Sunday, July 26, 2015

Here’s What’s Going on With BioLogos

The Importance of the Warfare Thesis

Deborah Haarsma was professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College and is currently the President of BioLogos. Both of these Christian organizations promote evolutionary theory (Calvin statement, BioLogos statement). That is not surprising since evolution derives, at least in modern times, from theologians and philosophers in the church. To be sure, evolutionary thinking is obvious in ancient Epicureanism, but its resurgence in the seventeenth century was almost exclusively the work of Christian thinkers. Descartes, Malebranche, Cudworth, Ray, Burnet, Leibniz and Wolfe are good examples of how widespread was the movement within Christian thought, and of how varied were the arguments for a strictly naturalistic origins narrative. These Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans agreed that the world must have arisen by natural causes. The common theme was that the arguments were theological and philosophical (i.e., metaphysical rather than scientific). These mandates for naturalism increased and by the nineteenth century were the received truths for progressives. This was the culture Charles Darwin was born into and his book applied these arguments for naturalism to the problem of the origins of the species. Darwin’s thought—from his early notebooks, to Origins, to his later works and autobiography—was thoroughly metaphysical. God must have created via law not miracle and, ever since Darwin, Christians have embraced this belief just as strongly as the pre Darwin Christians had promoted it. Deborah Haarsma is, therefore, a contemporary representative of a long and distinguished intellectual history. But there is one major difference between today’s evolutionists and their forerunners from centuries past.

In the eighteenth century, and even more so in the nineteenth century, evolutionary thought increasingly sought to enlist science to support its thesis of naturalism. In the eighteenth century Bernoulli, Buffon, Kant and Laplace constructed naturalistic theories to explain the origin of the solar system. In the nineteenth century Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin constructed naturalistic theories to explain the origin of the species. While these thinkers and their works rested on the metaphysical foundation that had been laid for them, this genre took on a patina of empiricism. Lengthy, meandering, passages describing scientific observations seemed to lend the authority of science, even if the brief conclusions that followed were steeped in metaphysics.

Thus began the claim that a naturalistic origins is the obvious and unavoidable result of objective scientific inquiry. In fact, from a strictly scientific perspective, a naturalistic origins fares no better than a perpetual motion machine. The clear message of science, then and now, is that the world did not likely arise spontaneously. But science, as has been said, is theology’s hand maiden and the empirical evidence is notoriously vulnerable to manipulation and clever presentation.

To aid in this presentation, evolutionary thinkers also constructed a false history known today as the Conflict or Warfare Thesis. It can be traced back to Voltaire and his mythological reconstruction of the Galileo Affair, but it gathered strength in the nineteenth century. The idea is that science and religion are in conflict as science churns out new, occasionally inconvenient, truths while religion retreats and resists where it can.

So according to the Warfare Thesis, there is a conflict for Christians who are unwilling to bend their interpretation of Scripture. Their religious faith is in conflict with science.

Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought.

Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.

But the Warfare Thesis continues. In spite of its obvious failure and falsehood, it is too powerful to resist. A few years ago when Haarsma became President of BioLogos she called for respectful discourse. I took that opportunity to voice my concern that BioLogos was reliant on the Warfare Thesis. Not only was there no reply, but BioLogos has continued to promote the false Warfare Thesis. Haarsma’s article from two weeks ago, on the resignation of Bethel College professor Jim Stump, is an example:

Yet we are concerned that a decision like this effectively sets faith commitments in opposition to clear scientific evidence in God’s creation. We would like to see Christian colleges encouraging their scholars to engage the scientific evidence that humans evolved, and acknowledge that this can be done without letting go of biblical authority. … We are also concerned that Christian college students, especially those who feel called to scientific careers, will see policies like this as a sign of conflict between Christianity and science and feel forced to make an unnecessary choice between them. … We love the Bible and we make the case for evolutionary creation: that God used the natural process of evolution to create all of life’s diverse forms, including humans, as supported by abundant genetic and fossil evidence. This position is in harmony with the teachings of the Bible and Christian doctrine. For example, there are multiple ways that the biblical accounts of Adam and Eve can be understood in the context of this scientific evidence, including as real historical people. And even though God used the natural mechanisms of evolution to create humans, he also made us spiritual beings and established a unique relationship with us by endowing humans with his image.

Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely.

Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate that is in conflict with the science.

So whereas the seventeenth and eighteenth century evolutionists were clear about their metaphysical assumptions and how those assumptions mandated naturalism, today’s evolutionists obfuscate their message with the Warfare Thesis. They make the same non biblical, theological and philosophical arguments for evolution in their apologetic literature. But then argue that their proofs are scientific, not metaphysical, and claim their skeptics are the ones with the bad science and bad religion.

Too often evolutionists today present a contradictory message. Religion drives science, and it matters.

209 comments:

  1. "We would like to see Christian colleges encouraging their scholars to engage the scientific evidence that humans evolved, and acknowledge that this can be done without letting go of biblical authority."

    The cognitive dissonance is absolutely staggering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nic

      The cognitive dissonance is absolutely staggering.


      Are you speaking of your own cognitive dissonance? Do you even know what the term means?

      Delete
    2. Yes, it is amazing. And she boldly makes the claim that surrendering to the Materialistic account of origins can be done without "letting go of biblical authority."

      Honestly, how in the world can she actually believe that?

      Her "new" interpretation of the Bible was born out of a Materialistic view of science. It was not shared by anyone else in the Bible, including Jesus Himself. Personally, I think that if Jesus - God in human flesh, and the inspired writers of the Scripture were wrong, then I think the Bible loses all credibility. If she can find a way to twist the clear meaning of Scripture to accomodate the Materialistic view of origins and honestly feels that is the right interpretation, so be it. I think she is wrong and I fully believe that such a view of Scripture and science will lead to the demise of both Christianity and science itself. It will lead to the demise of science because science needs integrity, honesty, truth, etc. to function properly. But Materialism cannot provide those things.

      Delete
    3. It seems that for her, "Science" is absolute and trustworthy while the Scripture is seen to be fluid and totally amendable to whatever "science" claims.

      Dr. Hunter's previous article on Matt Ridley is an excellent example of the problems of Scientism.

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.jp/2015/07/here-is-matt-ridleys-must-read-article.html

      Delete
  2. I guess we must have just imagined Homo erectus and the other hominins and all of the shared genetics with apes and the treelike pattern we see in DNA sequence similarity. Nope, no evidence for natural origin of species in any of that! All those genome databases and museum collections are just well-disguised theology!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess we must have just imagined Homo erectus and the other hominins and all of the shared genetics with apes and the treelike pattern we see in DNA sequence similarity.

      Actually the patterns that evolutionists claim confirm the theory fail. For instance: "As one evolutionist admitted, if it weren't for DNA, it would be the orangutan rather than the chimp pictured next to the human in the evolutionary tree."

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html

      The different phylogenies are not congruent. And these are not minor contradictions.

      And we haven't even gotten to the question of how mutations get you from a small primate to a human in just 6 million years. The response that modifying about one percent of the DNA will do the job is undemonstrated to put it kindly, and you know it.

      Delete
    2. "The different phylogenies are not congruent. And these are not minor contradictions."

      Actually, I think the majority pre-molecular view was that humans were sister to the other great apes, or perhaps sister to chimps+gorillas. Either one is not far off. The red-ape viewpoint is literally mostly one guy.

      Anyway, any of these hypotheses would be minor contradictions of the DNA data. If DNA said humans were closer to zebras or fungus, *that* would have been a major contradiction. But, nope, DNA confirmed mammal, primate, ape, great ape, all of which was already thought from morphology. DNA just refined the relationship a bit. Study the statistics of tree similarity if you want to get taken seriously.

      "And we haven't even gotten to the question of how mutations get you from a small primate to a human in just 6 million years."

      Small? None of the great apes are small.

      "The response that modifying about one percent of the DNA will do the job is undemonstrated to put it kindly, and you know it."

      The position that until we know everything, we know nothing, is worthless and anti-intellectual. We know how mutations happen. We can see these mutations in the genomes within the human species, and similar mutations, just more of them, between the genomes of humans and chimps (and gorillas, and neandertals, etc. etc.). Scientists are just following the evidence where it leads: common ancestry. You want everyone to bury their heads in the sand, throw the data down a well, and believe in the inerrant Bible instead.

      Your position is that God creates according to his good pleasure and we should just accept that whatever data we see is the result of miraculous special creation. And you try to pretend that following the data where it naturally leads is imposing theology, because of *your* theological viewpoint about God creating according to his own pleasure.

      Have fun wasting your life on that tight little loop.

      Delete
    3. Nick Matzke? The guy who can read and review books in 12 minutes or less? Is that you?

      Delete
    4. Actually, I think the majority pre-molecular view was that humans were sister to the other great apes, or perhaps sister to chimps+gorillas. Either one is not far off. The red-ape viewpoint is literally mostly one guy.

      No, orangutans are difficult to study and little was known about them in the pre-molecular era. Therefore they represent a good test of evolutionary theory which it failed.


      Anyway, any of these hypotheses would be minor contradictions of the DNA data.

      No, as I already pointed out, this is not a minor contradiction. A minor contradiction would be that although the orangutan-human DNA distance is longer than the chimp-human DNA distance, that difference is small and otherwise swamped by one or more error sources, such that the orangutan being closer to the human than the chimp, according to DNA, is reasonably probable. But that is not the case. The difference is not small and minor compared to error sources. This is not at all controversial.


      If DNA said humans were closer to zebras or fungus, *that* would have been a major contradiction. But, nope, DNA confirmed mammal, primate, ape, great ape, all of which was already thought from morphology. DNA just refined the relationship a bit.

      The bar just got lowered again for evolution.


      DNA just refined the relationship a bit. Study the statistics of tree similarity if you want to get taken seriously.

      I did. Evolutionary trees are consistently inconsistent. They are not congruent. That does not mean there is no pattern and that the relationships between the species are random. If two species are similar in character X, then odds are they will be similar in character Y as well. And if you want to make your theory look good, you can use aggregate statistical tests which prove there are statistical patterns while ignoring the particular contradictions. Here is an example: Consider these two sequences of numbers:

      [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12]
      [1 2 3 4 5 6 12 8 9 10 11 12]

      These sequences are statistically very similar. The correlation coefficient is 0.93. Very impressive. But there is a big difference between the two. The second one reads 12 where the first one reads 7. If your measurement error is 0.1 you don’t just ignore this difference because, after all, the correlation coefficient is high. Science is not about aggregate statistical measures, it is about the particulars. Those aggregate measures show there are patterns, but the patterns are not consistent with evolutionary theory. You can make the flat earth and geocentrism look good with statistics, but that doesn’t make them true.


      Small? None of the great apes are small.

      Humans didn’t evolve from the great apes.


      The position that until we know everything, we know nothing, is worthless and anti-intellectual.

      So evolutionists claim evolution is a fact, and when you point out that that claim is not true, they lower the bar for themselves and attack your for being anti-intellectual. I’m certainly not saying we don’t know anything. We know that the empirical data contradicts evolutionary theory.


      We can see these mutations in the genomes within the human species, and similar mutations, just more of them, between the genomes of humans and chimps (and gorillas, and neandertals, etc. etc.). Scientists are just following the evidence where it leads: common ancestry.

      The evidence contradicts common ancestry. The idea that a percent change in the DNA gets you from an ancient primate to a human does not square from what we know. Perhaps that will change, but we have had a very good look at what 1% tweaks in the DNA get you, and it isn’t much compared to what evolution requires.


      You want everyone to bury their heads in the sand, throw the data down a well, and believe in the inerrant Bible instead.

      You are projecting. You are the one who is seeking religious validation, not me. I want people to acknowledge the obvious scientific truth.

      Delete
    5. We began with Haarsma's article and her statements that the scientific evidence abundantly confirms evolution. This is not true. We're not splitting hairs here. Evolution has large scientific problems and is nowhere close to being a fact. Quite the opposite. So this is a radical misrepresentation of science. That could all change. Future findings might change direction and show all kinds of support for the theory. Given what we know that certainly would be a surprise, but who knows. But we're not talking about future findings, we're talking about current knowledge. Nick's response is to downplay, rather than acknowledge, these well established scientific problems. Why can't evolutionists simply admit to the obvious scientific evidence? Why must evolution be a fact? Because they cannot accept the alternative.

      Delete
    6. Cornelius Hunter

      We began with Haarsma's article and her statements that the scientific evidence abundantly confirms evolution. This is not true.


      The unambiguous branching pattern seen in the genetic record and fossil record over deep time is what science identifies as the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is the proposed mechanisms that explains that observed fact of evolution.

      Amazing that so many creationists still are confused by the difference between the empirically observed fact and the theory.

      Delete
    7. NickM: If DNA said humans were closer to zebras or fungus, *that* would have been a major contradiction. But, nope, DNA confirmed mammal, primate, ape, great ape, all of which was already thought from morphology. DNA just refined the relationship a bit.

      This is what passes for "potential falsification" for evolutionists: if a human was more genetically similar to a mushroom than a primate.

      You would think it's a joke, but it's not. They actually consider evolution theory an amazing success because it passes these kinds of "tests"...

      They have to stay as vague as possible, because any amount of specificity leads to total predictive failure of the theory.

      Delete
    8. Cornelius: "Actually the patterns that evolutionists claim confirm the theory fail. For instance: "As one evolutionist admitted, if it weren't for DNA, it would be the orangutan rather than the chimp pictured next to the human in the evolutionary tree." "

      I hope that you will forgive me if I doubt you. Your link sent me to another one of your OPs, which linked to more of your own OPs, an NBC News post and an error 404.

      My recollection from several decades ago was that the common thought was that our closest ancestor was either the chimp or the gorilla. Personally, I was cheering for the gorilla. Orangs were discussed, but I don't recall any generally accepted research that concluded that orangs were our closest relative.

      But this is all irrelevant. The earliest attempts at discerning a hierarchical ancestry was based on morphological similarities (comparative anatomy). When DNA comparisons, and protein comparisons, became available, I don't recall any scientists who claimed that the relationships identified with these new techniques would match perfectly with the anatomically postulated relationships. In fact, any scientist worth his weight, would be hoping for differences.

      The interesting research is to examine why there are differences. But there are no scientists, who understand both anatomical relationships and molecular relationships, who would suggest that the observed differences are due to evolution being wrong. I know that you would argue that this is because they are being blinded by their "religion", which may be true. But if that were true, why to they keep putting in huge amounts of effort to find these differences? And, conversely, how much effort has been put in my IDists to identify and continue research on issues that call ID into question? Feel free to provide links to all if this research.

      Delete
    9. an error 404.

      Thank you. It appears a dash got changed to a period. Fixed now. BTW, here is another good reference:

      Grehan J. 2006. “Mona Lisa smile: the morphological enigma of human and great ape evolution.” The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist 289B:139-157.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.b.20107/pdf

      Delete
    10. "BTW, here is another good reference:"

      I don't want to be a stickler for details, but it is not another reference. It is the exact same reference. Which, in itself, isn't a problem. Origin of Species is also only a single reference. For published papers, a good indication of their importance is the number of times that they have been cited. So, let's examine this. The paper that you referenced has been reference seven times since it was published in 2006. But we can ignore one of these because it was a citation by the same author.

      To put this in perspective, I only have three scientific papers published in my name. Each of them has been cited in far more that six other papers, and I will be the first to say that they are scientifically meaningless papers.

      Do you have other references that conclude that orangs are our closest relatives?

      Delete
  3. ghostrider,

    "Are you speaking of your own cognitive dissonance? Do you even know what the term means?"

    "Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviours."

    Any other questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      "Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviours."

      Any other questions?


      No Nic. Cognitive dissonance refers to the mental stress or anxiety experienced by individuals who hold contradicting beliefs. There is no evidence anywhere the members of BioLogos have any such mental anguish over their theistic evolution position. They see no contradictions and indeed make a pretty strong case for the science involved.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "No Nic. Cognitive dissonance refers to the mental stress or anxiety experienced by individuals who hold contradicting beliefs."

      No ghostrider. Cognitive dissonance is the condition, mental stress and anxiety are the outward symptoms. The condition can exist without the outward appearance of symptoms.

      Delete
    3. LOL! Face it Nic, you didn't know what the term means and you misused it. Take your lumps and move on.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "LOL! Face it Nic, you didn't know what the term means and you misused it. Take your lumps and move on."

      Laugh all you want, genius. You're the one demonstrating you don't understand the difference between a condition and the symptoms of a condition. You'd make a great doctor. You would probably give a hemophiliac a box of band aids and send him home.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      Laugh all you want, genius. You're the one demonstrating you don't understand the difference between a condition and the symptoms of a condition.


      LOL! Go ahead genius. Tell us how you determined BioLogos is suffering from anxiety and mental anguish over evolution when they exhibit zero such symptoms. By all accounts they are quite happy and content with their assessment of the scientific evidence not contradicting their interpretation of scripture.

      Looks like you were merely projecting your own cognitive dissonance onto them.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "Tell us how you determined BioLogos is suffering from anxiety and mental anguish over evolution when they exhibit zero such symptoms."

      I never said they were suffering from anxiety and mental anguish, I simply said the were functioning under cognitive dissonance. You don't seem to be able to catch on to the difference between a condition and a symptom.

      Mental anguish and anxiety are the symptoms, cognitive dissonance is the condition. They can have the condition and not outwardly display the symptoms. How can you not grasp that?

      "By all accounts they are quite happy and content with their assessment of the scientific evidence not contradicting their interpretation of scripture."

      And that is the cognitive dissonance. On one hand they accept the evolution of man, while at the same time claiming to accept the Bible which clearly teaches man was created and did not evolve.

      As for me, I do not suffer cognitive dissonance in regards to the origin of man. I believe the idea that man and chimps share a common ancestor is palpable rubbish.

      Maybe you need to take a break and do a little reading on the differences between a condition and a symptom.

      Delete
    7. Nic

      GR; "By all accounts they are quite happy and content with their assessment of the scientific evidence not contradicting their interpretation of scripture."

      And that is the cognitive dissonance.


      LOL! I see you still don't understand what the term means even after it was clearly explained to you. Too funny!

      Delete
    8. ghostrider,

      LOL! I see you still don't understand what the term means even after it was clearly explained to you. Too funny!"

      Suit yourself.

      Delete
  4. "Yet we are concerned that a decision like this effectively sets faith commitments in opposition to clear scientific evidence in God’s creation. We would like to see Christian colleges encouraging their scholars to engage the scientific evidence that humans evolved, and acknowledge that this can be done without letting go of biblical authority."

    This is the product of shallow thinking. The Bible tells us that death is the result of sin, whereas evolutionary "science" tells us that death is just part of the natural order. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve rebelled against God and this brought sin and death into the world, and this premise is at the very heart of the Apostle Paul's salvation doctrine. He didn't consider Adam and Eve to be metaphors. Shatter his premise and you're left scratching your head, wondering why we should trust Paul in light of his erroneous views.

    What the folks at BioLogos don't tell you is that, while it may be possible to harmonize something one can choose to call "Christianity" with evolutionary theory, it isn't biblical Christianity or historic Christianity, but an ugly mutation that lays the blame for sin and death on God's shoulders.

    If, as James McGrath likes to say, God is so awesome that he "makes things make themselves", then sin, death, disease, suffering, etc must ultimately be seen as part of that which brings glory to God. After all, according to that paradigm, God is the one who chose to use a process that was destined to bring about a world with such attributes, so those attributes must be part of the testimony to his greatness.

    This leaves us wondering why we need a savior at all, as the attributes from which we wish to be saved are attributes of God's chosen process, which bring him glory and are therefore "good". God wants to save us from the consequences of his own choices?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius Hunter

    Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely.


    Then what does this abundant genetic and fossil evidence support? Give us your alternative non-evolutionary explanation and let's discuss it.

    You fellow Discovery Institute denizen Stephen Meyer claims the "Intelligent Designer" came to Earth during the Cambrian era some 530 million years ago and over 10-20 million years created all the basic animal body plans we see today. However he doesn't explain the life forms we find in the 2 billion years before the Cambrian and he doesn't explain the diverse fossil record after the Cambrian. Do you agree with Meyer? Can you fill in the huge gaps in his story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius Hunter:

      Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely.

      ghostrider:

      Then what does this abundant genetic and fossil evidence support? Give us your alternative non-evolutionary explanation and let's discuss it.

      Your fellow Discovery Institute denizen Stephen Meyer claims the "Intelligent Designer" came to Earth during the Cambrian era some 530 million years ago and over 10-20 million years created all the basic animal body plans we see today. However he doesn't explain the life forms we find in the 2 billion years before the Cambrian and he doesn't explain the diverse fossil record after the Cambrian. Do you agree with Meyer? Can you fill in the huge gaps in his story?


      Cornelius Hunter, can you please address these questions? Thanks.

      Delete
    2. I'm afraid you'll have to ask Meyer about that.

      Delete
  6. "And even though God used the natural mechanisms of evolution to create humans, he also made us spiritual beings"

    So, the spiritual emerged from the material via evolution? Impressive! Miraculous, even.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This entire article equates to Atheist propaganda. Evolution and Naturalism, prior to 1859 when Darwin published "On The Origin Of Species," had ZERO scientific or philosophical acceptance.

    Prior to 1859 the term "natural" presupposed design and supernatural or Intelligent causation; hence natural theology.

    So the author of this article is incredibly ignorant or incredibly wicked; I go with the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Science is not about aggregate statistical measures, it is about the particulars. Those aggregate measures show there are patterns, but the patterns are not consistent with evolutionary theory. You can make the flat earth and geocentrism look good with statistics, but that doesn’t make them true."

    Heh, no, science is about both the overall pattern and the particulars. It's about acknowledging when there is a big obvious pattern in the data, even if there are a few less-than-perfect matches in the data. There is always measurement error and other sources of unexplained variance in any measurement of anything interesting in biology. This is a lot of the reason that statistics was invented in the first place, to allow us to discern patterns despite the existence of noise.

    You know what we call focusing on small deviations from the overall pattern, and taking them in a naive and simple-minded way to represent falsifications of a huge dominant pattern in the data? Cherry-picking. Making the perfect the enemy of the good. It doesn't taken long before such behavior amounts to either lying or self-delusion.

    The tree pattern is in the data. It is very strong. The exceptions, when measured quantitatively, are minor. Evolution has a good explanation of this. Your only explanation is "because God creates according to his good pleasure", which for some reason was to mirror a phylogenetic tree.

    You're the one letting theology get in the way of following the data where it leads, Cornelius.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The tree pattern is in the data. It is very strong. The exceptions, when measured quantitatively, are minor.

      Actually they are not at all minor. This view is a consequence of evolutionary confirmation bias. Similar and even identical characters are found in otherwise very distant species. Completely different characters are found in otherwise very similar species. I brought up the orangutan--human contradiction because it bears on Haarsma's claims about human evolution. There are many, many more examples such as this, which contradict evolution. They are not measurement noise, or evolutionary noise or variations. They don't make sense on evolution.

      You're the one letting theology get in the way of following the data where it leads, Cornelius.

      Again, you have it backwards. It makes no difference to me whether evolution is true or not. But you (and evolutionists in general, not just you) have repeated stated that your theology mandates evolution to be true.

      Delete
    2. Cherry-picking. Look at *all* the data in any morphological study, not just this or that character. It's not like the studies haven't been done. Read Theobald's Common Ancestry FAQ at talk.origins for a thorough review.

      Delete
    3. All one needs to know about Theobald's Common Ancestry FAQ is that, as evidence for the theory that the phylogenetic signal in the tree of life proves common ancestry of all life, he appeals to the phylogenetic signal in language as analogous.
      Think about it.

      Delete
    4. drc466

      All one needs to know about Theobald's Common Ancestry FAQ is that, as evidence for the theory that the phylogenetic signal in the tree of life proves common ancestry of all life, he appeals to the phylogenetic signal in language as analogous.
      Think about it.


      The language analogy isn't offered as proof or evidence of the common descent of life It's an illustration of how we can produce objective nested hierarchies from data sets. What exactly is the problem?

      Delete
  9. NickM,

    "Your only explanation is "because God creates according to his good pleasure", which for some reason was to mirror a phylogenetic tree."

    What if that just happens to be true? Or are you going to claim you understand how God would have and should have done things?

    Also, having a good explanation; which is debatable; does not mean it is the correct explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. =========
      NicJuly 27, 2015 at 4:18 PM
      NickM,

      "Your only explanation is "because God creates according to his good pleasure", which for some reason was to mirror a phylogenetic tree."

      What if that just happens to be true? Or are you going to claim you understand how God would have and should have done things?
      =========

      You can similarly say "God made the Earth look old, even though it's young." Look up the Omphalos argument, it's a famous debate. Could be true, yes, but it's not *explaining* anything. It's just taking the ultimate free parameter, an inscrutable all-powerful being, and using that to merely restate the facts. I could say Thor turned his lightning into the phylogenetic tree and that's why it has a fractal shape, or any other ridiculous thing you can imagine. These sorts of "explanations" do no explaining, they don't create any expectations about the data, they are untestable, they are useless, they are not science.

      This is why Omphalos-type arguments are regarded as navel-gazing.

      Also, what ghostrider said.

      Delete
    2. NickM,

      "You can similarly say "God made the Earth look old, even though it's young."

      How did you come up with that nonsense? That has nothing to do with my comment. I was not making an argument that God created the world to look old. Such an argument presupposes you know what a young Earth would look like.

      Evolutionists are fond of believing they know how God would and should do things. Such an attitude is riddled with arrogance and rife with ignorance, a very bad combination.

      "Also, what ghostrider said."

      You refer to ghostrider for support? Now that is just hilarious.

      Delete
  10. Nic

    Also, having a good explanation; which is debatable; does not mean it is the correct explanation.


    But it's the one we're going with until someone comes up with another that explains all the empirical data in a better, more consilient manner.

    I see all sorts of ID-Creationists screaming about how terrible the theory of evolution is but not one will offer a viable alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ghostrider,

    "But it's the one we're going with,..."

    I think you meant to say it's the one you're going with. I'm not going with it and neither are millions of other people.

    "I see all sorts of ID-Creationists screaming about how terrible the theory of evolution is but not one will offer a viable alternative."

    And you get to determine which explanations are viable, right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nic

    I think you meant to say it's the one you're going with. I'm not going with it and neither are millions of other people.


    If a minority of people choose to remain willfully ignorant of the scientific evidence that's their choice.

    And you get to determine which explanations are viable, right?

    Offer one and we'll see how well it fits the empirical data. That's how science makes the determination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ghostrider,

      "If a minority of people choose to remain willfully ignorant of the scientific evidence that's their choice."

      No body is talking about people who choose to be wilfully ignorant. Your mistake is you believe the particular interpretation of evidence you choose to accept is the only interpretation. Now that's wilful ignorance in spades.

      "That's how science makes the determination."

      Sorry pal, science is not the arbiter. It is strictly a process and as a process it is subject to processor bias.

      Delete
    2. Nic

      Your mistake is you believe the particular interpretation of evidence you choose to accept is the only interpretation


      Not all interpretations are equal Nic. Science goes with the one that explains the evidence in the most parsimonious manner, the one that doesn't require special pleading or miracles, the one that considers the consilience of evidence from different fields as a unified whole, the one that doesn't cherry-pick outliers while ignoring the other 99% of contradictory data, the one that produces testable predictions and is falsifiable. Right now the theory of evolution is the only idea that meets all those criteria.

      I see you have no alternate explanation for the patterns in the fossil and genetic records. All you know how to do is bash the evolutionary science you don't understand.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "Not all interpretations are equal Nic."

      I won't argue with that. But suffice it to say it is a matter of interpretation as to which interpretation is superior.

      "the one that doesn't require special pleading or miracles,'..."

      Now that's a real hoot. Evolution is nothing but special pleading and miracles, starting with the miracle of life arising spontaneously. If creationists say God created life ex nihilo you scoff and throw about insults regarding people's intelligence. Yet you consider it scientific to say life just happened to start all on its own with no intelligence involved at all. It's true there is a lack of intelligence involved in this equation, but it's not with the origin of life.

      "I see you have no alternate explanation for the patterns in the fossil and genetic records."

      If I remember correctly I asked you before what patterns you were referring too. I got nothing in reply but static.

      Delete
    4. Nic

      Now that's a real hoot. Evolution is nothing but special pleading and miracles, starting with the miracle of life arising spontaneously.


      Evolution does not cover abiogenesis. Evolution is what happens after we have imperfectly self reproducing organisms competing for limited resources. Now you know better than to make that beginner's mistake again.

      If I remember correctly I asked you before what patterns you were referring too. I got nothing in reply but static

      The patterns are the empirically observed phylogenetic trees. In the fossil record they are based on morphological similarities and the time the species existed on the planet. The whole science of paleontology is based on it.

      Here's a sample from the U. Of Bristol, England Paleontology Department

      Numerical study of dinosaur evolution

      You can build similar best fit phylogenetic tree from the genetic record of extant species

      Tree of Life Phylogeny Project

      The patterns are real, they're there, anyone can see them. Do you have an explanation that meets all the criteria I listed for best interpretation above?

      Delete
    5. ghostrider,

      "Evolution does not cover abiogenesis."

      I'm afraid it must, whether it wants too or not. True, you can't have evolution until there is something to evolve, but you also cannot champion the process of evolution until you explain how you wound up with something to evolve. In other words you need to explain where your imperfect self reproducing organisms came from.

      So, my learned friend, you are in somewhat of a logical pickle and you have no solution to your quandary.

      "The patterns are real, they're there, anyone can see them."

      It's not so much a question of whether the patterns are there or not. The vital question is how did they come to be there?

      Delete
    6. Nic

      "Evolution does not cover abiogenesis."

      I'm afraid it must, whether it wants too or not. True, you can't have evolution until there is something to evolve, but you also cannot champion the process of evolution until you explain how you wound up with something to evolve.


      No Nic, I don't need to explain abiogenesis to understand evolution anymore than I have to explain the origin of atoms to understand chemistry. They are two separate topics.

      It's not so much a question of whether the patterns are there or not. The vital question is how did they come to be there?

      I gave you my explanation, an explanation that is consilient and parsimonious with the empirical data. What is your explanation for the branching phylogenetic patterns I showed you? I've only asked about half a dozen times now.

      No hand-waving away the question with the "common designer" non-answer. You need a timeline and a mechanism for the observed phenomena if you want to replace evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    7. ghostrider,

      "No Nic, I don't need to explain abiogenesis to understand evolution,..."

      But you do need an explanation of the origin of life for evolution to have any credibility.

      "What is your explanation for the branching phylogenetic patterns I showed you?"

      You've already categorically rejected my explanation, so what's the point? And despite your categorization, it is not a 'hand waving' response.

      As for a timeline and mechanism how about you provide the same for evolution. I sure hope you're not still clinging to random mutation and natural selection as a mechanism.

      Delete
    8. Nic

      But you do need an explanation of the origin of life for evolution to have any credibility.


      No Nic, I don't. Your willful ignorance is of no matter to science.

      You've already categorically rejected my explanation, so what's the point?

      The point is you want me to drop evolutionary theory for your version. However you have yet to provide any explanation. You have no timeline, no mechanism.

      Science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. life has been on the planet for at least 3.5 billion years, quite possibly earlier. The first multi-cellular animals appeared around 650 million years ago. Life evolved and diversified since then. Along the way there have been at least five major mass extinction events with re-radiations of new species after each one. The first tetrapods appeared around 400 MYA. The dinosaurs appeared around 230 MYA and lasted for 135 MY. The first canines and felines appeared around 40 MYA. Anatomically modern humans appeared around 200 KYA.

      The mechanism for evolution is genetic variation that is subjected to feedback selection and passed on as heritable traits. The sources of genetic variation are genetic mutations (SNPs, duplication, insertions/deletions, frame shifts, etc) as well as sexual recombination, genetic drift, and lateral gene transfer between species.

      There. Now if you want to replace the scientific explanation you need to come up with your own details that fit the empirical data better. So where's your timeline and mechanisms?

      Delete
    9. ghostrider,

      "No Nic, I don't. Your willful ignorance is of no matter to science."

      In your mind you don't, but that is of no consequence to the facts.

      You speak of science as if it is some all knowing fount of wisdom and knowledge. It's nothing more than a man made construct of investigation, susceptible to the presuppositions of those who use it. It is a tool and that is all it is. And like any tool it can be abused and used for purposes for which it was never intended. Evolutionists happen to use it in an effort to justify their world view. And in your world view you happen to believe you do not need to explain certain things, such as the origin of life. And as it just so happens you can't explain the origin of life this belief works out quite convenient for you.

      So you can go on continuing to tell yourself you don't need to answer these questions and console yourself with the false belief that is actually the case. For evolutionists this falsehood works quite well, but for that part of the population which actually thinks it is seen for the abdication it really is. You have no answer so you pretend it is not required.

      "Science says,..."

      Science says nothing, genius, men say those things. My but you are slow to catch on to the obvious.

      "The mechanism for evolution is genetic variation that is subjected to feedback selection and passed on as heritable traits."

      Also known as random mutation and natural selection. Nice try though.

      Delete
    10. Nic

      In your mind you don't, but that is of no consequence to the facts.


      Once again Nic you typed lots of empty rhetoric but you forgot to give me your details on the explanation for the phylogenetic tree patterns we see. You have no timeline, no mechanisms, nothing but hot air.

      The theory of evolution wins. :)

      Delete
    11. ghostrider,


      "you forgot to give me your details on the explanation for the phylogenetic tree patterns we see."

      You said you did not want to hear anything about design, so I honoured your request.


      Delete
    12. Nic

      "you forgot to give me your details on the explanation for the phylogenetic tree patterns we see."

      You said you did not want to hear anything about design, so I honoured your request.


      Coward. I didn't want to hear just the "common designer" empty hand-wave excuse but instead asked for your details: your timeline and mechanism.

      It's obvious you have nothing to offer. You're one more big talking Creationist who's all hat, no cattle.

      Delete
    13. ghostrider,

      "Coward. I didn't want to hear just the "common designer" empty hand-wave excuse but instead asked for your details: your timeline and mechanism."

      The timeline and the mechanism are all tied in with a common designer. As you have made it very clear you do not want to hear about anything to do with a common designer you are perfectly correct, I have nothing to offer to you.

      But those with a more open mind; which would be just about anybody compared to you; may be interested in exploring alternate explanations.

      Your attitude seems to be one controlled by nastiness. Why is that? Can you not carry on a civil conversation and give respect to the views of others? That type of attitude is usually the sign of someone who is on the defensive and feels they are losing ground. Could be you I think.

      Take care and don't be afraid to seek help with your attitude.



      Delete
    14. Nic

      The timeline and the mechanism are all tied in with a common designer. As you have made it very clear you do not want to hear about anything to do with a common designer you are perfectly correct, I have nothing to offer to you.


      Of course you have nothing of any scientific value to offer. You're just another Creationist empty vessel making lots of noise.

      Coward.

      Delete
    15. ghostrider,

      "Of course you have nothing of any scientific value to offer. You're just another Creationist empty vessel making lots of noise."

      No, nothing under your definition of science. But isn't it wonderful for the world that your little pea-brain definitions don't really matter at all to those who are sincere in their efforts to understand what is true and what is not.

      It would be a very good idea to seek some help for your attitude, it wears thin real fast.

      Delete
    16. Nic

      No, nothing under your definition of science


      Nothing under any definition of science.

      If you find a land where "science" is defined as "Creationist empty rhetoric and blustering hot air" you may have something.

      Why don't you provide your "common design" timeline and mechanisms for the lurkers? I'm obviously unworthy but you can prove to them you weren't just lying about having such details.

      Go ahead Nic, either fish or cut bait.

      Delete
  13. Nic: "I think you meant to say it's the one you're going with. I'm not going with it and neither are millions of other people."

    Millions? name them. Or, at least 9,283 of them. Of 1,000.

    If you are going to make a claim, support it. If not....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Nic, I apologize for using hyperbole to respond to your hyperbole. Unfortunately, I assumed that you would grasp the obvious.

      Delete
    3. William,

      "Nic, I apologize for using hyperbole to respond to your hyperbole. Unfortunately, I assumed that you would grasp the obvious."

      Then I apologize for missing your point. That is a drawback with this format of discussion, there are no verbal cues to pick up on. If you had said audibly what you typed I'm sure I would have picked up on it.

      Delete
    4. Nic, I have often said that blogs would significantly improve if we could all agree on a sarcasm font.

      Delete
    5. William,

      I would love to see that.

      Delete
    6. Nic, why did you remove your comment?

      Delete
    7. William,

      "Nic, why did you remove your comment?"

      I felt it had become an inappropriate comment considering the circumstances.

      Delete
  14. Cornelius, I know that this is completely off topic but I just read this comment at UD, and I know that you have posting privileges there.

    Peter: "As you don’t care if your race goes extinct then I guess that you are comfortable with women voting. My personal opinion is that feminism destroys societies. It caused the collapse of the Roman empire. I want my race to survive. So I would imitate the millions of Muslims successfully taking over Europe and increasing in number in America. I think Muslims have achieved the maximum level of woman’s rights. The treatment of women by Muslims is no different btw then how our Bible says to treat woman. I am afraid I have to defer to the steadfast words for God."

    I just find it amusing that I am not allowed to post there because I present arguments against ID, but this moron is allowed to post comments.

    I would like to think that Barry will intercede, but given his track record, I wouldn't bet on it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You fellow Discovery Institute denizen Stephen Meyer claims the "Intelligent Designer" came to Earth during the Cambrian era some 530 million years ago and over 10-20 million years created all the basic animal body plans we see today. However he doesn't explain the life forms we find in the 2 billion years before the Cambrian and he doesn't explain the diverse fossil record after the Cambrian. Do you agree with Meyer? Can you fill in the huge gaps in his story?"

    Why pretend to know what no one knows? I can respect the scientist who admits that we just don't know certain hows and whens, but I don't respect the committed Darwinian who insists on filling gaps with their preferred religion sans compelling evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alethinon61

      Why pretend to know what no one knows? I can respect the scientist who admits that we just don't know certain hows and whens, but I don't respect the committed Darwinian who insists on filling gaps with their preferred religion sans compelling evidence.


      Do you agree with Meyer?

      Real science has a perfectly good explanation for the fossil record before and after the Cambrian. One that is backed with considerable empirical evidence. Creationist propagandists like Meyer won't even touch the subject because they know their BS wouldn't last a second when put under critical scrutiny.

      Craven curs, the lot of 'em.

      Delete
  16. ghostrider,

    "Nothing under any definition of science."

    This attitude is why it is pointless talking to you. No matter what anyone says you just define it your own way and ridicule their intelligence. I would have better luck talking to brick as it possesses more integrity when it comes to discussing viewpoints in an adult manner. You're all about insults and nothing else.

    As I said earlier, it is a good thing your little pea-brain does not set the rules outside of your own little corner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      No matter what anyone says you just define it your own way and ridicule their intelligence.


      We'll never know when it comes to your timeline and mechanism for common design because you can't find the sack to post them.

      Not my problem I called your bluff and you can't produce.

      Delete
    2. "This attitude is why it is pointless talking to you."

      You're lamenting that a troll has an attitude? LOL

      The only reason Trolls troll is for the "fun" of being obnoxious, which is why interacting with them is not only a waste of time, but unhealthy, esp. to them, as it feeds their disease.

      If Cornelius were to insist on mature, respectful dialogue and delete all comments made by trolls, they'd go away, because this forum wouldn't be any "fun" for them anymore.

      And most of them know that they are behaving badly, which is why they hide behind names like "ghostrider".

      The reason they can't resist displaying condescension, braggadocio, and petulance, etc. is because ID hits a nerve. Deep down they know that life exhibits signs of intelligent causation, and their petulance is a symptom of their own congnative dissonance. If I were determined to promote absurdities I'd have a bad attitude too:-) The cure is in their hands, but it's too bitter for them to swallow.

      ~Sean

      Delete
    3. Alethinon61

      And most of them know that they are behaving badly, which is why they hide behind names like "ghostrider".


      LOL! It takes a real hypocrit to criticize others for using a handle while using a handle himself.

      BTW, I see you couldn't find the courage to give the ID-Creationist explanation for the observed phylogenies in the fossil and genetic records either. Can you provide your timeline and mechanisms that explains the empirical data? No other ID-Creationist will try. I guarantee you'll run from the question too.

      Delete
    4. "LOL! It takes a real hypocrit to criticize others for using a handle while using a handle himself."

      LOL! It takes real troll to offer such a response to a post in which I used my real name. Too funny.

      Delete
    5. Alethinon61

      It takes real troll to offer such a response to a post in which I used my real name.


      Your entire real name, the one you put on your driver's license and income tax returns is just "Sean"? Somehow that strikes me as being untruthful.

      It doesn't surprise me you also ran from the question about phylogenies over deep time. Don't worry, all the other Creationists ran too.

      Delete
    6. "It doesn't surprise me you also ran from the question about phylogenies over deep time. Don't worry, all the other Creationists ran too."

      Nah, it's just an ill-conceived question, which reveals your ignorance of what ID is and claims to be.

      You're asking ID advocates to answer an evolutionist's question, which is like asking a paleontologist to answer a question about astronomy and then calling them "cowards" when they shake their heads and turn their attention to those who actually understand what their science is about.

      Here are some questions for evolutionists that are at the very heart of their field of study and which they should feel some responsibility to answer:

      1. How many random variations did it take to cause what began as a population of land-roaming creatures to gradually be transformed via descent with modification over a large span of time into a population of whales?

      2. What specific random variations occurred, and how -- specifically -- did said variations effect the gradual transformation?

      3. What caused the specific random variations to occur?

      Evolutionist are not only unable to answer these questions, but they can't even answer a much simpler one, posed by David Berlinski during the Firing Line debate, i.e. how may *morphological* changes were required?

      Neo-Darwinism is a higgledy piggledy theory of Que Sera Sera, which has all the explanatory power of a bumper sticker.

      Delete
    7. LOL! One name Sean is back with the usual Creationist evasions. Refusing to provide even one single detail about his GODDIDIT claims while demanding infinite detail from science.

      It's both stupid and dishonest to demand science recreate to the molecular level every event that happened 40 million years ago. Even with a time machine and an army of DNA sequencers we couldn't get that level of detail. We do know some of the genetic changes like the fact the Ssh (sonic hedgehog) gene involved in hind limb development is still present in cetaceans but is now not expressed.

      Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea

      Geneticist just laughed at Berkinski's ridiculous lie that one night he counted 50,000 changes to morph a cow into a whale.

      Asking what caused specific random mutations is as stupid as asking what caused a roll of the dice to come up 4-3 and not 5-2.

      When the ID-Creationists provide their first bit of "design" evidence like a timeline and a physical mechanism then they can start demanding things of science.

      Delete
    8. "LOL! One name Sean is back with the usual Creationist evasions. Refusing to provide even one single detail about his GODDIDIT claims while demanding infinite detail from science."

      Keep talking, you're merely highlighting your own ignorance of what ID is and claims to be and of phylogenetics with such comments.

      Wiki: "In biology, phylogenetics...is the study of phylogeny, or the evolutionary history, development and relationships among groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations)."

      The very definition of the term phylogeny has to do with "evolutionary history," so to ask creationists and ID advocates to provide a "creationist phylogenetic timeline" is really remarkably ill-conceived.

      The purpose of questions for neo-Darwinists really went over your head. Everyone knows that we can't reconstruct the history of variations that led from a land-roaming creature to a whale, a they're long gone, along with their genes. However, those are the sorts of questions that *should be* answerable if evolution were truly a rigorous "scientific" theory. But it's not a rigorous scientific theory; it's a higgledy piggledy theory of Que Sera Sera, which has all the explanatory power of a bumper sticker.

      ~Sean Garrigan

      Delete
    9. I should add that the failure of evolutionists to demonstrate their theory by providing rigorous evidence isn't limited to creatures whose genomes are lost to history. The same hippopotomonstro lacunae in the body of reasonably expected evidence exists vis a vis living creatures:

      "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a vareity of wishful speculations." (Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of LIfe, Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 205

      Harold was no doubt merely confirming what was observed five years earlier by James Shapiro, who observed the same lacunae:

      "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in
      illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996, found here: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed...

      ~Sean Garrigan

      Delete
    10. LOL! The Creationist still demands science provide infinite details when the Creationist can't provide a single one.

      Do you want some cheese with that whine?

      Delete
    11. "LOL! The Creationist still demands science provide infinite details when the Creationist can't provide a single one."

      LOL! The Darwinists has deluded herself into thinking that providing evidence that neo-Darwinism can do what it's advocates claim with respect to one single organism is to ask for "infinite details".

      Of the myriad creatures that exist and have existed, you can't provide a rigorous Darwinian account of the emergence of _a single one_ of them. You folks can't even provide a rigorous Darwinian account of a biochemical system, much less a whole creature.

      "Do you want some cheese with that whine?"

      Nah, listening to you whine doesn't make me hungry. I can certainly understand why you whine, though. You not only asked a really dumb question -- a mistake you wouldn't have made if you had even a rudimentary understanding of creationism, ID, and, most remarkably, phylogenetics -- but you made a complete fool of yourself by asking the same dumb question again, and again, and again. In your ignorance you managed to delude yourself into thinking that you had stumbled upon the great creation stumbler, when the only one who's stumbled is you. Given your obnoxious attitude, I can't say that I lament the fact that you're standing there with mud on your face.

      ~Sean Garrigan

      Delete
    12. Alethinon61

      Of the myriad creatures that exist and have existed, you can't provide a rigorous Darwinian account of the emergence of _a single one_ of them.


      I just provided a fairly detailed analysis of the consilient genetic and fossil evidence for cetacean evolution. Sorry that it made you soil yourself. Send me the dry cleaning bill.

      When will you be providing account of how and when all the species in the clade cetacea were "designed"?

      Why do ignorant YECs think if they ignore all the evidence the evidence will mysteriously go away?

      Delete
  17. ghostrider,

    "Not my problem I called your bluff and you can't produce."

    If you had any interest in listening to what I say I might go ahead and say it, but it is obvious all you want to do is ridicule anything anyone may say to question evolution. You're not looking to exchange ideas, you're simply trolling for people on whom you can hurl insults and invective. I'm not playing that game.

    The bottom line is you are simply too immature to waste time on. "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs,..." Matthew 7:6

    Wasting my breath on you would indeed be casting pearls before swine.

    You can crow all you want about how I am a coward and have nothing to offer, and you made me run away in fear. I'm sure that will make you feel really special. Pity the poor little mind that is you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      If you had any interest in listening to what I say I might go ahead and say it, but it is obvious all you want to do is ridicule anything anyone may say to question evolution.


      Creationist lame excuse #3247.

      Where's that "common design" timeline and mechanisms you bragged about having? You must want all the lurkers to know you were lying about having such evidence too.

      If you spent 1/10 the time producing your non-evolutionary explanations for the observed phylogenies as you do in whining we could have finished days ago.

      Delete
  18. Transparent bluff:

    If you had any interest in listening to what I say I might go ahead and say it, but it is obvious all you want to do is ridicule anything anyone may say to question evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "Transparent bluff:"

      Nope, just tired of his nasty, arrogant attitude.

      Delete
    2. Nic

      "Transparent bluff:"

      Nope, just tired of his nasty, arrogant attitude


      Where "nasty, arrogant attitude" = "asks tough questions about my Creationist claims I can't answer."

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "Where "nasty, arrogant attitude" = "asks tough questions about my Creationist claims I can't answer."

      Thanks for demonstrating my point.

      Delete
    4. Nic

      Thanks for demonstrating my point.


      Thanks for demonstrating mine by running away every time you were asked to provide that "common design" timeline and mechanism you bragged about having.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider,

      "Thanks for demonstrating mine by running away every time you were asked to provide that "common design" timeline and mechanism you bragged about having."

      As I already said, you've made it abundantly clear you will accept no explanations involving design, so I simply will say nothing. What's the point?

      Delete
    6. Nic

      "Thanks for demonstrating mine by running away every time you were asked to provide that "common design" timeline and mechanism you bragged about having."

      As I already said, you've made it abundantly clear you will accept no explanations involving design, so I simply will say nothing. What's the point?


      You won't even provide it for the lurkers because it doesn't exist. The point is to demonstrate the emptiness of your inane Creationist claims for the lurkers to see. So far you're cooperating wonderfully.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  21. ghostrider,
    You spend a lot of time talking about the "observed phylogenies" that "prove" common descent. Here's my response, which I won't pretend represents any particular other view (as a matter of record, I consider myself YEC):
    1) Given the huge variety of created life, you can ALWAYS create a "phylogeny" based on homology, simply by picking and choosing which characteristics you wish to focus on. It would, in fact, be arbitrarily limiting to only create life forms that did NOT share some number of characteristics
    2) Different phylogenies can be easily created simply by changing which homologous characteristics are used, which are ignored, and what level of precedence is applied. And if you can make any number of "trees" that all disagree, it is ridiculous to say that the ability to make "a tree" proves common descent in any way.
    3) It is impossible to create a tree that consistently applies its "rules" for placement. Phylogenies use a mix of "best fit", "least contradiction", maximum parsimony, "gut-feel"(sarc), etc., etc., because species are being force-fit to match the theory, NOT because they fall into a natural phylogeny.
    3) Easy examples that show the silliness of "phylogenies prove common descent": chimeras like the platypus; animals with multiple homologies and "convergences" like the bat; gaps between major categories (single/multi-cell, vertebrate/invertebrate, sexual/asexual, flying/non-flying, etc.); force-fit animals that ignore MAJOR homologies/"convergences" (egg/live laying lizards/snakes, near-identical forms of mammal/marsupial); and basically all forms of "convergent" evolution that cross huge phylum/class boundaries (eyes, wings, reproductive methods, etc.).

    Any time I hear the "observed phylogenies" bluff, I simply roll my eyes. Of course, the last time I had this argument, the same people I was arguing with said (in all seriousness) that languages, with their "observed phylogenies" are another case of common descent, and don't show Intelligent Creation/Design. Really.

    ReplyDelete
  22. drc466

    You spend a lot of time talking about the "observed phylogenies" that "prove" common descent.


    I've never once said phlogenies "prove" common descent. I've said they are strong evidence for common descent, which they are. The common descent explanation is also consilient with all the other evidence we have from other sciences like genetics, geology, and the physics of radiometric dating.

    I've asked repeatedly for a non-evolutionary explanation for the observed phylogenetic patterns that encompasses all the evidence in a more consilient and parsimonious manner but no Creationist will step forward. Will you be the one? Or will it be the usual YEC stupidity about how Noah's Flood magically managed to sort all the fossils into different geologic strata? About how radiometric decay rates varied by 10 orders of magnitude without melting the planet into slag from the excess heat?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot the problem:
      1) "I've asked repeatedly for a non-evolutionary explanation ... but no Creationist will step forward."
      2) "will it be the usual YEC stupidity about how Noah's Flood magically managed to sort all the fossils into geologic strata? About how radiometric decay rates varied by 10 orders of magnitude without melting the planet into slag from the excess heat?"

      First, these two points are self-contradictory. Either you haven't gotten an explanation, or you have got an explanation but you don't like it. The key is in the weasel words "..that encompasses all the evidence in a more consilient and parsimonious manner...". So, basically, you set yourself up as judge and jury on what explanation is best, decide that the Creationist one doesn't qualify, and declare yourself the (unanswered) winner. Hint: Just because you don't like the answer you get, doesn't mean you didn't get one.
      Second, the "common descent explanation" is also consilient with "all the other evidence" as long as you ignore, dismiss, or throw out any evidence that, when taken at face value, isn't "consilient". In addition to the non-"consilient" evidences that I provided in point 3 of my post above (e.g. the platypus), you have things like dinosaur organic material, non-racemized amino acids, fiascoes like the coelecanth, poly-strata fossils, etc. While evolutionists can "explain away" the data some of the time, claiming that "all evidence is consilient" is quite a stretch.
      Third, while I enjoy hyperbole in service to ridiculing a point, and use it often myself, it loses its impact when to make the point your claim is deceptive at the least and an outright lie at worst. Creationists do NOT claim that Noah's Flood magically managed to sort fossils into different geologic strata. They DO claim that a significant amount of the pattern of fossil mixing is caused by the (scientific, not magical) sorting action that occurs based on size, mobility, habitat, and other features of life and environment during a catastrophic flood. In addition, fossil layers are significantly less uniform than is claimed. Out-of-place fossils are common, as are inverted an vertical strata. From a logical standpoint, fossil layers are essentially what one would expect from a large scale catastrophe. For example, if the U.S. were suddenly and catastrophically flooded, what would we expect? Single-celled life, being the most ubiquitous and numerous and well-adapted to a variety of environments, would be found in the deepest layers. Smaller, less mobile life forms would be found next. Reptiles, amphibians, domesticated animals, wild animals, and man would be found based on environment and mobility, with very little mixing. Additionally, based on the size and speed of the flooding, soft-bodied life forms would in fact be fossilized (not likely over long periods of time), and fish would be found basically everywhere.
      While you may find the YEC explanation unconvincing, and have provided two objections (sorting, radioactivity), may I point out that you probably believe in abiogenesis, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, Oort clouds and Kuiper belts, convergent evolution, million-year old DNA, and six impossible things before breakfast. I'll accept the problems with radioactivity, I don't find catastrophic flood geology at all unscientific, unreasonable or illogical, and I'd rather believe that than that there is no faint-sun paradox, or that Pluto has "magically" remained young and active for 4 billion years.
      In conclusion: what you've "repeatedly" asked for is an explanation that you then refuse to accept. I would suggest that this implies not a fault in the responder, but the asker. A more accurate description is that you are a firm believer in evolution's just-so stories, and refuse to accept other explanations.

      Delete
    2. drc466

      In conclusion: what you've "repeatedly" asked for is an explanation that you then refuse to accept.


      The "GODDIDIT!" YEC explanation has been so thoroughly beaten to death in the last 100 years it's not even a fine pink mist anymore.

      Tell me why we have GISP2 ice core samples with 800,000 years of continuous yearly layers and lakes like Suigetsu with 60,000 undisturbed yearly varve layers.

      If all animals descended fro the "kinds' on the Ark only 4500 years ago tell me why we see no signs of genetic bottlenecks in any of millions of animal species.

      Tell me how the Chinese and Egyptian civilizations managed to live right through the Flood without even noticing.

      Tell me how the deciduous trees and clams managed to outrun / outfly every last velociraptor and pterosaur to higher ground during The Flood.

      Sorry but the Earth is not 6000 years old, there was no global "Noah's Flood", there was no Tower of Babel. It takes a certain kind of mental defect to reject the consilient findings of virtually every scientific field we know in favor of your religious fantasies.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "Tell me how the Chinese and Egyptian civilizations managed to live right through the Flood without even noticing."

      With the oldest known recorded history being only 5,000 or so years old I don't really see the problem.

      Delete
    4. LOL. It looks like ghost when TheWholeTruth on you drc466. Keep taking her to the proverbial woodshed for us. She needs a good tanning.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      With the oldest known recorded history being only 5,000 or so years old I don't really see the problem.


      Wrong as usual Nic. The Jiahu settlement in China has been dated by at least four independent dating methods and goes back to 7000 BC, at least 3000 years before you claimed the world was created.

      Jiahu

      If the Wiki overview isn't good enough I can provide any number of papers from the primary literature on the archaeological research.

      TL and IRSL dating of Jiahu relics and sediments: clue of 7th millennium BC civilization in central China

      Don't you ever tire of being so wrong so often?

      Delete
    6. Actually, ghost, your list of "Tell me..."s provides an excellent demonstration of my point that it isn't that you haven't been given answers, it is just that you merely refuse to accept them. All of your "tell me"s have fairly simple answers, that can easily be located on any number of YEC sites, or creationist literature. A short version of possible answers you have already heard, but rejected:
      Ice Cores/Varves: Have been demonstrated not to be "yearly" under catastrophic, or rapidly-changing weather conditions.
      Genetic Bottlenecks: The created kinds would have been completely free of deleterious mutations, so the Ark animals would have had very few themselves - too few to register as a "bottleneck". Bottlenecks are simply measures of genetic load, and vary widely based on how creatures have fared since the Flood, not during/before.
      Chinese/Egyptian civ: In addition to Nic's excellent and concise response, they actually DID notice - Flood legends are common to practically ALL civilizations.
      Trees/Clams: Trees and clams float. Dinosaurs do not.
      Virtually every scientific field: Really? Engineering is decidely anti-evolution - RM&NS doesn't work. Medicine too - doctors tend to be more anti-evolution than almost all other practicing scientists. Practical Biology is as well - no laboratory experiment has been able to develop new life forms via RM&NS. Chemistry too - abiogenesis defies explanation. Math/statistics also, as probability calculations show evolution as so incredibly unlikely as to be impossible. Astronomy is also not kind to Evolutionary theories. As a matter of fact, the only fields of science that are "consilient" with Evolution is...those with the word "Evolution" in the title,and/or aimed at propping up Evolutionary Theory.

      Thank you for the demonstration of your unwillingness to accept easily-located and provided Creationist answers, and claim "no one told ME they had any answers!" (I will willing stipulate that you, personally, do not find those answers convincing - again, not the same as not receiving any).

      Delete
    7. drc466

      Actually, ghost, your list of "Tell me..."s provides an excellent demonstration of my point that it isn't that you haven't been given answers, it is just that you merely refuse to accept them.


      I've see lots of contradictory lies from Creationists. I wanted to see if you had some new lies.

      Genetic Bottlenecks: The created kinds would have been completely free of deleterious mutations, so the Ark animals would have had very few themselves - too few to register as a "bottleneck".

      LOL! You don't even understand what a genetic bottleneck is. It has to do with loss of genetic diversity in a small population and nothing to do with deleterious mutations.

      Chinese/Egyptian civ: In addition to Nic's excellent and concise response, they actually DID notice

      That nonsense has already been disproven. See the Jiahu evidence above.

      Trees/Clams: Trees and clams float. Dinosaurs do not

      LOL!! Clams float??? That's FSTDT material. Also pterosaurs fly, trees and clams do not. Why no pterosaurs in the younger strata?

      RM&NS doesn't work.

      Except there's a whole field of engineering that uses RM+NS in genetic algorithms to solve problems.

      You may have set a new record for most ridiculous hand waves in such a short span. Your arms must be dead tired.

      Delete
    8. "I wanted to see your lies": Once again demonstrating the difference between "no answers" and "I personally don't like your answers".
      Genetic bottlenecks: Small populations = concentration of mutations = genetic burden. Measured by lack of variation in genetic code. See "Deliverance" (movie).
      Chinese/Egyptian civ: Chinese language itself contains characters indicative of flood history. Ref "ghost doesn't LIKE the answer", ad nauseum.
      Trees/clams float: clams are a) already in water, b) smaller and lighter than dinosaurs, and less likely to get entombed, c) float when dead (google it). Pterosaurs are flying reptiles/mammals (depending on who you read), not birds, and would have had significantly different capabilities - we're not talking seagulls and albatrosses, here.
      RM&NS: I was referring to biology. Computers, by their nature, put out what is programmed in (intelligently). RM+NS algorithms are deliberately coded with purpose and intent to solve the problem they are applied to. You can't take an RM+NS algorithm on a computer and, say, use it to predict/show how an e. coli bacteria will mutate into a completely new form after 60K generations. Which is to say: RM&NS algorithms are a failure for confirming evolutionary biology.
      Simple answers to simple objections, which you "never" receive. You're up to, what strike 7 now? The rude and somewhat ridiculous put-downs at the end of your posts are a nice touch though - very creative and intelligently designed.

      Delete
    9. LOL! drc466 doubles down on the YEC stupidity.

      You still don't understand what genetic bottlenecks are or how science can tell when one happened.

      You ignored the data on the Jiahu neolitic settlement dating to 7000 BC.

      You repeated the idiocy about floating clams and pterosaurs that suddenly couldn't fly. BTW dead bodies tend to bloat and float yet no dead dinosaur, 135 million years' worth, ever floated above the K/T boundary layer? Why is that? In fact, why caused the K/T boundary layer?

      You ignore the fact RM+NS has been empirically demonstrated to work millions of times.

      Simple answers to simple objections,

      You mean simple minded excuses to avoid the evidence you can't explain and can't ignore.



      Delete
  23. drc466

    Of course, the last time I had this argument, the same people I was arguing with said (in all seriousness) that languages, with their "observed phylogenies" are another case of common descent, and don't show Intelligent Creation/Design. Really.


    So which humans and when purposely "designed' all the languages we have today? Are we going to get the Tower of Babel fantasy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, in your mind, the word "rock" got associated with the physical object it represents, through a process of random assemblage of non-language grunts and groans, and did not involve an intelligent source creating the word, attaching the significance of the word to an object, and conveying the meaning of the new word to another intelligence?
      Evolutionists always try this bait-n-switch - if someone didn't sit down and "design" the entire human language at one single point in time, then language doesn't have any "creation" or "design" to it. Piffle.
      Think of languages as "all species". Think of words as "individual species with function". Think of degenerate words and mutated words as "(d)evolved species due to chance". Think of new words and concepts as "designed/created species".
      Language is an example of creation/design, followed by micro-(d)evolution. Not chemicals-to-man, grunts-to-English Evolution.

      Delete
    2. If language isn't a result of design, here's a really simple exercise for you:
      Describe how the word "technology" came into existence, along with its meaning, without a) referring to an intelligence (human) as deliberately creating or defining the word, and b) without using the words "created", "made", "designed", "defined", "meaning", or "human".

      Delete
    3. Exactly as expected you can't tell me where, when, or by who our existing languages were "designed". Who "designed" old English, middle English, modern English? Was there a conference every year to "design" the new and modified words that changed over time? It's the usual Creationist dodge of saying "humans!' with zero detail.

      I also note you can't give me a non-evolutionary explanation for the phylogenetic patterns seen in genetic record and the fossil record over the last 650 million years. Looks like we have just another clueless Creationist long on blustering rhetoric but 100% lacking in scientific details.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider at least gets props for constancy. Faced with the undeniable fact that some features of (language, life) can only be explained by intelligent design, he reverts to the standard response of "if you can't give me complete details for (all words, all life) origin, or tell me who the designer is, I can pretend that absolutely NO design/intelligence is required."
      Beyond that, it is clear that you cannot deny individual creation/design of words and the text/pictographs used to represent them, so further discussion is pointless. Unfortunate, but typical results. I shall respond to your non-language point up above, in your previous post.

      Delete
    5. drc466

      ghostrider at least gets props for constancy. Faced with the undeniable fact that some features of (language, life) can only be explained by intelligent design, he reverts to the standard response of "if you can't give me complete details for (all words, all life) origin, or tell me who the designer is, I can pretend that absolutely NO design/intelligence is required."


      You can't give any details at all. You can't even think of a plausible sounding BS story to explain the observed phylogenies of life over deep time.

      Like I said, just another impotent blustering Creationist with no answers.

      Delete
    6. "You can't give any details at all".

      Seriously? Here, let me help you out:
      Google "origin of the word ____". In most cases you will find a great deal of detail on 1) origin of the component parts of the word, and 2) first society to combine the parts into the current word form or phrase. What you will not find is any explanation that says "this word popped into existence all by itself and people just magically knew what it meant without someone telling them the meaning".
      In addition, google "Sequoyah" - here's one example of how a (written) language was designed by an intelligent agent, and is most likely typical of how most written languages came into being.
      (I almost hate to respond to these types of comments - the very concept of human language and writing just "popping" into existing without any intelligent thought behind the words and grammar is so ludicrous, merely arguing the point lends more credence to the concept than it deserves).

      Delete
    7. drc466

      "You can't give any details at all".

      Seriously? Here, let me help you out:


      You ignored the question about how old/middle/modern English changed over time. Looking up the etymology of individual words doesn't tell you the word was consciously "designed", only the rough time / area / language it originated. When and by who was the French language "designed"? Science says French, Spanish, Italian all evolved from the Vulgar Latin spoken in Roman times. What's your explanation for their similarities?

      Of course you have no explanation for the observed phylogenies except your unsupported and already falsified "GODDIDIT IN 6000 YEARS!!' fantasy

      Delete
    8. drc466,

      "if you can't give me complete details for (all words, all life) origin, or tell me who the designer is, I can pretend that absolutely NO design/intelligence is required."

      Evolutionists are masters at functioning under double standards. They insist we must identify the designer and provide details about him right down to his shoe size, but they believe they have absolutely no need to explain the supposed spontaneous origins of life.

      Delete
    9. Nic

      Evolutionists are masters at functioning under double standards. They insist we must identify the designer and provide details about him right down to his shoe size, but they believe they have absolutely no need to explain the supposed spontaneous origins of life.


      No need to start outright lying here Nic. No one has asked your for every detail. You've been asked to provide ANY detail, even something as basic as a timeline for this "design". I provided science's timeline and mechanisms to you, you welshed on your agreement to reciprocate.

      We've already dispensed with the lie that understanding how life evolves over time must include how life started. It is funny how you YECs back slap each other but not one can answer the simplest scientific question about your claims.

      Delete
    10. I think we can safely conclude this conversation by saying:
      drc466 believes that words (sound, written form, meaning) were at some point designed or created by a human agent (e.g. Fred Flintstone needed a word for "large heavy thing squashing my daffodils", and came up with "ROCK"), and that over time these words have degenerated with usage, been (intelligently) combined with other words to create new words with new meanings, and that new words are constantly being deliberately designed and created by human intelligence to convey new meanings (ranging from new names of species discovered, to "Smurf").
      ghostrider believes that magical sound pixie dust twinkled in the ears of random cavemen and imparted to them sound/meaning/written form, and that over time words have evolutionarily (is that a word? or did I just create/design a new one?) evolved, magically taking new written forms, and new meanings, without human intelligence, design and forethought being involved in any way.

      I will leave it up to the reader to determine which they believe.

      Delete
    11. drc466

      I think we can safely conclude this conversation by saying:


      That's funny. Yesterday you were a YEC literal Genesis, literal Tower of Babel "God made all words" guy. Today you say a caveman consciously designed the word "rock" when he first saw a rock. Why the change?

      I wonder if it's worth noting that the Theobold analogy drc466 is squawking about didn't concern the origin of words? It was about how languages evolve over time with no conscious input. Like how old English transitioned to middle English transitioned to modern English that drc466 keeps running from. Like how Italian, French, and Spanish all evolved from the original Latin which drc466 is running from too.

      Nah. Anyone so scientifically illiterate they think the Earth is only 6000 years old and all life today came from a few animals crammed on a wooden boat 4500 years ago is incapable of having a reasoned discussion,

      Delete
    12. ghostrider,

      Nic:"Evolutionists are masters at functioning under double standards. They insist we must identify the designer and provide details about him right down to his shoe size, but they believe they have absolutely no need to explain the supposed spontaneous origins of life."

      ghostrider: "No need to start outright lying here Nic. No one has asked your for every detail."

      Sorry for using a hyperbole.

      Delete
  24. drc466,

    When dealing with evolutionists you must remember you're dealing for the most part with people who are very one dimensional in their thinking. To them design means one thing, someone sitting at a desk with a pencil and slide rule. They have no concept of design being an intuitive process. A process that can happen naturally as it does with language.

    ghostrider's demands for details on the development of languages such as wanting to know where, when and by which individuals languages developed is an example of this type of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nic

    When dealing with evolutionists you must remember you're dealing for the most part with people who are very one dimensional in their thinking. To them design means one thing, someone sitting at a desk with a pencil and slide rule. They have no concept of design being an intuitive process. A process that can happen naturally as it does with language.


    I though we were talking about conscious, purposeful design.

    If you want to call unconscious purposeless natural processes "design" then the Colorado River and plate tectonics "designed' the Grand Canyon. The natural process of evolution "designed' all the life forms on the planet in the last 3 billion years.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ghostrider,

    "If you want to call unconscious purposeless natural processes "design"

    What gives you the idea intuitive design is purposeless?

    ReplyDelete
  27. ghostrider,

    "The natural process of evolution "designed' all the life forms on the planet in the last 3 billion years."

    That's what you evolutionists keep saying. The problem is, you can't demonstrate any of it. You just keep telling the story hoping everyone will fall in line. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      That's what you evolutionists keep saying. The problem is, you can't demonstrate any of it.


      Well, except for those scientific papers I keep presenting that you keep ignoring.

      Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea

      Please provide your "design" explanation for the cetacean fossil and genetic data shown above.

      Tell us what you know about the Jiahu, China neolithic settlement.

      Tell us what you know about genetic bottlenecks and why we don't see them in all extant species.

      Tell us the "economic' differences between vertical and horizontal tails for underwater propulsion.

      Oh, and how's that "common design" timeline coming?

      Over to you Mr. Creation Science. :)

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Well, except for those scientific papers I keep presenting that you keep ignoring."

      Obviously you do not know the meaning of the rm demonstrate in a scientific sense. This is strange as you always like to tell others how they don't understand the science.

      Also, have you ever actually read a scientific paper on evolution? Somehow I doubt it. In every single paper the fact of evolution is asserted in the abstract and the rest of the paper is dedicated to upholding that assertion. More philosophical than scientific I'm afraid.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Obviously you do not know the meaning of the rm demonstrate in a scientific sense.


      LOL! lame Creationist hand wave. Demonstrate to science means to provide conclusive evidence for which has been done 1000x over.

      What do you mean by demonstrate then? Build a time machine and watch 500 million years of life go by? Recreate 40 million year of evolution within 2 weeks in the lab?

      Also, have you ever actually read a scientific paper on evolution?

      Many hundreds. I just posted one for you above that you ignored. Science builds on the work that was done before. Every new paper doesn't have to repeat all the work of the previous 150 years. That you would even suggest such a ridiculous thing shows how little about scientific research you actually comprehend.

      Of course you still ignore those tough questions listed above too. It's all attack what you don't understand, never provide any backup for your own claims.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "LOL! lame Creationist hand wave. Demonstrate to science means to provide conclusive evidence for which has been done 1000x over."

      Nope. It means you can actually do what you claim.

      For instance, you claim yellow and blue mixed in equal amounts will produce green. You mix yellow and blue to 'demonstrate' that to be the case.

      Well done ghostrider, you've clearly 'demonstrated' you know very little, if anything, of what you're so fond of bragging you know so much about. I hope to hear no more from you about other people knowing nothing of the science. What a joke.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider,

      "Tell us the "economic' differences between vertical and horizontal tails for underwater propulsion."

      You still haven't figured this one out. It's so simple.

      I wonder, do you even understand in what sense I am using the term 'economic'?

      Delete
    6. Nic

      Nope. It means you can actually do what you claim.


      I claimed I can provide evidence for evolution and I did so. You lose.

      You still haven't figured this one out. It's so simple.

      So simple that you can't provide it despite being asked 10 times. If you're using term "economic' to mean "energy efficient" then go ahead and show one tail orientation is more efficient that the other. If one is significantly more efficient then why didn't this clever designed use the same design for both fish and whales?

      You have no answer. You'll hem and haw but never provide an answer.

      Oh, BTW,

      "Please provide your "design" explanation for the cetacean fossil and genetic data shown above.

      Tell us what you know about the Jiahu, China neolithic settlement.

      Tell us what you know about genetic bottlenecks and why we don't see them in all extant species.

      Tell us the "economic' differences between vertical and horizontal tails for underwater propulsion.

      Oh, and how's that "common design" timeline coming?"

      (( crickets ))

      Delete
    7. ghostrider,

      "I claimed I can provide evidence for evolution and I did so. You lose."

      I really didn't think it was possible, but it's true, you're denser than I thought.

      You have to be able to demonstrate evolution, genius. Not demonstrate you have evidence for it.

      "So simple that you can't provide it despite being asked 10 times."

      Remember, you're the one who said there was absolutely no functional need for the different modes of propulsion between whales and fish. You're also the one who claims to know so much about science, and the one who is so smart you take it upon yourself to instruct others, and you can't figure this simple problem out. That's truly pathetic.

      "If one is significantly more efficient then why didn't this clever designed use the same design for both fish and whales?"

      I'll give you another clue. It is and it isn't more efficient, at the same time.

      Delete
    8. Nic

      You have to be able to demonstrate evolution, genius. Not demonstrate you have evidence for it.


      LOL! Right. So you really are dumb enough to demand science recreate million of years of evolution in the lab. I bet you still wonder why YECs get laughed at by real scientists too.

      "So simple that you can't provide it despite being asked 10 times."

      We'll make that 11 times you cowardly avoided providing your explanation. You're doing a great job of convincing everyone of your "common design" claims. A wonderful job, keep up the good work!

      Delete
    9. ghostrider,

      "LOL! Right. So you really are dumb enough to demand science recreate million of years of evolution in the lab. I bet you still wonder why YECs get laughed at by real scientists too."

      Sorry Pal, that's what the discipline demands if you want to call it demonstrable science. So I guess it's just faith after all. Cest' la vie.

      "We'll make that 11 times you cowardly avoided providing your explanation."

      It's really fun watching flail about liked a beached fish. Maybe in the future you won't be so quick to assert your superior intelligence, but I doubt it.

      Delete
    10. Nic

      Sorry Pal, that's what the discipline demands if you want to call it demonstrable science.


      I suppose to ignorant YECs plate tectonics isn't valid because geologists have never raised a whole mountain range in the lab.

      We'll make that 12 times you cowardly avoided providing your explanation for your tail fin claims. An even dozen chicken-outs for the brave Creationist genius.

      Oh, BTW again:

      "Please provide your "design" explanation for the cetacean fossil and genetic data shown above.

      Tell us what you know about the Jiahu, China neolithic settlement.

      Tell us what you know about genetic bottlenecks and why we don't see them in all extant species.

      Tell us the "economic' differences between vertical and horizontal tails for underwater propulsion.

      Oh, and how's that "common design" timeline coming?"

      (( crickets ))

      Delete
    11. ghostrider,

      "I suppose to ignorant YECs plate tectonics isn't valid because geologists have never raised a whole mountain range in the lab."

      The density just keeps on increasing.

      Plate tectonics is 'demonstrable science' because it can actually be demonstrated. As evolution cannot be demonstrated it is not 'demonstrable science'. Is there a light in there anywhere? Knock if you can hear me.

      Should I type larger so it is easier to read?

      Delete
    12. Nic

      Plate tectonics is 'demonstrable science' because it can actually be demonstrated. As evolution cannot be demonstrated it is not 'demonstrable science'.


      Lenski Long Term Evolution Experiment

      Science wins, ignorant Creationists lose.

      *Cue the ignorant Creationist yelling "but they're still bacteria!!"

      Count now 13 times for cowardly avoiding providing your explanation for your tail fin claims. We'll ignore for now all the other questions you're too afraid to address.

      Delete
    13. Here Nic, here's a good layman's summary of the Lenski LTEE that demonstrated evolution since I'm sure the actual LTEE site is too technical for you.

      Genomic Analysis of a Bacterial Evolutionary Pathway Underlying a Phenotypic Innovation

      Let me know if you need help with the big sciencey words.

      Delete
    14. ghostrider,

      So bacteria remaining bacteria is consider demonstrable proof that all life descends from a common ancestor?

      It is too laugh. I'll retire to bedlam.

      "Just plain hilarious.*Cue the ignorant Creationist yelling "but they're still bacteria!!"

      Yes, they are, and as any one with half a brain can realize, hardly evidence for descent from a common ancestor. If you want to demonstrate descent from a common ancestor, Lenski's bacteria will need to change to something that is not bacteria. That's pretty obvious I thought. Apparently not to you.

      As I said before, this critical thinking stuff is really hard for you isn't it.

      Delete
    15. Nic

      So bacteria remaining bacteria is consider demonstrable proof that all life descends from a common ancestor?


      It's an empirical demonstration of evolution which is exactly what you claimed didn't exist.

      That's OK, I knew you'd fall back to the standard Creationist excuses and goalpost move to ignore the evidence. Creationists clowns always do. You guys are so predictable. :)

      If you want to demonstrate descent from a common ancestor, Lenski's bacteria will need to change to something that is not bacteria.

      LOL! Now we're back to the idiotic demand for a time machine to view millions of years all at once. You say plate tectonics has been demonstrated so show me where geologists have created their own entire mountain.

      Delete
    16. ghostrider,

      "It's an empirical demonstration of evolution which is exactly what you claimed didn't exist."

      No, it is not, not even close. It is simply an empirical demonstration that organisms can change and adapt over time. Nobody argues with that. What it empirically demonstrates is that organisms reproduce their own kind, consistently. It's clearly an empirical demonstration that organisms do not change to the extent necessary to allow descent from a common ancestor.

      If you really believe bacteria remaining bacteria is empirical evidence for common descent, why not try and explain how that is so.

      "LOL! Now we're back to the idiotic demand for a time machine to view millions of years all at once. You say plate tectonics has been demonstrated so show me where geologists have created their own entire mountain."

      You spend a lot of time LOLing. Maybe if you spent some of that time working on your critical thinking skills you wouldn't wind up looking so foolish.

      Geologists do not need to build a mountain to demonstrate plate tectonics, plate tectonics can be observed first hand, as it happens.

      Now I suppose you're going to argue dog breeding and bacteria is the same the same type of evidence. Please don't. That will only only further demonstrate your total lack of ability to critically analyze information.

      Delete
    17. ghostrider,

      "*Cue the ignorant Creationist yelling "but they're still bacteria!!"

      Yep, as long as they remain bacteria the argument that it is evidence for common descent is not only fallacious, but embarrassingly fallacious. The type of argument born out of complete desperation.

      And just so we are clear, I don't care what Lenski's qualifications may be, if he presents fallacious arguments his walls could be papered with degrees, the arguments would not be any less fallacious. And yes, I would tell Lenski to his face.

      Unlike so many evolutionary groupies I'm not impressed with Phds. If an individual presents fallacious arguments having a Phd. or a list of Phds. after their name does not magically make them valid. You would do well to take that to heart because you've bought a rail car full of snake oil.

      Delete
    18. ghostrider,

      "Here Nic, here's a good layman's summary of the Lenski LTEE that demonstrated evolution since I'm sure the actual LTEE site is too technical for you."

      This is just hilarious considering it's coming from someone who did not know what the term demonstrate meant in a scientific context.

      Delete
  28. Good old Nic:



    I say:

    You have to demonstrate creation, idiot. Not demonstrate you have evidence for it.

    Awaiting your video of the creation of anything. The first man would be good, thank you. ( My first request.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. What Nic said:

    You have to be able to demonstrate evolution, genius. Not demonstrate you have evidence for it.

    "So simple that you can't provide it despite being asked 10 times."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pedant,

    "You have to demonstrate creation, idiot. Not demonstrate you have evidence for it."

    You don't pay close attention do you. Creationists freely admit their position is based on faith, and that faith is based on evidence. It is evolutionists who claim evolution is a fact and there is no faith involved. They also say they can demonstrate evolution is a fact, but they never can produce the evidence necessary to do that.

    Do try to keep up, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "So simple that you can't provide it despite being asked 10 times."

      I believe these 'superior intellects' should at least try to figure things out. After all they keep referring to creationists as ignorant of science and everything else. I think they should be made to display their superior intelligence.

      Do I think they can do that? Not at all.

      Delete
    2. Creationists freely admit their position is based on faith, and that faith is based on evidence.

      What is the evidence that all forms of life that have lived on earth were separately created?

      Delete
    3. Pedant,

      "What is the evidence that all forms of life that have lived on earth were separately created?"

      Remember the part where I suggested you keep? You're not doing well. Creationists do not believe all forms of life that have lived on the Earth were created separately. Creationism has always promoted and continues to promote the idea that all animal 'kinds' were created separately and continue to function within barriers.

      That idea is something that is VERY strongly supported by the evidence in the fact that animals continually produce their own kind. Canines always produce canines, even though they can vary drastically in appearance. It is the same with felines, equines, etc., etc. Never do mammals produce non-mammals or reptiles, non-reptiles.

      In fact any animal breeder will freely tell you even though you can produce a wide variety of offspring in the breeding process there is a limit which cannot be crossed. You will hit a wall which will allow you to go no further.

      So, Pedant, I would suggest you educate yourself on what creationism actually teaches instead of listening to only one side of the debate and spewing their nonsense by rote.

      If you want to be seen as informed on a controversial topic it is important to understand both side of the question. To do that you must study what each side proposes from their own sources. Evolutionists on this blog and others overwhelmingly do not do so. They listen to the criticism of creation from evolutionary sources and tell themselves they understand the creationist position. It is painfully obvious you do not.

      Delete
    4. Creationism has always promoted and continues to promote the idea that all animal 'kinds' were created separately and continue to function within barriers.

      Yes, I'm aware of baraminology. Do you subscribe to the view that the "kinds" were created simultaneously? If so, when do you think that happened - within recorded history, as recounted in Genesis?

      Your evidence of "barriers" to the generation of new "kinds" pertains to human experience within recorded history. Since the theory of evolution depends upon life appearing on our planet 3 to 4 billion years ago (well before recorded history), do you accept or deny the existence of that time frame?

      Delete
    5. By the way, when you say that Creationism has always promoted the idea of all animal "kinds," etc.,
      how far back in history does "always" go? When did Creationism begin historically?

      Delete
    6. Nic

      Creationism has always promoted and continues to promote the idea that all animal 'kinds' were created separately and continue to function within barriers


      The following animals are well represented in the fossil record. What "kind" does each belong to?

      Indohyus
      Pakicetus
      Ambulocetus
      Kutchicetus
      Protocetus
      Rodhocetus
      Basilosaurus
      Dorudon
      Squalodon
      Cetotherium
      Kentriodon
      Hadrodelphis

      Here, this may help

      A phylogenetic blueprint for a modern whale

      Canines always produce canines, even though they can vary drastically in appearance. It is the same with felines, equines, etc., etc.

      Nic, what "kind" is this animal and how did you tell?

      Miacis

      How many total "kinds' are there?

      Looking forward to having you educate us dumb scientists with your vast creationist knowledge. :)

      Delete
    7. Pedant,

      "do you accept or deny the existence of that time frame?"

      I certainly used to accept that time frame. I am now moving to the denial of it.

      "Do you subscribe to the view that the "kinds" were created simultaneously?"

      Creationism does not teach that all creatures were created simultaneously. Nor does it teach that the present state of the world is exactly the way it was created.

      Delete
    8. Creationism does not teach that all creatures were created simultaneously.

      Kindly answer the question I asked, which was "Do you subscribe to the view that the 'kinds' were created simultaneously?"

      Delete
    9. I certainly used to accept that [old earth] time frame. I am now moving to the denial of it.

      Why?

      Delete
  31. Sorry Nic but your drooling Creationist routine has gotten just too boring. Playing Creationist wack-a-mole is a waste of time-.YEC makes idiot claim, scientist provides solid evidence, YEC ignores evidence and makes next idiot claim. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    I'll check in occasionally to see if your ever answered any of those questions you cowardly ran from but we both know you never will. Neither will any of your equally ignorant YEC buddies.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ghostrider,

    "Sorry Nic but your drooling Creationist routine has gotten just too boring. Playing Creationist wack-a-mole is a waste of time-."

    Ah, runaway time. Don't worry, evolutionists cut and run all the time, you just lasted a little longer than usual.

    "YEC makes idiot claim, scientist provides solid evidence,..."

    Ghostrider is a scientist, yea right. You're a scientist like Daffy Duck is a scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ghostrider,

    "Looking forward to having you educate us dumb scientists with your vast creationist knowledge."

    Knock off the 'I'm a scientist' shtick. Your comments and arguments are so unsophisticated that if you really were a scientist you would be an embarrassment to the profession.

    "Indohyus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus,..."

    Couldn't tell you for sure what kinds they would belong too, but obviously they would fall into some category. Sorry if that disappoints you but I'm not so foolish as some to brag that I am an expert. Unlike someone else we know who will remain nameless.

    However, I do know pakicetus, et al are not transitional to whales but are simply extinct creatures. Fanciful imaginations and elaborate just-so stories notwithstanding.

    In relation to pakicetus when it was first proposed as 'pre-whale' so little of the creature was found it was premature to make any such claims. This was shown to be true years later when a more complete skeleton was found it left no doubt it was not a whale or on its way to becoming one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      Couldn't tell you for sure what kinds they would belong too, but obviously they would fall into some category.


      If you don't have any idea what "kind" they are how do you know they're not all the "whale" kind? Were all those animals with legs on that list on the Ark?

      However, I do know pakicetus, et al are not transitional to whales but are simply extinct creatures.

      How do you know that? What are the distinguishing features of the whale "kind' that lets you tell them from other "kinds"? Are blue whales and sperm whales two different "kinds? By your criteria they should be separate "kinds" since no one has ever seen a blue whale give birth to a sperm whale, right? How about orcas? Whale "kind" or not?

      You forgot to tell us what "kind" miacis is.

      You also forgot to tell us how many different "kinds" there are. After 2000 years shouldn't you Creationists have figured it out by now?

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "How do you know that?"

      The onus is on evolutionists to demonstrate pakicetus et al were actually creatures in transition to whales. They most certainly cannot do that. As such pakicetus et al are nothing more than extinct creatures. Making up stories about them being transitional creatures is not evidence that's what they were. It's simply a logical conclusion.

      "Are blue whales and sperm whales two different "kinds?"

      No.

      "By your criteria they should be separate "kinds" since no one has ever seen a blue whale give birth to a sperm whale,..."

      Horses are equines as are donkeys. Have you ever seen two horses produce a donkey?

      You really need to think your questions through. I'm almost embarrassed for you.

      Because two animals are of the same kind does not mean they can produce offspring. And we're too believe you're a scientist? This is grade school stuff.

      Yes, Orcas are members of the whale family.

      "You also forgot to tell us how many different "kinds" there are."

      I don't know. Perhaps you could look into it if you're really interested. However, I think your only goal is to attempt to heap ridicule.

      Are you going to argue there are not different kinds of animals? If you are, that would be very strange for an evolutionist.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      The onus is on evolutionists to demonstrate pakicetus et al were actually creatures in transition to whales.


      That has been done to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Since you can't tell us what "kind" all those extinct species are I'll ask again: why can't they be the whale "kind"?

      Because two animals are of the same kind does not mean they can produce offspring.

      Earlier you said animals can reproduce after their 'kind". Now you say that's not always true. What exactly is the defining criteria for "kind" then, especially with extinct animals? Why aren't Basilosaurus and Protocetus in the whale 'kind"?

      Yes, Orcas are members of the whale family.

      How did you objectively make that determination?

      According to genetic research Orca are members of the Delphinidae and are more closely related to dolphins than extant whales.

      Orcas are dolphins

      Why aren't Orcas in the dolphin "kind"?

      Are you going to argue there are not different kinds of animals?

      Science uses the classification terms Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I don't know what a "kind' is. What is your definition of "kind'?

      Oh, you still forgot to tell us what "kind" miacis is. I thought you knew this YEC "science'?

      Delete
    4. Nic?

      Nic?

      Nic seems to have vanished. I guess the questions got too tough.

      Delete
  34. Pedant,

    "By the way, when you say that Creationism has always promoted the idea of all animal "kinds," etc.,
    how far back in history does "always" go? When did Creationism begin historically?

    A fair question. I will try to give a reasonable answer.

    Prior to the 15th or 16th century the belief that God created the universe and all it contains was pretty much the popular view. With the advent of humanism and the view that man was at the pinnacle and in control of his ultimate destiny there came a decline in the adherence to the idea that there was a God or that he was the ultimate source of creation.

    In this climate the belief in evolutionary origins began to grow and to many reached its apex with the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It could be argued it was in reaction to this sequence of events in history that led to the rise of the modern Creationist movement.

    In short, I guess it would be fair to say the origins of Creationism would be open to debate. On one hand it had been for millennia the almost universally accepted view, but ultimately required a revival in the face of evolutionary theory.

    I hope you find that a reasonable response.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      Prior to the 15th or 16th century the belief that God created the universe and all it contains was pretty much the popular view. With the advent of humanism and the view that man was at the pinnacle and in control of his ultimate destiny there came a decline in the adherence to the idea that there was a God or that he was the ultimate source of creation.


      Not really. What actually happened was religious men of science began to investigate the natural world and found too many things not compatible with a literal 6000 years ago Special Creation and 4500 years ago Noah's Flood. Belief in God as the ultimate creator didn't diminish, just belief in a literal reading of Genesis. Lots of Christian scientists reasoned that out three centuries ago, long before Darwin. All Darwin did was figure out the cause for the observed patterns in the fossil record.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Belief in God as the ultimate creator didn't diminish, just belief in a literal reading of Genesis."

      Not immediately, that's true. But it certainly has over the years since. And the reason it has is because evolution has replaced creation as the dominant narrative. No need for God if life arose spontaneously and all subsequent life originated from a single common ancestor.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Not immediately, that's true. But it certainly has over the years since. And the reason it has is because evolution has replaced creation as the dominant narrative.


      There's a large and growing body of evidence than one of the main reasons for the exodus of young people from the church is the church's inability to recognize scientific findings like evolution. Young people these days are much more scientifically savvy than in your generation and hand-waving away the science just won't work with them.

      Creationists Drive Young People Out Of The Church

      No need for God if life arose spontaneously and all subsequent life originated from a single common ancestor.

      if you must reject science in order to create an artificial "need" for your God your faith can't be that strong to begin with.

      Delete
    4. I hope you find that a reasonable response.

      Thank you, Nic, for your effort, but I think your speculations miss the point that the notion of created "kinds" is a late 20th century development in support of Young Earth Creationism, e.g.:

      Marsh FL. 1971. The Genesis kinds in the modern world. In: Lammerts WE, editor. Scientific Studies in Special Creation. Nutley (NJ): Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. p 136–55.

      Delete
    5. Pedant,

      "but I think your speculations miss the point that the notion of created "kinds" is a late 20th century development in support of Young Earth Creationism, e.g.:"

      This is a fine example of why it is good to do your homework before firing off a response. You are soooooo wrong.

      The term baraminology was indeed coined in the 20th century, but the concept that God created according to kinds is found in chapter 1 of Genesis.

      Genesis 1:24 "And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

      You are clearly confusing the concept with a term describing that concept.

      So no, Pedant, the notion of created kinds is not at all a late 20th concept developed in an effort to support young Earth creationism. It is a notion which originated at the very beginning.

      I sure hope I never hear you claim you've read the Bible and understand it very well. The concept of created kinds is right there on page 1. There is no excuse for not knowing it was there.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "if you must reject science in order to create an artificial "need" for your God your faith can't be that strong to begin with."

      Did you even read Dr Hunter's article or did you just start firing off comments by rote?

      I would bet heavily on the latter.

      There is no conflict between science and religion other than the false conflict thrown up by believers of naturalism as Dr Hunter documented. You're probably unaware that a great number of the founders of modern scientific practice were Christians such as Faraday, Mendel, Newton, etc. I suppose they rejected science as well because of their religious beliefs. What a pile of palpable nonsense. But that's just normal from you.

      Delete
    7. Nic

      "GR: if you must reject science in order to create an artificial "need" for your God your faith can't be that strong to begin with."

      Did you even read Dr Hunter's article or did you just start firing off comments by rote?


      I wasn't responding to Dr. Hunter's article. I was responding to your ridiculous claim here:

      "Nic: No need for God if life arose spontaneously and all subsequent life originated from a single common ancestor."

      Delete
    8. ghostrider,

      "I wasn't responding to Dr. Hunter's article. I was responding to your ridiculous claim here:"

      "Nic: No need for God if life arose spontaneously and all subsequent life originated from a single common ancestor."

      It seems English usage is a real challenge for you as well. I was simply summarizing a common attitude which came into being with the increasing acceptance of evolutionary thought. Such an attitude still exists. I really don't know why you would think it is a ridiculous claim.

      Delete
  35. The term baraminology was indeed coined in the 20th century, but the concept that God created according to kinds is found in chapter 1 of Genesis.

    Please, can you behave like a grownup? I get the concept, which is elementary.

    But your claim on August 1:

    Creationism has always promoted and continues to promote the idea that all animal 'kinds' were created separately and continue to function within barriers.

    indicates that this concept hasn't changed since Genesis 1, which is clearly incorrect.

    Are the number of kinds enumerated in Genesis 1 and the number of kinds that Creationists believe to exist now the same or different? Correct me, please, but I don't see a lot of current kinds (bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects, molluscs, etc., etc) represented in genesis 1.

    So where are the barriers?

    This concept looks incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And, Nic, you might courteously answer some other questions that I challenged you with:

    What is your view of the age of the earth? This is a critical point. If you won't take a stand on this, you are not credible.

    Were all "kinds" (as currently construed) created simultaneously? Tread carefully here if you want to argue that the planet Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

    Be a man. Take a stand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "And, Nic, you might courteously answer some other questions that I challenged you with:"

      I have answered all your questions courteously. You apparently did not like some of the answers and have mistaken that as me being discourteous.

      "What is your view of the age of the earth? This is a critical point. If you won't take a stand on this, you are not credible."

      Personally, I doubt the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. give or take a couple of thousand. But I also believe the actual age is not vital to one's faith and as such am not dogmatic on that question.

      "Were all "kinds" (as currently construed) created simultaneously?"

      I guess you still have not read Genesis 1 or you would know the answer to that is no.

      "Tread carefully here if you want to argue that the planet Earth is less than 10,000 years old."

      I suspect you think you have an argument I have not heard and you believe you're about to deliver the coup de grace'

      "Be a man. Take a stand."

      As I said, spare me your condescending attitude.

      Delete
  37. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    No specificity there about what kinds of animals were in the waters or kinds of fowl in the sky.

    How many kinds of fowl? One, ten, hundreds, thousands, millions?

    And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Aside from cattle, no specific kinds are mentioned.

    Nothing whatsoever in there about barriers to evolution of these few vaguely mentioned kinds. This is clearly devotional literature, not history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "Please, can you behave like a grownup? I get the concept, which is elementary."

      First, please spare me your condescending attitude. Second, no you obviously did not get the concept of created kinds or you would not have made the asinine statement claiming created kinds was a late 20th century invention in an attempt to save creationism. How can you even attempt to try and talk your way out of that one?

      "But your claim on August 1:

      Creationism has always promoted and continues to promote the idea that all animal 'kinds' were created separately and continue to function within barriers.

      indicates that this concept hasn't changed since Genesis 1, which is clearly incorrect."

      You couldn't get that out of my statement if your life depended on it. The statement clearly states the concept of created kinds goes back to Genesis. It says nothing about whether or not it has changed over time. Certainly it has changed as knowledge has come to light creating a better understanding.

      At least try to come up with a sound argument, This is clearly grasping at straws for something to criticize.

      "Are the number of kinds enumerated in Genesis 1 and the number of kinds that Creationists believe to exist now the same or different? Correct me, please, but I don't see a lot of current kinds (bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects, molluscs, etc., etc) represented in genesis 1."

      Why do evolutionists always try to attack Genesis on scientific grounds? It is not a book of science and never claims to be. It is a historic narrative and as such it does not need to supply a complete summary of every kind created. Nor does it need to supply details concerning the exact process, or a detailed timeline and exact sequence of events. All a historic narrative is required to do is supply sufficient information to inform the reader what occurred.

      "So where are the barriers?"

      You really think you need to ask this question? Ask any animal breeder where the barriers are. They will to a man tell you there is a point at which you can go no further. So, no a reptile cannot after tens of millions of years become a non-reptile.

      An obvious example of such a barrier is the mule. The offspring of two equines, but while it is still an equine it can go no further as it is sterile.

      "This concept looks incoherent."

      It appears incoherent because you do not understand it. In fact it is exceptionally coherent.

      Delete
    2. Pedant,

      "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

      "No specificity there about what kinds of animals were in the waters or kinds of fowl in the sky."

      "How many kinds of fowl? One, ten, hundreds, thousands, millions?"

      As per my comment earlier, Genesis is a book of history, not science. Do you really believe if God was to include the details of the creation process our little pea brains would comprehend them? Please, be serious with your questions. It is completely outside the bounds of reason to believe we would comprehend his actions.

      "Aside from cattle, no specific kinds are mentioned."

      And it is completely unnecessary in order to convey the message that God created all living things according to their kinds.

      "Nothing whatsoever in there about barriers to evolution of these few vaguely mentioned kinds."

      Only the obvious and easily understood statement that each would reproduce after their own kind. Out side of that, yeah, it's completely vague.

      You would do well to read Genesis 1 because it doesn't appear to me you have. If by chance you have, I would have to say you possess woeful reading comprehension.

      "This is clearly devotional literature, not history."

      History is exactly what it is. If you want to argue that, take it up with a Hebrew scholar, not me.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Why do evolutionists always try to attack Genesis on scientific grounds? It is not a book of science and never claims to be.


      Why do Creationists always try to attack the solid science that supports evolution based on the fables in Genesis? It is not a book of science and never claims to be.

      Ask any animal breeder where the barriers are.

      The only reason breeders hit "barriers" is because they are manipulating only one source of genetic variation, sexual recombination. The gene pool for this will be finite and often exhausted in the small populations used by breeders. Evolution over deep time has much larger population sizes with much more genetic diversity in the gene pool to work with. It also has additional sources of genetic variation in drift, duplication induced mutations, lateral gene transfer. Things that may take thousands of years to have their effects fixed in a population.

      Claiming the limitations of short term tiny population selective breeding somehow show a barrier to real world long term large population evolution shows how little Creationists actually understand on the topic.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "Claiming the limitations of short term tiny population selective breeding somehow show a barrier to real world long term large population evolution shows how little Creationists actually understand on the topic."

      Well then, Mr. Science, present your best argument. Demonstrate for us how a reptile can become not a reptile using genetic drift, lateral transfer, whatever you want.

      But remember, you have to actually demonstrate this, not tell just-so stories.

      Delete
    5. Why do evolutionists always try to attack Genesis on scientific grounds? It is not a book of science and never claims to be.

      And yet, as ghostrider noted, you take it to be the gospel truth about empirical matters, as shown by your comment that

      History is exactly what it is. If you want to argue that, take it up with a Hebrew scholar, not me.

      You believe that it's literal history, but you're agnostic about its scientific entailments. How convenient.

      Delete
    6. The statement clearly states the concept of created kinds goes back to Genesis. It says nothing about whether or not it has changed over time. Certainly it has changed as knowledge has come to light creating a better understanding.

      Please show where the concept of barriers to evolution of 'kinds' was announced in the Bible.

      Delete
    7. Pedant,

      "Please show where the concept of barriers to evolution of 'kinds' was announced in the Bible."

      Why are you pretending to be ignorant? It is right there in Genesis 1. Grow up and admit you were wrong.

      Delete
    8. Pedant,

      "You believe that it's literal history, but you're agnostic about its scientific entailments. How convenient."

      It's really quite funny, and pathetic at the same time, that you don't understand the difference between a historic document and a scientific document.

      Delete
    9. Nic

      It's really quite funny, and pathetic at the same time, that you don't understand the difference between a historic document and a scientific document.


      It's even funnier and more pathetic at the same time that you don't understand the difference between folklore / fables and verifiable historic events.

      Delete
    10. ghostrider,

      "It's even funnier and more pathetic at the same time that you don't understand the difference between folklore / fables and verifiable historic events."

      Then why don't you explain it to me. While you're at it verify historically the origin and identity of the single common ancestor that started this whole show going.

      Maybe you could also show us how all the necessary components came together to bring about that common ancestor.

      No, wait, as you haven't been able to answer anything up till now it is unfair of me to ask anymore of you. Forget it, just fling back the usual rhetoric and insults, I really can't expect anything more.

      Delete
  38. Only the obvious and easily understood statement that each would reproduce after their own kind. Out side of that, yeah, it's completely vague.

    There's no prediction of the future there. I think your baraminologists, who see an explosion of kinds after the Ark released its cargo, would take issue with your claim that kinds are immutable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "would take issue with your claim that kinds are immutable."

      And where did I say that? Where did I imply that?

      Delete
    2. Nic:

      First, please spare me your condescending attitude.

      As I said, spare me your condescending attitude.


      This, from a person who, in a manner that does no credit to the mandates of Christian charity, pompously declares that people who disagree with his/her opinions are flawed in some way. This person says such things as:

      Why are you pretending to be ignorant? It is right there in Genesis 1. Grow up and admit you were wrong.

      Responses like this do not advance discussion, but are a poorly camouflaged way for a person to run away from the argument.

      This Nic person should thank me for encouraging him/her to admit that you are a young earth Creationist. Earlier, you were ambivalent:

      In response to my question about an Old Earth time frame, you said:

      I certainly used to accept that time frame. I am now moving to the denial of it.

      And then, when I kept pestering you about this, you said:

      Personally, I doubt the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. give or take a couple of thousand.

      I guess that this is closest you can come to admitting that you take Genesis literally, and for that declaration of faith, you owe me a debt of gratitude. When you made that declaration, Young Earth Jehovah must have smiled and looked forward to welcoming you into his Divine Kingdom when you are finally judged.

      Of course, Old Earth Jehovah may have frowned, and you won't know until the trumpets sound whether you have pleased the correct Jehovah.

      Delete
    3. would take issue with your claim that kinds are immutable."

      And where did I say that? Where did I imply that?


      Are kinds immutable or not?

      Yes

      or

      No?

      Delete
    4. Pedant,

      "pompously declares that people who disagree with his/her opinions are flawed in some way."

      Kindly point me to an instance where I said anyone who disagreed with my opinion was somehow flawed.

      "Why are you pretending to be ignorant? It is right there in Genesis 1. Grow up and admit you were wrong."

      I said that because I felt it to be true. You were pretending to be unaware of what was stated in Genesis 1 when I had just plainly pointed it out to you. Yes, I thought that to be immature.

      "Responses like this do not advance discussion, but are a poorly camouflaged way for a person to run away from the argument."

      How can you possibly construe that as me running from the argument?

      "This Nic person should thank me for encouraging him/her to admit that you are a young earth Creationist. Earlier, you were ambivalent:"

      I have been in the creationist camp long before I came across you, so please, don't flatter yourself. And perhaps you should look up the meaning of ambivalent.

      "I certainly used to accept that time frame. I am now moving to the denial of it."

      That is not an expression of ambivalence.

      "I guess that this is closest you can come to admitting that you take Genesis literally, and for that declaration of faith, you owe me a debt of gratitude."

      Hardly. I don't know where you came up with this idea that you have been personally responsible for guiding my move to creationism, but believe me it is completely delusional. But if it makes you feel good, indulge yourself.

      "pleased the correct Jehovah."

      As there is only one God, I am not to worried about the opinions of the non-existent others.

      Delete
    5. Pedant,

      "Are kinds immutable or not?"

      Don't think for a moment that I am unaware of your attempt to twist what I say.

      Kinds are immutable in that reptiles will always remain reptiles, equines will remain equines, etc. No they are not immutable in that they can never change. There has been a great deal of variation with canines, equines, felines, etc. But they never stop being what they are.

      Now go ahead and try to twist that around so you can claim I said that the various animals have not changed since they were created.

      Delete
    6. Nic

      Kinds are immutable in that reptiles will always remain reptiles


      So reptile is an example of a "kind". Got it.

      Which reptile "kind" was taken on the Ark? Turtles? Crocodiles? Rattlesnakes? How did reptiles manage to diverge into so many different forms in just 4500 years?

      Delete
    7. ghostrider,

      "So reptile is an example of a "kind. Got it."

      Where did I say that? I simply said reptiles remain reptiles.

      Delete
  39. It's really quite funny, and pathetic at the same time, that you don't understand the difference between a historic document and a scientific document.

    What is your position? Is Genesis historic or scientific or both?

    Why can't you be clear about your position?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Pedant,

    "What is your position? Is Genesis historic or scientific or both?"

    Genesis is first and foremost historical. In the process of relating historical events it describes matters relating to the modern practice of science. It is not intended to be science, but portions relate to science.

    Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

    "Why can't you be clear about your position?"

    I think I am clear about my position. I believe the problem comes on your end. You have a particular view of Genesis and the Bible in general and you can't grasp that someone else may have a different view.

    I'm guessing based on some of your other comments that you're an atheist. Please correct me if I am wrong. As an atheist you see the Bible only as an ancient book written by people you view as not as intelligent as we are. And therefore it is not to be taken seriously in any way.

    However, I view it as the inspired word of God written by very intelligent men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is an accurate history intended to guide man to a loving knowledge of his creator.

    As such it supplies what it needs to in order to accomplish that goal. An accurate and detailed scientific account of creation is not one of those requirements. As I said earlier, if God did go into details of the process of creation do you really believe you, I or anyone in the history of mankind would have even the faintest idea what was being conveyed?

    Evolutionists suffer under the delusional idea that if God exists he somehow owes it to them to accede to their demands to explain himself and how he chose to create life and how he chooses to relate to his creation. He doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Evolutionists suffer under the delusional idea that if God exists he somehow owes it to them to accede to their demands to explain himself and how he chose to create life and how he chooses to relate to his creation.

    Evolutionists are delusional? It's one thing to disagree. It's another to accuse someone who disagrees of being deluded, which advances the discussion not at all, but this is a Creationist arguing.

    God must accede to their demands? If they prayed really, really hard, maybe He would.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "Evolutionists are delusional?"

      In this regard, yes they are. And in my opinion many other areas as well. Any one who believes life arose spontaneously is definitely delusional.

      Delete
  42. Genesis is first and foremost historical.

    Do you claim that Genesis is an eyewitness report?

    Or is it hearsay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "Or is it hearsay?"

      To you it would be hearsay, to Jews and Christians it is Moses writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Quite a different thing.

      Delete
  43. As I said earlier, if God did go into details of the process of creation do you really believe you, I or anyone in the history of mankind would have even the faintest idea what was being conveyed?

    Are you saying that God is incapable of coherent exposition?

    This is a shocking revelation of your idiosyncratic thinking. I think your God and the effort he took into perfecting his Creation deserve more respect!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      Nic: "As I said earlier, if God did go into details of the process of creation do you really believe you, I or anyone in the history of mankind would have even the faintest idea what was being conveyed?"

      Pedant: "Are you saying that God is incapable of coherent exposition?"

      No, I'm saying you're beyond delusional if you think God MUST explain how he created and that your little pea brain would understand it. Again, quite a different thing.

      Nice attempt at trying to put words in my mouth, but as usual, you failed.


      "I think your God and the effort he took into perfecting his Creation deserve more respect!"

      You're correct, especially from atheistic evolutionists as yourself.

      Delete
  44. Please keep talking, Nic. You're a goldmine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "Please keep talking, Nic. You're a goldmine."

      My, don't we think highly of ourselves? You're quite entertaining in your belief you are on top of this subject.

      Delete
  45. No, I'm saying you're beyond delusional if you think God MUST explain how he created and that your little pea brain would understand it.

    My, don't we think highly of ourselves? You're quite entertaining in your belief you are on top of this subject.


    Interesting. Nic understands his god very well, because he is intelligent enough to fill in his god's blanks, whereas the rest of us with "pea brains" are too stupid to figure it all out.

    Maybe we pea-brained folks weren't created by his god.

    ReplyDelete