Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
Richard Clayton
topic: "The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a
common ancestor." I will take the position of the affirmative, while Ray
will attempt to disprove the claim. Please do not post to this thread
unless you are one of the two debaters. (Feel free to create a "peanut
gallery" thread if you feel the need.) And now, let the debate begin...
The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a common
ancestor. Modern biology defines "clades" to include or exclude species
based on shared morphology and degree of relation. Cladistically
speaking, humans are a member of the hominids (family Hominidae), which
includes chimps, as well as orangutans, gorillas, and many extinct
humanlike species, such as Homo habilis and the australopithecines.
This is not an arbitrary placement: Facts point toward a common
ancestry of humans and the other great apes. The similarity in gross
morphology alone suggests a common ancestor, but external similarity
itself is not sufficient; to make a better case we have to go under the
skin, so to speak, and find common structures that are unlikely to be
shared if humans are not related to other apes. Perhaps the most famous
example of similarity to chimps is the atrophied "tailbone" structure
(which is actually several fused bones). This shared vestigial organ
suggests that chimps and men share an ancestor possessing developed
tails, but that the tails were strongly atrophied before our last common
ancestor. (And occasionally, humans are born with an atavistic external
tail-- sometimes quite well developed, including functional articulation
of vertebrae that are normally fused.) In other words, not only do both
species lack external tails, but the vestigial structures left over from
ancestors with tails are the same.
Similarly, the plantaris tendon in the leg aids monkeys in grasping and
climbing. In humans, it is so badly atrophied as to be utterly useless.
As many as 30% of men and women are born with the plantaris tendon
completely absent-- and its absence (or presence) is so insignificant as
to go unnoticed. And, like us, the plantaris tendon is significantly
atrophied in chimps, and often absent altogether.
Genetic evidence is even more compelling. This is especially true of
genes that are not only "broken," but broken in the same way both in
humans and other apes. One notorious example is the inability of humans
to synthesize vitamin C (alias citric acid or ascorbic acid). Virtually
all mammals can manufacture their own; apes cannot. (Lucky us, we're in
the tiny handful of mammals capable of suffering from scurvy.)
Interestingly, our DNA encodes a process for synthesizing ascorbic
acid, but one key gene is inactive. Such "pseudogenes" carry the
information for manufacturing proteins, but are switched off. This
suggests, again, that all great apes (including humans) had an ancestor
capable of making its own vitamin C. That capability was lost when it
was no longer selected for-- but all of its descendants, including us,
still carry the inactive gene.
Likewise, the DNA of all species carries endogenous retroviruses--
viral "hitchhikers" that insert themselves into a host's genetics. If
the virus writes its coding to a gamete (sex cell), then the "scar" will
be inherited by all of the host's descendants. Humans share at least
seven such instances of viral scarring with chimpanzees; this is
regarded as a clear indicator of relation among species, and humans and
chimps are no exception.
There's quite a bit more indicating shared ancestry with chimpanzees,
but in the interest of a short and accessible opening to the debate,
I'll leave off here. Please remember that any scientific alternative has
to explain the data at least as well as the existing theory. I look
forward to your response.
Ave atque vale,
Richard Clayton
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Richard Clayton
catshark
<recZIGl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> It's been a week. Shall I cue the crickets?
That would be a lot easier to accomplish than to clue the Ray.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
Bill Hudson
<chirp, chirp, chirrrrp!
shane
> It's been a week. Shall I cue the crickets?
With apologies to Monty Python:
"Brave Raymond M ran away.
Bravely ran away away....
When Danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave Raymond M turned about
And gallantly chickened out..
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Raymond M!
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge..."
And i predict he will protest just as much about the truth of this
situation as did the original brave Sir Robin.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
wizo...@hotmail.com
17th. You could perhaps wait until he at least resurfaces somewhere on
the group.
Richard Clayton
> Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>
>> It's been a week. Shall I cue the crickets?
>
>
> With apologies to Monty Python:
>
> "Brave Raymond M ran away.
No!
> Bravely ran away away....
I didn't!
> When Danger reared its ugly head,
I never did!
> He bravely turned his tail and fled
> Yes brave Raymond M turned about
> And gallantly chickened out..
Lies! I never!
(&c)
Richard Clayton
He stated that he has "lots of time to respond" on "Thursdays, Fridays,
and most Saturdays." He certainly didn't lack for posting time in the
immediate past; I show nearly 300 posts in the last month. Now, quite
suddenly, he's grown silent. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it
is certainly suggestive in some circumstances. At the very least, he
could have posted a quick message explaining why he was unable to respond.
It's not to late for Mr. Martinez to reply, but I feel justified in
making a sardonic comment on a very clear pattern. The typical
creationist MO is to vanish from a debate without comment.
AC
Richard Clayton <recZIGl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> wizo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> To be fair, it doesn't seem as though he has posted here since the
>> 17th. You could perhaps wait until he at least resurfaces somewhere on
>> the group.
>
> He stated that he has "lots of time to respond" on "Thursdays, Fridays,
> and most Saturdays." He certainly didn't lack for posting time in the
> immediate past; I show nearly 300 posts in the last month. Now, quite
> suddenly, he's grown silent. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it
> is certainly suggestive in some circumstances. At the very least, he
> could have posted a quick message explaining why he was unable to respond.
> It's not to late for Mr. Martinez to reply, but I feel justified in
> making a sardonic comment on a very clear pattern. The typical
> creationist MO is to vanish from a debate without comment.
I have this odd feeling that I've seen this somewhere before...
Dana Tweedy
"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd96m51.2f8....@strawberry.fields.forever...
No, you've seen it Nowhere, Man.
DJT
>
> --
> mightym...@hotmail.com
>
AC
Heh, maybe I should just hang out in some caves in Africa. That is if I can
find any.
Von R. Smith
[cue obnoxious music]
Wake up and see caverns
Only in Kenya
Come to Kenya; we've got caverns!
[/music]
Augray
On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:35:02 GMT, Richard Clayton
<recZIGl...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:<q2vhe.1923$pb1.1331@trnddc08>:
Ray Martinez
> This is a thread for Ray Martinez and Richard Clayton to debate this
> topic: "The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a
> common ancestor." I will take the position of the affirmative, while Ray
> will attempt to disprove the claim.
RAY MARTINEZ:
The topic title contains an assumption that predetermines the
conclusion: Humans did indeed evolve from an animal.
The title should read: "Do naturalist explanations of scientific data
support hominid evolution ?"
Answer: By any objective criteria - no.
IF the universal God of the Bible exists how could they ?
Naturalism is known today as "scientism" and these philosophies mandate
that all evidence and conclusions for the supernatural is not evidence
or rational. In other words, the methodologies of naturalism eliminate
all data which harms its number one starting assumption: non-existence
of a universal Deity. Of course, the naturalist claims Divine
neutrality but this is false. Naturalism a priori EXCLUDES the Divine
under the false pretense of neutrality. The existence or non-existence
of the universal God of the Bible is the central eternal issue of
humanity, and to assert the impossible and ridiculous position of
neutrality only harms your perceived honesty - which in turn instantly
casts scientific data explanations to be unreliable and prejudicial
towards the biases of the naturalist worldview.
The Bible explains the deliberate previously made decision to exclude
God as a unpardonable sin which triggers the wrath of God. Romans says
God demands two things:
1) Recognition AS Creator.
2) Genuine thanks.
Number 2 above and its sincerity determines the veracity of number 1,
of which only God can determine who sees the heart.
But nowhere does naturalism/scientism/ToE credit God AS the Creator.
The theory is built on one continually claimed fact: natural blind
unintelligent processes are responsible for all life as we know it -
the ultra-intelligent God of Genesis and Romans and all His sudden
creation claims was not involved.
http://bevets.com/equotesm.htm#M
Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University
QUOTE:
"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and
under which they marched. When Hull claimed that the Darwinians did
not totally agree with each other, even over essentials? he
overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing
was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a
natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that
the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes
and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called
Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of
Darwins theories. One Long Argument (1991) p.99" END QUOTE
The whole revelation of the claimed eternal word of God as written in
the Bible makes one immutable declaration: The Deity is the Creator.
The advent of Darwinism was held together by one universal belief: The
Deity of the Bible is not the Creator and life did not originate from
Him. Hence, the dishonest Divine neutral claims of Rational Enquiry and
Methodological Naturalism exposed to really be exclusionary as was
obvious.
Romans says God created the world in such a way that it could be
plainly deduced by the naked eye that a Creator made it. (1:20)
Darwinists assert the abandonment of God as Creator was based on the
evidence observed in the natural world grossly contradicting the claims
of Genesis.
Romans says the real reason (God sees the heart) was a pernicious
desire not to come under the perceived encroachments and authority of
the Creator. (1:21)
Charles Darwin and company were theists who became apostates. They knew
God was the Creator "for God has shown it to them." (Romans 1:19)
Romans says the conscious decision to do away with God
(naturalism/scientism) triggers His wrath manifested via a "darkening"
or as the best theologians put it "an insight removal" - the removal of
God-sense. Effects of this penalty is the belief that living things
originate from other living things instead of God.
Romans 1:21,23,25
"Because that, when they knew God (Darwin and company), they glorified
him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (apostate beliefs
ensue)
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an ICON made like
to DEAD ANTHROPON, and to birds, and QUADRUPEDS, and REPTILES.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen"
The capitalized words I changed to their literal translation from the
Greek.
The icons of evolution in Romans 1 written in 58 AD = proof the Bible
is the eternal word of God. This stunning inescapable fact falsifies
human evolution claims in its tracks because of WHEN Romans was written
and what it says matching what Darwinists claim as facts which are then
offered to falsify the existence of the God of the Bible.
The four icons listed = what Darwinists assert we originated from at
some point.
Dead Anthropon: alleged transitional hominid fossils.
Verse 25 above: "Who changed the truth of God (that He is the Creator)
into a lie (that these dead alleged transitional fossils are our
origin."
These Romans verses fit like a glove onto Darwinism.
The context is the 18th verse and the wrath of God which comes to bear
upon persons who "ungodliness" = deliberately ignore God, and
"unrighteousness" = persons who reject the righteousness of faith which
is the subject of the book of Romans.
Who in our society rejects and ignores the Person of God and His
revealed method to relate to Him (faith) ?
The arguments above indict the naturalist/atheist/Darwinist.
Their own admissions do the same.
Genesis (textual evidence) remains true, protected by the objective
facts of Romans, of which clearly correspond with objects in reality:
The Darwinists/macro-evolutionists.
Therefore, the Darwinian explanation of scientific data will always and
perfectly reflect the penalty of Romans 1 as is seen below:
Richard Clayton:
> The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a common
> ancestor.
Ray Martinez:
My next post will address the remainder/majority of the Clayton text.
All theology in this post is the exclusive original academic product of
Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University. All errors belong to me - Ray
Martinez.
RM
Richard Clayton
I should hope so, since you did not answer a single point of my
original post.
> All theology in this post is the exclusive original academic product of
> Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University. All errors belong to me - Ray
> Martinez.
>
> RM
>
--
Ray Martinez
my first post in reply to his/initial message of this debate:
RICHARD CLAYTON:
I should hope so, since you did not answer a single point of my
original post.
RAY MARTINEZ:
That one lone sentence amounts to an admission of the inability to
refute.
My first post placed the persons advocating Darwinism (the belief that
living things originate from other living things instead of ultimately
from God) and their evidence to be the recipients of the wrath of God
as unfolded in Romans chapter 1.
The Bible explains Darwinism as a penalty from God for denying Him
Creator status. The Romans chapter acknowledges the existence of the
four icons of evolution, (verse 23) and "dead anthropon" which are
hominid fossils. Because Romans was written in 58 AD this fact makes
the explanation stunning prophecy fulfillment - proof that the Bible is
the eternal word of God and that He foresaw the scientific attempt to
erase His Creatorship.
The acknowledgement of the existence of dead anthropon/hominid fossils
exists in the context of God's wrath, in other words: its a penalty,
its what persons who deny God credit as Creator MUST believe.
The collective existence of Darwinism proves the wrath of God penalty
declarations in Romans 1.
The lack of any credible objective evidence existing apart from the
starting presuppositions of Darwinism spectacularly corroborates these
Divine penalty claims coming to bear upon persons who subscribe to
methodologies of determinig truth which exclude the origin of all truth
- the universal God of the Bible.
________________________________
"In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document
summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
of the living world.'
Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
evolutionist).(1)
Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
(macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
The Academy quote above is kind of tricky but at the same time I find
it objective in that the wording places alleged human evolution to be a
fact based upon "the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the
rest of the living world." In other words, hominid evolution is safely
assumed based on the facts of microevolution. The quote clearly
downgrades human evolution certainty to reside as assumed fact based
upon other facts.
The most extraordinary claim of all time - human evolution, in the
Academy quote, is not given top billing as a fact so voluminously
supported as not needing any other set of claimed facts to prop it up.
This is why I find the quote objective. Interpreted, the quote says:
living things evolved and even though human evolution evidence is a
diminutive paucity it is nontheless true.
"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it
cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are
an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple
terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.
It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
that is the really clever part.
When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
with this final part.
This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic
homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point;
that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution
in the fossil record." [source: Richard Milton (atheist), "Shattering
Myths of Darwinism", pages 152-3, 1997]
The Milton quote can be likened to a zoom-in close-up of the
Academy/Miller quote explaining, (as I did) that human evolution claims
to factuality are largely assumed based on other claimed contorted
facts.
But naturalist philosophy and their theory HAS to be correct because
the textual evidence of Genesis is not an option. This necessity, in
turn, confirms the reality of the Romans 1 penalty/wrath of God in full
operation.
RICHARD CLAYTON:
The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a common
ancestor. Modern biology defines "clades" to include or exclude species
based on shared morphology and degree of relation. Cladistically
speaking, humans are a member of the hominids (family Hominidae), which
includes chimps, as well as orangutans, gorillas, and many extinct
humanlike species, such as Homo habilis and the australopithecines.
CLAYTON:
The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a common
ancestor.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Your explanation of the scientific data concludes for the resolve. This
was expected.
What is the basis to conclude that modern humans and chimpanzees share
a common ancestor ?
CLAYTON:
The similarity in gross morphology alone suggests a common ancestor
MARTINEZ:
We have an assertion which rests entirely upon similarity.
Generally, everyone agrees that ape bones and anatomy resembles genus
Homo. At issue is what do these similarities mean ?
If you are a Darwinist - with a non-creationist worldview, the
similarity suggests that modern humans evolved.
To the naturalist - the God of the Bible as Creator is not an option,
so the explanation of observed similarity between ape bones and anatomy
matching modern human is of no surprise and asserted to be scientific
evidence in favor of the resolve. But from the Creationist viewpoint,
these same similarities support one Almighty Creator working from a
common design and are explained as doing just that.
Does identifying similarity constitute evidence for the resolve ?
Answer: It is not a preponderance of evidence for the resolve since
the observance of similarity can just as easily be interpreted to
support the Creationist view. And my opponent has objectively come to
the same conclusion:
CLAYTON:
but external similarity itself is not sufficient;
to make a better case we have to go under the
skin, so to speak, and find common structures that are unlikely to be
shared if humans are not related to other apes.
MARTINEZ:
My opponent and his argument ASSUMES similarity and commonality
supports the resolve. May I remind that my opponent is trying to prove
modern humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor - hominid
evolution.
We have the assumption that the resolve is fact based upon
similarity/commonality. How do these facts, to whatever degree that
they be true, prove or even reasonably support, that modern humans
slowly and gradually over millions of years evolved from an ape
ancestor ?
Answer: Without the needs of naturalist presuppositions they don't. In
other words, philosophy is the driving mechanism which assumes as fact
for the resolve wholly based on the evidence of observed
similarity/commonality, which is retrospectively interpreted faithfully
to support the starting assumptions that modern humans did evolve.
Assumptions are not evidence, but are so tightly intermingled, I have
spent the majority of my attack separating them from the actual
evidence.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" page 216 [2000]
"Neither Huxley nor Darwin believed that living apes were our
ancestors....the ape to human icon was simply a restatement of
materialistic philosphy. It's form preceded any fossil evidence of
ancestor-descendant relationships, and it made with whatever evidence
happened to be at hand - in this case, SIMILARITIES to living apes.
Fossils discovered later were just plugged into this preexisting
framework." END QUOTE
As we see alleged human evolution idea was originally based on nothing
but similarity based entirely on naturalism philosophy.
"In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of
Life", page 32, by Henry Gee [1999] (chief science writer, "Nature"
magazine)
"New fossils are fitted into this pre-existing story. We call these new
discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and
descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it
really is, a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped
to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of
human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated
point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all
float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." END QUOTE
Gee is a cladist and assumes human evolution is a fact, but he is
obviously objective enough to admit that hominid evolution exists
within a preexisting story, human invent, with all its prejudices.
The Gee quote is also found in the Wells book but not on the same page
or chapter.
One may wonder: "How can you use the quote of a person (Gee), who
wrote to support human evolution - against human evolution ?"
I already stated above that Gee assumes human evolution a fact. His
quote amounts to a brutally objective description supporting my
previously made arguments above that the actual evidence for human
evolution resides in massive worldview assumptions which Gee calls a
"preexisting story". The Gee quote, and the Wells quote, and the Milton
and Academy quotes, all show alleged hominid evolution to need massive
amounts of biased philosophy for the assumed/scant evidence to have any
meaning. Gee's objective admission, while honest, does not support his
starting assumption.
The most extraordinary claim of all time (human evolution) is actually
based on lopsided philosophy asserting similarity is evidence of
morphological change over millions of years, taking the place of vast
amounts of non-existing physical data demonstrating the claim.
My point:
Strip away the preexisting "story" (Gee), "framework" (Wells), that
being the assumption of human evolution and what is left is data that
has no clear objective value supporting the resolve.
Clayton is engaged in what is known as rhetoric, which is the misuse of
logic. Lawyers are trained rhetoricians to win cases for their
clients. Rhetoric doesn't care about the truth - it cares about
twisting the truth for a desired conclusion.
CLAYTON:
Homo habilis and the australopithecines.
MARTINEZ:
Homo habilis:
"Consisting only of a lower jaw with teeth, a collarbone, a finger
bone, and some small fragments of skull. For the first time, a new
human species was to be described on the basis of teeth and fragments
alone...and the association of the bones as those of a single
individual was conjectural.
The find has been reevaluated and suggested that one of the hand bones
is a piece of vertebra, two more bones belong to a tree dwelling
monkey, and six others from some unspecified nonhominid. Homo habilis
is human - not a missing link and is calculated to have had a small
brain - perhaps half the size of the average modern human. Dr. A.J.
White pointed out, the habilines were also small in stature, so their
brains were not small in relation to their body size, rather like
modern pygmies. Darwinists have overlooked the fact that only a few
hundred miles to the east, in the forests of Zaire, are the Mbuti
people who are on average only 4'- 6" tall, and compare in every way
with Homo habilis."(2)
Australopithecus was established as an extinct ape in 1954 by the
comparitive anatomy research of zoologist Solly Zuckerman.(3)
Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology at the
University of Western Australia, conducted a computer analysis of
Australopithecine fossils. Oxnard, (a Darwinist) concluded in his 1984
book, "The Order of Man", that the fossils represent an "extinct ape
and is unconnected with humankind's ancestry".(4)
"Lucy", alive via museum resurrections, give her humanlike hands and
feet in defiance of the facts. How did a tree dwelling ape go about the
business of a tree dwelling ape with human hands and feet ?
Answer: The iconography of deception attempting to factualize that
which does not exist nor could exist. Apes cannot survive with inferior
human hands and feet in the wild. The existence of Lucy as such only
further casts the assumption of human evolution to be the wrath of God
for denying Him Creator credit.
So much (human evolution) based on so little (scraps and assertions
that similarity is evidence for the resolve).
I will wait for my opponent to respond before answering the DNA/genetic
aspect of his claims.
1) Miller, "Finding Darwin's God", page 166, [1999] quoting: "Teaching
About Evolution and the Nature of Science", page 16
2) Milton, "Shattering Myths Darwinism", pages 206-7 [1997] quoting
White, "Wonderfully Made", [1989]
3) Ibid, page 204, quoting Zuckerman, [1954] "Correlation of changes in
the evolution of the higher primates" in Huxley, Hardy, and Ford (eds).
"Evolution as a Process."
4) Ibid, page 204.
josephus
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Read the one sentence (my opponent Richard Clayton) said in response to
> my first post in reply to his/initial message of this debate:
>
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> I should hope so, since you did not answer a single point of my
> original post.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> That one lone sentence amounts to an admission of the inability to
> refute.
>
> My first post placed the persons advocating Darwinism (the belief that
> living things originate from other living things instead of ultimately
> from God) and their evidence to be the recipients of the wrath of God
> as unfolded in Romans chapter 1.
>
My poor little King Jams bible does not mention evolution anywhere but
con men can claim it does. Ray Martinez is a con man. That means you
can't believe anything Ray says.
> The Bible explains Darwinism as a penalty from God for denying Him
> Creator status. The Romans chapter acknowledges the existence of the
> four icons of evolution, (verse 23) and "dead anthropon" which are
> hominid fossils. Because Romans was written in 58 AD this fact makes
> the explanation stunning prophecy fulfillment - proof that the Bible is
> the eternal word of God and that He foresaw the scientific attempt to
> erase His Creatorship.
>
<sshnipp>
lots of Ray lies and deceptions.
josephus
Ray Martinez
You fucking asshole piece of shit coward.
This is a CLOSED topic but your rage made you ignore what everyone else
respects.
Now, I suppose I will have your guilt shifted upon me for blowtorching
your stupid ass as the violator of the rule will undoubtedly be held
less detestable than the person pointing out the wrong.
Your kind will undoubtedly be more upset with my choice of words than
your inexcusable violation of this closed topic.
As for your content: Read all my posts in this thread as I unfold
WHERE in the Bible I quote.
Fuck you,
Ray Martinez
Richard Forrest
My word!
I think you have just exposed more about yourself than you intended.
What a credit you are to your faith.
Whatever that may be.
RF
Ray Martinez
I would expect other Darwinists to keep the animals in line here.
The presence of multiple Darwinist posts and the failure of any
responsible third party from stepping in to enforce the Rule shows the
ad hom nature of the Darwinists and their implacable rage.
Why am I surprised ?
Asserting man evolved from an ape is the most obscene expession of
anger ever manifested - the depths atheists will go on their crusade to
legitimize their worldview.
These posts in violation of the Rule, to any objective observer, show
how cut these opponents are by my posts.
I demand you respect the Rule here and post your rants in the Peanut
Gallery. Failure to do so proves my point that you are cut by my
arguments.
Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton
> Read the one sentence (my opponent Richard Clayton) said in response to
> my first post in reply to his/initial message of this debate:
>
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> I should hope so, since you did not answer a single point of my
> original post.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> That one lone sentence amounts to an admission of the inability to
> refute.
No, it is an "admission" that you cut away my entire post-- except for
one paragraph and one sentence. That is hardly what I would call a sound
rebuttal. You could have just said "NUH UH!!" and saved several
kilobytes of bandwidth.
> My first post placed the persons advocating Darwinism (the belief that
> living things originate from other living things instead of ultimately
> from God) and their evidence to be the recipients of the wrath of God
> as unfolded in Romans chapter 1.
>
> The Bible explains Darwinism as a penalty from God for denying Him
> Creator status. The Romans chapter acknowledges the existence of the
> four icons of evolution, (verse 23) and "dead anthropon" which are
> hominid fossils. Because Romans was written in 58 AD this fact makes
> the explanation stunning prophecy fulfillment - proof that the Bible is
> the eternal word of God and that He foresaw the scientific attempt to
> erase His Creatorship.
>
> The acknowledgement of the existence of dead anthropon/hominid fossils
> exists in the context of God's wrath, in other words: its a penalty,
> its what persons who deny God credit as Creator MUST believe.
>
> The collective existence of Darwinism proves the wrath of God penalty
> declarations in Romans 1.
Unfortunately for you, I clearly stated, both in my original challenge
to you and in the first paragraph of my first post, that the subject of
the debate was the scientific evidence supporting the common ancestry of
humans and other apes. Your theology's stance on "Darwinism" simply is
not relevant. Likewise, no religious text, no matter how holy, is
scientific evidence. That simply is not how science works. (Hint:
Science works the same way for Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and atheists.)
> The lack of any credible objective evidence existing apart from the
> starting presuppositions of Darwinism spectacularly corroborates these
> Divine penalty claims coming to bear upon persons who subscribe to
> methodologies of determinig truth which exclude the origin of all truth
> - the universal God of the Bible.
That is a falsehood. I included several paragraphs of evidence
considered both credible and objective by mainstream science-- you
snipped them away without comment.
> "In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document
> summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
>
> 'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
> It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
> things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
> not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
> of the living world.'
>
> Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
> evolutionist).(1)
>
> Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
> at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
> (macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
> life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
If by "Darwinists" you mean "nearly all biologists in existence today,"
you are right.
> The Academy quote above is kind of tricky but at the same time I find
> it objective in that the wording places alleged human evolution to be a
> fact based upon "the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the
> rest of the living world." In other words, hominid evolution is safely
> assumed based on the facts of microevolution. The quote clearly
> downgrades human evolution certainty to reside as assumed fact based
> upon other facts.
>
> The most extraordinary claim of all time - human evolution, in the
> Academy quote, is not given top billing as a fact so voluminously
> supported as not needing any other set of claimed facts to prop it up.
> This is why I find the quote objective. Interpreted, the quote says:
> living things evolved and even though human evolution evidence is a
> diminutive paucity it is nontheless true.
And yet, rather than post rebut what I wrote, you snipped it away and
simply claimed "No it isn't!"
Here you launch into a "quote mine" rather than address the evidence I
posted. Why?
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a common
> ancestor. Modern biology defines "clades" to include or exclude species
> based on shared morphology and degree of relation. Cladistically
> speaking, humans are a member of the hominids (family Hominidae), which
>
> includes chimps, as well as orangutans, gorillas, and many extinct
> humanlike species, such as Homo habilis and the australopithecines.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> The scientific evidence indicates humans and chimpanzees share a common
> ancestor.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Your explanation of the scientific data concludes for the resolve. This
> was expected.
>
> What is the basis to conclude that modern humans and chimpanzees share
> a common ancestor ?
If you had not snipped away most of my post, it would be right here.
Although personally I consider endogenous retroviral insertions to be
among the most convincing.
> CLAYTON:
>
> The similarity in gross morphology alone suggests a common ancestor
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> We have an assertion which rests entirely upon similarity.
>
> Generally, everyone agrees that ape bones and anatomy resembles genus
> Homo. At issue is what do these similarities mean ?
>
> If you are a Darwinist - with a non-creationist worldview, the
> similarity suggests that modern humans evolved.
>
> To the naturalist - the God of the Bible as Creator is not an option
This is a lie. Many scientists are Christian. However, even most
Christians understand that the evidence indicates that God did not
simply "poof" everything into existence, ex nihilo, six thousand years ago.
> so the explanation of observed similarity between ape bones and anatomy
> matching modern human is of no surprise and asserted to be scientific
> evidence in favor of the resolve. But from the Creationist viewpoint,
> these same similarities support one Almighty Creator working from a
> common design and are explained as doing just that.
>
> Does identifying similarity constitute evidence for the resolve ?
>
> Answer: It is not a preponderance of evidence for the resolve since
> the observance of similarity can just as easily be interpreted to
> support the Creationist view. And my opponent has objectively come to
> the same conclusion:
What is your explanation for the plantaris tendon, then? Remember, an
alternative theory has to explain the data at least as well as the
current theory, and it must make testable predictions distinct from the
theory it seeks to replace.
> CLAYTON:
>
> but external similarity itself is not sufficient;
>
> to make a better case we have to go under the
> skin, so to speak, and find common structures that are unlikely to be
> shared if humans are not related to other apes.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> My opponent and his argument ASSUMES similarity and commonality
> supports the resolve. May I remind that my opponent is trying to prove
> modern humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor - hominid
> evolution.
>
> We have the assumption that the resolve is fact based upon
> similarity/commonality. How do these facts, to whatever degree that
> they be true, prove or even reasonably support, that modern humans
> slowly and gradually over millions of years evolved from an ape
> ancestor ?
>
> Answer: Without the needs of naturalist presuppositions they don't. In
> other words, philosophy is the driving mechanism which assumes as fact
> for the resolve wholly based on the evidence of observed
> similarity/commonality, which is retrospectively interpreted faithfully
> to support the starting assumptions that modern humans did evolve.
There are no "naturalist presuppositions" hidden in modern science,
except the idea that evidence itself is meaningful. I suppose it is
possible that all of existence is merely a dream, but that does not lead
to any productive science.
> Assumptions are not evidence, but are so tightly intermingled, I have
> spent the majority of my attack separating them from the actual
> evidence.
>
> Wells, "Icons of Evolution" page 216 [2000]
>
> "Neither Huxley nor Darwin believed that living apes were our
> ancestors....
Neither do mainstream biologists today. We share a common ancestor with
apes, but no modern species of ape is our ancestor. Likewise, you and I
share a common ancestor, Ray, but I am not your direct ancestor, nor you
mine.
> the ape to human icon was simply a restatement of
> materialistic philosphy. It's form preceded any fossil evidence of
> ancestor-descendant relationships
And yet that fossil evidence was found, precisely as the theory of
evolution predicted it would! A prediction made and confirmed is
generally considered to be excellent evidence that a theory is correct.
How does your theory explain the physical similarities? How does it
explain the genetic similarities? Remember, it has to make testable
predictions of its own. Saying "evolution is wrong!" is not a scientific
theory.
> Clayton is engaged in what is known as rhetoric, which is the misuse of
> logic. Lawyers are trained rhetoricians to win cases for their
> clients. Rhetoric doesn't care about the truth - it cares about
> twisting the truth for a desired conclusion.
Actually, rhetoric is the use of logic, period. Particular in the
context of oration or discourse. So if you are accusing me of being
logical in my discussion of evolution, well, I guess I am guilty as charged.
This is absurd. You snipped away paragraphs of text on the subject and
replaced it with five words. I do not feel you are debating in good
faith. I ask that you go back and address my points, in context. If you
need help setting up a mail reading application, you are welcome to
email me privately, and I will be happy to assist you. (Remember, you
will need to remove the "ZIG" letters from my address before responding.)
I await a new post with a substantive reply to the points I raised--
and preferably a predictive, testable theory that explains those points
better than the theory of evolution. Thank you very much.
> 1) Miller, "Finding Darwin's God", page 166, [1999] quoting: "Teaching
> About Evolution and the Nature of Science", page 16
>
> 2) Milton, "Shattering Myths Darwinism", pages 206-7 [1997] quoting
> White, "Wonderfully Made", [1989]
>
> 3) Ibid, page 204, quoting Zuckerman, [1954] "Correlation of changes in
> the evolution of the higher primates" in Huxley, Hardy, and Ford (eds).
> "Evolution as a Process."
>
> 4) Ibid, page 204.
EB
(snip)
> Asserting man evolved from an ape is the most obscene expession of
> anger ever manifested...
Gee so much anger from scientists, athropologists and biologists for the
last 150 years or more. Evidence too. My my.
Richard Clayton
not read your reply until Wednesday morning, and Wednesday night is one
of my "game nights." Thank you for your patience.
Ray Martinez
Unfortunately for you, I clearly stated, both in my original challenge
to you and in the first paragraph of my first post, that the subject of
the debate was the scientific evidence supporting the common ancestry
of
humans and other apes. Your theology's stance on "Darwinism" simply is
not relevant. Likewise, no religious text, no matter how holy, is
scientific evidence. That simply is not how science works. (Hint:
Science works the same way for Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and
atheists.)
RAY MARTINEZ:
I agree that you did originally state and offer the debate to be about
the scientific evidence for or against the resolve.
With this established, you are wondering why I have strayed into
theological evidence ?
Answer: I needed to at least frame the debate into what I believe is
the proper context.
The theological evidence and arguments were unexpected and not on the
agreed table of debate content.
May I offer a statement:
"The theological content of my posts is beyond the agreed topic of this
debate.
My opponent, and his arguments are not harmed by these "outlaw"
arguments." END STATEMENT
Please feel free to suggest and implement any remedy that you feel is
due you.
Richard:
As per your offer I am going to email you before I proceed any further.
sincerely,
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
> starting presuppositions of Darwinism spectacularly corroborates these
> Divine penalty claims coming to bear upon persons who subscribe to
> methodologies of determinig truth which exclude the origin of all truth
> - the universal God of the Bible.
RICHARD CLAYTON:
That is a falsehood. I included several paragraphs of evidence
considered both credible and objective by mainstream science-- you
snipped them away without comment.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Your response above was to the very last statement in my preface !
My actual reply to your scientific evidence THEN followed, which makes
the comment above a genuine non-sequitur.
You have made a mistake - no problem.
> "In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document
> summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
> 'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
> It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
> things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
> not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
> of the living world.'
> Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
> evolutionist).(1)
> Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
> at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
> (macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
> life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
CLAYTON:
If by "Darwinists" you mean "nearly all biologists in existence today,"
you are right.
MARTINEZ:
This one sentence reply to my text above is a hand-wave. My use of the
Academy quote (also endorsed by Miller) was to substantiate that
evolutionary authorities admit that hominid evolution is largely
assumed fact based upon other claimed facts. In other words, human
evolution itself is not well supported but is dependant upon other
alleged facts. This fact, which is utterly crucial to understand, IS
NOT how supposed human evolution is portrayed to society at large. You
and others are claiming human evolution is a fact based upon massive
convincing first-hand evidence. I simply produce a fact (human
evolution assumed true based on other facts) which exposes your claim
to be a pep rally exaggeration.
Fact: My use of the Academy/Miller quote; evidence that human
evolution is admitted to be dependant upon other facts.
My point: The most extraordinary claim of all time is ASSUMED true
largely based on other claimed facts. But human evolution has the
reputation that it is voluminously proven based on massive evidence =
on-going deception ordinary evos propagate. Assumptions are not
evidence. At this point I say the needs of the naturalist erase the
fact that alleged human evolution is based upon other facts, and when I
employed the Academy/Miller quote I complimented these entities for
their honesty and objectivity.
But you felt obliged to only point out that nearly all biologists today
are Darwinists. This is an appeal to the "crowd is right" "safety in
numbers" illogical fallacies.
The Bible explains that the majority/crowd is always wrong, and in this
case the majority of these biologists are undoubtedly atheists who are
obviously in rebellion to God. The Bible says the whole world is in
rebellion to God so biologists shoudn't feel slighted.
CLAYTON:
And yet, rather than post rebut what I wrote, you snipped it away and
simply claimed "No it isn't!"
MARTINEZ:
This comment seems to have no relevance to anything I posted. I will
await your clarification.
CLAYTON:
Here you launch into a "quote mine" rather than address the evidence I
posted. Why ?
MARTINEZ:
I did not quote mine.
If I did you would have exposed it, because you didn't, I must conclude
you are unable to refute or address. At this point, in my reply, that
you are responding to, I am framing the context of my rebuttal to your
arguments and evidence. Instead, you have deliberately jumped the gun
falsely characterizing my reply as evading your evidence.
> so the explanation of observed similarity between ape bones and anatomy
> matching modern human is of no surprise and asserted to be scientific
> evidence in favor of the resolve. But from the Creationist viewpoint,
> these same similarities support one Almighty Creator working from a
> common design and are explained as doing just that.
> Does identifying similarity constitute evidence for the resolve ?
> Answer: It is not a preponderance of evidence for the resolve since
> the observance of similarity can just as easily be interpreted to
> support the Creationist view. And my opponent has objectively come to
> the same conclusion:
CLAYTON:
What is your explanation for the plantaris tendon, then? Remember, an
alternative theory has to explain the data at least as well as the
current theory, and it must make testable predictions distinct from the
theory it seeks to replace.
MARTINEZ:
Your theory is the alternative theory to the claimed facts of sudden
creation in Genesis. According to Genesis, the chief difference between
Adam and every other beast of the field is "ruash" - the breath of God
imparting a soul into him. The undisputed facts of similarity is
explained by Creationism, and similarity is not a prediction because it
is plainly observed. To retrospectively assert your theory makes this
prediction is tantamount to printing a lottery ticket after the numbers
are drawn.
I already said NOBODY disagrees that ape bones and anatomy resembles
modern human. At issue is what do these similarities mean ?
If you say the tendon is common in both chimps and modern humans then I
am assuming this is a fact - I am not challenging it.
In response I say: What does this mean ?
How does this alleged similarity/commonality support the claim that
humans evolved from an ape ancestor over millions of years ?
In other words, you are asserting the identification of
similarity/commonality is evidence that we evolved over millions of
years. This is rhetoric/misuse of logic asserted to be scientific
evidence.
Rhetoric takes facts and draws illogical conclusions. Apes and mankind
both have similar features - that is undeniable. How does this obvious
fact prove the resolve ?
Answer: Only when it is linked to the assumptions of your worldview.
Naturalist worldview ASSUMES the supernatural/Biblical is wrong = very
predictible and of no surprise. Assumptions are not evidence.
What clear objective value does similarity have in proving modern
humans evolved over millions of years ?
Answer: None apart from the well known worldviews of those asserting
as such.
Your argument insists that the mere identification of what anyone can
see for themself constitutes "scientific evidence". This is why the
Academy/Miller quote admitted human evolution is assumed based on other
claimed facts.
The most extraordinary claim of all time is dependant upon the
assumption that similarity/commonality is scientific evidence = weak as
it gets, and the strength of the assumption is driven by the exact same
ratio Genesis is hated.
CLAYTON:
There are no "naturalist presuppositions" hidden in modern science,
except the idea that evidence itself is meaningful. I suppose it is
possible that all of existence is merely a dream, but that does not
lead
to any productive science.
MARTINEZ:
The vast majority of modern science subscribes to Naturalism
philosophies - not a matter of opinion.
These philosophies presuppose supernaturalism to be false and they
ignore and slander all evidence in support = very predictible.
Darwinists only care about making sure Genesis is not seen as true. To
accomplish this evil they assert science has disproven Genesis. In
reality, their interpretations of scientific data disproves Genesis.
But what else could a Darwinist conclude ?
Honest and objective persons know science has proven every major
Biblical claim - only Darwinists assert otherwise.
CLAYTON:
And yet that fossil evidence was found, precisely as the theory of
evolution predicted it would! A prediction made and confirmed is
generally considered to be excellent evidence that a theory is correct.
MARTINEZ:
The Bible predicted your kind would substitute these earthen items to
assert sudden creation false, so this prediction made in 58 AD trumps
yours by a long shot.
Here is what your claim above conspicuously neglects to inform the
reader:
ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of living
creatures, can be fitted into a small box" says Henry Gee, Darwinist,
and chief science writer of Nature Magazine.(1)
In the timespan stated, the alleged evidence, logically, is scant and
not commensurate with anything proven much less well supported or even
reasonably supported. This small box of evidence is also highly
disputed and has no support outside of biased Darwinists.
Let it be reminded that the small box analogy came from a Darwinist and
not a Creationist.
"Several different hominids appear in the fossil record between 3 and 2
million years ago."(2)
This fact says for a period of ONE MILLION YEARS "several" alleged
species are claimed to be known and identified. "Several" is not a
adjective associated with something well supported. The issue is human
evolution - not dust mites, but the most extraordinary claim of all
time is admitted, within the interval stated, to be supported by
"several" different hominid species. Now we plainly see why the
Academy/Miller quote admits that human evolution is ASSUMED based on
other purported facts. The paucity of physical evidence for the most
extraordinary claim of all time continues, but this fact doesn't stop
Darwinists from asserting the evidence is massive = the needs of their
worldview speaking.
"Other hominds discovered as fossils from this interval are less easy
to categorise. In their skeletons they are perhaps more like A.
africanus ... although they tend to have larger brains. The names of
these species - Homo rudolfensus and Homo habilis - show that they
are conventionally regarded as members of our own genus although [...
some researchers suggest...] they may be no closer to modern humans
than are some other extinct hominds."(3) (Henry Gee)
The context of the above quote is the same interval of time: one
million years.
My point:
Henry Gee is a Darwinist/cladist.
Clayton invoked Homo habilis as evidence of a missing link, but even
other Darwinists do not agree.
Human evolution is anything but proven or well supported contrary to
its reputation. Hence, the Academy/Miller quote admitting that human
evolution is assumed based on other claimed facts. I am documenting
gross exaggeration concerning the most important claim of all time. The
exaggeration comes from ordinary evolutionists misrepresenting the
actual evidence and its true volume.
HENRY GEE:
"The failure of bother views of evolution rests, once again, on the
failure to understand that Deep Time cannot sustain scenarios based on
narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is
central to my argument: next time you see a fossil, ask yourself
whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it
could by your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for
certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then, is
futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line
of fossils are claim that they represent a lineage, is not a scientific
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same
validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
not scientific."(4)
Gee believes human evolution is a fact based on the evidence.
His brutally honest and objective quote does not logically support the
most extraordinary claim of all time.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
we have of hominid evolution.
In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
The quote above admits the fossil evidence is "few, rare, and scant" =
terms not associtated with anything proven or even mildly supported.
Why is human evolution touted as "scientific fact based on voluminous
evidence ?"
Answer: Sweetheart exemption driven by the needs of the atheist
worldview.
Again, the Academy/Miller quote is further seen as true and correct:
human evolution assumed true. Assumptions are being substituted for
evidence.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
"In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of
the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned
evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into
her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she
described her "nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area
as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps"
(Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added).
Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he
level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time
renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution
is in the mantra of all paleontologists: "We need more fossils!"
(2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils
are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily
admit that few human fossils have been found."
Again, evolutionary authorities admit the alleged physical evidence
supporting human evolution is a diminutive inventory.
Why is there a paucity of evidence ?
Why is human evolution touted as proven nontheless ?
Because the theory is not true and the degree that it is asserted as
fact when the actual evidence for such an extraordinary claim remains
scant is equal to the degree Genesis is hated.
This paucity of actual fossil evidence by which human evolution is
alleged, yet the hypocritical quickness of the same persons to claim
the Biblical record of ancient Israel is erroneous because of a
purported lack of the same type of physical evidence. Yet the alleged
paucity of physical evidence for ancient Israel and the Exodus is
accepted as evidence against unlike human evolution.
CLAYTON:
This is absurd. You snipped away paragraphs of text on the subject and
replaced it with five words. I do not feel you are debating in good
faith.
MARTINEZ:
This comment appears out of context so I will not even guess as to what
you are talking about. You are being lazy and typing unexplained and
unsubstantiated accusations. Please do the work and if you are correct
I will promptly acknowledge my wrong/errors.
Ray Martinez
1) Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New
History of Life", page 199 [1999]
2) Ibid. page 203
3) Ibid. page 203
4) Ibid. page 114
Ray Martinez
RM
Richard Clayton
> Friendly bump for Richard Clayton.
No "bump" needed, but thanks anyway. I was under the impression you
wanted me to wait for another private email from you before continuing,
but no matter. I shall begin working on my reply immediately.
Richard Clayton
>>The lack of any credible objective evidence existing apart from the
>>starting presuppositions of Darwinism spectacularly corroborates these
>>Divine penalty claims coming to bear upon persons who subscribe to
>>methodologies of determinig truth which exclude the origin of all truth
>>- the universal God of the Bible.
>
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> That is a falsehood. I included several paragraphs of evidence
> considered both credible and objective by mainstream science-- you
> snipped them away without comment.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Your response above was to the very last statement in my preface !
>
> My actual reply to your scientific evidence THEN followed, which makes
> the comment above a genuine non-sequitur.
>
> You have made a mistake - no problem.
My apologies. The thread seems to have fragmented somewhat, and I am
beginning to have difficulty following your argument, which seems to
have been spread over several posts.
>>"In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document
>>summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
>
>>'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
>>that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
>>It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
>>things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
>>not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
>>of the living world.'
>
>>Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
>>evolutionist).(1)
>
>>Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
>>at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
>>(macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
>>life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> If by "Darwinists" you mean "nearly all biologists in existence today,"
> you are right.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> This one sentence reply to my text above is a hand-wave. My use of the
> Academy quote (also endorsed by Miller) was to substantiate that
> evolutionary authorities admit that hominid evolution is largely
> assumed fact based upon other claimed facts. In other words, human
> evolution itself is not well supported but is dependant upon other
> alleged facts.
That is not what the above quote says. It says that the evidence
indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution worked in the past
and works in the present. It also states, quite clearly, that there is
no scientific support for any other view. I was not, and am not, clear
on why you presented that quote-- it appears to shoot you quite neatly
in the foot.
> This fact, which is utterly crucial to understand, IS
> NOT how supposed human evolution is portrayed to society at large. You
> and others are claiming human evolution is a fact based upon massive
> convincing first-hand evidence. I simply produce a fact (human
> evolution assumed true based on other facts) which exposes your claim
> to be a pep rally exaggeration.
>
> Fact: My use of the Academy/Miller quote; evidence that human
> evolution is admitted to be dependant upon other facts.
Evolution is dependent on other observed facts, of course; every
scientific theory is dependent on other observed facts. That does not
mean that it is "not well supported," but rather the opposite. With
which of evolution's supporting facts do you take issue?
If your argument is that speciation, also known as macroevolution, does
not take place, then I am afraid you are mistaken; not only does
speciation happen, it has been observed both in the laboratory and in
the wild. There's a really excellent source at this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The link discusses both speciation under controlled laboratory
conditions and in the wild. We can also see strong evidence in the
fossil record of species that change over time-- pakicetus resembles
ambulocetus, which in turn resembles rodhocetus, which resembles
basilosaurus. While each "snapshot" in the fossil record resembles the
one before it and the one after it, the end result is quite different
from the original.
> My point: The most extraordinary claim of all time is ASSUMED true
> largely based on other claimed facts. But human evolution has the
> reputation that it is voluminously proven based on massive evidence =
> on-going deception ordinary evos propagate. Assumptions are not
> evidence. At this point I say the needs of the naturalist erase the
> fact that alleged human evolution is based upon other facts, and when I
> employed the Academy/Miller quote I complimented these entities for
> their honesty and objectivity.
Which facts do you dispute, and why? Please be as specific as possible.
> But you felt obliged to only point out that nearly all biologists today
> are Darwinists. This is an appeal to the "crowd is right" "safety in
> numbers" illogical fallacies.
>
> The Bible explains that the majority/crowd is always wrong, and in this
> case the majority of these biologists are undoubtedly atheists who are
> obviously in rebellion to God. The Bible says the whole world is in
> rebellion to God so biologists shoudn't feel slighted.
The majority (or "crowd" if you prefer) believes that the Earth is
round. Therefore, either the Earth is actually NOT round, or your
interpretation of the Bible above is falsified. I also take issue with
your claim that the "majority of biologists are undoubtedly atheists who
are obviously in rebellion to God." Not everybody who disagrees with
your interpretation of the Bible is an atheist, Ray.
Of course, there are times when the majority HAS been wrong; I would be
the last to claim that just something is true just because "everybody
says so." But that's the beauty of the scientific method; it is based on
observable data, not popular fads or immutable dogma. Science discovered
that the Earth was round long before everybody knew it to be so.
Alleging that nearly every biologist on the planet is living a lie based
on a massive worldwide conspiracy is not very convincing; I would
suggest you address the facts directly instead.
> CLAYTON:
>
> And yet, rather than post rebut what I wrote, you snipped it away and
> simply claimed "No it isn't!"
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> This comment seems to have no relevance to anything I posted. I will
> await your clarification.
At the end of this post, I shall restore the issues I consider unanswered.
> CLAYTON:
>
> Here you launch into a "quote mine" rather than address the evidence I
> posted. Why ?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I did not quote mine.
>
> If I did you would have exposed it, because you didn't, I must conclude
> you are unable to refute or address. At this point, in my reply, that
> you are responding to, I am framing the context of my rebuttal to your
> arguments and evidence. Instead, you have deliberately jumped the gun
> falsely characterizing my reply as evading your evidence.
See below; I shall restore the text you ignored.
As to the mined quotes...
"Neither Huxley nor Darwin believed that living apes were our
ancestors....the ape to human icon was simply a restatement of
materialistic philosophy. It's form preceded any fossil evidence of
ancestor-descendant relationships, and it made with whatever evidence
happened to be at hand - in this case, SIMILARITIES to living apes.
Fossils discovered later were just plugged into this preexisting framework."
"New fossils are fitted into this pre-existing story. We call these new
discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent
were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is, a
completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with
human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is
more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable
connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an
overwhelming sea of gaps."
This is selectively excerpted text, with the intent to create the
impression that the author is saying something other than his true
meaning; this is what I mean when I refer to a "quote mine." Gee is not
claiming that evolution doesn't happen, but rather that hominid
evolution is not as simple and linear as most people tend to think. The
recent lineage of humans is much more like a bush than a tree.
In fact, a quick Google search turns up several statements by Gee,
taking issue with the out-of-context quotes:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp
"Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN
SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times... For the
Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is
mischievous."
"Religious fundamentalists... fail to understand that scientific
disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point
of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology."
"The use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations,
possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as
self-appointed guardians of public values and morals."
In short, he didn't say what you said he said. Of course, quote mines
are an appealing method of argument for a creationist; all you have to
do is copy and paste text from a creationist website, and then I have to
track the sources down and read them. I would ask that you stick with
the data points instead of possible out-of-context quoting.
>>so the explanation of observed similarity between ape bones and anatomy
>>matching modern human is of no surprise and asserted to be scientific
>>evidence in favor of the resolve. But from the Creationist viewpoint,
>>these same similarities support one Almighty Creator working from a
>>common design and are explained as doing just that.
The trouble with invoking "common design" is that it explains
everything, and therefore explains nothing. For example, common design
can explain why a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord are so similar-- but it
can also explain why a Honda Civic and a pencil are so different. Worse
than that, "design" begs the question of "Who designed it?" Invoking the
supernatural is still worse, as "God made it that way" can explain why
the sky is blue, but it could also explain why the sky could be green or
yellow or neon pink. Once you invoke supernatural entities, you have
departed the realm of science. Otherwise we would still be wondering why
Thor enjoys throwing thunderbolts at things made of copper but not at
things made of rubber.
>>Does identifying similarity constitute evidence for the resolve ?
>
>>Answer: It is not a preponderance of evidence for the resolve since
>>the observance of similarity can just as easily be interpreted to
>>support the Creationist view. And my opponent has objectively come to
>>the same conclusion:
Actually, no, I did not come to that conclusion at all.
> CLAYTON:
>
> What is your explanation for the plantaris tendon, then? Remember, an
> alternative theory has to explain the data at least as well as the
> current theory, and it must make testable predictions distinct from the
> theory it seeks to replace.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Your theory is the alternative theory to the claimed facts of sudden
> creation in Genesis. According to Genesis, the chief difference between
> Adam and every other beast of the field is "ruash" - the breath of God
> imparting a soul into him. The undisputed facts of similarity is
> explained by Creationism
First, as I have said before, no religious text, no matter how holy, is
scientific evidence. Second, what is the scientific theory of
creationism, and what testable predictions does it make distinct from
those of evolution? You still have not answered this!
> and similarity is not a prediction because it
> is plainly observed. To retrospectively assert your theory makes this
> prediction is tantamount to printing a lottery ticket after the numbers
> are drawn.
The genetic similarities between apes and humans had not been "plainly
observed" when Darwin proposed his theory of common descent. In this
case, yes, Darwin DID predict the lottery numbers before the drawing--
*one hundred years* before the drawing!
> I already said NOBODY disagrees that ape bones and anatomy resembles
> modern human. At issue is what do these similarities mean ?
>
> If you say the tendon is common in both chimps and modern humans then I
> am assuming this is a fact - I am not challenging it.
>
> In response I say: What does this mean ?
>
> How does this alleged similarity/commonality support the claim that
> humans evolved from an ape ancestor over millions of years ?
>
> In other words, you are asserting the identification of
> similarity/commonality is evidence that we evolved over millions of
> years. This is rhetoric/misuse of logic asserted to be scientific
> evidence.
It's a piece of the evidence, yes. What is your explanation for the
plantaris tendon, if not common descent? Remember, "the theory of
creation" isn't an answer unless you can actually produce a theory of
creation.
> Rhetoric takes facts and draws illogical conclusions. Apes and mankind
> both have similar features - that is undeniable. How does this obvious
> fact prove the resolve ?
>
> Answer: Only when it is linked to the assumptions of your worldview.
> Naturalist worldview ASSUMES the supernatural/Biblical is wrong = very
> predictible and of no surprise. Assumptions are not evidence.
I make no such assumption. In fact, the Bible is correct about a great
many things; it just isn't a text on biology.
> What clear objective value does similarity have in proving modern
> humans evolved over millions of years ?
>
> Answer: None apart from the well known worldviews of those asserting
> as such.
Again, you are handwaving away the evidence. What is your alternate
explanation?
> Your argument insists that the mere identification of what anyone can
> see for themself constitutes "scientific evidence". This is why the
> Academy/Miller quote admitted human evolution is assumed based on other
> claimed facts.
Wait... so things that people can "see for themselves" does not
constitute scientific evidence? How would YOU define scientific evidence?
The quotes from Miller and the National Academy of Sciences above said
that evolution was strongly supported by science, and there was no
scientific evidence for any other alternative. I am not sure why you
think this is a devastating blow.
> The most extraordinary claim of all time is dependant upon the
> assumption that similarity/commonality is scientific evidence = weak as
> it gets, and the strength of the assumption is driven by the exact same
> ratio Genesis is hated.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> There are no "naturalist presuppositions" hidden in modern science,
> except the idea that evidence itself is meaningful. I suppose it is
> possible that all of existence is merely a dream, but that does not
> lead
> to any productive science.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The vast majority of modern science subscribes to Naturalism
> philosophies - not a matter of opinion.
>
> These philosophies presuppose supernaturalism to be false and they
> ignore and slander all evidence in support = very predictible.
This is not true. Christians and other religious folks working in the
sciences certainly don't "presuppose supernaturalism to be false."
Methodological naturalism doesn't claim that the supernatural doesn't
exist, just that it can't be tested, measured, or quantified by
naturalistic means-- id est, the scientific method. If we could quantify
it, it wouldn't be supernatural.
> Darwinists only care about making sure Genesis is not seen as true.
> To
> accomplish this evil they assert science has disproven Genesis. In
> reality, their interpretations of scientific data disproves Genesis.
> But what else could a Darwinist conclude ?
>
> Honest and objective persons know science has proven every major
> Biblical claim - only Darwinists assert otherwise.
So Ken Miller wants to make sure Genesis is not seen as true? Pope John
Paul II wanted to make sure Genesis was not seen as true? Numerous other
Christians who agree that evolution is the best fit to the facts want to
make sure that Genesis is not seen as true? Ray, this "everybody who
agrees with evolution is a rabid, hate-filled atheist" fixation of yours
is bordering on paranoid delusion.
> CLAYTON:
> And yet that fossil evidence was found, precisely as the theory of
> evolution predicted it would! A prediction made and confirmed is
> generally considered to be excellent evidence that a theory is correct.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The Bible predicted your kind would substitute these earthen items to
> assert sudden creation false, so this prediction made in 58 AD trumps
> yours by a long shot.
>
> Here is what your claim above conspicuously neglects to inform the
> reader:
>
> ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
> from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of living
> creatures, can be fitted into a small box" says Henry Gee, Darwinist,
> and chief science writer of Nature Magazine.(1)
>
> In the timespan stated, the alleged evidence, logically, is scant and
> not commensurate with anything proven much less well supported or even
> reasonably supported. This small box of evidence is also highly
> disputed and has no support outside of biased Darwinists.
>
> Let it be reminded that the small box analogy came from a Darwinist and
> not a Creationist.
See above for Gee's complaints of his work being misrepresented. And
the quote, as presented, is trivially false-- I have seen displays of
large dinosaur bones, which would not fit in a "small" (by any
reasonable definition) box.
> "Several different hominids appear in the fossil record between 3 and 2
> million years ago."(2)
>
> This fact says for a period of ONE MILLION YEARS "several" alleged
> species are claimed to be known and identified. "Several" is not a
> adjective associated with something well supported. The issue is human
> evolution - not dust mites, but the most extraordinary claim of all
> time is admitted, within the interval stated, to be supported by
> "several" different hominid species. Now we plainly see why the
> Academy/Miller quote admits that human evolution is ASSUMED based on
> other purported facts. The paucity of physical evidence for the most
> extraordinary claim of all time continues, but this fact doesn't stop
> Darwinists from asserting the evidence is massive = the needs of their
> worldview speaking.
Well, yes. In more or less the same period, we see Homo erectus, Homo
ergaster, and Homo georgicus, plus Australopithecus africanus and
Australopithecus garhi. "Several hominids" seems like reasonable
shorthand, as their names are quite a mouthful. So, what, evolution is
false because you don't like his wording?
> "Other hominds discovered as fossils from this interval are less easy
> to categorise. In their skeletons they are perhaps more like A.
> africanus ... although they tend to have larger brains. The names of
> these species - Homo rudolfensus and Homo habilis - show that they
> are conventionally regarded as members of our own genus although [...
> some researchers suggest...] they may be no closer to modern humans
> than are some other extinct hominds."(3) (Henry Gee)
>
> The context of the above quote is the same interval of time: one
> million years.
Well, yes. There is quite a lot of healthy debate among
paleoanthropologists about the exact classification of some specific
finds. But again, this is what we would expect to see if evolution were
true-- sometimes it is not easy to tell where one species ends and the
next begins. For example, you might argue about whether a golden
retriever is more closely related to a red setter or a bloodhound, but
it is clearly a dog and related to both. (See also: Ring species.)
> My point:
>
> Henry Gee is a Darwinist/cladist.
>
> Clayton invoked Homo habilis as evidence of a missing link, but even
> other Darwinists do not agree.
"Darwinists" may disagree on where H. habilis or the australopithecines
belong in our family tree, but none of them claim that they are not
ancestral cousins to our species.
> Human evolution is anything but proven or well supported contrary to
> its reputation. Hence, the Academy/Miller quote admitting that human
> evolution is assumed based on other claimed facts. I am documenting
> gross exaggeration concerning the most important claim of all time. The
> exaggeration comes from ordinary evolutionists misrepresenting the
> actual evidence and its true volume.
>
> HENRY GEE:
>
> "The failure of bother views of evolution rests, once again, on the
> failure to understand that Deep Time cannot sustain scenarios based on
> narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is
> central to my argument: next time you see a fossil, ask yourself
> whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it
> could by your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for
> certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then, is
> futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line
> of fossils are claim that they represent a lineage, is not a scientific
> hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same
> validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
> not scientific."(4)
>
> Gee believes human evolution is a fact based on the evidence.
>
> His brutally honest and objective quote does not logically support the
> most extraordinary claim of all time.
And, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this article, he has been
taken out of context. He has reiterated that he has no beefs with modern
evolutionary theory.
> http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
>
> "Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
> we have of hominid evolution.
>
> In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
>
> The quote above admits the fossil evidence is "few, rare, and scant" =
> terms not associtated with anything proven or even mildly supported.
More quote mining. While fossils are rare compared to the number of
organisms who have lived-- fossilization is uncommon, after all--
there's plenty of evidence out there. There are museums full of fossils
and archaeological displays, Ray! Haven't you ever been in one?
> Why is human evolution touted as "scientific fact based on voluminous
> evidence ?"
>
> Answer: Sweetheart exemption driven by the needs of the atheist
> worldview.
Not true. And once again, most people who accept evolution are not
atheists.
And a better question: What is your scientific theory, and what
evidence supports it? What testable predictions does it make?
> Again, the Academy/Miller quote is further seen as true and correct:
> human evolution assumed true. Assumptions are being substituted for
> evidence.
>
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
>
> "In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of
> the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned
> evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into
> her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she
> described her "nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area
> as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps"
> (Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added).
>
> Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
> titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he
> level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time
> renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution
> is in the mantra of all paleontologists: "We need more fossils!"
> (2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils
> are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily
> admit that few human fossils have been found."
>
> Again, evolutionary authorities admit the alleged physical evidence
> supporting human evolution is a diminutive inventory.
Scientists of every field clamor for more evidence. Chemists blow
things up, astronomers search the skies hoping for a lucky find. It's
the nature of science to want more data points, more facts, more
knowledge-- and unfortunately nature isn't always as obliging as we
would like. But to dismiss hundreds of finds of hominid remains as "a
diminutive inventory" is tantamount to plugging your ears and humming.
> Why is there a paucity of evidence ?
There isn't. And you still haven't addressed the evidence I put forth
in my original post!
> Why is human evolution touted as proven nontheless ?
>
> Because the theory is not true and the degree that it is asserted as
> fact when the actual evidence for such an extraordinary claim remains
> scant is equal to the degree Genesis is hated.
Evolutionary biologists don't hate Genesis. When will you stop
repeating this lie?
> This paucity of actual fossil evidence by which human evolution is
> alleged, yet the hypocritical quickness of the same persons to claim
> the Biblical record of ancient Israel is erroneous because of a
> purported lack of the same type of physical evidence. Yet the alleged
> paucity of physical evidence for ancient Israel and the Exodus is
> accepted as evidence against unlike human evolution.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> This is absurd. You snipped away paragraphs of text on the subject and
> replaced it with five words. I do not feel you are debating in good
> faith.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> This comment appears out of context so I will not even guess as to what
> you are talking about. You are being lazy and typing unexplained and
> unsubstantiated accusations. Please do the work and if you are correct
> I will promptly acknowledge my wrong/errors.
See below.
> 1) Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New
> History of Life", page 199 [1999]
>
> 2) Ibid. page 203
>
> 3) Ibid. page 203
>
> 4) Ibid. page 114
Points unanswered from my first post:
Similarly, the plantaris tendon in the leg aids monkeys in grasping and
climbing. In humans, it is so badly atrophied as to be utterly useless.
As many as 30% of men and women are born with the plantaris tendon
completely absent-- and its absence (or presence) is so insignificant as
to go unnoticed. And, like us, the plantaris tendon is significantly
atrophied in chimps, and often absent altogether.
(This was discussed briefly above, but you have not provided a reason
why we should share a useless feature with other apes, if not common
ancestry. Remember that "common design" and "God did it" are useless as
scientific explanations, and this was explicitly framed as a scientific
debate.)
Genetic evidence is even more compelling. This is especially true of
genes that are not only "broken," but broken in the same way both in
humans and other apes. One notorious example is the inability of humans
to synthesize vitamin C (alias citric acid or ascorbic acid). Virtually
all mammals can manufacture their own; apes cannot. (Lucky us, we're in
the tiny handful of mammals capable of suffering from scurvy.)
Interestingly, our DNA encodes a process for synthesizing ascorbic acid,
but one key gene is inactive. Such "pseudogenes" carry the information
for manufacturing proteins, but are switched off. This suggests, again,
that all great apes (including humans) had an ancestor capable of making
its own vitamin C. That capability was lost when it was no longer
selected for-- but all of its descendants, including us, still carry the
inactive gene.
Likewise, the DNA of all species carries endogenous retroviruses--
viral "hitchhikers" that insert themselves into a host's genetics. If
the virus writes its coding to a gamete (sex cell), then the "scar" will
be inherited by all of the host's descendants. Humans share at least
seven such instances of viral scarring with chimpanzees; this is
regarded as a clear indicator of relation among species, and humans and
chimps are no exception.
By the way, I hope you had a great Independence Day weekend, Ray.
Ray Martinez
Ray M.
Richard Clayton
> Friendly bump.
Why are you bumping the thread? It is your turn to reply.
Ray Martinez
Why are you bumping the thread? It is your turn to reply.
--
RAY:
Yes, I know.
I don't like it buried on the 27th page.
My next reply: Thursday or sooner. It will be a monster.
RM
Richard Clayton
> RICHARD:
>
> Why are you bumping the thread? It is your turn to reply.
> --
>
> RAY:
>
> Yes, I know.
>
> I don't like it buried on the 27th page.
I see. Google Groups has a search engine, of course. Nothing posted
there is ever really lost (unless you specify in your message header
that your message not be archived).
> My next reply: Thursday or sooner. It will be a monster.
I am eager to read it. Incidentally, I will be traveling Monday through
Friday of next week, so I may not be able to respond quickly if it is
not up by Sunday.
Ray Martinez
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=191088#191088
The above links should contain my latest reply to Richard Clayton.
I didn't want to be hindered by the Google format so I posted my reply
elsewhere.
Richard, of course, can post his responses here in this closed topic.
Ray Martinez
dfri...@hotmail.com
As a service, I will put Ray's posts in this thread.
Ray's posts to ChristianForums.net are below, marked by ">"
BTW, sorry to post in the closed thread, but I thought the proper place
for Ray's response was here.
OK, here goes...
>Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 44
Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:04 pm Post subject: Formal Debate:
Darwinist v. Creationist
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e1f9c6b8d64a7d88/4860db9f56264e15?hl=en&
The above link will direct you to the on-going one-on-one debate
between Darwinist Richard Clayton and myself - Evangelical Creationist
Ray Martinez.
I urge everyone to read the debate and see how Darwinists evade
evidence and misrepresent the data and arguments.
It is my turn to respond as I will post my reply here because the Talk
Origins Usenet format is lame and primitive.
Quick Recap of my Thesis and Arguments:
"In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document
summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
of the living world.'
Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
evolutionist).
Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
(macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
The Academy/Miller quote above is kind of tricky but at the same time I
find it objective in that the wording places alleged human evolution to
be a fact based upon "the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to
the rest of the living world." In other words, hominid evolution is
safely assumed based on the facts of microevolution. The quote clearly
downgrades human evolution certainty to reside as assumed fact based
upon other facts.
The most extraordinay claim of all time (human evolution) is dependant
upon other claimed facts THEN assumed true.
But society is inundated with the assertion that human evolution is a
fact based upon voluminous evidence. When an objective person scratches
the surface and looks into the matter we find that evolutionary
authorities admit hominid evolution is assumed. This means the amount
of evidence actually supporting human evolution is grossly exaggerated.
If humans did indeed evolve from an ape ancestor then there would be
(and should be) massive amounts of direct evidence. This extraordinary
claim should not be dependant upon assumptions that "apply to the rest
of the living world."
My point: The Academy/Miller quote, logically, does not support the
claim of human evolution. Strip away the presuppositions and needs of
the naturalist and atheist worldviews and the evidence and its paucity
status has no clear objective value or meaning.
My opponent evades and misrepresents my argument:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/92882ec47da4808d?dmode=source&hl=en
Richard Clayton wrote:
That is not what the above quote says. It says that the evidence
indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution worked in the past
and works in the present. It also states, quite clearly, that there is
no scientific support for any other view. I was not, and am not, clear
on why you presented that quote-- it appears to shoot you quite neatly
in the foot.
Richard Clayton continues:
"Evolution is dependent on other observed facts, of course; every
scientific theory is dependent on other observed facts. That does not
mean that it is "not well supported," but rather the opposite. With
which of evolution's supporting facts do you take issue?
If your argument is that speciation, also known as macroevolution, does
not take place, then I am afraid you are mistaken; not only does
speciation happen, it has been observed both in the laboratory and in
the wild. There's a really excellent source at this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The link discusses both speciation under controlled laboratory
conditions and in the wild. We can also see strong evidence in the
fossil record of species that change over time-- pakicetus resembles
ambulocetus, which in turn resembles rodhocetus, which resembles
basilosaurus. While each "snapshot" in the fossil record resembles the
one before it and the one after it, the end result is quite different
from the original." END QUOTE
Ray Martinez:
At issue is: alleged macroevolution, but my opponent references
microevolution.
Everyone agrees microevolution WITHIN species is a fact. Clayton
asserts microevolution proves macroevolution which is a gross
misrepresentation.
Why do Darwinists assert this misrepresentation ?
I will let atheist Richard Milton answer the question:
Ray Martinez:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos10_1.htm
Charles Darwin:
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on
an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which
have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic
chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection
which can be urged against the theory."
The quote above by Darwin admits the fossil record does not show any
intermediate snapshots/macroevolution.
This was a fact in the 19th century.
The Milton quote produced over a hundred years later confirms what
Darwin admitted is still a fact today.
Darwinists still assert macroevolution is a fact despite no evidence in
the physical geological fossil record.
Why ?
Genesis is not an option.
This makes macroevolution/human evolution/Theory of Evolution a
philosophy packaged as science. The need for Genesis to be wrong is in
direct ratio to the degree macroevolution is asserted as fact despite
there being no evidence.
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
"When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in
February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
links missing." "
Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
"In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded
professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that
Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most
likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike
remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of
primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But
the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man,
where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the
skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
Ray Martinez:
Now we see why the Academy/Miller quote carefully crafted human
evolution to be assumed based on other claimed facts. Those other
claimed facts are the undisputed facts of microevolution, which are
then misrepresented to support macroevolution. As it turns out the
other claimed facts are assumed also (macroevolution) which further
relegates supposed human evolution to be assumed. But the point is that
there is no credible evidence (for human evolution) or any volume of it
commensurate to the extraordinary claim.
Richard Clayton:
"Here you launch into a "quote mine"
Ray Martinez:
Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the
following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of living
creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
I accept the information as fact.
Then I make my point:
For the interval stated, logically, the amount of alleged evidence does
not support the claim of human evolution.
"Several different hominids appear in the fossil record between 3 and 2
million years ago."(2)
I accept the quote above as fact.
Then I make my point:
This fact says for a period of ONE MILLION YEARS "several" alleged
species are claimed to be known and identified. "Several" is not a
adjective associated with something well supported. The issue is human
evolution - not dust mites, but the most extraordinary claim of all
time is admitted, within the interval stated, to be supported by
"several" different hominid species.
Logically, the admitted amount of alleged evidence supposedly
supporting human evolution does not support the claim.
"The failure of bother views of evolution rests, once again, on the
failure to understand that Deep Time cannot sustain scenarios based on
narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is
central to my argument: next time you see a fossil, ask yourself
whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it
could by your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for
certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then, is
futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line
of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage, is not a scientific
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same
validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
not scientific."(3)
I accept the quote as fact.
Then I make my point:
Logically, the quote above does not support the claim of human
evolution.
My on-going point: The evidence for human evolution is highly and
grossly exaggerated.
There is no quote mining as charged by Clayton because I accept what is
written as fact but point out that the "facts" logically do not support
human evolution theory much less prove it. The Gee quotes admit the
evidence is scant for the most extraordinary claim of all time. Yet we
are bombarded with the predictible assertions of evolutionists that
hominid evolution is proven and voluminously supported.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
we have of hominid evolution.
In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
So much based on so little.
"few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything
mildly supported much less proven.
I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically
these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well
supported much less proven.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
"In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of
the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned
evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into
her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she
described her "nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area
as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps"
(Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added).
Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he
level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time
renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution
is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!"
(2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils
are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily
admit that few human fossils have been found"
The link quote above by David Begun once again shows my use of the
Academy/Miller quote to be accurate in that he confirms "the available
direct evidence" is in complete harmony with every quote in this reply.
I accept all these quotes as facts and sum it all up:
The facts that they establish in no objective manner supports the
assumption and claims of human evolution.
Darwinists have shot themselves in the foot. The brutal honesty of
evolutionary authorities logically does not support their claims.
Richard Clayton parrots "quote mine !"
How Richard ?
I accept each quote as fact THEN I simply point out that the facts
logically do not support the reputation of human evolution as proven.
Quite the opposite.
"quote mine" tactic is the Darwinian way of invoking the 5th Amendment.
This is not a courtroom where lawyer rhetoric is allowed to twist all
facts in accordance to the needs of the client.
Once again, the actual evidence supporting human evolution is scant and
has no clear objective value apart from the massive biased assumptions
of the Naturalist/Atheist worldview.
RICHARD CLAYTON: (from the OP):
Genetic evidence is even more compelling.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Whenever the physical evidence supposedly supporting human evolution is
debated or offered, the Darwinist immediately goes into the alleged
genetic evidence.
Why ?
Answer: Because, as I have documented above, the physical inventory is
embarrassingly diminutive - thats why the Darwinist cites the genetic.
If the physical evidence made the case they wouldn't need to go into
the microscopic universe to begin with.
>From the widely known Creation Science Fact page:
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#But%20aren't%20humans%2097%%20chimp
What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and
chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the
popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA
contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds
known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at
a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to
determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be
incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000
nucleotides in sequence. Neither human nor chimp DNA has been anywhere
near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (this
would also require unprecedented processing time and power). Indeed it
may be a long time before such a comparison can be made because it will
probably be the year 2005 before we have the full sequence of human DNA
-- and chimp DNA sequencing has a much lower priority.
Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a
fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of
human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double
strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why
DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of
similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is
not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters,
derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the
97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the
purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically
illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and
the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'.
Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their
discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.
Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's
generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon
inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was
above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic
statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account
differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure.
When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there
is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to
the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that
mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common
ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3
billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated to
be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans
were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs,
equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of
information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random
changes) to cross.
I ask Richard to review the above content and respond.
In addition, I ask: lets assume as fact that chimp and human DNA is as
claimed to be, anywhere from 96 to 99 percent similar. How do you
explain the vast and obvious outward differences between chimps and
modern humans and the vast difference in intelligence ?
4 to 1 percent difference yet the vast actual disimilarities are
strikingly incongruent with similar DNA.
How does similarity constitute scientific evidence that humans evolved
from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
Please explain, because as it sits now you are relying on
rhetoric/misuse of logic to assert that this supports/proves claims
involving millions of years.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
page 46:
"Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA may
contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison is
a tricky task and different alignments can give very different
results."
But when a microbiologist qualifies his title with "evolutionary" this
is a sign that all data and conclusions will support gradualism no
matter what.
I say this because the evolutionary DNA scientist will do the same and
I am not willing to trust them because of whats at stake. Evolutionary
biochemists certainly knew ALL of the facts contained in "Darwin's
Black Box" but fraudulently concealed Irreducible Complexity from the
world until an objective scientist blew the whistle (Behe).
According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a
group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA and
protein comparisons.
Page 51:
"A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with primates
instead of rodents"(4)
A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
among chordates.(5)
Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales
than to horses.(6)
As was noted above genetics is very complex.
The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of
things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow
proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm
Martha Molnar. "Priestly Gene Shared By Widely Dispersed Jews." Press
Release. 10 July 1998.
Edward Rothstein. "DNA Teaches History a Few Lessons of Its Own." The
New York Times "Week in Review" (May 24, 1998). Excerpts:
"Last year, for example, Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University
of Arizona, showed that a genetic analysis of the Y chromosomes of
Jewish men who ritualistically identified themselves as descendants of
the Biblical High Priest Aaron and are known as Cohanim showed a high
transmission of markers that were less prevalent among Jews who did not
identify as Cohanim. This was evidence, Hammer said, of the accuracy of
the oral tradition."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9671297&dopt=Citation
David Keys. Catastrophe: An Investigation Into the Origins of the
Modern World. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000. Keys summarizes M. G.
Thomas, Karl L. Skorecki, H. Ben-Ami, Tudor Parfitt, Neil Bradman, D.
B. Goldstein, "Origins of Old Testament Priests." Nature 394 (July 9,
1998): 138-140. Excerpts from Keys' book:
"DNA tests on Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews have revealed the
possibility that at least one key section of the latter community may
have genetic evidence of a potentially large-scale or even mass
conversion which must have taken place sometime after around A.D.
700.... the only known mass conversion within that time frame and in
that geographical area was that of the Khazars in the eighth century.
Significantly, the section of the Ashkenazi community whose DNA may
suggest a partially convert origin is that section which up till now
had traditionally been said to be wholly descended from the Assistant
Priests of ancient Israel.... By analyzing Y chromosomes from a sample
of both Levite and non-Levite populations in both Sephardic and
Ashkenazi communities, geneticists have discovered that an astounding
30 percent of Ashkenazi non-Cohenic Levites have a particular ||
combination of DNA material on part of their Y-chromosome that is not
shared to any extent by either non-Levite Ashkenazi Jews or the
Sephardic community as a whole. This genetic marker does not even show
up among the Cohens (descendants of the ancient Israelite Chief
Priests) - but only among the descendants of Assistant Priests, and
then only within Ashkenazi (northern European) Jewry.
Whether an oral tradition or its primary source of the Old Testament -
these studies have corroborated the Aaronic Priesthood which only
exists in the context of its originator: the Deity of the Old
Testament.
God called Aaron to be priest.
This evidence also supports the existence of the Deity. The larger
context of the only source we have about this Deity says He created man
in His image.
The objective weight of this DNA evidence confirms the written and oral
claims of the issue at hand: the Aaronic Priesthood.
Here we have science confirming a major Biblical claim.
Chimp DNA being similar to human has zero objective value apart from
the Naturalist worldview - a worldview that has no objective source to
justify its existence except to oppose the Supernatural worldview which
has the ancient objective source of the Bible.
The genetic evidence corroborates this Biblical claim AND decimates any
theory which asserts late Torah non-Mosaic authorship, because late
pseudonymic authorship could not produce a fact like the Aaronic
Priesthood, but logically, it is a report written by Aaron's brother
Moses who recorded what God told him to write. In other words, forgers
don't produce holy facts, but eventually get exposed. Just the opposite
has occurred: early Mosaic authorship is supported as is the larger
claim: the existence of the Deity who instituted the Aaronic
Priesthood.
The next leap of the Genesis claim that God created man suddenly is
infinitesimal in gap compared to the massive gaps in the fossil record
which Darwinists wink at and at no point consider the massive gaps
evidence of falsification.
Ray Martinez
1) Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New
History of Life", page 199 [1999]
2) Ibid. page 203
3) Ibid. page 114
4) Wells citing: Graur, Laurent, Duret, Gouy, "Nature" 379 (1996).
5) Wells citing: Naylor, Brown, "Systematic Biology" 47 (1998).
6) Wells citing: Cao, Janke, Waddell, Westerman, Takenaka, Murata,
Okada, Paabo, Hasegawa, "Journal of Molecular Evolution" 47 (1998).
_________________
Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University: "Everyone has an axe to
grind....objective persons declare their bias up-front so when it
creeps into their conclusions the audience will know it">
And, the second link is here
>Ray Martinez
123 Christian Friend
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 44
Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:04 pm Post subject: Formal Debate:
Darwinist v. Creationist
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e1f9c6b8d64a7d88/4860db9f56264e15?hl=en&
The above link will direct you to the on-going one-on-one debate
between Darwinist Richard Clayton and myself - Evangelical Creationist
Ray Martinez.
I urge everyone to read the debate and see how Darwinists evade
evidence and misrepresent the data and arguments.
It is my turn to respond as I will post my reply here because the Talk
Origins Usenet format is lame and primitive.
Quick Recap of my Thesis and Arguments:
"In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document
summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
of the living world.'
Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
evolutionist).
Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
(macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
The Academy/Miller quote above is kind of tricky but at the same time I
find it objective in that the wording places alleged human evolution to
be a fact based upon "the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to
the rest of the living world." In other words, hominid evolution is
safely assumed based on the facts of microevolution. The quote clearly
downgrades human evolution certainty to reside as assumed fact based
upon other facts.
The most extraordinay claim of all time (human evolution) is dependant
upon other claimed facts THEN assumed true.
But society is inundated with the assertion that human evolution is a
fact based upon voluminous evidence. When an objective person scratches
the surface and looks into the matter we find that evolutionary
authorities admit hominid evolution is assumed. This means the amount
of evidence actually supporting human evolution is grossly exaggerated.
If humans did indeed evolve from an ape ancestor then there would be
(and should be) massive amounts of direct evidence. This extraordinary
claim should not be dependant upon assumptions that "apply to the rest
of the living world."
My point: The Academy/Miller quote, logically, does not support the
claim of human evolution. Strip away the presuppositions and needs of
the naturalist and atheist worldviews and the evidence and its paucity
status has no clear objective value or meaning.
My opponent evades and misrepresents my argument:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/92882ec47da4808d?dmode=source&hl=en
Richard Clayton wrote:
That is not what the above quote says. It says that the evidence
indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution worked in the past
and works in the present. It also states, quite clearly, that there is
no scientific support for any other view. I was not, and am not, clear
on why you presented that quote-- it appears to shoot you quite neatly
in the foot.
Richard Clayton continues:
"Evolution is dependent on other observed facts, of course; every
scientific theory is dependent on other observed facts. That does not
mean that it is "not well supported," but rather the opposite. With
which of evolution's supporting facts do you take issue?
If your argument is that speciation, also known as macroevolution, does
not take place, then I am afraid you are mistaken; not only does
speciation happen, it has been observed both in the laboratory and in
the wild. There's a really excellent source at this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The link discusses both speciation under controlled laboratory
conditions and in the wild. We can also see strong evidence in the
fossil record of species that change over time-- pakicetus resembles
ambulocetus, which in turn resembles rodhocetus, which resembles
basilosaurus. While each "snapshot" in the fossil record resembles the
one before it and the one after it, the end result is quite different
from the original." END QUOTE
Ray Martinez:
At issue is: alleged macroevolution, but my opponent references
microevolution.
Everyone agrees microevolution WITHIN species is a fact. Clayton
asserts microevolution proves macroevolution which is a gross
misrepresentation.
Why do Darwinists assert this misrepresentation ?
I will let atheist Richard Milton answer the question:
Ray Martinez:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos10_1.htm
Charles Darwin:
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on
an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which
have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic
chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection
which can be urged against the theory."
The quote above by Darwin admits the fossil record does not show any
intermediate snapshots/macroevolution.
This was a fact in the 19th century.
The Milton quote produced over a hundred years later confirms what
Darwin admitted is still a fact today.
Darwinists still assert macroevolution is a fact despite no evidence in
the physical geological fossil record.
Why ?
Genesis is not an option.
This makes macroevolution/human evolution/Theory of Evolution a
philosophy packaged as science. The need for Genesis to be wrong is in
direct ratio to the degree macroevolution is asserted as fact despite
there being no evidence.
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
"When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in
February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
links missing." "
Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
"In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded
professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that
Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most
likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike
remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of
primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But
the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man,
where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the
skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
Ray Martinez:
Now we see why the Academy/Miller quote carefully crafted human
evolution to be assumed based on other claimed facts. Those other
claimed facts are the undisputed facts of microevolution, which are
then misrepresented to support macroevolution. As it turns out the
other claimed facts are assumed also (macroevolution) which further
relegates supposed human evolution to be assumed. But the point is that
there is no credible evidence (for human evolution) or any volume of it
commensurate to the extraordinary claim.
Richard Clayton:
"Here you launch into a "quote mine"
Ray Martinez:
Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the
following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of living
creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
I accept the information as fact.
Then I make my point:
For the interval stated, logically, the amount of alleged evidence does
not support the claim of human evolution.
"Several different hominids appear in the fossil record between 3 and 2
million years ago."(2)
I accept the quote above as fact.
Then I make my point:
This fact says for a period of ONE MILLION YEARS "several" alleged
species are claimed to be known and identified. "Several" is not a
adjective associated with something well supported. The issue is human
evolution - not dust mites, but the most extraordinary claim of all
time is admitted, within the interval stated, to be supported by
"several" different hominid species.
Logically, the admitted amount of alleged evidence supposedly
supporting human evolution does not support the claim.
"The failure of bother views of evolution rests, once again, on the
failure to understand that Deep Time cannot sustain scenarios based on
narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is
central to my argument: next time you see a fossil, ask yourself
whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it
could by your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for
certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then, is
futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line
of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage, is not a scientific
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same
validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
not scientific."(3)
I accept the quote as fact.
Then I make my point:
Logically, the quote above does not support the claim of human
evolution.
My on-going point: The evidence for human evolution is highly and
grossly exaggerated.
There is no quote mining as charged by Clayton because I accept what is
written as fact but point out that the "facts" logically do not support
human evolution theory much less prove it. The Gee quotes admit the
evidence is scant for the most extraordinary claim of all time. Yet we
are bombarded with the predictible assertions of evolutionists that
hominid evolution is proven and voluminously supported.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
we have of hominid evolution.
In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
So much based on so little.
"few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything
mildly supported much less proven.
I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically
these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well
supported much less proven.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
"In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of
the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned
evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into
her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she
described her "nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area
as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps"
(Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added).
Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he
level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time
renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution
is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!"
(2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils
are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily
admit that few human fossils have been found"
The link quote above by David Begun once again shows my use of the
Academy/Miller quote to be accurate in that he confirms "the available
direct evidence" is in complete harmony with every quote in this reply.
I accept all these quotes as facts and sum it all up:
The facts that they establish in no objective manner supports the
assumption and claims of human evolution.
Darwinists have shot themselves in the foot. The brutal honesty of
evolutionary authorities logically does not support their claims.
Richard Clayton parrots "quote mine !"
How Richard ?
I accept each quote as fact THEN I simply point out that the facts
logically do not support the reputation of human evolution as proven.
Quite the opposite.
"quote mine" tactic is the Darwinian way of invoking the 5th Amendment.
This is not a courtroom where lawyer rhetoric is allowed to twist all
facts in accordance to the needs of the client.
Once again, the actual evidence supporting human evolution is scant and
has no clear objective value apart from the massive biased assumptions
of the Naturalist/Atheist worldview.
RICHARD CLAYTON: (from the OP):
Genetic evidence is even more compelling.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Whenever the physical evidence supposedly supporting human evolution is
debated or offered, the Darwinist immediately goes into the alleged
genetic evidence.
Why ?
Answer: Because, as I have documented above, the physical inventory is
embarrassingly diminutive - thats why the Darwinist cites the genetic.
If the physical evidence made the case they wouldn't need to go into
the microscopic universe to begin with.
>From the widely known Creation Science Fact page:
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#But%20aren't%20humans%2097%%20chimp
What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and
chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the
popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA
contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds
known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at
a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to
determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be
incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000
nucleotides in sequence. Neither human nor chimp DNA has been anywhere
near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (this
would also require unprecedented processing time and power). Indeed it
may be a long time before such a comparison can be made because it will
probably be the year 2005 before we have the full sequence of human DNA
-- and chimp DNA sequencing has a much lower priority.
Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a
fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of
human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double
strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why
DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of
similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is
not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters,
derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the
97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the
purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically
illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and
the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'.
Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their
discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.
Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's
generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon
inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was
above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic
statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account
differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure.
When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there
is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to
the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that
mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common
ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3
billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated to
be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans
were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs,
equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of
information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random
changes) to cross.
I ask Richard to review the above content and respond.
In addition, I ask: lets assume as fact that chimp and human DNA is as
claimed to be, anywhere from 96 to 99 percent similar. How do you
explain the vast and obvious outward differences between chimps and
modern humans and the vast difference in intelligence ?
4 to 1 percent difference yet the vast actual disimilarities are
strikingly incongruent with similar DNA.
How does similarity constitute scientific evidence that humans evolved
from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
Please explain, because as it sits now you are relying on
rhetoric/misuse of logic to assert that this supports/proves claims
involving millions of years.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
page 46:
"Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA may
contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison is
a tricky task and different alignments can give very different
results."
But when a microbiologist qualifies his title with "evolutionary" this
is a sign that all data and conclusions will support gradualism no
matter what.
I say this because the evolutionary DNA scientist will do the same and
I am not willing to trust them because of whats at stake. Evolutionary
biochemists certainly knew ALL of the facts contained in "Darwin's
Black Box" but fraudulently concealed Irreducible Complexity from the
world until an objective scientist blew the whistle (Behe).
According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a
group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA and
protein comparisons.
Page 51:
"A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with primates
instead of rodents"(4)
"A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
among chordates."(5)
"Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales
than to horses."(6)
As was noted above genetics is very complex.
The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of
things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow
proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm
Martha Molnar. "Priestly Gene Shared By Widely Dispersed Jews." Press
Release. 10 July 1998.
Edward Rothstein. "DNA Teaches History a Few Lessons of Its Own." The
New York Times "Week in Review" (May 24, 1998). Excerpts:
"Last year, for example, Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University
of Arizona, showed that a genetic analysis of the Y chromosomes of
Jewish men who ritualistically identified themselves as descendants of
the Biblical High Priest Aaron and are known as Cohanim showed a high
transmission of markers that were less prevalent among Jews who did not
identify as Cohanim. This was evidence, Hammer said, of the accuracy of
the oral tradition."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9671297&dopt=Citation
David Keys. Catastrophe: An Investigation Into the Origins of the
Modern World. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000. Keys summarizes M. G.
Thomas, Karl L. Skorecki, H. Ben-Ami, Tudor Parfitt, Neil Bradman, D.
B. Goldstein, "Origins of Old Testament Priests." Nature 394 (July 9,
1998): 138-140. Excerpts from Keys' book:
"DNA tests on Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews have revealed the
possibility that at least one key section of the latter community may
have genetic evidence of a potentially large-scale or even mass
conversion which must have taken place sometime after around A.D.
700.... the only known mass conversion within that time frame and in
that geographical area was that of the Khazars in the eighth century.
Significantly, the section of the Ashkenazi community whose DNA may
suggest a partially convert origin is that section which up till now
had traditionally been said to be wholly descended from the Assistant
Priests of ancient Israel.... By analyzing Y chromosomes from a sample
of both Levite and non-Levite populations in both Sephardic and
Ashkenazi communities, geneticists have discovered that an astounding
30 percent of Ashkenazi non-Cohenic Levites have a particular ||
combination of DNA material on part of their Y-chromosome that is not
shared to any extent by either non-Levite Ashkenazi Jews or the
Sephardic community as a whole. This genetic marker does not even show
up among the Cohens (descendants of the ancient Israelite Chief
Priests) - but only among the descendants of Assistant Priests, and
then only within Ashkenazi (northern European) Jewry.
Whether an oral tradition or its primary source of the Old Testament -
these studies have corroborated the Aaronic Priesthood which only
exists in the context of its originator: the Deity of the Old
Testament.
God called Aaron to be priest.
This evidence also supports the existence of the Deity. The larger
context of the only source we have about this Deity says He created man
in His image.
The objective weight of this DNA evidence confirms the written and oral
claims of the issue at hand: the Aaronic Priesthood.
Here we have science confirming a major Biblical claim.
Chimp DNA being similar to human has zero objective value apart from
the Naturalist worldview - a worldview that has no objective source to
justify its existence except to oppose the Supernatural worldview which
has the ancient objective source of the Bible.
The genetic evidence corroborates this Biblical claim AND decimates any
theory which asserts late Torah non-Mosaic authorship, because late
pseudonymic authorship could not produce a fact like the Aaronic
Priesthood, but logically, it is a report written by Aaron's brother
Moses who recorded what God told him to write. In other words, forgers
don't produce holy facts, but eventually get exposed. Just the opposite
has occurred: early Mosaic authorship is supported as is the larger
claim: the existence of the Deity who instituted the Aaronic
Priesthood.
The next leap of the Genesis claim that God created man suddenly is
infinitesimal in gap compared to the massive gaps in the fossil record
which Darwinists wink at and at no point consider the massive gaps
evidence of falsification.
Ray Martinez
1) Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New
History of Life", page 199 [1999]
2) Ibid. page 203
3) Ibid. page 114
4) Wells citing: Graur, Laurent, Duret, Gouy, "Nature" 379 (1996).
5) Wells citing: Naylor, Brown, "Systematic Biology" 47 (1998).
6) Wells citing: Cao, Janke, Waddell, Westerman, Takenaka, Murata,
Okada, Paabo, Hasegawa, "Journal of Molecular Evolution" 47 (1998).
_________________
Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University: "Everyone has an axe to
grind....objective persons declare their bias up-front so when it
creeps into their conclusions the audience will know it">
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
dfri...@hotmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dave's rage and refusal to learn is conducive to his lack of respect.
>
> By pasting my reply here he has butchered the quoting and irreversibly
> altered what I have written.
>
> Darwinists are all about implacable rage because thats what asserting
> man evolving from an ape is - hysterical rage and obscenity against
> God.
>
> I will make one more post and will resign because of this censorship.
>
> Dave:
>
> You are a coward who could find no other way to get revenge on my
> arguments.
>
> You knew this was a closed topic but felt obliged to cheat. All anyone
> had to do was click on the link and read. By pasting it here the text
> is now way different = cheater/atheist/liar = synonyms.
>
> You are not eligible to learn and are hoping I will quit because the
> arguments have you in a tantrum.
>
> The atheist and Darwinian way has struck again: lying, cheating, ad
> hom.
>
> All because of the arguments and evidence.
>
> Ray Martinez
Ray, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I went to your
two posts on ChristianForums.net, copied the posts and pasted them
here. If they got messed up, I apologize, since I didn't examine them
closely before I posted the article. The only original content in the
posts I made was where I stated what I was doing. And, I said
absolutely nothing about you, or your posts.
If you are honest, you will apologize.
I apologize for posting this here, but I thought I was doing the group
a favor by making it easier for people to follow Ray's and Richard's
arguments.
Richard Clayton
I appreciate it, actually. I was planning on doing the same myself.
Richard Clayton
> Dave's rage and refusal to learn is conducive to his lack of respect.
>
> By pasting my reply here he has butchered the quoting and irreversibly
> altered what I have written.
Nothing you wrote has been altered, Ray.
> Darwinists are all about implacable rage because thats what asserting
> man evolving from an ape is - hysterical rage and obscenity against
> God.
Dave isn't the one having hysterics here, Ray. It's you.
> I will make one more post and will resign because of this censorship.
"Censorship"? That's an unusual word to describe "what I wrote was
copied into an other location."
> Dave:
>
> You are a coward who could find no other way to get revenge on my
> arguments.
>
> You knew this was a closed topic but felt obliged to cheat. All anyone
> had to do was click on the link and read. By pasting it here the text
> is now way different = cheater/atheist/liar = synonyms.
HE is cheating? You're the one trying to move the discussion to a new
forum! The debate was originally specified as being here in
talk.origins; changing the location without the consent of the other
party (me) strikes me as less than totally honest.
At any rate, I will be including the full text of your post in my reply.
> You are not eligible to learn and are hoping I will quit because the
> arguments have you in a tantrum.
Who is throwing a tantrum, now?
> The atheist and Darwinian way has struck again: lying, cheating, ad
> hom.
>
> All because of the arguments and evidence.
The evidence which you, of course, have once again snipped away and
failed to address. But I'll get to that in my reply...
Ray Martinez
my opponent I will not risk further cheating and trespassing by
on-lookers - this will be my last post in this debate that has in its
record numerous Darwinists violating the closed debate rule and of
course Creationists respected the rule.
DECAPITATION EVIDENCE: Human Evolution claims RIP
Secular mainstream scholarship of any discipline universally agree the
entire history of mankind prior to the Renaissance, Protestant
Reformation, and the invention of the printing press to be easily
characterized as pre-scientific times.
These three events would mark the absolute earliest anyone could
objectively identify the inception of the scientific era.
But if anyone asserted that modern scientific times began with the
advent of Darwinism, middle to late 19th century - who could argue with
that ?
Yet advanced scientific times unquestionably began when the old Soviet
Union shocked the world with the launch of Sputnik I in 1957 ushering
in the Space Age.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sputnik/
It was data from this orbiting satellite that enabled modern scientific
mankind to know for sure the exact dimensions of the Earth.
Dr. Adam Rutherford F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S., in Egypt 1925, 1950, 1963-5
"Pyramidology Book 1" [London, 1957]
http://www.capstonebooks.com/orig/pages/pyramid.html
Pages 75, 76:
"On making a scientific examination of the Sacred Cubit in the Pyramid,
it is found to bear an exact relationship to the size of the Earth.
This cubit is discovered to be the exact 10,000,000th of the mean
distance from the center of the Earth to the Poles, or in othe words
the precise 10,000,000th part of the Earth's semi-polar diameter. The
results of the latest geodetic research since the International
Geophysical Year 1957-8 reveal that the mean polar radius of the Earth,
as deduced from observation of the orbits of artificial Earth
satellites is 3949.9 miles. Dividing this figure by 10,000,000, the
result is 25.0266 British inches (corrected to four places of
decimals), the precise length of the Sacred Cubit of the Great Pyramid.
Thus the Earth's mean polar radius measures 10,000,000 Sacred Cubits or
250,000,000 Pyramid inches; hence the Pyramid inch is the 500,000,000th
of the Earth's polar diameter.
French savants conceived the idea of instituting a unit of linear
measure based upon the size of the Earth, and invented the meter, which
from a scientific standpoint is very faulty.
The French meter was arrived by taking 10,000,000 part of the so called
quadrant of the Earth as calculated from the North Pole to the Equator,
along a meridian passing through Dunkirk. The Earth IS NOT a perfect
sphere, the said distance is not a true quadrant, hence it is not truly
scientific to determine a unit of straight measure from such a curved
surface.
Scientifically, a unit of straight measure should be based on the
straight distance corresponding to the curved semi-meridian, namely the
semi-axis or polar radius of the Earth, as has been done correctly in
the case of this Sacred Cubit.
Furthermore, the Earth's axis is the only LONG CONSTANT NATURAL
STRAIGHT LINE on our planet, and it is also truly international, for
all nations rotate round it once every day. How appropriate that the
Pyramid's units of measurement should be accurately based upon it !
Thus the Designer of the Pyramid long forestalled modern man in the
scientific idea of having a unit of measure based on the size of the
Earth. Indeed, the Pyramid's Sacred Cubit is really the French meter
scientifically and mathematically corrected over 4,000 years before the
French scientists even thought of the idea of having a unit of linear
measure based on the dimensions of the Globe.
When the meter was brought into existence, a French mathematician named
M. Callet in his book "Logarithmus", published in 1795, suggested that
the meter should be the 10,000,000th of the Earth's mean polar radius
instead of being based on the irregularly curved surface of the Earth.
Without being aware of it, M. Callet was suggesting the truly
scientific Sacred Cubit in the design of the Great Pyramid." END QUOTE
Researchers and surveyors like Rutherford wondered why the British inch
almost fit as the perfect measuring unit in the Great Pyramid. I say
ALMOST because it was minutely off by the distance of 1/1000th of an
inch.
When Great Pyramid researchers augmented the length of the British inch
by 1/1000th - this unit fit perfectly as the measuring unit used to
build the Great Pyramid.
Obviously, over thousands of years, the British inch deviated and lost
1/1000th over the centuries - not bad.
In the Rutherford quote above, the augmentation of the British inch,
that is its lengthening by 1/1000th is confirmed as accurate and
justified because the Sputnik satellite produced the scientific
measurements for the polar diameter of the Earth.
>From the Rutherford quote:
Mean Polar Radius of the Earth: 3949.9 miles
RUTHERFORD:
"Dividing this figure by 10,000,000, the result is 25.0266 British
inches (corrected to four places of decimals), the precise length of
the Sacred Cubit of the Great Pyramid.
Thus the Earth's mean polar radius measures 10,000,000 Sacred Cubits or
250,000,000 Pyramid inches; hence the Pyramid inch is the 500,000,000th
of the Earth's polar diameter.
Sacred Cubit = 25.0266 British inches.
This cubit is divided into 25 equal parts called the "inch" and this
inch = 1.001064 British inches." END QUOTE
Ray Martinez:
Above is the evidence and reasoning for correcting the British inch to
ITS TRUE LENGTH, which was only 1/1000th of an inch.
25 of these inches, called the Pyramid inch = what is called the Sacred
Cubit.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_7cos.htm
"Earth, Radius, Polar ...... 3949.90462476 mi.
................................... 6,356,755.28816 m"
The link above confirms the Rutherford data as to the polar radius of
the Earth being 3949.9 miles.
You can Google around to various sites and confirm the above figure by
multiplying it by 2 = the figure given as the full polar diameter of
the Earth.
The same link provides the figures for the length of the Sidereal,
Tropical/Solar, and Anomalistic years:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_7cos.htm
Sidereal Orbit
(365.25636042 + 1.1 x 10-7 TE) days
Tropical Year
(365.24219878 - 6.14 x 10-6 TE) days
Anomalistic Year
(365.25964134 + 3.04 x 10-6 TE) days
The figures above can be verified at any site as it is common
undisputed knowledge.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=15&t=242&m=601#604
The link above contains a diagram showing the facts below:
(if the link above does not work then you can click here and scroll
down a ways to the 3rd diagram that appears from the top:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93010 )
AB = 365.242 Sacred Cubits (SC = 25 PI") = number of days in Solar
Tropical Year.
AEFB = 365.256 SC = number of days in Sidereal Year
AbB = 365.259 SC = number of days in Anomalistic Year ("b" obscured
between "w" and "x")
The diagram was produced by Rutherford and is the result of his
measurements of the Great Pyramid done in Egypt in the years already
cited.
CONCLUSION THUS FAR:
The Sidereal, Solar, and Anomalistic years were known by the builders
of the Great Pyramid as the figures match exactly.
That is the 3 measured base lengths of the Great Pyramid as shown in
the diagram perfectly match the lengths of the Sidereal, Solar, and
Anomalistic years.
365.242 = a measured length of the Great Pyramid base AND the Solar
year.
365.256 = a measued length of the Great Pyramid base AND the Sidereal
year.
365.259 = a measured length of the Great Pyramid base AND the
Anomalistic year.
The British inch corrected to its true length (called the Pyramid or
Sacred inch), that is a lengthening of 1/1000th of an inch is the
measuring unit which fits as the measuring unit of the Great Pyramid.
To have the Pyramid inch as a unit perfectly increment the polar
diameter of the Earth, and the base lengths match the three years
above, means: the builders of the Great Pyramid knew the Earth was
round and its dimensions and the lengths of its orbit around the sun.
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/fingerprints/
The following evidence and material is from the book "Fingerprints of
the Gods" by Graham Hancock, [1995]
Page 177:
"The orthodox view is that Archimedes in the 3rd century BC was the man
to calculate pi correctly at 3.14 [Brittanica 9:415]
Scholars do not accept that any of the mathematicians of the New World
ever got anywhere near pi before the arrival of the Europeans in the
16th century." END QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livio_Catullo_Stecchini
Page 180:
Livio Catullo Stecchini (Harvard Ph.D.) world renown authority on
ancient monuments:
"The basic idea of the Great Pyramid was that it should be a
representation of the northern hemisphere of the Earth, a hemishpere
projected on flat surfaces as is done in map-making....The Great
Pyramid was a projection on four triangular surfaces. The apex
represented the pole and the perimeter represented the equator. This is
the reason why the perimeter is in relation to 2 pi to the height. The
Great Pyramid represents the Northern hemisphere in a scale of
1:43,200" [quoted from Appendix, Peter Tompkins, "Secrets of the Great
Pyramid", page 378] END QUOTE
Page 178:
"The principal factors involved in the geometry of any pyramid are:
1) height of summit above the ground.
2) perimeter at ground level.
Great Pyramid: ratio between original height (481.3949 feet) and
perimeter (3023.16 feet) is the same ratio between the radius and the
circumference of a circle (2 pi).
Height x 2 pi (like one would with a circle radius to calculate its
circumference) = perimeter (481.3949 feet 2 x 3.14 = 3023.16 feet).
Reverse the same for the height.
This precise mathematical correlation cannot come about by chance, thus
the builders were indeed conversant with pi and incorporated its value
into the dimensions of the Great Pyramid." [height and perimeter
figures: Edwards, "The Pyramids of Egypt", pages 87, 219 (1949)] END
QUOTE
The builders of the Great Pyramid knew and used pi.
But conventional history says the earliest known existence of pi was in
the 3rd century BC by Archimedes.
Modern scientifc man did not know the exact dimensions of the Earth
until 1957.
The universally accepted date for the absolute latest possible date for
the erection and building of the Great Pyramid is 2700 BC. That is 4700
years ago.
The Great Pyramid contains modern scientific knowledge, yet ALL
mainstream scholarship concludes the ancient times of antiquity
"pre-scientiifc times".
This belief that ultra-ancient times to be pre-scientific is refuted by
the physical facts about the Great Pyramid.
Modern man did not know the dimensions of the Earth until space flight,
but the builders of the Great Pyramid knew in 2700 BC/4700 years ago.
How did they know what we only found out recently ?
Nobody suggests that airborne flight was possible 4700 years ago.
Nobody knows the answers to these questions.
Great Pyramid = Contrast of Impossibility = ultra-scientific built in
ultra non-scienitific time period of history = proof of Divine
involvement, BUT this is another issue.
TWO SCENARIOS: ONLY ONE CAN BE CORRECT
The Evolutionary Scenario says man began as an animal/ape ancestor. He
very slowly made his way through an endless maze of directionless dead
ends to nontheless evolve and improve over millions of years into his
present modern ultra-intelligent state.
The irreversible point that Darwinists have spoken up for is that man
was not created by God suddenly, but began as an animal who gradually
evolved into his present intelligent state.
The Biblical Scenario says God suddenly created Adam full grown and
intelligent.
These two scenarios are an antithesis.
The scientific facts layed out in this post proves that ancient man, in
no later than 2700 BC, knew and used pi, and knew the dimensions of the
Earth.
Modern men did not know about pi for thousands of years later and only
in 1957 did he discover the exact dimensions of the Earth.
The point is that ancient men had great scientific knowledge that we
only recently discovered.
This fact obliterates and falsifies the Evolutionary Scenario.
Man was not progessively evolving and improving as the Darwinists
assert. The facts of the Great Pyramid show mankind of great antiquity
to be genius.
We know in a courtroom a defendant can be acquitted by one single piece
of irrefutable evidence which negates a mountain of circumstantial
evidence against him.
The Great Pyramid and its endless scientific facts (of which only 2
were presented here) decimates whatever evidence exists for the
Evolutionary Scenario/hominid evolution.
In reality, there is scant highly subjective fossil evidence which can
be asserted to be whatever the Darwinist needs it to be. It has no
clear objective value apart from the pre-existing narrative of
Naturalism that said hominid evolution MUST be true. The Bible
acknowledges the existence of these "corruptible dead anthropons"
(Romans 1:23) in the context of God's wrath manifested upon persons who
deny the obviousness of intelligent design.
I have shown that Darwinists admit that human evolution is assumed
based on other claimed facts. The most extraordinary claim of all time
dependant on other claimed facts and then assumed is hardly a theory
mildly supported much less proven but this does not stop Darwinists
from asserting it is.
The facts of history, that is the proven scientific intelligence of the
ancients, then the subsequent loss of this scientific ability
through-out the course of history until recent times - refutes the
Evolutionary Scenario and human evolution nonsense to be the moronic
delusions of persons who have one common denominator: Deliberate
refusal to recognize God as Creator (1) - which according to the Bible
is the ONLY thing He demands (Romans 1:21).
Ray Martinez
1) Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University:
"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and
under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did
not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he
overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing
was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a
natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that
the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes
and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called
Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of
Darwin's theories." One Long Argument (1991) p.99
Richard Clayton
> Because I have been censored via my posts being altered by a friend of
> my opponent I will not risk further cheating and trespassing by
> on-lookers - this will be my last post in this debate that has in its
> record numerous Darwinists violating the closed debate rule and of
> course Creationists respected the rule.
He bravely ran away, away...
While I am sure your last post will be fascinating to conspiracy
theorists and pyramidologists, I would like to point out that never, in
any posts, did you provide a testable scientific alternative to the view
that humans and apes are, indeed, related.
Ave atque vale, Ray.
Ray Martinez
Ray, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I went to your
two posts on ChristianForums.net, copied the posts and pasted them
here.
RAY:
There was and is only one post with 2 links to reach the same post.
DAVE:
If they got messed up, I apologize
RAY:
Alright, Dave.
After thinking about what you have said after the fact, that is your
explanations - I believe you and accept them.
By re-pasting my reply here, in a different format, the read is much
different and the loss of the colorization and boldtype negates much
work.
DAVE:
I apologize for posting this here, but I thought I was doing the group
a favor by making it easier for people to follow Ray's and Richard's
arguments.
RAY:
I apologize for the previous post against you and have went through the
process to have it deleted.
Ray Martinez
dfri...@hotmail.com
I accept your apology.
Ray Martinez
While I am sure your last post will be fascinating to conspiracy
theorists and pyramidologists, I would like to point out that never, in
any posts, did you provide a testable scientific alternative to the
view
that humans and apes are, indeed, related.
RAY:
IOW, you are unable to refute and you are letting the debate know this
via insults and straw men.
The scientifc facts and arguments based on those facts, in my last
post, are unaccounted for in the Darwinian worldview except to evade
addressing them while relying on cultural stereotypes reserved for
persons who are seen as crazy.
Asserting "conspiracy" out of the blue while not showing it from
anything I argued is as old as the Pharisees in the N.T. asserting
Jesus as crazy, and we know Jesus identified the source of this tactic
to be Satan.
You are trying to poison the well.
The scientific facts in my last post refute the Evolutionary Scenario.
Because you know this - you must rely on insults and such in hopes this
will get you off the hook in front of your peers from having to address
the points and the inability to refute them.
Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton
> RICHARD:
>
> While I am sure your last post will be fascinating to conspiracy
> theorists and pyramidologists, I would like to point out that never, in
>
> any posts, did you provide a testable scientific alternative to the
> view
> that humans and apes are, indeed, related.
>
> RAY:
>
> IOW, you are unable to refute and you are letting the debate know this
> via insults and straw men.
Uh, actually, Ray, YOU announced you were "resigning" from the debate.
> The scientifc facts and arguments based on those facts, in my last
> post, are unaccounted for in the Darwinian worldview except to evade
> addressing them while relying on cultural stereotypes reserved for
> persons who are seen as crazy.
>
> Asserting "conspiracy" out of the blue while not showing it from
> anything I argued is as old as the Pharisees in the N.T. asserting
> Jesus as crazy, and we know Jesus identified the source of this tactic
> to be Satan.
>
> You are trying to poison the well.
>
> The scientific facts in my last post refute the Evolutionary Scenario.
Are you willing to discuss that, Ray? Or do you just want to have the
last word and then run for it?
> Because you know this - you must rely on insults and such in hopes this
> will get you off the hook in front of your peers from having to address
> the points and the inability to refute them.
I'm still up for this if you are.
Ray Martinez
Why don't you just proceed with the debate and take your turn instead
of acting like it is over ?
Your lopsided focus on the announcement I made prior to the final
outcome of the issues Dave F. and I had very much appears like you are
truly hoping I am quitting the debate.
You need to reply Richard.
And for the record; I have treated you with colleague respect in all
the topics, which you have not given me the same courtesy.
It really doesn't matter what I do, because as it sits now - the ball
is in your court.
I also find it patently ridiculous that you have now, in so many words,
declared victory.
That is tantamount to self-nomination - absurd.
But, away from this arena, I most certainly will claim victory as you
have completely evaded and misrepresented all my material. You have
wholly evaded the pointy specifics which can only be interpreted as the
inability to refute.
My last post refutes human evolution claims, the weight of the
objective evidence overrides the evidence of hominid evolution because
your evidence is scant, and sub-premium/epitome of subjectivity. My
evidence needs infinetly less interpretation, unless of course
worldview philosophy will not let you go where the evidence leads.
I understand you are leaving town to travel.
Please have a good trip and don't worry about responding this week. I
took last week off as you know for work related reasons so this can be
your bye week as they say in football.
Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton
> Richard:
>
> Why don't you just proceed with the debate and take your turn instead
> of acting like it is over ?
Well, you did declare you were quitting.
> Your lopsided focus on the announcement I made prior to the final
> outcome of the issues Dave F. and I had very much appears like you are
> truly hoping I am quitting the debate.
>
> You need to reply Richard.
Oh, I was hoping you would say that. Very well, then; I shall begin
work on a reply. However, as I mentioned, I will be on the road until
next weekend, during which time I will not be able to post to usenet.
> And for the record; I have treated you with colleague respect in all
> the topics, which you have not given me the same courtesy.
>
> It really doesn't matter what I do, because as it sits now - the ball
> is in your court.
>
> I also find it patently ridiculous that you have now, in so many words,
> declared victory.
>
> That is tantamount to self-nomination - absurd.
You declared that you were resigning from the debate, Ray. Even at
best, that's a forfeit.
> But, away from this arena, I most certainly will claim victory as you
> have completely evaded and misrepresented all my material. You have
> wholly evaded the pointy specifics which can only be interpreted as the
> inability to refute.
I never doubted that you would claim victory regardless of the outcome.
That is why I will no longer debate creationists by private email. With
a public debate, of course, anybody is welcome to simply check the archive.
> My last post refutes human evolution claims, the weight of the
> objective evidence overrides the evidence of hominid evolution because
> your evidence is scant, and sub-premium/epitome of subjectivity. My
> evidence needs infinetly less interpretation, unless of course
> worldview philosophy will not let you go where the evidence leads.
We shall see.
> I understand you are leaving town to travel.
>
> Please have a good trip and don't worry about responding this week. I
> took last week off as you know for work related reasons so this can be
> your bye week as they say in football.
Gosh, that's quite gracious of you, Ray-- especially since you ignored
my initial challenge for over a month.
Ray Martinez
Gosh, that's quite gracious of you, Ray-- especially since you ignored
my initial challenge for over a month.
RAY:
The very day and hour in which I discovered the challenge - I accepted.
RM
Richard Clayton
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e1f9c6b8d64a7d88/4860db9f56264e15?hl=en&
>
> The above link will direct you to the on-going one-on-one debate
between Darwinist Richard Clayton and myself - Evangelical Creationist
Ray Martinez.
>
> I urge everyone to read the debate and see how Darwinists evade
> evidence and misrepresent the data and arguments.
>
> It is my turn to respond as I will post my reply here because the
Talk Origins Usenet format is lame and primitive.
Once again, I ask you to please respond here in talk.origins. You may
consider the usenet format "lame and primitive," but this is the
location in which you agreed to debate me.
> Quick Recap of my Thesis and Arguments:
>
> "In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document
> summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
>
> 'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
> It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that
> living
> things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
> not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the
> rest
> of the living world.'
>
> Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
> evolutionist).
>
> Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
> at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
> (macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
> life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
>
> The Academy/Miller quote above is kind of tricky but at the same time
> I find it objective in that the wording places alleged human evolution
> to be a fact based upon "the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply
> to the rest of the living world." In other words, hominid evolution is
> safely assumed based on the facts of microevolution. The quote clearly
> downgrades human evolution certainty to reside as assumed fact based
> upon other facts.
>
> The most extraordinay claim of all time (human evolution) is dependant
> upon other claimed facts THEN assumed true.
>
> But society is inundated with the assertion that human evolution is a
> fact based upon voluminous evidence. When an objective person
> scratches
> the surface and looks into the matter we find that evolutionary
> authorities admit hominid evolution is assumed. This means the amount
> of evidence actually supporting human evolution is grossly
> exaggerated.
>
> If humans did indeed evolve from an ape ancestor then there would be
> (and should be) massive amounts of direct evidence. This extraordinary
> claim should not be dependant upon assumptions that "apply to the rest
> of the living world."
>
> My point: The Academy/Miller quote, logically, does not support the
> claim of human evolution. Strip away the presuppositions and needs of
> the naturalist and atheist worldviews and the evidence and its paucity
> status has no clear objective value or meaning.
>
> My opponent evades and misrepresents my argument:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/92882ec47da4808d?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> Richard Clayton wrote:
> That is not what the above quote says. It says that the evidence
> indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution worked in the
> past and works in the present. It also states, quite clearly, that
> there is no scientific support for any other view. I was not, and am
> not, clear on why you presented that quote-- it appears to shoot you
> quite neatly in the foot.
>
>
> Richard Clayton continues:
>
> "Evolution is dependent on other observed facts, of course; every
> scientific theory is dependent on other observed facts. That does not
> mean that it is "not well supported," but rather the opposite. With
> which of evolution's supporting facts do you take issue?
> If your argument is that speciation, also known as macroevolution,
> does
> not take place, then I am afraid you are mistaken; not only does
> speciation happen, it has been observed both in the laboratory and in
> the wild. There's a really excellent source at this link:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> The link discusses both speciation under controlled laboratory
> conditions and in the wild. We can also see strong evidence in the
> fossil record of species that change over time-- pakicetus resembles
> ambulocetus, which in turn resembles rodhocetus, which resembles
> basilosaurus. While each "snapshot" in the fossil record resembles the
> one before it and the one after it, the end result is quite different
> from the original." END QUOTE
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> At issue is: alleged macroevolution, but my opponent references
> microevolution.
>
> Everyone agrees microevolution WITHIN species is a fact. Clayton
> asserts microevolution proves macroevolution which is a gross
> misrepresentation.
Actually, Ray, those are cases of speciation, also known as
macroevolution. They one species branching into a new one, that can no
longer reproduce with the ancestral population. That, by definition, IS
macroevolution.
> Why do Darwinists assert this misrepresentation ?
>
> I will let atheist Richard Milton answer the question:
>
> "Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it
> cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
Richard Milton is wrong here. Macroevolution can be and has been
observed; it can be and has been the subject of experiments. If you have
a new species, you have macroevolution.
> Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
> change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
> to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches
> are
> an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such
> simple
> terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
> disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
> to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
> beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.
>
> It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
> that is the really clever part.
>
> When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
> macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
> exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
> cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
> part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
> with this final part.
>
> This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
> neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic
> homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point;
> that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution
> in the fossil record."
Put simply, Milton is *fantastically* wrong. That is understandable, of
course, since he is a journalist, not a scientist. But it is odd that he
should present himself as an authority on the subject while making such
easily falsified claims. I have already given examples in which
speciation can be and has been observed and empirically tested.
Anti-evolutionists sometimes make the argument that some sort of
"barrier" prevents multiple changes from being cumulative, but never
provide a mechanism that would prevent such changes from adding up.
Ernst Mayr certainly didn't make that claim.
> [source: Richard Milton (atheist), "Shattering Myths of Darwinism",
> pages 152-3, 1997]
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos10_1.htm
>
> Charles Darwin:
>
> "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on
> an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which
> have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every
> geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate
> links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
> organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious
> objection which can be urged against the theory."
>
> The quote above by Darwin admits the fossil record does not show any
> intermediate snapshots/macroevolution.
>
> This was a fact in the 19th century.
Fortunately things have advanced a bit since Darwin's time. We have
found quite a few intermediate links since his day; while arguing that
there were no transitional forms in the fossil record might have flown
in 1860, it certainly doesn't fly today. Besides the fossil cetaceans
listed above, other good examples are hyracotherium (an early horselike
animal) and the famous archaeopteryx. If you take issue with these
examples, please explain, in specific detail, why you do not think that
archaeopteryx looks like something partway between a bird and a dinosaur.
> The Milton quote produced over a hundred years later confirms what
Darwin admitted is still a fact today.
>
> Darwinists still assert macroevolution is a fact despite no evidence
> in the physical geological fossil record.
>
> Why ?
>
> Genesis is not an option.
As pointed out above, there IS evidence in the fossil record for
macroevolution. One quote from 150 years ago and another from a fringe
pop-science writer do not make those fossils disappear.
As for "Genesis is not an option," are you suggesting that even
Christians who accept evolution are in a vast conspiracy against the Bible?
> This makes macroevolution/human evolution/Theory of Evolution a
> philosophy packaged as science. The need for Genesis to be wrong is in
> direct ratio to the degree macroevolution is asserted as fact despite
> there being no evidence.
So Ken Miller, practicing Catholic, is desperately trying to prove the
Bible wrong?
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
>
> "When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
> lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California),
> in February of 1967, he was asked regarding “the missing link.” He
> responded: “There is no one link missing – there are hundreds of links
> missing.” "
Well, yes. There is always more to be found-- as we have discussed
before. But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
apes have common ancestry?
> Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
>
> "In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded
> professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that
> Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most
> likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike
> remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of
> primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But
> the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man,
> where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the
> skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
As I have asked before-- and you have failed to answer-- why would Homo
erectus or Homo habilis not qualify as a link between man and other apes?
> Ray Martinez:
>
> Now we see why the Academy/Miller quote carefully crafted human
> evolution to be assumed based on other claimed facts. Those other
> claimed facts are the undisputed facts of microevolution, which are
> then misrepresented to support macroevolution. As it turns out the
> other claimed facts are assumed also (macroevolution) which further
> relegates supposed human evolution to be assumed. But the point is
> that there is no credible evidence (for human evolution) or any volume
> of it commensurate to the extraordinary claim.
As I asked you before, and you did not answer: What facts do you
dispute, and why? Please be as specific as possible. Thus far you have
relied almost entirely on quotations. Science is not religion; it does
not depend on the revealed word of prophets-- and besides, for every
biologist who pooh-poohs evolution, I can certainly find three more who
firmly state that it is the cornerstone of modern biology. (See also:
"Project Steve.") Please address the evidence.
> Richard Clayton:
>
> "Here you launch into a "quote mine"
Actually, what I wrote was "Here you launch into a 'quote mine' rather
than address the evidence I posted. Why?"
> Ray Martinez:
>
> Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the
> following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
>
> ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
> from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of
> living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
>
> Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
>
> I accept the information as fact.
The information is not factual. Here, for example, is a list of hominid
finds:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Of particular note in this instance are the famed "Lucy," who was
nearly half complete, and the "Turkana Boy," an almost complete Homo
erectus find.
I also pointed out, of course, that Henry Gee took exception to the way
his words were used out of context. "Darwinian evolution by natural
selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is
made clear several times... For the Discovery Institute to quote from my
book without reference to this is mischievous... The use by creationists
of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead
the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of
public values and morals."
> Then I make my point:
>
> For the interval stated, logically, the amount of alleged evidence
> does not support the claim of human evolution.
>
> "Several different hominids appear in the fossil record between 3 and
> 2 million years ago."(2)
>
> I accept the quote above as fact.
>
> Then I make my point:
>
> This fact says for a period of ONE MILLION YEARS "several" alleged
> species are claimed to be known and identified. "Several" is not a
> adjective associated with something well supported. The issue is human
> evolution - not dust mites, but the most extraordinary claim of all
> time is admitted, within the interval stated, to be supported by
> "several" different hominid species.
>
> Logically, the admitted amount of alleged evidence supposedly
> supporting human evolution does not support the claim.
Then why not discuss the evidence, rather than relying on quotes? Why,
for example, is Homo erectus not a good candidate for human ancestry?
You have been dodging several issues since the first post-- but never
fear, I will put back what you have once again snipped away...
> "The failure of bother views of evolution rests, once again, on the
> failure to understand that Deep Time cannot sustain scenarios based on
> narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is
> central to my argument: next time you see a fossil, ask yourself
> whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it
> could by your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for
> certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then, is
> futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a
> line
> of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage, is not a
> scientific
> hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same
> validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
> not scientific."(3)
>
> I accept the quote as fact.
And I once again point out that Henry Gee has reiterated that /Deep
Time/ was written with evolution taken as factual.
> Then I make my point:
>
> Logically, the quote above does not support the claim of human
> evolution.
Henry Gee says human evolution is a fact. If you put so much stock in
other quotes, why won't you accept his word on that?
> My on-going point: The evidence for human evolution is highly and
> grossly exaggerated.
>
> There is no quote mining as charged by Clayton because I accept what
> is written as fact but point out that the "facts" logically do not
> support human evolution theory much less prove it. The Gee quotes
> admit the evidence is scant for the most extraordinary claim of all
> time. Yet we are bombarded with the predictible assertions of
> evolutionists that hominid evolution is proven and voluminously
> supported.
Yet you refuse to discuss the "scant" evidence, and continue to wave
the Gee quotes, even though I have shown you his own words stating that
they were selected with the intent to mislead.
> http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
>
> "Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
> we have of hominid evolution.
>
> In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
>
> The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
>
> So much based on so little.
So, do you think Mr. Jacobs rejects evolution? Or do you just want to
cherry-pick passages that you think will support your argument?
> "few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything
> mildly supported much less proven.
>
> I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically
> these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well
> supported much less proven.
As I pointed out, and you cut away: "While fossils are rare compared to
the number of organisms who have lived-- fossilization is uncommon,
after all-- there's plenty of evidence out there. There are museums full
of fossils and archaeological displays, Ray! Haven't you ever been in one?"
You can say that fossils are "scant" compared to the number of
organisms who have ever lived; fossilization is rare, and some animals
simply do not fossilize well. But despite their comparative rarity,
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
>
> "In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director
> of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned
> evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into
> her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she
> described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area
> as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps”
> (Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added).
So the argument is "One new area produces no useful fossils, therefore
no areas produce useful fossils"? Do you think Meave Leaky considers our
current fossil hominids inadequate for study? Or do you think she's just
frustrated that she can't get MORE?
> Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
> titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?,” by saying: “[T]he level
> of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders
> irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in
> the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (2004,
> 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the
> most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that
> few human fossils have been found"
I replied to this as well, and you snipped it away: "Scientists of
every field clamor for more evidence. Chemists blow things up,
astronomers search the skies hoping for a lucky find. It's the nature of
science to want more data points, more facts, more knowledge-- and
unfortunately nature isn't always as obliging as we would like."
Do you think that David Begun disputes human evolution? Do you think
the "irreconcilable differences of opinion" are questions of whether
humans share ancestry with apes, or rather exactly what species diverged
and where?
> The link quote above by David Begun once again shows my use of the
> Academy/Miller quote to be accurate in that he confirms "the available
> direct evidence" is in complete harmony with every quote in this
> reply.
>
> I accept all these quotes as facts and sum it all up:
>
> The facts that they establish in no objective manner supports the
> assumption and claims of human evolution.
>
> Darwinists have shot themselves in the foot. The brutal honesty of
> evolutionary authorities logically does not support their claims.
>
> Richard Clayton parrots "quote mine !"
>
> How Richard ?
>
> I accept each quote as fact THEN I simply point out that the facts
> logically do not support the reputation of human evolution as proven.
> Quite the opposite.
>
> "quote mine" tactic is the Darwinian way of invoking the 5th
> Amendment.
>
> This is not a courtroom where lawyer rhetoric is allowed to twist all
> facts in accordance to the needs of the client.
And what about quotes that can be shown to be out-of-context, creating
a superficial meaning contrary to the original one? What about when the
author himself states he has been misrepresented? Most importantly, why
not address the physical facts rather than just cut-and-paste quotes?
> Once again, the actual evidence supporting human evolution is scant
> and has no clear objective value apart from the massive biased
> assumptions of the Naturalist/Atheist worldview.
Once again: Not all people who accept evolution are atheists.
> RICHARD CLAYTON: (from the OP):
>
> Genetic evidence is even more compelling.
And you snipped away my text describing said genetic evidence.
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Whenever the physical evidence supposedly supporting human evolution
> is debated or offered, the Darwinist immediately goes into the alleged
> genetic evidence.
>
> Why ?
>
> Answer: Because, as I have documented above, the physical inventory is
> embarrassingly diminutive - thats why the Darwinist cites the genetic.
Then why won't you address it?
Why is Homo erectus not a transitional form between humans and other
apes? Why aren't the Australopithecines?
> If the physical evidence made the case they wouldn't need to go into
> the microscopic universe to begin with.
>
> From the widely known Creation Science Fact page:
>
>
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#But%20aren't%20humans%2097%%20chimp
>
> What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and
> chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the
> popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA
> contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds
> known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at
> a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to
> determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be
> incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000
> nucleotides in sequence. Neither human nor chimp DNA has been anywhere
> near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (this
> would also require unprecedented processing time and power). Indeed it
> may be a long time before such a comparison can be made because it
> will probably be the year 2005 before we have the full sequence of
> human DNA –- and chimp DNA sequencing has a much lower priority.
Actually, this is now out of date; the human genome has since been
sequenced.
> Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a
> fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of
> human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double
> strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons
> why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of
> similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is
> not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters,
> derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the
> 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served
> the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically
> illiterate.
Actually, this "crude" technique is the one also used in paternity
tests and criminal forensics. The author is being disingenuous when he
suggests that it isn't a reliable test of relation.
> Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and
> the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'.
> Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their
> discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.
> Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's
> generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon
> inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was
> above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic
> statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account
> differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure.
> When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there
> is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached
> to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
Of course, that's the beauty of science; it does not rest on the
authority of individuals or on single events. The human-chimp genetic
comparison can be (and has been) done multiple times, yielding the same
results each time.
> What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that
> mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common
> ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3
> billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated
> to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If
> humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base
> pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books
> of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations
> (random changes) to cross.
This is a laughable handwave. If my father and I have very similar DNA,
isn't that evidence that we are related? If foxes, dogs, and wolves all
have substantially homologous DNA, would you consider that evidence that
they are related? The writer instead invokes special pleading,
suggesting that somehow genetic homology means something different in
this instance that it does the rest of the time. Then he merely asks the
reader to accept his assertion that this is "surely an impossible
barrier for mutations to cross." To which I ask: "Why?" Please be as
specific and detailed as possible.
> I ask Richard to review the above content and respond.
Done.
> In addition, I ask: lets assume as fact that chimp and human DNA is as
> claimed to be, anywhere from 96 to 99 percent similar. How do you
> explain the vast and obvious outward differences between chimps and
> modern humans and the vast difference in intelligence ?
>
> 4 to 1 percent difference yet the vast actual disimilarities are
> strikingly incongruent with similar DNA.
Except we really aren't all that different. We are more bipedal, and
have sparser body hair, but across the board, we are physically more
similar to apes than to any other animal. Chimps and gorillas also
exhibit several typically "human" psychological traits, too, like a
sense of humor, a sense of fair play, self-awareness, and the ability to
lie.
> How does similarity constitute scientific evidence that humans evolved
> from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
Nitpick: We didn't evolve from a "chimp ancestor." We share a common
ancestor with chimps. To pretend otherwise is special pleading: You must
claim that genetic similarity means I am related to my family, and
tigers are related to leopards, but that in this one case, it doesn't
mean what it obviously seems to mean.
> Please explain, because as it sits now you are relying on
> rhetoric/misuse of logic to assert that this supports/proves claims
> involving millions of years.
>
> Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
>
> page 46:
>
> "Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA may
> contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison is
> a tricky task and different alignments can give very different
> results."
This is true but misleading; genetics is an intricate science, and
there are multiple ways to describe the degree of similarity between two
sets of DNA. But all of them agree that humans and other apes are
closely related-- and, interestingly enough, the degree to which they
show relation between humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans is
consistent between different methods of measurement.
> But when a microbiologist qualifies his title with "evolutionary" this
> is a sign that all data and conclusions will support gradualism no
> matter what.
Ray, you consistently dismiss what you don't like with phrases like
"What else could an atheist say" or that "when a microbiologist
qualifies his title with 'evolutionary' this is a sign that all data and
conclusions will support gradualism no matter what." This is classical
ad hominem argument-- a fallacy of which you consistently accuse
"Darwinists." Besides, invoking conspiracy to explain away the failure
of the facts to support your position is not a persuasive argument.
> I say this because the evolutionary DNA scientist will do the same and
> I am not willing to trust them because of whats at stake. Evolutionary
> biochemists certainly knew ALL of the facts contained in "Darwin's
> Black Box" but fraudulently concealed Irreducible Complexity from the
> world until an objective scientist blew the whistle (Behe).
So you invoke a massive, worldwide, centuries-long conspiracy to
obscure the truth, while dismissing the findings of mainstream
scientists. I wonder... would you consider it fair if I dismissed your
sources by saying "They're creationists, so I am not willing to trust
them because of what's at stake"?
"Irreducible complexity" is beyond the scope of this discussion, of
course, unless /Darwin's Black Box/ describes some irreducibly complex
systems that chimps have that humans don't, or vice-versa. Ditto
intelligent design; this is not a question of whether a supernatural
being was involved, but rather how the mechanics of the process worked.
Behe, by the way, agrees that humans are descended from "prehominid
ancestors." No help for you there.
> According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history of
> a group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA and
> protein comparisons.
>
> Page 51:
>
> "A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with
primates instead of rodents"(4)
>
> "A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
among chordates."(5)
>
> "Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales
than to horses."(6)
>
> As was noted above genetics is very complex.
>
> The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of
things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow
proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
Actually, no, these are not monkey wrenches. The first is a classic
example of poor methodology. Here is a post from John Harshman,
describing in detail what he did wrong:
"In this case he took a rabbit, a rodent, a primate, and an outgroup
(sometimes different species for different genes, but always only 4) and
compared the 3 possible trees. The one in which rabbits and primates go
together fit the data better under his analysis. But 4-species
comparisons, when branches are long, which they are here, are especially
vulnerable to long-branch attraction problems. Rodents, for example,
tend to have long branches, and would thus tend to be attracted to the
outgroup. And that's where they show up. The proper way to do this would
be to use lots more species to construct a tree. People who have done
this find rodents and rabbits going together more often than not."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a1942d20c74d0c13?hl=en&
Of course, cows being related to whales is not surprising; it has long
been known that whales are descended from terrestrial ungulates. It may
seem counterintuitive, but whales are indeed closer to artiodactyls
(cows) than perissodactyls (horses); this is a case of genetic evidence
confirming the fossil evidence. And sea urchins (Echinodermata) do group
more closely to chordates than to other animal phyla like Porifera
(sponges) and Cnidaria (jellyfish) and Arthropoda (spiders, crabs,
insects, and other neat creepy-crawlies.)
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm
>
> Martha Molnar. "Priestly Gene Shared By Widely Dispersed Jews." Press
> Release. 10 July 1998.
>
> Edward Rothstein. "DNA Teaches History a Few Lessons of Its Own." The
> New York Times "Week in Review" (May 24, 1998). Excerpts:
>
> "Last year, for example, Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the
> University of Arizona, showed that a genetic analysis of the Y
> chromosomes of Jewish men who ritualistically identified themselves as
> descendants of the Biblical High Priest Aaron and are known as Cohanim
> showed a high transmission of markers that were less prevalent among
> Jews who did not identify as Cohanim. This was evidence, Hammer said,
> of the accuracy of the oral tradition."
So, wait... now you are arguing that genetic similarity IS evidence of
relation? You can't have it both ways, Ray!
Actually, what this evidence supports is that this particular male line
didn't outbreed very much. It certainly does not demand divine
intervention; historically, Jews have often been a culture within a
culture, preferring to marry their own people.
Of course, even if this particular Biblical claim were supported by the
facts (and many are-- I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks the
Bible is wholly wrong about everything) that does not imply that all
other claims should be regarded as true. An idea stands or falls on its
own merits, not by its source; and even the best-written textbooks
sometimes contain errors.
> Chimp DNA being similar to human has zero objective value apart from
> the Naturalist worldview - a worldview that has no objective source to
> justify its existence except to oppose the Supernatural worldview
> which has the ancient objective source of the Bible.
Science is not out to discredit the Bible, Ray; but the Bible doesn't
get a free pass. Neither does any other holy book or religious claim.
Divine revelation simply is not relevant to the scientific method. It's
not a conspiracy against your religion, it's just the way science *works.*
> The genetic evidence corroborates this Biblical claim AND decimates
> any theory which asserts late Torah non-Mosaic authorship, because
> late pseudonymic authorship could not produce a fact like the Aaronic
> Priesthood, but logically, it is a report written by Aaron's brother
> Moses who recorded what God told him to write. In other words, forgers
> don't produce holy facts, but eventually get exposed. Just the
> opposite has occurred: early Mosaic authorship is supported as is the
> larger claim: the existence of the Deity who instituted the Aaronic
> Priesthood.
Again, thirty per cent of "Ashkenazi non-Cohenic Levites" sharing a
particular sequence on the Y chromosome is not evidence of divine
intervention-- just relatively insular breeding practices. It does not
substantiate (or repudiate) claims of divine inspiration or a mandated
priesthood.
> The next leap of the Genesis claim that God created man suddenly is
> infinitesimal in gap compared to the massive gaps in the fossil record
> which Darwinists wink at and at no point consider the massive gaps
> evidence of falsification.
Which gaps, Ray? Please be specific. And remember that the subject of
this debate is limited to hominid ancestry.
[Ray's second post]
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c7990e7189fbc86c
>
> DECAPITATION EVIDENCE: Human Evolution claims RIP
>
> Secular mainstream scholarship of any discipline universally agree the
> entire history of mankind prior to the Renaissance, Protestant
> Reformation, and the invention of the printing press to be easily
> characterized as pre-scientific times.
>
> These three events would mark the absolute earliest anyone could
> objectively identify the inception of the scientific era.
Oh, I don't know about that. The methodology of science has certainly
undergone changes, and science itself has waxed and waned in popularity,
but it would be difficult to point to any one instant and say "Science
did not exist before *now*."
> But if anyone asserted that modern scientific times began with the
> advent of Darwinism, middle to late 19th century - who could argue with
> that ?
>
> Yet advanced scientific times unquestionably began when the old Soviet
> Union shocked the world with the launch of Sputnik I in 1957 ushering
> in the Space Age.
>
> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sputnik/
You seem to be assigning the dates for "modern" or "advanced"
scientific times somewhat at random. For example, you have just placed
quantum mechanics, general relativity, and nuclear bombs outside of the
realm of "advanced scientific times," and you have implicitly declared
Newton's discoveries outside of "modern" science.
> It was data from this orbiting satellite that enabled modern
> scientific
> mankind to know for sure the exact dimensions of the Earth.
Except the Earth's dimensions have been known, with ever-increasing
accuracy, since around 240 BC. Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of
the Earth with a relatively small margin of error. And he did it using
science that is still current today. Sputnik no more proved the Earth's
diameter than it proved the Earth was round.
> Dr. Adam Rutherford F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S., in Egypt 1925, 1950, 1963-5
> "Pyramidology Book 1" [London, 1957]
>
> http://www.capstonebooks.com/orig/pages/pyramid.html
>
> Pages 75, 76:
>
> "On making a scientific examination of the Sacred Cubit in the
> Pyramid, it is found to bear an exact relationship to the size of the
> Earth. This cubit is discovered to be the exact 10,000,000th of the
> mean
> distance from the center of the Earth to the Poles, or in othe words
> the precise 10,000,000th part of the Earth's semi-polar diameter. The
> results of the latest geodetic research since the International
> Geophysical Year 1957-8 reveal that the mean polar radius of the
> Earth,
> as deduced from observation of the orbits of artificial Earth
> satellites is 3949.9 miles. Dividing this figure by 10,000,000, the
> result is 25.0266 British inches (corrected to four places of
> decimals), the precise length of the Sacred Cubit of the Great
> Pyramid.
>
> Thus the Earth's mean polar radius measures 10,000,000 Sacred Cubits
> or 250,000,000 Pyramid inches; hence the Pyramid inch is
> the 500,000,000th of the Earth's polar diameter.
Exactly where in the Great Pyramid is this "sacred cubit" found? Given
that the author believes it was assigned a great deal of meaning, is
there any writing on the walls of the pyramid, detailing the uses of the
"sacred cubit" and defining it explicitly? Or is the author just
post-shadowing, trying to find coincidences and claim that they mean
something? Self-proclaimed psychics and clairvoyants often use similar
techniques, using allegorical readings of everything from the Eddas to
the fluctuations of the stock market to "predict" things that have
already happened.
Unless the author can evidence that this was the intent of the "sacred
cubit," and indeed that the Egyptians even had a notion of such a thing,
this is merely an interesting coincidence. On the other hand, if there
were an explicit inscription saying something like "Here is shown the
Sacred Cubit, exactly one ten-millionth the diameter of the Earth.
Which, by the way, is roughly spherical," I would be impressed, as that
was not general knowledge in 2600 BC.
Incidentally, I have read the /Book of Going Forth by Day/ in several
translations, and I never saw any mention of anything resembling a
"sacred cubit." Very odd, to omit such a sacred thing from a book of
cosmology and the afterlife.
> French savants conceived the idea of instituting a unit of linear
> measure based upon the size of the Earth, and invented the meter,
> which
> from a scientific standpoint is very faulty.
>
>
> The French meter was arrived by taking 10,000,000 part of the so
> called
> quadrant of the Earth as calculated from the North Pole to the
> Equator,
> along a meridian passing through Dunkirk. The Earth IS NOT a perfect
> sphere, the said distance is not a true quadrant, hence it is not
> truly
> scientific to determine a unit of straight measure from such a curved
> surface.
It was the best metric available at the time. Note that the definition
of the meter has changed several times since then-- it is now defined as
the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1 / 299,792,458th of a second.
(Or, put the other way around, the speed of light is defined as
299,792,458 meters per second.)
> Scientifically, a unit of straight measure should be based on the
> straight distance corresponding to the curved semi-meridian, namely
> the
> semi-axis or polar radius of the Earth, as has been done correctly in
> the case of this Sacred Cubit.
>
> Furthermore, the Earth's axis is the only LONG CONSTANT NATURAL
> STRAIGHT LINE on our planet, and it is also truly international, for
> all nations rotate round it once every day. How appropriate that the
> Pyramid's units of measurement should be accurately based upon it !
>
> Thus the Designer of the Pyramid long forestalled modern man in the
> scientific idea of having a unit of measure based on the size of the
> Earth. Indeed, the Pyramid's Sacred Cubit is really the French meter
> scientifically and mathematically corrected over 4,000 years before
> the
> French scientists even thought of the idea of having a unit of linear
> measure based on the dimensions of the Globe.
>
> When the meter was brought into existence, a French mathematician
> named M. Callet in his book "Logarithmus", published in 1795,
> suggested that the meter should be the 10,000,000th of the Earth's
> mean polar radius instead of being based on the irregularly curved
> surface of the Earth. Without being aware of it, M. Callet was
> suggesting the truly
> scientific Sacred Cubit in the design of the Great Pyramid."
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> Above is the evidence and reasoning for correcting the British inch to
> ITS TRUE LENGTH, which was only 1/1000th of an inch.
>
> 25 of these inches, called the Pyramid inch = what is called the
> Sacred
> Cubit.
>
> http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_7cos.htm
>
> "Earth, Radius, Polar ...... 3949.90462476 mi.
> ................................... 6,356,755.28816 m"
> Conclusion thus far:
>
> The Sidereal, Solar, and Anomalistic years were known by the builders
> of the Great Pyramid as the figures match exactly.
>
> That is the 3 measured base lengths of the Great Pyramid as shown in
> the diagram perfectly match the lengths of the Sidereal, Solar, and
> Anomalistic years.
>
> 365.242 = a measured length of the Great Pyramid base AND the Solar
> year.
>
> 365.256 = a measued length of the Great Pyramid base AND the Sidereal
> year.
>
> 365.259 = a measured length of the Great Pyramid base AND the
> Anomalistic year.
Again, can you show that this was known to the builders, or are you
post-shadowing?
> The British inch corrected to its true length (called the Pyramid or
> Sacred inch), that is a lengthening of 1/1000th of an inch is the
> measuring unit which fits as the measuring unit of the Great Pyramid.
>
> To have the Pyramid inch as a unit perfectly increment the polar
> diameter of the Earth, and the base lengths match the three years
> above, means: the builders of the Great Pyramid knew the Earth was
> round and its dimensions and the lengths of its orbit around the sun.
If the builders of the Great Pyramid knew all this, why did they leave
no other traces of their wisdom? How can you reconcile this with the
unambiguous Egyptian belief that the Sun went around the Earth, and not
vice-versa?
> http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/fingerprints/
>
> The following evidence and material is from the book "Fingerprints of
> the Gods" by Graham Hancock, [1995]
>
> Page 177:
>
> "The orthodox view is that Archimedes in the 3rd century BC was the
man to calculate pi correctly at 3.14 [Brittanica 9:415]
>
> Scholars do not accept that any of the mathematicians of the New World
> ever got anywhere near pi before the arrival of the Europeans in the
> 16th century."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livio_Catullo_Stecchini
>
> Page 180:
>
> Livio Catullo Stecchini (Harvard Ph.D.) world renown authority on
> ancient monuments:
>
> "The basic idea of the Great Pyramid was that it should be a
> representation of the northern hemisphere of the Earth, a hemishpere
> projected on flat surfaces as is done in map-making....The Great
> Pyramid was a projection on four triangular surfaces. The apex
> represented the pole and the perimeter represented the equator. This
> is
> the reason why the perimeter is in relation to 2 pi to the height. The
> Great Pyramid represents the Northern hemisphere in a scale of
> 1:43,200" [quoted from Appendix, Peter Tompkins, "Secrets of the Great
> Pyramid", page 378]
>
> Page 178:
>
> "The principal factors involved in the geometry of any pyramid are:
>
> 1) height of summit above the ground.
>
> 2) perimeter at ground level.
>
> Great Pyramid: ratio between original height (481.3949 feet) and
> perimeter (3023.16 feet) is the same ratio between the radius and the
> circumference of a circle (2 pi).
>
> Height x 2 pi (like one would with a circle radius to calculate its
> circumference) = perimeter (481.3949 feet 2 x 3.14 = 3023.16 feet).
> Reverse the same for the height.
>
> This precise mathematical correlation cannot come about by chance,
> thus
> the builders were indeed conversant with pi and incorporated its value
> into the dimensions of the Great Pyramid." [height and perimeter
> figures: Edwards, "The Pyramids of Egypt", pages 87, 219 (1949)]
>
> The builders of the Great Pyramid knew and used pi.
>
> But conventional history says the earliest known existence of pi was
> in
> the 3rd century BC by Archimedes.
The approximate value of pi has been known by various cultures since at
*least* 2,000 BC. The Rhind Papyrus, for example, is a copy of another
document from around dates to around 1,900 BC, and gives the value of pi
as (16/9)^2, which is pretty close to the accepted modern value.
> Modern scientifc man did not know the exact dimensions of the Earth
> until 1957.
Also incorrect, as I have mentioned above.
> The universally accepted date for the absolute latest possible date
> for
> the erection and building of the Great Pyramid is 2700 BC. That is
> 4700
> years ago.
>
> The Great Pyramid contains modern scientific knowledge, yet ALL
> mainstream scholarship concludes the ancient times of antiquity
> "pre-scientiifc times".
>
> This belief that ultra-ancient times to be pre-scientific is refuted
> by
> the physical facts about the Great Pyramid.
Yet strangely enough, they left absolutely zero unambiguous evidence of
their Bronze Age supertech. How do you reconcile that?
> Modern man did not know the dimensions of the Earth until space
> flight,
> but the builders of the Great Pyramid knew in 2700 BC/4700 years ago.
>
> How did they know what we only found out recently ?
>
> Nobody suggests that airborne flight was possible 4700 years ago.
>
> Nobody knows the answers to these questions.
>
> Great Pyramid = Contrast of Impossibility = ultra-scientific built in
> ultra non-scienitific time period of history = proof of Divine
> involvement, BUT this is another issue.
Of course, even if you could prove divine involvement in the
construction of the Great Pyramid, that wouldn't help you a bit, since
this entire tangent is a non-sequitur. The subject of the debate is
whether or not humans and other apes share a common ancestor.
> TWO SCENARIOS: ONLY ONE CAN BE CORRECT
>
> The Evolutionary Scenario says man began as an animal/ape ancestor. He
> very slowly made his way through an endless maze of directionless dead
> ends to nontheless evolve and improve over millions of years into his
> present modern ultra-intelligent state.
>
> The irreversible point that Darwinists have spoken up for is that man
> was not created by God suddenly, but began as an animal who gradually
> evolved into his present intelligent state.
>
> The Biblical Scenario says God suddenly created Adam full grown and
> intelligent.
>
> These two scenarios are an antithesis.
>
> The scientific facts layed out in this post proves that ancient man,
> in
> no later than 2700 BC, knew and used pi, and knew the dimensions of
> the
> Earth.
And how does that support instantaneous creation by divine fiat?
> Modern men did not know about pi for thousands of years later and only
> in 1957 did he discover the exact dimensions of the Earth.
Wrong on both counts, as I pointed out above.
> The point is that ancient men had great scientific knowledge that we
> only recently discovered.
>
> This fact obliterates and falsifies the Evolutionary Scenario.
>
> Man was not progessively evolving and improving as the Darwinists
> assert. The facts of the Great Pyramid show mankind of great antiquity
> to be genius.
Why? The builders of the pyramids (and Stonehenge, and the ruins in
Central and South America) were modern men. ("Modern" in the
paleoanthropological sense, that is; they were Homo sapiens.) Now, if
you could show evidence of Australopithecines using pi, you would
certainly shake up the world of anthropology.
> We know in a courtroom a defendant can be acquitted by one single
> piece
> of irrefutable evidence which negates a mountain of circumstantial
> evidence against him.
>
> The Great Pyramid and its endless scientific facts (of which only 2
> were presented here) decimates whatever evidence exists for the
> Evolutionary Scenario/hominid evolution.
No, it is wholly irrelevant.
> In reality, there is scant highly subjective fossil evidence which can
> be asserted to be whatever the Darwinist needs it to be. It has no
> clear objective value apart from the pre-existing narrative of
> Naturalism that said hominid evolution MUST be true. The Bible
> acknowledges the existence of these "corruptible dead anthropons"
> (Romans 1:23) in the context of God's wrath manifested upon persons
> who deny the obviousness of intelligent design.
I do not think that is the conventional interpretation of Romans 1:23.
This passage in Romans speaks of people debasing themselves by denying
God, certainly, but I don't think most Bible scholars would agree "an
image made like to corruptible man" refers to hominid fossils.
> I have shown that Darwinists admit that human evolution is assumed
> based on other claimed facts. The most extraordinary claim of all time
> dependant on other claimed facts and then assumed is hardly a theory
> mildly supported much less proven but this does not stop Darwinists
> from asserting it is.
Theories are never proven. Ever. No matter how well supported they are.
That's not what "theory" means.
> The facts of history, that is the proven scientific intelligence of
> the
> ancients, then the subsequent loss of this scientific ability
> through-out the course of history until recent times - refutes the
> Evolutionary Scenario and human evolution nonsense to be the moronic
> delusions of persons who have one common denominator: Deliberate
> refusal to recognize God as Creator (1) - which according to the Bible
> is the ONLY thing He demands (Romans 1:21).
And now I drag the discussion back on topic. Here are the points you
have consistently refused to answer, Ray-- and apparently you fear them
so much that you spent half of your post discussing fringe pyramidology
theories instead. So, yet again...
Why do we share the plantaris tendon with chimps, even though it is
essentially useless in both our species?
Why do we share endogenous retroviral insertions, "scars" from long-ago
diseases?
Why is our gene for L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase synthesis (necessary
for making vitamin C) broken the same way in all great apes-- including us?
Remember, your alternate scientific theory must be supported by
evidence and must explain the data at least as well as evolution does.
Richard Clayton
job. Thank you for your patience.
Ray Martinez
Why do we share the plantaris tendon with chimps
RAY MARTINEZ:
You have reintroduced this point saying I have not addressed it.
I have addressed it here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ddaed732cf1823d7?hl=en&
Start Link Excerpt:
CLAYTON:
The similarity in gross morphology alone suggests a common ancestor
MARTINEZ:
We have an assertion which rests entirely upon similarity.
Generally, everyone agrees that ape bones and anatomy resembles genus
Homo. At issue is what do these similarities mean ?
If you are a Darwinist - with a non-creationist worldview, the
similarity suggests that modern humans evolved.
To the naturalist - the God of the Bible as Creator is not an option,
so the explanation of observed similarity between ape bones and anatomy
matching modern human is of no surprise and asserted to be scientific
evidence in favor of the resolve. But from the Creationist viewpoint,
these same similarities support one Almighty Creator working from a
common design and are explained as doing just that.
Does identifying similarity constitute evidence for the resolve ?
Answer: It is not a preponderance of evidence for the resolve since
the observance of similarity can just as easily be interpreted to
support the Creationist view.
CLAYTON:
but external similarity itself is not sufficient;
to make a better case we have to go under the
skin, so to speak, and find common structures that are unlikely to be
shared if humans are not related to other apes.
MARTINEZ:
My opponent and his argument ASSUMES similarity and commonality
supports the resolve. May I remind that my opponent is trying to prove
modern humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor - hominid
evolution.
We have the assumption that the resolve is fact based upon
similarity/commonality. How do these facts, to whatever degree that
they be true, prove or even reasonably support, that modern humans
slowly and gradually over millions of years evolved from an ape
ancestor ?
Answer: Without the needs of naturalist presuppositions they don't. In
other words, philosophy is the driving mechanism which assumes as fact
for the resolve wholly based on the evidence of observed
similarity/commonality, which is retrospectively interpreted faithfully
to support the starting assumptions that modern humans did evolve.
End Link Excerpt
RAY MARTINEZ:
Richard:
I have not contested your assertion about the plantaris tendon as I
accept your point as fact.
In fact, I never even heard of the tendon and for all I know it could
be a phantom invent of which you will subsequently admit at some point
and thus humiliate me.
Your argument is: commonality/similarity = evidence supporting the
resolve. I respond by saying what I said in the excerpt above as I
repeat: how does observed and identified commonality/similarity support
the resolve ? That is the alleged gradual evolution of an ape ancestor
into a man over millions of years ?
Your argument asserts the alleged commonality/similarity of ape bones
and anatomy is scientific evidence for the resolve. This is only true
when packaged within the Naturalism Worldview and all of its
presuppositions. The argument here, when extracted from Naturalist
philosophy, is commonality/similarity of modern humans and chimps - so
what ? In other words, only the massive assumptions of Naturalism
Worldview insist it to be evidence for hominid evolution.
I have interpreted the same argument to support one universal Creator
working from a common design. The strength of the interpretation
resides in the assumptions that come with the Supernatural Worldview.
My point: Citing observed commonality/similarity has no clear
independant objective value or meaning apart from the massive
assumptions of the Naturalism Worldview - a worldview which by faith
assumes the Supernatural worldview to be false. In this context I
rhetorically say: what else would one expect atheists/Naturalists to
assume ?
Observed similarities between modern man and chimps/apes or whatever
was the only "evidence" Darwin and company based the idea on to begin
with.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" page 216 [2000]
"Neither Huxley nor Darwin believed that living apes were our
ancestors....the ape to human icon was simply a restatement of
materialistic philosphy. It's form preceded any fossil evidence of
ancestor-descendant relationships, and it made with whatever evidence
happened to be at hand - in this case, SIMILARITIES to living apes.
Fossils discovered later were just plugged into this preexisting
framework." END QUOTE
RAY MARTINEZ:
150 years later you are still offering the same "evidence" - similarity
somehow supports that apes morphed into men over millions of years.
This is rhetoric/misuse of logic being asserted as scientific evidence.
But the sequence of alleged hominid evolution idea is as follows: God
rejected as Creator, THEN openly racist Darwin and Huxley "saw" the
"similarity" between Africans and apes. In other words, the observed
similarity is not evidence much less scientific - it is racism:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CA005.1
I am not saying you are a racist. I am saying similarity is what it is
and has no clear objective meaning unless a person subscribes to
atheistic assumptions.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
Actually, Ray, those are cases of speciation, also known as
macroevolution. They one species branching into a new one, that can no
longer reproduce with the ancestral population. That, by definition, IS
macroevolution.
RAY MARTINEZ:
No Richard, speciation is assumed.
I have already provided a mega-objective summary of the difference
between micro and macro by atheist Richard Milton.
The Academy/Miller quote and the Milton quote ALL admit that speciation
is largely assumed based on the undisputed facts of microevolution.
For example, horse evolution is the primary sequence Darwinists point
to as evidence of macroevolution.
In response, I ask you:
Each species appears in the fossil record, changes slightly, then
disappears. What actually connects them ?
I and my sources say the assumption of macroevolution.
CLAYTON:
Richard Milton is wrong here. Macroevolution can be and has been
observed; it can be and has been the subject of experiments. If you
have
a new species, you have macroevolution.
MARTINEZ:
Milton is not wrong, but I understand you must insist otherwise lest
falsification be established. Tell me what axe is Milton grinding being
an atheist ? You instantly welcome TEists when they are useful to
confront Creationists with, but here we have a 30 year science
journalist, Mensa member, simply pointing out that macroevolution is
assumed based on the facts of microevolution yet you refuse to embrace
?
Naturalism Worldview demands macroevolution must be true or how else
did everything become ?
In other words, the evidence for God is not an option - attempted
atheist philosophy being pushed under the color of objective science.
Your quote above gives yourself away and supports my analysis: "If you
have new species you have macroevolution."
Even Darwin admitted the fossil record showed no evidence of
intermediates in his day, yet that fact did not stop him from
postulating and insisting his theory correct.
Obviously, the option, or should I say the dread of Genesis being an
alternative drove the insistence despite there being no fossil
formations to support.
CLAYTON:
Put simply, Milton is *fantastically* wrong. That is understandable, of
course, since he is a journalist, not a scientist. But it is odd that
he
should present himself as an authority on the subject while making such
easily falsified claims. I have already given examples in which
speciation can be and has been observed and empirically tested.
MARTINEZ:
The Media accepts as fact EVERYTHING you Darwinists assert and without
question or dissent.
Now you attempt to portray yourself as a victim of the Media.
In other words, anyone who contradicts your theory will be branded with
a universally accepted negative cultural stigma and stereoptype, in
this case; the much justified hatred of the idiotic Media. The other
favorite of Darwinists is to frame dissent as coming from religious
Fundamentalists. In either case, these tactics falsely position
yourself as representing science being chastised for producing
unpopular facts.
Darwinism is not science, but an explanation of scientific data
favorable to the Naturalism Worldview, as is Creationism an explanation
of scientific data favorable to the Supernaturalism Worldview.
Richard Milton is a naturalist who objectively confirms that
macroevolution is unobservable, not subject to experimentation because
it is a hypothetical process strewn out over untold millions of years,
and it is assumed based on microevolution.
CLAYTON:
We have found quite a few intermediate links since his day; while
arguing that
there were no transitional forms in the fossil record might have flown
in 1860, it certainly doesn't fly today.
MARTINEZ:
Then what evidence was Darwin basing his theory on Richard ?
Apostate/atheist needs maybe ?
No transitional evidence exists. Thats why your theory is called a
theory.
Only biased Darwinists and their predictible needs assert such
hypotheticals to exist.
Richard Milton, in his book, says at least 10 different times, that no
transitional evidence exists of any kind or anywhere. This confirms
Creationist allegations.
What you Darwinists insist to be intermediacy, in reality, is
astronomically subjective with no clear independant objective value.
This is why Jim Foley invented the rather imfamous argument asking
which skull is human and which is ape ?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
The tactic is completely reliant on the fact that an equal amount of
people will pick one or the other, then the Darwinist interjects: this
difference of opinion (as if the opinion of any person off the street
counts in science validity) proves transitional status, which is pure
rhetoric/misuse of logic.
CLAYTON:
If you take issue with these examples, please explain, in specific
detail, why you do not think that
archaeopteryx looks like something partway between a bird and a
dinosaur.
MARTINEZ:
Lets assume archaeopteryx is exactly as you say/observe.
Lets assume the find is a snapshot luckily preserved.
Because it is ONE and just ONE it has no confirmation or support. In
other words, it is a freak, and if macroevolution is a fact then there
must be thousands if not millions of the same type of evidence. But we
know this is not true as Darwin admitted and Milton confirmed.
The Old Testament says "by the mouths of two or three witnesses shall
the matter be established" [Deuteronomy 19:5]
Even by Biblical standards you need 2 or 3.
I will finish the reply ASAP.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
The Old Testament says "by the mouths of two or three witnesses shall
the matter be established" [Deuteronomy 19:5]
The correct verse is 19:15.
RM
EB
(snip)
> But from the Creationist viewpoint,
> these same similarities support one Almighty Creator working from a
> common design and are explained as doing just that.
How "almighty" is this "creator" if it needs to use a common design? Is
it not omnipotent? What is it doing by using common design? Saving
itself some trouble? Totally unique design would better show off
omnipotence, would it not?
Richard Clayton
Please do not post to the closed debate thread. Thank you.
EB
> EB wrote:
>
>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>But from the Creationist viewpoint,
>>>these same similarities support one Almighty Creator working from a
>>>common design and are explained as doing just that.
>>
>>How "almighty" is this "creator" if it needs to use a common design? Is
>>it not omnipotent? What is it doing by using common design? Saving
>>itself some trouble? Totally unique design would better show off
>>omnipotence, would it not?
>
>
> Please do not post to the closed debate thread. Thank you.
Why?? If this is not a public posting then why is it being posted in
public??
Richard Clayton
The debate is public, yes. Of course, it is a free internet, and you
can post whatever and wherever you like. As a matter of courtesy, Ray
and I have asked others not to post in the thread. (But I can't stop you
from posting in this thread, and I wouldn't even if I could.)
Ray Martinez
As for "Genesis is not an option," are you suggesting that even
Christians who accept evolution are in a vast conspiracy against the
Bible?
RAY MARTINEZ:
Anyone can claim to be anything including a christian. We know from his
speeches even Adolf Hitler claimed to be a christian.
A person is what they reveal themself to be via their position and
arguments. Any given person claiming christianity has no effect on what
the source for christianity actually says. A lot of Darwinists say
they are christians with the hopes that this claim somehow will give
Biblical support for ToE.
How does anyone know they are a christian and not some hateful atheist
attempting to corrupt the Bible which is the most obvious suspicion ?
TEists have no source for their Creator beliefs unless they radically
change, ignore, evade, or re-write what the Bible says.
The Bible through and through establishes sudden creation as the method
of its Deity. ToE claims the exact opposite - ultra-slow graduality
produced creation.
This means TEists are evidently attempting to reconcile the
irreconciable with subjective and sourceless assertions.
As for your conspiracy charge: There is a conspiracy to employ a
negative emotive stereotype against what the Bible says by labeling
"literal Genesis" to be what stupid people believe. This invent was
created by persons who do not like what Genesis says. In essence,
"literal is error" questions what God says which is revealing
disagreement and/or dislike for what it says.
The Bible reveals a superhuman Devil out to erase the truths of God's
word and he becomes the origin of the conspiracy as is plainly shown in
Genesis 3:1
Where is the first sin in the Bible ?
Wherever the first question mark is.
It is the serpent, who is the type of Satan, who questions what God
says, hence the origin and source for the "literal is error"
invent/movement.
"literal is error" = attempt to erase sudden creation and give ToE
Biblical support.
Darwinism had one common denominator which all its adherents embraced
at its inception (against sudden creation/Bible) and the same
commonality exists today despite ridiculous attempts by TEists to
corrupt the plain reading of the entire Bible.
Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University:
"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and
under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did
not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he
overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing
was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a
natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that
the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes
and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called
Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of
Darwin's theories." One Long Argument (1991) p.99
MARTINEZ:
Let me reverse your question as I ask you to explain:
Are Creationists in a conspiracy against evolution ?
The Mayr quote above says Darwinists/evolutionists are in a conspiracy
against the Bible/creationism.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
So Ken Miller, practicing Catholic, is desperately trying to prove the
Bible wrong?
RAY MARTINEZ:
Of course. Your "question" defies logic as it assumes that Miller is
telling the truth and that he is pro-Bible.
What Darwinist is pro-Bible ?
This is rhetorical.
You are feigning ignorance and naivevete about a flaming Bible hating
moron attempting to give his atheistic scientific theory Biblical
support.
I have read Miller's rather recent book "Finding Darwin's God" and it
ends with this line:
"I believe in Darwin's God."
Darwin was an apostate-naturalist/atheist.
Miller is not a Catholic regardless of what he claims. Catholicism
wholly believes in the Resurrection of Christ, sudden creation of the
world and Adam.
Miller does not.
Miller is a self-evident liar and if he would lie so brazenly about
things that need no or very little research to confirm then it is scary
to think what his kind does with scientific data.
Romans 1:25 has God calling all Darwinists liars so I have an objective
source to confirm what is obvious.
Ray Martinez
angeline
you guys. I will stress two areas or foundation of my arguments:
1.FAITH:
Human as we are, we have different beliefs. I being a Christian
believe in the sanctity and truthfulness of the bible. Though, there
are some of the provisions that are questionable. There are many things
in the bible that were so deep that can't be reached by human
mind...our intellect. Guys, during my christian living studies, I
learned that God created us in his own image and likeness...He created
us to enjoy the world and safeguard it. He created us on the 6th day of
the week and we're molded from clay....He gave his breath to us...and
so on and so forth...Very mysterious indeed, not very scientific....At
the humanitarian level, it's hard to believe because no one can ever do
that....YES, only GOD......I never question it, because I have
faith....but when I grow old and I'm learning more things specially
"theory of evolution" by Charles Darwin....questions popped up from my
mind....But deep inside my heart I believed that God indeed give us
life.....That's hard to question..because is beyond reason....It's
beyond the reach of our intellect....
2. Human Mind/Intellect
A human mind, needs explanation. A concrete answer and an evidence
that would convince us with the argument/study/theory perhaps. I should
say that in the humanitarian level "theory of evolution" by Charles
Darwin is the most accepted theory/study. That a is a product of
evolution, that we million years ago were the "Apes"/"Chimpanzees". As
time evolves we now become the most intelligent animals....thus making
us the highest level of animal kingdom.......Scientifically, we can see
that we have lots of similarities with the apes........hmmm? well! I
dont think so! heehehhe! Again.....it depends on how will the person
based his explanation......to what premise will he based his
explanation......u
Ray Martinez
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
"When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California),
in February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
links
missing."
RICHARD CLAYTON:
Well, yes. There is always more to be found-- as we have discussed
before. But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
apes have common ancestry?
MARTINEZ:
Your answer intentionally twists the quote to have said so called
missing links were indeed found.
The quote and its fact says there are no missing link or links
discovered.
CLAYTON:
But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
apes have common ancestry?
MARTINEZ:
Leakey assumes hominid evolution is a fact but he is honest to report
that the crucial evidence supporting the assumption is non-existent.
Leakey produces a fact based on his anthropologic research (hundreds of
missing links), I accept the claim as fact, and now I ask you what
evidence did Leakey base his assumption on ?
Leakey was a naturalist, so hominid evolution MUST be true because
Genesis is not an option. If humans did evolve then the missing link
type of evidence should be abundant - but it is not as Leakey confirms.
The reason there are hundreds of links missing - is it because the
assumption and theory is not true ?
The scientific data, that is the utter lack of any credible objective
volume of missing links is scientific evidence supporting the evidence
of Genesis which says Adam was suddenly created by God.
Museums across the world have erected exhibits purportedly showing
human evolution a fact. Yet, I have NEVER seen ANY exhibit showing a
genuine transitional fossil, instead these displays all show fake
plaster cast reproductions of the supposed genuine articles.
Why ?
If human evolution is a fact then why isn't there voluminous genuine
fossils in these exhibits ?
Answer: Because these exhibits are displaying fossils they hope to find
someday. The outright travesty and deception is the deliberate
appearance of proven fact based on undisputed transitional evidence in
existence.
The lack of evidence logically means the theory is not true.
MARTINEZ, previously:
Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
"In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded
professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that
Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most
likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike
remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of
primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But
the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man,
where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the
skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
CLAYTON:
As I have asked before-- and you have failed to answer-- why would Homo
erectus or Homo habilis not qualify as a link between man and other
apes?
MARTINEZ:
I addressed Homo habilis here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ddaed732cf1823d7?hl=en
"The find has been reevaluated and suggested that one of the hand bones
is a piece of vertebra, two more bones belong to a tree dwelling
monkey, and six others from some unspecified nonhominid. Homo habilis
is human - not a missing link and is calculated to have had a small
brain - perhaps half the size of the average modern human. Dr. A.J.
White pointed out, the habilines were also small in stature, so their
brains were not small in relation to their body size, rather like
modern pygmies. Darwinists have overlooked the fact that only a few
hundred miles to the east, in the forests of Zaire, are the Mbuti
people who are on average only 4'- 6" tall, and compare in every way
with Homo habilis." source: Milton, "Shattering Myths Darwinism", pages
206-7 [1997] quoting
White, "Wonderfully Made", [1989]
Richard:
What refutes the habilines from being ancient descendants of the Mbuti
of Zaire ?
Now regarding Homo erectus, are you specifically talking about the
Dubois find ?
But at any rate I have already posted two refutations from the same
link above:
"Australopithecus was established as an extinct ape in 1954 by the
comparitive anatomy research of zoologist Solly Zuckerman."
source: Milton, "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", page 204, quoting
Zuckerman, [1954] "Correlation of changes in the evolution of the
higher primates" in Huxley, Hardy, and Ford (eds). "Evolution as a
Process."
"Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology at the
University of Western Australia, conducted a computer analysis of
Australopithecine fossils. Oxnard, (a Darwinist) concluded in his 1984
book, "The Order of Man", that the fossils represent an "extinct ape
and is unconnected with humankind's ancestry". page 204.
Richard Milton:
"The story of Dubois's discovery of Java man, like Gideon Mantell's
discovery of the first dinosaur, is a parable of primate paleontology
in the past 100 years. Discoveries are few and fortuitous, yet it is
extraordinary how they are always deliberately sought by their
discoverers. The reconstructions, the names bestowed, and the
attributions to human or ape inheritance blow this way and that in the
wind of scientific opinion. In the end each find has its supporters and
detractors but settles nothing.
This question of attribution has bedeviled every "missing link"
discovery of the twentieth century. The pattern is a recurring one. The
remains themselves are always meager. The first attribution is always
that the being whose remains have been discovered shows both human and
ape characteristics, and is therefore a genuine transitional type - a
real missing link. Then the attribution is questioned: the characters
ascribed to apes are actually within the range of human characters; or
ape remains postdate the finds by a large margin; or the reconstruction
work is over imaginative; sometimes simple mistakes of identification
are made perhaps due to disease or malformation of bones.
The position today is that all the fossil remains which were previously
assigned some intermediate status between apes and humans have later
been definitely reassigned into the categories of extinct ape or human,
and this reassignment has been accepted by all but the most fanatical
devotees of this or that fossil. END QUOTE pages 198, 199
CLAYTON:
As I asked you before, and you did not answer: What facts do you
dispute, and why? Please be as specific as possible. Thus far you have
relied almost entirely on quotations. Science is not religion; it does
not depend on the revealed word of prophets-- and besides, for every
biologist who pooh-poohs evolution, I can certainly find three more who
firmly state that it is the cornerstone of modern biology. (See also:
"Project Steve.") Please address the evidence.
MARTINEZ:
I protest the assumption of macroevolution being passed off as
supported by evidence - macro is assumed.
Then your quote above says I rely on quotations.
How else does a person produce facts as opposed to unsupported
assertions ?
I rely on the facts those quotes establish THEN I make my
point/argument.
CLAYTON:
Science is not religion; it does not depend on the revealed word of
prophets
MARTINEZ:
The prophets of science are scientists.
I trust Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Paul over axe grinding
atheists like Darwin, Hawking, or Feynman.
But your sudden attempted religious smear assumes science and religion
are at odds and tries to pit one against the other as if a person must
choose.
As for "Project Steve": the Bible portrays the majority to always be
wrong. That is majorities found IN the Bible: the unbeliever majority
through-out the Bible is wrong and damned by God for various reasons.
Project Steve perfectly symbolizes and represents the objects in
reality that correspond to the Romans 1 wrath of God penalty of insight
removal for refusing to credit God as Creator. This is the one common
denominator all you Darwinists possess: an evil refusal to credit God
as Creator = the penalty of a darkened blinded mind to the obviousness
of ID. And you thought that YOU rejected God - in fact, He has rejected
you. The fact that macroevolution is assumed with no commensurate
amount of evidence confirms this penalty claim. Darwinists CANNOT
embrace ID because that would mean the penalty claim of Romans 1 is
false.
MARTINEZ, previously:
"Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the
following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of
living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
I accept the information as fact."
CLAYTON:
Actually, what I wrote was "Here you launch into a 'quote mine' rather
than address the evidence I posted. Why?"
MARTINEZ:
The Gee material establishes as fact for the interval stated that the
fossil remains are scant.
I accept the information as fact and point out, for the interval
stated, this logically does not support the assumption and claim of
hominid evolution.
This is not a quote mine but you seem to think that the constant
repetition of the phrase somehow helps your cause.
And I have addressed the evidence you posted. If you truly feel I have
not then make a list and be specific ?
CLAYTON:
The information is not factual. Here, for example, is a list of hominid
finds:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Of particular note in this instance are the famed "Lucy," who was
nearly half complete, and the "Turkana Boy," an almost complete Homo
erectus find.
I also pointed out, of course, that Henry Gee took exception to the way
his words were used out of context. "Darwinian evolution by natural
selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is
made clear several times... For the Discovery Institute to quote from
my
book without reference to this is mischievous... The use by
creationists
of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead
the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of
public values and morals."
MARTINEZ:
You appear to contradict yourself here.
On one hand you plainly state that "the inforamtion is not factual" in
regards to the Gee quote:
"10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of
living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
THEN you paste a T.O. fossil link THEN paste a notation about alleged
misuse of Gee quotes and data by creationists.
1) Please tell me why Gee is in error ?
2) What does the quote and its fact have to do with the link ?
3) I have generously said everytime that I cite Gee that he is a
Darwinist/cladist who believes hominid evolution is a fact. I take
specific facts produced by him and point out how they do not support
his assumptions or conclusions.
You apparently have no idea as to how references and source quotes are
used and seem to think that Darwinists, and facts they produce, should
never be used to harm their assumptions or conclusions.
In reality, it doesn't matter what Gee is, his scientific data in no
way supports hominid evolution unless you forsake logic.
I can show you one of the greatest Egyptologists of all time
(Gardiner), who after a lifetime of studying ancient pyramid texts
concludes the Egyptians were anything but an advanced society capable
of producing a scientific wonder - a people up to their chins in
primitive barbaric idol worship. I can rightly take his conclusions and
offer them as evidence that the Egyptians had nothing to do with the
building of the Great Pyramid even though Gardiner was a naturalist.
Your incessant parroting of "quote mine" deliberately avoids how I use
any given fact.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
MARTINEZ, previously:
"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
we have of hominid evolution.
In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
So much based on so little.
"few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything
mildly supported much less proven.
I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically
these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well
supported much less proven.
CLAYTON:
So, do you think Mr. Jacobs rejects evolution? Or do you just want to
cherry-pick passages that you think will support your argument?
MARTINEZ:
Jacobs is a Darwinist.
His adjectives chosen to describe the amount of physical fossil
evidence in existence does not logically support the claim.
If hominid evolution were true adjectives like "few, rare, and scant"
would not be used.
Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I accept these facts and say the admissions do not even mildly support
the theory much less prove it.
So why do Darwinists believe it ?
Because Genesis is not an option.
My on-going point:
Darwinists ADMIT the evidence supposedly supporting hominid evolution
is "few, rare, and scant."
I accept as fact and point out the most extraordinary claim of all time
is based on "few, rare, and scant" = adjectives associated with
something not considered supported much less true.
It doesn't matter what the worldview of the person who produces facts
reflecting the amount of fossil evidence, the dimunitive inventory is
not conducive with an amount of evidence one would expect an
extraordinary claim to be supported by.
The reason why the evidence is "few, rare, and scant" - logically is
because the theory is not true, and the "few, rare, and scant" evidence
is highly subjective and disputed and has no clear independant
objective value apart from the needs of the Naturalist Worldview.
Why do you accept as fact a theory that has physical evidence described
as "few, rare, and scant" ?
Answer: The evidence of Genesis is not an option.
"few, rare, and scant" = Genesis is true.
"few, rare, and scant" = a paucity that can be corrupted as the
Darwinist needs it to be.
Remember, Gee said for the interval stated, that amount could fit into
a "small box" - Gee is a Darwinist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
"This list includes fossils that are important for either their
scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by
creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in
a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table."
CLAYTON:
As I pointed out, and you cut away: "While fossils are rare compared to
the number of organisms who have lived-- fossilization is uncommon,
after all-- there's plenty of evidence out there. There are museums
full
of fossils and archaeological displays, Ray! Haven't you ever been in
one?"
You can say that fossils are "scant" compared to the number of
organisms who have ever lived; fossilization is rare, and some animals
simply do not fossilize well. But despite their comparative rarity
MARTINEZ:
Fossilization is rare - I agree.
Too bad - you cannot assume into a database non-existent evidence.
Too bad your theory is based on hypothetical evidence.
This is why the Bible was written: to preserve facts that would
otherwise be lost to the arbitrary and capricious "kindness" of time
and environment.
Could it be the same reason why there is a paucity of physical evidence
for ancient Israel in Egypt and Sinai account for the same reason why
there is a paucity of the same type of evidence for hominid evolution ?
But the lack of evidence for Israel is held against the Bible unlike
human evolution claims. But this obvious double standard is propagated
by atheists and thus easily explained.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
"Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he
level
of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders
irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in
the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!" (2004,
303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the
most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that
few human fossils have been found"
CLAYTON:
Do you think that David Begun disputes human evolution?
MARTINEZ:
Of course not.
I accept the quote and its information as fact and wonder aloud "what
on Earth are you Darwinists basing your hominid evolution claims on ?"
Facts like these prove hominid evolution is not proven much less
supported, but is ASSUMED.
Assumptions are not evidence.
We have Naturalist worldview and philosophy being packaged as science
for the single purpose of attempting to objectify anti-Biblical
worldviews.
The Begun quote fully supports all my other quotes/facts that hominid
evolution lacks direct evidence and is assumed, but society IS NOT told
this, we are told human evolution is a scientific fact. If anyone cares
to actually look - human evolution is assumed based on "few, rare, and
scant" fossil evidence.
CLAYTON:
Of course, that's the beauty of science; it does not rest on the
authority of individuals or on single events. The human-chimp genetic
comparison can be (and has been) done multiple times, yielding the same
results each time.
MARTINEZ:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618091572/104-6024959-8687968?v=glance
Steve Olson, "Mapping Human History" [2002]
>From the above book.
Page 16:
"We often hear, for example, that human beings and chimpanzees are
remarkably alike genetically. And, when stained and compared, some
human and chimp chromosomes in fact cannot be visually distinguished
from one another. A careful comparison turns up the tell-tale
differences, however. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, not 23, and
some of the banding patterns are subtly different.
On nine of the chromosomes, certain segments are flipped in humans
compared with chimps. On other chromosomes, extra material is tacked
onto both ends, or some is missing. END QUOTE
MARTINEZ:
Prior, I accepted similarity as fact and said "so what ?"
How does similarity prove hominid evolution over millions of years ?
Answer: Only if you assume similarity is evidence for that. It is only
evidence when the massive assumptions and needs of the Naturalist
Worldview is engaged.
In reality, similarity being evidence for the resolve requires a
massive leap of faith.
But as it turns out chimps and modern humans are not genetically alike.
PREVIOUSLY POSTED LINK EXCERPT:
> What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that
> mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common
> ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3
> billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated
> to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If
> humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million
base
> pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large
books
> of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations
> (random changes) to cross.
CLAYTON:
This is a laughable handwave. If my father and I have very similar DNA,
isn't that evidence that we are related? If foxes, dogs, and wolves all
have substantially homologous DNA, would you consider that evidence
that
they are related? The writer instead invokes special pleading,
suggesting that somehow genetic homology means something different in
this instance that it does the rest of the time. Then he merely asks
the
reader to accept his assertion that this is "surely an impossible
barrier for mutations to cross." To which I ask: "Why?" Please be as
specific and detailed as possible.
MARTINEZ:
Then how do you explain the massive differences between chimp/ape
intelligence and modern human ?
Oh I forgot you just deny altogether that it is a chasm apart !
But whatever the actual truth is in regards to similarity the facts are
easily explained by the Creationist model pointing to one Almighty
Creator working from universal and common designs.
We have basic similarity altogether = proof of one Designer. One person
recently asked why a Designer didn't employ totally unique different
one-of-a-kind designs ?
Answer: Because that would support and give the impression that living
things were the product of chance and accidents.
Similarity, to whatever degree, supports one Designer and His
fingerprints and m.o.
"Special pleading ?"
The writer of the excerpt does not agree that animals are related via
macroevolution so there is no special pleading. But it doesn't matter;
chimps and modern humans are genetically far apart.
CLAYTON:
Except we really aren't all that different. We are more bipedal, and
have sparser body hair, but across the board, we are physically more
similar to apes than to any other animal. Chimps and gorillas also
exhibit several typically "human" psychological traits, too, like a
sense of humor, a sense of fair play, self-awareness, and the ability
to
lie.
MARTINEZ:
Asserting black is white = the necessary misuse of logic Darwinists
typically must resort to.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
>
> page 46:
>
> "Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA
may
> contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison
is
> a tricky task and different alignments can give very different
> results."
CLAYTON:
This is true but misleading; genetics is an intricate science, and
there are multiple ways to describe the degree of similarity between
two
sets of DNA. But all of them agree that humans and other apes are
closely related-- and, interestingly enough, the degree to which they
show relation between humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans is
consistent between different methods of measurement.
MARTINEZ:
With the Olson evidence now posted I will await your reply.
PREVIOUSLY:
> According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history
of
> a group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA
and
> protein comparisons.
>
> Page 51:
>
> "A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with
primates instead of rodents"(4)
>
> "A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
among chordates."(5)
>
> "Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to
whales
than to horses."(6)
>
MARTINEZ: "As was noted above genetics is very complex.
>
The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of
things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow
proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?"
CLAYTON:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a1942d20c74d0c13?hl=en&
MARTINEZ:
Does the Harshman quote take into account that Wells was citing studies
published by many evolutionists which were referenced ?
Cows being related to whales and less to horses surely upsets
evolutionary claims and fully supports the one Designer argument above.
But it is blatantly ridiculous to even think a sea creature eventually
morphed into whatever then a cow or any quadruped. All you have is
assertions supported by the weight of educational credentials asking us
to trust their assertions driven by the fright of Genesis being true.
There is no evidence of macroevolution - it is assumed based on the
needs of the anti-Biblical worldview.
A whale, like any species was designed and made by God just like the
evidence plainly says.
So Wells is correct - right ?
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
This is a CLOSED topic as the topic title says. Richard and I are
hoping persons will comply voluntarily.
If you want to comment on the debate please scroll and scroll to
previous pages and find the Peanut Gallery Topic where non-participants
voice their opinions about our debate.
Thanks.
Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> So, wait... now you are arguing that genetic similarity IS evidence of
> relation? You can't have it both ways, Ray!
>
>
> This was your comment about the genetic evidence proving a major
> Biblical claim - the Aaronic Priesthood.
>
> My argument was and is:
>
> Chimp DNA being similar to human to whatever degree does not in itself
> support that genus Homo evolved from an ape ancestor over millions of
> years. It only does if you assume. The Creationist explanation of one
> Designer is a better fit - logically.
>
> The weight of scientific evidence corroborating the Aaronic Priesthood,
> an office that only exists in the context of being instituted by God -
> far outweighs the mere observation and identification of chimp DNA
> being similar with human. In other words, the Aaronic Priesthood and
> its genetic evidence ALSO supports the existence of the Deity that
> created it, unless of course you arbitrarily ignore the context of the
> claim.
>
> God ordained Aaron and his descendants to be consecrated as priests. We
> have genetic evidence in support. Accepting the claim and its evidence
> minus the context is equal to winking at evidence which supports the
> existence of God - evidence which naturalists always claim to want to
> entertain. When ANY Biblical claim or fact is externally supported, not
> only does it substantiate the micro claim, but in fact, also supports
> the larger claim of which it resides: the assumption of the Deities
> existence. When enough claims are evidenced this way an objective
> person concludes the Deity exists and has a basis to assume other
> claims are indeed true as well.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Actually, what this evidence supports is that this particular male line
>
> didn't outbreed very much. It certainly does not demand divine
> intervention; historically, Jews have often been a culture within a
> culture, preferring to marry their own people.
>
> Of course, even if this particular Biblical claim were supported by the
>
> facts (and many are-- I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks the
> Bible is wholly wrong about everything) that does not imply that all
> other claims should be regarded as true. An idea stands or falls on its
>
> own merits, not by its source; and even the best-written textbooks
> sometimes contain errors.
>
>
> Predictible discounting of evidence supporting the Divine because if
> too many are true then the God created Adam suddenly declaration will
> be forced to accept.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Science is not out to discredit the Bible, Ray; but the Bible doesn't
> get a free pass. Neither does any other holy book or religious claim.
> Divine revelation simply is not relevant to the scientific method. It's
>
> not a conspiracy against your religion, it's just the way science
> *works.*
>
>
> I agree science is not a personal pronoun so it cannot consciously even
> know about the Bible, the same is true with the Bible - as it is an
> inantimate object.
>
> But Darwinists are sure out to discredit the Bible for obvious reasons,
> everything they have spoken up for, and their credibility and
> livelyhood is on the line the more the Bible is seen and proven true.
>
> We are having a debate where if you are right then the Bible is wrong.
> In response, I post evidence showing the Bible is right and you you cry
> foul.
>
> You are attempting to pit science against the Bible. In response I say:
> what else would a Darwinist do ?
> This tactic attempts to frame dissent coming from a false straw man of
> an unattractive cultural stereotype: religious paranoia.
>
> When two mutually contradicting facts appear to be true, logically,
> facts supporting the Divine outweigh any other.
>
> I suggest you practice what you preach and contain your paranoia that
> the Bible is somehow menacing science. The Bible is menacing Darwinian
> explanations of scientific data - nothing more.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> You seem to be assigning the dates for "modern" or "advanced"
> scientific times somewhat at random. For example, you have just placed
> quantum mechanics, general relativity, and nuclear bombs outside of the
>
> realm of "advanced scientific times," and you have implicitly declared
> Newton's discoveries outside of "modern" science.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I simply established that the Renaissance is the earliest anyone could
> date the beginning of the scientific era.
>
> Space flight did not happen until 1957. This fact means this level of
> advanced science was not attained until this year.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Except the Earth's dimensions have been known, with ever-increasing
> accuracy, since around 240 BC. Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of
> the Earth with a relatively small margin of error. And he did it using
> science that is still current today. Sputnik no more proved the Earth's
>
> diameter than it proved the Earth was round.
>
>
> I nominate this comment Chez Watt of the Year.
>
> Mankind did not know the exact dimensions of the Earth until Sputnik.
> Suddenly scientific evidence is being ignored and insulted. I thought
> you were loyal to evidence ?
>
> Why are you against knowing the exact dimensions of the Earth ?
>
> Is it because ancient men 4700 years ago knew and this fact has no
> place in the Darwinian worldview, but in fact falsifies the
> evolutionary scenario of man getting progressively smarter ?
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Exactly where in the Great Pyramid is this "sacred cubit" found?
>
>
> In the measurements I provided and the scientific rationale to augment
> the British inch to its true size (an increase of 1/1000th of an inch).
>
> Of course you know this which makes your question an evidence evading
> insult.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Given that the author believes it was assigned a great deal of meaning,
> is
> there any writing on the walls of the pyramid, detailing the uses of
> the
> "sacred cubit" and defining it explicitly?
>
>
> You are saying if an inscription said what you are asking that this
> would be proof. If that was the case it would instantly be branded a
> forgery. The sacred cubit is found when measuring the GP with the
> British inch augmented to its true size which was confirmed by the
> Sputnik satellite as explained.
>
> The three base lengths of the side of the GP matching the three
> astronomical years exactly is ultra-intelligently designed to show the
> builders knew this data.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Or is the author just post-shadowing, trying to find coincidences and
> claim that they mean
> something? Self-proclaimed psychics and clairvoyants often use similar
> techniques, using allegorical readings of everything from the Eddas to
> the fluctuations of the stock market to "predict" things that have
> already happened.
>
>
> Rutherford measured the GP with the augmented length of the British
> inch and it fit perfectly and produced the stunning facts.
>
> Your comment above is attempting to deflect away from these facts via
> mystical non-sequitur nonsense.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Unless the author can evidence that this was the intent of the "sacred
> cubit," and indeed that the Egyptians even had a notion of such a
> thing,
> this is merely an interesting coincidence
>
>
> By saying "coincidence" you are admitting the facts are true but was
> the product of chance.
>
> This is the epitome of evading solid physical evidence because the
> implications do not fit into your worldview but spectacularly support
> the Supernatural worldview.
>
> Nobody, regardless of who built the GP, can accidentially incorporate
> the dimensions of the Earth into the monument and the astronomical
> years to the exact figures confirmed by modern science. This evidence
> simply means the builders, whoever they were - knew.
>
> Camel riding Egyptians thought the Earth was flat. Joshua, who was
> raised in Egypt, thought the sun revolved around the Earth.
>
> Even though this is straying off topic, the GP was erected way before
> Egyptian civilization appeared. There is no evidence Egyptians built
> the GP (unlike the others), the Suez Canal is in Egypt but we know the
> British built it.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> On the other hand, if there were an explicit inscription saying
> something like "Here is shown the
> Sacred Cubit, exactly one ten-millionth the diameter of the Earth.
> Which, by the way, is roughly spherical," I would be impressed, as that
>
> was not general knowledge in 2600 BC.
>
>
>
> http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8028/ray.jpg
>
> http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8028/ray.jpg
>
> Click on the above link and view the Ante Chamber in the Great Pyramid.
>
> If the image works properly then there should also be an icon somehere
> to click to super-enlarge.
>
> This diagram is from "Pyramidology Book 1" [1957] by Dr. Adam
> Rutherford.
>
> The following data is from the same source:
>
> "Egyptian Royal Cubit = 20.6285 British inches.
>
> Sacred Cubit = 25.0266 British inches.
>
> Pyramids.
>
> Flinders Petrie: ERC used from the IVth to VIth Dynasties = 20.63 +/-
> 0.02 British inches."
>
> Rutherford: "The Great Pyramid itself, however, by its own geometry
> reveals the length of its unit of construction to a much higher degree
> of precision than Petrie was able to do, and gives it as equivalent to
> 20.6285 British inches. It will be observed, that Petrie's figure is
> only about .0015 of an inch higher than this, which is well within the
> range of error allowed in Petrie's figures (+/- 0.02)."
>
> Sacred Cubit = 25 sacred/pyramid inches. 1 PI" = 1.001064 British
> inches.
>
> Royal Cubit = 20.6285 British inches or 20.6066 PI"
>
> Rutherford: "The geometric derivation of the ERC from the Sacred Cubit
> is clearly revealed in the GP".
>
> Now refer to the diagram:
>
> When entering the Ante Chamber (also called the "Map Room") from the
> first low section, the limestone construction ends just beyond and
> granite flooring begins.
>
> This offset construction of limestone to granite is marked by a
> vertical line.
>
> The distance from this vertical line to the start of the second low
> section vertical line = 5 ERC.
>
> Using the above linear distance, that is from where the limestone
> ends/granite begins TO the vertical line marking the very edge of the
> beginning of the second low section is 5 Royal Cubits.
>
> This distance SQUARED forms the square as shown in the diagram.
>
> When a circle is drawn touching the floor and both sides (limestone and
> granite) the sub-division of that circle = 365.242 EQUAL PARTS =
> 365.242 PI"
>
> Thus as shown in the diagram: area of the square = area of the circle.
>
> Rutherford: "Because of this direct mathematical relationship between
> the Sacred and Royal Cubits, all the measurements of the GP are readily
> expressible in BOTH cubits, for the Royal Cubit was precisely 1/5
> square root of the area of the circle."
>
> 365.242 = number of days in Solar Year.
>
> 365.242 = length of AB = side length of GP from outer edge socket to
> opposite outer edge socket = 365.242 Sacred Cubits.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> If the builders of the Great Pyramid knew all this, why did they leave
> no other traces of their wisdom?
>
>
> They did if you read Hancocks book: "Fingerprints of the Gods", the
> book simply records the worldwide evidence showing a master Atlantian
> peoples were responsible. Dr. Scott has produced volumes of evidence
> supporting the Garden of Eden was on Atlantis, hence the homeland of
> the Antidiluvians.
>
> Why do eels swim to the area in question as if land was there, and
> migratory birds fly to the same area and drop to their deaths expecting
> land ?
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> How can you reconcile this with the
> unambiguous Egyptian belief that the Sun went around the Earth, and not
>
> vice-versa?
>
>
> Question assumes Egyptians built the GP. They did not, but my point
> here is that ancient men knew what we didn't know until 1957 thus
> falsifying the Evolutionary Scenario.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Of course, even if you could prove divine involvement in the
> construction of the Great Pyramid, that wouldn't help you a bit, since
> this entire tangent is a non-sequitur. The subject of the debate is
> whether or not humans and other apes share a common ancestor.
>
>
> If I could prove Divine involvement with the GP this fact refutes the
> resolve because the only source we have about the universal Deity says
> He created Adam suddenly. In fact, the interior passage system of the
> GP is the major Bible claims in stone built prior to the written word
> being produced. This is Divine prophecy in spectacular fashion. It is
> self-evident and irrefutable once someone points it out. To have the
> interior passage system MATCH Biblical claims BEFORE they were writen
> confirms the written claims and their veracity. Implacable opponents
> can still deny = more proof of Romans 1 penalty claim.
>
> Funny how you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as needed but this
> physical unambiguous GP evidence escapes your understanding = proof of
> Romans 1 penalty claim operating.
Are you finished with your reply? I would prefer to respond to it all
at once, rather than piecemeal.
Ray Martinez
Producing a post asking if I am done is stalling.
Take as long as you want.
Judging by your previous messages it will be more evading.
Richard:
This time include all source cites for your claims like I do.
The free ride is over.
RM
Richard Clayton
Well, pardon me, Ray, but you did post your reply a chunk at a time,
over four days. I wanted to make sure it was complete.
And given your hostile attitude, I see no reason to continue being
giving with you. "The free ride is over" indeed.
Richard Clayton
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> Why do we share the plantaris tendon with chimps
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> You have reintroduced this point saying I have not addressed it.
>
> I have addressed it here:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ddaed732cf1823d7?hl=en&
No, you did not address it. You merely claimed that it is not evidence
for evolution. But the question was "WHY do we share the plantaris
tendon with chimps and gorillas?" So why do we, Ray? Why do we share a
COMPLETELY USELESS feature with other apes, unless we inherited it from
a common ancestor?
I don't "assume" anything. I look at the evidence and try to see what
it tends to support, and what it tends to refute.
> We have the assumption that the resolve is fact based upon
> similarity/commonality. How do these facts, to whatever degree that
> they be true, prove or even reasonably support, that modern humans
> slowly and gradually over millions of years evolved from an ape
> ancestor ?
>
> Answer: Without the needs of naturalist presuppositions they don't. In
> other words, philosophy is the driving mechanism which assumes as fact
> for the resolve wholly based on the evidence of observed
> similarity/commonality, which is retrospectively interpreted faithfully
> to support the starting assumptions that modern humans did evolve.
>
> End Link Excerpt
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Richard:
>
> I have not contested your assertion about the plantaris tendon as I
> accept your point as fact.
>
> In fact, I never even heard of the tendon and for all I know it could
> be a phantom invent of which you will subsequently admit at some point
> and thus humiliate me.
Feel free to google "plantaris tendon" and then decide whether I made
it up to humiliate you.
> Your argument is: commonality/similarity = evidence supporting the
> resolve. I respond by saying what I said in the excerpt above as I
> repeat: how does observed and identified commonality/similarity support
> the resolve ? That is the alleged gradual evolution of an ape ancestor
> into a man over millions of years ?
>
> Your argument asserts the alleged commonality/similarity of ape bones
> and anatomy is scientific evidence for the resolve. This is only true
> when packaged within the Naturalism Worldview and all of its
> presuppositions. The argument here, when extracted from Naturalist
> philosophy, is commonality/similarity of modern humans and chimps - so
> what ? In other words, only the massive assumptions of Naturalism
> Worldview insist it to be evidence for hominid evolution.
>
> I have interpreted the same argument to support one universal Creator
> working from a common design. The strength of the interpretation
> resides in the assumptions that come with the Supernatural Worldview.
Theories explain the data. Evolution is a theory, and the existence of
shared vestigial features like the plantaris tendon is one of the data
points it explains. As I have said repeatedly, and you have continuously
snipped away without marking: An alternate theory has to explain the
data at least as well as the established theory. It also has to make
predictions distinct from the theory it replaces. And, of course, a
theory has to be potentially falsifiable.
Do you have an alternate theory, Ray? Or do you have only bluster and
bloviation? If you have an alternative to the theory of evolution,
please tell us. But remember, it has to explain the data at least as
well as the theory of evolution, it has to make predictions, and it has
to be falsifiable.
> My point: Citing observed commonality/similarity has no clear
> independant objective value or meaning apart from the massive
> assumptions of the Naturalism Worldview - a worldview which by faith
> assumes the Supernatural worldview to be false. In this context I
> rhetorically say: what else would one expect atheists/Naturalists to
> assume ?
Classic ad hominem, which YOU have claimed equals an inability to
refute. But if evolution isn't the best theory to explain shared
similarity, what theory is? Be specific.
> Observed similarities between modern man and chimps/apes or whatever
> was the only "evidence" Darwin and company based the idea on to begin
> with.
>
> Wells, "Icons of Evolution" page 216 [2000]
>
> "Neither Huxley nor Darwin believed that living apes were our
> ancestors....
And indeed, no living species of ape is ancestral to Homo sapiens.
> the ape to human icon was simply a restatement of
> materialistic philosphy. It's form preceded any fossil evidence of
> ancestor-descendant relationships, and it made with whatever evidence
> happened to be at hand - in this case, SIMILARITIES to living apes.
> Fossils discovered later were just plugged into this preexisting
> framework." END QUOTE
The last sentence would be better stated as "Fossils discovered later
FIT this preexisting framework." In other words, Darwin's theory
predicted we would find fossils to support a transition between humans
and other apes-- and we did! A confirmed prediction is regarded as
excellent support for a theory.
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> 150 years later you are still offering the same "evidence" - similarity
> somehow supports that apes morphed into men over millions of years.
It's still being "offered" 150 years later because the evidence still
supports it. Newton is still (mostly) correct after twice that time; is
that a conspiracy too?
> This is rhetoric/misuse of logic being asserted as scientific evidence.
>
> But the sequence of alleged hominid evolution idea is as follows: God
> rejected as Creator, THEN openly racist Darwin and Huxley "saw" the
> "similarity" between Africans and apes. In other words, the observed
> similarity is not evidence much less scientific - it is racism:
Evolution is not about similarity between Africans and apes; it is
about similarity between ALL humans and other apes. You, me and Shaq are
all equidistant from our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee.
> http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CA005.1
>
> I am not saying you are a racist. I am saying similarity is what it is
> and has no clear objective meaning unless a person subscribes to
> atheistic assumptions.
Darwin would be racist by today's standards, yes, but by the standards
of his day, he was about as non-racist as people got. He was an
abolitionist at a time when it was politically unfashionable to be one.
But it doesn't matter if Darwin was racist; it wouldn't matter if he
cheated on his taxes and ate kittens. Scientific theories stand or fall
on the evidence, not on the moral character of their proponents. Isaac
Newton, for example, was not a very nice guy in his personal life-- that
does not make the theory of gravity less true.
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> Actually, Ray, those are cases of speciation, also known as
> macroevolution. They one species branching into a new one, that can no
> longer reproduce with the ancestral population. That, by definition, IS
>
> macroevolution.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> No Richard, speciation is assumed.
The examples I listed (in the link you cut away) showed one species
branching into two separate species. In what way is that not speciation?
> I have already provided a mega-objective summary of the difference
> between micro and macro by atheist Richard Milton.
Milton is not a scientist, and being an atheist does not make him an
authority on evolution; nor does it allow him to speak on behalf of all
atheists.
> The Academy/Miller quote and the Milton quote ALL admit that speciation
> is largely assumed based on the undisputed facts of microevolution.
No, the Academy/Miller quote "admits" that evolution is so well
supported that there really is no other scientific explanation.
> For example, horse evolution is the primary sequence Darwinists point
> to as evidence of macroevolution.
>
> In response, I ask you:
>
> Each species appears in the fossil record, changes slightly, then
> disappears. What actually connects them ?
>
> I and my sources say the assumption of macroevolution.
The fossil horses are in the correct sequence, and each show minor
changes from the one before and the one after. Together, the sequence of
minor changes suggests a big change from a small horselike animal to the
modern Equus caballus.
What scientific theory explains this data, if not the theory of
evolution? Remember that your answer must explain the facts at least as
well, must make predictions, and must be falsifiable.
> CLAYTON:
>
> Richard Milton is wrong here. Macroevolution can be and has been
> observed; it can be and has been the subject of experiments. If you
> have
> a new species, you have macroevolution.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Milton is not wrong, but I understand you must insist otherwise lest
> falsification be established. Tell me what axe is Milton grinding being
> an atheist ? You instantly welcome TEists when they are useful to
> confront Creationists with, but here we have a 30 year science
> journalist, Mensa member, simply pointing out that macroevolution is
> assumed based on the facts of microevolution yet you refuse to embrace
> ?
Milton disagrees with evolution, and that's fine; it's a free country,
after all. But why do you consider him a more authoritative source that
the thousands of scientists who disagree with him?
> Naturalism Worldview demands macroevolution must be true or how else
> did everything become ?
>
> In other words, the evidence for God is not an option - attempted
> atheist philosophy being pushed under the color of objective science.
So if evolution is an attempt to erase God from the picture, why are
there evolutionary biologists who are also Christians? Instantaneous
creation six thousand years ago is dismissed simply because it does not
fit the evidence, not due to some vast conspiracy against God.
> Your quote above gives yourself away and supports my analysis: "If you
> have new species you have macroevolution."
Speciation IS macroevolution, by definition. If you have a different
definition of "macroevolution," please be specific; tell me what kind of
changes you would expect to see, if evolution were correct.
> Even Darwin admitted the fossil record showed no evidence of
> intermediates in his day, yet that fact did not stop him from
> postulating and insisting his theory correct.
Yet such intermediates have been found. Why don't you consider that to
be support for his theory?
> Obviously, the option, or should I say the dread of Genesis being an
> alternative drove the insistence despite there being no fossil
> formations to support.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Put simply, Milton is *fantastically* wrong. That is understandable, of
>
> course, since he is a journalist, not a scientist. But it is odd that
> he
> should present himself as an authority on the subject while making such
>
> easily falsified claims. I have already given examples in which
> speciation can be and has been observed and empirically tested.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The Media accepts as fact EVERYTHING you Darwinists assert and without
> question or dissent.
>
> Now you attempt to portray yourself as a victim of the Media.
I am not a "victim" of anything. I am simply pointing out that Milton's
assertions are not supported by evidence. Milton claimed that
macroevolution cannot be experimentally observed; I showed examples
where it has.
> In other words, anyone who contradicts your theory will be branded with
> a universally accepted negative cultural stigma and stereoptype, in
> this case; the much justified hatred of the idiotic Media.
I didn't say anything of the sort. The only person showing a "negative
cultural stereotype" or "hatred of the media" here seems to be you.
("Much justified hatred of the idiotic Media" that "accepts as fact
EVERYTHING you Darwinists assert and without question or dissent.")
> The other
> favorite of Darwinists is to frame dissent as coming from religious
> Fundamentalists. In either case, these tactics falsely position
> yourself as representing science being chastised for producing
> unpopular facts.
No, there are plenty of non-Christians who disagree with the modern
understanding of evolution, too. But they're just as wrong, and for the
same reason: The evidence disagrees. It's not about religion, it's about
evidence. You keep trying to claim this is a debate about Christians
versus atheists, but the truth is that it just doesn't break down along
those lines. Most Christians belong to denominations that accept
evolution; some atheists reject it. As much as you want to frame this as
an epic struggle against the unbelievers, it just ain't so.
> Darwinism is not science, but an explanation of scientific data
> favorable to the Naturalism Worldview, as is Creationism an explanation
> of scientific data favorable to the Supernaturalism Worldview.
Then what is the theory of Creationism? Be specific. It must be
testable, potentially falsifiable, and it must make predictions distinct
from those of evolution.
> Richard Milton is a naturalist who objectively confirms that
> macroevolution is unobservable, not subject to experimentation because
> it is a hypothetical process strewn out over untold millions of years,
> and it is assumed based on microevolution.
Yet I have GIVEN you examples of observed macroevolution. You have
simply snipped them away. But never fear, I will once again replace it.
> CLAYTON:
>
> We have found quite a few intermediate links since his day; while
> arguing that
> there were no transitional forms in the fossil record might have flown
> in 1860, it certainly doesn't fly today.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Then what evidence was Darwin basing his theory on Richard ?
>
> Apostate/atheist needs maybe ?
No. Darwin's theory was based on observed similarity between species
(finches were a notable example), coupled with the knowledge that all
such finches were almost certainly descended from a single ancestral
population. Darwin also correctly observed that resources for living
creatures are limited, and thus their descendants would inevitably show
various levels of reproductive success. From this he extrapolated a
theory by which species could change over time, and predicted that such
transitionals would be found.
> No transitional evidence exists. Thats why your theory is called a
> theory.
We'll get to that in a moment. I listed a classic example of a
transitional fossil, and your only reply was to insist that it ain't so.
> Only biased Darwinists and their predictible needs assert such
> hypotheticals to exist.
>
> Richard Milton, in his book, says at least 10 different times, that no
> transitional evidence exists of any kind or anywhere. This confirms
> Creationist allegations.
And Milton isn't a scientist, and his book is factually inaccurate, as
I have demonstrated and I continue to demonstrate. What about the
archaeopteryx? What about Ambulocetus? But, as I said, we will get to
that below.
> What you Darwinists insist to be intermediacy, in reality, is
> astronomically subjective with no clear independant objective value.
> This is why Jim Foley invented the rather imfamous argument asking
> which skull is human and which is ape ?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
>
> The tactic is completely reliant on the fact that an equal amount of
> people will pick one or the other, then the Darwinist interjects: this
> difference of opinion (as if the opinion of any person off the street
> counts in science validity) proves transitional status, which is pure
> rhetoric/misuse of logic.
But if there were a clear and unambiguous difference between human
skulls and other hominid skulls, we would expect the majority to choose
correctly. What percentage of people would be able to correctly choose
between a shrew skull and a human skull? Or a dog skull and a human
skull? Or even a gibbon skull and human skull?
It's hard to deny that the skulls are awfully damned human-like. It's
also worth pointing out that even creationist "authorities" disagree on
which skull is "fully human" and which is "fully ape," even while
insisting that the two are completely distinct.
> CLAYTON:
>
> If you take issue with these examples, please explain, in specific
> detail, why you do not think that
> archaeopteryx looks like something partway between a bird and a
> dinosaur.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Lets assume archaeopteryx is exactly as you say/observe.
>
> Lets assume the find is a snapshot luckily preserved.
>
> Because it is ONE and just ONE it has no confirmation or support. In
> other words, it is a freak, and if macroevolution is a fact then there
> must be thousands if not millions of the same type of evidence. But we
> know this is not true as Darwin admitted and Milton confirmed.
>
> The Old Testament says "by the mouths of two or three witnesses shall
> the matter be established" [Deuteronomy 19:5]
>
> Even by Biblical standards you need 2 or 3.
>
> I will finish the reply ASAP.
No dice, Ray. Science works the same way for people of every religion,
or people of no religion. "Biblical standards" are completely irrelevant
to this discussion; as I have said before, science doesn't give a free
pass to ANY religious claim. Not to the Bible, not to the Talmud, not to
to Qur'an, not to the Eddas.
Science is limited to things that can be quantified, understood, and
empirically tested; the supernatural is simply outside its scope. It is
therefore necessarily agnostic; not only does science make no claims
about the nature of God or gods, but it *cannot* make claims about the
nature of God or gods.
This has been defined from the first as a scientific discussion, not a
theological one. Your particular religion has no more bearing on the
discussion than any other.
Attempting to evade the question of the transitional status of
archaeopteryx by citing an Old Testament quote about the number of
witnesses in a trial is absurd; do you think a lawyer in court would be
able to dismiss a contradictory witness on the grounds of Deuteronomy
19:15? But even so, that doesn't help you; there have been at eight
finds of archaeopteryx remains, and other dinosaur-bird transitionals,
such as Sinornithosaurus millenii and Deinonychus antirrhopus, have been
found. There are plenty of other examples of transitionals, like
Ambulocetus natans and Hesperocyon.
You have claimed that no transitional forms have been found; please
show why none of these qualify. Be as specific as possible.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> As for "Genesis is not an option," are you suggesting that even
> Christians who accept evolution are in a vast conspiracy against the
> Bible?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Anyone can claim to be anything including a christian. We know from his
> speeches even Adolf Hitler claimed to be a christian.
And your response is to simply invoke the "No True Scotsman" argument
against any Christian who disagrees with you.
> A person is what they reveal themself to be via their position and
> arguments. Any given person claiming christianity has no effect on what
> the source for christianity actually says. A lot of Darwinists say
> they are christians with the hopes that this claim somehow will give
> Biblical support for ToE.
>
> How does anyone know they are a christian and not some hateful atheist
> attempting to corrupt the Bible which is the most obvious suspicion ?
Do you have evidence to support your charge that a lot of Darwinists
are secretly "hateful atheists" pretending to be Christians?
> TEists have no source for their Creator beliefs unless they radically
> change, ignore, evade, or re-write what the Bible says.
Correction: Radically change or ignore what YOU interpret the Bible to
say. Absolute Biblical literalism is not a requirement for membership in
most branches of Christianity.
Even if it were, of course, it wouldn't matter. It does not matter if
the Bible says the universe was created 6,000 years ago, 15 billion
years ago, or last Thursday. Religious claims don't matter to science.
> The Bible through and through establishes sudden creation as the method
> of its Deity. ToE claims the exact opposite - ultra-slow graduality
> produced creation.
>
> This means TEists are evidently attempting to reconcile the
> irreconciable with subjective and sourceless assertions.
>
> As for your conspiracy charge: There is a conspiracy to employ a
> negative emotive stereotype against what the Bible says by labeling
> "literal Genesis" to be what stupid people believe. This invent was
> created by persons who do not like what Genesis says. In essence,
> "literal is error" questions what God says which is revealing
> disagreement and/or dislike for what it says.
>
> The Bible reveals a superhuman Devil out to erase the truths of God's
> word and he becomes the origin of the conspiracy as is plainly shown in
> Genesis 3:1
>
> Where is the first sin in the Bible ?
>
> Wherever the first question mark is.
Your distrust of those who would question religious dogma is most
disturbing. But still, it's irrelevant in this discussion.
> It is the serpent, who is the type of Satan, who questions what God
> says, hence the origin and source for the "literal is error"
> invent/movement.
>
> "literal is error" = attempt to erase sudden creation and give ToE
> Biblical support.
>
> Darwinism had one common denominator which all its adherents embraced
> at its inception (against sudden creation/Bible) and the same
> commonality exists today despite ridiculous attempts by TEists to
> corrupt the plain reading of the entire Bible.
Once again you repeat this lie. There were plenty of people, both
scientists and laity, who regarded some parts of the Bible as
metaphorical or allegorical long before Darwin's time-- even the vaunted
Saint Augustine of Hippo himself. (Or maybe he was just an atheist
pretending to be Christian too...)
> Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University:
>
> "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
> common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
>
> special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and
> under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did
> not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he
> overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing
> was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a
> natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that
> the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes
> and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called
> Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of
> Darwin's theories." One Long Argument (1991) p.99
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Let me reverse your question as I ask you to explain:
>
> Are Creationists in a conspiracy against evolution ?
>
> The Mayr quote above says Darwinists/evolutionists are in a conspiracy
> against the Bible/creationism.
No, Mayr says that the "true original Darwinians" rejected
instantaneous creation by divine fiat. And indeed they did, and still
do, because the evidence fails to support it.
As to your question about whether creationists are in a conspiracy
against evolution... well, one can hardly call something a conspiracy
when it is out in the open. I think it is fair to say that the
conventional meaning of "creationist" is somebody who disagrees with at
least some parts of the modern theory of evolution-- though creationists
are often cagey about what exactly they believe, so it is hard to figure
out what specifically they disagree with. But creationists are dismissed
because their arguments are factually incorrect and unsupported by
evidence, not merely for being creationists. There are creationists who
work in fields not related to biology, and they do just fine.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> So Ken Miller, practicing Catholic, is desperately trying to prove the
> Bible wrong?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Of course. Your "question" defies logic as it assumes that Miller is
> telling the truth and that he is pro-Bible.
>
> What Darwinist is pro-Bible ?
>
> This is rhetorical.
>
> You are feigning ignorance and naivevete about a flaming Bible hating
> moron attempting to give his atheistic scientific theory Biblical
> support.
Once again you wave the "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!" banner; there are plenty of
pro-Bible Christians who also feel that evolution is the best scientific
explanation for biodiversity. Who is engaging in ad hominem, Ray? Didn't
you say that ad hominem equals inability to refute? What evidence do you
have that Ken Miller is secretly a deep cover agent of the Evil Atheist
Conspiracy?
> I have read Miller's rather recent book "Finding Darwin's God" and it
> ends with this line:
>
> "I believe in Darwin's God."
>
> Darwin was an apostate-naturalist/atheist.
Not at the time he formulated his theory; he was a fairly orthodox
Anglican at the time of his famous voyage on the Beagle. He later became
agnostic, but never an atheist. Who is "poisoning the well" now?
> Miller is not a Catholic regardless of what he claims. Catholicism
> wholly believes in the Resurrection of Christ, sudden creation of the
> world and Adam.
>
> Miller does not.
>
> Miller is a self-evident liar and if he would lie so brazenly about
> things that need no or very little research to confirm then it is scary
> to think what his kind does with scientific data.
Catholicism does not require rejection of evolution. The Catholic
Church does not regard belief in evolution as a sin (unlike masturbation
or failure to observe the Sabbath); nor are Catholics excommunicated for
accepting evolution. Pope John Paul II called the theory of evolution
"more than just a hypothesis" and described the overwhelming academic
support, "neither sought nor fabricated," as "itself a significant
argument in favor of this theory."
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
Of course, this is nothing new, as Pope Pius XII, in his /Humani
Generis/, had already declared evolution compatible with the Catholic faith.
(Maybe both of those Popes were atheist plants?)
> Romans 1:25 has God calling all Darwinists liars so I have an objective
> source to confirm what is obvious.
Once again, the claims of the Bible are irrelevant to science.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RAY MARTINEZ, previously:
>
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
>
> "When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
> lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California),
> in February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
>
> responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
> links
> missing."
>
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> Well, yes. There is always more to be found-- as we have discussed
> before. But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
> apes have common ancestry?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Your answer intentionally twists the quote to have said so called
> missing links were indeed found.
>
> The quote and its fact says there are no missing link or links
> discovered.
See above. Archaeopteryx lithographica, Sinornithosaurus millenii,
Deinonychus antirrhopus, Ambulocetus natans, and Hesperocyon are just a
few examples. Please show why none of these qualify. Be specific.
> CLAYTON:
>
> But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
> apes have common ancestry?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Leakey assumes hominid evolution is a fact but he is honest to report
> that the crucial evidence supporting the assumption is non-existent.
>
> Leakey produces a fact based on his anthropologic research (hundreds of
> missing links), I accept the claim as fact, and now I ask you what
> evidence did Leakey base his assumption on ?
I never claimed there aren't *any* missing links. Leakey said there are
lots of transitions yet to be found, and that is true. But you insist
that what he *really* means is that *no* missing links have been found.
> Leakey was a naturalist, so hominid evolution MUST be true because
> Genesis is not an option. If humans did evolve then the missing link
> type of evidence should be abundant - but it is not as Leakey confirms.
> The reason there are hundreds of links missing - is it because the
> assumption and theory is not true ?
>
> The scientific data, that is the utter lack of any credible objective
> volume of missing links is scientific evidence supporting the evidence
> of Genesis which says Adam was suddenly created by God.
See above.
> Museums across the world have erected exhibits purportedly showing
> human evolution a fact. Yet, I have NEVER seen ANY exhibit showing a
> genuine transitional fossil, instead these displays all show fake
> plaster cast reproductions of the supposed genuine articles.
>
> Why ?
>
> If human evolution is a fact then why isn't there voluminous genuine
> fossils in these exhibits ?
>
> Answer: Because these exhibits are displaying fossils they hope to find
> someday. The outright travesty and deception is the deliberate
> appearance of proven fact based on undisputed transitional evidence in
> existence.
>
> The lack of evidence logically means the theory is not true.
See above. Why are my examples not transitionals? Be specific.
> MARTINEZ, previously:
>
> Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
>
> "In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded
> professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that
> Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most
> likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike
> remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of
> primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But
> the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man,
> where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the
> skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> As I have asked before-- and you have failed to answer-- why would Homo
>
> erectus or Homo habilis not qualify as a link between man and other
> apes?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I addressed Homo habilis here:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ddaed732cf1823d7?hl=en
>
>
> "The find has been reevaluated and suggested that one of the hand bones
>
> is a piece of vertebra, two more bones belong to a tree dwelling
> monkey, and six others from some unspecified nonhominid. Homo habilis
> is human - not a missing link and is calculated to have had a small
> brain - perhaps half the size of the average modern human. Dr. A.J.
> White pointed out, the habilines were also small in stature, so their
> brains were not small in relation to their body size, rather like
> modern pygmies. Darwinists have overlooked the fact that only a few
> hundred miles to the east, in the forests of Zaire, are the Mbuti
> people who are on average only 4'- 6" tall, and compare in every way
> with Homo habilis." source: Milton, "Shattering Myths Darwinism", pages
> 206-7 [1997] quoting
> White, "Wonderfully Made", [1989]
>
> Richard:
>
> What refutes the habilines from being ancient descendants of the Mbuti
> of Zaire ?
They are. That would make them *our* ancestors, too. Or do you deny
that you are related to the Mbuti?
> Now regarding Homo erectus, are you specifically talking about the
> Dubois find ?
>
> But at any rate I have already posted two refutations from the same
> link above:
>
> "Australopithecus was established as an extinct ape in 1954 by the
> comparitive anatomy research of zoologist Solly Zuckerman."
Yes, it is an extinct ape. Humans are apes, too. A zoologist calling an
australopithecine an "ape" is like a veterinarian calling a dog a
"canid." That's the family to which it belongs.
Of course, if you mean that Zuckerman declared the australopithecines
(all five known species) to be apes but NOT ancestral to humanity... why
does his opinion trump tens of thousands of other biologists?
> source: Milton, "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", page 204, quoting
> Zuckerman, [1954] "Correlation of changes in the evolution of the
> higher primates" in Huxley, Hardy, and Ford (eds). "Evolution as a
> Process."
>
> "Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology at the
> University of Western Australia, conducted a computer analysis of
> Australopithecine fossils. Oxnard, (a Darwinist) concluded in his 1984
> book, "The Order of Man", that the fossils represent an "extinct ape
> and is unconnected with humankind's ancestry". page 204.
Why does his opinion trump everybody else? Can you give specific
details of this mysterious "computer analysis"? Why didn't his
groundbreaking find take the anthropological world by storm?
Oh wait, I forgot. It's all a Big Conspiracy, right?
> As I asked you before, and you did not answer: What facts do you
> dispute, and why? Please be as specific as possible. Thus far you have
> relied almost entirely on quotations. Science is not religion; it does
> not depend on the revealed word of prophets-- and besides, for every
> biologist who pooh-poohs evolution, I can certainly find three more who
>
> firmly state that it is the cornerstone of modern biology. (See also:
> "Project Steve.") Please address the evidence.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I protest the assumption of macroevolution being passed off as
> supported by evidence - macro is assumed.
As I said before: Speciation is macroevolution, in common scientific
parlance. If you have your own private definition, please elaborate on
it. Be as specific and detailed as possible. What would you expect to
see, if evolutionary theory were correct?
> Then your quote above says I rely on quotations.
>
> How else does a person produce facts as opposed to unsupported
> assertions ?
You could start by citing peer-reviewed scientific literature, or the
results of actual experiments instead of cherry-picking among quotes
from scientists.
> I rely on the facts those quotes establish THEN I make my
> point/argument.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Science is not religion; it does not depend on the revealed word of
> prophets
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The prophets of science are scientists.
I find your lack of understanding of the scientific method disturbing.
> I trust Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Paul over axe grinding
> atheists like Darwin, Hawking, or Feynman.
That's exactly your problem; you are equating the two groups. A
prophet's personal credibility is everything; if Moses was not the
chosen representative of YHWH, his enumeration of the Ten Commandments
is suspect. If Jesus was not the son of God, then his theology is
questionable.
But science isn't about putting faith in individuals, or sticking to
one idea at all costs. Science changes. Ideas come and go. Some don't
pan out, like phlogiston theory. Some hang on for a long time, but
nearly all eventually require some modification to keep working (like
the theories of gravity or evolution). Nobody clings to the ideas of
Rutherford or Newton as holy and unimpeachable; gravity panned out,
phlogiston theory did not.
> But your sudden attempted religious smear assumes science and religion
> are at odds and tries to pit one against the other as if a person must
> choose.
Excuse me, but I did not "smear" religion.
> As for "Project Steve": the Bible portrays the majority to always be
> wrong. That is majorities found IN the Bible: the unbeliever majority
> through-out the Bible is wrong and damned by God for various reasons.
> Project Steve perfectly symbolizes and represents the objects in
> reality that correspond to the Romans 1 wrath of God penalty of insight
> removal for refusing to credit God as Creator. This is the one common
> denominator all you Darwinists possess: an evil refusal to credit God
> as Creator = the penalty of a darkened blinded mind to the obviousness
> of ID.
So even evolutionary biologists who are also Christian also possess "an
evil refusal to credit God as Creator"? No True Scotsman, huh, Ray?
> And you thought that YOU rejected God - in fact, He has rejected
> you. The fact that macroevolution is assumed with no commensurate
> amount of evidence confirms this penalty claim. Darwinists CANNOT
> embrace ID because that would mean the penalty claim of Romans 1 is
> false.
All other issues aside, I think most Christians would take very serious
theological issue with your claim that God deliberately denies salvation
to some people, and will not allow them to come to the fold.
Then, of course, there is your "majority is always wrong" claim. Does
the majority today think the Earth is round, or flat? Are they right or
wrong? What about the majority of Christians? Round or flat? Right or wrong?
> MARTINEZ, previously:
>
> "Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the
> following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
>
> ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
> from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of
> living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
>
> Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
>
> I accept the information as fact."
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Actually, what I wrote was "Here you launch into a 'quote mine' rather
> than address the evidence I posted. Why?"
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The Gee material establishes as fact for the interval stated that the
> fossil remains are scant.
>
> I accept the information as fact and point out, for the interval
> stated, this logically does not support the assumption and claim of
> hominid evolution.
>
> This is not a quote mine but you seem to think that the constant
> repetition of the phrase somehow helps your cause.
And Gee, of course, said that wasn't the contextual meaning of what he
said.
> And I have addressed the evidence you posted. If you truly feel I have
> not then make a list and be specific ?
Oh, I shall. See the bottom of this post.
> CLAYTON:
>
> The information is not factual. Here, for example, is a list of hominid
>
> finds:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
>
> Of particular note in this instance are the famed "Lucy," who was
> nearly half complete, and the "Turkana Boy," an almost complete Homo
> erectus find.
>
> I also pointed out, of course, that Henry Gee took exception to the way
>
> his words were used out of context. "Darwinian evolution by natural
> selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is
> made clear several times... For the Discovery Institute to quote from
> my
> book without reference to this is mischievous... The use by
> creationists
> of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead
> the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of
> public values and morals."
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> You appear to contradict yourself here.
>
> On one hand you plainly state that "the inforamtion is not factual" in
> regards to the Gee quote:
>
> "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of
> living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
>
> THEN you paste a T.O. fossil link THEN paste a notation about alleged
> misuse of Gee quotes and data by creationists.
>
> 1) Please tell me why Gee is in error ?
>
> 2) What does the quote and its fact have to do with the link ?
Apparently you didn't read the link. It's not about Gee quotes at all;
it's a list of fossil remains, describing some of their approximate
sizes. The sum is larger than "can be fitted into a small box."
> 3) I have generously said everytime that I cite Gee that he is a
> Darwinist/cladist who believes hominid evolution is a fact. I take
> specific facts produced by him and point out how they do not support
> his assumptions or conclusions.
>
> You apparently have no idea as to how references and source quotes are
> used and seem to think that Darwinists, and facts they produce, should
> never be used to harm their assumptions or conclusions.
Except I showed you Gee's own words, where he stated that his quote was
taken out of context, and questioned the integrity of those who would do
such a thing.
> In reality, it doesn't matter what Gee is, his scientific data in no
> way supports hominid evolution unless you forsake logic.
>
> I can show you one of the greatest Egyptologists of all time
> (Gardiner), who after a lifetime of studying ancient pyramid texts
> concludes the Egyptians were anything but an advanced society capable
> of producing a scientific wonder - a people up to their chins in
> primitive barbaric idol worship. I can rightly take his conclusions and
> offer them as evidence that the Egyptians had nothing to do with the
> building of the Great Pyramid even though Gardiner was a naturalist.
>
> Your incessant parroting of "quote mine" deliberately avoids how I use
> any given fact.
>
> http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
>
> MARTINEZ, previously:
>
> "Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
> we have of hominid evolution.
>
> In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
>
> The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
>
> So much based on so little.
>
> "few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything
> mildly supported much less proven.
>
> I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically
> these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well
> supported much less proven.
Incidentally, theories are never "proven." That's not what "theory" means.
Could you tell me why the transitional fossils above aren't evidence
for evolution? What about the hominid fossils I have shown you before?
> CLAYTON:
>
> So, do you think Mr. Jacobs rejects evolution? Or do you just want to
> cherry-pick passages that you think will support your argument?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Jacobs is a Darwinist.
>
> His adjectives chosen to describe the amount of physical fossil
> evidence in existence does not logically support the claim.
>
> If hominid evolution were true adjectives like "few, rare, and scant"
> would not be used.
>
> Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
>
> I accept these facts and say the admissions do not even mildly support
> the theory much less prove it.
>
> So why do Darwinists believe it ?
>
> Because Genesis is not an option.
Yawn. So what do shared vestigial traits suggest to you? What about
shared retroviral insertions? What is your theory? Be specific. What
predictions does it make? Be specific. What is its mechanism? Be
specific. What could potentially falsify it? Be specific.
> My on-going point:
>
> Darwinists ADMIT the evidence supposedly supporting hominid evolution
> is "few, rare, and scant."
>
> I accept as fact and point out the most extraordinary claim of all time
> is based on "few, rare, and scant" = adjectives associated with
> something not considered supported much less true.
What do you consider "few, rare, and scant"? Hundreds? Thousands?
> It doesn't matter what the worldview of the person who produces facts
> reflecting the amount of fossil evidence, the dimunitive inventory is
> not conducive with an amount of evidence one would expect an
> extraordinary claim to be supported by.
>
> The reason why the evidence is "few, rare, and scant" - logically is
> because the theory is not true, and the "few, rare, and scant" evidence
> is highly subjective and disputed and has no clear independant
> objective value apart from the needs of the Naturalist Worldview.
>
> Why do you accept as fact a theory that has physical evidence described
> as "few, rare, and scant" ?
>
> Answer: The evidence of Genesis is not an option.
>
> "few, rare, and scant" = Genesis is true.
>
> "few, rare, and scant" = a paucity that can be corrupted as the
> Darwinist needs it to be.
>
> Remember, Gee said for the interval stated, that amount could fit into
> a "small box" - Gee is a Darwinist.
And it is incorrect, in the context. How large is a "small box"? Could
a single nearly-complete skeleton fit in a "small box"? If so, how many
human-sized skeletons does it take to fill this "small box"?
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
>
> "This list includes fossils that are important for either their
> scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by
> creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in
> a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table."
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> As I pointed out, and you cut away: "While fossils are rare compared to
>
> the number of organisms who have lived-- fossilization is uncommon,
> after all-- there's plenty of evidence out there. There are museums
> full
> of fossils and archaeological displays, Ray! Haven't you ever been in
> one?"
> You can say that fossils are "scant" compared to the number of
> organisms who have ever lived; fossilization is rare, and some animals
> simply do not fossilize well. But despite their comparative rarity
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Fossilization is rare - I agree.
>
> Too bad - you cannot assume into a database non-existent evidence.
>
> Too bad your theory is based on hypothetical evidence.
What about the existent evidence, Ray? Why do we find fossil evidence
of species A, then later on species B, which resembles species A but is
not the same? And why, between them, do we find species C, which looks
like it is midway between them?
> This is why the Bible was written: to preserve facts that would
> otherwise be lost to the arbitrary and capricious "kindness" of time
> and environment.
Not relevant to science. But it's not just the Bible; no religious text
is scientific evidence.
> Could it be the same reason why there is a paucity of physical evidence
> for ancient Israel in Egypt and Sinai account for the same reason why
> there is a paucity of the same type of evidence for hominid evolution ?
> But the lack of evidence for Israel is held against the Bible unlike
> human evolution claims. But this obvious double standard is propagated
> by atheists and thus easily explained.
>
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
>
> "Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
> titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he
> level
> of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders
> irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in
> the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!" (2004,
> 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the
> most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that
> few human fossils have been found"
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Do you think that David Begun disputes human evolution?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Of course not.
>
> I accept the quote and its information as fact and wonder aloud "what
> on Earth are you Darwinists basing your hominid evolution claims on ?"
>
> Facts like these prove hominid evolution is not proven much less
> supported, but is ASSUMED.
>
> Assumptions are not evidence.
>
> We have Naturalist worldview and philosophy being packaged as science
> for the single purpose of attempting to objectify anti-Biblical
> worldviews.
>
> The Begun quote fully supports all my other quotes/facts that hominid
> evolution lacks direct evidence and is assumed, but society IS NOT told
> this, we are told human evolution is a scientific fact. If anyone cares
> to actually look - human evolution is assumed based on "few, rare, and
> scant" fossil evidence.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Of course, that's the beauty of science; it does not rest on the
> authority of individuals or on single events. The human-chimp genetic
> comparison can be (and has been) done multiple times, yielding the same
>
> results each time.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618091572/104-6024959-8687968?v=glance
>
> Steve Olson, "Mapping Human History" [2002]
>
>>From the above book.
>
> Page 16:
>
> "We often hear, for example, that human beings and chimpanzees are
> remarkably alike genetically. And, when stained and compared, some
> human and chimp chromosomes in fact cannot be visually distinguished
> from one another. A careful comparison turns up the tell-tale
> differences, however. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, not 23, and
> some of the banding patterns are subtly different.
>
> On nine of the chromosomes, certain segments are flipped in humans
> compared with chimps. On other chromosomes, extra material is tacked
> onto both ends, or some is missing. END QUOTE
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Prior, I accepted similarity as fact and said "so what ?"
>
> How does similarity prove hominid evolution over millions of years ?
>
> Answer: Only if you assume similarity is evidence for that. It is only
> evidence when the massive assumptions and needs of the Naturalist
> Worldview is engaged.
>
> In reality, similarity being evidence for the resolve requires a
> massive leap of faith.
>
> But as it turns out chimps and modern humans are not genetically alike.
No? What species has DNA more similar to that of a human, if not the
chimpanzee?
> PREVIOUSLY POSTED LINK EXCERPT:
>
> > What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that
>
> > mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common
> > ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3
>
> > billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated
>
> > to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If
> > humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million
> base
> > pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large
> books
> > of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations
> > (random changes) to cross.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> This is a laughable handwave. If my father and I have very similar DNA,
>
> isn't that evidence that we are related? If foxes, dogs, and wolves all
>
> have substantially homologous DNA, would you consider that evidence
> that
> they are related? The writer instead invokes special pleading,
> suggesting that somehow genetic homology means something different in
> this instance that it does the rest of the time. Then he merely asks
> the
> reader to accept his assertion that this is "surely an impossible
> barrier for mutations to cross." To which I ask: "Why?" Please be as
> specific and detailed as possible.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Then how do you explain the massive differences between chimp/ape
> intelligence and modern human ?
You didn't answer my question. Why is similar DNA evidence for relation
between other groupings, whether intra- or extra-species, but NOT
evidence between humans and chimps? Do you have an answer, or is this
just special pleading?
> Oh I forgot you just deny altogether that it is a chasm apart !
>
> But whatever the actual truth is in regards to similarity the facts are
> easily explained by the Creationist model pointing to one Almighty
> Creator working from universal and common designs.
What is this "creationist model"? What is the theory of creationism,
and how can it be empirically tested? What could potentially falsify it?
> We have basic similarity altogether = proof of one Designer. One person
> recently asked why a Designer didn't employ totally unique different
> one-of-a-kind designs ?
>
> Answer: Because that would support and give the impression that living
> things were the product of chance and accidents.
>
> Similarity, to whatever degree, supports one Designer and His
> fingerprints and m.o.
Actually, no. Radically different, one-of-a-kind designs would be
evidence AGAINST evolution, not for it. One of the best evidences for
evolution is the set of nested hierarchies; finding a whale species with
gills homologous to sharks, for example, would be a strong argument
*against* our present understanding of evolution.
A designer can do things any way she wants (subject to her limitations)
but evolution can only work with what it has at hand. Where are the
hexapod vertebrates? Or placentals without hair? Endothermic reptiles?
Why does it look like all living animals are the result of clades that
branch, diversify, and branch again? Why does it look like animals
(including humans) are stuck with jury-rigged design that had to work
with its inheritance, instead of optimal design-from-scratch? Why do all
vertebrates have a blind spot where our optic nerve passes through the
back of our eye? Squid don't have this problem.
> "Special pleading ?"
>
> The writer of the excerpt does not agree that animals are related via
> macroevolution so there is no special pleading. But it doesn't matter;
> chimps and modern humans are genetically far apart.
Can you quantify "far"? That's a rather vague assertion. But we are
closer to chimps, genetically, than any other animal. Why?
> CLAYTON:
>
> Except we really aren't all that different. We are more bipedal, and
> have sparser body hair, but across the board, we are physically more
> similar to apes than to any other animal. Chimps and gorillas also
> exhibit several typically "human" psychological traits, too, like a
> sense of humor, a sense of fair play, self-awareness, and the ability
> to
> lie.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Asserting black is white = the necessary misuse of logic Darwinists
> typically must resort to.
I did not assert that "black is white," and you did not answer my
challenge.
> Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
> >
> > page 46:
> >
> > "Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA
> may
> > contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison
> is
> > a tricky task and different alignments can give very different
> > results."
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> This is true but misleading; genetics is an intricate science, and
> there are multiple ways to describe the degree of similarity between
> two
> sets of DNA. But all of them agree that humans and other apes are
> closely related-- and, interestingly enough, the degree to which they
> show relation between humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans is
> consistent between different methods of measurement.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> With the Olson evidence now posted I will await your reply.
That passage from Steve Olson's book didn't say that humans and chimps
weren't related, or that the differences between our genetics was too
great for evolution to bridge. Or can you show that a few flipped
sequences and one chromosomal merging is too large a gap?
> PREVIOUSLY:
>
> > According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history
> of
> > a group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA
> and
> > protein comparisons.
> >
> > Page 51:
> >
> > "A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with
> primates instead of rodents"(4)
> >
> > "A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
>
> among chordates."(5)
> >
> > "Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to
> whales
> than to horses."(6)
> >
> MARTINEZ: "As was noted above genetics is very complex.
> >
> The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of
> things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow
> proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?"
>
>
> CLAYTON:
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Does the Harshman quote take into account that Wells was citing studies
> published by many evolutionists which were referenced ?
>
> Cows being related to whales and less to horses surely upsets
> evolutionary claims and fully supports the one Designer argument above.
What is the theory of the "one Designer," Ray? What testable
predictions does it make, distinct from those of evolution? What could
potentially falsify it?
> But it is blatantly ridiculous to even think a sea creature eventually
> morphed into whatever then a cow or any quadruped.
Argument from incredulity. So creatures cannot become more aquatic over
many generations? Ever seen a Labrador retriever, Ray? Have you ever
seen a sea lion or a penguin?
> All you have is
> assertions supported by the weight of educational credentials asking us
> to trust their assertions driven by the fright of Genesis being true.
> There is no evidence of macroevolution - it is assumed based on the
> needs of the anti-Biblical worldview.
Yawn. Once again I post evidence, once again you ignore it or snip it away.
> A whale, like any species was designed and made by God just like the
> evidence plainly says.
>
> So Wells is correct - right ?
No, the evidence "plainly says" no such thing. You could prove me
wrong, of course, by ponying up your theory of design or theory of
creationism.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> So, wait... now you are arguing that genetic similarity IS evidence of
> relation? You can't have it both ways, Ray!
>
This didn't answer my question. Is genetic similarity evidence for
relation or not? If it is, why doesn't it count in the case of humans
and chimps?
> CLAYTON:
>
> Actually, what this evidence supports is that this particular male line
>
> didn't outbreed very much. It certainly does not demand divine
> intervention; historically, Jews have often been a culture within a
> culture, preferring to marry their own people.
>
> Of course, even if this particular Biblical claim were supported by the
>
> facts (and many are-- I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks the
> Bible is wholly wrong about everything) that does not imply that all
> other claims should be regarded as true. An idea stands or falls on its
>
> own merits, not by its source; and even the best-written textbooks
> sometimes contain errors.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Predictible discounting of evidence supporting the Divine because if
> too many are true then the God created Adam suddenly declaration will
> be forced to accept.
You didn't show why my claim was wrong-- you just insisted that it's
because of your massive worldwide centuries-long conspiracy against the
Bible. That's become your boogeyman for everything, Ray, and it wins you
no points in a scientific debate.
> CLAYTON:
>
> Science is not out to discredit the Bible, Ray; but the Bible doesn't
> get a free pass. Neither does any other holy book or religious claim.
> Divine revelation simply is not relevant to the scientific method. It's
>
> not a conspiracy against your religion, it's just the way science
> *works.*
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I agree science is not a personal pronoun so it cannot consciously even
> know about the Bible, the same is true with the Bible - as it is an
> inantimate object.
You (deliberately?) misunderstand my meaning. The scientific method
grants no free passes to any religious claim, no matter the source.
> But Darwinists are sure out to discredit the Bible for obvious reasons,
> everything they have spoken up for, and their credibility and
> livelyhood is on the line the more the Bible is seen and proven true.
Like Ken Miller, who so desperately wanted to disprove the Bible that
he wrote a book explaining why Christianity is compatible with
evolution. right.
> We are having a debate where if you are right then the Bible is wrong.
> In response, I post evidence showing the Bible is right and you you cry
> foul.
No, Ray. We have a debate in which the Bible is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
But no more or less so than the Qur'an or the story of Heracles.
> You are attempting to pit science against the Bible. In response I say:
> what else would a Darwinist do ?
"Classic ad hom = inability to refute." Right, Ray?
> This tactic attempts to frame dissent coming from a false straw man of
> an unattractive cultural stereotype: religious paranoia.
Hey, you're the one who continually insists that scientists only
support evolution because they want to defy God and discredit the Bible.
(More than once I have wondered if you were a troll out to make
Christians look bad.) If the shoe fits...
> When two mutually contradicting facts appear to be true, logically,
> facts supporting the Divine outweigh any other.
No. In science, there are NO "facts supporting the Divine." Likewise,
there are none *disproving* the Divine. Science simply can't measure,
test, and quantify things that are by definition beyond measurement,
testing, and quantification.
> I suggest you practice what you preach and contain your paranoia that
> the Bible is somehow menacing science. The Bible is menacing Darwinian
> explanations of scientific data - nothing more.
I am not paranoid about the Bible menacing science; quite the opposite.
It's just not relevant.
> CLAYTON:
>
> You seem to be assigning the dates for "modern" or "advanced"
> scientific times somewhat at random. For example, you have just placed
> quantum mechanics, general relativity, and nuclear bombs outside of the
>
> realm of "advanced scientific times," and you have implicitly declared
> Newton's discoveries outside of "modern" science.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I simply established that the Renaissance is the earliest anyone could
> date the beginning of the scientific era.
>
> Space flight did not happen until 1957. This fact means this level of
> advanced science was not attained until this year.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Except the Earth's dimensions have been known, with ever-increasing
> accuracy, since around 240 BC. Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of
> the Earth with a relatively small margin of error. And he did it using
> science that is still current today. Sputnik no more proved the Earth's
>
> diameter than it proved the Earth was round.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I nominate this comment Chez Watt of the Year.
>
> Mankind did not know the exact dimensions of the Earth until Sputnik.
> Suddenly scientific evidence is being ignored and insulted. I thought
> you were loyal to evidence ?
>
> Why are you against knowing the exact dimensions of the Earth ?
>
> Is it because ancient men 4700 years ago knew and this fact has no
> place in the Darwinian worldview, but in fact falsifies the
> evolutionary scenario of man getting progressively smarter ?
Sigh. I am not against knowing the exact dimensions of the Earth; I am
simply pointing out that the Earth's dimensions were known well before
Sputnik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
> CLAYTON:
>
> Exactly where in the Great Pyramid is this "sacred cubit" found?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> In the measurements I provided and the scientific rationale to augment
> the British inch to its true size (an increase of 1/1000th of an inch).
>
> Of course you know this which makes your question an evidence evading
> insult.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Given that the author believes it was assigned a great deal of meaning,
> is
> there any writing on the walls of the pyramid, detailing the uses of
> the
> "sacred cubit" and defining it explicitly?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> You are saying if an inscription said what you are asking that this
> would be proof. If that was the case it would instantly be branded a
> forgery. The sacred cubit is found when measuring the GP with the
> British inch augmented to its true size which was confirmed by the
> Sputnik satellite as explained.
>
> The three base lengths of the side of the GP matching the three
> astronomical years exactly is ultra-intelligently designed to show the
> builders knew this data.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Or is the author just post-shadowing, trying to find coincidences and
> claim that they mean
> something? Self-proclaimed psychics and clairvoyants often use similar
> techniques, using allegorical readings of everything from the Eddas to
> the fluctuations of the stock market to "predict" things that have
> already happened.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Rutherford measured the GP with the augmented length of the British
> inch and it fit perfectly and produced the stunning facts.
>
> Your comment above is attempting to deflect away from these facts via
> mystical non-sequitur nonsense.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Unless the author can evidence that this was the intent of the "sacred
> cubit," and indeed that the Egyptians even had a notion of such a
> thing,
> this is merely an interesting coincidence
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> By saying "coincidence" you are admitting the facts are true but was
> the product of chance.
>
> This is the epitome of evading solid physical evidence because the
> implications do not fit into your worldview but spectacularly support
> the Supernatural worldview.
>
> Nobody, regardless of who built the GP, can accidentially incorporate
> the dimensions of the Earth into the monument and the astronomical
> years to the exact figures confirmed by modern science. This evidence
> simply means the builders, whoever they were - knew.
>
> Camel riding Egyptians thought the Earth was flat. Joshua, who was
> raised in Egypt, thought the sun revolved around the Earth.
>
> Even though this is straying off topic, the GP was erected way before
> Egyptian civilization appeared. There is no evidence Egyptians built
> the GP (unlike the others), the Suez Canal is in Egypt but we know the
> British built it.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> On the other hand, if there were an explicit inscription saying
> something like "Here is shown the
> Sacred Cubit, exactly one ten-millionth the diameter of the Earth.
> Which, by the way, is roughly spherical," I would be impressed, as that
>
> was not general knowledge in 2600 BC.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
>
> http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8028/ray.jpg
>
> http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8028/ray.jpg
>
> Click on the above link and view the Ante Chamber in the Great Pyramid.
>
> If the image works properly then there should also be an icon somehere
> to click to super-enlarge.
>
> This diagram is from "Pyramidology Book 1" [1957] by Dr. Adam
> Rutherford.
>
> The following data is from the same source:
>
> "Egyptian Royal Cubit = 20.6285 British inches.
>
> Sacred Cubit = 25.0266 British inches.
>
> If the builders of the Great Pyramid knew all this, why did they leave
> no other traces of their wisdom?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> They did if you read Hancocks book: "Fingerprints of the Gods", the
> book simply records the worldwide evidence showing a master Atlantian
> peoples were responsible. Dr. Scott has produced volumes of evidence
> supporting the Garden of Eden was on Atlantis, hence the homeland of
> the Antidiluvians.
>
> Why do eels swim to the area in question as if land was there, and
> migratory birds fly to the same area and drop to their deaths expecting
> land ?
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> How can you reconcile this with the
> unambiguous Egyptian belief that the Sun went around the Earth, and not
>
> vice-versa?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Question assumes Egyptians built the GP. They did not, but my point
> here is that ancient men knew what we didn't know until 1957 thus
> falsifying the Evolutionary Scenario.
Even if I were to grant every claim you make above, that still doesn't
help you with the issue of whether humans are related to the other apes.
The whole topic is a long /non sequitur./
> CLAYTON:
>
> Of course, even if you could prove divine involvement in the
> construction of the Great Pyramid, that wouldn't help you a bit, since
> this entire tangent is a non-sequitur. The subject of the debate is
> whether or not humans and other apes share a common ancestor.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> If I could prove Divine involvement with the GP this fact refutes the
> resolve because the only source we have about the universal Deity says
> He created Adam suddenly.
> In fact, the interior passage system of the
> GP is the major Bible claims in stone built prior to the written word
> being produced. This is Divine prophecy in spectacular fashion. It is
> self-evident and irrefutable once someone points it out. To have the
> interior passage system MATCH Biblical claims BEFORE they were writen
> confirms the written claims and their veracity. Implacable opponents
> can still deny = more proof of Romans 1 penalty claim.
>
> Funny how you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as needed but this
> physical unambiguous GP evidence escapes your understanding = proof of
> Romans 1 penalty claim operating.
The Bible (presumably the "only source" of which you speak) and its
claims about the Deity mean no more to science than similar claims about
Odin, Allah, or Ahura Mazda.
And now I replace the content you have been evading, and have
repeatedly cut away, since the first post of this thread. I will not
answer further digressions until you answer these points.
Why do we share the plantaris tendon with chimps, even though it is
essentially useless in both our species?
Why do we share endogenous retroviral insertions, "scars" from
long-ago diseases?
Why is our gene for L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase synthesis (necessary
for making vitamin C) broken the same way in all great apes-- including us?
Remember, your alternate scientific theory must be supported by
evidence and must explain the data at least as well as evolution does.
If common descent is not the best scientific answer, what is? "Common
design" is not an answer, unless you can produce a scientific, testable,
predictive "theory of design."
Other questions you need to answer:
What is your definition of "macroevolution," if not speciation? What
would you expect such "macroevolution" to entail? Please be specific.
What would you expect to see if evolutionary theory were correct?
You have said that no transitional forms have been found in the fossil
record. Please explain why none of Archaeopteryx lithographica,
Sinornithosaurus millenii, Deinonychus antirrhopus, Ambulocetus natans,
or Hesperocyon qualify. Be specific. Please explain what you would
expect to see in a "transitional form."
What is the "theory of design"? What is the "theory of creation"? What
predictions do they make, distinct from evolutionary biology? How can
they be tested? What could potentially falsify them? Be specific.
Ray Martinez
Darwin was an apostate-naturalist/atheist.
RICHARD:
Not at the time he formulated his theory; he was a fairly orthodox
Anglican at the time of his famous voyage on the Beagle. He later
became
agnostic, but never an atheist.
RAY:
I formally request at least two scholarly source cites for these claims
about Darwin, that is concerning his theism as asserted in your quote.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
No, you did not address it. You merely claimed that it is not evidence
for evolution. But the question was "WHY do we share the plantaris
tendon with chimps and gorillas?" So why do we, Ray? Why do we share a
COMPLETELY USELESS feature with other apes, unless we inherited it from
a common ancestor?
RAY MARTINEZ:
IOW, an unknown interpreted to support your atheist needs.
I have repeatedly answered your claim about the tendon and all other
observed and discovered similarities.
Shared features, commonality, similarity does not even mildly support
the resolve, that is human evolution over millions of years, unless you
assume so. Assumptions are not evidence.
Your argument is:
The things mentioned above = evidence for the resolve.
In repsonse, I say the things mentioned have ZERO independant objective
value apart from the massive atheistic assumptions of the Naturalist
Worldview.
The mere asserting of similarity to be evidence of morphological
evolution across millions of years is a faith assumption.
Strip away the preexisting narrative, that is assumption that humans
evolved, which is a must for atheist philosophy, and we have
storytellers disguised as scientists interpreting their own data
favorable to their worldview.
Nobody denies the similarities.
Whats at issue is what do they mean ?
It takes massive atheist faith to assert mere similarity to be evidence
of apes morphing into men spread across MILLIONS of years.
This is not scientific, but obscene credulity and speculation.
The only argument I really need to refute your tendon claims is to
point out that you are actually making it to support the resolve. It is
evident to any person with a minimal amount of sense that this is as
flimsy and hard-up as it gets. You need to invoke "April Fools" and
save face.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
No, you did not address it. You merely claimed that it is not evidence
for evolution. But the question was "WHY do we share the plantaris
tendon with chimps and gorillas?" So why do we, Ray? Why do we share a
COMPLETELY USELESS feature with other apes, unless we inherited it from
RAY MARTINEZ:
Now lets look at this in context and contrast to other facts
established in this debate.
I have proven ancient men no later than 2700 BC knew advanced
scientific facts that we moderns only recently discovered.
The Evolutionary Scenario asserts an animal ended up morphing into a
modern man over vast eons of time.
The facts of history and archaeology show ancient men with "Divine"
knowledge that we just recently obtained. They knew the EXACT
dimensions of the Earth which we did not know until 1957.
The facts of history decimate and out weigh your tendon claims/fact.
History falsifies and smashes the Evolutionary Scenario of gradual
progressive intelligence capability.
History = ultra-intelligent, then slow loss ending after Dark Ages,
then fast regain back to ultra-intelligence.
My facts destroy your fact, unless of course, your livelyhood and
credibility is on the line.
Ray Martinez
Richard Smol
Man, debating Ray is one futile operation and of course Richard
could have known that. Ray is convinced that since in science nothing
is 100% proven, it must all be 100% wrong, no matter how much evidence
there is. At the same time he pulls "evidence" out of his hat, combined
with conspiracy theories and unfounded assertions he states as being
"proven".
If this "debate" show ones thing is that it is really amazing
that creationists like Ray will keep on repeating the same
lie, even if it has been shown to be a lie *numerous times*
already and repeating it will only harm their position.
I personally suspect some form of mental disorder behind this
behavior .. or else Ray is just pulling everybody's leg.
RS
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
>
> No, you did not address it. You merely claimed that it is not evidence
> for evolution. But the question was "WHY do we share the plantaris
> tendon with chimps and gorillas?" So why do we, Ray? Why do we share a
> COMPLETELY USELESS feature with other apes, unless we inherited it from
>
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Now lets look at this in context and contrast to other facts
> established in this debate.
>
> I have proven ancient men no later than 2700 BC knew advanced
> scientific facts that we moderns only recently discovered.
Ummm... no, you didn't. You asserted it.
>
> The Evolutionary Scenario asserts an animal ended up morphing into a
> modern man over vast eons of time.
A species, not one particular animals of course. (I'm sure you know
that; I'm just clarifying an ambiguity.)
>
> The facts of history and archaeology show ancient men with "Divine"
> knowledge that we just recently obtained. They knew the EXACT
> dimensions of the Earth which we did not know until 1957.
Eratosthenes figured it out about 200 BCE. Everybody educated knew the
world was round in 1492. What Columbus argued was not the Earth being
round, but that the Spanish ships could make it to Asia. He said the
Earth was smaller than Eratosthenes calculated. Columbus was wrong.
>
> The facts of history decimate and out weigh your tendon claims/fact.
Eh? History forces doctors to assert there is no plantaris tendon? Then
what did the surgeon transplant to hold my right knee together, when I
blew it out doing kung fu?
>
> History falsifies and smashes the Evolutionary Scenario of gradual
> progressive intelligence capability.
What evidence do you have that people used to be smarter? YOu
repeatedly make this claim, but that's not data.
>
> History = ultra-intelligent, then slow loss ending after Dark Ages,
> then fast regain back to ultra-intelligence.
It's a history which only you and your invisible mentor have seen.
>
> My facts destroy your fact, unless of course, your livelyhood and
> credibility is on the line.
Your facts don't exist, Ray. A fact is something other people can see.
People can *see fossils, or weigh a dog, or taste an orange, or look at
an old parchment. They can't see this history you claim, nor any
evidence for it. Have any supporting evidence? Interpretations of
translations of ancient religious myths, which other believers
interpret in other ways, is not evidence. Not unless you want to
consider all the other myths that have survived the centuries.
>
> Ray Martinez
Kermit
Ray Martinez
This is a CLOSED topic as the title clearly says.
I will assume this fact got by you.
Please do not post in this topic.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
My proof of this claim is the topic title.
You are now the umpteenth Darwinist to thumb your nose.
Please respect our debate.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
The evidence of the below claims are already posted in this debate.
The facts of history are inescapable.
4700 years ago human beings knew the EXACT dimensions of the Earth,
they also knew and used pi, and incorporated the lengths of the Solar,
Sidereal, and Anomalistic years into the physical dimensions of the
Great Pyramid. The same monument literally contains hundreds of
examples and usages that the builders were fully knowledgeable in
advanced mathematics and geometry.
Only in 1957, via the Sputnik satellite, did modern science discover
the EXACT dimensions of the Earth.
In between 2700 BC and the Renaissance/advent of Darwinism/atomic
age/Space age 1957, is a massive gulf of time that is undisputably
known as pre-scientific primitive times.
In other words, we have ultra-intelligence, followed by a massive
digression and degeneration, then a sudden progression back into
ultra-intelligence.
The physical facts built into the Great Pyramid prove the builders had
knowledge that western cultures only recently (re)discovered with the
immeasureable help of space flight.
How did ancient men determine the exact polar diameter of the Earth in
2700 BC ? Who taught them pi thousands of years prior to the first
recorded use by the Greeks ?
Why did the use of pi completely disappear until 17th century European
re-discovery ?
The Darwinian worldview and scenario is irreversibly spoken up for,
that modern man evolved into his present intelligent state via ultra
slow step by step blind processes.
The Evolutionary scenario is utterly incompatible with the facts of
history outlined above.
How did ancient men begin ultra smart, then completely lose his
intelligence, then suddenly re-gain his intelligence ?
The above scenario is in complete harmony with Genesis sudden creation
of Adam by God. AFTER the fall, Adam is banished from the Garden of
Eden.
"Eden" means "heart of God." [source: Dr. Scott]
Henry Drummond defined life as "the capacity to relate to ones
environment."
Dr. Scott says the Drummond definition is the best he ever heard.
Upon being banished from the heart of God, that is separation from the
source of life - God, Adam and his descendants BEGAN to die and
degenerate.
The Antidiluvians were the possessors of ultra-intelligence having been
closer to the source of life/God and the capacity to relate to ones
environment. As time and history proceeded, Adamkind grew more and more
distant from God/source of life as is witnessed by primitive historical
times lasting thousands of years.
The reemergence of Antidiluvian intelligence via modernity is the
result of Biblical penalty prophecies expiring when the Protestant
Reformation suddenly burst forth. Whats important in this debate, and
falsifies the resolve, is the unmistakable flux of intelligence that
history shows. The Evolutionary scenario has no room to accommodate
these facts of intelligence undulation.
And Richard Clayton offers us a freakin tendon.
Darwinists have scant highly subjective corruptible unfalsifiable
fossil scraps that have no independant objective value apart from the
preexisting narrative and assumptions of the Naturalist worldview.
These fossils are extreme credulity and speculation packaged as
science.
There are no missing links, that is transitional between modern man and
ape in existence.
I have supplied abundant evidence establishing this fact.
The Steve Olson DNA evidence proved chimp DNA and human IS NOT similar
after all - evidence which Clayton completely hand-waved.
You Darwinists claim that YOUR science is available for all to confirm,
yet you lock the few fossils you claim to be transitional in bank
vaults. Museums display fakes because of their rarity. Rarity means
absence, which means paucity, which logically means a theory is not
true when it lacks abundant clear objective evidence.
I have shown that Darwinists admit hominid evolution is assumed, that
it lacks direct verifiable evidence. The assumption is misrepresented
as fact based on voluminous evidence, which in reality, the
misrepresentation is driven by the fear of Genesis being true and seen
as that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence = hominid evolution
comes no where close to fulfillment.
IC falsified graduality.
The fact of the amount of digitally recorded information in EACH cell
is blatant ID. A computer chip was designed and contains information,
the cell is much smaller and contains much more but was not designed =
the beliefs of evil persons evading the Creator.
Whats the point in lieu of all this evidence ?
The Romans 1 penalty claim is absolutely true and operating. There is
no other plausible explanation as to why so many modern people refuse
to accept the bare facts of the existence of the Creator.
For anyone to claim God exists but left no evidence of His intelligence
in creation is an oxymoron. Millions of people see ID while only
atheists are blind to it. This blinding is proof of the penalty as is
the moronic evasions of ID by Darwinists = ToE is religion, the exact
traits of the Medieval Church and their stupidity towards science in
reverse.
Don't feel that bad, in the First Century, the Pharisees SAW the Son of
God in the flesh and SAW Him perform miracles and raise the dead AND
THEY STILL DIDN'T BELIEVE.
Dawkins said if you were to SEE a statue of Mary wave at you - its
still not a miracle.
Darwinists, Dawkins, Pharisees are all blind = the penalty for flipping
God off.
Ray Martinez
Bob
wrote:
>
>In other words, we have ultra-intelligence, followed by a massive
>digression and degeneration
and not, coincidentally, religious christian fanaticism....
>
>The Darwinian worldview and scenario is irreversibly spoken up for,
>that modern man evolved into his present intelligent state via ultra
>slow step by step blind processes.
this guys' saying darwin was wrong because of the pyramids??
>
>The Evolutionary scenario is utterly incompatible with the facts of
>history outlined above.
>
>How did ancient men begin ultra smart, then completely lose his
>intelligence, then suddenly re-gain his intelligence ?
uh, religion, perhaps? religion, as we see in the middle east, can be
the killer of the intellect. the medieval ages were awash in religious
belief, fatalism, etc.
this was followed by the enlightenment, secularization, the printing
press, religious freedom, capitalism, etc...
>
>
>The reemergence of Antidiluvian intelligence via modernity is the
>result of Biblical penalty prophecies expiring when the Protestant
>Reformation suddenly burst forth. Whats important in this debate, and
>falsifies the resolve, is the unmistakable flux of intelligence that
>history shows. The Evolutionary scenario has no room to accommodate
>these facts of intelligence undulation.
that's true. evolution can't explain auto mechanics either. nor can it
explain dentistry, ice skating, etc. you're talking CULTURE. that's
different than EVOLUTION to most folks.
>
>
>Darwinists have scant highly subjective corruptible unfalsifiable
>fossil scraps that have no independant objective value apart from the
>preexisting narrative and assumptions of the Naturalist worldview.
>These fossils are extreme credulity and speculation packaged as
>science.
of course martinez ignores the fact that, for thousands of years, the
SUPERNATURAL worldview held sway...trial by ordeal, burning of
witches, bleeding, exorcism...all pushed by creationists.
>
>
>I have supplied abundant evidence establishing this fact.
>
>The Steve Olson DNA evidence proved chimp DNA and human IS NOT similar
>after all - evidence which Clayton completely hand-waved.
wrong of course...
>
>You Darwinists claim that YOUR science is available for all to confirm,
>yet you lock the few fossils you claim to be transitional in bank
>vaults.
where SHOULD we put rare fossils? in times square?
Museums display fakes because of their rarity. Rarity means
>absence, which means paucity, which logically means a theory is not
>true when it lacks abundant clear objective evidence.
uh, wrong. even ONE transitional series is evidence of evolution. you
just admitted there ARE such series. therefore evidence exists.
>
>
>IC falsified graduality.
>
>The fact of the amount of digitally recorded information in EACH cell
>is blatant ID.
whatever "ID" is. however it works. it seems it works by magic.
>
>For anyone to claim God exists but left no evidence of His intelligence
>in creation is an oxymoron. Millions of people see ID while only
>atheists are blind to it.
and, it seems, scientists are blind as well. there are NO papers in
ANY scientific journal anywhere in the world supporting ID
This blinding is proof of the penalty as is
>the moronic evasions of ID by Darwinists = ToE is religion, the exact
>traits of the Medieval Church and their stupidity towards science in
>reverse.
ironic, isnt it, that he cites the medieval church...the same one that
said the idea that the earth rotates around the sun was 'only a
theory' and prevented its publication until 1852.
>
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Ray Martinez
The place for your idiotic drivel is the Peanut Gallery here:
This is a CLOSED topic as the title suggests.
Ray Martinez
Bob
wrote:
>Bob:
it's not your ball park. you didn't bring the ball and gloves. i don't
have to play by your rules.
YOU were the one with the historical distortions. I just set the
record straight.
Ray Martinez
it's not your ball park. you didn't bring the ball and gloves. i don't
have to play by your rules.
RAY:
I realize Richard needs as much help as he can obtain, but why don't
you just email him ?
You are enraged and flaunting your freedom to violate the CLOSED debate
request.
By posting here you are looking very bad and angry.
If Creationists can respect the Rule why can't you ?
I apologize for the "drivel" insult.
The place to post is the Peanut Gallery.
Ray Martinez
Bob
wrote:
>BOB:
>
>it's not your ball park. you didn't bring the ball and gloves. i don't
>have to play by your rules.
>
>RAY:
>
>I realize Richard needs as much help as he can obtain, but why don't
>you just email him ?
>
>You are enraged and flaunting your freedom to violate the CLOSED debate
>request.
ROFLMAO!! enraged, am I??
amused is more like it. your byzantine m edieval xtian theology, while
typical for creationists, is arcane to the point of delusion. you're
representative of your breed which is to say you can't think
independently.
John Harshman
Excuse me for posting to the closed thread, but somebody has to tell Bob
to stop being such an asshole and let the debate go forward. Such as it is.
Ray Martinez
Richard Milton is wrong here. Macroevolution can be and has been
observed; it can be and has been the subject of experiments. If you
have
a new species, you have macroevolution.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Herein is the eternal game you Darwinists play.
Macro is assumed based on the undisputed facts of micro and
atheist/naturalist needs.
Your stale assertion does not negate what is known as a fact and
objectively confirmed by atheist Richard Milton.
Its not a matter of opinion: speciation is not observable nor can it be
made the object of experimentation because it is the term used to
describe the assumption of a theoretical process strewn about over tens
of millions of years.
Any well read person knows Darwinists conclude: "It must be true - we
are here" = atheist philosophy being substituted under the color of
science.
"If you have a new species, you have macroevolution." - Richard
Clayton.
New species are sudden creations by God just like the textual evidence
of the Bible says and corroborated by the fossil record of species
appearing, slightly changing, then disappearing - microevolution. The
Cambrian explosion perfectly confirms Genesis sudden creation.
In response, Darwinists flood knowledge banks with excuses as to why
the Cambrian is not what we observe.
Genesis declares sudden creation.
Creationists predict physical evidence in the world will reflect and
confirm this fact.
The Cambrian explosion does just that. How could it not be anymore
clear ?
CLAYTON:
Fortunately things have advanced a bit since Darwin's time. We have
found quite a few intermediate links since his day; while arguing that
there were no transitional forms in the fossil record might have flown
in 1860, it certainly doesn't fly today. Besides the fossil cetaceans
listed above, other good examples are hyracotherium (an early horselike
animal) and the famous archaeopteryx. If you take issue with these
examples, please explain, in specific detail, why you do not think that
archaeopteryx looks like something partway between a bird and a
dinosaur.
MARTINEZ:
I am pleased to see a Darwinist admit that Darwin meant what he
said/admitted, that there was no evidence of intermediacy in fossil
formations in his day. You are the first Darwinist to ever admit that
he meant what he said in my recollection.
Most of your alleged examples of transitional reflect the eternal game
as described above, that is micro insisted to be macro.
Macro is assumed, it HAS to be true because God is not an option =
atheist philosophy being asserted under the disguise of science.
You cannot lay out continuous sequencial fossil evolution showing
speciation without massive gaps, and you cannot do so with a few
species much less tens, much less hundreds, yet millions of species
have existed.
Instead, Darwinists have assembled the horse sequence - their ONE proud
candidate that resembles the claim of speciation. But the sequence is
not evidence of speciation, but evidence that has been adduced from the
former existence of different quadrupeds that are very similar. The
sequence implies speciation but provides no evidence of any actual
relationship between them. The connections between them are assumed,
which is what macroevolution/speciation is as substantiated in this
debate and is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the arguments
and evidence in the Creation/Evolution debate.
According to George Simpson, evolutions greatest advocate of the horse
sequence to be evidence of speciation:
1) Complete skeletons of fossil horses are rare.
2) Displays of such consist of partial skeletons, isolated bones,
skulls, and other fragments.
3) There are tens of thousands partial fragments known, and about 50
mounted skeletons in the U.S., and 8 of the species in the sequence
have no mounted skeletons.
source: George Simpson, "Horses", 1961 (Oxford University Press.)
Again, the horse sequence is touted as the decisive evidence of
speciation. The conclusions do not match the facts concerning the
diminutive inventory. I logically point out that the Darwinian
evidential bark is not conducive with its bite.
Archaeopteryx:
Has a wishbone like all birds, dinosaurs for the most part did not
possess collarbones. Does this fact get in the way of your connection ?
Richard:
Why aren't there thousands as such ?
Why just one ?
It is hard-up and irrational to base a mammoth claim like speciation on
one isolated fossil.
The amount of press this one alleged example gets is lopsided and
unwarranted since millions of species have existed yet the theory is
being based on ultra-scant solitary evidences.
I say the lack of even minimal clear unambiguous evidence supports the
theory is not true because sudden Genesis is true. This is logical, and
supported by the lack of massive evidence supporting the assumption of
macroevolution.
The insistence of speciation as fact, despite the paucity of evidence,
and the fact that millions of species have existed, and the fact that
the world has been thoroughly searched, means: the needs of
anti-Biblical worldviews are being pandered to under the guise of
legitimate science.
CLAYTON:
As for "Genesis is not an option," are you suggesting that even
Christians who accept evolution are in a vast conspiracy against the
Bible?
MARTINEZ:
Persons claiming to be christian, who embrace macro/human evolution,
does not affect what the Bible says.
Genesis is black and white in respect to its central unambiguous
declaration that God is the Creator who suddenly created Adam full
grown and intelligent. False beliefs about this fact does not harm or
alter this fact. In fact, alleged christians who assert contrary only
establish their loyalty to a contrary philosophy - naturalism. The
Bible is the source for supernaturalism. Christians who do not believe
in the Supernatural ? Imagine that !
TEists just can't believe this entire atheist modern scientific
generation is deceived and God-damned. They have no source for their
Creator beliefs. The only evidence anyone needs to prove how obviously
corrupt they are is the support of atheist Darwinism that they enjoy.
God is the Creator and Naturalism has no room for Him. TEists are a
untrustworthy hybrid attempting to reconcile the irreconciable.
Ray Martinez
Richard Smol
Everybody is free to post a response in this group. Besides,
I wasn't participating in the "debate" but merely noting that
it was totally useless. Debating you is about the as having
a discussion with a stubborn child who goes "is not" all
the time.
RS
Bob
gee john, your command of the english language is noted.
res ipsa loquitur
Ray Martinez
gee john, your command of the english language is noted.
RAY:
This is an attempt to shift the guilt of your willful infraction upon
John.
You are more concerned with his accurate choice of words describing
your behavior than you are with your behavior which caused the rebuke.
You are more concerned with saving face than taking the correction like
a man and shutting your trap.
Ray Martinez
Bob
wrote:
>BOB:
>
>gee john, your command of the english language is noted.
>
>RAY:
>
>This is an attempt to shift the guilt of your willful infraction upon
>John.
the only person committing a john infraction here is you.
>
>You are more concerned with his accurate choice of words describing
>your behavior than you are with your behavior which caused the rebuke.
you seem to have a potty fetish regarding the eponymously named john
harshman. no surprise given the scatological intellect required to
believe in creationism.
>
>You are more concerned with saving face than taking the correction like
>a man and shutting your trap.
>
if wisdom required shutting one's trap, creationists would commit
suicide.
Ray Martinez
So Ken Miller, practicing Catholic, is desperately trying to prove the
Bible wrong?
RAY MARTINEZ:
Miller's words and arguments reveal himself to be a militant Darwinist
who rejects the black and white claim of Genesis that God suddenly
created the universe, the world, and Adam at some point respectively.
The claim of Catholicism/theism is refuted by his own admissions and
deification of Naturalism.
Miller is on a rampage against the Bible and his claim of theism is
about as credible as Hitler's.
Miller is the perfect example of a brazen liar attempting to urinate on
the unambiguous declarations of sudden creation for the single purpose
of preserving the antithesis: gradual naturalistic evolution. Miller
fools nobody as he demonstrates how low naturalists will stoop to get
revenge on Creationists and their source.
Suppose I argued what I argue while claiming to be an atheist ?
You would be making these plain observations in reverse.
Anyone can claim to be anything as is witnessed by Miller's freedom to
do so. A person is as they argue and Miller is a Darwinist and
Darwinists are Naturalists who reject the Bible/source of
Supernaturalism - not a matter of opinion.
MARTINEZ, previously:
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
"When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California),
in February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
links
missing." "
CLAYTON, responds:
Well, yes. There is always more to be found-- as we have discussed
before. But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
apes have common ancestry?
MARTINEZ:
Your comment defies what Leakey said/established.
I provided a super-clear fact: no missing links at the time of the
quote. In response, you assert contrary.
Then you ask a rhetorical question which is not in dispute.
Leakey is a Darwinist who provided a fact about missing links - they
are massively missing, non-existent.
I have the logical right to ask, "what was Leakey basing his hominid
evolution assumptions on then ?"
Answer: atheist needs, obviously.
What was human evolution based upon Richard in Leakey's day which was
very recent ?
This is rhetorical.
Again, you are asserting facts produced by Darwinists cannot be used
against their starting assumptions.
By invoking the well known fact that Leakey is a Darwinist, is an
attempt to deflect away from the missing link fact. You know this and
you know anyone can quote facts produced by people that do not share
their views to support contrary views.
Have you ever read archaeology books ?
Atheists and theists constantly quote facts from each other to support
their positions. You are dishonestly asserting facts produced by
Darwinists can never be used against their theory.
You have repeatedly done this with Gee also.
I accept facts produced by Gee then point out that they do not support
his assumptions or conclusions. You are inventing straw men contrary to
what is actually argued.
Leakey produced a fact: No missing links.
Clayton evades by pointing out Leakey is a Darwinist.
Whats your point Richard ? Leakey and you are exposed to be parading
human evolution as fact not based on evidence.
At least Leakey is honest.
Now, you will undoubtedly repeat a variation of your fact evasion
tactic.
CLAYTON:
As I have asked before-- and you have failed to answer-- why would Homo
erectus or Homo habilis not qualify as a link between man and other
apes?
MARTINEZ:
Question assumes the genus transitional.
What makes them as such and is this physical evidence clear for
everyone to see and confirm who is of reasonable intelligence ?
Or do we have to take a paleontologists word for it ?
And what about the fact that anthropologists are divided ?
The claim of Darwinists is that THEIR science is available for everyone
to see and confirm. Nothing could be more untrue about obscure fossil
scraps. They cannot be falsified or positively identified. The are
corruptible like Romans 1 predicted.
MARTINEZ, previously:
Now we see why the Academy/Miller quote carefully crafted human
evolution to be assumed based on other claimed facts. Those other
claimed facts are the undisputed facts of microevolution, which are
then misrepresented to support macroevolution. As it turns out the
other claimed facts are assumed also (macroevolution) which further
relegates supposed human evolution to be assumed. But the point is
that there is no credible evidence (for human evolution) or any volume
of it commensurate to the extraordinary claim.
CLAYTON, responds:
As I asked you before, and you did not answer: What facts do you
dispute, and why?
MARTINEZ:
Your comment is a deliberate non-sequitur = inability to refute - thats
why you counter with a non-sequitur/insult.
CLAYTON:
Thus far you have relied almost entirely on quotations.
MARTINEZ:
Yes, I have relied upon scholarly sources for my claims, evidence, and
arguments.
Suddenly, via your ridiculous comment, you are advocating the non-use
of sources to establish facts.
This is conducive with the obvious observation that Darwinism is
atheist philosophy packaged as science. Neither Darwin's nor your
starting assumptions have ever been harmed by any scientific facts !
150 years ! = atheist religion parading as science.
Richard, you are wasting my time and clowning the debate by asserting
that something is wrong to have sources. This also implies that you do
not which is confirmed by all your messages lacking any source cites.
I have let you get away with asserting your subjective opinions to be
assumed as fact for the sake of having a debate, but this is going too
far by saying sources are invalid.
Unless you retract this unscientific absurdity - this debate is over as
I will not allow my presence to dignify what is commonly known as
bullshit.
Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton
"During these two years [of the voyage on the Beagle] I was led to
think much about religion. Whilst on board the 'Beagle' I was quite
orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the
officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on some point of morality." -- Darwin, Charles.
/The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1./ Darwin, Sir Francis,
editor. From Project Gutenberg, etext #2087, February 1999.
"In the summer of 1818 I went to Dr. Butler's great school in
Shrewsbury, and remained there for seven years still Midsummer 1825,
when I was sixteen years old. [...] I remember in the early part of my
school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and from
being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I
prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I
attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and
marvelled how generally I was aided." -- Darwin, Charles. /The Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1./ Darwin, Sir Francis, editor. From
Project Gutenberg, etext #2087, February 1999.
I would also point out the last sentence of /On the Origin of Species/:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into
one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the
fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." --
Darwin, Charles. /On the Origin of Species./ From Project Gutenberg,
etext #2009, December 1999.
I apologize for not proving a specific page cite, as I do not currently
possess copies of either book; you can find them freely available online
at these URLs:
Life and Letters http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/1llcd10.txt
Origin of Species http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt
If I recall correctly, /Finding Darwin's God/ talks about Darwin's
spirituality as well; since you claimed to have read it recently, I am
surprised you were unaware of this.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> No, you did not address it. You merely claimed that it is not evidence
> for evolution. But the question was "WHY do we share the plantaris
> tendon with chimps and gorillas?" So why do we, Ray? Why do we share a
> COMPLETELY USELESS feature with other apes, unless we inherited it from
>
> a common ancestor?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> IOW, an unknown interpreted to support your atheist needs.
>
> I have repeatedly answered your claim about the tendon and all other
> observed and discovered similarities.
>
> Shared features, commonality, similarity does not even mildly support
> the resolve, that is human evolution over millions of years, unless you
> assume so. Assumptions are not evidence.
No, you have not answered this. You simply said it wasn't evidence of
common ancestry; you haven't answered the question of why it is there,
if not inherited from a shared ancestor. And again, I am not prepared to
accept "common design" as an answer unless you can provide a testable,
scientific theory of design.
> Your argument is:
>
> The things mentioned above = evidence for the resolve.
>
> In repsonse, I say the things mentioned have ZERO independant objective
> value apart from the massive atheistic assumptions of the Naturalist
> Worldview.
>
> The mere asserting of similarity to be evidence of morphological
> evolution across millions of years is a faith assumption.
What does the similarity suggest to you, then? What theory explains it?
> Strip away the preexisting narrative, that is assumption that humans
> evolved, which is a must for atheist philosophy, and we have
> storytellers disguised as scientists interpreting their own data
> favorable to their worldview.
>
> Nobody denies the similarities.
>
> Whats at issue is what do they mean ?
So what DO they mean? What is your theory? What predictions does it
make, and how can it be falsified?
> It takes massive atheist faith to assert mere similarity to be evidence
> of apes morphing into men spread across MILLIONS of years.
>
> This is not scientific, but obscene credulity and speculation.
>
> The only argument I really need to refute your tendon claims is to
> point out that you are actually making it to support the resolve. It is
> evident to any person with a minimal amount of sense that this is as
> flimsy and hard-up as it gets. You need to invoke "April Fools" and
> save face.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hs=dzL&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22plantaris+tendon%22&btnG=Search
or
http://tinyurl.com/bqrc6
If your only defense is to insist I made it up out of whole cloth, you
are in serious trouble.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> No, you did not address it. You merely claimed that it is not evidence
> for evolution. But the question was "WHY do we share the plantaris
> tendon with chimps and gorillas?" So why do we, Ray? Why do we share a
> COMPLETELY USELESS feature with other apes, unless we inherited it from
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Now lets look at this in context and contrast to other facts
> established in this debate.
>
> I have proven ancient men no later than 2700 BC knew advanced
> scientific facts that we moderns only recently discovered.
>
> The Evolutionary Scenario asserts an animal ended up morphing into a
> modern man over vast eons of time.
>
> The facts of history and archaeology show ancient men with "Divine"
> knowledge that we just recently obtained. They knew the EXACT
> dimensions of the Earth which we did not know until 1957.
I have shown that to be not correct-- but you snipped it away, without
marking. Again.
Maybe you think the Soviets were just GUESSING about the size, shape,
and mass of the Earth when they calculated Sputnik's trajectory?
> The facts of history decimate and out weigh your tendon claims/fact.
>
> History falsifies and smashes the Evolutionary Scenario of gradual
> progressive intelligence capability.
>
> History = ultra-intelligent, then slow loss ending after Dark Ages,
> then fast regain back to ultra-intelligence.
Even if man could be shown to have diminished in intelligence, that
would not falsify evolution. Smarter, stronger, or faster are only
better inasmuch as they lead to increased reproductive success. Some
biologists will tell you that myopia is far more common than it once
was, because it is no longer a severe hindrance; thus, little selective
pressure against it.
> My facts destroy your fact, unless of course, your livelyhood and
> credibility is on the line.
Why is my "livelyhood" on the line? I have no vested interest in
evolution; if the theory were decisively overturned tomorrow, the only
thing in my life that would change is a few books on my reading list.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> REVIEW:
> The evidence of the below claims are already posted in this debate.
>
> The facts of history are inescapable.
>
> 4700 years ago human beings knew the EXACT dimensions of the Earth,
> they also knew and used pi, and incorporated the lengths of the Solar,
> Sidereal, and Anomalistic years into the physical dimensions of the
> Great Pyramid. The same monument literally contains hundreds of
> examples and usages that the builders were fully knowledgeable in
> advanced mathematics and geometry.
>
> Only in 1957, via the Sputnik satellite, did modern science discover
> the EXACT dimensions of the Earth.
And somehow the Soviets managed to successfully launch and track
Sputnik without *knowing* the dimensions of the Earth...
> In between 2700 BC and the Renaissance/advent of Darwinism/atomic
> age/Space age 1957, is a massive gulf of time that is undisputably
> known as pre-scientific primitive times.
Once again you place quantum mechanics, general relativity, nuclear
fission, and /Principia Mathematica/ in "pre-scientific primitive times."
> In other words, we have ultra-intelligence, followed by a massive
> digression and degeneration, then a sudden progression back into
> ultra-intelligence.
>
> The physical facts built into the Great Pyramid prove the builders had
> knowledge that western cultures only recently (re)discovered with the
> immeasureable help of space flight.
>
> How did ancient men determine the exact polar diameter of the Earth in
> 2700 BC ? Who taught them pi thousands of years prior to the first
> recorded use by the Greeks ?
>
> Why did the use of pi completely disappear until 17th century European
> re-discovery ?
It didn't, as I have mentioned before. The Rhind Papyrus dates to
around 1,900 BC, and gives the value of pi as (16/9)^2, which is pretty
close to the accepted modern value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhind_papyrus
> The Darwinian worldview and scenario is irreversibly spoken up for,
> that modern man evolved into his present intelligent state via ultra
> slow step by step blind processes.
>
> The Evolutionary scenario is utterly incompatible with the facts of
> history outlined above.
>
> How did ancient men begin ultra smart, then completely lose his
> intelligence, then suddenly re-gain his intelligence ?
Even assuming your dubious "Sacred Cubit" is real, and not the result
of post-shadowing, losing intelligence would not disprove evolution.
> The above scenario is in complete harmony with Genesis sudden creation
> of Adam by God. AFTER the fall, Adam is banished from the Garden of
> Eden.
>
> "Eden" means "heart of God." [source: Dr. Scott]
>
> Henry Drummond defined life as "the capacity to relate to ones
> environment."
>
> Dr. Scott says the Drummond definition is the best he ever heard.
>
> Upon being banished from the heart of God, that is separation from the
> source of life - God, Adam and his descendants BEGAN to die and
> degenerate.
>
> The Antidiluvians were the possessors of ultra-intelligence having been
> closer to the source of life/God and the capacity to relate to ones
> environment. As time and history proceeded, Adamkind grew more and more
> distant from God/source of life as is witnessed by primitive historical
> times lasting thousands of years.
As I have already mentioned, NO religious text is considered scientific
evidence. Not the Bible, not the Eddas, not the Qur'an.
> The reemergence of Antidiluvian intelligence via modernity is the
> result of Biblical penalty prophecies expiring when the Protestant
> Reformation suddenly burst forth. Whats important in this debate, and
> falsifies the resolve, is the unmistakable flux of intelligence that
> history shows. The Evolutionary scenario has no room to accommodate
> these facts of intelligence undulation.
>
> And Richard Clayton offers us a freakin tendon.
Along with genetic homology, plus endogenous retroviral insertions...
and that was just in my first post. You've handwaved the first and never
even attempted to answer the second. For bonus points, you could tell me
why our genes for ascorbic acid synthesis are broken in the exact same
way a chimp's is broken.
> Darwinists have scant highly subjective corruptible unfalsifiable
> fossil scraps that have no independant objective value apart from the
> preexisting narrative and assumptions of the Naturalist worldview.
> These fossils are extreme credulity and speculation packaged as
> science.
Your assertion that the fossil record is "unfalsifiable" is incorrect.
There are plenty of potential scenarios that could involve the fossil
record falsifying the modern understanding of evolution-- or would at
least throw it for a serious loop. For example, if Homo sapiens remains
were never found living in the same environments as his putative
ancestors, we might have to rethink things quite a bit.
Of course, there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution in general,
not just hominid evolution; it would take quite a lot of contrary
evidence to overturn our modern understanding. A bird in flight doesn't
falsify the theory of gravity-- it just means that something else is at
work that you might not immediately understand.
> There are no missing links, that is transitional between modern man and
> ape in existence.
>
> I have supplied abundant evidence establishing this fact.
Why would the australopithecines not be considered transitional forms?
What would you expect ape-to-human transitionals to look like, if
australopithecines and habilenes are not transitional forms? I asked you
this question in my last post, and you snipped it away without comment.
> The Steve Olson DNA evidence proved chimp DNA and human IS NOT similar
> after all - evidence which Clayton completely hand-waved.
Olson didn't say that human and chimp DNA is not similar; he simply
pointed out some of the differences and how to distinguish the two.
> You Darwinists claim that YOUR science is available for all to confirm,
> yet you lock the few fossils you claim to be transitional in bank
> vaults. Museums display fakes because of their rarity. Rarity means
> absence, which means paucity, which logically means a theory is not
> true when it lacks abundant clear objective evidence.
Rarity, paucity, and absence are not synonyms.
How many fossils would you expect to find if evolution were true?
Fossilization is a rare event; science has to proceed with what we have,
not what we wish we had.
> I have shown that Darwinists admit hominid evolution is assumed, that
> it lacks direct verifiable evidence. The assumption is misrepresented
> as fact based on voluminous evidence, which in reality, the
> misrepresentation is driven by the fear of Genesis being true and seen
> as that.
So we're back to the "all Darwinists are out to destroy the Bible"
canard. I have pointed out examples of Christians who accept evolution,
but you simply claim they aren't really Christian. (Wait, do I hear No
True Bagpipes playing in the distance?)
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence = hominid evolution
> comes no where close to fulfillment.
>
> IC falsified graduality.
>
> The fact of the amount of digitally recorded information in EACH cell
> is blatant ID. A computer chip was designed and contains information,
> the cell is much smaller and contains much more but was not designed =
> the beliefs of evil persons evading the Creator.
How is the "information" of "complexity" in a cell or computer chip
quantified? What metric is used and what are the calculations? Which has
more information, a wolf or a fox? How about a bear or a mouse? How can
you tell?
> Whats the point in lieu of all this evidence ?
>
> The Romans 1 penalty claim is absolutely true and operating. There is
> no other plausible explanation as to why so many modern people refuse
> to accept the bare facts of the existence of the Creator.
>
> For anyone to claim God exists but left no evidence of His intelligence
> in creation is an oxymoron.
Science does not take a stand on God's existence or nonexistence; it
simply admits that the supernatural-- untestable, unquantifiable,
unknowable-- is beyond its capacity to examine.
> Millions of people see ID while only
> atheists are blind to it.
Another lie. Some atheists agree with ID; many theists reject it. You
have been shown this before, several times.
> This blinding is proof of the penalty as is
> the moronic evasions of ID by Darwinists = ToE is religion, the exact
> traits of the Medieval Church and their stupidity towards science in
> reverse.
Once again, science (and the theory of evolution) is not a religion.
(Unless you are using an extremely bizarre definition of the word, in
which case I ask you to explicitly define it here.)
> Don't feel that bad, in the First Century, the Pharisees SAW the Son of
> God in the flesh and SAW Him perform miracles and raise the dead AND
> THEY STILL DIDN'T BELIEVE.
>
> Dawkins said if you were to SEE a statue of Mary wave at you - its
> still not a miracle.
>
> Darwinists, Dawkins, Pharisees are all blind = the penalty for flipping
> God off.
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> Richard Milton is wrong here. Macroevolution can be and has been
> observed; it can be and has been the subject of experiments. If you
> have
> a new species, you have macroevolution.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Herein is the eternal game you Darwinists play.
>
> Macro is assumed based on the undisputed facts of micro and
> atheist/naturalist needs.
>
> Your stale assertion does not negate what is known as a fact and
> objectively confirmed by atheist Richard Milton.
>
> Its not a matter of opinion: speciation is not observable nor can it be
> made the object of experimentation because it is the term used to
> describe the assumption of a theoretical process strewn about over tens
> of millions of years.
>
> Any well read person knows Darwinists conclude: "It must be true - we
> are here" = atheist philosophy being substituted under the color of
> science.
Here you quoted a piece of a previous post-- about which I had already
countered your argument-- and reply to it as if it were new. Is this
deliberate evasion or casual ineptitude?
> "If you have a new species, you have macroevolution." - Richard
> Clayton.
>
> New species are sudden creations by God just like the textual evidence
> of the Bible says and corroborated by the fossil record of species
> appearing, slightly changing, then disappearing - microevolution. The
> Cambrian explosion perfectly confirms Genesis sudden creation.
>
> In response, Darwinists flood knowledge banks with excuses as to why
> the Cambrian is not what we observe.
>
> Genesis declares sudden creation.
>
> Creationists predict physical evidence in the world will reflect and
> confirm this fact.
>
> The Cambrian explosion does just that. How could it not be anymore
> clear ?
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> Fortunately things have advanced a bit since Darwin's time. We have
> found quite a few intermediate links since his day; while arguing that
> there were no transitional forms in the fossil record might have flown
> in 1860, it certainly doesn't fly today. Besides the fossil cetaceans
> listed above, other good examples are hyracotherium (an early horselike
>
> animal) and the famous archaeopteryx. If you take issue with these
> examples, please explain, in specific detail, why you do not think that
>
> archaeopteryx looks like something partway between a bird and a
> dinosaur.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I am pleased to see a Darwinist admit that Darwin meant what he
> said/admitted, that there was no evidence of intermediacy in fossil
> formations in his day. You are the first Darwinist to ever admit that
> he meant what he said in my recollection.
>
> Most of your alleged examples of transitional reflect the eternal game
> as described above, that is micro insisted to be macro.
>
> Macro is assumed, it HAS to be true because God is not an option =
> atheist philosophy being asserted under the disguise of science.
>
> You cannot lay out continuous sequencial fossil evolution showing
> speciation without massive gaps, and you cannot do so with a few
> species much less tens, much less hundreds, yet millions of species
> have existed.
Same thing here: You replied to old text and cut away my more recent
response.
And, for the record, what I said was the "no transitionals"
counterargument *might* have flown in 1865; there were far fewer fossil
finds then. It's plainly ludicrous now.
> Instead, Darwinists have assembled the horse sequence - their ONE proud
> candidate that resembles the claim of speciation.
Yet another lie. I have offered multiple transitional sequences,
including the hominid sequence and the whale sequence.
> But the sequence is
> not evidence of speciation, but evidence that has been adduced from the
> former existence of different quadrupeds that are very similar. The
> sequence implies speciation but provides no evidence of any actual
> relationship between them. The connections between them are assumed,
> which is what macroevolution/speciation is as substantiated in this
> debate and is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the arguments
> and evidence in the Creation/Evolution debate.
What is your explanation, if not evolution? What alternate scientific
theory explains the data?
> According to George Simpson, evolutions greatest advocate of the horse
> sequence to be evidence of speciation:
>
> 1) Complete skeletons of fossil horses are rare.
>
> 2) Displays of such consist of partial skeletons, isolated bones,
> skulls, and other fragments.
>
> 3) There are tens of thousands partial fragments known, and about 50
> mounted skeletons in the U.S., and 8 of the species in the sequence
> have no mounted skeletons.
>
> source: George Simpson, "Horses", 1961 (Oxford University Press.)
Does George Simpson's book show evidence that the different fossil
horselike species are not related?
> Again, the horse sequence is touted as the decisive evidence of
> speciation. The conclusions do not match the facts concerning the
> diminutive inventory. I logically point out that the Darwinian
> evidential bark is not conducive with its bite.
>
> Archaeopteryx:
>
> Has a wishbone like all birds, dinosaurs for the most part did not
> possess collarbones. Does this fact get in the way of your connection ?
So? Wouldn't you expect a transitional to have some features from both
groups it connects?
> Richard:
>
> Why aren't there thousands as such ?
>
> Why just one ?
Fossilization is rare.
> It is hard-up and irrational to base a mammoth claim like speciation on
> one isolated fossil.
Another outright lie. There are eight archaeopteryx finds, and I also
listed some other transitional fossils. I specifically mentioned
Sinornithosaurus millenii, Deinonychus antirrhopus, Ambulocetus natans,
and Hesperocyon; did you suddenly forget about these? Why did you snip
this away without comment?
> The amount of press this one alleged example gets is lopsided and
> unwarranted since millions of species have existed yet the theory is
> being based on ultra-scant solitary evidences.
>
> I say the lack of even minimal clear unambiguous evidence supports the
> theory is not true because sudden Genesis is true. This is logical, and
> supported by the lack of massive evidence supporting the assumption of
> macroevolution.
What evidence supports sudden creation of the Earth and all
biodiversity thereupon 6,000 years ago? What is the theory of creation?
How can it be scientifically tested? How could it be falsified?
> The insistence of speciation as fact, despite the paucity of evidence,
> and the fact that millions of species have existed, and the fact that
> the world has been thoroughly searched, means: the needs of
> anti-Biblical worldviews are being pandered to under the guise of
> legitimate science.
Yawn. So once again, you state that every supporter of evolution is
secretly out to destroy the Bible... Conspiracy theories are not
evidence, Ray.
> CLAYTON:
>
> As for "Genesis is not an option," are you suggesting that even
> Christians who accept evolution are in a vast conspiracy against the
> Bible?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Persons claiming to be christian, who embrace macro/human evolution,
> does not affect what the Bible says.
>
> Genesis is black and white in respect to its central unambiguous
> declaration that God is the Creator who suddenly created Adam full
> grown and intelligent.
Plenty of religious authorities disagree with you, including at least
two Popes, as I showed in my last post.
> False beliefs about this fact does not harm or
> alter this fact. In fact, alleged christians who assert contrary only
> establish their loyalty to a contrary philosophy - naturalism. The
> Bible is the source for supernaturalism. Christians who do not believe
> in the Supernatural ? Imagine that !
>
> TEists just can't believe this entire atheist modern scientific
> generation is deceived and God-damned. They have no source for their
> Creator beliefs. The only evidence anyone needs to prove how obviously
> corrupt they are is the support of atheist Darwinism that they enjoy.
>
> God is the Creator and Naturalism has no room for Him. TEists are a
> untrustworthy hybrid attempting to reconcile the irreconciable.
Why are you a better authority on the meaning of Genesis than Pope John
Paul II or Pope Pius XII? What theological school did you attend? What
degree do you currently hold?
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> So Ken Miller, practicing Catholic, is desperately trying to prove the
> Bible wrong?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Miller's words and arguments reveal himself to be a militant Darwinist
> who rejects the black and white claim of Genesis that God suddenly
> created the universe, the world, and Adam at some point respectively.
> The claim of Catholicism/theism is refuted by his own admissions and
> deification of Naturalism.
>
> Miller is on a rampage against the Bible and his claim of theism is
> about as credible as Hitler's.
>
> Miller is the perfect example of a brazen liar attempting to urinate on
> the unambiguous declarations of sudden creation for the single purpose
> of preserving the antithesis: gradual naturalistic evolution. Miller
> fools nobody as he demonstrates how low naturalists will stoop to get
> revenge on Creationists and their source.
Right, right. He's a Stealth Atheist, like the last Pope, and Saint
Augustine. Truly there is nowhere their insidious tendrils cannot reach!
> Suppose I argued what I argue while claiming to be an atheist ?
>
> You would be making these plain observations in reverse.
Actually, there are atheists who dispute evolution. Richard Milton is
one example.
> Anyone can claim to be anything as is witnessed by Miller's freedom to
> do so. A person is as they argue and Miller is a Darwinist and
> Darwinists are Naturalists who reject the Bible/source of
> Supernaturalism - not a matter of opinion.
Once again, tell me why your opinion trumps two Popes.
> MARTINEZ, previously:
>
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
>
> "When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
> lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California),
> in February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
>
> responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
> links
> missing." "
>
>
> CLAYTON, responds:
>
> Well, yes. There is always more to be found-- as we have discussed
> before. But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
> apes have common ancestry?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Your comment defies what Leakey said/established.
>
> I provided a super-clear fact: no missing links at the time of the
> quote. In response, you assert contrary.
>
> Then you ask a rhetorical question which is not in dispute.
>
> Leakey is a Darwinist who provided a fact about missing links - they
> are massively missing, non-existent.
>
> I have the logical right to ask, "what was Leakey basing his hominid
> evolution assumptions on then ?"
>
> Answer: atheist needs, obviously.
>
> What was human evolution based upon Richard in Leakey's day which was
> very recent ?
>
> This is rhetorical.
>
> Again, you are asserting facts produced by Darwinists cannot be used
> against their starting assumptions.
>
> By invoking the well known fact that Leakey is a Darwinist, is an
> attempt to deflect away from the missing link fact. You know this and
> you know anyone can quote facts produced by people that do not share
> their views to support contrary views.
Once again you respond to an old post, ignoring my rebuttals since
then. You've done this too often now for me to believe it is accident.
> Have you ever read archaeology books ?
Quite a lot, actually.
> Atheists and theists constantly quote facts from each other to support
> their positions. You are dishonestly asserting facts produced by
> Darwinists can never be used against their theory.
>
> You have repeatedly done this with Gee also.
>
> I accept facts produced by Gee then point out that they do not support
> his assumptions or conclusions. You are inventing straw men contrary to
> what is actually argued.
I have shown you where Henry Gee's words were used out of context,
creating the appearance of a meaning opposite to the contextual one. I
have also shown you Gee's own words to this effect.
> Leakey produced a fact: No missing links.
On the contrary. He didn't say that NO missing links had been found; he
said there were many yet to BE found. And, once again, I ask you to
clarify: What would you EXPECT a "missing link" between humans and other
apes to look like?
> Clayton evades by pointing out Leakey is a Darwinist.
>
> Whats your point Richard ? Leakey and you are exposed to be parading
> human evolution as fact not based on evidence.
>
> At least Leakey is honest.
>
> Now, you will undoubtedly repeat a variation of your fact evasion
> tactic.
>
> CLAYTON:
>
> As I have asked before-- and you have failed to answer-- why would Homo
>
> erectus or Homo habilis not qualify as a link between man and other
> apes?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Question assumes the genus transitional.
No, the question "assumes" nothing. You stated that there are no
transitional forms. Explain to me why Homo erectus or habilis would not
be transitional. What would you expect a transitional between humans and
other apes to look like?
> What makes them as such and is this physical evidence clear for
> everyone to see and confirm who is of reasonable intelligence ?
>
> Or do we have to take a paleontologists word for it ?
>
> And what about the fact that anthropologists are divided ?
>
> The claim of Darwinists is that THEIR science is available for everyone
> to see and confirm. Nothing could be more untrue about obscure fossil
> scraps. They cannot be falsified or positively identified. The are
> corruptible like Romans 1 predicted.
Do they look somewhat like a (nonhuman) ape and somewhat like a human
or not? What would you expect a transitional to look like, Ray? You've
been dodging this question for weeks!
> MARTINEZ, previously:
>
> Now we see why the Academy/Miller quote carefully crafted human
> evolution to be assumed based on other claimed facts. Those other
> claimed facts are the undisputed facts of microevolution, which are
> then misrepresented to support macroevolution. As it turns out the
> other claimed facts are assumed also (macroevolution) which further
> relegates supposed human evolution to be assumed. But the point is
> that there is no credible evidence (for human evolution) or any volume
>
> of it commensurate to the extraordinary claim.
>
> CLAYTON, responds:
>
> As I asked you before, and you did not answer: What facts do you
> dispute, and why?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Your comment is a deliberate non-sequitur = inability to refute - thats
> why you counter with a non-sequitur/insult.
I asked you what facts you dispute, and why, and you declare it a "non
sequitur"? Or, stranger yet, an insult?
> CLAYTON:
>
> Thus far you have relied almost entirely on quotations.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Yes, I have relied upon scholarly sources for my claims, evidence, and
> arguments.
>
> Suddenly, via your ridiculous comment, you are advocating the non-use
> of sources to establish facts.
My complaint is that most of your quotes are taken out-of-context; most
do not mean what you claim they mean, as I have shown repeatedly.
> This is conducive with the obvious observation that Darwinism is
> atheist philosophy packaged as science. Neither Darwin's nor your
> starting assumptions have ever been harmed by any scientific facts !
> 150 years ! = atheist religion parading as science.
>
> Richard, you are wasting my time and clowning the debate by asserting
> that something is wrong to have sources. This also implies that you do
> not which is confirmed by all your messages lacking any source cites.
I have provided some sources, of course; you just snip those away
without marking. Not very honest of you, Ray. Most of the examples in my
initial post were not sourced, because they are not difficult to find,
and so trivial that few papers are written on them; the homology of a
genetic sequence or a vestigial tendon might have been big news in 1950,
but it isn't today.
Of course, you could just answer the issues from my original post.
> I have let you get away with asserting your subjective opinions to be
> assumed as fact for the sake of having a debate, but this is going too
> far by saying sources are invalid.
I did not say that, Ray.
> Unless you retract this unscientific absurdity - this debate is over as
> I will not allow my presence to dignify what is commonly known as
> bullshit.
"Your presence"?
If you want to declare the debate over, Ray, that's fine with me. It's
pretty clear to me for some time that you've been seeking to run away
while saving face. This is the third time you have declared that you are
quitting (twice in talk.origins and once via private email), and as far
as I am concerned, three strikes is an out; this is my last post to the
thread. I would have been just as happy to let you have the last word,
but last time you quit, you demanded I answer your last post.
I am also no longer confident that you are debating in good faith. You
cut away quite a LOT from my last post, and also responded to older
material as if it were new; my credibility is taxed to believe this
repeated behavior unintentional. Some of these are issues you have been
fleeing since my very first post.
Notable material you snipped without marking:
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
The examples I listed (in the link you cut away) showed one species
branching into two separate species. In what way is that not speciation?
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
Speciation IS macroevolution, by definition. If you have a different
definition of "macroevolution," please be specific; tell me what kind of
changes you would expect to see, if evolution were correct.
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
Attempting to evade the question of the transitional status of
archaeopteryx by citing an Old Testament quote about the number of
witnesses in a trial is absurd; do you think a lawyer in court would be
able to dismiss a contradictory witness on the grounds of Deuteronomy
19:15? But even so, that doesn't help you; there have been at eight
finds of archaeopteryx remains, and other dinosaur-bird transitionals,
such as Sinornithosaurus millenii and Deinonychus antirrhopus, have been
found. There are plenty of other examples of transitionals, like
Ambulocetus natans and Hesperocyon.
You have claimed that no transitional forms have been found; please
show why none of these qualify. Be as specific as possible.
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
All other issues aside, I think most Christians would take very serious
theological issue with your claim that God deliberately denies salvation
to some people, and will not allow them to come to the fold.
Then, of course, there is your "majority is always wrong" claim. Does
the majority today think the Earth is round, or flat? Are they right or
wrong? What about the majority of Christians? Round or flat? Right or wrong?
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
Yawn. So what do shared vestigial traits suggest to you? What about
shared retroviral insertions? What is your theory? Be specific. What
predictions does it make? Be specific. What is its mechanism? Be
specific. What could potentially falsify it? Be specific.
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
> Similarity, to whatever degree, supports one Designer and His
> fingerprints and m.o.
Actually, no. Radically different, one-of-a-kind designs would be
evidence AGAINST evolution, not for it. One of the best evidences for
evolution is the set of nested hierarchies; finding a whale species with
gills homologous to sharks, for example, would be a strong argument
*against* our present understanding of evolution.
A designer can do things any way she wants (subject to her limitations)
but evolution can only work with what it has at hand. Where are the
hexapod vertebrates? Or placentals without hair? Endothermic reptiles?
Why does it look like all living animals are the result of clades that
branch, diversify, and branch again? Why does it look like animals
(including humans) are stuck with jury-rigged design that had to work
with its inheritance, instead of optimal design-from-scratch? Why do all
vertebrates have a blind spot where our optic nerve passes through the
back of our eye? Squid don't have this problem.
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
> Cows being related to whales and less to horses surely upsets
> evolutionary claims and fully supports the one Designer argument above.
What is the theory of the "one Designer," Ray? What testable
predictions does it make, distinct from those of evolution? What could
potentially falsify it?
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
Why do we share endogenous retroviral insertions, "scars" from
long-ago diseases?
Why is our gene for L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase synthesis (necessary
for making vitamin C) broken the same way in all great apes-- including us?
Remember, your alternate scientific theory must be supported by
evidence and must explain the data at least as well as evolution does.
If common descent is not the best scientific answer, what is? "Common
design" is not an answer, unless you can produce a scientific, testable,
predictive "theory of design."
Other questions you need to answer:
What is your definition of "macroevolution," if not speciation? What
would you expect such "macroevolution" to entail? Please be specific.
What would you expect to see if evolutionary theory were correct?
You have said that no transitional forms have been found in the fossil
record. Please explain why none of Archaeopteryx lithographica,
Sinornithosaurus millenii, Deinonychus antirrhopus, Ambulocetus natans,
or Hesperocyon qualify. Be specific. Please explain what you would
expect to see in a "transitional form."
What is the "theory of design"? What is the "theory of creation"? What
predictions do they make, distinct from evolutionary biology? How can
they be tested? What could potentially falsify them? Be specific.
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====-----
Ray, you are welcome to answer this post if you wish, but I am done; I
suggest if you want to convincingly claim this as a win, you start by
responding to the above material, which you have snipped away several
times. I will leave it to readers to decide who made the better argument.
Ave atque vale,
Richard
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> On 10 Aug 2005 14:40:35 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>BOB:
>>
>>gee john, your command of the english language is noted.
>>
>>RAY:
>>
>>This is an attempt to shift the guilt of your willful infraction upon
>>John.
>
>
> the only person committing a john infraction here is you.
>
>>You are more concerned with his accurate choice of words describing
>>your behavior than you are with your behavior which caused the rebuke.
>
>
> you seem to have a potty fetish regarding the eponymously named john
> harshman. no surprise given the scatological intellect required to
> believe in creationism.
>
>
>>You are more concerned with saving face than taking the correction like
>>a man and shutting your trap.
>>
>
>
> if wisdom required shutting one's trap, creationists would commit
> suicide.
OK, apologies again for posting to this thread, but Bob apparently needs
this spelled out explicitly:
Ray Martinez did not unilaterally impose a "closed" thread on the group.
It was agreed to by him and Richard, and implicitly by everyone else
who was paying attention at the time. Third-party comments should be
posted to the Peanut Gallery thread (which is where I will post any
further followups, as necessary).
-- Kizhe
Bob
<lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bob wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2005 14:40:35 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BOB:
>>>
>>>gee john, your command of the english language is noted.
>>>
>>>RAY:
>>>
>>>This is an attempt to shift the guilt of your willful infraction upon
>>>John.
>>
>>
>> the only person committing a john infraction here is you.
>>
>>>You are more concerned with his accurate choice of words describing
>>>your behavior than you are with your behavior which caused the rebuke.
>>
>>
>> you seem to have a potty fetish regarding the eponymously named john
>> harshman. no surprise given the scatological intellect required to
>> believe in creationism.
>>
>>
>>>You are more concerned with saving face than taking the correction like
>>>a man and shutting your trap.
>>>
>>
>>
>> if wisdom required shutting one's trap, creationists would commit
>> suicide.
>
>OK, apologies again for posting to this thread, but Bob apparently needs
>this spelled out explicitly:
>
ah. a semicivilized posted without scatological references.
amazing. also amazing is your ability to put several words together in
a sentence. i commend you on your progress.
Ray Martinez
"During these two years [of the voyage on the Beagle] I was led to
think much about religion. Whilst on board the 'Beagle' I was quite
orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the
officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on some point of morality." -- Darwin, Charles.
/The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1./ Darwin, Sir
Francis,
editor. From Project Gutenberg, etext #2087, February 1999.
"In the summer of 1818 I went to Dr. Butler's great school in
Shrewsbury, and remained there for seven years still Midsummer 1825,
when I was sixteen years old. [...] I remember in the early part of my
school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and
from
being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I
prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I
attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and
marvelled how generally I was aided." -- Darwin, Charles. /The Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1./ Darwin, Sir Francis, editor. From
Project Gutenberg, etext #2087, February 1999.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Okay, I accept as fact that Darwin began as a theist.
He evolved into a apostate, naturalist, atheist.
Romans 1 tells us why:
Verse 19:
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
hath shewed it unto them."
Verse 21:
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened."
Darwin WAS a theist, God confirms "for God hath shewed it unto them."
Showed what ?
The obviousness of ID declared in the next verse (20th).
The 21st verse says: "when they (Darwin or any theist/Anglican
ministers) knew God, they glorified him not as God" - IOW, they refused
to recognize Him as Creator, "but became vain in their
"dialogues"/imaginations and their "senseless"/foolish heart was
darkened/blinded" = the penalty of not crediting God as Creator.
The 23rd verse lists what darkened/blinded persons will/must believe in
place of the Creator - the 4 icons identifying evolution are then
listed.
Romans was written in 58 AD.
Because of WHEN Romans was written, and WHAT it says, that is the
stunning correspondence to objects in reality TODAY, this supernatural
miracle proves the existence of God, and His prophecy ability, and
ability to control history, and explains macro/human evolution claims
to be a penalty from Him for willfully denying Him Creator credit.
Science corroborates in that we know macro/human evolution is assumed
with scant corruptible "evidence" that needs Naturalist philosophy to
have any meaning.
God is not against the scientific exploration of His creation - just
the evil conclusions that it happened by chance = denying Him Creator
credit = the blinding penalty to violators.
Richard:
Like I said before, I will not give your deliberate intelligence
insulting responses/evasions/straw men any more time or dignity.
In 1957 Sputnik determined the EXACT polar diameter of the Earth - not
a matter of opinion.
The last time any human being knew this fact was 2700 BC as the
physical structure of the Great Pyramid shows us. You intentionally
distorted this fact because you will not accept because it falsifies
your silly "similarity = proof of apes morphing into men" atheist
philosophy.
You parrot "quote mine" to every fact that decimates your position but
never show the quote mine except by innuendo. You claim "out of
context" but never show how.
You entirely evade how I use any given fact via reliance on the
worldview of the author = philosophical argument being used to ignore
evidence.
And finally, you are suffering the delusion that Darwinism is science
and not a religion.
The Mayr quote is so clear, but you evaded his point with your spin
about Genesis is subjective. You have zero Divinity credentials, yet
this does not stop you from abandoning your phony Divine neutral claims
and asserting what we read in the Bible does not mean what it says. You
do this with scientific data so at least you are consistent.
Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University:
"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and
under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did
not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he
overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing
was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a
natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that
the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes
and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called
Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of
Darwin's theories." One Long Argument (1991) p.99
Ray Martinez