to any system are known? That's quite a bold claim. But let's say that's the case, for sake of argument. You've just fallen back on the "If you don't know everything, you don't know anything" fallacy. Neal, can you trace every single ancestor in your family tree back to the common ancestor you have with me ? If not, does that mean I can't correctly claim that you and I are related?

    But more importantly, you didn't answer my question. I asked what evidence would convince you, not what lack of evidence would keep you unconvinced. What kind of evidence could we find, not not find that would make you say: "Ok, evolution accounts for that better for design."

    Again, if you can't think of anything, you're wasting our time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal said: "Let's go a step further and ask, are these little evidences in themselve and individually considered "weak" evidence?"

    No. Some of them, by themselves, are compelling evidence for common ancestry, to an unbiased observer.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Derick said, "No. Some of them, by themselves, are compelling evidence for common ancestry, to an unbiased observer."

    Where in the world do we find an unbiased observer? Maybe you mean "unprejudiced observer?"

    Much previous "compelling evidence" for Common Ancestry has a history of being rendered uncompelling/refuted later on. Color me skeptical.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Much previous "compelling evidence" for Common Ancestry has a history of being rendered uncompelling/refuted later on. Color me skeptical.

    Evidence has piled on for >150 years, it fills entire libraries across the world, generates 1000s of papers, more in an week than the output of the entire lifetime output of the denialists like AiG and Discovery Institute. You are talking without basis - Color you stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  26. TomH:
    Much previous "compelling evidence" for Common Ancestry has a history of being rendered uncompelling/refuted later on.

    Can you provide some examples?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thortard:
    You mean besides the thousands of papers and articles that have been published in the last 75 years clearly presenting the evidence?

    There isn't any evidence that demonstrates the proposed evolutionary mechanisms can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Not one paper- nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Thery of Evolution- Over 150 years of research and STILL nothing to show for it:

    Evotards are still in rare form.

    They mindlessly say that the ToE has over 150 years of research going for it.

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Nothing, nada, zilch.

    So why doesn't that count as evidence against the theory?

    I can see it now- the next ID vs ToE trial- Professor Miller can you please provide the evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- the proposed evolutionary mechanism- can construct a functional multi-part system?


    "Uhhh no, but we know it happened, afterall we are here!"


    LoL!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thought Provoker:
    Ring Species

    So what?

    Neither ID nor Creation argues for the fixity of species.

    Try thinking for once- geez.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Derick:
    I'd like to make a list of evidences that I find convincing, but first I must ask, what would convince you of evolution, or more specifically common ancestry, short of a time machine?

    You could start with what I have been asking for- a functional multi-part system.

    Ya see your position doesn't have any evidence such a thing can evolve via blind, undirected chemical processes.

    So why doesn't taht count against your theory?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Derick:
    And it has been demonstrated to you time and time again how the eye could have evolved.

    Umm just-so stories are not to be confused for scientific data.

    Derick:
    And forget hypothetical examples of what intermediate eyes would look like, we have real world examples that those intermediate states are functional, all the way from light sensitive patches on micro-organisms, to the pinhole camera eye of the nautilus, all the way up to the lensed eyes of vertebrates.

    Well we should be able to take those intermediates and mutate themn to get different eyes.

    Derick:
    Not even the DI IDers argue anymore that the eye is irreducibly complex.

    It is IC.

    And no one has demonstrated otherwise.

    Derick:
    Irreducibly complex means that you can't take away any part and still have a functioning system.

    Not since 2004- "No Free Lunch" has a IC core- IOW it ain't just the removal of any part.

    Derick:
    Darwin himself addressed the eye 150 years ago; try to keep up.

    Darwin didn't know anything about genetics.

    And even though we know more than Darwin we STILL have no idea about what determines eyes.

    Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:
    "Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements.


    IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”.

    Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!

    I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm not a biologist, but I recognize "poisoning the well" when I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes dan, evolutionists love to poison the well.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thought Provoker:

    I understand that the species of California salamander at the ends of the ring do sometimes interbreed, so it is very questionable if we can consider them two species. Or if you want to say that since they don't readily interbreed, they are on the way to becoming new species, well, that is speculation, at best.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Derick said, "Neal, I had a feeling that you would ask something like this, that's why I said 'short of a time machine.' The exact pathways are often lost to history. It would be like asking a geologist to explain precisely which rainstorms caused the Grand Canyon to erode the way it did. That much detail is not necessary to demonstrate the principles of erosion, or evolution. It's the old "if science can't explain everything, it can't explain anything," canard."

    Translation: We don' need no steenkeeng mechaneezms. Now, a scientist* might intuitively understand the epistemic problems with Derick's statement and simply reply to this statement by sneering and calling it "Philosophy." However, we need to examine closely why a scientist might have a problem with it. Hard science attempts to define mechanisms by means of its statement of method and engage these same mechanisms by means of experiments, especially by implementing experimental controls, such as by controlling experimental conditions or using control groups. When hard science is able to replicate its results after implementing its statement of method multiple times, it is assured that it has specified the mechanism of interest sufficiently. Furthermore, it is also assured that it has engaged that mechanism.

    Hard science is thus very clearly distinguished from speculative questions like Common Ancestry, where one not only cannot engage the historical mechanism that formed an immediate result in the distant past, not only can a researcher not observe the immediate result, but the observer must be tentative about the very existence of the distant past and must realize that whatever physical evidence is observed has been subjected to data-destroying processes for eons if, in fact, the hypothetical distant past even existed.

    *Scientist: A practitioner of optics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, chemistry, cell biology, or similar "hard" disciplines where experimental controls may be invoked on active physical processes (as opposed to anological experiments using computer models).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi Natschuster,

    I suspect you "understand" a lot of things you want to believe.

    While you get credit for at least asking, it would be a lot more effective if you could provide a quote and link to a source.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Norm:

    TH: "Much previous "compelling evidence" for Common Ancestry has a history of being rendered uncompelling/refuted later on."

    Can you provide some examples?

    Sure. Originally Lyellian Uniformitarianism was considered compelling. It was ditched in the 1980s once local catastrophism was showed to have made a significant impact on some geological formations. The mechanism for the Modern Synthesis was considered compelling as an argument because of its elegance. Lewontin blew a hole in one of its legs--Natural Selection. The fossil record was considered compelling until Stephen J. Gould showed that the major groups arise suddenly in the fossil record. Of course, there's the issue that medical science wrongly attributed non-function to several organs on the basis of their being thought to be vestigial and removed them unnecessarily from patients, to the patients' detriment in some cases. The "non-function" (actually, lack of knowledge about the function) of many of these organs was thought to be compelling evidence that they were vestigial. There's lots more, but that's just off the top of my head.

    ReplyDelete
  38. TomH wrote: *Scientist: A practitioner of optics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, chemistry, cell biology, or similar "hard" disciplines where experimental controls may be invoked on active physical processes (as opposed to anological experiments using computer models).

    As a practitioner of solid-state physics, I do not find the existence of the distant past tentative and think that common ancestry is well established.

    ReplyDelete
  39. oleg:

    What makes your opinion about the hypothetical distant past or CA any more expert than that of the man in the moon? How is your expertise in solid state physics relevant to geological or biological questions? Besides which, "it's the argument, stupid." [Also, appeals to authority (which are a type of ad hominem) only work if the expertise and subject matter are uncontroversial.]

    ReplyDelete
  40. Derick, you asked me what would convince of evolution and I said first start by giving a detailed stepwise explanation for a complex organ such as the eye. We've had a whole afternoon and evening and all we really received from you guys is a general statement as to how wonderful and long ago scientists have already detailed the evolution of the eye and then a microevolution example of ring species.

    Should this convince anyone, or discourage even the faithful evolutionist?

    ReplyDelete
  41. TomH,

    It was your appeal to authority that I responded to. Don't like the taste of your own medicine? Tough luck.

    My work in solid state physics does not make me an expert in cosmology or biology, but I can converse with my colleagues and read their books and see why they make their conclusions. If you prefer to read creationist literature instead, it's your loss.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan said...

    I'm not a biologist, but I recognize "poisoning the well" when I see it.


    Sadly, that's pretty much all Joe G is capable of. He's a closet YEC who doesn't have the faintest sniff of a clue about evolutionary biology. Whenever he sees one of his follow YECs like Tedford get in trouble, Internet Tough Guy Joe is always there with 5-6 posts of pointless obscenities, screaming "Evolution has no evidence!!", generally making himself look like an ass.

    We usually ignore him, except to poke him once in a while to make him dance for us.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And TomH, the age of the Earth is not just a geological question. It agrees nicely with the age of the Sun and of the other objects in the Solar system. So in all these questions we have multiple lines of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  44. TomH said...

    [Also, appeals to authority (which are a type of ad hominem) only work if the expertise and subject matter are uncontroversial.]


    Psst..hey dummy...that the Earth is 4.5+ BYO and that life has been here on the planet evolving for over 3.3+ BYO are both completely uncontroversial in the scientific community.

    Having a handful of biblical literalists whining "NUH UH!" because the science threatens their narrow fundy beliefs isn't a scientific controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  45. oleg, I didn't make an appeal to authority, but offered an argument from philosophical reasoning based on comparing the relative epistemic strengths of hard science and speculations. My reference to an hypothetical scientist was incidental and was merely a device to introduce my argument. The device was a kind of self-deprecating humor if you think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

    Wolfgang Smith
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    ReplyDelete
  47. I find myself wondering if Hunter, as an educated physical biochemist, finds himself embarrassed by those who come to his defense.

    Then I read his posts, and realize there is really is no shame.

    ReplyDelete
  48. oleg said, "And TomH, the age of the Earth is not just a geological question. It agrees nicely with the age of the Sun and of the other objects in the Solar system. So in all these questions we have multiple lines of evidence."

    If you look at the history of the calculations of the age of the sun and universe, you will find that these have been recalculated *every time* that the age of the earth has changed. History shows that the consilience is managed and is not independent. http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

    ReplyDelete
  49. oleg, the ages of the sun and universe are geologically-driven by the need for consilience.

    ReplyDelete
  50. TomH-

    if everything is 6000 years old, and fossils are the result of the flood:

    Why do fossils appear in characteristic layers, and not a big jumble? Shouldn't everything have drowned at once?

    How can the grand canyon (carved out by the flood) be formed of (carving into) the same layers laid down in the flood?

    Why didn't all those fossil species make it onto the ark?

    I find it hilarious that on a blog whose founder accuses scientists of metaphysics, that you link to arguments like this:

    "It has been suggested that these increased decay rates may have been part of the rock-forming process on the early earth and/or one of the results of God’s judgment upon man following the Creation, that is, the Curse or during the Flood.'

    Basically, toss the empirical data of the Earth and Sun's age, cuz God went and sped up nuclear decay for a bit to make things look old. Tricky tricky.

    Cornelius, any comments?

    Is this rugged empiricism, or whatever you call it? Is it metaphysical? Is it religious? Just fine?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Robert C:

    "Why do fossils appear in characteristic layers, and not a big jumble? Shouldn't everything have drowned at once?"

    What is hydrological sorting?

    http://www.sedimentology.fr/
    Henke's criticism: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/henke.html
    Berthault's reply: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/berthaul.html

    "How can the grand canyon (carved out by the flood) be formed of (carving into) the same layers laid down in the flood?"

    My understanding is that the grand canyon formed from one or more dam collapses. Is this even controversial anymore?

    "Why didn't all those fossil species make it onto the ark?"

    I assume that you aren't saying that we should expect marine organisms to appear on the ark. Why do you think that land animals corresponding to fossils didn't make it on the ark?

    "I find it hilarious that on a blog whose founder accuses scientists of metaphysics"

    Actually, as CH and I ascertained in a discussion which you perhaps didn't read, in his previous post he accused evolutionists of hypocrisy due to their objection to mixing science with religion (metaphysics) while doing the same thing themselves.

    Your quote from the article by Jonathan Henry which I referenced may be correct or incorrect in its assertions. In any case, it is irrelevant to the purpose for which I referenced the article. Or do you believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

    ReplyDelete
  52. "What is hydrological sorting?"

    Applied to paleontology, it is a lie. What physical process makes smaller organisms, plants, etc., sediment faster than larger ones? Can you replicate this, model it computationally? Where's the evidence?

    "I assume that you aren't saying that we should expect marine organisms to appear on the ark. "

    I believe marine animals are not the only ones to have gone extinct.

    "My understanding is that the grand canyon formed from one or more dam collapses. Is this even controversial anymore?"

    So you took the bait. Could you provide physical evidence for these dams and their collapse? Were you there to observe them? JK. Religious post-hoc BS explanations of erosion by the Colorado river. Fun. And you say evolution is unsupported.

    "Why do you think that land animals corresponding to fossils didn't make it on the ark?"

    I see. So all the dinosaurs were on board, and disappeared sometime in the last 4000 years. My bad.

    "in his previous post he accused evolutionists of hypocrisy due to their objection to mixing science with religion (metaphysics) while doing the same thing themselves."

    There is no religion in evolution. Hence, atheists, Jews, Catholics, Christians, and Muslims can be evolutionists in kind.

    On one hand, we have vague accusations from you and Hunter. On the other, we have an article literally claiming that isotope decay may not be constant because God willed it. Seriously? This amounts to you trying to paint us as half as bad as you are.

    "It is irrelevant to the purpose for which I referenced the article."

    And what purpose was that? I thought you were presenting it as truth you believed in. It is so easily disposed of when you find the religious argument behind the 'truth' inconvenient?

    ReplyDelete
  53. RobertC:

    "My understanding is that the grand canyon formed from one or more dam collapses. Is this even controversial anymore?"

    So you took the bait. Could you provide physical evidence for these dams and their collapse? Were you there to observe them?

    You knowm, you're right. I was insufficiently cautious and made a mistake. Thank you so much for the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Wow, predictably this thread has gone off the path of the O.P. What's new ??? Here's the ONLY thing worth addressing.
    ---------

    RobertC boldly stated:

    "THERE IS NO RELIGION IN EVOLUTION. Hence, atheists, Jews, Catholics, Christians, and Muslims can be evolutionists in kind."
    ======

    Wrong!!! The text books are loaded with massive amounts of "FAITH-BASED" statement creation where the impiricism componant of the "Scientific Method" for evolutionary biology is grossly lacking and given a pass. If you think religious belief is restricted to ONLY ceremonies, rituals, religious clothing, holidays etc, etc, etc, then think again.

    Atheist Approved "URBAN DICTIONARY" definition of the word ( FAITH ):

    1) Insubstantial, irrational belief.

    2) Noun. Belief not supported by evidence or reason, but assumption alone.

    3) The ability to believe in something in which there is no physical evidence even exists.

    4) Glorified Ignorance

    5) Irrational belief in something despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Here's an example of a major evolutionist doctrine which requires massive amounts of unquestioning faith which is in it's own religious right an an Atheist "Virgin Birth" mythological tale with no shred of impirical evidence to justify such a belief in the unfounded fable as defined by one of their own holy books just referenced above "URBAN DICTIONARY"

    "ABIOGENESIS" = life resulting from non-life.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cornelius Hunter:

    "While he provides plenty of criticism of this “Veneer Theory,” as he dubs it, de Waal fails to provide much detail on just how evolution so cleverly produced the incredible spectrum of behaviors we find in nature (not to mention everything else)."
    =====

    He doesn't have to present any facts. Simply tell a great Fable through creative storytelling, make sure all the major mandated idealogical precepts/dogmas are interwoven and offer a simple pinch of incense on the alter before Lord Darwin's image as a worshipful measure to appease the Secular ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
    (this is done by merely mentioning either the name "Darwin" or the religious term "evolution" in any fabricated myth to give it any hope of a shot at Peer_Approved legitimacy)

    ReplyDelete
  56. RobertC:

    I find myself wondering if Hunter, as an educated physical biochemist, finds himself embarrassed by those who come to his defense.

    Then I read his posts, and realize there is really is no shame.
    ========

    Understandable that you'd not believe in shame, since you evidently are an "Ammoralist", even as Joel Marks admitted days ago.

    http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/80marks.htm

    ReplyDelete
  57. oleg sez:
    As a practitioner of solid-state physics, I do not find the existence of the distant past tentative and think that common ancestry is well established.

    Except common ancestry is less established than is common design.

    ReplyDelete
  58. oleg:
    And TomH, the age of the Earth is not just a geological question. It agrees nicely with the age of the Sun and of the other objects in the Solar system. So in all these questions we have multiple lines of evidence.

    Well if the earth is made up of old material it would give the appearance of being old without actually being that old.

    There are lines of evidence from helium diffusion that say the earth isn't any more than 1.5 billion years old.

    Ya see we have to know HOW the earth was formed before we can say anything about its age.

    Without that we are just guessing and picking the best age out of a range of ages that fits one's worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  59. TomH wrote:

    If you look at the history of the calculations of the age of the sun and universe, you will find that these have been recalculated *every time* that the age of the earth has changed. History shows that the consilience is managed and is not independent. http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

    The article by Henry is very selective in its review of history. It discusses estimates of the Sun's age prior to the 1950s and studiously avoids mentioning the current state of knowledge. This is disingenuous.

    Helmholtz and Kelvin had no idea what powered the Sun, so their estimates of its age were bound to be wrong. Gamow was a lot closer because he had some idea about the source of solar energy. 20 years later, we had a theory of the Sun that remains to this day. We understand how stars form and how long they last. The physics of that is completely noncontroversial. In fact, you can now make back-of-the-envelope estimates of the Sun's age by starting from its power output and the energy supplied by a single nuclear reaction fusing four protons into a helium nucleus. You will get billions of years. Not thousands. Not millions.

    So keep clinging to the dated notion of the young earth. It should win you lots of converts.

    ReplyDelete
  60. RobertC:
    There is no religion in evolution.

    It is obvious that evolutionists worship Father Time, Mother Nature, and magical mystery mutations.

    All evos do is throw (father) time at any issue as if that solves everything.

    Then they will discuss mutations but they don't have any idea what mutations or even if any amount of mutational accumulation can do it- hence magical mystery mutations.

    ReplyDelete
  61. oleg:
    So keep clinging to the dated notion of the young earth.

    You can have an old Sun and still have a much younger Earth- relativity.

    As for the sun what if it wasn't one nuclear reaction?

    ReplyDelete
  62. "You can have an old Sun and still have a much younger Earth- relativity."

    Oh, do tell, what aspect of relativity helps you here? Be sure to show your calculations. And how does this help-I don't recall a young earth in a ancient universe as part of creationism.

    "You knowm, you're right. I was insufficiently cautious and made a mistake. Thank you so much for the correction."

    Thanks TomH for proving my point. When pressed to provide any scientific evidence defending a position, the creationist realized that IF this evidence actually existed, it would be subject to the same criticisms that could be leveled against evolution. So he backs down.

    ReplyDelete
  63. RobertC:
    Oh, do tell, what aspect of relativity helps you here? Be sure to show your calculations. And how does this help-I don't recall a young earth in a ancient universe as part of creationism.

    Read "Starlight and Time" by Russell Humphreys

    ReplyDelete
  64. And Eocene-

    1) You presume to know other people's faith too quickly.

    2) You missed a key line in the paper: "I have relinquished the mantel of the moralist since I no longer believe there even is such a thing as morality. How, then, shall one live? One thing to note is that in asking that question I am able to retain the title of ethicist, for ethics is just the inquiry into how to live"

    "Yet, as with the non-existence of God, we human beings can still discover plenty of completely-naturally-explainable internal resources for motivating certain preferences."

    Suppose a social contract has evolved-treat others as you'd want to be treated. One could feel shame for violating this. Even monkeys have notions of justice and shame.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Oh, do tell, what aspect of relativity helps you here? Be sure to show your calculations. And how does this help-I don't recall a young earth in a ancient universe as part of creationism."

    JoeG: Read "Starlight and Time" by Russell Humphreys

    Typical JoeG. I have no idea-go read some YEC literature. Way to punt the conversation. You really can't make your own argument, or summarize it?

    I'm not likely to go out and buy YEC literature, so I'm guessing time dilation due to uneven gravity?

    1) Where is the evidence for radically different gravity in the universe?
    2) If it is present, why don't we see more profound lensing?
    3) To make this work, gravity has to be crushingly high at earth and low in the rest of the galaxy. So we squish, and the rest can't even hold together.
    4) What, then, is the argument for the age of the sun? It has a different gravitational constant than earth? Lol. How are we held in orbit if it is so low? I'm pretty sure several NASA missions have worked out our local gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  66. oleg,

    We understand how stars form and how long they last. The physics of that is completely noncontroversial.

    The initial conditions are controversial, which impacts the validity of the extrapolations.

    ReplyDelete
  67. RobertC

    "Thanks TomH for proving my point. When pressed to provide any scientific evidence defending a position, the creationist realized that IF this evidence actually existed, it would be subject to the same criticisms that could be leveled against evolution. So he backs down."

    The Great Karnak speaks again. Only not the Great Karnak--merely a fibber.

    ReplyDelete
  68. RobertC-

    If you really want to know what your opposition says then YOU have to do the proper research.

    OR you could just start supporting your position with real positive evidence.

    You choose to do neither.

    Don't blame me for that.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Tom and Joe are great as posturing.

    JoeG gets called out for misapplying a nonsense YEC book and chides me for not having read it! Guess what Joe-physics reduces to equations and concepts, and if you had any clue, we could discuss them.

    Please tell me the difference in gravity at the sun and earth that would account for its being old, and the earth young. What measurement of local gravity supports this position?

    What difference in gravity would account for sunlight looking old and being young?

    Funny you read the book, and can't seem to come up with these.

    Similarly, TomH gets called out, and calls me a liar.

    You two are perfect representatives!

    ReplyDelete
  70. RobertC,

    The thinking you attributed to me didn't even enter my mind. I have an epistemic commitment against forensic evidence. This applies equally to evolutionary and creationary forensic evidence. I messed up wrt the Grand Canyon.

    ReplyDelete
  71. TomH,

    What is exactly controversial about initial conditions? The Sun is a main-sequence star and we can observe such stars in various stages from birth to death.

    ReplyDelete
  72. RobertC said...

    I find myself wondering if Hunter, as an educated physical biochemist, finds himself embarrassed by those who come to his defense.

    Then I read his posts, and realize there is really is no shame.


    I sometimes wonder too if CH really doesn't believe a word of the drivel he posts here, but only does it to humor his fellow Christians who are YECs. CH chums the water with his nonsense OPs, then lets the Tedfords and the Joe Gs and the TomHs rant and scream as a catharsis for their feeling of scientific inadequacy.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Oleg,

    I think TomH was suggesting the sex of the Great Metaphysical Turtle is unknown.

    Ergo, the ultimate initial conditions are controversial.

    ref - http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Discworld_(world)

    ReplyDelete
  74. RobertC sez:
    JoeG gets called out for misapplying a nonsense YEC book and chides me for not having read it!

    How do you I misapplied it if you haven't read it?

    Evotards are just sooo dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  75. BTW RobertC- Dr Russell Humphreys is a physicist-

    Here read these:

    Russell Humphreys answers Various Critics

    ReplyDelete
  76. Joe G said...

    RobertC-

    If you really want to know what your opposition says then YOU have to do the proper research.


    Why can't we just go with what you told us Joe?

    You told us Adam and Eve were the original humans.

    You told us every scientific paper ever published supports YEC baraminology.

    You told us the Earth is 'young' but The Magic Poofter Guy created the world from old materials to deliberately make it look old.

    I'd ask you to provide some positive evidence to support those amazing claims, but i don't want you throwing another 10 post hissy fit.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Evolutonists need to understand that creationists do no all agree on how old the earth and life are. The Bible does not say when earth and life were created. Those that believe that the earth is 6000 years old are basing this on particular assumptions, while other creationists believe the earth is older. Some creationists believe Noah's flood covered the whole planet, while some believe it covered only the known world at that time in history.

    The point that all creationists agree on is that life on earth is the result of the design and work of God. We have no problem saying who the creator is, that we believe the biblical account of creation to be accurate, and that this belief is religious based on a reasonable and logical inference of observable evidence.

    There are disagreements between some creationists and "Intelligent Design" theorists. All creationists talk about Design, but not in the generic sense that ID theorists do. Some creationists don't like the generic designer aspect of ID or its implications of an old earth. ID theorists make an inference of design based on the evidence without identifying who the designer is specifically. They'll say a particular organism shows evidence of design because of A, B, and C. My observation is that all ID theorists believe in an old earth. They make it a point to keep discussion about biblical creation and God separate from their design inference.

    All creationists and ID theorists believe that life shows evidence of design.

    There are theistic evolutionists and fully naturalistic evolutionists. The later group (who probably prefer to be called "evolutionists") disagree on the involvement of God or god at some point (emphasis on the phrase "some point). I personally have not been able to get a straight answer from theistic evolutionists as to how their version of God actually guides an unguided process. Dr Miller and others seem to think that God kicked off the right kind of universe and then left it alone to do its own thing. Charles Darwin himself even thought about God had maybe created a few of the first life forms and then common descent without God took it from there. He also thought about the warm little pond as the origin of life, so his thoughts are unsettled and muddled on the subject.

    Most evolutionists I have encountered are cocky and proud of their knowledge and are inclined to name calling and belittling the intelligence of those that disagree with them about their theory. Evolutionary theory has been institutionalized and many scientists are heavily invested in it. Because of all too human motives, it is at the place where it can actually hinder an honest appraisal of new evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "I have an epistemic commitment against forensic evidence."

    Well, that rules out science. Defense attorneys must love you.

    JoeG- what should be abundantly clear from my post above is that I am familiar with the argument that changes in gravity could make things look older/younger. To the best of my knowledge, the book you references applies it to starlight, in support of a young universe.

    You led with "You can have an old Sun and still have a much younger Earth- relativity."

    And referenced this book. I call that a mis-application, but perhaps you could quote it to prove me wrong.

    I ask the following:

    "1) Where is the evidence for radically different gravity in the universe?
    2) If it is present, why don't we see more profound lensing?
    3) To make this work, gravity has to be crushingly high at earth and low in the rest of the galaxy. So we squish, and the rest can't even hold together.
    4) What, then, is the argument for the age of the sun? It has a different gravitational constant than earth? Lol. How are we held in orbit if it is so low? I'm pretty sure several NASA missions have worked out our local gravity."

    These questions stand unanswered. That you seem familiar with the literature, and can't answer the questions is not helping your case.

    Just answer the questions, Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  79. BobC admitted:

    "And Eocene-

    1) You presume to know other people's faith too quickly."
    ======

    Thank you for admitting and sharing that you at least have a faith and religiosity.
    ------

    BobC

    2) You missed a key line in the paper: "I have relinquished the mantel of the moralist since I no longer believe there even is such a thing as morality. How, then, shall one live? One thing to note is that in asking that question I am able to retain the title of ethicist, for ethics is just the inquiry into how to live"
    =======

    Actually Bob, I didn't miss anything. Let's take his adoption of another term which he uses to replace morality. "ETHICS"

    To get a better understanding of the word "ETHICS", of course, we need to consult the Secularist Peer-Approved "Urban Dictionary" for modern intellectual thought and enlightenment on the word/term.

    1) MORALITY WITH LOOPHOLES.

    EXAMPLE:
    "Everyone agreed that the Congressman's conduct was morally repugnant and his excuses were intellectually dishonest, but the facts did not support an ethics violation."

    2) "A philosophical area of investigation where the same people who argue that there is no reason to believe in god seem to think that there is a set of universally binding principles that define just actions from unjust actions."

    EXAMPLE:
    Professor: Utilitarianism is a great ethical theory.
    Student: What reason do we have to believe that there is a such thing as ethics?
    Professor: Utilitarianism is a great ethical theory.

    3) The best way to ensure that your business endeavors will never turn a profit.

    EXAMPLE:
    The company stressed ethics over growth, so the government refused to bail them out.
    -----------

    The above actually illustrates beautifully common attitude for justifying (excuse making) of why many of the stories, fables, myths and outright lies so often loaded in most of the evolutionary biology textbooks are viewed as nothing more than loopholes of morality for which those unproven stories are imperative necessary evils to combat what is viewed as the false faith, "Christianity". Even the term "necessary evil" isn't in any way to be considered a bad or wrong thing.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Tedford the idiot said...

    Most evolutionists I have encountered are cocky and proud of their knowledge


    Why shouldn't we be proud? We put in the years of hard work studying and doing research and learning. Then we get idiots like you who haven't been within 1000 yards of a science lab telling us everything we know is wrong.

    and are inclined to name calling and belittling the intelligence of those that disagree with them about their theory.

    We don't belittle the intelligence of people who make honest attempts at discussion. We belittle the intelligence of idiots like you who are too lazy to learn any of the actual science and instead come in trumpeting your strawman / cartoon versions of ToE you learned in Sunday school.

    You have to earn respect Tedford, and your continued ignorance based blustering just won't do it.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Eocene-

    I'm not sure I would take the UrbanDictionary, full of tongue-in-cheek definitions, as a source. Today's definition: heteroflexible:

    "I'm straight but -t happens
    I knew she was heteroflexible the minute she walked in the room.

    Dude, it's not my fault. I was drunk and it was fun. What can I say? I'm heteroflexible"


    Really? Proof positive ethics fail there. Tell me, are all these ethical failures committed by atheists? Is morality so absolute across all societies? Is evolution in textbooks really the root of all evil?

    A position that systems of ethics evolved for societies to function seems reasonable, given what we know of animal codes of conduct.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Oleg,

    I didn't mean controversial among astronomers, but between YECs and old-earth advocates.

    Perhaps you can engage in some hypothetical physics.

    My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied. The water would have assumed the shape of a sphere and there would have been tremendous force applied to the water near the center of the sphere (let's call it "CW" for "Center Water") due to pressure from the water above it. The force would have been sufficient to break chemical bonds and overcome the nuclear forces for the atoms in CW, which would have released a tremendous amount of energy and led to the formation of new elements by fusion in other parts of the watery mass. Some hydrogen and helium would also have been produced. Let's assume that a torque was applied to the watery mass and it began spinning. The H and He would have been located at the outer regions as an atmosphere of the watery mass. At some point let's assume that the hydrogen and helium and possibly some of the watery mass were separated from the original watery mass and formed stars. The key question here is, "What would have been the composition of the stars when they would have been formed in this scenario?" Clearly, it would not have been that of the main sequence stars as astronomers suppose them to have been composed at their beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Neal Tedford said...

    Evolutonists need to understand that creationists do no all agree on how old the earth and life are


    Of course we understand. That's why you guys are the butt of so many jokes in scientific circles. You don't use any physical empirical evidence to come up with your age values. You each use your own personal intuition. That's why there are so many contradictory versions of IDC, and why none of them are worth a bucket of spit.

    You clowns love to scream "mainstream science is wrong! wrong! wrong!", but you can't come within 6 orders of magnitude in agreeing what is right.

    ReplyDelete
  84. TomH said...

    My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. (snip the rest of the blither)


    Oh geez, we got us a live one. Time to break out the tin foil hat.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Neal Said: "Derick, you asked me what would convince of evolution and I said first start by giving a detailed stepwise explanation for a complex organ such as the eye."

    Which many people have given you many times before. As I explained, asking for the exact pathways that lead to every incremental change is like asking for a genealogy that includes every single individual in order to demonstrate that any two humans are related. That level of detail is not possible with current technology, and more importantly, not necessary to establish relatedness; so it just amounts to hand waving. Asserting that the evolution of the eye can't be demonstrated without knowing precisely every single pathways is like saying the existence of Jesus can't be demonstrated without having documentation of every single thing He ever did.

    "We've had a whole afternoon and evening and all we really received from you guys is a general statement as to how wonderful and long ago scientists have already detailed the evolution of the eye and then a microevolution example of ring species."

    Neal, you still haven't answered my first question. It may have been that I phrased it badly, so I'll restate. What kind of evidence could we actually find, that you would concede is explained better by evolution than design? If there is nothing that you can think of, that we could, in principal, actually find, then you're wasting our time when you dishonestly ask for 'evidence.'

    If it helps, I'll give you an example of something simple that would, in my mind, both falsify evolution and verify YEC at the same time: We could find a fossil graveyard with fossils of animals from dramatically different 'eras'. An example would be a fossil graveyard with the remains of dinosaurs, elephants, trilobites, sabertooth tigers, raccoons, therapsids, etc. We find fossil graveyards all the time, there is no reason one like this shouldn't be found if everything was buried in one flood event. Now before any YEC chimes in with cries of "hydrologic sorting," Note that current fossil graveyards have animals of all sizes. There is no reason that small dinosaurs should settle with big dinosaurs, and never with small mammals, or that trilobites should settle on lower levels while 'modern' marine mammals should settle on the upper levels.

    That's just one example of something that would falsify evolution, there are literally countless others. That's the type of thing I'm looking for from you.

    What's your example Neal? Like I said, If you can't easily think of one, you're being dishonest in asking for evidence, because evidence doesn't affect your belief.

    ReplyDelete
  86. TomH: "My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied."

    So let me ask you a question that I hope doesn't offend you, or give you an aneurysm: Why do you believe that? On what basis? Any evidential support whatsoever? Or is it based purely on Genesis 1:2?

    ReplyDelete
  87. TomH,

    According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe: about half as much as hydrogen if everything started with water (H2O). The observed ration is about 1 oxygen atom per 120 hydrogen atoms.

    And that's just the beginning. Where did the background microwave radiation come from? Why is it isotropic? Etc.

    ReplyDelete
  88. BobC:

    "Tell me, are all these ethical failures committed by atheists?"
    =====

    Absolutely No!!!

    But atheistic religious worldviews are indeed very much the mirror image of most other Churches across the planet, including most of those of Christendom in this regard.

    -----

    BobC:

    "Is morality so absolute across all societies?"
    =====

    No!!!

    However, this is the very reason the Bible was written in the first place. Though these debates and discussions here and elsewhere all seem to revolve around the topic evolution verses creation, this was not the purpose for the bible's original intent.

    As for it's purpose, Genesis Chapter 3 identifies the intellect that first questioned there being any absolutes as to morality. In actual fact he championed any and all self-determination standards anyone wished to create as an excercise of freewill. This attitude from the very beginning can be traced all the way to the present failure of experimentation with regards different idealogies, religions, governments , etc.

    The fall was a moral issue from the beginning. The fact that you or anyone else would disagree with this is irrelevant and will not effect the outcome shortly. One of the major prophecies which clearly illustrates our times is found at

    Isaiah 5:20 (New Century Version)

    20 "How terrible it will be for people who call good things bad
    and bad things good,
    who think darkness is light
    and light is darkness,
    who think sour is sweet
    and sweet is sour."

    -----

    BobC:


    "Is evolution in textbooks really the root of all evil?"
    =====

    Hardly, it's only another symptom. The cause of all decline in morality is greed and selfishness. This is the same basic cause of our present global environmental ruin, greed and selfishness. Most today think that the global environmental recuperation or turn around has a materialistic fix with Green/Eco Solutions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every man, woman and child needs to be on the same moral page with this. The present secular promotion of the United Nations will NEVER accomplish this.

    ReplyDelete
  89. TomH:

    "My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied."

    I wonder what Joe G thinks about this "position". Before the gravity was "applied" (bwahaha), was there any ice? Is a single free-floating water molecule ice or water or steam or none of the above?

    Religion rots the brain.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Oleg,

    According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe: about half as much as hydrogen if everything started with water (H2O).

    Wouldn't that depend on how much oxygen was changed to other elements? We're talking about the greatest gravity gradient in history. What happens to oxygen that goes into a black hole? Is its atomic structure broken down?

    It seems to me that the biggest problem is how to prevent collapse into a black hole. I suppose that if the watery mass were spinning at the right frequency, force due to pressure might be mitigated for regions not too close to the center. Would we expect some tidal action?

    Where did the background microwave radiation come from? Why is it isotropic?

    You're right, some other assumptions would be required. I think that we'd have to assume that space was stretched and the stars were somehow relocated away from the earth.

    Wrt isotropy, it seems to me that we have to be careful to not fall into the essentialist fallacy. The distribution of mass in the universe seems to vary considerably for some regions. Averaging only works well if there isn't a whole lot of variation. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  91. TomH,

    Nearly all of the original oxygen would have to change into hydrogen in order to fit the observed element abundances. Gravitational collapse does not help you solve this problem: what falls into a black hole does not come back.

    Regarding isotropy, your model starts with the assumption that matter was initially concentrated in one corner of the universe and then started collapsing. Presumably that is your version of the Big Bang. If that is the case, remnant radiation from the Big Bang would be coming from a particular direction of the Universe, where your matter was concentrated. This is inconsistent with the observed microwave background radiation, which is nearly isotropic, i.e. comes to us from all directions in space.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:"

    Duh, Oleg, all our observations are obviously wrong then. How about a hard question next time?

    "This is inconsistent with the observed microwave background radiation, which is nearly isotropic, i.e. comes to us from all directions in space."

    Again, duh. The observations are wrong. Perhaps you're not aware that the 'observed' MBR is observed by atheists!

    You guys and your constant need to validate your theory by finding 'evidence'. That's the beauty of the creation model: we already know what happened. When we find something that confirms it, that's just a bonus. When we find things that 'seem' to refute it, we just know we are interpreting the data incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  93. TomH: "My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied."

    That's from Russell Humphreys in "Starlight and Time"- what did think of the book Tom?

    ReplyDelete
  94. oleg:
    Nearly all of the original oxygen would have to change into hydrogen in order to fit the observed element abundances. Gravitational collapse does not help you solve this problem: what falls into a black hole does not come back.

    LoL!

    You are desperately grasping oleg.

    It is all explained in "Starlight and Time"

    Let's say that the universe's initial conditions were a large 3-D space and within it a ball of liquid water.

    The ball is >2 light-years across, large enough to contain all the mass in the universe.

    Because of this concentration of matter this ball of water is deep inside a black hole whose EH is more than .5 billion light-years away.

    Gravity starts to take over compressing this ball of water toward the center making it extremely hot and dense.

    The heat then rips apart the water molecules, atoms, even the nuclei into elementary particles.

    Are you with me so far?

    Thermonuclear reactions begin, forming heavier nuclei from lighter ones and liberating huge amounts of energy.

    There is rotation that speeds up as the compresion continues.

    Then we have the universe stretching out, the black hole becomes a white hole.

    The EH shrinks towards the Earth and as the EH reaches the earth, an ordinary day on Earth would be equal to billions of years worth of processes taking place in the distant cosmos.

    Now you are aware of a thought experiment involving two people- one going towards a black hole and one observing that person?

    The person going towards the black hole seems to stop- that is from the other person's PoV- as he/ she reaches the EH.

    ReplyDelete
  95. thorton:
    Why can't we just go with what you told us Joe?

    What is that- that you are a freak of nature?

    Sure we can go with that- but where?

    LoL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  96. RobertC:
    1) Where is the evidence for radically different gravity in the universe?

    Ever heard of the singularity before the "bog bang"? Duh.

    2) If it is present, why don't we see more profound lensing?

    LoL! The singularity is GONE! Double duh.

    3) To make this work, gravity has to be crushingly high at earth and low in the rest of the galaxy. So we squish, and the rest can't even hold together.

    And your evidence for this is?

    4) What, then, is the argument for the age of the sun? It has a different gravitational constant than earth? Lol. How are we held in orbit if it is so low? I'm pretty sure several NASA missions have worked out our local gravity."

    Keep grasping I find it hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Joe said: "thorton: Why can't we just go with what you told us Joe? What is that- that you are a freak of nature? Sure we can go with that- but where?LoL!!!"

    Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent, or that you think you're funny.

    I think you're less funny than you are intelligent; feel free to take that as a compliment if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  98. But anyway just look at what you guys are saying- the initial singularity "just was"- the "big bang" (which was neither big nor went bang) "just happened"- the laws that govern the universe "just are the way they are"- and our solar system is due to multiple atomic accidents and multiple cosmic collisions.

    And you freaks call that science?

    Please...

    ReplyDelete
  99. Derick,

    Coming from you I take that as a compliment because you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever corresponded with.

    You cannot support your claims and you cannot support your position.

    You are about as non-christian as it gets.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Not only that Derick but you mindlessly parrot nonsense.

    BTW I am STILL waiting for you to support your claims on heredity- that "human" is a heritable trait.

    Any luck with that?

    Human genes- any luck finding them?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Derick:
    Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,

    My IQ is only 150.

    There are people with higher IQs.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Joe,

    Your scenario contradicts a well-known result in general relativity, the no-hair theorem. According to it, the properties of a black hole depend only on three externally observable conserved parameters: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. It follows from this theorem that the event horizon of a black hole cannot change its location.

    There is only one known way to circumvent the no-hair theorem: through quantum effects (the theorem is derived within classical physics). As Hawking pointed out, because of quantum fluctuations near the event horizon, black holes emit radiation and thereby lose mass. This can shrink the event horizon. However, the quantum nature of the effect makes it significant only for microscopically small black holes. A large black hole like the one you imagine remains frozen.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Joe said: "You are about as non-christian as it gets."

    That's so odd Joe, that's the 2nd time this week you've made a comment like that, yet you say you're not a Christian. If you're not a Christian, why does it bother you so much that I accept evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Joe G said: "Human genes- any luck finding them?"

    I take it back Joe, you are pretty funny sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Derick, the goal of a theory is precision and accuracy. It should be a goal of evolutionists to discover "every" pathway to evolutionary development, but I think getting a majority of the developmental pathway would be an excellent start. What's the problem? Is the problem a technology limitation or something more? Could it be that evolutionists are running into the impossible construction of irreducibly complex systems? Evolutionists are not even able to do a complete thought experiment of the detailed pathways for a complex system. It just breaks down, because the stepwise, incremental engineering process is a logical impossibility. It requires saltation steps and that is something that evolutionists won't accept, so you're stuck at the foundation of any construct.

    Derick said, "What kind of evidence could we actually find, that you would concede is explained better by evolution than design?

    ======

    I'm still waiting. I'm particularly interested if evolutionists can make an empirical connection between micro and macro evolution without resorting to talk about the Grand Canyon or ring species.

    =======

    Funny you should mention the fossil record and finding dino fossils with elephants and racoons. I have been studying the findings of soft tissue in dino bones. Evolutionists were surprised, some were openly critical, it's not possible they say, rethink how long soft tissues can last. "80 Million" year old soft tissue from dinos is supposed to have been verified. Why the resistance to believe it was soft tissue in the first place? Either the age of the fossil must change or they must adopt a whole new view on how long soft tissue lasts. They are between a rock and a hard place. Another failed prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Joe G said...

    Derick:
    Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,

    My IQ is only 150.


    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    That's the funniest thing you've said in years JoeTard. Is that what you told them at the appliance repair store when they laid you off?

    Let me guess. Not only do you have a 150 IQ, but you can bench press 400 lbs, run a mile in 3 minutes, and outfly all the fighter pilots at the Top Gun dogfighting school.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Neal, sometimes I think I'm asking to much when I ask creationists simple questions.

    What kind of evidence COULD we actually find, that you would concede is explained better by evolution than design?

    Not "what kind of evidence have we found," because obviously, you don't think we've found any yet.

    I don't know how to say it more clearly. If there is nothing, not even in principle, that we could discover that would be evidence for evolution to you, then 1: You are wasting our time by pretending like evidence matters, and 2: You are lying when you say that evidence matters.

    What kind of evidence could we hypothetically find that would be evidence for evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Tedford the idiot said...

    Derick, the goal of a theory is precision and accuracy. It should be a goal of evolutionists to discover "every" pathway to evolutionary development, but I think getting a majority of the developmental pathway would be an excellent start.


    Why Tedford? Why devote large amounts time and money specifically to finding details that won't much increase our overall scientific understanding? Details of things that happened hundreds of millions of years ago? It's great if those ancillary details fall out of other work, but demanding that science focus on them? That's as stupid as demanding historians concentrate on mapping the exact physical location of Lewis and Clark every minute of every hour during their epic journey. We know they took the journey, just as we know present life evolved through common descent. Finding every detail is just gravy.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Neal said: "Funny you should mention the fossil record and finding dino fossils with elephants and racoons. I have been studying the findings of soft tissue in dino bones."

    You mean: "I read an article about it at AIG."

    "Evolutionists were surprised, some were openly critical, it's not possible they say,"

    WHO said it was not possible, Neal? You've tried this stunt in other threads. "Surprised by" is not the same thing as "Said was impossible." Name one person that said it was impossible.

    "the age of the fossil must change or they must adopt a whole new view on how long soft tissue lasts."

    Yeah, strange how science is always changing its mind when new evidence appears. I don't know if the matter is settled, but there was a debate about whether the tissue was from the original animal or not.

    "They are between a rock and a hard place. Another failed prediction."

    Who predicted that?

    And thank you for finally confirming that you are a young-earther.

    And it's funny you should mention fossil graveyards. Like I've said, finding a graveyard with tyrannosaurs, mammoths, raptors, wolves, galimimuses, ostriches, compsognathuses, chickens, trilobites, and horseshoe crabs, or something similar, would instantly falsify evolution, while at the same time confirm creationism, but strangely, all fossil graveyards that have been found are perfectly in line with the evolutionary chronology. Why is that Neal?

    " It requires saltation steps and that is something that evolutionists won't accept, so you're stuck at the foundation of any construct."

    Puh-lease Neal. Name one feature in all of nature that is requires a saltation event.. Just one Is echolocation one? How about hearing? Eyes? Name one.

    ReplyDelete
  110. oleg,

    Read "Starlight and Time" and get back to me.

    OR you can write to Dr Humphreys and discuss it with him.

    OR you can keep arguing from ignorance.

    Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Derick:
    That's so odd Joe, that's the 2nd time this week you've made a comment like that, yet you say you're not a Christian.

    It apears i am more honest than you are.

    Derick:
    If you're not a Christian, why does it bother you so much that I accept evolution?

    Umm that doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

    Your actions betray you.

    ReplyDelete
  112. "Human genes- any luck finding them?"

    Derick:
    I take it back Joe, you are pretty funny sometimes.

    Sheer ignorance.

    You do realize that the gene is the unit of inheritance?

    "The heritable unit that may influence a trait is called a gene."

    So if being "human" is a trait- as YOU say- then what are those genes?

    If you don't know then stop making stupid claims.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Joe, why in the world is it so hard for you to answer the simplest question?

    I'll ask it as plainly as I can: Joe, do you consider yourself a Christian?

    You have three options. You can lie, avoid the question, or answer the question. My prediction is that you will avoid the question.

    ReplyDelete
  114. thorton:
    Not only do you have a 150 IQ, but you can bench press 400 lbs, run a mile in 3 minutes, and outfly all the fighter pilots at the Top Gun dogfighting school.

    300 lbs about 1.5 x my body weight- can't run blew out my knee in Iraq and I am only qualified to fly small twin engine aircrafts- Cessna, Piper.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Derick:
    Joe, why in the world is it so hard for you to answer the simplest question?

    What question?

    Derick:
    I'll ask it as plainly as I can: Joe, do you consider yourself a Christian?

    No- not for a few decades.

    Anything else?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Derick:
    What kind of evidence could we hypothetically find that would be evidence for evolution?

    Geez Derick both ID and Creation acceot evolution- you do realize that "evoluttion" has several meanings?

    What we don't accept is that blind, undirected chemical processes produced the diversity of living organisms from some unknown population(s) of bacteria-like organisms.

    As for the evidence- I told you- you can't even produce any evidence taht those processes can construct a functional, multi-part system.

    So what the heck do you have?

    ReplyDelete
  117. JoeTard said...

    As for the evidence- I told you- you can't even produce any evidence taht those processes can construct a functional, multi-part system.


    LOL! Pretty funny that a guy with a supposed IQ of 150 can't figure out how to do a Google search for "scientific evidence for evolution".

    ReplyDelete
  118. Joe wrote:
    Read "Starlight and Time" and get back to me.

    OR you can write to Dr Humphreys and discuss it with him.

    OR you can keep arguing from ignorance.

    Your choice.


    You so crack me up, Joe.

    I am going with none of the above. If you or Humphreys want to argue this point feel free to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  119. thortard:
    Pretty funny that a guy with a supposed IQ of 150 can't figure out how to do a Google search for "scientific evidence for evolution".

    Umm evolution is being debated you tard.

    Also the evidence I asked for doesn't exist and google can't poof it into existence.

    Strange how not one evotard can show me taht I am wrong- why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  120. oleg:
    If you or Humphreys want to argue this point feel free to do so.

    He has. And he appears to have beaten back all comers.

    Go figure...

    (I linked to some of his articles above)

    ReplyDelete
  121. Well, Joe, if Humphrey has already responded to my objection, why don't you outline for us his argument? I look forward to reading your summary.

    ReplyDelete
  122. The Thery of Evolution- Over 150 years of research and STILL nothing to show for it

    Evotards are still in rare form.

    They mindlessly say that the ToE has over 150 years of research going for it.

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Nothing, nada, zilch.

    So why doesn't that count as evidence against the theory?

    I can see it now- the next ID vs ToE trial- Professor Miller can you please provide the evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- the proposed evolutionary mechanism- can construct a functional multi-part system?


    "Uhhh no, but we know it happened, afterall we are here!"

    ReplyDelete
  123. oleg:
    Well, Joe, if Humphrey has already responded to my objection, why don't you outline for us his argument?

    Humphreys, with an "s" at the end.

    But no, I don't want to mess up his work.

    It's his baby, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  124. oleg- the following is for you-

    But anyway just look at what you guys are saying- the initial singularity "just was"- the "big bang" (which was neither big nor went bang) "just happened"- the laws that govern the universe "just are the way they are"- and our solar system is due to multiple atomic accidents and multiple cosmic collisions.

    And you freaks call that science?

    Please...

    ReplyDelete
  125. 150 IQ JoeTard said...

    Also the evidence I asked for doesn't exist and google can't poof it into existence.


    Here ya go Joe, since your 150 IQ wasn't enough for you to figure it out on your own.

    scientific evidence for evolution

    ReplyDelete
  126. Fair enough, Joe.

    But if you can't explain what Hupmhreys did, can you at least point me to the article in which he went around the no-hair theorem?

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  127. thortard:
    Here ya go Joe, since your 150 IQ wasn't enough for you to figure it out on your own.

    Again evolution is NOT being debated- are you really taht stupid?

    Or are you really that dishonest?

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Find that evidence or admit that you are a lying loser.

    ReplyDelete
  128. oleg:
    But if you can't explain what Hupmhreys did, can you at least point me to the article in which he went around the no-hair theorem?

    God.

    Ya see oleg Humphreys is a Creationist.

    Creationists say that God created the universe, including earth.

    So that is why the theorem does not apply.

    You chumps always ask how "Goddidit" well Humphreys thinks he has worked it out.

    ReplyDelete
  129. oleg:
    But if you can't explain what Hupmhreys did, can you at least point me to the article in which he went around the no-hair theorem?

    Rogaine.


    LOL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  130. Joe, the link goes to a page with 8 papers. Which one of them is relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  131. It has been too long since I have read them.

    Start at the beginning.

    Click on one and skim through it.

    Geez...

    Or do you want me to read them for you/ to you you little baby?

    OR forgetaboutit and stat supporting your unsupportable position:

    But anyway just look at what you guys are saying- the initial singularity "just was"- the "big bang" (which was neither big nor went bang) "just happened"- the laws that govern the universe "just are the way they are"- and our solar system is due to multiple atomic accidents and multiple cosmic collisions.

    Do that and anything Humphreys says is irrelevant...

    But you can't so you are forced to throw little baby hissy-fits.

    Sweet...

    ReplyDelete
  132. He also has articles on the ICR's website but I am having problems connecting to it-

    www.icr.org

    ReplyDelete
  133. Thought Provoker:

    http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm

    I know it says that they could be considered two species, but, again, that is speculative.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Joe, I doubt that Humphreys addresses the subject of the no-go theorem in any of his writings. His knowledge of general relativity cosmology is very superficial: at one point, he thought that the Big Bang was a localized explosion in three-dimensional space.

    Anyway, I'll take a quick look, unlikely though it is.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Whatever oleg.

    I know you can't support your position and can only attack people who disagree with you.

    I find that hilarious...

    ReplyDelete
  136. Joe, I like your tactics. I'm going to borrow them for a second.

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes- ie the proposed mechanism for canyon formation- can construct a large elaborate canyon like the Grand Canyon.

    Now I don't know if God scoops canyons out by hand or if he has angels do it. But there's one thing I do know: Blind, undirected processes are insufficient to explain the origins of large canyons!

    Joe, you've mentioned in the past that you disagree with this statement; the problem is, I know you can't support your position and can only attack people who disagree with you. I find that hilarious...

    Like I said, there isn't any evidence that a blind physical force like erosion can make large canyons.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Hey Joe,
    Still waiting for you here to either:
    a) Provide a reasoned basis for not accepting Zachriel's model of random sequence evolution that produces a nested hierarchy;
    b) Propose a better model of your own; or
    c) Propose a different approach (e.g. from published, documented software like Evolveagene) that would be acceptable to you.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Alright, Joe, I will blog live as I am skimming through the paper.

    The first two papers are a correspondence between Perry Phillips and Humphreys that has nothing to do with Humphreys's "science." In Phillips's own words,

    It is not our purpose to examine the scientific merits of Humphreys’thesis. Rather, we will evaluate Humphreys’ ‘Timothy test’, which is his term for a straightforward, face- value approach to Biblical interpretation upon which he grounds his model.

    Anyway, there is no mention of black holes in the first two articles.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Derick,

    Just so you know- I get my tactics from evos.

    And I have noticed that you still can't support your position.

    Geez you say you are a christian yet there isn't any difference between your god and no god at all.

    So why do you want to be a christian?

    I say it is just so you can say you are a christian who accepts the theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Hi Payl,

    Please hold your breath while you wait.

    Asd I told you until Zacho gets his program published it is meaningless and doesn't require a response.

    ReplyDelete
  141. The third paper is another reply to Phillips, this time by Sarfati. No black holes mentioned, either.

    ReplyDelete
  142. JoeG: "And I have noticed that you still can't support your position."

    And I have noticed that you still can't support your position.
    Do you have any evidence whatsoever that blind forces can create canyons? I didn't think so. You geotards are so stupid.

    Joe, let me ask you an unrelated question. Did your parents design every single aspect of you? Your physical features, your personality, your likes and dislikes?

    Or, did they take the 'natural' route and just have a baby the 'regular' way? If they merely let a sperm cell fertilize an egg cell knowing that it would produce a human eventually, and they didn't specify in advance how many fingers you had, where your liver is, and how many kidneys you would develop, then there isn't any difference between your parents and no parents at all. If it's the case that your parents didn't micromanage the design of your body, why even believe your parents exist?

    ReplyDelete
  143. In the fourth paper, Samuel Conner and Don Page point out some egregious errors in Humpherys's scenarios. Such as the notion that something drastic happens to a person located at an event horizon. In fact, nothing special happens to the poor guy and his clocks. From a great distance, it will appear that a clock located right at the event horizon is very slow, but that is simply because light coming from the event horizon to the distant point is severely red-shifted. The event horizon itself is not a special place.

    The article mentions the event horizon, but there is no criticism of its expansion. Needless to say, in the fifth article Humphreys does not address that question, either.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Joe G said...

    Geez you say you are a christian yet there isn't any difference between your god and no god at all.

    So why do you want to be a christian?

    I say it is just so you can say you are a christian who accepts the theory of evolution.


    So the reason you lie and say you're not a Christian despite pushing Fundy Christian YEC beliefs is so you can claim to have non-religious motivations for rejecting the theory of evolution. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  145. The sixth article begins with a personal spat between Hugh Ross and Humphreys. Ross does not raise any specific technical points.

    Then retired theoretical physicist K. J. Duff, continuing along the lines of Conner and Page, points out that Humphreys does not understand the equivalence of the Schwarzschild and Kruskal metrics. Humphreys's reply suggests that this is still the case. No mention of the moving event horizon.

    In the penultimate exchange, Conner (whom we have previously seen) points out that Humphreys's "Euclidian region" is not actually Euclidian. The imaginary time just inside the event horizon is an artifact of the Schwarzschild metric. This is textbook stuff and Humphreys does not know it.

    Hunter's letter does not deal with the event horizon and neither does Humpherys's reply.

    ReplyDelete
  146. In the seventh paper, Page and Conner continue to school Humphreys on the Schwarzschild solution of a black hole. Humphreys remains clueless.

    Nothing new here.

    ReplyDelete
  147. And lastly, in the eighth paper, E.D. Fackerell and C.B.G. McIntosh, two theoretical physicists with long careers in general relativity, comment on the long fight Conner and Page vs. Humphreys. They tell Humphreys in the umpteenth time that the singularity in the Schwarzschild metric at the event horizon is an artifact of the poorly chosen coordinate system and that nothing special happens at that radius. The spacetime retains its usual nature with three spatial and one temporal coordinates. They point out other errors, already listed above.

    Nothing about the moving event horizon.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Hi Natschuster,

    My compliments on making the effort and for being honest enough to post the link on a ring species which includes...

    "In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition."

    and...

    "The Ensatina complex appears to be a classical example of Darwinian evolution by gradualism; an accumulation of micromutations that is now leading to the formation of new species."

    ReplyDelete
  149. CH: "Before presenting the meat of his thesis (which apparently isn’t very meaty)..."

    Is it me or does anybody else see the irony in CH's statement here? CH has steadfastly refused to offer any ideas or hypotheses of his own, but has apparently built a career at making potshots at other peoples ideas. Not very meaty? Perhaps. But better than the dry, brittle, desicatted offerings we get from CH (i.e., nothing...).

    If CH actually had an hypothesis, an idea, or even some speculation, I would be prepared to take him somewhat seriously, but so far see no reason why he should be given even the attention he does (although admittedly his fame does seem rather limited to the confines of the blogosphere).

    ReplyDelete
  150. So Joe, admit it: you had no idea whether Humhreys addressed the issue that I raised.

    ReplyDelete
  151. See the video of 60 Minutes interview with Mary Schweiter PhD about her findings of dino soft tissue...

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html

    A couple strong "facts" about the dino fossils were known. The age of the fossil being around 80 million and soft tissues don't preserve any where near that long. Both "facts" can no longer be said to be accurate. The soft tissue can no longer be danced around by evolutionists, so which fact has to go?

    If they were wrong about fossil preservation, why believe them concerning the accuracy of dating fossils?

    ReplyDelete
  152. There is a third possibility here, Neal. The "soft tissue" is not what it seems to be. See here.

    This issue is still under debate.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Oleg,

    After the t-rex they found an older duck billed dino at "80 million" years old... that's the one in particular I was referring too in my last post.... that one seems like solid evidence for soft tissues. You are trying to throw a towel on an absolutely cool finding by saying, "the soft tissue is not what it seems to be". Why, because it doesn't fit? Evolutionists are off making PBS and Nova movies, writing books and hammering creationists when they find Tiktaalik, but when a scientist finds soft tissue, the response it to down play and say its still under debate. What debate? The t-rex bacteria stuff is old news. So evolutionists are uncomfortably left with the two possibilities. The soft tissue finding is huge, but it is something evolutionists are not comfortable with at all.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Neal, you should read the text at the link I provided. The PLoS article discussed there described an experimental reproduction of a "soft tissue" that is actually a biofilm.

    I am not saying that this article settles the question. However, it provides a third possibility that you failed to mention and at the moment the question of soft tissues remains unsettled. We'll have to wait for its resolution so be patient.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Oleg,

    I had read it and I was aware of the bacteria rebuttal previous to my posting about it. Apparently you are not aware of the newer finding of the soft tissue of the duck billed dino. Please research and then we can talk.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Joe says:"Hi Payl,

    Please hold your breath while you wait.

    Asd I told you until Zacho gets his program published it is meaningless and doesn't require a response."


    It's embarrassing watching you run away from the argument like this. I've already said if you want to repeat this with some published software that's quite easily done too.

    Oddly, you've rejected Zachriel's model on the grounds that it isn't published - yet you can't point to a single thing wrong with it!

    I believe the currently popular internet terminology for your situation is "pwned".

    ReplyDelete
  157. Tedford the idiot said...

    I had read it and I was aware of the bacteria rebuttal previous to my posting about it. Apparently you are not aware of the newer finding of the soft tissue of the duck billed dino. Please research and then we can talk.


    LOL! That's a hoot. Tedford, whose idea of 'research' is perusing the latest from AIG or UncommonlyDense.

    For the scientifically interested (that leaves you out Tedford), the latest research shows that biofilms may indeed play a role in the preservation of ancient organic material by isolating and sealing off the tissue after death but before complete decay has occurred with a process dubbed "microbal masonry".


    Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs
    Peterson et al
    PLoS ONE 5(10): e13334. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013334 Oct 12 2010

    "Methodology/Principal Findings

    This study experimentally examines the role of microbial biofilms in soft-tissue preservation in vertebrate fossils by quantitatively establishing the growth and morphology of biofilms on extant archosaur bone. These results are microscopically and morphologically compared with soft-tissue extracts from vertebrate fossils from the Hell Creek Formation of southeastern Montana (Latest Maastrichtian) in order to investigate the potential role of microbial biofilms on the preservation of fossil bone and bound organic matter in a variety of taphonomic settings. Based on these analyses, we highlight a mechanism whereby this bound organic matter may be preserved."

    From the conclusion:

    "The results of this study indicate that exquisite preservation of pliable soft-tissues may be related to a microbial masonry process whereby the formation of microbial biofilms wall off internal surfaces of bones during early taphonomic stages. These biofilms metabolize organic materials and mineralize, forming resistant structures or microbial masonry wall surfaces across internal pores openings in bones. These results have potential to allow for more detailed taphonomic reconstructions and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of fossil preservation in the form of soft-tissues structures and biomolecules."

    Only a YEC idiot would think the recent findings cast even the tiniest bit of doubt on the dating of the specimens, or the countless other evidences for the time line of the dinosaurs.

    YEC idiots just can't grasp the concept of consilience in scientific evidence. Boobs like Tedford here still think if they hand-wave away one piece of evidence that suddenly all the other independently corroborating pieces suddenly vanish too.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Paul:
    Oddly, you've rejected Zachriel's model on the grounds that it isn't published - yet you can't point to a single thing wrong with it!

    Umm it's up to Zacho to show what is right with it.

    And he can do that by getting it published.

    As I said even in Dawkins weasel program we see many reversals when looking at all the offspring.

    ReplyDelete
  159. oleg:
    So Joe, admit it: you had no idea whether Humhreys addressed the issue that I raised.

    You have no idea if the "issue" you raised is even valid in a Creation scenario.

    I am pretty sure i have explained that to you.

    ReplyDelete
  160. "The Ensatina complex appears to be a classical example of Darwinian evolution by gradualism; an accumulation of micromutations that is now leading to the formation of new species."

    Both ID and YEC accept an accumulation of micromutations leading to speciation.

    Darwinian evolution requires that all mutations are errors/ accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Oleg-

    Once the black hole is turned into a white hole/ white fountain the matter (and light) starts going out of the EH.

    So as the mass inside the EH gets smaller the EH should shrink to match that.

    And there is the moving EH- until it finally disappears when all teh matter inside of it is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  162. thortard:
    Here ya go Joe, since your 150 IQ wasn't enough for you to figure it out on your own.

    Again evolution is NOT being debated- are you really taht stupid?

    Or are you really that dishonest?

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Find that evidence or admit that you are a lying loser.

    And nothing from thortard- IOW she admits she is a lying loser.

    Sweet...

    ReplyDelete
  163. thorta:
    just can't grasp the concept of consilience in scientific evidence.

    Strange that there is a consilience of evidence supporting Intelligent Design.

    Apparently you can't grasp that.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Joe the retard continues to bleat his mantra

    Joe G said...

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system.


    for the lurkers: Jos has been shown this before but just ignores it, like he ignores all scientific evidence

    from Science Daily;

    Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained

    "Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.

    ...

    "Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."

    The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical and molecular methods to unravel the evolution of an elegant example of molecular complexity -- the specific partnership of the hormone aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney function, along with the receptor protein that allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone. They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene -- which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved.

    Thornton's group then showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapated" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans.

    "The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to."

    Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation
    Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton
    Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101

    Joe's way too busy BSing what a super-genius he-man war hero he is to have time to read any scientific research.

    ReplyDelete
  165. thorton the liar:
    Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained

    Not one word about blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Nothing but speculation.

    Hormone receptor complexity? How does that even address what I said about blind, undicted chemicl procsses constructing a functional multi-part system?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Joe G said...

    T: Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained

    Not one word about blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Nothing but speculation.

    Hormone receptor complexity? How does that even address what I said about blind, undicted chemicl procsses constructing a functional multi-part system?


    Joe responds exactly as predicted.

    Joe's way too busy BSing what a super-genius he-man war hero he is to have time to read any scientific research.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Joe said again: "However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system."

    HEY JOE: However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes- ie the proposed mechanism of canyon formation- can construct a large complex structure like the Grand Canyon

    ReplyDelete
  168. So thorton gets caught lying again and tries to blame me.

    Hormone receptor complexity- How does that even address what I said about blind, undicted chemicl procsses constructing a functional multi-part system?

    Answer the question or admit you are a lying loser.

    ReplyDelete
  169. HEY DERICK- I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR SCENARIO.

    It doesn't have anything to do with anything have ever said.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Joe wrote:

    Once the black hole is turned into a white hole/ white fountain the matter (and light) starts going out of the EH.

    So as the mass inside the EH gets smaller the EH should shrink to match that.

    And there is the moving EH- until it finally disappears when all teh matter inside of it is gone.


    Joe, this is science fiction. Black holes do not turn into white holes*. Humphreys is off his rocker.

    *Unless they go through a brown-hole stage.

    ReplyDelete
  171. "Thanks to Thornton’s impressive work, we can now see that the limits to Darwinian evolution are more severe than even I had supposed."- Dr Behe

    ReplyDelete
  172. Joe G said...

    Hormone receptor complexity- How does that even address what I said about blind, undicted chemicl procsses constructing a functional multi-part system.


    It's functional multi-part system that was shown to have evolved, exactly what you asked for.

    Now flex those he-man arms and push the goal posts a little faster JoeTard.

    ReplyDelete
  173. oleg:
    Joe, this is science fiction. Black holes do not turn into white holes*.

    It would if it was designed or created to.

    Are you really that ignorant of the Creation position?

    As for science fiction no need to look any further than your position.

    ReplyDelete
  174. thorton the liar:
    It's functional multi-part system that was shown to have evolved, exactly what you asked for.

    1- It is just a hormone receptor

    2- There isn't anything about blind, undirected chemical processes

    3- It is all speculation-

    ReplyDelete
  175. "Intelligent Design is just as much a scientific theory as astrology" - Dr. Behe under oath

    ReplyDelete
  176. thorton the liar:
    "Intelligent Design is just as much a scientific theory as astrology" - Dr. Behe under oath

    Nope Dr Behe didn't say that.

    Look at the transcripts you lying loser.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Joe G said...

    1- It is just a hormone receptor
    which happens to be a functional multi-part system

    2- There isn't anything about blind, undirected chemical processes which evolved and fits your definition of evolution.

    3- It is all speculation No, it was determined from empirically observed evidence.

    HAHAHAH! You got burned JoeTard. Now push those goal posts and wave those hands a little faster

    ReplyDelete
  178. thorton the liar:
    1- It is just a hormone receptor which happens to be a functional multi-part system

    Maybe PART of a multi-part system. But that is about it.

    2- There isn't anything about blind, undirected chemical processes

    which evolved and fits your definition of evolution.

    Again nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes- just "evolution" which in't being debated.

    You lied.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Push JoeTard, push!

    I bet you can get those goal posts airborne!

    ReplyDelete
  180. Hey thortard the liar-

    The goalposts are just where they have always been:

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Hey Joe the Genius-

    The goalpost are just where they have always been:

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes- ie the proposed mechanism of canyon formation- can construct a large complex structure like the Grand Canyon!

    ReplyDelete
  182. Derick,

    Whatever- that doesn't have anything to do with anything I have said.

    IOW it is clear tht you ain't a christian.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Joe, if black holes can turn into white holes at God's whim, why do creationists even bother to build their pathetic theories? Just replace it with one universal statement: God did it, we don't care how.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Here are Behe's exact words on ID vs. astrology:


    Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

    A Yes.

    Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

    A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Joe the retard said...

    However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system that I will acknowledge even though lots of such evidence has been placed right in front of my face.


    Fixed it for you JoeTard.

    ReplyDelete
  186. oleg:
    Joe, if black holes can turn into white holes at God's whim, why do creationists even bother to build their pathetic theories?

    Are you retarded?

    It is your position that has the pathetic "theories"- shit just happens- the laws of nature just are the way they are...

    But anyway Creationists do that because they are trying to understand God's creation.

    Ya see you insufferable twit Creationists do care how- they want t undertsnad the creation.

    They want to answer their critics who say they don't do anything.

    Also no one said anything about if black holes can turn into white holes at God's whim,

    IOW you are an insufferable PoS.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Joe G: "Whatever- that doesn't have anything to do with anything I have said."

    So you don't deny that undirected processes aren't sufficient to explain the Grand Canyon?

    ReplyDelete
  188. oleg said...
    Here are Behe's exact words on ID vs. astrology:

    Thanks for proving thorton lied

    ReplyDelete
  189. However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system


    thorton the lying loser:
    that I will acknowledge even though lots of such evidence has been placed right in front of my face.

    Not true- you have failed to produce anything.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Joe, there is no natural way for a black hole to turn into a white hole (the existence of the latter is in fact not even established). The only way out for you is to declare that God can make that happen. Of course, God can make anything happen. That's the beauty of creationist "theories."

    ReplyDelete
  191. Derick:
    So you don't deny that undirected processes aren't sufficient to explain the Grand Canyon?

    Whatever- that doesn't have anything to do with anything I have said.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Hey Joe, how come a genius with a 150 IQ like you got laid off and can't find a job?

    ReplyDelete
  193. oleg:
    Joe, there is no natural way for a black hole to turn into a white hole (the existence of the latter is in fact not even established).

    No shit sherlock.

    there is no natural way for the laws of nature to arise either. Oops.

    oleg:
    The only way out for you is to declare that God can make that happen.

    So you are retarded.

    You do understand taht is what creation is all about, right?- God Created the universe.

    oleg:
    Of course, God can make anything happen.

    Strawman.

    Look at your position- sheer dumb luck can make anything happen

    ReplyDelete
  194. thortard the liar:
    Hey Joe, how come a genius with a 150 IQ like you got laid off and can't find a job?

    I am retired- I do not collect unemployment.

    IOW I don't need a job- well I have one- raising a family, partying and remodeling my house- the addition I designed and built is almost finished.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Joe G said...

    I am retired


    Involuntarily "retired" from the toaster repair biz. Got it

    I do not collect unemployment.

    Used up all your benefits. Got it.

    Pity. With all your spare time maybe you could go to a community college and take a beginning biology course. You'd still be an ass, but at least you might finally have a clue about the science being discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Thorton, there's nothing wrong with not having a job in this economy.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Besides Thorton, Joe's set for life with that Nobel Prize money coming his way:

    Joe: "there is no natural way for the laws of nature to arise either."

    I mean, Joe knows not only how the laws of nature arise, but in such great detail that he knows that it was supernatural.

    I bet you feel silly for questioning his genius now, dontcha?

    ReplyDelete