Remember that trip to the Creation Museum during the big paleontology conference this summer? Linda Vaccariello has a lengthy, and pretty good, article about it in the current issue of Cincinnati Magazine. Here's a nugget I liked:
Looking over the exhibits in the Dinosaur Den, we learn that the flood killed all the dinosaurs except for the ones on Noah's ark. “But their days were numbered,” the signage explains ominously. What happened? Here, the museum makes a rare admission of uncertainty. But it does present a tantalizing possibility: “Dragons could have been dinosaurs,” the sign says.That's right. Evolution is only a theory. But God's Truth is supported by . . . dragons.
Snarky!
There are a lot of interesting tidbits to mull over. For example:
But at the Creation Museum, the answer is more basic still, and it's found at the end of a dark, graffiti-scarred alley that leads to a world where the Bible's word has been abandoned. There's a video of a teen worrying over a pregnancy test; another of boys looking at on-line porn; a third of parents listening to a “liberal” sermon while their son, sitting in the pew next to them, fiddles with a cell phone. And at the center of it all is the destructive force that has brought all these woes to modern life, symbolized in the form of a huge wrecking ball slamming into the side of a church. A label on the ball says “millions of years.”This, [pakeontologist] Arnie Miller has told me, was the real sticking point for him the first time he visited the museum; this is the “depth of the message” that he wants his colleagues to understand. “The idea that if you accept the view of evolution, you're undermining the church,” he says. “That's the one part of the museum that truly offends me: that we are evil.”
That's not the point at all, says Terry Mortenson, a researcher and speaker at the Creation Museum, when I talk with him after the paleontologists' visit. “The evolutionists who say that are not being very observant,” he insists. According to Mortenson, the push to accept evolution and the “old earth” notion that it depends on was first promulgated in the late 19th century by those with an anti-church worldview. The museum explains this history in a display that precedes the wrecking ball--an exhibit that includes an exploration of the evangelical movement in the U.S. and the Scopes trial. That century-old fight “was a worldview conflict,” he says, not a battle between science and the church. So...the wrecking ball? “Once the church accepted the 'millions of years' idea, it destroyed the authority of the Bible,” he explains. “It's not an issue of people against people; it's about ideas.” And the idea of evolution, Mortenson says, is “philosophy masquerading as science.”
Got that? It's not the scientists themselves that are evil, just the Bible-discrediting ideas they advocate. I'm sure Miller feels deeply chastened.
And just in case you missed the point the first time:
Otherwise, when scientists have come, they've done so on their own, as individuals. Mortenson knows that some have taken the museum's message personally. “Some have said to me, “You're demonizing science,'” he relates.”Not so, says Mortenson. If you're really paying attention, it is sin that's getting the blame: “[It's] human rebellion against the Creator that has produced all the evil.” Those who say otherwise, he adds, “are driven by an anti-Biblical agenda.”
And it's not really cigarettes that get the blame for causing cancer and emphysema, it is the toxic chemicals in the smoke. That's totally different.
Of course, the article discusses the science / religion aspect of things, and inevitably includes tidbits like this:
“It's so beautiful,” says Patricia Princehouse, a faculty member at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, looking across the lovely hillside gardens. “It's insidious, really. It seems criminal to lead kids into a situation where they have to choose between science and God.” Princehouse, a Dayton native and Harvard PhD, helped found the lobbying group Ohio Citizens for Science and she's involved in efforts to make sure that evolution continues to be taught in schools. Like a number of the conference attendees that I've talked to, she offers me her own faith perspective. “In the Catholic tradition,” she says, “you know God through His word and His works. This [Young Earth creationism] discounts His works.”
Criminal? Strong word. Richard Dawkins referred to that sort of religious indoctrination as mental child abuse, and was greeted with a storm of indignant condemnation for his trouble.
I would add that the indoctrination of small children into some rather unsavory beliefs plays a big role in the Catholic tradition no less than for the fundamentalists. Not to mention the other intellectual delights of that tradition, like the infallibility of its leader and the eternal damnation of anyone who questions its authority. I do not think the Catholics really have much basis for lecturing the fundamentalists about sound theology.
The article also found an atheist to interview:
Just when I'm beginning to think that paleontology is like a foxhole (i.e. according to the battlefield canard, there are no atheists there), I catch up with Jason Rosenhouse. Actually, Rosenhouse isn't a paleontologist; he's a math prof at James Madison University in Virginia. But he's a vocal opponent of the teaching of creationism and intelligent design and is a contributor to an evolution blog called “The Panda's Thumb.” He's also an atheist.A couple of years ago, when he was first learning all that he could about creationists and creationism, he sat in on a speech given by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis. Afterward, he cornered Ham in a hallway and, “I was telling him why everything he was saying was wrong,” Rosenhouse explains. “He said I was very arrogant. And I said, 'No, arrogant is standing in front of an audience and pretending you know anything about science.'”
But, Rosenhouse admits, he was arrogant back then. These days, he has a more wry attitude toward the object of his, well, objections. This is his fourth visit to the Creation Museum, he announces pleasantly--a frequency that suggests that, in his own way, Rosenhouse is fascinated.
In his own way, Rosenhouse is fascinated by it. If you can manage the suspension of disbelief and really immerse yourself in the YEC view of the world, you can begin to understand why so many find it so appealing. This stands in stark contrast to the theistic evolutionist view of the world, which I do not understand at all.
I have moderated my tone over the years, at least when I am actually attending creationist conferences. I used to be a bit brash, which is emotionally very satisfying but probably not the best way of conducting oneself in this setting. On the other hand, I definitely don't regret lecturing Ken Ham on the nature of arrogance!
The article concludes with some more of my wit and wisdom:
Miller hopes the visit will help others understand, as he says, “the power of the message, how well it's being presented, and how many people are responding.” He'd like to motivate his colleagues to get involved when issues such as intelligent design come up in secondary schools. “And,” he says, “I'd like them to think about how to convey our message in a way that's not condescending, not overbearing, not alienating.”It's an approach that Rosenhouse seems to have embraced. Waiting for the bus at the end of the visit, I mention to Rosenhouse and the National Council for Science Education's Eugenie Scott that I saw him in one exhibit room patiently discussing something--fruit fly evolution?--with a couple of older teens. It looked to me like the teens were itching for a debate. Rosenhouse explains that an Associated Press reporter had been interviewing him about the museum's “misleading claims,” the teens overheard the conversation, and came over to question him. They weren't being confrontational, he says. “It was all very polite.”
“Did you make any headway?” asks Scott as our bus wheezes to a stop.
“Not a dent,” he says.
In the interests of heading off the inevitable comments about framing and accommodationism, let me reiterate the view I described in this post. Different modes of discourse are appropriate in different venues. There is a place for calm, civil discussion, and there is a place for angry polemics. Both have a role to play in advocating for evolution, and more generally for a more secular society. Endless hand-wringing over scaring away moderates is silly and uncalled for. But that doesn't mean screaming and yelling are always and everywhere the wisest things to do.
Politics
Comments
Aha! A relativist! Obviously you believe that all approaches are equally valid. [/snark]
Congrats on getting a fairly prominent spot in the Cinci mag article!
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 11, 2009 5:59 PM
There is no mention of dragons or dinosaurs in the Bible. That these Creationists include them in their displays and talk about them drowning in the flood is heresy. The idea that they have to come up with some excuse for things in the real world that don't match the Bible should tell them that their "science" has flaws. It would make more "sense" to say that the fossils are incorrectly identified as dinosaurs and are "really" some kind of hippo or elephant. Of course, sense, has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Ann Klein | November 11, 2009 7:00 PM
... a third of parents listening to a “liberal” sermon while their son, sitting in the pew next to them, fiddles with a cell phone.
Yes people, please give the utmost respect and reverence when in the presence of sanctimonious self-professed god channelers. Please do not fiddle with the cell phones when they are sermonizing.
Posted by: 386sx | November 11, 2009 7:20 PM
There is no mention of dragons or dinosaurs in the Bible.
Um, Anne. Here's a quick search of the Blue Letter Bible KJV concordance. Long story short, there are nineteen mentions of dragons in the Bible, in both old and new testaments. This makes dragons better attested than the resurrection of the dead. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ham insists on dinosaurs on the ark just to support biblical mentions of dragons.
I realize that the Bible isn't as well-written or entertaining as some other Bronze Age texts, like the Illiad or the Ramayana or Chuang-Tzu (all recommended reading), but it's not as rough going as the Epic of Gilgamesh, so it's got that going for it. I've always maintained that atheists know the Bible better than the average Christian, but you've let me down.
Posted by: HP | November 11, 2009 7:44 PM
Posted by: llewelly | November 11, 2009 8:06 PM
Actually I love AIG and the museum. I donated alot of money to see that museum built. I know I will be rewarded for that in heaven. I know that I helped put a dent in Satan's plans and a thrin in his side to slow him down. That makes me smile knowing that children do have a choice between good and evil and that the truth is making a comeback.
Since kids are brainwashed with evil at school, (teaching of socialism, evolution, sex, gayism, etc.) we as church members and parents can counter that negative culture at home by monitorijng what the kids are being taught at school and explaining why evolution is wrong , anti-Church, and why it's in the textbooks and why the Binle is right and the ultimate book tjey should refer to in any situation, especially a school situation.
believe it or not, we are makimg headway. If you don;t believe it, try teaching evolution in a Mississippi high school class. The students will pass the test on evolution just fine., Theur answers will follow the lesson in the book to a "T". It's their hearts that are doubting what's the book says. Many students just put down the correct answer according to the book to satisfy the teacher. it doesn't mean they actually believe evoltuion ever happened.
Even when I was in college (10 years ago) our physical science survey professor got laughed at by three out of four students in the class when he tried to force us to accept evolution. Our faith and ou learning through the last 18 - 20 years at church countered his anti-faith message. Luckily he dropped the subject and moved on when he realized he was outnumbered three to one.
This is the stuff dreams are made of an why if so dearly and financially support AIG and the creationism movement whenever I can. I know that the future of civilization depends on people who know the truth or our existance and the purpose behind our universe that God spoke into existance some 6000 years ago.
I will continue to be a thorn in the side of evolutionary teaching until the day I die and I will do everything in my power to make sure that children know to reject this evil teaching with scripture when presented in the classroom.
The war is far from over my friend. It has only begun.
Posted by: Created Warrior | November 11, 2009 11:34 PM
Only an absent-minded person like you, Created Warrior, will go ga ga over this kind of crap.
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | November 12, 2009 12:14 AM
"gayism"?
Posted by: tresmal | November 12, 2009 12:50 AM
"thrin"?
"Binle"?
"tjey"?
"Theur"?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 12, 2009 1:11 AM
"I would add that the indoctrination of small children into some rather unsavory beliefs plays a big role in the Catholic tradition no less than for the fundamentalists. Not to mention the other intellectual delights of that tradition, like the infallibility of its leader and the eternal damnation of anyone who questions its authority. I do not think the Catholics really have much basis for lecturing the fundamentalists about sound theology."
This is the sort of bull that iritates me the most. When you can't even get the basics right, when all the information is a mere handful of mouseclicks away and yet insist on blathering on, positively delighting in your ignorance; indeed wearing it like a badge of honour a la Dawkins.
Oh and by the by, what has evolution got to do with a secular society?
Meh; you're no better than the YEC fundies.
Posted by: Hugh | November 12, 2009 5:14 AM
I notice, Hugh, that you declined to actually state where in fact Jason was wrong in that portion of text. Now, that may well be because you are so enraged that anyone would dare to compare Catholicism with Fundamentalism, though that cannot be the case, as many a learned individual believes that to be true. There is a certain irony is chastising others for not understanding something that you then decline to correct.
It almost makes one suspicious of your motivations.
Posted by: Damian | November 12, 2009 7:14 AM
Methinks 'Hugh' is really Bill Donohue. The faux outrage, the lack of any real substance.
...or maybe he's just your typical clueless catholic.
Posted by: FastLane | November 12, 2009 9:42 AM
To be fair, the Pope isn't infallible all the time. He just gets a special power that he can turn on and say "okay guys I'm infallible now". It hasn't actually been used for quite a while, and honestly probably never will be - just imagine the repercussions if he gets something wrong in God mode!
Of course, this nitpicky argument is equivalent to saying "Jesus actually wore sandals, you're no better than the YEC fundies!" You shouldn't expect people to know the ridiculous minutiae of your crazy fantasy for every offhand remark. It's bad enough that the Pope can be infallible at all.
Posted by: Tacroy | November 12, 2009 10:38 AM
@ Damian:
I would have thought it fairly obvious that I found the entire paragraph 'wrong' by the simple fact that I quoted it all.
If he, and indeed you, are interested in understanding the Catholic Church's views on education, science, faith, doctrine, papal infallibility, heaven and hell, philosophy, extraterrestrial life or anything else then, as I said in my original post, the answers are a mere handful of mouseclicks away. I suspect neither you nor he are that interested but yet see no problem in making judgement calls anyway. Such is the nature of 'New Atheism' it appears.
"Now, that may well be because you are so enraged that anyone would dare to compare Catholicism with Fundamentalism, though that cannot be the case, as many a learned individual believes that to be true."
I would respectfully suggest you look up "argumentum ad verecundiam"
"There is a certain irony is chastising others for not understanding something that you then decline to correct."
What irony? It would only be ironic if I failed to understand something that I was criticising others for not understanding.
"It almost makes one suspicious of your motivations." You do like your logical fallacies it seems.
Posted by: Hugh | November 12, 2009 10:58 AM
@ Fastlane
Methinks Fastlane doesn't know the difference between iritation and outrage.
"...or maybe he's just your typical clueless catholic." I would hazard that I am more clued up than you'd ever hope to be.
Posted by: Hugh | November 12, 2009 11:08 AM
I understand many of the Catholic Church's views on those issues, thank you very much. I was simply asking you to spell out exactly where Jason was wrong, which you manifestly refuse to do.
By the way, I am not a "new atheist", and even if I were, you have given me no reason to believe that it is necessarily a bad thing, your own seemingly irrational distaste for them, notwithstanding.
I would argue that the official position (of the Catholic Church) is largely redundant if the reality of Catholicism — i.e. the way in which individuals, and particularly large numbers of them, practice their faith — is not in concord with that official position, or if the official position has not taken in to account how it will be implemented in real world, or even if not enough is done to correct serious error (examples are too numerous and horrifying to mention).
It won't do to simply hide behind some magical "official position" as a defense, in an attempt to wash your hands of those people/groups and their deeds. No other organization would get away with pointing to its official position as an absolute defense, so why should the Catholic Church?
For example, it may not be the official position that evolution is in conflict with Catholicism — though even the official position is hardly ideal — but a sizable number of Catholics are either full blown creationists, or at the very least, don't accept evolution as it has been described by science (42% don't accept the scientific account of human evolution, according to Pew, for example). Also, the experience of many people attending Catholic schools can most politely be described as, horrifying. They were indeed told that they would burn in hell if they didn't accept Catholic teachings.
And I would respectfully suggest that you attempt to understand what an "argument from authority" actually is before accusing others of committing that fallacy. There is no fallacy involved in arguing that many people who do understand Catholicism believe that its claims are no less justifiable, and that its mark on the world is almost certainly even more destructive, than that of the Fundamentalists.
Posted by: Damian | November 12, 2009 1:12 PM
Damian,
If you really understood Catholic dogma on these issues, you wouldn't need to have the mistakes pointed out. I have not been a Catholic for 20 years, and I was irked by the blatant falsity in Dr. Rosenhouse's remarks. I expect more from him.
As for whether the Catholic Church should do more to make its doctrines better understood, that really doesn't have much to do with the correctness of original remarks, from what I can see.
Posted by: One Brow | November 12, 2009 1:31 PM
What I don't get is why so many people will gladly go to high school or college to get education in business, economics, social science, psychology, history, math, etc., but want to get biology (and some physics and astronomy) education from their church. Since when has any church been accredited for biology education or any other academic field for that matter? While some religious based universities such as Notre Dame have accredited biology programs by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, as well as other organizations, many more (or most other) religious universities such as Liberty University, do not have biology programs, or have accreditation by a Christian organization like International Christian Accrediting Association. If some knows of a biology program from a religious University that has and accreditation by a non religious organization, please post it. But, nonetheless, I don't equate education from a University with education from a church. More people attend church on Sunday than go through biology programs at a university. I guess those people don't know the difference.
Posted by: MartyM | November 12, 2009 2:50 PM
Where, exactly, is the "blatant falsity in Dr. Rosenhouse's remarks"? I've looked at that paragraph claim by claim, and I see nothing that is blatantly false.
Ritual cannibalism (see the miracle of transubstantiation) is quite unsavory. If it wasn't Jesus, we'd be disgusted at the behavior of those weird religious people.
The Pope is not always infallible, but he can choose to be so. In the context of "intellectual delights", it doesn't really matter if he's always infallible or not - all that matters is that the tradition states that one man can be infallible.
Honestly, I'm not even sure what makes you damned nowadays - but Martin Luther was definitely excommunicated because of his questioning of Church authority, among other things.
This is obviously an opinion, and so can't be a "blatant falsity".
Posted by: Tacroy | November 12, 2009 3:27 PM
Created Warrior,
You are so obviously dangerously deluded and perhaps even mentally ill it would be fruitless to even begin to criticize the enormity of your insane comments about evolution.
Posted by: naturalist | November 12, 2009 5:53 PM
Created Warrior,
Did you ever think it's possible the reason these kids are laughing at professors is due to the indoctrination they've suffered at the hands of their idiot parents, rather than the failure of evolution as a theory? Probably not, and I'm not here to insult you (it's already been done by others way better than I could manage, anyway). But, from the perspective of a person who was told throughout his childhood that evolution was ridiculous: I just hadn't been exposed to the evidence. I'd been brainwashed into laughing at people as they patiently tried to explain the theory. If those kids you mentioned stopped laughing for half a second and listened, you'd probably be scared by how fast they'd flip sides.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | November 12, 2009 7:01 PM
Oh, sorry I didn't clarify. For those of you who accused me of being Catholic, you are wrong. I am Southern Baptist and proud of both the Southern and the Baptist.
Posted by: Created Warrior | November 12, 2009 8:58 PM
Flip sides eh. I think the Bible mentions something about that. Somewhere it mentions that leaving one's faith is worse than not having the faith at all .
In short, betray your maker, and you are screwed!
Posted by: Created warrior | November 12, 2009 9:08 PM
Sitting here looking at a bunch of midgets trying to decipher what the Pope and infallibility means is really low grade entertainment. What the Church says is that the Pope speaks infallibly when he issues a dogmatic statement on FAITH OR MORALS, to the UNIVERSAL Church from the CHAIR (EX CATHEDRA). Now that is a rare occurrence. In fact, I think the last time that happened was early in the 20th. Century when he declared that the Virgin Mary was ASSUMED into heaven BODY AND SOUL. Now that may sound counterintuitive, it may sound fanciful, it may sound who knows what. But, I don't think anyone is going to undertake the job of trying to PROVE that it didn't happen. You say you don't believe it - fine, you say that no rational person would believe it - fine. Now, all you have to do is PROVE it didn't happen and the whole idea of Papal infallibility is discredited. GOOD LUCK.
You want to talk about irony? How about this; fundamentalists and atheists as strange bedfellows. You see they are the only two groups that talk about the literal interpretation of the Bible as if it were something real. That's because most Christians and certainly almost all Catholics do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is neither HISTORY NOR SCIENCE. So where is the literal interpretation of the Bible? Well, it's in the minds of the fundamentalists who believe in the literal interpretation and the minds of the atheists who believe that all religious people believe it. Sorry fellows, it just ain't so. The Old Testament is a conglomeration of various literary genres, including redacted Babylonian folklore and Assyrian myths. The New Testament is written in the form of Greco-Roman biographies.
So, as St. Paul is reputed to have said: you guys need to come out of the darkness and into the light. I've had enough laughs for one night.
Posted by: Silver Fox | November 12, 2009 9:53 PM
Thank you for the explanation that was already provided above by Tacroy. I guess pretending it wasn't previously explained is helpful when you want to call people midgets and/or be needlessly redundant.
Fixed.
Posted by: AL | November 13, 2009 6:05 AM
Re Created Warrior
Gee, does Mr. Warrior mean atheist scientists like devout Catholic Ken Miller. Or is Mr. Warrior one of those Southern Baptists who considers the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon?
By the way, it's nice to have a moron like Mr. Warrior to laugh at. Makes up for the departure of Mr. Jon S who hasn't been heard from in several years.
Posted by: SLC | November 13, 2009 7:25 AM
@ Damian;
"I understand many of the Catholic Church's views on those issues, thank you very much."
I remain to be convinced by such an assertion. So far the evidence has been lacking.
"By the way, I am not a "new atheist", and even if I were, you have given me no reason to believe that it is necessarily a bad thing, your own seemingly irrational distaste for them, notwithstanding."
My quarrel is with the often sloppy, uninformed, beligerant, needlessly confrontational, self gratifying willful ignorance of 'New Atheism'. It's a matter of hate the sin not the sinner. I bear no animus to any individual.
"I would argue that the official position (of the Catholic Church) is largely redundant if the reality of Catholicism — i.e. the way in which individuals, and particularly large numbers of them, practice their faith"
Firstly it is simply ludicrous to apportion blame to the heirarchy of the Church for the ignorance or wrongdoing of some of its members unless it was directly complicit. Secondly you'll have to show that 'particularly large numbers' are evolution deniers "(42% don't accept the scientific account of human evolution, according to Pew, for example)"
Well I don't know where you got that figure but this quote from PEW's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008 'At least seven-in-ten members of evangelical Protestant churches, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the evolutionary account as the best explanation for the development of human life, while large majorities of Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and the unaffiliated agree that evolution best explains the development of life on earth.' paints a different picture. The actual figures were 58% agree 35% disagree and 7% don't know. The problems with the understanding and acceptance of evolution are more to do with the education system and those who insist that accepting evolutionary theory must mean accepting an atheistic position.
"Also, the experience of many people attending Catholic schools can most politely be described as, horrifying."
What all Catholic schools; a majority; a significant minority; how many people?
"They were indeed told that they would burn in hell if they didn't accept Catholic teachings."
If that happened, which I very much doubt, then they were lied to.
"And I would respectfully suggest that you attempt to understand what an "argument from authority" actually is before accusing others of committing that fallacy."
I'm sorry but "...as many a learned individual believes that to be true." is a perfect example of that logical fallacy
"There is no fallacy involved in arguing that many people who do understand Catholicism believe that its claims are no less justifiable, and that its mark on the world is almost certainly even more destructive, than that of the Fundamentalists."
Which of course was not your original position but regardless you have merely served to compound your error by using another fallacious argument 'argumentum ad populum'. You have to demonstrate that your position is valid; it is not sufficient to appeal to 'many people' even if they are 'learned'. I could quite easily use the same argument.
Posted by: Hugh | November 13, 2009 7:30 AM
Created Warrior I apologize for insulting you.
Posted by: naturalist | November 13, 2009 4:49 PM
I used to be a Southern Baptist (a reluctant one), and I can confirm that the "Baptist bubble" is real. I left because not only pushing creationism, but because of the other logical fallacies I started recognizing more often, and the constant declaration that if I didn't think and feel like I'm told to when I'm told to, then there is something wrong with me. A notion I flatly reject.
@ Sliver Fox
I don't understand the notion that Jesus (and for some Mary) physically ascended into heaven. I always thought Heaven is spiritual place. I mean if one digs up an old buried Pope, would his body not be there? And if it's a physical place, then the begging question is "Where is it?". The onus to prove it is on you, the one claiming that "truth", not on those who don't accept it.
Posted by: MartyM | November 14, 2009 11:04 AM
Created Dupe,
I was raised Southern Baptist too. If you think they aren't indoctrinating children and behaving as poorly as the Catholic Church, then I really suggest you study the history of your faith. Heck, the SBC rejected slavery less than 15 years ago.
You can believe whatever you want. What you may not do is push that belief on anyone who does not voluntarily walk through the doors of your church (and anyone under the age of 18 does not voluntarily walk through those doors).
Posted by: kevin | November 14, 2009 4:37 PM
Marty:
"I don't understand the notion that Jesus (and for some Mary) physically ascended into heaven."
It's good that you don't understand that because if you did you would be wrong. Jesus ascended into heaven; Mary was assumed into heaven. As the second person of the trinity, Jesus rose by his own power. Mary had no such power and so was assumed into heaven, not by her own power but by the power of God.
"if one digs up an old buried Pope, would his body not be there?"
I would hope so. I don't think the Church has ever said that any old popes have risen to heaven or been assumed bodily into heaven.
"the onus to prove it is on you, the one claiming that "truth"
I accept heaven by virtue of my FAITH in the teachings of the Church. So, I'm not looking to prove anything and I'm not out looking for "truth". Now, if you can't accept it, that's fine by me.
Posted by: Silver Fox | November 15, 2009 3:38 AM
"At least seven-in-ten members of evangelical Protestant churches, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the evolutionary account as the best explanation for the development of human life"
You mean that 30% of these fundamentalist groups accept evolution? That's amazing; I would have thought that none of them would accept it.
Posted by: Silver Fox | November 15, 2009 3:52 AM
Wow, Created Warrior. Why do you people WANT to believe in someone who considers it a betrayal to follow the evidence? Why do you WANT to believe in a person who will "screw" you (you know, in the bad way) if you simply accept as true what it looks like happened? And why do you happily defend this tyrant? I'm just glad for the high probability no one like this God you describe actually exists.
And you reason like a twelve year old. Apologies if you actually are that age.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | November 15, 2009 1:37 PM
In the beginning, creationists cited the Bible as being literally true; i.e., the earth was created in seven twenty four hour days in 4,004 B.C. I was told repeatedly by many early creationists that the old fossils, especially the dinosaurs were created by God as fossils, that there were never any alive. Now they lived and children played with them. Is this an interpretation of the Biblical account?
The Bible tells us the earth is flat; therefore, any creationist who says otherwise has interpreted the written word. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but Cain and Abel married women from the land of Nod. Where did they come from? Were they human or did these two boys marry outside the species?
If creationists are going to profess the Bible as literally true they must do so without variation which also means they must go to Genesis in Hebrew, its original language, where they will read, "When God began to create heaven and earth..." which leaves open the question as to whether there was something before.
Then, of course, the YEC's (young earth) might want to resolve their disagreement on the timing of this with the OEC's (old earth) who accept the scientific view of the big bang occurring 13.7 billion years ago.
Rather than argue with creationists, I prefer to encourage them to tidy up their own disagreements as to creation.
Besides, if you believe in an almighty god, which would you believe: that god created every life form from scratch, atom by atom, or used existing forms as the basis for more advanced forms. The true fundamentalist creationist might insist that god created everything from scratch which means he would create everything particle by particle. The creationist belief is a belief based on a story. It's a good story if you don't take it as fact.
Posted by: oldfuzz | November 15, 2009 6:34 PM
Silver Fox:
Honesty noted.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2009 12:29 AM
Hi guys,
Let's go back to the scientific methods.
Can you SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that there is no creator or God?
As my understanding, if someone want to prove its absence,
he or she should know absolutely everything in the universe.
Can you?
If you can, you were in the universe from the beginning of this universe and you should be able to see (or understand) everything in the universe from end to end.
Then you should know the final destiny of the universe because you should prove it will not show up later.
As I know then you are God because you live forever and know everything and you can control every destiny (because you should ensure that there will not be the Creator even in the future).
So, the initial hypothesis is wrong now.
Therefore, Removing God or Creator from science is not science any more because they BELIEVE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD WITHOUT ANY PROOF.
Please be aware. It's not the battle between science and religion. Darwinism is mere a belief, too.
Posted by: sam | November 16, 2009 3:26 PM
False, of course... though I admit that if one were to compare my grasp of logic with sam's, I might seem god-like by comparison. But that's not saying much, now is it?
Posted by: James Sweet | November 16, 2009 3:55 PM
You know, one of the most annoying things about people like sam is that they think we haven't heard this worthless shit before. It's so insulting... You really think we haven't heard that tired fallacious line of argumentation? Really? Wow.
sam, please google for "Russell's teapot" just for starters. Trust me, every idiotic point you make in your comment has been addressed time and time again.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 16, 2009 3:57 PM
No. Evolution is a theory that is almost universally accepted by scientists because, unlike the existence of God, it is backed up by mountains of evidence.
I know he's just a driveby and I'm wasting my time but sometimes...
Posted by: tresmal | November 16, 2009 9:27 PM
The creation museum doesn't even try to do science. It is a lie to protect a belief.
The entire creation movement was started because they didn't "like" what science had realised. That is all there is to it.
But Sammy dear, we don't need to disprove the existence of "a god or creator". We only need to show that "your" god is made up nonsense, along with heaven and souls and all that rubbish.
You would be wise to remember that.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 10:58 AM
SLC, nice to see you haven't forgotten me. Created Warrior actually made some good points. I also donate money to the museum, as well as other Creationist organizations, and I'm happy to see Creationism coming on strong, despite the indoctrination of Evolution in schools and all the evolutionary hate books by Dawkins and his ilk.
MartyM: "What I don't get is why so many people will gladly go to high school or college to get education in business, economics, social science, psychology, history, math, etc., but want to get biology (and some physics and astronomy) education from their church."
It's not that we want to get a biology education from the church; it's that we want the church to be equipped and have answers to questions evolutionists raise, and to defend scripture. If the church can't answer evolutionary questions, then, naturally, students will get their answers from evolutionists- who are more than happy to indoctrinate the students, and that's when they end up leaving the church.
kevin: "I was raised Southern Baptist too. If you think they aren't indoctrinating children and behaving as poorly as the Catholic Church, then I really suggest you study the history of your faith... You can believe whatever you want. What you may not do is push that belief on anyone who does not voluntarily walk through the doors of your church (and anyone under the age of 18 does not voluntarily walk through those doors).
But Kevin, this is what atheists do every day. They disguise their philosophy as science and push their beliefs on whoever walks into the classroom. If you don't like the church countering this, then perhaps the schools shouldn't push evolutionary indoctrination in the first place.
oldfuzz: "In the beginning, creationists cited the Bible as being literally true; i.e., the earth was created in seven twenty four hour days... The Bible tells us the earth is flat... The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but Cain and Abel married women from the land of Nod. Where did they come from?... Then, of course, the YEC's (young earth) might want to resolve their disagreement on the timing of this with the OEC's (old earth) who accept the scientific view of the big bang occurring 13.7 billion years ago... The true fundamentalist creationist might insist that god created everything from scratch which means he would create everything particle by particle. The creationist belief is a belief based on a story. It's a good story if you don't take it as fact."
Actually the Bible tells us that God made the heavens and the earth in six days (Exodus 20:11), and from its context, they would be ordinary days, not long ages. The Bible does not tell us that the earth is flat; that's a myth atheists like to promote, but the church never held this view, and there were few who did. In fact it can be argued the Bible teaches the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). Adam and Eve were indeed the first humans, and Cain and Abel would have married their sisters since there was no one else to marry. I'd be very happy if YEC could come to agreement with OEC, however, in reality, there will always be conflict. The key is providing sound answers to show that the Bible is the reliable and accurate Word of God. Now I don't know if God created everything particle by particle, but I do believe he created the heavens and the earth in six ordinary days, so how he created it is open to speculation. Creationist beliefs are based on true, historical events, and not 'just a story'.
Posted by: Jon S | November 18, 2009 8:44 PM
Pointing out the patterns in nature is not indoctrination. I'm also a little confused why we shouldn't teach biology...in biology. Perhaps we should just have hour long prayer sessions to our god of choice instead? and believe me its a choice.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 19, 2009 5:53 AM
Richard,
True, pointing out patterns in nature is not indoctrination. So if that's the case, then you should be in agreement with teaching patterns in nature that support a young earth (or universe), rather than an old earth, right? You see, evolution isn't really about observing patterns in nature at all, it's about one world view against another. And I never said we shouldn't teach biology in biology. I'm saying that if one is offended with those who disguise philosophy as science, then perhaps we should leave evolution out of the classroom all together because evolution is more about religious beliefs, politics and philosophy than about science. Actually, I'm not opposed to teaching evolution in the classroom as long as we can point out all the flaws as well. It's just unfortunate that militant evolutionists don't want students informed of those flaws.
Posted by: Jon S | November 19, 2009 5:24 PM
The only thing that says young is a book from one minor sect of one religion. And ONLY because somebody went and counted a load of begets.
No, its about DNA, animal growth and change over time. Your body is made from exactly the same stuff as all the other animals, we even get the same diseases sometimes. That should tell you something about our connection to the animal kingdom.The creationists started politicising this issue. Now you complain that its too politically charged? How amusing.
Evolution has been worked on for over 150 years. The major issues from creationists have been answered. We also know a great deal more about this scientific theory. Especially with our new knowledge about DNA and genomes. I think if it did have "major flaws" they would have been noticed, worked on, and the people involved would have won awards for overturning that bit of science. That is how science works. Or perhaps you think Einstein knocking Newton was a bad thing for science?I suspect it is more likely that you do not understand particular parts of evolutionary theory and therefore some bits probably seem contradictory and nonsensical on the surface. If you have questions or want to know why we say a certain thing happened you are free to ask. You will have to tell me what flaws for instance as i'm not actually aware of any that would undermine such an obvious and prevelant pattern in nature.
Every part of evolution has reasoning and evidence behind it...and we are always happy to talk about why we know what we know.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 20, 2009 5:44 AM
Richard: "We have trees older than 6000 years."
Trees older than 6,000 years aren't a problem for creationists. I believe the earth is well under 10,000 years old, so trees confirmed to be over that age could pose a challenge.
Richard: "...rocks, ice layers, sediment layers, multiple radiometrics...all say old earth. The light in the sky says old too."
Sorry Richard, but rocks, ice, sediment and light do not speak, therefore they don't say the earth is old. People speak and say the earth is old. This is what I'm talking about; it's a matter of interpretation, not evidence. The evidence doesn't have a voice. The evidence must be interpreted by fallible human beings. Creationist scientists reject the old earth interpretations of rocks, ice, sediment and light, and have provided interpretations consistent with a young earth. (see the RATE: Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth).
Richard: "The only thing that says young is a book from one minor sect of one religion."
Not true. Christianity isn't a minor sect of one religion, and neither is Islam. Both teach creation. Islam teaches that Allah created the world anywhere from 4-8 days, and that man was created from the dust, and woman from man. The Creationist account can't be marginalized as you suppose.
Richard: "No, its about DNA, animal growth and change over time. Your body is made from exactly the same stuff as all the other animals, we even get the same diseases sometimes. That should tell you something about our connection to the animal kingdom."
You've said nothing that contradicts Creationism. We believe in DNA, animal growth and change over time, and we believe our bodies are made from exactly the same stuff as all the other animals.
Richard: "The creationists started politicising this issue. Now you complain that its too politically charged? How amusing."
What's amusing is you accusing Creationists of starting the politicizing. I, for one, don't know who started the politics, but science has never been free of politics, and never will be.
Richard: "The major issues from creationists have been answered."
Oh, really? We know for a fact that life only arises from life, and that life doesn't arise spontaneously (as the Creationist Louis Pasteur proved), or do you deny that? Can you tell us how the first life form arose spontaneously? What about the left handed chiralty problem of amino acids? Are you aware of the problems the Big Bang theory has, and can you explain how they've been resolved?
All the major Creationist organizations (AIG, CMI, ICR) have evidence for a young earth based on the scientific method. Can you refute them all to the satisfaction of the Creationist community?
Richard: "I think if it did have "major flaws" they would have been noticed, worked on, and the people involved would have won awards for overturning that bit of science. That is how science works."
Scientists have noticed flaws, and they've been pointing them out for years, but they don't win awards because secular journals won't accept anything a Creationist writes because of politics and bias. The film Expelled did a fine job of exposing this.
Richard: "I suspect it is more likely that you do not understand particular parts of evolutionary theory and therefore some bits probably seem contradictory and nonsensical on the surface."
I'm quite familiar with evolutionary theory, and I've been following and commenting on this and other evolution websites for several years now. Every time I look critically at the evidence for evolution I find there's a lot of interpretation involved, and it boils down to a worldview rather than evidence or science.
Richard: "You will have to tell me what flaws for instance as i'm not actually aware of any that would undermine such an obvious and prevelant pattern in nature."
We know radiometric and carbon dating are not accurate because things of known age cannot be accurately dated. How then can we be certain of ages which no one has observed? How can we be certain that one life form evolved into another if it was never observed? How can you be sure dinosaurs evolved into birds when the evidence is spotty at best, and even evolutionists such as Alan Feduccia dispute it?
"Every part of evolution has reasoning and evidence behind it...and we are always happy to talk about why we know what we know."
Richard, it's one thing for you to have an answer for everything, but it's also another thing to convince everyone that you're right and they're wrong. And I'm not saying that you don't have all the answers, but even if you do, I can assure you that you're going to have to work hard to convince those who are skeptical of your claims. I'm familiar with most of the evolutionist talking points, and they've been refuted by creationists, but I'm sure that evidence probably won't convince you otherwise because you have a certain worldview in which you already believe in an old universe. Any evidence to contradict that will be rejected by you based on your interpretation of the data. Likewise, Creationists reject the evolutionary talking points based on an interpretation supported by our worldview.
Posted by: Jon S | November 20, 2009 6:33 PM
Jon - Trees older than 6,000 years aren't a problem for creationists. I believe the earth is well under 10,000 years old, so trees confirmed to be over that age could pose a challenge.-
Tree rings show growth for each year which gives it a time print that it will share with trees in the same area. Petrified wood can also be examined the same way. By matching up the timeprint on the petrified wood with old trees still growing there will be some overlap of the timeprint (when both trees were still alive) but the petrified wood will contain a bit of the timeprint even further back. You can use this technique multiple times to go back beyond 10,000 years.
Ron-it's a matter of interpretation, not evidence-
When the existence of light coming from galaxies more than 10,000 light-years away became apparent, it was decided that this meant to creationists that light had to have had different properties at the beginning (or light got "put there") or some such nonsense. Thats not science. Interpretation is not "bending reality around your pet theory".
Ron - Not true. Christianity isn't a minor sect of one religion, and neither is Islam. Both teach creation.-
Pretty much all religions teach creationism. Thats kind of the point of god, to create the world. I should also point out that islam and christianity share a history. Also to find similarities is no surprise. Religion is religion is religion. Only the details change. I should also point out that young-earthism in England is considered by most christians to be on par with flat-earthism. Your particular christian beliefs are quite marginal. Christians all seem to believe different details, while of course still all being "true" christians. Not like those OTHER people calling themselves christians.
-Ron-Scientists have noticed flaws, and they've been pointing them out for years, but they don't win awards because secular journals won't accept anything a Creationist writes because of politics and bias. The film Expelled did a fine job of exposing this.-
Conspiracy theories? Oh dear. And expelled was the movie full of marching nazis I believe. Yes it must be terrible not doing science at a science establishment and being punished for it by SHOCK not getting tenure (To pick out one example i remember) Also wasn't there that small point of the underhanded way they portrayed the scientists (after getting interviews under false pretenses of course). That and it got panned as a truly terrible "documentary" anyway.
Ron - Oh, really? We know for a fact that life only arises from life...blah blah, blah.- In that entire paragraph, not one item refers to evolution or the age of the earth. Also the fact that we can't answer every question does not mean you get to slam your deity du jour into any available gap. I could just as easily put in the flying spaghetti monster as you putting in Jesus.
-Ron-Can you refute them all to the satisfaction of the Creationist community?-
I have seen AiG and others "refuting" evidence. It is laughable at best. Richard Lenski's putdown and people getting fussy over Richard Dawkins' evolution code come to mind.
(you have been keeping up with the literature so i assume you know about Lenski's research and his dealings with AiG.)
-Ron -We know radiometric and carbon dating are not accurate because things of known age cannot be accurately dated.-
Slightly innacurate perhaps. But still WAAAAAYYY over 10,000 years. Thus your point is what?
-Ron-How can we be certain that one life form evolved into another if it was never observed? -
How can a detective know that a crime was committed if no-one saw the killing happen?
I actually don't care about old or young earth. I have no stake in it. I merely want to know the truth as its useful and interesting.
You however have a religion to believe, which is probably a large part of your life. I'm guessing that you have a very large stake in keeping the young-earth idea alive. What would you have to change if you had to accept the old earth? What would you have to give up?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 23, 2009 7:12 AM
Created Warrior,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/education/14students.html?_r=1
In 2007, a study compared U.S. states' math and science education rankings to those of other countries as a whole. Mississippi was the lowest state in both subjects, on par with Bulgaria in terms of mathematics and Romania in terms of science.
You must be so proud.
Posted by: Godot | November 23, 2009 10:10 PM
And thus religion reveals itself. Try to leave and you are threatened with eternal torture. If that isn't psychological abuse, I don't know what is. Reminds me of men who threaten to terrorise their battered wives if they try to leave.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 24, 2009 5:00 AM
Re Jon S
Well, Mr. Jon S is back to favor us with more baloney. Interestingly enough, Mr. Jon S has a comrade in arms calling himself Adiel O. Cochardo over at the Intersection blog. Link follows. Maybe Mr. Jon S ought to go over to Chris Mooneys' blog and clutter up his comments' section there with his nonsense. After all, birds of a feather should flock together.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/11/20/ray-comforts-anti-darwinian-travesty/
Posted by: SLC | November 25, 2009 8:58 AM
"A lot" is two words, not one. "Alot" isn't a word. You wouldn't say "Alittle" would you? Poor spelling signals to readers that the person writing is stupid.
Posted by: Breathing Meat | November 25, 2009 10:02 PM
or its a spelling mistake.
If that is your only complaint with his text, you have a great deal to learn.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 26, 2009 4:18 AM
John Woodmorappe factors in the existence of migrating ring disturbing events, and is working on developing his hypothesis further. While this is a challenge, a reliable model can be worked out through scientific principles.
Light having different properties was considered by some, but current Creationist models reject that, and instead allow billions of years to pass within 24 hours. Dr. Russell Humphreys is working on a Creationist model that addresses all the legitimate concerns. Of course the Big bang has problems of its own and relies on many untested and unprovable assumptions, such as the universe having no edge and no center. The fact that the CMB temperature is uniform everywhere is a problem for the big bang since there wasn’t enough time for the exchange of radiation to allow the temperature to reach equilibrium. The horizon problem also has not been decisively solved. As for 'bending reality around your pet theory', evolutionists do this as well, but I'm sure you're ok with that. We can find many quotes from those who admit as much, such as Stephen Hawking and George Ellis: ‘…we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology’. To think that secular science is free from ideology, philosophy, or religion is nonsense. Richard Lewontin also has a nice quote regarding a prior commitment to materialism: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
You keep trying to marginalize Creationist beliefs, but it won't prevent the impact it's having around the world. Once people understand that God's word can be trusted in all areas of our lives, then that impact will multiply, which is happening. Of course not all Christians adhere to YEC, but I'd maintain that they've taken scripture out of context in order to make the Bible 'fit' with science. I used to be in that camp, but I feel that Creationist organizations have sufficiently addressed my concerns. Evolution cannot be forced into the Bible without compromising scripture.
You may call it a conspiracy theory if you wish, but the facts remain that any Creationist science will be excluded on the grounds that it's not secular. There are many examples that can be cited; Expelled presents only a few examples. Guillermo Gonzalez' involvement in ID had a significant impact on the decision for him to be denied tenure. He wasn't doing enough secular science, and his involvement in ID wasn't bringing in enough money, which is the only real strike I can see against him. This clearly demonstrates that secular science has no place for YEC, OEC or ID. There's no conspiracy theory; it's reality. This is yet another attempt to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with what you believe, as if your beliefs were the ultimate source of truth.
As for evolution, what do we observe, as opposed to what is predicted? We observe dogs giving birth to dogs, birds giving birth to birds, whales giving birth to whales, monkeys giving birth to monkeys, flies giving birth to flies, bacteria producing more bacteria, etc. We never observe reptiles turning into mammals, dinosaurs into birds, mammals into whales, apes into humans, etc. When we observe change, it's a loss of information and never new genetic information that can give rise to new organisms, which is exactly what is needed if evolution were true. Pigs don't fly because pigs don't have the genetic material for feathers, or any other features necessary for flight. We never observe a genetic mutation that would account for the kind of change we'd expect if evolution were true.
I don't know what's laughable about it. Jerry Coyne says you can get the complex traits of citrate utilization evolving in ecoli by a combination of unlikely events. AIG maintains that Lenski's research doesn't show that it did, and actually supports the concept that complex traits cannot arise by random mutations. The bacteria are likely losing information, which wouldn't lead to the kind of gain that would cause the bacteria to become a new organism.
I stated my point: radiometric and carbon dating are not accurate. They're based on unprovable assumptions. Since no one was there to observe events thousands or millions of years ago, scientists can only assume that their results are accurate.
This supports my case. The detective may be able to convince a jury that a crime happened and that the defendant is guilty, however there are many cases where it's impossible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the jurors are certain, it's still possible the defendant is innocent. There are many instances of innocent people being convicted of crimes, but this would be impossible if forensic research were flawless and without bias. So what does that tell us about a crime scene that supposedly happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago? If uncertainty exists in our judicial system, how much more uncertainty exists when there were no witnesses, and the evidence has all but disappeared?
I think we all have a stake in it. If God is real, and if he really created the universe as the Bible claims, then that's vital to where we spend eternity. If you really want to know the truth, I'd suggest doing research on whether or not the Bible's claims are true.
It's that's true that Christ is what my life is about; however I'm interested in the truth, and not some fairy tail or myth, so if I'm wrong, I'd like to know with certainty. On the contrary, I'm quite certain that God has indeed revealed himself to us in his Word, and he's told us the history of who we are and where we came from. There is much evidence to support the Bible's claims, and I find them credible. As I've already stated, I used to believe in an old earth, but I'm now convinced that God did create the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in six ordinary days (Exodus 20:11) less than 10,000 years ago. You'd have to convince me that God didn't really mean for us to believe what he said that he did in order for me to change my mind. Did God really say that he formed man from the dust of the ground? Did God really judge the earth with a worldwide flood? Did Jesus really rise from the dead and conquer sin and death?
Posted by: Jon S | November 28, 2009 4:19 PM
SLC, thanks for the info. Adiel seems to be doing a nice job of his own.
Posted by: Jon S | November 28, 2009 5:10 PM
Well, thats quite a list. Let us begin.
1) I look forward to reading Woodmorapp's work later.
2) Richard Lewontin is clearly a moron. Anyone with a lick of sense would realise that science and technology have made leaps and bounds forward. And at no point have we needed angels, demons or fairies to do these things. I have seen people trying to "research" paranormal things and the end result has never produced anything useful. Usually just a bit of statistical noise and the placebo effect.
3)
Neither of whom are biologists. Also, my point was about the age of the universe. Not the components of the big bang.
4)
Christianity is hemorrhaging badly. Especially in Europe. I should also point out that ID lost and lost badly in the recent dover trial. Where it was pointed out that ID really, really wasn't science.
If by "gods word" you mean the bible, then i'm sorry but stories about magic apples and talking snakes do not make me want to trust your source. You are however quite right. The bible is incompatible with science.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 29, 2009 6:59 AM
5
Not doing science in a science job should get you penalised. As I am a programmer, if i suddenly decide i'd rather be a graphic artist my bosses are going to be less than pleased. I could be the most wonderful graphic artist in the world...but I am still not doing my job. It would not be a conspiracy if they tell me to take a hike.
6
No they squealed about how he wouldn't let them see his original papers on the subject. He pointed out that he has the frozen bacteria at multiple stages of the experiment and that its not something you would want to just hand out. Therefore they can squeal all they want. He has "living proof" if you will. His experiments showed MULTIPLE, SEPARATE DNA changes which allowed organisms over time to take in a new source of food. Hardly likely to be degeneration.
7
For whale evolution (they are still mammals but i know what you meant) we have the fossils for the intermediate creatures. They speak for themselves (metaphorically of course ;)
An animal which WE call a dog, will give birth to a slightly different version of itself. The question then is if this continued with each birth resulting in small changes when would the resulting puppy, stop being a "dog"?
The answer is "When we say so". You see kinds and species are pigeon holes for putting animals in. Nothing more. A completely made up way of categorising animals based on numerous factors because humans like to label things. We have half dino half bird fossils. Pointing out that they are "technically" birds because the bird features outnumber the dino features rather misses the point.
New "information" can be created. That is obvious if you know anything about the properties of DNA. It should also be fairly obvious that if there were only "information" staying the same or being lost then we would all be mutated out of existence by now. Even under the 6000 years that you believe. I also can't help noticing that this would imply that neanderthals should be better than us. Not to mention the other humanoid fossils we found. Same with other animals. A pattern of devolution would be fairly obvious through the recent fossil record don't you think?
8)
Such as the measurable and known rate of radiometric decay in different materials? I don't need to "be there" to see that something has happened. Or are you saying that Jesus didn't exist because no-one alive today has seen him? Your obsession with "seeing is believing" can just as easily be turned against you. We have multiple lines of evidence from multiple sources for why we think the earth is old. Your original source of evidence for the age of the earth is that someone counted the begats in your holy book. There is no such thing as certainty...but there is strong evidence and weak evidence, and following weak evidence becuase it fits your philosophy is not usually a good idea.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 29, 2009 7:54 AM
No. No...and um...not really.
A translation of a story, passed down by word of mouth about magic apples and talking snakes and a god who is all powerful and all knowing...except when the plot demands otherwise SAID that god formed man out of dust.
The idea that the world was flooded completely is laughable. I mean how did the koala get to Australia without starving. What did tigers eat after they got off the boat? Do flowers survive under water? You think you can repopulate the entire 4 corners of the earth again in about 4000 years with the diversity we have in nature from one small boat of animals?
Its completely ludicrous! Just think for a second what state the earth would be in and how long it would take to recover. It makes me want to use more exclamation marks just thinking about it.
As for Jesus, if your story about creation and the flood is wrong then there is actually no need for Jesus to save anyone (from himself i should point out).
Although the only logical conclusion from taking the bible literally should be that Adam and Eve were set up. Any right thinking christian who believes what is TRULY written in the bible shouldn't be praising, but blaming god for what he's done.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 29, 2009 8:45 AM
Richard Eis
Mr. Eis is obviously unfamiliar with Mr. Jon Ss' notions. Allow me to list a few of them which he has favored this blog with over the years.
1. The Big Bang didn't happen.
2. Dark matter doesn't exist.
3. Dark Energy doesn't exist.
4. Tyrannosaurs were vegetarians before the fall.
5. The human spine is absolutely perfect and any attempt to design some better is doomed to failure. This based on the testimony of an Australian chiropractor.
6. There are powerful gravitational fields in the vicinity of the earth that dilate time such that 13.6 billions years in the rest of the universe only looks like 6000 years on the earth.
7. There is not the slightest possibility of life anywhere else in the universe except on the earth.
This should give Mr. Eis some idea of the type of mentality he is dealing with relative to numbnuts Jon S.
Posted by: SLC | November 29, 2009 6:37 PM
Don't worry i am quite well aware (generally of creationist oddities). He is merely practice on a long dead thread. I'm assuming the blog owner doesn't mind.
This is my first time seeing the wonder that is Jon S. He's not bad actually. The name John Woodmorappe is new to me. And lets face it, new creationist arguments are rarer than a very rare thing. I notice the "you can't explain the big bang so evolution is false" meme is quite popular at the moment among creos.
Mind you the last creo i was talking to told me that birds couldn't have grown wing nubs and then wings (a most novel "no new information" argument) so the evolution of dinos into birds was clearly false.
Frightening...isn't it ;)
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 30, 2009 7:41 AM
Re Richard Eis
Attached is a link to a web site which contains links to several articles discrediting Mr. Woodmorappe who is nothing but another liar for Joshua of Nazareth.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_on_woody.htm
Posted by: SLC | November 30, 2009 8:35 AM
That was interesting. It seems that "you can't tell me if its 32 or 34 million years so it must be less than 10,000" is to his mind, a good argument.
I had a quick look through the Noah's ark book review. That was entertaining.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 30, 2009 11:20 AM
Richard,
Yeah, I get it. He's a moron because A) you disagree with him, or B) he let the cat out of the bag. Typical atheist response; however it's refreshing when atheists are so honest as he. As for the paranormal, I find it interesting that, according to a Harris Interactive Poll www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982 those who attend religious services weekly or monthly are less likely to believe in ghosts, UFOs and the Theory of Evolution than those who attend religious services at least once a year or less.
I'm aware that Christianity isn't doing so well in Europe, and that's very sad indeed, but it's doing very well in other parts of the world, especially where Christianity is persecuted. And yes, ID lost at the Dover trial, but I don't consider myself an adherent of ID. In the Dover trial they proclaimed that ID an Creationism were the same thing, which is false. Those who consider themselves Creationists tend to be opposed to ID, and those who are in the ID camp often do not adhere to Creationism, and many in fact believe in evolution. The judge had a real misunderstanding of the basic differences between ID and YEC. These camps may align themselves to oppose a secular understanding of evolution, but they are certainly not the same thing. Further, I agree with some of the judges decision based on the evidence provided, however I think he demonstrated a very poor understanding of the issue. The overall case was poorly handled by the defense and went in a direction I didn't support. I think they would have been more successful presenting evidence that the earth is young, based on scientific data, and leaving religion out of it.
The conspiracy wasn't that they told Gonzalez to take a hike and deny him tenure; the conspiracy was those who tried to deny him tenure based on his belief in ID. I think the university made a valid case against him simply because his involvement in ID was not fruitful for the university.
Yes, degeneration. Not the type of change needed to change the bacteria into a more evolved or complex organism with new traits. Taking in a new source of food is consistent with Creationist beliefs. This can be seen in Genesis 1:29-30 when God pronounced the first diet to be vegetarian (as SLC has so graciously pointed out). After the curse both man and animals had a new source of food. This is not an example of evolution, unless you simply mean 'change in an organism', but then if that were the definition then that would make even me an evolutionist. The real question is the degree of change.
You mean we have 'alleged' fossils that are highly disputable.
True, but dogs do not give birth to dogs with feathers, gills, scales, baleen, fingers, etc. Nor would we ever expect them to, which is the point. Evolutionists would predict new features to the dog's offspring, not simply 'change' in its genetic code. Larger or smaller features is what we observe, but this is not the kind of change evolution would require to change a one-celled organism into a man.
Which fossils are you referring to? I'd say any 'half-dino-half-bird' is highly debatable. There are many researchers who disagree with the kind of links you're talking about, whether it's Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, or Archaeopteryx. But even Archaeopteryx is generally recognized to be a true bird, and birds already existed when the 'alleged' missing links began changing into birds. Arguing for a half-dino-half-bird is a myth based on faith that dinosaurs changed into birds, and isn't real science.
Ah, yes, I like where you're going with this, and I agree. The first and earliest humans were superior to us, and our genes are becoming more and more mutated and corrupt as we pass along our genes. I doubt you believe what's recorded in the Bible, but there are many humans recorded that were 'super human'. According to scripture Adam lived to be 930 years old, Enosh lived to be 905, Seth lived to 912, Kenen 910, Mahalalel 895, Methuselah 969, and Noah lived 950 years, etc. There were giants, such as Goliath, who was over nine feet tall. And despite not having access to electricity or modern tools, ancient people built impressive buildings, monuments, temples and cities, and they did great astronomical calculations. Ancient men was capable of great feats; for example, Ehud struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad (I doubt there's a man alive who could have done that). I do believe there were Neandertals and other early humans that were superior to us in many ways. I also agree that 'new information' can be created, but of course that would require a creator. If it's true that humans lived many hundreds of years, but now rarely reach 100, I'd say it's quite accurate that we're mutating out of existence, to some degree, which is exactly what we'd expect if man has only been around for about 6,000 years, and this is what we observe, but none of this would be predicted by evolution, which would actually predict us evolving into super humans and X-men, and there is no observational evidence of this.
There's probably more evidence that Jesus existed than there is for anyone else who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago, and it's hardly disputable. In fact I'd bet the existence of Jesus is probably questioned less than that of evolution by a wide margin. But again I question the multiple sources for why you think the earth is old. It's impossible to confirm the ages you argue for; scientists can only interpret the evidence and accept it by faith. So then, why is it that when scientists proclaim the date of a fossil, a rock, a mountain, an ocean, or whatever, why does the date often get changed in the future? If scientists are accurate in the first place, then shouldn't the dates and information stay the same? But if the dates change (as is often the case), then isn't this testimony that the dates weren't reliable in the first place? I can pull out an old science textbook and find outdated information that was accepted as fact at one point. But that shouldn't be the case if your multiple sources were so reliable. And lastly, there is only no such thing as certainty if you don't believe in God. But if God does exist, then there can be certainty, and he is the ultimate source of truth.
Why not believe in talking snakes? Do you believe in talking birds? If you believe in evolution, then surely you believe animals can talk, for you must believe that man evolved the ability to speak. So why wouldn't other animals be able to speak? If God is all powerful, then surely it's not outrageous to think that he could have created talking animals. I'm not saying that he did, but it's not unthinkable either. God did bring the animals to Adam in Genesis 2:18-21, but no suitable helper was found. We don't know if any of those animals that God brought to Adam could speak or not. In Numbers 22:21-33 it says that God opened the mouth of a donkey so that it could speak to Balaam. So if you accept the premise that God exists and is indeed all powerful, then it's entirely possible that he could have created animals to speak originally, and it's possible for him to do a miracle and open the mouth of an animal to speak just as he did with Balaam.
Again, it's only laughable if you don't believe in God. But if God exists, and he recorded the history of man in the Bible, then a world-wide flood becomes very believable. But if you find it so ludicrous, tell me, what evidence would you expect to find if there was a world-wide flood? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, including all the highest mountains, and this is exactly what we find. What's really laughable is that scientists believe in a global flood on Mars!!! Isn't that ludicrous?!? According to Roger Philips, "The total release of gases from Tharsis magma may have produced the equivalent of a global layer of water nearly 400 feet deep." Mars has no liquid water at the moment that we know of, yet scientists speculate there was a Noachian flood, but reject the notion of a global flood on earth in which approximately 71% of the earth's surface is covered by ocean. Very silly indeed!!! It makes me want to use more exclamation marks too. As for your specific questions, koalas may have had a another diet other than eucalypt leaves (such as acacia, leptospermum and melaleuca) when they came off the ark, and over time their diet adapted. Tigers probably ate the rabbits, chickens, or whatever small animals came off the ark, and maybe they supplemented their diet with grass and berries for a short time. Flowers may not survive underwater, but some of their seeds were bound to survive. And yes, you can repopulate the 4 corners of the earth in less than 4,000 years with diversity. Population studies have shown that an average population growth rate of 1/2% would generate the present world population in only 4,000 years.
You are quite right. In fact Paul took it a step further when he wrote to the Corinthians: If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:12-17). And to some degree I also agree that Adam and Eve were set up. God had a plan right from the beginning, and that story continues to unfold until Christ comes again. But you suppose that God is a monster and is sinister when actually he's working everything out for the good of those who love him. Therefore I love and praise him because I know that this earth is just a temporary home, and that a better, permanent home in paradise will be waiting for me when I die. Pain, death and suffering are temporary, and for those who endure and persevere, we will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him (James 1:12). But even if you blame God and accuse him of being a tyrannical monster, you would do well to worship him too, for what good would it do you to despise him? Will that save you? I'd argue that it's more reasonable to live and suffer for Christ now than to curse him for your sufferings. Job knew this, and despite the calamity that came upon him he remained faithful to God. Perseverance through troubles, trials and suffering is very difficult, but God promises great rewards and treasure in heaven for those who trust his plan and endure.
Posted by: Jon S | December 3, 2009 10:40 PM
SLC,
You have mischaracterized much of what I've said.
1) Firstly, I admit I don't believe in the Big Bang. And, as I've pointed out in the past, neither do the secular scientists who've signed the Open Letter to the Scientific Community.
2) & 3) I never said dark matter and dark energy don't exist. My exact words were: "I don't know if dark matter exists." I have argued against it, and I don't find the arguments for it compelling, but I didn't outright deny it.
4) And yes, it's true that I believe man and animals were vegetarian before the fall as indicated by scripture (Genesis 1:29-30).
5) I never claimed that the human spine was absolutely perfect. I have claimed that it was well designed, and I even cited examples, such as Physical therapist Robin McKenzie, who said "The lumbar spin is, instead, a most efficient means for supporting weight and providing for movement in erect, bipedal posture." And Darwinist professor of osteopathy David Shuman said "... no question that the human back, given proper care and rightly understood, is an astonishingly effective mechanism... the human back is the hallmark of our true nobility and a major factor in the...supremacy of... man" You, however, have claimed your bridge engineers could design a better human spine, and that was back in 2007, and I'm still waiting for you to show me the results and not just talk.
6) Sure, this is just as valid as coming up with dark matter and dark energy to explain the effects that couldn't otherwise be explained.
7) I'll stand by that. Alien life outside of earth is purely an evolutionary concept invented by man and is in many ways a replacement for religion.
And lastly, there's no need for name calling.
Posted by: Jon S | December 4, 2009 12:04 AM
1) Then let me explain why I think he's a moron. Lewontin stated "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life"
Thing is. Science works. It has done wonders for our way of life, our health and our knowledge of the world. Why do i need psi powers when I can just pick up the telephone?
For a scientist not to acknowledge this is patently absurd. Was it an extravagant promise made to go to the moon?
2) There are mutiple reasons why the religious would be against the paranormal. Two off the top of my head are
a) Religion is not exactly in favour of witchcraft and other such silly ideas.
b) People leave religion some what and look for the next religion du jour. That was spirituality and being one with nature a few years back...
The what, says little without the why when it comes to statistics.
3) ID is religion masquerading as science. To say otherwise is to ignore it's history, it's motivations and it's main proponents. I'm sure given time, it will continue to evolve away from "your" specific christian beliefs. But it will remain religion dressed in a labcoat.
4) --Not the type of change needed to change the bacteria into a more evolved or complex organism with new traits.--
Except for the new trait of eating a completely new food source? Just because it also happenened in the bible doesn't stop it being compatibile with evolution. But lets talk about degrees of change for a moment:
Firstly dogs have 5 fingers, they are just very short and we just call it a paw rather than a hand or foot.
Animals of the same species can be massively different in size and shape (look at dog breeds) animals can also be a multi set of colours in the same species. Frogs start off with tails and then grow legs. Some squirrels have flaps of skin for gliding. Beak lengths can change dramatically in shape and size. The number of bones of the human hand change in number between individuals.
If I wanted to make a rat that could fly, I could do it, it is well within the limits of change within a species that we have witnessed. Its just an extension of the finger bones, webbing between the fingers extended and a change to the brain to take advantage of being able to jump further and take less damage if falling. Then just keep breeding in that direction.
Would it still be a rat? At what point (its a rat with wings!!!!) does it stop being a rat?
5) --You mean we have 'alleged' fossils that are highly disputable. --
Shouting "I dispute that" then telling everyone that there is dispute does not, i'm afraid make a good argument.
Unless those fossils turn out to be cheap plaster casts i'm afraid you will have to show a little more evidence of forgery. They have also been reviewed by multiple sources. The literature is easily available. We have half whale, half land mammal creatures. Sorry, but thats it. Make of it what you will. Bone structure changes really aren't that big a deal given time.
6) --Arguing for a half-dino-half-bird is a myth based on faith that dinosaurs changed into birds, and isn't real science.--
It wouldn't be surprising to find some half dino-half bird species after birds appeared in the fossil record as animal populations don't die out immediately. There will always be a lot of overlap. But the transitional fossils creationist argument is too much for me to bother with at the moment on the blog due to being quite complex. Quite simply though, overlap doesn't invalidate evolution.
7) I believe the tallest man in the world at about 8 feet is seriously crippled as his bones can't take his weight. "Bigger is better" is a childlike notion that does not conform to the real world. Also, I believe Samson was weakened when he had a trim. This is not serious journalism here.
8)
--but none of this would be predicted by evolution, which would actually predict us evolving into super humans and X-men, and there is no observational evidence of this.--
I'm afraid evolution is more likely to lead us to something like in the film "idiocracy". Evolution has no long term direction. There is simply "what breeds successfully carries on and what does not...doesn't". To think otherwise either means you are joking, or reaaallly don't know evolution.
9)
--here's probably more evidence that Jesus existed than there is for anyone else who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago--
Egyptian and greek leaders beat him hands down in the evidence department, but that wasn't really my point. The evidence for an old earth is far in excess in quality and number than evidence for Jesus yet you would choose one and not the other. In fact you go out of your way to condemn one, while letting the other pass without so much as a check. Why is that do you think?
Dates will get small corrections over time as new evidence comes in. We zero in closer and closer. At no point does the data start swinging wildly around to less than 10,000 years. Also a 1% change in a timeline is not much. We are dealing with a 4.5 billion year earth in science. A million years here or there means nothing in this context.
A god still offers no certainty because you yourself can never know god truly. It doesn't matter how fantastic or perfect a god is if he is being examined by an imperfect creature. My problem has never been with god, but with those who say that they speak for him...and so, so many say that they speak for him.
10)
-Why not believe in talking snakes?-
Lack of speaking parts in the snake's mouth. Lack of intellect to know about apples, especially magic ones. Lack of knowledge of human language and structure in the average snake. A reason for the snake to do it in the first place? If god spoke through the snake...well, that would make sense. But wouldn't do his image any favours. Ah, but you have admitted you think it was a set up too.
11)
I'm sure the earth could be flooded. The question is "was it flooded about 4000 years ago by your god, and only a small boatful of animals and humans survived to repopulate the entire earth?"
What grass and berries would the animals eat? The stuff that has been rotting for over 40 days?
Do you know how much meat carnivores eat? Do you know how many animals would actually mate just because they are the only two left. Animals below a population of 50 usually means extinction shortly. We would have lost most species within the year.
It also doesn't explain why you only get koalas around australia.
Some seeds would survive, but you drowned entire rain forests. You killed every land mammal except for one tenth of the creatures needed to maintain a population close to extinction. You dumped hundreds of animals out of their natural habitat onto a mountain and expected them to survive, to repopulate the entire earth, even onto distant landmasses.
Also this was only 4000 years ago. We had other civilisations then, why were they blissfully unaware of this flood? How did they survive it?
-I know that this earth is just a temporary home, and that a better, permanent home in paradise will be waiting for me when I die.-
A happy slave is still slave. A powerful master does not a good master make.
I am deeply confused about what is so great about heaven. To get there you have to lose everything that makes you human...and all its attendent pleasures.
Eternity would bore me. I doubt living forever would be as much fun as it first appears.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 4, 2009 9:13 AM
Re Richard Eis
As Mr. Eis can see from Mr. Jon Ss' response to my comment, Mr. Jon S has now moved the goal posts and engaged in an exercise known as the Racehorse Haynes defense. Since it's a waste of time discussing anything with a nutcase like him, I will confine myself to commenting on his invoking of intense gravitational fields in the vicinity of the earth sufficient to dilate time by a factor of several hundred thousand. Of course, the only source for such fields is near the event horizon of a black hole and there is not a jot or a tittle of evidence for a black hole anywhere near the solar system, fortunately for us (c.f. the fairly recent book by astronomer Phil Plait, "Death From the Skies"). However, in addition to dilating time, such gravitational fields would also blue shift light coming from even nearby stars. Oddly enough, no such blue shift is observed.
Posted by: SLC | December 4, 2009 9:51 AM
I didn't realise that had a name. I fail to see how that technique would work on a blog for very long, where everything is recorded.
Now Jon appears to be on the defensive somewhat. He can run off with the goal posts if he wishes. Let us see if he runs in circles or not.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 4, 2009 1:31 PM
Re Richard Eis
Just in case Mr. Eis has never heard of Richard "Racehorse" Haynes (most people haven't), he is a legendary criminal defense lawyer from Texas who has a rather unique style of defense in murder cases. It goes something along the following lines.
1. My client was out of the country when the murder took place.
2. My client was in the country but was in another town 1000 miles away when the murder took place.
3. My client was in town but was 10 miles away when the murder took place.
4. My client was in the vicinity of the crime scene when the murder took place but he didn't pull the trigger.
5. My client accidentally shot the victim but it was inadvertent.
6. My client shot the victim in self defense.
7. My client shot the victim who was a scumbag who deserved killing.
Posted by: SLC | December 4, 2009 8:26 PM
1) Richard, I think Lewontin was very fair and accurate in his article and expressed a clear understanding of religion and 'science'. Did you even read the article 'Billions and Billions of Demons'? He provided a well thought out opinion and cited examples from E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas and Richard Dawkins to support the very claims you deny. If you think he's a moron, then firstly, I think you're taking him out of context, and secondly you don't really understand what he was saying. He makes it clear that there's a difference between science, scientific claims, and religion. But I'm beginning to think you don't understand the difference, and this is a fault of science education in America. For example, which of the following uses the scientific method, and which is religious: A) examining a volcanic rock and determining that it's age is 87.3 million years based on the results of radiometric dating B) examining this same rock and concluding from eye witness accounts that the rock was a result of a volcanic eruption occurring 47 years ago C) determining from years of research that a certain drug effectively kills cancer cells? I would argue that B and C are scientific, while A is based on a commitment to materialism and a rejection of religion, while adhering to a replacement for religion, which would in itself be a religion. In other words evolution is not science in the same sense that medicine is, and you're failing to understand that distinction. With medicine, we're using the scientific method to find cures that work in the present. Evolution, in contrast, is based on unprovable assumptions about the past, and in that sense it is nonsense, not science. Therefore I think Lewontin was very accurate in what he said, and your accusation demonstrates your own bias, which is itself an obstacle to the scientific method. Going to the moon, like medicine, is operations science, which is based on the scientific method, while evolution is not based on the scientific method because no one can observe the past. One can only observe the past indirectly, such as fossil evidence, but then interpret the results in light of unprovable assumptions. Lewontin also had a nice quote from Carl Sagan: "how little it takes to tamper with our beliefs, how readily we are led, how easy it is to fool the public when people are lonely and starved for something to believe in." I think this explains why so many atheists believe in evolution; they're starved for something to believe in, and since it's a substitute for God, they find it appealing to their intellects.
2) I agree that people leave religion somewhat and look for the next religion du jour, which is my point about why so many atheists find evolution so appealing.
3) Evolution is religion masquerading as science. To say otherwise is to ignore it's history, it's motivations and it's main proponents. It will remain religion dressed in a labcoat.
4) Again, a loss of information can account for the ability of an organism to obtain a new food source. For example, the new lines have lost the ability to catabolize ribose, while other lines lost the ability to repair DNA. A loss of information, however, is exactly the opposite of what is needed if evolution were true. Evolution needs to demonstrate that new information has been added to the genetic code so that it moves toward a more advanced organism if we're to accept that all life is related. To show that an organism is less fit to survive in the wild than its ancestors is hardly the type of evolution that's in dispute. If the new bacteria were to compete with their wild-type counterparts in a natural setting, they would go extinct.
Also, dogs don't have 5 fingers. They have 5 digits; it would be inaccurate to define them as fingers when compared to a human hand. There are enormous differences. How a frog develops does not demonstrate any evolutionary link to an unrelated organism, such as a monkey. That link must be assumed in order for you to make that claim. Yes, some squirrels have flaps of skin used for gliding, but they haven't evolved feathers and cannot fly in the sense that birds can. The skin was already there while feathers are not. Even if they had feathers, they still don't have the necessary anatomy to fly. Grafting feathers to a squirrel would probably lead to a quick extinction. Birds have wings designed for flight, while squirrels have legs designed to run and climb. Yes, beak length in birds can change, but that doesn't demonstrate that dinosaur scales evolved into feathers. The number of bones in a human hand changing doesn't demonstrate our relationship to apes. And if a rat developed gills, I'd suggest that would be a good point to no longer call a rat a rat. I hope you're beginning to see that change in an organism isn't the same thing as the Theory of Evolution.
5) Ok, so what fossils are you referring to that we can discuss? Andrewsarchus, Basilosaurus, Ambulocetus, for whale evolution, or Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, or Archaeopteryx for bird evolution? Creationists dispute the conclusion that they're transitionary forms, and we can discuss them as you wish. For example, according to the World of Whales exhibit at the Aukland Museum in New Zealand, Andrewsarchus is claimed to be an ancestor of whales, yet all we know about Andrewsarchus is from a skull (the lower jaw wasn't even found) and pieces of bone. Wikipedia uses terms such as 'open to debate', 'assumed', 'regarded', and 'highly speculative'. These terms hardly make a case for anyone to conclude a relationship to whales, except that evolutionists need transitional forms to fill the missing links (in other words faith in evolution). And just as "I dispute that" doesn't make a good argument, then neither does the claim "We have half dino half bird fossils." or "We have half whale, half land mammal creatures." You actually have to demonstrate that they are what you claim and cannot be anything else, and those claims can be disputed based on what we know about living whales, wolves, deer, or any other animal you'd like to bring into the picture. We can also dispute those claims based on anatomy and a lack of important fossils. There's so much we can never know because we can't observe the extinct specimens in their natural environment. Scientists make educated guesses based upon their prior belief that the species are related, and aren't even questioning if there's any relation in the first place. Many of the evolutionary connections you claim, you expect others to accept by faith, without discernment, skepticism, or presenting any concrete evidence. There is no clear progression from a land mammal to whale, just assertions. Where is the evidence you find so highly convincing? All the progressions I've seen are highly laughable at best, and I find it amusing how anyone finds them believable. You claim that bone structure changes aren't really a big deal given time, but can you prove that, or is that just an assertion? Has anyone ever demonstrated that bone structure changes over time aren't a big deal given enough time, or is that just based on faith that evolution occurred in the first place? What we actually observe in the real world is that bone structure changes are a big deal, and there's a limit to what kind of change an organism can go through. For example, when we observe dogs, they have a range of size that their skulls can grow. Once they reach that limit, they don't cross an evolutionary barrier, otherwise evolution would be proven. For example, if one claims that a wolf-like creature was an ancestor of whales, then why is it that we can't breed dogs with skulls 12 feet across, and why can't we find them in the wild? Why can't we breed them to grow to the length of a bus? If evolution were true, we should be able to cross the barriers you assume they would have had to cross in the past and ignore what we observe in every day life. You're making assertions with no proof, yet expect me to adhere to your belief system and abandon mine.
6) Yes, I'm familiar with the evolutionary concept of overlap. Nonetheless, evolutionists themselves have been critical of some of the so called 'transitional fossils', such as Alan Feduccia. Some of the secular criticism does focus on the overlap. You see, evolution is so elastic that any criticism of it can be countered with unprovable assertions as you've just done. How does one prove, from an evolutionary point of view, that Protarchaeopteryx is not an earlier ancestor of Archaeopteryx? If Archaeopteryx, which is considered to be a true bird, lived 150-145 mya, and Protarchaeopteryx lived 124.6 mya, yet is considered to be a theropod dinosaur and more primitive, this should be counter evidence to the transitionary claims you adhere to, yet evolutionists wave the magic wand of overlap to explain away any criticism.
7)
Yet you believe bone structure changes really aren't that big a deal given time?!? Don't you see your own contradiction? I agree that 'bigger is better' is a childlike notion, yet you must believe that in order to make evolution work. Aren't you trying to convince me that a land mammal such as a wolf or deer-like creature evolved the huge skulls and frame of a whale? Then you go on to say that bigger is better is a childlike notion because humans with genetic mutations are seriously crippled? Don't you think if one of your 'alleged' whale ancestors became bigger they'd also be crippled, thus nullifying your very concept of them evolving into whales? But no, you wave your childlike notions aside so that you can cling to your evolutionary beliefs.
8)
I know what evolution demands, I know what evolution predicts, and I know what observation and reality demonstrates. To deny what we observe shows that you've accepted all the premises of evolution without critical thought. Evolution claims no direction, however, if you observe a line from the first organism that came from non-living matter right on up to man, one must conclude that you are joking if you claim there is no direction. An evolutionist must resort to 'apparent direction' that is only an 'illusion', while maintaining that there is no direction. Therefore I think it's safe to conclude, that if evolution were real, we should expect man or some other organism to continue advancing and become more superior and dominant than man currently is. To say otherwise defies the logic of what we observe today if evolution were real. If evolution really has no long term direction, then it defies common sense that we would be here having this debate because our ancestors should still be swimming aimlessly in the ocean.
9)
In your opinion, perhaps, but nothing more. According to Christianity, Jesus has a personal relationship with every believer. I would count every believer as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Whether or not there's more evidence for an old earth or the existence and deity of Jesus is purely subjective, depending upon what you choose to submit or accept as evidence. You also choose one form of evidence over another, so why would you be critical of me for choosing one and not the other, or condemn one and not the other?
I understand your point on dates on an evolutionary scale, but my point remains that no one will ever get the dates accurate; they'll always be accepted as accurate until a more accurate date comes along, thus demonstrating that the previous dates shouldn't have been relied upon as authoritative in the first place. When one proclaims a certain date for a fossil or rock, the one thing we can be certain of is that the date is not accurate, for there could be new data exposing the previous date as invalid. So how do you really know you're getting closer and closer to the correct date, and not further and further away? Isn't that an assumption? How can you know if you're getting closer to the correct date if you don't even 'know' what the correct date is in the first place? Whether you're off by 1% or 99%, how would you know?
Once again, if you accept the God of the Bible, then you can have certainty. The Bible claims that we can know God and that believers have a relationship with him (Galations 4:7-9, 1 John 4:7-9). And I maintain, if that's true, then we can have certainty. Only unbelievers do not know God, which is why you have no certainty. And I don't claim to speak for God, for I'm not a prophet. I do, however, have God's word, and this is where he speaks to man. So if you want to know God, it would do you well to read his word and search scripture. If someone does claim to speak for God, them demand that they produce the prophecies and miracles as a sign.
10)
Were you there to inspect the mouths of all snakes and animals at the beginning? If not, then you're making an assumption based on what you know about the present day. Since no one else was there except Adam, Eve, and God, then they would be the ones qualified to present an accurate testimony of what happened, and Christians accept that the Bible is God's word. This means that we believe Moses recorded what God told him or inspired him to write. Jesus accepted scripture as authoritative and as the Word of God (Matthew 4:4, Mark 14:7, Luke 4:8, John 12:14), which is why we believe it.
11) Yes, the earth was flooded approximately 4,000 years ago by God, the maker of the heavens and earth, and it's true that only the animals and humans on board the ark survived to repopulate the entire earth. I'm sure the animals would have eaten whatever was available to them when they came off the ark. They were on the ark for over 10 months, so it's quite reasonable that some of the animals mated and could be used for food. John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study provides answers to many of your questions. Carnivores eat a lot, depending on the scenario we consider. God would certainly know how many animals would mate if they were the only two left, and considering that he brought the animals to Noah, it would make sense that he'd bring the ones that would repopulate the earth, otherwise they'd go extinct, and I'm sure some animals did eventually go extinct, which could be why we don't see any dinosaurs today. We don't know how many species survived or went extinct within the first year of getting off the ark. There could be any number of reasons why koalas are only found in Australia; just because you can't imagine one doesn't mean it didn't happen. Maybe you just need to think a little harder. And yes, here were other civilizations back then, however they were destroyed in the flood (Genesis 7:21-23).
That sounds like something Satan would say. But no, we are not slaves. According to scripture we are no longer slaves, but are a son and an heir (Galations 4:6-8). Heaven is great because that's the place where God dwells. And yes, you have to lose everything to get there, but not everything that makes you human, for we were created in God's image (Genesis 1:27). You might be afraid that we'll lose all our pleasures, but God promises us great blessings and rewards for those who trust in him. Eternity would not bore you because it will be an eternal party and celebration. I can't imagine being bored in a place where there's no pain or suffering, where there will be eternal peace and joy. But really, why would you desire the alternative? If there really is a hell, do you really think you'll be happy there? If Satan really is a liar, deceiver and evil, what hope will you have being in his presence, and the presence of his legions of demons? Do you think Satan would make hell as comfortable for you as possible? Being separated from God forever really isn't a very pleasant thought for me. I don't think any of us can really comprehend eternal life in heaven with all the blessings we'll receive, but that's the direction I choose to go, and I take comfort in knowing where I'll go when I die. I hope that you too would come to know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Posted by: Jon S | December 5, 2009 11:11 PM
1,2 and 3)
I decided Lewontin was an idiot based on the quote you gave me. If you took it out of context then that is your fault i'm afraid...not mine. I am british. My science education was good.
I am sure your definition of science would surprise all those "scientists" who actually study evolution. Since it is the backbone of biology. In fact I find it surprising that all those other scientists haven't noticed this apparent "fake" science and called it out. I wonder why that is? Probably for the same reason that forensics (which also peers into the past) is also a science.
Some people don't need to "believe" in things. Some people merely realise that evolution is an elegant, well fitting and useful theory.
4) -If the new bacteria were to compete with their wild-type counterparts in a natural setting, they would go extinct. -
Except they wouldn't, since they are able to use a new food source. If anthing they are going to out compete the original bacteria. DNA can add to itself. Its one of it's properties. There is research due that i am waiting for on this very thing, DNA growth and mutation.
5)-I hope you're beginning to see that change in an organism isn't the same thing as the Theory of Evolution.-
I was merely pointing out that a great deal of change within species is possible. Certainly more than enough to make "only microchanges happen" a laughable idea. And if large changes can happen, there is no reason why we can't go from dino to bird over successive generations.
Mammals already have gill slits. They form during embryo development. They have however lost all function and quickly disappear as the embryo grows. There are quite a few leftover bits from our ancestors in our DNA.
5) -You claim that bone structure changes aren't really a big deal given time, but can you prove that, or is that just an assertion?-
As mentioned, the bones in the human hand. Numbers and sizes change JUST between individuals.
-then why is it that we can't breed dogs with skulls 12 feet across, and why can't we find them in the wild? Why can't we breed them to grow to the length of a bus?-
We haven't tried. They don't exist in the wild because thats not the evolutionary line they took. The largest dog so far apparently had a neck 38 inches in diameter. Who knows how big you could get them with a bit more breeding.
7) -Don't you think if one of your 'alleged' whale ancestors became bigger they'd also be crippled-
Whales live in the sea. Thats really all I need to say. Well, that and *facepalm*
8) Evolution has generally meant more complex creatures ove time. Thats about it. And thats only really happened because
a) Creatures started simple so there was only really one way to go.
b) More complex creatures can take advantage of higher niches. Im afraid we are as likely to get dumber, as smarter. I could just as easily draw a line from the first bacteria...to a bacteria today...so? There are a lot more bacteria than humans. Success at breeding is all that matters. That intelligence tht you think is so important and special is a byproduct. Nothing more.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 6, 2009 2:56 PM
9) -I would count every believer as evidence for the existence of Jesus.-
The believers of Vishnu say otherwise.
-So how do you really know you're getting closer and closer to the correct date, and not further and further away? Isn't that an assumption?-
Because the dates don't swing about. Because we date in multiple ways. I expect science to continually correct itself. That is why it has been so successful. This is also why proof and certainty are mathematical concepts. Not scientific ones. Also an innaccurate use of pi in calculations has never bothered mathematicians. It merely needs to be "good enough".
10) Really, really believing something does not make it more true. You still have magic snakes and apples. Something only found in your average myth and fantasy tales.
11) -And yes, here were other civilizations back then, however they were destroyed in the flood -
No they weren't. Sorry, but they weren't, we have been diging around old cities for ages. It would have been obvious if all these ancient cities suddenly got flooded. It would be obvious.
Actually, re the koalas, I don't need to come up with a reason for why koalas are only found in australia after a flood. I know its because there was no flood. YOU have to come up with a reason involving the flood because the whole floody thing is your idea.
Another thing, what happened to all the knowledge? Noah wasn't anyone special. When everyone drowned we would have lost loads of knowledge. I doubt Noah knew about ironworking or pottery.
-Eternity would not bore you because it will be an eternal party and celebration. I can't imagine being bored in a place where there's no pain or suffering, where there will be eternal peace and joy.-
Boredom is caused by doing the same thing all the time. It doesn't matter if you have the greatest food ever...you wouldn't want to eat it all day, everyday....for eternity.
The things that make us feel pain are the same things that make us feel pleasure. That is why there is pain in the world. Because there is pleasure. They are not seperable.
I don't expect to go to hell. I expect simply to stop one day. I will then be recycled. As has been done for millenia. I am made of exactly the same things as other animals.
-Being separated from God forever really isn't a very pleasant thought for me.-
As someone who has never known God, I can assure you it isn't the least bit unpleasant. It is hard to miss something you never had though. I have been told however that going from christian to atheist is a bitter pill worth swallowing. You get your Sunday mornings back for one thing ;)
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 6, 2009 3:36 PM
Re: Jon S and talking snakes
"Why not believe in talking snakes? Do you believe in talking birds? If you believe in evolution, then surely you believe animals can talk, for you must believe that man evolved the ability to speak. So why wouldn't other animals be able to speak?"
Other animals (i.e., non-humans) can't speak not only because of anatomical constraints but also because of genetic differences which underlie the neuronal circuitry controlling speech and language. The journal Nature recently published an elegant study on this: Nature 462: 213-217, 2009 (abstract available here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7270/full/nature08549.html). This paper shows how small mutations in a particular gene can lead to a profound "gain for information" that results in a new characteristic (language).
Posted by: Chris Chambers | December 8, 2009 4:17 PM
Richard,
Resorting to name calling just because you don't agree with someone, and then failing to understand the issue is typical of atheists and other evolution believers, but it removes any rational discussion and replaces it with emotion. I'm not denying that you had a good science education, but I am saying it was lacking, obviously. Do you agree with the scientific method? Do you know that Francis Bacon, a Creationist, is considered the one primarily responsible for its formulation? The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating and acquiring new knowledge, and is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. It consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, formulating and testing hypothesis. However, observing the past is not possible, therefore it's necessary to understand the distinction between observational or operational science, and origins science. Just because you were never informed of the differences during your education doesn't mean that there are no differences or limitations. And whether or not any particular scientist would be 'surprised' to know that there's a difference between studying the past v.s the present is open to debate, however I'm aware of scientists who do understand the difference, such as Dr. Sid Cole, Physical Chemistry, who writes "It is sometimes frustrating to realize that our theories of the origin of life cannot be tested by scientific methodology. We just cannot carry out the experiments necessary. We have to look outside of science for a basis on which to build our belief." Everyone, you see, has some kind of belief system, and yours can easily be identified as evolutionism. You describe evolution as elegant, but that's merely a self-serving term to make you feel good and comforted. Evolution is really based on extinction, competition, and survival of the fittest. What's elegant about one animal ripping another animal to shreds and then devouring it? I think you find it to be a fitting and useful theory because it's a replacement religion, thus making it a religion itself.
I'm sure an experiment could settle the argument. Regardless, you must have faith that changes to the DNA via growth or mutation will ever produce new features by random chance. It's one thing for useful changes to arise, such as a new food source, but it's a wholly different story to produce new features in an organism that were never present in the previous population.
And I'm merely pointing out that Creationists have always acknowledged that change within a species is possible; there's observational evidence for that, such as dog breeding. I'm disputing that large changes can happen. You're making claims and assertions that they've happened in the past, but you can't point to anything in the present to justify that assertion, except faith alone that transitionary fossils are truly transitional fossils. And no, mammals do not have gill slits. What you call gill slits in an embryo may be called a 'gill slit', but they are not true gills and have nothing to do with gills. You've been duped by Haekel's fraudulent drawings, and you've fallen for the old vestigial organ trick. Mammals do not pass through a fish stage during their development, and just because you can't think of a function doesn't mean there is no function. There are many examples of organs that were once thought to be vestigial that now have functions, such as the appendix, thymus gland, coccyx, pineal gland, and tonsils. After researching these organs we've been able to identify their functions, and with more research we may be able to identify functions in other organs thought to be vestigial. Even so, Creationists do believe our bodies will deteriorate over time, and that certain organs may lose function over time. However we deny that any such loss of function demonstrates an evolutionary link.
The number and size of bones in the human hand has nothing to do with evolution. Humans already have bones in their hands, so increasing the number or size of bones over time is not the type of change needed to demonstrate evolution anymore than breeding dogs demonstrates evolution. Evolutionists think that any change at all demonstrates that a single celled organism could evolve into a man with these tiny changes, but the types of changes necessary are profoundly different to cross the barriers inherent in the genes of an organism.
Do you really think we can breed bigger dogs the size of a bus or a blue whale just by doing a little more breeding? Are you serious??? And you think the only reason we don't have dogs that size is because no one has tried? Do you not realize that breeding has been going on for thousands of years, and we can't accomplish what you claim? Humans have tried, but have failed because there's a limit to the size a certain kind of animal can grow. If there was any possibility of producing giant dogs it would have been done by now by some scientist just to prove that it could be done in the name of evolution. But, as you said previously 'bigger is better' is a childlike notion that doesn't conform to the real world. If a dog could be bred that big it would be seriously crippled as its bones can't take the weight. And putting a dog in the ocean or on an island won't put it on the path to becoming a whale, or even whale-like. They won't develop fins, baleen, blubber, flukes etc.
I'm glad you're admitting that the notion of evolution not being directional isn't true.
Weather the dates swing about depends on the techniques used. Some do swing, but those dates can be discarded if they don't give the desired date. For example, a National Geographic article (How old is it) told us the oldest rock found on earth is 4.03 billion years, yet some rocks have been dated to be more than 10 billion years old. Therefore, since we 'know' rocks can't be that old, it can be discarded and explained away. Still, you haven't said anything to disprove my assertion that these multiple techniques are inaccurate and cannot be relied upon. If they were accurate and could be relied upon, then the dates would not change. We should expect them to be established fact. Science has been so successful because it relies upon scientific method, not because it is self correcting. This is merely a self-serving definition of science to allow you to feel good about being wrong. Dates can be manufactured to give the desired date. If this counts as good science, then I'm afraid that's not good enough. There are many examples that can be cited. I pulled out an old dinosaur encyclopedia from 1985 which lists the Cretaeous period from 135-64 million years ago. However a current web search indicates it's now between 145.5 - 5 million years ago. 10 million years suddenly disappeared, extinct! I can't help but wonder what would happen if I went to the library and pulled out a textbook from 50 years ago. What age would you predict the cretaceous period to indicate 25 years from now?
And you really, really believe evolution is true. You really, really believe dogs can be bred to the size of a bus. You really, really believe dinosaurs grew wings. Sounds like fairy tails to me.
How do you know which cities were pre-flood v.s. post flood? As far as I know we haven't found any pre-flood cities to investigate.
How about the obvious answer... they migrated to Australia. Either they didn't migrate anywhere else, or they died out because they couldn't adapt to other locations. The ones that made it to Australia survived.
The knowledge survived in his family. Of course Noah knew about iron working. According to Genesis 4:22 there were humans forging all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron before the flood.
And you're telling me that you wouldn't be bored in hell for an eternity? The Bible paints a pretty gloomy picture of hell (2 Peter 2:4, Luke 16:23, Matthew 18:9).
From a secular perspective perhaps, but not from a Biblical perspective. The Bible describes heaven as paradise (Luke 23:43), where nothing is destroyed (Luke 12:33). It's an eternal dwelling place (2 Corinthians 5:1) where there will be peace (Isaiah 11:7-9, Isaiah 65:25). We will have spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:42-55) that are imperishable.
I hope you come around to your senses.
Posted by: Jon S | December 9, 2009 12:00 AM
"You've been duped by Haekel's fraudulent drawings, and you've fallen for the old vestigial organ trick. Mammals do not pass through a fish stage during their development…"
Um. Gill slits:
"...and just because you can't think of a function doesn't mean there is no function. There are many examples of organs that were once thought to be vestigial that now have functions, such as the appendix, thymus gland, coccyx, pineal gland, and tonsils."
And you're apparently using the gradeschool definition of "vestigial". Vestigial doesn't mean only "no function", it's"no or little function or not the original function". You're tail isn't a tail, but it's still a mount for muscles. You
"Do you really think we can breed bigger dogs the size of a bus or a blue whale just by doing a little more breeding? Are you serious??? And you think the only reason we don't have dogs that size is because no one has tried? Do you not realize that breeding has been going on for thousands of years, and we can't accomplish what you claim?"
Two problems:
1) Gravity - land animals face a limit when gravity overcomes size (and where the energy required to get food and not be food becomes greater than that which can be taken in). A big elephant isn't big compared to a not-all-that-big whale. Water-bound creatures don't face the gravitational limit.
2) Time scale - whales' land-based ancestors-to-whales took millions of years. Animal husbandry started, haphazardly, thousands of years ago.
"They won't develop fins, baleen, blubber, flukes etc."
That's odd, because the evidence shows that fish fins evolved to be arms/legs/feet/hands.
"Therefore, since we 'know' rocks can't be that old, it can be discarded and explained away."
Explaining the outliers is half the fun of science.
"Still, you haven't said anything to disprove my assertion that these multiple techniques are inaccurate and cannot be relied upon."
…multiple convergent techniques. Taking one compass bearing is so-so. Two from different positions is better. Three, better still. Do enough of them and you both get a reliable "fix" and, inevitably, some outliers.
"If they were accurate and could be relied upon, then the dates would not change."
+/- a million years on a billion is pretty good accuracy. It's not "right" but it's close enough. No outlier shows a 6-10,000 year old universe.
"There are many examples that can be cited. I pulled out an old dinosaur encyclopedia from 1985 which lists the Cretaeous period from 135-64 million years ago. However a current web search indicates it's now between 145.5 - 5 million years ago. 10 million years suddenly disappeared, extinct!"
Are you on "the drugs"? Seriously. People have been arguing about when one time period starts and ends for-friggin-ever, for reasons both logical and, um, not. It gets worse once you take into account that different countries have, historically, used their own systems. Time didn't "disappear". One epoch shrank and another grew. (And it's not just for that. I remember being terribly confused when reading a radio repair manual circuit diagram that had a "thyristor", which turned out to be the mostly-British term for an SCR or, for a time example, even Wikipedia has the start of WWII as "generally held to be September 1, 1939")
"Sounds like fairy tails to me."
I've read through the previous comments on this page and, excuse my French, but that's because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Start at In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong. It's old (and some of it, no doubt, is out of date. That's not a bug, it's a feature), but the Creationist arguments, to be honest, haven't changed. They're no less wrong than they used to be. There's simply a lot more evidence of how wrong they are, now.
"How about the obvious answer... they migrated to Australia. Either they didn't migrate anywhere else, or they died out because they couldn't adapt to other locations. The ones that made it to Australia survived."
And that's why we've found no evidence of koalas (or penguins) anywhere near Turkey?
"I hope you come around to your senses."
We (and I speak for everybody) hope you come to yours. If God is and God does then this is how He did, no matter what the authors credited as Moses thought.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 9, 2009 8:23 AM
1) Calling a man an idiot for saying something i find idiotic, and EXPLAINING why I think that is idiotic is perfectly allowed. Your concern for his sensibilities has been noted. He is a big boy, i'm sure he will survive, and will have faced far worse criticism from the people in his field.
2) Let me simply for you. You say that evolution isn't science, scientists say otherwise.
The movement of a cat as it pounces on its prey is elegant. Elegant doesn't mean nice, cuddly or necessarily efficient actually.
Evolution is not a religion under any definition of the word. You might need to believe that everyone believes really and are just pretending. Believe me you are mistaken.
-Regardless, you must have faith that changes to the DNA via growth or mutation will ever produce new features by random chance.-
You mean like the feature to handle a new source of food? Hmm, why does this sound familar? Could it be we already discussed this here perhaps?
3) So, large changes can happen, but it doesn't make new species? even if their bones change in size and number, their colours change, their hair changes, bits move around, new habits, everything. Nope, everything can change, but none of that is apprently enough to change species into something else. Such is this mysterious and powerful container called "species".
I have not been "deceived" about gill slits. Animal embryo growth is well documented. Haekel was about 100 years ago. It might shock you to learn that things have moved on a little since then. In fact the similarities in embryo growth between species is a point in favour of evolution.
4) -Do you really think we can breed bigger dogs the size of a bus or a blue whale just by doing a little more breeding? -
Yes, dogs are mammals. We have other mammals that size (elephants) with similar body structure (bones, lungs heart etc...) large dogs already exist without trying. Whats the problem? Ok, there might be issues that we don't know about down the line, but poo pooing it without trying simply because YOU can't believe it is silly. We have evidence that it can be done in mammals, we know its never really been pushed artifically, whats the problem?
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 10, 2009 9:52 AM
When I began to blog almost 5 years ago, I wanted to share stories of my graduate school experience with other women scientists in the hopes that we could form a virtual support network for each other. Back then it took me weeks to find even one other woman doing the same thing with a blog.
Posted by: sikiş izle | December 10, 2009 9:52 AM
5) -And putting a dog in the ocean or on an island won't put it on the path to becoming a whale-
Tell that to the sea otter, which is actually a type of weasel. It has webbed feet but uses thick fur rather than blubber and never needs to leave the water for land.
Hey if a weasel can do it...
6) -I'm glad you're admitting that the notion of evolution not being directional isn't true.-
Lets clear this up before it gets silly, when i say directed, i mean directed by something with a long term goal.
When i say that complexity arises, thats just evolution filling up niches, like a stream filling up a series of small lakes as it goes down a mountain.
Obviously eventually a direction is going to appear. If i wander blindly in a forest, and happen to go east, i wouldn't decide that this was my preordained direction. I also might end up wandering back west eventually.
5) -yet some rocks have been dated to be more than 10 billion years old-
Link to article please. I doubt its as simple as you say. Oh and 10 billion is still not 10,000.
Also, correction is a massively important of science. It is not about being inaccurate in the first place, sometimes we just find new evidence for something.
-What age would you predict the cretaceous period to indicate 25 years from now?-
I would expect it to have moved by about 2-3 million years if at all. Barely anything. Science changes and improves as new evidence comes in. Get used to it. And be suspicious of anything which NEVER gets changed even a little. It probably isn't science.
6) -You really, really believe dinosaurs grew wings. Sounds like fairy tails to me. -
If you look under the list of dinosaria, you will find that birds are included. So yes dinosaurs did in fact grow wings.
7) -How do you know which cities were pre-flood v.s. post flood? As far as I know we haven't found any pre-flood cities to investigate.-
From wikipedia:
By about 5500 BC, small tribes living in the Nile valley had developed into a series of cultures demonstrating firm control of agriculture and animal husbandry, and identifiable by their pottery and personal items...
If you want more pre-flood cities, let me know.
8)-Either they didn't migrate anywhere else, or they died out because they couldn't adapt to other locations. The ones that made it to Australia survived.-
And did anybody bother to check whether that type of animal migration is even possible, or was the answer pulled out of someones ass? I could say they grew temporary wings and landed on the one island that can support their diet, I would have as much evidence for it as for your idea.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 10, 2009 10:29 AM
9) -there were humans forging all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron before the flood.
Yes, but was he and his family? it's pretty specialized and thats only two small examples of possible knowledge lost.
10) -And you're telling me that you wouldn't be bored in hell for an eternity? The Bible paints a pretty gloomy picture of hell (2 Peter 2:4, Luke 16:23, Matthew 18:9).-
Bored in heaven, bored in hell. Something to look forward to eh? You cannot scare a man with a place that he doesn't think exists.
So, how is neuroscience and psychology doing in it's search for the human soul. It must exist, surely? All that research into the brain and how it thinks and still no soul. Just matter, behaving under the rules of physics. Surely not?
No soul, no heaven. No matter how much you want your gray matter to be special.
and this is the odd thing, why aren't the creationists attacking neurobiology yet? Surely that undermines heaven far more than a few fossils?
What about that recent study that showed that a god had the same beliefs as the believer. And if the believer changed their mind, their god's views changed too. Funny that dontcha think?
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php
Oh and read this please. It will help you understand my meaning behind science being allowed to be wrong.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 10, 2009 10:50 AM
Modusoperandi,
It's interesting that the little blurb you quoted makes a distinction between true gill slits in fish and the skin folds in mammals called 'gill slits'. I know you're making the connection that because all vertebrates have 'gill slits' or skin folds at 'some time' in their embryonic stage, that this somehow proves we're all related. Um, I don't think you realize how profoundly different the blueprints in the DNA are between different kinds of animals. The genetic code in the DNA tells the folds to form gills in fish, while a completely different set of instructions tells the folds in mammals to form the trachea and ear bones. As far as I know fish do not have the genetic coding for a trachea, and neither do mammals have the genetic coding for gills. You're making a huge assumption based on modern mythology. You too have fallen for Haekel's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. However the human embryo never passes through a fish stage, or any other evolutionary stage. The human embryo progresses toward a fully functional human right from the start. We can just as easily interpret embryonic development to demonstrate that God chose similar blue prints because that was the most efficient design, and yet when the animals develop, they become very unique in their form and structure.
Hmmm, could it be that the definition you quoted has been manufactured and is self-serving so as to continue the evolutionary propaganda? Regardless of how you wish to define a vestigial organ, the important issue is whether or not the organ lost all or most of its original function through evolution. For example, the appendix is not a vestigial organ. Firstly it's it is a very vital organ. But by applying your self-serving definition, it is a vestigial organ because you could claim little function, or, assuming evolution, that it has lost its original function. In other words it's a judgmental term. But if we don't assume evolution, the definition of a vestigial organ loses much of its meaning. In fact Douglas Futuyma has stated that vestigial structures make no sense without evolution. Now this isn't to say that modern humans haven't lost function when compared to the first humans; in fact I would suggest that our bodies are losing function rather than gaining new functions, which is the opposite of what evolution would predict. If humans were created by God and did not evolve, then an organ like the appendix cannot be considered vestigial, because it's function in humans has nothing to do with how it's used in other animals. The appendix has many useful immunological functions.
Are you aware that dinosaurs have existed in the past, and that some of them were larger than the blue whale, such as Seismosaurus? Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were much, much bigger than elephants. Therefore, if land animals face a gravitational limit, then perhaps you think that all those dinosaur fossils are a hoax? Somehow, if you believe in evolution, then you must believe a small animal, such as the first one that sprouted legs and walked onto land surpassed the gravitational limit and became these giant dinosaurs. So then, it shouldn't be hard for breeders to breed dogs the size of a blue whale, if evolution were true. Or at least breed them bigger than what they are now. It would be interesting to see a study to show whether or not the largest dogs have become bigger over the last 100 years or so. I think the tallest living dog is only 42.2 inches. You'd think that after thousands of years of breeding we could get something a little bigger, if evolution were true.
No, the evidence shows that fins have always been fins, arms have always been arms, and legs always legs.
I'm glad you think science is fun, as well it should be. But speculation remains speculation, not fact.
Your claim to reliability is based on faith and is impossible to prove. For example, are you suggesting they just haven't done enough compass bearings on the Cretaceous period yet? I'd think that by now they would have found a reliable fix by now.
If the earth is under 10,000 years old, then I'd say the accuracy is not good enough.
You're making my point for me. How can you claim that the dating techniques are accurate if scientists keep arguing over which dates are correct, and that the dates change depending on the country? I'm trying to demonstrate that no one will ever be able to reliably date anything as long as there is no way to verify the accuracy, such as an eye witness account. No scientist can observe a rock being formed millions or billions of years ago, nor was anyone alive to confirm when the Cretaceous period began or ended. Fossils don't come with dates stamped on them. The scientific method falls apart without observation. All we can do is run experiments and then 'interpret' the data based on certain unprovable assumptions about the past. And if those assumptions are incorrect, then the interpretation will also be incorrect. Why is this so hard for evolutionists to grasp?
Shouting that Creationists don't know what we're talking about is a poor argument. You base your beliefs on your own worldview in which you're already convinced that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. This is a belief and commitment to naturalism. The evidence conforms to your belief. As I've demonstrated, dating techniques are inaccurate and can never be validated. Your claim that they're in the ballpark is bogus. You cannot validate that outside of your belief system. All you can do is get like-minded scientists to agree with you. Unfortunately for you, there are enough scientists who do not share your worldview, and instead accept that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal day less than 10,000 years ago. These scientists have demonstrated that the dates you place your faith in are wrong, and they have done plenty of research to demonstrate that scientific data supports a young earth. You've rejected their data based on your own worldview. You can dig up a dinosaur bone and date it all you want, but in the end you will never be able to prove that the bone is 75 million years old and not 4,000 years old. The soft tissue, blood vessels, bone matrix and connective tissues turning up in dinosaurs thought to be 65 million years old are turning up all the time now that scientists are searching for them. This only makes sense if the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old. This evidence demonstrates that your dates are wrong.
Posted by: Jon S | December 10, 2009 11:27 PM
Which is telling don't you think that embryologically we share similarities with fish. Am I really to believe that your god thinks its efficient to start mammals and fish off in the same way, using the same gill cells to grow completely different organs? Is that really an example of "special and individual creation"? or is it an absolutely telling sign of evolution?
Vestigial organ has a specific meaning. Modus is correct, complaints of propaganda are unwarranted. The appendix is vestigial in our bodies, not in other animals. Since in other animals it is used to help digest grass, something which humans have never done, I can hardly see it being an example of devolution. That is unless you think humans used to be like giant magical cows in the good old days of Methuselah.
So large dogs aren't possible, except they are because dinosaurs, except evolution hasn't produced one so it must be unpossible, so evolution isn't true? Let me know when you decide whether big dogs are really possible or not please. I'm confused.
Evidence please. It needs to be stronger than the evidence we do have, multi-part, with all lines converging on an acceptable range. Let me know when you have it. Belief? That the world is real and measurable? What heresy... Then you will have absolutely no difficulty telling me the exact number of pi then. Give me that and I will give the exact time down to the milliontyeth-googleplextyeth second of when the cretaceous period started. Because lets face it, nothing less would be acceptable to you. I have already told you that you don't need to compare dating methods to ancient times. We are well aware of decay rates from other methods. Or it demonstrates that we learned something new about fossilization. Since before that the oldest soft-tissue proteins ever found came from a 300,000 year old mammoth, it hardly helps your claim of 4000 years anyway.Absolutely nothing...at all...points to 6000 years...not even your own claims once you examine them. But feel free to keep trying.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 11, 2009 6:35 AM
Pah! My comment went in to moderation.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 11, 2009 1:50 PM
This is, again, one of my biggest problems with those who refuse vaccines. They frame the issue as solely "my child, my choice." Which is fine, until you put that child in with the rest of society via school, or daycare, or even trips to McDonald's.
Posted by: sikiş izle | December 11, 2009 6:29 PM
Richard,
No, only some scientists say otherwise. For if they admitted that evolution isn't science, then they wouldn't be allowed to teach it in public schools due to the misapplied separation of church and state clause. They would also have you believe they're just 'following the evidence' wherever it leads.
You're wrong. Webster's Dictionary defines religion as a “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Evolution fits this definition; it's a religious philosophy based on faith. In fact there are many scientists, doctors and professors who admit that evolution is a religion and not science. Here's a quote from Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada: "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." I'm sure you think he's an idiot since you disagree with him, huh? Here's a quote from Dr. Loren Eiseley: "After having chided the theologian on his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what after long effort, could not he proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." And how about Sir Julian Huxley: "A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism." In other words, evolution is a religion under the ordinary definition of the term. I also know chemists and biologists personally who agree that evolution is a religion. You may continue to live in denial, but the truth is getting out.
Yes, we've discussed this previously, and I pointed out that no new features were found in the bacteria. Yes, there is the ability to handle a new food source, but there is no new feature, organ, and no new information added to the genome. The features that allow the bacteria to handle a new food source were already present in the genome from the beginning. In fact genetic information may have been lost in order to use the new food source, but this would not demonstrate that a new feature has been developed by the organism.
I would maintain that similarities in embryo growth is consistent with a Creationist belief and has nothing to do with evolution as you suppose.
We do have elephants and other mammals, but you haven't demonstrated that they evolved. You're assuming that based on your religious philosophy. And as I've pointed out previously, dogs are still dogs, and after thousands of years of breeding we don't have dogs with venom, feathers or baleen, nor do we have dogs the size of elephants. And it has nothing to do with not trying. If you can breed the worlds biggest dog, you can find fame and fortune, so there's an incentive to breed bigger dogs. I know evolution is supposed to be slow, but come on now, let's see something other than wishful thinking. What evidence are you referring to? I think you're confusing faith with science.
I never said a dog couldn't adapt to an amphibious way of life. There are other animals we can point to that have adapted to an aquatic life, such as the marine iguana, but these animals have not 'evolved' into another kind of animal. As you pointed out the sea otter has thick fur and not blubber. But notice that fur thickness is already a feature or trait in the mustelidae family, so it's not surprising that sea otters could adapt to life at sea. In other words the sea otter already had the genetic blueprint for fur. They didn't evolve something they didn't already have. And I don't find it surprising that any mammal could develop webbed feet. That trait can be found in humans, but it doesn't mean we're evolving into a new type of life form. Whales and fish, however, have certain traits that dogs, deer and humans do not possess in their genetic coding. In order to demonstrate evolution, you must be able to show that an organism can develop traits never found in the normal population.
Just don't wander off a cliff...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp Here's the link I was referring to. The point I'm trying to make is that we can't rely on dating methods regardless of the dates obtained. You're saying that the dates are off only by a small percentage point, but you're assuming that they're accurate at all. The rocks dated to be 3 billion years old could just as easily be only 3,000 years old, but you would never know because you're convinced that the dating methods are authentic. Obviously there's no evidence that could convince you otherwise.
I know, I've heard this lecture before. Science is not about truth, it's about being consistently successful at explaining the results of experiments. It's more concerned with consensus than truth. Luckily for us, the Bible reveals truth, something science cannot do. I guess that makes the Bible more reliable than science, huh? Science originally was a way of discovering truth. But not anymore. Atheists love to shout that one of the strengths of science is that it's not about being accurate, but about consensus. Hmmm.
Again, it's fortunate for us that the Bible isn't a science textbook. Science always changes, but God's word never changes.
This is a manufactured, self-serving list by people who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. If you look under old lists you'll find that birds are not included. So no, dinosaurs did not grow wings.
Okay, so what connection are you trying to make? Just because something was dated at 5500 BC doesn't mean we should accept that date as accurate. Remember, science isn't about being accurate. Creationists, however, have been revising ancient dates, such as Egyptian history, because secular history is way off (Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline, by John Ashton & David Brown). I don't think the date of 5500 BC would be agreed upon by Creationists.
Yes, but you're going to have to demonstrate that they are indeed pre-flood cities and not just 'alleged' pre-flood cities.
Posted by: Jon S | December 11, 2009 11:15 PM
"They would also have you believe they're just 'following the evidence' wherever it leads."
That's what science does. It's main problem is that it keeps coming to conclusions that are, well, uncomfortable.
"Here's a quote from Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada:"
Now try it, and I can't stress this enough, in the context of what he meant:
Using it out of context, as you (and the Creationist site you, most probably, got it from) is dishonest. Since this is the first time I've seen you use it, I'll assume that you used it in good faith (they didn't). If you do that again, I'll call you a liar. Because that's what you'll be.
"Yes, we've discussed this previously, and I pointed out that no new features were found in the bacteria. Yes, there is the ability to handle a new food source, but there is no new feature…"
Being able to eat what it couldn't before is a feature.
"...organ…"
If you're expecting evolution to work in the kinds of leaps that spontaneously (or nearly so) come up with entirely new organs, you aren't arguing against the ToE. You're arguing against something else. Intelligent Design, probably.
"...and no new information added to the genome."
Do you mean besides the new stuff that lead to it being able to eat something that it couldn't before?
"In fact genetic information may have been lost in order to use the new food source…"
By analogy, you're saying that, in order to learn how to drive, you have to forget how to walk?
"I would maintain that similarities in embryo growth is consistent with a Creationist belief and has nothing to do with evolution as you suppose."
That's because everything fits Creationism, no matter what that "everything" happens to be. Oddly, this is commonly an accusation made against the ToE.
"We do have elephants and other mammals, but you haven't demonstrated that they evolved. You're assuming that based on your religious philosophy. And as I've pointed out previously, dogs are still dogs, and after thousands of years of breeding we don't have dogs with venom, feathers or baleen, nor do we have dogs the size of elephants. And it has nothing to do with not trying. If you can breed the worlds biggest dog, you can find fame and fortune, so there's an incentive to breed bigger dogs. I know evolution is supposed to be slow, but come on now, let's see something other than wishful thinking. What evidence are you referring to? I think you're confusing faith with science."
Adorable! Because nobody has bred giant, feathered dogs in thousands of years, whales' ancestors couldn't have evolved into whales in millions of years. Animal husbandy is breeding for a purpose. Nobody up to this point has found the concept of venomous canines to be a useful purpose, and I doubt very much that they have the time, knowledge or breeding population large enough to do it. We have a hard enough time planning for next year, much less next eon.
"Whales and fish, however, have certain traits that dogs, deer and humans do not possess in their genetic coding."
It was in my earlier post that went into moderation (anybody have any idea how to free it from its tortured prison?), but fish have genes that code for smelling in water and whales have the genes that code for smelling in air and a bunch of fish/smell-in-water genes. Neither gives the whale any particular advantage. Fitting ToE, that's why the water ones are all broken and the air ones are well on their way there. Note that you, too, have the smell-in-water genes. Yours are also broken.
"http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp Here's the link I was referring to."
And, in accordance with ISO standard 6061 on internet protocol, I counter your AIG link with a bunch from talkorigins.org.
"Obviously there's no evidence that could convince you otherwise."
At worst that's a tu quoque.
"Luckily for us, the Bible reveals truth…"
{citation needed}
"...something science cannot do."
Oh, I don't know. Science's "a close enough model, for now, pending new data" has worked pretty well so far. It's not great at the "absolutist 100% sure", but it's quite capable at filtering out "what is not".
"Atheists love to shout that one of the strengths of science is that it's not about being accurate, but about consensus."
Really? All consensus means is that it hasn't been falsified yet. As more people analyze more data in more depth and add to the consensus, it strengthens the theory.
"Again, it's fortunate for us that the Bible isn't a science textbook."
Thank God.
"Science always changes, but God's word never changes."
Which means that was wrong (out of ignorance, not stupidity or malevolence, generally) still is wrong. Ussher's chronology is no less wrong now than it used to be. The only thing that changed was we have a lot more data than he did.
"This is a manufactured, self-serving list by people who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds."
Except that they didn't used to believe that. At best, it was a hypothesis. The fossils, for lack of a better term, converted them.
"If you look under old lists you'll find that birds are not included. So no, dinosaurs did not grow wings."
By that logic, relativity doesn't exist because nobody before Einstein mentioned it.
"Remember, science isn't about being accurate."
The hell it isn't. Science is about being as accurate as you can be. "A close enough model for now" isn't "let's round off all the numbers", it's "this is the best explanation we have".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 12, 2009 1:39 PM
Crap! I just had another comment go in to moderation.
Anybody know how to get them out? Is there a secret handshake?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 12, 2009 1:43 PM
Richard,
Dude, you can make the same allegations against evolutionists. They invent just so stories to explain everything from the flagellum to dinosaur/ bird evolution. Your explanation is typical evolutionist mumbo jumbo. For example, to explain how the flagellum evolved, one must invent a clever story, such as how it might have evolved from the TTSS (a priori reasoning). But Creationists could just as easily counter that by claiming the TTSS might be the result of the flagellum losing information. So your criticism can be applied both directions. The Krebs cycle is another example; researchers have produced two important studies describing how a real, complex, biochemical system MIGHT have evolved. It's impossible to prove that they did evolve in that manner since we cannot observe the process that is assumed to have taken place in the past. And neither can we prove that a certain type of animal migration is possible today when we don't know all the conditions in the past without making multiple unprovable assumptions.
It's impossible to say conclusively that Noah and his sons actually knew how to forge iron and bronze, but we can be confident that they at least new that could be done, for it's certainly likely they were using tools made of iron to build the ark. Since they knew it could be done, it wouldn't have taken long for them or their descendants to figure out the process.
Honestly, I don't mean to scare anyone into believing in God. I do, however, hope that you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss death and a possible afterlife so cavalierly. I'd think something as inevitable as death would be taken more seriously. If the God in scripture is real, heaven seems like the absolute best place to be.
Yes, the soul does exist, but you're mistaken to think that we can find it as though it's a material object. The soul is spirit and is not made of flesh and blood. When the body dies, the soul will continue.
I don't follow your logic. Why would Creationists attack neurobiology? As long as real science is being done, then all is good. It only becomes a problem when you insert evolutionary assumptions into it.
I don't have any problems with the study, and I'm not surprised by the results. In fact I had always concluded that many people believe what they want to believe and, thus, they make god conform to their own personal philosophies. I think this study has confirmed what I already believe. In fact this is a criticism I have with false religions, including atheism. I think many people try to find religions they're comfortable with- a religion that tells them what their itching ears want to hear. Unless God is speaking directly to a man, then we are left with having to try and rationalize what God's will truly is, and many times we wander away from the truth and have God conform to our views, which is the wrong direction to go, because that means we're trying to be god rather than humbling ourselves before God. I know the study claims that the subjects were almost entirely American Christians, but the term Christian can have different meanings. If one truly wants to know God's will, then we need to search scripture. That's the best strategy to avoid falling into the trap of having God conform his will to us. And even if we don't like what scripture teaches, we need to humbly accept it because God is indeed sovereign, even if we don't necessarily understand his will.
I read the article, but it only explained what I already know. Atheists tend to believe that there is no right or wrong, or truth or false or absolutes, and that's okay with science. However there's a reason why science is not about discovering truth anymore, and that's because it doesn't know what the truth is, not that truth doesn't exist. For example, if we were omniscient and knew the exact age of a particular dinosaur fossil (more specifically, when the animal died), then we could document that in a journal and go on. But since we're not omniscient, and since we don't know the exact age, then we must do experiments and tests and hope the dates are correct. But we'll never know if what we publish is accurate, inaccurate, or how far off we are. Future tests and experiments could change what was previously agreed upon to be a consensus, and you'd never know if you were any closer to the actual date. We can only hope we're close to the true age, but you can't claim that the actual date the animal died doesn't exist. In order for there to be no truth, then we'd have to conclude that the fossils are imaginary. But if we're certain that the organism existed and died, then there has to be a true date to the fossil, even though we don't know what it is. Scientists can only speculate that their interpretation of the data is correct. You may claim this is what makes science great, but you should at least understand that what you find great about science is also its limitation. And since science has limitations, to which you and I both agree, then we should take comfort knowing that the Bible is the Word of God and can be relied upon for truth.
Sort of, yes. If he thought it was more efficient to do it another way, then he would have done so. However he didn't use the same gill cells to grow completely different organs. You're using your evolutionary assumptions again. As I've stated previously, the folds in the human embryo have nothing to do with gills. Humans didn't evolve from other organisms, so the folds have a completely different set of genetic instructions which tells them to become the trachea, ear bones, etc.. You, however, see similarities, and since you believe in evolution a priori, you accept this as evidence that they evolved. Whereas I believe God created man separately from animals, and see the similarities as God creating a basic blueprint. It's kind of similar to building different types of homes. You could build a modest cabin, and across the street build a fabulous palace. No one would think that one evolved into the other just because we could find some similarities to them (they both have a roof and door) and the way you built them (from the ground up) and the tools used (hammers, nails, screws). You seem to be assuming that if God really did create animals in their various kinds that you would expect them to all develop without any similarities at all, but this type of thinking only demonstrates your bias and is an argument from personal incredulity.
My complaints of propaganda are warranted. As I've demonstrated, the term vestigial has little meaning without an a priori belief in evolution. The appendix is not vestigial. It has many useful and important roles in immunology, especially in fetal development:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/vestigial.asp
Okay, I'll spell it out. You claim it is possible for dogs to evolve to the size of a blue whale, and that they could be bred to that size. However you claim that no one has tried breeding them to that size, and that they just haven't taken that evolutionary line. I pointed out that breeding has been going on for thousands of years and we can't get dogs much bigger than we could 1,000 years ago. I claim there's a barrier to the size an organism can grow (no one has observed anything to the contrary), and that it cannot go beyond certain boundaries. You rightly claim that 'bigger is better' is a child-like notion that doesn't conform to the real world. You claim that the bones would be crippled under the weight, and I agreed. Modusoperandi claims that if dogs became water bound they wouldn't face a gravitational limit, and that limit could be crossed with millions of years of evolution. Modusoperandi claims that thousands of years of breeding is not enough time to expect any kind of noticeable change. I countered that if evolution were true, we should at least see some evolutionary results, other than various breeds of dogs, including larger and larger dogs over time. I also pointed out how your claims are contradicted by dinosaurs, which somehow (if evolution were true) overcame the gravitational barrier and avoided the crippling of their bones as well as other biological problems associated with giganticism. I pointed out that if evolution were true, then we shouldn't see the apparent barriers that we observe in nature and that you even acknowledge. However, if evolution were not true, then that would explain why we don't see giant dogs in the wild and why we can't breed them to the size of Clifford or a blue whale. That would also explain why gianticism is a problem, and it would explain why more and more diseases are popping up in humans rather than us evolving into superior beings. In other words what we observe in real life explains why evolution is false. Conversely, what we observe doesn't make sense if evolution were true. In order for evolution to be true, you must overcome the child-like notion that 'bigger is better' and place your faith in the hope that something we have never observed can happen, despite the absurdity of it. Again, if evolution were true, then 'bigger is better' wouldn't be a child-like notion- it would be reality. In other words, I've been trying to point out all your contradictions. The reason you're so confused is because you accept contradictory ideas about evolution.
I've already provided fossil evidence: soft tissue, blood vessels, bone matrix and connective tissues turning up in dinosaurs thought to be 65 million years old are turning up all the time now that scientists are searching for them. This only makes sense if the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old. Some other evidence is Helium in rocks, lunar recession, short-period comets, radiohalos in coalified wood, carbon 14. I've presented much of this evidence in previous articles, but evolutionists have ways around the data, so we can go back and forth on this. Here are a few articles you can check out. The last one summarizes a number of evidences.
http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age
http://creation.com/kuiper-belt-objects-solution-to-short-period-comets
http://www.icr.org/article/radiohalos-significant-exciting-research-results/
http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/
You continue to be confused. Even if you could tell me exactly when the Cretaceous period started and ended, I'd still say you were wrong because you'd never be able to authenticate it. All you could do is get others to agree or disagree with you. What would be acceptable to me is if you'd admit that your dating techniques are unreliable and can't be counted on, regardless of how far off or how close you think you are. You claim we're well aware of decay rates from other methods, but there are many assumptions you have to make. What if your assumptions are wrong? What if the decay rate has changed? Scientists don't know all the conditions. They cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. Scientists cannot always know if a sample is contaminated or not. There's also evidence that nuclear decay rates in the past have not always been constant, and that has been demonstrated by various granites that have yielded a uranium-lead age of 1.5 billion years, but only 6,000 years worth of helium leaked out.
This is why I keep saying that evolutionists and Creationists have different worldviews and assumptions. When you start with your worldview, you'll come up with a satisfying answer (we learned something new- dinosaur blood can survive millions of years!). I'd also expect for you to come up with satisfying answers to other evidences that I've provided.
Posted by: Jon S | December 12, 2009 6:05 PM
“Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” - Sorry, but if evolution was found wanting it would be dropped or changed (it has changed significantly in fact). It is not held with ardor or faith. Is my belief that tables exist also a religion?
"A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole"
Evolution is the study of nature. Not a worldview. I don't pray to evolution. Neither do i use it to decide what cellphone to buy.
-Yes, there is the ability to handle a new food source, but there is no new feature-
From wikipedia "Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior when oxygen is present." I would say that changes to the membrane of the bacteria was a feature. It took multiple mutations of the DNA to reach this so not really present already. Thats like saying that a fin turning into a hand wouldn't be evolution because the fin already exists.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 14, 2009 6:29 AM
I said that breeding a very large dog was technically possible as other large mammals exist (evidence that mammals can grow to a large size). You said it wasn't possible because someone hadn't done it. I still don't see why you think its impossible. Of course it would still be a dog, a big dog.
So what bit is unique to a whale and not found in other mammals? It can't be size, or bone structure as that can be changed within a species as mentioned before. Not skin and webbing, because that, as you say is trifling."I never said a dog couldn't adapt to an amphibious way of life." - as long as it doesn't grow too big? eh?
"Just don't wander off a cliff..." You wish ;)
- "Luckily for us, the Bible reveals truth, something science cannot do." -
So does the Koran. It is the "Ultimate Truth" apparently. So does the Bhagavad Gita, the Talmud, the Tao-te-ching...and lets not forget the "Eternal Truth" of the Veda.
So, remind me, how do we tell your truth from everyone elses? Truth it seems, is pretty popular in religion. Its a shame the truth seems to change depending on which religion you choose.
Science is not by consensus. Where you got that notion, i have no idea. Evolution is useful therefore it is used.
-but God's word never changes.-
Oh, really... Thats quite a statement given that numerous versions have been found of certain segments (number of the beast 666 or 616?) then theres the matter of which books were left out of the cannon. Then theres the other matter of the poor translations that have existed. The King James version apparently being quite bad for this.
-This is a manufactured, self-serving list by people who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. If you look under old lists you'll find that birds are not included. So no, dinosaurs did not grow wings.-
Blame archeopterix (among other species) for that, it being half bird, half dino. Birds also share quite a few dino features. Sorry, but they have been classed as dinos since at least the 70s and it was suspected long, long before that. Birds are Dinosauria, just as humans are mammals.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 14, 2009 7:34 AM
We have egyptian writings that have dates on them, we know all their dynasties right through where your flood should be. We have writings before and after that date even though the stuff should have been lost in the flood. Not to mention all the artefacts. This isn't a matter of guessing or carbon dating... Egypt survived your imaginary flood.
And they didn't mention it once. Funny that.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 14, 2009 8:53 AM
My comment appeared...one of them, anyway. Hurrah!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 19, 2009 4:49 PM
I fear Modus that you have too many links in your posts. 3 is the usual limit. Thats the usual reason for a post getting stuck.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 21, 2009 4:05 AM
But I do so love citing things.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 21, 2009 6:13 PM