Global Flood
Charles O
month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
today, someone posted this
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
and informed.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Charles
R. Baldwin
bf5a-098...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Try the opposite. Posit that it occured, and explain what you would expect
to find. Then see if you find it.
You might want to ask:
Why do terrestrial and marine fossils show up in the particular strata they
do at the Grand Canyon?
Why are the channeled scablands of Eastern Washington carved into a thick
basalt plateau that is on top of marine fossils?
How would one explain the diversity and dispersion of beetle species if one
single family had to collect them by twos and put them on a boat for a
year?
What did the lions eat while they were cooped up on the ark?
How did the Dalarna spruce survive the deluge?
Charles O
wrote:
> Charles O <orlando1...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:bc7d264d-068f-4922-
> bf5a-098cdebd6...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Ok. I understand that.
Is there any specific way to refute the idea of uplifting? In my mind,
with everything I know about geology (not very much at all), the idea
doesn't make any sense, but is there is a good, scientific way to
disprove it?
Garamond Lethe
I'm sure others will chime in with their favorites, but for me nothing
beats ice core stratigraphy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Creationists don't work with isochron dating or fossil layers and using
arguments based on this can come across as substituting one kind of magic
for another. But creationists understand snow. We have 400,000 years
worth of one boring Greenland winter after another. We find volcanic
ash in the cores (at the correct places), atmospheric CO2, CFCs, pollen
grains.... it's a wonderful collection of yearly snapshots of the planet.
But there are no areas in any ice cores that look like the glacier was
rained on for 40 days and 40 nights (or snowed on for 40 days and 40
nights, for that matter). We know what rain on snow looks like, and
it's not there.
As to what to read.... creationism goes through fads, and we're coming
to the end of the Intelligent Design fad. Unfortunately for you, those
folks weren't interested in arguing for a flood, and the more recent
refutations are going to be more concerned with flagellums and clotting
cascades than geology. Going back to the previous round, Kitcher's
_Abusing Science_ manages to be readable, short and encyclopedic. While
it doesn't discuss the flood, Dalrymple's _The Age of the Earth_ explains
isochron dating brilliantly. Those two will give you an excellent
grounding in how science is done (which is not at all like what you've
probably been taught) and might even inspire you to try your own hand at
it.
For understanding creationists (who aren't nearly as interesting), Numbers's
_The Creationists_ is the standard historical work that will take you up
to the Discovery Institute, and Forrest and Gross's _Creationism's Trojan
Horse_ takes over the story from there. These are both solid, important
books, but they're concerned much more with history than science.
There are a lot of /good/ popular books on evolution out there, but I
don't know of a great one. Biology is complicated and evolution works
on biology in very counterintuitive ways. So instead, I'm going to
recommend that you grab a simulation called "nanopond".
http://adam.ierymenko.name/nanopond.shtml
You'll need to compile it, but once you do you'll get to see evolution
in real time. You'll also have access to the raw data that's generated,
so you can start doing your own analysis on what you're watching. And
since you have the source code (and it's a very short program), you can
make changes to the environment, changes to the critters, and immediately
see how those changes affect the system. Once you have that "aha!"
moment, then head off and enjoy _Beak of the Finch_.
Enjoy!
Garamond
Charles O
wrote:
> You'll need to compile it, but once you do you'll get to see evolution
> in real time. You'll also have access to the raw data that's generated,
> so you can start doing your own analysis on what you're watching. And
> since you have the source code (and it's a very short program), you can
> make changes to the environment, changes to the critters, and immediately
> see how those changes affect the system. Once you have that "aha!"
> moment, then head off and enjoy _Beak of the Finch_.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Garamond
Thank you so much... I opened each link in a new tab, and I will be
going on a book hunt tomorrow. And you are completely correct in
saying that my new venture into science has sparked a whole new area
of interest in my life. I honestly can not tell you how absolutely,
dreadfully boring science is at a Young Earth Creationist school. I
was there for 13 years of my, as of yesterday, 18 year life, and
never once was I interested in the "science" they taught. I've been
online and at the library almost everyday for four weeks, and I now
have completely changed my career path in life and would like to
specialize in theoretical physics.
Thank you again so much for your help. I really do appreciate it.
Charles Orlando
Garamond Lethe
One (maybe more) additional comment then, since you're planning on
attending college. Most of the better science books and wikipedia
science pages will have a list of references that point to, among
other places, the primary scientific literature. For example, on
the wikipedia Ice Core page, at the bottom there's a reference to:
Alley RB (February 2000). "Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate
changes". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 (4): 1331–4.
doi:10.1073/pnas.97.4.1331
This is the science that working scientists write and read. It's
usually written for other specialists in the field who have had
at least a few years of grad school in the discipline. If you go
to grad school, you'll probably end up in a seminar class where
all you is learn how to read papers like this one.
Or, you can start early.
First, find the paper. Put the title in to scholar.google.com and
about 95% of the time (for recent stuff), you'll be able to find
the paper, but it may be behind a paywall. If so, look at the
authors' affiliations and track down their university web sites.
Most authors (more so for younger ones and graduate students) will
have their papers on their site free for the the taking.
If that doesn't work, your local library may be willing to get
you a copy for free. If not, a brief, polite email to one of the
authors asking for a pdf usually works. And if worst comes to worst,
post a query here. Several of us work near university research
libraries and are happy to track down older articles every now
and again.
Once you've found the paper, there's the question of learning how
to read it. I usually read the abstract first, then skip ahead
to the conclusions and discussion. I then have a quick look at
the figures and graphs, and only if I'm still really interested
do I try to get something out of the meat of the paper.
Here's an example. Creationists will often complain that evolution
has never been observed. If you hang out here long enough, you'll
hear that Lenski's work refutes this, particularly his "Historical
contingency..." paper. A bit of googling will get you to his
university home page:
his work in long-term evolution
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
and his list of publications.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/cgi-bin/lenski/prefman.pl?group=aad
#180 is the one you want, and the abstract goes something like this:
<q>
The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much
debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of
Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They
have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains
citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic
conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate
for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions
of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one
population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population
size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of
this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely
rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation,
but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is
contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these
hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different
points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit
mutants among 8.4*10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9*10^12 cells
from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However,
we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to
evolve Cit+ indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by
20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation
rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the
particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest
that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates
the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved
by gradual, cumulative selection.
</q>
Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency
and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of
Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA
105:7899-7906.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
If you try to read that and your eyes just glaze over, no big deal,
stick to the popular literature for a few more years and try it again
after you've had a few university science classes. If you found
yourself making a list of the words you want to look up, then let me
welcome you to a very rewarding new hobby.
(It's also not a bad idea to look up the publications of professors
you want to work with. They see a lot of freshmen come an go, but
very few of them will come in during office hours and say "I've been
reading your paper on thus-and-such and have a few questions....".)
Charles O
>
> If you try to read that and your eyes just glaze over, no big deal,
> stick to the popular literature for a few more years and try it again
> after you've had a few university science classes. If you found
> yourself making a list of the words you want to look up, then let me
> welcome you to a very rewarding new hobby.
>
> (It's also not a bad idea to look up the publications of professors
> you want to work with. They see a lot of freshmen come an go, but
> very few of them will come in during office hours and say "I've been
> reading your paper on thus-and-such and have a few questions....".)
First off, let me again say that I truly appreciate the help. To be
honest, the majority of my friends consist of either people who are
creationists or people who don't care.
Secondly, the abstract you posted was fascinating. I took an advanced
Bio class so I understood a bit of it, but I actually did make a list
of a few things that I didn't fully understand.
Thirdly, you have no idea how helpful that process you gave for
finding scientific papers is. I find myself having to use wikipedia
more often than not, which is ok to refute or enlighten others, but I
would love more detail.
Fourthly, I've been lurking for a few days and kind of getting a feel
for everything here and how it works, but I haven't been able to find
out what the posters here are. Is the majority enthusiasts with a few
professionals? Or is it the other way around? Are there certain people
here that specialize in fields that I should specifically go to for
answers to more in-depth questions I may have?
Also, the fields I'm severely interested in are:
A) Physics (Specifically theoretical and particle)
B) Quantum Mechanics
C) Biology (Specifically Evolution)
D) Cosmology
E) Geology
I don't know if you are particularly interested in everything I'm
interested in, but is there any essential readings for these
categories, aside from what you've already given me?
Charles Orlando
J. J. Lodder
Two nice ones:
1) The Grotte Cosquer (near Marseilles, France)
is connected by a flooded tunnel to the Mediterrenean.
(was above sea level when inhabited)
It has fragile cave art of extinct pre-flood fauna
(pre-flood by creationist logic)
slightly above present day sea level.
Any flooding would have destroyed the paintings,
so the global flood never happened,
and the sea is at its highest for the past 18,000 years.
(by scientific logic)
2) Khufu's boat. It was found intact in its cellar
precisely as stowed away. The cellar is not water tight,
and flooding would have destroyed most of it.
The Khufu pyramid has been dated astronomically (Kate Spence)
to pre-flood by Ussher's chronology.
And anyway, a flood right in the middle
of the pyramid building period in Egyptian history
with pyramid building going on right through it
is of course also absurd.
Egypt has (pre)historic continuity for the past 10,000 years,
without any sign of more than the yearly flood of the Nile.
Best,
Jan
Charles O
haha... Those are both great. Thanks. I can't wait to use those.
Charles Orlando
Cubist
specific/direct refutations for you, but I do have some advice which
might prove helpful.
When a Creationist responds to a scientific criticism of
Creationism, they often respond *as if* the specific point they're
replying to is an isolated argument, completely unrelated to anything
else. As a result, when a Creationist replies to a criticism on
Friday, it's quite likely that their reply may actually contradict a
different reply they made on Tuesday. In the extreme case, it's
possible that the Creationist may even contradict themself *between
paragraphs of a single message*!
Accordingly, I suggest that you dig beneath the surface of that
trueorigins page; with any luck, you may discover that its content is
self-contradictory. And even if it's not self-refuting, it's not at
all unlikely that one of more of the references cited on that page *do
not*, in fact, say what the trueorigins page *claims* they say. So you
should *always* go back to the original source, when you're looking at
a Creationist citation.
As a possible candidate for self-contradiction, I note that the
trueorigins page's reply to "the Ark couldn't be seaworthy!" is that a
multi-layered teak hull of that size could, too, be seaworthy. Very
well: As it happens, teak is one of the denser woods, weighing in at
45 to 55 pounds per cubic foot. The trueorigins page cites
Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"; what does Woodmorappe
have to say about the Ark's construction? Does Woodmorappe mention
what kind of wood he's assuming the Ark was built from, and if so, how
heavy is that wood? If Woodmorappe says the Ark was made from some
wood *lighter than* teak, you can point out that a Woodmorappe-style
Ark built out of teak would weigh [number] tons more than an Ark built
out of the wood that Woodmorappe specified, hence a teak Ark would
have [number] tons *less* cargo capacity than Woodmorappe assumed for
his "Feasibility Study". Depending on how big [number] is, the
resulting shortfall in cargo capacity could do serious damage to
Woodmorappe's conclusions.
Iain
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
>
> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
> and informed.
Um...is this secondary education? What country are you in, in which a
government-recognised school would have this policy?
--Iain
Charles O
In the United States, a private school can basically do whatever they
wish. Including, but not limited to, expelling people for being an
atheist or a homosexual
Sapient Fridge
<77f33cbd-4fe9-4cc6...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Charles O <orlan...@bellsouth.net> writes
>Thank you so much... I opened each link in a new tab, and I will be
>going on a book hunt tomorrow. And you are completely correct in
>saying that my new venture into science has sparked a whole new area
>of interest in my life.
If you really want your eyes opened on biology then have a look at the
list below. They are all easy to read but very thought provoking.
Probably best read in the order given.
Richard Dawkins "The selfish gene":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-30th-Anniversary/dp/0199291152
Neil Shubin's "Your inner fish":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141027584
Jared Diamond "Third Chimpanzee":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Third-Chimpanzee-Evolution-Future-Animal/dp/0060845503
And I'll add one more because it gives a different perspective on *why*
humans behave so differently from other animals:
Susan Blackmore "The Meme Machine":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meme-Machine-Susan-Blackmore/dp/019286212X
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
John Harshman
The question is whether many miles of uplift can happen in a single
year, I suppose. And it should be obvious that rocks aren't that
flexible. Further, there is not just one episode of uplift in the rock
record, but many. Look up angular unconformities. Creationists try very
hard to ignore them, because they represent multiple episodes of uplift,
erosion, deposition, and rock formation. Conglomerates and (especially)
metaconglomerates are also good. These are only two examples among
thousands of the failure of creationist geology to account for the
simplest features of the earth.
And I think I will repost, as an example, something I wrote a while ago.
Look for "A rock in the Snowy Range".
John Harshman
On the flood, nothing beats Arthur Strahler's _Science and Earth
History_, which if I recall was republished not all that long ago.
jensp...@hotmail.com
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic,
Hopefully you are aware, that you don't have to argue againts most
christians on scientific subjects. Most christians have no problem
what so ever with science, as they don't take the bibel litteral. They
situation may be different where you life. I do realise that there are
areas in the US, where almost all christians think that being a
christian requires you to believe in things that go against observable
fact (pity on them).
J.O.
Jack Dominey
Charles O <orlan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Charles, this quotation may be fun to trot out if the person you're
arguing with tries to claim that the flood in Genesis is responsible
for much of the earth's geology.
From Stephen Jay Gould's essay "The Freezing of Noah" in _The
Flamingo's Smile_, a quotation from the Reverend William Buckland in
1836. Buckland was an early geologist and an Anglican priest.
"Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified
rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opiinion which is
irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite
subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular
successions which they contain of the remains of animals and
vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as
the strata in which we find them are older, or placed at greater
depths."
This is probably from _Geology and mineralogy considered with
reference to natural theology_ 1836, the 1841 edition.
The last half of that quotation is especially important, as it
*should* demonstrate to any honest person that well before Darwin's
publication, early scientists recognized that fossils show a pattern
that is incompatible with a simplistic reading of the Genesis account.
[I just posted this in another thread last week. Apologies to anyone
irked by reading it twice.]
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
MAB
MAB
[ Let me try that again. ]
Congratulations on your new path in life!
I was once a YEC and now I'm fully convinced that Evolution did happen
- still a theist though.
My $0.02:
The more I read of evolution, geology, paleontology, etc. the more
interesting it all becomes. There have been several advances in the
last 20 years particularly in evolutionary biology - it's hard to keep
up.
Some excellent books:
'Your Inner Fish' ; 'Evolution for Everyone' ; 'Why Evolution Works
(and Creationism Fails)'
You may not be at all interested in re-considering theism at this time
but if you ever do try something by Ken Miller, John F Haught, Karl
Giberson, etc.
Mark
chris thompson
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
>
> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
> and informed.
>
> Thank you very much.
> Sincerely,
> Charles
Is ti just the flood, or is there an ark in there somewhere too?
If the ark is present, it is simple to show that no vessel ever built
could possibly carry the number of species required to repopulate the
planet. If the Floodist insists the ark only carried the basic
"kinds" (i.e., cat kind, dog kind, whatever) point out that the amount
of evolution needed to produce all the species on the planet in such a
short time is inconceivable.
If there is no ark you might ask, "where is all the water now?" If
there was so much water it covered the planet, what made it go away?
And for that matter, where did it come from in the first place?
Finally, the Floodists are saying there was enough rain in 40 days to
cover the entire planet to a depth of 29000 feet (the height of
Everest). The heat of condensation of water is 539 cal/gram. The
planet would have been a ginormous ball of superheated steam.
Chris
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> In message
> <77f33cbd-4fe9-4cc6-85c7-170ec3e49...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Charles O <orlando1...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
> >Thank you so much... I opened each link in a new tab, and I will be
> >going on a book hunt tomorrow. And you are completely correct in
> >saying that my new venture into science has sparked a whole new area
> >of interest in my life.
>
> If you really want your eyes opened on biology then have a look at the
> list below. They are all easy to read but very thought provoking.
> Probably best read in the order given.
>
> Richard Dawkins "The selfish gene":http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-30th-Anniversary/dp/0199291152
>
> Neil Shubin's "Your inner fish":http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141027584
>
>
> And I'll add one more because it gives a different perspective on *why*
> humans behave so differently from other animals:
>
> Susan Blackmore "The Meme Machine":http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meme-Machine-Susan-Blackmore/dp/019286212X
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
I'd suggest a good history of the sciences of geology and
palaeontology, which would show that many of the supposed problems of
"evolutionism" were addressed and dealt with, often more than two
centuries ago.
Deborah Cadbury's "The Dragon Seekers" is a good read.
Chris McGowan's "Dinosaurs, Spitfires and Sea Dragons" is excellent.
Stephen Jay Gould's numerous collections of essays are great fun, as
is "Wonderful Life". One could consider Simon Conway Morris "The
Crucible of Creation" as a counter-argument to Gould's ideas. One of
the best books on evolution is Steve Jones' "Almost like a whale".
RF
Garamond Lethe
> In <bc7d264d-068f-4922...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Charles O <orlan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Charles, this quotation may be fun to trot out if the person you're
> arguing with tries to claim that the flood in Genesis is responsible
> for much of the earth's geology.
>
> From Stephen Jay Gould's essay "The Freezing of Noah" in _The
> Flamingo's Smile_, a quotation from the Reverend William Buckland in
> 1836. Buckland was an early geologist and an Anglican priest.
>
> "Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified
> rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opiinion which is
> irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite
> subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular
> successions which they contain of the remains of animals and
> vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as
> the strata in which we find them are older, or placed at greater
> depths."
>
> This is probably from _Geology and mineralogy considered with
> reference to natural theology_ 1836, the 1841 edition.
This can be found at books.google.com, btw. I don't recommend
pounding through both volumes unless you think you might want
to become a science historian, but a few of the early (short)
chapters illustrate how people were thinking right on the cusp
of the transition from Biblical geology to natural geology.
The opening paragraph of Chapter II, "Consistency of Geological
Discoveries with Sacred History" reads:
<q>
It may seem just matter of surprise, that many learned and
religious men should regard with jealousy and suspicion the
study of any natural phenomena, which abound with proofs of
some of the highest attributes of the Deity; and should
receive with distrust, or total incredulity, the announcement
of concludions, which the geologist deduces from careful and
patient investigations of the facts which it is his province
to explore. These doubts and difficulties result from
disclosures made by geology, respecting the lapse of very long
periods of time before the creation of man. Minds which have
long been accustomed to date the origin of the universe, as
well as that of the human race, from an era of about six
thousand years ago, receive reluctantly any information, which
if true, demands some new modification of their present ideas
of cosmogony; and as in this respect, Geology has shared the
fate of other infant sciences, in being for a while considered
hostile to revealed religion; so like them, when fully under-
stood, it will be found a potent and consistent auxiliary to it,
exalting our conviction of the Power, and Wisdom, and Goodness
of the Creator.
</q>
>
> The last half of that quotation is especially important, as it
> *should* demonstrate to any honest person that well before Darwin's
> publication, early scientists recognized that fossils show a pattern
> that is incompatible with a simplistic reading of the Genesis account.
>
> [I just posted this in another thread last week. Apologies to anyone
> irked by reading it twice.]
(Not at all! it's a great book.)
Louann Miller
8229-9a6...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>> Um...is this secondary education? What country are you in, in which a
>> government-recognised school would have this policy?
>>
>> --Iain
>
> In the United States, a private school can basically do whatever they
> wish. Including, but not limited to, expelling people for being an
> atheist or a homosexual
Or suspected of same, or a 'discipline problem' (across a wide spectrum
that encompasses both actual felonies and simply complaining about being
bullied). Or anything that might make them too much work.
I hope you've made arrangements for a real education, btw? Self-guided
reading is great fun, but out in the adult world there's no substitute
for that scrap of paper.
John Stockwell
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
>
> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
> and informed.
Basically creationists operate by grand sweeping one liners that
ignore the massive amounts of work done by real scientists.
For example, on that page, the authors invoke lahars (volcanic
mudflows)
following the Mt. St. Helens eruption as being the instant solution
to the deposition disagreement of worldwide geology with that which
we would expect from a worldwide flood. The authors are disingenuous
in claiming that somehow this was all new knowledge, and that
it works to explain every feature of the geologic stratigraphy.
It is not new. For example, the National Geographic Society
expedition in 1918 to study the 1912 Katmai erruption
http://consortiumlibrary.org/archives/CollectionsList/CollectionDescriptions/hmc-0186cd.html
also revealed lahar and volcanic canyon and erosion phenomena
that dwarfs what is seen at Mt. St. Helens. From this and
many other studied erruptions, a great deal was known about
the sort of environments of deposition. The claim that some
how creationists were "ahead" of mainstream science on this
is a riduculous false claim.
Furthermore, every depositional environment that we see operating in
the
world today, and a number of others, such as meteorite impacts
and continental ice sheet phenomena can be found in the
geologic record. These are *not* features that can be rapidly
deposited,
and are not present in the volcanic sections. Furthermore, their
claims about varves being rapidly deposited are laughable.
I would point you to Glen Morton's pages at:
For specific discussions of real geology versus "flood geology".
Note that real geologists abandoned the notion of a worldwide
flood more than 150 years ago, so nobody in the mainstream
community spends time refuting the flood hypothesis, because
it is already long dead.
>
> Thank you very much.
> Sincerely,
> Charles
-John
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
>> (It's also not a bad idea to look up the publications of professors
>> you want to work with. They see a lot of freshmen come an go, but
>> very few of them will come in during office hours and say "I've been
>> reading your paper on thus-and-such and have a few questions....".)
>
> First off, let me again say that I truly appreciate the help. To be
> honest, the majority of my friends consist of either people who are
> creationists or people who don't care.
> Secondly, the abstract you posted was fascinating. I took an advanced
> Bio class so I understood a bit of it, but I actually did make a list
> of a few things that I didn't fully understand.
> Thirdly, you have no idea how helpful that process you gave for
> finding scientific papers is. I find myself having to use wikipedia
> more often than not, which is ok to refute or enlighten others, but I
> would love more detail.
> Fourthly, I've been lurking for a few days and kind of getting a feel
> for everything here and how it works, but I haven't been able to find
> out what the posters here are. Is the majority enthusiasts with a few
> professionals? Or is it the other way around? Are there certain people
> here that specialize in fields that I should specifically go to for
> answers to more in-depth questions I may have?
It's a very democratic group that way. There are lots of people here
with advanced degrees (including a couple of physicsts), but those
qualifications hardly ever get mentioned. Usually, it's easy enough
to divide the group into people who can provide references to the
peer-reviewed literature and those who don't. For what it's worth,
I'm in my final semester as a Ph.D. student in Computer Science, and
I've taken exactly one biology class since high school (a graduate
course in evolution in which I found out that evolution is far more
mathematical than I had been led to believe), no geology classes, no
physics classes, and far too few math classes. (I also have an
undergrad degree in theater that I'm inordinately proud of.)
As to asking questions, I think you've figured most of this out already
but it's nice to have it all written down in one place:
Eric Raymond, "How to ask questions the smart way",
catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Questions of the form "What should I read next to understand this?" are
much more interesting than "Please explain this to me," (which is
something you're not going to have a problem with), and with that
caveat, ask away!
>
> Also, the fields I'm severely interested in are:
> A) Physics (Specifically theoretical and particle)
> B) Quantum Mechanics
> C) Biology (Specifically Evolution)
> D) Cosmology
> E) Geology
>
> I don't know if you are particularly interested in everything I'm
> interested in, but is there any essential readings for these
> categories, aside from what you've already given me?
>
At this point, I'd say that as long as you're reading what you
find interesting, you really can't go too far wrong. I will add
one other category, though: math. If you've had the typical
high school mathematics experience, you're now firmly convinced
that math is to be endured rather than enjoyed, and consists of
little more than symbol shuffling.
Actual math (as opposed to arithmetic, which is what you've been
doing) is far more interesting, supple, creative, elegant,
and fun. The more math (not arithmetic!) you know, the more tools
you can bring to hard problems, and the more likely it is your
research will be a significant contribution. As an example, the
girlfriend got her Ph.D. in physics and took the math she learned
doing that and has made quite the name for herself in Theoretical
Ecology. I'm terrible at math, but linear programming and graph
theory came very easily to me, and I've been able to publish papers
because I can apply those techniques (slighly) better than most
other people in my field.
To get a sense of what you've been missing, have a look at Davis
and Hersh's _The Mathematical Experience_. You might have heard
of nonstandard analysis or group theory or constructivism, but
if you went to wikipedia to try to find out more you'd see pages
that are written by mathematicians for mathematicians instead of
interested civilians. D&H write for civilians, and they write
very well.
Before you blow off this suggestion (and I know you're tempted),
read this:
people.maths.ox.ac.uk/bui/ideal.pdf
If you don't find it delightful, the fair enough, but I think
you'll really enjoy it.
To get good and annoyed about the mathematical education you've
(probably) failed to receive, try Lockhart's "The Mathematician's
Lament". www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
I've recently joined a reading group and we're working through
all of the problems in Knuth's _The Art of Computer Programming_,
which is a classic in the field. Four hours a week of solving
interesting math problems with a group of people who are smarter
than I am has been really helpful to me. One of the reasons
they're smarter than I am is that they think nothing of finding
a well-regarded math book (Apostol is a favorite author) and
over the course of several months working through all of the
problems. These are biology students, btw. I don't have that
level of dedication, but it is something to aspire to.
That's three sermons in a row you've had to endure from me.
Thank you for your patience.
> Charles Orlando
>
Frank F. Smith
Cogent, concise, courteous. An excellent introduction to _how_ to learn
more about an area of [scientific] interest.
Thanks, Garamond!
Garamond Lethe wrote:
> On 2009-11-10, Charles O <orlan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 3:14 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2009-11-10, Charles O <orlando1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip for focus>
>> <snip for focus>
Jim
First, congratulations on both your enlightenment and your courage. I
suspect that you will find the world a much, much more interesting
place, and I hope the sense of wonder and amazement you have now stays
with you - it is this sense of wonder at the world that has driven us
to learn as much as we have about the universe around us, and is by
far the most important thing to keep hold of throughout life in my own
estimation.
I know a fair bit about geology, and would be happy to help you with
any questions you may have about how to read the autobiography of our
planet. While there are a lot of good books out there about geology
(Strahler's book, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, for instance, or
the Roadside Geology series (http://mountain-press.com/
series_detail.php?series_key=2&series_name=Roadside%20Geology), or
even John McPhee's book-length essays like 'Basin and Range',
'Assembling California', or 'In Suspect Terrain'), I like to look at
maps. For instance, the Tapestry of Time and Terrain (http://
www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_timeterrain.html) is a
geological/shaded relief map of the continent that is a delight to
examine and gives in one image the broad outlines of the story told by
the rocks under our feet. Of course, it should raise more questions
than it answers, but it provides a broad structure on which to hang
facts as you find them. (It has been said that the best geologist
is the one who has seen the most rocks. Absent the time and money
needed to go out and bang on the rocks yourself, the next best thing
is a good geologic map. The more maps you can look at the more you
will know about how the earth is put together.)
Jim
> Nominating the combination of the prior post and this followup.
> Cogent, concise, courteous. An excellent introduction to _how_ to learn
> more about an area of [scientific] interest.
>
> Thanks, Garamond!
>
Stuart
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
> today, someone posted thishttp://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
>
> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
> and informed.
>
> Sincerely,
> Charles
Consult the FAQs at the talk.origins archive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Burkhard
> Nominating the combination of the prior post and this followup.
> Cogent, concise, courteous. An excellent introduction to _how_ to learn
> more about an area of [scientific] interest.
>
> Thanks, Garamond!
>
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
If I haven't exceeded my secondment allocation for the month,
seconded ;o)
John Wilkins
<cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
For that matter, read Burnet's "Sacred History" to see how the flood
myth was (sorry for this) washed away in the late 18thC. It's also on
archive.org or gutenberg.org
Desertphile
<orlan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Ok, I recently became an atheist.
You mean you were cured.
> Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism.
Crock of shit detected: reading terminated.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Garamond Lethe
Thanks --- on my list.
Sapient Fridge
<c97bb0d1-3d9f-469e...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>One of
>the best books on evolution is Steve Jones' "Almost like a whale".
I haven't read that one yet, thanks for the pointer.
This on is also rather good, very well written:
Richard Fortey - "Trilobite! Eyewitness to Evolution"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trilobite-Eyewitness-Evolution-Richard-Fortey/dp/0006551386
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Hatunen
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
[...]
>How would one explain the diversity and dispersion of beetle species if one
>single family had to collect them by twos and put them on a boat for a
>year?
Or think about the time someone asked the question of J.B.S.
Haldane,
Cleric: “What can you infer about the Creator, based on your
research of nature?”
Haldane: “He must have had an inordinate fondness for beetles.”)
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<orlan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Ok. I understand that.
>Is there any specific way to refute the idea of uplifting? In my mind,
>with everything I know about geology (not very much at all), the idea
>doesn't make any sense, but is there is a good, scientific way to
>disprove it?
Uplifting is obvious to anyone who sees strata of rocks lying in
downwardly concave layers. The uplifting of the Colarado Plateau
requires a pretty wide lens to see it, but the uplifting caused
by batholiths and the like are pretty easy to see. As is the
uplifting in caldera such as Yellowstone.
Scanman
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
> today, someone posted thishttp://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
>
> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
> and informed.
>
> Thank you very much.
> Sincerely,
> Charles
You can still be a theist and an evolutionist. You can still believe
in scripture, but understand that not all scripture was meant to be
interpreted literally. I believe whole-heartedly that evolution is
compatible with the creation account. If I said that that a baker
baked a cake, do I have to go into the detail of how the wheat was
grown?...how the milk was produced?...how the butter was churned from
milk?...how and where the eggs came from?...No! I simply state that a
baker baked a cake...nuff said.
The flood was local not global...most likely the Bosphorus/Black Sea
flood around 7500BC. Scriptures talk about flooding the whole
earth...but earth to a person of that era, would have meant the whole
'land'. They did not have a concept of a spherical world...the limits
of their horizon, was their world.
I am a 'Theistic Selectionist/Evolutionist', who believes in the Big
Bang, a universe that is ~14 billion years old and who also believes
that God is sovereign over all. I believe that Truth is truth no
matter who discovers it. I also believe that there is nothing in the
natural world that can 'disprove' God.
R. Baldwin
> On Nov 10, 2:32�am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>> Charles O <orlando1...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:bc7d264d-068f-4922-
>> bf5a-098cdebd6...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
>> > month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism.
>> > (I went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time
>> > I have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively
>> > against any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my
>> > weakest link is my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a
>> > bit about it, the stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of
>> > the stuff on there today, someone posted this
>> >http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
>>
>> > I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
>> > scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
>> > info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a
>> > link to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be
>> > educated and informed.
>>
>> > Thank you very much.
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Charles
>>
>> Try the opposite. Posit that it occured, and explain what you would
>> expec
> t
>> to find. Then see if you find it.
>>
>> You might want to ask:
>>
>> Why do terrestrial and marine fossils show up in the particular
>> strata th
> ey
>> do at the Grand Canyon?
>>
>> Why are the channeled scablands of Eastern Washington carved into a
>> thick basalt plateau that is on top of marine fossils?
>>
>> How would one explain the diversity and dispersion of beetle species
>> if o
> ne
>> single family had to collect them by twos and put them on a boat for
>> a year?
>>
>> What did the lions eat while they were cooped up on the ark?
>>
>> How did the Dalarna spruce survive the deluge?
>
> Ok. I understand that.
> Is there any specific way to refute the idea of uplifting? In my mind,
> with everything I know about geology (not very much at all), the idea
> doesn't make any sense, but is there is a good, scientific way to
> disprove it?
>
I presume you wish to refute the idea of _rapid_ uplifting, as described
in the true.origins article you referenced at
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
which claims that mountains reached their present height "by rapid
uplift, because of catastrophic plate tectonic movement and because the
sediments were not yet consolidated."
Based on hints in that article, I suppose the Creationists behind it
have some wild explanation for the marine fossil-bearing limestone
formations of Mt. Everest, with respect to this supposed rapid uplift.
It wouldn't be physically tenable, and I really don't understand why
they need it to be. If God is omnipotent, and can make anything happen,
no scientific explanation for the flood or its aftermath is really
necessary.
In any case, you might try to pin down how fast they think the uplift
was, and how they know the rock plasticity sustained the uplift, and how
the rock deformation supports the conclusion. Also, have they done
energy calculations, and what were the results?
Charles O
far. Everyone has been extremely congenial, and I very much appreciate
it.
Charles Orlando
Mike Dworetsky
news:culjf51tmefm9j8ta...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:44:42 -0800 (PST), Charles O
> <orlan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I recently became an atheist.
>
> You mean you were cured.
>
>> Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
>> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism.
>
> Crock of shit detected: reading terminated.
>
Subsequent dialogue indicates this is not the case. Pay attention out
there.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> In message
> <c97bb0d1-3d9f-469e-8fc8-7f262c8bb...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com>
> writes
>
> >One of
> >the best books on evolution is Steve Jones' "Almost like a whale".
>
> I haven't read that one yet, thanks for the pointer.
>
> This on is also rather good, very well written:
>
> --
...which reminds me that "Life: A Natural History of the First Four
Billion Years of Life on Earth" and "The Earth: An Intimate History"
by Richard Fortey are also excellent and well written books.
There are so many good, well written and highly accessible books on
the subjects of geology and palaeontology out there that nobody should
be ignorant on the subjects if they have any genuine desire to learn.
RF
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Charles O
suggested, and I have set aside time to go out to the local library
and barnes and noble tomorrow. However, I noticed that no one has
stated Dawkins latest book, _The Greatest Show on Earth_. I received
the book as a birthday present from a very good friend of mine who is
also an atheist. She is one of the two that I know, which can give you
a small glimpse into the types of people that are in my circle of
acquaintances. Anyway, I have read many things online and watched many
of Dawkins's documentaries on evolution, but I've never actually read
an entire book on it. My question is whether I should hold off on the
book, since it is supposedly "Evidence for evolution" (Or so it says
on the cover), and instead become more familiar with the details of
evolution first. Or is it an ok book to begin my evolution literature
reading list?
Charles Orlando
John Wilkins
<2d12894a-7451-4da4...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Charles O <orlan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Look, it's not bad, but it isn't, despite the title, great. Dawkins
makes some undergraduate mistakes in areas he's not familiar with. And
he's too wordy, because he's so popular he doesn't get aggressive
editing. But you could do worse.
Garamond Lethe
I haven't read it, but looking at the reviews it should be a fine place
to start.
Richard Fortey (whose books have been mentioned elsethread) writing
in The Guardian:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lmhhxa
A less-enthusiastic review at New Scientist:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lokrah
The now (moderately) infamous NYTimes review, in which evolution-as-
theory and evolution-as-fact are handled clumsily. (We observe
evolution. These are facts. We have a model that explains what we
observe. That's the theory. Yes, it's confusing.)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yktbyg2
And finally a fond, though not fawning review from The Independent:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya98l3w
The last one has the best summary: "If I found myself needing to rebut
creationists, Coyne's book is the one I would reach for. But if I were
a teacher, I would treasure Greatest Show as a compendium of enlightening
passages for my students. If Dawkins carries on this way, he'll be hailed
as a national treasure yet."
If this was the /last/ book you'd be reading on evolution, I might have
a few reservations. Since it will be the first of many, have at it.
>
> Charles Orlando
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
> In article
> <2d12894a-7451-4da4-ace1-1776cad9f...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I must admit to not having read anything by Dawkins since reading
"Unweaving the Rainbow". I found it weak, and haven't bothered with
his work since. He made a significant contribution with "The Selfish
Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype", but there are other popular
authors who write better books. Names that spring to mind are Richard
Fortey, Steve Jones and Matt Ridley.
RF
Walter Bushell
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is a determinate of being able to put in a lot of resources which is
a marker like the peacock's tail. Also it proves you can accept
regimentation and withstand boredom, essentials in the workplace.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
All-Seeing-I
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
>
> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
> and informed.
>
> Thank you very much.
> Sincerely,
> Charles
What was the matter? The bible was too hard to understand? Or do you
just LIKE to be lied to by a faction of society that has hijacked real
science?
chris thompson
I would toss in, for ease of understanding and all-around fine writing
(especially for a science journalist) Carl Zimmer's, "Evolution: The
Triumph of an Idea". (But it's a history of how evolution has been
viewed, more than an "evidence for evolution" book.) A more
specialized work of Zimmer's is also one of my faves: "Parasite Rex".
Chris
Frank J
In case you're still reading, I'd like to add my usual supplemental
information.
When refuting a YEC, make sure to mention that other *creationists*
also disagree with their chronology, global flood, etc. Ask if they
have challenged those other *creationists,* and if they haven't, ask
why not. Their double standard will be an eye-opener to anyone in the
audience confused about evolution but not beyond hope.
Nick Keighley
> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
> today, someone posted thishttp://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
>
> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
> and informed.
where did all the water go? Did it just run off the edge? If Everest
is about 9,000km and the earth's surface are is 500,000,000 square
kilometers that's 4.5 billion cubic kilometeres of water that needs to
be explained away.
Part 2: where did all the water come from?
yes, I know, Martian flux tubes
nick keighley
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> In message
> <c97bb0d1-3d9f-469e-8fc8-7f262c8bb...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com>
>
> >One of
> >the best books on evolution is Steve Jones' "Almost like a whale".
>
> I haven't read that one yet, thanks for the pointer.
>
> This on is also rather good, very well written:
>
I never knew trilobites could be interesting before I read that
John Harshman
> On Nov 10, 12:44 am, Charles O <orlando1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Ok, I recently became an atheist. Maybe 2 months ago. And about 1
>> month ago, my school kicked me out for being open about my atheism. (I
>> went to a very strict, private school) Anyway, with all the time I
>> have now, I've been researching a ton. I can argue effectively against
>> any Christian on almost any topic, however, I'd say my weakest link is
>> my ability to refute a global flood. I've read a bit about it, the
>> stuff on talkorigins.net, but when I used some of the stuff on there
>> today, someone posted thishttp://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
>>
>> I know that a global flood didn't happen. I know that no reputable
>> scientist believes that. Could someone please provide me with some
>> info on how to refute it? I don't even care if you simply copy a link
>> to a book or long essay. I'll read it all. I just want to be educated
>> and informed.
> What was the matter? The bible was too hard to understand? Or do you
> just LIKE to be lied to by a faction of society that has hijacked real
> science?
What makes you think the bible is correct about this?
John Harshman
Before you give up on Dawkins, try _The Ancestor's Tale_. I found it
generally excellent.
John Harshman
Schadenfreude is always fun. (If you can't say anything nice about
somebody, come sit by me.)
Dan Listermann
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:R92dnUjzwa6...@giganews.com...
Well, well, it is the Bible after all. The very bedrock, the alpha and
omega, of "truth," don't 'cha know.
.
TomS
<R92dnU7zwa4...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
I had to trace down that quotation, and came up with this, a picture
of Alice Roosevelt Langworth (daughter of Teddy Roosevelt, of the
eponymous color "Alice Blue") with her salon pillow: "If you can't
say something good about someone sit right here by me."
<http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/reviews/2007-12-12-roosevelt_N.htm>
My impression of Dawkins' writings is that he is brilliant enough that
he doesn't have to work on what he writes, and gets away with stuff that
he should be called on.
--
---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
Ernest Major
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> writes
>
>My impression of Dawkins' writings is that he is brilliant enough that
>he doesn't have to work on what he writes, and gets away with stuff
>that he should be called on.
>
him with a gift for metaphor. I interpreted that as meaning that the
result was that he was misunderstood by overly literal readers and those
too ignorant to distinguish metaphors from statements of fact.
I was unimpressed with "The God Delusion" (partly because I was never
impressed by "design" arguments in the first place), but I thought that
"The Ancestor's Tale" was well written, so I don't think that the
generalisation holds.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Wilkins
I gave my copy away, so I can't look it up now, but he has a riff on
how someone may yet find a fossil in a drawer that names some famous
fossil (say, T rex) differently and all the books will have to be
changed to account for the priority.
John Harshman
Kermit
(Like Charles?) I became tired of being lied to. And after a while,
the bible *does become comprehensible. I can't speak for Chas, but
that's largely why I dropped it - as a monstrous piece of work. Of
course I was raised fundamentalist authoritarian; if I'd been raised
Unitarian I might still be going to church.
Science is at odds with religion only when religion insists on a
concrete understanding of myths that are at odds with reality.
Ever figure out how you can tell the difference among psychosis, your
wishful thinking, and revelations from gods? Keep me posted.
Kermit
John Harshman
so if you have quoted him accurately, he's wrong. One could, however,
come up with an obscure publication that could make T. rex the junior
synonym of something else. But I bet a petition to suppress the name
would be accepted at high speed.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you understood it you would not make these claims.
John Wilkins
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Here's Richard Fortey's review:
"Then there is the occasional cheap shot. Dawkins has a go at the
business of taxonomy, regretting that the name of our ancestor
Australopithecus has priority over the "better name" Plesianthropus.
There is a "rule" that says that the first published name takes
priority. "I'm still mischievously hoping," writes Dawkins, "somebody
will uncover, in a dusty drawer in a South African museum, a
long-forgotten fossil . . . but bearing the scrawled label
'Hemianthropus-type specimen 1920'. At a stroke, all the museums in the
world would immediately have to relabel their Australopithecus
specimens and casts . . ." Well, actually, they wouldn't, because this
supposed name Hemianthropus would have no status at all in the
scientific world unless it was properly published somewhere. In which
case we would already know about it. If in my museum career I had paid
attention to all the scraps of paper in drawers I would have done
little else but fret. I hope this does not look like nit-picking. The
naming problem in human anthropology is mainly due to vaingloriousness
on the part of scientists. The rules have sorted problems out;
Dawkins's ultimate hero Darwin was on the original committee to set up
these nomenclatural rules, responding to the chaos in scientific naming
of organisms that bedevilled scientific research in the early 19th
century. It does Dawkins no credit to snigger at taxonomy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/05/richard-dawkins-greatest-sho
w-evolution
TomS
<BaWdndXVoLQ...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
I got a lot of negative response recently when I suggested that
Dawkins was very sloppy with his description of the physics of
radioisotope dating, so I won't mention that again.
I didn't like his use of undocumented anecdotes in "The God
Delusion". When one is arguing for reason, it seems to me to be
particularly bad form to use that sort of argument.
Going back further, I didn't like his excess enthusiasm for natural
selection.
I guess it is just a matter of taste.
I will allow that I liked his "Ancestor's Tale".
chris thompson
It didn't seem to make a difference when Gould was campaigning to keep
_Brontosaurus_.
Or was that name changed to _Apatosaurus_ *because* Gould wanted
_Brontosaurus_? He did have his enemies.
Chris
Ernest Major
<fa81318e-6c83-4607...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
Brontosaurus was replaced by Apatosaurus in the scientific literaure
long before Gould expressed an opinion - in fact long before Gould was
even born.
The case of Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus is not the same as would be a
hypothetical case of Tyrannosaurus rex and a long overlooked prior
synonym. The case of the Australian boab is more comparable
http://www.kimberleysociety.org/faqanswers.html
Apatosaurus had been accepted as having priority over Brontosaurus long
before Gould weighed in on the topic, and was much more used in the
professional literature. From Wikipedia "In 1877, Othniel Charles Marsh
published the name of the type species Apatosaurus ajax. He followed
this in 1879 with a description of another, more complete specimen,
which he thought represented a new genus and named Brontosaurus
excelsus. In 1903, Elmer Riggs pointed out that Brontosaurus excelsus
was in fact so similar to Apatosaurus ajax that it belonged in the same
genus, which Riggs re-classified as Apatosaurus excelsus. According to
the rules of the ICZN (which governs the scientific names of animals),
the name Apatosaurus, having been published first, had priority as the
official name; Brontosaurus was a junior synonym and therefore discarded
from formal use."
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Not much to chew on there. I suppose you have no major interest in being
more specific, though. And really, what's wrong with being excessively
enthusiastic about natural selection?
John Harshman
Not necessarily. As you and Fortey know well, there have been cases of
publications that were long ignored by the systematic community, and
that when rediscovered forced name changes. Should we complain about
Fortey's review?
> If in my museum career I had paid
> attention to all the scraps of paper in drawers I would have done
> little else but fret. I hope this does not look like nit-picking.
Actually, it does.
> The
> naming problem in human anthropology is mainly due to vaingloriousness
> on the part of scientists. The rules have sorted problems out;
> Dawkins's ultimate hero Darwin was on the original committee to set up
> these nomenclatural rules, responding to the chaos in scientific naming
> of organisms that bedevilled scientific research in the early 19th
> century. It does Dawkins no credit to snigger at taxonomy."
True. I really have to read that book.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/05/richard-dawkins-greatest-sho
> w-evolution
Now. You said "some undergraduate mistakes". That means "at least two".
John Harshman
The name was changed because of the rules of taxonomic nomenclature,
long before Gould's career began. Gould didn't really campaign to change
it back; if he had, the first step would have been to file a request to
suppress with the ICZN, which as far as I know he never did. It was an
amusing conceit, nothing more.
William Hughes
wrote:
>> One could, however,
> > come up with an obscure publication that could make T. rex the junior
> > synonym of something else. But I bet a petition to suppress the name
> > would be accepted at high speed.
>
> It didn't seem to make a difference when Gould was campaigning to keep
> _Brontosaurus_.
>
> Or was that name changed to _Apatosaurus_ *because* Gould wanted
> _Brontosaurus_? He did have his enemies.
(Note, the name Brontosaurus was changed
to Apatosaurus in 1903)
Did Gould ever actually campaign for Brontosaurus? In his essay
"Bully for Brontosaurus" he opines that an application to
suppress the name Apatosaurus would have been successful before
the US Post office issued a "Brontosaurus" stamp and there
was a kerfluffle about the correct name but that such an application
would now fail. (He constructs, (tongue very firmly in cheek) a
conspiracy theory featuring dastardly apatophiles). Since he
makes it very clear that he believes action to be hopeless,
I would be surprised to hear that he had taken further action.
- William Hughes
Hatunen
As we sometimes told our daughters when they were teenagers and
whined, "You don't understand..", "Understanding is not the same
as acceptance."
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Mitchell Coffey
> In message <267960661.00015d2b.028.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS
> <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> writes
>
> >My impression of Dawkins' writings is that he is brilliant enough that
> >he doesn't have to work on what he writes, and gets away with stuff
> >that he should be called on.
>
> One comment that has been made about Dawkins was that the gods cursed
> him with a gift for metaphor. I interpreted that as meaning that the
> result was that he was misunderstood by overly literal readers and those
> too ignorant to distinguish metaphors from statements of fact.
"More than any other writer, [Dawkins] has taught
scientists and their public to appreciate metaphor.
... Some of the most dunderheaded opponents of his
first book, _The Selfish Gene_, seem to have read
the title alone and not quite realized it _was_ a
metaphor ... ."
- Melvin Konner,
in review of Dawkin's _Unweaving the
Rainbow..._; "Scientific American",
Vol. 280, Num. 3, March 1999, p. 107.
Mitchell Coffey
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> The flood was local not global...most likely the Bosphorus/Black Sea
> flood around 7500BC.
That hypothesis, first proposed by Ryan and Pittman, has been
discredited by further evidence; see Yanko-Hombach et al. (eds), _The
Black Sea Flood Question_. Most likely, IMHO, the Noah story derives
from the Assyrian-Babylonian story of Utnapishtim, which describes
something very like a river flood caused by a large storm.
--
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
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> What was the matter? The bible was too hard to understand? Or do you
> just LIKE to be lied to by a faction of society that has hijacked real
> science?
Have you ever even *read* the Popol Vuh?
heekster
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:26:09 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> What was the matter? The bible was too hard to understand? Or do you
>> just LIKE to be lied to by a faction of society that has hijacked real
>> science?
>
>Have you ever even *read* the Popol Vuh?
I don't believe that Classics Illustrated ever did a comic book of
Mayan fables.
So the answer that adman should probably give is, "no".
[8:)] <--- stoopid Mayan smily face
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
[snip]
Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
this part:
> <q>
> The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much
> debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of
> Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They
> have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains
> citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic
> conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate
> for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions
> of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one
> population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population
> size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of
> this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely
> rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation,
> but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is
> contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these
> hypotheses in experiments that ��replayed�� evolution from different
> points in that population�s history. We observed no Cit
> mutants among 8.4*10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9*10^12 cells
> from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However,
> we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to
> evolve Cit+ indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by
> 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation
> rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
> Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the
> particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest
> that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates
> the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved
> by gradual, cumulative selection.
> </q>
I haven't read (and doubt if I could understand) the source
literature, but a few days ago when I was again looking
for info. on this increase in "information" I found this page:
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
which included these two paragraphs:
"Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate
as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole
suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a
citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein
embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.
This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under
anaerobic conditions.
So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published
information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the
regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate
transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium's
environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can
be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes
down_a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on.
A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the
time. That is the sort of change we are talking about."
This argument looks pretty reasonable to me (despite the
context of that perfectly idiotic comment on sexual reproduction
which preceded it). My immediate reaction was, oh shit,
the new citrate digesting bacteria argument isn't nearly as
nice as I thought it was. While we await the final diagnosis
is there reason to suspect this counter-argument might be
valid?
Garamond Lethe
> On Nov 10, 5:32 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
> this part:
That's a really good question, and the correct answer is "I don't
know." Let me see what I can dig up...
Garamond Lethe
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
> this part:
<Lenski's abstract snipped>
Ok, having skimmed a dozen papers to the best of my ability, two
comments:
1. Information arguments in general almost always fail due to
lack of specificity in the definition of information. The next
paragraph in the creation.com article had this gem:
"Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that
normally takes up tartrate,3 which does not normally transport citrate, mutated
such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell.
Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations."
So we may have lost specificity, but if this population is put into a citrate-free
environment then random mutation may eventually cause the loss of this feature,
allowing us to conclude that we have observed a "loss of generality". Using this
approach, ancient single-cell organisms lost their "unicellularity", I suppose.
I wonder if I can get a paper published there showing that information is the
inverse of entropy, since information always can be shown to decrease?
So that's the easy, general comment.
2. Looking at the biology, to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what the
new pathway is yet and how it operates. However, the design of the experiment
allows us to rule out that it was due to a single-point mutation. If this was
a case of a regulatory network ceasing to function, I would have expected that
this could be brought about by any number of single-point mutations. One can
start postulating regulatory networks that are sufficiently redundant to require
multiple mutations to knock them out, but this still raises the question of why
it took so many generations for the correct set of neutral mutations to appear.
Based on this, I think we can say that something more happened than a regulatory
network failure. The good news is that we should know in a couple of years.
3. All that being said, does this experiment refute the decreasing information
argument? I don't think it does, but then I don't think any experiment can until
the definition of information pinned down.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 10, 5:32 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
>> this part:
>
> <Lenski's abstract snipped>
>
I want to begin by apologizing. I asked my question at 8:00 EST
and your final reply was at 1:30 EST, which means you didn't
sleep very well. I hope you don't suffer too much today.
>> I haven't read (and doubt if I could understand) the source
>> literature, but a few days ago when I was again looking
>> for info. on this increase in "information" I found this page:
>
>>http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-diges...
Thanks for the info.
I was hoping the claim of citrate digestion in anaerobic
conditions was false. Since citrate digestion is normal under
anaerobic conditions I would expect (in a vague kind of way)
that a number of mutations would be needed to make it work in
oxidizing conditions, just as many modifications are required to
adapt a diesel motor for use in a submarine.
However the heart of the creationist argument (although here
cloaked in empty "information" terminology) is that the only
capacities ever seen in organisms are those that are preloaded
into the genome - and indeed ASI has recently argued (or copied
an argument stating) that the reason some toothless animals have
genes for teeth is because that ability was preloaded into the
genome for later use.
Consequently, since we know here that citrate digestion has (in
some sense) been preloaded into the genome the creationist
argument is correct at the level of their understanding. Thus
while I was originally very excited about this as an argument,
I now consider it functionally useless for the purposes of this
debate.
Garamond Lethe
> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 10, 5:32 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>> Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
>>> this part:
>>
>> <Lenski's abstract snipped>
>>
>
> I want to begin by apologizing. I asked my question at 8:00 EST
> and your final reply was at 1:30 EST, which means you didn't
> sleep very well. I hope you don't suffer too much today.
Wouldn't know... I haven't been to bed yet. (Life as a bachelor
graduate student is going to come to a very sudden halt in about
a week and a half, so I'm enjoying it while it lasts.)
I think that's a fair summary. Here's a different take on it:
Of course preloading is correct, but you have to remember the
designer is smarter than you are. Rather than clog up the genome
with lots of useless features that would only be expressed
thousands (or millions) of years later, the designer put those
features into the nature of the system itself. This lets the
cellular machinery carry only what was handy and allowed the
environment, through mutation and natural selection, to add
and remove necessary features when needed.
This runs into a minor problem with non-coding, non-regulatory
DNA and a major problem with Lamarckism. Still, it does allow
you to ask why they think their god is content with less-than-clever
engineering solutions. It's not a line of argument that I've found
to be effective, but at least it's fun to point out.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 1:30 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 5:32 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
>>>> this part:
>
>>> <Lenski's abstract snipped>
>
>> I want to begin by apologizing. I asked my question at 8:00 EST
>> and your final reply was at 1:30 EST, which means you didn't
>> sleep very well. I hope you don't suffer too much today.
>
> Wouldn't know... I haven't been to bed yet. (Life as a bachelor
> graduate student is going to come to a very sudden halt in about
> a week and a half, so I'm enjoying it while it lasts.)
Are we going to get to see the Wedding pictures?
What about the photos from the stag party?
.
.
It seems to me that it is probably more effective to kill
preloading by pointing out the excessive number of alleles in
the human immune system when Adam and Eve could not have
contributed more than 4.
wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen
now shows the HLA B antigen as having 1,178 variants while
noting that some of the variants code for the same protien.
Garamond Lethe
> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 1:30 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 10, 5:32 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
>>>>> this part:
>>
>>>> <Lenski's abstract snipped>
>>
>>> I want to begin by apologizing. I asked my question at 8:00 EST
>>> and your final reply was at 1:30 EST, which means you didn't
>>> sleep very well. I hope you don't suffer too much today.
>>
>> Wouldn't know... I haven't been to bed yet. (Life as a bachelor
>> graduate student is going to come to a very sudden halt in about
>> a week and a half, so I'm enjoying it while it lasts.)
>
> Are we going to get to see the Wedding pictures?
> What about the photos from the stag party?
Unfortunately, this is just moving in with my sweetie for a couple of
months between graduation and the start of the postdoc. No wedding
pictures until we're living continuously on the same side of the
Mississippi. Two more years, tops, if the academic market improves.
(Solving 2-body problems is no fun at all.)
Depends on the audience, I guess. Most people (regardless of whether
or not they're creationists) have only the fuzziest idea of what a
gene is, and you're a better teacher than I if you can cover both
alleles and how they relate to the immune system without their eyes
glazing over. (I should note that it wouldn't take much to be a
better biology teacher than I am, so this is not a particularly
strong statement.)
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 8:55 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 7, 1:30 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2009-12-07, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 10, 5:32 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>> Having just read your nominated post, I have a question on
> >>>>> this part:
>
> >>>> <Lenski's abstract snipped>
>
> >>> I want to begin by apologizing. �I asked my question at 8:00 EST
> >>> and your final reply was at 1:30 EST, which means you didn't
> >>> sleep very well. �I hope you don't suffer too much today.
>
> >> Wouldn't know... I haven't been to bed yet. �(Life as a bachelor
> >> graduate student is going to come to a very sudden halt in about
> >> a week and a half, so I'm enjoying it while it lasts.)
>
> > �Are we going to get to see the Wedding pictures?
> > �What about the photos from the stag party?
>
> Unfortunately, this is just moving in with my sweetie for a couple of
> months between graduation and the start of the postdoc. �No wedding
> pictures until we're living continuously on the same side of the
> Mississippi. �Two more years, tops, if the academic market improves.
> (Solving 2-body problems is no fun at all.)
If you're studying for a math or physics exam, please stop reading
NOW.
.
How about:
If there were 1000 alleles for hands, then there would be lots of
people
walking around with various hand designs:
- 2, 3, ... 25 fingers.
- 2 or 3 thumbs
- 1 to 5 joints per finger.
- fingernails on pads of fingers, or doubles or none.
- claws, sometimes retractable
etc.
People with different types of hands would have different DNA at
one particular location on their genome. Between them Adam and
Eve could have carried genes for only 4 varieties of hands at
that location.
No need to explain the immune system except to say that lots
of variety is good if you need to fight rapidly mutating viruses.
Garamond Lethe
Dissertation defense. I have enough published (and publishable) work
that it's largely a formality --- my adviser wouldn't let me defend
if he wasn't certain that I would succeed. Still, I'm interested to
see what the committee comes up with. (While I'm moving in just
a few days, the defense will be held sometime early next year.)
<snip>
Does that actually work, though? (We really need a creationist to
experiment on. It's difficult trying to imagine how they think.)
Let me think about this some more after I've gotten some shuteye.
Paul J Gans
[snip]
Good luck to you both! And may you stop being separated by
the Mississippi soon!
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ye Old One
You could divert the river so you are both on the same side.
[snip]
--
Bob.
Friar Broccoli
.
> Let me think about this some more after I've gotten some shuteye.
Genesis 6-4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when
the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children
to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Garamond Lethe
Ok, you've lost me. I think "alleles for hands" abstracts away a bit
too much. There's a better mapping for "alleles for eye color", but
then there are only 4 possibilities there. Not sure where you're going
with this, sorry....
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
.
.
I thought your "Does that actually work, though?" was asking:
Do creationists have a possible counter-argument to the too
many alleles in the immune system to have come from Adam and
Eve argument.
One possible reply would be added genetic material from the
Nephilim (sometimes translated as Giants, but possibly some
kind of Angel) as quoted above.
The "and also afterward" appears to leave open the possibility
that they may have been around after the flood - so Noah and
his sons might not have been a bottle-neck either.
> I think "alleles for hands" abstracts away a bit too much.
> There's a better mapping for "alleles for eye color", but then
> there are only 4 possibilities there. Not sure where you're
> going with this, sorry....
In my experience none of this makes the tiniest bit of
difference. Creationists can either think and listen or they
cannot.
If they can think, a very few arguments like the time required
for light to travel from distant galaxies, a clear description
of Archaeopteryx, a Trilobite or too and maybe the derived
characteristics of bats and birds will quickly throw them back
on their heels. Sometimes you need to explain that there are
multiple radio active decay dating methods.
If you have reached a discussion of alleles, you are not
talking to a creationist who can be reasoned with.