Tuesday, January 29, 2013

What Really Matters

Just This One Thing

I believe there are big problems with evolution. But I could be wrong. Or perhaps I’m right but some form of evolution is nonetheless true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented. All of this makes for an interesting, and I think important, debate. But the debate again and again, inevitably, engages religion. There are good reasons for this, and there is nothing wrong with bringing religion into the debate, per se. But I want to avoid one thing. If you are an evolutionist, please do not link your strong feelings and support for evolution with a rejection of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

If you are an evolutionist, please do not peg yourself to atheism, pantheism, Gnosticism, or any other belief that rejects the truth and saving grace of Jesus Christ, merely because you are an evolutionist. There are a great many Christians who are evolutionists. You can be an evolutionist and a Christ follower.

So do me one favor. Give Jesus a chance. You may think creationists are ignorant and evolution is compelling, but give Him a chance. Here’s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written. Shouldn’t you have some knowledge of what that book actually says?

Don’t make more out of evolution than what it is. Jesus died for our sins and without Him we have no hope.

199 comments:

  1. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus, Christianity, or any type of religion. It has no more to do with Jesus than the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics, or the germ theory of disease does.

    That you constantly feel the need to attack science and scientists in order to make yourself feel better about your personal religious choices says loads more about you than it ever does about evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus, Christianity

      Is this why you always bring Jesus into every discussion about evolution? Methinks the psycho has an unholy fixation. LOL.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I don't give a rat's arse what you think you know. How about that?

      Delete
    4. thorton:
      The theory of evolution is a scientific theory

      Liar. It is too vague to even be considered a theory.

      It doesn't provide any measurement systm, it cannot be quantified. Heck it can't even muster a testable hypothesis based on its posited mechanism of accumulations of genetic accidents.

      That thorton constantly feels the need to attack ID and IDists in order to make itself feel better about your personal religious choices says loads more about thorton than it ever does about Intelligent Design.

      Delete
    5. I realize that I may have gotten Louis mixed up with Lino in regard to the user name Pav, so I deleted that comment and repost it now with the reference to Pav removed:

      Louis, do you really believe that Thorton and anyone else with a clue doesn't know that religion (mainly creationist fundamentalism) is the basis for the bashing of evolution, the ToE, Darwin, and evolutionists on this and other websites? Do you really believe that you and other religious zealots are successfully hiding your religious beliefs and agenda?

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joke G

      Liar. It is too vague to even be considered a theory.


      Boring Fatboy is boring.

      Get a new act Chubs. Your immediate and childish knee-jerk denial to any little bit of scientific knowledge that is posted got old years ago.

      Delete
    7. Shut up thorton. You are a proven liar and also you have been proven ignorant of the ToE.

      Delete
    8. My, my, the same Joe G who denies having sock puppets (who write in his inimitable style) accuses others of lying.

      Delete
    9. And another cowardly evoTARD liar chimes in.

      Hey oleg how many pairs of chromosomes do humans have? Are those chromosomes connected?

      Delete
    10. Hey, Joe, did you write under the name of ID Guy or is it your imaginary friend? LOL

      Delete
    11. LOL! Remember the time he wrote a journal defending ID from his "frisbee_kid" account and signed it Joseph A. Gallien? Then when called on it he started screaming that wasn't him, his name really isn't Joseph Gallien, it was his father and STOP TALKING ABOUT HIS FATHER!!

      Good times from our own pet compulsive liar!

      Delete
    12. Hey oleg- are you proud to be an ignorant ass?

      Delete
    13. And I see empty bluster bot thorton the coward is STILL making up stories to make itself feel good.

      Delete
    14. Joe is avoiding the question. LOL

      Give my regards to your sock puppets, Joe. They all write like you, in single-sentence paragraph and with the same horrible punctuation.

      Delete
    15. oleg is proud to be an ignorant ass. LoL.

      Yes, oleg, I understand that you never had any friends, let alone a close friend.

      $10,000 oleg- Jim and I will meet with you.

      Delete
    16. And by oleg's "logic" there are but two or three evolutionists and the rest are sock-puppets- they all write alike, in simple minded equivocation and they all avoid supporting their position.

      Delete
    17. Why would I pay $10k to see two dorks from New England? Are you, guys, prostitutes?

      Delete
    18. oleg, avoiding questions:

      Hey oleg how many pairs of chromosomes do humans have? Are those chromosomes connected?

      Only a lowlife hypocrite would avoid my questions, ask his own and then act all high and mighty when I don't answer his. And evos do that all the time.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. oleg- we get it. You would be too stupid to understand the evidence if it was standing right in front of you.

      Delete
    21. Oh, the evidence is quite incontrovertible. ID Guy writes exactly like Joe G. Down to the hyphens stuck to the words on their left.

      Delete
    22. oleg- you are too stupid to assess the evidence. You think that chromosomes are connected to form one strand of DNA.

      Our similar writing styles were by design. As I said, obvioulsy you never had any friends, let alone a close friend.

      Anytime you want to meet us- it will cost you $10,000 USD.

      Delete
    23. And by oleg's "logic" there are but two or three evolutionists and the rest are sock-puppets- they all write alike, in simple minded equivocation and they all avoid supporting their position.

      Delete
    24. Joe, and how about your shared grammatical errors? Are they the same by design, too? Did you, guys, receive the same bad education in middle school? LOL

      Delete
    25. oleg, still too chicken to put his money where his mouth is. LoL!!!!1111!!!!111

      Delete
    26. You are not worth $10k, Joe. We get free entertainment looking at your sock puppets online.

      Delete
    27. Hey joey, don't you remember your offer to bet on whether anyone would spend a night in an allegedly haunted place of your choice? I said that I would take that bet, and you just ran away from it.

      Don't you also remember that, in response to your threatening challenges, I suggested that you should fly to an airport near me and that I would pick you up there so that we could 'discuss' your threats? You ran away from that too.

      Don't you also remember all of the other threatening challenges that you've made to others and that you've run away from all of them too?

      Who's the "chicken", joey?

      By the way, are you still living in a parking lot? LOL

      Delete
    28. twitty:
      Hey joey, don't you remember your offer to bet on whether anyone would spend a night in an allegedly haunted place of your choice? I said that I would take that bet,

      OK, let's do it.

      As I said I also will fight and debate you too- $5,000 for the fight and another $5000 for the debate- unfortunately you won't make the debate.

      Delete
    29. oleg:
      We get free entertainment looking at your sock puppets online.

      LoL! YOU and your chromosomes are linked are the entertainment you ignorant puke.

      Delete
    30. Joe G offering his butt to be kicked for $5k? Priceless.

      Delete
    31. joey bluffed:

      "OK, let's do it.

      As I said I also will fight and debate you too- $5,000 for the fight and another $5000 for the debate- unfortunately you won't make the debate."

      Yeah sure, joey, like you have the money and would actually show up and pay up. You've been spewing threats and bets/challenges for years and I and several other people have offered to take you up on them but you always run away. Yawn.

      Delete
  2. BTW Cornelius, I was raised in a very religious household and have read the entire Bible multiple times. I know it better that 90% of the Creationists I come across. It offers great lessons in how to treat your fellow man but it's not a science textbook.

    Your insinuation that all those who accept evolution must be sinful atheists is both disgusting and a damn rude insult to all scientists and Christians everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everybody is sinful. Those who accept evolution are not just sinful, they're stupid as well. It is disgusting and rude to insinuate otherwise.

      I was raised in a very religious household

      That explains why you're so stupid.

      Delete
    2. louis vomited:

      "Everybody is sinful."

      Speak for yourself.

      "Those who accept evolution are not just sinful, they're stupid as well. It is disgusting and rude to insinuate otherwise."

      Since joey is allegedly "OK" with evolution, he should be along any minute now to chew you out. In the meantime, I'll tell you that you're a profound example of a typical zombie creationist.

      "That explains why you're so stupid."

      Says the two-faced sinner.

      Delete
    3. Me: Everybody is sinful.

      Truthy: Speak for yourself.

      I was right. LOL.

      Delete
    4. Louis,

      "Those who accept evolution are not just sinful, they're stupid as well."

      How does believing in evolution make one stupid? If evolutionists are as stupid as you think, why are you here? Do you not think you're simply wasting your time trying to convince stupid people to accept your position? After all they are stupid, so how do you suppose they can be intelligent enough to weigh the validity your arguments?

      Delete
    5. Yo, Nic. I have no desire to convince you or any of the other stupid evolutionists of anything. I just enjoy bashing y'all. It's how I relax. LOL.

      Delete
    6. That is why you are a never ending source of amusement, Louis.

      Delete
    7. Louis Savain,

      "Yo, Nic. I have no desire to convince you or any of the other stupid evolutionists of anything. I just enjoy bashing y'all. It's how I relax. LOL."

      I'm really curious, have you ever taken a reading comprehension test in your life? I'm simply asking because I'm astounded you could read my postings and conclude I'm an evolutionist. Did you not notice I used the term 'evolutionists' in the third person, not the first as would be necessary if I was indeed an evolutionist?

      So, a word of advice, careful when using the term 'stupid'. Actually, it's best not too, just on principal.

      Delete
  3. Thornton: I think your comments must be intended for some other post, one where your comments would make sense.

    Cornelius said "There are a great many Christians who are evolutionists".

    You said that he insinuated that "all those who accept evolution must be sinful atheists".

    Please try and find the post where Cornelius made that suggestion and put your comments there.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go read CH's thread where he whines about the Roe v. Wade decision and blames the "abortion holocaust" on evolutionists.

      Delete
  4. Dale, if Cornelius were even just tolerant, let alone accepting, of christians or anyone else who accepts that evolution occurs, he wouldn't constantly bash "evolutionists". When he bashes "evolutionists" he's also bashing every christian and anyone of any other religion who accepts that evolution occurs.

    Cornelius and other religious zealots are the ones making it a religious "debate". His and their fairy tale religious beliefs are the reason that they're against evolution and the theory of evolution, and the main belief that drives him and them is based on the allegedly superior, special, exceptional stature of "man", who is alleged to be created in "the image of God". It's 'I ain't no filthy monkey' egotistical arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I think the arrogance comes from those who insist that they have no use for gods or creation. The self-righteousness of evolutionists smells of corpses and formaldehyde.

      Delete
    2. Ummm ... like Thornton you are arguing about some other post.

      About the de novo issues you raise, all I can say is prove it.

      Prove that you know what his thoughts are. You would have to at least quote him accurately and then everyone will judge your argument logically.

      Prove that his assertion that evolution is driven by religious belief (predetermined, irrational, fixed belief) is not true in your case. Perhaps a personal testimony of how you have wrestled with various evidences between differing positions. Or is your belief system fixed and not subject to correction, ever?

      God bless you

      Delete
    3. Dale, Cornelius works for Biola. The following is the Biola doctrinal statement he agreed to adhere to:

      Doctrinal Statement

      Inasmuch as the University is interdenominational and yet theologically conservative, the Articles of Incorporation contain a doctrinal statement which is given below:

      The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

      There is one God, eternally existing and manifesting Himself to us in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

      Our Lord Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin Mary, a lineal descendant of David. He lived and taught and wrought mighty works and wonders and signs exactly as is recorded in the four Gospels. He was put to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. God raised from the dead the body that had been nailed to the cross. The Lord Jesus after His crucifixion showed Himself to be alive to His disciples, appearing unto them by the space of 40 days. After this, the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven, and the Father caused Him to sit at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church.

      The Lord Jesus, before His incarnation, existed in the form of God and of His own choice laid aside His divine glory and took upon Himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. In His pre-existent state, He was with God and was God. He is a divine person possessed of all the attributes of Deity, and should be worshiped as God by angels and man. "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." All the words that He spoke during His earthly life were the words of God. There is absolutely no error of any kind in them, and by the words of Jesus Christ the words of all other teachers must be tested.

      See part two.

      Delete
    4. Part two:

      The Lord Jesus became in every respect a real man, possessed of all the essential characteristics of human nature.

      By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus made a perfect atonement for sin, by which the wrath of God against sinners is appeased and a ground furnished upon which God can deal in mercy with sinners. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our place. He who Himself was absolutely without sin was made to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The Lord Jesus is coming again to his earth, personally, bodily, and visibly. The return of our Lord is the blessed hope of the believer, and in it God's purposes of grace toward mankind will find their consummation.

      The Holy Spirit is a person, and is possessed of all the distinctively divine attributes. He is God.

      Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam. All men, until they accept the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, are lost, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, hardened in heart, morally and spiritually dead through their trespasses and sins. They cannot see, nor enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again of the Holy Spirit.

      Men are justified on the simple and single ground of the shed blood of Christ and upon the simple and single condition of faith in Him who shed the blood, and are born again by the quickening, renewing, cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the Word of God.

      All those who receive Jesus Christ as their Savior and their Lord, and who confess Him as such before their fellow men, become children of God and receive eternal life. They become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. At death their spirits depart to be with Christ in conscious blessedness, and at the Second Coming of Christ their bodies shall be raised and transformed into the likeness of the body of His glory.

      All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish.

      The Church consists of all those who, in this present dispensation, truly believe in Jesus Christ. It is the body and bride of Christ, which Christ loves and for which He has given Himself.

      See part three.

      Delete
    5. Part three:

      There is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power: "The prince of the power of the air," "The prince of this world," "The god of this age." He can exert vast power only so far as God suffers him to do so. He shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.

      Theological Distinctives: The Articles of Faith, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University. Where “man” is used referring to the human race it includes both genders. In addition, the following theological distinctives indicate the organization’s understanding of and teaching position on certain points that could be subject to various interpretations.

      In fulfillment of God’s historical purpose for humanity to rule and establish God’s kingdom on earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-8; Matt. 6:10; Heb. 2:6-9), the Scriptures teach a millennial reign of Christ with His saints on earth following His literal return. The nation of Israel, having been redeemed, will play a central role in bringing the blessings of salvation to all nations during the millennium in fulfillment of biblical prophecies (e.g., Is. 2:1-4; 11:1-12; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37; Amos 9:9-15; Zech. 14; Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6; 3:19-21; Rev. 20:4-6). Following the millennium, this kingdom will be merged into the eternal kingdom (I Cor. 15:22-28).

      Before these millennial events, the believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:13-17). The time of this “rapture” is unknown, and thus believers are to live constantly watchful and ready.

      The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

      See part four.

      Delete
    6. Part four:

      Therefore creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and(c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

      Though there be many fillings of the Holy Spirit, there is only one baptism that occurs at the time of regeneration. The gifts of the Spirit are given to believers according to the Will of God for the purpose of building up the Church. During the foundational era of the Church (i.e., the time of Christ and the Apostles) God gave special manifestations of the overtly supernatural and miraculous gifts (e.g., tongues, healings, miracles) as “signs” that witness to the validity of those bearing new canonical revelation (c.f. II Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4). Beyond the foundational era, God in His sovereignty may grant any spiritual gift and work miraculously for the benefit of His church at any time.

      The Bible is clear in its teaching on the sanctity of life. Life begins at conception. We abhor the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on demand, infanticide or euthanasia as unbiblical and contrary to God’s will. Life is precious and in God’s hands.

      Biblical marriage consists only of a faithful, heterosexual union between one genetic male and one genetic female, and biblical marriage is the only legitimate and acceptable context for a sexual relationship.

      Delete
    7. The following is the mission statement of Biola:

      Mission, Vision & Values

      Our Vision

      Biola University's vision is to be an exemplary Christian university characterized as a community of grace that promotes and inspires personal life transformation in Christ which illuminates the world with His light and truth. Further, as a global center for Christian thought and an influential evangelical voice that addresses crucial cultural issues, Biola University aspires to lead, with confidence and compassion, an intellectual and spiritual renewal that advances the purpose of Christ.

      Mission Statement

      The mission of Biola University is biblically centered education, scholarship and service—equipping men and women in mind and character to impact the world for the Lord Jesus Christ.

      Students

      Our objective is that every student learns Christ-like character and intellectual, technical and relational skills to serve as leaders, role models, and competent professionals.

      Education

      Our business is to inspire student's learning so that they are empowered to think and practice from a Christian worldview in their fields of service.

      Research

      Our faculty, students, and graduates seek to grapple with the intellectual, ethical, and cultural issues of our time by partnering in discerning Christ-centered scholarship through learning, rigorous research, publications and performance.

      Values

      At the heart of our mission is love and respect for all persons, integrity and diligence in our words and deeds, and AWE and reverence for God's work. We seek His inspiration for creativity and excellence in the fulfillment of our mission. Our vision is to be a distinctive Christian University of service to the global community of faith.

      Impact

      We desire that our graduates demonstrate Christ-like character, competence, and commitment through servant leadership in their churches, communities, and professions. Being equipped for critical thinking and dialogue in respect to faith, our desire is that graduates respond with love to make a difference in society, government, the marketplace, and higher education.

      Character Building Community

      We aspire to mentor and serve our students in a manner that nurtures strength of character and Christian community.

      See part two:

      Delete
    8. Watch out everybody! I think Truthy here just received the holy ghost.

      Delete
    9. Part two:

      Evangelism

      Biola stands as a beacon of faith, to equip men and women for Christ-centered public service and the ministry of "making disciples" at home and around the world.

      Our Values

      Truth

      We believe that there is truth; it is knowable and revealed in God's inerrant Word. As a result we can live with unshakeable confidence and hope knowing that the Bible and God's truth have direct application to our lives, our work, our relationships and the culture around us.

      We believe that holding a biblical worldview is foundational to understanding life and Truth. God has equipped us to uphold truth and sustain community at Biola through Christ-centered and Spirit-led education, scholarship and service that is grounded in Scripture and challenges our community to seek and integrate biblical principles into our fields of study.

      We believe that all we do should be Christ-centered and based on the teachings of Jesus. Christ provided the best model for how to live and following Him is a way of life that when followed to its fullest expression will impact how we live and the choices we make.

      Transformation

      We believe that participating in a Christian community of grace is important in the life of the believer. Our identity as children of the Triune God lies in our lives lived in and through community, holistic relationships, mutual interdependence upon the Indwelling Spirit and members of the Body and seeking the unity of the Spirit.

      We believe that through the renewing of the mind and care of the body we prepare our students to live within the culture in a loving and Christ-honoring way. Through a rigorous, Christ-centered and Spirit-led education we enable our students to grapple with and engage in the spiritual, intellectual, ethical and cultural issues of our time, their implications and application to everyday life.

      We believe that through community and dependence upon the Spirit character is sharpened and we grow in our ability to live our lives as the Lord Jesus Christ would. Interactions with fellow Christians provide one of the essential means of character development in the life of the believer.

      See part three.

      Delete
    10. Part three:

      We believe that integrity and authenticity should be hallmarks of every believer. Our relationships should be models of transparency, truth-telling and unwavering commitment to the example set by the Lord Jesus Christ.

      Testimony

      We believe that we exist to serve God and His Great Commission in reaching the world for the Lord Jesus Christ. As Christ-followers, we are His light to a dark world and it is our duty and privilege to make disciples.

      We believe that God uses the faculty, staff, students and alumni to accomplish His plans. As servant leaders, each person who is part of Biola's community can make a difference in their families, churches, communities and vocations for Christ's Kingdom.

      We believe that service is an act of worship to God. As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, we desire to worship God by living in a way that is worthy of the calling we have received.

      We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ intends His Church to be a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-national body of believers. We have been called to respect, and when appropriate, reflect the diversity of God's kingdom throughout the world. As believers, we have a responsibility to spread the Gospel through evangelism, missions and outreach.

      We believe that we have been blessed with kingdom resources and purposes and desire to steward them in a God-honoring way. Our desire is to manage our time, money and gifts and to care for the students, whose lives have been entrusted to us, in a way that models a commitment to excellence and a total-life attitude of stewardship.

      --------------

      Now, do you really want to argue that Cornelius' hateful agenda against evolution, the ToE, Darwin, science, scientists, and "evolutionists" is not because he's a religious/creationist/evangelical/fundamentalist/dominionist/biblical literalist?

      Delete
  5. Evolution touches on religion because it rejects Genesis and really rejects a God. A living God just wouldn't have man or beast moving through stages without purpose. To say man evolved is to say God crossed his fingers evolution would create man out of ape etc.
    As if his hands are tied. Or making evolution the mechanism was so needed.
    It all suggests evolutions acceptance really was greatly based on rejecting Protestant or Catholic Christianity. Evolution was needed and evger since this motive has clouded thinking people's minds.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CH said: "Here’s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written."

    I would suggest starting with John. It was written so that you might believe. After reading John, answer the question: Was Jesus a lunatic, liar, or who He said He is? If you can't come up with convincing arguments about the first two, you better consider the gravity of the third.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was Jesus a lunatic, liar, or who He said He is?

      That is a false trichotomy. They are not the only possible options.

      Consider a fourth option - legend. Jesus never actually existed at all, but was a fictional figure who has become, over time, mistaken as historical. That is an explanation which fits the facts extremely well.

      But even if we are forced to consider your three options, there is simply not enough evidence to judge either way. We have no first-hand accounts of his alleged deeds or words. No accounts of him at all by anyone who claims to have actually met him, and precious few which were written by anyone who even lived within his alleged lifetime.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And your answer no.3 is far too poorly evidenced a claim to accept. Unless you are happy just taking a blind leap of faith, of course...

      Delete
    2. Wow, another moron with the "Jesus was fictional"- Strange that a fictional character can change the world and have time divided in his name.

      Delete
    3. Changed the world how? What does that even mean?

      There was no change in the world. A religion started, but so what. The truth of a fact is not determined by how many people believe it. Thousands of religions have started and spread throughout humanity's history. There is nothing that marks Christianity's out as different.

      You mention the BC/AD calendar. Proves nothing. This dating system was drawn up in 525 and not widely used in the west until at least the ninth century. All it shows is that it was drawn up by people who believed in Jesus. It does not speak at all to the probability of him being a real person.

      Delete
    4. Ritchie:
      Changed the world how?

      In many ways. Perhaps you should get an education.

      You mention the BC/AD calendar.

      That's a biggie.

      All it shows is that it was drawn up by people who believed in Jesus.

      And the world accepted it- what year is it?

      Delete
    5. In many ways. Perhaps you should get an education.

      Rhetoric. Deflection.

      Name one single change in the world, no matter how small, that can reasonably be attributed to Jesus as a person - and NOT the followers of such a man. Point to on single mark we can reasonably say he left on the world.

      That's a biggie.

      No, it's silly. Because it shows nothing.

      And the world accepted it- what year is it?

      The 'world' did not accept it. The Christians accepted it.

      And again, so what? What does that show? Nothing more than 'Christians believed in Christ'. Well, what a shocking revelation.

      This calendar system was introduced many centuries after Jesus allegedly lived. Why would the people of the 6th-9th centuries be any better informed on the probability of Jesus' existence than we are today?

      Delete
    6. Ritchie:
      This calendar system was introduced many centuries after Jesus allegedly lived.

      Yes, many people still remembered him long after he died. And Christianity changed the world.

      Delete
    7. Joe

      Yes, many people still remembered him long after he died

      No, people BELIEVED in him centuries after he supposedly lived. Just as people still believed in Heracles long after he supposedly lived.

      A large number of people believing something is not evidence that that thing is true. It is perfectly possible for a large number of people to be mistaken. And if those people are removed from the thing itself by centuries, that does absolutely nothing to make them MORE likely to be correct. It makes them far, far less.

      And Christianity changed the world.

      That was not your claim. You claimed that Christ himself changed the world.

      I have no issue with Christians changing the world (though whether they did so for the better or worse is a different matter). I believe Christians exist. It is perfectly possible for Christians to peform massively significant and Earth-changing deeds and still be mistaken about their belief in Jesus.

      What I want (what you claimed to be able to provide) is evidence of a change in the world that was brought about NOT BY A CHRISTIAN, but by Christ himself. The actual person.

      Delete
    8. Joe G,

      "Wow, another moron with the "Jesus was fictional"- "

      I don't even bother to debate this subject with people like Ritchie. It's painfully obvious they have never read any history whatsoever and have absolutely no idea what constitutes an historical document. They function under the delusion the Bible is simply a collection of stories and does not qualify as a collection of historical documents.

      There isn't a competent historian in the world, Christian or otherwise, who doubts the existence of Christ. Yet people like Ritchie think they know better than all the historians throughout history. It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong.

      Delete
    9. It's painfully obvious they have never read any history whatsoever and have absolutely no idea what constitutes an historical document. They function under the delusion the Bible is simply a collection of stories and does not qualify as a collection of historical documents.

      The Bible IS simply a collection of stories. The Old Testament is full of mythical events which we know did not literally happen (Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, the Exodus) while the New Testament, while more modest in scope, still includes miraculous deeds and events. The gospels are not independent accounts, but borrow directly from each other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels), they contradict each other many times and they fail to be verified by independent accounts.

      So no, the Bible doesn't count as a reliable historical document at all. Far, far from it.

      There isn't a competent historian in the world, Christian or otherwise, who doubts the existence of Christ.

      I can name you many. The Jesus Myth Theory has been publically advocated by Friedrich Holderlin, Gerald Massey, Alvind Kuhn, Charles Francois Dupuis, David Strauss, Bruno Bauer, James George Frazer, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, Arthur Drews, Paul-Louis Couchoud and G. J. P. J. Bolland.

      Modern day scholars include Richard Carrier, G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie.

      Besides, truth is not established by the number of people who believe certain propositions. It is established through evidence.

      Yet people like Ritchie think they know better than all the historians throughout history.

      Can I just take a moment to remark how massively hypocritical that is coming from someone who claims to know biology better than every biologist?

      It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong.

      Can't support your position? Simply declare yourself right and that it's futile to argue because your opponent is too dim to understand. Classic Creationist tactic #4, I believe...?

      Delete
    10. Nic

      There isn't a competent historian in the world, Christian or otherwise, who doubts the existence of Christ. Yet people like Ritchie think they know better than all the historians throughout history. It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong.


      This coming from the same guy who has been claiming evolution is an argument ad populum and telling me I only believe it because the scientists say it's true.

      Let's change a few words and see what we get:

      "There isn't a competent scientist in the world, evolutionist or otherwise, who doubts the veracity of ToE. Yet people like Nic think they know better than all the scientists in the last two centuries. It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong"

      As I noted before, Nic only seems to understand argument from authority. That's how his religion is run, so science must be run that way too.

      I'm not going to get into this particular argument at all, but watching Nic's compartmentalized and self-contradictory "reasoning" is quite the phenomenon.

      Delete
  7. I don't really see the connection between evolution and Jesus per se. While one must be alive to the possibility that the Bible, particularly the reported doings of this personage, essentially forms God's medium of communication with us mere mortals, it does not shed any light on why the world appears so damned evolved. Sure, it does not appear evolved to many, particularly fundamentalists, but it does appear evolved to me. And I have spent a bit of time checking.

    That appearance runs deep, down to the very operation of, and relationships between, the molecules of which we are made. Of course, CH and many others spend their lives insisting that the depth is superficial. It is entirely clear (to them) that a vast army of diligent investigators have got it hopelessly wrong. And the only reason they can't see how wrong they've got it is that they are determined followers of atheism (apart, that is, from the religious ones). But on the face of it, God is trying to fool us into thinking the pattern supports 'non-interventionist' evolution. Anti-evolutionists, somehow, can see right through this subterfuge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not a fundamentalist and everything appears exquisitely designed to me. I guess we all see what we want to see to satisfy our deep desires. May the best religion win.

      Delete
    2. Louis said:

      "I am not a fundamentalist and everything appears exquisitely designed to me."

      Does "everything" include flesh eating and other harmful bacteria, crippling and/or deadly deformities, Down's and other syndromes, deadly viruses, retardation, depression and other emotional problems, injuries and/or death by 'accidents', pain and suffering, loneliness, hate, narcissism, dishonesty, bad breath, body odor, tooth decay, impacted teeth, cancer, toenail and other harmful fungi, miscarriages (abortions), crippling phobias, STDs, storms, earthquakes, deadly volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, lightning caused fires and deaths, crop pests and diseases, starvation, extinctions, droughts, a sun that will eventually burn out or explode, etc.?

      Why is it that you IDiots never use something harmful as an example of finely tuned, privileged, exquisite design by your allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, moral, merciful, loving god?

      "I guess we all see what we want to see to satisfy our deep desires."

      Bad guess. Some people see things as they really are. Many people would probably like to see things only in a way that pleases them and provides them with a feeling of comfort and security, and ignore or flatly deny the things that make them feel unpleasant and insecure, but people with their eyes and minds open 'see' and accept reality, and rather than gloss it over with blinding, comforting, ego inflating, fairy tale religious beliefs they face reality, explore it, and try to learn more about it.

      One of the things you science bashers don't appreciate is that most scientists try to learn more about reality so that they can discover and explain things that will help people like you have a more pleasant, safe, healthy, educated, productive life.

      Delete
    3. Allan Miller said

      “it does not appear evolved to many, particularly fundamentalists, but it does appear evolved to me. And I have spent a bit of time checking.”

      Are the assumptions you made thah led you to see it evolved, as are the assumptions make others see it as designed or created. Everybody has the same data but the differences are in the interpratations of that data, and for nterpretations you always need to make assumptions.
      No matter of that , here:

      “But on the face of it, God is trying to fool us into thinking the pattern supports 'non-interventionist' evolution. Anti-evolutionists, somehow, can see right through this subterfuge. “

      you have a point.
      The conclusion of this are:

      If God exists it is not self evident.
      If God exists lets you to think He is not there.

      If you are interested check the assumptions you are making that make the world evolved and by the way check if there is a God with that two characteristics.

      Delete
  8. Allan

    "That appearance runs deep, down to the very operation of, and relationships between, the molecules of which we are made."



    Do you mean there is appearance of evolution at the molecular level ? Do you have a link to some possible scenario?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen

      Do you mean there is appearance of evolution at the molecular level ? Do you have a link to some possible scenario?


      Protein Evolution by Molecular Tinkering: Diversification of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily from a Ligand-Dependent Ancestor
      Bridgham et al
      PLoS Biol 8(10): e1000497 Feb 2011

      Abstract: Understanding how protein structures and functions have diversified is a central goal in molecular evolution. Surveys of very divergent proteins from model organisms, however, are often insufficient to determine the features of ancestral proteins and to reveal the evolutionary events that yielded extant diversity. Here we combine genomic, biochemical, functional, structural, and phylogenetic analyses to reconstruct the early evolution of nuclear receptors (NRs), a diverse superfamily of transcriptional regulators that play key roles in animal development, physiology, and reproduction. By inferring the structure and functions of the ancestral NR, we show—contrary to current belief—that NRs evolved from a ligand-activated ancestral receptor that existed near the base of the Metazoa, with fatty acids as possible ancestral ligands. Evolutionary tinkering with this ancestral structure generated the extraordinary diversity of modern receptors: sensitivity to different ligands evolved because of subtle modifications of the internal cavity, and ligand-independent activation evolved repeatedly because of various mutations that stabilized the active conformation in the absence of ligand. Our findings illustrate how a mechanistic dissection of protein evolution in a phylogenetic context can reveal the deep homology that links apparently “novel” molecular functions to a common ancestral form.

      Delete
    2. DrHunter


      I believe there are big problems with evolution. But I could be wrong. Or perhaps I’m right but some form of evolution is nonetheless true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp.


      So your objection is merely with the certainty. Do you find the certainty that those who believe that evolution is impossible equally objectionable?

      These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem

      As you said,we don't know if the truth claims are warranted, you could be wrong. You don't want to fall into the same trap of false certainty.These truths claims, are they referring to the Theory of Evolution? There seems to be a fair amount of research and debate about the ToE, this hardly seems logical if it is already a certainity on the par with gravity.

      Are there any other meaning of evolution that these truth claims could be referring to, a more popular science level? Much misunderstanding in my opinion is due to ambiguous meanings.

      . So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented.

      So if scientists had a disclaimer that all scientific resuts were conditional.That would satisfy you. Sounds fair. Kinda like at the end of movies, any resemblance ....... Would it have to be explicit or in order to avoid repetition just be understood at the professional level?The other sciences seem to have adopted that standard.

      All of this makes for an interesting, and I think important, debate.

      The debate whether that ToE explains the diversity of life to the best of our knowledge or whether scientists can be imprecise in their language?

      But the debate again and again, inevitably, engages religion.There are good reasons for this, and there is nothing wrong with bringing religion into the debate, per se.

      At least at this level, you know better than I but I am guessing not at the primary literature levels,after all how would one quantify the effects of subjective all powerful being?

      But I want to avoid one thing.

      Perhaps you might consider not equating a scientific theory with morality. And perhaps you might rethink you use of " evolutionists", first it is ambiguous, second one gets the impression that is is a backhanded method to refute the Theory of Evolution not on the science but on supposed traits of " evolutionists".

      you are an evolutionist, please do not link your strong feelings and support for evolution with a rejection of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

      Depends on why one embraces religion I would guess.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the link, Thorton. I'll read the article later, maybe tomorrow. It looks pretty long and technical.
      After a quick look I couldn't help noticing very important molecules TR2,4 testicular receptors 2 and 4. Hmm, I think I need 2.

      Delete
    4. DrHunter
      If you are an evolutionist, please do not peg yourself to atheism, pantheism, Gnosticism, or any other belief that rejects the truth and saving grace of Jesus Christ, merely because you are an evolutionist.


      Unless you believe that the Bible is primary scientific literature then what you believe about the ToE shouldn't affect your religious fervor ,for instance
      Slw" How can one be a follower of Christ but not believe what Christ did about a beginning with Adam and Eve, and Noah escaping the judgment of a world-wide flood"

      So do you find this just as objectionable as when "evolutionists" do it?

      There are a great many Christians who are evolutionists. You can be an evolutionist and a Christ follower.

      Not according to SLW. Just to be clear what exactly is an " evolutionist" , and what is a non evolutionist? I thought being an evolutionist was the same as an abortionist and eugenist?

      So do me one favor. Give Jesus a chance.

      I respect your choice,perhaps you shouldn't assume people don't accept your version of the truth out of ignorance or the siren call of the ToE. Perhaps they just don't believe in your particular flavor of God or the need of God to give their life meaning.

      Delete
    5. Dr Hunter

      if your new post is a sincere attempt to arrive to a more deep clarification on the meaning of science and overcome the misunderstanding that up to now were present in all your previous blog, I will make an attempt to discuss it with you.
      As far as my person is concerned, I accept TOE as a scientific theory and not as metaphysic claim. I am convinced that science cannot disprove God, simply because God is not included in the science methodology.
      I respect religions and religious peoples, but from the other side I will not permit that any religion views pretend to censoring science in do its work. I don’t consider any result of the science as dogma, ready to change position and theory if better mechanisms and explanations can be supported, but from the other side I reject to start from any religious dogma as zero assumption and to prescribe what science has to research or teach.
      Seeing the first reaction from your field (SLW) I assume that your attempt will be soon blocked.
      Nevertheless, I hope that this can be a start for a further clarification.

      Delete
    6. Allan Miller,

      "Sure, it does not appear evolved to many, particularly fundamentalists, but it does appear evolved to me."

      I'm curious, how does something 'appear' evolved?

      Delete
    7. "Abstract: Understanding how protein structures and functions have diversified is a central goal in molecular EVOLUTION. Surveys of very divergent proteins from model organisms, however, are often insufficient to determine the features of ancestral proteins and to reveal the EVOLUTIONARY events that yielded extant diversity. Here we combine genomic, biochemical, functional, structural, and phylogenetic analyses to reconstruct the early EVOLUTION of nuclear receptors (NRs), a diverse superfamily of transcriptional regulators that play key roles in animal development, physiology, and reproduction. By inferring the structure and functions of the ancestral NR, we show—contrary to current belief—that NRs EVOLVED from a ligand-activated ancestral receptor that existed near the base of the Metazoa, with fatty acids as possible ancestral ligands. EVOLUTIONARY tinkering with this ancestral structure generated the extraordinary diversity of modern receptors: sensitivity to different ligands EVOLVED because of subtle modifications of the internal cavity, and ligand-independent activation EVOLVED repeatedly because of various mutations that stabilized the active conformation in the absence of ligand. Our findings illustrate how a mechanistic dissection of protein EVOLUTION in a phylogenetic context can reveal the deep homology that links apparently “novel” molecular functions to a common ancestral form."

      After reading the abstract am I naive to think they might be objective in their conclusions?

      Delete
    8. Nic

      After reading the abstract am I naive to think they might be objective in their conclusions?


      Nic, I though we already covered this. ALL new scientific research builds off of previous discoveries and previously established facts. No paper in any scientific field is required to "reinvent the wheel" and demonstrate all the work done over the 100 years before.

      Remember the jigsaw analogy? Every new piece by itself doesn't have to recreate the entire box-top picture, it just adds to the fine details. You don't have to rebuild the entire multi-million piece puzzle over again.

      Delete
    9. Nic

      I'm curious, how does something 'appear' evolved?


      Living creatures appear evolved when you apply all the additional external evidence -morphological, genetic, geologic, etc. - and can establish changes in the lineage over a reasonably deep history.

      You have to consider ALL the puzzle pieces together Nic, not just the isolated one in your hand.

      Delete
    10. Thorton,

      "ALL new scientific research builds off of previous discoveries and previously established facts. No paper in any scientific field is required to "reinvent the wheel" and demonstrate all the work done over the 100 years before."

      Only problem here my friend, is that they have not yet invented the wheel, they're still assuming its existence. As for facts, please show us some evolutionary 'facts'.

      Delete
    11. Nic

      Only problem here my friend, is that they have not yet invented the wheel, they're still assuming its existence.


      Er...no Nic. The fact of evolution over deep time and the mechanisms responsible for it have been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt and accepted by the entire scientific community, people who actually study and work with the topic for a living. Evolution is not true because they accept it, they accept it because the evidence shows it's true.

      Your ignorance-based personal incredulity affects the scientific veracity of evolution not one iota. Dem's da breaks.

      As for facts, please show us some evolutionary 'facts'.

      That recent paper on cetacean evolution I gave you is chock full of evolutionary facts - genetic data, morphological studies. But I bet silly you 'forgot' to read it, right?

      Neimi absolutely stole one from the Ducks last night, Sharks move to 6-0.

      Delete
    12. Thorton,

      "Living creatures appear evolved when you apply all the additional external evidence -morphological, genetic, geologic, etc. - and can establish changes in the lineage over a reasonably deep history.

      You have to consider ALL the puzzle pieces together Nic, not just the isolated one in your hand."

      The puzzle analogy is excellent. However, it works better for me than for you. I'm afraid.

      Looking at a single puzzle piece one might become convinced its origins could be naturalistic. But the more pieces which come to light the more obvious it becomes that there is purpose and design to the overall puzzle.

      So, the belief that living creatures 'look evolved' is the result of a presuppostion that they are evolved. For me, even when I believed in evolution, things did not 'look evolved'. Quite the contrary.

      Similarity in appearance does not translate to relatedness. Nor does genetic similarity or geological proximity.

      If I remember correctly even Dawkins, (and probably many other evolutionists), states we must ignore the fact that life looks designed and focus on the fact it isn't. Why would he see this as necessary if he believed things 'looked' as if they evolved?

      Delete
    13. Thorn:

      The fact of evolution over deep time and the mechanisms responsible for it have been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt and accepted by the entire scientific community, people who actually study and work with the topic for a living.

      It would not be the first time that an entire group of otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people (including Nobel laureates) have been completely wrong about a crucial aspect of science. And it won't be the last. A recent example is symbolic AI craze of the latter half of the last century. Generations of AI researchers were convinced that intelligence was just symbol manipulation only to be proven wrong. And the symbolic AI red herring chase was not enough to prevent these intelligent folks from doing the same mistake all over again. They are now busy pursuing another equally stupid red herring called the Bayesian brain hypothesis.

      Delete
    14. Thorton,

      "Evolution is not true because they accept it, they accept it because the evidence shows it's true."

      Geocentrism was not true only because they accepted it, but because the evidence showed it was true.

      "Your ignorance-based personal incredulity affects the scientific veracity of evolution not one iota. Dem's da breaks."

      Well, for one thing, my rejection of evolution is not based on incredulity, but on my acceptance of evidential interpretation to the contrary. As I said, I once believed evolution to be true. Was I intelligent then but ignorant now?

      "That recent paper on cetacean evolution I gave you is chock full of evolutionary facts - genetic data, morphological studies. But I bet silly you 'forgot' to read it, right?"

      No, I did not 'forget' to read it. I just have not had enough time to sit down and read it through and make notes. I'm working on it. I still tire quickly, and that is very frustrating to me as it shortens up my evenings. My leg is getting to the point where I can start to participate in rigorous exercise to regain some stamina.

      "Neimi absolutely stole one from the Ducks last night, Sharks move to 6-0."

      He did that a lot the year the Hawks won the cup. Can be a great goalie at times, most of the time, but has his days. Patrick Marleau is playing great. Good small town Canadian Prairie boy. Saskatchewan to be precise. Lots of great ones from that province. Howe, Hall, Federko, Gillies, Eberle,...

      The great news from last night is my Leafs beat the Sabres. Usually they just mail the two points to Buffalo.

      Delete
    15. Nic

      Looking at a single puzzle piece one might become convinced its origins could be naturalistic.


      But science DOESN'T at just one piece at a time like the Creationists do. We look at ALL the evidence, the big picture. That's the whole point. Creationists will come up with story A for evidence 1 and story B for evidence 2, not caring that A often directly contradicts B. Science offers one, count'em, ONE overarching coherent explanation that covers all the data.

      So, the belief that living creatures 'look evolved' is the result of a presuppostion that they are evolved.

      Sigh...no Nic, it's not. You're again telling the pilots that airplanes can't fly.

      For me, even when I believed in evolution, things did not 'look evolved'. Quite the contrary

      That's because you hadn't studied and understood the evidence. You still haven't. People who are experienced in the relevant scientific fields know differently.

      But the more pieces which come to light the more obvious it becomes that there is purpose and design to the overall puzzle.

      Which multiple pieces objectively considered in total indicate purpose and intelligent design and not just your subjective wishful thinking? We've only been asking the IDC community for such positive evidence since day 1.

      If I remember correctly even Dawkins, (and probably many other evolutionists), states we must ignore the fact that life looks designed and focus on the fact it isn't. Why would he see this as necessary if he believed things 'looked' as if they evolved?

      For the same reason pilots trust their instruments and not their innate senses during hazardous flying conditions. Human senses and intuition are notoriously easy to fool. One of the huge benefits of science is it helps prevent such self deception.




      Delete
    16. Everybody knows that living organisms could not survive without powerful DNA repair mechanisms that work tirelessly to eliminate millions of deleterious mutations. The very mechanism that is supposed to generate new genetic data is the mechanism that kills the gene.

      Here's a question for IDers only. How do you think evolutionists will respond to the following:

      How did early living organisms survive without first evolving gene repair mechanisms? IOW, what came first, the gene or the gene repair mechanisms?

      Delete
    17. Nic

      Well, for one thing, my rejection of evolution is not based on incredulity, but on my acceptance of evidential interpretation to the contrary.


      What scientific evidence have you actually studied in any detail, as opposed to just swallowing unverified guff from some Creationist website?

      As I said, I once believed evolution to be true. Was I intelligent then but ignorant now?

      You were probably ignorant then too and accepting for the wrong reasons, just like you're ignorant now but reject science for the wrong reasons.

      A few quick questions. To the best of your knowledge,

      How old is the Earth?

      How long has life been on Earth?

      How long has multicellular life been here?

      No, I did not 'forget' to read it. I just have not had enough time to sit down and read it through and make notes. I'm working on it

      Well, don't push it if it's too much. Your health should always come first. I am still quite curious however as to how you decided an omnipotent being can't lie, or that all the evidence for evolution would amount to a purposeful deception.

      Good small town Canadian Prairie boy.

      Lots of good 'uns from the prairies - big strong beef-fed lads. One of my all time favorites was Stan Smyl, an Alberta boy. And of course we've got the Sutters.

      Delete
    18. Louis Savain

      How did early living organisms survive without first evolving gene repair mechanisms? IOW, what came first, the gene or the gene repair mechanisms?


      They co-evolved. The earliest self replicators that developed a minimal repair capability survived better than those which had none. They went on to populate the planet.

      Any more dumb "what good is half an eye" questions?

      Delete
    19. Me:

      How did early living organisms survive without first evolving gene repair mechanisms? IOW, what came first, the gene or the gene repair mechanisms?

      Psycho Thorn:

      They co-evolved. The earliest self replicators that developed a minimal repair capability survived better than those which had none. They went on to populate the planet.

      Where is the science in this silly crap? Do you have a way to falsify it?

      The fact is that molecules never evolved to the point of being able to replicate because the number of destructive mutations is orders of magnitude greater than that of constructive mutations. Anything that is built is immediately destroyed by the very process that built it.

      Even children can figure this out. What's the hell is wrong with you?

      Delete
    20. Louis Savain

      Where is the science in this silly crap?


      It's in the primary scientific literature Louis, the last place you'd ever think to look.

      Evolution of DNA polymerases: an inactivated polymerase-exonuclease module in Pol ε and a chimeric origin of eukaryotic polymerases from two classes of archaeal ancestors

      The fact is that molecules never evolved to the point of being able to replicate because the number of destructive mutations is orders of magnitude greater than that of constructive mutations. Anything that is built is immediately destroyed by the very process that built it.

      Science missed the part where you actually demonstrated that. Have any evidence at all to back it up?

      Even children can figure this out. What's the hell is wrong with you?

      Maybe you should ask a child to help you with the parts you don't understand.

      Delete
    21. Damn, I should really follow my own advice. Eat shit, Thorton. LOL.

      Delete
    22. Louis Savain

      Damn, I should really follow my own advice. Eat ****, Thorton.


      Another Creationist fruit loop admits he has no explanation for the scientific evidence.

      Have you noticed the pattern here yet Nic?

      Delete
    23. Thorton,

      "But science DOESN'T at just one piece at a time like the Creationists do. We look at ALL the evidence, the big picture. That's the whole point. Creationists will come up with story A for evidence 1 and story B for evidence 2, not caring that A often directly contradicts B."

      Can you give us an example of these contradictions?

      "Sigh...no Nic, it's not. You're again telling the pilots that airplanes can't fly."

      Thorton, my hockey loving friend, I'm the one who should be sighing. As I've pointed out numerous times before, heavier than air flight is an observable, demonstrable, repeatable phenomenon. Evolution is not.

      As to the question of things 'looking evolved' and heavier than air flight, I simply don't see the connection.

      "That's because you hadn't studied and understood the evidence. You still haven't. People who are experienced in the relevant scientific fields know differently."

      That's quite presumptive of you really. People in the relevant fields believe differently, I agree. I don't agree they KNOW differently, thus the basis of the question at hand.

      "Which multiple pieces objectively considered in total indicate purpose and intelligent design and not just your subjective wishful thinking?"

      The fact the pieces all fit and produce a complete picture. I don't think one can argue random, purposeless, goalless and blind naturalistic forces could accomplish that.

      "For the same reason pilots trust their instruments and not their innate senses during hazardous flying conditions."

      Makes me think of the cartoon I once saw of the two pilots, relying on their instruments, asking each other what two mountain goats would be doing way up there in a cloud bank. :)

      Delete
    24. Thorton,

      "as opposed to just swallowing unverified guff from some Creationist website?"

      I think you operate under the erroneous assumption that there are no qualified scientists operating under either the creationist or ID banners. ''

      As for 'unverified guff", tell me, has common descent been verified to everyones satisfaction? Has any question in evolution been verified to everyones satisfaction? Or have these questions only been verified to the satisfaction of those who adhere to evolution. You see, there is a difference.

      "You were probably ignorant then too and accepting for the wrong reasons, just like you're ignorant now but reject science for the wrong reasons."

      I really don't appreciate being labeled ignorant because I don't agree with you and the majority of scientists. However, I suppose Copernicus and Galileo were labeled as ignorant in their time. Not that I'm equating myself with them by any means, but if they could be called ignorant, it puts me in good company.

      "I am still quite curious however as to how you decided an omnipotent being can't lie, or that all the evidence for evolution would amount to a purposeful deception."

      Why would an omnipotent being want or need to lie? Would lying not be an indication of the lack of omnipotence? Are lies not told to deceive and cover mistakes? What need of deception does an omnipotent being have? What need to cover mistakes?

      As for the 'evidence' for evolution, said evidence is neutral. It's only interpretation of evidence that's active.

      "And of course we've got the Sutters."

      Ah yes, the First Family of Hockey. Another generation coming up. Always hard to live up to Fathers who are legends in their sport however.

      Delete
    25. Nic

      Can you give us an example of these contradictions?


      Easily. YECs have a huge problem dealing with all the radiometric evidence for an old Earth, so the came up with the idea of Accelerated Nuclear Decay - AND for short. The only problem is, if all the radioactive elements had decayed in only a few years after Da Flud the heat released would have vaporized the planet. So now all the laws of physics have to be wrong too. They hand wave away one problem, they create another bigger one. I could give hundreds of such examples.

      As I've pointed out numerous times before, heavier than air flight is an observable, demonstrable, repeatable phenomenon. Evolution is not.

      And as I've provided numerous examples from the primary scientific literature, yes it is.

      Observed Evolutionary Events

      That's quite presumptive of you really. People in the relevant fields believe differently, I agree. I don't agree they KNOW differently

      They KNOW differently, and demonstrate it every day in their work. Denial is more than that river in Egypt.

      The fact the pieces all fit and produce a complete picture. I don't think one can argue random, purposeless, goalless and blind naturalistic forces could accomplish that.

      I see lots of personal incredulity but no 'pieces fitting together' into one coherent picture from you Nic.

      Why didn't you answer my questions about the age of the Earth and the age of life on the planet?

      Tell me what you know about the Red Queen Hypothesis. How does all the empirical evidence for the effect fit into a Design scenario? ToE explains the phenomena quite easily. Were there multiple Designers competing against one another?

      Makes me think of the cartoon I once saw of the two pilots, relying on their instruments, asking each other what two mountain goats would be doing way up there in a cloud bank. :)

      I'd say something about how Creationists are always mistaking cartoons for reality, but I like Gary Larson's Far Side too much. :)

      Wild just beat Hawks in OT, first loss for Chi-town

      Delete
    26. Nic

      I think you operate under the erroneous assumption that there are no qualified scientists operating under either the creationist or ID banners.


      There are none that have ever published any supporting positive evidence for Design/Creation in any professional literature.

      As for 'unverified guff", tell me, has common descent been verified to everyones satisfaction?

      To everyone who matters to the scientific community, yes.

      I really don't appreciate being labeled ignorant because I don't agree with you and the majority of scientists.

      I don't think you're ignorant just because you disagree. I think you're ignorant because the only argument you've offered to date is personal incredulity. You've shied away from every attempt by me to discuss technical details. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant BTW. it doesn't mean stupid, it just means unlearned. I personally am dirt ignorant in many subjects. I just don't go around flaunting my lack of understanding on public discussion boards.

      Why would an omnipotent being want or need to lie? Would lying not be an indication of the lack of omnipotence?

      I told you, maybe the Designer is a sadist and a jerk. Why did He design parasitic wasps that eat other creatures from the inside out? Maybe the Designer is *almost* omnipotent but has a few character flaws. I could speculate all night, same as you.

      What need of deception does an omnipotent being have? What need to cover mistakes?

      You haven't demonstrated any deception or covering of mistakes.

      As for the 'evidence' for evolution, said evidence is neutral. It's only interpretation of evidence that's active.

      LOL! "same evidence different interpretation"

      From one hockey playing mook to another, have a cold one on me. :)

      Delete
    27. Thorton,

      "They KNOW differently, and demonstrate it every day in their work."

      I hope this is not the old 'we couldn't do this if evolution wasn't true' argument.

      "I see lots of personal incredulity but no 'pieces fitting together' into one coherent picture from you Nic."

      I was not talking about me presenting a coherent picture. The entire fabric of life is what provides the picture.

      "Why didn't you answer my questions about the age of the Earth and the age of life on the planet?"

      A couple of reasons. First. I don't think it is relevant to the fact or falsehood of evolution. Second, I find it usually leads down an unproductive path.

      "I'd say something about how Creationists are always mistaking cartoons for reality,..."

      I could say the same about evolutionists and there ever abundant 'just so' stories.

      "Tell me what you know about the Red Queen Hypothesis."

      Let me read up on it a little more.

      Delete
    28. Thorton,

      "There are none that have ever published any supporting positive evidence for Design/Creation in any professional literature."

      None?

      "To everyone who matters to the scientific community, yes."

      So if one disagrees, he doesn't matter?

      "There's nothing wrong with being ignorant BTW. it doesn't mean stupid, it just means unlearned. I personally am dirt ignorant in many subjects. I just don't go around flaunting my lack of understanding on public discussion boards."

      I know what ignorance means and I'm not 'flaunting' my ignorance because I don't agree with evolutionary theory. Would you label qualified geneticists who deny evolution as ignorant in genetics because the deny evolutionary genetics? I believe I'm as well versed in the understanding of evolution as any other layman.

      "Why did He design parasitic wasps that eat other creatures from the inside out? Maybe the Designer is *almost* omnipotent but has a few character flaws. I could speculate all night, same as you."

      You stated in a comment to CH that you were raised in a religious environment and had read the Bible several times and understood its teachings well. That being the case you should know the present state of creation is not its original state. In its original state I doubt very much you would have found parasitic wasps.

      LOL! "same evidence different interpretation"

      Think this story through a little more. Mrs. Morris is herself making an assumption in her belief good boys never do bad things. So her 'interpretation' of the evidence is based on that assumption. The story does absolutely nothing to counter the fact that evidence is open to interpretation.

      Also, when it comes to explaining life and its origins we are dealing with unseen history. We do not have video tape, eyewitnesses to interview, etc. This attempt at an analogy is based on comparisons of totally different scenarios.

      So yes, interpretation of evidence is always coloured by presupposition.

      "From one hockey playing mook to another, have a cold one on me. :)"

      Thank you kindly for the sentiment. I am getting very tired and must now retire to bedllam. Take care. We'll probably insult each other tomorrow.


      Delete
    29. Nic

      I hope this is not the old 'we couldn't do this if evolution wasn't true' argument.


      Er Nic, they use the evolution paradigm because it works. It produces valuable results. It leads to new research and new discoveries. If professional scientific organizations had another paradigm (i.e. ID) that worked better they'd be on it in a second. But they don't.

      I was not talking about me presenting a coherent picture. The entire fabric of life is what provides the picture.

      Another zero-details argument based solely on your personal incredulity.

      A couple of reasons. First. I don't think it is relevant to the fact or falsehood of evolution. Second, I find it usually leads down an unproductive path.

      Wrong. Correct dating of fossil specimens is an extremely important part of the whole evolutionary puzzle. It's one of the key components to understanding the history of life on Earth. Again, in science you can't ignore pieces of the puzzle you don't like. You have to account for ALL of them.

      I could say the same about evolutionists and there ever abundant 'just so' stories.

      Except we can back up what we say with research results and supporting positive evidence. :)

      Let me read up on it a little more.

      After the cetacean evolution paper?

      Delete
    30. empty bluster boy:
      they use the evolution paradigm because it works.

      It can't even be tested.

      And that cetacean paper assumes whales descended from land mammals and tries to find the evidence. It does NOT demonstrate that such a transformation is possible. No one knows if such a transformation is possible because it cannot be tested, measured nor quantified.

      Delete
    31. Nic

      None?


      None. Lots of self-published popular press books but ZERO in the professional scientific literature where it counts.

      So if one disagrees, he doesn't matter?

      Not to the professional scientific community.

      I believe I'm as well versed in the understanding of evolution as any other layman.

      That's one problem. Most laymen have an extremely poor understanding of what evolutionary theory actually is and the evidence that supports it. So far you've done nothing to indicate you're any different.

      That being the case you should know the present state of creation is not its original state.

      I also told CH the Bible is not a science textbook. In Ken Ham's Creation museum they have an exhibit of Eve feeding a carrot to a raptor with 5" long serrated teeth. They say "before the Fall" T-Rex was a vegetarian. How can you take people like that seriously?

      The story does absolutely nothing to counter the fact that evidence is open to interpretation.

      Yes but science isn't a democracy and all interpretations aren't created equal. The one that best supports ALL the evidence, the one that best makes accurate predictions is the one that gets accepted. That's why ToE is accepted, because it does a much better job at both.

      Also, when it comes to explaining life and its origins we are dealing with unseen history.

      We have over 3 billion years' worth of evidence to sort out what happened. Detectives don't need to eyewitness crimes to conclude from the evidence how the crime unfolded.

      We'll probably insult each other tomorrow.

      In a friendly, competitive way. :)

      Delete
    32. Nic, just ignore Joe G. He's an idiot with a huge ego problem who feels the need to disrupt every conversation with his stupidity, That clown act is the only thing he knows.

      Delete
    33. Nic, just ignore thorton. He's an ignoramus with its head up its butt.

      thorton is a cowardly equivocator who has been proven ifgnorant of science and the theory of evolution.

      Delete
    34. Thorton

      I have to report that was difficult but interesting read. First, it's little strange how authors keep repeating “evolution tinkers” many times through the article including word tinkering in the title. I know it’s just a metaphor so no need to dwell on it too long but it is a metaphor repeated six times (yes, I read everything to the end and counted).

      The article says that nuclear receptors (NR) suddenly appeared with metazoans. NR structures are built in a modular way. Main structures are: highly conserved DNA binding domain (DBD) and moderately conserved ligand binding domain (LBD).

      Authors mainly talk about “subtle tinkering”, which brings about changes only in LBD. The way I understood, changes in LBD produce NR activity (regarding gene expression) in three ways: ligand dependent function where ligand is a chemical signal from outside the nucleus, ligand independent function and last, repressor. This appears to be clever setup for gene activity control!

      All along DBD seems immune or is protected from “tinkering”. That tells me the DBD along with many other cell molecular components is the core of the system. We talked about this before and I think this article confirms it. Core parts of cell’s components and processes are highly conserved-protected while some parts are “tinkered” with by RM.

      How this applies in a real world? Imagine colony of bacteria in a warm little pond. There are slight and random variations in non-core parts of each bacterium. Environmental conditions in the pond change suddenly and are unfavorable to 90% of bacteria. Their subtle variation in components and processes simply can’t cope with new conditions be it food supply, temperature, acidity etc….

      This is an effective passive filter some call NS. The rules are simple: “you die if you cannot cope”. If there were no variation all bacteria could potentially be filtered. It is a very robust system which allowed some little bags of chemicals to carry on for billions of years.

      That's all I have to say...

      Delete
    35. Thorton,

      "Er Nic, they use the evolution paradigm because it works. It produces valuable results. It leads to new research and new discoveries."

      Name a discovery in medicine for example, which could not have been made except through the evolutionary paradigm.

      "Except we can back up what we say with research results and supporting positive evidence. :)"

      How about research results and supporting evidence for a universal common ancestor for a start.

      Delete
    36. Louis Savain brought up two very important points (which I've also brought up in the past and received no answer) Evolutionists seem to constantly dodge:

      "
      The fact is that molecules never evolved to the point of being able to replicate because the number of destructive mutations is orders of magnitude greater than that of constructive mutations. Anything that is built is immediately destroyed by the very process that built it. "

      AND

      "Everybody knows that living organisms could not survive without powerful DNA repair mechanisms that work tirelessly to eliminate millions of deleterious mutations. The very mechanism that is supposed to generate new genetic data is the mechanism that kills the gene."

      If Evolutionists do not have a definite answer to this, there is no "Theory of Evolution" to begin with.

      I suggest if Evolutionists want to convince people that Darwinian (unguided) Evolution is true, they should focus ALL their attention, efforts and concerns into this. Otherwise I can see this "debate" running for another thousand years.

      Consider this is a CHALLENGE to Evolutionists to address these two very key points.

      Delete
    37. Thorton,

      "None. Lots of self-published popular press books but ZERO in the professional scientific literature where it counts."

      So you're saying no creatinists or IDist possessing a Phd has ever published a peer reviewed article, is that correct?

      "Not to the professional scientific community."

      But creationist and IDist Phds are professional scientists themselves.

      "I also told CH the Bible is not a science textbook."

      No, it's not a scientific textbook, but that does not mean it is ignorant of science.

      "They say "before the Fall" T-Rex was a vegetarian. How can you take people like that seriously?"

      I take them as seriously as I take the fairy tales put out by the Discovery Channel wherein they show things such as a group of Velociraptors getting together to scheme an attack on a helpless herbivore.

      As for T-Rex and vegetables, it can't be said for sure they never ate plants. I'm sure they would eat whatever they needed to survive.

      Yes but science isn't a democracy,..."

      No, it certainly isn't. Whoever holds the majority sets the rules. Just like when we were kids and the guy who owned the football called the shots.

      "That's why ToE is accepted, because it does a much better job at both."

      Yeah, it did a great job with Junk DNA.

      "In a friendly, competitive way. :)"

      Always.

      Delete
    38. Joe G,

      "thorton is a cowardly equivocator who has been proven ifgnorant of science and the theory of evolution."

      It's obvious Thorton and I agree on very little when it comes to evolution. But I don't see the need to be hostile over it. Hostility invariably generates a lot of heat and very little light. I'm in favour of generating light.

      Delete
    39. Nic,

      What light could you possibly receive when those two key points I restated are not going to be addressed?

      Delete
    40. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    41. lcplusplus

      What light could you possibly receive when those two key points I restated are not going to be addressed?


      They were addressed. They both are completely unverified BS that Louis the fruit loop made up whole cloth. When asked to support his ridiculous claims he spat an obscenity and fled.

      Can you provide the scientific evidence to back the two claims? If not, the door's that way.

      Delete
    42. Like I said Thorton...this debate will go nowhere until those key issues are being addressed. Those are valid objections and denying them will get us nowhere.

      Delete
    43. lcplusplus

      Like I said Thorton...this debate will go nowhere until those key issues are being addressed. Those are valid objections and denying them will get us nowhere.


      OK, Louis made up some ridiculous bogus claims, neither you nor he can support them, yet science is supposed to come to a screeching halt until it addresses your idiocy. Right.

      I'm sure you'll understand when the scientific community doesn't take you nutters seriously.

      Delete
    44. Thorton,

      "After the cetacean evolution paper?"

      Read the cetacean evolution paper. It contained nothing that surprised me however. I have to tell you it had absolutely no impact on my position. The bottom line is the paper, though very verbose, was one long-winded assumption that similarity equals relatedness.

      In simplicity, the fact creature B has an auditory system somewhere between that of creature A and creature C is not concrete evidence that B is transitional between A and C. Nor is the fact that there are significant genetic similarities between creatures proof of relatedness, as I stated earlier.

      The simple truth is no one could conclusively show that A,B,C, etc., are anything more than unique creatures onto themselves. That, in fact, is all the evidence conclusively reveals. All else, from whatever assumptive position, is purely conjecture.

      When you're talking about the required morphological changes numbering in the tens of thousands the available fossil evidence does not even come close to scratching the surface. This paper, as with virtually all papers on evolution, is very, very, long on conjecture and very, very short on hard facts.

      For instance, in one part of the paper they talk of a particular creature as spending 10% of his life in aquatic environments. There is absolutely no way they can justify that figure outside of pure conjecture.

      I know this response will probably frustrate you, and for that I'm sorry. One thing about me that all my friends throughout my life have always told me, and they found it very frustrating, is my tendency to be extremely analytical and critical. I take nothing at face value. I put everything under a microscope, and that includes my faith.

      It was this tendency which led one particular internationally known jurist, to attempt to recruit me to study at the law school at which he taught.

      For family reasons, which shall remain personal, I declined. There are times when I regret that decision, but it was the right one at the time. It required among other things, an international move.

      The bottom line on this Thorton, is that even though you find this paper compelling evidence for cetacean evolution it comes no where near the standard of proof required. It is nothing more than what I have mentioned many times before, conjecture based on presupposition. If it were to be presented in a court of law as evidence it would be rejected out of hand.

      If you wish to pick out particular parts of the paper for further discussion, that's fine. But overall the paper is, as I stated, based simply on the assumption that similarity, whether morphological or genetic, equals relatedness, and that is simply untrue.

      I will now turn my attention to the Red Queen Hypothesis. However, having read Through the Looking Glass a few times and being aware it is nonsense literature, I don't suspect I will find it a persuasive argument either.

      Waiting to see whether the Oilers will be the first team to beat the Sharks. Bet you $10 they will.

      Delete
    45. Icplusplus,

      "Nic,

      What light could you possibly receive when those two key points I restated are not going to be addressed?"

      I really don't understand your question. Can you please clarify what it is you're asking me.

      Delete
    46. Nic,

      I have observed and participated in these discussions over the years yet the entire foundation of unguided Evolution rests upon only a few key factors which have been identified and presented to Evolutionists. However, not one remotely convincing answer has been received.
      One must ask why anyone should take unguided Evolution seriously at all?
      Is it even worthy of "debate"?

      Delete
    47. Nic

      In simplicity, the fact creature B has an auditory system somewhere between that of creature A and creature C is not concrete evidence that B is transitional between A and C. Nor is the fact that there are significant genetic similarities between creatures proof of relatedness, as I stated earlier.


      LOL! You just don't get this consilience of evidence thing at all, do you? The fact of the transitional auditory system by itself may not be very convincing. Each of the other few dozen distinctly transitional morphological features by themselves may not be very convincing. The fact that the changes line up so nicely temporally (there's that fossil-age-dating thing again!) may not be very convincing. The genetic similarities by themselves may not be very convincing. But when you add ALL the evidence up and look at the big picture you have an iron clad case to the scientific community.

      When you're talking about the required morphological changes numbering in the tens of thousands the available fossil evidence does not even come close to scratching the surface.

      We don't have to have a fossil sample of every last generation to pick out the trends Nic. Such demands for 100% perfect evidence are just plain silly and show your layman's poor understanding.

      I know this response will probably frustrate you, and for that I'm sorry.

      Not at all. :) I'm just trying to show you a bit of the scientific reality you're in serious denial over. What you do with it is up to you. It won't affect me or the rest of the scientific one bit, but it may save you some embarrassment the next time the topic comes up.

      If you wish to pick out particular parts of the paper for further discussion, that's fine. But overall the paper is, as I stated, based simply on the assumption that similarity, whether morphological or genetic, equals relatedness, and that is simply untrue

      "My boy is a good boy, that he stole all those items the police found on him and the surveillance video shows him stealing is simply not true" ;)

      I'm curious - how do you think paternity tests work if genetic similarity is no indication of relatedness?

      Sorry for skipping over a lot of other interesting points like the Bible not being scientifically accurate. We've hit on a number of sub-topics that each by themselves could fill pages. Sadly, the format of Blogger is not conducive to long detailed discussions. Feel free to come back to any point that particularly interest you.

      Waiting to see whether the Oilers will be the first team to beat the Sharks. Bet you $10 they will.

      You're on. Oil win, I donate $10 to the religious charity of your choice, Sharks win, you donate $10 to NCSE.

      Delete
    48. Icplusplus,

      "One must ask why anyone should take unguided Evolution seriously at all?"

      Thank you for the clarification.

      As for taking evolution seriously, I don't. I used too, but not anymore. I believe in the not too distant future it will be seen as one of the most embarrassing hypotheses to be entertained by the scientific community. I'm sure this will bring howls of derision from those here who support the idea of life originating from a common ancestor. That's fine, and if handled maturely, the exchange can be both edifying and fun.

      I do, however, take those who adhere to the theory of evolution seriously, if for no other reason common courtesy demands it. We have no right to ridicule the person for what they sincerely believe. Taking shots at the theory of evolution is fair game. But taking shots at the person supporting it is unnecessary. Not to say that friendly jabs are a horrible thing, but when it crosses the line to include attacking a person's morals, that is going too far.

      "Is it even worthy of "debate"?"

      Certainly it is. This theory impacts society on a myriad of levels. If we make decisions affecting the lives of future generations on poor science the consequences could be catastrophic.

      Delete
    49. Nic

      "I put everything under a microscope, and that includes my faith."

      What happens when you do it?

      Too bad you didn't become a lawyer, you could work for Hugh Hefner.

      Hockey: Flyers suck big toe this year.

      Delete
    50. Nic

      Taking shots at the theory of evolution is fair game.


      Agree 100%. Science thrives on criticism and critical peer review. Good ideas get made stronger, weak unsupported ideas get tossed. Just make sure you understand and have valid criticisms of the actual theory, not the nitwit cartoon version of evolution offered by most every Creationist on the web.

      The thing you guys can't seem to grasp it that would be incredibly easy for you to get rid of ToE. Just offer something better - something that better explains ALL the evidence in a more consilient manner, offers a better mechanism, makes better predictions, produces more positive results.

      You do that and I (and science) would drop ToE like a bad habit. But so far no one has offered anything that stands up to even the slightest critical scrutiny.

      Delete
    51. Eat shit, Thorton.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    52. Thorton,

      "But when you add ALL the evidence up and look at the big picture you have an iron clad case to the scientific community."

      Add it up all you want, the bottom line is still the same, the assumption that similarity equals relatedness. That's why it is necessary to cut through the verbosity which is common in scientific papers and get to the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter in this case is the assumption of common ancestry and the assumption of similarity meaning creatures who are similar morphologically and or genetically are in fact related. This is plain and simple a false assumption.

      "We don't have to have a fossil sample of every last generation to pick out the trends Nic."

      You would need orders of magnitude more than what is presently available before you could even begin to think about picking out trends. There are no trends, just an astronomically small, relatively speaking, number creatures with similar features. What you have right now is the equivalent of awarding the Stanley Cup to a team which does not even exist based on what you think they might accomplish if they did exist.

      "Not at all. :)"

      Good, I enjoy our little exchanges.

      "but it may save you some embarrassment the next time the topic comes up."

      No need to worry about me, I don't embarrass easily.

      "My boy is a good boy, that he stole all those items the police found on him and the surveillance video shows him stealing is simply not true" ;)

      As I pointed out, this is simply a case of Mrs. Morris working from a false assumption, with that assumption colouring her judgement. Just as the assumption of the truth of evolution colours the judgement of the majority of the scientific community. As I said, that little story of the shoplifters is a real dud of an analogy.

      "I'm curious - how do you think paternity tests work if genetic similarity is no indication of relatedness?"

      I'm sure any paternity tests done on me will show only human relatedness.

      "like the Bible not being scientifically accurate."

      For instance? And be careful what you say as poetic language may be in play.

      "You're on. Oil win, I donate $10 to the religious charity of your choice, Sharks win, you donate $10 to NCSE."

      I didn't think you'd take me seriously. If you're game, I guess I am.

      Delete
    53. Thorton,

      "Just offer something better - something that better explains ALL the evidence in a more consilient manner, offers a better mechanism, makes better predictions, produces more positive results."

      Well, in my opinion that has been done. That's also the opinion of the thousands of creationist and ID scientists around the world. But simply offering a better explanation is not enough when philosophical factors come into play.

      Many scientists who support evolutionary concepts a priori reject the possibility of a supreme being and therefore cannot go down that path, regardless of the evidence. I know there are many scientists who are religious who hold to the the idea of evolution. However, the internal contradictions are enormous.

      Going to watch the OIlers beat the Sharks. I'll send you the address of my charity tomorrow. Have a good night, my friend.

      Delete
    54. Nic

      Add it up all you want, the bottom line is still the same, the assumption that similarity equals relatedness.


      You need to explain why that's a bad assumption when we're dealing with life forms that we 100% know carry forward heritable traits and similarities every generation.

      And the heart of the matter in this case is the assumption of common ancestry and the assumption of similarity meaning creatures who are similar morphologically and or genetically are in fact related.

      LOL! You still just don't get it. It's not an assumption before the data was examined, it's a conclusion after the data was examined. You're so stuck in your religious mind-set of "everything must fit what the Authority says because the Authority can't be wrong" you just can't comprehend that science works exactly the opposite. The data drives the conclusion, not the other way round.

      If you can't understand that you'll never understand science.

      BTW, I never did hear your better explanation for all that cetacean data - what explains the objectively determined patterns in the genetic record and fossil record over deep time? Why are Ambulocetus always found in older strata than Rodhocetus, which is always in older strata than Durodon?

      Details Nic. ToE can explain them. You can't.

      You would need orders of magnitude more than what is presently available before you could even begin to think about picking out trends.

      We'll add statistical sampling to the many things you've demonstrated zero knowledge of.

      Just as the assumption of the truth of evolution colours the judgement of the majority of the scientific community.

      LOL! You've made up you mind to not understand how science works, despite being corrected half a dozen times.

      I'm sure any paternity tests done on me will show only human relatedness.

      Feeble attempt to make joke and avoid the question noted.

      For instance? And be careful what you say as poetic language may be in play.

      The world only being 6000 years old to start. Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel, having animals produce spotted offspring by having them mate in front of a spotted pole.

      How do you tell what's literal vs. what's poetic?

      I didn't think you'd take me seriously. If you're game, I guess I am.

      If you want we can make it an e-beer.

      Delete
    55. Nic

      Well, in my opinion that has been done. That's also the opinion of the thousands of creationist and ID scientists around the world. But simply offering a better explanation is not enough when philosophical factors come into play.


      What has ID-Creation offered that's better? IDC has no mechanism, no timeline, no predictive power, no explanatory power.

      Every single advocate of IDC I've ever seen does so for their personal religious reasons, not scientific ones.

      If ID-Creationism is so powerful, why haven't all these IDC "scientists" opened their own businesses offering services to the general public? There's lots of work out there, lots of $$$ to be made by taking the business away from existing science research labs.

      Many scientists who support evolutionary concepts a priori reject the possibility of a supreme being and therefore cannot go down that path, regardless of the evidence.

      They're in the very small minority Nic. Go look at the statistics again.

      I know there are many scientists who are religious who hold to the the idea of evolution.

      They're in the majority actually.

      However, the internal contradictions are enormous.

      And yours aren't?

      Why are you insisting on a false dichotomy? "Atheistic" evolution vs. Christian God Special Creation? Why couldn't an omnipotent God use evolution to do his work? There are a large number of scientists, theistic evolutionists, who hold exactly that view.

      Going to watch the OIlers beat the Sharks. I'll send you the address of my charity tomorrow. Have a good night, my friend.

      Good first period, Dubnyk may just steal one himself.

      Take care, get some rest.

      Delete
    56. lcplusplus January 31, 2013 at 10:22 AM

      Louis Savain brought up two very important points (which I've also brought up in the past and received no answer) Evolutionists seem to constantly dodge:


      No, they don't. They have been dealt with before although you won't get Louis to admit it.

      The fact is that molecules never evolved to the point of being able to replicate because the number of destructive mutations is orders of magnitude greater than that of constructive mutations. Anything that is built is immediately destroyed by the very process that built it.

      This is, to put it politely, misleading. It is a muddling of bits of abiogenesis and evolution that manages to get neither right.

      First, abiogenesis. No, we do not know how life emerged from non-life. What we do know is that molecules do not evolve - at least not in the manner of living creatures - only species do. There was a reason Darwin's book was called On The Origin Of Species.

      As for genetic mutations in modern organisms, the great majority are neutral. They have no observable effect. A much smaller number are harmful and a much smaller number still are advantageous.

      Yes, harmful mutations could - and almost certainly have - led to the extinction to those species unfortunate enough to be afflicted by them. So what does that mean?

      It means that over time, if the species with detrimental mutations are taken out of the picture, what is left tends to be those species with neutral or beneficial mutations. Of those last two groups, those with the beneficial mutations will tend to thrive.

      At least until the next major change in the environment.

      AND

      "Everybody knows that living organisms could not survive without powerful DNA repair mechanisms that work tirelessly to eliminate millions of deleterious mutations. The very mechanism that is supposed to generate new genetic data is the mechanism that kills the gene."


      Once, everybody thought the Sun went around the Earth because that is what it looks like. We now know that what everybody knew then was wrong.

      If at least some mutations are harmful then mutations which lead to some kind of DNA repair mechanism are beneficial. Even if the repair mechanism takes out the occasional good mutation, it would still be an advantage if it corrects more of the bad ones.

      If Evolutionists do not have a definite answer to this, there is no "Theory of Evolution" to begin with.

      Sorry, but the theory of evolution is thriving. If you doubt it, ask the people best placed to know. And that doesn't mean lawyers, mathematicians, philosophers, theologians, engineers or evangelists. It means biologists If they find it useful, productive and fruitful in their research then its a good theory.

      What its critics need to do, if they really want to replace it, is to come up with something better. And that has to be a bit more than just a name, some shaky math and some wishful thinking.

      Delete
    57. empty bluster boy:
      There are none that have ever published any supporting positive evidence for Design/Creation in any professional literature.

      There is plenty of positive evidence for Intelligent Design in the professional literature.

      You are just too stupid to know what evidence is.

      Delete
    58. Ian:
      Sorry, but the theory of evolution is thriving.

      It can't even muster a testable hypothesis. So you are lying, as usual

      What its critics need to do, if they really want to replace it, is to come up with something better.

      We have. You and your ilk just choose to be willfully ignorant.

      Delete
    59. empty bluster boy:
      BTW, I never did hear your better explanation for all that cetacean data - what explains the objectively determined patterns in the genetic record and fossil record over deep time?

      What's your explanation and how can it be tested? Please be specific.

      Delete
    60. Eugen,

      Nic:"I put everything under a microscope, and that includes my faith."

      Eugen: "What happens when you do it?"

      It gets bigger.

      Eugen: "Too bad you didn't become a lawyer, you could work for Hugh Hefner."

      And this means what?

      Eugen: "Hockey: Flyers suck big toe this year."

      Never cared for the Flyers anyway.

      Delete
    61. Thorton,

      "You need to explain why that's a bad assumption when we're dealing with life forms that we 100% know carry forward heritable traits and similarities every generation."

      I said it was a false assumption, not a bad assumption. One can make a good assumption and still be wrong.

      Heritable traits being carried forward is not proof this forwarding would lead back to a universal common ancestor. We know canines pass along traits from generation to generation. What we do not know is that this passing of traits resulted in canines originating from a non-canine ancestor, or that it will result in non-canine descendants. Both results are necessary for evolution to be true.

      "It's not an assumption before the data was examined, it's a conclusion after the data was examined."

      I've asked you several times to provide us with examples of abstracts from research papers supporting evolution where evolution is not asserted as true from the outset. How can the results drive the conclusion when the conclusion is asserted at the beginning?


      "Why are Ambulocetus always found in older strata than Rodhocetus, which is always in older strata than Durodon?"

      The fact these creatures are found in different strata is not evidence they evolved from one to the other. It's only evidence they may have lived at different times.

      What do you think would happen if our world was hit with a catastrophe which wiped out all life? What would the results look like?

      "Details Nic. ToE can explain them. You can't."

      Can evolution explain why things are the way they are, and not some other way? Why has evolution resulted in what we have today?

      "We'll add statistical sampling to the many things you've demonstrated zero knowledge of."

      Even for statistical sampling you need an adequate sample size. What is available is, as I said before, orders of magnitude short of what is required. I'm quite familiar with the concept of statistical sampling as I have an earned degree in a relevant discipline.

      "Feeble attempt to make joke and avoid the question noted."

      It was not an attempt at humour, it was a statement of fact.

      "having animals produce spotted offspring by having them mate in front of a spotted pole."

      I think you need to re-read that particular story.

      "How do you tell what's literal vs. what's poetic?"

      There are various indicators such as content and style. For instance, there is a verse where it says God covers us with his wings. Poetic language being used to demonstrate protection as a bird protects its young.

      "If you want we can make it an e-beer."

      No, I'm a guy of integrity, I'll send the $10. The Oilers played well though, it was a good game. I would have no problem with the Sharks winning the Cup. Guys like Thornton and Marleau have been frustrated in the past, they deserve one.

      Delete
    62. Thorton,

      "What has ID-Creation offered that's better? IDC has no mechanism, no timeline, no predictive power, no explanatory power."

      Well first of all it provides an explanation for origins which is something evolution avoids like the plague. The mechanism provided by IDC is a designed genetic system which allows organisms to react to environmental pressures in order to survive. There is now more evidence for that scenario than there is for RM/NS.

      As I asked in my last post, how does evolution explain what we see. Why is it the way it is and not something else? If evolution has such wonderful explanatory power it should be able to answer that question easily.


      "If ID-Creationism is so powerful, why haven't all these IDC "scientists" opened their own businesses offering services to the general public? There's lots of work out there, lots of $$$ to be made by taking the business away from existing science research labs."

      Some of them have.

      "Why are you insisting on a false dichotomy? "Atheistic" evolution vs. Christian God Special Creation?"

      I'm sorry if I've left that impression. I know not all evolutionists are not atheists. I think it almost comes to be an assumed factor and if IDC comments are not well worded the assumption gets read into the comment. I'm sure I'm guilty of that.

      "Why couldn't an omnipotent God use evolution to do his work? There are a large number of scientists, theistic evolutionists, who hold exactly that view."

      Too many that is an option. My personal view of theology finds problems in that scenario. However, that being said, I will not deny someone's claim to Christian faith if they do hold that position.

      "Good first period, Dubnyk may just steal one himself."

      Dubnyk, another good old Saskatchewan boy. Looks like he'll be a good one. Goalies, it seems, always take a few years to mature.

      "Take care, get some rest."

      Thank you. Have visitors for the week-end, so it may be a couple of days before I respond to what I'm sure will contain many 'LOLs'.

      Take care and have a good week-end.

      Delete
    63. Nic,
      "Too bad you didn't become a lawyer, you could work for Hugh Hefner.

      And this means what?"

      That means you would keep writing his prenups and at night have little fun at the mansion.

      Delete
    64. Ian:

      "Sorry, but the theory of evolution is thriving. If you doubt it, ask the people best placed to know. And that doesn't mean lawyers, mathematicians, philosophers, theologians, engineers or evangelists. It means biologists If they find it useful, productive and fruitful in their research then its a good theory. "

      You make me sick with this comment.
      Why should I ask those who already had preconceived Evolutionary beliefs prior to becoming Evolutionary Biologists? Why is it only Biologists are qualified to give answers regarding Evolution?

      As for the rest of your comment, its just more hand-waving and dodging, as expected.
      You can't evolve that which is not evolve-able. The prerequisites must be there from the onset. "If it survives" doesn't explain anything, its just an escape route you Evolutionists use to fill in the gaps of what which you don't understand.

      Delete
    65. Eugen,

      "That means you would keep writing his prenups and at night have little fun at the mansion."

      Not for me, thanks. Hefner is simply a self-centred narcissist.

      Delete
    66. lcplusplus:

      What light could you possibly receive when those two key points I restated are not going to be addressed?

      Don't let that lying jackass Thorton pull a wool over your eyes with his transparent deceptions. The crap about there being fewer mutations and thus a smaller proportion of deleterious mutations in the past is just that, crap. Probability is invariant to sampling size when you are dealing with randomness. Both Thorton and that other moron, Spedding, are grey-matter challenged. Yet they are convinced that they are smarter than everybody else. The unrelenting arrogance and superiority complex of psychopaths must be bashed at every opportunity. Like mowing the grass or something. LOL.

      Delete
    67. joey claims:

      "There is plenty of positive evidence for Intelligent Design in the professional literature."

      And of course he can and will cite "plenty" of peer reviewed, published, scientific papers in the "professional literature" wherein the authors of said papers directly attribute their research and findings to "Intelligent Design" by 'the designer', in regard to evolution, eh joey?

      Delete
    68. Ian said:

      "Sorry, but the theory of evolution is thriving."

      joey responded with:

      "It can't even muster a testable hypothesis. So you are lying, as usual"

      joey, your deranged, ignorant, dishonest, religious assertions mean nothing to scientists who 'use' the ToE and the many testable hypotheses it generates. You're like a barking dog that chases cars, yet the cars keep right on going and leave the dog behind. The ToE and the many testable hypotheses it generates keep right on going and leave you behind, regardless of your impotent barking.

      Delete
    69. Nic

      I said it was a false assumption, not a bad assumption. One can make a good assumption and still be wrong.


      OK then, please explain why it’s a false assumption.

      Heritable traits being carried forward is not proof this forwarding would lead back to a universal common ancestor.

      It’s not offered as proof. It’s offered as one more piece of corroborating evidence that matches with the fossil evidence of canid evolution and the genetic evidence of canid evolution.

      I understand why people get so frustrated with you. It’s not because you’re analytical, it’s because you keep making the same dumb error over and over and over again. You absolutely insist on looking at each piece of evidence separately and disputing each one separately. Not for love nor money will you grasp that science looks at ALL THE PIECES AS A WHOLE PICTURE and offers one narrative for ALL THE PIECES AS A WHOLE.

      Jeez Louise…

      I've asked you several times to provide us with examples of abstracts from research papers supporting evolution where evolution is not asserted as true from the outset. How can the results drive the conclusion when the conclusion is asserted at the beginning?

      Once again you didn’t listen to the explanation. When OOL was published it was NOT assumed beforehand that evolution was true. The hypothesis was offered as an explanation for the evidence at hand. Over the next 150 years more and more and more supporting evidence came to light, including the whole huge piece of genetics/DNA which also supported the idea. That evolution has occurred is now an established scientific fact. New papers published don’t have to rehash 150 years of data for your benefit. The build on the previously established work. It’s perfectly valid in science to base new work on established principles.

      The fact these creatures are found in different strata is not evidence they evolved from one to the other. It's only evidence they may have lived at different times.

      It’s not JUST the age ranges. It’s the age ranges AND the distinct transitional morphological features AND the genetic signature that all match and all form one coherent picture.

      You. Have. To. Look. At. ALL. The. Data. As. A. Whole.

      What is the IDC explanation for why these three cetacean species all lived at separate times millions of years apart?

      What do you think would happen if our world was hit with a catastrophe which wiped out all life? What would the results look like?

      The evidence shows the world did suffer through five catastrophic mass extinction events in the last 550 million years. The most recent one was the Chicxulub impactor that killed the dinosaurs 65 MYA.

      What is the IDC explanation for that mass extinction data?

      Can evolution explain why things are the way they are, and not some other way? Why has evolution resulted in what we have today?

      Yes, to a large extent it can. The animals are the way they are today because they evolved through common descent with modification from earlier animals we see in the fossil record. It’s why we find examples of homologies almost everywhere we look. It’s why a bat’s wing and a mouse’s paw and a seal’s flipper have the same basic bone structure. It’s why we occasionally find atavistic leg in cetaceans. It’s why we find eyes in blind cave fish. It’s why species alive today are not found in the Devonian or Permian or Jurassic eras.

      I think you need to re-read that particular story.

      Why do I need to re-read the story? Do you think it describes out scientific understanding of how genetics works? Is Noah’s Ark a scientific tale? How about the Tower of Babel? Is that a scientific explanation for languages?

      No, I'm a guy of integrity, I'll send the $10.

      It was an excellent game on both sides, I hated to see either club lose. We’ll call it a push.

      Delete
    70. Nic

      The mechanism provided by IDC is a designed genetic system which allows organisms to react to environmental pressures in order to survive.


      POOF isn’t a mechanism Nic. We need a physical means for manipulating matter to achieve the Designer's desired end goal.

      There is now more evidence for that scenario than there is for RM/NS.

      No Nic, there’s not. There’s evidence for epigenetics in just a handful of very specialized cases.

      Some of them have.

      The only money people have ever made off IDC is by selling crap-filled wishful thinking books to the mouth breathing rubes. No one ever made a cent using IDC for legitimate scientific work.

      Thank you. Have visitors for the week-end, so it may be a couple of days before I respond to what I'm sure will contain many 'LOLs'.

      No worries, we’ll catch up when we can. Be good, or at least be careful. ;)

      Delete
    71. Thorton, when you said "When OOL was published..." did you mean to say OOS (origin of species)?

      Delete
    72. icplusplus ignorantly asked:

      "Why is it only Biologists are qualified to give answers regarding Evolution?"

      Well, it's not just many (not all) biologists who are qualified. It's also other scientists such as paleontologists, geologists, and many chemists, etc., whose education and/or work pertains to evolution.

      Would you ask a mechanic for answers to legal questions, or a lawyer for answers to questions about your car? When you have a medical question, do you ask a plumber?

      Delete
    73. The whole truth

      Thorton, when you said "When OOL was published..." did you mean to say OOS (origin of species)?


      Yes, that was a typo. It sucks that this blog SW doesn't have an edit feature.

      Delete
    74. lcplusplus February 1, 2013 at 3:23 PM

      [...]

      You make me sick with this comment.


      The truth sometimes hurts.

      Why should I ask those who already had preconceived Evolutionary beliefs prior to becoming Evolutionary Biologists? Why is it only Biologists are qualified to give answers regarding Evolution?

      If you want the best answers concerning mathematics, you ask a mathematician. If you want to know why your teeth are hurting, the best person to ask is a dentist. If you want the best legal advice, you ask a lawyer.

      If you want to know what are the best current explanations in biology, you ask a biologist.

      This is not rocket science.

      You may not like the answers for various reasons, you may think you know better, but the fact remains a biologist is best qualified to tell you about biology.

      As for prior beliefs, yes, a lot of scientists are atheist or agnostic but a lot also have religious beliefs of various sorts yet still accept the theory of evolution as the best available explanation.

      As for arrogance, what shall we say about people who have read and blogged about a subject in their spare time who are certain they know better than people who have spent years in full-time education, training and the practice of a discipline like biology.

      As for the rest of your comment, its just more hand-waving and dodging, as expected.

      Actually, it's the critics of evolution who spend a lot of their time dodging or trying to wave away the evidence that has been slowly built up for it.

      Delete
    75. twiity the liar:
      The ToE and the many testable hypotheses it generates keep right on going

      Then it is strange that no one can produce ONE testable hypothesis based on the ToE's posited mechanism of accumulations of genetic accidents.

      IOW twitty, YOU are an impotent liar.

      Delete
    76. I: As for arrogance, what shall we say about people who have read and blogged about a subject in their spare time who are certain they know better than people who have spent years in full-time education, training and the practice of a discipline like biology.

      J: One can be perfectly consistent given one's assumptions/axioms and be dead wrong. Most biologists ASSUME that a UCA tree COULD have happened. But that is not known. No person has demonstrated it deductively in terms of any set of event regularities whatsoever. This whole debate is about who assumes the least number of intuitive axioms to account for our experience. Non-intuitive axioms are just a species of ad-hoc hypotheses. Multiplying ad-hoc hypotheses to salvage a hypothesis is not knowably better in any sense.

      Delete
    77. Thorton,

      "OK then, please explain why it’s a false assumption."

      Because emerging evidence is showing it to be false. Phylogenetic trees are not lining up as expected.

      "it’s because you keep making the same dumb error over and over and over again. You absolutely insist on looking at each piece of evidence separately and disputing each one separately. Not for love nor money will you grasp that science looks at ALL THE PIECES AS A WHOLE PICTURE and offers one narrative for ALL THE PIECES AS A WHOLE."

      You can pile the 'pieces' of evidence as high as you wish. If you insist on their being only one interpretation of that evidence naturally it will appear to line up in that direction. Volume of 'evidence' does not equal accuracy of evidence.

      If it is concluded before hand that Joe killed Chuck, what will become of the evidence without an eyewitness to the contrary?

      "That evolution has occurred is now an established scientific fact."

      I thought in science everything was open to scrutiny and correction. Now you're telling us that rule does not apply to evolution. Evolution is simply a fact and all science is now doing is research into how it occurred. Is that in fact the case?

      "It’s not JUST the age ranges. It’s the age ranges AND the distinct transitional morphological features AND the genetic signature that all match and all form one coherent picture."

      The age ranges are not conclusive evidence, the morphological features are not conclusive evidence, and the genetic similarities are not conclusive evidence. Therefore, logically, the combination of these three do not amount to conclusive evidence. Is that so hard to understand?

      "What is the IDC explanation for why these three cetacean species all lived at separate times millions of years apart?"

      Why is it so hard to accept the possibility they were simply unique creatures who lived separate lives?

      "Yes, to a large extent it can. The animals are the way they are today because they evolved through common descent with modification from earlier animals we see in the fossil record. It’s why we find examples of homologies almost everywhere we look. It’s why a bat’s wing and a mouse’s paw and a seal’s flipper have the same basic bone structure. It’s why we occasionally find atavistic leg in cetaceans. It’s why we find eyes in blind cave fish. It’s why species alive today are not found in the Devonian or Permian or Jurassic eras."

      That's not an explanation, it's simply stating observations. it does not explain why thee things are this way as opposed to being some other way.

      And those are not atavistic legs.

      "Why do I need to re-read the story?"

      Because from your presentation of it, I think you've missed some facts.

      "It was an excellent game on both sides, I hated to see either club lose. We’ll call it a push."

      It was a good game to watch, and like I said I wouldn't mind seeing the Sharks do well and win the Cup. I'm not naive enough to think my Leafs will, so the Sharks will be fine with me.

      I feel I should send the money though, and I will.

      Delete
    78. Thorton,

      "POOF isn’t a mechanism Nic. We need a physical means for manipulating matter to achieve the Designer's desired end goal."

      Nobody is offering POOF as a mechanism. The lack of a physical mechanism is not conclusive evidence that what we see is not designed. It's only indicative of the fact that such a mechanism is not yet understood, not that such a mechanism doesn't exist. It's as the old adage goes, lack of proof is not proof of lack.

      "No Nic, there’s not. There’s evidence for epigenetics in just a handful of very specialized cases."

      So you admit such a process exists, but only in specialized cases? Do you wish to clarify?

      "The only money people have ever made off IDC is by selling crap-filled wishful thinking books to the mouth breathing rubes. No one ever made a cent using IDC for legitimate scientific work."

      Can I now add 'mouth breathing rube' to my list of talents?

      I'm not privy to the books of ID labs so I really can't say if they're making money or not. I'm only guessing, but I'd be willing to bet you're not privy to their books either, so this is a moot point.

      Going now to, hopefully, watch my Leafs beat the Bruins.

      Delete
    79. Nic

      Because emerging evidence is showing it to be false. Phylogenetic trees are not lining up as expected.


      Bullcrap Nic. Show me this evidence. We have isolated instances of HGT in multi-celled animals that doesn't affect the 99.9% of the other evidence for the phylogenetic trees one iota. Repeating crap you read at Creationist sites doesn't cut it here Nic. Show me the evidence.

      You can pile the 'pieces' of evidence as high as you wish. If you insist on their being only one interpretation of that evidence naturally it will appear to line up in that direction. Volume of 'evidence' does not equal accuracy of evidence.

      Until you can come up with a better explanation it does.

      The age ranges are not conclusive evidence, the morphological features are not conclusive evidence, and the genetic similarities are not conclusive evidence. Therefore, logically, the combination of these three do not amount to conclusive evidence. Is that so hard to understand?

      It would have been hilarious to see you as a defense attorney:

      "Sure you honor my client's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon he owned, and his DNA from saliva was found at the scene, as were his blood samples, and hair samples, and footprints, and fibers off his clothes, and the surveillance video clearly shows him doing the stabbing. But each piece of evidence alone is not conclusive, so logically combining them can't be conclusive either!"

      How fast do you think you'd be laughed out of court?

      Why is it so hard to accept the possibility they were simply unique creatures who lived separate lives?

      Is it your claim that all three species were separately created some 20 million years apart? Because that's what it sounds like. Correct me if I'm wrong. Give me your better IDC explanation for the time differences.

      That's not an explanation, it's simply stating observations. it does not explain why thee things are this way as opposed to being some other way.

      No Nic, it's an explanation for the observations. We see homology because of common descent. We see transitional fossil series because evolution works by modifying what already exists.

      And those are not atavistic legs.

      Then what are they then? We already have genetic evidence that cetaceans still retain the Tbx4 genes for making hind limbs, the genes are just no longer expressed. Occasionally a mutation turns some of them back on.

      Because from your presentation of it, I think you've missed some facts.

      Tell me what I missed. This should be good.

      I really want to hear your IDC explanation for all the mass extinction evidence from the last 550MY too. Start thinking because I've going to press you on that one.

      It was a good game to watch, and like I said I wouldn't mind seeing the Sharks do well and win the Cup.

      Damn some of those Edmonton kids have some wheels, even though they played the night before. The big problem Edmonton will have is keeping them all with long term contracts.

      If you really feel the need, donate the $10 to the local charity of your choice under the name C. Darwin. :)

      Delete
    80. Nic

      Nobody is offering POOF as a mechanism. The lack of a physical mechanism is not conclusive evidence that what we see is not designed.


      That wasn't the issue Nic. You claimed IDC is a better explanation that ToE. But ToE offers a mechanism for the origin of new species, a mechanism that has been empirically observed to work. IDC has nothing, so how can it be better?

      So you admit such a process exists, but only in specialized cases? Do you wish to clarify?

      Of course epigenetics exists. It's well documented in the scientific literature. It's also a pretty rare phenomenon.

      Can I now add 'mouth breathing rube' to my list of talents?

      You're a ID-Creationist, so that's redundant. ;)

      I'm not privy to the books of ID labs so I really can't say if they're making money or not. I'm only guessing, but I'd be willing to bet you're not privy to their books either, so this is a moot point.

      WHAT ID labs? Name a few, and the products they produce for the scientific community.

      Going now to, hopefully, watch my Leafs beat the Bruins.

      Watching the game now too. 1-0 B's in the second. Can you believe Kessel has 0 goals this whole season?

      Delete
    81. Thorton,

      "and the surveillance video clearly shows him doing the stabbing."

      This is why I would have been a competent attorney and you would be in the gallery watching. Eyewitness evidence such as video tape of the crime, always carries much more weight. Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?

      I thought not. Therefore, my argument stands. Your three pieces of evidence can each be explained independently and therefore do not carry anymore weight collectively.

      As for your analogy, there could possibly be legitimate reasons why the physical evidence, saliva, blood, fibres, etc., would not be damning to Joe. The eyewitness testimony, however, would be quite problematic. But such eyewitness testimony does not exist for evolution, and as such, does not pose a problem.

      Only got time for a short response. I will respond to the rest later.

      My Leafs lost to the Bruins AGAIN! If I remember right, that's seven in a row.

      Delete
    82. Nic

      This is why I would have been a competent attorney and you would be in the gallery watching. Eyewitness evidence such as video tape of the crime, always carries much more weight. Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?


      LOL! You've never been anywhere near a real trial have you? Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst, least credible form of evidence there is. Almost any sort of directs physical evidence (which would include a videotape that can be replayed and all my other examples) is considered the most reliable, with circumstantial evidence carrying less weight.

      Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?

      Oh dear - not Ken Ham's idiotic "were you there??? C'mon Nic, you're better than that. I hope.

      FYI, science doesn't need a videotape. Science has a 150+ years of independent, consilient, corroborating direct physical evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines. This includes fields of study such as biology, paleontology, organic chemistry, genetics, geology, botany, nuclear physics, zoology, etc. ToE has as overwhelming preponderence of evidence.

      I thought not. Therefore, my argument stands. Your three pieces of evidence can each be explained independently and therefore do not carry anymore weight collectively

      Not without directly contradicting yourself they can't. Creationist organizations have been trying for years to hand-wave away each piece independently and making themselves look like idiots with their contradictions. I already showed you a good example with the AND claim on radiometric dating.

      When you start making claims as dumb as that one I know you've lost the argument, and you know it too.

      BTW it's not 3 pieces of evidence. it's hundreds of thousands of lines of evidence in three major categories - real time observed evolutionary processes, the fossil morphological record, the genetic record.

      I'm really looking forward to your Design/Creation explanation for all the mass extinction events over the last 550MY. Also how the many extinct species of cetaceans were "created" millions of years apart. Think you'll be able to make up something by tomorrow?

      My Leafs lost to the Bruins AGAIN! If I remember right, that's seven in a row.

      Sharks lost to Preds in shootout. There goes the 48-0 season. :(

      Delete
    83. Nic

      Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?


      How many major crimes were solved by US and Canadian police in the last decade by using the direct physical evidence left at the crime scene?

      What percentage of those had videotape of the crime actually being committed?

      Look up the numbers for me, will you Nic?

      Delete
    84. joey impotently barked:

      "Then it is strange that no one can produce ONE testable hypothesis based on the ToE's posited mechanism of accumulations of genetic accidents."

      There you go again, poorly describing the ToE, and there you go again griping about "accidents" even though you claim that there are accidents in allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' genetics and in the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' entire universe. You just can't make up your puny mind, can you joey?

      Hmm, let's see, even though you claim that the entire universe was 'fine tuned, programmed, and designed' you'll probably say that accidents simply happen along with the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' other stuff, so tell me joey, exactly how do you scientifically differentiate the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' accidents from the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' other stuff? Is it just the 'bad' stuff that is 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' accidents and the 'good' stuff is 'fine tuned designed' non-accidents? Would sinful and righteous fit better than 'bad' and 'good'? Does worshiping and praying to yhwh-allah-jesus-mohammed prevent "accidents", joey?

      Delete
    85. Thorton asked Nic:

      "BTW, I never did hear your better explanation for all that cetacean data - what explains the objectively determined patterns in the genetic record and fossil record over deep time? Why are Ambulocetus always found in older strata than Rodhocetus, which is always in older strata than Durodon?"

      joey yelped:

      "What's your explanation and how can it be tested? Please be specific."

      The cetacean data has already been 'tested' and explained, joey, and it will be further tested and explained as more studies are done and if or when more data is found. You really should read something besides the koran/bible.

      Now, since you're such an expert (LOL) on all things biological and paleontological (and everything else), can and will you answer Thorton's questions?

      Delete
    86. The whole truth

      And "Please be specific", joey.


      LOL! Chubby Joke G deal with any specifics in the scientific data? Chubby Joke G do anything but his usual knee-jerk belching of "YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!"?

      You're a funny guy TWT!

      Here's the actual cetacean paper again

      Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution

      Nic at least tried to read the first few paragraphs before his eyes glazed over. You think Chubs will even bother to click on the link?

      The authors did a detailed examination including over 600 morphological features (cranial osteology, dental, postcranial osteology, and soft-tissue/behavior) from 81 different taxa as well as 49 new genetic sequences comprising over 40,000 molecular characters to get their 'best fit' phylogenetic trees.

      But according to Creationists you can explain away all that data as inconclusive coincidence.

      Delete
    87. Thorton,

      "LOL! You've never been anywhere near a real trial have you? Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst, least credible form of evidence there is."

      That would come as a real surprise to the three lawyers in my immediate family. Me thinks you watch too much TV law.

      "Oh dear - not Ken Ham's idiotic "were you there??? C'mon Nic, you're better than that. I hope."

      I wasn't the one who brought up video tape, you were. I assume it was a desperate attempt to add weight to your argument about the credibility of evidence against Joe for Chuck's death.

      "Science has a 150+ years of independent, consilient, corroborating direct physical evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines. This includes fields of study such as biology, paleontology, organic chemistry, genetics, geology, botany, nuclear physics, zoology, etc. ToE has as overwhelming preponderence of evidence."

      Independent of what? And all these fields of study start from the assumption that evolution is true and all that needs to be done is demonstrate how it all happened. You said so yourself. Thorton: "That evolution has occurred is now an established scientific fact. New papers published don’t have to rehash 150 years of data for your benefit."

      "When you start making claims as dumb as that one I know you've lost the argument, and you know it too."

      Never made that claim.

      "it's hundreds of thousands of lines of evidence in three major categories,..."

      Oh, I see. If you keep saying the same thing thousands of times based on the same assumptions it becomes a fact. Silly me.

      "Sharks lost to Preds in shootout. There goes the 48-0 season. :("

      I feel so sorry for you. Look at the up side, they still haven't lost in regulation time, so they've gained points in every game so far. No other team can say that.

      Got to go, getting very tired and have busy day coming up, and now apparently I have to explain the extinction of thousands of creatures.

      Delete
    88. Nic

      That would come as a real surprise to the three lawyers in my immediate family. Me thinks you watch too much TV law.


      LOL! Then ask them how reliable eyewitness testimony is considered. Ask them if judges and juries are instructed to consider each piece of evidence in a vacuum, or if they consider the weight of all the evidence as a whole. Let us know what they say, OK?

      And all these fields of study start from the assumption that evolution is true and all that needs to be done is demonstrate how it all happened.

      You keep making the same dumb Creationist excuse to hand-wave away the data you can't explain but just can't back it up anywhere. Tell me Nic, where does geology teach "all your data better support ToE"? Geology by itself has nothing to do with evolution. Neither does nuclear physics. But the verified empirical data from both supports the ToE. How does the verified empirical data support ID-Creationism?

      Oh, I see. If you keep saying the same thing thousands of times based on the same assumptions it becomes a fact. Silly me.

      No, you don't see, or you're faking it pretty good. The data provided in the cetacean paper are empirically established scientific facts. So yes, silly you. The data is there Nic. It needs an explanation. Science has one. You don't. Science wins.

      apparently I have to explain the extinction of thousands of creatures.

      Yep. You've got to explain ALL the data we have for life's history over the last 3+ billion years if you want your story to have any credibility. You're the one who claimed ID-Creationism provided a better explanation than ToE. If you wish to withdraw your claim for lack of support it's OK with me.

      Delete
    89. Thorton,

      "Ask them if judges and juries are instructed to consider each piece of evidence in a vacuum, or if they consider the weight of all the evidence as a whole."

      Joe is accused of murdering Chuck. Joe's fingerprints are found at the scene, his blood is found at the scene and fibers from his clothing is found at the scene.

      The time of Chuck's death is known to be exactly 5pm on Jan 5, 2011 as the murder was recorded on security cameras at Chuck's office. However, no identification of the murderer could be made because of poor image quality and the fact the murderer's face was covered.

      However, several eyewitnesses testify that Joe was 5,000 miles away at the time of the murder. They were in fact with him at the moment Chuck died.

      Tell me Thorton, what evidence will win out?

      "Tell me Nic, where does geology teach "all your data better support ToE"?

      As far as geology is concerned, what we see in the world is better explained in light of catastrophic events rather than gradualism.

      Exactly how does 'verified empirical data' from nuclear physics and geology 'better' explain what we see?

      "The data provided in the cetacean paper are empirically established scientific facts."

      I thought there was no such thing as a scientific fact. So, you'd better make up your mind. Is there such a thing as a scientific fact or is ti just another way of saying definitely maybe?

      Again, your 'scientific facts are nothing more than conjecture based on presupposition. You keep pressing the 'factual' nature of the evidence for cetacean evolution, but it continually rests on the same foundation of conjecture and presupposition.

      "Science has one. You don't. Science wins."

      Only if science has the correct explanation. Assume I don't have an explanation. Does that mean an evolutionary is correct simply by virtue of my lack of an explanation? Ii think the nonsense of that logic is fairly plain.

      "You've got to explain ALL the data we have for life's history over the last 3+ billion years if you want your story to have any credibility."

      Can I make up just-so stories like evolution does on a continual basis?

      "You're the one who claimed ID-Creationism provided a better explanation than ToE."

      A design scenario is plainly a better explanation in light of what is observable than the blind, unobservable process which is evolution. And please, do not say Lenski's work with bacteria is observable evolution.

      "If you wish to withdraw your claim for lack of support it's OK with me."

      If I was to do that what fun would we have?

      Delete
    90. Nic

      Tell me Thorton, what evidence will win out?


      The physical evidence will win out over the eyewitnesses every time. Eyewitnesses can and do lie (or simply misremember) all the time. The physical evidence doesn't. In science you don't get to ignore data you don't like Nic.

      What did your lawyer family say about considering each piece of evidence separately as opposed to considering the weight of all the evidence combined?

      As far as geology is concerned, what we see in the world is better explained in light of catastrophic events rather than gradualism.

      LOL! You don't even want to go there Nic. I'll smoke you with geologic evidence you'll never be able to explain as the result of a sudden catastrophe. Wanna bet another e-beer? :)

      I thought there was no such thing as a scientific fact.

      Of course there are scientific facts. That's the raw empirically collected data. You can argue 'interpretation' all you want but you can't change the facts, like the close correlation of all that fossil and genetic data from cetaceans.

      Only if science has the correct explanation.

      Science has one that fits all the data. The data drives the conclusion Nic, even though it seems you'll never get it.

      Can I make up just-so stories like evolution does on a continual basis?

      Another lame attempt to avoid the data you can't explain noted.

      A design scenario is plainly a better explanation in light of what is observable than the blind, unobservable process which is evolution.

      Then use the design scenario to explain those five major mass extinction events. Use the design scenario to explain why all those different cetacean species appear millions of years apart. You're long on rhetoric but woefully short on support for your claims.

      If I was to do that what fun would we have?

      We could shoot the breeze about hockey. At least you have some understanding of that. ;)

      Delete
    91. Thorton,

      "The physical evidence will win out over the eyewitnesses every time."

      No, my friend, it will not. The eyewitness testimony would be accepted. One cannot simply reject the eyewitness testimony on the basis that people may be lying. In law people affirm to tell the truth and unless it can be shown that ALL the witnesses are lying their testimony is to be taken at face value.

      "The physical evidence doesn't (lie)."

      No, it doesn't lie, nor does it tell the truth, it's simply interpreted. In the case of Joe and Chuck all physical evidence is explainable in such manner as it does not point to Joe as the killer.

      You see, Joe is Chuck's brother. The day before Chuck was murdered Joe was in his office helping him finish a business proposal. In the course of assembling the paper work Joe received a paper cut to his hand resulting in his blood being found at the scene. His fingerprints would not be out of place in his own brother's office nor would fibres from his clothing.

      So you see, my friend evidence is not always what people make it out to be.

      "What did your lawyer family say about considering each piece of evidence separately as opposed to considering the weight of all the evidence combined?"

      Each piece of evidence is considered on its own merits. If various pieces can be shown to fit together and paint a picture for which no other interpretation is reasonably
      possible, then they can collectively add weight to the argument. But each piece is first measured and considered on its own.

      Really, if you think that through, it's simply common sense that this is the only way you can handle evidence in any situation.

      "LOL! You don't even want to go there Nic. I'll smoke you with geologic evidence you'll never be able to explain as the result of a sudden catastrophe. Wanna bet another e-beer? :)"

      Take your best shot.

      "Of course there are scientific facts. That's the raw empirically collected data. You can argue 'interpretation' all you want but you can't change the facts, like the close correlation of all that fossil and genetic data from cetaceans."

      No matter how much you wish to believe otherwise any evidence of a historical nature is subject to interpretation. That's simply the way it is and all your hand waving and assertions to the contrary mean nothing at all to that fact.

      "Science has one that fits all the data. The data drives the conclusion Nic, even though it seems you'll never get it."

      An explanation can fit all the data and still be wrong, do you not realize that?

      "Another lame attempt to avoid the data you can't explain noted."

      No, it's a serious observation of what is continually passed off as evidence by evolution.

      "Then use the design scenario to explain those five major mass extinction events. Use the design scenario to explain why all those different cetacean species appear millions of years apart. You're long on rhetoric but woefully short on support for your claims."

      I will do more reading on mass extinction events, as I will freely admit I'm not well versed on that particular subject.

      "We could shoot the breeze about hockey. At least you have some understanding of that. ;)"

      That would be fun. Sorry to hear your Sharks lost their first in regulation. Looks like a long slide to oblivion now. ;)

      Delete
    92. Nic

      If various pieces can be shown to fit together and paint a picture for which no other interpretation is reasonably
      possible, then they can collectively add weight to the argument.


      Which is correct, and dramatically different that what you claimed above:

      N: "The age ranges are not conclusive evidence, the morphological features are not conclusive evidence, and the genetic similarities are not conclusive evidence. Therefore, logically, the combination of these three do not amount to conclusive evidence."

      Thank you for the admission of your error.

      Really, if you think that through, it's simply common sense that this is the only way you can handle evidence in any situation.

      Which is the exact method science uses that I've been explaining to you all along. Any individual piece may not be conclusive, but when all are taken together you get virtual certainty.

      An explanation can fit all the data and still be wrong, do you not realize that?

      Yes, so we go with the best explanation we have until a better one comes along, or until more evidence emerges that forces a reevaluation. That's how all science works Nic.

      ToE fits the data because it was derived from the data. You guys don't have an explanation that fits any of the data. Sorry to Joke G, but just saying "it was designed that way" isn't an explanation.

      Sorry to hear your Sharks lost their first in regulation. Looks like a long slide to oblivion now.

      Sharks vs. Leafs - race to the bottom for the #1 draft pick. :)

      Delete
    93. Nic

      Take your best shot.


      Oh boy, I love geology! I've literally got hundreds of examples I can use of features that couldn't possibly have formed in a one time catastrophic event (i.e. "Da Flud")

      How about the 1000' deep incised meanders at Goosenecks state park?

      Carved by the San Juan River over the last 10MY as the Colorado Plateau lifted. A one time Flood strong enough to remove that volume of rock would blast straight channels as the Missoula glacial lake burst floods did, not gentle 180 degree switchback meanders. The river wasn't carved in soft mud either because soft mud doesn't have the tensile strength to support near vertical walls - it would slump and immediately collapse.

      I'll see how you explain that one before I bring out the good stuff.



      Delete
    94. Thorton,

      "I'll see how you explain that one before I bring out the good stuff."

      Okay, I'll do some research.

      Leafs lost again last night. Will likely beat your Sharks to oblivion. Maybe that's one win I can gain. What do you think?

      Delete
    95. Thorton,

      "Which is correct, and dramatically different that what you claimed above:"

      Notice the term 'reasonably'. Just because you see the design explanation as unreasonable, doesn't make it unreasonable. If it was completely unreasonable there would be no controversy regards evolution. I know what's coming next.

      "Thank you for the admission of your error."

      I don't recall admitting an error.

      "Which is the exact method science uses that I've been explaining to you all along. Any individual piece may not be conclusive, but when all are taken together you get virtual certainty."

      Common sense and evolution ranks really high on the oxymoron scale. When all pieces of evidence are put together it can produce a convincing picture, but there is no guarantee of that result. All the physical evidence pointed to Joe, but yet he was innocent because an alternative explanation was completely feasible.


      "Yes, so we go with the best explanation we have until a better one comes along, or until more evidence emerges that forces a reevaluation. That's how all science works Nic."

      But not everyone thinks evolution is the best explanation. Just because you do and most scientists do, does not mean it's true.

      "ToE fits the data because it was derived from the data. You guys don't have an explanation that fits any of the data."

      Nonsense, a design scenario fits the data very nicely. Such factors as genetic similarity and morphology are not counter to a design scenario at all.

      "Sharks vs. Leafs - race to the bottom for the #1 draft pick. :)"

      i haven't kept track, but the Leafs probably traded their first pick.

      Delete
    96. Nic

      Just because you see the design explanation as unreasonable, doesn't make it unreasonable.


      It's not unreasonable, it's just completely unsupported. Go do the work, present the positive evidence for the design and you may have a case.

      If it was completely unreasonable there would be no controversy regards evolution.

      There is no scientific controversy over ToE. There is a mild political one stirred up by religious Fundamentalists trying to push their particular religious beliefs.

      I know what's coming next.

      Of course you do. Push the fake 'controversy' has been a Creationist political strategy since day one.

      Just because you do and most scientists do, does not mean it's true.

      But it works pretty darn well, so we'll keep it until a better one comes along, thank you.

      Nonsense, a design scenario fits the data very nicely.

      If fits just the same as the MAGIC! scenario. Like MAGIC!, a design scenario fits ANY data very nicely, which is why it's absolutely worthless as a scientific explanation.

      Sharks v. Hawks tonight is gonna be a real barn-burner. :)

      How long before the Toronto media starts screaming for a Kessel trade?

      Delete
  9. Cornelius,
    How can one be a follower of Christ but not believe what Christ did about a beginning with Adam and Eve, and Noah escaping the judgment of a world-wide flood? I applaud your desire to engage non-believers who are evolutionists, but I think it is quite clear that Jesus did not share that perspective about the origin of species. If one is to truly follow him, i.e. submit to him as Lord, that one will end up sharing his perspectives about beginnings, or end up diminishing his stature as God and Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of related note:

    Dr. Eben Alexander: Heaven Is Real - video
    The neurosurgeon and author of Newsweek's recent cover story on heaven talks with Tina Brown about his near-death experience - and journey to the afterlife.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/10/26/answers-from-heaven.html

    I think Dr. Alexander did an excellent job of 'scientifically' defending his Near Death Experience against his critics in Newsweek:

    The Science of Heaven - Nov 18, 2012 - Dr. Eben Alexander
    Excerpt: I am as deep a believer in science, and the truth-respecting values that created it, as I ever was. As such, I want to affirm again—not just to my fellow scientists but to everyone—that there is a larger, more real world out there. Those who have experienced it are neither deluded nor dishonest, but they are hampered by the limits of language to convey the sheer exponential vastness of what they encountered. This world of consciousness beyond the body is the true new frontier, not just of science but of humankind itself, and it is my profound hope that what happened to me will bring the world one step closer to accepting it.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/11/18/the-science-of-heaven.html

    Here is the original article in Newsweek that created so much controversy for Dr. Alexander:

    Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife - Dr. Eben Alexander - Oct 8, 2012
    Excerpt: One of the few places I didn’t have trouble getting my story across was a place I’d seen fairly little of before my experience: church. The first time I entered a church after my coma, I saw everything with fresh eyes. The colors of the stained-glass windows recalled the luminous beauty of the landscapes I’d seen in the world above. The deep bass notes of the organ reminded me of how thoughts and emotions in that world are like waves that move through you. And, most important, a painting of Jesus breaking bread with his disciples evoked the message that lay at the very heart of my journey: that we are loved and accepted unconditionally by a God even more grand and unfathomably glorious than the one I’d learned of as a child in Sunday school.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neurosurgeon Dr. Micahel Egnor, reveals the unfair bias of Darwinists when they evaluate NDEs:

      Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012
      Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
      The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,,
      The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn.
      Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html

      "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)."
      Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

      Of related note: The following evidence provides a viable mechanism for Dr. Alexander's 'pure consciousness' Near Death Experience that was different from 'typical' NDEs

      Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video
      http://vimeo.com/39982578

      Dr. Alexander's NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy altogether to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold.

      A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video
      http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid3.html

      supplemental notes:

      Oprah & Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander: Proof of Heaven — Full Episode - video was loaded 5 days ago
      http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/Oprah-and-Neurosurgeon-Eben-Alexander-Proof-of-Heaven-Full-Episode

      A proof of heaven - November 2, 2012 - video
      Dr. Eben Alexander shares his thoughts on whether science can explain that heaven really does exist.
      http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49665334#49665334

      Delete
  11. John 18:38
    “What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

    To varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people back in the 60′s, such as the Beatles, have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock.
    Few people would try to argue that a rock is not real. Someone who would argue that it is not real could bang his head on the rock until he was satisfied the rock is real.
    A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and ‘truth’. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (all solids, liquids and gases) of the universe are ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can “hypothetically” be reduced to energy.

    E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U

    This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, transcendent, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs.

    Atomic Bomb Explosion – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI

    6.4 mg of mass converted to energy in Hiroshima A-bomb
    4,400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs equivalent to one ounce of mass
    1 drop of water equivalent to 10 Hiroshima A-bombs
    Entire energy consumption of America, for 1 year, equivalent to 1 bowling ball
    52 X 10^55 Hiroshima bombs equivalent at ‘Big Bang’

    Big Bang
    After its (The Big Bang’s) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom, in the trillions upon countless trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the rock, energy in and of itself is a “non-solid” entity. In fact, it is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces, which are ‘unseen’, that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, and are what can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock.
      The last part of this following video, starting at the 5:09 minute mark, has some excellent photographs of atoms that gets this ‘non-solid’ point of the energy/matter of a rock across as well as giving a tiny glimpse of where the universal constants come into play.

      Uncertainty Principle – The ‘Uncertain Non-Particle’ Basis Of Material Reality – video and article
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172

      ,,,Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the atoms of the rock besides the universal constants/forces and matter/energy. An ingredient that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the interrelated unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy in the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place.
      Is truth independent and dominant of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths of reason that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and unchanging force are precisely subject to what the unchanging “truth” tells them they can and cannot do in the rock. To put it another way, the rock cannot exist without truth yet truth can exist independently of the rock. Since truth clearly dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do, it follows that truth dominates energy and unchanging force. Energy and unchanging force do not dominate truth. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent in this universe. That is to say, the truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times in this universe (Indeed, Science would be extremely difficult, to put it very mildly, if this uniformity of truth, for all of nature, were not so). It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically “true” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding “particle”.

      Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some of the Characteristics Of God – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

      Delete
    2. Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal, instantaneous, awareness of a transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the unchanging force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this “truth’ of the speed of light). This scientific proof of ‘instantaneous’ quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality (and quantum teleportation), to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. Thus, truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe and is not bound by any of the laws that “truth” has subjected all the other components of the universe to. Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates this universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist. This “Truth”, which is shown not to be subject to time in any way, shape, or form, by quantum non-locality, has also demonstrated foresight and purpose in the extreme fine-tuning for this temporal universe and, as such, can be said to be “alive” from the fact that a “decision” had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that ‘Truth’ inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to become real in the first place.

      “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.”
      Prof. Henry F. Schaefer –

      What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? – video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

      Delete
    3. i.e. ‘Truth’ is a major characteristic of the necessary Being, “uncaused cause”, the Alpha, that created all reality/realities. Moreover, that a photon would actually be destroyed upon the quantum teleportation of its “information” to another photon, is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics, and provides yet another direct line of evidence that ‘Truth’ is the foundational entity of this universe that gives rise to everything in this universe.
      Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe, yet is not subject to any physical laws); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (truth is apparently aware of everything that is happening in the universe); and Truth is alive (Truth has created a temporal universe from a reality that is not subject to any physical laws of time or space for the express purpose of creating life; (fine-tuning) Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and alive are the foundational characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, logically speaking, spiritual/transcendent truth emanates directly from God and is coexistent with the Character of His Being. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that ‘Truth’, as far as the scientific method is concerned, is God.
      Now to bring all this into the focus of the Christian perspective, Jesus says that He is “The Truth, the Way and The Life”. And in regards to what is currently revealed in our scientific knowledge, I would say that this is a VERY, VERY fantastic claim to make! If Jesus is speaking the truth, which I believe He is, then by the rules of logic this makes Jesus equivalent to God Almighty. Well,,, Is Jesus God??? Well, believe it or not, there actually is now some fairly strong scientific evidence that gives a very credible, and very persuasive, indication that the number one problem in physics and mathematics today, of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a ‘Theory of everything’, finds a very credible resolution in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,, and In my book, if Christ is the “Theory of Everything” that means that Jesus Christ is God i.e. The Jesus Christ is “The Truth” just as He claimed to be!

      The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin – video
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics – notes
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
      Verse and Music:

      Matthew 28:18
      And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

      Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video)
      http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

      Lyric from song: “Death has lost and love has won!”

      Delete
  12. The Bible Series - Part 1 - video - "The Bible," an epic 10-hour-five-part film that will premiere Sunday, March 3 at 8pm ET on History Channel - Mark Burnett (Producer of The Voice, The Apprentice, and Shark Tank) and Roma Downey (Touched By an Angel) are here (on 100Huntley) to talk about their project "The Bible" premiering March 3 on History Channel.
    Roma Downey & Mark Burnett - Executive Producers, "The Bible"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrOEcyxS4Js
    The Bible Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBLLrIp-OnU
    "The Bible," an epic 10-hour-five-part film that will premiere Sunday, March 3 at 8pm ET on History Channel - official site
    http://www.bibleseries.tv/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually, if Christianity is *true*, most people have no hope, including (depending on how entrenched you are in a Christian community) most of your friends and family. Since most people aren't persuaded of the truthfulness of Christianity (good one, God). Ergo, hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, if hurricane warning is *true*, most people have no hope, including (depending on how entrenched you are in a hurricane community) most of your friends and family. Since most people aren't persuaded of the truthfulness of hurricane warnings (good one, weatherman). Ergo, disaster.

      Delete
  14. What a stupid analogy. You're partly right, though, your theology is a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr. Hunter, as someone who has been following your work for a long time I have to say I am rather put off by this post. I think your overall case against neo-darwinism is overwhelming and that any rational person who looks at the evidence you present will conclude that evolutionary theory really needs an overhaul, but this attempt at proselytization is only going to pour fuel on the fire of your detractors (and offend non-Christians who support you). Be proud of your faith and everything but please don't intermix your scientific criticisms of darwinism with evangelism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trouble is that Cornelius' criticisms of Darwinism are the direct result of his religion and evangelical beliefs. "ToE refutes a literal reading of the Bible, therefore ToE is wrong" runs the logic. That is the long and the short of it, I'm afraid.

      The whole ID/Creationist movement is a political move to defend the notion that God made life as recorded in the Bible, and every theory, every piece of evidence which refutes that must, ipso facto, be wrong. Though they like to pretend the contrary, there is nothing scientific about the movement at all.

      Delete
    2. Darwinism can't be tested, so that would be a problem.

      Delete
    3. Yes it can.

      Microevolution has been demonstrated many times. And that is Darwinism.

      So no problem there.

      But back to my actual point, which I notice you chose to circumvent, ID is about defending Biblical literalism. It is not about science.

      Delete
    4. No, Darwinism is more than microevolution.

      ID doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. Your ignorance is meaningless.

      Delete
    5. No Darwinism is not more than microevolution. The same processes that Darwinism requires are exactly the ones microevolution demonstrates.

      And ID and religious fundamentalism are inextricably entwined. ID is about insisting 'Goddidit'. No more, no less.

      Delete
    6. Ritchie:
      No Darwinism is not more than microevolution.

      Of course it is.

      The same processes that Darwinism requires are exactly the ones microevolution demonstrates.

      Actually no. No one knows if all genetic change is an accident/ mistake/ error.

      And ID and religious fundamentalism are inextricably entwined.

      Only to the willfully ignorant.

      ID is about insisting 'Goddidit'.

      ID doesn't say anything about the designer(s). Again, your ignornce is meaningless.

      Delete
    7. Of course it is.

      Evolution is evolution. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale. Macroevolution is evolution on a big scale. You cannot say that microevolution has been demonstrated but evolution has not. That is ridiculous. If microevolution has been demonstrated then evolution has been demonstrated.

      Actually no. No one knows if all genetic change is an accident/ mistake/ error.

      Are you still harking on with 'no-one can disprove indetectable agency'? Do you honestly not understand why that is a fallacious assertion?

      Only to the willfully ignorant.

      Childish rhetoric.

      ID doesn't say anything about the designer(s).

      Yes it does. "Is says there was one/more."

      Delete
    8. Ritchie, word games. Nothing but word games. I am well acquainted and painfully aware of the tortuous definitions of evolution - all 8 of them.

      "Microevolution", "Macroevolution",... its all too vague. It mashes everything into the big pot of evolution without clearly defining and distincting between the causes of variation and the extent of what these causes are actually capable of.

      For example, the regulation of protein bmp4 causing finch beaks to vary in size has nothing to do with how the bird beak and BMP4 protein originated in the first place.

      Turning a faucet to hot or cold water and understanding how it works does not explain how the faucet originated. Yes, you can vary the flow and change the temperature of the water coming out of the faucet but one should not say, "look I can vary the flow and temperature of the water, this is how we came to have faucets".

      ToE thrives on imprecision... it leaves all the doors open for winging it, improvision, and hand waving generalists.

      Delete
    9. joey ignorantly and dishonestly barfed:

      "ID doesn't have anything to do with the Bible."

      Well then, joey, someone obviously forgot to tell phil cunningham (ba77), gordon elliott mullings (kairosfocus), dembski, behe, wells, luskin, o'leary, john west, phillip johnson, steven meyer, cornelius hunter, jonathan mclatchie, barry arrington, byers, YOU, and all the other IDiots.

      Delete
    10. OK twitty-

      Please make your case and tell us the connection between ID and the Bible. If your only connection is some IDists, then you have nothing, as usual.

      Delete
    11. Ritchie:
      Evolution is evolution.

      ID is not anti-evolution. YEC is not anti-evolution.

      Macroevolution is evolution on a big scale.

      Yup- it is untestable.

      You cannot say that microevolution has been demonstrated but evolution has not.

      I didn't say that.

      Actually no. No one knows if all genetic change is an accident/ mistake/ error.

      Are you still harking on with 'no-one can disprove indetectable agency'?

      Nope, I am saying that your position has nothing. That said, the agency is detectable and has been detected.

      Delete
    12. Joe -

      ID is not anti-evolution. YEC is not anti-evolution.

      Yes they are.

      They both draw utterly arbitrary boundaries around each species and claim that, while individuals in a species may vary slightly due to evolution, they simply cannot stray too far from some imagined archetype of their species. Some dogs have shorter legs than others, but it would be utterly impossible for a dog-like species to give rise to an aquatic species which lost their legs entirely.

      Yet quite what these boundaries are is never stated or explained. And neither is what exactly ties each individual to this supposed species archetype. These ideas are simply nonsense and demonstrably false.

      ID/Creationism acts like a theory which allows a force called gravity which allows dropped objects to fall down, yet denies this force controls the movement of the planets. Such a theory WOULD be "anti-gravity".

      Macroevolution is evolution on a big scale.

      Yup- it is untestable.


      To test a process on a big scale, you need a vast amount of time. To be able to test it within a human lifetime, you simply test the exact same processes on a small scale - which is exactly what microevolution is.

      How is this difficult to understand?

      Nope, I am saying that your position has nothing.

      Then you are simply wrong. Evolution has been demonstrated many times. It is ID/Creationism which has precisely zero in terms of supporting scientific evidence.

      That said, the agency is detectable and has been detected.

      Now that WOULD be interesting news. Sources please.

      Delete
    13. Neal

      Turning a faucet to hot or cold water and understanding how it works does not explain how the faucet originated. Yes, you can vary the flow and change the temperature of the water coming out of the faucet but one should not say, "look I can vary the flow and temperature of the water, this is how we came to have faucets".

      I am staggered by your lack of comprehension.

      Biological organisms are created through embryonic development.

      Do you deny or fail to understand this?

      The features of biological organisms are determined by their genome.

      Do you deny or fail to understand this?

      Assuming your answers to the above are 'no', then how is it you think studying the genes of a creature is totally irrelevant to understanding the origin of its features?

      Delete
    14. joey said without thinking:

      "Please make your case and tell us the connection between ID and the Bible. If your only connection is some IDists, then you have nothing, as usual."

      Look closely at that, joey. Now, maybe you can get the people I listed, all the other IDiots, and yourself to "tell us the connection between ID and the Bible" since you IDiots are the ones connecting ID and the bible.

      All of the responses you IDiots get that connect ID and the bible are because you IDiots connect ID and the bible. The whole "Intelligent Design" scam was deceitfully cooked up to try to pass off biblical creationism as a scientific "inference" so as to get around laws that bar biblical creationism from being taught in public school science classes. Of course that isn't the entire agenda since you IDiot-creationists also want to get around laws that bar biblical creationism from being injected into public policy, and you want to force your fairy tale religious dogma into the minds and lives of everyone on Earth.

      Do you really believe that you're fooling anyone with a clue, joey? You obviously do believe that but you apparently haven't noticed the strong opposition to your religious/political ID agenda. The opposition comes from people with a clue who see right through your attempts to deceive, indoctrinate, and dominate. You IDiots are terrible at hiding your actual motive and agenda.

      Keep on impotently barking at passing cars, joey, and it will continue to get you to where it always has> left behind. Way behind.

      Delete
    15. Joe G,

      Thw whole truth:and it will continue to get you to where it always has> left behind. Way behind."

      Don't worry Joe, like all evolutionists TWT is looking over his shoulder at you and others who oppose evolution and thinking about how far ahead he his. Little does he realize he's been lapped a long time ago and he's so far behind he thinks he's ahead.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Neal Tedford February 1, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    [...]

    Turning a faucet to hot or cold water and understanding how it works does not explain how the faucet originated. Yes, you can vary the flow and change the temperature of the water coming out of the faucet but one should not say, "look I can vary the flow and temperature of the water, this is how we came to have faucets".


    Once more, the title of Darwin's book was On The Origin of Species for a reason. That reason is that his theory was about how life had evolved after it appeared. He had no idea about the origin of life itself and said as much.

    Yes, abiogenesis is a related field of research but it is not the same. Criticizing the theory of evolution for not explaining what it was never intended to explain in the first place is simply irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  18. structure somewhat clear, always think of what the problem go mother of bride dresses write, without good separation of clear hierarchy, so the article is a little messy, this article must not meet the requirements, but, after all, is a first draft, also carried out under the guidance of a teacher's repeated changes. Writing

    ReplyDelete