Twenty Questions for Evolutionists Answered
Budikka666
> If you find evolutionists who
> feel they or others can answer these questions, then ask one more
> question: "Why won't evolutionists enter a strictly scientific,
> written debate on the creation-evolution issue?"
I will debate any creationist/ID proponent online any time. Bring 'em
on, right here, right now. Let's go.
>; After you read the
> entire book, the answer will be evident. For details on this written
> debate offer, see pages 397-399.
I doubt it. And since we can't see pp 397-399, your bravado is pretty
empty.
> 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What's
> the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
> (See pages 6-8.)
Given that your bullshit clicking doesn't work, let me provide the
standard definition for macroevolution: evolution at or above the
species level. Here are some observed and related examples:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/cqb3n
Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/ay53o
1. Now you tell me - where has creation ever been observed?
> If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how
> could the organism live before getting the vital organ?
The organ was not always vital and/or it functioned in some other way
or for some other purpose, and/or the organ developed its vitality as
the organism evolved. It's not rocket science. It's biology.
Why didn't the creator duplicate all vital organs?
> 2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 14.) How
> could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird
> ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Read the books on the topic, you'll find out. Here's how the eye
could have evolved in just such a process:
http://tinyurl.com/2j69
Why are things so complex when they could have been so simple for an
omniscient, omnipotent creator with infinite resources and all
eternity in which to work?
> (See page 8.) How
> could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all
> components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page
> 19.)
http://tinyurl.com/2d7var
Why did the creator make bacteria? They cause as much harm as they do
good. Is this the best he could do?
> 3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional
> fossils that should be there? Billions!
Why should there be billions? Can you provide a skeleton for every
one of your ancestors? Why not? If you descended from your parents,
grand parents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, etc., you
should be able to provide a skeleton for each one, shouldn't you?
> Not a handful of questionable
> transitions.
Even on single transitional disproves special creation.
> Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all
> living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 11.)
We do insofar as the fossil record can preserve it. Here's a few
examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> 4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and
> where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary
> ancestors of the insects? (See page 12.)
Other insects, dimwit, whichc ame form others, and others, each
changing very slightly over the generations until they were not
insects when you go back far enough.
The science of evolution is not done in textbooks, it's done in the
lab, in the field, and in theoretical studies. the results are
published in peer reviewed science journals the world over by people
of all faiths.
Now where's your evidence that some god did it all in six days?
> 5. How could the first living cell begin?
What is there to support abiogenesis? The first thing you need to
establish is that there's even a basis of it. That basis is organic
chemistry. Is this found naturally or not? Well, yes it is, since
the basic building blocks of life are "grown" in space: "A team of
NASA exobiology researchers revealed today organic chemicals that play
a crucial role in the chemistry of life are common in space."
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
In other words, not only do these precursors to life exist naturally,
they are common.
But they are in space. How do they reach Earth? Experiments have
shown that such chemistry occurs right here on Earth - or it did in
prebiotic atmospheric conditions that geologists have shown existed on
Earth several billion years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
Could "locally grown chemistry have started life?
" A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Could they come to Earth on meteors and comets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
Could they survive the impact?
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
Could they congegate in sufficient undisturbed volume to actually make
a start on life?
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
Where could these molecules collect together?
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Can they form "boundary structures" similar to cell walls?
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
But can this actually work in practice?
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Can molecules mimic life?
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
How complex would the first cell need to be?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
The smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the gneome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
Now where's your evidence that "godidit"?
> That's a greater miracle
> than for bacteria to evolve into man.
Where's your evidence that there are miracles?
> How could that first cell
> reproduce?
Your mommy or daddy never told you about the birds and the bees? Look
up mitosis.
> (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the
> atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?
Look it up.
> Whichever choice you
> make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
LIE!
> Both must come into
> existence at about the same time. (See page 14.)
LIE! The first life was anaerobic.
> 6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates
> information.
I'll give you two: mutation and gene duplication. Now you point to
evidence of a divinity creating information.
> What evidence is there that information, such as that in
> DNA, could ever assemble itself?
Chemistry.
> What about the 4,000 books' worth of
> coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion
> cells?
What about the significantly less information in the most primitive
cells? Where does the Theory fo Evolution claim humans appeared as
they are now, right form the start? Right - it doesn't. It's
religion that claims such a thing, not evolution. Get your story
straight.
> If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant
> galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent
> source.
Why? Because we know what kind of signals intelligence might send.
But it is entirely conceivable that a signal from a completely alien
intelligence would go (or even is going) undetected. The only
"support" you can claim for creation from analogies like these is that
life was created by human intelligence. Is that your point?
> Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA
You mean the 2% that actually contains functional genes, or 2% of
"junk" that appears to have value or the ~96% that's junk?
Why did a omnipotent, omniscient, perfect god with all eternity in
which to work an infinite resources upon which to call, who saw that
his work was good make ~96% of our genome junk?
> molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See
> pages 9 and 15.)
>
> 7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only
> be produced by DNA? (See page 15.)
RNA. read up about RNA world, Dimwit.
Which came first, the pin head or the angels dancing on it?
> 8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 18.) How could
> immune systems evolve? (See page 18.)
Evolution, Dimwit.
Why do we need an immune system if we were created especially by a
loving creator who designed this world especially for us?
> 9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take
> vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that
> hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
Because a human isn't an arrowhead. Next question....
If it takes great intelligence to create a human, why doesn't it take
even greater intelligence to create a god?
> 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
> Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
Why shouldn't they? If a loving omnipotent omniscient God created the
solar system especially for us, why is Earth bombarded with asteroids
and deadly stellar radiation?
> 11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there-
>From a collision with a celestial body about the size of Mars:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/5/8/13
Can you name even one reasonable hypothesis as to why a loving creator
slams comets into Earth?
> 12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics
> come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.)
What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
Where did your god come from?
> 13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 28-30.)
Physics:
http://www.milky-way.com/gb/sevol.htm
> 14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and
> contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of
> years old? (See pages 34-37 and 312-317.)
There aren't any.
Are you aware of how fuindamentally stupid the God myth is?
> 15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are
> hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are
> billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used
> to rule out contamination. (See page 33.)
When you can give examples of these, I'll answer your question. What
does it have to do with evolution?
> 16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that
> the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 31-37.)
LIE! Radiometric Dating - a Christian Perspective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
> 17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page
> 45.)
Because it floods everywhere at some time or other, but there isn't a
single shred of evidence for a global flood.
> 18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam?
> Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female
> ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only
> about 6,000-7,000 years ago. (See pages 309-311.)
LIE! "Mitochondrial Eve" lived 140,000 years ago. "Y-chromosome
Adam" lived 90,000 years ago. They never met.
If a god created two people 6,000 years ago, who were bottle-necked
just 4,300 years ago into eight mostly-related individuals from whom
we all descended, how come we have so many gene variants (alleles) in
our bodies?
> 19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites:
> living bacteria,
LIE!
> salt crystals,
So?
limestone,
So?
water,
So?
sugars,
So?
terrestrial-
> like brines,
So?
and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn't this implicate
> Earth as their source-and a powerful launcher, "the fountains of the
> great deep?" (See page 295.)
LIE!
What does *any* of this have to do with Evolution?
Why does your loving god throw huge rocks at us from space?
> 20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features
> of the earth:
>
> The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
Erosion and deposition. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Plate tectonics. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Continental Shelves and Slopes
Why do these need to be "explained"?
What does this have to do with evolution?
Why did your loving god create a planet that is in geologic chaos that
has killed quite literally thousands of people?
> Ocean Trenches (See pages 137-159.)
Plate tectonics. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Seamounts and Tablemounts
Volcanic activity and plate tectonics. You really don't read much do
you? What does this have to do with evolution?
> Earthquakes
Plate tectonics. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Plate tectonics and changing magetic poles. What does this have to do
with evolution?
> Submarine Canyons
Plate tectonics. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Coal and Oil Formations
Deposition of organic matter. What does this have to do with
evolution?
> Methane Hydrates
Methane hydrating. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Ice Age
Ice age. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Frozen Mammoths (See pages 219 -251.)
Ice age. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Major Mountain Ranges
Plate tectonics. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Overthrusts
Men trying to be macho in bed. What does this have to do with
evolution?
> Volcanoes and Lava
Plate tectonics. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Geothermal Heat
Radioactivity. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Strata and Layered Fossils (See pages 161-173.)
Death and burial.
> Metamorphic Rock
Geologic activity. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Limestone (See pages 211-217.)
Deposition of skeletons. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Plateaus
? What does this have to do with evolution?
> Salt Domes
Oceans drying up. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Plate tectonics. What does this have to do with evolution?
> Changing Axis Tilt
? What does this have to do with evolution?
> Comets (See pages 253-284.)
What does this have to do with evolution?
> Asteroids and Meteoroids (See pages 285-303.)
Meteroids? What does this have to do with evolution?
> In a broad overview, pages 101-132 explain some obvious problems with
> evolutionists' explanations for each of these 24 features and show how
> all are consequences of a global flood. (Additional page numbers above
> refer to chapters devoted entirely to a single feature.)
LIE! There is no evidence for a global flood.
Next please, right this way....
Budikka
Koppis
Sadly, I don't think it will matter much.
> > 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
> > Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
Is the original poster really that stupid, or is he just trolling. I
honestly don't know.
DärFläken
"Koppis" <tama...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:1185209962.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
What can we expect when his brain is on religion? There are those who still
believe in evil spirits, unicorns, witches, leprechauns etc.
panam...@hotmail.com
Y'know, the thing I've always wondered is why their imaginations are
so limited. Why do some planets spin differently? Why do some moons
revolve "backwards"? Ugh. With just a little physics study (and I'm
not it's best student! <g>), I can imagine colossal
collisions..releasing so much energy it makes the yield of our most
powerful weapons look as puny as a firecracker in a thunderstorm. What
a fireworks show *that* must have been!
And then, the "captured" bodies? Eons of lonely, cold existence until
a slight slip of gravity bends a body's path into the warm embrace of
a planet...basking in relative warmth from the reflected light from
the surface below.
Why do these morons continue to cower in fear before the things they
don't understand, when the truth is so much more beautiful? If they
put half the work into actually understanding the processes that
create the universe we see as they do into camoflauging their own
ignorance, they would be rewarded with a glimpse of beauty so intense
I can't find words to describe it.
Oh, well...their loss. Hmmm...I'm staying at a friend's place tonight,
and the light pollution's not so bad out here. Maybe I'll go see if
she still has that old beat-up Meade we used to look through...
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
AA32015/KoBAAWA!
Koppis
Hey wait!
Actually, six planets out of nine revolve backwards! Damn.
Well, I guess darwinism is pretty much debunked now. So much for our
evil atheist scheme to destroy religion. It was fun while it lasted.
Michael Gray
The OP most likely does not even understand the questions.
Budikka666
> Good job Budikka.
>
> Sadly, I don't think it will matter much.
I'm sure it won't, judged by the pathetic level of the questions
asked! But it's important not to let these liars and frauds get away
with it. Hit them with a refutation every time.
> > > 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
> > > Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
>
> Is the original poster really that stupid, or is he just trolling. I
> honestly don't know.
I think they're really that stupid - or perhaps not so much stupid as
ignorant - of physics, chemistry, biology (whatever subject it is upon
which they're pontificating at the time!).
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Jul 23, 12:59 pm, Koppis <tamak...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> > Good job Budikka.
>
> > Sadly, I don't think it will matter much.
>
> > > > 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
> > > > Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
>
> > Is the original poster really that stupid, or is he just trolling. I
> > honestly don't know.
>
> Y'know, the thing I've always wondered is why their imaginations are
> so limited. Why do some planets spin differently? Why do some moons
> revolve "backwards"? Ugh. With just a little physics study (and I'm
> not it's best student! <g>), I can imagine colossal
> collisions..
Not necessarily even collisions - just a close fly by might be enough
to reverse a body's motion.
> releasing so much energy it makes the yield of our most
> powerful weapons look as puny as a firecracker in a thunderstorm. What
> a fireworks show *that* must have been!
I'd love to have been able to see the "creation" of the Moon. Now
*there* would have been a show. Unfortunately, it would have taken
place so slowly that you'd have to film it at the rate of something
like two frames a day and then play it back at normal speed to
actually see the thing form start to finish.
And what an amazing Earth with a huge moon looming over it before it
eventually receded to where it is now.
> And then, the "captured" bodies? Eons of lonely, cold existence until
> a slight slip of gravity bends a body's path into the warm embrace of
> a planet...basking in relative warmth from the reflected light from
> the surface below.
>
> Why do these morons continue to cower in fear before the things they
> don't understand, when the truth is so much more beautiful?
That always amazes me. if they want to believe in a god, why cheapen
the god as much as the is? Do they really think their god is so
pathetic that he has to fashion each item like some potter (and not
even Harry Potter!). Why is it that they cannot at least pretend the
majesty of the universe could ahve been created by a god who planned
the Big Bang to such perfection that it ended up like this - just as
it planned? LoL!
It's hard to tell who is more stupid: the creationists or this god
they invented!
Budikka
Budikka666
They don't revolve backwards, they just got turned upside down! I
think one of them actually kinda revolves on its side, rather than
"backwards". I forget which one - maybe one of the two lesser gas
giants?
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:59:22 -0700, Koppis <tamak...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> >Good job Budikka.
>
> >Sadly, I don't think it will matter much.
>
> >> > 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
> >> > Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
>
> >Is the original poster really that stupid, or is he just trolling. I
> >honestly don't know.
>
> The OP most likely does not even understand the questions.
I think that's pretty much a given in most cases. You know they're
lifting these completely uncritically from creationist web sites
cackling idiotically to themselves as they imagine they're gonna stump
those poor atheists! LoL!
Budikka
Koppis
> On Jul 23, 11:59 am, Koppis <tamak...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> > Good job Budikka.
>
> > Sadly, I don't think it will matter much.
>
> I'm sure it won't, judged by the pathetic level of the questions
> asked! But it's important not to let these liars and frauds get away
> with it. Hit them with a refutation every time.
I wonder what the ratio of work is, for the original poster and you,
that is. What about the number of people willing to spew out just
about anything, because some religious figure says so, compared to the
number of people willing to debunk them?
Budikka666
Typically they're doing zero work especially, after having cut &
pasted, they run away as this poster has done instead of trying to
discuss, debate or support what they post.
It's the evolutionist side which typically does far more because it's
necessary in order to refute such trash. Fortunately I've done this
so often that it's not a huge effort any more. A lot of it is in my
head and I know just where to look for supportive URLs.
It also helps that their "arguments" are not new by any means,
although they sometimes try to cleverly disguise them so they *look*
new!
Budikka
Budikka666
Typically they're doing zero work especially, after having cut &
Michael Gray
Who was it who said:
"A Creationist can come up with more lies in two minutes than a
scientist can answer in a week"?
Budikka666
gave a supported and detailed response, I now challenge the originator
of the thread to answer 20 questions for creationists. Let's see if
he can or if he's yet another in a long, long line of limp Peters at
the passion, shall we?
1. Where has creation ever been observed?
2. Why didn't the creator duplicate all vital organs?
3. Why are things so complex when they could have been so simple for
an omniscient, omnipotent creator with infinite resources and all
eternity in which to work?
4. Why did the creator make bacteria? They cause as much harm as they
do good. Is this the best he could do?
5. Can you provide a skeleton for every one of your ancestors over the
last 500 years? If you can't provide proof of transition over the
last 500 years, why would you imagine scientists ought to be able to
for the last 500 million?
6. Who made God? If God doesn't need a maker, where is the rationale
in claiming the universe did?
7. Why would the first cell need anything dramatically different to
reproduce than did the reproductive chemicals which preceded it?
8. Why do creationists think Earth four billion years ago had to be
just like Earth now?
9. How does new information get into a perfect being's mind?
10. How would we recognize a communication signal from a *completely*
alien life-form?
11. Why is some 66% or more of the human genome junk?
12. Why is there so much wasted in the world?
13. Why can't we eat of every green herb and tree bearing fruit?
14. If it took an intelligence to make a living thing, how much more
of an intelligence would it take to make the intelligence that made
the living thing?
15. Why do we need an immune system if we were deliberately created by
a loving creator who designed this world especially for us and why
does it work so poorly?
16. If a loving omnipotent omniscient God created the solar system
especially for us, why is Earth bombarded with asteroids and deadly
stellar and interstellar radiation?
17. Can you name even one reasonable hypothesis as to why a loving
creator slams comets into Earth?
18. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that
Earth, the solar system, and the universe are ancient?
19. Why is it not surprising on a planet that has regular rainfall,
mountains, valleys, and flood plains that so many ancient cultures
have flood legends?
20 Why are you not aware that "Mitochondrial Eve" lived ~140,000
years ago whilst "Y-chromosome Adam" lived ~90,000 years ago so they
never could have met?
Budikka
Lorentz
> 4. Why did the creator make bacteria? They cause as much harm as they
> do good. Is this the best he could do?
>
> a loving creator who designed this world especially for us and why
> does it work so poorly?
The answer to these two are so obvious. Most bacteria are
harmless, or even beneficial to human beings. However, bacteria are
born with free will just like human beings. They choose to be
pathogens. The Creator did do better, but the bacteria choose
otherwise.
Human beings exerted their free will by disobeying God. Because
He is a truly just God, He allows bacteria an equal amount of free
will. After the Fall, God allowed bacteria to choose the path of evil
represented by attacking Man and killing each other. Even to this day.
The free will, often mistaken as random mutations, are what drives the
microevolution that causes MDR bacteria.
God also has granted us an immune system to allow us to fight off
the evil bacteria. But this is still free will, since ones atitude is
what activates a good immune system.
Good bacteria, that avoid infecting human beings and avoid
killing each other, go to Prokaryotic Heaven. Evil bacteria find
themselves in the Autoclave of Darkness.
David V.
>
> The answer to these two are so obvious. Most bacteria are
> harmless, or even beneficial to human beings. However, bacteria are
> born with free will just like human beings. They choose to be
> pathogens. The Creator did do better, but the bacteria choose
> otherwise.
Interesting. You don't actually believe that, do you?
> Human beings exerted their free will by disobeying God. Because
> He is a truly just God, He allows bacteria an equal amount of free
> will. After the Fall, God allowed bacteria to choose the path of evil
> represented by attacking Man and killing each other. Even to this day.
> The free will, often mistaken as random mutations, are what drives the
> microevolution that causes MDR bacteria.
> God also has granted us an immune system to allow us to fight off
> the evil bacteria. But this is still free will, since ones atitude is
> what activates a good immune system.
> Good bacteria, that avoid infecting human beings and avoid
> killing each other, go to Prokaryotic Heaven. Evil bacteria find
> themselves in the Autoclave of Darkness.
The funny part is...... there are some people out there that
would actually believe that.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
The Heretic
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KbidnXj-GrvjEDPb...@sti.net...
> The funny part is...... there are some people out there that would
> actually believe that.
There are some people who actually believe in gods also!
Jeckyl
news:1185841518.8...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 7:55 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> 4. Why did the creator make bacteria? They cause as much harm as they
>> do good. Is this the best he could do?
>>
>> 15. Why do we need an immune system if we were deliberately created by
>> a loving creator who designed this world especially for us and why
>> does it work so poorly?
>
> The answer to these two are so obvious. Most bacteria are
> harmless, or even beneficial to human beings. However, bacteria are
> born with free will just like human beings.
Hehehehe .. good one :)
Cj
>> ... Because
>> He is a truly just God, He allows bacteria an equal amount of free
>> will. After the Fall, God allowed bacteria to choose the path of evil
>> represented by attacking Man and killing each other. Even to this day.
>> The free will, often mistaken as random mutations, are what drives the
>> microevolution that causes MDR bacteria.
The evil bacteria are all materialistic species. These occur in two orders:
the Atheistica and the Evolutionistica.
Members of these two orders comprise a relatively small percentage of
American bacteria but they are persistent and pernicious. Powerful
antibiotics should be used to eliminate any of the materialistic species.
Cj
Greywolf
"Lorentz" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185841518.8...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> 4. Why did the creator make bacteria? They cause as much harm as they
>> do good. Is this the best he could do?
>>
>> 15. Why do we need an immune system if we were deliberately created by
>> a loving creator who designed this world especially for us and why
>> does it work so poorly?
>
> The answer to these two are so obvious. Most bacteria are
> harmless, or even beneficial to human beings. However, bacteria are
> born with free will just like human beings.
Hmmm. Were they born with 'original sin' too?
They choose to be
> pathogens. The Creator did do better, but the bacteria choose
> otherwise.
The damn arrogant bacteria! They sure do think damn highly of themselves,
don't they? Plan on ruling the world, they do!
> Human beings exerted their free will by disobeying God. Because
> He is a truly just God, He allows bacteria an equal amount of free
> will.
Damn nice of Imaginary 'God', don't you think?
After the Fall, God allowed bacteria to choose the path of evil
> represented by attacking Man and killing each other.
Well like they say: 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'!
Even to this day.
> The free will, often mistaken as random mutations, are what drives the
> microevolution that causes MDR bacteria.
Dang, are you ever smart.
> God also has granted us an immune system to allow us to fight off
> the evil bacteria. But this is still free will, since ones atitude is
> what activates a good immune system.
> Good bacteria, that avoid infecting human beings and avoid
> killing each other, go to Prokaryotic Heaven. Evil bacteria find
> themselves in the Autoclave of Darkness.
>
Do the 'Good' bacteria wear 'angel wings' in Prokaryotic Heaven? Do the bad
bacteria stuck in the Autoclave of Darkness have to shovel coal or charcoal
brickquettes there like atheist humans in Hell do? Are the bacteria
responsible for Black Plague of the 14th-century now spending eternity in
the Autoclave of Darkness, or was 'God' responsible for that murderous
calamity?
Greywolf
Toby A Inkster
> Hmmm. Were they born with 'original sin' too?
The process by which bacteria divide can be observed under microscope.
First the DNA divides, then you see small pieces of original sin dividing
into each half of the cell, and lastly the two halves of the cell
separate, leaving a complete copy of the DNA and a complete copy of the
original sin in each daughter cell.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
demiblog 0.2.2 Released
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/29/demiblog-0.2.2/
Budikka666
> "Lorentz" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185841518.8...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 30, 7:55 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> 4. Why did the creator make bacteria? They cause as much harm as they
> >> do good. Is this the best he could do?
>
> >> 15. Why do we need an immune system if we were deliberately created by
> >> a loving creator who designed this world especially for us and why
> >> does it work so poorly?
>
> > The answer to these two are so obvious. Most bacteria are
> > harmless, or even beneficial to human beings. However, bacteria are
> > born with free will just like human beings.
>
> Hmmm. Were they born with 'original sin' too?
Hell *yeah*! Do you think there were no bacteria on that fruit that
Eve plucked from the tree? They knew. They knew all along and they
did nothing to stop her!
Budikka
The Heretic
"Cj" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:y8-dnR2TJbymXjPb...@gwi.net...
> The evil bacteria are all materialistic species. These occur in two
> orders: the Atheistica and the Evolutionistica.
> Members of these two orders comprise a relatively small percentage of
> American bacteria but they are persistent and pernicious. Powerful
> antibiotics should be used to eliminate any of the materialistic species.
You mean slaughter them all (except the young virgins) as God commanded in
the old days?
David V.
>
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> The funny part is...... there are some people out there that would
>> actually believe that.
>
> There are some people who actually believe in gods also!
Sad, funny, and pathetic all at the same time.
Scott Richter
> However, bacteria are born with free will just like human beings. They
> choose to be pathogens. The Creator did do better, but the bacteria choose
> otherwise.
Everybody sing!
"Born free... As free as the flagellum blows... As free as the
periplasmic space glows... Born free, to follow your actin
polymerization..."
hhya...@gmail.com
You can think of your great Creator when you are gravely ill........!
Yes, the Creator did that to you ?!
Darwin123
> "Cj" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:y8-dnR2TJbymXjPb...@gwi.net...
>
> > The evilbacteriaare all materialistic species. These occur in two
> > orders: the Atheistica and the Evolutionistica.
> > Members of these two orders comprise a relatively small percentage of
> > antibiotics should be used to eliminate any of the materialistic species.
>
> You mean slaughter them all (except the young virgins) as God commanded in
> the old days?
That would mean that most of them are spared. Most propagation in
bacteria is asexual, by simple mitosis. Although bacteria do exchange
genetic material, I think that occurs only once every few generations.
So except for the very few bacteria who conjugate, most would be
spared.
I am having trouble extending this analogy further. Presumably,
the old maids in Canaanite society were slain. How does one define an
old, virgin bacterium?
Darwin123
> Members of these two orders comprise a relatively small percentage of
> Americanbacteriabut they are persistent and pernicious. Powerful
> antibiotics should be used to eliminate any of the materialistic species.
>
> Cj
Organisms which are prolife should never use an antibiotic.
John C.
> > 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What's
> > the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
> > (See pages 6-8.)
>
> Given that your bullshit clicking doesn't work, let me provide the
> standard definition for macroevolution: evolution at or above the
> species level. Here are some observed and related examples:
> Example 1:http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
This supposedly "proves" macroevolution because the genome of a human
and a genome of a chimpanzee are only 4% different. This is further
bolstered by the statement of Richard Dawkins (and who DARES question
Richard Dawkins' words) that humans and chimpanzees parted x million
years ago.
How does being only 4% different prove that they were ever 100% the
same? Was this parting ever observed? Does such a statement meet the
criteria of true science?
> Example 2:http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Uses the same argument as the above. Suggests that with such a
similar genome Creationists have trouble in differentiating kinds
between a chimpanzee and a human. I live next door to a chimpanzee
family who works very hard to pay off their mortgage and children's
college tuition and I don't see any difference whatsoever.
> Example 3:http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Well, now the overwhelming scientific proof that macroevolution
ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE is that our genome is 80% similar to a mouse.
And the absolute clincher that we have to concede is that "no
mechanism prevents growing 30 million new base pairs in 60 million
years."
Of course there's the sticky problem of actually defining the natural
process that creates new DNA (aside from harmful mutations) as well as
demonstrating that 60 million years is what there was to work with.
And so on.
John C.
"Well, then, have I become YOUR enemy because I tell YOU the truth?"
Gal. 4:16 (NWT)
David V.
>
> How does being only 4% different prove that they were ever
> 100% the same? Was this parting ever observed? Does such a
> statement meet the criteria of true science?
Yes. It may not meet with your twisted version of science, but it
meets with the criteria of true science.
John C.
OK. Still waiting to hear a) how expecting observable proof for the
claim makes my version of science is twisted and b) how the claim
meets with the criteria of true science.
John C.
"The point of an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close it on
something solid." GK Chesterton
Cj
"John C." <trinita...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188857683....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 5:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> > 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What's
>> > the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
>> > (See pages 6-8.)
>>
>> Given that your bullshit clicking doesn't work, let me provide the
>> standard definition for macroevolution: evolution at or above the
>> species level. Here are some observed and related examples:
>> Example 1:http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
>
> This supposedly "proves" macroevolution because the genome of a human
> and a genome of a chimpanzee are only 4% different. This is further
> bolstered by the statement of Richard Dawkins (and who DARES question
> Richard Dawkins' words) that humans and chimpanzees parted x million
> years ago.
You know nothing about evolution.
> How does being only 4% different prove that they were ever 100% the
> same? Was this parting ever observed? Does such a statement meet the
> criteria of true science?
Nonsense, you obviously know nothing about biology.
>> Example 2:http://tinyurl.com/d4376
>
> Uses the same argument as the above. Suggests that with such a
> similar genome Creationists have trouble in differentiating kinds
> between a chimpanzee and a human. I live next door to a chimpanzee
> family who works very hard to pay off their mortgage and children's
> college tuition and I don't see any difference whatsoever.
>
>> Example 3:http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
>
> Well, now the overwhelming scientific proof that macroevolution
> ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE is that our genome is 80% similar to a mouse.
> And the absolute clincher that we have to concede is that "no
> mechanism prevents growing 30 million new base pairs in 60 million
> years."
Nonsense!
> Of course there's the sticky problem of actually defining the natural
> process that creates new DNA (aside from harmful mutations) as well as
> demonstrating that 60 million years is what there was to work with.
>
You don't know much about genetics either.
> And so on.
>
> John C.
You didn't ask any questions of "evolutionists".. apparently because your
lack of knowledge precluded any attempt to ask a sensible question.
David V.
> On Sep 3, 6:50 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>John C. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How does being only 4% different prove that they were ever
>>>100% the same? Was this parting ever observed? Does such a
>>>statement meet the criteria of true science?
>>
>>Yes. It may not meet with your twisted version of science, but it
>>meets with the criteria of true science.
>
> claim makes my version of science is twisted and b) how the claim
> meets with the criteria of true science.
You'll find all those answers in a college level biology class.
John C.
>
> You know nothing about evolution.
>
>
> Nonsense, you obviously know nothing about biology.
> > Well, now the overwhelming scientific proof that macroevolution
> > ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE is that our genome is 80% similar to a mouse.
> > And the absolute clincher that we have to concede is that "no
> > mechanism prevents growing 30 million new base pairs in 60 million
> > years."
>
> Nonsense!
>
> You don't know much about genetics either.
>
> You didn't ask any questions of "evolutionists".. apparently because your
> lack of knowledge precluded any attempt to ask a sensible question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was responding to what Buddika posted, and therefore assumed that I
was asking my questions "of evolutionists." Are you suggesting that
Buddika, David V, yourself, and many others reading this post on the
affected forums are not evolutionists?
As regards the rest of your useless response, you obviously have no
clue what I do and don't know about evolution, biology, genetics,
etc. My statement to which you responded, "Nonsense" was merely a
summary of Buddika's argument for macroevolution. It makes me wonder
exactly how much you know about evolution yourself.
John C.
John C.
> John C. wrote:
> > OK. Still waiting to hear a) how expecting observable proof for the
> > claim makes my version of science is twisted and b) how the claim
> > meets with the criteria of true science.
>
> You'll find all those answers in a college level biology class.
Well this is a totally useless brush-off. First of all, if you had
been there, you certainly would have been able to answer something
which you hold as true. Second, I *have* been in a "college level
biology class" and no attempt was made there to address these
contradictions. Third, I get out of my "college level biology class"
and I find that even the evolutionists themselves can't agree whether
this so-called change from 80% to 100% genome occurred over long
periods of time or in punctuated bursts. Some scientists even
recently discovered that human species heading up the genome chain
lived concurrently instead of in separate evolutionary periods as
previously believed.
In other words, your response doesn't support your position. The
answers aren't all in a college level biology class.
John C.
David V.
> On Sep 4, 6:43 pm, "Cj" <cw...@gwi.net> wrote:
>
>> You know nothing about evolution.
>
>> Nonsense, you obviously know nothing about biology.
>
>>> Well, now the overwhelming scientific proof that
>>> macroevolution ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE is that our genome is
>>> 80% similar to a mouse. And the absolute clincher that we
>>> have to concede is that "no mechanism prevents growing 30
>>> million new base pairs in 60 million years."
>>
>> Nonsense!
>>
>> You don't know much about genetics either.
>>
>> You didn't ask any questions of "evolutionists".. apparently
>> because your lack of knowledge precluded any attempt to ask
>> a sensible question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> that I was asking my questions "of evolutionists." Are you
> suggesting that Buddika, David V, yourself, and many others
> reading this post on the affected forums are not
> evolutionists?
I am not an "evolutionist." I am a biologist, an Atheist, a
Secular Humanist, a Leftist, and several other 'ists, but not an
"evolutionist". I understand the science behind the FACT of
evolution, but that does not make me an "evolutionist".
"Evolutionist" is just a derogatory word used to dismiss those
that understand evolution.
> As regards the rest of your useless response, you obviously
> have no clue what I do and don't know about evolution,
> biology, genetics, etc.
Apparently not much of you need to rail against macroevolution.
It is a very common ploy for creationists to pretend to accept
microevolution but not macroevolution. If you accept the fact of
evolution, then come out and say it.
> My statement to which you responded, "Nonsense" was merely a
> summary of Buddika's argument for macroevolution. It makes me
> wonder exactly how much you know about evolution yourself.
David V.
> On Sep 4, 10:17 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John C. wrote:
>>
>>> OK. Still waiting to hear a) how expecting observable
>>> proof for the claim makes my version of science is twisted
>>> and b) how the claim meets with the criteria of true
>>> science.
>>
>> You'll find all those answers in a college level biology
>> class.
>
> Well this is a totally useless brush-off.
No, I am not here to provide you with an education. I don't have
the time to condense 4 years of college down to a paragraph you
can understand.
> First of all, if you had been there, you certainly would have
> been able to answer something which you hold as true.
Do you accept the fact of evolution or not?
John C.
>
> I am not an "evolutionist." I am a biologist, an Atheist, a
> Secular Humanist, a Leftist, and several other 'ists, but not an
> "evolutionist". I understand the science behind the FACT of
> evolution, but that does not make me an "evolutionist".
> "Evolutionist" is just a derogatory word used to dismiss those
> that understand evolution.
>
Dave, I appreciate your response to my comments originally directed
to CJ. I don't believe that CJ was using "evolutionist" in a
derogatory sense, nor was my responding categorization of you as one
meant with any malice. While many "ists" and classifying labels are
used sometimes in a derogatory manner, the common rules of
communication suggest that the term evolutionist is merely one who
holds to principles of evolution to explain scientific facts. There
is nothing derogatory or demeaning in that.
Whether or not evolution is a FACT, is a different discussion
altogether.
>
> Apparently not much of you need to rail against macroevolution.
> It is a very common ploy for creationists to pretend to accept
> microevolution but not macroevolution. If you accept the fact of
> evolution, then come out and say it.
>
I wasn't "railing" against macroevolution at all. I was trying to
understand from one who was presenting macroevolution as a FACT how
species that had a 4% or 20% difference in their genome could be
scientifically proven to have at one time had a 0% difference so as to
support the claim that macroevolution was indeed a FACT.
The responses that I've gotten so far from all the biologists and
serious evolutionists haven't been very enlightening. (i.e., 'You
don't know anything, do you?' and 'Nothing would have prevented it.'
If I have to *assume* that nothing did, how is that FACT?)
John C.
John C.
> No, I am not here to provide you with an education. I don't have
> the time to condense 4 years of college down to a paragraph you
> can understand.
It takes 4 years worth of college material to explain that creatures,
now 4% and 20% different, were once 100% the same?
> Do you accept the fact of evolution or not?
Based on the facts I've gotten so far, do you think I should?
John C.
Matt Silberstein
<trinita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 23, 5:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> > 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What's
>> > the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
>> > (See pages 6-8.)
>>
>> Given that your bullshit clicking doesn't work, let me provide the
>> standard definition for macroevolution: evolution at or above the
>> species level. Here are some observed and related examples:
>> Example 1:http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
>
>This supposedly "proves" macroevolution because the genome of a human
>and a genome of a chimpanzee are only 4% different. This is further
>bolstered by the statement of Richard Dawkins (and who DARES question
>Richard Dawkins' words) that humans and chimpanzees parted x million
>years ago.
>
>How does being only 4% different prove that they were ever 100% the
>same? Was this parting ever observed? Does such a statement meet the
>criteria of true science?
>
I am not a big fan of Budikka's presentations, but you seem to have
added the "prove" part yourself. That post talks about evidence for
macroevolution, not proof of. I agree, a single comparison is not
proof of macroevolution. However, if you were to do a pair-wise
comparison of all primates (either morphology or genetics) you would
find that a tree-like structure does the best job in displaying the
similarity. And such trees are quite powerful evidence for
macroevolution and for common descent.
>> Example 2:http://tinyurl.com/d4376
>
>Uses the same argument as the above. Suggests that with such a
>similar genome Creationists have trouble in differentiating kinds
>between a chimpanzee and a human. I live next door to a chimpanzee
>family who works very hard to pay off their mortgage and children's
>college tuition and I don't see any difference whatsoever.
He also makes a powerful point you seem to have missed: the genetic
similarity is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE was
developed from morphology, fossils, and biogeography evidence, not
from genetics. Absent such a theory there is no particular reason to
expect any similarity in genetics, particularly the non-expressed
portion of the genome, between species. But the ToE predicts that
chimps and humans well have very similar DNA, humans and howler
monkeys less similar. Fulfilled prediction are a pretty powerful
confirmation of a theory.
>> Example 3:http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
>
>Well, now the overwhelming scientific proof that macroevolution
>ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE is that our genome is 80% similar to a mouse.
>And the absolute clincher that we have to concede is that "no
>mechanism prevents growing 30 million new base pairs in 60 million
>years."
Again, you added the "proof" claim, that is not in the original.
Instead Buddika wrote about evidence for a theory. And that is
evidence that is explained by the ToE and a serious problem for
alternatives.
>Of course there's the sticky problem of actually defining the natural
>process that creates new DNA (aside from harmful mutations) as well as
>demonstrating that 60 million years is what there was to work with.
What problem? (We *observe* proccesses, we don't *define* them, we
define terms.) I don't know why you expected an entire biology course
in a small set of Usenet posts, but I can certainly provide you with
pointers to material on how "new" DNA is made. (I assume you mean new
sequences. And I can show you material on various methods for
determining the age of things, including the Earth.
>
>And so on.
>
David V.
> On Sep 5, 10:34 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I am not an "evolutionist." I am a biologist, an Atheist, a
>> Secular Humanist, a Leftist, and several other 'ists, but
>> not an "evolutionist". I understand the science behind the
>> FACT of evolution, but that does not make me an
>> "evolutionist". "Evolutionist" is just a derogatory word
>> used to dismiss those that understand evolution.
>>
>
>
> Dave, I appreciate your response to my comments originally
> directed to CJ. I don't believe that CJ was using
> "evolutionist" in a derogatory sense, nor was my responding
> categorization of you as one meant with any malice. While
> many "ists" and classifying labels are used sometimes in a
> derogatory manner, the common rules of communication suggest
> that the term evolutionist is merely one who holds to
> principles of evolution to explain scientific facts. There is
> nothing derogatory or demeaning in that.
Bullshit.
> Whether or not evolution is a FACT, is a different discussion
> altogether.
I see you refuse to answer the question. I didn't think you
would. Are you trying to hide something?
>> Apparently not much of you need to rail against
>> macroevolution. It is a very common ploy for creationists to
>> pretend to accept microevolution but not macroevolution. If
>> you accept the fact of evolution, then come out and say it.
>>
>
> I wasn't "railing" against macroevolution at all. I was
> trying to understand from one who was presenting
> macroevolution as a FACT how species that had a 4% or 20%
> difference in their genome could be scientifically proven to
> have at one time had a 0% difference so as to support the
> claim that macroevolution was indeed a FACT.
That answer would be in one of those college level biology classes.
> The responses that I've gotten so far from all the biologists
> and serious evolutionists haven't been very enlightening.
> (i.e., 'You don't know anything, do you?' and 'Nothing would
> have prevented it.' If I have to *assume* that nothing did,
> how is that FACT?)
I'm not an "evolutionist" so I don't know what to tell you.
David V.
No, you should stick with the bible. You won't have to learn how
to think.
John C.
wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:14:43 -0700, "John C."
Buddika wrote:
> >> Given that your bullshit clicking doesn't work, let me provide the
> >> standard definition for macroevolution: evolution at or above the
> >> species level. Here are some observed and related examples:
>
> I am not a big fan of Budikka's presentations, but you seem to have
> added the "prove" part yourself. That post talks about evidence for
> macroevolution, not proof of. I agree, a single comparison is not
> proof of macroevolution.
OK, maybe we're quibbling about semantics here, but when Buddika
suggests that Pastor Dave doesn't believe in macroevolution and then
proceeds to provide a definition of the term and then cites 666
"observed and related examples" we are not supposed to construe that
as offering 'proof' only 'evidence'? What is the point of evidence if
it is not used for proof or rebuttal?
If Buddika was only trying to present evidence, then in answer to her
question right after her links in the original post, "where has
creation ever been observed", I can point to the same evidence she
did.
(My apologies to the possible incorrect gender of Buddika, but I only
usually read an occasional post by that author when it gets cross-
posted to a.r.j-w, and I vaguely recall from some time back that one
of the suggestions was that Buddika was really an ornery female. Or
maybe that's just based on my first impression...)
> However, if you were to do a pair-wise
> comparison of all primates (either morphology or genetics) you would
> find that a tree-like structure does the best job in displaying the
> similarity. And such trees are quite powerful evidence for
> macroevolution and for common descent.
>
With no apparent "proof," how is even 'close similarity' evidence of
common descent?
>
> He also makes a powerful point you seem to have missed: the genetic
> similarity is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE was
> developed from morphology, fossils, and biogeography evidence, not
> from genetics. Absent such a theory there is no particular reason to
> expect any similarity in genetics, particularly the non-expressed
> portion of the genome, between species. But the ToE predicts that
> chimps and humans well have very similar DNA, humans and howler
> monkeys less similar. Fulfilled prediction are a pretty powerful
> confirmation of a theory.
>
You realize, of course, that Creationists make the same prediction.
The particular reason being, absent such a theory, that this
arrangement arises from one, single Designer. Thus, it seems rather
dubious that it confirms one theory over another.
>
> Again, you added the "proof" claim, that is not in the original.
> Instead Buddika wrote about evidence for a theory. And that is
> evidence that is explained by the ToE and a serious problem for
> alternatives.
>
See above about "proof." I contend that the evidence is as equally
such for the alternatives as it is a serious problem.
> >Of course there's the sticky problem of actually defining the natural
> >process that creates new DNA (aside from harmful mutations) as well as
> >demonstrating that 60 million years is what there was to work with.
>
> What problem? (We *observe* proccesses, we don't *define* them, we
> define terms.) I don't know why you expected an entire biology course
> in a small set of Usenet posts, but I can certainly provide you with
> pointers to material on how "new" DNA is made. (I assume you mean new
> sequences. And I can show you material on various methods for
> determining the age of things, including the Earth.
>
Why is it that everyone responding to me thinks I'm expecting an
entire biology course? I've asked nothing of the sort. Brief
pointers will be very welcome. So far, you're the only one who has
attempted to provide any helpful answers to my questions so far.
LIkewise with the various dating methods. But my questions are not
simply the mechanics of how these things happen. If that were the
case, I could simply go take another biology or geology course. My
question is, for example, how such dating methods can guarantee that
measured DECAY rates were always and absolutely uniform and that the
beginning quantity of decay or measured substance was at absolute
zero?
John C.
Matt Silberstein
<trinita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 6, 7:36 pm, Matt Silberstein <matts2removet...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:14:43 -0700, "John C."
>
>Buddika wrote:
>> >> Given that your bullshit clicking doesn't work, let me provide the
>> >> standard definition for macroevolution: evolution at or above the
>> >> species level. Here are some observed and related examples:
>
>>
>> I am not a big fan of Budikka's presentations, but you seem to have
>> added the "prove" part yourself. That post talks about evidence for
>> macroevolution, not proof of. I agree, a single comparison is not
>> proof of macroevolution.
>
>OK, maybe we're quibbling about semantics here, but when Buddika
>suggests that Pastor Dave doesn't believe in macroevolution and then
>proceeds to provide a definition of the term and then cites 666
>"observed and related examples" we are not supposed to construe that
>as offering 'proof' only 'evidence'? What is the point of evidence if
>it is not used for proof or rebuttal?
Proof is for math, for gunpowder, for alcohol, and for baking, but it
is an impossible standard in science. We have evidence for or against
models. When you have enough supporting evidence and a minimal of
conflicting evidence then you call the model/theory supported. Buddika
presented a small piece of the overwhelming evidence and argument for
evolution (common descent, speciation, etc.)
>If Buddika was only trying to present evidence, then in answer to her
>question right after her links in the original post, "where has
>creation ever been observed", I can point to the same evidence she
>did.
Really? Perhaps you need to define creation for me then. And realize
that the key part of science is to provide predictions and then show
evidence that they are fulfilled. I don't know of any predictions
regarding creation.
>(My apologies to the possible incorrect gender of Buddika, but I only
>usually read an occasional post by that author when it gets cross-
>posted to a.r.j-w, and I vaguely recall from some time back that one
>of the suggestions was that Buddika was really an ornery female. Or
>maybe that's just based on my first impression...)
She is female, the ornery is a subjective judgment (one she would
probably agree with though).
>
>> However, if you were to do a pair-wise
>> comparison of all primates (either morphology or genetics) you would
>> find that a tree-like structure does the best job in displaying the
>> similarity. And such trees are quite powerful evidence for
>> macroevolution and for common descent.
>>
>
>With no apparent "proof," how is even 'close similarity' evidence of
>common descent?
See above for the point about proof. And your question gives me an
idea of you state of knowledge so I will try to answer. Suppose we
have a bunch of different species and we try to compare them. We take
as many different morphological (roughly speaking, their bodies)
characteristics as we can and compare them to each other. We will find
that no matter which ones we pick we find a particular pattern: a
tree-like nested hiearachy. Now likely you don't know what that means
so I will explain it. This means that we find groups of similarity and
groups of groups, and groups of groups of groups. So chimps and humans
resemble each other more than either resemble anything else. The apes
all resemble each other more than they resemble anything else.
Primates resemble each other, mammal, etc. We would find the same
patten with geese or with salmon or spiders. Let me give you an ascii
drawing of this (best viewed with a fixed font):
A B C E F
\/ / \/
\ / /
\/ /
\ /
\ /
\/
This pattern just screams common descent. Let me draw it agains with
some additions:
A B C E F
\/ / \/
W\ / Y/
\/ /
X\ /
\ /
\/
Z
Given existing species A-F I would predict fossils W-Z. I would
predict that W have the non-derived, the common, characteristics of A
and B. I would predict that X have the "primitive" (which means
non-derived) characteristics of A, B, and C. I would further predict
that X was older than W.
So it is the *pattern* of similarity, not the raw number, that shows
common descent.
BTW, this is decidedly not the pattern we find when we look at
designed (by humans) items. Human designed things do not show a tree,
they show a network. Cars today, for example, have a stong resemblence
to computers. Steel suddenly shows up in a wide variety of items all
at the same time rather than showing separate development in each
line. Human designed things show far more cross-fertilization than do
biologically evolved things.
>> He also makes a powerful point you seem to have missed: the genetic
>> similarity is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE was
>> developed from morphology, fossils, and biogeography evidence, not
>> from genetics. Absent such a theory there is no particular reason to
>> expect any similarity in genetics, particularly the non-expressed
>> portion of the genome, between species. But the ToE predicts that
>> chimps and humans well have very similar DNA, humans and howler
>> monkeys less similar. Fulfilled prediction are a pretty powerful
>> confirmation of a theory.
>>
>
>You realize, of course, that Creationists make the same prediction.
No, they don't. They do hand waves and accept the results after the
fact and after long denial, but they do not have a model that produces
predictions. There is no creation based reason for this similarity:
God could do things anyway God wants. Creationism used to have
predictions, but they were refuted by the evidence.
>The particular reason being, absent such a theory, that this
>arrangement arises from one, single Designer. Thus, it seems rather
>dubious that it confirms one theory over another.
How does this follow from a single designer? Why not hand coding for
each species, or each individual even? Design, after all, is a way of
trying to do thing efficiently: God has no such restrictions. Nor does
biological similarity look like a Single Designer. To take a clear
example: bat wings look like human arms more than they look like bird
wings. A Single Designer would take a working design from one place
and use it elsewhere. What we see looks like a really large number
designers (one for each branch, as it happens) who make random changes
to see what will happen.
[snip]
>> >Of course there's the sticky problem of actually defining the natural
>> >process that creates new DNA (aside from harmful mutations) as well as
>> >demonstrating that 60 million years is what there was to work with.
>>
>> What problem? (We *observe* proccesses, we don't *define* them, we
>> define terms.) I don't know why you expected an entire biology course
>> in a small set of Usenet posts, but I can certainly provide you with
>> pointers to material on how "new" DNA is made. (I assume you mean new
>> sequences. And I can show you material on various methods for
>> determining the age of things, including the Earth.
>>
>
>Why is it that everyone responding to me thinks I'm expecting an
>entire biology course?
Because of your response. Perhaps if everyone sees that there is
something in your response. You hinted, for example, at problems with
dating things, you talked about proof, you saw an isolated piece of
evidence as somehow the whole thing. All of that suggests that you are
not familiar with the basic biology involved.
>I've asked nothing of the sort. Brief
>pointers will be very welcome.
Go to www.talkorigins.org and read the "must read" files. It is not
peer reviews (though each of the FAQs has undergone extensive on-line
review) but it has references to the underlying science.
>So far, you're the only one who has
>attempted to provide any helpful answers to my questions so far.
>LIkewise with the various dating methods.
I can help you there, but the short answer is that creatoinists are
dead wrong on everything about dating. Seriously: if you start from
the creationists questions you will get more confused than not.
Dating, though, is an issue of geology and physics, not biology.
> But my questions are not
>simply the mechanics of how these things happen. If that were the
>case, I could simply go take another biology or geology course. My
>question is, for example, how such dating methods can guarantee that
Guarantee? Science does not guarantee, it can't guarantee that the Sun
will come up tomorrow or that the back of the Moon is there. But it
can make it a very good bet.
>measured DECAY rates were always and absolutely uniform and that the
>beginning quantity of decay or measured substance was at absolute
>zero?
Yes, you do need to read up on this.
The Age of the Earth FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Lots of FAQs there, particularly:
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
And
Isochron Dating Methods
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
They don't need to know that the decay rates are absolutely uniform or
the substance was at absolute zero (which is good because they
weren't).
To give the short answer Isochrons do not rest on a constant decay
rate, it rests on the relationship between the elements remaining the
same. Changing the temp will re-set the clock and they can determine
that. And if the decay rates change, then all basic physics would
change and we would see the result. Oh, and there are also direct ways
to measure decay rates: the Oklo natural reactor in Africa and various
supernova reminants do that quite well.
David V.
>
> Why is it that everyone responding to me thinks I'm expecting
> an entire biology course?
Because your complaints are standard creationist lies,
misrepresentations, and ignorance. If you know nothing about
evolution then how do you know you are even asking intelligent
questions?
> I've asked nothing of the sort. Brief pointers will be very
> welcome. So far, you're the only one who has attempted to
> provide any helpful answers to my questions so far.
It gets boring answering the same questions after the 100th time
or so. And it is especially tiresome to explain and then have the
explanation ignored and more silly questions asked.
> LIkewise with the various dating methods. But my questions are
> not simply the mechanics of how these things happen. If that
> were the case, I could simply go take another biology or
> geology course. My question is, for example, how such dating
> methods can guarantee that measured DECAY rates were always
> and absolutely uniform and that the beginning quantity of
> decay or measured substance was at absolute zero?
You're asking the wrong questions. You should be asking why is
the fact of evolution universally accepted among biologists? Why
is it accepted as a fact on the same level of certainty as the
Earth orbiting the Sun? Propaganda? No, science doesn't work that
way. Science is adversarial; the first biologist to prove
evolution wrong would be world famous.
You should also ask; why are all the objections based on
religious dogma?
David V.
>
> She is female, the ornery is a subjective judgment (one she
> would probably agree with though).
My kind of woman..... now if she only had a tractor with a front
loader and box scraper.
Matt Silberstein
wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>> She is female, the ornery is a subjective judgment (one she
>> would probably agree with though).
>
>My kind of woman..... now if she only had a tractor with a front
>loader and box scraper.
Isn't that your job? Or are you not using euphamisms?
David V.
No, I really need a tractor for my little ranch.
Martin Phipps
> On Sep 3, 6:50 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John C. wrote:
>
> > > How does being only 4% different prove that they were ever
> > > 100% the same? Was this parting ever observed? Does such a
> > > statement meet the criteria of true science?
>
> > Yes. It may not meet with your twisted version of science, but it
> > meets with the criteria of true science.
>
> claim makes my version of science is twisted and b) how the claim
> meets with the criteria of true science.
You and I are not 100% the same: you are a fucking idiot and I have a
Ph.D. in physics. As far as I am concerned, you hace more in common
with the chimpanzee than you do with me. If anything, the chimpanzee
is smarter than you.
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On Sep 4, 10:17 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John C. wrote:
> > > OK. Still waiting to hear a) how expecting observable proof for the
> > > claim makes my version of science is twisted and b) how the claim
> > > meets with the criteria of true science.
>
> > You'll find all those answers in a college level biology class.
>
> Well this is a totally useless brush-off.
It is if you are somebody who never took a college level biology
class.
Martin
Martin Phipps
Yes. At least evolution is supported by facts, as a good scientific
theory should be.
Martin
Budikka666
> On Jul 23, 5:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What's
> > > the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
> > > (See pages 6-8.)
>
> > Given that your bullshit clicking doesn't work, let me provide the
> > standard definition for macroevolution: evolution at or above the
> > species level. Here are some observed and related examples:
> > Example 1:http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
>
> This supposedly "proves" macroevolution because the genome of a human
> and a genome of a chimpanzee are only 4% different.
This supposedly is some sort of rebuttal? LoL! You're rather late to
the party, John C and your saying "No it isn't" does not and cannot
even begin to overturn 150 years of solid science which supports the
Theory of evolution, science which has been published in peer-reviewed
science journals the world over by people of all nationalities *and
all faiths*.
What *science* do you have which overturns the Theory of Evolution?
None!
What science do you have which offers a alternative theory which
explains the diversity and distribution of life on Earth? None.
Case closed until and unless you do.
Evolution *is* a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the only science-
based theory which explains this fact.
Macroevolution is defined as changes in groups of organisms at the
species level and above. This kind of change has been documented in
the laboratory and in the wild. It *is* a fact. Here are 666
examples of it or solid reasons why it is a fact:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/ely5u
Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/f9ub6
Now it's *your* turn. If there's no such thing as macroevolution,
then please present here your scientific explanation as to why it
cannot take place. We're waiting.
> This is further
> bolstered by the statement of Richard Dawkins (and who DARES question
> Richard Dawkins' words) that humans and chimpanzees parted x million
> years ago.
No it isn't. Dawkins's saying something makes it no more of a
scientific fact than *your* saying something. What makes it a fact
(as far as science is able to determine) is what *evidence* supports
it, and the 4% difference (the percentage varies dependent upon what
it is you're comparing) shows that we're more closely related,
overall, to the chimpanzee than to any other organism, just as Darwin
predicted based upon his theory.
But it isn't just the percentage difference, it's other things - such
as the comparison of errors in the genome. As Edward Max explains
here, it isn't only the similarity of our genome in general to that of
a chimpanzee's, it's that we have the same errors in our genome:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Now you can pretend you've explained the similarity by saying we were
"created" in a similar way because we eat similar foods for example,
but you cannot explain why a perfect, divine creator who had all
eternity in which to work and infinite resources at his command would
make the same molecular *errors* in creating us as he did when he
created the chimpanzees.
> How does being only 4% different prove that they were ever 100% the
> same? Was this parting ever observed? Does such a statement meet the
> criteria of true science?
Science isn't about absolute proof, it's about what the weight of the
evidence demonstrates - the weight of *all* the evidence - and the
similarity of the genome, down to the mutations within certain genes
demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that humans and chimpanzees did
indeed have a common ancestor.
This is supported not only by this evidence, but also by an
examination of our chromosomes as a whole, and from fossil evidence
which unarguably shows a gradual change in certain lineages from very
ape-like ancestors to very human-like descendants and then to human
descendants.
> > Example 2:http://tinyurl.com/d4376
>
> Uses the same argument as the above. Suggests that with such a
> similar genome Creationists have trouble in differentiating kinds
> between a chimpanzee and a human. I live next door to a chimpanzee
> family who works very hard to pay off their mortgage and children's
> college tuition and I don't see any difference whatsoever.
Again, your saying "No it isn't" does not constitute a scientific
argument. or did you think it did? Do you believe you are a god who
by fiat alone can change reality? Do you? Really?
Because if you don't, you need to present a better argument than
this. You need to present one that is not only rational, but has some
scientific support and I see no scientific support whatsoever
presented by you or by the person who opened this thread in the first
place.
Until and unless you can present a supported argument you;re no better
than a child in the playground with his fingers stuck in his ears
chanting "No it isn't! I can't hear you!".
> > Example 3:http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
>
> Well, now the overwhelming scientific proof that macroevolution
> ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE is that our genome is 80% similar to a mouse.
> And the absolute clincher that we have to concede is that "no
> mechanism prevents growing 30 million new base pairs in 60 million
> years."
Can you present one? Evidently not. So what *is* the mechanism which
would prevent a few paltry mutations every year or two in a fast-
breeding species like a mouse, from changing that organism?
We know that mutations can flatten faces - we see it in dog breeds.
We know that mutations can remove body hair.
We know that mutations can increase size or an organism and of
organs. So tell us what, exactly, is your *scientific* objection?
(Note: chanting "No it isn't" endlessly does not constitute a
scientific argument or objection).
> Of course there's the sticky problem of actually defining the natural
> process that creates new DNA (aside from harmful mutations)
Gene duplication and mutations. Have you never read a good textbook
or popular book on the topic? Go read the trial transcripts from the
Dover, Pennsylvania creation-evolution case and read professor Kenneth
Miller's testimony. Start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am2.html
This is *science* we're talking about. it's not done on websites with
a few claims or denials. It's done every day by quite literally
thousands of people using the scientific method which has given us
every convenience we have today, including the computer you're using
to abuse and trash those same scientists. That's pretty hypocritical
of you, don't you think?
If the scientific method doesn't work, and you really believe that,
why do you have so much faith that your messages will get posted here?
> as well as
> demonstrating that 60 million years is what there was to work with.
Have you never read a good book on radiometric dating? Start here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Now science has made its case. Where are your *scientific* arguments
which refute that case? Or is all you have nothing more than
repetitively and mindlessly chanting "no it isn't" and sitting back
with an ignorant, self-satisfied look on your face like you've
actually contributed something?
Budikka
Mike
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:10:25 -0700, "John C."
> <trinita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> measured DECAY rates were always and absolutely uniform and that the
>> beginning quantity of decay or measured substance was at absolute
>> zero?
<snip references from Matt>
> They don't need to know that the decay rates are absolutely uniform or
> the substance was at absolute zero (which is good because they
> weren't).
>
> To give the short answer Isochrons do not rest on a constant decay
> rate, it rests on the relationship between the elements remaining the
> same. Changing the temp will re-set the clock and they can determine
> that. And if the decay rates change, then all basic physics would
> change and we would see the result. Oh, and there are also direct ways
> to measure decay rates: the Oklo natural reactor in Africa and various
> supernova reminants do that quite well.
He wasn't talking about temperatures but about the ratios of the
original elements and the decay products (but his choice of words wasn't
the best in the world.) I.e. "if we look at uranium decay into lead and
the current ratios of the two, how can we be sure there was no lead to
begin with in the sample?"
The simple answer back to John C is that we look at the ratios of the
various isotopes. I don't have the data in front of me so won't use the
actual atomic weights here in my example, but let's say you found that
all lead deposits that had no uranium in them (i.e. ones where the lead
was formed from a supernova and was present when the earth first formed
and not from uranium decay), you found that lead-1 and lead-2 were in a
1-2 ratio. Now we find a uranium deposit and we know that uranium only
decays into lead-1. If we found that there was a 1-1 ratio of lead-1 and
lead-2, we could safely say that 25% of the lead-1 came from the uranium
decay and the other 25% came from the original lead that was mixed in
with the uranium. Now we look at the amount of lead-1 and remaining
uranium and can calculate how much uranium decayed to produce this
excess lead-1. We don't need to assume there was NO lead in the original
uranium sample but can simply look at how much lead-1 and lead-2 are in
there NOW. That's a fairly simplistic example but it illustrates the point.
John C.
wrote:
> Really? Perhaps you need to define creation for me then. And realize
> that the key part of science is to provide predictions and then show
> evidence that they are fulfilled. I don't know of any predictions
> regarding creation.
Let me provide a few in no particular order:
Biblical Creation predicts that there is something to observe and make
predictions about. Observed evidence: there is a wide variety of
phenomena about which observations and predictions are made.
While this may seem absurd at first glance, evolutionary theory cannot
make the same prediction. As a matter of fact, based on today's
observation of nuclear reaction results, it is much more likely that
that nothing observable came from the first event than to predict
something organic rose from inorganic. Further, it is quite
improbable that a prediction can be made about something that is
inherently unguided or random. If it truly wasn't guided (by the will
of a Creator, for instance), then the genome could have as likely been
100% different as 4% or 0.1% different when it purportedly parted.
So here's where your accusation that Creationists only accept facts
post-haste comes around to bite you. Would an evolutionary observer
60 million years ago have "predicted" that this one species would be
splitting into 5 or 6 different species?
Biblical Creation predicts that a Creator's will necessitates laws and
properties by which the creation is governed. Observed evidence: Many
universal, natural laws have been discovered.
If the process by which the organic rose from inorganic is unfettered
by natural law, why would any subsequent process be bound to follow
natural law?
Biblical Creation predicts that the creation itself is a revelation of
the Creator's will.
Biblical Creation predicts that this is the point of the universe that
the Creator has made suitable for life. Observed evidence: small
variations in position from nearest stellar body would make life
unsuitable.
Biblical Creation predicts that a day consists of periods of light and
darkness. Observed evidence: planetary rotation produces exactly
that.
Biblical Creation predicts that a human is the highest form of
observable creatures. Observed evidence: no other creature has the
range of abilities that humans have.
Biblical Creation predicts that death is universal as a result of
sin. Observed evidence: the law of entropy is universal.
Biblical Catastrophism (a sister concept) predicts the existence of
fossils. Observed evidence: there are fossils found in various strata
around the globe. This would not be possible with long, slow
evolutionary processes depositing material over millions of years.
Any organic material would have decayed long before fossilization.
Biblical Creation predicts a young earth. Observed evidence: intact
bacterial DNA is discovered in "pre-historic" fossils. DNA has a
*maximum* shelf life of about 10,000 years.
Biblical Creation predicts that species descend. Observed evidence:
humans have human babies (short, tall, fat, premature, and sadly even
deformed babies but still human), cows have calves, etc.
Biblical Creation predicts that life has a single origin. Observed
evidence: all organic material contains carbon.
> Suppose we
> have a bunch of different species and we try to compare them. We take
> as many different morphological (roughly speaking, their bodies)
> characteristics as we can and compare them to each other. We will find
> that no matter which ones we pick we find a particular pattern: a
> tree-like nested hiearachy. Now likely you don't know what that means
> so I will explain it. This means that we find groups of similarity and
> groups of groups, and groups of groups of groups. So chimps and humans
> resemble each other more than either resemble anything else. The apes
> all resemble each other more than they resemble anything else.
> Primates resemble each other, mammal, etc. We would find the same
> patten with geese or with salmon or spiders. Let me give you an ascii
> drawing of this (best viewed with a fixed font):
>
> A B C E F
> \/ / \/
> \ / /
> \/ /
> \ /
> \ /
> \/
>
> This pattern just screams common descent.
This pattern screams common descent...TO YOU.
What evidence does anyone have that these patterns were ever
MERGED??? How do you know that the actual pattern might not be that
each of those groups has run predictably similar, but PARALLEL from
their inception?
I realize I'm not the most articulate person around, but this again
points to the fact that none of you have answered my question yet,
despite all the attempts to blame it on *my* ignorance.
All that's been provided so far is non-falsifiable evidence that at
some point in the oblivious past, these patterns were once connected!
> So it is the *pattern* of similarity, not the raw number, that shows
> common descent.
>
If you were truly making predictions based on observable evidence of
similar yet distinct and the principle that species descend, your
prediction would not arrive at common descent.
> BTW, this is decidedly not the pattern we find when we look at
> designed (by humans) items. Human designed things do not show a tree,
> they show a network. Cars today, for example, have a stong resemblence
> to computers. Steel suddenly shows up in a wide variety of items all
> at the same time rather than showing separate development in each
> line. Human designed things show far more cross-fertilization than do
> biologically evolved things.
>
I guess I don't understand your use of time-differentiation here.
Steel was used long before there were cars or computers (17th century
according to Wikipedia). Cars had steel in them before there were
ever any computers. Based on your pattern, wouldn't we predict that
computers arose from cars which arose from the discovery of steel?
> >You realize, of course, that Creationists make the same prediction.
>
> No, they don't. They do hand waves and accept the results after the
> fact and after long denial, but they do not have a model that produces
> predictions. There is no creation based reason for this similarity:
> God could do things anyway God wants. Creationism used to have
> predictions, but they were refuted by the evidence.
>
This was somewhat addressed above already. The idea that God could do
anything He wants will be addressed shortly. The statements above
sound like retroactive finger-pointing (those three coming right back
at you, hon!). If new species actually arose out of random mutating
processes, how is a 4% or 20% difference "predictable"?
> How does this follow from a single designer? Why not hand coding for
> each species, or each individual even? Design, after all, is a way of
> trying to do thing efficiently: God has no such restrictions. Nor does
> biological similarity look like a Single Designer. To take a clear
> example: bat wings look like human arms more than they look like bird
> wings. A Single Designer would take a working design from one place
> and use it elsewhere. What we see looks like a really large number
> designers (one for each branch, as it happens) who make random changes
> to see what will happen.
>
You are right in suggesting that God CAN do anything He wants, but it
is also true that as God, He does the things He wants in the BEST way
He sees fit. (This includes sin and death.) Since God is not limited
in His reasons or capabilities as creaturely designers are, He may
well decide to use mammal wings on mammals and avian wings on birds.
There is no limit that forces Him to put avian wings on mammals or
vice versa. Even GM engineers speak about the room-full of more
efficient carburetors than what's currently on the market which shows
that the most efficient design is not always the one used.
But the same problem applies to your random changes. If it were truly
random changes without design or purpose, such a random change could
have as likely started from scratch as the "first" DNA as modifying
existing DNA to be (x)% similar. It is not by virtue of any
prediction which evolution makes that points to similarity or
branching.
>
> Go towww.talkorigins.organd read the "must read" files. It is not
> peer reviews (though each of the FAQs has undergone extensive on-line
I have perused them in previous times, though not exhaustively. I
didn't find the answers to the questions I'm asking addressed there.
Common descent and other non-falsifiable evidence is just assumed in
many of the "answers."
(As an aside: I'm not impugning your motives at all in directing me
there, but I wonder how other "evolutionists" would respond if, to
their questions about Creationism, creationists directed them to the
Scriptures, divinely inspired by the Creator for answers!)
> Dating, though, is an issue of geology and physics, not biology.
>
So when biology tells us that DNA can't survive more than 10,000 years
and we find bacterial DNA in a fossil which geology dates at millions
of years, we should stick with geology and ignore biology?
John C.
David V.
>
> Biblical Creation predicts that there is something to observe and make
> predictions about.
No. All creationism says is "goddidit." There are no predictions,
nothing to observe, no discoveries possible, no arguments
possible, just sacrosanct religious dogma.
> While this may seem absurd at first glance, evolutionary theory cannot
> make the same prediction.
Nor would it want to.
> If it truly wasn't guided (by the will
> of a Creator, for instance)
No reason to create a creator. Your strawman arguments are not
working.
> So here's where your accusation that Creationists only accept facts
> post-haste comes around to bite you.
What facts? They accept only religious dogma.
> Biblical Creation predicts that a Creator's will necessitates laws and
> properties by which the creation is governed.
That's a claim, not a prediction.
> Biblical Creation predicts that the creation itself is a revelation of
> the Creator's will.
Again, that's a claim, not prediction.
> Biblical Creation predicts that this is the point of the universe that
> the Creator has made suitable for life.
More claims.
> Biblical Creation predicts that a day consists of periods of light and
> darkness.
Gee.... predicting AFTER THE FACT. Anyone can get that right.
> Biblical Creation predicts that a human is the highest form of
> observable creatures.
More baseless claims snipped.
Budikka666
> John C. wrote:
>
> > Biblical Creation predicts that there is something to observe and make
> > predictions about.
>
> No. All creationism says is "goddidit." There are no predictions,
> nothing to observe, no discoveries possible, no arguments
> possible, just sacrosanct religious dogma.
I tip my hat to you that you found something worth responding to! The
tenor of his message here is so juvenile as to be laughable.
> > While this may seem absurd at first glance, evolutionary theory cannot
> > make the same prediction.
>
> Nor would it want to.
He doesn't seem to grasp that the kind of predictions we're talking
about aren't the kindergarten kind. We're talking about predictions
like these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
http://tinyurl.com/rhwma
> > If it truly wasn't guided (by the will
> > of a Creator, for instance)
>
> No reason to create a creator. Your strawman arguments are not
> working.
>
> > So here's where your accusation that Creationists only accept facts
> > post-haste comes around to bite you.
>
> What facts? They accept only religious dogma.
>
> > Biblical Creation predicts that a Creator's will necessitates laws and
> > properties by which the creation is governed.
>
> That's a claim, not a prediction.
It actually offers nothing and it's contradicted by reality. As
usual!
> > Biblical Creation predicts that the creation itself is a revelation of
> > the Creator's will.
>
> Again, that's a claim, not prediction.
>
> > Biblical Creation predicts that this is the point of the universe that
> > the Creator has made suitable for life.
>
> More claims.
>
> > Biblical Creation predicts that a day consists of periods of light and
> > darkness.
>
> Gee.... predicting AFTER THE FACT. Anyone can get that right.
How is that even a prediction? It offers nothing as the basis for
this - why a god would even wish to create a night (or a day) and make
them X hours long. I mean, what a waste of time sleep is.
> > Biblical Creation predicts that a human is the highest form of
> > observable creatures.
>
> More baseless claims snipped.
Baseless is the operative word so far, along with vacuous!
Budikka
David V.
> On Sep 9, 2:59 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John C. wrote:
>>
>>> Biblical Creation predicts that there is something to
>>> observe and make predictions about.
>>
>> No. All creationism says is "goddidit." There are no
>> predictions, nothing to observe, no discoveries possible, no
>> arguments possible, just sacrosanct religious dogma.
>
> I tip my hat to you that you found something worth responding
> to! The tenor of his message here is so juvenile as to be
> laughable.
They will stoop to the lowest level possible to protect their god
beliefs.
>>> While this may seem absurd at first glance, evolutionary
>>> theory cannot make the same prediction.
>>
>> Nor would it want to.
>
> He doesn't seem to grasp that the kind of predictions we're
> talking about aren't the kindergarten kind. We're talking
> about predictions like these:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
> http://tinyurl.com/rhwma
He, and his ilk, will never grasp evolution. They can't. Doing so
would take them out of the center of attention of a god and place
them in a world where they actually have to think for themselves
and take responsibility for themselves. It's all about ego and
their ego needs the stroking of a god.
>>> Biblical Creation predicts that a Creator's will
>>> necessitates laws and properties by which the creation is
>>> governed.
>>
>> That's a claim, not a prediction.
>
> It actually offers nothing and it's contradicted by reality.
> As usual!
Creationism offers nothing but gods. It can't offer anything
else. Can anyone name any great contribution to science that
creationism has made? I know of one creationist that made a
contribution in chemistry, but that had nothing to do with
creationism... and he's probably the only creationist with a real
degree.
>>> Biblical Creation predicts that a day consists of periods
>>> of light and darkness.
>>
>> Gee.... predicting AFTER THE FACT. Anyone can get that
>> right.
>
> How is that even a prediction? It offers nothing as the basis
> for this - why a god would even wish to create a night (or a
> day) and make them X hours long. I mean, what a waste of time
> sleep is.
That's why gods are a waste of time. I like what the Klingons
did. They killed off their gods because they were too much trouble.
>>> Biblical Creation predicts that a human is the highest
>>> form of observable creatures.
>>
>> More baseless claims snipped.
>
> Baseless is the operative word so far, along with vacuous!
That's the best they have.
Matt Silberstein
<trinita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 7, 8:00 pm, Matt Silberstein <matts2removet...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Really? Perhaps you need to define creation for me then. And realize
>> that the key part of science is to provide predictions and then show
>> evidence that they are fulfilled. I don't know of any predictions
>> regarding creation.
>
>Let me provide a few in no particular order:
>
>Biblical Creation predicts that there is something to observe and make
>predictions about. Observed evidence: there is a wide variety of
>phenomena about which observations and predictions are made.
To be a scientific prediction it has to predict something other than
the observations used to create the model. Predicting that there is
something to observe is week on the face of it and useless and a real
prediction.
>While this may seem absurd at first glance, evolutionary theory cannot
>make the same prediction. As a matter of fact, based on today's
>observation of nuclear reaction results, it is much more likely that
>that nothing observable came from the first event than to predict
>something organic rose from inorganic.
That is just silly. It is creationists who make the silly "life is
unlikely" prediction and they make it based on an ignorance of how
chemistry works. Biologists make predictions based on observations of
life, not on calculations regarding nuclear reactions.
Try for something specific. How about this: suppose there is an island
close to a larger body of land. What would you, as a creationist,
predict regarding the characteristics of the life on that island? I
know what I would predict based on evolution.
>Further, it is quite
>improbable that a prediction can be made about something that is
>inherently unguided or random.
First off, that is not true. I can make predictions about the rolls of
two dice, good enough predictions to make lots of money playing people
who think that the dice work differently. Second, evolution is not
based on some "inherent randomness", chemistry and physics are quite
determinable. What is random in evolution, and this is determined by
*observation*, is the relationship between what mutations occur and
the environmental pressure on an organism. Again, we *observe* this,
we do not simply assume it.
>If it truly wasn't guided (by the will
>of a Creator, for instance), then the genome could have as likely been
>100% different as 4% or 0.1% different when it purportedly parted.
How do you know this? (And did you mean "started", "parted" makes no
sense"?) You seem to be claiming that creationists predict "the
genome" (what genome do you mean, each organism has a different one).
If so I would like to see that prediction and the model that produced
it.
>So here's where your accusation that Creationists only accept facts
>post-haste comes around to bite you. Would an evolutionary observer
>60 million years ago have "predicted" that this one species would be
>splitting into 5 or 6 different species?
Of course since 60 million years ago there was a long history
(billions of years) of branching evolution. I think you mean to ask
would someone 60 million years ago have predicted what we see today,
and that answer is no. But the failure of biologists to make 100%
accurate predictions over 60 million years is not a valid criticism:
you have yet to make one real creationism based prediction. ("We will
see something" is pretty vague, isn't it?)
>Biblical Creation predicts that a Creator's will necessitates laws and
>properties by which the creation is governed. Observed evidence: Many
>universal, natural laws have been discovered.
Again that is silly. First off, this was not actually a prediction
based on the Bible. For quite some time the Bible based answer was
(and still is to some large extent) that God could do what God wanted
to do. The idea of regularities, and so laws, comes into Western
though from the Greek tradition (though it has a long history as
well). God as the Supreme Lawgiver is a Deist idea and stems from the
17th century. There is nothing in the Bible that proposes that God
sets up rules to the Universe. You are simply wrong here as a matter
of both history and logic.
>If the process by which the organic rose from inorganic is unfettered
>by natural law, why would any subsequent process be bound to follow
>natural law?
Since biologists do not propose that life arose "unfettered" by
natural law I suggest you ask this of someone else. A creationist, for
example, someone who proposes that life began because of God's Will,
not because of law.
>Biblical Creation predicts that the creation itself is a revelation of
>the Creator's will.
And how do you propose to test this creation? How do you
*independently* determine God's will to see if "creation itself"
reveals it? To be specific: what prediction do you make of future
observations?
>
>Biblical Creation predicts that this is the point of the universe that
>the Creator has made suitable for life. Observed evidence: small
>variations in position from nearest stellar body would make life
>unsuitable.
Falsification: the vast majority of the Earth is uninhabitable, the
vaster majority of the solar system is uninhabitable, the even vaster
majority of the Universe is uninhabitable.
>Biblical Creation predicts that a day consists of periods of light and
>darkness. Observed evidence: planetary rotation produces exactly
>that.
OMFG! Do you really claim that as a prediction? I think you have no
idea how a prediction is supposed to work. You are supposed to come up
with something not already seen. People have been living in a world
with day and night for as long as there have been people: it does not
take particular insight to "predict" that there will be day and night.
>Biblical Creation predicts that a human is the highest form of
>observable creatures.
And how are you defining "highest"?
>Observed evidence: no other creature has the
>range of abilities that humans have.
Geese can,without any equimpment, swim under the water, swim on top of
the water, walk, and fly (thousands of miles). That is a pretty
impressive range of abilities that humans don't have. Arrogance is
neither a Christian virtue nor a basis for prediction.
>Biblical Creation predicts that death is universal as a result of
>sin. Observed evidence: the law of entropy is universal.
And how can you show this is due to sin? All evidence says that death
came before humans and entropy before the Earth. Not much of a
prediction there.
>Biblical Catastrophism (a sister concept) predicts the existence of
>fossils.
Which were observed before the Bible existed.
>Observed evidence: there are fossils found in various strata
>around the globe. This would not be possible with long, slow
>evolutionary processes depositing material over millions of years.
Huh? "Is not" does not constitute an argument. I have seen fossil bed
at a 45 degree angle. Please explain to me how these layers formed
quickly.
>Any organic material would have decayed long before fossilization.
Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that. Read this and
let me know your response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html
If you are going to claim a recent world-wide flood be prepared to
discuss the following list of FAQs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
>Biblical Creation predicts a young earth. Observed evidence: intact
>bacterial DNA is discovered in "pre-historic" fossils. DNA has a
>*maximum* shelf life of about 10,000 years.
>
>Biblical Creation predicts that species descend.
Really? On what basis? Predictions have to come from some underlying
model, not simply assertions. So what is the model in creationism that
predicts "descent"? I ask because the long history of creationist
thought, predating Darwin, was that there was no change at all and no
extinction.
> Observed evidence:
>humans have human babies (short, tall, fat, premature, and sadly even
>deformed babies but still human), cows have calves, etc.
>
>Biblical Creation predicts that life has a single origin. Observed
>evidence: all organic material contains carbon.
Actually the Bible predicts different origins for different kinds. You
seem to have read a different Bible than I have.
>
>> Suppose we
>> have a bunch of different species and we try to compare them. We take
>> as many different morphological (roughly speaking, their bodies)
>> characteristics as we can and compare them to each other. We will find
>> that no matter which ones we pick we find a particular pattern: a
>> tree-like nested hiearachy. Now likely you don't know what that means
>> so I will explain it. This means that we find groups of similarity and
>> groups of groups, and groups of groups of groups. So chimps and humans
>> resemble each other more than either resemble anything else. The apes
>> all resemble each other more than they resemble anything else.
>> Primates resemble each other, mammal, etc. We would find the same
>> patten with geese or with salmon or spiders. Let me give you an ascii
>> drawing of this (best viewed with a fixed font):
>>
>> A B C E F
>> \/ / \/
>> \ / /
>> \/ /
>> \ /
>> \ /
>> \/
>>
>> This pattern just screams common descent.
>
>This pattern screams common descent...TO YOU.
And to thousands of scientists. Can you come up with a different cause
given known processes?
>What evidence does anyone have that these patterns were ever
>MERGED???
You seem to have not understood what I showed you. That diagram shows
similarity of existant organisms. Look at the diagram I gave below.
>How do you know that the actual pattern might not be that
>each of those groups has run predictably similar, but PARALLEL from
>their inception?
I know of processes observed in the world that produce branching
descent. I know of nothing that would produce such parallel claims.
But I can do more, I can make predictions based on the claim of
descent. I can predict what fossils I will find, what features unknown
organisms will have, I can predict the genome based on morphological
similarity. And those predictions turn out to be true when I *got and
get more evidence*. (You don't seem to grasp that last part about
predictions: you have to go and get new evidence to see if it fits.)
>I realize I'm not the most articulate person around, but this again
>points to the fact that none of you have answered my question yet,
>despite all the attempts to blame it on *my* ignorance.
In this case it is because you seem to fail to understand the chart I
gave and how predictions work.
>All that's been provided so far is non-falsifiable evidence that at
>some point in the oblivious past, these patterns were once connected!
That sentence makes no sense. I don't know what is wrong with
producing "non-falsifiable evidence", that is the only kind of
*evidence*. (We falsify models, not observations.) And I have no idea
what you mean by "oblivious" past.
>> So it is the *pattern* of similarity, not the raw number, that shows
>> common descent.
>
>If you were truly making predictions based on observable evidence of
>similar yet distinct and the principle that species descend, your
>prediction would not arrive at common descent.
Why should I accept your view and not that of people who have worked
in the field for years? But here is a simple test for you. Cows
produce their own vitamin C. Mice produce their own vitamin C. Orcs
produce their own vitamin C. Gibbons do not produce their own vitamin
C, Humans do not produce their own vitamin C. Based on creationism and
parallel development, what do you predict about Chimps and Gorillas?
Now I tell you that lemurs don't produce their own vitamin C. What do
you predict about Cats, Dogs, and Capuchins? A simple question, one I
can answer based on an evolutionary, common descent, model. What isy
our prediction and why?
>> BTW, this is decidedly not the pattern we find when we look at
>> designed (by humans) items. Human designed things do not show a tree,
>> they show a network. Cars today, for example, have a stong resemblence
>> to computers. Steel suddenly shows up in a wide variety of items all
>> at the same time rather than showing separate development in each
>> line. Human designed things show far more cross-fertilization than do
>> biologically evolved things.
>
>I guess I don't understand your use of time-differentiation here.
>Steel was used long before there were cars or computers (17th century
>according to Wikipedia). Cars had steel in them before there were
>ever any computers. Based on your pattern, wouldn't we predict that
>computers arose from cars which arose from the discovery of steel?
I gave several examples, you seem to have pushed them all together.
Let me try again. The pattern of similarity we find in biota, living
organisms, is not what we find in the produce of human design. Human
design things do not show a tree, they show a network.
Example 1: cars today have computers, but those computers did not
develop in the car line. The cars and computers merged because human
designers learned from other human designers.
Example 2: steel did not develop separately in the ship line, it
developed elsewhere and the lines merged. In biology we see separate
development of the bat wing and bird wing, in ships we see the
develoment of steel and the a merging with ships.
[snip]
>> How does this follow from a single designer? Why not hand coding for
>> each species, or each individual even? Design, after all, is a way of
>> trying to do thing efficiently: God has no such restrictions. Nor does
>> biological similarity look like a Single Designer. To take a clear
>> example: bat wings look like human arms more than they look like bird
>> wings. A Single Designer would take a working design from one place
>> and use it elsewhere. What we see looks like a really large number
>> designers (one for each branch, as it happens) who make random changes
>> to see what will happen.
>>
>
>You are right in suggesting that God CAN do anything He wants, but it
>is also true that as God, He does the things He wants in the BEST way
>He sees fit.
And you know what about what God considers best?
>(This includes sin and death.) Since God is not limited
>in His reasons or capabilities as creaturely designers are, He may
>well decide to use mammal wings on mammals and avian wings on birds.
And he may well not. So you can't predict a thing based on what God
wants because you don't know.
[snip]
>But the same problem applies to your random changes. If it were truly
>random changes without design or purpose, such a random change could
>have as likely started from scratch as the "first" DNA as modifying
>existing DNA to be (x)% similar. It is not by virtue of any
>prediction which evolution makes that points to similarity or
>branching.
You don't seem to have a clue about what "random change" means. The
"random" means that *by observation* the mutations that occur are not
affected by the current evironmental stress. If a mutation for drought
tolerance occurs X% of the time, it will occur X% of the time in wet
times and in dry times. The *change* part means that mutations are
small modifications to the existing genome. We know by *observation*
that they are not complete re-writes. You seem to think that "random
change" means anything at all can happen.
>> Go towww.talkorigins.organd read the "must read" files. It is not
>> peer reviews (though each of the FAQs has undergone extensive on-line
>
>I have perused them in previous times, though not exhaustively. I
>didn't find the answers to the questions I'm asking addressed there.
>Common descent and other non-falsifiable evidence is just assumed in
>many of the "answers."
Read this then:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Most of biology does take common descent for granted because such an
astoundingly good case has been made for it. There is no need to
continually make the point any more than a physics article has to
discuss the case for momentum or orbits.
>(As an aside: I'm not impugning your motives at all in directing me
>there, but I wonder how other "evolutionists" would respond if, to
>their questions about Creationism, creationists directed them to the
>Scriptures, divinely inspired by the Creator for answers!)
We would think that your support is not from observations of the world
but from your need to support a text. In that my references differ
from yours. The links I gave do not refer to some authoritative text,
they refer to evidence based arguments. And you are free to go to the
original peer reviewed science referenced in those FAQs. At the point
that you assert your source is a text that is "divinely inspiried" is
the point at which you admit your don't have a scientific case for
your claims.
>> Dating, though, is an issue of geology and physics, not biology.
>
>So when biology tells us that DNA can't survive more than 10,000 years
>and we find bacterial DNA in a fossil which geology dates at millions
>of years, we should stick with geology and ignore biology?
Since we don't find bacterial DNA that is millions of years old that
is not a problem. *If* we did find such then it would be a fascinating
scientific problem.
Matt Silberstein
<sp...@hotmail.com> in <L9Sdne-Ggcfbm3_b...@sti.net>
wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:48:00 -0700, "David V."
>> <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> She is female, the ornery is a subjective judgment (one
>>>> she would probably agree with though).
>>>
>>> My kind of woman..... now if she only had a tractor with a
>>> front loader and box scraper.
>>
>> Isn't that your job? Or are you not using euphamisms?
>
>No, I really need a tractor for my little ranch.
You had me at box scraper.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
John C.
> On Sep 9, 2:59 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nor would it want to.
>
> He doesn't seem to grasp that the kind of predictions we're talking
> about aren't the kindergarten kind. We're talking about predictions
> like these:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
> http://tinyurl.com/rhwma
>
First link: ???predictions??? in which the respondent to the article
points out that no formal predictions were ever actually documented.
Second link: One can be right in the end result without necessarily
being correct in the conclusions which brought you there. For
instance, if hydrodynamic priniciples caused objects of that
particular size to always settle in that particular strata after a
catastrophic event, then, though you find your fossils at the level
you expected, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are there because
of their age.
>
> >predicting AFTER THE FACT. Anyone can get that right.
Since Creation is a finished event, it's rather hard to predict before
the fact in this case.
John C.
Matt Silberstein
<trinita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 10, 12:41 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2:59 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Nor would it want to.
>>
>> He doesn't seem to grasp that the kind of predictions we're talking
>> about aren't the kindergarten kind. We're talking about predictions
>> like these:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
>> http://tinyurl.com/rhwma
>>
>
>First link: ???predictions??? in which the respondent to the article
>points out that no formal predictions were ever actually documented.
Given your notion of prediction I am kind of surprised you make this
objection. You think it is a "prediction" to say that there are laws
of science.
>Second link: One can be right in the end result without necessarily
>being correct in the conclusions which brought you there. For
>instance, if hydrodynamic priniciples caused objects of that
>particular size to always settle in that particular strata after a
>catastrophic event, then, though you find your fossils at the level
>you expected, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are there because
>of their age.
They don't though. There is no size sorting found at all. There are no
clams or crabs with the trilobites, there are no large mammals with
non-avian dinosaurs. Not *one*, not at all. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with presenting an alternative explanation for the
evidence, scientists do that whenever they can think of on. (In fact,
a scientists makes a reputation by coming up with a better
alternative, and make a big reputation by coming up with a better
alternative to an important theory.) But your explanation should,
well, explain what we actually see. Hydrodynamic sorting does not
work; it fails, well, catestrophically. You may not know this, but the
idea of lower/older *predates* Darwin. It was, in fact, the final nail
in the coffin of creationism (the acceptance of ice ages was the
first). Read _The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the
Birth of Modern Geology_ by Simon Winchester
http://www.amazon.com/Map-That-Changed-World-William/dp/0060931809/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4834480-2228410?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189516993&sr=1-1
(I found the book a bit boring, but it is an exhustive and interesting
story.)
There is no sorting by size at all. But there is a clear order to the
fossils. There are fossils (we call them index fossils) that are
always in a particular *relative* position. That is, if we find fossil
B, it is always above A and below C. When it is not we find clear
evidence of geological action that overturns the layers. hydrodynamic
sorting does not work, in the field or in the lab, the putting newer
things on top of older ones is pretty easy.
Budikka666
> On Sep 10, 12:41 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 2:59 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nor would it want to.
>
> > He doesn't seem to grasp that the kind of predictions we're talking
> > about aren't the kindergarten kind. We're talking about predictions
> > like these:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
> >http://tinyurl.com/rhwma
>
> First link: ???predictions??? in which the respondent to the article
> points out that no formal predictions were ever actually documented.
You evidently missed these three lines which demonstrate predictions
implicit in the Theory of Evolution:
that an ant-wasp intermediate would exist at all.
the attributes it would possess.
the strata in which it would be found.
But whether your unsupported claim is true or not, it doesn't alter
the fact that the fossil was exactly what was expected from the Theory
of evolution. Creationists have no useful explanation for it.
Which brings me to what explanation the creationists do pretend to
offer for the wealth of transitional fossils that have been regularly
uncovered since Darwin wrote "On the Origin..."?
Here's a list of some of them, thanks to the dedicated work of
Kathleen Hunt:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> Second link: One can be right in the end result without necessarily
> being correct in the conclusions which brought you there. For
> instance, if hydrodynamic priniciples caused objects of that
> particular size to always settle in that particular strata after a
> catastrophic event, then, though you find your fossils at the level
> you expected, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are there because
> of their age.
Nice example of moving the goalposts - which is actually a prediction
of the Theory of Evolution: that when creationists are cornered on a
specific topic they've raised, they'll move the goalposts and hope no
one notices.
Do I have to remind you that the topic was what the Theory of
Evolution predicts, and not what a specific individual has written
down in detail beforehand?
And what rebuttal are you able to offer? Your just-so story about
hydrodynamic sorting, which the fossil record itself refutes
absolutely?
You're not actually trying to claim here a reality for a global flood
à la the Biblical book of Genesis are you?
> > >predicting AFTER THE FACT. Anyone can get that right.
>
> Since Creation is a finished event, it's rather hard to predict before
> the fact in this case.
Well that boils up a fresh kettle of fish for you to stomach, doesn't
it?
First of all, upon what evidence do you base your claim here that
creation is finished?
Second, why do you lack so much imagination? Are you admitting that
your creation "theory" is so impoverished that you can't think of even
one example we ought to be able to find in nature that would
constitute strong evidence for creation?
Here's a comparison of "theories" which ought to settle this issue
once and for all.
An implicit prediction of the Theory of Evolution is that the fossil
record will show change in the earliest to the most recent strata. In
general, this change will be from finding only what is commonly termed
"simple" or "primitive" organisms (one-celled life-forms and what the
Bible terms "creeping things") in the lowest (earliest) strata -
organisms that were unlikely to be exactly like what we see today and
that this change will progress through the strata towards organisms
that are more and more like what we do see today.
Now what does creation predict? Well it predicts that all modern
organisms were there from the start and that there will be no
significant change found no matter where one examines the strata.
Guess what? The prediction of the Theory of Evolution turned out to
be correct and the vast bulk of these discoveries (particularly the
earlier ones and, for example, most hominin fossils) were not known in
Darwin's time.
The prediction of the "theory" of creation turned out to be completely
false.
What does that tell you?
I notice you still have not responded to my response of Sep 8th
(5:58am). I wonder why this is?
Budikka