A list of "Scientists who are not 'evolutionists'"

[Henners]

When I post a quote-I make absolutely certain it's relevant to the issue involved.

Sure.

This whole thread is about a list of so-called creationist scientists, but the ones that aren't long dead turn out to be paid lobbyists, not scientists.

Integrity.

Plughole.

[a_unique_person]

This so much reminds me of scientists who don't believe global warming.

[Kotatsu]

Radrook, do you dislike me, or why do you not address my question. I cannot recall having antagonised you.

Originally Posted by Radrook:
"Feathered Dinosaur fossil definitely proves Birds come from dinosaurs -- Oh nooo!! The fossil is a hoax."

Originally Posted by Kotatsu:
"I have lying on a shelf in my office a pile almost a decimetre thick with descriptions of feathered dinosaurs. Each of them alone doesn't show very much. However, together, they show that some dinosaurs over time evolved feather-like structures, which later evolved to become gradually more similar to modern feathers (which, coincidentally, occurred while the rest of the animals also gradually became more similar to modern birds).

Which of them is it you are referring to, and where can I find a reference on how it was determined that the creature in question was a fraud?
Would you care to answer that question now?"

[joobz]

Took one look at the above post and can see at one glance that the poster either didn't read any of my explanations or is simply choosing to repeat what others are saying that I said. AMAZING!non responisve

Here is an example of why it is presumptuous to call what one doesn't presently understand junk.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-genome-darkmatter.html
hasty generalization. Doesn't address "junk" sequences such as ERVs and fused chromosomes with telomeres in the middle of the chromosome.
Maybe the problem is your inability to understand clearly written English.
ad hom
You mean depends on your erroneous understanding of what abiogenesis means. Also, if you STILL can't understand what I just clearly said, then you need remedial reading comprehension classes. As for myth-that's exactly what I consider your pet idea, a myth.
So I guess we are on the same wavelength in a way.
ad hom, non responsive
Hadn't even considered that explanation, but now that you mention it-sounds quite feasable to me. Within the creationist framework and not the evolution framework of things that is-of course.
acceptance of a just so story as equivilent to evolution
When I post a quote-I make absolutely certain it's relevant to the issue involved. That you chooose to call it a ranting only shows that you are unwilling to duscuss what the quote is saying and prefer to cunningly devate into irrelevant issues. Which of course makes you look ridiculously inept at argumentation and so choose the easier choice of nitpicking instead since that way you can avoid a nosebleed from thinking too hard.
non responsive ad hom.


Coupled with Radrook's continual avoidance of Kotatsu's question, the list I had originally presented, His continual attack against evolution even after claiming he is only against atheistic evolution, I think it safe to say that radrook is merely a troll, most likely a 11 year old troll.

[bokonon]

The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory.
This rests on your flawed characterization of evolution as "an atheist theory," which it is not. The theory of evolution takes no position on the existence of any God or what attributes she might possess. Indeed, the list of "Scientists who believe in both God and evolution" would dwarf your own.

And, as I have pointed out before, the Biblical account also requires abiogenesis -- what is breathing life into dust, if not abiogenesis?

Really, the only thing these fundamentalist attacks on evolution accomplish is making the fundamentalists themselves look like Luddites and troglodytes, fixated on bronze-age myths. If they had a compelling alternative theory which was supported by equivalent mountains of evidence it might be another story, but they don't.

[rocketdodger]

Here is an example of why it is presumptuous to call what one doesn't presently understand junk.



http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-genome-darkmatter.html

...and an example of evolutionists continuing their research on something despite the general population labelling it as "junk"... so, let me ask you, is this evidence for or against your theory regarding the closed mindedness of evolutionism?

[rocketdodger]

Coupled with Radrook's continual avoidance of Kotatsu's question, the list I had originally presented, His continual attack against evolution even after claiming he is only against atheistic evolution, I think it safe to say that radrook is merely a troll, most likely a 11 year old troll.

I think he has us all on ignore, joobz. Which of course just proves what kind of a troll he really is. Seriously, unless someone is spamming so much that they make navigating the thread difficult, why would a person looking for a discussion put anyone on ignore?

Answer: if that person really isn't looking for a discussion.

[skeptical]

Took one look at the above post and can see at one glance that the poster either didn't read any of my explanations or is simply choosing to repeat what others are saying that I said. AMAZING!

Really? Ok. What, specifically, did I get wrong. I am fully prepared to be wrong. It should be simple enough to point it out.

I read you explanations, I have explained why you are simply incorrect in saying that abiogenesis requires atheism. I understand you are saying "if god created the process that is not abiogenesis", but that is simply your personal problem with the term. Abiogenesis could be no different from any other naturally occurring processes such as gravity or quantum mechanics, if you choose to think there is a deity _behind_ the process, that is of course your perogative.

I am not simply reapeating what others say your said, I read what you said and drew reasonable inferences. Again, if I am wrong it should be simple enough to point out where I went wrong. I am assuming of course that you are interested in discussion.

[Kotatsu]

I think he has us all on ignore, joobz. Which of course just proves what kind of a troll he really is. Seriously, unless someone is spamming so much that they make navigating the thread difficult, why would a person looking for a discussion put anyone on ignore?

Answer: if that person really isn't looking for a discussion.

But why on earth would I be on his ignore list? I can't recall ever having come across the lad before, and I certainly have not been antagonising him in any way whatsoever. Unless, of course, The mere posing of questions count as too much opposition.

[Henners]

The mere posing of questions count as too much opposition.

Have you looked at the Four Horsemen Video?

[Acleron]

You mean depends on your erroneous understanding of what abiogenesis means. Also, if you STILL can't understand what I just clearly said, then you need remedial reading comprehension classes. As for myth-that's exactly what I consider your pet idea, a myth.
So I guess we are on the same wavelength in a way.

Abiogenesis: The study of how life arose on the planet.
May or may not involve a god, might be panspermia, might come from a teapot in Saturn's orbit. This is what the word means to almost everyone in the world. If you think it means anything else, please accept you are almost alone.

Theory of Evolution: the mechanism for the origin of species.
Definitely does not involve a god, atheism or even agnosticism.

But reverting to the OP. You have defended your list of scientists including ones who wouldn't have known anything about Darwin's theory by saying:-
Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory.
A) Why would they have to believe in a god?
B) Why would they reject a theory which does not require a god?
C) Why is a theory that does not require a god become atheistic?

Newton's equations of gravity include no constant or variable that represents any god, is his theory atheistic too?

[Kotatsu]

Have you looked at the Four Horsemen Video?

No, I don't think so. What is it?

[SomeGuy]

Why haven't I seen a single post for Radrook that isn't some sort of personal attack or claim that _other_ people don't understand debating?

Is he really this dense?

(Yeah, I'm ad homming, but forcibly so, because he hasn't made an actual point that could be adressed).

[bokonon]

AS I said recently, if indeed a coded message is received by SETI and because it is coded indicates intelligent source-what are we to conclude by the infinitely more complex DNA code? Nothing? Or the opposite. Which is why I just don't buy into the atheistic evolution
claims.
If a coded message is received by SETI, it isn't merely the fact that it's coded which provides evidence for an intelligent source. It's also the fact that it's transmitted across interstellar space. When the first pulsars were discovered, they were also thought to be "signals" from an alien intelligence, until a natural explanation was found.

When you get down to it, the geologic column is "coded". It encodes information about what has happened on geologic timescales, which scientists have been able to decipher in various ways. Yet, it's a purely natural process of erosion, sedimentation, volcanic activity, tectonic movement, subduction...

I've seen some creationist on the internet who has his own bogus "challenge" which he claims refutes evolution. He says no one will be able to show a code which is created by anything other than life, concluding that DNA's code must therefore be evidence of a "creator." Maybe that's the same error you're leading up to.

[Shalamar]

DNA's code also seems to be a little too complex. Far too prone to errors, and problems. Fortunately, it also seems to have a few redundancies, but if it were designed, wouldn't something... simple be a little more appropriate?

[bokonon]

I have no need to be dishonest
Great, neither do I. I also have no desire to be dishonest.

Also, in view that you also seem intent on misrepresenting my viewpoint and claiming not to understand what it is I am saying-
and an evolutionist moderator is hovering in the wings, then it's better to terminate my participation on this thread. After all, this can go on forever and there are other threads where my English is always perfectly comprehended with no difficulty whatsoever. THanx for you feedback. Bye Peace!
Oops, looks like my previous replies to you were a waste of time. Guess this is like one of those "tests on following instructions," where you're supposed to read the whole thing before writing any answers. Now you tell me we're ALL on ignore... bummer.

[bokonon]

[Pulsars] were not codes. A code necessitates, by definition a message which is revealed when the code is decoded. What you are referring to are signals which were initially mistaken as possibly being codes from inntelligent source. But that assumption was merely based primarily on the regularity of transmission. Regualritry of transmission turned out to ber merely the result of spinning quasars.
No message is revealed when DNA is decoded. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.

[bokonon]

DNA's code also seems to be a little too complex. Far too prone to errors, and problems. Fortunately, it also seems to have a few redundancies, but if it were designed, wouldn't something... simple be a little more appropriate?
I probably won't live to see it, but I'm sure humanity will one day design DNA without all the junk. I expect we'll achieve abiogenesis too. Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics? Humanity designing immunity to bacteria!

[Radrook]

Why haven't I seen a single post for Radrook that isn't some sort of personal attack or claim that _other_ people don't understand debating?

Is he really this dense?

(Yeah, I'm ad homming, but forcibly so, because he hasn't made an actual point that could be adressed).

These other people weren't forced-they gratuitously proceeded to ad-homnem as poart of the discussion.

The replies you are referring to are replies to posts such as yours which use ad hominem. Also, it seems rather quaint that you pretend to be blind to the personal attacks on me and are even willing to join in while complaining about my supposed interminable personal attacks.

Actually, what I do when attacked REPEATEDLY and after trying to reason to no avail is to unclutter the screen via the ignore option so that those who enjoy that sort of thing can go about their business without distracting me with irrelevancies. Also, those who refuse to accept my explanations and substitute their own and claim that their ideas are mine are unreachable and are best left to their fantasies. So again I feel that they are better off in their own little niche where they can misrepresent galore without distraction.

No harm meant. Just my way of keeping the display of the thread on my computer screen in a semblance of logical order.

[Radrook]

But why on earth would I be on his ignore list? I can't recall ever having come across the lad before, and I certainly have not been antagonising him in any way whatsoever. Unless, of course, The mere posing of questions count as too much opposition.

You are NOT on my ignore list. If you were I would be unable to read your post and it's very asccessible and clear on my screeen. : )

[Radrook]

Radrook, do you dislike me, or why do you not address my question. I cannot recall having antagonized you.

Originally Posted by Radrook:
"Feathered Dinosaur fossil definitely proves Birds come from dinosaurs -- Oh nooo!! The fossil is a hoax."

Originally Posted by Kotatsu:
"I have lying on a shelf in my office a pile almost a decimetre thick with descriptions of feathered dinosaurs. Each of them alone doesn't show very much. However, together, they show that some dinosaurs over time evolved feather-like structures, which later evolved to become gradually more similar to modern feathers (which, coincidentally, occurred while the rest of the animals also gradually became more similar to modern birds).

Which of them is it you are referring to, and where can I find a reference on how it was determined that the creature in question was a fraud?
Would you care to answer that question now?"

No my friend. The reason I might have overlooked your response is due to the sheer volume of responses-many of which are irrelevant, deviations from the subject, sad hominems, and so on. Notice please that there are actually three threads on this board dealing with evolution and that each contains a barrage of responses which I have to weed through.
That takes more time if the responses tend to go off on a tangent. Which is the reason why I try to cut down the clutter. The post you are referring to was posted at the other thread. A thread I was forced to temporarily abandon when this one suddenly popped up in response to my posting a list. Since then I have been swamped. So please don't take it as personal. In any case-my apologies for giving that impression.

About the feathered dinosaur, I was referring to that specific find made in China where the fossil was doctored to appear feathered and wasn't.

Archaeoraptor: Phony feathered' fossil
... China, tentatively named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, allegedly a feathered dinosaur' ... the so-called feathered dinosaurs' are dated' by evolutionists ...
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp


Archaeoraptor
... of a dromaeosaur dinosaur were glued together by a Chinese farmer. ... "Feathered" Fossil Bolsters Changing Image of Dinosaurs by D.L. Parsell, National ...
http://skepdic.com/archaeoraptor.html

Feathered Dinosaur Fossils Are Unearthed in China
These dinosaurs belong to a group of two-legged predators known as advanced theropods. ... 1990's, turned out to be a hoax, a clever composite of bones and ...
www.mrbrklyn.com/resources/dinobird.html
More pages from mrbrklyn.com


So Called Bird Evolution
Fossil order predicted by dinosaur to bird Evolution. Coelophysis - dinosaur. Feathered dinosaurs ... Hoax. Hind quarters of a micro raptor, (a dinosaur ) ...
http://genesismission.4t.com/transition/reptiles-birds.htm



The above websites provide articles on the subject of the supposed feathered dinosaurs which you might find informative or simply choose to reject. That's entirely up to you.

[BenBurch]

A star's late history is coded in the details of its planetary nebula.

A tree's history is coded in its rings.

Encoded data does not imply either an Encoder or a Decoder. It only needs a mechanism that collects data in a way that can be de-ciphered later to become information.

Remember; data is a passive thing that is consumed by intellect to become information.

[BenBurch]

Radrook,

I've seen the holotype Archaeopteryx lithographica up close, and there is no doubt whatsoever about the feathers being there, or about the dinosaurian features of the animal. Its a remarkable specimen whose character was apparent before preparation, so there is no thought that the feathers were somehow added.

-Ben

P.S. Ah! I now read that the initial holotype was a single feather. What I saw was "The London Specimen."

[Kotatsu]

About the feathered dinosaur, I was referring to that spoecific find made in Chiuna where the fossil was doctored to appear feathered and wasn't.

Archaeoraptor: Phony feathered' fossil
... China, tentatively named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, allegedly a feathered dinosaur' ... the so-called feathered dinosaurs' are dated' by evolutionists ...
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp

You misunderstand me. What I want is a properly conducted study published in a recognised scientific journal in which the invalidity of this find is supported. I attach no credibility to AiG, as they are biased. I have the paper on Archaeoraptor, I believe, but cannot recall having seen a refutation of that paper (mind you, I have been too busy elsewhere to look).

In short: do you have a real refutation of that finding, or just AiG?

[Kotatsu]

I've seen the holotype Archaeopteryx lithographica up close, and there is no doubt whatsoever about the feathers being there, or about the dinosaurian features of the animal. Its a remarkable specimen whose character was apparent before preparation, so there is no thought that the feathers were somehow added.

You have confused the species he is referring to with another one.

[cyborg]

Quoting from AIG - why am I NOT surprised?

[Foster Zygote]

These other people weren't forced-they gratuitously proceeded to ad-homnem as poart of the discussion.

The replies you are referring to are replies to posts such as yours which use ad hominem. Also, it seems rather quaint that you pretend to be blind to the personal attacks on me and are even willing to join in while complaining about my supposed interminable personal attacks.

Actually, what I do when attacked REPEATEDLY and after trying to reason to no avail is to unclutter the screen via the ignore option so that those who enjoy that sort of thing can go about their business without distracting me with irrelevancies. Also, those who refuse to accept my explanations and substitute their own and claim that their ideas are mine are unreachable and are best left to their fantasies. So again I feel that they are better off in their own little niche where they can misrepresent galore without distraction.

No harm meant. Just my way of keeping the display of the thread on my computer screen in a semblance of logical order.

The truth is quite different. Most of the people Radrook seems to be ignoring have simply challenged his claims and assertions in a manner that he seems unable to address without admitting error. I myself was placed on his ignore list after offering him no offense. I did call him a liar, but this is not meant as an ad hominem as his lie is a clearly demonstrable fact, right there in the "plain English" that Radrook seems to have a love/hate relationship with, and is relevant to the subject of this thread.

Radrook speaks of the scientific method, but it is clear that he is unwilling to employ it himself. Rather than examine the evidence and formulate a conclusion based on it, he already has his preferred conclusion and will not entertain any evidence that threatens to overturn his desires.

[rocketdodger]

Actually, what I do when attacked REPEATEDLY and after trying to reason to no avail is to unclutter the screen via the ignore option so that those who enjoy that sort of thing can go about their business without distracting me with irrelevancies. Also, those who refuse to accept my explanations and substitute their own and claim that their ideas are mine are unreachable and are best left to their fantasies. So again I feel that they are better off in their own little niche where they can misrepresent galore without distraction.

Actually, what I do when my arguments are countered REPEATEDLY and after trying to post rubbish to no avail is to unclutter the screen via the ignore option so that those who enjoy the truth and honesty can go about their business without distracting me with irrelevancies like evidence. Also, those who refuse to accept my incorrect explanations and substitute their own equivalent versions to more clearly show me the fallacy of my reasoning are beyond my debate skills and are best ignored. So again I feel that they are better off away from my little niche where they can't correctly represent my nonsense as nonsense and distract others from my rubbish.

No harm meant. Just my way of keeping the display of the thread on my computer screen in a semblance of logical order.

Surely that is the reason. I can't imagine anyone being able to , say, just ignore ad homs as part of the online forum experience and worry only about the actual arguments. After all, anyone who displays even the least hostility to my ideas must automatically be wrong -- otherwise, they would embrace me as a brother! So I don't really blame you for hiding behind the ignore feature.

[Radrook]

This so much reminds me of scientists who don't believe global warming.

False analogy.


Logical Fallacies
http://www.constitution.org/col/logical_fallacies.htm

The repeated use of fallacious reasoning is what deviates the subject and makes discussion difficult.

[Kotatsu]

Feathered Dinosaur Fossils Are Unearthed in China
These dinosaurs belong to a group of two-legged predators known as advanced theropods. ... 1990's, turned out to be a hoax, a clever composite of bones and ...
www.mrbrklyn.com/resources/dinobird.html
More pages from mrbrklyn.com[/url].

I have cut away the other creationist-webpage, as they generally are quite useless as sources.

However, I fail to understand your position. While the only reference you have given me that is acceptable as support for your claim (the one above) indeed speaks of a specimen that was revealed to be a hoax (though it does not mention which it is), it also mentions several other feathered dinosaurs, and even claims that "most paleontologists consider the case for such a dinosaur-bird link now virtually airtight". So what difference does one hoax make, when all the other feathered dinosaurs are not hoaxes?

[BenBurch]

You have confused the species he is referring to with another one.

Correct, but I assert that Archaeopteryx lithographica answers any questions of the origin of Avians within Dinosauria. And it is a specimen of undoubted authenticity. So even if there is some fraudulent Chinese fossil, that does not attack the basic FACT that birds came from dinosaurs.

-Ben

[rocketdodger]

The truth is quite different. Most of the people Radrook seems to be ignoring have simply challenged his claims and assertions in a manner that he seems unable to address without admitting error. I myself was placed on his ignore list after offering him no offense. I did call him a liar, but this is not meant as an ad hominem as his lie is a clearly demonstrable fact, right there in the "plain English" that Radrook seems to have a love/hate relationship with, and is relevant to the subject of this thread.

Radrook speaks of the scientific method, but it is clear that he is unwilling to employ it himself. Rather than examine the evidence and formulate a conclusion based on it, he already has his preferred conclusion and will not entertain any evidence that threatens to overturn his desires.

I know. I have been following this thread from the start and quite frankly the amout of ad hom in here is nothing compared to most other threads.

Even if it was --- so what? If someone says to me "you are a fool, rocketdodger, and here is why...." I don't just ignore them, I address their argument to either prove that I am not a fool or to learn so that I am no longer a fool. What possible good comes from ignoring people that have valid arguments?

[Kotatsu]

Correct, but I assert that Archaeopteryx lithographica answers any questions of the origin of Avians within Dinosauria. And it is a specimen of undoubted authenticity. So even if there is some fraudulent Chinese fossil, that does not attack the basic FACT that birds came from dinosaurs.

I'm with you; However, since this seems to be exactly the sort of thread where people might get into incredibly heated arguments based on slight misunderstandings, I just thought I'd alert you to this to be on the safe side.

As I mentioned, I have quite a thick pile of descriptions of feathered dinosaurs. One faked one does not really matter all that much compared to the dozen plus genuine ones.

[BenBurch]

Remember the difference between an ad hominem and an insult.

An insult; "You are wrong and you are a stooge."

An Ad Hom; "You are wrong because you are a stooge."

[Radrook]

You misunderstand me. What I want is a properly conducted study published in a recognized scientific journal in which the invalidity of this find is supported. I attach no credibility to AiG, as they are biased. I have the paper on Archaeoraptor, I believe, but cannot recall having seen a refutation of that paper (mind you, I have been too busy elsewhere to look).

In short: do you have a real refutation of that finding, or just AiG?

Do you have a real confirmation that it is not a hoax from a non-evolutionary source? I have found evolutioniust sites and articles biased.

The articles quote statements made by evolutionist who declare the so-called find a hoax and reject its authenticity. Are you claiming that the quotes are faked?

Could't I invariably assume the same about any statement or quote made by evolutionists? That they are biased, not to be trusted and anything they quote is suspect? In short, if indeed those are the rules you are going by then you force me to abide by them as well by applying them equally to YOUR SOURCES in order to prevent the table from being tilted unfairly in your favor.

[Foster Zygote]

After all, anyone who displays even the least hostility to my ideas must automatically be wrong.

Don't forget "Anyone who provides factual evidence that I am wrong is insulting me. At least that's the excuse I'll use as I feign indignation in a transparent attempt to distract others from my inability to address relevant arguments against my position. Then I can pretend that I am ignoring people who were mean to me rather than admitting that they've exposed the weakness of my position".

[Radrook]

I'm with you; However, since this seems to be exactly the sort of thread where people might get into incredibly heated arguments based on slight misunderstandings, I just thought I'd alert you to this to be on the safe side.

As I mentioned, I have quite a thick pile of descriptions of feathered dinosaurs. One faked one does not really matter all that much compared to the dozen plus genuine ones.


When a statement is made it is required that the reader consider its context and the purpose for which it was intended. I never offered up that SOLE INCIDENT as devesting proof against all feathered dinosaur claims. I offered it up as an example of how evolutionists have as tendency to jump the gun, proclaim a finding as proving a fact, and later when the heat of enthusiasm cools down, to say tongue in cheek that it was just a hoax. That happened with the China find and numerous other so called factual evidence.

As to the authenticity of the dino fossils, those points are thoroughly discussed in the articles provided and which you immediately reject as untrustworthy without even taking time to read the evidence presented. Which of course is your right to do. Just as it is my right to read the counterarguments and find them convincing while finding evolutionist claims outlandish and viewing their peer aproved papers as collusions between comrads.

[Radrook]

Remember the difference between an ad hominem and an insult.

An insult; "You are wrong and you are a stooge."

An Ad Hom; "You are wrong because you are a stooge."

That's the biggest pile of steaming unadulterated nonsense I have come accross in this whole thread!

BTW
That's it for now. Peace!

[Foster Zygote]

Do you have a real confirmation that it is not a hoax from a non-evolutionary source? I have found evolutioniust sites and articles biased.
"Thanks for the advice about my surgery doctor, but do you know where I could get a second opinion from a non-medical source?"

The articles quote statements made by evolutionist who declare the so-called find a hoax and reject its authenticity. Are you claiming that the quotes are faked?
Even if it is a fake, so what? "Evolutionists" uncovered the Piltdown forgery as well. This is science working as it is meant to. If an historical document is found to have been a forgery that does not invalidate all historical documents.

Could't I invariably assume the same about any statement or quote made by evolutionists? That they are biased, not to be trusted and anything they quote is suspect? In short, if indeed those are the rules you are going by then you force me to abide by them as well by applying them equally to YOUR SOURCES in order to prevent the table from being tilted unfairly in your favor.
Radrook could certainly assume that. He's shown a propensity to assume a great deal.

But let's see: We have evidence that creationist sites distort information to support their views (the subject of this very thread is one such distortion). And I once heard Carl Baugh state that in creation "science" they already have the conclusion that they want and that they choose to accept or discard evidence based solely on whether or not it supports their view. "If it disagrees with the Bible we know that it's wrong".

Radrook has implied a scientific conspiracy to "brainwash" and "hide facts". I suspect that he will fail to produce any evidence of such a conspiracy.

[joobz]

None so far. I've asked, but it seemed that Radrook felt that complaiining about ad homs were a more beneficial method of debate.

It seems that he has not presented any argument that was his own original thought. That would explain his inability to address my (and everyone else's) questions. I think at this time Radrook's best course of action would be to actually learn about what the science shows and for him to determine what theory makes the most logical sense.

A good place to start would be to learn a bit more about the list of 18 I gave so he can see how all of those independant observations are nicely explained by modern theories of evolution.
This was the post that earned me an ignore.

Upon reading it, it is a bit condescending, but I do not see it as anything more severe than his own insulting posts. In fact, I think I am normally a rather polite poster.

Ah, oh well.
Radrook is a complete and utter nobjob.

[Foster Zygote]

That's the biggest pile of steaming unadulterated nonsense I have come accross in this whole thread!

BTW
That's it for now. Peace!

A bigger steaming heap than your lie about how the names of long dead scientists ended up on a list of those who rejected evolutionary theory?

[Foster Zygote]

This was the post that earned me an ignore.

Upon reading it, it is a bit condescending, but I do not see it as anything more severe than his own insulting posts. In fact, I think I am normally a rather polite poster.

Ah, oh well.
Radrook is a complete and utter nobjob.

Ah, but is he a nobjob because he is wrong, or is he wrong because he is a nobjob?

[cyborg]

A bigger steaming heap than your lie about how the names of long dead scientists ended up on a list of those who rejected evolutionary theory?

Computarz ate my HOMEWERKZ!

[rocketdodger]

BTW
That's it for now. Peace!

Uh oh, looks like Ben is on ignore now too!

I have an idea -- everyone ad hom this guy a little bit so he puts everyone on ignore.

[bokonon]

We're now well into the 8th page of this discussion, and radrook seems more interested in discussing who is and is not on his "ignore" list, the reasons for putting someone on his "ignore" list, and abiogenesis than arguments for or against evolution. I'll check back every few pages to see if that's changed, but it looks to me like "the 18 points" are a more-than-sufficient counter-argument to his position. If he decides to address actual evidence in a substantive way, or present evidence for his alternative theory (whatever that may be), I'll be back. Until then, this thread is on my "ignore" list.

[Kotatsu]

Do you have a real confirmation that it is not a hoax from a non-evolutionary source? I have found evolutioniust sites and articles biased.

As I said, I believe I have the original description, but I can't recall having seen a withdrawal of it or an article claiming it is a hoax. Thus, the answer is, "No". I do not dispute that there may be such an article somewhere, though, as I am only human, and can't keep track of all the scientific journals out there. Obviously, the original description will not include a small observation that finding is a hoax. If they did, they'd never get it published. Therefore, as you seemed to know such a source, I asked you for a reference.

The articles quote statements made by evolutionist who declare the so-called find a hoax and reject its authenticity. Are you claiming that the quotes are faked?

It is my experience that creationist webpages are prone to do exactly that, yes. I do not care to claim that these exact quotes are faked, but merely note that they have a history of doing so. Thus, I see no reason to trust them. If the article contains quotes to statements from "evolutionists" who declare it a hoax, I assume there will be a list of references at the bottom of the page, from which you can select proper, off-site, ones to support your claim.

Could't I invariably assume the same about any statement or quote made by evolutionists? That they are biased, not to be trusted and anything they quote is suspect? In short, if indeed those are the rules you are going by then you force me to abide by them as well by applying them equally to YOUR SOURCES in order to prevent the table from being tilted unfairly in your favor.

Yes, of course you could. I am not stopping you. Note, however, that I have not yet brought any sources into the debate, apart from a vague reference to a pile of papers.

And of course the original descriptions of any organism could easily be thought of as biased. The authors would naturally want to highlight the features which support their thesis that this is a new organism, which --- in the present case --- is an intermediate form between dinosaurs and birds. As the newspaper article you referred to states, there are still some ornithologists who don't support this view, and a palaeontologist who is in the "dinosaur -> bird" camp would conceivably highlight any evidence he could find to support his thesis, while downplaying those which do not. This is just common sense.

That is why I am asking you for a scientific paper which refutes the validity of this finding. Note that any bias in such a paper would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Four situations could occur:

1. The paper is biased and refutes the validity of the finding --- In this case, the finding is not reliably refuted, and the refutation can be dismissed; the feathered dinosaur can be considered valid until other evidence to the contrary has been found.

2. The paper is not biased and refutes the validity of the finding --- In this case, your reference is a genuine refutation of the validity of the finding, which is exactly what I am looking for.

3. The paper is biased and does not refute the validity of the finding --- I have at present no interest in a paper that does not refute the validity f the finding.

4. The paper is not biased and does not refute the validity of the finding --- See 3 above.

As you can see, whether or not you claim my sources are biased is more or less irrelevant.

[Kotatsu]

When a statement is made it is required that the reader consider its context and the purpose for which it was intended. I never offered up that SOLE INCIDENT as devesting proof against all feathered dinosaur claims. I offered it up as an example of how evolutionists have as tendency to jump the gun, proclaim a finding as proving a fact, and later when the heat of enthusiasm cools down, to say tongue in cheek that it was just a hoax. That happened with the China find and numerous other so called factual evidence.

And I never claimed you did. I noticed that you claimed that a feathered dinosaur had been shown to be a hoax, and was curious which one it was, as the area interests me. I am a systematist and work with birds and there parasites. I am also a fan of dinosaurs. Where these two spheres of interest collide, the avidity with which I'd like to pursue any facts I can find would feasibly be doubled.

As to the authenticity of the dino fossils, those points are thoroughly discussed in the articles provided and which you immediately reject as untrustworthy without even taking time to read the evidence presented. Which of course is your right to do. Just as it is my right to read the counterarguments and find them convincing while finding evolutionist claims outlandish and viewing their peer aproved papers as collusions between comrads.

Two cases present themselves:
1. The creationist papers quote proper scientific papers which refute the validity of the findings, or:
2. The creationist papers do not quote proper scientific papers which refute the validity of the findings.

In the first case, I would be more pleased if you could give me references to the scientific papers themselves. As you say above, "[w]hen a statement is made it is required that the reader consider its context and the purpose for which it was intended". As creationist web pages have a reputation for being less than honest in their quoting, nothing can be gained by adding the possibility of maltreatment of the original source, regardless of if the articles in questions contain faked or misquoted passages or not. Further, the purpose for which the creationist pages are intended are to show that the "evolutionists" are wrong, which may lead to them exaggerating discrepancies and downplaying harmonious patterns. If reference is, instead, made to the original articles, these elements are also removed.

In the second case, the creationists are just pulling opinions out of a hat or some bodily orifice, and there is no need at all to consider what they say as even approaching validity. Again, this is due to the "purpose for which [they] are intended".

So: are there any references made to proper scientific refutations of these findings, or are there not?

[edge]

For you to demonstrate that DNA is a definitive sign of the existence of an intelligent source you would have to prove, by definition, that DNA could not arise from unintelligent sources.

As far as I am aware you haven't. But I am willing to update my views if you show me I am wrong.



It's very simple. Messages, languages, and coded
information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that
agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and
sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and
intent.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/information.htm

[cyborg]

And here comes Edge with a cut and paste.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar
to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise
instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them.

"Where did the information come from?
Show me just ONE example of a language that didn't come
from a mind."

Er, DNA?

(The argument eats itself).

[joobz]

Backpedalling examples:
[snip]
Feathered Dinosaur fossil definitely proves Birds come from dinosaurs -- Oh nooo!! The fossil is a hoax.

I never offered up that SOLE INCIDENT as devesting proof against all feathered dinosaur claims. I offered it up as an example of how evolutionists have as tendency to jump the gun, proclaim a finding as proving a fact, and later when the heat of enthusiasm cools down, to say tongue in cheek that it was just a hoax.

Interesting how radrook's statement make is sound like feathered dinosaurs aren't real. Only once he is pressed does he offer up the issue that he wasn't saying it all was fake.

[Kotatsu]

If books
and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all
living things inevitably came from a super intelligence.

And if books and poems and TV shows are sold at a low price, then all living things inevitably must be sold at a super low price.

If the information encoded in the first entities recognisable as "living things" was considerably less than that contained in a book, a poem or a TV show, does this still require that the intelligence necessary to create them was "super"? Would that not rather, using your logic, imply that it was an intelligence of a lesser scale than people who write books, poems and/or TV shows?

[edge]

And here comes Edge with a cut and paste.



Er, DNA?

(The argument eats itself).

Really?

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1 --Richard Dawkins

Keep spurting out crap of evolution and lets see how many more school assassinations will happen by children..

[skeptical]

Just as it is my right to read the counterarguments and find them convincing while finding evolutionist claims outlandish and viewing their peer aproved papers as collusions between comrads.

Ok, here's the difference. There are, to my knowledge, no creationists doing any kind of field research. They are not out looking for fossils. They are not out dating rock formations. They are not in the labs examining DNA similarities between species. In short, they are not actually DOING any science. They are simply looking at the published information and trying to pick any hole in it they can to get it to agree with the conclusions they have already come to. Their entire enterprise is the exact opposite of science. Scientific theory is entirely data driven, whatever the data indicates happened, must be accepted. Creationists already HAVE the answer, the data is only useful as it supports the conclusion, and completely worthless, at best, if it doesn't.

Francis Collins is a well know theistic scientist who IS doing this real research and guess what, he is not a creationist. (at least, not in the "creation vs. evolution" sense). He fully accepts the evidence of evolution because, as he says, it is overwhelming. This is not an attempted argument from authority, I am simply pointing out that your repeated assertions that evolution or abiogenesis requires atheism is wrong. One can be a theist and actually follow the scientific method, and even accept the evidence where it leads.

I see now, that despite your repeated assertions that you had problems with the science of evolution and abiogenesis, that is simply not the case. Your problem is that you already have your answer, it is written in your holy book, and any contrary evidence must be, by definition, wrong. Given this fact, there is no point in discussing evidence with you, because the evidence is irrelevant. The science is irrelevant to you, it just doesn't matter where the data leads, it can only be a distraction.

It would be much simpler if you would just say that, instead of posting red herrings about caring about what the science is, because you don't. You think all scientists are liars, who create hoaxes to deceive a gullible public, who invent relationships that aren't there. To you and the people you put your trust in, the data simply CANNOT be true, or it CANNOT show what it appears to show. You have your answer, and the data is quite irrelevant at best.

Broken Vitamin C gene in Humans and apes? A fused human chromosome 2? Tiktaalik, found exactly in the rocks it was predicted to be found? All of this is just errors of "perspective" to you. The data doesn't show what it looks like it shows, because it can't possibly be true. You've made your decision, your 100% certain you are 100% correct, and that's it. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I once saw: "god said it, I believe it, case closed". Nothing more need be said.

BTW, if you take even a moment to respond to this post, I would appreciate you doing me the last courtesy, as I have tried to be courteous to you, of giving me your explanation of human chromosome 2 and why it is not extremely compelling evidence for human/ape common ancestry. In particular, I would like to hear your explanation for the placement of centromeres and telomeres where they shouldn't be and why the G-banding between the single human chromosome and the 2 chimp chromosomes match so exactly when laid side by side.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

[Kotatsu]

Keep spurting out crap of evolution and lets see how many more school assassinations will happen by children..

Keep spurting out crap about a super intelligent designer and let's see how many more kids are raped by priests.

Seriously, the first half of your post (or at least of the section quoted above) has nothing to do with the second. You might as well have said:

"Keep spurting out crap about colour theory and let's see how many sailors are lost at sea..."

"Keep spurting out crap about the Hindenburg catastrophe and let's see how many more dogs will fall into isolated wells and can't get up..."

"Keep spurting out crap about Iain M. Banks and let's see how many more suicide bombings occur in the Middle East..."

[rocketdodger]

Keep spurting out crap of evolution and lets see how many more school assassinations will happen by children..

Keep spurting out crap of creation and lets see how many more wars will happen by adults.

[rocketdodger]

It's very simple.

...snip...

Perry Marshall

It just occured to me that a computer simulation showing that languages can be created and used by non-intelligent mechanisms would be very useful in the evo-ID debate.

Does anyone know of such a program?

If not--- looks like I have yet another hobby project to undertake :)

(yes, Cyborg, I am still working on our stuff... I just have a ton on my plate right now :()

[cyborg]

Keep spurting out crap of evolution and lets see how many more school assassinations will happen by children..

So is evolution the truth, the truth too painful, and hence the truth should become false and the falsity truth in order to protect us or...

Evolution is too painful, is must be false, what is false is crap and that is crap should be discarded to protect our children?

And you don't really want to compare stats on ideas inspiring violence do you? Or would that be unfair?

[edge]

Interesting how radrook's statement make is sound like feathered dinosaurs aren't real.

Why do you believe in death rather than life.

I don't see any of those flying dinosaurs in todays world.

If the information encoded in the first entities recognisable as "living things" was considerably less than that contained in a book, a poem or a TV show, does this still require that the intelligence necessary to create them was "super"? Would that not rather, using your logic, imply that it was an intelligence of a lesser scale than people who write books, poems and/or TV shows?

Interesting how radrook's statement make is sound like feathered dinosaurs aren't real.

Why do you believe in death rather than life? Real is living.

Less can be more can we create life?
Who created you; can you now make anything-alive separate from yourself?
A new species?
Try breeding with a chimp see what happens.
Adaption is all you have evidence for.

You ever wonder where all those fossil chimpanzees are?
Could it be lucy?

Think about it you want man to be a monkeys uncle.

[cyborg]

(yes, Cyborg, I am still working on our stuff... I just have a ton on my plate right now )

Not exactly any less busy myself.

Working for money seems so archaic.

[cyborg]

Why do you believe in death rather than life.

I believe in cake.

I don't see any of those flying dinosaurs in todays world.

We call them "birds" - that's kinda the point edge.

A new species?
Try breeding with a chimp see what happens.

The chimp got very annoyed.

(And edge do try to remember you are talking to people with far more understanding than you. When you think you have a devastating argument that is only because you lack the ability to understand why it is so poor.)

Think about it you want man to be a monkeys uncle.

Okay edge - let's try this...

Think about it, do I want my uncle to be my uncle?

No I don't. Therefore he isn't.

Wow! Thanks - it's really simple when I just deny reality!

[Foster Zygote]

Really?


Keep spurting out crap of evolution and lets see how many more school assassinations will happen by children..

That is one of the dumbest things I have yet read.

[edge]

So is evolution the truth, the truth too painful, and hence the truth should become false and the falsity truth in order to protect us or...

Evolution is too painful, is must be false, what is false is crap and that is crap should be discarded to protect our children?

And you don't really want to compare stats on ideas inspiring violence do you? Or would that be unfair?

It's going to get worse than what we see today.

What you are doing today has been written thousands of years ago.
You with your itching ears.
You will get your way and you will screw it up totally that's why I'm here to witness this to all.
Go ahead tell me how religion has caused more violence that atheism especially since the communists have killed more than all of the religious countries have since the crusades.

[joobz]

Why do you believe in death rather than life.

I don't see any of those flying dinosaurs in todays world.




Why do you believe in death rather than life? Real is living.

Less can be more can we create life?
Who created you; can you now make anything-alive separate from yourself?
A new species?
Try breeding with a chimp see what happens.
Adaption is all you have evidence for.

You ever wonder where all those fossil chimpanzees are?
Could it be lucy?

Think about it you want man to be a monkeys uncle.
This isn't a real post, is it?
It just has too much stupid in it for it to be real.

[skeptical]

Keep spurting out crap of evolution and lets see how many more school assassinations will happen by children..

Well that didn't take long.

Care to offer any evidence that accepting evolutionary theory leads children to violence? Anything at all other than wild speculation?

While your thinking about that, please refer to this study, which shows that among Western style democracies, societal health correlates POSITIVELY with an increase in the acceptance of evolution, and correlates NEGATIVELY with theism. In other words, accepting evolution doesn't cause societal problems, and believing in theism doesn't prevent societal problems.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

If you want to skip the text, just look at the figures, particularly fig 1 and 2. As an example, Japan, which has the highest acceptance of evolution at 80%, the highest number of atheists and agnostics at 30%, and the lowest number of "believe bible literally" at almost 0%, has one of the LOWEST murder rates. Many other much more secular societies such as Norway and Sweden have similar numbers. For the US, the numbers are opposite. We have by far the HIGHEST murder rate and the LOWEST acceptance of evolution.

So in other words, try again. But please, don't let me confuse you with the facts, I'm sure your mind is already made up.

Prediction: if you bother to respond, your next post will involve something about Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, with liberal sprinklings of falsely equating evolution and atheism seasoned by dashes of ad-hom and/or non sequiturs.

[edge]

That is one of the dumbest things I have yet read.

Oh really where did you get that from your uncle Bongo who said we are relatives?

I have a challenge for you.

[cyborg]

It's going to get worse than what we see today.

Like a return to the bad old days?

What you are doing today has been written thousands of years ago.
You with your itching ears.
You will get your way and you will screw it up totally that's why I'm here to witness this to all.

Sure edge. Whatever you say.

Go ahead tell me how religion has caused more violence that atheism

Wait... I thought it was evolution.

Well, I suppose I really shouldn't expect you to have any consistency of thought since it appears, "communism", "atheism" and "evolution" are completely interchangeable words to you.

Oh and:

"Religion has caused more violence than atheism."

That was easy!

[skeptical]

You with your itching ears.

Dude, what does that even mean?


You will get your way and you will screw it up totally that's why I'm here to witness this to all.

Ok, that's nice. Consider us all witnessed. Thank you, bye bye now.

[Foster Zygote]

I stand corrected: This is the dumbest thing I've yet read.
Why do you believe in death rather than life.

I don't see any of those flying dinosaurs in todays world.

Why do you believe in death rather than life? Real is living.
I guess it's safe to dismiss Judaism, Christianity and Islam because Abraham is not real. He is dead after all, and therefor "not real".

Less can be more can we create life?
Word salad.
Who created you;
My mom and dad.
can you now make anything-alive separate from yourself?
He's running around my house right now chasing the cats and yelling "KITTY!".
A new species?
New species have been observed to arise in human lifetimes.
Try breeding with a chimp see what happens.
No viable offspring will result, just as the theory of evolution predicts. Your point is?
Adaption is all you have evidence for.
Untrue.

You ever wonder where all those fossil chimpanzees are?
Could it be lucy?
You think that fossil hominids like Lucy are just chimpanzees?

Think about it you want man to be a monkeys uncle.
This is what it's really all about, yes? You want humans to be a special and favorite creation of the most important and powerful being in the universe. You are offended by the evidence that we are simply another species of apes with an origin as humble as every other living thing on this planet.

[skeptical]

Oh really where did you get that from your uncle Bongo who said we are relatives?

I have a challenge for you.

BTW, the full context of the quote in your sig is:

"I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds ." -Albert Einstein (bolding mine)

That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the creationist outlook.

[rocketdodger]

All of these edge shenanigans have hidden my question -- does anyone know of a computer simulation that involves a language being created and used without intelligence?

I will repeat the question in the evolution facts thread, maybe it will get more attention there!

[edge]

Dude, what does that even mean?



Ok, that's nice. Consider us all witnessed. Thank you, bye bye now.

That means you haven't read the bible or you would know.

here's the challenge.
Some one above said trust the Japanese.
Pagens and pagen belifes at least they respect.
I don't live in Japan, what’s starting to happen here with out the teaching of morals which is written in the word and as a prophecy is coming true here, but give them time I'm sure they will also fall with the rest of us.
They also are not with out sin.


www.drdino.com
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67?pg=articles&specific=15

[Foster Zygote]

Go ahead tell me how religion has caused more violence that atheism especially since the communists have killed more than all of the religious countries have since the crusades.

Firstly, they weren't killing in the name of atheism, they were killing in the name of their particular brand of totalitarian socialism which was basically a type of religion. Atheism was used as an excuse to suppress rivals powers in the form of religion. Other threats to power were equally suppressed including all rival political organizations. Many atheists were imprisoned and executed because they were thought to be a threat by those in power.

Secondly, they had far greater killing technology and far denser populations against which to act. When the Hebrews allegedly slaughtered every man, woman, child and infant in Canaan they had to do it with bronze swords and spears.

And what about the first world war, or the American civil war? Ghastly carnage at the very limit of what technology would allow, and all sides claiming that God was behind them.

[skeptical]

That means you haven't read the bible or you would know.

here's the challenge.
Some one above said trust the Japanese.
Pagens and pagen belifes at least they respect.

You reading comprehension is almost nil, but at least you did see that "Japanese" had something to do with it.

There was nothing about "trusting" anyone, the point was that their murder rate is far lower than ours, their acceptance of evolution is very high. Your idea that evolution causes violence is therefore shown to be ridiculous twaddle. Clear enough now?


I don't live in Japan, what’s starting to happen here with out the teaching of morals which is written in the word and as a prophecy is coming true here, but give them time I'm sure they will also fall with the rest of us.
They also are not with out sin.

Do you ever actually read anything besides the bible? Just curious. And to make an actual point, why cannot you let parents teach the morals they see fit to their children? Why are you the morality police? Just curious.


I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Hovind, is that you? I didn't know they let you post on forums in prison, that's pretty cool.

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid. Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective.

Ok, NOW can we consider ourselves witnessed? Thanks, again, really. Bye bye now.

[skeptical]

All of these edge shenanigans have hidden my question -- does anyone know of a computer simulation that involves a language being created and used without intelligence?

I will repeat the question in the evolution facts thread, maybe it will get more attention there!

Sorry for the noise, I couldn't help myself. :)

Dawkins had his "me thinks it is like a weasel" program that he wrote about in the Blind Watchmaker, but I don't know if that is public code or not.

[edge]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid.

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!

Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective.
That's because you can't prove the theory...

The MDC requires the same.

It is a form of faith is it not?

[cyborg]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid.

They aren't - which is why your particular brand of inarticulate communication is singularly failing to get you anywhere.

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!

But I have a Monkey-For-A-Head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Monkey-For-A-Head)!

Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective.

Well the monkey is right there...

It is a form of faith is it not?

Is faith a bad thing or not?

[joobz]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid.

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!

Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective.
That's because you can't prove the theory...

The MDC requires the same.

It is a form of faith is it not?

Besides your hatred at thinking you are part monkey. What parts of the evolutionary theory are you against?
You accept something you call "microevolution"
What is your distinction between micro and macro evolution? What prevents multiple micro steps from equally a macro step?

[skeptical]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid.

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!

Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective.
That's because you can't prove the theory...

The MDC requires the same.

Actually no. The MDC has a mutually agreed upon protocol. It tests specific, individual acts of supposed paranormal that can be shown easily to be either "pass" or "fail" of the agreed upon protocol.

To do anything like the MDC, your test would have to be something discrete like "are there any transitional fossils", with a mutually agreed upon definition of "transitional". Or something like "are there any examples of unexpected DNA similarity between Humans and Apes", with mutually agreed upon definitions of of "unexpected" and "similarity".

In short, your "test" is ridiculous, you would never agree to reasonable definitions, and you would never accept the evidence when it is shown to you even if you did agree on a definition. You might as well say "i'll give you money if I feel like it".

So yeah, its exactly like the MDC. :rolleyes:


It is a form of faith is it not?

Ummmm, let me think....no. Here's 1 little piece of evidence from a large pile, human chromosome 2: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

Explain.

Ok, I am definitely witnessed to now. Really, I am. I'm so witnessed to its unbelievable.

BTW, Hovind, is that really you? I am dying to know.

[CapelDodger]

The truth is quite different. Most of the people Radrook seems to be ignoring have simply challenged his claims and assertions in a manner that he seems unable to address without admitting error. I myself was placed on his ignore list after offering him no offense. I did call him a liar, but this is not meant as an ad hominem as his lie is a clearly demonstrable fact, right there in the "plain English" that Radrook seems to have a love/hate relationship with, and is relevant to the subject of this thread.

As a fan of plain English myself, I find the misuse of ad hominem most irritating, but rather revealing of a person's education, intellectual resources, and (quite often) personality.

Of course Radrook's a liar, that schtick about "the computer did it" was a blatant and stupid lie. One that I, as an IT guy, have heard from some surprisingly senior people. It's as if they don't see the "IT Guys Within" warning on the office door. "This is not like explaining to your wife why she never got the flowers and perfume on the credit-card bill", they should be thinking. But no.

[CapelDodger]

They aren't - which is why your particular brand of inarticulate communication is singularly failing to get you anywhere.

I wouldn't be confident of edge outsmarting a monkey either.


Well the monkey is right there...

It sooooooo is.

The great thing about Science, to my mind, is that it transcends the monkey. Were we to meet another advanced technological species (with no shred of monkey in them) they'd have discovered the same physics as we have. We could share some great laughs about how people react to the fact of evolution - as in "I'm not descended from a fleebledorp!".


Is faith a bad thing or not?

Faith is a bad thing. Trust me on that.

[CapelDodger]

You reading comprehension is almost nil, but at least you did see that "Japanese" had something to do with it.

There was nothing about "trusting" anyone, the point was that their murder rate is far lower than ours, their acceptance of evolution is very high.

Far from this leading me to trust the Japanese, I think I know why this is, and it's not a very charitable conclusion.

[skeptical]

Far from this leading me to trust the Japanese, I think I know why this is, and it's not a very charitable conclusion.

Ok, I give up. What is your conclusion?

Please also note that the same stats apply to Norway and Sweden as well as other Western style democracies. I picked Japan off the list because their "accept bible literally" was effectively 0%, and their accept evolution was very high. Norway and Sweden were slightly different, but still had very low murder rates, you can check the link to see the actual charts.

Please also note that this is a correlation, not necessarily causation. My point was that even though it is only correlation, it does effectively refute his ridiculous assertion that acceptance of evolution leads to increased murders. It doesn't.

[Schneibster]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid. If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!What precisely do you suppose it means to say that chimpanzee DNA is 99% identical to human DNA?

Seriously, what's the problem with growing some ethics? Not morals- those are what someone else tells you.

Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective. That's because you can't prove the theory...Friend, you can't "prove" anything according to the way you define "prove." Did you have some point here, or were you just talking because you like how you sound?

The MDC requires the same.

It is a form of faith is it not?What's an MDC? As far as your brand of faith goes, see my signature.

[Shalamar]

Mommy... Make the Stupid stop. It hurts.

One of these days, I'd like to hear an argument from someone who denies Evolution for any reason beyond 'The Bible says it happened this way!'

[Acleron]

I've not been here long but have noticed people mentioning 'Edge' along with a shudder. Now I know why.

[CapelDodger]

Ok, I give up. What is your conclusion?

That the Japanese are the peak of evolution. The sense of Japanese superiority was long justified by having the God-Emperor, failing that evolution serves the purpose. Check out the Japanese propensity to violence in the longer term. Unsavoury, isn't it? Blood-purity is a big issue in Japan.

Japanese murder rates are influenced by the value put on a Japanese life. Get labelled as Korean passing as Japanese and you're at much greater risk.

Please also note that the same stats apply to Norway and Sweden as well as other Western style democracies. I picked Japan off the list because their "accept bible literally" was effectively 0%, and their accept evolution was very high. Norway and Sweden were slightly different, but still had very low murder rates, you can check the link to see the actual charts.

I don't doubt it, but I find murder-rate a crude measure. Atheism, of course, has nothing to do with it. There are societies that have, over long experience, gradually developed to stop people killing each other willy-nilly because they can. "Social cohesion", say. And in contrast is the US, which is at an early stage in that process.

Please also note that this is a correlation, not necessarily causation. My point was that even though it is only correlation, it does effectively refute his ridiculous assertion that acceptance of evolution leads to increased murders. It doesn't.

No-one would argue with that. I do suggest, though, that you steer clear of the Japanese. If edge was a lot smarter than he is he could have jumped you on it, and there are smarter monkeys out there :).

[godless dave]

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). ]

You realize that the general theory of evolution says nothing of the kind, right?

[Shalamar]

You realize that the general theory of evolution says nothing of the kind, right?

True. Except for #5, for the most part. Its a part of evolution.

[CapelDodger]

I've not been here long but have noticed people mentioning 'Edge' along with a shudder. Now I know why.

I'm only prepared to engage at one remove :). I've served my time on Tar-Babies. It's a dirty job, somebody has to do it, but it's not me any more.

[Foster Zygote]

I've not been here long but have noticed people mentioning 'Edge' along with a shudder. Now I know why.

Radrook at least comprehends that he is losing the debate, resulting in him finding excuses to put those on ignore those whom he cannot answer. Edge hasn't the slightest clue. I'm sure he thinks he's running circles around everyone. It reminds my a bit of the end of the film Brazil.

[Shalamar]

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.


2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.


3. Matter created life by itself.
This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.


5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). [/quote]

This has a little more to do with the Theory of Evolution.

As well, The Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about god. Science does not say God does not exist, neither does science say he exists.


Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is both a fact, AND a theory. Wrap your mind around that!

We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.
1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67?pg=articles&specific=15

There is no faith in Science, or in evolution. It is all EVIDENCE. If someone finds new EVIDENCE, the theory may well change, unlike religion, where people believe because they believe.

I no more believe in evolution than I do in my dining room table. Both simply exist.

Your 'Challenge' is pointless. Your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution makes 'winning' the money moot. Since Evolution does not touch on many of those subjects, the money can not be won. So, you and your creationist friends can point and laugh at the evil evolutionists, saying they can't prove evolution.


Science doesn't 'prove' anything.

Go back, and take science again. Become educated.

[CapelDodger]

True. Except for #5, for the most part. Its a part of evolution.

No 4 is a giggle. "Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves."

"What's that Walt?" (hey guys we've got Nutty Walt on the line ...)"You've discovered life-forms that haven't learned to reproduce themselves yet? And you've been ... OK, what is it you've been teaching them, Walt? Uh-huh. And that. And what? Where did you learn that?" that's not in his file, "... Oh, and love, that's good ..." beyond nutty to sick "Yes, it is a shame that YouTube lies so far in the future" we gotta terminate this guy, somebody get me the Pope on Line 2 for deniability.

[Prometheus]

Remember the difference between an ad hominem and an insult.

An insult; "You are wrong and you are a stooge."

An Ad Hom; "You are wrong because you are a stooge."

Thank you BenBurch! I was about to post this same comment myself, when I noticed yours, but it certainly seems to be worth repeating (at least once per page, perhaps), so I'll just quote you.

[joobz]

Radrook at least comprehends that he is losing the debate, resulting in him finding excuses to put those on ignore those whom he cannot answer. Edge hasn't the slightest clue. I'm sure he thinks he's running circles around everyone. It reminds my a bit of the end of the film Brazil.
This was my first encounter with Edge. He's coherent enough for me to think he's not schizophrenic. This just makes me sadder.

[Shalamar]

I like that edge created a whole new scientific theory! All on his own the 'general theory of evolution'.

JUST so he can prove it wrong!

[Foster Zygote]

I like that edge created a whole new scientific theory! All on his own the 'general theory of evolution'.

JUST so he can prove it wrong!

No mere straw men for Edge, He fights straw dragons!

[joobz]

No mere straw men for Edge, He fights straw dragons!
nominated and sig'ed.

[Prometheus]

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!


Well, at least one of us is: http://web.mit.edu/margret/www/myndir/comics/bush_chimp.jpg

[Prometheus]

Japanese murder rates are influenced by the value put on a Japanese life. Get labelled as Korean passing as Japanese and you're at much greater risk.


Well, that plus the fact that they don't have any guns:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Japanese_Gun_Control.htm

[Prometheus]

nominated and sig'ed.

Beat me to it while I was catching up reading, joobz! :cool:

[Kotatsu]

Why do you believe in death rather than life? Real is living.

Why I cannot understand from where you got this absurd notion, I would like to point out that for the majority of organisms throughout time, the state of death is more of a reality than the state of being alive. If I am allowed to be philosophical, and extend my argument in both directions, I would amend it to say that the state of not-alive is more of a reality than alive.

Less can be more can we create life?

I don't understand part before the invisible period, but the answer to the latter part is, "Yes." Your parents have made it, for one thing.

Who created you; can you now make anything-alive separate from yourself?

The proximal answer is my parents; the distal answer is more complicated, as it involved both a variegated succession of organisms and a multitude of impersonal natural causes. To ask me to list the ultimate causes would be futile, as I am not planning to write forum posts for the rest of my life.

And yes, I can, given the right circumstances, create a son or a daughtr.

A new species?
Try breeding with a chimp see what happens.

Incarceration for disorderly conduct and cruelty towards animals, would be my guess.

Adaption is all you have evidence for.

You ever wonder where all those fossil chimpanzees are?
Could it be lucy?

No, as I believe she is too old to be from a population of pure modern chimpanzees. However, I believe there are plenty of fossils of premodern chimpanzees and their ancestors at the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt.

Think about it you want man to be a monkeys uncle.

Or, if I am to adhere to the current theories of descent, vice versa.

In either way, I have no ethical, moral, or emotional problem with being descended from other apes.

[Kotatsu]

Go ahead tell me how religion has caused more violence that atheism especially since the communists have killed more than all of the religious countries have since the crusades.

Well, since you obviously are allowed to draw arbitrary restrictions to the comparison, I see no reason why I can't do the same:
Religious people have killed more people than all the communists have west of the Rhein.

[Kotatsu]

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

So, where's the catch? I could do this this afternoon.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67?pg=articles&specific=15

Ah, here it is. I remember this. The evidence will be evaluated by liars, people with an agenda, and/or people who have no idea what they are talking about. I'll give it a rest, then.

[Henners]

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.


No it doesn't.

All your offer demonstrates is that science - which does not deal in "proof", but in "disproof" - has never actually "proved" anything.

It cannot even prove why aeroplanes stay up in the air.

So all it demonstrates is that you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that you actually DO know what you are talking about but are actually dissembling for the sole purpose of misleading the gullible?

I only ask because that is what it looks like you are doing.

[Kotatsu]

3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Hang on. Yes, most people would probably agree that this appears to be the case. It is not true, however. Given a cladistic Weltanschuung, there are no modern organisms less advanced than any other. Given a more layman perspective, there are still numerous organisms as advanced, or more advanced, than humans. Just because we are somewhat numerous and have developed a society does not mean that other animals are nor our equals or betters in advancement.

[Kotatsu]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid.

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!

If truth is stupid, I don't want to be thought of as smart.

Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective.
That's because you can't prove the theory...

What doe sthis actually mean?

The MDC requires the same.

Marquis de Carabas?

It is a form of faith is it not?

If "it" = "evolution and the theory which describes its mechanisms", then the answer is of course that it is not.

[godless dave]

Speaking of codes and languages (from a few posts or pages back)...

I'm not a biologist, but I do have a degree in linguistics. I didn't pursue the field past a bachelor's degree, but I am qualified to say that DNA is almost nothing at all like a language.

For one thing, words in languages are arbitrary symbols. There is nothing about the sounds in the English word "apple" that is any way related to the fruit of certain trees. There is nothing about the sounds in the English word "head" that is related to a body part or any of the word's other meanings.

DNA is not arbitrary. The chemicals that make up DNA do something; they react with other chemicals. We might describe a segment of DNA using the letters A, C, G, and T, but those are arbitrary, symbolic representations of actual chemicals that are neither arbitrary nor symbolic.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm not sure if edge had a "stopped clock" moment, but he's happened on a variation of the "fully ape/fully human" canard used by a lot of Creationists wrt hominid fossils - erectus fossils are human, all others are chimps.

You ever wonder where all those fossil chimpanzees are?
Could it be lucy?

I did, but then I realized that chimpanzees live in humid jungle and forest environments with soils that aren't condusive to fossilization. The first definatively chimpanzee fossils were only found in 2005.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7917
Unlike our human ancestors, whose fossil remains are relatively plentiful, chimps have always been conspicuously absent from the fossil record. Many experts doubted such specimens could exist because most chimps live in the rain forests of West and central Africa where acidic soil and high rainfall levels hamper fossil preservation.

Lucy was bipedal so she wasn't a chimpanzee.
Taung child's preserved foramen magnum shows Australopithecines were bipeds as well.
Neither Lucy nor any other Austral nor early Homo's like habilis were chimpanzees.

[Dancing David]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid.

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!


no No NO!

Humans are 100% ape! No monkeys needed. Just apes.

[Dancing David]

Most thinking people will agree that..
1. A highly ordered universe exists.

Not really, you mean order like what, the brownian motion is a liquid. Order like the digestion of food or order like the creation of cellulose.

very little order there in the observable universe.

Oh, I get it now, the assertion order exists.


2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.

Riddle me this batMan, why did the intelligent designer go and make the greatest diversity in the bacteria?

Are they the chosen ones?

Really think about it. Why would ID make it look like natural selection?

3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Oh whoops.

Arbitrary defintion of advanced and some sort of bragging.
Can you live in a hot sulpher spring?
Can you make sugar from sunlight?
Can you live in the widest sets of enviroments?

What was your standard of advanced?

...
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

You have demonstrated you didn't read those text books. very funny!


1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

Hmm, no from nothing, from the unknowable, yes.


2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)

Yeah some organization, that is why the planets and stars make nice little rows, Uranus spins retrograde.

Only a dolt would believe in cosmic evolution. How many galaxies ahs our galxy gobbled up?

3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).

You don't like catalysts, what did they knochk you down on the playground and take your lunch money?

4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.

This is a matter of misunderstanding.

I would like to see god and the Sex School movies.


5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

No first were the germs! The things you think of as diverse are just about 10%

[Henners]

Anyway, do you really think that people on this forum are that stupid.

If you believe you are part monkey Then Yes!

Honestly, do you? Prove to _your satisfaction_, right? I'm sure you'd only be completely objective.
That's because you can't prove the theory...

The MDC requires the same.

It is a form of faith is it not?

Just because you share an ancestor with a monkey, that doesn't make you a monkey.

Just because you want to believe that you don't share an ancestor with a monkey won't make it true.

I've told you already, and I'm sure that others have told you already, that Science cannot be used to prove things.

I have posted good reasons for believing that the chance of evolution NOT having taken place is as small as 1 in 10300,000.

Of course that is not proof, in a mathematical sense. So you can keep your $250,000, assuming it exists.

[Henners]

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Hereinafter referred to as Dr. Dunno's Threey of Baloney.

[Kotatsu]

Just because you share an ancestor with a monkey, that doesn't make you a monkey.

In a strict sense, it does. At least in those cases where "monkey" is rendered paraphyletic if one or several taxa are excluded.

[Henners]

In a strict sense, it does. At least in those cases where "monkey" is rendered paraphyletic if one or several taxa are excluded.

OK. It doesn't make me an extant monkey.

I'm a primate, but I'm not a fish, even if my ancestors were.

[Radrook]

We're now well into the 8th page of this discussion, and radrook seems more interested in discussing who is and is not on his "ignore" list, the reasons for putting someone on his "ignore" list, and abiogenesis than arguments for or against evolution. I'll check back every few pages to see if that's changed, but it looks to me like "the 18 points" are a more-than-sufficient counter-argument to his position. If he decides to address actual evidence in a substantive way, or present evidence for his alternative theory (whatever that may be), I'll be back. Until then, this thread is on my "ignore" list.


Sorry about your disappointment and frustration. Believe me, I feel the same way. The problem is the constant purposeful deviation from what I say to what people think I say based on their perception of what I say. That obligates me to re-explain what I previously said. Then the accusations that I am lying begin or the explanation is ignored and the points that I am supposed to have proposed attacked as if mine. To which I respond by perhaps placing those who are unable to comprehend simply clearly written English on the ignore list where they can understand and debate each other via a common language-whatever that language might chance to be.

Actually, you are an example via claiming that you have understood zilch of what I have said. So since you obviously can't comprehend what I write then maybe it is better that you place this thread on your ignore list and spare us both the frustration.

[Henners]

Actually, you are an example via claiming that you have understood zilch of what I have said. So since you obviously can't comprehend what I write then maybe it is better that you place this thread on your ignore list and spare us both the frustration.

There was me hoping that a shred of integrity might be discovered that would enable you to withdraw your claims concerning a list of famous dead scientists mixed in with paid lobbyists.

Ho hum.

[UnrepentantSinner]

In a strict sense, it does. At least in those cases where "monkey" is rendered paraphyletic if one or several taxa are excluded.

OK. It doesn't make me an extant monkey.

I'm a primate, but I'm not a fish, even if my ancestors were.

I think there's rhetorical value and pitfalls to the "you are an ape" discussion, so here's part of a post I put up a few times that could be helpful.

{snip}

Lets start with Vertebrata (http://www.tolweb.org/Vertebrata/14829). All species in this classification will have these characteristics.


Within Vertebrata are Gnathostomata (http://www.tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843) or jawed vertebrates. And within Gnathostomata are ray finned fishes or Actinopterygii (http://www.tolweb.org/Actinopterygii/14923) and lobe finned fishes or Sarcopterygii (http://www.tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922)

Now here is where it gets important. You know the old stumper, "did humans come from fish?" The answer isn't as easy as yes or no. Humans are under the clade Sarcopterygii, and thus are classified with lobe finned fishes, but evolution has changed our form many times since sharing a common ancestor with the ancient root species.

So then humans are Homo sapiens
and also Hominidae (http://www.tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299)
and also Catarrhini (http://www.tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293)
and also Primates (http://www.tolweb.org/Primates/15963)
and also Eutherians (http://www.tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997)
and also Mammals (http://www.tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040)
and also Therapsids (http://www.tolweb.org/Therapsida/14973)
and also Synapsids (http://www.tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845)
and also Amniotes (http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990)
and also Terrestrial Vertebrates (http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952)
as well as bing Sarcopterygii.

We, nor any other species will ever stop being a part of the groups we are now, we only further divide below what we currently call a species to branches within it that can no longer interbreed. Ex. Homo sapiens terra and Homo sapiens luna.

Similarly the pelican will never stop being a pelican, a bird, a reptile, and amniote, a terrestrial vertebrate or a Sarcopterygii either, the species will just branch.

[Radrook]

....It is my experience that creationist webpages are prone to do exactly that, yes. I do not care to claim that these exact quotes are faked, but merely note that they have a history of doing so. Thus, I see no reason to trust them. If the article contains quotes to statements from "evolutionists" who declare it a hoax, I assume there will be a list of references at the bottom of the page, from which you can select proper, off-site, ones to support your claim.

True, there are offsite references. References which I expected the reader of the info to check out for themselves. But I can understand your reluctance to do so yourself due to the disappointments you say you experienced in relation to other creationist articles. In fact, we are in the same boat in that respect but visa versa. In any case, I will investigate to see if I can provide you with a peer reviewed paper stating that the finding is a hoax. : )



Yes, of course you could. I am not stopping you. Note, however, that I have not yet brought any sources into the debate, apart from a vague reference to a pile of papers.

And of course the original descriptions of any organism could easily be thought of as biased. The authors would naturally want to highlight the features which support their thesis that this is a new organism, which --- in the present case --- is an intermediate form between dinosaurs and birds. As the newspaper article you referred to states, there are still some ornithologists who don't support this view, and a palaeontologist who is in the "dinosaur -> bird" camp would conceivably highlight any evidence he could find to support his thesis, while downplaying those which do not. This is just common sense.

That is why I am asking you for a scientific paper which refutes the validity of this finding. Note that any bias in such a paper would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Four situations could occur:

1. The paper is biased and refutes the validity of the finding --- In this case, the finding is not reliably refuted, and the refutation can be dismissed; the feathered dinosaur can be considered valid until other evidence to the contrary has been found.

2. The paper is not biased and refutes the validity of the finding --- In this case, your reference is a genuine refutation of the validity of the finding, which is exactly what I am looking for.

3. The paper is biased and does not refute the validity of the finding --- I have at present no interest in a paper that does not refute the validity f the finding.

4. The paper is not biased and does not refute the validity of the finding --- See 3 above.

As you can see, whether or not you claim my sources are biased is more or less irrelevant.

Very clearly expressed. I agree that bias is to be expected when one takes either a pro or a con position in a debate or writes a paper in support or against any given point. Actually, the expected leaning isn't unethical, since as you say, it is simply part of the argumentative exposition process. However, as in all other things, one must be exceedingly careful not to deviate from the mean and go to an unethical extreme. This is applicable to creationists as well as evolutionists.

The perception of bias, however can be imaginary. For example, my experience has been that evolutionists tend to proclaim bias where there is none. For example, if an evolutionist is accurately quoted as having made a statement indicating uncertainty in in any particular evolutionary concept, evolutionists will almost invarianly say that the quoteer is biased because he has taken the statement out of context. This is done regardless of how clearly the evolutionist has expressed his doubts.


It's always the same illogical procedure: the purpose of the quotation is ignored, the intention of the quoter when he made the statement is ignored, and the accusation of biased quoting is put forth as a valid refutation-which of course it isn't since the refutation is against a strawman argument. In short, the creationist is accused of quoting to prove that the statement proves the author doesn't believe in evolution when the quotation was merely striving to show that evolutionists sometimes have certain reservations about their own conclusions although they still remain devoted to those ideas. So when you mention creationist bias, I truly wonder whether the accusation is based on this particular perception of creationist quotations.

[Henners]

Actually, the expected leaning isn't unethical, since as you say, it is simply part of the argumentative exposition process. However, as in all other things, one must be exceedingly careful not to deviate from the mean and go to an unethical extreme. This is applicable to creationists as well as evolutionists.

That's very funny, Rooky.

As is the process of eliding whole paragraphs in order to juxtapose two entirely different sentences, or ramming the start of one sentence up the end of an entirely different one, or just making things up - like that list of famous dead scientists and paid lobbyists.

[Radrook]

Ok, here's the difference. There are, to my knowledge, no creationists doing any kind of field research. They are not out looking for fossils. They are not out dating rock formations. They are not in the labs examining DNA similarities between species. In short, they are not actually DOING any science. They are simply looking at the published information and trying to pick any hole in it they can to get it to agree with the conclusions they have already come to.

Perhaps the following articles can answer your accusation better than I ever could. Not that you will be swayed of course.

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

Research
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/


Their entire enterprise is the exact opposite of science. Scientific theory is entirely data driven, whatever the data indicates happened, must be accepted. Creationists already HAVE the answer, the data is only useful as it supports the conclusion, and completely worthless, at best, if it doesn't.

Ironically, that seems to be exactly the modus operandi which the evolutionists give the impression of following. Anything contradicting their claims is shunted aside while other data is interpreted to mean what they already have concluded. If the data is vague, then the effort is in forcing it into the evolutionary mold. For example, the hips of theradons and their
musculature as opposed to modern birds. No problem, just try to get around it. The difficulty of shifting of mammalian breathing system to bird breathing system. No viable explanation but believe it anyway because evolution thery says so. To me that's not science.

Francis Collins is a well know theistic scientist who IS doing this real research and guess what, he is not a creationist. (at least, not in the "creation vs. evolution" sense). He fully accepts the evidence of evolution because, as he says, it is overwhelming. This is not an attempted argument from authority, I am simply pointing out that your repeated assertions that evolution or abiogenesis requires atheism is wrong. One can be a theist and actually follow the scientific method, and even accept the evidence where it leads.

And there are fully qualified scientists who disagree. You believe yours. I believe mine. As the president in the film Mars Attacks said to the Masrtians, "Can't we all just get along and be friends?"
Didn't work-did it? LOL

I see now, that despite your repeated assertions that you had problems with the science of evolution and abiogenesis, that is simply not the case. Your problem is that you already have your answer, it is written in your holy book, and any contrary evidence must be, by definition, wrong. Given this fact, there is no point in discussing evidence with you, because the evidence is irrelevant. The science is irrelevant to you, it just doesn't matter where the data leads, it can only be a distraction.

The real problem is that you seem unable to live with the idea that others don't believe in evolution. Me? well, I simply accept the fact that everyone has his opinion. So I don't really get all that excited about it. And no. not true. I don't reject because I believe in ID I reject because I find the evidence unconvincing while I find the evidence in support of ID convincing. That's the reason why I hold the position I do.

It would be much simpler if you would just say that, instead of posting red herrings about caring about what the science is, because you don't. You think all scientists are liars, who create hoaxes to deceive a gullible public, who invent relationships that aren't there. To you and the people you put your trust in, the data simply CANNOT be true, or it CANNOT show what it appears to show. You have your answer, and the data is quite irrelevant at best.

Oh1 Oh! Now the vehemence fueled by fanatical anger is kicking in as evidenced by accusations of not caring hypocrisy! Well, let me calmly say that I do not believe all scientists are liars. I only believe that the scientists who routinely lie, or who knowingly violate their own principles, as evolutionist such as Lamarck, with his fictitious recapitulation drawings and those who faked and foisted the Piltown Man on us as fact are not fully doing things in the best interest of science though they might themselves believe themselves benefactors to their profession.

Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation ...
Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's ... The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the ...
www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and _Speculation

Also, no! It isn't that the data cannot do this or cannot do that. It's that the data is open to another more reasonable interpretation which is rejected outright in preference to a pet idea. That's the problem.

Broken Vitamin C gene in Humans and apes? A fused human chromosome 2? Tiktaalik, found exactly in the rocks it was predicted to be found? All of this is just errors of "perspective" to you. The data doesn't show what it looks like it shows, because it can't possibly be true. You've made your decision, your 100% certain you are 100% correct, and that's it. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I once saw: "god said it, I believe it, case closed". Nothing more need be said.

First and foremost, as the saying goes, the one repeatedly bringing God into the picture here is you and other evolutionists, not me. Why? Well, because this way you can create an illusion that antievolutionist conclusions are based on mere faith and have nothing to do with evolutionist quackery. But I think that such a tactic is too transparent to be effective. So try something more subtle. And no, the data does show what it shows. What it doesn't so, actually is show what YOU claim it shows. Big dif!




BTW, if you take even a moment to respond to this post, I would appreciate you doing me the last courtesy, as I have tried to be courteous to you, of giving me your explanation of human chromosome 2 and why it is not extremely compelling evidence for human/ape common ancestry. In particular, I would like to hear your explanation for the placement of centromeres and telomeres where they shouldn't be and why the G-banding between the single human chromosome and the 2 chimp chromosomes match so exactly when laid side by side.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

About responding, as I have explained to others here, I try to keep up as best as possible. So if I miss a response it isn't on purpose. My apologies nevertheless if such has been the case.

About the research statement:

Peleoentology isn't the only field which is relevant to evolutionary conclusions. The theory is subject to examination from other scientific quarters as well, quarters which do not require going out on the field examining rocks. There is also a the exigencies of the scientific method and a compendium of scientific facts which can be brought to bear on any finding.

If a qualified scientist notices a discrepancy, he will of course disagree with a violation of either methodology employed, ignored, or hasty or biased conclusions reached. That is called peer review of and is legitimate way of keeping a healthy check on quackery disguised as science. Something evolutionists have become a bit notorious for.

BTW
Morphological and DNA similarities can be expected of creatures who live on the same planet and are designed to live on the same planet by the same Designer. That this doesn't occur to you just goes to show how single minded you are in your fervently desire to attribute every bit of data to mindless evolution.

Well, guess that's it for now. Thanks for feedback. Peace!

[skeptical]

It's always the same illogical procedure: the purpose of the quotation is ignored, the intention of the quoter when he made the statement is ignored, and the accusation of biased quoting is put forth as a valid refutation-which of course it isn't since the refutation is against a strawman argument. In short, the creationist is accused of quoting to prove that the statement proves the author doesn't believe in evolution when the quotation was merely striving to show that evolutionists sometimes have certain reservations about their own conclusions although they still remain devoted to those ideas. So when you mention creationist bias, I truly wonder whether the accusation is based on this particular perception of creationist quotations.

Now, you are really stretching. This is the biggest load of BS you have posted yet. What creationists do, is take a quote out of context, and use it to try to show gullible people who don't fact check sources that the scientist is saying the _opposite_ of what they were actually saying.

For example, a scientist might say "When we first examined the radiometric dating of the sample, it did not not agree with what was expected. After further investigation, it was found that the sample had been contaminated from a nearby lava flow, which was discovered through further spectral analysis".

The creationist would take this and say "When we ...examined the radiometric dating of the sample, it did not agree with what was expected..." and then say "SEE, THE ROCK DATING IS WRONG!!!" or some other such nonsense. Many times, they don't even have the decency to show the ellipses to indicate that text had been removed. They also don't usually even give the actual reference, so that someone who wanted could easily find the original source.

They also tend to use sources from decades or, in some cases, a century ago and pretend as if no further research on the topic has been done.

Are you seriously contending that creationists don't quote mine when it is demonstrably true that they do? Your posts are just getting less tethered to reality as you go along.

BTW: Can you provide your explanation of human chromosome 2: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

(for those keeping score, this is the 3rd time I have asked Radrook this question)

Prediction: If you bother to reply, your post will involve something about a lack of understanding you and/or not reading what you wrote, a complaint about ad-hom, and no actual content admitting creationist quote mining is rampant and incredibly dishonest. I also predict you will again fail to attempt any response to my chromosome question.

ETA: I see now that you have replied to my earlier post, I will look at that response and respond accordingly

[Henners]

First and foremost, as the saying goes, the one repeatedly bringing God into the picture here is you and other evolutionists, not me. Why? Well, because this way you can create an illusion that antievolutionist conclusions are based on mere faith and have nothing to do with evolutionist quackery. But I think that such a tactic is too transparent to be effective. So try something more subtle. And no, the data does show what it shows. What it doesn't so, actually is show what YOU claim it shows. Big dif!

I see where you are coming from. Don't mention God. The Judge in here http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf calls it "breathtaking inanity".

Would you like me to re-post my demonstration that the probability that evolution did not take place is 1/10300,000, and would you care to have one of your so-called scientists explain what's wrong with my sums?

[Radrook]

Now, you are really stretching. This is the biggest load of BS you have posted yet. What creationists do, is take a quote out of context, and use it to try to show gullible people who don't fact check sources that the scientist is saying the _opposite_ of what they were actually saying.

For example, a scientist might say "When we first examined the radiometric dating of the sample, it did not agree with what was expected. After further investigation, it was found that the sample had been contaminated from a nearby lava flow, which was discovered through further spectral analysis."

The creationist would take this and say "When we ...examined the radiometric dating of the sample, it did not agree with what was expected..." and then say "SEE, THE ROCK DATING IS WRONG!!!" or some other such nonsense. Many times, they don't even have the decency to show the ellipses to indicate that text had been removed. They also don't usually even give the actual reference, so that someone who wanted could easily find the original source.

They also tend to use sources from decades or, in some cases, a century ago and pretend as if no further research on the topic has been done.

Are you seriously contending that creationists don't quote mine when it is demonstrably true that they do? Your posts are just getting less tethered to reality as you go along.

BTW: Can you provide your explanation of human chromosome 2: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

(for those keeping score, this is the 3rd time I have asked Radrook this question)

Prediction: If you bother to reply, your post will involve something about a lack of understanding you and/or not reading what you wrote, a complaint about ad-hom, and no actual content admitting creationist quote mining is rampant and incredibly dishonest. I also predict you will again fail to attempt any response to my chromosome question.

ETA: I see now that you have replied to my earlier post, I will look at that response and respond accordingly

No ad hominem complaint about the BS part since that's simply your opinion of the data I provided. As for accusations of not reading what I wrote, those are only reserved for those who misrepresent what I say-set up their own idea and then proceed to attack it as if it were mine. I don't consider you to fall into that category. At least not yet. But I have hopes. : )

No, I am not claiming that you haven't had the experience you describe in reference to creationists. However, my impression is that by and large creationists sites generally provide accurate assessments and then are repeatedly falsely accused of quoting out of context when context in that particular instance is totally disjointed from the purpose of the quotation.


About any technical questions you have concerning biology, I place absolutely no doubt on your findings. I do have strong reservations, however on the interpretations that you people automatically attribute to them. That's a big difference.


In short, I question whether your evolutionist conclusions to everything you find are justified and are not in fact motivated by evolutionist preconceptions. After all, such conclusions wouldn't be reached without the evolutionary filter through which the data is invariably sifted. Such has beedn the case numerous times in the past and I see no reason why my opinion of their trustworethiness should suddenly take a quatum leap. I guess you feel the same about creatrionists. : )



BTW

I do admit that I am definitely untethered to reality as evolutionists perceive it.

Below is an example of just how much your evolutionist scientists respect the scientific method!

Peer Review Gone Hwong
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v10i5n.htm

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps the following articles can answer your accusation better than I ever could. Not that you will be swayed of course.

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

Research
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/

Not that we will be swayed, of course, because all the research mentioned in those two articles is either 1) not in reputable scientific journals or 2) has nothing to do with evolutionary biology or any related field.

So what if there are creationist scientists contributing to physics? What bearing does that have on the arguments here?


And there are fully qualified scientists who disagree. You believe yours. I believe mine. As the president in the film Mars Attacks said to the Masrtians, "Can't we all just get along and be friends?"
Didn't work-did it? LOL

No. We do not simply "believe ours."

WE HAVE LEARNED THE SCIENCE OURSELVES, WE HAVE SEEN THE DATA OURSELVES. Everyone you are arguing with on this forum knows what they believe. You can ask us any question you wish about evolutionary biology, and we will either 1) tell you the answer or 2) go read up on it, process the data, come to a conclusion, and then give you our conclusion.

In stark contrast, you champion arguments that you don't even understand. Perhaps that is why you have been unable to answer even a single question of ours regarding what you believe.

I don't reject because I believe in ID I reject because I find the evidence unconvincing while I find the evidence in support of ID convincing. That's the reason why I hold the position I do.

Nothing you have written this entire thread leads any of us to believe that you even understand the basic principles of the theory of evolution -- is it any doubt you find the evidence unconvincing?

Also, no! It isn't that the data cannot do this or cannot do that. It's that the data is open to another more reasonable interpretation which is rejected outright in preference to a pet idea. That's the problem.

Yet, you refuse to go into detail as to what this other, "more reasonable" interpretation happens to be.

First and foremost, as the saying goes, the one repeatedly bringing God into the picture here is you and other evolutionists, not me. Why? Well, because this way you can create an illusion that antievolutionist conclusions are based on mere faith and have nothing to do with evolutionist quackery. But I think that such a tactic is too transparent to be effective. So try something more subtle. And no, the data does show what it shows. What it doesn't so, actually is show what YOU claim it shows. Big dif!

If you swear to us, on everything holy to you, right here, right now, that you are not thinking of God when you say "designer," then we will apologize and stop bringing God up.

Morphological and DNA similarities can be expected of creatures who live on the same planet and are designed to live on the same planet by the same Designer. That this doesn't occur to you just goes to show how single minded you are in your fervently desire to attribute every bit of data to mindless evolution.

You think that idea hadn't occured to us? Of course it has. It has occured to anyone who is critical of evolution. What you are purposefully ignorant of, however, is that when combined with other questions, the same answer doesn't appear.

You can very well claim that these similarities arise from the designer re-using various modules and ideas -- there is no flaw in that argument. But now you will have to explain why a designer capable of creating us would ignore so many broken modules. Clearly, if he re-used a module in many creatures, he must have noticed it was broken. Indeed, the strongest evidence against a designer is the fact that such a large number of biological mechanisms are broken or poorly designed from our perspective -- the only perspective that matters in the ID argument.

[skeptical]

Perhaps the following articles can answer your accusation better than I ever could. Not that you will be swayed of course.

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

Research
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/



Ok, your right. A few papers out of the hundreds of thousands that get published. My mistake.


Ironically, that seems to be exactly the modus operandi which the evolutionists give the impression of following. Anything contradicting their claims is shunted aside while other data is interpreted to mean what they already have concluded. If the data is vague, then the effort is in forcing it into the evolutionary mold. For example, the hips of theradons and their
musculature as opposed to modern birds. No problem, just try to get around it. The difficulty of shifting of mammalian breathing system to bird breathing system. No viable explanation but believe it anyway because evolution thery says so. To me that's not science.

You really do not understand the scientific method at all. Seriously. There is no doubt that there are now, and will likely continue to be, gaps in ALL theories that are not currently explained. Relativity has been tested more than just about any other theory in physics, and it has been shown to be accurate time after time, but it cannot be the whole story because it is not compatible with Quantum theory. That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it just means it is not the whole story. The process is to investigate, see where the theory needs changes, if any, and improve our understanding.

Do you really want to go list by list of the things that may not be adequately explained by evolutionary theory against a list of things that cannot be explained by creationism? I don't really think you want to go there.


And there are fully qualified scientists who disagree. You believe yours. I believe mine. As the president in the film Mars Attacks said to the Masrtians, "Can't we all just get along and be friends?"
Didn't work-did it? LOL

You JUST DON"T GET IT. It is not a matter of "belief". "Belief" is what you have when you don't have evidence.

Here's a test, find me one single person with a PhD in Biology who rejects the evidence of evolution in its entirety for scientific and NOT religious reasons. Religion beliefs are not scientific reasons. Don't you get that?


The real problem is that you seem unable to live with the idea that others don't believe in evolution. Me? well, I simply accept the fact that everyone has his opinion. So I don't really get all that excited about it. And no. not true. I don't reject because I believe in ID I reject because I find the evidence unconvincing while I find the evidence in support of ID convincing. That's the reason why I hold the position I do.

No, the real problem is you are not being honest. You keep posting BS about a lack of evidence, and then when you get called on it you play the hurt feelings game, put people on ignore and claim no one understands you. I am perfectly happy for you to believe what you want, but don't claim its because of evidence. It's not. There is no a single person on the planet who believes in ID because of evidence, it is entirely a religious belief system. Which is ironic, because there are plenty of religious people who fully accept the evidence of evolution.


Oh1 Oh! Now the vehemence fueled by fanatical anger is kicking in as evidenced by accusations of not caring hypocrisy! Well, let me calmly say that I do not believe all scientists are liars. I only believe that the scientists who routinely lie, or who knowingly violate their own principles, as evolutionist such as Lamarck, with his fictitious recapitulation drawings and those who faked and foisted the Piltown Man on us as fact are not fully doing things in the best interest of science though they might themselves believe themselves benefactors to their profession.

Wow. Lamarck and Piltdown. Yep, your right, the liars and fakes are turning out in droves. You can barely shake a stick at em. :rolleyes:


Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation ...
Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's ... The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the ...
www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and _Speculation (http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and _Speculation)


And Haeckel. Wow. Yep, those liars are everywhere.


Also, no! It isn't that the data cannot do this or cannot do that. It's that the data is open to another more reasonable interpretation which is rejected outright in preference to a pet idea. That's the problem.

No, its not. Your argument is simply an argument from incredulity backed by religious fervor. If we were having this conversation 30 years ago, the ID camp would be all over the eye as its poster child example of what couldn't possibly evolve. Now, since the eye evolution is incredibly well known, we have many examples of working intermediary eye evolution in nature, the eye is completely off the radar for ID. Now, its the flagella. Your forever hiding your tinkering deity in the gaps. And you always will be. Which is a shame, because the intellectual dishonesty is completely unnecessary.


First and foremost, as the saying goes, the one repeatedly bringing God into the picture here is you and other evolutionists, not me. Why?

Because that is your real issue, you just try to smokescreen it. Let's just be honest, that's all.

Besides, I believe it was you who said that abiogenesis requires atheism. How exactly is that NOT bringing god into it?


Well, because this way you can create an illusion that antievolutionist conclusions are based on mere faith and have nothing to do with evolutionist quackery.

Rigggggght. Are you seriously going to contend your motivation is not because you cannot accept a god that simply put the forces of the universe in motion? Actually scratch that, I know you won't admit it, that was silly of me.


But I think that such a tactic is too transparent to be effective. So try something more subtle. And no, the data does show what it shows. What it doesn't so, actually is show what YOU claim it shows. Big dif!

Yeah, of course your right. Your constant claims that evolution and abiogenesis require atheism have nothing whatsoever to do with religion or god, and my shallow attempts to misquote you are too transparent.


About responding, as I have explained to others here, I try to keep up as best as possible. So if I miss a response it isn't on purpose. My apologies nevertheless if such has been the case.

Ok


About the research statement:

Peleoentology isn't the only field which is relevant to evolutionary conclusions. The theory is subject to examination from other scientific quarters as well, quarters which do not require going out on the field examining rocks. There is also a the exigencies of the scientific method and a compendium of scientific facts which can be brought to bear on any finding.

If a qualified scientist notices a discrepancy, he will of course disagree with a violation of either methodology employed, ignored, or hasty or biased conclusions reached. That is called peer review of and is legitimate way of keeping a healthy check on quackery disguised as science. Something evolutionists have become a bit notorious for.

I see. By "qualified" you mean someone whose religious beliefs prevent them from accepting evidence and by "discrepancy" you mean something they can't understand and by "violation of methodology" you mean they don't use arguments from incredulity. Got it. Nice ad-hom against the entire scientific community as well. Good job.


BTW
Morphological and DNA similarities can be expected of creatures who live on the same planet and are designed to live on the same planet by the same Designer. That this doesn't occur to you just goes to show how single minded you are in your fervently desire to attribute every bit of data to mindless evolution.

It does occur to me. The point was the SPECIFIC similarities. Not just any old similarities. The SPECIFIC one I mentioned. Human chromosome 2.

I'll say it again, what is your SPECIFIC explanation of the SPECIFIC similarity of human chromosome 2 to the 2 chimp chromosomes? Did god tinker with the chromosome the same way it tinkered with the flagella?

[skeptical]

About any technical questions you have concerning biology, I place absolutely no doubt on your findings. I do have strong reservations, however on the interpretations that you people automatically attribute to them. That's a big difference.

Ok, I just have one question then, what is YOUR explanation of human chromosome 2? http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

I understand your problem is the interpretation, so I would like to hear yours. Please provide details on your explanation of the centromeres and telomere locations as well. Its a short link, it can probably be read in about 5 min of your time.

And for the record, there have been in the past, and always will be, some scientists willing to fake data. The beauty of the scientific enterprise, is that it will systematically root it out. No error or fakery can survive for long, especially in the modern era. By any measurement, the scientific enterprise has been unbelievably successful in helping our understanding of the world. Anyone who lives in the modern West relies on the moumental labors and efforts of countless scientists who put their blood, sweat and tears into improving our understanding of the Universe.

Scientists are not saints, and their methods are not perfect, but its methods and procedures have been, are, and will continue to represent the purest human attempt to ensure that our understanding of the world matches reality.

[Kotatsu]

True, there are offsite references. References which I expected the reader of the info to check out for themselves. But I can understand your reluctance to do so yourself due to the disappointments you say you experienced in relation to other creationist articles. In fact, we are in the same boat in that respect but visa versa. In any case, I will investigate to see if I can provide you with a peer reviewed paper stating that the finding is a hoax. : )

As I was in the lab most of today I forgot to look through my pile to see if I already had the paper you refer to. Thus, I will eagerly await your finding of the same.

[joobz]

More vague accusations as to why evolution is impossible. Didn't radrook already establish that he isn't against evolution but "atheistic evolution"?

Amusingly, once these easily shot down points are shot down, he'll complain that they were only there as an example of some ....blah blah blah.

Ironically, that seems to be exactly the modus operandi which the evolutionists give the impression of following. Anything contradicting their claims is shunted aside while other data is interpreted to mean what they already have concluded. If the data is vague, then the effort is in forcing it into the evolutionary mold. For example, the hips of theradons and their
musculature as opposed to modern birds. No problem, just try to get around it.Theradons? I'm assuming he's talking about therapods.
Where along this lineage is he having trouble?
http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/Cladogram/SaurischiaTherapoda.jpg

The difficulty of shifting of mammalian breathing system to bird breathing system. No viable explanation but believe it anyway because evolution thery says so. To me that's not science.
Radrook knows that dinosaurs weren't mammals, right?

[Kotatsu]

PFor example, the hips of theradons and their
musculature as opposed to modern birds. No problem, just try to get around it. The difficulty of shifting of mammalian breathing system to bird breathing system. No viable explanation but believe it anyway because evolution thery says so. To me that's not science

Could you expand on these issues? These are unfamiliar arguments to me, but intuitively, they seem to be non-issues. Birds have not originated from within mammals, nor vice versa, so any differences found in any comparable structure could easily be autapomorphies of the respective clades. If by "shifting" you mean that one evolved from the other, then that is demonstrably nonsense or, at least, nothing that would be claimed by a modern student of the proposed tree of life.

Similarly, I don't know what the issue with therodons and their hips and musculature compared to that of modern birds is. It seems to me that this would also be a non-issue, as there are several steps between the therodons and modern birds, which provides ample time and opportunity for any kind of reasonable changes to occur.

[Kotatsu]

Morphological and DNA similarities can be expected of creatures who live on the same planet and are designed to live on the same planet by the same Designer. That this doesn't occur to you just goes to show how single minded you are in your fervently desire to attribute every bit of data to mindless evolution.

Morphological and DNA similarities could be expected to a certain extent. But We would certainly not expect nested hierarchies if the doctrine of common descent is false. Why, for instance, would geographically closer populations or species be more similar to each other than either are to more geographically distant ones, even if the environment they live in is uniform?

[Henners]

Radrook knows that dinosaurs weren't mammals, right?

Best not to make any assumptions like that.

To judge by the number of times he contradicts himself, I'd be surprised to find out that he can put on his own socks.

[Shalamar]

When some of the first dinosaur fossils were being uncovered, the skeletons were forcible arranged in what they felt was 'correct'. They arranged the skeletons to resemble modern lizards. Legs splayed out, tail dragging on the ground.

As more research was done, and more complete skeletons were uncovered, it was realized that they were wrong. Placing the bones into arrangements that fit the structure created upright creatures, with limbs that were underneath the body. The resemblance to birds was striking.

When dinosaur fossils that contained feathers were found, it confirmed the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. As more evidence is uncovered, it only seems to hold fast to that concept. It is certainly possible that new evidence will be found that show a different lineage, but that is unlikely.

Now, the real big issue I have with Radrooks claims, is that all evidence given by an 'evolutionist' must be discounted, because they are biased. Thus only people who have agendas to disprove the Theory of Evolution can be trusted, and.. surprise! They claim Evolution is false.

Going by the way Radrook works with evolution, then ALL science must be discounted, because the people who do the work are biased. If a group of people oppose evolution, they too must be discounted.. because they are biased...

[Kotatsu]

As I believe you have him on ignore, I will repost this, and chime in (see below):

Radrook:
"And there are fully qualified scientists who disagree. You believe yours. I believe mine."

No. We do not simply "believe ours."

WE HAVE LEARNED THE SCIENCE OURSELVES, WE HAVE SEEN THE DATA OURSELVES. Everyone you are arguing with on this forum knows what they believe. You can ask us any question you wish about evolutionary biology, and we will either 1) tell you the answer or 2) go read up on it, process the data, come to a conclusion, and then give you our conclusion.

Rocketdodger's is a correct analysis. I am one of those scientists who perform studies which test and so far uniformly have supported the existence of the phenomenon of evolution, as well as the theory which describes it. I have seen sufficient data to draw the conclusion that the theory of evolution is correct and that evolution happens even if I only count the studies I have been involved in personally. Thus, I do not, strictly speaking, need other studies to convince me of this, though of course they do reinforce my conclusion that my data is not a fluke or the result of some contamination.

[Kotatsu]

Theradons? I'm assuming he's talking about therapods.
Where along this lineage is he having trouble?
http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/Cladogram/SaurischiaTherapoda.jpg

Hmmm. I assumed he meant "Thecodonts", and momentarily forgot what the name of the group was, thus accepting his proposed "Theradons". I can blame only a long day in the lab, and urge people to see my reply to the very same point in the light of this.

[joobz]

Hmmm. I assumed he meant "Thecodonts", and momentarily forgot what the name of the group was, thus accepting his proposed "Theradons". I can blame only a long day in the lab, and urge people to see my reply to the very same point in the light of this.
In either case, the point is the same and very valid. THere are a multitude of steps/transitions that exist.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ok, your right. A few papers out of the hundreds of thousands that get published. My mistake.

I see there have been a number of posts by Radrook since mine but none of them are replied to so I'm assuming I'm in ignore because I noted his strange tangental comments in response to pointing out the conflation of Lubenow and Lewin.

Anyway, for the lurkers, I thought I'd ask this of skeptical. Did you check out the papers cited in that link he provided? We're any of them about evolution, or were they papers in their field by evolutin deniers? IIRC, cranks like Austin, Snelling and Woodmorappe (under his real name) have continued to publish papers using "evolutionary" timelines and "presuppositions", but haven't published anything in peer reviewed literature supporting their crank ideas about YECism while continuing to publish crank articles in Creationist literature and on their websites.

I was posting to a forum where Joe Meert was a year or so ago and tried to note that Behe was publishing peer reviewed papers - even if they weren't supporting ID. He noted to me that the Behe in question was a totally different guy.

[skeptical]

Anyway, for the lurkers, I thought I'd ask this of skeptical. Did you check out the papers cited in that link he provided? We're any of them about evolution, or were they papers in their field by evolutin deniers? IIRC, cranks like Austin, Snelling and Woodmorappe (under his real name) have continued to publish papers using "evolutionary" timelines and "presuppositions", but haven't published anything in peer reviewed literature supporting their crank ideas about YECism while continuing to publish crank articles in Creationist literature and on their websites.

I only did a cursory look. It appeared to me that there were probably a few creationists doing some research and posting a few papers. I cannot vouch for the veracity of any of them. As far as I could tell, the papers weren't on creationism, they were actual scientific papers written by creationists. (or at least claimed to be)

It was a bit tangential to the main argument, so I didn't put in much time looking at it. It may turn out to be I conceded too quickly. :)

[Foster Zygote]

Radrook knows that dinosaurs weren't mammals, right?

Neither did the student described in the responses to this (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dino_lungs/) blog entry:
Very nice exposition.

And it reminds me of an annecdote from teaching vertebrate anatomy. I was describing the avian respiratory system when a student raised her hand with an objection. In a voice of incredulity she demanded, "Are you trying to say that birds have a better respiratory system than us." I reminded her that "better" is a relative term ("derived" is more neutral) but then decided to avoid semantics, especially since the bird air sac system is so effective. I replied with, "No, I'm not TRYING to say that. I AM saying that."

Her response sent a chill to my very marrow. "If that's so, then how can evolution be true, you know if birds come from mammals?" As a phylogenetics guy I hoped that she had simply not been paying attention all semester. I'd hate to think that anyone paying attention to my lectures could make a statement like that!

I suspect Radrook has been reading Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis. Wieland offers an argument from personal incredulity very similar to Radrook's.

[edge]

Henry Morris, Ph.D. [ http://icr.org/article/491 ]

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1 --Richard Dawkins
Evolution is "deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,"2 the first of which is that living creatures "differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose."3 Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations. Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the fact of evolution was obvious but "few could see it, so trapped were they by the human…desire to find design and purpose in the world." He concluded:
Darwin's brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike "perfection" of honeybees' combs or ant trails…reveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.5


http://www.icr.org/article/3513/

Since they deleted it .

This says it all,
As the Word of God states, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

[edge]

The last remenent of these creatures seemed to be written about in the old testiment.
Yes the Greeks and Romans misinterpreted the fossil record and they were pagans.
The Hebrews however had a different take as they were on stage with God.

Leviathan
12 But you, O God, are my king from of old;
you bring salvation upon the earth.
13 It was you who split open the sea by your power;
you broke the heads of the monster in the waters.
14 It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan
and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Does this not sound like them talking about the fossil record and then even in their time, that it is a creature that is still alive? Even though at the time there is a fossil record of it and they knew about it.

1 "Can you pull in the leviathan [a] with a fishhook
or tie down his tongue with a rope?

Is the fossil record correct?

1 In that day,
the LORD will punish with his sword,
his fierce, great and powerful sword,
Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;
he will slay the monster of the sea.



8 May those who curse days curse that day,
those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

26 There the ships go to and fro,
and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

Sounds like the biggest dinosaur that roamed the seas still does at this time, a giant that God created and is a animal.
There is one dinosaur in the fossil record that resembles this creature,
Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;

This creature was capably of eating a T Rex if it got too close.

Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;
That doesn’t fit the descriptions of a whale or a crocadile but it does fit this,
http://www.unmuseum.org/searepti.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/chronology/149/synopsis.htm

Then you have this, the descriptions of Behemoth a land creature,

12Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
13Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
14Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
15 [b]Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Read the chapter before and after,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=40&version=9
Then there is Jonah who was swallowed by a fish that everybody assumes is a whale.
But wasn’t swallowed by either of these two.


I like how they all go by the age of the sedimentary rock that buried these bones but what you all seem to forget is that those sediments are particles from bed rock that are older since they where broken down into tiny little pieces and lets not forget the contamination from asteroids and meteorites since the birth of the planet.
Since the age of those sediments seem to indicate the age of the bones which were much younger than the rocks.

Your aging technique is corrupt and not accurate according to geology.

[skeptical]

The last remenent of these creatures seemed to be written about in the old testiment.
Yes the Greeks and Romans misinterpreted the fossil record and they were pagans.
The Hebrews however had a different take as they were on stage with God.


Heeeeeeee's baaaaaack.

Hovind, thanks very much, its all very informative. I feel I have been incredibly witnessed to. Thanks so much for playing.

Now, please explain human chromosome 2: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

Bye bye now.

[Radrook]

The last remenent of these creatures seemed to be written about in the old testiment.
Yes the Greeks and Romans misinterpreted the fossil record and they were pagans.
The Hebrews however had a different take as they were on stage with God.

Leviathan
12 But you, O God, are my king from of old;
you bring salvation upon the earth.
13 It was you who split open the sea by your power;
you broke the heads of the monster in the waters.
14 It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan
and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Does this not sound like them talking about the fossil record and then even in their time, that it is a creature that is still alive? Even though at the time there is a fossil record of it and they knew about it.

1 "Can you pull in the leviathan [a] with a fishhook
or tie down his tongue with a rope?

Is the fossil record correct?

1 In that day,
the LORD will punish with his sword,
his fierce, great and powerful sword,
Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;
he will slay the monster of the sea.



8 May those who curse days curse that day,
those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

26 There the ships go to and fro,
and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

Sounds like the biggest dinosaur that roamed the seas still does at this time, a giant that God created and is a animal.
There is one dinosaur in the fossil record that resembles this creature,
Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;

This creature was capably of eating a T Rex if it got too close.

Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;
That doesn’t fit the descriptions of a whale or a crocadile but it does fit this,
http://www.unmuseum.org/searepti.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/chronology/149/synopsis.htm

Then you have this, the descriptions of Behemoth a land creature,

12Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
13Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
14Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
15 [b]Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Read the chapter before and after,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=40&version=9
Then there is Jonah who was swallowed by a fish that everybody assumes is a whale.
But wasn’t swallowed by either of these two.


I like how they all go by the age of the sedimentary rock that buried these bones but what you all seem to forget is that those sediments are particles from bed rock that are older since they where broken down into tiny little pieces and lets not forget the contamination from asteroids and meteorites since the birth of the planet.
Since the age of those sediments seem to indicate the age of the bones which were much younger than the rocks.

Your aging technique is corrupt and not accurate according to geology.

Ancient dinosaur clay figurines were unearthed in South America fashioned by native Americans who portray themselves as interacting with dinosaurs. Even dinosaurs which have only recently been discovered.

The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

Of course evolutionists imediately tried to discredit the find by saying that the figurines were recently produced forgeries because it didn't jive with their pet idea. But then the dating of the evidence began.....

excerpt

The radiocarbon dates of up to 4,500 B.C for Carbon on the ceramics would make the collection the oldest in the Western Hemisphere.

In 1972, Arthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr. Froelich Rainey, the director of the Pennsylvania Museum for Thermoluminescent Dating. The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2,700 B.C

[skeptical]

To Radrook:

You said earlier that you didn't understand why I cared that you won't accept the evidence of evolution, and the short answer is, I don't. You may find that hard to believe, but truly, I couldn't care less what you personally think.

People all over the world believe that water is magic (homeopathy), that schmucks like John Edward who cannot even get a simple cold reading better than a sideshow carny can actually talk to dead people, that drinking urine will make you healthy, that a guy in India can fly, that the earth is swelling like a balloon and at the north pole, there is a hole that leads to the center of the earth where an ancient race of peoples is waiting to share the wisdom of the ages with us. I think that the evidence for any of this and a thousand other beliefs is nil, and therefore that it is all nonsense and woo. But whatever. I don't care what silly things people choose to believe. I don't know what things you believe and what you don't and honestly, I couldn't care less.

What I DO care about, is when people take their beliefs, and try to use them to denigrate science and the scientists who practice it. When they go beyond merely having their beliefs, and start poisoning the well of all the scientific progress our society has fought to sustain for 300 yrs.

When someone purposely makes patently false statements that evolution and abiogenesis require atheism, that irritates me. (and yes, it IS patently false, because if even a SINGLE theist accepts them as the mechanisms god chose, it is a false statement. There are lots that accept it, so the statement is false. Period.)

It irritates me for 2 reasons, 1) because it is an obviously false statement about science by someone who knows better, which in itself is enough to irritate me and 2) because it drives people away from accepting the incredible success of science and its methods

What you are doing when you make statements like that, when you claim that the evidence of evolution is somehow weak or insubstantial, when you cherry pick the extraordinarily small number of times in the past 300 years when scientists have faked their data out of the millions of times they have not, you are not just seeking to discredit evolution or people who accept it, you are chipping away at the very edifice upon which the modern world is built: the scientific method.

We are privileged to live in a time when we in the West don't typically have to worry if we will die of smallpox, or if our children will get polio, or if our drinking water is potable, or if we will survive the winter, or wonder if our far away relatives are still alive, or if our child will die before it is out of infancy, or if we will be able to make a living because our eyesight is poor, or if our epileptic child will get burned for witchcraft, or any of a million other tragedies great and small that people of only a few hundreds of years ago had to suffer. We do not worry about all of this for a simple reason: our understanding and command of our world via the scientific method and its practitioners have delivered us from a constant world of darkness and ignorance.

When you throw unsubstantiated accusations against scientists, when you attempt to undermine the scientific method, you feed the seed of doubt that an increasingly uneducated public has about science, despite its overwhelming success in every field of endeavor on the planet. Seeds of doubt sown by those just like you who cannot accept the evidence revealed by science. Doubt is fed by religious pandering, by equating science with atheism, the ultimate wedge issue.

Science affects every possible endeavor in the modern world. Unless you live in a cave and grow your own food, your entire life is literally built on a foundation that would be impossible without science, and yet you sit on a precarious branch, sawing away at the root, with the yawning abyss of the dark ages reaching its gnarled fingers to pull you down. The problem is, we are all on the branch with you.

So to be plain, I don't care what you believe. But I do care what nonsense you try to propagate to others. We are here on this little forum, in a small dark corner of the vast ocean of cyberspace, and perhaps it doesn't matter at all. Perhaps my posts don't make the slightest difference now, and maybe they never will. But I will not, I cannot, stand by while those and those like you seek to plunge us back into the heart of darkness of the pre-scientific world.

I will not stand idly bye and let your disinformation turn a single person away from science if it is in my power to do so. Feeble though my efforts may be.

[Shalamar]

Confirmed.

Radrook IS a creationist.

He will claim that all 'evolutionist' evidence is biased, but immediately, and happily embraces creationist 'evidence'.

[Radrook]

Ok, your right. A few papers out of the hundreds of thousands that get published. My mistake.

That's the ole bandwagon fallacy defense again. Numerical preponderance doesn't indicate nor insure fact. As I have pointed out before, there are numerous incidents throughout history where the majority have been mistaken and the minority view scoffed at. The germ theory of disease for example was ridiculed and hospital personal continued to operate and deliver babies without washing their hands. Eventually they saw the light, But not before
causing the deaths of countless otherwise savable patients. I'm certain you are familiar with the many other examples I can bring to your attention so I won't.



You really do not understand the scientific method at all. Seriously. There is no doubt that there are now, and will likely continue to be, gaps in ALL theories that are not currently explained. Relativity has been tested more than just about any other theory in physics, and it has been shown to be accurate time after time, but it cannot be the whole story because it is not compatible with Quantum theory. That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it just means it is not the whole story. The process is to investigate, see where the theory needs changes, if any, and improve our understanding.

Do you really want to go list by list of the things that may not be adequately explained by evolutionary theory against a list of things that cannot be explained by creationism? I don't really think you want to go there.

I understand both scientific method sufficiently well pass my college exams where an explanation was required. So your suspicions are founded on your inability to accept or understand what it is I am saying. A reaction which is typical on this thread.

I never claimed that theories aren't allowed to have gaps. That should be obvious even to grammar school students who are told about the Big Bang and are routinely told that there are things it has yet to explain-such as the matter to antimatter ratio, the emergence of black matter, or what caused the Big Bang itself. Theories do have gaps and that's why they are called theories. The problem arises when we become dogmatic about it and begin calling a theory an absolute irrefutable fact and discounting all other plausible or even more reasonable explanations. Then the theory begins to work against the scientific method by preventing open-mindedness via non tolerance of any opposing idea.


You JUST DON"T GET IT. It is not a matter of "belief". "Belief" is what you have when you don't have evidence.

The problem is that there is inductive evidence to the contrary. That inductive evidence is rejected outright-called foolish, those who point it out are laughed at and sneered into silence. To me that is a state of mind reminiscent of the Inquisition where no opposing view was tolerated. In short, it is tantamount to religious fanatism. Rejection of conclusions reached via the inductive process is unscientific. Why. Well, because science cannot function without the inductive process which generates deductive premises. Evolutionists claim to adhere to this in their research. But woe if anyone else uses inductive reasoning to indicate ID. Then all hell breaks loose. Which of course constitutes inconsistency of policy and indicates dishonesty motivated by nonscientific agenda.


Here's a test, find me one single person with a PhD in Biology who rejects the evidence of evolution in its entirety for scientific and NOT religious reasons. Religion beliefs are not scientific reasons. Don't you get that?

First, you are challenging on the premise that I am out to change your views when I am not. Neither am I inclined to surf the net
in search of evidence that from my standpoint amounts to argument from authority alone-a familiar fallacy. But even if I did it wouldn't make one iota of a difference. So why should I waste my time-assuming of course that I am in some type of urgent need to divest you of your delusions.

About religious reasons--sigh!--

I never said religious reasons are scientific reasons. If I did show me where. I truly hope you realize how tiresome being continually misunderstood can become! For the umpteenth time: I don't reject evolution simply based on religious reasons. The only ones bringing religion continuously into the picture here are the evolutionists in order to create strawman arguments which they can strive to make look foolish while claiming that the arguments are mine. I base my rejection of the theory based on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise. I also can't help but notice the vehement fanatical refusal of evolutionists to give credence to what is plainly right in front of their noses in one instance-while vehemently struggling to give credence to what isn't so obvious in order to perpetuate their evolutionist ideas. Such an attitude engenders suspicion since it smacks of bias and comes across as repugnant to anyone seeking facts. In short, it is an insult to
the public.



The real problem is you are not being honest. You keep posting BS about a lack of evidence, and then when you get called on it you play the hurt feelings game, put people on ignore and claim no one understands you. I am perfectly happy for you to believe what you want, but don't claim its because of evidence. It's not. There is no a single person on the planet who believes in ID because of evidence, it is entirely a religious belief system. Which is ironic, because there are plenty of religious people who fully accept the evidence of evolution.


Classify my views as you will, but please keep in mind that the evaluation and feelings are mutual. As for not being understood,
you are putting the horse before the cart. I don't claim they are unable to understand-they do--and repeatedly so ad ad infinitum and despite my repoeated explanations until I am forced to get the annoying irrelevant droning off my computer screen. If that's playing the victim then I guess that's the way it is.

Of course there are religious people who accept evolution. Another strawman. Can you please try to refrain from accusing me of all this bull ****** Since the rest is more drivel I' will spare myself the annoyance via snipping!


snip snip snip


Bye!

BTW
For what it's worth
You will find the biologist you request in the list at this site:

List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

[Foster Zygote]

Ancient dinosaur clay figurines were unearthed in South America fashioned by native Americans who portray themselves as interacting with dinosaurs. Even dinosaurs which have only recently been discovered.

The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

Of course evolutionists imediately tried to discredit the find by saying that the figurines were recently produced forgeries because it didn't jive with their pet idea. But then the dating of the evidence began.....
No, they said they were fakes because they were embarrassingly clumsy fakes. Someone is welcome to re-post this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html) as Radrook has me on ignore for asking questions he is unwilling or unable to answer.

[Foster Zygote]

I don't reject evolution simply based on religious reasons. The only ones bringing religion continuously into the picture here are the evolutionists in order to create strawman arguments which they can strive to make look foolish while claiming that the arguments are mine. I base my rejection of the theory based on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise.
And yet the vast majority of the "evidence" he brings to the table comes from creationist sites dedicated to advancing the idea that the Biblical legend of creation is literally true.

[skeptical]

The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

Of course evolutionists imediately tried to discredit the find by saying that the figurines were recently produced forgeries because it didn't jive with their pet idea. But then the dating of the evidence began.....

excerpt

Good grief. Your even worse than I thought. This nonsense? Let's be clear, this is a hoax:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

It is a clearly a hoax because:

1. The surface of the figurines were new, no patina or soluble salt coating, and none of them had been washed in acid

2) They found 30,000 of these in pristine condition. Think about that. 30,000 artifacts that are supposed to be 5K years old, and not one of them is chipped or broken. Don't you find that just a weeeee bit suspicious?

3) Di Peso spent 2 days watching the natives "uncover" their find, and he spotted obvious indications that the cache they "found" had recently been uncovered and then covered back up

4) The site of the ruins are from the Tarascan period, which emerged between 900 and 1522 C.E. That is far too late for the supposed dating.

5) If these are real, why did no other Mexican cultures record dinosaurs? Why are there no dinosaur fossils found in this region? What caused the massive extinction of all of these dinosaurs in the last few thousand years.

Do you really take this seriously? I thought you said you weren't a YEC? Or was that a lie too?

Good grief man, don't you think we would have just the slightest bit more evidence if dinosaurs lived in the last few thousands of years? In all the dinosaur fossils we have found, literally hundreds of thousands, don't you think we would have found ONE SINGLE HOMINID BONE in the same layer?

Does plate tectonics ring a bell for you? If the earth was only 6K years old, then to get to their present positions, approx 1800 miles apart, South America and Africa would have to have been moving apart at 3/10ths of a mile a year. That means in the lifetime of a 50 year old person, the continents would have moved 15 miles apart. The continents would have moved 44 miles apart since the end of the civil war, and 27 miles apart since the end of WWI . Don't you think, oh, I don't know, THAT MAYBE SOMEONE WOULD HAVE NOTICED THIS?????????????????????

I was wrong earlier. Your posts aren't getting stranger, you've flown right off the wacko chart.

At least when you were an "IDer" I could think you were not a total nutjob. Now....:boggled:

[Prometheus]

That's the ole bandwagon fallacy defense again. Numerical preponderance doesn't indicate nor insure fact. As I have pointed out before, there are numerous incidents throughout history where the majority have been mistaken and the minority view scoffed at. The germ theory of disease for example was ridiculed and hospital personal continued to operate and deliver babies without washing their hands. Eventually they saw the light...

Exactly correct--in much the same way that, during the Dark Ages everyone believed that the diversity of life must be the product of an intelligent designer, but eventually science came along and showed that this was not true--that there is a perfectly plausible naturalistic mechanism by which life might become variegated.


The problem arises when we become dogmatic about it and begin calling a theory an absolute irrefutable fact and discounting all other plausible or even more reasonable explanations.


Nobody who understands science calls any scientific theory an "absolute irrefutable fact", evolution included.


Then the theory begins to work against the scientific method by preventing open-mindedness via non tolerance of any opposing idea.

In the scientific community there is often resistance to new ideas before the evidence is there to back them up, but not intolerance. In fact, science is full of examples of such resistance that were eventually overcome by new evidence, such as the idea that we can't grow new brain cells, which has only recently been refuted. By definition, scientific method is the most open-minded enterprise humanity has ever engendered, because scientists do change their minds when presented with new evidence, all the time.


The problem is that there is inductive evidence to the contrary. That inductive evidence is rejected outright-called foolish, those who point it out are laughed at and sneered into silence.


I'm not sure I understand your use of the term "inductive evidence". Could you explain in a little more detail please?


But woe if anyone else uses inductive reasoning to indicate ID. Then all hell breaks loose. Which of course constitutes inconsistency of policy and indicates dishonesty motivated by nonscientific agenda.

This is quite a large claim. I'm afraid I can't accept it without some concrete examples. I've never seen any actual evidence in favor of ID, just philosophy, all of which has been answered by actual hard evidence to the contrary. Did you follow the Dover trial? Evolution scientists put forward a case that convinced even the non-evolutionist judge that all published ID theory was nothing more than religious creationism with some of the vocabulary cut and pasted out.


I base my rejection of the theory based on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise.

For the sake of clarity, could you please enumerate exactly what those inductive conclusions are, what the deductive premises are, and how the one leads to the other. I'd like to discuss this issue in more detail, but I don't want to make assumptions about what you intend to say. I realize this may be frustrating for you, but I agree with you that people shouldn't make assumptions about your beliefs, and I want to be sure that I am not doing so.

[rocketdodger]

BTW
For what it's worth
You will find the biologist you request in the list at this site:

List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

Yes, that is a fantastic list, and I am sure you are proud of yourself for finding it.

Unfortunately, it is not a list of person with a PhD in Biology who rejects the evidence of evolution in its entirety which is what you were challenged to provide.

[skeptical]

I understand both scientific method sufficiently well pass my college exams where an explanation was required. So your suspicions are founded on your inability to accept or understand what it is I am saying. A reaction which is typical on this thread.

Spitting out something you are told and understanding are two different things. I can regurgitate latin with the best of them, but I don't understand a damn word I'm saying.


The problem arises when we become dogmatic about it and begin calling a theory an absolute irrefutable fact and discounting all other plausible or even more reasonable explanations. Then the theory begins to work against the scientific method by preventing open-mindedness via non tolerance of any opposing idea.

Great, now your channeling Ben Stein. ID is not a theory, its a non-theory. It has no evidence of its own, it just says "that couldn't happen by the natural processes you indicate", therefore god did it. Well, if your theistic in nature, of course god did it, the question is HOW. If you had told Newton that his theory of motion was atheistic because its not gravity that moves the planets but god, he would have looked at you like you were from mars and said, of course god does it, he invented gravity.

Read the Dover decision. ID is not now, and never will be science. Its just not. Why do you think that when ID was given the chance to present its best arguments, in a court room where witnesses are required to give answers, all relevant evidence can be presented, in front of a conservative Christian judge appointed by GW Bush, that it failed soooooo miserably? Was that some sort of accident? I think not.


The problem is that there is inductive evidence to the contrary. That inductive evidence is rejected outright-called foolish, those who point it out are laughed at and sneered into silence.

Ben Stein and DI. Seriously, get some new material. If they are laughed at, its because they never change their tune when they are shown why they are wrong. Behe is still on the flagella, long after xaptation is explained for the nth time. Being wrong a few times is human, continually spouting the same drivel long after you have been shown to be wrong requires a creationist.


To me that is a state of mind reminiscent of the Inquisition where no opposing view was tolerated. In short, it is tantamount to religious fanatism. Rejection of conclusions reached via the inductive process is unscientific. Why. Well, because science cannot function without the inductive process which generates deductive premises. Evolutionists claim to adhere to this in their research. But woe if anyone else uses inductive reasoning to indicate ID. Then all hell breaks loose. Which of course constitutes inconsistency of policy and indicates dishonesty motivated by nonscientific agenda.

Ahhhh, the Ben Stein is all over me, it burns! The same old persecution bit. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps people actually LOOKED into ID and found it had no merit? Hmmm, no, that couldn't possibly be it. Dover. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Its bollocks.


First, you are challenging on the premise that I am out to change your views when I am not. Neither am I inclined to surf the net
in search of evidence that from my standpoint amounts to argument from authority alone-a familiar fallacy.

It's NOT an argument from authority. My point was that your claim that you believe for evidence is bollocks. You believe, and others like you, for religious reasons. Period. The evidence is overwhelming for any person willing to look, unless they think it violates their religion, in which case they will reject it. That was the point.


I never said religious reasons are scientific reasons. If I did show me where. I truly hope you realize how tiresome being continually misunderstood can become!

Now you misunderstand me. I KNOW you didn't say it. I'm saying it. Do you really think it doesn't shine through in every argument you make? You start out with ID, then you claim evolution is atheistic, now your a YEC, what, exactly, do you think people will make of all that, that your problem with evolution is NOT religious? Give me a break.


For the umpteenth time: I don't reject evolution simply based on religious reasons. The only ones bringing religion continuously into the picture here are the evolutionists in order to create strawman arguments which they can strive to make look foolish while claiming that the arguments are mine.

You can keep repeating it, and who knows, you may in fact believe it. But the plain fact is you lost any ability to make that claim in good faith when you played the "evolution requires atheism" card. Sorry, that train left the station many posts back.


I base my rejection of the theory based on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise. I also can't help but notice the vehement fanatical refusal of evolutionists to give credence to what is plainly right in front of their noses in one instance-while vehemently struggling to give credence to what isn't so obvious in order to perpetuate their evolutionist ideas. Such an attitude engenders suspicion since it smacks of bias and comes across as repugnant to anyone seeking facts. In short, it is an insult to
the public.

Explain human chromosome 2, using your inductive conclusions.


Classify my views as you will, but please keep in mind that the evaluation and feelings are mutual.

Oh, I'm certain of that. Explain human chromosome 2.


As for not being understood,
you are putting the horse before the cart. I don't claim they are unable to understand-they do--and repeatedly so ad ad infinitum and despite my repoeated explanations until I am forced to get the annoying irrelevant droning off my computer screen. If that's playing the victim then I guess that's the way it is.

No, playing the victim is when you won't respond to people because you claim they insulted you. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. But it seems suspicious not to respond to legitimate posts even if they are a wee insulting. But that's just me.


Of course there are religious people who accept evolution. Another strawman. Can you please try to refrain from accusing me of all this bull ****** Since the rest is more drivel I' will spare myself the annoyance via snipping!

Holy crap dude. THAT'S YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You said that evolution required atheism! If its a strawman, then it is one of your own making.

Are you flipping your arguments so much that you cannot even keep up with your own posts?



For what it's worth
You will find the biologist you request in the list at this site:

List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

Nice try, but which one on this list doubts ALL of evolutionary theory for NON religious reasons? Ohhhh yeah.....hmmm.

And BTW, what is your explanation of human chromosome 2 again?

[skepHick]

To Radrook:

You said earlier that you didn't understand why I cared that you won't accept the evidence of evolution, and the short answer is, I don't. You may find that hard to believe, but truly, I couldn't care less what you personally think.

People all over the world believe that water is magic (homeopathy), that schmucks like John Edward who cannot even get a simple cold reading better than a sideshow carny can actually talk to dead people, that drinking urine will make you healthy, that a guy in India can fly, that the earth is swelling like a balloon and at the north pole, there is a hole that leads to the center of the earth where an ancient race of peoples is waiting to share the wisdom of the ages with us. I think that the evidence for any of this and a thousand other beliefs is nil, and therefore that it is all nonsense and woo. But whatever. I don't care what silly things people choose to believe. I don't know what things you believe and what you don't and honestly, I couldn't care less.

What I DO care about, is when people take their beliefs, and try to use them to denigrate science and the scientists who practice it. When they go beyond merely having their beliefs, and start poisoning the well of all the scientific progress our society has fought to sustain for 300 yrs.

When someone purposely makes patently false statements that evolution and abiogenesis require atheism, that irritates me. (and yes, it IS patently false, because if even a SINGLE theist accepts them as the mechanisms god chose, it is a false statement. There are lots that accept it, so the statement is false. Period.)

It irritates me for 2 reasons, 1) because it is an obviously false statement about science by someone who knows better, which in itself is enough to irritate me and 2) because it drives people away from accepting the incredible success of science and its methods

What you are doing when you make statements like that, when you claim that the evidence of evolution is somehow weak or insubstantial, when you cherry pick the extraordinarily small number of times in the past 300 years when scientists have faked their data out of the millions of times they have not, you are not just seeking to discredit evolution or people who accept it, you are chipping away at the very edifice upon which the modern world is built: the scientific method.

We are privileged to live in a time when we in the West don't typically have to worry if we will die of smallpox, or if our children will get polio, or if our drinking water is potable, or if we will survive the winter, or wonder if our far away relatives are still alive, or if our child will die before it is out of infancy, or if we will be able to make a living because our eyesight is poor, or if our epileptic child will get burned for witchcraft, or any of a million other tragedies great and small that people of only a few hundreds of years ago had to suffer. We do not worry about all of this for a simple reason: our understanding and command of our world via the scientific method and its practitioners have delivered us from a constant world of darkness and ignorance.

When you throw unsubstantiated accusations against scientists, when you attempt to undermine the scientific method, you feed the seed of doubt that an increasingly uneducated public has about science, despite its overwhelming success in every field of endeavor on the planet. Seeds of doubt sown by those just like you who cannot accept the evidence revealed by science. Doubt is fed by religious pandering, by equating science with atheism, the ultimate wedge issue.

Science affects every possible endeavor in the modern world. Unless you live in a cave and grow your own food, your entire life is literally built on a foundation that would be impossible without science, and yet you sit on a precarious branch, sawing away at the root, with the yawning abyss of the dark ages reaching its gnarled fingers to pull you down. The problem is, we are all on the branch with you.

So to be plain, I don't care what you believe. But I do care what nonsense you try to propagate to others. We are here on this little forum, in a small dark corner of the vast ocean of cyberspace, and perhaps it doesn't matter at all. Perhaps my posts don't make the slightest difference now, and maybe they never will. But I will not, I cannot, stand by while those and those like you seek to plunge us back into the heart of darkness of the pre-scientific world.

I will not stand idly bye and let your disinformation turn a single person away from science if it is in my power to do so. Feeble though my efforts may be.

I was gonna snip the quote to save space on the thread, but it's worth posting again...skeptical, you are SO nominated! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3262135#post3262135)

[juryjone]

I was but moments behind skepHick in numinating skeptical, and posted this:

After enduring ten pages of garbage in this thread from Radrook and edge, I was glad skeptical took the time to "draw the big picture".

I'm also thrilled that skeptical is keeping up the good fight.

[Radrook]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said. I also consider it rude to post a poster which I have on ignore for my own good reasons. So I simply didn't read whatever it is he said. In any case, since it is my option....

It's only fair to say that if you post an ignored poster's irrelevant drivel then you qualify for the list as well. The more the merrier?

[arthwollipot]

No, I can't. NO! Noooo! Keep out, Wolli! Stay good!

[skepHick]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said. I also consider it rude to post a poster which I have on ignore for my own good reasons. So I simply didn't read whatever it is he said. In any case, since it is my option....

Well, in my opinion, it's highly relevant, and a shame you won't read it, but I'm not surprised after following this thread. Also, it's an open forum, so it's rude of you to suggest we don't have the right to quote someone else's post if we like. Besides, how are we supposed to keep track of all the frikkin people you have on ignore? Put your ignore list in your signature if you expect us to keep up with it.

[PixyMisa]

I think there's a size limit on signatures.

[skepHick]

I think there's a size limit on signatures.

Ah, indeed, you are correct, Pixy. And I see from Rad's edit, it appears I've been added to the list just before my previous reply to his post. Awesome, my first ever ignore! Quick, somebody quote me!!! :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh1 Oh! Now the vehemence fueled by fanatical anger is kicking in as evidenced by accusations of not caring hypocrisy! Well, let me calmly say that I do not believe all scientists are liars. I only believe that the scientists who routinely lie, or who knowingly violate their own principles, as evolutionist such as Lamarck, with his fictitious recapitulation drawings and those who faked and foisted the Piltown Man on us as fact are not fully doing things in the best interest of science though they might themselves believe themselves benefactors to their profession.

Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation ...
Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's ... The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the ...
www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and _Speculation

Actually it was Haeckel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haeckel) who fudged the drawings, not Lamarck. Lamarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck) didn't publish any fakes, his ideas about the transmission of traits was falsified though. Piltdown (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html) really shouldn't be cited by anti-evolutionists (and especially Creationists) because of the details - which I will gladly explain if you don't wish to read them for yourself. Getting back to Haeckel's drawings, we actually have a lot to learn from Embryology (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny) despite his fudging of the drawings 100 years ago.

[wollery]

I think one of the most telling points is that in the vast majority of cases of scientific fraud it has been other scientists who have found and revealed the fraud. And in almost every case those who perpetrated the fraud have had their careers ruined and their research rejected.

Science is, by definition, the search for facts and truth, and those who present lies do a great disservice to it, and are always roundly criticized and ostracised by the rest of the scientific community.

By highlighting these cases of revealed fraud you are, in fact, demonstrating how well the scientific community deals with them, and how good the majority of scientific research is.

[rocketdodger]

I just realized that Radrook's behavior of putting everyone on ignore is indicative of his worldview -- of putting everything on ignore.

[joobz]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said. I also consider it rude to post a poster which I have on ignore for my own good reasons. So I simply didn't read whatever it is he said. In any case, since it is my option....

It's only fair to say that if you post an ignored poster's irrelevant drivel then you qualify for the list as well. The more the merrier?

I say we challenge this claim. everyone who's not on ignore quote skeptical's post.

At the very least post the question

How do you explain Human Chromosome 2?
How do you explain ERVs?

[arthwollipot]

Personally I'm not so sure that there are any "good" reasons to put someone on Ignore.

[Henners]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said.

That may be true.

However, since everything that you said is irrelevant to reality - consisting, as it does, of nothing beyond "breathtaking inanity", you would appear to have no point.

[Kotatsu]

Leviathan
12 But you, O God, are my king from of old;
you bring salvation upon the earth.
13 It was you who split open the sea by your power;
you broke the heads of the monster in the waters.
14 It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan
and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Does this not sound like them talking about the fossil record and then even in their time, that it is a creature that is still alive?

No, in fact it sounds like nothing of the sort.

The rest of your post is mainly badly formatted lies.

[Kotatsu]

No, they said they were fakes because they were embarrassingly clumsy fakes. Someone is welcome to re-post this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html) as Radrook has me on ignore for asking questions he is unwilling or unable to answer.

Here you go. Note to Radrook: the link is about the Acambaro fakes.

[Kotatsu]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said. I also consider it rude to post a poster which I have on ignore for my own good reasons. So I simply didn't read whatever it is he said. In any case, since it is my option....

I can only speak for myself, but I, too, reposted a post by a person you are currently ignoring for your own, undoubtedly very satisfying reasons. Why did I do this? To spite you? No. I could have just posted the link and made no reference to Foster Zygote's post, but as I wouldn't have been able to post that link if he hadn't pointed it out to me first (1), I found it intellectually dishonest for me to do so.

So there you have it. Don't assume rudeness.

---
(1) Mainly because I find TalkOrigins to be somewhat difficult to navigate; I often have a hard time finding what I am looking for, as there is just so much of it.

[bokonon]

It's very simple. Messages, languages, and coded
information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that
agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and
sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and
intent.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/information.htm
Flowers give messages to birds and insects by providing colors and smells which entice those creatures to participate in the plants' pollination. Do plants have a mind?

Tell the "cosmicfingerprints" guy to make his $250,000 check out to "bokonon." Oh, wait, he's a blustering blowhard who, unlike Randi, has no intention of paying someone who satisfies the conditions of his challenge. His only purpose is to mislead gullible believers into thinking that no one can...

[Dancing David]

I say we challenge this claim. everyone who's not on ignore quote skeptical's post.

At the very least post the question

How do you explain Human Chromosome 2?
How do you explain ERVs?

I'll just quote you.

:D

[Cuddles]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said. I also consider it rude to post a poster which I have on ignore for my own good reasons. So I simply didn't read whatever it is he said. In any case, since it is my option....

It's only fair to say that if you post an ignored poster's irrelevant drivel then you qualify for the list as well. The more the merrier?

So it's rude of me do quote this awesome post:

To Radrook:

You said earlier that you didn't understand why I cared that you won't accept the evidence of evolution, and the short answer is, I don't. You may find that hard to believe, but truly, I couldn't care less what you personally think.

People all over the world believe that water is magic (homeopathy), that schmucks like John Edward who cannot even get a simple cold reading better than a sideshow carny can actually talk to dead people, that drinking urine will make you healthy, that a guy in India can fly, that the earth is swelling like a balloon and at the north pole, there is a hole that leads to the center of the earth where an ancient race of peoples is waiting to share the wisdom of the ages with us. I think that the evidence for any of this and a thousand other beliefs is nil, and therefore that it is all nonsense and woo. But whatever. I don't care what silly things people choose to believe. I don't know what things you believe and what you don't and honestly, I couldn't care less.

What I DO care about, is when people take their beliefs, and try to use them to denigrate science and the scientists who practice it. When they go beyond merely having their beliefs, and start poisoning the well of all the scientific progress our society has fought to sustain for 300 yrs.

When someone purposely makes patently false statements that evolution and abiogenesis require atheism, that irritates me. (and yes, it IS patently false, because if even a SINGLE theist accepts them as the mechanisms god chose, it is a false statement. There are lots that accept it, so the statement is false. Period.)

It irritates me for 2 reasons, 1) because it is an obviously false statement about science by someone who knows better, which in itself is enough to irritate me and 2) because it drives people away from accepting the incredible success of science and its methods

What you are doing when you make statements like that, when you claim that the evidence of evolution is somehow weak or insubstantial, when you cherry pick the extraordinarily small number of times in the past 300 years when scientists have faked their data out of the millions of times they have not, you are not just seeking to discredit evolution or people who accept it, you are chipping away at the very edifice upon which the modern world is built: the scientific method.

We are privileged to live in a time when we in the West don't typically have to worry if we will die of smallpox, or if our children will get polio, or if our drinking water is potable, or if we will survive the winter, or wonder if our far away relatives are still alive, or if our child will die before it is out of infancy, or if we will be able to make a living because our eyesight is poor, or if our epileptic child will get burned for witchcraft, or any of a million other tragedies great and small that people of only a few hundreds of years ago had to suffer. We do not worry about all of this for a simple reason: our understanding and command of our world via the scientific method and its practitioners have delivered us from a constant world of darkness and ignorance.

When you throw unsubstantiated accusations against scientists, when you attempt to undermine the scientific method, you feed the seed of doubt that an increasingly uneducated public has about science, despite its overwhelming success in every field of endeavor on the planet. Seeds of doubt sown by those just like you who cannot accept the evidence revealed by science. Doubt is fed by religious pandering, by equating science with atheism, the ultimate wedge issue.

Science affects every possible endeavor in the modern world. Unless you live in a cave and grow your own food, your entire life is literally built on a foundation that would be impossible without science, and yet you sit on a precarious branch, sawing away at the root, with the yawning abyss of the dark ages reaching its gnarled fingers to pull you down. The problem is, we are all on the branch with you.

So to be plain, I don't care what you believe. But I do care what nonsense you try to propagate to others. We are here on this little forum, in a small dark corner of the vast ocean of cyberspace, and perhaps it doesn't matter at all. Perhaps my posts don't make the slightest difference now, and maybe they never will. But I will not, I cannot, stand by while those and those like you seek to plunge us back into the heart of darkness of the pre-scientific world.

I will not stand idly bye and let your disinformation turn a single person away from science if it is in my power to do so. Feeble though my efforts may be.

Good luck putting me on ignore.:)

[Dr Adequate]

I like how they all go by the age of the sedimentary rock that buried these bones but what you all seem to forget is that those sediments are particles from bed rock that are older since they where broken down into tiny little pieces and lets not forget the contamination from asteroids and meteorites since the birth of the planet. Now, edge, think for a minute. Which is more likely:

(A) All the geologists in the world have magically forgotten the fact that sedimentary rocks are made of fragments of older rocks, a fact that appears prominently in every geology textbook.

(B) You don't know what you're talking about.

(Hint: the answer is B.)

Your aging technique is corrupt and not accurate according to geology. Hmm, who to believe about geology --- geologists, or you.

I think I'll go with the geologists.

[skeptical]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said. I also consider it rude to post a poster which I have on ignore for my own good reasons. So I simply didn't read whatever it is he said. In any case, since it is my option....

It's only fair to say that if you post an ignored poster's irrelevant drivel then you qualify for the list as well. The more the merrier?


So now I'm on the infamous "Radrook ignore list", I'm shocked.

I wonder what finally put me in?

Could it have been when I pointed out that he was lying when he said that evolution requires atheism?

Could it have been when I pointed out that it is ridiculous to claim that "other people keep bringing god into this" when he was the one whose claim about science and atheism started the whole business about god in the first place?

Could it have been when I called out that he was a liar because he said he was not a YEC, and then posts that he believes humans lived with Dinosaurs a mere few thousands of years ago?

Could it have been when I pointed out that if the earth is 6K years old, the continents would be moving apart at 3/10ths of a mile a year?

Could it have been when I pointed out that no person on the planet thinks ID has any merit because of scientific reasons, but only for religious reasons?

Could it have been because I called his posts "BS"?

Could it have been my long post about my reasons for countering his misinformation campaign? For explaining how his propagation of anti-science rhetoric threatens to drag us all back to the dark ages?

Perhaps. But I suspect 2 things spelled my doom. First, my reference to Dover, as I suspect this is still a raw spot in the collective creationist consciousness. Second, my repeated requests for his explanation of human chromosome 2. I have never seen a creationist even attempt an explanation, much less give a coherent one.

It is also a good litmus test if someone is a YEC or not. A "true IDer" can always claim that most things evolved naturally, so they have no problem saying HC2 is a product of evolution. (well, may not "no" problem, but less of a problem) But for YEC's that is simply not available. They will never address the question and will simply ignore it. And in the end they put the questioner on ignore. :)

[skeptical]

To everyone who nominated my post: thanks for your kind words

[Radrook]

CLARIFICATION

Evolutionist Modus Operandi


I am not here under the misguided idea that I have a responsibility to deprive anyone disagreeing with me of their right to express their opposing views. I am merely being skeptical of claims made in support of a theory as indisputable fact. Now, please note that operative phrase since it is very germane to the situation here--indisputable fact. Now, under normal circumstances and all things being equal, as the saying goes, this phrase would mean exactly what it says. Unfortunately, under other less favorable circumstances, such as this one, they can mean something far more sinister and threatening to both to the democratic way of thinking and to the generally accepted skeptical way of thinking which is the purpose of the Randi forum. which is to provide a place where skepticism can be discussed in reference to any and all subjects which a member feels deserves to be treated skeptically. Curiously, however, certain individuals here use this forum for skeptical purposes but refuse to grant others the same privilege. To these ferevently-enthusiastic self-appointed guardians of the perceived sacrosanct evolution theory, "indisputable fact" means exactly what it says: indisputable and woe to anyone bold enough to attempt to dispute it since such is perceived as a threat to civilization and mankind's eternal welfare.

Hoist on this ridiculous petard, they attempt to the self purge the offending individual from the system via their patented and supposedly irresistible swamping-with irrelevancies methods. Once purging is accomplished, then of course all is well with the Randi board since all are in full agreement that evolution is indisputable fact and feeling that a significant blow has been struck in favor of the scientific method and skepticism. Unfortunately, it is quite to the contrary for reasons which should be quite obvious. Democracy demands freedom of speech and skepticism demands that no subject be proclaimed unassailable and fanatical defended as such.

Discussion issues

There have been numerous complaints that I don't state my position clearly so I will break down my approach to the subject meticulously in order to minimize the possibility of coming across this accusation again. So here is my position clearly stated in basic English. I can also state it in Spanish if you wish but beyond that you are on your own.

1. I don't reject evolution based on religious faith.

2. I base my convictions on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise leading to deductive conclusions.

3. I do not base my convictions on expert opinions or on statements made by those having scientific credentials.

4.I will not bring religion into the picture directly unless forced to do so by those deviating the subject in that direction and only in a defensive way.

5. The ID I refer to for the sake of discussion is an ID. Please do not accuse me of bringing in Krishna, or any other deity.

6. My contention isn't against the scientific method per se, it is against its violation via dogmatic conclusions and narrow minded policies which permit its degradation and broach no logical opposite view.

7. One of my arguments is evolutionist inconsistency of policy as it relates to logic, trustworthiness of sources.

4..I am not Messianically trying to convince any one of anything. Just exchanging ideas as they come along.

9. I will not permit my computer screen view of the discussion to be cluttered with insults, irrelevancies, claims of not understanding plain English, strawman arguments or general diatribes motivated by messianic delusions of grandeur in which the poster feels it his or her sole duty to defend the evolutionary position by any and all means possible-be they ethical or unethical. I simply do not have the patience nor the necessary time to be repeating myself to no avail. A repeated posting of such irrelevancies will be viewed as an attempt to purge the thread via ridicule and annoyance tactics and will be result in and anti purging via the ignore option so that those who really wish to discuss issues calmly can be attended to via a response.


10. Requests for sources used by secondary sources can be are provided by the article's links and bibliography. If you cannot find it by this means then please assume that I won't be able to find it either and please proceed from there.


BTW
Now that a moderator has intervened in behalf of the drivel then number nine will be less effective I suppose? Nahhhh! I'll just simply ignore without cliking buttons. Ummm, is that within my meager ability? Well, stay tuned and find out.

[Radrook]

So it's rude of me do quote this awesome post:



Good luck putting me on ignore.:)

I assumed a moderator wouldn't do such a thing so I didn't check your very impressive credentias which gives you such godlike all encompassing awe-inspiring leeway.

But it's really nothing that unusual or evenun expected. Please note that your posting it in in defiance of my personal right to use the ignore option doesn't force me to read it either-now does it? So if it gets you off, post away. As for the others who aren't moderators, I will attempt to ignore the drivel. But of course this might not work now that an all powerful moderator such as your majestic self has chosen to interevene. In that case, well, umm, let's see? I can throw a tantrum and leave the board in frustration. Ummm, or I can simply ignore without using the ignore option. Which one do you think I will use? Bingo! And you get a well earned cigar!

BTW

If I am banned for some reason or other then you win. Try that. It just might make your day. With all due respect of course.

[joobz]

This is helpful

1. I don't reject evolution based on religious faith.
then why are all your sources creationist sites?


2. I base my convictions on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise leading to deductive conclusions.
present these steps and we'll evaluate the logic of your conclusions. So far, All i've seen is a parrot mindless blabbering stupidity.


3. I do not base my convictions on expert opinions or on statements made by those having scientific credentials.than why present the list
why do you continue to present lists of people who disagree with evolution?


4.I will not bring religion into the picture directly unless forced to do so by those deviating the subject in that direction and only in a defensive way.You keep mentioning religion.


5. The ID I refer to for the sake of discussion is an ID. Please do not accuse me of bringing in Krishna, or any other deity.
I have no clue what this means.


6. My contention isn't against the scientific method per se, it is against its violation via dogmatic conclusions and narrow minded policies which permit its degradation and broach no logical opposite view.
I am still waiting for you to present a "logical opposite view"


7. One of my arguments is evolutionist inconsistency of policy as it relates to logic, trustworthiness of sources.
You have failed in this.


4..I am not Messianically trying to convince any one of anything. Just exchanging ideas as they come along.
Except you put people on ignore who demonstrate where your views have failed.


9. I will not permit my computer screen view of the discussion to be cluttered with insults, irrelevancies, claims of not understanding plain English, strawman arguments or general diatribes motivated by messianic delusions of grandeur in which the poster feels it his or her sole duty to defend the evolutionary position by any and all means possible-be they ethical or unethical. I simply do not have the patience nor the necessary time to be repeating myself to no avail. A repeated posting of such irrelevancies will be viewed as an attempt to purge the thread via ridicule and annoyance tactics and will be result in and anti purging via the ignore option so that those who really wish to discuss issues calmly can be attended to via a response.
You are mad that you haven't been able to make a good argument. Is that our fault?



10. Requests for sources of secondary sources can attained via using the links and bibliography provided at article's end. If you cannot find it then please assume that I won't be able to find it either and please proceed from there.
For very specific reasons, the veracity of your primary sources was challenged. If you can't provide evidence that your sources are trustworthy, you must abandon them or be wrong.

[Radrook]

Now, edge, think for a minute. Which is more likely:

(A) All the geologists in the world have magically forgotten the fact that sedimentary rocks are made of fragments of older rocks, a fact that appears prominently in every geology textbook.

(B) You don't know what you're talking about.

(Hint: the answer is B.)

Hmm, who to believe about geology --- geologists, or you.

I think I'll go with the geologists.


Same could be said about your claims. Who will we believe geologists or you. We think we will choose the geologists who disagree with you. Is that OK? Or is that also susceptible to moderator intervention?

[Foster Zygote]

nominated and sig'ed.

I'm honored.

[Radrook]

Flowers give messages to birds and insects by providing colors and smells which entice those creatures to participate in the plants' pollination. Do plants have a mind?



You are missing the point. Edge didn't say that DNA constitutes mind, He said that it indicates mind as its source or organizer. That's a big difference. The difference between saying that a computer program is mind in contrast to saying that a computer program shows evidence of being made by a mind. So the analogy you offer is a false one and the argument a strawman, Hope that clarifies the issue.

[Radrook]

I can only speak for myself, but I, too, reposted a post by a person you are currently ignoring for your own, undoubtedly very satisfying reasons. Why did I do this? To spite you? No. I could have just posted the link and made no reference to Foster Zygote's post, but as I wouldn't have been able to post that link if he hadn't pointed it out to me first (1), I found it intellectually dishonest for me to do so.

So there you have it. Don't assume rudeness.

---
(1) Mainly because I find TalkOrigins to be somewhat difficult to navigate; I often have a hard time finding what I am looking for, as there is just so much of it.

I appreciate your explanation. Of course reposting is necessary. I was only referring to reposting in order to prove that my ignore option isn't being respected. In that case then I have no choice but to consider the fellow doing it a pest. If that offends others, then I am truly sorry, but I have a responsibility toward myself and my welfare as I see it. But I thank you for your reasonable response and the general decency and relevance of your feedback myt friend and look forward to further discussions. Peace!

[joobz]

You are missing the point. Edge didn't say that DNA constitutes mind, He said that it indicates mind as its source or organizer. That's a big difference. The difference between saying that a computer program is mind in contrast to saying that a computer program shows evidence of being made by a mind. So the analogy you offer is a false one and the argument a strawman, Hope that clarifies the issue.
Actually, it clarifies the issue quite well. You are defending the brainvomit of Edge, but doubt/ignore lucid arguments which destroy your claims.

I clearly now understand that you have no real non-religous argument against evolution.

[Radrook]

I think one of the most telling points is that in the vast majority of cases of scientific fraud it has been other scientists who have found and revealed the fraud. And in almost every case those who perpetrated the fraud have had their careers ruined and their research rejected.

Science is, by definition, the search for facts and truth, and those who present lies do a great disservice to it, and are always roundly criticized and ostracised by the rest of the scientific community.

By highlighting these cases of revealed fraud you are, in fact, demonstrating how well the scientific community deals with them, and how good the majority of scientific research is.


Good response, Relevant to the issues I raised! OK, True, the scientific community
does indeed strive to keep itself free of frauds. I never said it didn't. Neither was I referring to the entire scientific community-but just the evolutionist research branch of it which constantly strives to butters the belief via newly discovered data. This branch of the scientific community has unfortunately given us a disproportionate number of very significant socially influential frauds. But that's doesn't mean that all other branches of the scientific community should be blamed. Hope that clears my viewpoint a little at least.

BTW
I am not saying that these frauds are sufficient in themselves in disproving evolution. Simply pointing to the persistenbt tendency among a group which has undeservidly, IMHO gained the public's unquestioning trust. Actually, as I explained before, the list was provided in reponse to a claim that evolutionists have always proven to be a paragon of honesty. So taken in that context you can now better understand what the list was and wasn't intended to do. : )

[Radrook]

Here you go. Note to Radrook: the link is about the Acambaro fakes.

Thanks for informing me on this and I will address it later today since I am presently running out of time. I will remove the poster from the ignore in order to see if this time we can keep things more on track. If not, then.... In any case thanx!

[Dr Adequate]

Same could be said about your claims. Who will we believe geologists or you. We think we will choose the geologists who disagree with you. Do these people have names?

[Dr Adequate]

Neither was I referring to the entire scientific community-but just the evolutionist research branch of it which constantly strives to butters the belief via newly discovered data. This branch of the scientific community has unfortunately given us a disproportionate number of very significant socially influential frauds. You have, of course, no figures to support this claim.

[Radrook]

Do these people have names?

Do yours?

[Radrook]

You have, of course, no figures to support this claim.

I simply don'tr see the notoriety of purposeful well planned ceceit evident in other branches of science as I do in the evolutionary branch with its notorious frauds. Perhaps I should have expressed it that way instead. Is that better?

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

[Dr Adequate]

I simply don'tr see the notoriety of purposeful well planned ceceit evident in other branches of science as I do in the evolutionary branch with its notorious frauds. Then you have simply not looked.

[Kotatsu]

I appreciate your explanation. Of course reposting is necessary. I was only referring to reposting in order to prove that my ignore option isn't being respected. In that case then I have no choice but to consider the fellow doing it a pest. If that offends others, then I am truly sorry, but I have a responsibility toward myself and my welfare as I see it. But I thank you for your reasonable response and the general decency and relevance of your feedback myt friend and look forward to further discussions. Peace!

Have you had time to look into the proper reference for your claim? I would have done so myself, but my day has been filled with PCRs, shopping, trying get someone to help me catch a pink-footed goose, and --- for the last few hours --- reproducing my avatar on a bead plate.

[Radrook]

Then you have simply not looked.


I don;t think that YOU can demonstrate to my satisfactin that any other scientific frauds have had the profound socio/ religious impact that the evolutionist scandals have had during the time in which they were considered to be irrefutable fact based on evolutionist credibility claims.

BTW
In any case, an increase of fraudulent practices among other branches of science would only serve to reduce evolutionist credibility via default since most scientists, by your own admission, are evolutionists.

[Kotatsu]

Good response, Relevant to the issues I raised! OK, True, the scientific community
does indeed strive to keep itself free of frauds. I never said it didn't. Neither was I referring to the entire scientific community-but just the evolutionist research branch of it which constantly strives to butters the belief via newly discovered data. This branch of the scientific community has unfortunately given us a disproportionate number of very significant socially influential frauds. But that's doesn't mean that all other branches of the scientific community should be blamed. Hope that clears my viewpoint a little at least.

Perhaps I underestimate the differences between the USA and my own country, but how have Haeckel's drawings, the Piltdown man and the --- so far, I will maintain, only alleged --- faked feathered dinosaur been socially influential? Outside certain branches of the academic world and various creationist cabals, I wager most people have never even heard of Archaeoraptor or the Piltdown man.

[Radrook]

Have you had time to look into the proper reference for your claim? I would have done so myself, but my day has been filled with PCRs, shopping, trying get someone to help me catch a pink-footed goose, and --- for the last few hours --- reproducing my avatar on a bead plate.

I will respond to this later tonight since now the tank is empty.

Thanx for the feedback. Peace!

[Dr Adequate]

Do yours? Yes. Are you seriously not aware that there are geologists who are not creationists, or are you just stalling for time?

The statement "Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy" was signed by, among others (http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/evolutionletter.html), Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union, Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists, Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors, Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; "Kase" Klein, President of the Mineralogical Society of America, Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists, Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology, Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology, Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists.

There's some names for you.

But I believe that I asked first.

[Kotatsu]

I simply don'tr see the notoriety of purposeful well planned ceceit evident in other branches of science as I do in the evolutionary branch with its notorious frauds. Perhaps I should have expressed it that way instead. Is that better?

I do not wish to antagonise you too much, but if the number of frauds in a field is used as a measure of how willingly you will adhere to its doctrines and teachings, rather than the percentage of frauds to non-fraudulent data, how can you identify yourself with the creationist movement? Seldom has any group in modern history in such short time produced so much deceit, misrepresentation, outright lies, and unfounded silliness as the creationist movement.

Further, unlike "evolutionists", who have accepted e.g. the Piltdown man as a fraud and moved on, basing its well-founded hypotheses and descriptions on other data, I often run across creationists who reproduce the same old arguments and statements as their predecessors did 50-100 years ago --- arguments which were exposed as deceitful, misrepresentative, or based on a misunderstanding of either the data or how "evolutionists" interpret the data already at the time or formulation. By evoking the Piltdown man, for instance, you yourself are falling into the same pattern.

I have only a vague christian background, as my both parents were socialists and atheists (1) and thus seldom, if ever, took me to church (though we were still taught some of it in school, and of course I have come in contact with it in other ways). But to an extent, I can understand the reluctance of believers to accept the theory and fact of evolution. However, I fail to understand why the individual believer --- or other person who for some reason rejects evolution --- makes the choice to use creationist web pages and rhetoric to argue against evolution, even in those cases when they can see how incredibly dishonest these people can be.

Now, I do not claim that all creationists are by their very nature dishonest when it comes to their stance on and arguments concerning evolution, abiogenesis, and other fields where friction occurs between science and faith. However, it seems to me that the more prominent an authority or web page becomes in the creationist movement (2), the more does that authority or web page come to rely on outright lies, deception, the reuse of long since discredited claims, and misrepresentation to convince the masses of their cause.

---
(1) Or at least secular enough that faith never really influenced my upbringing.
(2) And by movement, I do not necessarily mean a single organised body working as one, but rather a vague amalgamation of the various proponents of creationism --- including, of course, its synonym intelligent design --- which usually crop up together in debates like this.

[Dr Adequate]

I don;t think that YOU can demonstrate to my satisfactin that any other scientific frauds have had the profound socio/ religious impact that the evolutionist scandals have had during the time in which they were considered to be irrefutable fact based on evolutionist credibility claims. What on earth are you talking about? "Profound socio/ religious impact"? What?

BTW
In any case, an increase of fraudulent practices among other branches of science would only serve to reduce evolutionist credibility via default since most scientists, by your own admission, are evolutionists. Also, by my own admission, they all think 2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, any scientific fraud reduces the credibility of this statement. Either that, or you've just discovered a vastly entertaining new fallacy.

[juryjone]

...

2. I base my convictions on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise leading to deductive conclusions.

...

6. My contention isn't against the scientific method per se, it is against its violation via dogmatic conclusions and narrow minded policies which permit its degradation and broach no logical opposite view.

7. One of my arguments is evolutionist inconsistency of policy as it relates to logic, trustworthiness of sources.


OK, so you've done all this inductive and deductive reasoning and you've come to the conclusion that biologists force the data to fit to their pre-conceived notion of evolution.

So, please be specific. Let's bypass the conclusions of the biologists and go back to the data. What particular item of data best, in your opinion, leads to any conclusion other than evolution? What data points to an intelligent designer - any old intelligent designer, since you don't want to name names?

And, by the way, care to take a stab at explaining human chromosome 2?

[fishbob]

I like how they all go by the age of the sedimentary rock that buried these bones but what you all seem to forget is that those sediments are particles from bed rock that are older since they where broken down into tiny little pieces and lets not forget the contamination from asteroids and meteorites since the birth of the planet.
Since the age of those sediments seem to indicate the age of the bones which were much younger than the rocks.

Your aging technique is corrupt and not accurate according to geology.

I like how foolish creationists look when getting stuff completely wrong with such great self-assurance.

The age of sedimentary rock begins when the sediments were deposited. The fossils within the sediments were of course deposited at about the same time.

Remedial Geology you can try at home:

Question: Which is older, younger, the same age.

Materials List:
Buckets
Bags of Ready Mix cement
chicken bones

Cement represents sedimentary rock. Note that the age of the cement particles is unknown and irrelevant. Chicken bones represent fossils. Buckets are just handy.

Test 1 - Procedure:

Mix up a batch of cement in one of the buckets. Note date.
A day later, put some chicken bones in the bucket. Note date.
A week later, note where the bones are in relation to the cement.

Test 2 - Procedure:

Put chicken bones in a bucket. Note date.
A day later, mix up cement and pour into the bucket. Note date.
A week later, note where the chicken bones are in relation to the cement.

Test 3 - Procedure:
Mix cement with chicken bones and dump in a bucket. Note date.
A week later, break the cement, determine where the chicken bones are.

Conclusions regarding the sequence of stuff going into the bucket?
I will leave to you.

[Foster Zygote]

I don;t think that YOU can demonstrate to my satisfactin that any other scientific frauds have had the profound socio/ religious impact that the evolutionist scandals have had during the time in which they were considered to be irrefutable fact based on evolutionist credibility claims.
Who said they were "irrefutable"? They were obviously never considered to be so (nothing in science is considered to be irrefutable) because it was scientists who looked at the data with newly gained knowledge and techniques and said "Wait a minute! This Piltdown fossil is a fake". Then the rest of the scientific community looked at the evidence and said "Wow, you're right! You've certainly refuted it".

[edge]

Could it have been when I called out that he was a liar because he said he was not a YEC, and then posts that he believes humans lived with Dinosaurs a mere few thousands of years ago?

Lets see what dinosaurs do we live with now?
Well you know the list.

How do you know that thirty or so species didn’t just die out several thousands years ago?
Because if I’m not mistaken, some have survived?

Did you excavate all the ground already?

Hey chicken bone how old is the lime in the cement?
How old are the chicken bones in each succession?
You ate all that chicken?
Let’s see, they have found T Rex with DNA in the bones, they even found a mummified dinosaur.

So the creator sought fit to make us a sentient being in the mammal group.
We have similarities to all mammals.

This is so you can be a horse’s ass and a monkey’s uncle at the same time.

[edge]

The age of sedimentary rock begins when the sediments were deposited. The fossils within the sediments were of course deposited at about the same time.

How old is the lime in the cement?
How old is the bone?

[Halcyon Dayz]

So now I'm on the infamous "Radrook ignore list", I'm shocked.

I wonder what finally put me in?

Could it have been when I pointed out that he was lying when he said that evolution requires atheism?

Could it have been when I pointed out that it is ridiculous to claim that "other people keep bringing god into this" when he was the one whose claim about science and atheism started the whole business about god in the first place?

Could it have been when I called out that he was a liar because he said he was not a YEC, and then posts that he believes humans lived with Dinosaurs a mere few thousands of years ago?

Could it have been when I pointed out that if the earth is 6K years old, the continents would be moving apart at 3/10ths of a mile a year?

Could it have been when I pointed out that no person on the planet thinks ID has any merit because of scientific reasons, but only for religious reasons?

Could it have been because I called his posts "BS"?

Could it have been my long post about my reasons for countering his misinformation campaign? For explaining how his propagation of anti-science rhetoric threatens to drag us all back to the dark ages?

Perhaps. But I suspect 2 things spelled my doom. First, my reference to Dover, as I suspect this is still a raw spot in the collective creationist consciousness. Second, my repeated requests for his explanation of human chromosome 2. I have never seen a creationist even attempt an explanation, much less give a coherent one.

It is also a good litmus test if someone is a YEC or not. A "true IDer" can always claim that most things evolved naturally, so they have no problem saying HC2 is a product of evolution. (well, may not "no" problem, but less of a problem) But for YEC's that is simply not available. They will never address the question and will simply ignore it. And in the end they put the questioner on ignore. :)
qft.


The age of sedimentary rock begins when the sediments were deposited. The fossils within the sediments were of course deposited at about the same time.
How old is the lime in the cement?
How old is the bone?
You really don't get it, do you?

[Foster Zygote]

Lets see what dinosaurs do we live with now?
Well you know the list.

How do you know that thirty or so species didn’t just die out several thousands years ago?
Because if I’m not mistaken, some have survived?

Did you excavate all the ground already?

Hey chicken bone how old is the lime in the cement?
How old are the chicken bones in each succession?
You ate all that chicken?
Let’s see, they have found T Rex with DNA in the bones, they even found a mummified dinosaur.

So the creator sought fit to make us a sentient being in the mammal group.
We have similarities to all mammals.

This is so you can be a horse’s ass and a monkey’s uncle at the same time.

Hey Joobz, if your earlier assessment is correct I think it may just barely be so.

[bokonon]

You are missing the point. Edge didn't say that DNA constitutes mind, He said that it indicates mind as its source or organizer. That's a big difference. The difference between saying that a computer program is mind in contrast to saying that a computer program shows evidence of being made by a mind. So the analogy you offer is a false one and the argument a strawman, Hope that clarifies the issue.
Edge didn't really say anything. He's just a middleman between this forum and the cosmicfingerprints website. THAT site says DNA is a "code" or a "message," and all messages and codes imply intelligence. THAT site offers a prize for anyone who can provide an example of another code or message which is not the product of a mind.

I'm offering the color patterns on flowers, and the scents emitted by flowers, as examples of codes or messages which are not created by a mind. These codes and messages are interpreted by insects and birds, resulting in increased pollination for the plants generating the codes and messages.

These patterns and scents are not evidence of intelligence on the part of the plant. Like DNA, they have designed themselves from the bottom up, using nothing more than random mutation and natural selection. In fact, life is full of such examples. This observation DOES clarify the issue: cosmicfingerprints is really using circular reasoning, and assumes that anything living is evidence of an intelligent designer rather than random mutation and natural selection. The straw man is entirely theirs.

[joobz]

Edge didn't really say anything. He's just a middleman between this forum and the cosmicfingerprints website. THAT site says DNA is a "code" or a "message," and all messages and codes imply intelligence. THAT site offers a prize for anyone who can provide an example of another code or message which is not the product of a mind.

I'm offering the color patterns on flowers, and the scents emitted by flowers, as examples of codes or messages which are not created by a mind. These codes and messages are interpreted by insects and birds, resulting in increased pollination for the plants generating the codes and messages.

These patterns and scents are not evidence of intelligence on the part of the plant. Like DNA, they have designed themselves from the bottom up, using nothing more than random mutation and natural selection. In fact, life is full of such examples. This observation DOES clarify the issue: cosmicfingerprints is really using circular reasoning, and assumes that anything living is evidence of an intelligent designer rather than random mutation and natural selection. The straw man is entirely theirs.
You can go even simpler.

The concentration gradient of any solute is a "code" telling you which direction the original plume is. It would be utter nonsense to claim that a diffusing concentration of anything is under all settings a designed code.

But then, this is Edge. He's....special.

[bokonon]

You know, you're right. Snowflakes are a "code" telling you the shape of water molecules and the conditions under which the crystal was formed. The intelligence can be completely on the "interpreting" side.

And, again, it isn't Edge's specialness in this case. He didn't come up with that "atheist's riddle" over on cosmicfingerprints, he's just waving it around because he thinks it's killer.

[joobz]

Hey Joobz, if your earlier assessment is correct I think it may just barely be so.

That's what keeps him funny.

[arthwollipot]

1. I don't reject evolution based on religious faith.Would you mind answering a question for me? It's a bit of a personal question, and I will understand if you don't want to answer it.

Are you religious?

As in, do you regularly attend church?

You see, I have this hypothesis that everyone who rejects evolution is an active church-goer, regardless of whether their rejection of evolution is based on religious faith or not.

It appears to me that people generally accept evolution unless they are given some reason to doubt it. Usually they are given a reason to doubt it in church, or by discussing the subject with church-goers.

So in a way, my claim is kinda that everyone who rejects evolution does do so because of religious faith - either directly or indirectly. In the case of indirectly, the person may not even consciously realise what the source of their doubt is. If you reply that you are a church-goer, that would add weight to my hypothesis.

How old is the lime in the cement?
How old is the bone?I know I'm going to regret this, but...

Edge. Check the instructions.

In the first test, you mix up a bucket of cement, then wait for a day, then put the chicken bones in the bucket. Where are the chicken bones? On top of the cement.

In the second test, you put the chicken bones in the bucket, then wait for a day, then pour the cement into the bucket. Where are the chicken bones? Under the cement.

Elementary geology. The age of the lime or the bones doesn't matter.

[Foster Zygote]

That's what keeps him funny.

Like "It's toe-tappingly tragic" funny?

[Island Skeptic]

I was gonna snip the quote to save space on the thread, but it's worth posting again...skeptical, you are SO nominated! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3262135#post3262135)

I seconded that! That was poetry to my eyes! Bravo!!

Skeptical: May I quote that entry?

SkepHick: Thank you for guiding me to the thread from which that brilliant entry originated.

I shall now plant my seed here so that I can catch up & follow this dialog.

Aloha!

[Kotatsu]

How do you know that thirty or so species didn’t just die out several thousands years ago?
Because if I’m not mistaken, some have survived?

You seem to be ignoring me, but yes, you are correct. There are still dinosaurs living today. We call them "birds", and the reason you may be confused is that these dinosaurs have continued to evolve during the last 60-odd million years, and therefore do no longer look like we usually imagine dinosaurs.

[fishbob]

How old is the lime in the cement?
How old is the bone?

Both questions are irrelevant - the answers to both have no bearing on the proposed tests, so don't you worry yore purty little head about it.

Geology is really really simple if you just pay attention.

[wollery]

Good response, Relevant to the issues I raised! OK, True, the scientific community
does indeed strive to keep itself free of frauds. I never said it didn't. Neither was I referring to the entire scientific community-but just the evolutionist research branch of it which constantly strives to butters the belief via newly discovered data. This branch of the scientific community has unfortunately given us a disproportionate number of very significant socially influential frauds. But that's doesn't mean that all other branches of the scientific community should be blamed. Hope that clears my viewpoint a little at least.

BTW
I am not saying that these frauds are sufficient in themselves in disproving evolution. Simply pointing to the persistenbt tendency among a group which has undeservidly, IMHO gained the public's unquestioning trust. Actually, as I explained before, the list was provided in reponse to a claim that evolutionists have always proven to be a paragon of honesty. So taken in that context you can now better understand what the list was and wasn't intended to do. : )I'm afraid you've utterly missed the point.

Evolution is such a vociferously contested theory (by the creationists) that any instance of fraud will be highlighted and used as a stick with which to try to beat the theory. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of researchers in the field of evolution are honest, and produce viable, well evidenced, well documented science. How many fraudulent researchers in evolutionary science can you point to. 10? Compare that to the number of researchers that there have ever been in the field, and you can see that the number of frauds per researcher is so close to zero as makes no odds. There have been a number of frauds in other areas of research which you will almost certainly never have heard of. The reason for this is that the press aren't that interested, unless it's in a small number of research areas, and you probably aren't interested in those research areas either, so even if they were reported you probably wouldn't notice.

That these frauds are discovered and highlighted by the rest of the community is the key to this. Scientists don't hush up fraud when it is discovered. They don't try to pretend that it doesn't happen. They don't quietly ignore it. They don't come back to that research a few years later and pretend that it's good research. They don't continue to fund or trust the researchers who carried out the fraud.

All of the above are things that ID proponents have been guilty of in the past, and are still guilty of today. Behe was forced to admit in a court of law that ID isn't science, and that his work is wrong, but he's still held up as a great ID researcher, he still gets paid to do his research, and his work is still cited as evidence against evolution by ID proponents.

And that's the difference between mainstream evolution and ID. Evolution is based on solid evidence, good research and honest reporting. ID is based on misrepresentation, misunderstandings, shoddy research and outright lies.

As for buttering the belief through newly discovered data, that's completely misrepresenting the facts. As new data become available all scientific theories are modified. If new data shows that a theory is completely wrong then the theory is discarded. If it requires the theory to be altered then the theory is altered. The fact is that the basic principles of evolution have never required alteration, although the details of the mechanisms are constantly being updated and revised. That's how science works, and it's a beautiful process.

Do we know everything about how evolution works? No, of course not. Do we have unanswered questions? Absolutely. If that weren't the case there'd be no need for the research to continue. But to question the whole edifice of evolution because of a few questions about the mechanisms, or the accuracy of dating techniques, or a small handful of frauds, when the underlying principles have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt is absurd.

Speciation has been observed to occur, genetics provides a mechanism for heredity, mutation provides a means to alter the genetic code, and changes in the environment have shown how selection pressure works. All of the most important predictions of evolution have been demonstrated to be accurate. That anyone can doubt evolution by natural selection is, frankly, utterly baffling.

[Acleron]

That's the ole bandwagon fallacy defense again. Numerical preponderance doesn't indicate nor insure fact. As I have pointed out before, there are numerous incidents throughout history where the majority have been mistaken and the minority view scoffed at. The germ theory of disease for example was ridiculed and hospital personal continued to operate and deliver babies without washing their hands. Eventually they saw the light, But not before
causing the deaths of countless otherwise savable patients. I'm certain you are familiar with the many other examples I can bring to your attention so I won't.

It was you who quoted the list of scientists that started this thread, perhaps you forgot. Surely it was the bandwagon defense that prompted the list.

And yes we are all familiar with theories that have been discredited. Some by finding facts that disagree with the theories, some because they had inherent logical flaws. The main point is that they were discredited by other scientists and new theories that better describe the data have taken their place. This is how science moves on. Id/creationists take as a given fact that some stone age writer's ideas are correct and try to deny any fact that contradicts them.

I understand both scientific method sufficiently well pass my college exams where an explanation was required. So your suspicions are founded on your inability to accept or understand what it is I am saying. A reaction which is typical on this thread.
If you passed an exam which required an understanding of the scientific method, you have definitely forgotten what you learned.

I never claimed that theories aren't allowed to have gaps. That should be obvious even to grammar school students who are told about the Big Bang and are routinely told that there are things it has yet to explain-such as the matter to antimatter ratio, the emergence of black matter, or what caused the Big Bang itself. Theories do have gaps and that's why they are called theories. The problem arises when we become dogmatic about it and begin calling a theory an absolute irrefutable fact and discounting all other plausible or even more reasonable explanations. Then the theory begins to work against the scientific method by preventing open-mindedness via non tolerance of any opposing idea.
This lie needs laying. Scientists love being able to disprove theories. As has already been mentioned in this thread, this is the stuff of Nobel prizes. The intolerance of id/creationists leads them to theories that are non-scientific. The disagreements between scientists about conclusions are fascinating because it shows the open-mindedness of science. We can criticise each other. Id/creationists have such a flaky theory that they cannot criticise themselves except by accident.
The problem is that there is inductive evidence to the contrary. That inductive evidence is rejected outright-called foolish, those who point it out are laughed at and sneered into silence. To me that is a state of mind reminiscent of the Inquisition where no opposing view was tolerated. In short, it is tantamount to religious fanatism. Rejection of conclusions reached via the inductive process is unscientific. Why. Well, because science cannot function without the inductive process which generates deductive premises. Evolutionists claim to adhere to this in their research. But woe if anyone else uses inductive reasoning to indicate ID. Then all hell breaks loose. Which of course constitutes inconsistency of policy and indicates dishonesty motivated by nonscientific agenda.
But what reasoning has ever indicated id? Dembski's illogical statistics and misunderstanding of information theory? Behe's irreducibly complex structures which are continually being shown to be reducible? There are two main features of a scientific theory, they should predict and they should be falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution has passed both those criteria on several occasions, id/creationism has neither. The only operation of id/creationism is to falsify the ToE. This is to be welcomed, all theories need attacking for the reasons given above. The only problem is that they have failed. It's probable that they have failed for two reasons, 1) The ToE is correct and 2) as they don't understand the scientific method they would fail even if the ToE was wrong.


First, you are challenging on the premise that I am out to change your views when I am not. Neither am I inclined to surf the net
in search of evidence that from my standpoint amounts to argument from authority alone-a familiar fallacy. But even if I did it wouldn't make one iota of a difference. So why should I waste my time-assuming of course that I am in some type of urgent need to divest you of your delusions.

About religious reasons--sigh!--

I never said religious reasons are scientific reasons. If I did show me where. I truly hope you realize how tiresome being continually misunderstood can become! For the umpteenth time: I don't reject evolution simply based on religious reasons. The only ones bringing religion continuously into the picture here are the evolutionists in order to create strawman arguments which they can strive to make look foolish while claiming that the arguments are mine.

RadRook, here you are being deceitful. You introduced 'godlessness' and 'atheistic evolution' into the thread. You were not misunderstood.

I base my rejection of the theory based on inductive conclusions leading to deductive premise. I also can't help but notice the vehement fanatical refusal of evolutionists to give credence to what is plainly right in front of their noses in one instance-while vehemently struggling to give credence to what isn't so obvious in order to perpetuate their evolutionist ideas. Such an attitude engenders suspicion since it smacks of bias and comes across as repugnant to anyone seeking facts. In short, it is an insult to the public.

What evidence do you have? What is your reasoning?

And finally anyone who is genuinely seeking facts can find them easily, it is only those who reject facts that can be called biased. Why do think that you can freely post in this forum? Your ideas can be criticised but you are free to give them. Scientists who post on the id/creationist site, UncommonDescent, are not only quickly banned, but have their posts altered to change what they said. So who is biased, who is fanatical and who is repugnant?

[Dancing David]

Same could be said about your claims. Who will we believe geologists or you. We think we will choose the geologists who disagree with you. Is that OK? Or is that also susceptible to moderator intervention?

Post your data, which geologists where?

[Dancing David]

You are missing the point. Edge didn't say that DNA constitutes mind, He said that it indicates mind as its source or organizer. That's a big difference. The difference between saying that a computer program is mind in contrast to saying that a computer program shows evidence of being made by a mind. So the analogy you offer is a false one and the argument a strawman, Hope that clarifies the issue.

That is because it assumes that DnA could only have been produced by a mind. There are possible weays that it could have arisen without the intervention of a mind.

Riddle me this , if ID is the case and natural slelection did not occur then why do the bacteria and thier ilk have the greatest genetic diversity?

Why is there a limited amount of genetic diversity in the fungi, plants and animals? Would an intelligent designer chose to make it look like there was natural slection?

[Dancing David]

I simply don'tr see the notoriety of purposeful well planned ceceit evident in other branches of science as I do in the evolutionary branch with its notorious frauds. Perhaps I should have expressed it that way instead. Is that better?

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html


Geez dude then you either have some limited access to humans or to research. fruad is unfortunately prevalent. It is not widespread however, but many people for very human reason tend to fudge the data or throw out bad sets. That is why replication and protocols are important.

Then there is the whole process to begin with, science is not a cut and boom field. It is a series of limiting and constraining events where confounding factors are limited and data are explored.

So often a hypsotesis is tested. And it seems to be true and then a confounding factor is thought of, and the test is run again and the effect disappears when the confounding factor is controlled for. Flase starts and wasted efforts are part of the process.

So your assertion that there is some wide spread issue in evolutionary science only is really, um, farfetched.

[Dancing David]

You seem to be ignoring me, but yes, you are correct. There are still dinosaurs living today. We call them "birds", and the reason you may be confused is that these dinosaurs have continued to evolve during the last 60-odd million years, and therefore do no longer look like we usually imagine dinosaurs.


That depends on being a splitter or a lumper. The lumpers feel that birds are descended from the dinosaurs, the splitter believe that the dinos and the birds diverged.

[Cuddles]

That depends on being a splitter or a lumper. The lumpers feel that birds are descended from the dinosaurs, the splitter believe that the dinos and the birds diverged.

Those are both exactly the same thing.

[skeptical]

I seconded that! That was poetry to my eyes! Bravo!!

Skeptical: May I quote that entry?

SkepHick: Thank you for guiding me to the thread from which that brilliant entry originated.

I shall now plant my seed here so that I can catch up & follow this dialog.

Aloha!

Of course you can, and thanks for the props. I appreciate it. :)

[skeptical]

I am on ignore by Radrook, but I am still monitoring this thread to see his awesome display of deception. I don't expect that he will make many more substantive posts, if there were any in the first place. But, hope springs eternal.

However, my cynical side says there are certain topics he is just not going to address.

Prediction, here are 3 things that Radrook will never answer in any coherent manner, not in this thread or any other:

1) If your objections to Evolution are NOT religiously based, then why did you assert that evolution requires atheism?

2) Why did ID lose so badly at the Dover trial when they had a high-priced Christian law firm, DI's "star" scientist Behe, and a conservative Christian judge appointed by G W Bush and recommended by Rick Santorum?

3) What is your explanation for Human Chromosome 2?

But, that's not even a cold reading, so I won't expect to win the MDC any time soon.

[UnrepentantSinner]

That depends on being a splitter or a lumper. The lumpers feel that birds are descended from the dinosaurs, the splitter believe that the dinos and the birds diverged.

Those are both exactly the same thing.

Kinda sorta in a semantic sense. The essence of the debate is whether the bird LCA was a dinosaur or a shared non-dinosaur reptile LCA with therapod dinosaurs. While working out the details are interesting, the anti-evolutionists are stuck with the same fact when quote mining - both sides think birds evolved from some sort of reptile and weren't specially created seperately.

For myself, I think the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaur species is convincing to the point that denying it borders on folly.

[Island Skeptic]

The above posts are irrelvant to anything that I said. I also consider it rude to post a poster which I have on ignore for my own good reasons. So I simply didn't read whatever it is he said. In any case, since it is my option....

It's only fair to say that if you post an ignored poster's irrelevant drivel then you qualify for the list as well. The more the merrier?

Radrook, I do not know the reason why you had placed Skeptical on "ignore" (or what your reasoning is behind threatening to "ignore" people who quote him ...sounds rather juvenile if you ask me.) -- Nevertheless, at the terrifying risk of being placed on your "ignore" list as well, I am compelled to copy and paste Skeptic's post here for you because I feel it was so eloquently written that, if you have an open mind and heart, I earnestly feel you might benefit from reading it -and i could not possibly have said it better:

Originally Posted by skeptical View Post
To Radrook:

You said earlier that you didn't understand why I cared that you won't accept the evidence of evolution, and the short answer is, I don't. You may find that hard to believe, but truly, I couldn't care less what you personally think.

People all over the world believe that water is magic (homeopathy), that schmucks like John Edward who cannot even get a simple cold reading better than a sideshow carny can actually talk to dead people, that drinking urine will make you healthy, that a guy in India can fly, that the earth is swelling like a balloon and at the north pole, there is a hole that leads to the center of the earth where an ancient race of peoples is waiting to share the wisdom of the ages with us. I think that the evidence for any of this and a thousand other beliefs is nil, and therefore that it is all nonsense and woo. But whatever. I don't care what silly things people choose to believe. I don't know what things you believe and what you don't and honestly, I couldn't care less.

What I DO care about, is when people take their beliefs, and try to use them to denigrate science and the scientists who practice it. When they go beyond merely having their beliefs, and start poisoning the well of all the scientific progress our society has fought to sustain for 300 yrs.

When someone purposely makes patently false statements that evolution and abiogenesis require atheism, that irritates me. (and yes, it IS patently false, because if even a SINGLE theist accepts them as the mechanisms god chose, it is a false statement. There are lots that accept it, so the statement is false. Period.)

It irritates me for 2 reasons, 1) because it is an obviously false statement about science by someone who knows better, which in itself is enough to irritate me and 2) because it drives people away from accepting the incredible success of science and its methods

What you are doing when you make statements like that, when you claim that the evidence of evolution is somehow weak or insubstantial, when you cherry pick the extraordinarily small number of times in the past 300 years when scientists have faked their data out of the millions of times they have not, you are not just seeking to discredit evolution or people who accept it, you are chipping away at the very edifice upon which the modern world is built: the scientific method.

We are privileged to live in a time when we in the West don't typically have to worry if we will die of smallpox, or if our children will get polio, or if our drinking water is potable, or if we will survive the winter, or wonder if our far away relatives are still alive, or if our child will die before it is out of infancy, or if we will be able to make a living because our eyesight is poor, or if our epileptic child will get burned for witchcraft, or any of a million other tragedies great and small that people of only a few hundreds of years ago had to suffer. We do not worry about all of this for a simple reason: our understanding and command of our world via the scientific method and its practitioners have delivered us from a constant world of darkness and ignorance.

When you throw unsubstantiated accusations against scientists, when you attempt to undermine the scientific method, you feed the seed of doubt that an increasingly uneducated public has about science, despite its overwhelming success in every field of endeavor on the planet. Seeds of doubt sown by those just like you who cannot accept the evidence revealed by science. Doubt is fed by religious pandering, by equating science with atheism, the ultimate wedge issue.

Science affects every possible endeavor in the modern world. Unless you live in a cave and grow your own food, your entire life is literally built on a foundation that would be impossible without science, and yet you sit on a precarious branch, sawing away at the root, with the yawning abyss of the dark ages reaching its gnarled fingers to pull you down. The problem is, we are all on the branch with you.

So to be plain, I don't care what you believe. But I do care what nonsense you try to propagate to others. We are here on this little forum, in a small dark corner of the vast ocean of cyberspace, and perhaps it doesn't matter at all. Perhaps my posts don't make the slightest difference now, and maybe they never will. But I will not, I cannot, stand by while those and those like you seek to plunge us back into the heart of darkness of the pre-scientific world.

I will not stand idly bye and let your disinformation turn a single person away from science if it is in my power to do so. Feeble though my efforts may be.



:champers:

[Foster Zygote]

Radrook, I do not know the reason why you had placed Skeptical on "ignore" [I](or what your reasoning is behind threatening to "ignore" people who quote him ...sounds rather juvenile if you ask me.)

Intellectual cowardice. The same reason he cannot even acknowledge his own clearly exposed lie as he continues to vigorously accuse others of lying.

[edge]

You seem to be ignoring me, but yes, you are correct. There are still dinosaurs living today. We call them "birds", and the reason you may be confused is that these dinosaurs have continued to evolve during the last 60-odd million years, and therefore do no longer look like we usually imagine dinosaurs.

Murky at best.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070307_dino_genome.html


How about alligators, turtles, crocodiles, amphibians, Coelacanth, horseshoe crab, fish, trees, T-Rex is a mighty good chicken.



A Coelacanth fossil, 410 million years old
Coelacanth of our day

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php

Approximately 320 million years ago, a species of small lobed creatures began to populate Earth's seas. These relatives of sea arachnids—similar to lobsters and crabs—once flourished but became completely extinct 280 million years ago. We are talking, of course, about the trilobite.
The human being, as it is currently accepted by the majority of scientists, appeared as a species no more than 2 or 3 million years ago. And the history of man such as he is known today does not exceed 10,000 years.
With these dates in mind, we can conclude that the story of the human stepping on a trilobite belongs to the category of science fiction. A human being could never have squashed a creature that became extinct millions of years ago, and even less so a person with shoes—an unequivocal indication of civilization. This is evidence which defies history—an impossible fossil.
In June of 1968, amateur fossil collector William J. Meister found a rock 2 inches thick in Antelope Spring, Utah. With a blow of his hammer, he exposed the fossil of a human footprint. But this footprint had a special feature—a squashed trilobite. It wasn't long before the news spread across the world, and several investigators made their way to Antelope Spring, finding more marks made by modern-style footwear in a geological stratum corresponding to extremely remote ages. What strange joke is seemingly being played on history?
Again taken from here.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-9/60546.html

Where were we when he created the foundations of the Earth?
I think he created many creatures before man for his own reasons and then before man there were several extinctions. Rising of a continent would do it, when he created the first land according to genesis.
Whether they evolved or not is irrelevant.
They are extinct.
Now you have these bones of super apes and you want to say that man fell up not down.
What’s the point we are all going somewhere.
Now where would that be?
We are all going to find out.
The problem here is that an atheist says we are going nowhere, and a believer says we will meet god.
If the atheist is right it won’t matter, if a believer is right the atheist will know also, won’t he?
Proof is in the form of prophecy the word of God.
Or is it in bones, death?
Kind of ironic.

This bear (Ursus spelaeus), which species is still alive today, was discovered in the Ural Mountains in Russia. This fossil dates back 300,000 to 100,000 years.


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/fossils_07.php



Both questions are irrelevant - the answers to both have no bearing on the proposed tests, so don't you worry yore purty little head about it.

Geology is really really simple if you just pay attention.

Really, What replaces the bone?
You know during the fossilization process?

[Kotatsu]

Murky at best.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070307_dino_genome.html

I have no idea what you are on about. There is no inconsistancy between what I said and anything in this article, or am I missing something?


How about alligators, turtles, crocodiles, amphibians, Coelacanth, horseshoe crab, fish, trees, T-Rex is a mighty good chicken.

What about them?
Also: the fact that birds are dinosaurs does not make dinosaurs birds.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php

I leaved through Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation", as that was sent to one of our professors. He is an incompetent amateur. For example, one of his supposed present-day crinoids is actually a tube-dwelling polychete, and while his fossil is a spider crab, the picture of his living animal is a crab spider. They are not closely related, let alone the same species.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Prediction, here are 3 things that Radrook will never answer in any coherent manner, not in this thread or any other:

1) If your objections to Evolution are NOT religiously based, then why did you assert that evolution requires atheism?

2) Why did ID lose so badly at the Dover trial when they had a high-priced Christian law firm, DI's "star" scientist Behe, and a conservative Christian judge appointed by G W Bush and recommended by Rick Santorum?

3) What is your explanation for Human Chromosome 2?


I'm still waiting for him to show us eveidence that feathered dinosaurs are hoaxes.

[Radrook]

Here are some of the geologists names whose non-evolutinist opinion I prefer to believe as requested:

John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering (President of ICR)

Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology.

David R. McQueen, M.S. Geology He received a B.A. in Geology from the University of Tennessee, a M.S. in Geology from the University of Michigan,

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)

Further info about these geologoists is availbale here:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/

BTW

Now you can all begin to chortle on how these are merely creationist geologists.

I can chime in by saying that yours are merely evolutionist ones in order to demonstrate just how ridiculous such an objection sounds.

[Radrook]

I'm still waiting for him to show us eveidence that feathered dinosaurs are hoaxes.

Ummm, I didn't say that. So since you don't comprehend clearly written English, bye!

[Achán hiNidráne]

Now you can all begin to chortle on how these are merely creationist geologists.

Why do these... ahem... "geologists" doubt evolution? What is their alternate theory? What is their evidence? What is their methodology? Are they really scientists, or just theologians in lab coats?

I can chime in by saying that yours are merely evolutionist ones in order to demonstrate just how ridiculous such an objection sounds.

As we've told you dozens of times over, the credibility of any scientist hinges heavily upon the evidence they present and how they came to their conclusions. "Evolutionists" have been able to do this time and time again for nearly two-hundred years. Creationists have not.

Now, tell us:
What is your explanation for Human Chromosome 2?
What is your evidence that "feathered dinosaurs" are "hoaxes?"
How is natural selection unfalsifiable?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Ummm, I didn't say that. So since you don't comprehend clearly written English, bye!

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Feathered Dinosaur fossil definitely proves Birds come from dinosaurs -- Oh nooo!! The fossil is a hoax.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3241256#post3241256)

[Radrook]

Radrook, I do not know the reason why you had placed Skeptical on "ignore" (or what your reasoning is behind threatening to "ignore" people who quote him ...sounds rather juvenile if you ask me.) -- Nevertheless, at the terrifying risk of being placed on your "ignore" list as well, I am compelled to copy and paste Skeptic's post here for you because I feel it was so eloquently written that, if you have an open mind and heart, I earnestly feel you might benefit from reading it -and i could not possibly have said it better:

Originally Posted by skeptical View Post


:champers:

Thank you for the decent manner of bringing this to my attention. I understand fully the motives which drives those who defend evolution. It may come as a great surprise but mine, though less vehement and far more tolerant of opposing viewpoints is similar. I too feel that science is being done a disservice by what I consider and even fully qualified scientists non-evolutionists of course a consider unsubstantiated claims. I previously and repeatedly go out of my way to explain why these claims are viewed as unsubstantiated but am completely ignored. So I will not waste my time any longer. Neither will I waste any further time in useless clarifications which claims of confusion show jave been ignored or possibly never even read. So yes, very eloquently expressed but no I am not in agreement.

BTW

I do not consider it my messianic duty to force anyone else into my thought process mold. That is the evolutionist modus operandi as Skeptic himself admits, not mine. Also, skeptic has his approving audience as do all the other evolutionists on this thread. So I don't see how my not viewing their comments should really proive to be an inconvenience. Especially when they aren't really interested in an objective consideration of the details but in simply chortling, hurling invectives, creating straw man arguments, false premesis, and using all other means at their disposal in order to cloud the issue and bring about a satisfactory conclusion over which to celebrate. A hammering away-as it were.

[Radrook]

Perhaps I underestimate the differences between the USA and my own country, but how have Haeckel's drawings, the Piltdown man and the --- so far, I will maintain, only alleged --- faked feathered dinosaur been socially influential? Outside certain branches of the academic world and various creationist cabals, I wager most people have never even heard of Archaeoraptor or the Piltdown man.

Prior to being exposed as fakes, the claims made by Haeckal were made part of biology textbooks and put forth as indisputable fact creating staunch evolutionist believers by the hundreds of thousands and in that manner effectively discouraging and undermining any possible opposing viewpoint, both religious and scientific. The same holds true for Piltown Man and other such dubious claims.

As for the faked feathered dinosaur, that attempt was caught much quicker. As for these being ancestral to troday's birds, the opinion is still being debated. Just enter "feathered dinosaur" into search engine and se for youself. In any case, to me that's totally irrelevant to acceptance or non acceptance of evolution as fact.

[Radrook]

No, in fact it sounds like nothing of the sort.

The rest of your post is mainly badly formatted lies.

Do you consider the info on this site to be badly formatted lies as well? Just curious.
http://www.triumphpro.com/dinosaurs___sea_serpents.htm

[Achán hiNidráne]

As for the faked feathered dinosaur, that attempt was caught much quicker. As for these being ancestral to troday's birds, the opinion is still being debated. Just enter "feathered dinosaur" into search engine and se for youself.

In other words, you don't have jack, do you? You just pulled the claim out of your rectum.

You made the claim. You provide the evidence. If you can't, then do us a courtesy by shutting up.

In any case, to me that's totally irrelevant to acceptance or non acceptance of evolution as fact.

Then why did you use it as evidence against evolution (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3241256#post3241256) in the "Why both sides suck..." thread?

[Island Skeptic]

Thank you for the decent manner of bringing this to my attention. I understand fully the motives which drives those who defend evolution.

What are the motives that you allege?

It may come as a great surprise but mine, though less vehement and far more tolerant of opposing viewpoints is similar. I too feel that science is being done a disservice by what I consider and even fully qualified scientists non-evolutionists of course a consider unsubstantiated claims. I previously and repeatedly go out of my way to explain why these claims are viewed as unsubstantiated but am completely ignored. So I will not waste my time any longer. Neither will I waste any further time in useless clarifications which claims of confusion show jave been ignored or possibly never even read. So yes, very eloquently expressed but no I am not in agreement.

I have tried to follow this thread, but have been unable to find any striking new information posted by you that would lead me to believe that evolutionists produce hoaxes or unsubstantiated evidence. Can you summarize exactly what your argument is to me?


BTW

I do not consider it my messianic duty to force anyone else into my thought process mold. That is the evolutionist modus operandi as Skeptic himself admits, not mine. Also, skeptic has his approving audience as do all the other evolutionists on this thread. So I don't see how my not viewing their comments should really proive to be an inconvenience. Especially when they aren't really interested in an objective consideration of the details but in simply chortling, hurling invectives, creating straw man arguments, false premesis, and using all other means at their disposal in order to cloud the issue and bring about a satisfactory conclusion over which to celebrate. A hammering away-as it were.

In choosing to "ignore" a member(s) you may miss the potential of missing a valid and thought-provoking argument that may come as news to you, or which deserves consideration -equally as much as anything you may have to offer towards the argument. "Ignoring" also makes you appear closed-minded and only willing to discuss your own argument, rather than objectively weighing all arguments.

As i said earlier, i am open to hearing why you apparently dispute commonly accepted evolutionists' theories and evidence, and will try to consider it objectively -so long as it comes with credible supporting evidence.

(P.S. Lists of names do not cut it for me. I already saw that and it had no effect on me.)

[Papermache]

Do you consider the info on this site to be badly formatted lies as well? Just curious.
http://www.triumphpro.com/dinosaurs___sea_serpents.htmAnyone who believes that there are human footprints in the Paluxy River Bed is self-deluded or lying. So, yes, there is at least one lie on that site. Since you offer that BS with apparent sincerity, I see no reason to think you have anything better to offer.

[Foster Zygote]

In choosing to "ignore" a member(s) you may miss the potential of missing a valid and thought-provoking argument that may come as news to you, or which deserves consideration -equally as much as anything you may have to offer towards the argument.

I suspect that this is exactly why Radrook has put many people on his ignore list, lest his set in stone conclusions be threatened.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I suspect that this is exactly why Radrook has put many people on his ignore list, lest his set in stone conclusions be threatened.

I think you're giving him way too much credit, FZ. More likely Radook puts people on ignore when they call them to task for his obvious lies. That way, this lying piece-of-work doesn't have to answer them and can move on with continuing his Gish Gallop with another non sequitur Creationist lie.

Oh? Did I mention Radook is a liar? Let me re-state that...

[Dr Adequate]

Prior to being exposed as fakes, the claims made by Haeckal were made part of biology textbooks and put forth as indisputable fact creating staunch evolutionist believers by the hundreds of thousands ... Well that's a figure you pulled out of nowhere, isn't it.

Evidently it is perfectly easy to accept evolution without Haeckel's bogus pictures, since people do. Do you really suppose there'd be hundreds of thousands more just if one set of pictures was taken to be accurate?

... and in that manner effectively discouraging and undermining any possible opposing viewpoint, both religious and scientific. The same holds true for Piltown Man and other such dubious claims. Er, but Radrook, the "opposing viewpoint" on Haeckel and on Piltdown won, remember? Scientists looked at the claims and rebutted them, yes? This is how you know that Haeckel was a fraud and Piltdown Man was a fake, yes?

[Radrook]

Anyone who believes that there are human footprints in the Paluxy River Bed is self-deluded or lying. So, yes, there is at least one lie on that site. Since you offer that BS with apparent sincerity, I see no reason to think you have anything better to offer.

Ah, but you assume that I offer it to disprove evolution when I previously explained in my clarification statement that I don't depend on such trivial findings for my beliefs. As was curious as to the opinion of the poster, Nothing more.

[Dr Adequate]

Here are some of the geologists names whose non-evolutinist opinion I prefer to believe as requested: Which of their arguments did you find the most convincing?

John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering (President of ICR)

Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology.

David R. McQueen, M.S. Geology He received a B.A. in Geology from the University of Tennessee, a M.S. in Geology from the University of Michigan,

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)

Further info about these geologoists is availbale here:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/ A somewhat shorter and less distinguished list than mine. I wonder how you'd do if I asked you to find another five?

I'm afraid I can give you only half a mark for Andrew Snelling. See here (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm).

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling ...

Now you can all begin to chortle on how these are merely creationist geologists.

I can chime in by saying that yours are merely evolutionist ones in order to demonstrate just how ridiculous such an objection sounds. Or you could wait and see what I actually said.

[Radrook]

Well that's a figure you pulled out of nowhere, isn't it.

The impact of evolutionary teaching via hoaxes need no statistical data to back them up-they are an established fact. If indeed every statement concerning the most obvious fact has to be supported by statistics, then two can play at the same game. Where are your numbers proving that these hoaxes did not have a convincing impact on the minds of the children which were taught them as fact? Ridiculous isn't it? Why? Because the truth of this is so obvious it needs no statistical support. That children exposed to drivel will believe the drivel is a self-evident conclusion based on our inductive observation of the phenomenon.

Evidently it is perfectly easy to accept evolution without Hackle's bogus pictures, since people do. Do you really suppose there'd be hundreds of thousands more just if one set of pictures was taken to be accurate?

Perfectly easy but made easier with hoaxes. Santa Clause is also very easy to accept at a certain age. Does that make it any more of a fact?

Radrook, the "opposing viewpoint" on Haeckel and on Piltdown won, remember? Scientists looked at the claims and rebutted them, yes? This is how you know that Haeckel was a fraud and Piltdown Man was a fake, yes?

Sure, after the damage via the reinforcement of certainty was brought about. Actually, I find your claim that Haeckle's deception was rather insignificant in view of his fantastic ideas being included in school textbooks as indisputable fact in support of evolution which was to be deemed also indisputable based on those seemingly indisputable facts.

[Dr Adequate]

Do you consider the info on this site to be badly formatted lies as well? Just curious.
http://www.triumphpro.com/dinosaurs___sea_serpents.htm Yes. And badly organised and badly written.

You will find that some of it is so silly that AnswersInGenesis debunk it on their page of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)". And all of it has been debunked somewhere or other. But the thing is that whereas no evolutionist would now claim Piltdown Man to be genuine, or Haeckel an honest man, creationists, by contrast, never throw away a mistake. Those bogus Paluxy footprints, the clear and admitted hoax of the Ica stones ... they're going to keep passing from credulous mouth to credulous ear 'til the heat death of the universe.

[Radrook]

Which of their arguments did you find the most convincing?

I don't depend on their arguments for my convictions as I previously explained.

A somewhat shorter and less distinguished list than mine. I wonder how you'd do if I asked you to find another five?

That's an argument called bandwagon which need not be even considered.



I'm afraid I can give you only half a mark for Andrew Snelling. See here (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm).

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling ...

Or you could wait and see what I actually said.

I wasn't seeking points but merely responding to your request. As for credibility, typos occur. In any case, I'll bring it to their attention and see what explanation they can offer.

[Radrook]

Yes. And badly organised and badly written.

You will find that some of it is so silly that AnswersInGenesis debunk it on their page of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)". And all of it has been debunked somewhere or other. But the thing is that whereas no evolutionist would now claim Piltdown Man to be genuine, or Haeckel an honest man, creationists, by contrast, never throw away a mistake. Those bogus Paluxy footprints, the clear and admitted hoax of the Ica stones ... they're going to keep passing from credulous mouth to credulous ear 'til the heat death of the universe.


So in the heat of battle you have hoaxers and credulous eyes and ears on both sides-right? Fair enough I guess since he who hits below the belt often enough should expect a retaliation in kind. No? To even out the playing table a bit I guess. Not that I approve of it of course--only that I do understand the quaint phenomenon if indeed such a phenomenon there is.

BTW
I am not in any way admitting your accusation that these were hoaxes. Just the possibility that they might have been. I would need to research the counterarguments and evidence pro and con on each side. A time-consuming activity which is actually irrelevant to my non-evolutionary convictions and therefore find little motivation to engage in.

Also please consider that what you consider as debunked by be considered as not debunked by someone else. It all depends on many perceptional factors and judgemental predispositions.

[Dr Adequate]

The impact of evolutionary teaching via hoaxes need no statistical data to back them up-they are an established fact. If there is nothing to back up your claim, then it is not an established fact.

Where are your numbers proving that these hoaxes did not have a convincing impact on the minds of the children which were taught them as fact? It is self-evident that these hoaxes are not required to produce conviction. Therefore, if anyone claims that these things tipped the scales for "hundreds of thousands" of people, the onus of proof is on him.

Perfectly easy but made easier with hoaxes. No, in fact. Piltdown man, for example, would have constituted an anomaly --- it would have made human evolution harder to understand.

Sure, after the damage via the reinforcement of certainty was brought about. This "certainty" wasn't so "reinforced" that scientists couldn't look at these established notions and overturn them, was it?

Actually, I find your claim that Haeckle's deception was rather insignificant in view of his fantastic ideas being included in school textbooks as indisputable fact in support of evolution which was to be deemed also indisputable based on those seemingly indisputable facts. You're missing a clause there, you forgot to tell me what you found my claim.

Nonetheless, the truth of evolution was not upheld solely by one skull and a few drawings by a German naturalist. I personally find I can get on quite well without 'em.

[Achán hiNidráne]

So in the heat of battle you have hoaxers and credulous eyes and ears on both sides-right?

Wrong, liar. Tu quoque fallacy.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

[Dr Adequate]

So in the heat of battle you have hoaxers and credulous eyes and ears on both sides-right? Fair enough I guess since he who hits below the belt often enough should expect a retaliation in kind. No? To even out the playing table a bit I guess. Not that I approve of it of course--only that I do understand the quaint phenomenon. The difference is, as I pointed out, that the discovery of fraud leads to its removal from the scientific literature, but not from creationist propaganda.

I would need to research the counterarguments and evidence pro and con on each side. A time-consuming activity which is actually irrelevant to my covictions and therefore find little motivation to engage in. You're not interested in whether creationism is based on deception?

[Dr Adequate]

I don't depend on their arguments for my convictions as I previously explained. I thought you said that you "prefer to believe them". Does this not involve knowing what they say and agreeing with it?

That's an argument called bandwagon which need not be even considered. Huh?

In any case, I'll bring it to their attention and see what explanation they can offer. I don't think you've quite understood the point of the article. There is only one Dr Snelling, but he has two faces. Professionally, he does real geology; as a hobby, he does Young Earth stuff.

[Radrook]

The difference is, as I pointed out, that the discovery of fraud leads to its removal from the scientific literature, but not from creationist propaganda.

You're not interested in whether creationism is based on deception?

Yes I am interested in whether any belief that I subscribe to is based on deception or fact.
However, the only conviction I can reach is that the present universe is the result of imntelligent design. From my standpoint anything contradicting that basic fact is deception.

BTW
Creationists point out previuos hoaxes in order to show that things once considered fact have turned out to be false and that present evolutionist guarantees can very well turn out to be false as well. Creationists are not accusing evolutionists as clinging to these hoaxes as you say.