BBC the creationist at the museum
TomS
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004jz9d/Heart_And_Soul_17_10_2009/>
"At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in the United States, Bill
Jack, a Christian creationist takes schoolchildren on 'Biblically
Correct Tours'.
"These offer a literal, Biblical interpretation of all that is displayed,
from fossils to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And Bill teaches that
answers to all questions about how we got here can be found in the Old
Testament of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
"Kirk Johnson is a paleontologist at the museum, with evolution at the
heart of all he does in his study of prehistoric life through fossils.
Kirk decides that the time has come to talk to Bill about their different
approaches to understanding the past."
My personal opinion is that scientists should get some lessons about
how to deal with creationists.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
VoiceOfReason
> On the BBC radio programme, "Heart and Soul" for October 17:
>
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004jz9d/Heart_And_Soul_17_10_2009/>
>
> "At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in the United States, Bill
> Jack, a Christian creationist takes schoolchildren on 'Biblically
> Correct Tours'.
>
> "These offer a literal, Biblical interpretation of all that is displayed,
> from fossils to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And Bill teaches that
> answers to all questions about how we got here can be found in the Old
> Testament of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
>
> "Kirk Johnson is a paleontologist at the museum, with evolution at the
> heart of all he does in his study of prehistoric life through fossils.
> Kirk decides that the time has come to talk to Bill about their different
> approaches to understanding the past."
>
> My personal opinion is that scientists should get some lessons about
> how to deal with creationists.
"Get your ignorant, lying ass out of my museum," would be a good
start, IMO.
John Stockwell
> On the BBC radio programme, "Heart and Soul" for October 17:
>
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004jz9d/Heart_And_Soul_17_10_2009/>
>
> "At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in the United States, Bill
> Jack, a Christian creationist takes schoolchildren on 'Biblically
> Correct Tours'.
>
> "These offer a literal, Biblical interpretation of all that is displayed,
> from fossils to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And Bill teaches that
> answers to all questions about how we got here can be found in the Old
> Testament of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
>
> "Kirk Johnson is a paleontologist at the museum, with evolution at the
> heart of all he does in his study of prehistoric life through fossils.
> Kirk decides that the time has come to talk to Bill about their different
> approaches to understanding the past."
>
> My personal opinion is that scientists should get some lessons about
> how to deal with creationists.
Suppose you had a holocaust denier giving anti-holocaust tours
in the Holocaust Museum? How would you handle that?
TomS
<80fa7cfc-951f-4e3d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason stated..."
>
>On Oct 20, 11:16=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On the BBC radio programme, "Heart and Soul" for October 17:
>>
>>
>>
>> "At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in the United States, Bill
>> Jack, a Christian creationist takes schoolchildren on 'Biblically
>> Correct Tours'.
>>
>> "These offer a literal, Biblical interpretation of all that is displayed,
>> from fossils to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And Bill teaches that
>> answers to all questions about how we got here can be found in the Old
>> Testament of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
>>
>> "Kirk Johnson is a paleontologist at the museum, with evolution at the
>> heart of all he does in his study of prehistoric life through fossils.
>> Kirk decides that the time has come to talk to Bill about their different
>> approaches to understanding the past."
>>
>> My personal opinion is that scientists should get some lessons about
>> how to deal with creationists.
>
>"Get your ignorant, lying ass out of my museum," would be a good
>start, IMO.
>
>
Well, I was thinking along somewhat different lines.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Don't take anything that a creationist says at face value. If
a creationist says that the sun rose this morning, take a look.
If a creationist says that such-and-such is in the Bible, don't
assume that it is in the Bible. If a creationist offers a quotation
from a famous (or not) person, *even if the quotation looks favorable
to evolutionary biology*, don't assume that it is an accurate
quotation.
2. Don't assume that the creationist understands what he is saying.
Don't assume that the creationist is using words in their ordinary
meaning. Don't assume that the creationist understands even his own
religion. Don't assume that a creationist is willing to discuss, or
to learn, or to admit even the most obvious mistakes.
3. Don't assume that the creationist has an alternative to evolution.
Don't assume that he has bothered to think his position through.
Don't assume that he has anything other than "somehow, somewhere,
something is wrong with evolution".
4. Don't be surprised if he thinks that you are an immoral beast.
5. Remember that anything that you say will be ripped out of context,
distorted, mangled, and misinterpreted to make you look bad. That may
be because the creationist can't understand what you are saying, or
because you are just a lying anti-Christ bent on destroying all that
is good by devilish sophistry and therefore not worth being listened
to - or it might be just because it works.
6. Remember, most people are happy that they never have to take
another science class again.
7. If you argue with a creationist, the audience won't hear what
you are saying. All they will remember is that there was an argument,
which proves that there is a "controversy".
8. Remember, if they were interested in the facts or logic, they
wouldn't be creationists.
9. Maybe you can manage to get in some actual information about
science which someone might remember. But don't expect to convince
anyone.
10. Reread #1.
Skill Fragments
>
> "Get your ignorant, lying ass out of my museum," would be a good
> start, IMO.
You should hear the programme! The Jeezoid makes the kids chant "How do you
know?" in preparation for anything a scientist says to them... Eventually he
offers them ice creams in return for 'discovering' that the museum is really
'a church' rather than anything to do with science... The guy was vile.
Should be a law against it.
SF.
Christopher Denney
It's a shame we can't charge those guys with child abuse. (The B.C.
Tours guys)
That kind of indoctrination should be against the law.
It seems there should be a rule against using state facilities for
religious propaganda like that, it certainly seems like they would be
interfering with the regular people trying to enjoy the museum.
Ron O
Psychology will need to become a firmer science in order for
scientists to get the lessons that they need to deal with willful
ignorance and blatant lying without looking like they are picking on
the vegetables that are soaking it all up.
"How do you know that?" Keeping the kids as ignorant as possible with
that type of strategy is criminal. It is criminal because they guy
claims that there isn't a way to figure it out, and that it has not
been determined beyond reasonable doubt. You can't just ask such a
question, you have to tell the students about the reality of how we
can determine such things. "The museum is a church." How do you
combat stupidity and dishonesty such as that without pointing out how
stupid and dishonest it is? "Models" What about scientific
theories? By the sound of the voices these were young children. This
is like putting your child in the care of a whacko like adman or Ray.
Who would do that if they read a couple hundred of their posts?
If you try to be nice, what happens? If you are blunt and honest,
what happens? If you obfuscate and dissemble and essentially paint
the situation as something that it is not, what happens?
Ron Okimoto
TheMac37
> "On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT), in article
> VoiceOfReason stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 20, 11:16=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On the BBC radio programme, "Heart and Soul" for October 17:
>
Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make me a
creationist, so your logic is flawed.
TomS
<ba035b88-d900-40a4...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37
stated..."
[...snip...]
>Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make me a
>creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
Oh? Please tell us about creationism. I'd like to hear what you
think happened, if it didn't involve common descent with modification.
Tell us what it looks like when a new species/kind is designed/
created. And how things that are designed/created are different from
things that are not designed/created.
Are each of us creatures of God? Is there something wrong with the
scientific study of reproduction? Is reproduction incompatible with
creation? Did God's creative activity stop with the creation/design
of species/kinds?
And note that I have not yet asked for the facts and logic that
might support your theory of creationism. For the moment, all I'm
asking for is that you give us an expository essay describing
creationism. Although I will remark that I rather suspect that your
"facts and logic" are exclusively about your image of where you
think evolution is wrong.
I'm eagerly awaiting your expository essay describing the creation/
design of species/kinds.
Kermit
This would be an interesting change of pace. Unfortunately, whenever
your Creationist forebears on this newsgroup have posted, their logic
is often careless or non-existent, and always based on premises which
are factually incorrect. So, usually unsound and never valid.
Disappointing, to say the least.
Eagerly awaiting an example of your reasoning,
Kermit
heekster
wrote:
If so, it would be a first.
> so your logic is flawed.
You have yet to demonstrate that.
eerok
[...]
> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
> me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
off here by iteself to look it over.
Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
--
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
Voltaire
Ron O
> TheMac37 wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
> > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
> off here by iteself to look it over.
>
> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
> creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>
> So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
Creato logic doesn't require facts or any formal logic.
Ron Okimoto
TheMac37
Happy to answer Kermit. To save a lot of time and unnecessary typing,
do you have any specific questions?
TheMac37
OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
me to explain my beliefs.
Ron O
Just one clue. Don't use any of these bogus arguments at the web site
below. They are even too bogus for Answers in Genesis to use any
longer. So if you were hood winked by any of them you might not want
to continue. This list changes from time to time. They obviously do
not want it to get too long. The usual second law of thermodynamics
claim was on the list for a while, so you might have to look back over
the years at one of the archive sites to get all the bogus arguments.
These aren't the only bogus arguments. They are just the ones that
are too stupid to use to fool the rubes any longer. Just ask any of
the regular anti-evolution posters to put up an honest and valid anti-
evolution argument that they have been able to verify as such. You
get a big fat zero. The only one that has tried is adman (the
incompetent lunatic currently posting under the name of All seeing
I). Just look up some of his older posts to find out what kind of
person is willing to claim any honesty and validity in the anti-
evolution arguments. It really is a fact that no one else bothers.
Just get Ray or NashT to put one up. They all seem to have enough on
the ball to know that they do not have any honest and valid arguments
worth putting up.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
Check out this thread and the posts by adman and the rest of your
compatriots if you want to see what you are getting involved in.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
I really am trying to do you a favor. Learn something besides the
creationist claptrap that you have probably read. Have you ever read
a scientific text on evolution? If you have researched junk like they
put up at the AIG or the Creation Research Institute or the Discovery
Institute you haven't researched the issue for 7 years, you have just
swallowed a load that you shouldn't have even had to be exposed to.
Ron Okimoto
Charles Brenner
Tom asked some fair and sensible questions. Why don't you respond to
him? I could pretend to be surprised that you run elsewhere instead of
answering, but unfortunately it is common behavior among those who
claim to have a better theory than evolution.
RAM
>
>
>
> > TheMac37 wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
> > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
> > This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
> > off here by iteself to look it over.
>
> > Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
> > reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
> > creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
> > has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>
> > So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
>
> > --
> > "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
> > Voltaire
>
> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
> and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
Does this mean you are an engineer? Could you be more specific about
your scientific expertise so that one may construct questions
appropriate to your knowledge.
> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
> explain nature and its laws.
This is an awkward phrasing for someone who claims to be knowledgeable
about science.
>So, just let me know how you would like
> me to explain my beliefs.
I'm not interested in your beliefs. I know them. I grew up with
them. They are othrogonal to science. Do you know what this means?
If yes, one succinct scientifically focused paragraph will suffice as
an answer.
I'm interested first before anything else in a detailed scientific
exposition of an old earth, the data that reveals no global flood, and
finally the fact and science of evolution.
You should first show that you actually know the extant scientific
literature that speaks to these three issues. This means showing you
understand the respect theories, along with the methods and data on
these topics. And then once you get this correct, you can then show
what data contradicts these theories and how relevant they are given
all the extant data that exists to support these theories.
How is that for a start?
eerok
> On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> TheMac37 wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that
>> > make me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set
>> it off here by iteself to look it over.
>>
>> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic
>> of creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No
>> one else has ever shown us working examples of either of
>> these things.
>>
>> So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted
> to Kermit above, I will simply ask to begin with any
> specific questions you have. In other words where do you
> want me to start? I am a lifelong Lutheran, and have spent
> the last 7 years or so studying creationism and its claims
> in particular. I have a scientific background by trade, and
> am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you
> would like me to explain my beliefs.
Hmm. Are you really a creationist? For example, if you
think that God created biodiversity using evolution, then you
are not a creationist by the definition common here. If you
believe that the evidence for evolution is dispensable in some
way, particularly if you take the account of Genesis at face
value, then you are a creationist, and if you claim that
you're friendly to science, you'll have to explain why and how
150+ years of biological science can be pushed aside to make
way for a theological approach to the Bible that is not even
very commone among Christians worldwide.
One thing that I find very troubling about creationism is the
claim that scientists all over the world and of every faith
are privy to some convoluted conspiracy to discredit the
Bible. Why? An atheist can just reject the Bible. It's
really that simple. The idea that anyone would think it was a
good idea to subvert science to attack a particular religion
is quite insane. Dare I ask if you believe that this is true?
TomS
<ff1467e3-e0ef-463d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37
stated..."
>
>On Oct 21, 9:29=A0pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> TheMac37 wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>
>> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>
>> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>
>>
>> --
>> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>
>OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>me to explain my beliefs.
>
If you are so happy to try to explain yourself, how about, rather than
just telling us how happy you are to try to explain yourself ... well,
how about trying to explain yourself?
Explain why the human body has its place in the "tree of life" as a
neighbor to the bodies of chimps and other apes, without invoking
common descent with modification.
Or, if that's too much for you, how about just telling us what you
think happened in the history of life on earth that happened to result
in living things being the way they are today?
Or, how about this: You can just tell us why you decided to stop talking
to me.
Diz...@bfe.com
wrote:
OK. I have long been curious how a creationist would explain the twin
nested hierarchy. Evolution seems to explain it well at least to this
layman.
I await with interest.
Halfstop.
TheMac37
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
Ok, lets say you want to design a robot that will pick up a box of
cereal, pour it in a bowl, set it down, pick up milk, pour it, and set
it down. Now, you can visualize this robot before it is even built,
and your "mind picture" is different from mine, but I`ll bet we will
have many of the same components to this robot. Example, a mechanism
for lifting with some sort of swivel so it can pour etc... you get the
point. Similarity in our design is the result in a similar task to
perform. This could be argued in the world of animals. We all (animals
and humans) live in a world governed by the same laws of nature. The
hand...works, legs...work, eyes...work. Common designing (morphology)
and programming (DNA) can be easily understood using this concept.
Same designer, same basic programs and parts.
TheMac37
> "On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
I dont think we have talked before or have we?
To answer: Why are we on the tree alongside chimps and apes? Because
we have grouped ourselves alongside them. That is the only reason. I
could group a wagon next to a Ferrari. They both have four wheels,
they may even both be red, but that does not mean that they had a
common ancestor or one evolved into another. It could be though that
they have a common designer, since wheels seem to work well. Axles
seem to work, and a steering mechanism seems important on both.
TheMac37
I would simply challenge you to disprove the claims of a site like
AnswersInGenesis. I have ben doing this for a while, and I have never
seen a valid refutation of the claims made on that website. (Using
empirical evidence of course). Thanks for trying to do me a favor, but
I have no worries about my stance in here.
TheMac37
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
That is a good place to start. What is a fact...somethings existence,
or the story of how we think something came to exist?
Ron O
Why would I bother to disprove the claims of AIG when the web page
that I gave you had arguments that they admit are bogus creationist
arguments on it? They do not want their supporters using those
arguments and demonstrating how ignorant and stupid they are. Didn't
you even read the web page? If you have been hoodwinked by any of
those arguments in your evaluation of this controversy, than you
should rethink your evaluation.
You aren't starting out very well. Willful ignorance is about the
worst attribute that you can have.
Ron Okimoto
Garamond Lethe
I spent five years writing control code for industrial/laboratory
robots, and my experience does not match up with your description.
We had a drug discovery system with eight different robotic station
working with microtiter plates. Every one of them handled the task
of moving plates around in a completely unique fashion, even when
some of them had be designed by the same person.
Commonality in design exists because of outside constraints. When
there is no constraint (time, money, etc), optimal solutions (or
at least solutions that are claimed to be optimal) are designed
from scratch (over and over and over again). You could make an
argument for a Creator who was working on a deadline with a tight
budget, but then why not just go the evolutionary route and spend
the rest of the budget on really nice office furniture?
Garamond Lethe
AIG is really good for concentrating many, many goofy
mistakes per paragraph. Sticking to my own field, this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/computer.asp
is wholly, laughably wrong.
If you read it and agree, then you might ask them to
remove the article (there's too much wrong with it to
bother trying to correct it). If you don't know enough
about information theory to form an opinion, let me know
and I'll be happy to send you the empirical data.
VoiceOfReason
eerok
> On Oct 21, 5:46 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37
<mac3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>>> me a creationist,
>> If so, it would be a first.
>>> so your logic is flawed.
>> You have yet to demonstrate that
> That is a good place to start. What is a fact...somethings
> existence, or the story of how we think something came to
> exist?
A fact is something that has been established by direct,
consistent evidence, as opposed to an opinion or belief. That
we can boil water by heating it is a fact. Gravity is a fact
explained by the theory of gravity. Evolution is a fact
explained by the theory of evolution.
Scientific theories as well established as the theory of
evolution are sometimes more loosely referred to as fact since
all the corroborating evidence from several disciplines is so
consistent and so strong. However, there are many theories
and hypotheses within the larger framework of the theory of
evolution that can change due to new and better evidence, and
there are disputes among scientists in these situations as
well. This is all part of the process of figuring out how
nature works. Science is a work in progress, after all, and
knowledge is cumulative. In any case, there is no scientific
theory that competes with the modern theory of evolution for
explaining the fact of biodiversity.
For someone like you who seems to be steeped in religious
polemic, it would serve you well to learn what exactly the
theory of evolution states. There is so much disinformation
and FUD surrounding evolution that entire agricultural regions
could be decimated to produce all that straw. It is typical
for creationists to make utter fools of themselves here; it
would be refreshing if you took the time to educate yourself
first on the basic topic.
If you read Christian apologetic sites like AIG and imagine
that they offer anything but anti-science rhetoric, you'll go
a long way before encountering a fact.
TomS
<1f29149d-f2fc-4c96...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37
stated..."
>
>On Oct 23, 9:20=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
>c37
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 21, 9:29=3DA0pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> >> TheMac37 wrote:
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> >> > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>
>> >> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>> >> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>
>> >> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>> >> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>> >> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>
>>
>> >> --
>> >> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>>
>> >OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>> >above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>> >have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>> >Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>> >and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>> >and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>> >explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>> >me to explain my beliefs.
>>
>> If you are so happy to try to explain yourself, how about, rather than
>> just telling us how happy you are to try to explain yourself ... well,
>> how about trying to explain yourself?
>>
>> Explain why the human body has its place in the "tree of life" as a
>> neighbor to the bodies of chimps and other apes, without invoking
>> common descent with modification.
>>
>> Or, if that's too much for you, how about just telling us what you
>> think happened in the history of life on earth that happened to result
>> in living things being the way they are today?
>>
>> Or, how about this: You can just tell us why you decided to stop talking
>> to me.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
> due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
>I dont think we have talked before or have we?
>To answer: Why are we on the tree alongside chimps and apes? Because
>we have grouped ourselves alongside them. That is the only reason. I
>could group a wagon next to a Ferrari. They both have four wheels,
>they may even both be red, but that does not mean that they had a
>common ancestor or one evolved into another. It could be though that
>they have a common designer, since wheels seem to work well. Axles
>seem to work, and a steering mechanism seems important on both.
>
Solipsism.
I might consider adding that to "chance" and "omphalism" to the
non-explanatory explanations for the complexity of the world.
Mike Dworetsky
news:ff1467e3-e0ef-463d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, for starters, let me ask the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" key question:
please state in your own words, what the actual age of the Earth is? You
claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
scientific evidence. Or any other evidence you may care to bring forth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
I'll also ask you to specify what your scientific education was, and what
your current profession or previous science-based profession is. A brief CV
that would not specifically identify you (if you wish to remain
pseudonymous) might help us to understand you better.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Diz...@bfe.com
wrote:
>On Oct 23, 4:26�pm, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
Ok. This seemed to be a bit vague so I will get a little more specific
in an attempt to understand.
Why does a human and a porpoise have the same hand/flipper bone
structure? As I understand it, the similarity is almost mandatory
with the principles of common descent. In other words, there is a
reason for the commonality. While it might be allowed, I do not see
why it would be so with creationism when fish do so well with a
different structure.
Awaiting your response with interest.
Frank J
> On the BBC radio programme, "Heart and Soul" for October 17:
>
>
> "At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in the United States, Bill
> Jack, a Christian creationist takes schoolchildren on 'Biblically
> Correct Tours'.
Would that be the "Biblically correct":
(1) geocentrism of the middle ages?
(2) OEC of the Scopes-era creationists?
(3) YEC that's really a 20th century concoction?, or
(4) "don't ask, don't tell" that holds its nose while parroting feel-
good sound bites from Michael "reading the Bible as a science text is
silly" Behe?
>
> "These offer a literal, Biblical interpretation of all that is displayed,
> from fossils to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And Bill teaches that
> answers to all questions about how we got here can be found in the Old
> Testament of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
>
> "Kirk Johnson is a paleontologist at the museum, with evolution at the
> heart of all he does in his study of prehistoric life through fossils.
> Kirk decides that the time has come to talk to Bill about their different
> approaches to understanding the past."
>
> My personal opinion is that scientists should get some lessons about
> how to deal with creationists.
Absolutely. The first thing is to stop implying that all creationists
believe the same thing, but rather show how they are in hopeless
disagreement. The second thing is to stop taking their bait by
allowing 99+% of the discussion to be what's right or wrong about
evolution, whether there's a Creator or designer, etc. At least half
of the discussion must be to get the creationist to state his own
"what happened when", then exploit how he/she evades the question and/
or refuses to defend it without reference to "Darwinism".
Frank J
Well if you agree with the claims of a site like AiG, you have as much
disagreement with the claims of people like Hugh Ross and Michael
Behe. Have you ever tried to challenge them directly?
TheMac37
You are correct, I disagree with Behe and Ross. The reason, they
compromise the Biblical record.
TheMac37
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:22:28 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
There are several ways to design a working limb. I would say that the
similarity in structure may in some way point to a common designer,
but more importantly, I would argue that this similarity does not
prove common descent. This goes back to my wagon car example. Because
two objects are similar, may only mean they are designed to perform a
similar task. As you know, the diversity of living organisms is very
great, could this not point to the vast intelligence of the Creator?
TheMac37
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "TheMac37" <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Since I was born in 1971, I can only answer this question by the
resources around me. I believe the Bible as the true word of God, and
if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
around 6000 to 6500 years old.
TheMac37
I will agree with you that evolution under certain definitions is
indeed a fact. For instance, the chihuahua and the Irish Wolfhound
being variants of dogs and coming from a common ancestor. But, they
are still just dogs. You see, there are vast variations within a
"kind" of animal, I have no problem with that. Speciation happens, but
there is no evidence of say a bat producing something else other than
a bat, or a dog anything but a dog. Tomato plants don`t start
producing ladybugs etc... This "common descent" of life is what is
unproven.
TheMac37
wrote:
If you are going to argue that information writes itself, go for it, I
would love to see the empirical evidence.
RAM
Well, since you will not accept any science that contradicts the Bible
it is useless to debate you.
You have dug a hole so deep and filled it with religious crap that you
will never see the light of day.
Religious justifications for science are as unnecessary as tits on a
bore hog or men. I'm sure will disagree and find divine reasons for
male tits. Let me start a divine explanation for them, since I was
religiously trained for the first thirteen years to be a boneheaded
religious racist bigot and science denier. First God made man in
his image thus the tits. Then he made man from dirt (what a choice)
and blew life into him. Next he took a rib from man (what a choice)
and made woman (male chauvinist hillbillies I used to know said this
explained women's obstinance). Then God made all the different kinds
and made some parts in his image. But why tits.
A theological explanation of course is useless to science; but damn
they can be entertaining.
TheMac37
wrote:
There are only so many ways to pick up a box of cereal (outside
constraints). I would not be interested in the office furniture if it
comes with the side of "compromising truth". Nice analogy though.
TheMac37
So lets not focus on arguments even creationist agree should not be
used. Lets get to the points of contention. For example, what is your
opinion of God? Do you believe in a God at all, and if so, what is he/
she like? What that creationist say is not "claptrap"?
TheMac37
I would disagree, I dont see where real science and a Christian
worldview are in conflict. By real science I mean testable repeatable
empirical science.
Diz...@bfe.com
wrote:
>On Oct 24, 8:25�am, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
The problem that I see is that design could be compatible with
anything. You just have to say it was designed.
It seems to me that with design, you would have to show why the
flipper is as it is and why not something different. Evolution seems
to explain this neatly. My question then is how would common design
explain the specific strucure of the bones in the flipper?
Yours
Dizfriz
Mike Dworetsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are what is known as a Young Earth Creationist. You seem to be
saying (here and elsewhere) that your creationist beliefs stem from your
religious beliefs. But you also claimed a scientific justification.
And your scientific qualifications? You claimed that you used your science
education and professional skills to accept this literal Biblical claim of
the fundamentalists. Let's hear a bit more about this. Many creationists
claim to be "scientists" and, for example, it turns out to be something like
"mortuary science" or "domestic science".
A lot of creationists with technical backgrounds turn out to be engineers.
Are you an engineer? It is a relevant question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
Nick Keighley
> On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > TheMac37 wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
> > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
> > This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
> > off here by iteself to look it over.
>
> > Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
> > reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
> > creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
> > has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>
> > So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
>
> > --
> > "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
> > Voltaire
>
> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
> and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
> me to explain my beliefs.
what sort of creationist are you? What was created? And When? Were
their multiple creation events?
nick keighley
Nick Keighley
> On Oct 23, 9:20 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > "On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > <ff1467e3-e0ef-463d-b3d2-34fdaea23...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37
> > stated...
> > >On Oct 21, 9:29=A0pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
> > >> TheMac37 wrote:
> > If you are so happy to try to explain yourself, how about, rather than
> > just telling us how happy you are to try to explain yourself ... well,
> > how about trying to explain yourself?
>
> > Explain why the human body has its place in the "tree of life" as a
> > neighbor to the bodies of chimps and other apes, without invoking
> > common descent with modification.
>
> > Or, if that's too much for you, how about just telling us what you
> > think happened in the history of life on earth that happened to result
> > in living things being the way they are today?
>
> > Or, how about this: You can just tell us why you decided to stop talking
> > to me.
>
> I dont think we have talked before or have we?
> To answer: Why are we on the tree alongside chimps and apes? Because
> we have grouped ourselves alongside them.
No. Because the morphological and genetic evidence shows that we are
closely related to the chimps and apes. We share a vast amount of DNA
with chimps, our chromosomes are virtually identical, chimps (and
other great apes) and humans have the same missing gene that means we
cannot synthesise vitamin C (nearly all other mamals can). We share
endogenous endo-viruses (viral DNA embedded in our DNA). The pattern
of ERVs exactly matches the tree. The eveidence for common descent and
the tree of life is absouloutly over whelming.
> That is the only reason. I
> could group a wagon next to a Ferrari.
vehichles are not related by common descent.
> They both have four wheels,
> they may even both be red, but that does not mean that they had a
> common ancestor or one evolved into another. It could be though that
> they have a common designer, since wheels seem to work well. Axles
> seem to work, and a steering mechanism seems important on both.
But the matches between chimps and humans are much closer an more
compelling
Nick Keighley
the box of cereal has design constraints. It is deigned to be easy
topick up by the human hand. A box designed for gorillas night be
different. As might an elephant version or a squid version
Nick Keighley
> On Oct 24, 7:47 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
<snip>
> > Well, for starters, let me ask the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" key question:
> > please state in your own words, what the actual age of the Earth is? You
> > claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
> > scientific evidence. Or any other evidence you may care to bring forth.
>
<snip>
>
> > --
> > Mike Dworetsky
>
> > (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
it is usual to snip the .sg (the bit after "-- ")
>
> Since I was born in 1971, I can only answer this question by the
> resources around me. I believe the Bible as the true word of God, and
> if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
> around 6000 to 6500 years old.
but to do this you have to ignore/discard most of physics,chemistry,
astronomy, arceology, history and (of course) biology. Radioactive
series,tree rings, ice layers, moon rock evidence, lake beds, fossil
records...
Ron O
Yes, I am a baptized Methodist. So what is your excuse for believing
claptrap that you don't have to swallow?
What you are avoiding is demonstrating just how bogus the claptrap
that you have been fed is.
Just do this. Take the best anti-evolution argument from the AIG or
any other creationist source that you want. Tell us in your own words
what the argument is and what it means. Give us a references so we
can go to the source and see if you are getting anything wrong, and we
can critique your interpretation.
What you will find is that there are no honest and valid anti-
evolution arguments worth putting forward. Just ask NashT, Ray,
Pagano, if they have been able to find such a creationist argument.
The ID perps would not be running their bogus bait and switch scam on
rubes like you if they actually had anything worth teaching in the
public schools. What happened to scientific creationism? What
happened to intelligent design? Where are the valid scientific
argument? It should register at some level when you can go to the
current creationist scam and read it and find out that the new scam
doesn't even mention creationism nor ID as part of any scientific
controversy. The new scam is just an obfuscation scam to try to keep
the kids as ignorant as possible. Dishonesty has become a way of life
for the anti-evolution contingent. That is just a fact. You may want
to look up the Clergy Letter project. You do not have to be a
dishonest anti-evolution creationist.
Just keep posting. Put up as many lame anti-evolution arguments as it
takes untill you get like NashTon or just about any of the other
regular anti-evolution posters. These guys are the flat earthers of
the modern age. They have given up trying to defend the claptrap and
just snipe from the sidelines. That is all they can do. What willl
you do then?
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
Ron Okimoto
Mike Dworetsky
news:ae9aa21b-3437-4881...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> > Well, for starters, let me ask the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" key question:
> > please state in your own words, what the actual age of the Earth is? You
> > claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
> > scientific evidence. Or any other evidence you may care to bring forth.
>
<snip>
>
> > --
> > Mike Dworetsky
>
> > (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
it is usual to snip the .sg (the bit after "-- ")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I got a bit excited...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since I was born in 1971, I can only answer this question by the
> resources around me. I believe the Bible as the true word of God, and
> if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
> around 6000 to 6500 years old.
but to do this you have to ignore/discard most of physics,chemistry,
astronomy, arceology, history and (of course) biology. Radioactive
series,tree rings, ice layers, moon rock evidence, lake beds, fossil
records...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm working up to that. Hang in there. First I want to know why he claims
a scientific education and science based profession.
All good points, of course.
Garamond Lethe
But there are many, many, many ways of storing chemical energy, right?
Why was the designer constrained to use only ATP/ADP for all life on
the planet?
There are many, many, many ways of storing genetic information (and
biologist came up with several models that are far more elegant than
DNA before DNA was discovered). Why was the designer constrained to
using for every animal and plant on the planet?
Eyes, however, have many possibilities and we see these possibilies
in nature --- except that our model is backwards, causing light to
have to fight through blood vessels to get to the rods and cones,
and if that wasn't dumb enough, there's a hole for the plumbing
right in the middle. No human has ever designed an optical instrument
like this. What constraint was the designer under that resulted in
this design decision?
"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer, so long as it is
paired with "but here is how I'm going to find out". What I find
toxic about creationism is how it lends itself to answers like "I don't
know, we can't know, would you mind if I made a guess?". God has
provided you with a universe that has the very cool property of
containing within it a description of how it was created. There's no
need to guess.
Garamond Lethe
1. It takes a very specific kind of information to play chess.
One would expect a random collection of bits would play chess
very poorly, and if one randomly perturbed an existing chess
program it would be unlikely to improve its play.
2. It takes more information to play chess well than to play
chess badly.
3. David Fogel had the idea of applying evolution to chess.
He started with a chess engine from Digenetics that wasn't
anything special (although it was the result of thousands of
hours of careful design and testing). By adding noise and
using selection, he ended up with a chess engine that beat
the engine that was ranked #5 in the world at the time.
4. Fogel did not have the skills that would have allowed
him to write a top-5 chess engine using traditional methods
(there are very few people on the planet who do have those
skills).
5. Where did the information to play top-5 chess come from,
if not from random mutation and selection?
(I don't think any of these are behind a paywall, but let me
know if you have any trouble tracking them down.)
David B. Fogel et al. "A Self-Learning Evolutionary Chess
Program" Proceedings of the IEEE v92, n12, Dec. 2004.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/oop6bv
David B. Fogel et al. "Further Evolution of a Self-Learning
Chess Program". Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on
Computational Intelligence and Games, 2005.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/o5ak9l
David B. Fogel et al. "The Blondie25 Chess Programs
Competes Against Fritz 8.0 and a Human Chess Master."
Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational
Intelligence and Games, 2006.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzkrzx4
A couple additional notes:
There are many small errors in the article and I'm happy to
provide a list if you think that would be useful, but they
are really overwhelmed by the huge error that adding noise
to a system cannot increase information.
Fogel's work was a fairly big deal in CompSci circles, but
his model of evolution was, well, crude by biological standards.
One of the first things I'd like to do when I start my postdoc
is repeat his work using a more biologically plausible model of
evoution and see if I can improve on his results. For example,
his population size was 10. In biology, a population size of 10
generally means that you're going to have a population size of 0
in the very near future. I think I can increase that by three
orders of magnitude. Should be fun!
Oh, and thanks for sticking around. Most creationists don't,
and it's appreciated.
Garamond Lethe
As do many biologists, this is not inconsistent with evolution.
> and
> if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
> around 6000 to 6500 years old.
There a germ of an idea here: let's ask what was here at the creation
how old the creation is.
And the rock that God created are more than happy to tell us.
God was even clever enough to set things up so that the absence of
certain rocks cross-validates the solution we get from the rocks that
are here. And rocks on other planets cross-validate this solution
too. Even the light from the stars gives us another method of checking
our sums. One might even get the impression that God wanted this answer
to be bloody obvious.
Things don't look nearly as convincing for the 6000 year hypothesis.
That's not stated in the bible, for one, so you're relying on a
peculiar interpretation of the text from the year 1650. Wikipedia
sums up Ussher's life as follows:
"Some of his scholarly ideas, such as his belief that the pope was Antichrist,
and that the world was created in 4004 BC, have been consigned to the fringes
of theology and science, but his biblical and patristic scholarship have stood
the test of time, most notably his remarkable detective work on the genuine
letters of Ignatius."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
Do you have a particular reason for prefering Ussher's reading to those
of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Angelican, Methodist, Baptist etc. etc.
etc. readings?
RAM
Three examples: God created man independent of evolutionary processes,
a global flood, and a young earth.
The overwhelming and largely irrefutable empirical science shows
unequivocal support for evolution, an old earth and no global flood.
That is real science doesn't support these Biblical contentions. And
as a matter of fact, a selective, non comprehensive dishonest use of
an inherently distorting minuscule amount of real science empirical
evidence does not make a case for any of them as the dishonest ICR,
AIG and other fundamentalists sites reveal.
If you supply the selective distrotions they employ as justification
you must for scientific honesty explain systematically why the massive
real science empirical evidence in support of them are wrong. They
refuse to acknowledge and deal with all the real science empirical
evidence in support of these three fundamentalist dogmatic tropes.
Dismissal of volumes of interdependent real science empirical evidence
on these areas is hypocrisy and shameful; and reflects as you know a
Christian moral hypocrisy when done by the above noted sites.
In an earlier post I challenged you to provide the empirical
scientific evidence for your Biblically blinded view of these three
tropes and why all the evidence that fundamentalist dismiss is
irrelevant. All you have done is ignore the obvious as far as
scientists are concerned. We have heard all that crap before.
repeating it is not necessary. Just show us why and how all the
massive amounts of scientific empirical evidence is wrong. If you
really know real science then your task is quite large. I don't think
you are up to it.
TomS
<4f73741e-9d14-42f6...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, Nick
Keighley stated..."
>> > "On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
>Mac37
>> > stated...
>> > >On Oct 21, 9:29=3DA0pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> > >> TheMac37 wrote:
>
>
>> > If you are so happy to try to explain yourself, how about, rather than
>> > just telling us how happy you are to try to explain yourself ... well,
>> > how about trying to explain yourself?
>>
>> > Explain why the human body has its place in the "tree of life" as a
>> > neighbor to the bodies of chimps and other apes, without invoking
>> > common descent with modification.
>>
>> > Or, if that's too much for you, how about just telling us what you
>> > think happened in the history of life on earth that happened to result
>> > in living things being the way they are today?
>>
>g
>> > to me.
>>
>> I dont think we have talked before or have we?
>> To answer: Why are we on the tree alongside chimps and apes? Because
>> we have grouped ourselves alongside them.
>
>No. Because the morphological and genetic evidence shows that we are
>closely related to the chimps and apes. We share a vast amount of DNA
>with chimps, our chromosomes are virtually identical, chimps (and
>other great apes) and humans have the same missing gene that means we
>cannot synthesise vitamin C (nearly all other mamals can). We share
>endogenous endo-viruses (viral DNA embedded in our DNA). The pattern
>of ERVs exactly matches the tree. The eveidence for common descent and
>the tree of life is absouloutly over whelming.
>
>> That is the only reason. I
>> could group a wagon next to a Ferrari.
>
>vehichles are not related by common descent.
>
>> They both have four wheels,
>> they may even both be red, but that does not mean that they had a
>> common ancestor or one evolved into another. It could be though that
>> they have a common designer, since wheels seem to work well. Axles
>> seem to work, and a steering mechanism seems important on both.
>
>But the matches between chimps and humans are much closer an more
>compelling
>
And it isn't only a matter that there is the complex pattern of
relationships between humans and chimps.
There is also the fact that there are the repeated predictions of
how there will be discovered more such relationships. Just to
mention one, the structure of human chromosome 2.
And, while "common design" might be thought to account for the
similarities, there are also the differences.
Don't humans, chimps, insects, octopuses, and potatoes all have a
"common designer"?
Is that why humans have an eye so very much like the eye of a chimp?
Is that also why humans (and chimps) don't have an eye just as
similar to the eye of an insect, and the eye of an octopus, and the
eye of a potato?
"Common designer" does not begin to explain why humans have a place
in the "tree of life" nearer to chimps than to insects, octopuses,
and potatoes.
The only explanation that even makes an attempt to account for the
similarities and differences is common descent with modification.
"Common design" may make a weak attempt to account for the similarities.
But it makes no attempt all all to account for the differences.
A little digression:
I would like to make a few comments about the accounting for the
similarities, for it has some "interesting" consequences which the
creationists prefer to ignore. If humans are designed to be so very
much like chimps, that must mean that the designer(s) wanted humans
to serve similar purposes as chimps. If we want to follow the purposes
of our designer(s), that would mean that the "common design" tells us
that we ought to act like chimps. (If our similarities to chimps are
only a matter of common descent with modification, then that tells us
nothing about how we should behave: The fact that I share common
descent with Torquemada doesn't mean that I ought to behave like him.)
End of digression.
If "common design" means that things should be the same, and all
living things share "common design", then all living things should be
identical.
If "common design" explains similarities, then it doesn't explain
differences.
RAM
Well God is a poor scientist since the real empirical science of
several disciplines clearly show the earth to be over 4 billions years
old.
You being there has nothing to do with God or science. You have made
a lot of claims about how real science shows support for your dogmatic
Biblical view of the world but we see no real science empirical
support coming from you.
Whys is that?
TomS
<55858ff8-0df5-43b6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, RAM
stated..."
But, of course, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is around 6000
to 6500 years old.
The Bible more clearly says that the earth is fixed in space than
does it say that species are fixed. After all, at the time that the
Bible was written, and for 2000 years thereafter, nobody had the
concept of fixed species of living things, so there is no way that
the Bible could have even expressed an opinion about that; and nobody
managed to detect that opinion in 2000 years of Bible-reading.
And any way that a person today uses to explain away the fixity of
the earth - just apply that same methodology to explaining away the
age of the earth. Plenty of people, even in the earliest days of
Bible-reading, found ways around the 6-24 reading of Genesis 1, long
before Darwin. Even the first Fundamentalists of the early 20th
century found no need for the 6-24 reading of Genesis 1. To mention
one famous anti-evolutionist: William Jennings Bryan. Or how about
the Scofield Reference Bible?
Young Earth Creationism only became popular in the USA in the 1960s.
>
>You being there has nothing to do with God or science. You have made
>a lot of claims about how real science shows support for your dogmatic
>Biblical view of the world but we see no real science empirical
>support coming from you.
>
>Whys is that?
>
Gene Poole
Common descent is on of the few tenets of the Theory of Evolution that I
consider "fact" beyond any reasonable doubt. It's mathematically
confirmed to a very high degree from both fossil data and even more so
for all the genetic data that keep coming in faster than we can analyze
them. It all comes down to the nested hierarchy of life.
First, where do you stand on the nested hierarchy? Some creationists
reject that it exists. Others admit it exists, but that it is not
indicative of common decent. Perhaps you have a different opinion still.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> You are correct, I disagree with Behe and Ross. The reason, they
> compromise the Biblical record.
OK, serious question, in two parts. Are you a Biblical literalist? And
if so, why?
--
Mike.
Mark Isaak
> [...] I dont see where real science and a Christian worldview
> are in conflict.
How do you reconcile a Christian worldview with creationism? I cannot see
how that is possible.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
eerok
> On Oct 23, 9:36 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> TheMac37 wrote:
>> > On Oct 21, 5:46 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> I will agree with you that evolution under certain
> definitions is indeed a fact. For instance, the chihuahua
> and the Irish Wolfhound being variants of dogs and coming
> from a common ancestor. But, they are still just dogs. You
> see, there are vast variations within a "kind" of animal, I
> have no problem with that. Speciation happens, but there is
> no evidence of say a bat producing something else other than
> a bat, or a dog anything but a dog. Tomato plants don`t
> start producing ladybugs etc... This "common descent" of
> life is what is unproven.
So right away you spout a ludicrous straw man. Ladybugs from
tomato plants? Really? Obviously you lied when you claimed
to have based your views on facts and logic, since you seem
completely ignorant of evolution and how it works.
"Kinds" is not a useful scientific concept because it refers
to nothing in the real world. There are no barriers to the
amount of change in populations, except that big changes will
take an enormous amount of time. You think evolution predicts
a dramatic change in one generation? This seems to be only
the beginning of what you don't understand.
Common descent is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
Look it up in a real science book. It blows your concept of
"kinds" unless you accept all life as a single kind. You
might find it interesting to ponder, though, that the theory
of evolution does not rely on common descent ... it just
happens to be the only explanation that fits the evidence.
>> It is typical for creationists to make utter fools
>> of themselves here; it would be refreshing if you took the
>> time to educate yourself first on the basic topic.
I guess you've gone for the utter fool option.
Sorry, but if you want to discuss evolution here without
humiliating yourself, you'll have to lose AIG and read some
real science books. There's no such thing as "science just
for Fundamentalist Christians," or if so, it's impossible to
distinguish from plain old bullshit.
Mark Isaak
> On Oct 24, 8:25 am, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
>>[...]
>> Why does a human and a porpoise have the same hand/flipper bone
>> structure? As I understand it, the similarity is almost mandatory with
>> the principles of common descent. In other words, there is a reason for
>> the commonality. While it might be allowed, I do not see why it would
>> be so with creationism when fish do so well with a different
>> structure.
>>
>> Awaiting your response with interest.
>
> There are several ways to design a working limb. I would say that the
> similarity in structure may in some way point to a common designer, but
> more importantly, I would argue that this similarity does not prove
> common descent. This goes back to my wagon car example. Because two
> objects are similar, may only mean they are designed to perform a
> similar task. As you know, the diversity of living organisms is very
> great, could this not point to the vast intelligence of the Creator?
Have you done much design yourself? Design is a form of evolution.
Designers typically start, not from scratch, but from pre-existing
designs, and then modify them. And the modifications that don't work get
thrown out, so that they don't enter into the next generation of designs.
There are, of course, important differences between design as humans do
it and evolution as it happens in nature, the main ones being that people
do some sorts of testing before the final product is out, and Nature
rarely looks anywhere but back in the current lineage for pre-existing
ideas. But basically, when you appeal to a designer, you are appealing to
evolution.
Steven L.
> On Oct 20, 9:16 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On the BBC radio programme, "Heart and Soul" for October 17:
>>
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004jz9d/Heart_And_Soul_17_10_2009/>
>>
>> "At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in the United States, Bill
>> Jack, a Christian creationist takes schoolchildren on 'Biblically
>> Correct Tours'.
>>
>> "These offer a literal, Biblical interpretation of all that is displayed,
>> from fossils to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And Bill teaches that
>> answers to all questions about how we got here can be found in the Old
>> Testament of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
>>
>> "Kirk Johnson is a paleontologist at the museum, with evolution at the
>> heart of all he does in his study of prehistoric life through fossils.
>> Kirk decides that the time has come to talk to Bill about their different
>> approaches to understanding the past."
>>
>> My personal opinion is that scientists should get some lessons about
>> how to deal with creationists.
>
> Suppose you had a holocaust denier giving anti-holocaust tours
> in the Holocaust Museum? How would you handle that?
The same way:
By not wasting time on the surface issue (did the Holocaust occur? did
evolution occur?). And instead deal with the *psychological* reasons why
denying these resonate with so many people.
The latter resonates with devout believers in God who fear that
evolution might be a stealth attack on their religion.
No amount of scientific evidence on the ToE is going to convince such
people, if they believe that they have to give up their faith and become
atheists in order to be consistent with the ToE. That is the ONLY reason
why creationism is popular among the devout. And there are ways to deal
with that issue.
Dealing with creationism isn't a scientific problem. It's clear by now
that trying to refute creationism scientifically has flopped with the
public. Rather, it's a problem of psychology, theology, and philosophy.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Oct 21, 2:36 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 11:30 am, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 11:35 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> "On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT), in article
>>>> <80fa7cfc-951f-4e3d-a54b-b6c93a877...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> VoiceOfReason stated..."
>>>>> On Oct 20, 11:16=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On the BBC radio programme, "Heart and Soul" for October 17:
>>>>>> "At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in the United States, Bill
>>>>>> Jack, a Christian creationist takes schoolchildren on 'Biblically
>>>>>> Correct Tours'.
>>>>>> "These offer a literal, Biblical interpretation of all that is displayed,
>>>>>> from fossils to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And Bill teaches that
>>>>>> answers to all questions about how we got here can be found in the Old
>>>>>> Testament of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
>>>>>> "Kirk Johnson is a paleontologist at the museum, with evolution at the
>>>>>> heart of all he does in his study of prehistoric life through fossils.
>>>>>> Kirk decides that the time has come to talk to Bill about their different
>>>>>> approaches to understanding the past."
>>>>>> My personal opinion is that scientists should get some lessons about
>>>>>> how to deal with creationists.
>>>>> start, IMO.
>>>> Well, I was thinking along somewhat different lines.
>>>> Here are some suggestions:
>>>> 1. Don't take anything that a creationist says at face value. If
>>>> a creationist says that the sun rose this morning, take a look.
>>>> If a creationist says that such-and-such is in the Bible, don't
>>>> assume that it is in the Bible. If a creationist offers a quotation
>>>> from a famous (or not) person, *even if the quotation looks favorable
>>>> to evolutionary biology*, don't assume that it is an accurate
>>>> quotation.
>>>> 2. Don't assume that the creationist understands what he is saying.
>>>> Don't assume that the creationist is using words in their ordinary
>>>> meaning. Don't assume that the creationist understands even his own
>>>> religion. Don't assume that a creationist is willing to discuss, or
>>>> to learn, or to admit even the most obvious mistakes.
>>>> 3. Don't assume that the creationist has an alternative to evolution.
>>>> Don't assume that he has bothered to think his position through.
>>>> Don't assume that he has anything other than "somehow, somewhere,
>>>> something is wrong with evolution".
>>>> 4. Don't be surprised if he thinks that you are an immoral beast.
>>>> 5. Remember that anything that you say will be ripped out of context,
>>>> distorted, mangled, and misinterpreted to make you look bad. That may
>>>> be because the creationist can't understand what you are saying, or
>>>> because you are just a lying anti-Christ bent on destroying all that
>>>> is good by devilish sophistry and therefore not worth being listened
>>>> to - or it might be just because it works.
>>>> 6. Remember, most people are happy that they never have to take
>>>> another science class again.
>>>> 7. If you argue with a creationist, the audience won't hear what
>>>> you are saying. All they will remember is that there was an argument,
>>>> which proves that there is a "controversy".
>>>> 8. Remember, if they were interested in the facts or logic, they
>>>> wouldn't be creationists.
>>>> 9. Maybe you can manage to get in some actual information about
>>>> science which someone might remember. But don't expect to convince
>>>> anyone.
>>>> 10. Reread #1.
>>>> --
>>>> ---Tom S.
>>>> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
>>>> the currant jelly.
>>>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>> This would be an interesting change of pace. Unfortunately, whenever
>> your Creationist forebears on this newsgroup have posted, their logic
>> is often careless or non-existent, and always based on premises which
>> are factually incorrect. So, usually unsound and never valid.
>> Disappointing, to say the least.
>>
>> Eagerly awaiting an example of your reasoning,
>> Kermit
>
> Happy to answer Kermit. To save a lot of time and unnecessary typing,
> do you have any specific questions?
here are a few:
1. Which species, specifically, were created on each day of the Creation?
2. Did the species found in the Garden of Eden look as reconstructed by
paleontologists and biologists? If so, why did T. Rex have fangs in the
Garden of Eden; why did spiders have venomous glands in the Garden of
Eden; why did lions have fangs and sharp teeth in the Garden of Eden?
What did these animals eat in the Garden of Eden?
3. Were penguins in the Garden of Eden? Were kangaroos in the Garden
of Eden? If so, how did they get from the Garden of Eden to where they
are today?
4. Have any new species arisen since Adam and Eve were expelled from
the Garden of Eden?
5. Have any new species arisen since Noah's Ark?
Steven L.
If you have an appreciation of the scientific method,
then you must know that any discussion of God is irrelevant to that method.
Answers in Genesis doesn't have to be refuted by us. If AIG wants to be
accepted as scientific, they have to publish their ideas in
peer-reviewed scientific journals and have their scientific peers
critique their material. That's how modern science works. It doesn't
work by chip-on-the-shoulder claims like "I say the Moon is made of
green cheese; now prove me wrong." Whoever believes the Moon is made of
green cheese had better figure out how to convince the world's
astronomers and astrogeologists. They don't have to refute him. He has
to convince them.
When someone has a theory, the burden of proof, the onus, is on HIM, not
us, to justify his theory.
Steven L.
> On Oct 24, 7:47 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "TheMac37" <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ff1467e3-e0ef-463d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> TheMac37 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>>>> me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>>> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>>> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>>> creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
>>> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>> So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
>>> --
>>> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>>> Voltaire
>> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>> and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Well, for starters, let me ask the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" key question:
>> please state in your own words, what the actual age of the Earth is? You
>> claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
>> scientific evidence. Or any other evidence you may care to bring forth.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
>>
>> I'll also ask you to specify what your scientific education was, and what
>> your current profession or previous science-based profession is. A brief CV
>> that would not specifically identify you (if you wish to remain
>> pseudonymous) might help us to understand you better.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
> Since I was born in 1971, I can only answer this question by the
> resources around me. I believe the Bible as the true word of God, and
> if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
> around 6000 to 6500 years old.
If you want to believe that the Bible is literally true when it talks
about things like the age of the Earth, you have that right, absolutely.
But you must realize that when you take the Bible as your source for
objective truth, you're not doing *science*.
You said you have an appreciation for the scientific method. Key to all
science is that the scientist is guided by the natural world as he finds
it. If a distant quasar is a billion light years away, then he's seeing
it through his telescope as it was a billion years ago. No matter what
the Bible or the Quran or the Mahabharata have to say on the matter.
I'm NEVER one to criticize ANYONE's religious beliefs as being true or
untrue. History has too many sad examples of that, and often with
disastrous consequences.
But I hope you can draw a clear distinction between a religious belief
and a scientific fact. Scientific facts don't come from any religious
texts. They don't even come from scientific texts. They come from the
natural world, and what we can learn about the natural world from
observation and experiment.
Steven L.
>>> claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
>>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
>>>
>>> I'll also ask you to specify what your scientific education was, and what
>>> that would not specifically identify you (if you wish to remain
I wouldn't dwell too much on Ussher's specific calculations here.
Young Earth Creationists aren't compelled to accept Ussher's numbers.
Qualitatively, however, they're trying to keep the Universe compact and
tidy, of short duration and limited size--so as to preserve Man as the
centerpiece of God's creation. (Much harder to accept Man as the
centerpiece of God's creation, and Earth as His main concern, when we're
dealing with a Universe 80 billion light years in diameter, containing
quintillions of planets, 20 billion years old.)
I can respect "TheMac37" for the same reason I respect "Ray Martinez":
They state their respective beliefs clearly without the usual hedging.
In the case of the former, he rejects evolution because he accepts the
Bible as literally true. Period. Few creationists are as up front
about that as he is.
And the answer to someone like "TheMac37" isn't to pile on lots of
scientific evidence about the Universe, Earth, or life. He'll reject
all of it if he believes it conflicts with the Bible.
For someone like him, the real answer is to explain why the Vatican and
most of Christianity has long since discarded Biblical literalism.
That's not a scientific point. It's a theological point: Christianity,
after having fought tenaciously against science and capitalism for
centuries, finally made its peace with the Enlightenment. And history
has made its judgment on that.
Steven L.
> On 2009-10-23, TheMac37 <mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 4:26Â pm, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 21, 9:29Â pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> TheMac37 wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>>>>>> me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>>>> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>>>>> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>>>> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>>>>> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>>>>> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>>>> --
>>>>> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>>>> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>>>> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>>>> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>>>> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>>>> and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>>>> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>>>> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>>>> me to explain my beliefs.
In software engineering (which was my racket), the principle of
inheritance is used. That is, a new class of software objects is
constructed from one or more existing classes, reusing as many functions
but introducing perturbations consisting of a hopefully smaller number
of newly designed functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_%28computer_science%29
The main reason for doing this was simple: The more code we wrote from
scratch, the more bugs we ended up introducing. Designing code from
scratch was never optimal, because the bugs we created were invariably
new ones that took time to debug.
But if God is as described in the Bible, He's all-knowing and perfect.
Incapable of creating error by carelessness. So He doesn't have to
worry about introducing bugs in His designs.
I've heard religious folks argue that Man was perfect until the Fall.
But it's hard to imagine Adam being created without a prostate gland or
an appendix. And if he had those organs, than he wasn't perfect.
TomS
<Cuudncx6S95NP37X...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated...">>> On Oct 23, 4:26=C2 pm, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com=
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 21, 9:29=C2 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> TheMac37 wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>>>>>>> me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>>>>> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>>>>>> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>>>>> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>>>>>> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>>>>>> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>>>>> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermi=
>t
>>>>> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>>>>> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>>>>> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>e,
>>>>> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>>>>> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>>>>> me to explain my beliefs.
>>>> OK. I have long been curious how a creationist would explain the twin
>this
>>>> layman.
>>>>
>>>> I await with interest.
>>>>
>>>> Halfstop.
>>> Ok, lets say you want to design a robot that will pick up a box of
>>> cereal, pour it in a bowl, set it down, pick up milk, pour it, and set
>>> it down. Now, you can visualize this robot before it is even built,
>>> and your "mind picture" is different from mine, but I`ll bet we will
>>> have many of the same components to this robot. Example, a mechanism
>>> for lifting with some sort of swivel so it can pour etc... you get the
>>> point. Similarity in our design is the result in a similar task to
>>> perform. This could be argued in the world of animals. We all (animals
>>> and humans) live in a world governed by the same laws of nature. The
>>> hand...works, legs...work, eyes...work. Common designing (morphology)
>>> and programming (DNA) can be easily understood using this concept.
>>> Same designer, same basic programs and parts.
>>>
>> I spent five years writing control code for industrial/laboratory=20
>> robots, and my experience does not match up with your description.
>> We had a drug discovery system with eight different robotic station
>> working with microtiter plates. Every one of them handled the task
>> some of them had be designed by the same person. =20
>>=20
>> Commonality in design exists because of outside constraints. When
>> there is no constraint (time, money, etc), optimal solutions (or
>> from scratch (over and over and over again).=20
>
>In software engineering (which was my racket), the principle of=20
>inheritance is used. That is, a new class of software objects is=20
>constructed from one or more existing classes, reusing as many functions=20
>but introducing perturbations consisting of a hopefully smaller number=20>The main reason for doing this was simple: The more code we wrote from=20
>scratch, the more bugs we ended up introducing. Designing code from=20
>scratch was never optimal, because the bugs we created were invariably=20
>new ones that took time to debug.
>
>Incapable of creating error by carelessness. So He doesn't have to=20
>worry about introducing bugs in His designs.
There are several different descriptions of God in the Bible. I'm not
sure that any of them say that He is all-knowing and perfect. There
surely seem to be some descriptions where He discovers flaws in His
creations. (And, BTW, a quick check for the word "design" in several
English versions of the Bible doesn't turn up much about God making
designs.)
>
>I've heard religious folks argue that Man was perfect until the Fall.=20
>But it's hard to imagine Adam being created without a prostate gland or=20
>an appendix. And if he had those organs, than he wasn't perfect.
>
>
>--=20
>Steven L.
>Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
TomS
<Cuudncx6S95NP37X...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
>
>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com=
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 21, 9:29=C2 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> TheMac37 wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>>>>>>> me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>>>>> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>>>>>> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>>>>> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>>>>>> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>>>>>> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>>>>> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermi=
>t
>>>>> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>>>>> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>>>>> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>e,
>>>>> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>>>>> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>>>>> me to explain my beliefs.
>>>> OK. I have long been curious how a creationist would explain the twin
>this
>>>> layman.
>>>>
>>>> I await with interest.
>>>>
>>>> Halfstop.
>>> Ok, lets say you want to design a robot that will pick up a box of
>>> cereal, pour it in a bowl, set it down, pick up milk, pour it, and set
>>> it down. Now, you can visualize this robot before it is even built,
>>> and your "mind picture" is different from mine, but I`ll bet we will
>>> have many of the same components to this robot. Example, a mechanism
>>> for lifting with some sort of swivel so it can pour etc... you get the
>>> point. Similarity in our design is the result in a similar task to
>>> perform. This could be argued in the world of animals. We all (animals
>>> and humans) live in a world governed by the same laws of nature. The
>>> hand...works, legs...work, eyes...work. Common designing (morphology)
>>> and programming (DNA) can be easily understood using this concept.
>>> Same designer, same basic programs and parts.
>>>
>> I spent five years writing control code for industrial/laboratory=20
>> robots, and my experience does not match up with your description.
>> We had a drug discovery system with eight different robotic station
>> working with microtiter plates. Every one of them handled the task
>> some of them had be designed by the same person. =20
>>=20
>> Commonality in design exists because of outside constraints. When
>> there is no constraint (time, money, etc), optimal solutions (or
>> from scratch (over and over and over again).=20
>
>In software engineering (which was my racket), the principle of=20
>inheritance is used. That is, a new class of software objects is=20
>constructed from one or more existing classes, reusing as many functions=20
>but introducing perturbations consisting of a hopefully smaller number=20>The main reason for doing this was simple: The more code we wrote from=20
>scratch, the more bugs we ended up introducing. Designing code from=20
>scratch was never optimal, because the bugs we created were invariably=20
>new ones that took time to debug.
>
>Incapable of creating error by carelessness. So He doesn't have to=20
>worry about introducing bugs in His designs.
There are several different descriptions of God in the Bible. I'm not
sure that any of them say that He is all-knowing and perfect. There
surely seem to be some descriptions where He discovers flaws in His
creations. (And, BTW, a quick check for the word "design" in several
English versions of the Bible doesn't turn up much about God making
designs.)
>
>I've heard religious folks argue that Man was perfect until the Fall.=20
>But it's hard to imagine Adam being created without a prostate gland or=20
>an appendix. And if he had those organs, than he wasn't perfect.
>
>
>--=20
>Steven L.
>Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
Frank J
> On Oct 24, 9:25 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 7:34 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 9:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > TheMac37 wrote:
>
> > > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
> > > > > > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
> > > > > > This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
> > > > > > off here by iteself to look it over.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
> > > > > > reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
> > > > > > has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>
> > > > > OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
> > > > > above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
> > > > > have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
> > > > > Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
> > > > > and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
> > > > > explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>
> > Well if you agree with the claims of a site like AiG, you have as much
> > disagreement with the claims of people like Hugh Ross and Michael
> > Behe. Have you ever tried to challenge them directly?
>
> compromise the Biblical record.
So, as I asked, and ask again, have you challenged them directly?
Question for everyone else: Have you noticed that nearly all anti-
evolutionists, of all "kinds" (YEC, OEC, ID), refuse to answer a
simple question the first time it is asked?
Frank J
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:42:01 -0700, TheMac37 wrote:
> > [...] I dont see where real science and a Christian worldview
> > are in conflict.
>
> How do you reconcile a Christian worldview with creationism? I cannot see
> how that is possible.
Simple. You obey the Nine Commandments. ;-)
Frank J
wrote:
Apparently he/she is - if not just a Loki. So is Ross, but a different
"kind" (OEC). There are yet other "kinds" who accept an old earth Like
Ross but young *life* like AiG. Biblical literalism is itself,
hopelessly lost in mutual contradictions, which may be one reason why
many of the newer anti-evolution activists, like Behe, are *not*
Biblical literalists. Of course many of Behe's fans are so deluded
that they just "tune out" his accetance of old life and common
descent, and just immerse themselves in his feel-good anti-"Darwinism"
sound bites.
>
> --
> Mike.
Mark Isaak
> I would simply challenge you to disprove the claims of a site like
> AnswersInGenesis.
Most of them will be covered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
TomS
<H5Cdnb7OAKcYB37X...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
I'd like to know what it's like when a species is created.
Here are some possible scenarios:
a. Suddenly there appears a new individual in its adult form (or
maybe a pair, male and female), out of nothing, occupying a previously
empty part of space-time (or maybe there was air, water, or earth that
were displaced by the newly created individual). This individual would
be the parent of all the later individuals of this species. A robin,
for example, would appear in mid-flight.
b. A large number of individuals of various apparent ages and
relationships (like a nursing mother with nurslings, or nesting
mother with eggs).
c. A previously existing individual has its DNA changed. Or a new
organ grows.
d. A whole mature, fully functioning, interacting ecological system
of many different species, predators, prey, symbionts of various
kinds, as well as the appropriate environments appear. Rain clouds,
appropriate weather patterns, nutrients and substrates all appear
together.
e. Some sort of goal is established as a plan for how things will
(micro)evolve.
See some early thoughts on this by Herbert Spencer, in his "The
Development Hypothesis" of 1852 (online is a slightly revised version
reprinted in 1891)
<http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/spencer_dev_hypothesis.html>
-or-
<http://snipurl.com/s2ge1>
>
>2. Did the species found in the Garden of Eden look as reconstructed by
>paleontologists and biologists? If so, why did T. Rex have fangs in the
>Garden of Eden; why did spiders have venomous glands in the Garden of
>Eden; why did lions have fangs and sharp teeth in the Garden of Eden?
>What did these animals eat in the Garden of Eden?
>
>3. Were penguins in the Garden of Eden? Were kangaroos in the Garden
>of Eden? If so, how did they get from the Garden of Eden to where they
>are today?
>
>4. Have any new species arisen since Adam and Eve were expelled from
>the Garden of Eden?
>
>5. Have any new species arisen since Noah's Ark?
>
>
>
--
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 24, 9:25�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 7:34�pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 22, 9:18�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 22, 8:43�pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Oct 21, 9:29�pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > TheMac37 wrote:
>>
>> > > > > [...]
>>
>> > > > > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> > > > > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>
>> > I would simply challenge you to disprove the claims of a site like
>> > AnswersInGenesis. I have ben doing this for a while, and I have never
>> > seen a valid refutation of the claims made on that website. (Using
>> > empirical evidence of course). Thanks for trying to do me a favor, but
>> > I have no worries about my stance in here.
You haven't looked and your posts here make it clear that you don't
care. Reality and the discoveries of science are of no interest to you
if they contradict your religious dogma. You don't use facts or logic,
you use doctrine to decide what facts to accept and which ones to
reject.
>>
>> Well if you agree with the claims of a site like AiG, you have as much
>> disagreement with the claims of people like Hugh Ross and Michael
>> Behe. Have you ever tried to challenge them directly?
>
>You are correct, I disagree with Behe and Ross. The reason, they
>compromise the Biblical record.
Whatever. The Bible is riddled with errors when treated as a history or
science book. You choose to use the Bible in a way that makes it false.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 24, 7:47�am, "Mike Dworetsky"
><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "TheMac37" <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ff1467e3-e0ef-463d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > TheMac37 wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>
>> > This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>> > off here by iteself to look it over.
>>
>> > Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>> > reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>> > creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
>> > has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>
>> > So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
>>
>> > --
>> > "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>> > Voltaire
>>
>> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>> and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>> me to explain my beliefs.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Well, for starters, let me ask the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" key question:
>> please state in your own words, what the actual age of the Earth is? �You
>> claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
>> scientific evidence. �Or any other evidence you may care to bring forth.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
>>
>> I'll also ask you to specify what your scientific education was, and what
>> your current profession or previous science-based profession is. �A brief CV
>> that would not specifically identify you (if you wish to remain
>> pseudonymous) �might help us to understand you better.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
>Since I was born in 1971, I can only answer this question by the
>resources around me. I believe the Bible as the true word of God, and
>if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
>around 6000 to 6500 years old.
Your beliefs were shown to be false two centuries ago.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 23, 9:20�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> <ff1467e3-e0ef-463d-b3d2-34fdaea23...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 21, 9:29=A0pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> >> TheMac37 wrote:
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> >> > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>
>> >> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>> >> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>
>> >> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>> >> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>> >> creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. =A0No one else
>> >> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>
>> >> So ... spill. =A0What are the facts? =A0Where is the logic?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>> >> =A0Voltaire
>>
>> >OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>> >above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>> >have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>> >Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>> >and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>> >and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>> >explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>> >me to explain my beliefs.
>>
>> If you are so happy to try to explain yourself, how about, rather than
>> just telling us how happy you are to try to explain yourself ... well,
>> how about trying to explain yourself?
>>
>> Explain why the human body has its place in the "tree of life" as a
>> neighbor to the bodies of chimps and other apes, without invoking
>> common descent with modification.
>>
>> Or, if that's too much for you, how about just telling us what you
>> think happened in the history of life on earth that happened to result
>> in living things being the way they are today?
>>
>> Or, how about this: You can just tell us why you decided to stop talking
>> to me.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
>I dont think we have talked before or have we?
>To answer: Why are we on the tree alongside chimps and apes? Because
>we have grouped ourselves alongside them.
Because the evidence shows that we are very closely related. You keep
ignoring science when you make your claims.
>That is the only reason. I
>could group a wagon next to a Ferrari. They both have four wheels,
>they may even both be red, but that does not mean that they had a
>common ancestor or one evolved into another. It could be though that
>they have a common designer, since wheels seem to work well. Axles
>seem to work, and a steering mechanism seems important on both.
You really need to stop making boring old arguments that were shown to
be false on talk.origins the first year that talk.origins was invented.
You could even look in books to find out that your arguments have been
known to be wrong for generations.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 24, 10:27�am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 9:54 am, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 24, 9:25 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 23, 7:34 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Oct 22, 9:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Oct 22, 8:43 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > TheMac37 wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > [...]
>>
>> > > > > > > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> > > > > > > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>
>> > > > > > > This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>> > > > > > > off here by iteself to look it over.
>>
>> > > > > > > Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>> > > > > > > reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>> > > > > > > creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. �No one else
>> > > > > > > has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>
>> > > > > > > So ... spill. �What are the facts? �Where is the logic?
>>
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>> > > > > > > �Voltaire
>>
>> > > > > > OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>> > > > > > above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>> > > > > > have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>> > > > > > Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>> > > > > > and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>> > > > > > and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>> > > > > > explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>> > > Well if you agree with the claims of a site like AiG, you have as much
>> > > disagreement with the claims of people like Hugh Ross and Michael
>> > > Behe. Have you ever tried to challenge them directly?
>>
>> > You are correct, I disagree with Behe and Ross. The reason, they
>> > compromise the Biblical record.
>>
>> Well, since you will not accept any science that contradicts the Bible
>> it is useless to debate you.
>>
>> You have dug a hole so deep and filled it with religious crap that you
>> will never see the light of day.
>>
>> Religious justifications for science are as unnecessary as tits on a
>> bore hog or men. �I'm sure will disagree and find divine reasons for
>> male tits. �Let me start a divine explanation for them, �since I was
>> religiously trained for the first thirteen years to be a boneheaded
>> religious racist bigot and science denier. � �First God made man in
>> his image thus the tits. �Then he made man from dirt (what a choice)
>> and blew life into him. �Next he took a rib from man (what a choice)
>> and made woman (male chauvinist hillbillies I used to know said this
>> explained women's obstinance). �Then God made all the different kinds
>> and made some parts in his image. �But why tits.
>>
>> A theological explanation of course is useless to science; but damn
>> they can be entertaining.
>
>I would disagree, I dont see where real science and a Christian
>worldview are in conflict. By real science I mean testable repeatable
>empirical science.
Onther bozo stopping by with his own personal, religiously motivated
excuse for dismissing scientific discoveries. Of course, he's just
another sucker who has been conned by the professional liars of AIG,
CRS, and the DI.
Sorry, but evolution has overwhelming evidence for it. The tests have
been repeated and the discoveries are empirical.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 23, 9:36�pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> TheMac37 wrote:
>> > On Oct 21, 5:46 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37
>>
>> <mac3...@gmail.com>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >>> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> >>> me a creationist,
>> >> If so, it would be a first.
>> >>> so your logic is flawed.
>> --
>> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>> �Voltaire
>
>I will agree with you that evolution under certain definitions is
>indeed a fact. For instance, the chihuahua and the Irish Wolfhound
>being variants of dogs and coming from a common ancestor. But, they
>are still just dogs. You see, there are vast variations within a
>"kind" of animal, I have no problem with that. Speciation happens, but
>there is no evidence of say a bat producing something else other than
>a bat, or a dog anything but a dog. Tomato plants don`t start
>producing ladybugs etc... This "common descent" of life is what is
>unproven.
Mammals may have changed into differing species over time, but they are
still just mammals. Animals may have changed into different species over
time, but they are still just animals. Life may have varied into the
entire array of life that we see on earth, but it is still just life.
The common descent of life is the only scientific explanation that is
consistent with the evidence. You reject science and evidence.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 21, 9:29�pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> TheMac37 wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
>> > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>>
>> This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
>> off here by iteself to look it over.
>>
>> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
>> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
>> creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. �No one else
>> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>>
>> So ... spill. �What are the facts? �Where is the logic?
>>
>> --
>> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>> �Voltaire
>
>OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>me to explain my beliefs.
I grew up in a Lutheran Church that taught the same nonsense about a
young earth creation. That particular doctrine was so obviously false
that I eventually reconsidered all of my religious beliefs and realized
that none of them were reliable.
Why have you chosen to believe such false doctrines when the physical
evidence makes it very clear that this doctrine cannot possibly be true
unless you hide in Omphalos -- Best explained by Last Tuesdayism which
says that the universe was created last Tuesday.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 23, 4:26�pm, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
>> OK. I have long been curious how a creationist would explain the twin
>> nested hierarchy. �Evolution seems to explain it well at least to this
>> layman.
>>
>> I await with interest.
>>
>> Halfstop.
>
>Ok, lets say you want to design a robot that will pick up a box of
>cereal, pour it in a bowl, set it down, pick up milk, pour it, and set
>it down. Now, you can visualize this robot before it is even built,
>and your "mind picture" is different from mine, but I`ll bet we will
>have many of the same components to this robot. Example, a mechanism
>for lifting with some sort of swivel so it can pour etc... you get the
>point. Similarity in our design is the result in a similar task to
>perform. This could be argued in the world of animals. We all (animals
>and humans) live in a world governed by the same laws of nature. The
>hand...works, legs...work, eyes...work. Common designing (morphology)
>and programming (DNA) can be easily understood using this concept.
>Same designer, same basic programs and parts.
Do you understand that you did not explain the twin nested hierarchy in
any manner?
John Harshman
> Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make me a
> creationist, so your logic is flawed.
Let's start simply. What sort of creationist are you? Do you think the
earth is only a few thousand years old? Do you think the entire universe
is of a similar age? Do you think that all life was created within a
single week, that same few thousand years ago? Do you believe that a
universal flood wiped out all life that wasn't on one boat, about a
thousand years after creation? What, exactly is a "kind"?
Once your position is clear, we can begin exploring the evidence for and
against that.
Steven L.
> c. A previously existing individual has its DNA changed. Or a new
> organ grows.
Genesis is quite clear that Adam was created from dust, and Eve was
created from one of his ribs.
> d. A whole mature, fully functioning, interacting ecological system
> of many different species, predators, prey, symbionts of various
> kinds, as well as the appropriate environments appear. Rain clouds,
> appropriate weather patterns, nutrients and substrates all appear
> together.
Genesis makes it clear that the Garden of Eden was created as a
*non-functioning* ecological system--almost a diorama. Predator species
like tigers and UtahRaptor didn't chase prey species (such as Adam and
Eve), but just sat there peacefully, munching on grass and chewing their
cud with their fangs.
Caranx latus
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac...@gmail.com>
> wrote in talk.origins:
<snip>
>> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>> and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>> me to explain my beliefs.
>
> I grew up in a Lutheran Church that taught the same nonsense about a
> young earth creation. That particular doctrine was so obviously false
> that I eventually reconsidered all of my religious beliefs and realized
> that none of them were reliable.
>
> Why have you chosen to believe such false doctrines when the physical
> evidence makes it very clear that this doctrine cannot possibly be true
> unless you hide in Omphalos -- Best explained by Last Tuesdayism which
> says that the universe was created last Tuesday.
I was raised as a Lutheran as well and left the church in 1975. What I
understand as the most basic tenets of creationism were *never* taught.
My parents continued in the church for many years after that, but
stopped attending church some years later without otherwise giving up
their Christianity. My understanding of the reason that they stopped
going is that the synod to which the church belonged became evangelical.
Garamond Lethe
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:48 (NIV)
"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is
uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give
account."
Hebrews 4:13 (NIV)
> There
> surely seem to be some descriptions where He discovers flaws in His
> creations. (And, BTW, a quick check for the word "design" in several
> English versions of the Bible doesn't turn up much about God making
> designs.)
The OED has the first use of "design" in this sense as 1655, and I
don't think it catches on until Paley uses it in 1802. Contrast this
with "creation" (as in the creation of the world) which Shakespeare
was using in 1593 and was used in Biblical translation in 1611.
We make our Gods in our image, but God tends to be a late adopter.
There's a wonderful throwaway line in _The Decipherment of Linear B_
that goes (from memory) "There is nothing to indicate the Myceaneans
considered their gods as able to read." God-as-mathematicians has
only started to catch on, and I've seen no signs that theologians
consider God to be a competent C programmer.
As human designs started to become more complex (and as we started
mapping complexity in nature), we start thinking of God as a designer
as well as a creator. There's enough inertia that I don't think we'll
ever see "God designed the heavens and the earth", but the sense of
design is now implicit in that usage.
TomS
<sf-dnR_NkaI8GXnX...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
It is true that the creation narrative in Genesis 2 goes into details.
But, first of all, my question is about what the *creationists* have
to say, not what the Bible says. Remember that some of the creationists
(namely, the advocates of Intelligent Design) claim not to be bound by
what the Bible says. And, for the others, it is quite a futile task to
argue with them about what the Bible says.
And then, Genesis 2 does not say a word about the origins of "mankind",
but only about the individuals Adam and Eve, and is even vaguer than is
Genesis 1 about how the various other living things began.
I therefore contend that we are still waiting for word from any of the
creationists as to what they might mean by the creation of a species.
>
>
>> d. A whole mature, fully functioning, interacting ecological system
>> of many different species, predators, prey, symbionts of various
>> kinds, as well as the appropriate environments appear. Rain clouds,
>> appropriate weather patterns, nutrients and substrates all appear
>> together.
>
>Genesis makes it clear that the Garden of Eden was created as a
>*non-functioning* ecological system--almost a diorama. Predator species
>like tigers and UtahRaptor didn't chase prey species (such as Adam and
>Eve), but just sat there peacefully, munching on grass and chewing their
>cud with their fangs.
>
>
>
I can't say anything to top this. :)
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>
><snip>
>
>>> OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
>>> above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
>>> have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
>>> Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
>>> and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
>>> and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
>>> explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
>>> me to explain my beliefs.
>>
>> I grew up in a Lutheran Church that taught the same nonsense about a
>> young earth creation. That particular doctrine was so obviously false
>> that I eventually reconsidered all of my religious beliefs and realized
>> that none of them were reliable.
>>
>> Why have you chosen to believe such false doctrines when the physical
>> evidence makes it very clear that this doctrine cannot possibly be true
>> unless you hide in Omphalos -- Best explained by Last Tuesdayism which
>> says that the universe was created last Tuesday.
>
>I was raised as a Lutheran as well and left the church in 1975. What I
>understand as the most basic tenets of creationism were *never* taught.
It depends. The Lutheran bodies that were mostly (late-19th century)
German heritage tended to tolerate or support YEC. Those whose influence
came from the Scandinavians or German refugees from the failed 1848
revolutions tend to ignore or laugh at YEC.
> My parents continued in the church for many years after that, but
>stopped attending church some years later without otherwise giving up
>their Christianity. My understanding of the reason that they stopped
>going is that the synod to which the church belonged became evangelical.
Evangelical was Luther's preferred term for the church body he founded
but no one listened and they all called them Lutherans, but that does
not generally mean that those who are calling themselves Evangelical
Lutheran today are evangelical in the modern American sense. I do agree
that the conservative Lutheran bodies (LC-MS, WELS and even smaller
bodies that are even more doctrinnaire) have been strongly influenced by
the modern American evangelical and fundamentalist movements, though
they would never admit it.
Garamond Lethe
> Genesis makes it clear
I think you meant "One literalist interpretation of Genesis holds".
> that the Garden of Eden was created as a
> *non-functioning* ecological system--almost a diorama. Predator species
> like tigers and UtahRaptor didn't chase prey species (such as Adam and
> Eve), but just sat there peacefully, munching on grass and chewing their
> cud with their fangs.
That is a fringe view even among literalists, I think. The following
is perhaps closer to the mainstream.
<q>
Are the conclusions of these creationist authors—that there was absolutely no
death of any kind prior to Adam and Eve’s sin—correct? And even more important,
are they scriptural? The answers are “No” and “No.” To say that there was no
human death prior to the Fall of man is to make a perfectly biblical statement.
The passages in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 make that crystal clear. However,
using those same scriptures to suggest that not even plants or animals could
die ignores the specific context of each of the passages and is a serious abuse
of the texts under consideration.
</q>
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1982
TheMac37
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:04:37 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 8:25 am, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:22:28 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 23, 4:26 pm, Dizf...@bfe.com wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> TheMac37 wrote:
>
> >> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> >> > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
> >> >> >> off here by iteself to look it over.
>
> >> >> >> Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
> >> >> >> reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
> >> >> >> has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>
>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
>
> >> >> >OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
> >> >> >above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
> >> >> >have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
> >> >> >Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
> >> >> >and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
> >> >> >and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
> >> >> >explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
> >> >> >me to explain my beliefs.
>
> >> >> layman.
>
> >> >> I await with interest.
>
> >> >> Halfstop.
>
> >> >Ok, lets say you want to design a robot that will pick up a box of
> >> >cereal, pour it in a bowl, set it down, pick up milk, pour it, and set
> >> >it down. Now, you can visualize this robot before it is even built,
> >> >and your "mind picture" is different from mine, but I`ll bet we will
> >> >have many of the same components to this robot. Example, a mechanism
> >> >for lifting with some sort of swivel so it can pour etc... you get the
> >> >point. Similarity in our design is the result in a similar task to
> >> >perform. This could be argued in the world of animals. We all (animals
> >> >and humans) live in a world governed by the same laws of nature. The
> >> >hand...works, legs...work, eyes...work. Common designing (morphology)
> >> >and programming (DNA) can be easily understood using this concept.
> >> >Same designer, same basic programs and parts.
>
> >> in an attempt to understand.
>
> >> Why does a human and a porpoise have the same hand/flipper bone
> >> structure? As I understand it, the similarity is almost mandatory
> >> with the principles of common descent. In other words, there is a
> >> reason for the commonality. While it might be allowed, I do not see
> >> why it would be so with creationism when fish do so well with a
> >> different structure.
>
> >> Awaiting your response with interest.
>
> >There are several ways to design a working limb. I would say that the
> >similarity in structure may in some way point to a common designer,
> >but more importantly, I would argue that this similarity does not
> >prove common descent. This goes back to my wagon car example. Because
> >two objects are similar, may only mean they are designed to perform a
> >similar task. As you know, the diversity of living organisms is very
> >great, could this not point to the vast intelligence of the Creator?
>
> The problem that I see is that design could be compatible with
> anything. You just have to say it was designed.
>
> It seems to me that with design, you would have to show why the
> flipper is as it is and why not something different. Evolution seems
> to explain this neatly. My question then is how would common design
> explain the specific strucure of the bones in the flipper?
>
> Yours
>
> Dizfriz
The best answer is creativity. The paintings of a specific artist are
different, as are the books of any individual author. If every flipper
looked exactly alike, why...that would be boring.
TheMac37
wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 02:43, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > TheMac37 wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
> > > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
> > > This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
> > > off here by iteself to look it over.
>
> > > Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
> > > reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
> > > creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
> > > has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>
> > > So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
>
> > > --
> > > "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
> > > Voltaire
>
> > OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
> > above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
> > have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
> > Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
> > and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
> > and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
> > explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
> > me to explain my beliefs.
>
> their multiple creation events?
>
> nick keighley
Read Genesis 1-3. That is what kind of creationist I am. Oh, your
other questions will be answered there as well.
TomS
<1509e553vkjsbe1un...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch stated..."
Probably not.
The concept of "explaining" for the creationists seems to include
something like this:
God/Intelligent Designers can do anything at all, so whatever you ask
about, that is consistent with creation/design.
Why does the Mona Lisa have a smile? Why are there Pyramids in Egypt?
Because they are intelligently designed.
Why is the sky blue? Why is it a nice plaid in silver, ivory and ermine?
Why is there no sky at all? Those are equally "explained"by "goddidit"
or "it was designed that way".
Why do humans have eyes so very much like chimps? Why do humans have
eyes very little like insects? Why do potatoes not have eyes like
humans? They're all "common design", aren't they?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 24, 11:10�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
When the two stories conflict in Genesis, which one do you accept?
TheMac37
> On Oct 24, 7:47 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
>
>
>
> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> > "TheMac37" <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ff1467e3-e0ef-463d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > TheMac37 wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Just letting you know, it is the facts and logic that make
> > > > me a creationist, so your logic is flawed.
>
> > > This is such a remarkable statement that I just had to set it
> > > off here by iteself to look it over.
>
> > > Perhaps finally, after all the years many of us have been
> > > reading this group, someone who knows the facts and logic of
> > > creationism has arrived to satisfy our curiosity. No one else
> > > has ever shown us working examples of either of these things.
>
> > > So ... spill. What are the facts? Where is the logic?
>
> > > --
> > > "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
> > > Voltaire
>
> > OK, I am happy to try to explain myself, and, like I posted to Kermit
> > above, I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you
> > have. In other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong
> > Lutheran, and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism
> > and its claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade,
> > and am interested in the proper use of the scientific method to
> > explain nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like
> > me to explain my beliefs.
>
> > Well, for starters, let me ask the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" key question:
> > please state in your own words, what the actual age of the Earth is? You
> > claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
> > scientific evidence. Or any other evidence you may care to bring forth.
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
>
> > I'll also ask you to specify what your scientific education was, and what
> > your current profession or previous science-based profession is. A brief
> > CV
> > that would not specifically identify you (if you wish to remain
> > pseudonymous) might help us to understand you better.
>
> > --
> > Mike Dworetsky
>
> > (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
> Since I was born in 1971, I can only answer this question by the
> resources around me. I believe the Bible as the true word of God, and
> if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
> around 6000 to 6500 years old.
>
> So you are what is known as a Young Earth Creationist. You seem to be
> saying (here and elsewhere) that your creationist beliefs stem from your
> religious beliefs. But you also claimed a scientific justification.
>
> And your scientific qualifications? You claimed that you used your science
> education and professional skills to accept this literal Biblical claim of
> the fundamentalists. Let's hear a bit more about this. Many creationists
> claim to be "scientists" and, for example, it turns out to be something like
> "mortuary science" or "domestic science".
>
> A lot of creationists with technical backgrounds turn out to be engineers.
> Are you an engineer? It is a relevant question:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Oh, I dont claim to be a scientist. I work and have a degree in
electronics. I also studied astrophysics. My qualifications are sight,
hearing, logic, and common sense. You see, all claims claimed as fact
about the happenings of the past are conjecture. There is no way to
claim that the evolution story is "fact". I start with the
presupposition that the Biblical record is true.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Oct 24, 11:08�am, "Mike Dworetsky"
Quelle surprise!
>I also studied astrophysics. My qualifications are sight,
>hearing, logic, and common sense.
Well, you have demonstrated failure on common sense and logic. You have
made it quite clear that you reject the scientific method and
discoveries made using it a priori if the discoveries have anything to
do with your religious beliefs.
> You see, all claims claimed as fact
>about the happenings of the past are conjecture. There is no way to
>claim that the evolution story is "fact". I start with the
>presupposition that the Biblical record is true.
Why don't you just jump right into solipsism. Why stop at Last
Tuesdayism and other ways of denying reality?
Caranx latus
The church was named "Faith Lutheran Church" when I was there, and was
part of the Missouri Synod. At some point, it was renamed "Faith
Evangelical Lutheran Church" when it changed synods, having joined the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.
>> My parents continued in the church for many years after that, but
>> stopped attending church some years later without otherwise giving up
>> their Christianity. My understanding of the reason that they stopped
>> going is that the synod to which the church belonged became evangelical.
>
> Evangelical was Luther's preferred term for the church body he founded
> but no one listened and they all called them Lutherans, but that does
> not generally mean that those who are calling themselves Evangelical
> Lutheran today are evangelical in the modern American sense. I do agree
> that the conservative Lutheran bodies (LC-MS, WELS and even smaller
> bodies that are even more doctrinnaire) have been strongly influenced by
> the modern American evangelical and fundamentalist movements, though
> they would never admit it.
>
--
"We are all connected: to each other, biologically; to the earth,
chemically; to the rest of the universe atomically." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
TheMac37
wrote:
> On 24 Oct, 00:29, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 9:20 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > "On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > <ff1467e3-e0ef-463d-b3d2-34fdaea23...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37
> > > stated...
> > > >> TheMac37 wrote:
> > > just telling us how happy you are to try to explain yourself ... well,
> > > how about trying to explain yourself?
>
> > > Explain why the human body has its place in the "tree of life" as a
> > > neighbor to the bodies of chimps and other apes, without invoking
> > > common descent with modification.
>
> > > Or, if that's too much for you, how about just telling us what you
> > > think happened in the history of life on earth that happened to result
> > > in living things being the way they are today?
>
> > > Or, how about this: You can just tell us why you decided to stop talking
> > > to me.
>
> > To answer: Why are we on the tree alongside chimps and apes? Because
> > we have grouped ourselves alongside them.
>
> closely related to the chimps and apes. We share a vast amount of DNA
> with chimps, our chromosomes are virtually identical, chimps (and
> other great apes) and humans have the same missing gene that means we
> cannot synthesise vitamin C (nearly all other mamals can). We share
> endogenous endo-viruses (viral DNA embedded in our DNA). The pattern
> of ERVs exactly matches the tree. The eveidence for common descent and
> the tree of life is absouloutly over whelming.
>
> > That is the only reason. I
> > could group a wagon next to a Ferrari.
>
>
> > They both have four wheels,
> > they may even both be red, but that does not mean that they had a
> > common ancestor or one evolved into another. It could be though that
> > they have a common designer, since wheels seem to work well. Axles
> > seem to work, and a steering mechanism seems important on both.
>
> compelling
Actually, an orange and an apple are both 95% water, but it is the
differences between them that matters. You look at our similarities,
but next time you hear a great work of music, or see pictures from
distant spacecraft in orbit around planets in the outer solar system,
think about the VAST differences. Termite on a stick.......F15. Poop
and scream.........Shakespeare.
TheMac37
wrote:> <snip>
>
> > > Well, for starters, let me ask the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" key question:
> > > please state in your own words, what the actual age of the Earth is? You
> > > claim a scientific background, so support your opinion by referring to
> > > scientific evidence. Or any other evidence you may care to bring forth.
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > Mike Dworetsky
>
> > > (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
>
>
>
> > Since I was born in 1971, I can only answer this question by the
> > resources around me. I believe the Bible as the true word of God, and
> > if we use this record (since God was there and I wasn`t) the earth is
> > around 6000 to 6500 years old.
>
> astronomy, arceology, history and (of course) biology. Radioactive
> series,tree rings, ice layers, moon rock evidence, lake beds, fossil
> records...
I`ve never heard or seen a moon rock, tree, hydrogen atom, ice core,
lake, or dead animal tell anyone how old it was. The evidence is not
the problem. It is the interpretation of this evidence. There are
equal arguments in each of these fields that you brought up to support
a young earth. We do all of out analysis in the present. we can only
speculate about the past.