More barriers of ape to human evolution never shown to be crossed
gabriel
fish to man version of evolution.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn17499-apes-may-imitate-but-they-struggle-to-innovate.html?full=true
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/01/news-to-note-08012009#three
Chimpanzees have proven to be quite skillful at learning certain
basic tasks-particularly those related to obtaining food-but even
evolutionists have to admit that "technological innovation and
improvement seem to be uniquely human traits."
Recent experiments comparing tool-use abilities in apes and
humans reveal unsurprising results (at least, to creationists).
While many apes have a profound ability for tool use, scientists
have found significant limits to their abilities.
One test pitted four-year-old children against multiple varieties
of apes (chimps, gorillas, and orangutans) in a challenge to
claim a prize. Each subject had to learn to make a loop out of a
piece of string, then use the loop to pull on a nail attached to
a block. If successful, the apes got access to grapes and the
children got stickers. Most of the children who saw the technique
demonstrated were able to complete the task with at least some
success. None of the apes were successful, however, even after
five demonstrations.
Researchers say this and other tests demonstrate the human
ability to intentionally repeat a sequence of specific actions,
whereas apes are simply "focused on the outcome, rather than the
process," therefore they are limited to only the solutions that
they happen to come across. Other scientists point out that
humans more readily imitate the exact body motions and actions of
tool-use, giving them another advantage as they learn.
Children also seem more willing than apes to alter their
problem-solving approaches to try to improve. In one test, chimps
were taught how to get honey out of a box by inserting a stick
through a hole. While the chimps learned this method easily, they
were unable to learn a more advanced method that opened the box
up entirely. Human children, on the other hand, had no problem
with the second technique. The conclusion researchers came to on
this test is especially telling. According to them, the apes
simply "didn't show any kind of cumulative cultural evolution."
To the evolutionist, this may seem rather perplexing. If man and
ape are closely related, then one might expect more adeptness in
apes' problem-solving techniques. Rather, while apes are skilled
tool-users, their skills are generally no better than some
birds', dolphins', and some elephants' abilities.
As creationists, we know that the anatomical similarities between
man and ape are the result not of a common ancestor, but of a
common Creator. Furthermore, man was made in God's image (Genesis
1:26-27). The distinctly human ability to innovate is a
reflection of God's own creativity.
============================================================
For all their cognitive prowess, chimpanzees will never build
four-stroke engines, stone pyramids, or even a simple wheel.
Technological innovation and improvement seem to be uniquely
human traits, despite culture and ample tool use in chimpanzees
and other animals. New research on children and chimpanzees might
explain why.
"For culture to accumulate - to become more and more complex -
requires innovations and one of the first ways in which hominins
clearly went beyond chimpanzees was in making stone tools," says
Andrew Whiten, a psychologist at St Andrew's University, UK.
He and researchers in Germany argue that this difference comes
down to the distinct ways in which humans and chimpanzees learn
new tricks from others.
Eyes on the prize
For chimpanzees, culturally transmitted skills tend to focus on
food, whether cracking nuts with rocks, or fishing insects out of
the dirt with sticks.
Overwhelming evidence now suggests that chimpanzees pass these
traditions onto their brethren. For instance, individuals in Ta�
National Park in Ivory Coast feast on nuts, while chimpanzees in
Gombe National Park in Tanzania ignore them. Less clear is what
chimpanzees learn by watching another animal demonstrate a new
trick.
Claudio Tennie and Michael Tomasello, of the Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, contend that
chimps focus on the outcome of a demonstration - a cracked nut -
rather than the bodily actions that produce the treat. Yet humans
imitate the sequence of body movements: raising a stone or hammer
above their shoulder before slamming it down.
This difference, Tennie argues, helps humans learn feats they
never would have come up with, left to their own devices. Chimps,
instead, adopt only new technologies that they might stumble on.
Seeing another chimp perform the action sparks a sort of "a-ha"
moment, after which it seems obvious.
Learning to lasso
Tennie's team recently tested whether several species of apes and
four-year-old children could learn to fold a piece of string into
a loop to tug on a block with a nail in it, behind a cage. If
successful, the apes got access to grapes, the children got
stickers.
His team intended the task to be complex enough that neither
children nor apes could instantly solve it, but not so
complicated that it demanded extensive dexterity or memory.
Indeed, when playing around with the string, none of 24 children,
seven chimpanzees, six gorillas, eight orang-utans and five
bonobos made so much as a loop. Even after Tennie's team showed
half the children and apes that the block could move, just one
child managed to pull the stickers within reach.
However, after the researchers demonstrated the entire trick to
the other 12 children, 9 managed to make a loop and 4 succeeded
in obtaining the prize. After watching five demonstrations, none
of the apes ever made a loop.
Because apes focused on the outcome, rather than the process of
creating a loop and bringing the block closer, they did not - and
will never - transcend their inability to discover the solution
on their own, Tennie says.
Whiten thinks things are a little more complicated. "I don't
think that simple dichotomy works," he says.
Student and teacher
In 2005, Whiten's team published work suggesting that chimpanzees
learned specific movements and passed them onto others. Beginning
with two chimpanzees from different groups, Whiten taught each a
different way to get a treat out of a special box.
One approach relied on poking a stick into the box to make the
treat available. In the other method, the chimp learned to pull
on a lever on the outside of the box that releases the treat -
same outcome, different actions. Not only did the two chimps
learn whichever approach they observed, but they also passed on
the trick to other members of their group.
This would suggest that chimpanzees can pay attention to - and
imitate - the actions of others, Whiten says. He favours more
nuanced explanations for the culture gap between humans.
For one, children imitate step-by-step actions with far more
fidelity than chimps, particularly when some of the steps are
superfluous. "We are such a cultural species that it pays
children to copy everything that adults do," he says. And second,
children seem more willing than chimpanzees to upgrade their
approach to solving a problem.
'Curious' limitations
Recently, Whiten and colleague Sarah Marshall-Pescini taught 11
young chimps to scoop honey from inside a box by dipping a stick
into a hole in the box. Five of them either figured out this
approach on their own or learned it after watching a
demonstration.
Next, Whiten's team showed the same five chimps how moving the
stick around the hole releases a latch that opens the box. This
offered up all the honey at once, plus peanuts that were
previously hidden. Yet, none of the apes adopted the more
efficient approach.
"They didn't get it. They didn't show any kind of cumulative
cultural evolution," Whiten says. "There's something rather
curious going on in these non-human species, where they get stuck
on simpler techniques."
Most three- and four-year old children, by contrast, had no
trouble jettisoning the less efficient approach for a better
solution.
Experiments such as these may be far removed from the African
jungles where chimpanzee culture flourishes and the urban jungles
where we humans innovate. Yet they provide hard data to questions
once addressed with just-so stories and speculation, the
researchers contend.
Testing different theories of culture in real animals - be they
chimp or child - has also brought the two once-disparate camps
into closer sync, if not total agreement. "I think we're both
converging on how things are," Whiten says.
Journal reference (Tennie): Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B(DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0052)
Journal reference (Whiten): Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B (DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0069)
Bob T.
Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
- Bob T.
Wolfe
chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
Less than two percent defines the difference.
>
> - Bob T.
>
Devils Advocaat
mutations as they diverged and it is in those regions of difference we
find how the two almost identical genomes are expressed differently.
I am only guessing that this is the reason for the differences, as I
am not an expert in genetics or evolutionary theory.
>
>
>
> > - Bob T.
Mark Evans
It's cultural.
Mark Evans
gabriel
<b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
: On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
Please quote exactly where I said it's false for that reason.
But what I did say: the intellectual abilities we have are yet
another barrier that fish to man evolutionists have never shown
observations and/or tests/verifications to show chimps being able
to cross that barrier. This when some try to claim there are no
barriers.
:
: Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
:
: - Bob T.
gabriel
wrote:
Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
claim. One can only believe such a statement.
No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
the DNA is. This would finally be a test showing the claim
"Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
dishonesty at worst.
Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
when it's ok that something's not observable and not
testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
=(
In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
builder. But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
admitting the obvious. =(
wf3h
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <l...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> : >
> : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
> : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
> : Less than two percent defines the difference.
>
> Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
> evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
> to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
> claim. One can only believe such a statement.
?? the creationist, stuck in his 3rd century mentality, doesn't
realize such an experiment is run every day. bacterial resistance
shows that populations that change over time retain a similarity in
DNA to parent populations.
again and again he shows why creationism has been a failure for 2000
years.
>
> No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
> generations that are no longer apes
sure we can. the fossil record shows it plainly. you creationists
just deny the evidence because of your 'bible' based view of the world
>
> Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
> creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
> observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
> anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
> when it's ok that something's not observable and not
> testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
> them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
> =(
we can observe evolution in real time
god? never seen him work. you admit creationism isn't science. that's
true. but what's glaringly obvious is you know nothing about how
science is done
>
> In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
> biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
> actual science
really? prove it.
(although they try to dishonestly act like it's
> still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
> were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
> a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
> builder. But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
> accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
> admitting the obvious. =(
your view of god is simply wrong. that's provable. it's testable
you're wrong
John Harshman
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <lo...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> : Bob T. wrote:
> : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
> : >
> : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
> : >
> : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
> : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
> : Less than two percent defines the difference.
>
> Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
> evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
> to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
> claim. One can only believe such a statement.
No. You just don't understand how science works. There are many ways to
test hypotheses other than experiments. All that's required is that
there be some way of using data to distinguish among hypotheses.
Now of course nobody is claiming that humans and chimps evolved from
each other. That doesn't even make sense. The claim is that they had a
common ancestor around 5 million years ago. If that were true, they
should be quite similar genetically. So far, so good. But that's not
all, by any means. We should also be able to construct a consistent tree
from the data, relating all the apes (and other species too, for that
matter). By "consistent" I mean that different parts of the genome
should, when analyzed by objective methods, arrive at the same result.
And so they do. Nobody has ever been able to come up with an explanation
for this other than common descent. When asked, you have generally
ignored the question, or muttered something about "common designer". No,
I'm sorry. A common designer might explain simple similarity between two
species, considered in isolation. But it just can't explain a
consistent, nested hierarchy among many species.
> No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
> generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
> the DNA is.
Again, there's a language problem here. Populations of apes have not
evolved into animals that are no longer apes. They've evolved into
animals that are somewhat different apes. And humans are among the
somewhat different apes we see.
> This would finally be a test showing the claim
> "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
> population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
> their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
> that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
> since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
> test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
> science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
> evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
> dishonesty at worst.
Again, the problem is that the only test you will accept is impractical.
We can't wait millions of years for experimental results. If we accepted
your notions of evidence, we would have to reject much of science -- we
couldn't investigate any phenomenon that happens on a very long time
scale. Fortunately, there are ways of finding out what happened in the
past based on the effects that remain in the present. We don't have to
duplicate every past event to know it happened. (And I will point out
that evolution is the only thing to which you apply this special "were
you there?" rule.)
> Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
> creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
> observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
> anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
> when it's ok that something's not observable and not
> testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
> them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
No, that's not what's wrong with creationism. It's not scientific, I'll
grant. But evolutionary biology is scientific, so you need to delete
that "either". Anyway, what's wrong with creationism isn't the inability
to show creation in real time. It's the inability to show any evidence
of any of its claims, or to explain any of the evidence more commonly
interpreted as supporting evolution.
> In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
> biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
> actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
> still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
> were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
> a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
> builder.
That's true by definition, you know. A building is by definition an
artificial construct, so it must by definition have a builder. Not true
for life. You, for example, had no builder. You grew.
> But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
> accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
> admitting the obvious. =(
I missed the part where you used any logic. And I will also point out
once again that a great many Christians accept the facts of evolution.
Are a great many Christians determined to avoid being accountable to god?
Jim Lovejoy
b1d32f...@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
Besides being disproved by Gabriel's own example.
Tim DeLaney
> wrote:
>
> : Bob T. wrote:
>
> : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
> : >
> : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
> : >
> : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
> : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
> : Less than two percent defines the difference.
>
> Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
> evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
> to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
> claim. One can only believe such a statement.
Consider astronomical theories about star formation. Humans have
never witnessed the formation of a star, much less the life history
and death of a star. By your reasoning, no astronomic theory could be
considered scientific.
But when astronomers observe a large number of stars, and they all
appear to be in various stages of development, it is natural to form a
hypothesis to account for their existence. If the hypothesis agrees
with what we know about gravity and thermonuclear fusion, a theory
emerges. If astronomers can correlate the size and ultimate fate of
stars with what we observe in the cosmos, we are justified in calling
astronomy a science.
Of course, a Biblical literalist can come forward and claim that they
were all created a few thousand years ago, more or less as we see them
now. (Let's ignore the vexing questions about the speed of light.)
In principle, the special creation of stars cannot be refuted.
However, it is striking that the theories of astronomers can explain
so much of what we see in the universe, while the special creation
model explains exactly nothing.
>
> No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
> generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
> the DNA is. This would finally be a test showing the claim
> "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
> population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
> their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
> that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
> since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
> test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
> science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
> evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
> dishonesty at worst.
>
> Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
> creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
> observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
> anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
> when it's ok that something's not observable and not
> testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
> them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
> =(
The flaw in your reasoning is that you attempt to define science as <<
only that which is capable of being demonstrated by repeatable
experiments.>> That is not a definition accepted by the rest of us.
It's a straw mnan argument.
No prosecutor could ever obtain a conviction in a criminal case under
such rules, no matter how much evidence he might produce. In general,
a criminal prosecution rarely performs repeatable experiments to
demonstrate the truth of its claims. Yet we still refer to criminal
forensics as science.
>
> In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
> biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
> actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
> still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
> were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
> a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
> builder. But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
> accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
> admitting the obvious. =(
It _is_ science, however much you'd like to deny it. Your argument
regarding a building is just that -- an argument. It has no substance
beyond the notion that you cannot believe that life has evolved. The
limitations of your intellect do not dictate what is true.
Tim
TomS
<ZLGdnbyl5uE...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
And, it isn't a case of "DNA similarity means they evolved from
each other", because there are great similarities of DNA among *all*
living things. DNA in all living things is the famous double helix
with the same constituent parts, only differing in the arrangement
of the A, C, G, T parts. What is strong evidence is the pattern of
relationships that the similarities and differences take - which
agree with the same pattern which had been independently discovered
for other reasons, such as comparative anatomy, biogeography, and
paleontology.
[...snip...]
Rather, it isn't the inability to show any evidence of its claims,
it's that we don't know what would count as evidence for or against
its claims. Anything at all that we might come across in the world
of life, a creationist might, with equal justification, claim that
it is "evidence for" or "evidence against" creationism. If we found
a mermaid, or if we never found a mermaid, if we found a DNA molecule
with something different from ACGT, or if we never did - how would
anything at all count as evidence for or against creationism?
As you say, creationism is not able to *explain* any of the evidence.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
John Harshman
That's not what was meant here by "similarity". It referred to sequence
similarity, not similarity in the basic structure of the molecule. As
you mention below. Further, mere constancy of DNA as a molecule isn't
good evidence for evolution; it's as easily interpreted as evidence of a
single designer (one with less imagination than one might hope for). The
argument used for pairwise comparisons also applies to universal
comparisons. This is why that nested hierarchy is so important.
> DNA in all living things is the famous double helix
> with the same constituent parts, only differing in the arrangement
> of the A, C, G, T parts. What is strong evidence is the pattern of
> relationships that the similarities and differences take - which
> agree with the same pattern which had been independently discovered
> for other reasons, such as comparative anatomy, biogeography, and
> paleontology.
You have restated the same thing in somewhat different terms.
There are many varieties of creationism, and you may be right for some
of them. And there are many creationists who make such vague claims as
you suggest. However, there are plenty of creationists and versions of
creationism that make easily testable claims. The only way such
creationists are able to sustain their beliefs is by ignoring and
distorting evidence. "There was a worldwide flood 5000 years ago", for
example, is a testable claim. (It turns out to be false.)
> Anything at all that we might come across in the world
> of life, a creationist might, with equal justification, claim that
> it is "evidence for" or "evidence against" creationism. If we found
> a mermaid, or if we never found a mermaid, if we found a DNA molecule
> with something different from ACGT, or if we never did - how would
> anything at all count as evidence for or against creationism?
That depends on the version of creationism.
> As you say, creationism is not able to *explain* any of the evidence.
To put it in Popperian terms, creationism is either unfalsifiable or
already falsified, depending on the version. Standard, biblical
literalist, YEC is falsified. Omphalism is unfalsifiable. Etc.
TomS
<bfGdnau1gKU...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
Agreed. Emphatically agreed. I think that a lot of people mistakenly
think that "similarity" is the important point. Rather, it is the
nested hierarchy of similarities and differences.
>
>> DNA in all living things is the famous double helix
>> with the same constituent parts, only differing in the arrangement
>> of the A, C, G, T parts. What is strong evidence is the pattern of
>> relationships that the similarities and differences take - which
>> agree with the same pattern which had been independently discovered
>> for other reasons, such as comparative anatomy, biogeography, and
>> paleontology.
>
>You have restated the same thing in somewhat different terms.
That is what I was hoping to do.
I guess that I would note that, in practice, "There was a worldwide
flood 5000 years ago" is not a testable claim. Try to get a Noah's-
Flood believer to accept that such-and-such is a test for the Flood.
Some would say that that is "ignoring and distorting evidence". I
would say that that is "not saying what would count as evidence."
>
>> Anything at all that we might come across in the world
>> of life, a creationist might, with equal justification, claim that
>> it is "evidence for" or "evidence against" creationism. If we found
>> a mermaid, or if we never found a mermaid, if we found a DNA molecule
>> with something different from ACGT, or if we never did - how would
>> anything at all count as evidence for or against creationism?
>
>That depends on the version of creationism.
>
>> As you say, creationism is not able to *explain* any of the evidence.
>
>To put it in Popperian terms, creationism is either unfalsifiable or
>already falsified, depending on the version. Standard, biblical
>literalist, YEC is falsified. Omphalism is unfalsifiable. Etc.
>
It is true that YEC comes closest to making substantive claims.
But I would ask what even a YEC could point to as a prediction, an
observation, or an experiment, which would turn out different,
depending on whether YEC is true or false.
They could point to things which are already known, and say, "That's
what God/Intelligent Designers would do." But would they ever say,
"G/ID would not do something else"? Maybe G/ID did create/design
mermaids (and we just haven't found them)? Why wouldn't G/ID create/
design humans to be more like insects or molluscs than like
vertebrates?
And I'm not aware of any creationist of any version who would tell
us what it would look like if we were present to see the creation/
design of a new species/kind. Milton, as I recall, had a scenario
where individual animals were emerging, but not a word about
species/kinds - so he presents no alternative to evolution.
Kermit
What barriers? Other apes have been shown to lie, to form friendships,
to learn by watching, to have a sense of fair play, to murder, to wage
war, to use language, to hunt with crafted tools. We have no
structures that have anything new that chimps don't have; like our
legs and bodies built for prolonged jogging, our brains have the same
parts theirs have, but in different proportions.
The nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics indicate that we are
very closely related to chimps and bonobos. The junk DNA especially
indicates this (why would we even *have a broken gene for making
vitamin C, and why would it match the chimp's but not the guinea
pig's?).
You have not shown that there *are barriers. Please provide evidence
for this claim. We have evidence that chimps are literally our
cousins. Please show why this is cannot be so. (Hint: your outrage is
not evidence.)
>
> :
> : Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
> :
> : - Bob T.
Kermit
John Harshman
It does come to the same thing in the end, that nothing will shake a
believer's conviction. But still there is a distinction. The claims are
testable even if those who put them out refuse to test them.
>>> Anything at all that we might come across in the world
>>> of life, a creationist might, with equal justification, claim that
>>> it is "evidence for" or "evidence against" creationism. If we found
>>> a mermaid, or if we never found a mermaid, if we found a DNA molecule
>>> with something different from ACGT, or if we never did - how would
>>> anything at all count as evidence for or against creationism?
>> That depends on the version of creationism.
>>
>>> As you say, creationism is not able to *explain* any of the evidence.
>> To put it in Popperian terms, creationism is either unfalsifiable or
>> already falsified, depending on the version. Standard, biblical
>> literalist, YEC is falsified. Omphalism is unfalsifiable. Etc.
>
> It is true that YEC comes closest to making substantive claims.
>
> But I would ask what even a YEC could point to as a prediction, an
> observation, or an experiment, which would turn out different,
> depending on whether YEC is true or false.
I've seen a few. All silly, unfortunately. For example, some
creationists claim that if common descent were true we should see a
complete continuum of form, both in fossils and in extant species.
Kermit
wrote:
> TomS wrote:
> > "On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:18:48 -0700, in article
> >> TomS wrote:
> >>> "On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, in article
> >>>> gabriel wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <l...@bellsouth.net>
[...]
Boggles the mind. But then, those who completely miss the point(s) of
evolutionary theory always seem to come up with a jaw-dropping
"refutation" which I wouldn't have thought of under any circumstances.
Thinking outside the box isn't all it's cracked up to be...
>
> > They could point to things which are already known, and say, "That's
> > what God/Intelligent Designers would do." But would they ever say,
> > "G/ID would not do something else"? Maybe G/ID did create/design
> > mermaids (and we just haven't found them)? Why wouldn't G/ID create/
> > design humans to be more like insects or molluscs than like
> > vertebrates?
>
> > And I'm not aware of any creationist of any version who would tell
> > us what it would look like if we were present to see the creation/
> > design of a new species/kind. Milton, as I recall, had a scenario
> > where individual animals were emerging, but not a word about
> > species/kinds - so he presents no alternative to evolution.
Kermit
Rolf
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:s2ch75pklf5lfbntq...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <lo...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> : Bob T. wrote:
> : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
> : >
> : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
> Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
> creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
> observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
> anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
> when it's ok that something's not observable and not
> testable/verifiable (i.e., not science).
Not quite right. The observations, facts and findings that support the
theory of evolution are well within science and subjet to
testable/verifiable predictions - proven true over 150 years of steady
development.
> Up to others to keep
> them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
> =(
>
> In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
> biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
> actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
> still science),
The stody of the origins of life is not yet complete; we may not ever learn
*all* we would like to know but research so far is far from a point where we
feel there's a need to throw in the towel. To the contrary, research is very
promising.
> life and even a single cell are logical proof we
> were created
They are proof that they exist; by their existence alone no conclusion can
be drawn other than that there must be a cause.
Now show me your proof.
>(by something), much like it's logically undeniable
> a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
> builder.
There's no reason we are on the right track by drawing conclusions about
biology from manmade objects, buildings.
But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
> accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
> admitting the obvious. =(
>
There was a time when most things under the sun 'obviously' were attributed
to God; things that we today know for certain are not attributable to God
or gods, but are just natural phenomena. Winds, rains, thunder and
lightning, disease, famine, plague, eartquakes, most of the phenomena we all
take for granted as expression of natural forces at work.
The "most basic of logic" is a poor guide for understanding nature. Try
applying some of your 'most basic of logic' to relativity theory, double
slit experiment, quantum mechanics and a host of other 'scientific miracles
' I am certain you know nothing about. The proper way of studying nature is
to admit one's ignorance and make a honest effort to learn what it is all
about.
In the meantime, God can take care of himself.
richardal...@googlemail.com
On some tests of intelligence chimps outscore humans.
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2007/12/071204-chimps-video-ap.html
RF
Rolf
Pathetic argument. Show us your 'barrier'. Where did you get it from? Chimps
did not cross any barrier. The fact is chimps and humans share a common
ancestor. We are descended from the same ancestral species. As chimps are
different from their ancestor, so are we, but different.
The spli occured around four to six million years ago. A lot of extinct
species, as evidence by the fossil record shows evolitonaru steps both of
the branch leading to chimpanzees as well as to modern humans. Why don't you
read some books and learn something before making a fool of yourself?
Evolution is not quantum mechanics; but it still takes some effort to learn
what it is - an what it isn't. You keep demonstrating that you don't know
either. Do you know anything about Australopithecines, Homo ergaster, Homo
habilis, Homo neanderthalensis and many others? Where they lived, how they
lived, how they looked?
Rolf
TomS
<tbWdnRpKOZd...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
At this point, any differences I have with you are too small for
me to bother you or our audience. (With one exception that I mention
below.)
>
>>>> Anything at all that we might come across in the world
>>>> of life, a creationist might, with equal justification, claim that
>>>> it is "evidence for" or "evidence against" creationism. If we found
>>>> a mermaid, or if we never found a mermaid, if we found a DNA molecule
>>>> with something different from ACGT, or if we never did - how would
>>>> anything at all count as evidence for or against creationism?
>>> That depends on the version of creationism.
>>>
>>>> As you say, creationism is not able to *explain* any of the evidence.
>>> To put it in Popperian terms, creationism is either unfalsifiable or
>>> already falsified, depending on the version. Standard, biblical
>>> literalist, YEC is falsified. Omphalism is unfalsifiable. Etc.
>>
>> It is true that YEC comes closest to making substantive claims.
>>
>> But I would ask what even a YEC could point to as a prediction, an
>> observation, or an experiment, which would turn out different,
>> depending on whether YEC is true or false.
>
>I've seen a few. All silly, unfortunately. For example, some
>creationists claim that if common descent were true we should see a
>complete continuum of form, both in fossils and in extant species.
But that is not something *for* creationism, but - at most - an
argument against common descent. God or intelligent designers
might create/design a continuum of form - complete or partial -
or discontinuity between forms (or species, kinds), or might not
even arrange life with distinguishable forms.
>
>> They could point to things which are already known, and say, "That's
>> what God/Intelligent Designers would do." But would they ever say,
>> "G/ID would not do something else"? Maybe G/ID did create/design
>> mermaids (and we just haven't found them)? Why wouldn't G/ID create/
>> design humans to be more like insects or molluscs than like
>> vertebrates?
>>
>> And I'm not aware of any creationist of any version who would tell
>> us what it would look like if we were present to see the creation/
>> design of a new species/kind. Milton, as I recall, had a scenario
>> where individual animals were emerging, but not a word about
>> species/kinds - so he presents no alternative to evolution.
>
hersheyh
> wrote:
>
> : Bob T. wrote:
>
> : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
> : >
> : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
> : >
> : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
> : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
> : Less than two percent defines the difference.
>
> Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
> evolved from each other - circular reasoning)
It is evidence that the *differences* between humans and chimps is not
large at the DNA level. There is a mechanism for generating
*differences* called random mutation. Do you have evidence that some
specific *difference*, in comparing chimp and human DNA, is impossible
to generate by known mechanisms of random mutation? Do you have
evidence that the total amount of difference cannot be accumulated
over a time frame of 6 million years, either by the slow process of
neutral drift or the much faster process of positive selection for
difference? Do you have evidence that any specific *differences*
within a coding or regulatory sequence is too great to be accounted
for by natural selection? Do you have any evidence that natural
selection *cannot* produce selective differences in populations? Do
you have empirical evidence that the time frame is wrong?
> that's impossible
> to run an experiment to test,
It is certainly possible to examine rates of spontaneous mutation,
expected rates of neutral drift, and the speed of selection. It is
also possible to distinguish sites that accumulate difference by drift
and sites that require selection.
> nullifying it as a scientific
> claim. One can only believe such a statement.
No. One can say that the amount of difference observed is consistent
with the expectations based on observed rates of change over the
appropriate time frame. That is a scientific statement that is also
true.
> No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
> generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
> the DNA is.
We will soon know which site differences must have changed
significantly faster than by neutral drift. There will be other sites
which have undergone selection, but only involved one or two
mutational steps that would not be found by this method. Those will
be more tedious to identify as playing an important role in the
evolution of humans and chimps from their common ancestor. Once
identified, those sites can be tested for the consequences of a
change.
> This would finally be a test showing the claim
> "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
> population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
> their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
> that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
> since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
> test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
> science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
> evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
> dishonesty at worst.
>
> Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
> creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
> observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
> anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
> when it's ok that something's not observable and not
> testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
> them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
> =(
The difference is that there is no test that can disprove the God
hypothesis, unless you put specific requirements for God's
mechanisms. I have pointed out, above, how to falsify the idea that
the *difference* in sequence between humans and chimps could be due to
the known requirements of evolution.
John Harshman
[snip]
>>> But I would ask what even a YEC could point to as a prediction, an
>>> observation, or an experiment, which would turn out different,
>>> depending on whether YEC is true or false.
>> I've seen a few. All silly, unfortunately. For example, some
>> creationists claim that if common descent were true we should see a
>> complete continuum of form, both in fossils and in extant species.
>
> But that is not something *for* creationism, but - at most - an
> argument against common descent.
I think one might grant that this is a case of a true dichotomy. At
least I can't think of any other credible explanation for complex life:
either it grew, or some intelligent force made it. If we rule out one, I
see no alternative to the other.
Now of course there have been alternatives suggested: check out
Periannan Senapathy and Christian Schwabe. But these alternatives are
just plain impossible and can be rejected out of hand. Creation, though
it suffers from the problem of infinite regress, is at least a possible
explanation for life on earth.
> God or intelligent designers
> might create/design a continuum of form - complete or partial -
> or discontinuity between forms (or species, kinds), or might not
> even arrange life with distinguishable forms.
Indeed they might. But that's not relevant. If we were able to reject
common descent, some kind of ID seems the only alternative. If you have
another, what is it?
Inez
wrote:
What about unintelligent design? What if things poofed into existence
magically (or if you prefer though an unknown but non-magical force
that only acts at very rare intervals), but without an underlying
intelligence?
Mike L
Inez wrote:
> On Aug 5, 12:52 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
[...]
> > Indeed they might. But that's not relevant. If we were able to reject
> > common descent, some kind of ID seems the only alternative. If you have
> > another, what is it?
>
> What about unintelligent design? What if things poofed into existence
> magically (or if you prefer though an unknown but non-magical force
> that only acts at very rare intervals), but without an underlying
> intelligence?
Unintelligent design would explain my prostate gland, the arthritis
right where I grip my kayak paddle, and the bad back my hairdresser
was trying not to complain about this afternoon. And several posters
to t.o., as well.
--
Mike.
Kermit
Time travelers. Time travelers visit the ancient Earth (perhaps
violating numerous laws) and contaminate the early oceans. There never
was (if tenses even mean anything here) anything less than bacteria,
except their derivatives.
Kermit
John Harshman
That's even less credible than Senapathyism.
John Harshman
Doesn't fit the scenario. Remember that we're talking about the poofing
of a great many different lineages of multicellular organisms. (Note
also that this is a proposal to explain phenomena that we most
definitely do not observe, so explaining the world we actually do see is
not the point.)
TomS
<h62dnfVgiuC...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
There is the logical possibility that life has always existed. Or
that the universe is cyclical, with life constantly being generated
and generating. I could claim that some form of selection (something
like sexual selection) could tend to partition life into discontinuous
forms. Or maybe something like crystallization would do it.
But if we're going to restrict this to "credible" alternatives, then
how does "intelligent design" rank in relation to Senapathyism?
Aside from that, how is "intelligent design" really an "alternative"
if it doesn't account for discontinuity of forms any better than common
descent does? If I demonstrate that X does not account for Y, Z is an
alternative to X *only if* Z claims to account for Y.
Indeed, insofar as ID is talking about anything at all, it is not clear
that it is even in the same realm of discourse as common descent.
John Harshman
Let's remember that at the outset we have postulated a large number of
poofing events that produced complex, multicellular life. None of your
various "alternatives" explain that.
> Aside from that, how is "intelligent design" really an "alternative"
> if it doesn't account for discontinuity of forms any better than common
> descent does? If I demonstrate that X does not account for Y, Z is an
> alternative to X *only if* Z claims to account for Y.
Poofing, remember?
> Indeed, insofar as ID is talking about anything at all, it is not clear
> that it is even in the same realm of discourse as common descent.
You have lost sight of the premise here.
gabriel
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <lo...@bellsouth.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : Bob T. wrote:
: > : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
: > : >
: > : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
: > : >
: > : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
: > : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
: > : Less than two percent defines the difference.
: >
: > Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
: > evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
: > to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
: > claim. One can only believe such a statement.
:
: No. You just don't understand how science works.
Yes, suddenly when we get to origins, people no longer know how
science works. No, the fact is no theory about origins or the
origin of all biological diversity of life can be tested, which
includes creation.
: There are many ways to
: test hypotheses other than experiments. All that's required is that
: there be some way of using data to distinguish among hypotheses.
:
: Now of course nobody is claiming that humans and chimps evolved from
: each other. That doesn't even make sense. The claim is that they had a
: common ancestor around 5 million years ago.
An ape-like ancestor. Or is it now orangutans, as some latest
research is now claiming?
: If that were true, they
: should be quite similar genetically.
Correction: they *believe* if that were true (which we don't even
know that's possible - evolving from an ape-like ancestor), they
would be quite similar genetically. A belief that, yet again, is
not observable, and is impossible to test/verify. Not science.
: So far, so good. But that's not
: all, by any means. We should also be able to construct a consistent tree
: from the data, relating all the apes (and other species too, for that
: matter).
And of course "consistent" is the magic word - assumed
"consistency" equating to supposed factual evolution. It's still
a belief, and the tree is not testable/verifiable - they can only
choose to agree with each other this is the way they believed it
happened (and they *don't* all agree exactly) when they already
are resting on the unscientific belief being fact that it
happened at all.
: By "consistent" I mean that different parts of the genome
: should, when analyzed by objective methods, arrive at the same result.
: And so they do.
More assumptions passed off as fact. "Arrive at the same result"?
Where's the proof that your version of "arrive at the same
result" means they evolved from each other? Part of your proof is
the assumption that they *did* evolve from each other. Assumption
piled upon assumption until the pile of assumptions is so deep of
untestable/unverifiable claims, people conveniently forget none
of it is observable or testable/verifiable at all. Just a pile of
assumptions.
: Nobody has ever been able to come up with an explanation
: for this other than common descent.
This is the logical fallacy "argument from ignorance" - because
you reject any other belief than yours, you assume yours is true.
Not only a logical fallacy, but again not even remotely science.
: When asked, you have generally
: ignored the question, or muttered something about "common designer". No,
: I'm sorry. A common designer might explain simple similarity between two
: species, considered in isolation. But it just can't explain a
: consistent, nested hierarchy among many species.
The nested hierarchy is in the minds of those who need to see it
for their beliefs to be true. Again just more reasons they have
faith in their beliefs.
And as if that wasn't enough to point out it's still not science,
the severe lack of intermediate forms exposes this nested
hierarchy as being only in the mind of those who originally
professed it (and those who need to continue believing it). They
assume DNA similarity means "evolved," then pass off that
assumption to "prove" one animal evolved into another because
they have similar DNA. Circular reasoning, which is ignorance at
best, outright dishonesty at worst.
:
: > No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
: > generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
: > the DNA is.
:
: Again, there's a language problem here. Populations of apes have not
: evolved into animals that are no longer apes.
Populations of ape-like ancestors. Please show research that says
we evolved from anything other than ape-like ancestors - i.e.,
populations of apes.
: They've evolved into
: animals that are somewhat different apes. And humans are among the
: somewhat different apes we see.
:
: > This would finally be a test showing the claim
: > "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
: > population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
: > their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
: > that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
: > since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
: > test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
: > science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
: > evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
: > dishonesty at worst.
:
: Again, the problem is that the only test you will accept is impractical.
No, it's the very test of what can and cannot be called science.
Only that which is observable, OR/and testable/verifiable - an
experiment to test the theory that's proposed. There is no such
test. It's *impossible* to test. There is no such observation.
Case closed. It doesn't qualify as science (and neither does
creation).
: We can't wait millions of years for experimental results.
Correction: we can't wait the *supposed* millions of years for
the *supposed* results of the fish to man version of evolution.
Notice how your statement is (perhaps unintentionally) laced with
dishonest assumption of it being fact.
: If we accepted
: your notions of evidence, we would have to reject much of science --
Much of science? Now that's an outright false statement. Science
gets along just fine without believing man evolved from fish over
many generations.
: we
: couldn't investigate any phenomenon that happens on a very long time
: scale.
We can investigate what happens in our short timescale, but to
extrapolate millions of times in either direction is a basic flaw
that's learned in algebra if not sooner. And to pretend to make
"scientific" claims thousands of years or more in the past only
benefits those who believe they evolved from fish.
: Fortunately, there are ways of finding out what happened in the
: past based on the effects that remain in the present.
Correction - there are only ways of *guessing* what some *believe
might* have happened in the never observed, untestable
unverifiable unrepeatable past ...
: We don't have to
: duplicate every past event to know it happened.
Correction: You have to be able to duplicate what you believe to
be true in a test/verification or observation if you want to call
such beliefs science. Fish to man version of evolution fails
miserably in this regard, as does creation. They are both
beliefs. But logically speaking, intelligent design / creation by
God is many times more logical than that human beings evolved
from fish.
: (And I will point out
: that evolution is the only thing to which you apply this special "were
: you there?" rule.)
No, they apply that rule to creation as well. "Show a single
observation or test showing God creating a single thing". and
"Were you there to witness it?" Bingo.
:
: > Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
: > creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
: > observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
: > anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
: > when it's ok that something's not observable and not
: > testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
: > them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
:
: No, that's not what's wrong with creationism. It's not scientific, I'll
: grant.
Why? Because it's not observable AND not testable/verifiable.
Just like any origin beliefs, and any origin of biological
diversity of all life beliefs including the fish to man version
of evolution. Creation is not scientific, neither is the fish to
man version of evolution - but we have faith that Creation by God
is fact, because we're not so blinded by a need to reject God, or
to create our own version of God, that we're willing to believe
we evolved from fish instead.
: But evolutionary biology is scientific, so you need to delete
: that "either".
That animals adapt is scientific. Apes adapt but remain apes.
Observable, testable and verifiable. The claim that ape-like
ancestors evolved into human beings is now a belief. That fish
evolved eventually into human beings - a belief.
In fact, science actually disproves the fish to man version of
evolution. It's a scientific repeatable fact that no matter how
many generations go by, no matter how many times [apes] adapt
over generations, they remain [apes]. And you can replace [apes]
with any animal alive. Science actually repeatedly can show the
fish to man version of evolution if flat out false.
: Anyway, what's wrong with creationism isn't the inability
: to show creation in real time. It's the inability to show any evidence
: of any of its claims, or to explain any of the evidence more commonly
: interpreted as supporting evolution.
False statement. The refusal to look at such evidence and
explanations does not equate to their being none. For starters.
Of course, you'll just dismiss it, and then claim victory that
there's no such evidence. It's the same evidence you impose your
world view on: DNA similarity, homology, fossil record, Cambrian
Explosion, meaningfully encoded information (DNA) and the ability
for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, and more. Read
up on it if you're seriously interested in the truth. If you're
not really interested in actual truth, just dismiss it.
:
: > In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
: > biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
: > actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
: > still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
: > were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
: > a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
: > builder.
:
: That's true by definition, you know. A building is by definition an
: artificial construct, so it must by definition have a builder.
So if a person builds a building that was somehow "alive," able
to construct more rooms on its own, able to adapt to it's
surroundings, suddenly it's no longer artificial, so it's no
longer proof of a builder? Wrong. It becomes even *greater* proof
of a builder!
: Not true
: for life. You, for example, had no builder. You grew.
:
: > But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
: > accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
: > admitting the obvious. =(
:
: I missed the part where you used any logic. And I will also point out
: once again that a great many Christians accept the facts of evolution.
I have to point out that a great many people claim to be
Christians but are not. A Christian claiming to believe in
evolution doesn't mean a thing. The entire world believed it was
flat, and using your logic that would make them right, even
though others would try to get you to think more clearly about
that logic.
Meanwhile, all you offered are reasons you believe what you
believe. You haven't offered a single observation (which you
agree is impossible) nor a test/verification showing the fish to
man version of evolution in action. Just more reasons for having
faith in your belief.
Meanwhile science repeatedly proves with the scientific method
the fish to man version of evolution is false.
So not offering any observations OR tests/verifications, you only
show it's correct to point out the fish to man version of
evolution is not only not fact, but doesn't even qualify as
science. Barring any such test/verification of it in action,
verifying what they believe, there's nothing else to say against
your reasons why you have faith in those beliefs.
: Are a great many Christians determined to avoid being accountable to god?
Only God knows if they are Christians or not. Since you brought
it up: There are many who are not Christians at all, and twist it
in more ways than this to fit their needs.
Matthew 7:21-23 KJVR
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and
in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart
from me, ye that work iniquity.
Even Jesus Christ pointed to the fact that God created man at the
beginning.
Jesus said,
Matthew 19:4 KJVR
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
But those who are ashamed of what Christ said, and don't have the
faith in God to stand up for what they claim to believe, might be
in for a rude awakening on the day of judgment, and whether or
not they're a Christian on their way to heaven.
Mark 8:34-38 KJVR
34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples
also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever
shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall
save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in
this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son
of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with
the holy angels.
wf3h
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman
> : No. You just don't understand how science works.
>
> Yes, suddenly when we get to origins, people no longer know how
> science works. No, the fact is no theory about origins or the
> origin of all biological diversity of life can be tested, which
> includes creation.
uh...that's not what the man said. he said, as i have said...you don't
understand how science works. we've given you specific information on
why your view of science is meaningless yet you insist you have THE
correct view of science
question: what lab experience do you have?
how much time have you spent in a lab?
have you ever written a lab report for your company or university?
how do you think YOUR view of science applies to how science really
works?
the fact is theories of origins CAN be tested. the results can be
matched against the real world. we KNOW this is true because there
are several theories that HAVE been developed, tested and have
FAILED. so right away YOUR view of science has a problem: how is it
possible to have a FAILED theory if, in YOUR view, they can't be
tested?
so you're wrong. you're simply wrong. end of story.
>
> : If that were true, they
> : should be quite similar genetically.
>
> Correction: they *believe* if that were true (which we don't even
> know that's possible - evolving from an ape-like ancestor), they
> would be quite similar genetically. A belief that, yet again, is
> not observable, and is impossible to test/verify. Not science.
meaningless. we can watch populations change in a laboratory. we have
done so with fruit flies and bacteria
AGAIN your view of science is wrong. you keep asserting ridiculous
statements like this, and when shown they're wrong you just continue
to make them
i suppose if you're a creationist that's your only defense: ignorance.
>
> : So far, so good. But that's not
> : all, by any means. We should also be able to construct a consistent tree
> : from the data, relating all the apes (and other species too, for that
> : matter).
>
> And of course "consistent" is the magic word - assumed
> "consistency" equating to supposed factual evolution. It's still
> a belief, and the tree is not testable/verifiable - they can only
> choose to agree with each other this is the way they believed it
> happened (and they *don't* all agree exactly) when they already
> are resting on the unscientific belief being fact that it
> happened at all.
uh...no. if we can SEE a 'tree' happen in a lab and we SEE a 'tree'
happen in nature we assume that the mechanism we test in the lab
applies in nature
the same is true for mechanisms tested in chemistry and physics. so
evolution is at LEAST as testable as chemistry or physics
you keep failing with your examples. you have NEVER been right in ANY
post about how science works.
>
> : When asked, you have generally
> : ignored the question, or muttered something about "common designer". No,
> : I'm sorry. A common designer might explain simple similarity between two
> : species, considered in isolation. But it just can't explain a
> : consistent, nested hierarchy among many species.
>
> The nested hierarchy is in the minds of those who need to see it
> for their beliefs to be true. Again just more reasons they have
> faith in their beliefs.
the 'nested hierarchy' concept was developed by creationists who
didn't know about darwin's theory. the patterns of similarity between
organisms was developed long before darwin. what was absent was the
mechanism CAUSING this relationship. so the relationship is obvious.
the mechanism is not.
>
> And as if that wasn't enough to point out it's still not science,
> the severe lack of intermediate forms
again you assert, without proof, that intermediates dont exist. they
do. they exist for the horse, the whale, fruit files and other
organisms. even ONE intermediate is a problem for creationism and yet
we have dozens.
creationism can't explain this.
evolution can.
> :
> : Again, the problem is that the only test you will accept is impractical.
>
> No, it's the very test of what can and cannot be called science.
> Only that which is observable, OR/and testable/verifiable - an
> experiment to test the theory that's proposed. There is no such
> test. It's *impossible* to test. There is no such observation.
> Case closed. It doesn't qualify as science (and neither does
> creation).
as i pointed out, science tests mechanisms. evolution has a mechanism:
natural selection. this mechanism can be tested in a lab. THAT is how
science works.
no science...chemistry, physics. etc. can test ALL assumptions for
EVERYTHING seen in the world. NO scientist uses YOUR view of science.
in fact your view is wrong. the great genius of newton was that he
assumed the laws he described and tested about nature applied
throughout the universe. and he was right.
THAT is how science works. you assume science is a laboratory
curiousity....your view of science would confine it to things that
only happen in human lifetimes. it would render science useless
and science isn't useless. creationism is...but not science.
>
> : We can't wait millions of years for experimental results.
>
> Correction: we can't wait the *supposed* millions of years for
> the *supposed* results of the fish to man version of evolution.
> Notice how your statement is (perhaps unintentionally) laced with
> dishonest assumption of it being fact.
now you have a problem. ALL of science...physics, chemistry, geology,
biology...points to life being billions of years old
so EITHER ALL of science is wrong or YOU are wrong.
now let me think....which do i believe?
>
> : If we accepted
> : your notions of evidence, we would have to reject much of science --
>
> Much of science? Now that's an outright false statement. Science
> gets along just fine without believing man evolved from fish over
> many generations.
wrong. because, as a chemist, when an evolutionary biologist comes to
me and asks how DNA can change with time, it's perfectly obvious: base
pair substitution in the DNA molecule.
so ALL of science supports evolutionary biology. it's not a freak
show. you creationists, because of your quirky, weird view of the
world don't understand science
which is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.
science is not an encyclopedia of strange facts about the world. it's
a method for finding out how the world works
you creationists have a magical, fairy tale view of the world. ti's
wrong. but you think science should work the same way.
and it doesnt. you're wrong
>
> : we
> : couldn't investigate any phenomenon that happens on a very long time
> : scale.
>
> We can investigate what happens in our short timescale, but to
> extrapolate millions of times in either direction is a basic flaw
> that's learned in algebra if not sooner. And to pretend to make
> "scientific" claims thousands of years or more in the past only
> benefits those who believe they evolved from fish.\
you creationists assume the universe is based on random chance and
that laws of science don't apply in time?
good luck with that. we can test the laws of science as they applied
billions of years ago. and the laws are right
you're wrong. sorry.
nothing you've said about science is correct
nothing you've said about testing is correct
nothing you've said about the role of observation in science is
correct
your view of science is wrong. simply wrong. you're a creationist.
and THAT is your problem
John Harshman
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <lo...@bellsouth.net>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > : Bob T. wrote:
> : > : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
> : > : >
> : > : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
> : > : >
> : > : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
> : > : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
> : > : Less than two percent defines the difference.
> : >
> : > Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
> : > evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
> : > to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
> : > claim. One can only believe such a statement.
> :
> : No. You just don't understand how science works.
>
> Yes, suddenly when we get to origins, people no longer know how
> science works.
I didn't say that. I said that *you* don't understand how science works.
And not just on the subject of origins; you don't understand how any
science works.
> No, the fact is no theory about origins or the
> origin of all biological diversity of life can be tested, which
> includes creation.
As I have explained, this is your central misunderstanding. You think
that in order to test a historical hypothesis we would have to duplicate
the entire process experimentally. That's unnecessary, and no science
works that way.
> : There are many ways to
> : test hypotheses other than experiments. All that's required is that
> : there be some way of using data to distinguish among hypotheses.
> :
> : Now of course nobody is claiming that humans and chimps evolved from
> : each other. That doesn't even make sense. The claim is that they had a
> : common ancestor around 5 million years ago.
>
> An ape-like ancestor. Or is it now orangutans, as some latest
> research is now claiming?
There is no such latest research. There's an old crackpot theory that
refuses to die, but that's another matter. And I might point out that
orangutans are apes.
> : If that were true, they
> : should be quite similar genetically.
>
> Correction: they *believe* if that were true (which we don't even
> know that's possible - evolving from an ape-like ancestor), they
> would be quite similar genetically. A belief that, yet again, is
> not observable, and is impossible to test/verify. Not science.
Yes, and they believe that if shit were shinola, it wouldn't smell like
that. The question is whether the inference is warranted. It seems
pretty simple to me: recently diverged genomes are similar, because
there hasn't been enough time for major differences to accumulate.
> : So far, so good. But that's not
> : all, by any means. We should also be able to construct a consistent tree
> : from the data, relating all the apes (and other species too, for that
> : matter).
>
> And of course "consistent" is the magic word - assumed
> "consistency" equating to supposed factual evolution. It's still
> a belief, and the tree is not testable/verifiable - they can only
> choose to agree with each other this is the way they believed it
> happened (and they *don't* all agree exactly) when they already
> are resting on the unscientific belief being fact that it
> happened at all.
You have mistaken the meaning of "consistent", which is why I explained
it below.
> : By "consistent" I mean that different parts of the genome
> : should, when analyzed by objective methods, arrive at the same result.
> : And so they do.
>
> More assumptions passed off as fact. "Arrive at the same result"?
> Where's the proof that your version of "arrive at the same
> result" means they evolved from each other? Part of your proof is
> the assumption that they *did* evolve from each other. Assumption
> piled upon assumption until the pile of assumptions is so deep of
> untestable/unverifiable claims, people conveniently forget none
> of it is observable or testable/verifiable at all. Just a pile of
> assumptions.
You know nothing of this subject. If you wish to learn, get any
phylogenetic analysis program. PHYLIP is available free on the web, so I
suggest that. Learn how to use it. Then download a set of homologous
sequences from GenBank, any gene you like, for a selection of apes
including H. sapiens. Run that set in PHYLIP. You will get the standard
tree. Notice that you made no assumptions. You didn't put in any
expected tree. PHYLIP didn't put in any expected tree. It just emerged
from the data. Anyone can do this.
> : Nobody has ever been able to come up with an explanation
> : for this other than common descent.
>
> This is the logical fallacy "argument from ignorance" - because
> you reject any other belief than yours, you assume yours is true.
> Not only a logical fallacy, but again not even remotely science.
Again, you don't understand science. We can't consider hypotheses we
haven't thought of, only test those we have thought of against each
other. There might be a better explanation than we've thought of, but
there's no point in worrying, since this is always true for anything
whatsoever, not just evolution.
Nor is this an argument from igorance. Remember that all science is
provisional. What we "know" is merely the best hypothesis we currently
have. If a better one comes along, we adopt that one.
> : When asked, you have generally
> : ignored the question, or muttered something about "common designer". No,
> : I'm sorry. A common designer might explain simple similarity between two
> : species, considered in isolation. But it just can't explain a
> : consistent, nested hierarchy among many species.
>
> The nested hierarchy is in the minds of those who need to see it
> for their beliefs to be true. Again just more reasons they have
> faith in their beliefs.
Again, you can construct the nested hierarchy of primates for yourself
any time you like, after a minimal period of instruction, from data and
analysis programs freely available on the web. The hierarchy isn't in
someone's mind. It's in the sequences themselves. And we can tell that
because an objectively operating computer algorithm can call it forth
from the data -- any data, from any part of the genome.
> And as if that wasn't enough to point out it's still not science,
> the severe lack of intermediate forms exposes this nested
> hierarchy as being only in the mind of those who originally
> professed it (and those who need to continue believing it).
Well, in the current case, all the genomic data comes from extant
species, so of course there are no intermediate forms. If you're talking
about fossils, there are great numbers of intermediates.
> They
> assume DNA similarity means "evolved," then pass off that
> assumption to "prove" one animal evolved into another because
> they have similar DNA. Circular reasoning, which is ignorance at
> best, outright dishonesty at worst.
I'm afraid you don't understand the reasoning. And I see you have not
attempted to explain the nested hierarchy at all. You merely declare
that it doesn't exist, despite the fact that you could easily reproduce
it yourself with a very little work.
> :
> : > No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
> : > generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
> : > the DNA is.
> :
> : Again, there's a language problem here. Populations of apes have not
> : evolved into animals that are no longer apes.
>
> Populations of ape-like ancestors. Please show research that says
> we evolved from anything other than ape-like ancestors - i.e.,
> populations of apes.
You misunderstand the language problem. Of course the ancestors were
apes. But so are the descendants. Humans are apes too. Please read the
whole paragraph, and you will see (below) that I said that already.
> : They've evolved into
> : animals that are somewhat different apes. And humans are among the
> : somewhat different apes we see.
> :
> : > This would finally be a test showing the claim
> : > "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
> : > population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
> : > their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
> : > that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
> : > since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
> : > test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
> : > science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
> : > evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
> : > dishonesty at worst.
> :
> : Again, the problem is that the only test you will accept is impractical.
>
> No, it's the very test of what can and cannot be called science.
> Only that which is observable, OR/and testable/verifiable - an
> experiment to test the theory that's proposed. There is no such
> test. It's *impossible* to test. There is no such observation.
> Case closed. It doesn't qualify as science (and neither does
> creation).
Again, you misunderstand science. Your version of science doesn't exist.
Not in evolutionary biology, not in physics, not anywhere. Tests don't
have to be experimental. You merely have to gather data that has the
ability to support or refute your hypothesis. And so we have done.
> : We can't wait millions of years for experimental results.
>
> Correction: we can't wait the *supposed* millions of years for
> the *supposed* results of the fish to man version of evolution.
> Notice how your statement is (perhaps unintentionally) laced with
> dishonest assumption of it being fact.
These are not assumptions. They're all scientific conclusions so strong
we might as well call them "proven". I generally assume the world is
round, despite my general lack of personal evidence. How about you?
> : If we accepted
> : your notions of evidence, we would have to reject much of science --
>
> Much of science? Now that's an outright false statement. Science
> gets along just fine without believing man evolved from fish over
> many generations.
You are again confused. That's not the notion of evidence I was talking
about, but the claim that in order to know something happened, we have
to see it happening, or reproduce it exactly, or both.
> : we
> : couldn't investigate any phenomenon that happens on a very long time
> : scale.
>
> We can investigate what happens in our short timescale, but to
> extrapolate millions of times in either direction is a basic flaw
> that's learned in algebra if not sooner. And to pretend to make
> "scientific" claims thousands of years or more in the past only
> benefits those who believe they evolved from fish.
This doesn't affect just investigations of the distant past, but the
recent past as well. Even the present. Nobody has seen an atom, yet you
probably believe they exist. Why?
> : Fortunately, there are ways of finding out what happened in the
> : past based on the effects that remain in the present.
>
> Correction - there are only ways of *guessing* what some *believe
> might* have happened in the never observed, untestable
> unverifiable unrepeatable past ...
Interesting. Can we reliably know there was such a person as Oliver
Cromwell? If so, how can we know that?
> : We don't have to
> : duplicate every past event to know it happened.
>
> Correction: You have to be able to duplicate what you believe to
> be true in a test/verification or observation if you want to call
> such beliefs science. Fish to man version of evolution fails
> miserably in this regard, as does creation. They are both
> beliefs. But logically speaking, intelligent design / creation by
> God is many times more logical than that human beings evolved
> from fish.
So, does the sun operate by fusion? If you think so, how can you tell?
Have you duplicated the sun?
> : (And I will point out
> : that evolution is the only thing to which you apply this special "were
> : you there?" rule.)
>
> No, they apply that rule to creation as well. "Show a single
> observation or test showing God creating a single thing". and
> "Were you there to witness it?" Bingo.
Do you think there was such a thing as the battle of Austerlitz? How
would you tell?
> : > Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
> : > creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
> : > observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
> : > anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
> : > when it's ok that something's not observable and not
> : > testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
> : > them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
> :
> : No, that's not what's wrong with creationism. It's not scientific, I'll
> : grant.
>
> Why? Because it's not observable AND not testable/verifiable.
You persistently ask question that are answered in the post you're
responding to, if you would only show a little patience. And then you
give the wrong answer. No, that's not why creation is unscientific.
> Just like any origin beliefs, and any origin of biological
> diversity of all life beliefs including the fish to man version
> of evolution. Creation is not scientific, neither is the fish to
> man version of evolution - but we have faith that Creation by God
> is fact, because we're not so blinded by a need to reject God, or
> to create our own version of God, that we're willing to believe
> we evolved from fish instead.
Well, at least you will agree that creation shouldn't be taught in
science classes, right?
> : But evolutionary biology is scientific, so you need to delete
> : that "either".
>
> That animals adapt is scientific. Apes adapt but remain apes.
> Observable, testable and verifiable. The claim that ape-like
> ancestors evolved into human beings is now a belief. That fish
> evolved eventually into human beings - a belief.
>
> In fact, science actually disproves the fish to man version of
> evolution. It's a scientific repeatable fact that no matter how
> many generations go by, no matter how many times [apes] adapt
> over generations, they remain [apes]. And you can replace [apes]
> with any animal alive. Science actually repeatedly can show the
> fish to man version of evolution if flat out false.
How is that a scientific fact? Where's your evidence that no matter how
many generations go by, apes remain apes? Have you actually observed a
million generations of apes to make sure?
> : Anyway, what's wrong with creationism isn't the inability
> : to show creation in real time. It's the inability to show any evidence
> : of any of its claims, or to explain any of the evidence more commonly
> : interpreted as supporting evolution.
>
> False statement. The refusal to look at such evidence and
> explanations does not equate to their being none. For starters.
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/arj
>
> www.creationontheweb.com
>
> www.icr.org
I've read that stuff many times. I found no evidence there. Could you be
more specific?
> Of course, you'll just dismiss it, and then claim victory that
> there's no such evidence. It's the same evidence you impose your
> world view on: DNA similarity, homology, fossil record, Cambrian
> Explosion, meaningfully encoded information (DNA) and the ability
> for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, and more. Read
> up on it if you're seriously interested in the truth. If you're
> not really interested in actual truth, just dismiss it.
I'm interested in your beliefs. How about some specifics? In particular,
what does the Cambrian explosion have to say about creation? As I
understand it, you're a young earth creationist, and so should not
believe that a Cambrian explosion even happened.
> : > In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
> : > biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
> : > actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
> : > still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
> : > were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
> : > a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
> : > builder.
> :
> : That's true by definition, you know. A building is by definition an
> : artificial construct, so it must by definition have a builder.
>
> So if a person builds a building that was somehow "alive," able
> to construct more rooms on its own, able to adapt to it's
> surroundings, suddenly it's no longer artificial, so it's no
> longer proof of a builder? Wrong. It becomes even *greater* proof
> of a builder!
At most, all that would be necessary would be a first building. All the
diversity of buildings in the world could have grown.
> : Not true
> : for life. You, for example, had no builder. You grew.
> :
> : > But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
> : > accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
> : > admitting the obvious. =(
> :
> : I missed the part where you used any logic. And I will also point out
> : once again that a great many Christians accept the facts of evolution.
>
> I have to point out that a great many people claim to be
> Christians but are not. A Christian claiming to believe in
> evolution doesn't mean a thing. The entire world believed it was
> flat, and using your logic that would make them right, even
> though others would try to get you to think more clearly about
> that logic.
Ah, the "No true Scotsman" defense. But your use of logic (which could
use some scare quotes) is invalid. I used Christians believing in
evolution not as an argument that evolution is true, but as an argument
that belief in evolution doesn't necessarily reflect a determination not
to be accountable to god. Of course, if you believe that all
evolutionist Christians are really secret atheists, that argument can't
work on you. But that's a bizarre and paranoid assumption on your part.
> Meanwhile, all you offered are reasons you believe what you
> believe. You haven't offered a single observation (which you
> agree is impossible) nor a test/verification showing the fish to
> man version of evolution in action. Just more reasons for having
> faith in your belief.
Yes, that's how science works. You don't have to duplicate the event. I
don't have to reconstruct the sun to know how it works. I don't have to
build a bird to understand flight. I don't have to watch a linguistic
community for 2000 years to know that Latin changed into Italian,
French, etc. Evidence is indeed a reason to believe. Quite a valid one,
in fact.
> Meanwhile science repeatedly proves with the scientific method
> the fish to man version of evolution is false.
You will have to provide some of that proof. "I watched an ape for a
whole month and he didn't turn into a man" isn't good enough.
> So not offering any observations OR tests/verifications, you only
> show it's correct to point out the fish to man version of
> evolution is not only not fact, but doesn't even qualify as
> science. Barring any such test/verification of it in action,
> verifying what they believe, there's nothing else to say against
> your reasons why you have faith in those beliefs.
As I have mentioned, tests are easy enough that you can do them yourself
in the comfort of your own home, provided only that you have web access
and a little initiative.
..
> : Are a great many Christians determined to avoid being accountable to god?
>
> Only God knows if they are Christians or not. Since you brought
> it up: There are many who are not Christians at all, and twist it
> in more ways than this to fit their needs.
Hey, I thought you said that only god knows. If only god knows, how can
you know?
I'll just snip all the bible verses, which are nothing more than
assertions without evidence. They've served their purpose of making you
feel better anyway.
gabriel
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
[rest of repeated reasons why you believe what you believe
already addressed and deleted]
: > Meanwhile science repeatedly proves with the scientific method
: > the fish to man version of evolution is false.
:
: You will have to provide some of that proof. "I watched an ape for a
: whole month and he didn't turn into a man" isn't good enough.
No, evolutionists "watching an ape for a whole month change and
believing it will eventually change into a human being" is what's
not good enough.
Meanwhile scientists and human beings can and have followed
populations of [apes] for decades and centuries and millennium.
As generations pass, no matter how much they adapt, they remained
[apes]. Same holds true when you replace [apes] with [fruit
flies] and any other animal alive. And they've done such
experiments with fruit flies, and no matter how many generations
passed, they remained fruit flies no matter how much they
adapted.
This is repeatable, observable, testable and verifiable, unlike
the claims of evolutionism, which are not repeatable, not
observable, not testable, not verifiable. Please show a test that
shows other than this taking place, which is what the fish to man
version of evolution claims, which contradicts what *is*
observable, testable and verifiable. Not the *belief* that it
happens and the reasons why you have faith in that belief -
because if that was allowed to be called "scientific", then
suddenly creation by God would be scientific fact as well by that
same, false definition of what science is now allowed to be.
As I said, they cannot. Their claim is not only not fact, but not
even scientific. It's that simple no matter how many reasons you
want to give on why you believe fish have and will, given enough
time, evolve into human beings.
wf3h
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:11:36 -0700, John Harshman
>
>
> [rest of repeated reasons why you believe what you believe
> already addressed and deleted]
>
> : > Meanwhile science repeatedly proves with the scientific method
> : > the fish to man version of evolution is false.
> :
> : You will have to provide some of that proof. "I watched an ape for a
> : whole month and he didn't turn into a man" isn't good enough.
>
> No, evolutionists "watching an ape for a whole month change and
> believing it will eventually change into a human being" is what's
> not good enough.
meaningless assertion. some processes, amazingly enough, take longer
than a human lifetime. i know to you creationists, the universe is
based on random chance and magic, so it can change from day to day. to
science, however, the universe is based on laws and these are
consistent over billions of years.
and that is testable.
>
> Meanwhile scientists and human beings can and have followed
> populations of [apes] for decades and centuries and millennium.
> As generations pass, no matter how much they adapt, they remained
> [apes].
speciation has been observed. so for you to assert that speciation
does not happen is simply wrong. creationists do this all the
time...deny the evidence.
Same holds true when you replace [apes] with [fruit
> flies] and any other animal alive. And they've done such
> experiments with fruit flies, and no matter how many generations
> passed, they remained fruit flies no matter how much they
> adapted.
well...no. what evolution predicts is that during speciation,
transitional forms should be created. and that is observed. that is a
fact.
creationism has no explanation for this. evolution does.
>
> This is repeatable, observable, testable and verifiable, unlike
> the claims of evolutionism, which are not repeatable, not
> observable, not testable, not verifiable.
no scientist uses your definition of science. none. prove that YOUR
definition is science.
creationism is useless
Kermit
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:11:36 -0700, John Harshman
>
>
> [rest of repeated reasons why you believe what you believe
> already addressed and deleted]
>
> : > Meanwhile science repeatedly proves with the scientific method
> : > the fish to man version of evolution is false.
> :
> : You will have to provide some of that proof. "I watched an ape for a
> : whole month and he didn't turn into a man" isn't good enough.
>
> No, evolutionists "watching an ape for a whole month change and
> believing it will eventually change into a human being" is what's
> not good enough.
But we have watched fruit flies mutate and adapt; we have watched
lizards over a 20 year period develop new eating apparatus in the
wild; we have seen a number of speciation events, we see several
acting in the long run at different stages (much like different stars
in different stages of their lifespans); we have bred animals and
plants to show surprisingly different characteristics from their
progenitors.
Moreover, we have seen the fossil record: the animals and plants show
early, primitive forms in the earlier strata, and increasingly modern
forms in the more recent strata. They show divergence to correspond to
plate tectonics - the rise and fall of mountains, and the separation
and movement of continents - and climate changes, and location and
size of rivers, oceans, and lakes. When we see a sudden disappearance
of many fossils ( a great extinction) the subsequent divergence fills
in the niches over the next few million years.
The first strong evidence was the nested hierarchy of morphology,
developed by scientists who were most likely Creationists of some
sort. The only explanations are common descent or an illusion of some
sort; Creation does not predict this. The matching hierarchy of
genomes is even stronger evidence for evolution. Why do we have a
broken gene for vitamin C, and why does it match the chimp's but not
the guinea pig's?
Why can I wiggle my ears, and why do I get goosebumps?
In the science of genetics, we are beginning to understand not only
how organisms develop from the DNA, but also see how evolution is
inevitable, given what we now know.
And if we were misinterpreting these data, why would they all converge
on the same picture - the process as well as the timeline?
>
> Meanwhile scientists and human beings can and have followed
> populations of [apes] for decades and centuries and millennium.
Yes. We have only been modern humans for 200,000 years or less. We
have had written records for perhaps 3000. Why would you expect charts
going back 7 million? You do not have to witness a process that takes
longer to happen than humans have existed. You only have to understand
it enough to start making predictions. "If this is how it happened,
then what would we expect to see?"
> As generations pass, no matter how much they adapt, they remained
> [apes].
Yes. You and I are still apes. But different from our ancestors, as
are our cousins the chimps and bonobos. If we had not changed, we
would expect modern human skeletons (and modern chimps) all the way
back. That is *not what we find. We find what we would expect if *all
life has a common ancestor from a couple of billion years ago.
> Same holds true when you replace [apes] with [fruit
> flies] and any other animal alive. And they've done such
> experiments with fruit flies, and no matter how many generations
> passed, they remained fruit flies no matter how much they
> adapted.
But different fruit flies. You seem to be saying that mountain have
not eroded, because we can't sit in our rocking chairs and watch them
wash away over tens of millions of years. That's stupid, and you know
it. We can, however, expect to find certain kinds of evidence if, say,
a river had carved out the canyon in a mountain range. And we do find
that evidence: canyon wall cut through sedimentary layers, deposits of
matching silt downstream, and scattered in the ocean near the mouth,
etc. Processes leave evidence, events leave clues.
Your claims imply that we could never convict anyone of a crime,
unless there were eyewitnesses. Hell, unless we could recreate the
crime. That's just silly.
>
> This is repeatable, observable, testable and verifiable, unlike
> the claims of evolutionism, which are not repeatable, not
> observable, not testable, not verifiable.
Sure they are. Look at my list above. My wife sorted fossils at the
university as a student job. I have seen the fossils at natural
history museums and colleges in every town I've visited for decades.
You can measure them yourself, run the results of radiometric testing
and chemical testing of sedimentary samples yourself. Bu tyou won't
you won't even got o the library.
> Please show a test that
> shows other than this taking place, which is what the fish to man
> version of evolution claims, which contradicts what *is*
> observable, testable and verifiable.
Sure. Compare the genomes of humans and any fish that have been
sequenced, and compare to a couple of dozen other species. You will
see that we fit into the nested hierarchy. Look at any book showing
Linnaeus's Tree of Life. Look at the fossil record as shown discovered
so far. Look at Shubin's discovery of Tiktaalik, or read about it in
"Your Inner Fish".
You can look at the data yourself, or gather more of your own. But you
won't.
> Not the *belief* that it
> happens and the reasons why you have faith in that belief -
I believe it happened because that's the only model that is testable
and fits the facts.
> because if that was allowed to be called "scientific", then
> suddenly creation by God would be scientific fact as well by that
> same, false definition of what science is now allowed to be.
Nope, sorry. No evidence for it. Unless he did it using evolution...
>
> As I said, they cannot. Their claim is not only not fact, but not
> even scientific.
This news would dismay all the biologists of the world, were it true.
> It's that simple no matter how many reasons you
> want to give
We have evidence and we have explanations for it. Too bad if you don't
like it. <shrug> The evidence is there, in every library, in every
natural history museum, in every university.
> on why you believe fish have and will, given enough
> time, evolve into human beings.
No, they wouldn't *again; they are evolving into some other kinds of
critters.
If you dropped a 100,000 people off in Italy would you expect them to
recreate the Roman Empire? They might create its *equivalent, if there
were a power vacuum, which is what living things do. Make an opening
in the environment (kill off all big predators) and something will
take its place - but it will be a different something.
Kermit
John Harshman
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:11:36 -0700, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> [rest of repeated reasons why you believe what you believe
> already addressed and deleted]
I see you deleted quite a bit that has never been answered, but I've
come to expect that from creationists.
Let me restore just one little bit, in hopes that you will finally
address that:
I'm interested in your beliefs. How about some specifics? In particular,
what does the Cambrian explosion have to say about creation? As I
understand it, you're a young earth creationist, and so should not
believe that a Cambrian explosion even happened.
> : > Meanwhile science repeatedly proves with the scientific method
> : > the fish to man version of evolution is false.
> :
> : You will have to provide some of that proof. "I watched an ape for a
> : whole month and he didn't turn into a man" isn't good enough.
>
> No, evolutionists "watching an ape for a whole month change and
> believing it will eventually change into a human being" is what's
> not good enough.
Fortunately, nobody tries to find proof of human evolution by watching
apes for a month, nor does anybody think that any living ape will change
into a human eventually. This is all part of your complete
misunderstanding of science.
> Meanwhile scientists and human beings can and have followed
> populations of [apes] for decades and centuries and millennium.
> As generations pass, no matter how much they adapt, they remained
> [apes]. Same holds true when you replace [apes] with [fruit
> flies] and any other animal alive. And they've done such
> experiments with fruit flies, and no matter how many generations
> passed, they remained fruit flies no matter how much they
> adapted.
All very nice, but so what? The adaptation you're talking about is
evolution. We can watch evolution in real time. You claim that there is
some barrier that prevents evolution from accumulating over time, but
you have been unable to explain what that barrier would be.
(I will ignore the linguistic problem associated with apes still being
apes and fruit flies still being fruit flies, since you are apparently
not equipped to comprehend that one either.)
> This is repeatable, observable, testable and verifiable, unlike
> the claims of evolutionism, which are not repeatable, not
> observable, not testable, not verifiable.
Of course they are. Easily.
> Please show a test that
> shows other than this taking place, which is what the fish to man
> version of evolution claims, which contradicts what *is*
> observable, testable and verifiable. Not the *belief* that it
> happens and the reasons why you have faith in that belief -
> because if that was allowed to be called "scientific", then
> suddenly creation by God would be scientific fact as well by that
> same, false definition of what science is now allowed to be.
As I have explained, the nested hierarchy of primate genomes has only
one rational explanation, that of common descent. You have not presented
any alternative explanation. Just such a hierarchy is a unique
prediction of common descent, and we can test common descent anew by
digging out another locus from the genome and seeing whether it fits the
same hierarchy. This test is easy to perform; you can do it yourself
using published data.
> As I said, they cannot. Their claim is not only not fact, but not
> even scientific. It's that simple no matter how many reasons you
> want to give on why you believe fish have and will, given enough
> time, evolve into human beings.
Nobody says they will. But the evidence that they have is as good as
anything in science.
Rusty Sites
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman
>
> Even Jesus Christ pointed to the fact that God created man at the
> beginning.
Were you there when he said it? Can you get him to say it again? Did
you ever see Jesus alive and talking? So how can you say anything about
Jesus much less what he said?
Free Lunch
gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<lvjl75h8471ugfalq...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote:
>: > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <lo...@bellsouth.net>
>: > wrote:
>: >
>: > : Bob T. wrote:
>: > : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > : >
>: > : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
>: > : >
>: > : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
>: > : >
>: > : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
>: > : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
>: > : Less than two percent defines the difference.
>: >
>: > Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
>: > evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
>: > to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
>: > claim. One can only believe such a statement.
>:
>: No. You just don't understand how science works.
>
>Yes, suddenly when we get to origins, people no longer know how
>science works. No, the fact is no theory about origins or the
>origin of all biological diversity of life can be tested, which
>includes creation.
You refuse to understand science when it comes to anything that offends
your unsupportable religious claims. Your claim about testing is false.
You have repeatedly had that explained to you, yet you repeat it as a
lie.
>: There are many ways to
>: test hypotheses other than experiments. All that's required is that
>: there be some way of using data to distinguish among hypotheses.
>:
>: Now of course nobody is claiming that humans and chimps evolved from
>: each other. That doesn't even make sense. The claim is that they had a
>: common ancestor around 5 million years ago.
>
>An ape-like ancestor. Or is it now orangutans, as some latest
>research is now claiming?
Orangutans are great apes, as are gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and humans.
>: If that were true, they
>: should be quite similar genetically.
>
>Correction: they *believe* if that were true (which we don't even
>know that's possible - evolving from an ape-like ancestor), they
>would be quite similar genetically. A belief that, yet again, is
>not observable, and is impossible to test/verify. Not science.
Once again, you lie about the ability of scientists to observe. Just
because you choose to remain ignorant, that does not mean the rest of
the world cannot learn.
...
Your Bible verses make you foolish. Maybe you are using the Bible wrong.
Ralph
Actually, if Jesus said that then he is wrong. The Hebrew bible says
'gods' created man, nor 'god'. The term, 'gods', dominates the early
Hebrew literature, not 'god'. Step away from your ignorant myths and
find out why they are called myths.
TomS
<e7-dnX1ySOt...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
I'm not sure that creationism postulates "a large number of poofing
events". I think that it would be a welcome improvement if we got
something as definite as that.
And I thought that the question that started this off is whether
creationism could account for discontinuity between forms (or species
or kinds).
>
>> Aside from that, how is "intelligent design" really an "alternative"
>> if it doesn't account for discontinuity of forms any better than common
>> descent does? If I demonstrate that X does not account for Y, Z is an
>> alternative to X *only if* Z claims to account for Y.
>
>Poofing, remember?
How does poofing even make an attempt at accounting for discontinuity?
The only attempts that I have seen made by creationists were rather
trying to account for *similarities* ("the same designer means the
same design" or something like that).
>
>> Indeed, insofar as ID is talking about anything at all, it is not clear
>> that it is even in the same realm of discourse as common descent.
>
>You have lost sight of the premise here.
>
I must have. :)
But what I am saying is that there certainly are ID advocates who
accept common descent, as well as those who reject it.
John Harshman
Oops, I got this confused with another thread in which a creationist
does exactly that. But not here. Gerard has in fact been less than
forthcoming about his ideas.
> And I thought that the question that started this off is whether
> creationism could account for discontinuity between forms (or species
> or kinds).
No, that wasn't it at all. The question was, if we rejected common
descent, what else would be a conceivable alternative.
>>> Aside from that, how is "intelligent design" really an "alternative"
>>> if it doesn't account for discontinuity of forms any better than common
>>> descent does? If I demonstrate that X does not account for Y, Z is an
>>> alternative to X *only if* Z claims to account for Y.
>> Poofing, remember?
>
> How does poofing even make an attempt at accounting for discontinuity?
That would seem to be a clear prediction of poofing to me. We would
expect no continuities among separately poofed kinds. Or rather, we
might expect two sorts of similarity: universal similarities as a sort
of signature of the designer's personal style, and re-use of identical
parts where functionally appropriate. Discontinuity should otherwise be
our main expectation, especially if the designer is supposed to have an
interest in diversity and disparity.
> The only attempts that I have seen made by creationists were rather
> trying to account for *similarities* ("the same designer means the
> same design" or something like that).
Yes, and that's obviously silly. They seldom go into it in any more
detail than that.
>>> Indeed, insofar as ID is talking about anything at all, it is not clear
>>> that it is even in the same realm of discourse as common descent.
>> You have lost sight of the premise here.
>>
>
> I must have. :)
Well, at least one of us has.
> But what I am saying is that there certainly are ID advocates who
> accept common descent, as well as those who reject it.
If that's what you're saying, you have said it very badly up to this
sentence. ID covers a very broad spectrum, and this is the very first
time you have mentioned it, as distinct from creationism, which is
generally interpreted here as a shorthand for special and separate
creation of kinds, and usually YEC.
TomS
<3_2dnRhyl5b...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
You and I, if we were creationists, would think of some "clear
predictions" that don't seem to be mentioned by the real creationists.
Does any creationist explicitly tell us about the style of the
creator? Other than something like, "Whatever we happen to see, that's
what the creator did." The creator could do anything. Who are we to
second-guess what the creator did?
I don't know whether the designers/creator is supposed to have an
interest in diversity or disparity. (After all, why so many beetles?)
>
>> The only attempts that I have seen made by creationists were rather
>> trying to account for *similarities* ("the same designer means the
>> same design" or something like that).
>
>Yes, and that's obviously silly. They seldom go into it in any more
>detail than that.
Precisely. Whenever it gets interesting, they don't go into the
details.
>
>>>> Indeed, insofar as ID is talking about anything at all, it is not clear
>>>> that it is even in the same realm of discourse as common descent.
>>> You have lost sight of the premise here.
>>>
>>
>> I must have. :)
>
>Well, at least one of us has.
>
>> But what I am saying is that there certainly are ID advocates who
>> accept common descent, as well as those who reject it.
>
>If that's what you're saying, you have said it very badly up to this
>sentence. ID covers a very broad spectrum, and this is the very first
>time you have mentioned it, as distinct from creationism, which is
>generally interpreted here as a shorthand for special and separate
>creation of kinds, and usually YEC.
>
It wouldn't be the first time that I expressed myself poorly.
But, looking over what I wrote above, I think that I was including
ID in the discussion before this.
Anyway, there are many YECs who allow a limited amount of common
descent - baraminology. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that
there were creationists who would allow that all bacteria are of
one "kind".
John Harshman
> "On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:25:22 -0700, in article
> <3_2dnRhyl5b...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>>> But what I am saying is that there certainly are ID advocates who
>>> accept common descent, as well as those who reject it.
>> If that's what you're saying, you have said it very badly up to this
>> sentence. ID covers a very broad spectrum, and this is the very first
>> time you have mentioned it, as distinct from creationism, which is
>> generally interpreted here as a shorthand for special and separate
>> creation of kinds, and usually YEC.
>>
>
> It wouldn't be the first time that I expressed myself poorly.
>
> But, looking over what I wrote above, I think that I was including
> ID in the discussion before this.
>
> Anyway, there are many YECs who allow a limited amount of common
> descent - baraminology. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that
> there were creationists who would allow that all bacteria are of
> one "kind".
>
>
Well, if you're trying to come up with an alternative to common descent,
it seems silly to list common descent among those alternatives.
Mike L
Ralph wrote:
> gabriel wrote:
[...]
> > Even Jesus Christ pointed to the fact that God created man at the
> > beginning.
> <snip>
>
> Actually, if Jesus said that then he is wrong. The Hebrew bible says
> 'gods' created man, nor 'god'. The term, 'gods', dominates the early
> Hebrew literature, not 'god'. Step away from your ignorant myths and
> find out why they are called myths.
You quoted six screens full of irrelevant material before making that
point. Mind you, that isn't a record, and not as bad as what some
people do occasionally, which is make a point and /then/ quote six
screens of irrelevant material.
--
Mike.
Inez
I am tempted to write "well sure," although I don't know what
Senapathyism is.
But we already know that ID is not credible either, so I don't know
why it gets to be one side of a dichotomy and other absurdities are
eliminated.
Alley Looya
news:lvjl75h8471ugfalq...@4ax.com...
Its really funny seeing a theist try to lay down the laws of science.
Its also hilarious seeing a theist accusing non theists of having only
beliefs.
And lets not even talk about who's got the severe lack of observability
problems.
These posts are an absolute barrel of laughs.
John Harshman
Look it up and give yourself a good laugh: Periannan Senapathy is his name.
> But we already know that ID is not credible either, so I don't know
> why it gets to be one side of a dichotomy and other absurdities are
> eliminated.
Who says that ID isn't credible? It's certainly logically feasible. I
suspect that eventually we humans will be capable of such projects. Now
of course it doesn't fit the evidence, but that's another question. It
isn't absurd on its face, while magical, unintelligent poofing *is*.
TomS
<ScSdnV4QNPo...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
Provided that one values consistency.
And the available evidence about creationism is not favorable to that.
gabriel
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On Aug 4, 3:03 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "Bob T."
: >
: > <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
: >
: > : On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
: >
: > Please quote exactly where I said it's false for that reason.
: >
: > But what I did say: the intellectual abilities we have are yet
: > another barrier that fish to man evolutionists have never shown
: > observations and/or tests/verifications to show chimps being able
: > to cross that barrier. This when some try to claim there are no
: > barriers.
:
: What barriers?
You clearly didn't read the article. The article itself points
out the barrier in great detail.
: Other apes have been shown to lie,
Please cite scientific proof that apes have been shown to "lie."
: to form friendships,
: to learn by watching, to have a sense of fair play, to murder, to wage
: war, to use language, to hunt with crafted tools. We have no
: structures that have anything new that chimps don't have; like our
: legs and bodies built for prolonged jogging, our brains have the same
: parts theirs have, but in different proportions.
:
: The nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics indicate that we are
: very closely related to chimps and bonobos. The junk DNA especially
: indicates this (why would we even *have a broken gene for making
: vitamin C, and why would it match the chimp's but not the guinea
: pig's?).
:
: You have not shown that there *are barriers. Please provide evidence
: for this claim. We have evidence that chimps are literally our
: cousins. Please show why this is cannot be so. (Hint: your outrage is
: not evidence.)
:
: >
: > :
: > : Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
: > :
: > : - Bob T.
:
: Kermit
gabriel
wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "Bob T."
: > <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
: >
: >> On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is
: >> false.
: >
: > Please quote exactly where I said it's false for that reason.
: >
: > But what I did say: the intellectual abilities we have are yet
: > another barrier that fish to man evolutionists have never shown
: > observations and/or tests/verifications to show chimps being able
: > to cross that barrier. This when some try to claim there are no
: > barriers.
: >
:
: Pathetic argument. Show us your 'barrier'.
You clearly didn't read the article - they (www.newscientist.com)
described it in detail - the mental things apes clearly were not
capable of ever learning.
Why don't you point out what the article claims is the difference
between apes and humans to show you even read it.
: Where did you get it from? Chimps
: did not cross any barrier. The fact is chimps and humans share a common
: ancestor. We are descended from the same ancestral species. As chimps are
: different from their ancestor, so are we, but different.
:
: The spli occured around four to six million years ago. A lot of extinct
: species, as evidence by the fossil record shows evolitonaru steps both of
: the branch leading to chimpanzees as well as to modern humans. Why don't you
: read some books and learn something before making a fool of yourself?
:
: Evolution is not quantum mechanics; but it still takes some effort to learn
: what it is - an what it isn't. You keep demonstrating that you don't know
: either. Do you know anything about Australopithecines, Homo ergaster, Homo
: habilis, Homo neanderthalensis and many others? Where they lived, how they
: lived, how they looked?
:
: Rolf
:
gabriel
wrote:
:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
: news:s2ch75pklf5lfbntq...@4ax.com...
: > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <lo...@bellsouth.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : Bob T. wrote:
: > : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
: > : >
: > : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
: [snip]
:
:
: > Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
: > creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
: > observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
: > anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
: > when it's ok that something's not observable and not
: > testable/verifiable (i.e., not science).
:
: Not quite right. The observations, facts and findings that support the
: theory of evolution are well within science and subjet to
: testable/verifiable predictions - proven true over 150 years of steady
: development.
What's observed:
bones
What's they believe about those bones, of what those bones tell
them:
never observed
They are not the same thing, otherwise any belief one comes to
when looking at dead bones and fossils is suddenly an observation
of that belief, which of course is a lie.
:
: > Up to others to keep
: > them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
: > =(
: >
: > In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
: > biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
: > actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
: > still science),
:
: The stody of the origins of life is not yet complete; we may not ever learn
: *all* we would like to know but research so far is far from a point where we
: feel there's a need to throw in the towel. To the contrary, research is very
: promising.
:
: > life and even a single cell are logical proof we
: > were created
:
: They are proof that they exist; by their existence alone no conclusion can
: be drawn other than that there must be a cause.
: Now show me your proof.
:
: >(by something), much like it's logically undeniable
: > a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
: > builder.
: There's no reason we are on the right track by drawing conclusions about
: biology from manmade objects, buildings.
:
: But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
: > accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
: > admitting the obvious. =(
: >
:
: There was a time when most things under the sun 'obviously' were attributed
: to God; things that we today know for certain are not attributable to God
: or gods, but are just natural phenomena. Winds, rains, thunder and
: lightning, disease, famine, plague, eartquakes, most of the phenomena we all
: take for granted as expression of natural forces at work.
:
: The "most basic of logic" is a poor guide for understanding nature. Try
: applying some of your 'most basic of logic' to relativity theory, double
: slit experiment, quantum mechanics and a host of other 'scientific miracles
: ' I am certain you know nothing about. The proper way of studying nature is
: to admit one's ignorance and make a honest effort to learn what it is all
: about.
:
: In the meantime, God can take care of himself.
:
gabriel
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
: On Aug 4, 6:14 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <l...@bellsouth.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : Bob T. wrote:
: >
: > : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
: > : >
: > : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
: > : >
: > : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
: > : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
: > : Less than two percent defines the difference.
: >
: > Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
: > evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
: > to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
: > claim. One can only believe such a statement.
:
: Consider astronomical theories about star formation. Humans have
: never witnessed the formation of a star, much less the life history
: and death of a star. By your reasoning, no astronomic theory could be
: considered scientific.
It can be if they see different entities which are clearly *all
stars*, and then claim they are in different stages of
development. They could be wrong, but at least they have
observations to back it up.
:
: But when astronomers observe a large number of stars, and they all
: appear to be in various stages of development, it is natural to form a
: hypothesis to account for their existence.
They are clearly all stars, correct.
But critical difference: to claim fish, amphibians, reptiles,
mammals and apes are all "human beings in various stages of
development" is ignorance at best, dishonesty at worst. So hardly
the same as *observing* what seems to be stars possibly in
different stages of development (assuming they are right about
how stars form) - and who knows they might be wrong - but the
point is it is scientific because they are all clearly *stars*,
so it's scientific to claim their belief is a scientific belief:
I.e., a theory. To claim fish (and so on) are an early form of
human beings, and hence we see the early stages of human
development, is ignorance at best, dishonesty at worst.
: If the hypothesis agrees
: with what we know about gravity and thermonuclear fusion, a theory
: emerges. If astronomers can correlate the size and ultimate fate of
: stars with what we observe in the cosmos, we are justified in calling
: astronomy a science.
:
: Of course, a Biblical literalist can come forward and claim that they
: were all created a few thousand years ago, more or less as we see them
: now. (Let's ignore the vexing questions about the speed of light.)
: In principle, the special creation of stars cannot be refuted.
: However, it is striking that the theories of astronomers can explain
: so much of what we see in the universe, while the special creation
: model explains exactly nothing.
How one believes stars came to *be* does not stop us from
explaining the rest of what astronomy shows us about what the
stars do now that they are here. It's dishonest to claim it does.
:
: >
: > No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
: > generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
: > the DNA is. This would finally be a test showing the claim
: > "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
: > population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
: > their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
: > that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
: > since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
: > test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
: > science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
: > evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
: > dishonesty at worst.
: >
: > Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
: > creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
: > observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
: > anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
: > when it's ok that something's not observable and not
: > testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
: > them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
: > =(
:
: The flaw in your reasoning is that you attempt to define science as <<
: only that which is capable of being demonstrated by repeatable
: experiments.>> That is not a definition accepted by the rest of us.
: It's a straw mnan argument.
Go look up science, and cite the definition that says science is
easily anything that is NOT observable, AND NOT testable, AND NOT
verifiable. It is a lie to say otherwise. Because if that's the
definition of science, then congratulation: you've elevated
religious beliefs to scientific fact, since they don't need to be
observable, testable or verifiable.
:
: No prosecutor could ever obtain a conviction in a criminal case under
: such rules, no matter how much evidence he might produce. In general,
: a criminal prosecution rarely performs repeatable experiments to
: demonstrate the truth of its claims. Yet we still refer to criminal
: forensics as science.
:
: >
: > In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
: > biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
: > actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
: > still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
: > were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
: > a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
: > builder. But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
: > accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
: > admitting the obvious. =(
:
: It _is_ science, however much you'd like to deny it. Your argument
: regarding a building is just that -- an argument. It has no substance
: beyond the notion that you cannot believe that life has evolved. The
: limitations of your intellect do not dictate what is true.
If it is science, then it must be observable OR/and
testable/verifiable. Please show such a test/verification (since
we both know it's not observable) that shows their belief in
action. Not apes adapting but remaining apes - but their fish to
man version of evolution that claims that apes will adapt and
eventually become animals that are no longer apes at all (let
alone human beings).
:
: Tim
gabriel
<hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On Aug 4, 6:14 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:59:57 -0400, Wolfe <l...@bellsouth.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : Bob T. wrote:
: >
: > : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
: > : >
: > : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
: > : >
: > : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
: > : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
: > : Less than two percent defines the difference.
: >
: > Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
: > evolved from each other - circular reasoning)
:
: It is evidence that the *differences* between humans and chimps is not
: large at the DNA level.
No, it's what that means to you.
There are very little differences between a tricycle and a
simple, tiny kids bicycle - using your logic that's evidence they
evolved from each other. But clearly, that belief is not enough
to make such a claim.
: There is a mechanism for generating
: *differences* called random mutation.
No mutation has ever been shown to create brand new information
in the genome.
: Do you have evidence that some
: specific *difference*, in comparing chimp and human DNA, is impossible
: to generate by known mechanisms of random mutation?
Yes, the evidence is mutations have never been shown to create
brand new information in the genome - only corrupt information
that was already there.
: Do you have
: evidence that the total amount of difference cannot be accumulated
: over a time frame of 6 million years, either by the slow process of
: neutral drift or the much faster process of positive selection for
: difference?
Yes - over the entire recorded history of the human race, no
matter how much [apes] adapt and mutate, they remained [apes].
Same holds true when you replace [apes] with any other animal
known to mankind. What you claim has *never* been observed, never
been tested/verified. It's that simple.
And what you're asking is akin to "Do you have evidence that
there is no God? Well then, God is a fact, then!"
No, by the rules of science, the onus is on you to prove imagined
beliefs that have never been observed, and cannot be
tested/verified.
: Do you have evidence that any specific *differences*
: within a coding or regulatory sequence is too great to be accounted
: for by natural selection? Do you have any evidence that natural
: selection *cannot* produce selective differences in populations? Do
: you have empirical evidence that the time frame is wrong?
:
: > that's impossible
: > to run an experiment to test,
:
: It is certainly possible to examine rates of spontaneous mutation,
: expected rates of neutral drift, and the speed of selection. It is
: also possible to distinguish sites that accumulate difference by drift
: and sites that require selection.
:
: > nullifying it as a scientific
: > claim. One can only believe such a statement.
:
: No. One can say that the amount of difference observed is consistent
: with the expectations based on observed rates of change over the
: appropriate time frame. That is a scientific statement that is also
: true.
:
: > No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
: > generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
: > the DNA is.
:
: We will soon know which site differences must have changed
: significantly faster than by neutral drift. There will be other sites
: which have undergone selection, but only involved one or two
: mutational steps that would not be found by this method. Those will
: be more tedious to identify as playing an important role in the
: evolution of humans and chimps from their common ancestor. Once
: identified, those sites can be tested for the consequences of a
: change.
:
: > This would finally be a test showing the claim
: > "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
: > population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
: > their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
: > that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
: > since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
: > test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
: > science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
: > evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
: > dishonesty at worst.
: >
: > Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
: > creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
: > observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
: > anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
: > when it's ok that something's not observable and not
: > testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
: > them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
: > =(
:
: The difference is that there is no test that can disprove the God
: hypothesis, unless you put specific requirements for God's
: mechanisms. I have pointed out, above, how to falsify the idea that
: the *difference* in sequence between humans and chimps could be due to
: the known requirements of evolution.
gabriel
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
: On Aug 4, 2:13 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
: > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
: >
: > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
: >
: > - Bob T.
:
: On some tests of intelligence chimps outscore humans.
: http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2007/12/071204-chimps-video-ap.html
:
: RF
First of all it's not a series of different tests, which they
imply. It's one test. A test of photographic memory. Who says
animals are so stupid they can't remember what they just got done
seeing 5 seconds ago?
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Since you demonstrate later in this post that you do understand
something about science, you are clearly lying here. No scientist says
that 'fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and apes are all "human beings
in various stages of development"' Life does have its mechanism and its
history in common.
Of course biology and its subdiscipline evolution does rely on
observable, testable and verifiable data. You deny that fact because you
have chosen to be a kook. You have chosen to believe your own religious
dogma over the facts of the case.
Evolution is observable in every single cell replication. Stop lying
about reality.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:22:41 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>
I guess no one ever told you about the rest of the evidence.
Here, yet again for those who refuse to learn, are some of the lines of
evidence that force scientists to conclude that evolution has happened
and continues to happen:
- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation
This has been posted here many times, yet anti-science creationists and
other crackpots refuse to look at how great their challenge is. They
attack one line of evidence and attack it badly, congratulating
themselves on their ability to persuade themselves that evolution is not
valid. What they don't have is the ability to show us that the theory of
evolution is invalid because they are intentionally ignorant of biology.
>They are not the same thing, otherwise any belief one comes to
>when looking at dead bones and fossils is suddenly an observation
>of that belief, which of course is a lie.
And only the science-hating creationists would claim that this is what
has happened with fossils. Your lies betray you.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:41:34 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>
>wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote:
>: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "Bob T."
>: > <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >> On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >>
>: >> Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is
>: >> false.
>: >
>: > Please quote exactly where I said it's false for that reason.
>: >
>: > But what I did say: the intellectual abilities we have are yet
>: > another barrier that fish to man evolutionists have never shown
>: > observations and/or tests/verifications to show chimps being able
>: > to cross that barrier. This when some try to claim there are no
>: > barriers.
>: >
>:
>: Pathetic argument. Show us your 'barrier'.
>
>You clearly didn't read the article - they (www.newscientist.com)
>described it in detail - the mental things apes clearly were not
>capable of ever learning.
like your inability to learn about science or repeat what you read
accurately.
Burkhard
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:27:00 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>
>
> : On Aug 4, 3:03 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), "Bob T."
> : >: > <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
> : >
> : > Please quote exactly where I said it's false for that reason.
> : >
> : > But what I did say: the intellectual abilities we have are yet
> : > another barrier that fish to man evolutionists have never shown
> : > observations and/or tests/verifications to show chimps being able
> : > to cross that barrier. This when some try to claim there are no
> : > barriers.
> :
> : What barriers?
>
> You clearly didn't read the article. The article itself points
> out the barrier in great detail.
>
> : Other apes have been shown to lie,
Try Byrne and Whiten, Cognitive evolution in primates. Evidence form
tactical deception. Man, vol 27
1992 p. 609-627
Not that it would matter, differences are not barriers.
Ye Old One
Just as we have so many observations of evolution.
>
>:
>: But when astronomers observe a large number of stars, and they all
>: appear to be in various stages of development, it is natural to form a
>: hypothesis to account for their existence.
>
>They are clearly all stars, correct.
>
>But critical difference: to claim fish, amphibians, reptiles,
>mammals and apes are all "human beings in various stages of
>development" is ignorance at best,
Do you see anyone claiming that?
> dishonesty at worst.
We leave the dishonesty to you - you are so good at it.
[snip more dishonesty.]
--
Bob.
gabriel
<Spame...@spamex.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman
:
: >
: > Even Jesus Christ pointed to the fact that God created man at the
: > beginning.
:
: Were you there when he said it?
Were you there when George Washington said what He said?
: Can you get him to say it again?
Can you get George Washington, who's no longer in human form here
on earth either to say it again either?
: Did
: you ever see Jesus alive and talking?
Did you ever see George Washington alive and talking?
: So how can you say anything about
: Jesus much less what he said?
So how can you say anything about what George Washington, much
less about what he said?
Dan Listermann
.
gabriel
wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman
: > <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
: >
: [ .. ]
: > : Are a great many Christians determined to avoid being accountable to god?
: >
: > Only God knows if they are Christians or not. Since you brought
: > it up: There are many who are not Christians at all, and twist it
: > in more ways than this to fit their needs.
: >
: > Matthew 7:21-23 KJVR
: > 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
: > into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
: > Father which is in heaven.
: > 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
: > prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and
: > in thy name done many wonderful works?
: > 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart
: > from me, ye that work iniquity.
: >
: > Even Jesus Christ pointed to the fact that God created man at the
: > beginning.
: <snip>
:
: Actually, if Jesus said that then he is wrong. The Hebrew bible says
: 'gods' created man, nor 'god'. The term, 'gods', dominates the early
: Hebrew literature, not 'god'. Step away from your ignorant myths and
: find out why they are called myths.
You cannot seem to step away from the ignorant science fiction
myth that human beings, giraffes, and every other animal evolved
from what were tiny fish once upon a time, and who knows whatever
else they believe came before that. More bizarre than any
mythology ever written. Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools.
Romans 1:17-25 KJVR
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between
themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen.
On the day of judgment "How was I supposed to know we didn't
really evolve from fish once upon a time!?" is not going to save
you from the fact that you had a lifetime to come to the truth of
God and turn away from such fables, receiving God's amazing
forgiveness. But once you die, Jesus Christ will no longer be
available as your savior, but instead as your judge, along with
exchanges like these showing where you rebuke others attempting
to offer you the truth. =(
Hebrews 9:27-28 KJVR
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto
them that look for him shall he appear the second time without
sin unto salvation.
gabriel
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No, the laws of science have already been laid down: only that
which is observable, OR/and testable/verifiable, of which any
origin beliefs, and origin of all biological diversity of life
beliefs are none of these, including most notably the fish to man
version of evolution, along with even creation. Science is
impotent to make any claims about the unrepeatable, unobservable,
untestable, unverifiable distant origins past, by its own
definition.
One can only have a world view on what they believe happened in
the past, and then try to fit the evidence to their beliefs of
this world view. That's no longer science.
Science is great at discovering how God's creation works around
us today and in the recent, repeatable past, including how
bacteria adapts but remains bacteria, how apes adapt but remain
apes, how his DNA works to continue to build the complexity of
life He created, and so on.
But apart from science, that we were created is logically
undeniable - the only faith part is was it God, or aliens, which
really the faith part becomes quite easy.
And although any beliefs when looking at evidence from the past
cannot be science as those beliefs themselves are not testable or
verifiable (and certainly not observable). However, the evidence
points many times more logically to God doing exactly what He
said He did.
And no one would ever believe even the most simplistic computer
program (meaningfully encoded information) and the computer that
meaningfully decodes it would ever "just happen" gradually over
time - such a thing is logical *proof* of a designer, and even
atheists would call anyone an idiot who tries to claim it just
gradually happened over time. Yet they'll defy that selfsame
logic and act like the most complex meaningfully encoded
information ever discovered, DNA, and the ability for it to be
decoded and meaningfully acted up "just happened" gradually over
time. Their logical hypocrisy only shows how blind people are
willing to remain to reject the notion of being accountable to
anyone for their wickedness. =( Or in the case of those who claim
to believe in God, how ashamed they are of even the words of
Jesus Christ, who clearly also said God created male and female
in the beginning - and how foolish it is to be ashamed of the
Jesus Christ or His words.
Luke 9:23-26 KJVR
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let
him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever
will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and
lose himself, or be cast away?
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him
shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own
glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
I post this to show God's judgment onto everyone (including most
of all me) that does not repent (from the heart) and call (from
the heart) on Christ to be our Lord and Savior before it's too
late.
: Its also hilarious seeing a theist accusing non theists of having only
: beliefs.
: And lets not even talk about who's got the severe lack of observability
: problems.
:
: These posts are an absolute barrel of laughs.
:
Unfortunately, it won't be a barrel of laughs when people who
reject God (because, for example, they believe the science
fiction lies that human beings and giraffe's evolved from little
fish long ago, gradually over time) find themselves facing God
after they die, prostrate, begging for forgiveness. At that
point, Jesus Christ will no longer be available as their savior
by faith, but rather their judge. =( But one thing is fact: every
knee shall bow/bend.
Romans 14:11-12 KJVR
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
alextangent
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 09:40:13 +1000, "Alley Looya"
>
> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
> :news:lvjl75h8471ugfalq...@4ax.com...
> : > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman: > <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
A fart has more substance. Ipso facto; <rest snipped>
wf3h
>
> You cannot seem to step away from the ignorant science fiction
> myth that human beings, giraffes, and every other animal evolved
> from what were tiny fish once upon a time, and who knows whatever
> else they believe came before that. More bizarre than any
> mythology ever written. Professing themselves to be wise, they
> became fools.
which, of course, applies equally well to creationists who think
themselves wise in interpreting the bible...having led themselves into
error
>
> On the day of judgment "How was I supposed to know we didn't
> really evolve from fish once upon a time!?" is not going to save
> you from the fact that you had a lifetime to come to the truth of
> God and turn away from such fables
or, if you're a creationist, you'll face god's wrath for having
believed in a literal, man made view of the bible that is wrong.
Dan Listermann
> You cannot seem to step away from the ignorant science fiction
> myth that human beings, giraffes, and every other animal evolved
> from what were tiny fish once upon a time, and who knows whatever
> else they believe came before that. More bizarre than any
> mythology ever written.
You have a point, yet all the evidence seems to strongly point in that
direction and none of the evidence points to an obvious goat herder myth.
.
wf3h
>
> No, the laws of science have already been laid down: only that
> which is observable, OR/and testable/verifiable
evolution is observable. we can see it happening before our eyes
evolution is testable. we can test the mechanism in any bio lab in the
world
creationism? there's no mechanism. it's wrong
, of which any
> origin beliefs, and origin of all biological diversity of life
> beliefs are none of these, including most notably the fish to man
> version of evolution, along with even creation. Science is
> impotent to make any claims about the unrepeatable, unobservable,
> untestable, unverifiable distant origins past, by its own
> definition.
wrong. that's YOUR view of science. no one uses it. you've been told
this before yet, as a creationist, you continue to lie.
why is that? is being a liar part of creationism?
>
> Science is great at discovering how God's creation works around
> us today and in the recent, repeatable past,
what the hell is 'repeatable past'? by definition the past is not
repeatable. you yourself have just disproven your own argument. that's
why your view of how science works is wrong
>
> But apart from science, that we were created is logically
> undeniable - the only faith part is was it God, or aliens, which
> really the faith part becomes quite easy.
we were created by god through evolution.
>
> And although any beliefs when looking at evidence from the past
> cannot be science as those beliefs themselves are not testable or
> verifiable (and certainly not observable). However, the evidence
> points many times more logically to God doing exactly what He
> said He did.
how do you know that? if you are saying this based on logic and the
rules of evidence, then how can something which has NEVER been seen
and has ALWAYS been wrong (creationism) be the truth?
this is a contradiction
>
> Unfortunately, it won't be a barrel of laughs when people who
> reject God (because, for example, they believe the science
> fiction lies that human beings and giraffe's evolved from little
> fish long ago, gradually over time) find themselves facing God
> after they die, prostrate, begging for forgiveness. At that
> point, Jesus Christ will no longer be available as their savior
> by faith, but rather their judge. =( But one thing is fact: every
> knee shall bow/bend.
it is the creationists who will burn because of their man made view of
bible interpretation
how's it feel to know you're going to hell?
R Brown
Nonsense. Typical creationist oversimplification and self-serving definition
of science. If you really believed that then you'd also believe we should
release all criminals convicted on material evidence with no eye witness to
their crime. You obviously don't believe that, so you are therefore a
hypocrite, as all creationists ultimately are.
>
> One can only have a world view on what they believe happened in
> the past, and then try to fit the evidence to their beliefs of
> this world view. That's no longer science.
>
Science is not a world view or a philosophy. It is a method of understanding
the natural world.
> Science is great at discovering how God's creation works around
> us today and in the recent, repeatable past, including how
> bacteria adapts but remains bacteria, how apes adapt but remain
> apes, how his DNA works to continue to build the complexity of
> life He created, and so on.
>
> But apart from science, that we were created is logically
> undeniable - the only faith part is was it God, or aliens, which
> really the faith part becomes quite easy.
>
Or any of the other myriad religions that humans have invented over the
millenia. Yours is just as silly as any other.
> And although any beliefs when looking at evidence from the past
> cannot be science as those beliefs themselves are not testable or
> verifiable (and certainly not observable). However, the evidence
> points many times more logically to God doing exactly what He
> said He did.
>
There is absolutely no evidence for a 6000 year old earth and a 6 day
creation. None.
> And no one would ever believe even the most simplistic computer
> program (meaningfully encoded information) and the computer that
> meaningfully decodes it would ever "just happen" gradually over
> time - such a thing is logical *proof* of a designer, and even
> atheists would call anyone an idiot who tries to claim it just
> gradually happened over time. Yet they'll defy that selfsame
> logic and act like the most complex meaningfully encoded
> information ever discovered, DNA, and the ability for it to be
> decoded and meaningfully acted up "just happened" gradually over
> time. Their logical hypocrisy only shows how blind people are
> willing to remain to reject the notion of being accountable to
> anyone for their wickedness. =( Or in the case of those who claim
> to believe in God, how ashamed they are of even the words of
> Jesus Christ, who clearly also said God created male and female
> in the beginning - and how foolish it is to be ashamed of the
> Jesus Christ or His words.
>
Oh I see, this entire conversation has nothing to do with science - which
you apparently know very little about. It's all about peddling your
particular superstitions. I get it. Listen, if you can't run with the big
dogs of science I guess you'll just have to sit on the porch and lick your
nuts.
<snip superstitious fear-mongering>
TomS
<edc2b4c9-4020-4ac7...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
>
>On Aug 11, 11:53=A0am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, the laws of science have already been laid down: only that
>> which is observable, OR/and testable/verifiable
>
>evolution is observable. we can see it happening before our eyes
>
>evolution is testable. we can test the mechanism in any bio lab in the
>world
>
>creationism? there's no mechanism. it's wrong
"It's not even wrong."
Mike Lyle
>
>> Did
>> you ever see Jesus alive and talking?
>
> Did you ever see George Washington alive and talking?
>
>> So how can you say anything about
>> Jesus much less what he said?
>
> So how can you say anything about what George Washington, much
> less about what he said?
Just a minute! You must be perfectly well aware that your analogy is
wholly false. Among the original documents, we probably even have
Washington's baptismal entry. We can recognize his handwriting. We know
what his false teeth were made of. Heck, we even have his expense
account (which many a modern system-milker would have been proud of).
There isn't the slightest ground for comparison with Jesus, who remains
an enigmatic and rather shadowy figure even to his followers.
--
Mike.
Burkhard
> gabriel wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:58:34 -0700, Rusty Sites
>> <Spame...@spamex.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Did
>>> you ever see Jesus alive and talking?
>> Did you ever see George Washington alive and talking?
>>
>>> So how can you say anything about
>>> Jesus much less what he said?
>> So how can you say anything about what George Washington, much
>> less about what he said?
>
> Just a minute! You must be perfectly well aware that your analogy is
> wholly false. Among the original documents, we probably even have
> Washington's baptismal entry. We can recognize his handwriting. We know
> what his false teeth were made of. Heck, we even have his expense
> account (which many a modern system-milker would have been proud of).
But who do you know that it wasn't just an imposter who called himself
George Washington? ;o0
Kermit
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:58:34 -0700, Rusty Sites
>
Gabby, you loon. *We're not the one insisting that we can't know the
past unless we witnessed it. *You are. You seem to be agreeing that
it's a stupid argument, except when you use it. Rusty was showing how
the argument looks when applied to other topics.
As for evolution, we have corroborating, verifiable evidence from
several different disciplines, all pointing to the same story and
timeline.
Kermit
Dan Listermann
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h5se26$69m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
.
Kermit
> What is "apes to human evolution?"
>
> .
It's much like "mammals to dogs evolution", or "bird to penguin"
evolution"...
Anyway, it's legitimate to use "ape" as it normally is used by the hoi
polloi: tailless primates, except humans. This usage is equivalent to
"Gentile", or "foreigner". There can be reasons to use words like that
for cultural, historical, tribal, or religious reasons. An unfortunate
confusion for anyone groping toward an understanding of evolutionary
science can be
ape = currently living apes.
Not that Gabriel is trying to understand anything.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:24:47 -0400, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
You're going to look foolish when you see Thoth weighing your heart.
How can you possibly think I or anyone here would believe something is
true because if we were wrong it would hurt really bad?
"Think that the sky is striped pink and chartreuse or I will kick you
in the shins over and over and over!"
Does that actually *work for you?
Kermit
Kermit
Kermit
<snip>
> But who do you know that it wasn't just an imposter who called himself
> George Washington? ;o0
>
> > There isn't the slightest ground for comparison with Jesus, who remains
> > an enigmatic and rather shadowy figure even to his followers.
Intelligent historians see Washington as a metaphor...
Kermit
Kermit
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 09:40:13 +1000, "Alley Looya"
>
> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
> :news:lvjl75h8471ugfalq...@4ax.com...
> : > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman: > <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
You loon; it has already been explained to you that the *evidence is
verifiable. What, you can't look at a fossil?
The models which explain the wealth of data have to be testable; we
don't have to observe past events to think they are the best
explanation for evidence at hand. If the models make predictions, they
are testable. Evolutionary theory has been tested for 150 years, by
hundreds of thousands of people. The theories have been adjusted as
necessary when they *failed the predictions. Common descent has never
been falsified, nor has natural selection acting on random variation
as a major player been falsified.
We don't have to make a tornado in the lab; we need related data, a
model that fits the data, and ways to test the model.
>
> One can only have a world view on what they believe happened in
> the past, and then try to fit the evidence to their beliefs of
> this world view. That's no longer science.
What testable model do you have that fits *all the evidence?
What data do scientists ignore that is pertinent?
>
> Science is great at discovering how God's creation works around
> us today and in the recent, repeatable past, including how
> bacteria adapts but remains bacteria, how apes adapt but remain
> apes, how his DNA works to continue to build the complexity of
> life He created, and so on.
Gosh, the Creationist can't see a ten million year process happen
before his attention span gives out. It would be a serious problem for
several scientific disciplines if that *weren't true.
>
> But apart from science, that we were created is logically
> undeniable - the only faith part is was it God, or aliens, which
> really the faith part becomes quite easy.
Why is making stuff up undeniable?
What does it explain; how would it be tested, i.e. what predictions
does it make?
>
> And although any beliefs when looking at evidence from the past
> cannot be science as those beliefs themselves are not testable or
> verifiable (and certainly not observable).
I believe (that it is true that) mainstream evolutionary science has
made millions of predictions and fits all the data.
> However, the evidence
> points many times more logically to God doing exactly what He
> said He did.
What - "I did stuff"
Actually "I say God said he did stuff".
The stuff that is specific, i.e. making the world a few thousand years
ago, or flooding the planet, do not have a good track record when it
comes to testing and matching available data.
>
> And no one would ever believe even the most simplistic computer
> program (meaningfully encoded information) and the computer that
> meaningfully decodes it would ever "just happen" gradually over
> time
Correct. Computers don't reproduce yet.
However, programs which reproduce and have selective criteria of some
sort *do evolve, and quite effectively, too.
> - such a thing is logical *proof* of a designer, and even
> atheists would call anyone an idiot who tries to claim it just
> gradually happened over time.
Right. You need reproduction, random inheritable variations, and a
selective filter of some sort. Then it's inevitable.
>Yet they'll defy that selfsame
> logic and act like the most complex meaningfully encoded
> information ever discovered, DNA, and the ability for it to be
> decoded and meaningfully acted up "just happened" gradually over
> time.
Nope; didn't just happen. It's an inevitable results of NS acting on a
pool of mutations. The particular form it took was unpredictable, in
the same way that the weather at a particular location on a particular
date isn't precisely predictable, but it doesn't happen for no reason
- or as a result of intent.
Weather, stars, living creatures, and such are natural results of
natural processes.
> Their logical hypocrisy only shows how blind people are
> willing to remain to reject the notion of being accountable to
> anyone for their wickedness. =( Or in the case of those who claim
> to believe in God, how ashamed they are of even the words of
> Jesus Christ, who clearly also said God created male and female
> in the beginning - and how foolish it is to be ashamed of the
> Jesus Christ or His words.
What - you don't think your god is powerful enough to set up the
universe with the laws we have? Most theists around the world have no
trouble with science explaining how it works.
>
> Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Fools who have given you reattached limbs, flu vaccines, curing
childhood leukemia, the computer and internet you are currently using,
the Hubble telescope, GPS devices, wiped out smallpox, put fresh food
in your refrigerator, and in a million ways removed you from the ape
lifestyle of your ancestors.
<snip argumentum ad bacculum>
Kermit
Dan Listermann
"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5ea6af2-c3a6-473a...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking more like dog to beagle evolution.
.
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
>
> Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
>
BASIC HISTORY:
A.R. Wallace, co-founder of the theory of natural selection, modified
his view, rejecting natural selection to have any role in producing
the human brain/mind for this very reason: the gap between human and
ape intelligence.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
Can you offer a source for this?
Ray Martinez
> > : > On Aug 4, 4:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > : >
> > : > Summary: humans are smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false.
> > : >
> > : > Pretty pathetic, even for you, Gabriel.
> > : Evolution answers how. But why are humans smarter than
> > : chimps. After all genetically we are almost identical.
> > : Less than two percent defines the difference.
>
> > Unfortunately that's a belief (that DNA similarity means they
> > evolved from each other - circular reasoning) that's impossible
> > to run an experiment to test, nullifying it as a scientific
> > claim. One can only believe such a statement.
>
> test hypotheses other than experiments. All that's required is that
> there be some way of using data to distinguish among hypotheses.
>
> Now of course nobody is claiming that humans and chimps evolved from
> each other. That doesn't even make sense. The claim is that they had a
> should be quite similar genetically. So far, so good. But that's not
> all, by any means. We should also be able to construct a consistent tree
> from the data, relating all the apes (and other species too, for that
> matter). By "consistent" I mean that different parts of the genome
> should, when analyzed by objective methods, arrive at the same result.
> And so they do. Nobody has ever been able to come up with an explanation
> for this other than common descent. When asked, you have generally
> ignored the question, or muttered something about "common designer". No,
> I'm sorry. A common designer might explain simple similarity between two
> species, considered in isolation. But it just can't explain a
> consistent, nested hierarchy among many species.
>
Why not?
Explain why.
We see nature and its inhabitants to reflect the work of one
Mastermind.
A nested hierarchy is a detectable pattern. The concept of "pattern"
excludes production reliant upon a genuine element of chance or
accident. "Pattern" presupposes conscious design. If chance or
accident were involved then there would be no detectable pattern, but
chaos.
Ray
> > No one can show populations of apes evolving into animals over
> > generations that are no longer apes, and then showing how similar
> > the DNA is.
>
> Again, there's a language problem here. Populations of apes have not
> evolved into animals that are no longer apes. They've evolved into
> animals that are somewhat different apes. And humans are among the
> somewhat different apes we see.
>
> > This would finally be a test showing the claim
> > "Similar DNA equates to a population of humans evolving from a
> > population of apes" to be true (and for that matter, elevating
> > their fish to man version of evolution beyond the science fiction
> > that it is) - and then this could be then applied to other cases
> > since it's now been shown to be tested. Since it's impossible to
> > test such a belief, that automatically disqualifies it as being
> > science. Yet they act like it's fact, then use it to claim apes
> > evolved into human beings. Circular reasoning at best, outright
> > dishonesty at worst.
>
> Again, the problem is that the only test you will accept is impractical.
> We can't wait millions of years for experimental results. If we accepted
> your notions of evidence, we would have to reject much of science -- we
> couldn't investigate any phenomenon that happens on a very long time
> scale. Fortunately, there are ways of finding out what happened in the
> past based on the effects that remain in the present. We don't have to
> duplicate every past event to know it happened. (And I will point out
> that evolution is the only thing to which you apply this special "were
> you there?" rule.)
>
> > Just like they'd be quick to point out (and they'd be right) that
> > creation is not scientific either because we can't show an
> > observation and/or test/verification showing that God created
> > anything. Unfortunately, they want to have a double standard on
> > when it's ok that something's not observable and not
> > testable/verifiable (i.e., not science). Up to others to keep
> > them honest so more people don't get fooled by their dishonesty.
>
> No, that's not what's wrong with creationism. It's not scientific, I'll
> grant. But evolutionary biology is scientific, so you need to delete
> that "either". Anyway, what's wrong with creationism isn't the inability
> to show creation in real time. It's the inability to show any evidence
> of any of its claims, or to explain any of the evidence more commonly
> interpreted as supporting evolution.
>
> > In the meantime, although origins and the origin of all
> > biological diversity of life falls beyond the possible scope of
> > actual science (although they try to dishonestly act like it's
> > still science), life and even a single cell are logical proof we
> > were created (by something), much like it's logically undeniable
> > a building, and its organization and complexity, is proof of a
> > builder.
>
> That's true by definition, you know. A building is by definition an
> artificial construct, so it must by definition have a builder. Not true
> for life. You, for example, had no builder. You grew.
>
> > But unfortunately, those determined to avoid being
> > accountable to God will defy that most basic of logic to avoid
> > admitting the obvious. =(
>
> I missed the part where you used any logic. And I will also point out
> once again that a great many Christians accept the facts of evolution.
> Are a great many Christians determined to avoid being accountable to god?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rusty Sites
Suppose we had a lie detector that actually worked and we offered 10
million dollars to anybody who could honestly believe he could fly. No
demonstration is necessary, just true belief. Of course, we would test
them first to ensure they didn't have such a belief already. Could
anybody start believing he could fly for 10 million?
Rusty Sites
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:58:34 -0700, Rusty Sites
> <Spame...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:43:14 -0700, John Harshman
> :
> : >
> : > Even Jesus Christ pointed to the fact that God created man at the
> : > beginning.
> :
> : Were you there when he said it?
>
> Were you there when George Washington said what He said?
So apparently, you don't believe in George Washington.
>
> : Can you get him to say it again?
>
> Can you get George Washington, who's no longer in human form here
> on earth either to say it again either?
No, but I don't require the he recreate his words to believe he said them.
>
> : Did
> : you ever see Jesus alive and talking?
>
> Did you ever see George Washington alive and talking?
No, but it doesn't stop me from believing he actually existed.
>
> : So how can you say anything about
> : Jesus much less what he said?
>
> So how can you say anything about what George Washington, much
> less about what he said?
By your logic, nothing.
Chris
That's rubbish. Snowflakes exhibit patterns. When salt crystallizes
from an evaporating solution, there is a regular and predictable
pattern in the atomic structure- but no design is evident in the
phenomenon.
Chris
snip
Ralph
So what, Ray? We are 150 years past both Darwin and Wallace. Did you
have a point?
Ralph
Actually, we were discussing the terms used in the Hebrew bible.
There is no judgment day, you brainless idiot!
el cid
I believe I would be flying first class more often, and fly more
often, perhaps get my pilot's license, if such a challenge were
available.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
The context of pattern was nested hierarchies, not individual objects.
Ray
Kermit
Yes. It's the pattern that results from descent from a common ancestor
via modification.
When Sam Clemens (Mark Twain) was a boy, he and some friends made
giant footprints in the mud leading from the river to the town hall,
the only two-story building in town at the time. He put giant
fingerprints on the windowsill of the second-story window, then
footprints leading back to the river. It provided him and his friends
hours of fun - especially when the gullible adults started waking up.
Yes, of course a mind of sufficient power could make any pattern it
chooses. Why would a creator fake a pattern indicating some which
"didn't really" happen? Is he intending to sort out the intelligent
believers in reality from those who favor their own interpretations of
a personally chosen selection of myths? If so, which ones will she
reward?
> The concept of "pattern"
> excludes production reliant upon a genuine element of chance or
> accident. "Pattern" presupposes conscious design. If chance or
> accident were involved then there would be no detectable pattern, but
> chaos.
Nonsense. You have been given numerous examples of complex patterns
resulting from very simple processes. Snowflakes, for example.
>
> Ray
>
<snip>
Kermit
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not to a person who does not know that the immutability/mutability
debate presupposes explanation of species that dwell in the wild.
Ray
John Harshman
In the same way that spaghetti, the color puce, and the Mormon
Tabernacle Choir don't explain it. If you disagree, please give me some
reasoning.
> We see nature and its inhabitants to reflect the work of one
> Mastermind.
>
> A nested hierarchy is a detectable pattern. The concept of "pattern"
> excludes production reliant upon a genuine element of chance or
> accident. "Pattern" presupposes conscious design. If chance or
> accident were involved then there would be no detectable pattern, but
> chaos.
There are so many false assumptions in that paragraph that it's hard to
list them all. Evolution isn't chance or accident, though it has a
chance component. In the case of the nested hierarchy, chance may
determine the mutations that make it up. But their pattern is determined
by a tree of common descent. That tree may itself have a random
structure. But what makes the nested hierarchy is the distribution of
the possibly random mutations over a single possibly random tree. I'll
say again: it doesn't matter whether the mutations or the tree are
random. What matters is that all the mutations are scattered over the
same tree. Out of two potentially random elements we get a distinctly
non-random pattern. And this pattern is a direct prediction of descent
with modification (the mutations) and branching (the tree). "Common
design" of itself predicts nothing.
Nor does pattern otherwise suppose design, unless it's your contention
that individual snowflakes are designed. (Some creationist did make that
claim, but I forget who it was.)
[snip at the point where Ray's attention span failed him]
Dan Listermann
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ipSdnWg7DdFvRBzX...@giganews.com...
Some want to look at the various founder of a discipline as sorts of
prophets whose word is carved in stone and if they can contradict anything
they said, their whole works and accomplishments are proven false. It
frequently comes from too much faith in the writings of bronze age goat
herders.
.
Dan Listermann
What about the coming of the Great White Handkerchief?
.
Ernest Major
<7fd665b5-5444-4a7a...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
ability of natural selection to account for human intelligence is not
the gap between human and ape intelligence, but that human intelligence
is capable of doing things (e.g. calculus) not required for life as a
hunter-gatherer.
It seems to me that these capacities may be reasonably explained as
spandrels - intelligence evolved for one purpose being turnable to other
purposes.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes
>On the day of judgment "How was I supposed to know we didn't really
>evolve from fish once upon a time!?" is not going to save you from the
>fact that you had a lifetime to come to the truth of God and turn away
>from such fables, receiving God's amazing forgiveness. But once you
>die, Jesus Christ will no longer be available as your savior, but
>instead as your judge, along with exchanges like these showing where
>you rebuke others attempting to offer you the truth. =(
Firstly, Pascal's Wager is a dreadful argument.
Secondly, regardless of your intent, the import of your arguments are
this creationism is false (as why else would you find it necessary to
resort to epistemological nihilism to defend it). You also seem to be
promoting a heresy - that Christianity entails creationism.
Thus, if there was a truth of God to be accepted, you would be obscuring
it, not offering it.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Lyle
> On Aug 11, 11:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But who do you know that it wasn't just an imposter who called
>> himself George Washington? ;o0
No: that's too rich for me. But I'm prepared to concede it may have been
somebody else of the same name.
>>
>>> There isn't the slightest ground for comparison with Jesus, who
>>> remains an enigmatic and rather shadowy figure even to his
>>> followers.
>
> Intelligent historians see Washington as a metaphor...
>
Well, that crossing the river bit was certainly a fine piece of
mythology.
And, lo! it is written that verily he blessed the tree-stump, and it did
spring up lustily, and that same year brought forth fruit, even cherries
so many that no man might bear them away. For it was for a sign from the
Lord unto all nations that none should fuck with the Usonians, lest they
get their sorry ass kicked, even into the fishpools of Heshbon.
--
Mike.
Chris
Why are detectable patterns in one phenomenon forced to be the result
of design, but not detectable patterns in other phenomena?
Chris
Dana Tweedy
>> And so they do. Nobody has ever been able to come up with an
>> explanation
>> for this other than common descent. When asked, you have generally
>> ignored the question, or muttered something about "common designer".
>> No,
>> I'm sorry. A common designer might explain simple similarity between
>> two
>> species, considered in isolation. But it just can't explain a
>> consistent, nested hierarchy among many species.
>>
>
> Why not?
Because a "common designer" is not an explanation, but a statement of
belief.
>
> Explain why.
Because an "intelligent designer" could, supposedly do anything, so it's
worthless as an explanation in science.
>
> We see nature and its inhabitants to reflect the work of one
> Mastermind.
That's a religious belief. No one knows what the work of a "mastermind"
would be, so you are just assuming your conclusion.
>
> A nested hierarchy is a detectable pattern.
One produced by common descent. Known designers don't produce nested
heirarchies.
> The concept of "pattern"
> excludes production reliant upon a genuine element of chance or
> accident.
This is, of course, utterly false. Patterns are often the result of
natural processes, with no planning involved.
> "Pattern" presupposes conscious design.
Except where it doesn't. Honeycombs, for example, have a definite pattern,
but have no conscious design. Likewise patterns of interference waves are
commonly seen in light, and other EM energies. Tides have a pattern, but
are not the result of conscious design.
I'm sure this another mistake that Ray won't admit.
> If chance or
> accident were involved then there would be no detectable pattern, but
> chaos.
Again, simply not true. In any case, evolution is not a random process, as
has been previously established.
snip of what Ray ignores
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>> A nested hierarchy is a detectable pattern. The concept of "pattern"
>>> excludes production reliant upon a genuine element of chance or
>>> accident. "Pattern" presupposes conscious design. If chance or
>>> accident were involved then there would be no detectable pattern,
>>> but chaos.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> That's rubbish. Snowflakes exhibit patterns. When salt crystallizes
>> from an evaporating solution, there is a regular and predictable
>> pattern in the atomic structure- but no design is evident in the
>> phenomenon.
>>
>> Chris
>> snip- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The context of pattern was nested hierarchies, not individual objects.
Your cliam doesn't fit within that context alone. Nested heirarchies,
like snowflakes are patterns caused by unguided processes. Your original
claim, if you care to look at your post above, was that "patterns"
presuppose conscious design . Since that claim is demonstratably false,
your assumption is false as well.
DJT