LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Analysis of a Phony Creationist Fossil

Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:42:03 pm PDT

Following up on that ridiculous “fossil” recently announced by a creationist group, that purports to show a human footprint partially overlapped by a dinosaur’s, Glen Kuban has a great piece that goes into detail on the ludicrous claims of Alvis Delk and the Creation Evidence Museum: The Delk Print.

(“Alvis Delk” is really a cool name, though. Sounds like a Coen Brothers character.)

Although both scientific and public opinion seems to be running against the authenticity of the find, some of its supporters have remarked that its authenticity has not been “disproven” so far. This reveals a misunderstanding of the scientific process. If someone told you that there is a blue elephant on Pluto, your inability to fully disprove it does not make it so, or even likely. When extraordinary claims are made, the onus is on the claimants to properly support their assertions in a thoroughly documented and detailed scientific report. Neither Lines nor Baugh have come close to doing this with the Delk print, nor any of the “over 80” human prints Baugh claims to have documented in Cretaceous rock. Even major creationist groups such as “Answers in Genesis” agree, and acknowledge that there has never been a compelling case of human remains or footprints in Mesozoic rock (Snelling, 1991).

Baugh was quoted by May (2008a) as stating that he is “so confident in the authenticity of the specimen that he is ready to put his reputation entirely on the line.” Not to worry. Considering that he has a reputation for promoting sensational and unsupported claims, I am confident that his reputation will remain intact with this latest find.

Read the whole thing...

Advertisement

267 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:43:37pm
Although both scientific and public opinion seems to be running against the authenticity of the find, some of its supporters have remarked that its authenticity has not been “disproven” so far. This reveals a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

Creationists have a misunderstanding of the scientific process? Say it ain't so!

2 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:44:37pm

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

3 lawhawk  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:45:52pm

It's the Alvis Delk Cryptozoologist Trio. Now starring Bigfoot.

4 FrogMarch  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:45:52pm

Maybe Alvis Delk and Lisa Dreck can get together...

5 yochanan  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:46:15pm

sand castiing?

6 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:46:25pm

There are blue elephants on Pluto?

7 LoFlyer[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:46:32pm
8 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:47:23pm

Higher resolution pics here

9 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:47:54pm
When extraordinary claims are made, the onus is on the claimants to properly support their assertions in a thoroughly documented and detailed scientific report.

A concept that is simple enough to understand, yet seems to elude so many.

10 CIA Reject  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:47:58pm
"Although both scientific and public opinion seems to be running against the authenticity of the find, some of its supporters have remarked that its authenticity has not been “disproven” so far..."

Well, sh*t, this hasn't been disproved either!

You can't prove a negative!

The burden of proof is on the proponent, not the opponent!

/Asshats!

11 J.S.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:48:13pm

This reminds me of that raging debate a while ago in the Islamic/Pakistani press (published here in Canada) -- it was about an Imam who said he saw the imprint of the foot (it's a sand casting!) of Mr. Mo on the Moon...heh, now prove that one ain't so!

12 FrogMarch  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:48:48pm

oops "Druck" (not Dreck)

13 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:49:20pm

Sasquatch say no match own foot.

14 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:50:13pm

Sasquatch common ancestor?

Have big family.

15 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:51:01pm
Likewise, several internet blogs have been discussing the Delk find, and the large majority of contributors (including laymen and creationists as well as mainstream scientists) are expressing strong skepticism about it. Many are calling it an obvious fake (or other terms to that effect), often pointing out the above-mentioned problems, and more.

You know it's bad when your fellow travelers can't even buy it.

16 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:51:15pm

Re: #9

Glad you took the time and interest to tell us you don't have the time to show interest.

17 experiencedtraveller  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:51:39pm

Noah ditched the dinosaurs because Rove outed Plame.

18 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:52:07pm

its a rock someone carved up with a dremel, big deal.

19 CIA Reject  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:52:12pm

Oh, and have I mentioned recently that Faith in G*d and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive positions? That His ways are not our ways and His Thoughts are not our thoughts?

Well, if I haven't there it is...

20 Charles  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:53:02pm

And now, here's Alvis Delk and the Creation Evidence Museum, with their smash hit, "Yabba Dabba Young Earth!"

Are you ready to carbon date some rocks?

21 Hard Right  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:53:24pm

re: #11 J.S.

This reminds me of that raging debate a while ago in the Islamic/Pakistani press (published here in Canada) -- it was about an Imam who said he saw the imprint of the foot (it's a sand casting!) of Mr. Mo on the Moon...heh, now prove that one ain't so!

I heard Mo had a wicked vertical jump, but wow.
//

22 Catttt  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:54:21pm

It's a kitty!

23 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:55:00pm

what i don't understand is that if the earth is 6000 years old were the chinese the first people on earth considering they can trace back their culture and artifacts 5000 years?

24 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:55:32pm

re: #2 Killgore Trout

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

Thou Shalt Not Witness False Bears.

BEHEAD SMOKEY!

25 CIA Reject  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:56:46pm

re: #24 CyanSnowHawk

Thou Shalt Not Witness False Bears...

Reminds me of the dyslexic who supported the right to keep and arm bears...

26 A Kiwi Infidel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:56:51pm

re: #23 pegcity

what i don't understand is that if the earth is 6000 years old were the chinese the first people on earth considering they can trace back their culture and artifacts 5000 years?


You are not allowed to ask questions like that

[files in "too hard basket"]

27 Summer  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:56:55pm

I rather think that the sheer comic nature of the fossil itself disproves it. =) I mean, what next? Registration papers showing Fred Flinstone really did own a pet named Dino?

Seriously. =)

28 StinkHammer  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:57:11pm
“Alvis Delk” is really a cool name, though. Sounds like a Coen Brothers character.

Quite! Could also be a Charles Dickens character -- or maybe from a Thomas Pynchon novel.

29 CIA Reject  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:57:50pm

re: #28 StinkHammer

Quite! Could also be a Charles Dickens character -- or maybe from a Thomas Pynchon novel.

Or a Monty Python sketch.

30 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:58:08pm

re: #19 CIA Reject

Seconded, / amen, and dammit, I wish there was an amen corner reserved for this war.....
I'm sorry that some (misguided) people of faith feel like they have to help God along with fake PR.
He doesn't need it.

31 Teacake!  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:58:27pm

Reminds me of probably the one and only time Art Bell actually hung up on one of this big foot expert guests! LOL

32 goofeeem  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:58:35pm

Okay, so was the print made just before the dinosaur ate him?

33 J.S.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:58:53pm

re: #21 Hard Right

It's how Islamists claim possession of the Moon -- It's their's! (just as their claim for another structure here on earth -- by virtue of a "footprint" left in a rock...)

34 Teacake!  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:58:54pm

his not this oops

35 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:59:45pm

re: #26 A Kiwi Infidel

Good point. Here's what else was happening in 4,000 BC

36 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 5:59:53pm

re: #28 StinkHammer
The producers of Lost would be all over that one for a new character, Season Five.

37 eastvillageinfidel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:00:14pm

re: #27 Summer

It really is hysterically absurd. Imagining the Great Gazoo hovering over Delks' head saying ' Dum-Dum'.

38 Basho  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:00:24pm

If anything, a fossil of a human and dinosaur footprint together would support hypotheses of time travel.

39 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:00:36pm
40 LEGION  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:00:37pm

Looks like they pulled a ROCK! LOL ROLF

41 CIA Reject  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:00:45pm

re: #30 tradewind

Seconded, / amen, and dammit, I wish there was an amen corner reserved for this war.....
I'm sorry that some (misguided) people of faith feel like they have to help God along with fake PR.
He doesn't need it.

Amen back atcha! The G*d I believe in is not so feeble or incompetent that He needs me to explain Him!

42 Shug  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:01:06pm

I'll bet that dinosaur ate him

43 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:01:43pm

re: #36 tradewind

The producers of Lost would be all over that one for a new character, Season Five.

There will be 3 new characters in season five, and Alvis is not one of them.

44 LEGION  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:02:08pm

re: #42 Shug

Burp

45 Catttt  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:02:14pm

re: #24 CyanSnowHawk

Thou Shalt Not Witness False Bears.

BEHEAD SMOKEY!

Exit, followed by a bear - Shakespeare.

46 rabidsquirrel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:02:31pm

re: #21 Hard Right

I heard Mo had a wicked vertical jump, but wow.
//

Maybe he rode his winged horse...

47 LEGION  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:03:06pm

Hey Boo- boo, lets go get another pic-i-nic basket!

48 CIA Reject  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:03:26pm

Well, I actually have the unusual opportunity to get more than four hours of sleep so I think I'll retire before the situation changes. Good night to you all and please remember to hose the place out when the discussion is finished.:-)

49 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:03:37pm

re: #46 rabidsquirrel

Maybe he rode his winged horse...

"I'll see your wings and raise you 4 extra legs" - Odin

50 FrogMarch  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:03:50pm

That's no dino print. It's an ancient snipe.

51 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:03:55pm

re: #20 Charles

Are they really trying to carbon date rocks? Carbon dating is for organic stuff once living. Really?

52 rabidsquirrel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:04:48pm

re: #39 buzzsawmonkey

Carbon Dating:

W/M Nndrthl, 20, sks W/F Nndrthl, 18, for fun and good times. Likes: Mammoth steak, warm caves, dragging my gf by the hair. Dislikes: sabre-toothed tigers, long walks in the Ice Age permafrost.

Now that's just ridiculous. There's no such thing as a sabre-toothed tiger.

53 looking closely  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:05:10pm

I can prove Bigfoot exists, too.

54 Robert O.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:05:21pm

Breaking news, people, our "ally" is going to resign in the next few days. Now, lie back, close your eyes, and relax, and hope those nuclear weapons won't end up in the wrong hands....

I am surprised there has been no threads about this!

Musharraf Is Expected to Resign in Next Few Days

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Faced with desertions by his political supporters and the unsettling neutrality of the Pakistani military, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan is expected to resign in the next few days rather than face impeachment, Pakistani politicians and Western diplomats said Thursday.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

55 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:05:42pm

re: #43 Walter L. Newton

I know**, but you have to admit, it's sooo perfect.
**major Darlton fan

56 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:05:57pm

re: #53 looking closely

Well I post here.

57 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:06:09pm

re: #54 Robert O.

Breaking news, people, our "ally" is going to resign in the next few days. Now, lie back, close your eyes, and relax, and hope those nuclear weapons won't end up in the wrong hands....

I am surprised there has been no threads about this!

wonderful, 22 billion dollars well spent.

58 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:06:41pm
59 Shug  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:06:47pm

The Obama camp is claiming the footprint belongs to John McCain

60 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:06:49pm

re: #55 tradewind

I know**, but you have to admit, it's sooo perfect.
**major Darlton fan

Shameless, OT self promotion. Do you read my articles on Doc Arzt's blog?

61 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:07:03pm
62 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:07:35pm

Damn, you're all piling on the religious equivalent of the Keystone Kops.

/now concentrate, I know it will be hard as this thread progresses, but really try not to generalize to the vast majority of the general religious population that believes in Creation and evolution

63 J.S.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:08:00pm

re: #46 rabidsquirrel

It wasn't a "horse" -- it was a wing-ed entity, called a buraq (don't want to anger the Islamists now do you?) and I believe we've had this discussion before...

64 rabidsquirrel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:08:07pm

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

Not any more.

That was only partially tongue-in-cheek. There were never sabre-toothed tigers. Saber-toothed cats, yes. But they weren't tigers.

65 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:08:10pm

new obama ad

John Mcain supports the surge,

Iraq now has a 79 billion dollar surplus

therefore barack Obama is good for the middle class?

I don't get it.

66 Basho  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:08:48pm

re: #54 Robert O.

We're headed towards the day when nuclear weapons will be so common we'll all be doom.

Ever wonder why we never get any replies to our messages sent to other stars? Maybe those worlds have already reached that point.

/Sorry for the pessimism

67 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:08:59pm
68 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:09:11pm
69 MikeySDCA  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:09:12pm

re: #57 pegcity

Musharraf is no prize, but what would have happened there if one of these other clowns had been in charge?

70 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:09:20pm
relax, and hope those nuclear weapons won't end up in the wrong hands...


a) it's a little late for that worry, and
b) we ceded riding herd on the Paki nukes to the ChiComs way back. Prob'ly not so wise.

71 experiencedtraveller  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:09:36pm

re: #65 pegcity

Its the new math...

72 Robert O.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:09:48pm

Musharraf courted the west after 9/11 in order to avoid his country taking responsibility for years of (i) formenting extremism, and (ii) carrying out terrorism against India. Well, looks like he succeeded. Pakistan still has its nuclear arsenal intact, and it's anyone's guess who will have his finger on the button.

Now that Musharraf's is going, it's time for the west to admit Pakistan was a sinking ship all along, a country riddled with extremism, corruption and pro-terror sentiments. I give credit that Musharraf is relatively moderate and forward looking views (e.g. the role of woman) for a Muslim leader. However, he does NOT speak for his country of 165 million where Islamic extremism is the norm, Musharraf's pragmatism the exception. It's time for us to recognise which side of the bread is buttered, and admit who our TRUE ALLY was all along: INDIA.

73 Shug  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:09:57pm

re: #68 buzzsawmonkey

How can you tell? Has anyone seen a piece of their hide?


Don't you watch The Flintstones?

74 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:10:08pm

re: #69 MikeySDCA

alqueda would have been able to freely operate out of the tribal areas?

oh wait.

75 sparrowlake  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:10:15pm

The silence of mainstream Judaeo/Christian religious leaders is deafening. Their neglect or refusal to distance their religions from this DI/ID garbage is IMO akin to the failure of "moderate" Muslims to condemn the Islamofascists - it signifies tacit support.

76 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:10:27pm
77 rabidsquirrel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:10:53pm

re: #63 J.S.

It wasn't a "horse" -- it was a wing-ed entity, called a buraq (don't want to anger the Islamists now do you?) and I believe we've had this discussion before...

My apologies. Can I declare a fatwa on myself?

78 Basho  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:10:58pm

re: #59 Shug

The Obama camp is claiming the footprint belongs to John McCain

Now that's freakin' funny!

79 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:11:36pm

re: #11 J.S.

This reminds me of that raging debate a while ago in the Islamic/Pakistani press (published here in Canada) -- it was about an Imam who said he saw the imprint of the foot (it's a sand casting!) of Mr. Mo on the Moon...heh, now prove that one ain't so!


Given the distance the Moon is from Earth, the Moon must be the Farthest Mosque, so the Moslems should return the Temple Mount to the Jews immediately.
/sarc for the first part only

80 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:11:56pm

re: #60 Walter L. Newton

Okay, that major, maybe not so much...
:)
But thanks, I have been there and I'll look for you now that I know.
Is that at DarkUfo?

81 Alouette  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:11:58pm

re: #63 J.S.

It wasn't a "horse" -- it was a wing-ed entity, called a buraq (don't want to anger the Islamists now do you?) and I believe we've had this discussion before...

Mothra!

82 rabidsquirrel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:12:15pm

re: #68 buzzsawmonkey

How can you tell? Has anyone seen a piece of their hide?

Ask the Paleontologists. I only know what the Discovery Channel tells me.

83 Tarkus289  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:13:26pm

Top picture on Drudge just scared me a bit...

84 Basho  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:13:39pm

re: #82 rabidsquirrel

Ask the Paleontologists. I only know what the Discovery Channel tells me.

I understood the joke. You're not alone :)

85 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:13:50pm
86 JeremyR  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:14:12pm

Even major creationist groups such as “Answers in Genesis” agree, and acknowledge that there has never been a compelling case of human remains or footprints in Mesozoic rock (Snelling, 1991).

IIRC, Answers in Genesis was formed in 1993 or 1994. Also, A quote from 1991 is a bit old esp in light of what Snelling has written recently.

87 nyc redneck  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:14:14pm

real scientists don't even want to waste their time on this .
it is such an obvious pathetic hoax.

88 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:14:24pm
89 freetoken  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:14:27pm

re: #62 Killian Bundy

Damn, you're all piling on the religious equivalent of the Keystone Kops.

/now concentrate, I know it will be hard as this thread progresses, but really try not to generalize to the vast majority of the general religious population that believes in Creation and evolution

Well, back to the famous Gallup poll....

44% believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so";

36% believe "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"


So, it seems the majority of religious people do not believe in evolution, at least when it comes to humans.

90 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:15:02pm

re: #53 looking closely

I can prove Bigfoot exists, too.

...and those times when you only see one set of prints in the sand, that was when Paul Bunyan was carrying you.

91 lawhawk  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:15:16pm

re: #69 MikeySDCA

More of the same. More appeasement, followed by crack downs. Musharraf got into trouble because he alternated between the two, and didn't realize that each time he appeased the Taliban and Islamists became ever more bold in their threats against the government.

Having essentially given the frontier provinces a pass on central government control, the Pakistanis have ceded those areas to the Taliban, who are more than taking advantage of the situation.

92 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:15:25pm

re: #81 Alouette

Mothra!

Mothra was a protector of the Earth. Perhaps it was Battra.

/ I know way too much about the Godzilla universe.

93 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:15:36pm

When creationists defect....
The evolution of Jeffrey P Schloss

Former Discovery Institute’s Senior Fellow Jeffrey P. Schloss has become the target of several ID Creationists’ ire, such as Dembski, Denyse O’Leary and Richard Weikart.

While I can appreciate that the history and evolution of former Senior Fellow Schloss is of concern to some ID Creationists, they, perhaps inadvertently, present us with evidence that serious scholars find it necessary to abandon Intelligent Design as preached by the Discovery Institute.
.....
In 2005, Schloss spoke out in a public interview published in the Sacramento Bee

Then Schloss realized that unless people like him spoke up, the public would never get to hear more moderate ideas on the subject - such as the notion that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive; that scientists are not by definition godless nor religion advocates brainless; and that extremists on both sides have been responsible for fueling a feud that need not exist.

94 Charles  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:15:52pm

re: #54 Robert O.

Breaking news, people, our "ally" is going to resign in the next few days. Now, lie back, close your eyes, and relax, and hope those nuclear weapons won't end up in the wrong hands....

I am surprised there has been no threads about this!

I've had a window open to that story for several hours. It will be a post a bit later.

95 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:15:59pm

buzzsawmonkey.. are you here right now?
I have an idea for you...

96 Chip Designer  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:16:11pm

Sorry to go off topic, but....

One of the spin-off links ([Link: lsd-25.ru...] goes to a Russian web site showing Russian pictures of the conflict. There are a lot of pictures of destroyed tanks and other armor.

Judging from the direction of the troop movements, the tanks appear to be Russian. Also, there are a lot of pictures of Russian wounded.
And there is a picture of what might be an American hand held missile launcher.

I bring this up because there has been very little reporting of how well the Georgian army is doing. Judging from these pictures, they are putting up a serious fight.

97 I slam Islam  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:17:01pm

It is known throughout time immemorial, that Sasquatch hunted the dinosaurs to extinction.

98 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:17:21pm

re: #75 sparrowlake

What silence?

hat same Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, recently restated his (and Pope John Paul's) argument. As MSNBC reported, Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an "absurdity":

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

Link

99 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:17:37pm

re: #66 Basho

Ever wonder why we never get any replies to our messages sent to other stars? Maybe those worlds have already reached that point.

Death - Vacant Planets

100 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:17:47pm

re: #89 freetoken

Keep in mind those statistics are for Americans. The rest of the civilized world is in better shape.

101 rabidsquirrel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:17:49pm

re: #88 buzzsawmonkey

You'd think the paleontologists would be a little more tan, after digging around in the Gobi Desert.

Okay, I admit it. I actually laughed at that, after I read it a second time.

And in related news, it just occurred to me that with its choice of name the Discovery Institute may well have tried to siphon off for itself whatever credibility--or at least name recognition--the Discovery Channel has earned for itself.

I doubt the "Discovery Institute" would recognize a 'discovery' if it hit them in their young earth asses.

102 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:18:07pm

re: #80 tradewind

Okay, that major, maybe not so much...
:)
But thanks, I have been there and I'll look for you now that I know.
Is that at DarkUfo?

No. Second shameless Off Topic self promotion. Bookmark these links...

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

Have fun...

Walter in Golden, Co.

(Sorry Charles, just helping out a Lost fan)

103 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:18:15pm

re: #83 Tarkus289

Yikes, for a sec I thought it was another Challenger disaster.
Talk amongst yourselves: Is this Russian thing more/worse/scarier than we realize, or is the media.... all media... making it more than it is?
I honestly don't know.
(But you know John Edwards is grateful... Putin blew babydaddy right offa page Six one).

104 LesLein  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:18:21pm

Reminds me of how the creationists fell for the Piltdown Man. Or was that Clarence Darrow? (For the record I don't care for Darrow or the creationists.)

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

105 Charles  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:19:37pm

re: #104 LesLein

For the record I don't care for Darrow...

Well, gee. He says nice things about you.

106 razorbacker  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:20:01pm

Man, the fallout from this whole footprint kerfluffle kinda makes me wish I'd just kept my shoes on.

But then that Nike swoosh logo woulda been plastered all over, and if I'm gonna advertise for someone I'm gonna get paid.

Jest sayin, is all.

107 lawhawk  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:20:52pm

re: #96 Chip Designer

Not off topic, but the link is kludged just a bit:

[Link: lsd-25.ru...]

You had a closed parens.

108 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:21:23pm

re: #106 razorbacker

Man, the fallout from this whole footprint kerfluffle kinda makes me wish I'd just kept my shoes on.

But then that Nike swoosh logo woulda been plastered all over, and if I'm gonna advertise for someone I'm gonna get paid.

Jest sayin, is all.

I could see the headline 3 million years from now.

"Greek God Revealed"

109 Charles  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:21:53pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

When creationists defect....
The evolution of Jeffrey P Schloss

Saw that yesterday -- it will be a post before much longer. Unfortunately, whoever posted that at Panda's Thumb isn't a very good writer, and it's a bit hard to follow.

110 Chip Designer  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:22:01pm

re: #107 lawhawk

Sorry. It was my first link!

111 jaunte  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:22:33pm

re: #104 LesLein
The difference: After the Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax, scientists stopped using it as a piece of evidence. The same can't be said of several creationist hoaxes which are still treated as valid by those who think they support their argument.

112 Tarkus289  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:22:35pm

Somebody posted an excellent link to the Russia/Georgia situation last night, it explained it thoroughly.

113 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:22:43pm
114 Tigger2005  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:23:22pm

re: #66 Basho

We're headed towards the day when nuclear weapons will be so common we'll all be doom.

Ever wonder why we never get any replies to our messages sent to other stars? Maybe those worlds have already reached that point.

/Sorry for the pessimism

Not long after Russia got the bomb, a scientist who worked on the Manhattan project was being interviewed. He talked about how he was watching some workers building a bridge, and thought "What's the point? It's all so useless."

I think our only chance might be a third-world nuclear exchange that somehow doesn't go global, finally waking everybody up. It's a paper thin hope, though.

115 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:23:28pm

re: #109 Charles

Agreed. It was a little tough to excerpt out a a few paragraphs to make a cohesive post out of.

116 razorbacker  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:23:44pm

re: #108 Walter L. Newton

I could see the headline 3 million years from now.

"Greek God Revealed"

Hey! I don't go that way. College don't count! Ask any Ivy League LUG.

117 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:23:44pm

Stuck this in the spinoffs:

Remains of cemetery found in Sahara

The researchers used radiocarbon dating to determine when these ancient people lived there. Even the most recent were some 1,000 years before the building of the pyramids in Egypt.

The first group, known as the Kiffian, hunted wild animals and speared huge perch with harpoons. They colonized the region when the Sahara was at its wettest, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago.

118 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:24:54pm
119 Basho  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:26:18pm

re: #111 jaunte

Don't forget, it was scientists who uncovered the hoax. One odd things they noticed about it was that it didn't fit with all of their other findings.

120 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:26:27pm

re: #116 razorbacker

Hey! I don't go that way. College don't count! Ask any Ivy League LUG.

I don't understand your response. I was making a joke about the Nike logo appearing 3 million years from now, fossilized, and the media reperting it as proof that the Greek God Nike existed. Maybe I was too nuanced. I got to as Kerry how to celan up my naunce.

121 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:27:34pm
122 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:27:35pm

re: #104 LesLein

Reminds me of how the creationists fell for the Piltdown Man. Or was that Clarence Darrow? (For the record I don't care for Darrow or the creationists.)

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Lisa: You're a latter-day Clarence Darrow!
Lionel Hutz: Uh, was he the black guy on the Mod Squad?

123 Hard Right  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:27:58pm

re: #33 J.S.

It's how Islamists claim possession of the Moon -- It's their's! (just as their claim for another structure here on earth -- by virtue of a "footprint" left in a rock...)

Remind me not to kick an islamic fascist in the ass.

124 solomonpanting  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:28:23pm

re: #35 Killgore Trout


Good point. Here's what else was happening in 4,000 BC

I think the footprint is from someone wearing Blue Suede Shoes. Bear with me:

From your link:

c. 3100 BC — According to the legend, Menes unifies Upper and Lower Egypt, and a new capital is erected at Memphis.

Which leads to the Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, which leads to the Egyptian Sun God Ra, which leads to Sun Records, which leads back to Memphis, which leads to Elvis.

Disprove that!

125 Ojoe  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:28:57pm
126 Shug  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:29:53pm

re: #112 Tarkus289

Somebody posted an excellent link to the Russia/Georgia situation last night, it explained it thoroughly.

It's a big f-ing mess.

That's my explanation

127 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:30:27pm

re: #89 freetoken

Well, back to the famous Gallup poll....

44% believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so";

36% believe "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

So, it seems the majority of religious people do not believe in evolution, at least when it comes to humans.

So, despite the decades of overwhelming influence of secular public education in this country, only 20% of Americans believe in evolution, is that what you're trying to tell me?

/I don't think so

128 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:30:31pm

re: #106 razorbacker

Man, the fallout from this whole footprint kerfluffle kinda makes me wish I'd just kept my shoes on.

But then that Nike swoosh logo woulda been plastered all over, and if I'm gonna advertise for someone I'm gonna get paid.

Jest sayin, is all.

re: #113 buzzsawmonkey

I'm here, sort of. What's up?

Dude..i think you are a genus with song parodies..I've really enjoyed your work over time....
So here is the deal... a week or so ago me and mrs hoopster were clubbing and dancing the night away..when this song came on..
I touch myself..by some girl i don't remember..but remember that song from austin powers?
Well anyhoo..I'm out there dancing to this dumb song...
/don't get me wrong..if you're girlfiend is dancing to I touch myself then there is a good chance you'll enjoy the end of evenin..anyhoo.. I started singing with the song with the words..i ding myself..
So use your imagination and write a song about when i say something great..i ding myself..ect..ect..
and charles.. If my wife can touch herself..how come i can't ding myself?
* running for cover..have mercy charles :)*

129 razorbacker  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:30:36pm

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

S'okay. I was riffin on the 'Greek god' thing, 'greek' being old timey code for that 'love that dares not speak its name'. And LUG being 'lesbian until graduation'.

*shoulda remembered, if the sarcasm has to be explained, it wasn't good sarcasm*

But it's all good, Walter. Not one of my better efforts, I freely admit.

130 looking closely  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:30:46pm

Can anyone spot the bias in this story from Reuters:

Israel clears troops who killed Reuters Cameraman.

Reuters said on Wednesday it was deeply disturbed by a conclusion that severely curtails the freedom of the media to cover the conflict by effectively giving soldiers a free hand to kill without being sure they were not firing on journalists.

They're still free to cover the conflict, just as Reuters is still free to pretend that pointing things at tanks isn't risk-free.

131 sparrowlake  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:31:27pm

re: #98 Ojoe

Good for the Pope, but that was last year - anything more recent? And why don't the American RC leaders speak up?
And what about the rest of the religions?
I think the response to these outrageous DI/ID claims has been lame to say the least.

132 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:32:17pm
133 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:32:40pm

re: #129 razorbacker

S'okay. I was riffin on the 'Greek god' thing, 'greek' being old timey code for that 'love that dares not speak its name'. And LUG being 'lesbian until graduation'.

*shoulda remembered, if the sarcasm has to be explained, it wasn't good sarcasm*

But it's all good, Walter. Not one of my better efforts, I freely admit.

Ah, ok...

134 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:32:40pm

re: #130 looking closely

maybe there terrorists opps i mean Stringers shouldn't be in the middle of Mortar launch sites.

135 lawhawk  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:33:49pm

re: #130 looking closely

I had called that the other day when the IDF said that the soldiers were not at fault for the unfortunate incident. They were responding to what they perceived to be a threat from a gaggle of people who happened to have tripods and items that at a distance could have been rocket or mortars.

136 Tigger2005  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:34:50pm
Reuters said on Wednesday it was deeply disturbed by a conclusion that severely curtails the freedom of the media to cover the conflict by effectively giving soldiers a free hand to kill without being sure they were not firing on journalists.

"Hey! Are you a journalist?"

"Yes, you stinking son of apes and monkeys!"

"Ok then! Don't shoot, boys, that one's a journalist!"

What dumbasses. Stick themselves in the middle of a war zone and expect soldiers to ask questions before they shoot.

137 pegcity  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:34:52pm

re: #135 lawhawk

I had called that the other day when the IDF said that the soldiers were not at fault for the unfortunate incident. They were responding to what they perceived to be a threat from a gaggle of people who happened to have tripods and items that at a distance could have been rocket or mortars.

screw em period, the line between reuters and hamas is almost impossible to see when their stringers work for hamas.

138 looking closely  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:35:37pm

re: #127 Killian Bundy

So, despite the decades of overwhelming influence of secular public education in this country, only 20% of Americans believe in evolution, is that what you're trying to tell me?

/I don't think so


50% of Americans believe in extraterrestrial vehicles (though arguably, that could be considered a sort of modern folk myth).

The issue isn't whether or not people should believe in evolution, the issue is whether Creationism should be shoe-horned into the science classroom by fundamentalists under false pretenses.

In other words, the problem isn't with Creationism, per se, its with the intellectually dishonest attempt to call it "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design".

139 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:35:52pm

Ot

Well, that lightning strike was close by. I'm surprised out electric didn't bump or go out. It does a lot in Golden.

66 degress now, going down to low 50's, snow above 10,000 feet, damn golbal warming.

140 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:36:54pm
141 Abu Lahab  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:37:07pm
Any claim of human and dinosaur contemporaneity based on the alleged discovery of both kinds of footprints in the same rock deposits will be treated seriously by the scientific community only if it is based upon clear tracks of both. Excellent dinosaur tracks abound in the Cretaceous rocks of central Texas. In contrast, all of the alleged mantracks are miserable. The question addressed in this essay is: how can one recognize a genuine human footprint?


If lizards are in the mood for some really nerdy and interesting reading.
here is the whole thing from the "National Center for Science Education" (What a great name, by the way)
Thank you Charles for posting about this. I have seen this photo of that footprint so many times and people seem so impressed with it!
Doesn't the fact that the footprint was discovered in the same state where the creation museum is located brings any questions for some? I mean, they should have bothered at least and "found it" somewhere else.

142 Tarkus289  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:38:01pm

Man, the B.S. has been flying in all directions lately, (worse than normal).
An overwhelming majority of the population of Earth have absolutely no idea what is going on for real, that is the scariest thing. If only half the people knew half of what we know here, at LGF, the world would do the right thing.

143 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:38:04pm
144 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:38:40pm
145 Tigger2005  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:38:49pm

re: #127 Killian Bundy

So, despite the decades of overwhelming influence of secular public education in this country, only 20% of Americans believe in evolution, is that what you're trying to tell me?

/I don't think so

Evolution is barely covered in most high school science classes. A lot of teachers probably skip over it. Many students who take college-level biology courses have to take a remedial class first because they know nothing about evolution.

146 Naso Tang  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:39:17pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

#1 post and without saying "first", and when I went to post the link from NG on the Sahara Eden, I find you beat me to that too.

One of these days I'll be first.

147 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:39:28pm

re: #138 looking closely

In other words, the problem isn't with Creationism, per se, its with the intellectually dishonest attempt to call it "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design".

You are entitled to shout Bingo!

/attempt being the keyword and firing blanks for decades

148 looking closely  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:40:48pm

re: #135 lawhawk

I had called that the other day when the IDF said that the soldiers were not at fault for the unfortunate incident. They were responding to what they perceived to be a threat from a gaggle of people who happened to have tripods and items that at a distance could have been rocket or mortars.

What's the alternative?

The Palestinians are already smuggling arms and combatants in ambulances.

If Israeli tank crews have to tolerate this, then every Palestinian terrorist will dress themselves in a "Reuters" uniform and make their RPGs look like cameras.

The lesson here, is don't point things at Israeli tanks. Its not that complicated.

149 Shug  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:41:52pm

re: #146 Naso Tang

One of these days I'll be first.


It's the second mouse that gets the cheese

150 swamprat  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:42:03pm

Dinotopia, anyone?

151 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:42:43pm
152 FrogMarch  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:44:04pm

Religion according to the Izzard.

153 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:44:12pm

re: #145 Tigger2005

Evolution is barely covered in most high school science classes. A lot of teachers probably skip over it. Many students who take college-level biology courses have to take a remedial class first because they know nothing about evolution.

/well, surely that's the fault of ongoing, legacy lax education standards (socialist teacher's unions) and not ID/Creationism proponents, right?

154 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:44:13pm

re: #151 buzzsawmonkey

I want a Dino Club card.

It takes 70 million years to pay off..

155 nyc redneck  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:48:38pm

re: #141 Abu Lahab

If lizards are in the mood for some really nerdy and interesting reading.
here is the whole thing from the "National Center for Science Education" (What a great name, by the way)
Thank you Charles for posting about this. I have seen this photo of that footprint so many times and people seem so impressed with it!
Doesn't the fact that the footprint was discovered in the same state where the creation museum is located brings any questions for some? I mean, they should have bothered at least and "found it" somewhere else.

yes, that is so convenient. and the "fossil" is such perfect find. it is laughable how blatantly self-serving it is. this hoax almost seems criminal, if it wasn't so desperate.

156 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:49:01pm
157 freetoken  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:49:14pm

re: #127 Killian Bundy

So, despite the decades of overwhelming influence of secular public education in this country, only 20% of Americans believe in evolution, is that what you're trying to tell me?

/I don't think so

No, that is not what I said, nor is it what the Gallup survey says.

Did you read the Gallup survey page?

I was responding to your claim that "the vast majority of the general religious population that believes in Creation and evolution".

The Gallup poll shows just the opposite of your claim.

158 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:52:38pm

re: #156 buzzsawmonkey

And filing the fossil records takes one hell of a filing cabinet.

LOL

159 quickjustice  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:54:14pm

re: #104 LesLein

Clarence Darrow was the NYC attorney who litigated the famous "Scopes Trial" in Tennessee against William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was a brilliant creationist preacher who believed that the Bible was literally true. The Tennessee "monkey trial" was dramatized in "Inherit the Wind".

Bryan was more famous as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States who advocated for abandonment of the gold standard on behalf of farmer/debtors who owed money to Eastern establishment banks. Hence his famous "Cross of Gold" speech against the gold standard.

160 lostlakehiker  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:56:24pm

re: #75 sparrowlake

The silence of mainstream Judaeo/Christian religious leaders is deafening. Their neglect or refusal to distance their religions from this DI/ID garbage is IMO akin to the failure of "moderate" Muslims to condemn the Islamofascists - it signifies tacit support.

Is the Pope mainstream Christian? Catholics have accepted that there is no essential conflict between The Faith and the best currently available scientific account of the biological history of the world from the earliest life to now.

There is no Supreme Court to resolve doctrinal disputes among Protestants, but many denominations are OK with this scientific account.

Unsurprisingly, these Christians don't make it their life work to teach their creationist brethren all about evolution. Some sleeping dogs can just be let lie.

161 Naso Tang  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 6:57:19pm

re: #38 Basho

If anything, a fossil of a human and dinosaur footprint together would support hypotheses of time travel.

And, as has been mentioned before, so would finding a fossilized rabbit along with T Rex.

Of course there is also always that ID thingy. The aliens could have lost some pets while they were doing their thing, like in 2001 (the movie, for the young uns).

162 Naso Tang  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:00:12pm

re: #142 Tarkus289

Man, the B.S. has been flying in all directions lately, (worse than normal).
An overwhelming majority of the population of Earth have absolutely no idea what is going on for real, that is the scariest thing. If only half the people knew half of what we know here, at LGF, the world would do the right thing.

We could start an new religion and straighten them out. Any seconds?

163 quickjustice  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:01:34pm

re: #160 lostlakehiker

Old southern proverb applicable to debating with fundamentalist Christians:

"There's no point in getting down in the mud and wrestling with a pig. You both get covered in mud, and the pig likes it!"

164 markie  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:03:45pm

re: #29 CIA Reject

Or a Monty Python sketch.

Nothing will ever top Harry "Snapper" Organs of Q Division.

165 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:06:48pm

re: #157 freetoken

No, that is not what I said, nor is it what the Gallup survey says.

Did you read the Gallup survey page?

I was responding to your claim that "the vast majority of the general religious population that believes in Creation and evolution".

The Gallup poll shows just the opposite of your claim.

General religious population, where did you get that?

/I read it, they don't define survey population as far as I can see

166 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:17:04pm

re: #130 looking closely

Hell's Bells.......what Newthink is it that reporters covering a battle zone are protected by invisible light beams?
Reporting war is dangerous, and correspondents get killed. It's always been that way.
Not saying that shooting at a reporter isn't lower than Congress' approval rating, but there is an implied and accepted risk. This shock that reporters get shot must be some byproduct of live-from-Gori-it's War! but I'm just saying......

167 tradewind  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:22:14pm

re: #102 Walter L. Newton

Thanks... lots of stuff there.
(I'm trying to quit, but so far there is no Lostorette gum/patch).

168 freetoken  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:30:11pm

re: #165 Killian Bundy

General religious population, where did you get that?

/I read it, they don't define survey population as far as I can see

It is a national survey... of Americans. Therefore, the survey does not apply to people outside the US.

Yes, 80% of the respondents gave a generally religious answer, 20% picked the non-religious choice. Of those who picked one of the two possible religious answers, the majority pick the non-evolutionary (for humans) answer.

169 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:42:10pm

re: #168 freetoken

It seemed straight forward enough to me- 44% rejected evolution, saying God created man as is while 36% accepted God guided evolution. Of the two groups, the creationists had the larger number.

170 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:44:43pm

re: #168 freetoken

It is a national survey... of Americans. Therefore, the survey does not apply to people outside the US.

Yes, 80% of the respondents gave a generally religious answer, 20% picked the non-religious choice. Of those who picked one of the two possible religious answers, the majority pick the non-evolutionary (for humans) answer.

Well then, the atheists seem to have their work cut out for them.

/that said, I don't see the pending Christian theocracy or the clear and present danger to secular public school science curricula in this country

171 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:46:10pm

re: #169 Sharmuta

It seemed straight forward enough to me- 44% rejected evolution, saying God created man as is while 36% accepted God guided evolution. Of the two groups, the creationists had the larger number.

/so you find yourself in the minority?

172 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:49:24pm

re: #171 Killian Bundy

No- I find your initial premise to be incorrect. The majority of people of faith reject evolution.

173 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:55:54pm

re: #172 Sharmuta

No- I find your initial premise to be incorrect. The majority of people of faith reject evolution.

That's not part of the poll's premise.

/according to the Gallip poll linked, 80% of all Americans reject evolution, you need to grok

174 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 7:59:47pm

re: #173 Killian Bundy

No-you have it wrong.

175 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:03:11pm

re: #174 Sharmuta

No-you have it wrong.

No, you have it wrong.

/linkys?

176 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:06:57pm

re: #175 Killian Bundy

Freetoken already gave the link we're discussing. I can't help it if you don't know how to read it.

First you say "I know it will be hard as this thread progresses, but really try not to generalize to the vast majority of the general religious population that believes in Creation and evolution" but when shown a poll that contradicts that you jump to 80% reject evolution. So which is it? BTW- you're wrong on both counts.

177 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:17:34pm

re: #176 Sharmuta

you jump to 80% reject evolution. So which is it? BTW- you're wrong on both counts.

Let's start there, that's what the poll supposedly says.

/you're long on crap, short on linkys

178 jaunte  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:19:52pm

Here's a quote from a June 2007 poll:
"The group of Americans who attend church weekly -- about 40% in this sample -- are strongly likely to reject the theory of evolution. The group of Americans who attend church seldom or never -- also about 40% -- have the mirror image opinion and are strongly likely to accept the theory of evolution."
[Link: www.gallup.com...]

179 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:20:40pm

re: #177 Killian Bundy

Until you're able to read a fairly straight forward poll and comprehend it, I think we're done here.

180 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:27:07pm

re: #179 Sharmuta

Until you're able to read a fairly straight forward poll and comprehend it, I think we're done here.

I read the whole God[expletive deleted] page, all the questions, and looked for the underlying poll data, not finding any.

/you're much like an idiot, without a link or an argument, and we've been through this before, deja vu

181 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:29:56pm

re: #180 Killian Bundy

Hypocrite- where are the links to back up your assertions?

182 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:30:42pm

re: #181 Sharmuta

Hypocrite- where are the links to back up your assertions?

Forget it- I'm done with you. You can't even read a fucking poll.

183 Jimmah  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:31:44pm

That 'fossil' is hilarious.

184 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:34:40pm

re: #181 Sharmuta

Hypocrite- where are the links to back up your assertions?

/it would help if you would frame, to your satisfaction, my assertions

185 Lynn B.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:46:50pm

re: #179 Sharmuta

I honestly don't know what point KB has been trying to make with this argument ... but ... you're both right. KB is right that there was no separate polling shown for religious vs. secular respondents. But. Of the total people polled:

44% (in 2008) believe that "God created man in present form," i.e., they're Creationists

36% believe that "man developed, with God guiding," which, presumably, means they both believe in God and accept evolution

14% believe that "man developed but God had no part in the process," which, arguably, means they're atheists/agnostics or some variant thereof, but that's not clear.

None of the questions in the poll were broken down by religious belief. But it's logical to assume that, of the respondents to the question above, the 80% who believe God had at least a hand in man's development are religious and the 20% who don't are not.

Based on that assumption, of the 80% who are religious, 55% (44/80) don't believe in evolution and 45% (36/80) do. Not a huge margin but definitely a majority.

186 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:54:00pm

re: #185 Lynn B.

None of the questions in the poll were broken down by religious belief. But it's logical to assume that, of the respondents to the question above, the 80% who believe God had at least a hand in man's development are religious and the 20% who don't are not.

/beware the impending Christian theocracy

187 freetoken  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:54:41pm

re: #177 Killian Bundy

Let's start there, that's what the poll supposedly says.

/you're long on crap, short on linkys

NO. The survey says that 44% of the US Population (within standard error) reject evolution.

Of the remainder of the population, the largest portion accept some sort of theistic evolution (e.g., God guiding or initially starting), while the non-theists are a smaller group.

Oh, and I've never intimated that there is an imminent takeover of theocrats. I've stated before that the evolution question is a current and recent past political problem for the Republicans. I've also stated that, in light of the Gallup poll (running over 2 decades) and other data, that changes in this issue are very slow.

188 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:57:16pm

re: #185 Lynn B.

My reading was "man developed" = evolution. 50% accepted evolution with or without God. 44% did not accept evolution. I fail to see how a breakdown of the various faiths is relevant to the overall question on acceptance of evolution in this particular poll.

189 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 8:58:21pm

re: #187 freetoken

NO. The survey says that 44% of the US Population (within standard error) reject evolution.

Of the remainder of the population, the largest portion accept some sort of theistic evolution (e.g., God guiding or initially starting), while the non-theists are a smaller group..

/and you're entitled to shout Bingo too, much as you donb't want to

190 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:01:53pm

re: #188 Sharmuta

My reading was "man developed" = evolution. 50% accepted evolution with or without God. 44% did not accept evolution. I fail to see how a breakdown of the various faiths is relevant to the overall question on acceptance of evolution in this particular poll.

Of course, there were no "breakdowns" of the various faiths, not even a mention in this particular poll.

/really?

191 Lynn B.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:07:10pm

re: #188 Sharmuta

My reading was "man developed" = evolution. 50% accepted evolution with or without God. 44% did not accept evolution. I fail to see how a breakdown of the various faiths is relevant to the overall question on acceptance of evolution in this particular poll.

That's another way to look at it. 50% accept evolution and 44% don't (I assume the other 6% didn't respond to that question). But of the respondents who thought God had anything to do with how human beings came to be here, 55% don't accept evolution. So as you said above (#169) "Of the two groups, the creationists had the larger number." Not "a vast majority."

I think this proves your point. No?

192 Sharmuta  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:10:06pm

re: #191 Lynn B.

You got it.

193 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:15:01pm

America loves Creationism.

/fumble in the dark, making an opposing point

194 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:16:19pm

re: #191 Lynn B.

That's another way to look at it.

/well, there's that

195 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:17:43pm

re: #192 Sharmuta

You got it.

/so you're an artiest?

196 Spar Kling  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:20:17pm

re: #119 Basho

Don't forget, it was scientists who uncovered the hoax. One odd things they noticed about it was that it didn't fit with all of their
other findings.

And it only took them 40 years to figure out that it was a hoax. Busy, you know.

Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of fraud in any human endeavor.

However, the advantage of science is that the work is supposed to be repeatable and reviewed. This is not true of fraud in politics, forensics, religion, the legacy media, or education (whole language reading in California, comes to mind).

As to these supposed footprints . . . there is always this! Can you say Crypto-Bipedal-Primatology?

[Link: ourworld.compuserve.com...]


- sk

197 jaunte  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:26:51pm

On the contemporary scientist's mixed reactions to "Piltdown Man:"
"The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.

It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor."
[Link: www.tiac.net...]

198 lynn b.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:34:57pm

Ok that was strange. My keyboard went berserk and logged me out, zipped me off to a few other sites and wouldn't let me shut down, registered a keyboard failure when I tried to reboot and then it took 6 tries to log back in.

Freaky.

199 Syrah  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:35:49pm

Alvis Delk's Dremel man is a hoax?

Say it ain't so!

200 lynn b.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:39:18pm

re: #186 Killian Bundy

/beware the impending Christian theocracy

Not too worried about it. There appear to be plenty of Christians of good faith who vehemently oppose theocracy, many of whom post here. But I'm real glad they're on that wall.

re: #190 Killian Bundy

Of course, there were no "breakdowns" of the various faiths, not even a mention in this particular poll.

/really?

Yes, really.

201 eastvillageinfidel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:41:18pm

re: #199 Syrah

I think it got away from him on the big toe.

202 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:43:11pm

Rare footage.

/feel free to move against what happened

203 Syrah  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:44:30pm

re: #201 eastvillageinfidel

I think it got away from him on the big toe.

I played in the mud as a kid.

I don't think Alvis Delk paid much attention to how mud prints work.

The big toe is only one of many problems with this "print."

204 eastvillageinfidel  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 9:52:10pm

re: #203 Syrah

Indeed. I just had a funny image of the dremel tool slipping and boring in. And of the Great Gazoo - " No, Dum-Dum".

205 lynn b.  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 10:00:53pm

Ah. This thread appears to have died while I was having my mini-crisis. Nevertheless ...

Killian, I really am having trouble figuring out what your issue is here. As far as I can tell, you're in agreement with the criticism of ID and the DI but just don't think it's really a big deal. The legal system and good old common sense will take care of the problem. So we're all in a snit about nothing. Is that it?

I don't understand how you can say that, given the inroads that another, much less "mainstream" and non-indigenous fundamentalist dogma has managed to make in this country in the past several years. Our legal system and good old common sense won't take care of either problem unless people mobilize to make sure that it does. We're not in a snit about nothing.

Oh, shit, it's 1 am. I'm gone.

206 Wendya  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 10:10:39pm

re: #173 Killian Bundy


/according to the Gallip poll linked, 80% of all Americans reject evolution, you need to grok

According to the Gallup poll, 44% reject evolution, 50% do not reject evolution and 5% don't know or don't care.

You're making the mistake of assuming people who believe in God guided development reject evolution.

207 Killian Bundy  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 10:27:08pm

re: #206 Wendya

According to the Gallup poll, 44% reject evolution, 50% do not reject evolution and 5% don't know or don't care.

You're making the mistake of assuming people who believe in God guided development reject evolution.

/am I?

208 mean Gene  Thu, Aug 14, 2008 11:01:46pm

I haven't read this whole thread, but just highlights.
About the hoaxes....
Communist/atheist China has filled the airways with hoaxes, lies, fauxtography, in sky, singers, fireworks, gymnasts, and more to come, I'm sure.
I've brought it up before: what makes a person who has no set core standards that value truth over winning stop from trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullibles who want to believe?
Sure there are lying and deceived Creationists.
But at least their work (as Charles is pointing out here) is being fact-checked and debunked.
But just as surely there have been and are many liars among the anti-creationists.
Peer reviewing is going the way of the dinosaur and that plays right into the hands of these corrupt egotistical men who try to pass their work off as ''science.''

209 Wendya  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 12:09:07am

re: #207 Killian Bundy

/am I?

Apparently, since the poll clearly shows that only 44% of the respondents reject evolution.

Unless you've got some magic mathematical system the rest of us can't see.

210 Alberta Oil Peon  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 1:09:35am

re: #38 Basho

If anything, a fossil of a human and dinosaur footprint together would support hypotheses of time travel.

When you time-travel back to the Cretaceous, boots are a must. There are some nasty little insects that will burrow under your toenails.

Now if that human print had been a Vibram sole, size 10, it might have been mine.

211 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 2:49:12am

Hey YECers; Jericho is older than the earth!

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

212 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 2:52:27am

re: #52 rabidsquirrel

Now that's just ridiculous. There's no such thing as a sabre-toothed tiger.

I'm disappointed that there was no mention of Dire Wolves or Cave Bears. Maybe the Neanderthal was just giantly slothful with the ad...

213 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 2:55:22am

re: #68 buzzsawmonkey

How can you tell? Has anyone seen a piece of their hide?

Not all stripey cats are tigers.

214 Nemesis6  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 5:59:14am

re: #208 mean Gene

Communist/Atheist, huh? This is why people ignore the cdesign proponentsists; their level of argumentation never rises above this horribly derailed train of tortured and twisted logic. The stuff about no set core standards is bullcrap, too, and another example of the aforementioned non-logic.

But for some reason, God help me, I'll actually respond to that part about values:

Do you have kids? If yes, have you ever stoned any of them to death for being disobedient?


21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deuteronomy 21

Do you have a wife? I bet she doesn't follow this:

‘When the days of her purification are completed for a son or for a daughter, she must bring a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the Meeting Tent, to the priest., and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offeringe.

-Leviticus 12:6

On and on with the absurdities. Anyway, such inaction is blasphemy.
Let's take one last line, just for funsies.

Has anyone you know after used God's name in vain? If you have not killed every single one, you have disobeyed God.

He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.

-Leviticus 24:16

How are you liking that fixed set of core values now? See, you don't have one. Just like the rest of us.

215 N_Jones  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 6:13:56am

lol........

The whole argument here about the polling data just go to show that surveys and their resulting data can be made to read anyway the poll takers want it to read. You just have to ask the "right quest". Polling data can not IMHO be used as defend-able arguments in a debate.

Next I have lived in the area here in Texas almost my whole life. Dr Baugh and my Dad meet in College (Baptist Bible College in Springfield Missouri) when they were studying to be pastors. At any rate, I'm going to have to look it up but if memory serves this rock was also found in the late 60's early 70's ( I was in elementary school). So they have done this before. (I will get data lol).

I thought he had actually given up on the dino/man thing and was looking for Noah's ark....

/good day!

216 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 7:51:08am

re: #186 Killian Bundy

Freedom overrules any theocracy in this country IMHO & almost all fundamentalists I have known believe to the very core in freedom.

217 mean Gene  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 12:38:20pm

re: #214 Nemesis6

Communist/Atheist, huh? This is why people ignore the cdesign proponentsists; their level of argumentation never rises above this horribly derailed train of tortured and twisted logic. The stuff about no set core standards is bullcrap, too, and another example of the aforementioned non-logic.

But for some reason, God help me, I'll actually respond to that part about values:

Do you have kids? If yes, have you ever stoned any of them to death for being disobedient?


-Leviticus 24:16

How are you liking that fixed set of core values now? See, you don't have one. Just like the rest of us.

Why on earth did you Assume I was either a Jew or a male?
I have adopted Christianity in the 1970's and follow Biblical standards based on Jesus' teaching.....which put aside all of the Law of Moses. Oh, and no children, too.
No, I haven't had to squirm around about my moral standards ever since.
I know what they are.
I know I hold truth higher than winning.
I have been watching Chinese commies show that they do not hold truth higher than winning.
Some hoaxes over the years have shown that many scientists also like to bask in limelight more than have peer verifiable work.
If the story is true as told in Charles' original post then these men, these creationists, may have had the wool pulled over their eyes.
They should be able to accept that if it is proven that their ''artifact'' is a hoax.

218 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 15, 2008 10:20:05pm

Definitely not Bigfoot, just Badfoot.

Theses people WANT that warm comforting wool pulled over their eyes. They seek out the self-contradictory cashmere sweater of proof of the ridiculous, thinking that it will somehow validate their literalist interpretation of the Bible to prove evolution wrong by showing the scientifically impossible; that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

But it wouldn't. Christian scholars throughout the ages have accepted Genesis as metaphor, parable and myth (Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.).

Besides which, evolution isn't wrong. Mountains of evidence conclusively demonstrate that live began billions of years ago, not thousands, and that species evolutionarily diverged from a few common ancestors, rather than being independently created as is. Thees pitiful pathetic seekers are of course free to continue upon their anti-science grail quest, but what they are actually chasing is a nonexistent wild goose. They're on a fundamentalist snipe hunt, and their bag will remain forever empty.

219 Amillennialist  Sat, Aug 16, 2008 1:57:15am

It's sad and ironic that one demanding truth of others would promote uncritically the pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are not only unsupported by the empirical (scientific) evidence we possess, they're contradicted by it.

"Science" is not the untestable assertions of fallible men, it is a process by which we study natural phenomena. It is a process that is testable and repeatable.

In other words, if you cannot observe the subject, test it, and repeat that process, it isn't Science.

What do you know is actually true about Evolution?

Apart from the random, minor genetic mutations occurring within organisms (usually resulting in severe illness and death, but never newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function), what can be demonstrated to be true about Darwin's explanations for the origin of Life?

No scientist has observed abiogenesis or macroevolution occur.

We know empirically that Life arises only from Life and Life's programs. No scientist has ever observed otherwise.

We know that no machine or program has ever arisen apart from a designer or programmer, but a living cell is a complex, metabolic, Von Neumann-type machine. And according to one state university's biology textbook, one human cell contains enough program to fill hundreds of such textbooks (all text, no pictures).

The fundamental logical error into which Darwinism falls is mistaking similarities in design for a chain of causation.

What Darwinism asks us to believe -- despite Reason and experience to the contrary -- is not only that the first abacus appeared spontaneously by only random, natural processes, but that somehow that abacus replicated and naturally (accidentally!) developed new structure and function and that this process occurred over and over again for billions of years until the computer with which you're reading this comment appeared. (This analogy is a bit weak: A human being is much more sophisticated than any computer.)

Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.

220 Slumbering Behemoth  Sat, Aug 16, 2008 2:18:01am

re: #219 Amillennialist

All very interesting conjecture, but it does nothing to disprove scientific theory that has been worked at and proven for over a century.


Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.

Well said, and that is exactly why creation myths, any creation myths, will forever remain unprovable mythology.

221 Amillennialist  Sat, Aug 16, 2008 3:10:58am

re: #220 Slumbering Behemoth

All very interesting conjecture, but it does nothing to disprove scientific theory that has been worked at and proven for over a century.

Well said, and that is exactly why creation myths, any creation myths, will forever remain unprovable mythology.

Ironically, I'm not the one offering guesswork. I'm offering fact -- what we can observe and therefore know is true. It is Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theorists who just makes things up.

Darwin's explanations have not been "proven for over a century."

Some of his earliest and staunchest opponents were paleontologists. They knew the fossil record didn't support his theory. Darwin admitted he needed such evidence to materialize.

Instead of Darwin's slow, gradual, random mutations, the fossil record shows a sudden explosion in the diversity of life, a fact for which Darwinists couldn't account, so they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium.

Darwin himself acknowledged that his explanation for something as complex as an eye was preposterous:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

(And no, our misunderstanding of the movement of the planets around the Ssun is not analogous: We have been able to observe that in fact, we orbit it. No one has demonstrated -- as Darwin confessed someone would need to do -- that an eye can arise from non-life by only random, natural processes.

Since Darwin brought it up: Just as a quasi-religious body fought vigorously centuries ago to protect its authority by defending its erroneous understanding of Nature, so today a quasi-religious body defends vehemently its power and its own false doctrine. Now that's ironic!)

Finally, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. If he had, I doubt he would have uttered a word about complex genetic program arising by accident.

And as for "creation myths . . . unprovable mythology"? Scientifically-speaking, since no scientist was present to observe and record abiogenesis, and since no scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis and macroevolution can even occur, I would agree that it is beyond Science's ability to speak definitively on how Life began and developed.

However, to which explanation of Life's beginnings does evidence and experience offer support? To the one that claims Life arises apart from Life and its programs, or the one that speaks of a great Intellect designing and programming that Life?

A last thought: Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of determining truth.

222 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 16, 2008 3:49:15am

re: #219 Amillennialist

It's sad and ironic that one demanding truth of others would promote uncritically the pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are not only unsupported by the empirical (scientific) evidence we possess, they're contradicted by it.

"Science" is not the untestable assertions of fallible men, it is a process by which we study natural phenomena. It is a process that is testable and repeatable.

In other words, if you cannot observe the subject, test it, and repeat that process, it isn't Science.

What do you know is actually true about Evolution?

Apart from the random, minor genetic mutations occurring within organisms (usually resulting in severe illness and death, but never newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function), what can be demonstrated to be true about Darwin's explanations for the origin of Life?

No scientist has observed abiogenesis or macroevolution occur.

We know empirically that Life arises only from Life and Life's programs. No scientist has ever observed otherwise.

We know that no machine or program has ever arisen apart from a designer or programmer, but a living cell is a complex, metabolic, Von Neumann-type machine. And according to one state university's biology textbook, one human cell contains enough program to fill hundreds of such textbooks (all text, no pictures).

The fundamental logical error into which Darwinism falls is mistaking similarities in design for a chain of causation.

What Darwinism asks us to believe -- despite Reason and experience to the contrary -- is not only that the first abacus appeared spontaneously by only random, natural processes, but that somehow that abacus replicated and naturally (accidentally!) developed new structure and function and that this process occurred over and over again for billions of years until the computer with which you're reading this comment appeared. (This analogy is a bit weak: A human being is much more sophisticated than any computer.)

Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.

First of all, my abject apologies for inadvertently plussing your post.

Abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory, but origins if life theory, a different field. Lenski's e. coli that maroevolved into citric acid metabolizers, requiring major changes in their configuration, are repeateble under controlled conditions, because he saved batches of them, and can recycle the marcoevolution at will. Many scientists have now observed this.

And Von Neuman machines are modeled on the basis of life, not vice versa. The fact that we can understand life via reverse-engineering it does not entail that it was engineered in the first place. We can understand the contents of shark shit by reverse-engineering the components; that does not entail that the shark intelligently chose its food.

And you dismiss or ignore the unintelligent yet nonrandom guidance that environmental selection imposes when it allows some mutations to survive and reproduce, while others die. And environmental selection has had billions of years for the successful mutations to accumulate and to build upon one another.

Science HAS tested these things, and the results have unequivocally and without exception supported evolutionary theory. Explain, if you can, how thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences can have been spliced into humans and great apes in the absence of evolutionary divergence from common ancestors. You can't. It's statistically insane to suppose otherwise.

223 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 16, 2008 4:04:06am

re: #221 Amillennialist

(And no, our misunderstanding of the movement of the planets around the Ssun is not analogous: We have been able to observe that in fact, we orbit it. No one has demonstrated -- as Darwin confessed someone would need to do -- that an eye can arise from non-life by only random, natural processes.

Since Darwin brought it up: Just as a quasi-religious body fought vigorously centuries ago to protect its authority by defending its erroneous understanding of Nature, so today a quasi-religious body defends vehemently its power and its own false doctrine. Now that's ironic!)

Finally, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. If he had, I doubt he would have uttered a word about complex genetic program arising by accident.

And as for "creation myths . . . unprovable mythology"? Scientifically-speaking, since no scientist was present to observe and record abiogenesis, and since no scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis and macroevolution can even occur, I would agree that it is beyond Science's ability to speak definitively on how Life began and developed.

However, to which explanation of Life's beginnings does evidence and experience offer support? To the one that claims Life arises apart from Life and its programs, or the one that speaks of a great Intellect designing and programming that Life?

A last thought: Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of determining truth.

Please show me one single theory part that still stands that has been 'just made up' by evolutionary theorists, and which lacks empirical evidentiary support. You can't.

Darwin's explanations have indeed been proven for a century and a half. As the fossil evidence continues to accumulate, the transitional forms continue to be filled in. The explanation for the Cambrian 'explosion' (which was not really an explosion, since the period in which it occurred spans longer than the period between the extinction of the dinosaurs and now (65 million years)) is the evolution of motility, which permitted a profusion of mutations to survive with plentiful statically fixed food and no natural enemies until predators evolved.

Punctualted equilibrium is not opposed to gradualism; this is just another creationist canard. Rather, they are poles on a continuum, and that which decides where a particular species lies on that continuum is the degree of environmental selection stress upon it.

You need to quote the rest of the passage in Darwin's Origin Of Species concerning the eye: Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

[Link: www.literature.org...]

No one has observed an eye evolving, because this takes much longer than the life of a human being. But we do have the intermediate forms still existing in living organisms for which it made no environmental sense for them to evolve their eyes further.

to be continued...

224 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 16, 2008 4:22:50am

re: #221 Amillennialist

Since Darwin brought it up: Just as a quasi-religious body fought vigorously centuries ago to protect its authority by defending its erroneous understanding of Nature, so today a quasi-religious body defends vehemently its power and its own false doctrine. Now that's ironic!)

Finally, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. If he had, I doubt he would have uttered a word about complex genetic program arising by accident.

And as for "creation myths . . . unprovable mythology"? Scientifically-speaking, since no scientist was present to observe and record abiogenesis, and since no scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis and macroevolution can even occur, I would agree that it is beyond Science's ability to speak definitively on how Life began and developed.

However, to which explanation of Life's beginnings does evidence and experience offer support? To the one that claims Life arises apart from Life and its programs, or the one that speaks of a great Intellect designing and programming that Life?

A last thought: Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of determining truth.

You futilely attempt to bring science down, empirically speaking, to religion's level, since you cannot empirically elevate religion to the level of science. Religion is both untestable and possesses no evidence for its contentions; science is both testable and furnished precisely the evidence that religion is unable to supply.

Darwin figured out the external how of evolution - random mutations acted upon nonrandomly by environmental selection - but
he did not figure out the internal how. The scientist and Catholic monk Gregor Mendel provided the theoretical underpinnings of that internal, and watson & Crick, led by their theories, searched for and found the material substrate for it - DNA.

Two things we can be quite certain of regarding the genesis of life: 1) it happened on the planet more than 2 billion years ago, and 2) all the multifarious species currently alive on this planet evolutionarily diverged from a few common ancestors. Life did not begin a few thousand tears ago, and the millions of different species were not independently created as is from scratch in the span of a few days.

You cannot describe a technology that could detect the metaphysical Hand of God intervening in physical affairs. That being the case, such conjectures belong in the realm of religion and outside the realm of science. But we can most definitely apply Occam's Razor and point out that adding that Hand is both unnecessarily superfluous, since it adds no explanation that cannot be reached without it, and its august mythic presence is not indicated by any of the empirical data that has accumulated in one and a half hundred years of seeking.

Nothing is omniscient. But the knowledge that science possesses grows in time with experiment and empirical investigation and the evidence produced by them, while the dogmas that religions proffer are forever frozen as they are, in all their empirically erroneous glory.

225 Deaddog  Sat, Aug 16, 2008 2:01:55pm

As someone who actually works on abiogenesis on a daily basis, I find the objections of Creationist and ID travelers to be rather amusing. We routinely can generate molecular function in the test tube by selection methods. This is in stark contrast to the older claims of Creationists who said (in essence) that this was as likely as "a 747 being constructed from parts in a hurricane." Fortunately, the hurricane allows replication, and heritable information + selection = function.

While I suspect I disagree with Charles and many other posters here on a variety of issues, over time I have come to respect Charles' pro-science viewpoint and unwavering support of the truth as he sees it. The fact that there continue to be commenters who are somehow unable to deal with scientific fact and theory is not surprising, but the number here seems to be low relative to the populace as a whole, another good sign.

226 Nemesis6  Sun, Aug 17, 2008 4:00:25am

re: #225 Deaddog

Finally, someone who can instigate some actual debate that's not just mud tossing. Might as well try to get some going - What did Charles say that you disagreed with?

227 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 17, 2008 6:23:14am

re: #226 Nemesis6

Finally, someone who can instigate some actual debate that's not just mud tossing. Might as well try to get some going - What did Charles say that you disagreed with?

Well, whatever it is, it ain't about evolutionary theory, apparently; there, from what his post indicates, he is strongly and unequivocally applauding Charles' pro-empirical-evidence stance and stand. As do I, and as do most others here, it would seem. One thing Deaddog most assuredly isn't is anti-science.

It has become surpassingly obvious, from the blatant manner in which Biblical Genesis literalists allow their emotions to override their intellection on this issue, that they are committed idiotarians about it, and cannot bear for their sacred ox to get deservedly gored.

But gored it will be, because it richly merits same, as does any position that demands that myths be given precedence over facts. Once should expect no less from any anti-idiotarian blog truly worthy of the designation.

228 Deaddog  Sun, Aug 17, 2008 6:27:35am

re: #226 Nemesis6

There's not much Charles has said so far on the subject of evolution, Creationism, or ID that I've disagreed with. That's sort of the point, I'm here because these issues are taken on in an enlightened manner in a public venue, irrespective of political point of view. There are in fact few other places that is possible. Here it is only possible because Charles treads an interesting line between a conservative and a technological (*not* anti-theistic) worldview. Too often the two are at odds in the world at large. Modern conservatism is doing itself a huge disservice by encouraging scientific ignorance in favor of religious fervor or jingoism. It is not a given that the United States will retain a technological lead over the rest of the world because we are brave and true and good and [insert other irrelevant adjectives here]. We will retain a technological lead because we emphasize and encourage the development of technology. In the realm of biotechnology, this absolutely means understanding and teaching the fact and theory of evolution. In other realms, this may imply that such shocking concepts as government funding of science should be countenanced, rather than spit upon as just another source of parasitism.

229 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 17, 2008 9:06:06am

The pro-science people among us, who acknowledge that evolutionary theory is indeed based upon sound, valid and solid empirical science, should not allow ourselves to be coerced into becoming either like the moderate, pro-democracy Muslims who are intimidated from speaking out for fear of reprisals from the jihadist supporters, nor like the PC-blinded leftists, who allow illegitimate victim cards to be played on them by CAIR every time that front group's demands are not immediately acquiesced to, and shamefully submit to their desires for fear of falsely being tarred as discriminatory, bigoted or prejudiced. Good role models are M. Zuhdi Jasser, a moderate, pro-democracy Muslim who refuses to be coerced or cowed by Islamofascist sympathizers,
[Link: www.aifdemocracy.org...]
and Steve Emerson, who refuses to allow CAIR'S faux victimhood ploys to browbeat him into silence.
[Link: www.steveemerson.com...]

Logic, rationality, and reason should rule the day, dispassionate and objective pursuit of the facts and truth of matters should remain paramount, and credible empirical evidence should be followed without fear or favor, wherever it might lead.

230 Amillennialist  Sun, Aug 17, 2008 9:26:52pm

re: #222 Salamantis

. . . Abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory . . . .

Abiogenesis is necessary to an atheistic creation myth, and evolutionary theory purports to describe the origin(s) of Life as we know it. The concept is germane to this discussion.

Lenski's e. coli . . . maroevolved into citric acid metabolizers, requiring major changes in their configuration . . . .

So, some bacteria developed a taste for citric acid (citrate) instead of glucose (requiring a change in their membranes, not a "major reconfiguration")? E. coli (with the right plasmids) that feed on citrate are not unknown.

E. coli exchange genes with other bacteria. According to Carl Zimmer, in the last fifteen years, one disease-inducing bacterium acquired hundreds of genes not found in closely related strains. E. coli is also known for being able to break down lactose, but several strains have lost that ability completely, and Lenski's bacteria have become worse at feeding on certain sugars.

Even with all this possibility, Lenski's bacteria are not developing newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function, which is Darwinism's core fabrication. Lenski and his successors can continue to breed these strains in perpetuity, and they'll never get anything other than bacteria, even in this artificial environment providing conditions most conducive to producing evidence in support of macroevolution.

In light of this, what Lenski has "discovered" is evidence of microevolution, not macroevolution. If a bacterium had evolved into a multicellular organism, we'd have heard something about it.

And Von Neuman machines are modeled on the basis of life, not vice versa.

Of course, and you're making my point. I use the descriptor "Von Neumann-type metabolic machine" because a living cell is a "self-replicating machine . . . capable of autonomously manufacturing a copy of itself using raw materials taken from its environment."

Ironically, when applied to what Man can create, such a machine is described with words like "artificial construct" and "theoretically capable." But you attribute the existence of metabolic machines more sophisticated than anything Man can create to random, natural processes.

The fact that we can understand life via reverse-engineering it does not entail that it was engineered in the first place.

By definition, "reverse-engineering" implies engineering. Only in Darwinism do machines arise apart from a designer and programs apart from a programmer.

We can understand the contents of shark shit by reverse-engineering the components; that does not entail that the shark intelligently chose its food.

Spurious. Don't get lost in fish feces.

environmental selection imposes . . . allows some mutations to survive . . . build upon one another.

"imposes," "allows," "build upon one another." Personification in the origins of life. Funny.

Science HAS tested these things, and the results have unequivocally and without exception supported evolutionary theory.

Microevolution, not macroevolution.

Explain . . . thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences . . . can have been spliced into humans and great apes in the absence of evolutionary divergence from common ancestors.

Do these sequences share identical insertion sites? If not, then they are not conserved from a common ancestor but specific to each species, as in the case of PTERV1.

In that case, common code susceptible to common virii seems like a logical explanation.

And you know what common program implies.

231 Amillennialist  Sun, Aug 17, 2008 11:07:40pm

re: #223 Salamantis

Please show me one single theory part that still stands that has been 'just made up' by evolutionary theorists, and which lacks empirical evidentiary support. You can't.

Again?

Macroevolution. No scientist has observed random genetic mutations result in newer, more complex program, structure, and function. None has demonstrated it's even possible for such a thing to occur.

Truthfully, since you are making the claim something occurred, you should offer the evidence for that. So far, you've got nothing.

Punctualted equilibrium is not opposed to gradualism; this is just another creationist canard. Rather, they are poles on a continuum, and that which decides where a particular species lies on that continuum is the degree of environmental selection stress upon it.

Straw man. I said that PE was an admission that the fossil record didn't support Darwin's assertion. Stephen Jay Gould admitted Darwinism possessed no good explanation for the fossil evidence, so PE was developed. He was hardly a "creationist."

You need to quote the rest of the passage in Darwin's Origin Of Species concerning the eye: Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist . . . .

None of which proves that such a process has occurred, or can occur. You have to be ignorant of the details of Life -- as was Darwin -- to believe that the simplest light-sensitive spot could arise by random genetic mutations in the first place; in the second, that a long series of such variations could result in highly-complex modern eyes.

No one has observed an eye evolving, because this takes much longer than the life of a human being. But we do have the intermediate forms still existing in living organisms for which it made no environmental sense for them to evolve their eyes further.

How convenient! Stating as unquestionable scientific truth something that cannot be observed!

Here again is a fundamental logical flaw on which Darwinism stands: Inferring from similarities in program, structure, and/or function a chain of descent. Since you've never observed a reptile evolve into a bird, how do you know it happened? What do you think went through the mind of that first bird when it hatched and realized it had no partner with which to reproduce?

Would you claim that an abacus evolved eventually into a quad core-based PC? Of course not. But it's easy to make up stories about things no one can observe or demonstrate is possible, and is inconsistent with all that we know about the way the world works.

You're making a priori assumptions in support of what you want to be true, rather than evaluating what we actually know.

232 Amillennialist  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 12:38:56am

re: #224 Salamantis

You futilely attempt to bring science down, empirically speaking, to religion's level, since you cannot empirically elevate religion to the level of science.

How dishonest.

Do you know what "empirical" means? It means, "having to do with that which can be observed."

You divorce Science from empiricism: You admit that no one can observe macroevolution.

I say that "Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of knowing truth," yet you criticize me. Are you saying it is? If so, isn't that a sort of irrational fanaticism?

You claim to defend Science, but in fact you undermine it by advancing as truth propositions unsupported (or contradicted) by what we know is actually empirically true.

I am the one arguing for the Scientific Method. I am the one arguing for the need for actual evidence in determining truth.

Religion is both untestable and possesses no evidence for its contentions; science is both testable and furnished precisely the evidence that religion is unable to supply.

Science is only valuable as long as the Scientific Method is employed properly. Once divorced from observation, testing, and the repetition of that process, you've no longer got Science, you've got Science Fiction.

(And your claim is not true of all religions.)

Darwin figured out the external how of evolution - random mutations acted upon nonrandomly by environmental selection - but he did not figure out the internal how.

That's because there is no "internal how."

Darwin took observed similarities between organisms and claimed those similarities indicated necessarily a chain of descent. He had no way of proving it then, and no one has proven it since.

In light of the nature and complexity of the living cell and its genetic program, it speaks of a kind of psychosis to assert that only random, natural processes could result in the variety of program, structure, and function of Life.

Two things we can be quite certain of regarding the genesis of life: 1) it happened on the planet more than 2 billion years ago, and 2) all the multifarious species currently alive on this planet evolutionarily diverged from a few common ancestors.

So, you have no empirical evidence of abiogenesis. You have no empirical evidence of all life evolving from the first living cell(s). You have no observational or experimental evidence that random, minor genetic mutations can result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function in an organism, yet you know that Life is old and arose gradually.

So, by which method do you arrive at 2 billion?

You cannot describe a technology that could detect the metaphysical Hand of God intervening in physical affairs.

Which goes to show that Science is not omniscient (but doesn't mean that the Scientific Method is useless in evaluating religious claims).

That being the case, such conjectures belong in the realm of religion and outside the realm of science.

That's a repetition of the false dichotomy between Religion and Science. Both are useful only to the degree that they deal with facts.

(Falsely) arguing that (all) religion is silly does not create empirical evidence for macroevolution. To try to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

. . . apply Occam's Razor . . . that Hand is both unnecessarily superfluous, since it adds no explanation that cannot be reached without it . . .

Wow. So, proposing as empirically true something that not only has never been observed, but is actually contradicted by what can be observed satisfies the Razor?

233 Amillennialist  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 12:53:48am

re: #225 Deaddog

As someone who actually works on abiogenesis on a daily basis, I find the objections of Creationist and ID travelers to be rather amusing. We routinely can generate molecular function in the test tube by selection methods.

"someone who . . . works on abiogenesis . . . ."

"We routinely . . . generate . . . by selection methods."

Ba dum bum! You're here 'til Thursday, right?

Is this thing on?

Does anyone else here see the irony in these statements? The abiogenesis Darwinism requires is a living cell arising spontaneously by only random, natural processes from the raw materials of which it consists.

You're citing the application of your intellect as proof of Life arising apart from Intellect. What you're saying is that applied intelligence is necessary for abiogenesis.

That's funny.

So, you've demonstrated that Life arises from non-life and apart from its programs? Do you have a link?

234 Amillennialist  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 12:56:52am

re: #227 Salamantis

. . . It has become surpassingly obvious, from the blatant manner in which Biblical Genesis literalists allow their emotions to override their intellection on this issue, that they are committed idiotarians about it, and cannot bear for their sacred ox to get deservedly gored.

But gored it will be, because it richly merits same, as does any position that demands that myths be given precedence over facts. Once should expect no less from any anti-idiotarian blog truly worthy of the designation.

I don't want to call into question your "intellection," but have you yet found any empirical evidence of the macroevolution you admit can't be observed?

235 Amillennialist  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 1:03:26am

re: #228 Deaddog

There's not much Charles has said so far on the subject of evolution, Creationism, or ID that I've disagreed with. That's sort of the point, I'm here because these issues are taken on in an enlightened manner in a public venue, irrespective of political point of view

Dismissing out-of-hand as a religious idiot someone asking for empirical evidence of macroevolution is hardly "enlightened."

In the realm of biotechnology, this absolutely means understanding and teaching the fact and theory of evolution.

"From goo, to zoo, to you," makes good technology?

How about sticking to just the facts?

236 Amillennialist  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 1:04:54am

re: #229 Salamantis

Logic, rationality, and reason should rule the day, dispassionate and objective pursuit of the facts and truth of matters should remain paramount, and credible empirical evidence should be followed without fear or favor, wherever it might lead.

I agree.

237 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 11:46:28am

re: #234 Amillennialist

I don't want to call into question your "intellection," but have you yet found any empirical evidence of the macroevolution you admit can't be observed?

Actually, it has been observed, and Charles has posted about it. Read all about it here:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

and here:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Read about it from the scientist's own university laboratory website here:

[Link: myxo.css.msu.edu...]

238 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 12:10:29pm

re: #230 Amillennialist

re: #222 Salamantis
. . . Abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory . . . .

Am: Abiogenesis is necessary to an atheistic creation myth, and evolutionary theory purports to describe the origin(s) of Life as we know it. The concept is germane to this discussion.

Sal: You might want to check out what Charles has already posted on OOL theory:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

But still you attempt to conflate and confuse evolution pro and con (and there has not been any credible con produced) with theism vs. atheism, when a billion Roman Catholics swear that it's possible to be both supporters of evolutionary theory as sound, valid and solid empircally-supported science and also good Theistic Christians, because they claim to be both. Evolutionary theory DOES NOT purport to describe the beginnings of life; it purports to describe what happens when already-present high-but-not-perfect-copying-fidelity reproducing populations of organisms encounter environmental stressors which differentially select between mutations.

So, some bacteria developed a taste for citric acid (citrate) instead of glucose (requiring a change in their membranes, not a "major reconfiguration")? E. coli (with the right plasmids) that feed on citrate are not unknown.

E. coli exchange genes with other bacteria. According to Carl Zimmer, in the last fifteen years, one disease-inducing bacterium acquired hundreds of genes not found in closely related strains. E. coli is also known for being able to break down lactose, but several strains have lost that ability completely, and Lenski's bacteria have become worse at feeding on certain sugars.

Even with all this possibility, Lenski's bacteria are not developing newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function, which is Darwinism's core fabrication. Lenski and his successors can continue to breed these strains in perpetuity, and they'll never get anything other than bacteria, even in this artificial environment providing conditions most conducive to producing evidence in support of macroevolution.

In light of this, what Lenski has "discovered" is evidence of microevolution, not macroevolution. If a bacterium had evolved into a multicellular organism, we'd have heard something about it.

If a human being suddenly developed lizard skin through which they could absorb and metabolize strychnine, you'd call it a macroevolution. These e. coli were being grown under laboratory conditions in sealed retorts; they weren't getting genetic material from any other bacteria. Otherwise, all twelve batches would have developed this ability instead of just one. And the ghost of the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument doesn't fly, with the presence of an outside energy source (their food). They don't have to be other than bacteria; dogs and cats are both mammals, but there is no doubt whatsoever that they are different species.

Oh, and evidence has been found of exactly how single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular ones:

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

to be continued...

239 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 12:37:29pm

re: #230 Amillennialist

Sal: And Von Neuman machines are modeled on the basis of life, not vice versa.

Am: Of course, and you're making my point. I use the descriptor "Von Neumann-type metabolic machine" because a living cell is a "self-replicating machine . . . capable of autonomously manufacturing a copy of itself using raw materials taken from its environment."

Ironically, when applied to what Man can create, such a machine is described with words like "artificial construct" and "theoretically capable." But you attribute the existence of metabolic machines more sophisticated than anything Man can create to random, natural processes.

Well, humans haven't had billions of years to create them; scientifically guided efforts have only been made for a few decades.

Sal: The fact that we can understand life via reverse-engineering it does not entail that it was engineered in the first place.

Am: By definition, "reverse-engineering" implies engineering. Only in Darwinism do machines arise apart from a designer and programs apart from a programmer.

It does not imply, however, that what was intelligently reverse-engineered was intelligently engineered in the first place. Environmental selection over vast spans of time may be blind, but it is not random; it is directional, and directional mutations can accumulate - and have.

Sal: We can understand the contents of shark shit by reverse-engineering the components; that does not entail that the shark intelligently chose its food.

Spurious. Don't get lost in fish feces.

Not spurious at all; the shark feeds directionally (seeking food), but blindly. It eats what it finds.

Sal: environmental selection imposes . . . allows some mutations to survive . . . build upon one another.

AM: "imposes," "allows," "build upon one another." Personification in the origins of life. Funny.

First, not in the origins of life, but in its evolution. Second, an environment, with all of its climate, predators and prey selection, does indeed blindly yet directionally impose exigencies upon organisms, and the mutations selected by these exigencies can, and do, accrete and combine, as is proven by Ken Miller's refutation of Behe's irreducible, but all-too-reducible, complexity argument, as Charles has already referenced:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Sal: Science HAS tested these things, and the results have unequivocally and without exception supported evolutionary theory.

Am: Microevolution, not macroevolution.

Lenski disagrees. As do I, and as do many scientists.

Sal: Explain . . . thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences . . . can have been spliced into humans and great apes in the absence of evolutionary divergence from common ancestors.

Am: Do these sequences share identical insertion sites? If not, then they are not conserved from a common ancestor but specific to each species, as in the case of PTERV1.

In that case, common code susceptible to common virii seems like a logical explanation.

And you know what common program implies.

These sequences do indeed share isomorphic insertion sites, something that is unexplainable in 3 billion base pair genomes except through common ancestry. PTERV1 is one of those sequences that infected species after evolutionary divergence; thousands of others infected the common ancestor before divergent speciation occurred. It is statistically incomprehensible that differing species would be infected at the same time with the same retrovirus thousands of times over, and that each of them would splice into the same sites in the genomes of different species. Only their infection of and integration into the genome of a common ancestor prior to evolutionary divergence makes any mathematical sense.

But read the article for yourself:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

240 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 12:53:25pm

re: #231 Amillennialist

re: #223 Salamantis

Sal: Please show me one single theory part that still stands that has been 'just made up' by evolutionary theorists, and which lacks empirical evidentiary support. You can't.

Am: Again?

Macroevolution. No scientist has observed random genetic mutations result in newer, more complex program, structure, and function. None has demonstrated it's even possible for such a thing to occur.

Truthfully, since you are making the claim something occurred, you should offer the evidence for that. So far, you've got nothing.

I've got Lenski's e. coli. And also there's this:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

When two fertile opposite-sex organisms cannot produce fertile offspring, they are generally considered to be members of different species.

Punctuated equilibrium is not opposed to gradualism; this is just another creationist canard. Rather, they are poles on a continuum, and that which decides where a particular species lies on that continuum is the degree of environmental selection stress upon it.

Straw man. I said that PE was an admission that the fossil record didn't support Darwin's assertion. Stephen Jay Gould admitted Darwinism possessed no good explanation for the fossil evidence, so PE was developed. He was hardly a "creationist."

Darwin wasn't right about everything, particularly his idea of trait blending (Mendel corrected this). We're not discussing whether or not Darwin was error-free, but whether evolutionary theory is sound empirical science - and it is. And no, Gould was no creationist; he augmented a pre-existent theory in order to improve upon it, like good scientists are supposed to do.

Sal: You need to quote the rest of the passage in Darwin's Origin Of Species concerning the eye: Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist . . . .

None of which proves that such a process has occurred, or can occur. You have to be ignorant of the details of Life -- as was Darwin -- to believe that the simplest light-sensitive spot could arise by random genetic mutations in the first place; in the second, that a long series of such variations could result in highly-complex modern eyes.

No, but it proves that you were selectively quote-mining him. And I see no reason why light-sensitivity could not have evolved from heat-sensitivity; it's just a frequency difference, and really, not even that - or does the sun not warm your skin? And the evolution of the eye through a series of mutations is explained in another post Charles made:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

to be continued...

241 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 1:06:02pm

re: #231 Amillennialist

Sal: No one has observed an eye evolving, because this takes much longer than the life of a human being. But we do have the intermediate forms still existing in living organisms for which it made no environmental sense for them to evolve their eyes further.

Am: How convenient! Stating as unquestionable scientific truth something that cannot be observed!

Here again is a fundamental logical flaw on which Darwinism stands: Inferring from similarities in program, structure, and/or function a chain of descent. Since you've never observed a reptile evolve into a bird, how do you know it happened? What do you think went through the mind of that first bird when it hatched and realized it had no partner with which to reproduce?

Would you claim that an abacus evolved eventually into a quad core-based PC? Of course not. But it's easy to make up stories about things no one can observe or demonstrate is possible, and is inconsistent with all that we know about the way the world works.
You're making a priori assumptions in support of what you want to be true, rather than evaluating what we actually know.

It's called empirical evidence. How do we know that OJ murdered Ron and Nicole? Because of the DNA evidence that the jury ignored when it allowed emotion to override intellection. Your analogy is flawed; all organisms are alive and share DNA similarities, but an abacus is not an electronic device and a PC is. Also, species accumulate microevolutions until they have macroevolutionarily speciated; all this time, they can reproduce with available partners, but because the groups are separate, the random mutations are different, the selection (from differing environments) is different, and the available breeding partners are different. We know what evolved into what because we can look not only at morphological similarities, but also at DNA closeness, developmental ontogeny, and transitional fossil forms. We also, thanks to observed and even caused speciation, know that the world can work in this way. Taken together, this all builds the kind of circumstantial case that would convict the species involved of the crime of evolution before any informed, impartial and objective jury. It ain't a priori if judgment is made posterior to the perusal of empirical evidence.

242 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 1:39:35pm

re: #232 Amillennialist

re: #224 Salamantis

Sal: You futilely attempt to bring science down, empirically speaking, to religion's level, since you cannot empirically elevate religion to the level of science.

Am: How dishonest.
Do you know what "empirical" means? It means, "having to do with that which can be observed."
You divorce Science from empiricism: You admit that no one can observe macroevolution.

Not only has it been observed, it's been produced - by Lenski.

I say that "Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of knowing truth," yet you criticize me. Are you saying it is? If so, isn't that a sort of irrational fanaticism?

Science does not have to know all things to know some things. And what you are talking about with religion is not knowledge, but belief. They operate within different realms.

You claim to defend Science, but in fact you undermine it by advancing as truth propositions unsupported (or contradicted) by what we know is actually empirically true.

I do nothing of the sort. Every contention I have made has been empirically supported, and I've provided links to the evidence.

I am the one arguing for the Scientific Method. I am the one arguing for the need for actual evidence in determining truth.

I am the only one I see here who has actually been furnishing empirical evidence. The fact that you don't like it, and what it implies (that evolution is as solid and empirically supported a theory as can be found within science) even while you are unable to effectively argue against it is not my problem.

Sal: Religion is both untestable and possesses no evidence for its contentions; science is both testable and furnished precisely the evidence that religion is unable to supply.

Am: Science is only valuable as long as the Scientific Method is employed properly. Once divorced from observation, testing, and the repetition of that process, you've no longer got Science, you've got Science Fiction.
(And your claim is not true of all religions.)

Please tell me what religions are testable and evidentially supported. I will then reply that they are no longer religion, but science. Or I will show you how your claims concerning them fail. And I think you greatly misunderstand the scientific method if you divorce it from induction from a multiplicity of data to statistically likely results, because that's precisely how empirical science proceeds.

Sal: Darwin figured out the external how of evolution - random mutations acted upon nonrandomly by environmental selection - but he did not figure out the internal how.

Am: That's because there is no "internal how."

Darwin took observed similarities between organisms and claimed those similarities indicated necessarily a chain of descent. He had no way of proving it then, and no one has proven it since.

In light of the nature and complexity of the living cell and its genetic program, it speaks of a kind of psychosis to assert that only random, natural processes could result in the variety of program, structure, and function of Life.

Actually, Watson & Crick discovered the internal 'how', following the necessity for one that could be discerned in the work of Darwin and Mendel; that internal how is, of course, the material substrate DNA that codes for traits. Mendel was the one who demonstrated how the chain of descent works, via dominant and recessive genes. And once again you repeat the canard about total randomness when that is clearly not the process of affairs that obtains in evolution. Mutations are random; environmental selection is nonrandom. Over billions of years, such blindly guided stochastic processes could, and did, produce the multifarious and divergent species inhabiting this planet.

to be continued...

243 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 2:04:18pm

re: #232 Amillennialist

Sal: Two things we can be quite certain of regarding the genesis of life: 1) it happened on the planet more than 2 billion years ago, and 2) all the multifarious species currently alive on this planet evolutionarily diverged from a few common ancestors.

Am: So, you have no empirical evidence of abiogenesis. You have no empirical evidence of all life evolving from the first living cell(s). You have no observational or experimental evidence that random, minor genetic mutations can result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function in an organism, yet you know that Life is old and arose gradually.

So, by which method do you arrive at 2 billion?

Abiogenesis is not crucial to the theory of evolution. The evidence for all life evolving from a few ancient primordial progenitors is contained in every cell, for DNA and.or RNA is found in them all, and there are substantial common codon sequences in them across species. The accumulation of random genetic mutations acted upon nonrandomly by a selecting environment can and did result in the many species that populate this planet, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with it. The sun is one source of energy external to the planet, and another source external to the planet's surface would be its hot core, the source of the energy bubbling up from the volcanic heat vents on ocean floors. Life is most definitely at least 2 billion years old, and according to the World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia of 1996, I mis-stated conservatively, for they indicate that:

"Rocks of the Archeon eon contain the earliest fossils, which are about 3½ billion years old."

[Link: hypertextbook.com...]

Sal: You cannot describe a technology that could detect the metaphysical Hand of God intervening in physical affairs.

Am: Which goes to show that Science is not omniscient (but doesn't mean that the Scientific Method is useless in evaluating religious claims).

What it goes to show is that claims of metaphysical intervienience are untestable, and therefore outside the realm of science and within the realm of religion. And the scientific method is indeed useful in evaluating religious claims, when they stray into the empirical realm; that is how the contentions of a 6000 year old earth and independent as-is creation of all species 6000 years ago within the space of a week were empirically falsified.

Sal: That being the case, such conjectures belong in the realm of religion and outside the realm of science.

Am: That's a repetition of the false dichotomy between Religion and Science. Both are useful only to the degree that they deal with facts.

(Falsely) arguing that (all) religion is silly does not create empirical evidence for macroevolution. To try to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Science is only science by virtue of being empirically testable and being supported by empirical evidence; religion is empirically untestable and is unsupported by empirical evidence. The moment a contention that was considered to be religious becomes testable or has empirical evidential support, it leaves the realm of faith/belief (religion)and enters the realm of provisional knowledge (science). I didn't say religion was silly; I DID say that it is untestable and unsupported empirically.

Sal: . . . apply Occam's Razor . . . that Hand is both unnecessarily superfluous, since it adds no explanation that cannot be reached without it . . .

Am: Wow. So, proposing as empirically true something that not only has never been observed, but is actually contradicted by what can be observed satisfies the Razor?

.

You cannot show me one datum of evidence that empirically contradicts any part of evolutionary theory. And as far as Genesis literalist claims go, have you interviewed Adam or Eve personally? Or did the Old Testament authors do so?

244 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 18, 2008 2:12:03pm

re: #233 Amillennialist

"someone who . . . works on abiogenesis . . . ."

"We routinely . . . generate . . . by selection methods."

Ba dum bum! You're here 'til Thursday, right?

Is this thing on?

Does anyone else here see the irony in these statements? The abiogenesis Darwinism requires is a living cell arising spontaneously by only random, natural processes from the raw materials of which it consists.

You're citing the application of your intellect as proof of Life arising apart from Intellect. What you're saying is that applied intelligence is necessary for abiogenesis.

That's funny.

So, you've demonstrated that Life arises from non-life and apart from its programs? Do you have a link?

That IS funny. You trumpet the fact that test-tube life hasn't been created from scratch yet as disproof of abiogenesis, yet in the next breat state that the laboratory creation of such life would not prove anything to you. There's just no satisfying some people, when what they devoutly wish is not to be satisfied, come what may.

It's only been a few decades for scientists yet...give them 3 1/2 billion years, and I'm sure they can cook something up for ya, and might even demonstrate how it could have just happened to cook up in the process.

245 Amillennialist  Tue, Aug 19, 2008 3:17:54pm

re: #238 Salamantis

. . . [you] conflate and confuse evolution pro and con . . . with theism vs. atheism

I am asking for verifiable, empirical evidence that random, minor genetic mutations result in newer, more complex program, structure, and function.

Ironically, you're the one using personification to describe impersonal, natural, random forces.

As for a "con," is not the fact that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs evidence that Darwinism is not only irrational, but psychotic?

. . . a billion Roman Catholics swear that it's possible to be both supporters of evolutionary theory . . . and also good Theistic Christians . . . .

If those good Christians are acknowledging only that random, minor genetic mutations result in observable changes within organisms, then they are being good Christians and good scientists.

If, however, they are affirming Darwinism's explanation for the origins of species -- that random, natural processes result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function -- then they are being neither good Christians nor good scientists.

Evolutionary theory DOES NOT purport to describe the beginnings of life; it purports to describe what happens when already-present high-but-not-perfect-copying-fidelity reproducing populations of organism . . .

If that were all Darwinism pretended to describe, there wouldn't be a problem. But you're trying to "create" man from mud by only random, natural processes, which is absolutely absurd.

Even if Darwinism assumes the first living cells -- the most basic of which are Von Neumman-type metabolic machines containing incredibly complex genetic code -- no one has observed newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function arise in an organism by only random, natural processes.

In fact, you admit it is impossible to observe this. So, we should just take your word for it?

If a human being suddenly developed lizard skin . . . macroevolution . . . They don't have to be other than bacteria . . . there is no doubt whatsoever that they are different species.

I realize that among evolutionists the term "macroevolution" is defined a number of ways. I am not referring to those random, minor genetic mutations that can result in organisms of the same lineage branching off into two or more species unable to reproduce but still being essentially the same kind of animal.

I am using the term to refer to the fantastical, unsupported, and unscientific proposition that random, natural processes result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function, that Life as we know evolved from goo through zoo to you.

Oh, and evidence has been found of exactly how single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular ones

I read your link. You're misinterpreting similarity in code for proof of a chain of causation or descent. That's bad logic.

Here's some of that on which you pin your hopes:

". . . suspected . . . similarity . . . may have played . . . how evolution might work . . . Probably there was an ancestor . . . ."

Doesn't sound much like "evidence" of "exactly how" to me.

It's guesswork, not empirical evidence. It's confusing correlation for causation.

I've pointed out that, empirically-speaking, Life only arises from Life and Life's programs and that no scientist has ever observed random, minor genetic mutations result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function (you admit it's impossible!).

I've asked you to produce evidence of someone having observed any of it, and all you offer are examples of microevolution or lateral speciation.

Darwin's stuck at one cell, assuming abiogenesis, of course!

246 Amillennialist  Tue, Aug 19, 2008 5:46:15pm

re: #239 Salamantis

Well, humans haven't had billions of years to create them; scientifically guided efforts have only been made for a few decades.

Human beings applying our race's total accumulation of learning are unable to create machines so sophisticated, but you think random, natural processes did.

It does not imply, however, that what was intelligently reverse-engineered was intelligently engineered in the first place.

"engineered" necessarily implies an engineer.

Environmental selection over vast spans of time may be blind, but it is not random

"Random" means "having no pattern, purpose, or objective."

So, you're saying that Nature has purposes and goals?

Sounds like animism (or Wicca).

"it is directional, and directional mutations can accumulate - and have."

The observed directions are lateral, not vertical.

We have empirical evidence that genetic mutations occur in organisms and that changes can accumulate, but those observed changes never result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function. At most, they produce a new organism unable to reproduce with its cousins (or some other slight change), but you've still got the same kind of animal.

Ken Miller's refutation of Behe's irreducible, but all-too-reducible, complexity argument, as Charles has already referenced:

You keep providing links, but none of them have offered empirical (observable) evidence of that which you admit it is impossible to observe.

I've spent a good amount of time running down your rabbit holes looking for proof of macroevolution, only to be disappointed each time. Will this be any different?

Assuming Miller demonstrates that Behe's theory lacks credibility, it still doesn't demonstrate that which you confess it is impossible to observe.

Lenski disagrees. As do I, and as do many scientists.

So, in the absence of empirical evidence, and in the face of contradictory facts, you appeal to authority?

I read about Lenski's work, including his response to Conservapedia's host regarding it. Neither there nor in the write-up of his work did I see Lenski claim to have discovered evidence of random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, or function.

All he got from his E. coli was . . . E. coli.

These sequences do indeed share isomorphic insertion sites

Do you have a link for that? This wouldn't be the first time you claimed "evidence" for something "exactly" only to find that it was proof of something which I do not dispute.

If the insertion sites are not identical, then you've got a situation similar to PTERV1, which perhaps you missed: Identical retroviral code in a number of different organisms but with differing insertion sites indicate that each lineage was infected separately from the others, not that they inherited the string from a common ancestor.

Speaking of mathematical improbabilities, would you say that all the highly-sophisticated coding of this website arose from only silicon and copper in a lightning storm, even with billions and billions of years in which for it to occur?

A space shuttle?

A man?

247 Amillennialist  Tue, Aug 19, 2008 6:53:22pm

Obviously, that "man" would not be arising from silicon and copper.

Unless he was a Terminator, which of course requires ultimately the designers and programmers of SkyNet.

(It would be nice to be able to edit here for awkward wording.)

248 Amillennialist  Tue, Aug 19, 2008 11:53:14pm

re: #240 Salamantis

No, but it proves that you were selectively quote-mining him.

No, I was pointing out that he admits the idea is nonsense. And it has never been observed in the Real World, as you admit.

If I had been trying to misrepresent Darwin, I would not have referred to his inept analogy trying to make nonsense seem possible.

And I see no reason why light-sensitivity could not have evolved from heat-sensitivity

Except that we're dealing with Science, which means you need to be able to demonstrate for all to see that such a thing occurs.

Even if you did, you'd still have to demonstrate that an organism possessing a "light-sensitive" spot could somehow attain -- by only random, minor genetic mutations -- the newer, more complex genetic code, structure, and function of more sophisticated eyes.

And the evolution of the eye through a series of mutations is explained in another post Charles made:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

A chart of allegedly homologous structures doesn't show "how" anything happened, nor is it empirical evidence of macroevolution (again!).

Just as Darwin and the people of his time were ignorant of the complexity of the cell and its genetic program -- and so it seemed reasonable to assume that similarity could indicate descent -- so must one today keep at a superficial level to maintain the Darwinian fantasy.

Any delving into the details of how Life works and what we can observe occurring and the creation myth falls apart, for as you admit, no one has observed random, natural processes result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function.

(By the way, you also had a good dose of the discredited "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" thrown in for good measure.)

I would like to continue with this discussion if you have something substantive to offer. I accept microevolution and lateral speciation as true because empirical evidence for them exists. However, that vertical speciation occurs by natural processes is something no one has observed (as you concede) and for which no one can offer empirical evidence.

If you find some, let me know.

249 Amillennialist  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 12:39:04am

re: #241 Salamantis

Your analogy is flawed; all organisms are alive and share DNA similarities, but an abacus is not an electronic device and a PC is.

And a bacterium is not a fish is not a bird is not a man.

Would you prefer, to follow your logic, that we begin instead with calculators that appeared magically out of the ground? Then is it reasonable to believe that only natural processes caused calculators to evolve into supercomputers?

There's a flaw, but it's not in my analogy.

Also, species accumulate microevolutions until they have macroevolutionarily speciated

As I've noted before, I am using the term "macroevolution" in a limited sense: Bacteria which evolve until they're unable to reproduce with their cousins is called macroevolution, but it is a lateral speciation; saying that a heat-sensitive spot evolved into a bird's eye is something no one has observed, nor can they (as you admit).

We know what evolved into what because we can look not only at morphological similarities, but also at DNA closeness, developmental ontogeny, and transitional fossil forms.

You're assuming that similarities indicate descent, which every scientist (and fan of the Odd Couple) should know is a very dangerous thing to do.

What is the most logical explanation for machines possessing similar structure and function? For programs containing similar (or identical) code?

We also, thanks to observed and even caused speciation, know that the world can work in this way.

Your E. coli are still E. coli.

Find any empirical evidence of vertical speciation yet?

Taken together, this all builds the kind of circumstantial case that would convict the species involved of the crime of evolution before any informed, impartial and objective jury.

We're talking about Science.

At least you admit the evidence for what I call "vertical speciation" (random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, and function) is "circumstantial" at best.

So, we've gone from "exactly . . . how" to "circumstantial."

I'd call that progress. :)

It ain't a priori if judgment is made posterior to the perusal of empirical evidence.

A priori assumptions prevent a person from looking at facts objectively. They limit the conclusions one might draw from evidence.

Just as bad is assuming the truth of things for which no empirical evidence exists.

That'd be a mistrial in any court.

250 Amillennialist  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 1:49:28am

re: #242 Salamantis

Not only has it [macroevolution] been observed, it's been produced - by Lenski.

I've noted in a few places that the part of "macroevolution" (perhaps we should have defined terms initially!) to which I am referring is that which you admit no one has (or can!) observe: Random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, and function.

That aspect of macroevolution referring to organisms which can no longer reproduce with its cousins is not at issue; E. coli is still E. coli, antelope squirrels are still antelope squirrels, finches are still finches.

what you are talking about with religion is not knowledge, but belief. They operate within different realms.

That's funny. You're guilty of doing that of which you accuse the religious: Holding as dogmatic truth something for which no empirical evidence exists.

And while many religions just make things up, Christianity is a religion grounded in history. The resurrection of Christ is the best attested-to fact of ancient history, for example.

That's sadly ironic. You won't believe hundreds of eyewitnesses to events in the Bible (or thousands or millions, depending on the event), but you'll believe in something to which no one has ever been an eyewitness.

Every contention I have made has been empirically supported, and I've provided links to the evidence.

Evidence of microevolution or lateral speciation only. You even admit no one can witness macroevolution resulting in, for example, a modern bird's eye.

Please tell me what religions are testable and evidentially supported. I will then reply that they are no longer religion, but science.

You said religions have no evidence for their contentions. That is patently false. The Christian religion has much historical and archaeological evidence in support of it.

you greatly misunderstand the scientific method if you divorce it from induction from a multiplicity of data to statistically likely results . . . .

You don't even know what the Scientific Method is, do you? Without actual observation and testing of the phenomenon under study, you have only conjecture. That's more fitting of philosophy and false religions.

Science requires empirical (observable) evidence.

Actually, Watson & Crick discovered the internal 'how'

How does any program arise apart from a programmer, again?

Mendel was the one who demonstrated how the chain of descent works

Did he ever observe E. coli become something other than E. coli?

you repeat the canard about total randomness

You ought to look up the definition of "random." Selection "does" nothing. You're sick, you die. The other pups are bigger and stronger than you, you starve. You're the slowest animal in the pack, you're someone else's dinner. That's just Reality.

environmental selection is nonrandom. Over billions of years, such blindly guided stochastic processes could, and did, produce the multifarious and divergent species inhabiting this planet.

That's funny. "Stochastic" comes from the Greek meaning, "guess," and was first used to mean "randomly determined" in 1934.

(You do realize you're attributing to natural processes the ability to make decisions, don't you?)

You're making up stories again. Who exactly observed light-sensitive spots evolve into eagles' eyes? Who's watched E. coli evolve into multicellular organisms?

I'll ask again: Do you have any links to anything more than observations of microevolution, lateral speciation, or discredited evolutionary constructs?

251 Amillennialist  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 2:18:04am

re: #243 Salamantis

Abiogenesis is not crucial to the theory of evolution.

Speaking of "moving the bar." Like Punctuated Equilibrium, that seems to be an admission of a lack of empirical evidence for the Darwinian creation myth.

Good. There's some honesty in that.

The evidence for all life evolving from a few ancient primordial progenitors is contained in every cell, for DNA and.or RNA is found in them all

Common program is most logically evidence for what? A common programmer.

can and did result in the many species that populate this planet

Who observed this, again? Do you have a link?

Life is most definitely at least 2 billion years old, and according to the World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia of 1996

So, you quoted World Book. Do you happen to know how they arrived at 3.5 billion?

What it goes to show is that claims of metaphysical intervienience are untestable, and therefore outside the realm of science

So, an untestable claim is "outside the realm of science" but a light-sensitive spot evolving into a modern bird's eye -- something which you admit no one can observe -- is scientific fact!

and within the realm of religion.

Condescending, bigoted, and false, at least in terms of Christianity.

And the scientific method is indeed useful in evaluating religious claims, when they stray into the empirical realm; that is how the contentions of a 6000 year old earth and independent as-is creation of all species 6000 years ago within the space of a week were empirically falsified.

Where'd you come up with 6,000? Besides, you can't even tell me how you came up 2/3.5 billion.

it leaves the realm of faith/belief (religion)and enters the realm of provisional knowledge (science).

More of that false dichotomy: Science = true, rational, and supported by evidence; Religion = Who cares? It's all made up!

I didn't say religion was silly; I DID say that it is untestable and unsupported empirically.

Anything that claims to be objectively true yet has no evidence in support of it is, to be generous, silly.

You cannot show me one datum of evidence that empirically contradicts any part of evolutionary theory.

You're making the claim that random, minor genetic mutations result in newer, more complex program, structure, and function, so the onus is on you to prove it.

Instead, all you've offered of examples of microevolution and organisms speciating into the same type of animal.

And as far as Genesis literalist claims go, have you interviewed Adam or Eve personally? Or did the Old Testament authors do so?

That's an implied tu quoque argument, and more bad logic.

Whatever I may or may not believe has no bearing whatsoever on your inability to produce actual empirical evidence for vertical speciation.

I've not had the chance to speak to Adam or Eve, but then I'm not claiming to be able to study them scientifically. Though, you and I both are heirs of their genetic legacy.

How's that for circumstantial evidence? :)

252 Amillennialist  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 2:31:36am

re: #244 Salamantis

That IS funny. You trumpet the fact that test-tube life hasn't been created from scratch yet as disproof of abiogenesis, yet in the next breat state that the laboratory creation of such life would not prove anything to you.

You have to misrepresent what I wrote in order to try to make a point. That doesn't seem very sporting.

"created" and "creation." There you go again!

You're confusing categories. You and your coreligionist hope to cite as evidence of Life arising apart from a Creator men causing Life to arise.

Do you not see the fundamental contradiction in that?

In order for you to demonstrate that Life can arise spontaneously from non-life by only random, natural processes, you'd have to have Life arise spontaneously from non-life by only random, natural processes.

There's just no satisfying some people, when what they devoutly wish is not to be satisfied, come what may.

In Psychology, that's called "projection."

It's only been a few decades for scientists yet...give them 3 1/2 billion years, and I'm sure they can cook something up for ya, and might even demonstrate how it could have just happened to cook up in the process.

If you've got human intellect applied to raw materials in the creation of Life, then you don't have Life arising from non-life by only random, natural processes.

You've got creation.

253 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 6:00:27am

re: #245 Amillennialist

re: #238 Salamantis
Sal: . . . [you] conflate and confuse evolution pro and con . . . with theism vs. atheism

Am: I am asking for verifiable, empirical evidence that random, minor genetic mutations result in newer, more complex program, structure, and function.

Ironically, you're the one using personification to describe impersonal, natural, random forces.

As for a "con," is not the fact that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs evidence that Darwinism is not only irrational, but psychotic?

Once again, you misrepresent my statements. I have repeatedly stated that while mutations are indeed random, environmental selection is, while blind, directional and nonrandom. As a result, a concatenation of multiple selected microevolutionary mutations in the same direction can indeed result in macroevolution. By definition these new organisms are newer, since they are temporally subsequent to the prior organisms. Also, the empirical evidence that complexification can result is not only not prevented by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as any organism that ingest energy in the form of food or sunlight is receiving it from an outside source, which gets around the law of entropy, but is also empirically demonstrated by the fact that many (not all) organisms later in the fossil record are indeed more complex than are organisms found earlier in the fossil record, and by the fact that there currently exist millions of different species of varying genetic complexity. Notice that complexification is a means, not an end, and one that is not required in many environmental situations; the exigency is to successfully occupy available ecological niches, some of which require more complex genomes than do others. When you can show me where humans have been found in the precambrian, then you will be able to disprove evolutionary complexification. I'm not holding my breath.

Terms like imposes, allows and builds are not terms that entail personification, unless you want to define the existence of bodies of water that allow the evolution of aquatic organisms, the existence of deserts that impose the requirement of water conservation upon organisms living there, and the building of anthills by ants, to be personifications.

The fact that living organisms evolve from prior living organisms is not "evidence that Darwinism is not only irrational but psychotic"; it is how evolution proceeds, via the mechanisms of random mutations and nonrandom environmental selection. What is irrational and psychotic is to assert as fact that some deity independently created the earth and all species within it past and present in the space of a few days 6000 years ago, when we have not only multiple mutually verifying radiometric data showing both the age of the earth to be 4.6 billion years and the age of the first life to be 3.5 billion years ago, as well as fossil evidence for many species that have been extinct for millions, and in some cases billions, of years, but also genetic evidence that all life is genetically interrelated, and thus evolutionarily diverged from a few ancient common ancestors. We also have written human records from civilizations that pre-date the Genesis date. But I guess you would rather believe in a deceiving deity that would fake all this evidence in order to contradict its scriptures and pull a fast one on empirically inquiring humans.

to be continued...

254 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 6:29:18am

re: #245 Amillennialist

Sal: . . . a billion Roman Catholics swear that it's possible to be both supporters of evolutionary theory . . . and also good Theistic Christians . . . .

Am: If those good Christians are acknowledging only that random, minor genetic mutations result in observable changes within organisms, then they are being good Christians and good scientists.

If, however, they are affirming Darwinism's explanation for the origins of species -- that random, natural processes result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function -- then they are being neither good Christians nor good scientists.

Actually, they can be both, and still be evolutionary theorists - and achieve amazing things in science. Let me introduce you to one of them; Francis Collins, a devout Christian who decoded the human genome:

[Link: discovermagazine.com...]

Sal: Evolutionary theory DOES NOT purport to describe the beginnings of life; it purports to describe what happens when already-present high-but-not-perfect-copying-fidelity reproducing populations of organism . . .

Am: If that were all Darwinism pretended to describe, there wouldn't be a problem. But you're trying to "create" man from mud by only random, natural processes, which is absolutely absurd.

Even if Darwinism assumes the first living cells -- the most basic of which are Von Neumman-type metabolic machines containing incredibly complex genetic code -- no one has observed newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function arise in an organism by only random, natural processes.

In fact, you admit it is impossible to observe this. So, we should just take your word for it?

Actually, your mischaracterization of evolution is what is nonsensical and absurd; for the umpteenth time, not only does evolution speak not to the beginnings of life (that is the province of OOL theory) but to what happens when already-present life is confronted by a selecting environment, but also environmental selection is nonrandom and directional, and therefore amenable to directional accumulation from multiple selected mutations. You may prefer to continue to proffer your false straw man as a stuffed scarecrow unable to stand, but the real thing meanwhile labors in the fields and continuously yields innovations and advances.

You demand that scientists observe things that have happened over billions of years, when Homo Sapiens has only been around for a few hundred thousand years, the discipline of science has only been around for a couple of thousand, and evolutionary theory has only been around for a hundred and a half. But what they CAN observe is the genetic evidence that these things have happened. And where empirical evidence exists, no one's word need be taken. In fact, peoples' words that contradict empirical evidence are reasonably adjudged to be untrue. Not only can scientists investigate the genome, they can manipulate it, and create organisms that did not previously exist, such as vitamin-a-producing rice, insulin producing bacteria, and flourescent mice. You are telling people to believe that nature, via mutation and environmental selection, did not over the past 3 1/2 billion years blindly and stochastically employ the selfsame mechanism that humans are now employing intentionally. Why should they take your word for it, in the face of mountains of functioning evidence to the contrary? In the face of our being able to actually use this material substrate in order to engineer that which formerly did not exist?

You really need to understand what empirical evidence is; you definition of it seems to be anything that agrees with your metaphysical predispositions (and there doesn't seem to be any of that), and that empirical evidence which undermines your sectarian predilections should be summarily disqualified or excluded.

To be continued...

255 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 6:57:11am

re: #245 Amillennialist

Sal: If a human being suddenly developed lizard skin . . . macroevolution . . . They don't have to be other than bacteria . . . there is no doubt whatsoever that they are different species.

Am: I realize that among evolutionists the term "macroevolution" is defined a number of ways. I am not referring to those random, minor genetic mutations that can result in organisms of the same lineage branching off into two or more species unable to reproduce but still being essentially the same kind of animal.

I am using the term to refer to the fantastical, unsupported, and unscientific proposition that random, natural processes result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function, that Life as we know evolved from goo through zoo to you.

Something is not "fantastical, unscientific and unsupported" just because you falsely contend that it is. In fact, I have profferred in this thread links to much actual, empirically supported science to demonstrate the soundness, solidity and validity of evolutionary theory. Something does not fail to exist just because you blindfold yourself to its presence, nor does its character as empirical evidence morph to please you. But your mindset is becoming increasingly apparent from your use of catch-phrases such as "from goo through zoo to you":

[Link: www.dare2share.org...]

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

Sal: Oh, and evidence has been found of exactly how single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular ones

Am: I read your link. You're misinterpreting similarity in code for proof of a chain of causation or descent. That's bad logic.

Here's some of that on which you pin your hopes:

". . . suspected . . . similarity . . . may have played . . . how evolution might work . . . Probably there was an ancestor . . . ."

Doesn't sound much like "evidence" of "exactly how" to me.

It's guesswork, not empirical evidence. It's confusing correlation for causation.

I've pointed out that, empirically-speaking, Life only arises from Life and Life's programs and that no scientist has ever observed random, minor genetic mutations result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function (you admit it's impossible!).

I've asked you to produce evidence of someone having observed any of it, and all you offer are examples of microevolution or lateral speciation.

Darwin's stuck at one cell, assuming abiogenesis, of course!

Actually, in genetics, the degree of genomic code similarity is precisely indication of species relatedness. Which is why its genetically provable that we're more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to sea sponges, and why the common ancestors we share with chimpanzees are not nearly as far back in evolutionary history as are the common ancestos we share with sea sponges. Correlation is, after all, co-relation. Which doesn't mean that A caused B; it means that both A and B have a common cause (common ancestor) C.

I have agreed that it is impossible for humans to have observed that which has taken place millions and billions of years before they were around to observe it. I guess that means that the earth itself is an illusion, because we were not here to observe its beginning, yet it, like all of the multifarious genetically related species that are around, is here now. In other words, saying that we couldn't observe something is not saying that it didn't happen. Especially when there is evidence under our feet, or in the nucleus of every cell of every living thing on the planet, that it did.

I find it hilarious that your definition of different species would lump horses, donkeys, and zebras together. What species do you collectively call them?

Evolutionary theory is not stuck anywhere, but proceeds apace, unlike forever frozen religious dogma.

256 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 7:33:28am

re: #246 Amillennialist

re: #239 Salamantis
Well, humans haven't had billions of years to create them; scientifically guided efforts have only been made for a few decades.

Am: Human beings applying our race's total accumulation of learning are unable to create machines so sophisticated, but you think random, natural processes did.

As I said before; give us some time. After all, practically all of what we have learned in the arena has been learned since Darwin and Mendel, DNA was not idolated until Watson & Crick, and the human genome was not decoded until a few years ago. And still we are already able to alter some of those 'machines' to perform other functions that we desire of them. The vast majority of the human accumulation of learning has been in unrelated fields. And once again, environmental selection is not random.

Sal: It does not imply, however, that what was intelligently reverse-engineered was intelligently engineered in the first place.

Al: "engineered" necessarily implies an engineer.

But reverse-engineered does not. Just because we have reverse-engineered electricity doesn't mean that lightning is engineered, and the same goes for our understanding of the structural dynamics of tornadoes and hurricanes. They are natural phenomena, but we reverse-engineered them. Does the invention of boats mean that all naturally floating things are engineered?

Sal: Environmental selection over vast spans of time may be blind, but it is not random

Am: "Random" means "having no pattern, purpose, or objective."
So, you're saying that Nature has purposes and goals?
Sounds like animism (or Wicca).

Pi is not random; it is constrained by a specific ratio. But it has no purposes or goals. btw: the Bible got Pi wrong; Pi is not equal to 3.

I Kings 7:23-26

Sal: "it is directional, and directional mutations can accumulate - and have."

Am: The observed directions are lateral, not vertical.

We have empirical evidence that genetic mutations occur in organisms and that changes can accumulate, but those observed changes never result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function. At most, they produce a new organism unable to reproduce with its cousins (or some other slight change), but you've still got the same kind of animal.

Actually, umm, no. When organisms are presented with new environmental exigencies, the mutations that are selected must be mutations of a pre-existing genome. Then, when new prey, predators or climes occur, that mutated-and-selected genome is itself the source of more mutations, some of which are selected. Or conversely, if the selfsame environmental conditions continue to perdure, those mutations are selected that mesh even more efficiently with the environment. In either case, the newer mutations summate with the older ones, and are constrained by them. In other words, older mutations constrain the area of mutational possibility for newer ones - which is why mammals reptiles and and birds all have four limbs (even whales and snakes have vestigals), while insects have six. And yet, within those four or six-limbed possibility spaces, many different evolutionary possibilities, from elephants to tarsiers to eagles to komodos to mole rats, may emerge. You need to read about spandrels:

[Link: ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu...]

to be continued...

257 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 8:15:23am

re: #246 Amillennialist

Sal: Ken Miller's refutation of Behe's irreducible, but all-too-reducible, complexity argument, as Charles has already referenced:

Am: You keep providing links, but none of them have offered empirical (observable) evidence of that which you admit it is impossible to observe.

I've spent a good amount of time running down your rabbit holes looking for proof of macroevolution, only to be disappointed each time. Will this be any different?

Assuming Miller demonstrates that Behe's theory lacks credibility, it still doesn't demonstrate that which you confess it is impossible to observe.

I never observed my great-grandmothers and great grandfathers having sex, and in fact, it would have been impossible for me to do so, since they were all dead before I was born, but I am empirical evidence that they did so.

Sal: Lenski disagrees. As do I, and as do many scientists.

So, in the absence of empirical evidence, and in the face of contradictory facts, you appeal to authority?

When that authority is an authority in the field in question, and when he has done the work and presented the empirical data for all to view at will, it is far from a fallacy. Certainly less of one than appealing to Biblical authority in order to assert creationism.

I read about Lenski's work, including his response to Conservapedia's host regarding it. Neither there nor in the write-up of his work did I see Lenski claim to have discovered evidence of random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, or function.

All he got from his E. coli was . . . E. coli.

What he ended up with is far more different from what he started with than horses are from donkeys. The latter can produce sterile offspring; the former can produce no offspring whatsoever. The genetic code is too different.

Sal: These sequences do indeed share isomorphic insertion sites

Am: Do you have a link for that? This wouldn't be the first time you claimed "evidence" for something "exactly" only to find that it was proof of something which I do not dispute.

I don't dispute that it has wings with green and orange feathers. I agree that it has a powerful beak and a nice set of taloned feet. I acknowledge that it said Polly Want A Cracker. But I vehemently deny that it is a parrot.

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

If the insertion sites are not identical, then you've got a situation similar to PTERV1, which perhaps you missed: Identical retroviral code in a number of different organisms but with differing insertion sites indicate that each lineage was infected separately from the others, not that they inherited the string from a common ancestor.

Actually, it's different from PTERV1, which is present in some great apes but not in humans or orangutans, because in the case of pterv1, the great apes were infected after they diverged from humans, and humans have a gene called trim5a, that prevents pterv1 infection but not HIV infection (some chimps have a similar but not identical sequence that does precisely the reverse) . Orangutans were not infected because they were geographically isolated in Southeast Asia from the African infection. BTW: pterv1 was reconstructed from artifactual retroviral DNA sequences.

Speaking of mathematical improbabilities, would you say that all the highly-sophisticated coding of this website arose from only silicon and copper in a lightning storm, even with billions and billions of years in which for it to occur?

A space shuttle?

A man?

Populations of silicon and copper have not been having sex and reproducing descendents with shared genetic material. With humans, btw, it took carbon and a lot of environmentally selected mutations.

258 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 8:38:06am

re: #248 Amillennialist

re: #240 Salamantis

Sal: No, but it proves that you were selectively quote-mining him.

Am: No, I was pointing out that he admits the idea is nonsense. And it has never been observed in the Real World, as you admit.

If I had been trying to misrepresent Darwin, I would not have referred to his inept analogy trying to make nonsense seem possible.

And I quote:

[Link: www.literature.org...]

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

That doesn't read to me like Darwin was 'admitting' that the evolution of the eye was 'nonsense.' And he has a whole lot more, immediately after that quote, to say about the matter. It can be read at the link.

The evolution between the stages of the eye has not been observed by humans, but the different stages are indeed observably present in various living species.

Sal: And I see no reason why light-sensitivity could not have evolved from heat-sensitivity

Am: Except that we're dealing with Science, which means you need to be able to demonstrate for all to see that such a thing occurs.

And that would require a time machine, just as one would be required to verify the existence of a historical Jesus, whether or not he was God. Artifactual retroviral DNA empirically demonstrates that humans and great apes evolutionarily diverged from common ancestors millions of years ago. Why don't you counter by proving that, 6000 years ago, God huffed lifebreath into Adamic dust-nostrils, and peeled off an Evian rib? Which of these sounds more plausible, more feasible, more reasonable, more...scientific? And which sounds like a fanciful fairy tale?

Even if you did, you'd still have to demonstrate that an organism possessing a "light-sensitive" spot could somehow attain -- by only random, minor genetic mutations -- the newer, more complex genetic code, structure, and function of more sophisticated eyes.

It happened the way all other evolved traits happened; by random mutations nonrandomly environmentally selected. Which makes beaucoup more sense than saying that some cosmic deity, complex enough to do such things yet paradoxically uncreated by any intelligent design itself - waved its celestial what-passes-for-a-hand and poofed eyes into existence.

to be continued...

259 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 9:05:54am

re: #248 Amillennialist

Sal: And the evolution of the eye through a series of mutations is explained in another post Charles made:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Am: A chart of allegedly homologous structures doesn't show "how" anything happened, nor is it empirical evidence of macroevolution (again!).

Just as Darwin and the people of his time were ignorant of the complexity of the cell and its genetic program -- and so it seemed reasonable to assume that similarity could indicate descent -- so must one today keep at a superficial level to maintain the Darwinian fantasy.

What is more superficial than to say, without any empirical evidence whatsoever, that GodDidIt? Nothing. All you are saying is that evidence is not evidence, unless it's evidence that you like, and you only like it if it undermines evolutionary theory rather than butresses it. The problem that you're having is that you can find no empirical evidence whatsoever that undermines evolutionary theory or that butresses your preferred nonalternative, GodDidIt, so you have to slag any evidence that is proferred that buttresses evolutionary theory or that undermines GodDidIt.

How old do you think the earth is? How long do you think humans have been around? Do you think that humans and other species are genetically related? Do you think that all species were independently created as is by some ethereal agent? Please provide empirical evidence to support your contentions. Or else admit that because you cannot raise religion to science's evidentiary level, and you know that you cannot, you are futilely endeavoring to drag it down to religion's.

Any delving into the details of how Life works and what we can observe occurring and the creation myth falls apart, for as you admit, no one has observed random, natural processes result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function.

(By the way, you also had a good dose of the discredited "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" thrown in for good measure.)

Actually, you're right; the more we observe, investigate, experiment, and now utilize, the genome, the more the creation myth does fall apart. And of course humans cannot observe what has evolved before they were around to observe it; if they had been around to observe it, now that would give evolutionary theory some problems.

And just because Haeckel faked stuff in a book a long time ago does not discredit that fact that one can watch embryos gestate through stages isomorphic to evolutionary ones, from single-celled through multicelled, gills, tail, etc.

I would like to continue with this discussion if you have something substantive to offer. I accept microevolution and lateral speciation as true because empirical evidence for them exists. However, that vertical speciation occurs by natural processes is something no one has observed (as you concede) and for which no one can offer empirical evidence.

If you find some, let me know.

Lenski is evidence. Artifactual retroviral DNA is evidence. Transitional fossil series are evidence. There is soo much evidence out there that your willful refusal to see it would be ludicrous, if it were not so pathetic and sad. But it is evidence you willfully blind yourself to, in order to cling to your warm fuzzy feelgood mythology, that teaches you that you are a lowly sinful directly-dust-begotten nothing with which, paradoxically, a Supreme and Glorious Everything who built you to His own image specs is intimately concerned. You have made your choice of emotion over intellection; please at least be honest with yourself and stop pretending that your pseudointellection pretense is anything other than a zombic memebot module simply cycling on autopilot in your chosen memeset's thrall.

260 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 9:34:25am

re: #249 Amillennialist

Sal: Your analogy is flawed; all organisms are alive and share DNA similarities, but an abacus is not an electronic device and a PC is.

Am: And a bacterium is not a fish is not a bird is not a man.

Would you prefer, to follow your logic, that we begin instead with calculators that appeared magically out of the ground? Then is it reasonable to believe that only natural processes caused calculators to evolve into supercomputers?

There's a flaw, but it's not in my analogy.

But a bacterium and a fish and a bird and a man all contain genetic material, for which the protein production codons are the same and which utilize the same adenine-guanine and cytosine-thymine base pairs. How many abacus beads form the cores of Intel processors? And how many computational devices engage in genetic material swapping via sexual reproduction, or mutate theor processing parameters in response to environmental exigencies? Yep; there's a flawed analogy here, all right, but it isn't not mine.

Sal: Also, species accumulate microevolutions until they have macroevolutionarily speciated

Am: As I've noted before, I am using the term "macroevolution" in a limited sense: Bacteria which evolve until they're unable to reproduce with their cousins is called macroevolution, but it is a lateral speciation; saying that a heat-sensitive spot evolved into a bird's eye is something no one has observed, nor can they (as you admit).

And as I remarked previously with my great-grandparent sex analogy, the presence of multiple genetically related species of varying complexity is empirical evidence of evolution no less than my existence is empirical evidence that they canoodled.

Sal: We know what evolved into what because we can look not only at morphological similarities, but also at DNA closeness, developmental ontogeny, and transitional fossil forms.

Am: You're assuming that similarities indicate descent, which every scientist (and fan of the Odd Couple) should know is a very dangerous thing to do.

What is the most logical explanation for machines possessing similar structure and function? For programs containing similar (or identical) code?

But in fact, genetic similarities do indicate descent from common ancestors, and their degree of genetic similarity indicates the degree to which species are related, and how far back in the past their common ancestors are to be found. And once again you vainly attempt to compare machines, which do not mutate, do not have their mutations selected for or against by their environments, and do not exchange genetic material with each other via sexual reproduction, with living organisms, which do.

Sal: We also, thanks to observed and even caused speciation, know that the world can work in this way.

Am: Your E. coli are still E. coli.

Find any empirical evidence of vertical speciation yet?

Yeah; it's called shared DNA sequences.

Taken together, this all builds the kind of circumstantial case that would convict the species involved of the crime of evolution before any informed, impartial and objective jury.

AM: We're talking about Science.

At least you admit the evidence for what I call "vertical speciation" (random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, and function) is "circumstantial" at best.
So, we've gone from "exactly . . . how" to "circumstantial."

I'd call that progress. :)

I'd call it empirical evidence; the kind that should have convicted OJ Simpson before an objective, dispassionate and impartial jury. And the case for evolutionary theory is MUCH stronger than even that case.

to be continued...

261 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 9:40:18am

re: #249 Amillennialist

Sal: It ain't a priori if judgment is made posterior to the perusal of empirical evidence.

A priori assumptions prevent a person from looking at facts objectively. They limit the conclusions one might draw from evidence.

Just as bad is assuming the truth of things for which no empirical evidence exists.

That'd be a mistrial in any court.

You mean like your a priori Biblical genesis literalist assumptions that prevent you from looking at facts objectively, and serve to limit the conclusions you will allow yourself to draw from empirical evidence, even though those conclusions are logically entailed?

You're the one who is assuming the truth of things (6000 year old earth and millions of independent deity-created species all in the space of a few days) for which no supporting empirical evidence exists, and for which much falsifying empirical evidence exists.

Your case was lost the moment Watson & Crick isolated DNA.

262 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 10:01:54am

re: #250 Amillennialist

Not only has it [macroevolution] been observed, it's been produced - by Lenski.

Am: I've noted in a few places that the part of "macroevolution" (perhaps we should have defined terms initially!) to which I am referring is that which you admit no one has (or can!) observe: Random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, and function.

That aspect of macroevolution referring to organisms which can no longer reproduce with its cousins is not at issue; E. coli is still E. coli, antelope squirrels are still antelope squirrels, finches are still finches.

And lions and tigers are still big cats, and horses and donkeys are still hooved animals. They can produce sterile offspring. But no one seriously claims that they are the same species. And citric-acid-metabolizing e. coli and non-citric-acid-metabolizing e. coli are genetically more distant than even they are, because they cannot even produce sterile offspring. In fact, what one considers as food would kill the other in significant concentrations.

Sal: what you are talking about with religion is not knowledge, but belief. They operate within different realms.

Am: That's funny. You're guilty of doing that of which you accuse the religious: Holding as dogmatic truth something for which no empirical evidence exists.

And while many religions just make things up, Christianity is a religion grounded in history. The resurrection of Christ is the best attested-to fact of ancient history, for example.

That's sadly ironic. You won't believe hundreds of eyewitnesses to events in the Bible (or thousands or millions, depending on the event), but you'll believe in something to which no one has ever been an eyewitness.

Science can reproduce empirical evidence for evolutionary theory at will, simply by checking the DNA of humans and great apes for thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences. Or by allowing another batch of Lenski's frozen e. coli to thaw out and evolve in a laboratory for all to see.

And what do you have to counter this with? An ancient scripture, written largely by anonymous authors who could not have been around for that to which they attest, and which no one alive has witnessed. I feel sorry for you for feeling that you have to bear the unshoulderable burden of endeavoring in vain to epistemologically equate them.

Sal: Every contention I have made has been empirically supported, and I've provided links to the evidence.

Evidence of microevolution or lateral speciation only. You even admit no one can witness macroevolution resulting in, for example, a modern bird's eye.

And you act as if since no one alive was around to witness a time when Africa and South America were connected, that the empirical evidence of radiometrically and compositionally identical rock formations on both continents where they used to fit together before tectonic plate shifts pulled them apart counts for nothing.

Sal: Please tell me what religions are testable and evidentially supported. I will then reply that they are no longer religion, but science.

Am: You said religions have no evidence for their contentions. That is patently false. The Christian religion has much historical and archaeological evidence in support of it.

Please show me empirical or living eyewitness evidence that God created the earth and all the species upon it separately and in the space of a few days 6000 years ago. After all, it's only fair to provide what you demand if you propose to equate empirical science and sectarian religious dogma, for that is what you are demanding and I have supplied.

to be continued...

263 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 10:32:05am

re: #250 Amillennialist

Sal: you greatly misunderstand the scientific method if you divorce it from induction from a multiplicity of data to statistically likely results . . . .

You don't even know what the Scientific Method is, do you? Without actual observation and testing of the phenomenon under study, you have only conjecture. That's more fitting of philosophy and false religions.

Science requires empirical (observable) evidence.

Your own definition would leave evolutionary theory, which has supplied empirical evidence (artifactual retroviral DNA) of evolutionary divergence from common ancestors, quite intact, while empirically falsifying, via those selfsame studies and radiometric earth and fossil dating, the literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis, an ionterpretation for which you possess no empirical (observable) evidence by any living person, or even any dead one whose name you know. Even Origen, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas agree with the Roman Catholic Church that it is metaphor and myth. it is well past time that the more Luddite factions of the faith did the same.

Sal: Actually, Watson & Crick discovered the internal 'how'

Am: How does any program arise apart from a programmer, again?

By means of random mutations, differentially selected, according to their ability to survive and reproduce within it, by the surrounding environment.

Mendel was the one who demonstrated how the chain of descent works

Am: Did he ever observe E. coli become something other than E. coli?

No, but he did deduce how dominant and recessive genes passed between generations by growing flowers and controlling which flowers fertilized which others, and observing the results, and mathematically calculating what they meant.

Sal: you repeat the canard about total randomness

Am: You ought to look up the definition of "random." Selection "does" nothing. You're sick, you die. The other pups are bigger and stronger than you, you starve. You're the slowest animal in the pack, you're someone else's dinner. That's just Reality.

Selection is what decides that the bigger, or stronger, or faster, or smarter, or more disease resistant, or more able to eat available foods, survive to reproduce. And those are not random things; they are dictated by the exigencies of the surroundings. Predator, prey, parasite, climate. Reality is another name, in this context, for the environment that surrounds us.

Sal: environmental selection is nonrandom. Over billions of years, such blindly guided stochastic processes could, and did, produce the multifarious and divergent species inhabiting this planet.

Am: That's funny. "Stochastic" comes from the Greek meaning, "guess," and was first used to mean "randomly determined" in 1934.

(You do realize you're attributing to natural processes the ability to make decisions, don't you?)

You're making up stories again. Who exactly observed light-sensitive spots evolve into eagles' eyes? Who's watched E. coli evolve into multicellular organisms?

I'll ask again: Do you have any links to anything more than observations of microevolution, lateral speciation, or discredited evolutionary constructs?

It means 'not determinable in advance:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

But if you don't like the word, what about autochthonous?

[Link: www.merriam-webster.com...]

Who alive watched Jesus or Mary ascend, or watched Noah's Ark float, or watched Moses part the Red Sea? What were the names of those who wrote about such things? What devices were used to document or register these events? Can you repeat them for me under controlled conditions?

I have furnished empirical evidence, which your faith demands that you reject, for my contentions. You are the one who has chosen to cling to ancient, anonymously made-up, and scientifically discredited stories.

264 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 10:57:31am

re: #251 Amillennialist

re: #243 Salamantis

Sal: Abiogenesis is not crucial to the theory of evolution.

Am: Speaking of "moving the bar." Like Punctuated Equilibrium, that seems to be an admission of a lack of empirical evidence for the Darwinian creation myth.

Good. There's some honesty in that.

You were the one attempting to move the bar by redefining evolution to include genesis; I just replaced it to its proper position. Darwin did not claim abiogenesis, so you cannot credibly maintain that he did. The only creation myths here are scriptural, and the dishonesty was never mine to begin with.

Sal: The evidence for all life evolving from a few ancient primordial progenitors is contained in every cell, for DNA and.or RNA is found in them all

AM: Common program is most logically evidence for what? A common programmer.

Nope. Once you claim that all is designed you have lost any undesigned standard by which to make such a distinction, and without a correlative opposite, the term 'designed' loses all meaning. George Smith said it best:

Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning.

Sal: In other words, one cannot credibly ascend from a perusal of the structures in living things to the conclusion that they were intelligently designed; one can only descend from the a priori assumption of an intelligent designer to the conclusion that this designer's design is apprehensible in living things. This is, however, assuming as a premise that which one purports to prove as a conclusion. It is the exact opposite of both logic and science.

Sal: can and did result in the many species that populate this planet

Am: Who observed this, again? Do you have a link?

The empirical evidence for this contention has been produced by many scientists. I'm sure I can get you contact information for some of them. Can you give me a phone or fax number or a website belonging to someone who observed God make the earth and all the living things upon it, or who saw the Great Flood, or who saw the Red Sea being parted? I'd love to correspond with actual observers of these mythic events.

Sal: Life is most definitely at least 2 billion years old, and according to the World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia of 1996

Am: So, you quoted World Book. Do you happen to know how they arrived at 3.5 billion?

From radiometric dating of the strata in which the carbon fossils were found.

to be continued...

265 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 11:16:45am

re: #251 Amillennialist

Sal: What it goes to show is that claims of metaphysical intervenience are untestable, and therefore outside the realm of science

Am: So, an untestable claim is "outside the realm of science" but a light-sensitive spot evolving into a modern bird's eye -- something which you admit no one can observe -- is scientific fact!

People can point to living examples of different stages of eye evolution. Can you point to stages of the hand of God supervening in empirical affairs? A picture, first, of a fingernail appearing out of the clouds, then one knuckle, than another, then the palm, then the wrist...maybe even a movie of it descending...and please furnish me examples of what that celestial Hand supervened in, and empirical evidence that it happened.

Sal: and within the realm of religion.

Am: Condescending, bigoted, and false, at least in terms of Christianity.

Then furnish me with the selfsame scientific proof that you demand; empirical proof, testable and repeatable under controlled laboratory conditions. For the literal truth of Genesis, for a start. Living eyewitnesses are a must. And video recordings of the events in question are a necessity. Or just admit that it's religious belief and not empirical science, and that it's untestable and lacks supporting empirical evidence. It is not condescending or bigoted, but instead reciprocally fair, just and evenhanded, to demand of the other the selfsame standards of evidence that the other demands of you, if they continue to maintain that their arena and yours are the same.

Sal: And the scientific method is indeed useful in evaluating religious claims, when they stray into the empirical realm; that is how the contentions of a 6000 year old earth and independent as-is creation of all species 6000 years ago within the space of a week were empirically falsified.

Am: Where'd you come up with 6,000? Besides, you can't even tell me how you came up 2/3.5 billion.

It's a famous calculation made from the Old Testament begats. And the 3.5 billion age of earthly life as well as the 4.6 billion year age of the earth are calculations based upon multiple radiometric tests.

Sal: it leaves the realm of faith/belief (religion)and enters the realm of provisional knowledge (science).

Am: More of that false dichotomy: Science = true, rational, and supported by evidence; Religion = Who cares? It's all made up!

Well, a lot of it undoubtedly was. There are many different creation myths, and they vastly disagree with each other. Adherents of other religions believe that your myth is just as false as you believe theirs to be, and with equal fervour, so the existence or intensity of belief is no determinant of facticity here.

Sal: I didn't say religion was silly; I DID say that it is untestable and unsupported empirically.

Am: Anything that claims to be objectively true yet has no evidence in support of it is, to be generous, silly.

If the clown shoe fits, wear it. But you are slipping it on according to your definition, not mine.

to be continued...

266 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 11:34:38am

re: #251 Amillennialist

Sal: You cannot show me one datum of evidence that empirically contradicts any part of evolutionary theory.

Am: You're making the claim that random, minor genetic mutations result in newer, more complex program, structure, and function, so the onus is on you to prove it.

Instead, all you've offered of examples of microevolution and organisms speciating into the same type of animal.

I notice how you did not supply any such evidence. Because the white dog truth is, you can't, and we both know it. I, on the other hand, have supplied much empirical evidence, and you are reduced to the desperate and abject ploy of denying that it is what it in fact is.

You have nothing whatsoever with which you could replace evolutionary theory (nothing logically credible or evidentially supported, anyway), and we both know that, too. You just want to kill off scientific knowledge of empirical evidence and its logical ramifications, so the only thing left around will be religious faith in mythic dogma by default. It ain't gonna work in a rational world.

Sal: And as far as Genesis literalist claims go, have you interviewed Adam or Eve personally? Or did the Old Testament authors do so?

Am: That's an implied tu quoque argument, and more bad logic.
Whatever I may or may not believe has no bearing whatsoever on your inability to produce actual empirical evidence for vertical speciation.

When one calls themselves Amillennialist, what one believes is surpassingly obvious, and is exceedingly confirmed when I check your website. And identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences aren't just found in humans and great apes; they are also found, to varying degrees, in many different species, and vertically link them in bonds of common ancestry via their common ancestors having been infected with the same diseases, that spliced their genetic sequences into their host's genome before evolutionary divergence.

Am: I've not had the chance to speak to Adam or Eve, but then I'm not claiming to be able to study them scientifically. Though, you and I both are heirs of their genetic legacy.

How's that for circumstantial evidence? :)

Not very good, as far as the Biblical versions are concerned, since they lived in the same place (Africa), but at times separated by 80,000 years. Plus, I understood that Eden was, according to most Biblica scholars, supposed to have been around the Tigris and Euprates confluence in Mesopotamia; hardly an African location. Certainly the city of Jericho, just west of there, existed before the Earth was created, according to Biblical begats:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

267 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 20, 2008 11:48:43am

re: #252 Amillennialist

re: #244 Salamantis

Sal: That IS funny. You trumpet the fact that test-tube life hasn't been created from scratch yet as disproof of abiogenesis, yet in the next breath state that the laboratory creation of such life would not prove anything to you.

Am: You have to misrepresent what I wrote in order to try to make a point. That doesn't seem very sporting.

Then explain exactly how I misrepresented what you wrote.

Am: "created" and "creation." There you go again!

Well, in the context in which I use the term, creation is indeed appropriate; in a test tube, in a laboratory.

Am: You're confusing categories. You and your coreligionist hope to cite as evidence of Life arising apart from a Creator men causing Life to arise.

Do you not see the fundamental contradiction in that?

In order for you to demonstrate that Life can arise spontaneously from non-life by only random, natural processes, you'd have to have Life arise spontaneously from non-life by only random, natural processes.

It would be supporting empirical evidence for abiogenesis to be able to create life from materials and conditions that were existent on this planet at the time from which the earliest life dates. It would demonstrate a way or ways in which it could have happened.

Sal: There's just no satisfying some people, when what they devoutly wish is not to be satisfied, come what may.

Am: In Psychology, that's called "projection."

Umm, which one of us is maintaining a position while attacking empirical evidence that the other person is supplying, while supplying none of their own?

Sal: It's only been a few decades for scientists yet...give them 3 1/2 billion years, and I'm sure they can cook something up for ya, and might even demonstrate how it could have just happened to cook up in the process.

Am: If you've got human intellect applied to raw materials in the creation of Life, then you don't have Life arising from non-life by only random, natural processes.

You've got creation.

Yes, you do have creation, by humans, that is specifically designed to mimic how life could have arisen from non-life by means of natural processes acting upon the available materials and within the nonrandom conditions that obtained at the time life first appeared on the planet.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Overstock Sale - Save up to 75% (125x125)
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Unh. can't help myself.


20% off Easy Reading Programs and More at Hooked On Phonics