A Platform Custom built for Joe Boudreault to expand his Position [Archive] - Page 2

hereisjoe

7th January 2011, 01:07 PM

Said goodbye too soon. At the risk of another wordgame, in science there is no evidence "from both sides" or any side. There is the evidence. Theories are built based on that evidence. When you think evidence can be selected from one side or another, you have a selective bias. Yep AIG and other "scientists" still have bias issues invalidating their data, and should learn to be objective.

The arrogance and ignorance of due process is mouldering and stale. Joe has had ample oppertunity to produce good evidence. He has failed. He has had ample oppertunity to show he is capable of working in a framework of big boy science. He has failed. He is either not capable or not willing.

Tom, I'll ask you this again: are all of the authors I listed in the above 22 books (there are many more) simply expressing their opinions, and have no certainty of truth, then what do we do? What is the validity of your proofs, Tom? Where did you get them? Are those sources valid, or just more opinions? Where is your logic? How are your biases set aside for true science?

If you are unwilling to study the writings of other scientists in an unbiased way, you are the one who is wilfully ignorant. These writers, and others on a similar list, are not creationists but evolutionists.

[from Tom]
" If you refuse to acknowledge even the most basic foundations of science there is no point having a discussion with Joe, because the rules don't change for you. Good bye Joe."

Let's see, then: IF I don't understand basic science I would never have been able to function at all in electronics, engineering or mechanics, all fields which I've earned a living at. I would not have understood anything I have read over many many years. YET I have done just this very thing.

"When you think evidence can be selected from one side or another, you have a selective bias."
Your bias is very healthy, Tom - it shows in everything you write here. It was strongly evident from the very first statement you ever posted to me at Skeptoid away back when…

"Yep AIG and other "scientists" still have bias issues invalidating their data, and should learn to be objective."
AIG is by far not the only source I refer to - it is only one tiny corner of the scientific world at large. They are, however, the only site where the writers freely admit to the existence of bias, unlike ANY evolutionist site (like this one) which never admits it has a bias. Creationist scientists always address science apart from religions beliefs - but evolutionists cannot do this. They attempt to drag God into it all the time.

"….Joe has had ample opportunity to produce good evidence. He has failed. He has had ample opportunity to show he is capable of working in a framework of big boy science. He has failed. He is either not capable or not willing."

Your umpteenth Ad Hominem. You simply cannot pay attention to anything anybody tells you. My case was clearly stated from the beginning; my science (unlike your pseudoscience) was clearly explained and described, as are all my sources.

I challenge you to read just one book from the 22 books I recently listed (all by evolutionists) and report on it. Demonstrate your scientific aptitude, instead of blowing wind at everybody.

hereisjoe

7th January 2011, 01:18 PM

Than you are as ignorant of history as you are of science. I suggest reading "Darwin's Century"--it gives a play-by-play recount of how evolution came to be accepted, and this is certainly not it.

Social darwinism is a deeply flawed concept. For instance, you need to define "fittest", which in evolutionary terms merely means "has the best chance of passing its genes on to future generations". And no, this doesn't mean raping every woman one sees (though ducks apparently do that, to some success); K-mode and R-mode species have completely different methods of rearing offspring.

This is a bold-faced lie. You have studied the Creationist side of things. If you had studied the science side of things, you wouldn't make the basic errors you make.

Maybe if you asked honestly we'd be more inclined to discuss the science with you.

Then perhaps you should actually learn what the term evolution means, rather than playing wordgames?

"Than you are as ignorant of history as you are of science. I suggest reading "Darwin's Century" --it gives a play-by-play recount of how evolution came to be accepted, and this is certainly not it."

If you are referring to the Loren Eisely book then I have no compelling reason to waste my time on it. I read Eisely before, and he does not defend and support evolution as much as simple reporting on it. He was a philosophical anthropologist who was only describing (albeit very poetically) the acceptance of this general theory from the 17th century onwards. This does not mean he validated or proved it in any way. The acceptance of modern evolutionary theory is well known, but the proof of it's theories is not. If you are going to accuse people of ignorance, learn something yourself first. You are unwilling to even recognize the worldwide discussions regarding the controversy. Somewhere in a remote corner of your mind you think that if you dismiss things or ignore them, they will go away. Not so.

Quote:
"Social Darwinism is a deeply flawed concept. For instance, you need to define "fittest", which in evolutionary terms merely means "has the best chance of passing its genes on to future generations…"

I clearly stated my position long ago - you ignore my premise at your own peril or stupidity, Greg. If you want to twist the argument around, I'm out of here. If you want to address the context of my (and other creationists) argument from our worldview, then be honest about it. We've all looked at your worldview.

Quote:
I've studied tons of evidences from both sides and I concur with creationism based on that alone.
This is a bold-faced lie. You have studied the Creationist side of things. If you had studied the science side of things, you wouldn't make the basic errors you make.

Ad Hominem all over the place here. I'm not falling for your name-calling bait. First, I suggest you demonstrate to us all how it is that you have knowledge of what it is I have read and what I haven't ready on scientific topics. I'd like to know that little psychic trick! Second, you are in error, not me, for claiming something to be fact when no facts are presented from your worldview. Third, I HAVE studied both sides of the controversy, with possible more input from the evolution side than from the creationist side.

Quote:
"Maybe if you asked honestly we'd be more inclined to discuss the science with you. "

You have yet to show an honesty in discussing science. Pick any single book from the list I provided and read it thoroughly and report back on it with the best honest effort you can conjure. I predict that if you do, you will A) arbitrarily debase such book and summarily dismiss it, as you have done with ALL of my references [yet you ask me to be held to your references and authors without question, and dismiss me as ignorant if I don't agree with them; and/or B) you would say the author is biased/misquoting/unreviewed in your journals etc etc. In other words, more pleading to a false Higher Authority, which is what most peer review is.

Quote:
I don't have time or patience for word games, Tom. Simple
Then perhaps you should actually learn what the term evolution means, rather than playing wordgames?

I know fully well what all of these terms mean, and then some.

according to Websters dictionary, evolution is:
Noun 1. (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.[

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] Over time variants with particular heritable traits become more, or less, common.

Since I also have proposed parallel discussions in species and scientific methods, here are some definitions I agree with as well:

In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]
In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning etc etc.

Websters, Cambridge, Oxford, and Wikipedia dictionaries all generally agree in these. The bottom line in my argumets here is Origins, not just of biological species but of energy, matter, physical systems, and even social subjects. If you are unwilling to discuss in this wide format, say so. If you are ready to simply throw out more accusations, I will list them as fallacies and lies as you do so. I am not interested in your 'alleles' or minor changes within species, or in your alleged 'evidence' from fossils. I use both induction and deduction in my logic. You apparently use neither, as your hardcore insistence on fossil 'evidence' shows - fossils do not show ongoing changes, and neither does current biology, where it pertains to speciation.

A clue for you is the above-stated clause where we are told that "…a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning…". In that respect, evolution fails entirely.

A few more books by creationist writers (all of them scientists) are:

Sunderland, Luther D. "Darwin's Enigma" (Santee, CA: Master Book Publ., 1988), 180 pp.
Ackerman, Paul D. "It's A Young World After All: Exciting Evidences for a Recent Creation" (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986).
"Evolution: The Fossils Still say NO!" by Duane T. Gish *one of my favorites...

"Creation, The Facts of Life (How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God)" by Gary Parker

Read, John G. "Fossils, Strata and Evolution" (Culver City. CA: Scientific Technological Presentations, 1979). 64 pp.

"The Genesis Flood" by Henry M Morris & John C Whitcomb (scientific evidence of the global flood)

Rushdoony, Rousas J. "Mythology of Science" (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1967), 134 pp

Shute, Evan. "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution" (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 286 pp.

AND ALSO

Chittick, Donald E. "The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict" (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984), 280 pp.
Clark, Harold W. "Battle Over Genesis" (Washington: Review and Herald, 1977), 239 pp.
Clark, R.T. and James D. Bales. "Why Scientists Accept Evolution" (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 113 pp.

The above books use empirical, observable, provable science.

These two websites are full of real science and information:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_01.html
http://evolutionfacts.com/index.htm

Dinwar

7th January 2011, 02:21 PM

If you are referring to the Loren Eisely book then I have no compelling reason to waste my time on it. I read Eisely before, and he does not defend and support evolution as much as simple reporting on it. He was a philosophical anthropologist who was only describing (albeit very poetically) the acceptance of this general theory from the 17th century onwards. This does not mean he validated or proved it in any way. The acceptance of modern evolutionary theory is well known, but the proof of it's theories is not. If you are going to accuse people of ignorance, learn something yourself first. You are unwilling to even recognize the worldwide discussions regarding the controversy. Somewhere in a remote corner of your mind you think that if you dismiss things or ignore them, they will go away. Not so.
First off, I did not say that the book would teach you about evolution, only about the history of the theory. Very little of what you've presented here is new, and the majority of it was demonstrated to be false well over a century ago. A knowledge of history, while not providing data on the topic in and of itself, will prevent you from making the same errors as have been made in the past.

Secondly, there IS NO WORLDWIDE DEBATE ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AMONG THOSE WHO STUDY THE THEORY OR ASSOCIATED SCIENTISTS. This is not refusal to see it, or hidding my head in the sand. I've been to the conferences. I've read the journals. I read the journals. There's NO such discussion. P^3 doesn't document such a discussion. Neither does Paleontology. Neither does Science, or Nature, or Geology, or any other journal that I have read in search of paleontological data. You'd think that I would run across them, given the fact that my job requires me to be fairly well-versed in the paleontological literature.

I clearly stated my position long ago - you ignore my premise at your own peril or stupidity, Greg. If you want to twist the argument around, I'm out of here. If you want to address the context of my (and other creationists) argument from our worldview, then be honest about it. We've all looked at your worldview.
No, you haven't. The sheer number of basic errors that you've made (as have been demonstrated, time and time again) proves this.

Ad Hominem all over the place here. I'm not falling for your name-calling bait. First, I suggest you demonstrate to us all how it is that you have knowledge of what it is I have read and what I haven't ready on scientific topics. I'd like to know that little psychic trick! Second, you are in error, not me, for claiming something to be fact when no facts are presented from your worldview. Third, I HAVE studied both sides of the controversy, with possible more input from the evolution side than from the creationist side.

Joe, I don't CARE what you've read. I've read the academic literature, and it's obvious that you have not. The fact that you claim there is no evidence for evolution demonstrates this. Here: The fourth link down on this page demonstrates an old earth. (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Glacially+driven+cycles+in+accumulation+space+an d+sequence+stratigraphy+of+a+stream-dominated+alluvial+fan&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS388&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Glacially+driven+cycles+in+accumulation+space+a nd+sequence+stratigraphy+of+a+stream-dominated+alluvial+fan&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85) The first page here shows ancient fossils. (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS388&q=Fairmead+landfill+fossils&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS388&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85) Glance around this site--it shows hundreds of thousands of fossils from the past 65 million years. (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/collections.php)To say that there is no data for evolution is to either be completely ignorant of the topic, or to lie.

Websters, Cambridge, Oxford, and Wikipedia dictionaries all generally agree in these.I have pointed out, time and time again, that the first three are invalid sources for this discussion. This is an example of you not honestly participating in the debate. And frankly, you're talking to a paleontologist. I know more than Wikipedia.

Tomtomkent

7th January 2011, 10:55 PM

Craig4

8th January 2011, 10:38 AM

Go away, little man...

Who are you that I should be bothered with your opinion of where I should and should not participate?

You're choosing to be ignorant of science and you lie when you say that there is scientific debate about the merits of creationism. You even say below you can't waist your team studying something that shows you have evolution became an accepted theory.

Craig4

8th January 2011, 10:45 AM

"
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_01.html
http://evolutionfacts.com/index.htm

Seriously, Dawinism Refuted drags out the bacterial flagellum claim again. This is science. Do at least a little reading on the current state of the research.

Dinwar

8th January 2011, 12:40 PM

And the second link is SO AMAZED that a hammer handle can be petrified so quickly! :rolleyes: People who want to discuss geology should really bother to read up on a bit of geology first.

Craig4

8th January 2011, 07:12 PM

What's really troubling is their kind's word sucks so very much and they act as if they should be taken seriously. Really, we're going to let this sort of crap into a science class. Get a grip.

hereisjoe

10th January 2011, 10:17 AM

And the second link is SO AMAZED that a hammer handle can be petrified so quickly! :rolleyes: People who want to discuss geology should really bother to read up on a bit of geology first.

That's it? It speaks volumes on your own ignorance and arrogance and carelessness in actually reading other websites. Using your own format as demonstrated here, I could arbitrarily dismiss all of your arguments simple by saying that you won't accept any evidence other than what you see fits your own theory.

hereisjoe

10th January 2011, 10:47 AM

[QUOTE=Dinwar;6739167] Very little of what you've presented here is new, and the majority of it was demonstrated to be false well over a century ago.

No, it hasn't been demonstrated to be anything of the sort. My constant references are evidence of that.

A knowledge of history, while not providing data on the topic in and of itself, will prevent you from making the same errors as have been made in the past.

Once again, you arbitrarily declare that I have no knowledge of history. Yet you ignore the history I have pointed to consistently...

Secondly, there IS NO WORLDWIDE DEBATE ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AMONG THOSE WHO STUDY THE THEORY OR ASSOCIATED SCIENTISTS.

Oh, really? How about the debates, published widely (AND preciously 'peer-reviewed’) by the likes of reputable evolutionist writers/scientists such as Michael Denton, Fred Hoyle, Norman Macbeth, Harold Blum and Pierre P. Grasse. None of them accept a special theory of creation yet they disclaim all the general theories of neo-Darwinian evolution. Not to mention there are numerous websites that carry this worldwide debate. Or is the www now ceased to be a global entity for information..? Your head’s still up some dark place, Gregory.

Joe, I don't CARE what you've read.

I’ve read literature on both sides. Here again, you first state you don’t care what I’ve read, but then you say I have NOT read anything except creationist literature, and you follow THAT up with this claim that I have not read what you think is valid. What is it to be, greg? Either you are a psychic guru who knows other people’s thoughts and reading histories, or you are dodging the fact that I may know more than you give me credit for, while at the same time refusing to respond to the references I give, in any detail.

Glance around this site--it shows hundreds of thousands of fossils from the past 65 million years. [/URL]To say that there is no data for evolution is to either be completely ignorant of the topic, or to lie.

Not a lie. And as for ignorance, how is it that you cannot, for example, offer a genuine example of transition fossil, with the acceptable proof of it? Or proof of why you believe there is 65 million years to be looked at? You just can’t declare it to be so, and neither can other scientists. The chronology of the geologic record has been proven over and over again to not contain deep time. Who is biased here?

I have pointed out, time and time again, that the first three are invalid sources for this discussion.

Here is another of your arbitrary dismissal of sources. So… credible dictionaries from all over the world have no reason to be used here? That’s preposterous. It seems like you will only accept sources for your ideas that reflect your ideas, nut the scientific truth of the articles involved. Don’t go blaming me for illogical discussions and ignorance while at the same time pleading that you neither care what I read or what my words are based on. Unless, of course, you actually enjoy Straw Man junk, which you seem to.

I get it. You know more than all the contributors at Wikipedia on these topics. Also more than Websters, Cambridge, and Oxford. Gee, it must be great to be such a genius, looking down your nose at we mere mortals. The truth is, you are practicing arrogance here and nothing else.

Not participating? This is a laugh, coming from you! You don’t participate in any of my points, you just toss them out without entering into discussion. Give me a single example of, say, why such-and-such a transitional fossil IS a transitional fossil. Give me one clear example of where one distinct species crossed over into another distinct, separate species, without mincing words and definitions, like you always do. If you really are a paleontologist (we must take you at your word on that) then explain the inconsistencies in the sedimentation of the Grand Canyon as it applies to your worldview.
I expect only more of your denials, dismissals and Ad Hominems and Straw Dogs and Begging The Questions here, of course…

That's it? It speaks volumes on your own ignorance and arrogance and carelessness in actually reading other websites. Using your own format as demonstrated here, I could arbitrarily dismiss all of your arguments simple by saying that you won't accept any evidence other than what you see fits your own theory. I suggest you read the entire encyclopedia posted on the Evolution facts website, which is equivalent to several books, before you dismiss it all. Much of the content is from other evolutionists, by the way. You’re on thin ice indeed.

hereisjoe

10th January 2011, 10:48 AM

Crivens! I did not find the samples I read from Joes list to be as unbiased, or flawless as he claims. Gosh, I can not possibly be as well read and- forget it. Joe, if you do indeed understand and work with science that just makes your failure to provide any good evidence, your open disdain for peer review and my "bias" (yes the fact I point out when your sources use flawed method or edit out inconvenient bits from the rules of thermodynamics MUST be a bias. Not a disdain for faux-science and bad methodology at all) were in the evidence and process (and not as you have shown in my opinion of the charlatans who claim it be science. Well done. We can add "bias" to the list of terms you don't seem understund in a context of the acadmeic) then why on Earth have you been trying so very hard to act completely ignorant and obtuse? Why, if you did understand the process of science would you call the bible Peer Reviewed, or claim Peer Review itself as a meer claimto authority. Why would you spout such bunk as the ideathat God created science so if you happen to believe in him you get to choose what is science?

I too work in Electrical Engineering, in the High Voltage field. I can attest that not all technical staff take an academic route into the field, or indeed ever read journals outside their own field ofexpertise, never submit papers or carry out studies. But it is true, if you ever had to write failure reports or fault diagnostics in your branch of work you should never have condoned the confirmation bias on AIG younot only defended, but promoted as a reasonable response to bias!

All you have proven Joe is that you KNEW many of your posts contained dubious links to bad evidence of poor providence, but you went ahead and posted them anyway. Sheesh.

Oh and you want somebody to demonstrate what you have read? Why, fromyour arguments it is pretty clear what you have not understood. Or is it what you did understand but deliberately misrepresented to further flawed arguments that still rely on a god you haven't, can't and wont define in a viable model? I'm not sure which you would prefer...

Tom, your credibility is still in question (if it even exists). You refuse to:
1. acknowledge your errors in what you have actually said in your posts. Example: you said, in regards to Richard Dawkins, that (quote from Dec.14) “But Dawkins is not an "Evolutionist", he is an athiest who happens to work in a related field.” When I rebuked you on this, you tried desperately to backtrack on it and replied with “As I said, he is an Athiest who also happens to have studied in a related field.” In direct contrast to this, his latest book is completely about the evolution theory as fact and he calims the tag of evolutionist throughout. The majority of his books are all about this. Blatant denial from you, Tom!
2. You stated: “His personal belief on the theory is of no consequence any more than the personal belief of Einstein has any baring on the validity of his theories.” Applying this to me, of course, your reverse yourself. You constantly claim that my Christian beliefs affect my take on science, in spite of the fact that I have asked valid scientific questions which you refused to address. Your beliefs (that Christians are anti-science and ignorant) is all over the place in your responses, as it is with Craig and Gregory.
3. You posted: “Just out of interest I can't find the peer review section in my bible…” This is total childishness. The Bible does not peer review itself. Yet the hundreds of thousands of books and articles published down through the ages on biblical topics of all sorts are definitely peer reviewed, and many by the secular press. This, Tom, is just one of your attacks on the Bible, a book you do not understand but love to ridicule. And if you even paid the slightest attention to the reference books I listed, you’d see that even evolutionists make positive comments on the validity of biblical creationism.
4. Your remarks about a Big Bang (at Skeptoid) still remain as a lie. You first claimed that creationism cannot validate itself as something special, but when you could not answer my question of “How do you get something from nothing?” you finally blurted out that science could do this and why not? Follow the stuff at Skeptoid #35, folks, and observe his lies.
5. Tom said: “I also wish Joe would learn the difference between secular publishers who have no religious agenda and publish books on science, and a publisher with an atheist agenda. University presses are secular by default, they have to remain objective.” There are at least two more lies in this statement. First, the phrase ‘no religious agenda’ is false. Evolution is both a religion and a philosophy, not a proven theory. This has been so amply demonstrated by both Christian writers and by evolutionist writers (my favorite is Hoyle) that to continue to claim it as science is pure hyperbole. Second, the idea that university presses have to ‘remain objective’ is one on the biggest ongoing jokes in academia. I have many teaching friends (some of them atheist) who confess that their positions and curriculums are clearly marked out and installed in favor of the evolution model which most of them tell me they do not accept. Most of the world’s colleges and universities are highly biased in this way. It’s not hard to prove.
6. Tom said: “…the views of authors are not always the views of the publishers.” Yet you entered this discussion months ago with the claim that there are tons of evidences for evolution. Are those ‘tons’ the views of authors or true evidence/ I see no reason to accept their views as fact, having read them. Consider:
7. You said: “he simply can not "win" on an objective evidence based discussion. He wants to discuss faith, which remains something we believe in despite of, not because of, logic or reason.” Let me see… I have yet to see you post a single article which was offered or suggested by me in which you explain the unscientific part of it. Where is my logic flawed, even if it is not quite clear to you? Where have I lied or mislead? In what way have I tried to use moral reasoning to indicate science? Was it in good response to your lame claims to some immoral God of your making? Where in recent postings have you indicated that any (even just one) of the above-posted authors have failed the scientific process? Those authors, by the way, are prominent evolutionists, except for the last list? Do you want another demonstration of why evolution is a religion? Not hard to do, and I was not the first one to show this.
8. Tom: “you should never have condoned the confirmation bias on AIG you not only defended, but promoted as a reasonable response to bias!” Again, this pretty much amounts to both a twisting of the truth and a misrepresentation of what I actually said. Go and read my post again, man! I have never said that AIG admits and promotes bias. What I have said is that they bare the first website and organization I have come across who have honestly indicated that worldview biases exist, but that they believe biases should be set aside in these discussions. Other Christian writers (Jason Lisle, for example) offer the best argument platforms I have seen yet on this, even going so far as to say that some creationist unfairly use bias in their discussions. I have never, ever, ever seen this sort of admission on an atheist or evolution website, nor have I ever heard a confession of possible bias from their writers. Yet they (you, Tom) constantly wield your evolutionist bias. You’re a finely tuned artist when it comes to twisting other person’s words, Tom.
9. You said: “…your open disdain for peer review…”. Try this: http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/. Of course, you’ll just deny this as well..!
10. Tom: “Why would you spout such bunk as the idea that God created science so if you happen to believe in him you get to choose what is science?” Can you give me a reference where I actually said that, or do you want to leave yourself open to yet another of your lies? First, you have to prove without a doubt that God does not exist and therefore did not create science. Otherwise, don’t call this reasoning ‘bunk’. Then you have to show where I said that belief in God is the only source for belief in science. I have continually stated that science is science, whether or not you believe in God.
11. Again you continue with: “…many of your posts contained dubious links to bad evidence of …”. Links are links, so what’s this ‘dubious’ junk? Show me one example of bad science from my links, as explained by you. This IS a discussion, not a trading of links, isn’t it? Further, explain what you mean by ‘poor providence’.
12. Tom: .. deliberately misrepresented to further flawed arguments that still rely on a god you haven't, can't and wont define in a viable model.” You lost this argument even as you began it, back when. I refer you all to the string at Skeptoid 35 once again. Tom, if you are unable to discuss the possibility of a God in context, aside from empirical evidence for evolution, just say so. There are different parameters for each position, neither compromising the other. I prefer to stick with hard science here, simple because it is obviously the only parameter you do (possibly) understand. Otherwise, you again fall into a whole number of logical fallacies.

Tomtomkent

10th January 2011, 10:16 PM

Yes Joe. I do claim your Christian beliefs have biased your "science". Because your "science" IS BASED UPON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. If you can't see how that is different from your claims about Dawkins (and by extension evolution) then you are clearly an idiot. Your credibility is not in question, it is worthless. You said "god createsd science" several times over in Skeptoid. But feel free to lie about Joe, you havealready told pleanty of porky pies in your days.

Lets make this simple; Dawkins last book WAS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PAPER, IT WAS A POP SCIENCE BOOK. IF YOU CANT SEPERATE THAT FROM HIS ACADEMIC WORK IS DOES NOT MAKE ME IN DENIAL, IT MAKES YOU AS THICK AS TWO SHORT PLANKS YOU UTTER BERK. And this from a guy who knows how science works (because he said so?)

Oh and Joe, if you are advocating "creation" as hard science sooner or later you will have to discuss god in the context of science. So far from being "unable" to talk about it, I would really like you to supply a viable model for what god is and how he works so I know what evidence would prove he exists. Is that "in context" enough? I mean if you want to prove the Earth was created then you need to show how a creator might work. Any time you actually want to START talking in terms of "hard" science you feel free to go ahead... the bullcrap you say is "science" is mostly low grade works that suffer from the same biases and selective evidence (on rare occassions it has any). And again, as you cant seperate a book of opinions byDawkins from actual Peer Review works in journals (do you even know what peer review is yet? You DID say the Bible was peer reviewed too right?) then knowing when something sticks to good form may also be beyond your grasp (as seen with you whole schtick about AIG being ok as EVERYBODY does it and they are REAL scientists and EVOLUTION can't explain the moon). But don't worry Joe, one day, when you grow up, you too can have a modicum of credebility to questioned by an obnoxious liar who tries to hammer evolution into a religion to justify such bizzare claims as there is more than the empiracle, or he cant change his "theory" because of what it says in the bible, while still expecting that attitude to be called "science". The reason Joe, you don't a confession of bias on an evolution website, is that we can assume anybody who does real science can put aside their bias and make their work objective. The theory of evolution is based on evidence with out bias, and can be studied with out bias. Creationism can not, and wearing the bias on its sleeve is not a countermeasure. Oh and Joe, pointing outwhen you say something stupid is not my bias. I came to the decision you were an idiot objectively based on the evidence of your writings here. I have known some brilliant and intelligent creationists whom i hold a wealth of respect for. You are not one of them. I am not a masterat word games and I donttwist your words to show your bizzare arguments or accusations fall apart, I just point it out when they crumble to pieces on their own.

Tomtomkent

10th January 2011, 10:38 PM

And before anybody asks, that last post was an opinion piece not a dissitation, just in case anbody thought I was biased and worried my evidence may have been selective, I don't count it asa work towards my academic canon and do not intend to use it as the foundation of a paerses. Just saying... None of my responses here or in Skeptoid can be classed as essays, studies, research or academia, yet Joe insists I have a "bias" that I make clear. Exactly how this has puts more weight on some data I gathered than others, or influenced my selection of usable evidence, caused me to ignore evidence or imply that my evidence was the only usable data in the outcome of papers I have yet to publish is beyond me, and leaves me with only two coclusions that appear likely; either Joe uses the word "bias" as "opinion", or he places too much weight on my "studies".

The Bias shown by creationist essays and writings, on the internet or in published works, are clear and have been discussed at length here and inSkeptoid. Creationist "studies" start from thepoint of view that God did it and look for evidence to support that claim. It is the WORK that suffers the confirmation bias not the WRITER who holds an opinion. They do not begin with a null hypothosis and consider ALL evidence. They do not, in short, base their hypothosis upon evidence, they seek the evidence that confirms it. Or they disproportionately credit the evidence that supports their view, even when it is statistically insignificant. The worst offenders misrepresent the laws of chemistry or physics to fit their theory, describing primordial earth as a "closed system" to suggest entopathy would have set in with out gods help, or juggling the probabilities of amino acids forming, stating that either everything is regulated or everything is random, and so forth.

I use "bias" in the technical sense. If Joe feels I have displayed a bias here I find it insulting but of no consequence. I dont expectmy statements to greatly influence any pertinent studies or research, and though I insist on following the Method here I do not delude myself that this is any more than a social exercise. For AIG, or any outlet claiming their works as "science" (including the essay Joe posted here) the stakes are somewhat higher. If they desire to be considered as "real" science I intend to hold them to the standards they claim. It is a true shame that so many follow a binary logic that evolution being wrong is the same as their theory being right, which is the cheapest of tricks.

Craig4

11th January 2011, 06:54 PM

[QUOTE=Dinwar;6739167]

Secondly, there IS NO WORLDWIDE DEBATE ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AMONG THOSE WHO STUDY THE THEORY OR ASSOCIATED SCIENTISTS.

Oh good you finally get it now.

As for transitional fossils the whale bones. Sorry, you hate that one I know but they are a done deal. Your not liking the evidence doesn't mean it's not evidence it just means it threatens your world view. This has been explained to you so many times there really is no other conclusion left to us other than this is willful ignorance on your part.

Why not simply change your beliefs to accommodate the facts? It should be obvious to you by now that the facts aren't going to change.

hereisjoe

15th January 2011, 12:54 PM

[QUOTE=hereisjoe;6748724]
Oh good you finally get it now.

As for transitional fossils the whale bones. Sorry, you hate that one I know but they are a done deal. Your not liking the evidence doesn't mean it's not evidence it just means it threatens your world view. This has been explained to you so many times there really is no other conclusion left to us other than this is willful ignorance on your part.

Why not simply change your beliefs to accommodate the facts? It should be obvious to you by now that the facts aren't going to change.

I counted approximatey 200 examples of alleged 'transition fossils' at Wikipedia and three other sites. Not a peep saying why they are as such!
How about an actual explanation of why these are transitions? A single YouTube video of it happening would be great. But I'm not holding my breath.

Do you actually know the scientific process, our just your farryless fairy-tale?

hereisjoe

15th January 2011, 01:16 PM

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6751338]And before anybody asks, that last post was an opinion piece not a dissitation, just in case anbody thought I was biased and worried my evidence may have been selective, I don't count it asa work towards my academic canon and do not intend to use it as the foundation of a paerses. Just saying... None of my responses here or in Skeptoid can be classed as essays, studies, research or academia, yet Joe insists I have a "bias" that I make clear. BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

It's so sad to see Tom conducting a non-argument. He hasn't a clue how to do argue logically.If he ever stood at a debating podium, he'd be blown off halfway through.

Example: Tom, you have sufficiently demonstrated on your posts that you are incapable of arguing real science because as soon as you get even a hint that it is a creationist, you immediately go into the old standard atheist 'I-hate-anything-to-do-with-God' mode. Very sad. Your bias is soooo evident. Me, I always argue pure science, but you simly refuse to listen. Where did you ever get the weird idea that the existence of God has to be proven via science and his methods of creation vis science that we can see or repeat etc? That's absurd! And yet... You label everything from every creationist as being non-science. It is you who has very serious logic issues! You simply never did clue into the fact of cause and effect when it applies to special creation. All creationists know how all atheists carry a despising and poisoned hatred for the very idea of God. So we have to assume they (you) are never going to accept anything, no matter how scientific it really is, if it even remotely points to that God. You will probably never clue into this.

At no point, here or at Skeptoid, have I ever said that science is anything but science. Sure, I claim God as the origin of science, but not the established process itself. You have proven yourself over and over again that you cannot separate Source from Process. That is the bias you have, Tom. It is manifested (by all atheists, in fact) in your hatred of God. You are so blind this way it stinks. You see a person's claim in a specialo creation (tho he holds to real science) as a bhias. The two are separate. If an atheiist like you wishes to hold to a scientific reason for Beginnings, that's fine - just demonstrate it with real science, or not. Showing that God started it all and yet claiming that science works as we see it working is not a problem.

And by the way, saying you have respect for other creationists is a big load of crap. You don't respect creationists of any sort, Period. You hate God and the idea of God, and that's the end of it. It's interesting, of course, to see how other evolutionists like Michael Denton or Fred Hoyle are not like this, and they are real scientists.

Who's the idiot..?!!!

hereisjoe

15th January 2011, 01:32 PM

It is a true shame that so many follow a binary logic that evolution being wrong is the same as their theory being right, which is the cheapest of tricks.

You are always harrumphing on about 'binary logic'; yet you haven't got it together enough to demonstrate normal logic, when all you can do is cry out "Look everybody! A creationist trying to argue science!!!

Want to enter into a simple thought-process demo on this, Tom? You failed miserably at it the last time we did, over at Skeptoid...

Besides: Even though I posted herein about 26 or more reference books (mostly by various atheists/evolutionists at this site for you to consider (every one of them denying modern evolutiuon for various reasons), you never followed up. Maybe it's because it was referred by a creationist? Even tho they are all by evolutionists..?

AND... I referred to at least two scientific websites containing tons of valid scientific evidence against evolution... Again: maybe you're too lazy/scared/obtuse/biased to follow them thoroughly.

I wish I had the instantaneous discermnent you seem to have in interpreting everything like you do as being either bogus or not.

And... I certainly do know all about peer reviews and its inherent fables...

hereisjoe

15th January 2011, 04:54 PM

[QUOTE=hereisjoe;6748724]
Why not simply change your beliefs to accommodate the facts? It should be obvious to you by now that the facts aren't going to change.

Why not look in a mirror and say that.

Certainly, you refuse to read real science. I hate to think of what you teach others..!

hereisjoe

15th January 2011, 04:59 PM

Seriously, Dawinism Refuted drags out the bacterial flagellum claim again. This is science. Do at least a little reading on the current state of the research.

And I suppose you think that bozos like Ken Miller refuted this? He doesn't know how to argue coherently, re his hilariously stupid video on the mousetrap!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

Another video tried to simplify the flagellum argument by showing a simpler form of flagellum functioning with less parts. Absolutely stunning in it's stupidity, by the way. A simpler flagellum, functioning? It really was great to see how it backed up Behe's work, not destroy it.

Who doesn't know science? (certainly not real (creationist) scientists.

Tomtomkent

16th January 2011, 11:53 AM

What like the "real" scientists who forget the third law of thermodynamics states that entophy is tended towards in a closed system. Or suffer confirmation biases. Or deliberatrly misrepresent the probability of amino acids forming randomly, claim that geology is wrong based on theage of the bible rather than testable evidence, misrepresent the process of fossilisation as well as how many fossils there "should" be, deliberately try and prove carbon datingwrong by setting "experiments" outside of the operational limits of the testing range... those "real" scientists. What Joe has (oh so cleverly…) done is chosen a single scientist who has produced a dumb video and said "look, you is all dumb losers!" Which is slightly different from us pointing at the sources he has referenced (AIG anyone?) and establishing why the sources are flawed. For all his claims to be well read he should know how his finger pointing there is dumb, and why the only fault of the video was being oversimplified.

Now, if you want to talk "real hard science" how about a viable model for what a god is and how he might go about creating a universe. You know something we could test. With real science. Or he could try reading about the evolution ofsuch beings in a more reliable source. Life, a short Biography by Fortey for example. Or any number of articles in more reputable journals. Ones which are peer reviewed (you know like Joe says the bible was.)

Dinwar

16th January 2011, 01:25 PM

hereisjoe

17th January 2011, 05:35 AM

...Or deliberatrly misrepresent the probability of .....testable evidence, misrepresent the process of ...deliberately try and prove carbon datingwrong by ....the sources are flawed. .... how about a viable model for what a god is and how he might go about creating a universe. You know something we could test. With real science.

Nice to see how you take the word 'misrepresent' and illustrate how you are so good at doing that, Tom! And look, folks: here he is deliberately dragging theism into a scientific discussion. Because he doesn't know how to stick to a topic and debate it normally.

Billions of years, Tom? You got proof for that?

One example, just one example, provable by repeatable experiment, of transition of species. Just merely one! Can't do? Oh dear...

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for student Tom... but we've been there, did that...

hereisjoe

17th January 2011, 05:38 AM

I'm confused as to why I should read the mere opinions of engineers, rather than paleontologists and biologists, when discussing evolution. Yeah, they're real scientists--however, they're experts in irrelevant fields.

And why do these "real" scientists avoid scientific conferences? And journals?

And I, for one, am confused as to why I should read the mere opinion of one here, who claims to be a palaentologist, as to having the truth of the entire world wrapped up so smugly...?

Age of the universe is irrelevant to the origin of life???!!!

MRC_Hans

17th January 2011, 06:17 AM

One example, just one example, provable by repeatable experiment, of transition of species. Just merely one! Can't do? Oh dear...

Proof by experiment is not the only way to provide scientific proof.

Hans

Sherman Bay

17th January 2011, 06:33 AM

A few more books by creationist writers (all of them scientists) ...Now here's the problem. None of them are scientists except in your mind. Duane Gish? Puleeze.

Anyone writing a creationist tome is by definition not a scientist, as they have discarded the scientific method in favor of ancient myths and fairy tales.

Dinwar

17th January 2011, 08:06 AM

And I, for one, am confused as to why I should read the mere opinion of one here, who claims to be a palaentologist, as to having the truth of the entire world wrapped up so smugly...?

Age of the universe is irrelevant to the origin of life???!!! This is why I hate debating YECs--they are, by and large, dishonest. For example, I have never stated that the age of the universe is irrelevant to life. I have stated that the scientific definition (which Joe has continued to refuse to use, preferring non-scientific definitions) of evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. I've also stated that hwo the universe started is both irrelevant to allele frequencies and is outside of my area of expertise. Joe has confused an honest admission of the limits of my knowledge with a refusal to discuss something, and continues to attempt to stretch the meaning of the key word under discussion until it no longer HAS a meaning.

At least he's consistent. The "scientists" he quotes are so far outside of their areas of expertise that it's ludicrous to expect them to have informed opinions on the topics they're discussing; however, because Joe doesn't recognize experts as having limited areas of expertise, he's free to quote whoever he wants on the premise that "They're an expert" or "They're a scientist". It's equivocation--equating expertise in one area with expertise in another--but then, most YEC arguments are.

Oh, and Joe: Where is the "controversy" over evolution at GSA? If it's a world-wide, hotly debated topic I'd expect to find at least a FEW talks about how evolution, sedimentology, stratigraphy, geophysics, structural geology, etc. ad nauseum are wrong during the largest gathering of geologists in America. However, every time I've gone GSA has been lacking in that department....

Tomtomkent

17th January 2011, 08:22 AM

Nice to see how you take the word 'misrepresent' and illustrate how you are so good at doing that, Tom! And look, folks: here he is deliberately dragging theism into a scientific discussion. Because he doesn't know how to stick to a topic and debate it normally.

Billions of years, Tom? You got proof for that?

So, theism? Not at all Joe. Your position is that the Universe was created by a "God". I am asking you, in terms of science, to define that "god", what it is, what mechanism it used to create the universe, and the limits of its existence as a model we can prove or disprove. That is called "science". You have claimed to understand it on several occassions, so try to understand it now. If you would rather I used the term "Space Wizzard" or "Super Intelligent shade of blue", but, if your claim is that "Real Scientists" believe the world was created by an intelligence, and you wish this to be a viable theory, supply a model, based on the available evidence, to show what form of intelligence produced the universe through what mechanism. If using the term "god" turns any discussion into the theological then congratulations, Creationism can not be called "Science", or its supporters "Scientists," they are philosophers and theologians. If on the other hand you insist they are "scientists", then you can not reasonably expect to cry "theism" every time a key aspect of your theory is mentioned.

So Joe which is it going to be? Are you going to define a model for the "Non specific entity and method responsible for universal creation" (here after to referred in shorthand as "God", the recognised term for such a being in common parlance), or are all your "Real (creationist) Sceintists" also theologists? Do you wish to have the cake or have eaten it?

Moving on...

Billions of years? Yes, I have very good proof of that Joe. Background radiation from the Big Bang, is the most interesting, but frankly, the boring proof is in the form of light. We can observe light from stars that have been travelling for hundreds of millions of years. We know it took hundreds more to create those stars (we have observed stars being born) and we have observed the effects of stars that have had time to not only form, but live and die. We know, from the constant nature of light in a vaccuume, that the minimum age of the universe is several hundred million years, and we have reasonable evidence to suggest that the universe was old when the stars expelled those photons.

On the other hand you have "evidence" the universe is six thousand years old based upon a text the providence of which can not be proven or reasonably assessed. Theories that support this age are based on a selective bias, only picking the evidence that supports the claim rather than looking at the whole of the evidence. The worst offender is "C-Decay". A theory that both attempts to prove, and be proven by the age of the universe in the bible. The speed of light must change because the universe appears older than the bible allows, and because the universe appears older than the bible allows the speed of light must change". Of course, the speed of light is under no obligation to do any such thing based on the words of a book. The speed of light is also, through providence of being a very useful tool, studied intently across the world. An example I like to give is the lazer we bounce off the moon on a regular basis to prove man went there. We know the speed of light. We know the possition of the moon, and the pattern of its orbit. We know that the reflecting plates on the moon bounce the lazer back to the point of origin. Should the speed of light be changing, we would see the results as the moon drifting further away as the light takes longer to return. Yet it does not. Lazer labs across the world, using these tools to measure distance or time, have no noticed no shift in calibration. We have not noticed the results of spectrographic testing of materials lose accuracy or shift away. It would appear, that bar gravitational anomolies that distort the path of light, or refraction through materials like air, the speed of light C in a vacume is indeed a constant.

So in short, should the Universe not be billions of years old, we know with certainty that it is hundreds of millions years old, and not thousands. That we can see stars more than six thousand light years away, and know that another galaxy is further away still (on the simple principle, it is behind them)we can consider it proven that the universe is, in your terms "old". Certainly old enough to contradict the six thousand year cap given by Creationists of the Biblical Literal bent.

Tomtomkent

17th January 2011, 08:58 AM

One example, just one example, provable by repeatable experiment, of transition of species. Just merely one! Can't do? Oh dear...

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for student Tom... but we've been there, did that...
Just give me one example of a diety capable of creating a universe, provable by a repeatable experiment. Just merely one...

Can't do? Hmmm. Worked oput why that challenge was a) ignorant of what can be expected from repeatable experimentation among the varied forms of evidence gathering, and b) not going to help the case for Creationism?

Tomtomkent

17th January 2011, 09:07 AM

And I, for one, am confused as to why I should read the mere opinion of one here, who claims to be a palaentologist, as to having the truth of the entire world wrapped up so smugly...?

Age of the universe is irrelevant to the origin of life???!!!

Yes, why would the opinions of a Palaentologist be at all relevent to a discussion of evolution? And, erm, I am struggling to find where poor Dinwar stated the age of the universe was irrelevent to biogenesis. Only to evolution. Which to be fair is an entirely true statement. Evolution is only concerned with the frequency at which allele of species change.

What was that you said about "twisting" and "wordgames" again Joe?

Dinwar

17th January 2011, 11:14 AM

One example, just one example, provable by repeatable experiment, of transition of species. Just merely one! Can't do? Oh dear...
How, exactly, could such an experiment be run? I mean, you've rejected the fossil record (through completely misunderstanding it, and horribly mangling the principles of hydrology and fluid dynamics), and even by evolutionary theory such experiments would 1) take enormous amounts of time and 2) be likely to produce different transitional forms (Gouldian contingency). That's not to say that there's no predictability--we can reliably predict, for example, strains of flu virus--just that you're demanding a historical science produce data one would expect from physics. Historical sciences don't work that way, as has been explained to you. The data we provide is very high-quality (and this irrational demand of yours is by no way a counter-argument to the field), just of a different nature.

Besides, many, many examples of transitional species have been provided to you. You're retreating to a misapplication of the concept of reproducibility in order to continue to pretend that you have some sort of argument against evolution. You don't.

Craig4

17th January 2011, 12:06 PM

And I suppose you think that bozos like Ken Miller refuted this? He doesn't know how to argue coherently, re his hilariously stupid video on the mousetrap!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

Another video tried to simplify the flagellum argument by showing a simpler form of flagellum functioning with less parts. Absolutely stunning in it's stupidity, by the way. A simpler flagellum, functioning? It really was great to see how it backed up Behe's work, not destroy it.

Who doesn't know science? (certainly not real (creationist) scientists.

The idea that simpler flagellum back up Behe's work is just a bold faced and intellectually cowardly lie. Behe said on the stand that the flagellum couldn’t work if any part of it was not there. The research which Behe claimed to be unaware on cross showed that numerous studies showed the functioning of simpler flagellum. To try to say that a simpler flagellum supports Behe’s “work” calls into question the academic integrity of the arguer.

The hand wave of the mouse trap analogy is also pretty pathetic.

Tomtomkent

17th January 2011, 12:16 PM

Not to mention the irony of Joe complaining about anybody elses ability to argue coherently.

Dinwar

17th January 2011, 01:28 PM

Behe: X is true.
Science: Actually, no it's not. Here's definitive proof of -X.
Behe: Aha! So X IS true!
hereisjoe: See? It supported Behe, and you're not REAL scientists because you don't see it.
Science: Um...what just happened????

hereisjoe

23rd January 2011, 07:46 PM

Now here's the problem. None of them are scientists except in your mind. Duane Gish? Puleeze.

Anyone writing a creationist tome is by definition not a scientist, as they have discarded the scientific method in favor of ancient myths and fairy tales.

Duane Gish is a biochemist. Last time I checked, that means scientist for sure!

hereisjoe

23rd January 2011, 07:51 PM

This is why I hate debating YECs--they are, by and large, dishonest. For example, I have never stated that the age of the universe is irrelevant to life. I have stated that the scientific definition (which Joe has continued to refuse to use, preferring non-scientific definitions) of evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. I've also stated that hwo the universe started is both irrelevant to allele frequencies and is outside of my area of expertise. Joe has confused an honest admission of the limits of my knowledge with a refusal to discuss something, and continues to attempt to stretch the meaning of the key word under discussion until it no longer HAS a meaning.

At least he's consistent. The "scientists" he quotes are so far outside of their areas of expertise that it's ludicrous to expect them to have informed opinions on the topics they're discussing; however, because Joe doesn't recognize experts as having limited areas of expertise, he's free to quote whoever he wants on the premise that "They're an expert" or "They're a scientist". It's equivocation--equating expertise in one area with expertise in another--but then, most YEC arguments are.

Oh, and Joe: Where is the "controversy" over evolution at GSA? If it's a world-wide, hotly debated topic I'd expect to find at least a FEW talks about how evolution, sedimentology, stratigraphy, geophysics, structural geology, etc. ad nauseum are wrong during the largest gathering of geologists in America. However, every time I've gone GSA has been lacking in that department....

Of course you wouldn't expect to find talks of evolution/creation at your precious GSA meetings. They have an atheist agenda. I wouldn't expect to have debates over the validity of God at a Southern Baptist seminar either. Obviously, you're not interested in this discussion, period. I would think that your head-in-the-sand ostrich behavior would be boring, hmmm?

hereisjoe

23rd January 2011, 07:56 PM

So, theism? Not at all Joe. Your position is that the Universe was created by a "God". I am asking you, in terms of science, to define that "god", what it is, what mechanism it used to create the universe, and the limits of its existence as a model we can prove or disprove. That is called "science". You have claimed to understand it on several occassions, so try to understand it now. If you would rather I used the term "Space Wizzard" or "Super Intelligent shade of blue", but, if your claim is that "Real Scientists" believe the world was created by an intelligence, and you wish this to be a viable theory, supply a model, based on the available evidence, to show what form of intelligence produced the universe through what mechanism. If using the term "god" turns any discussion into the theological then congratulations, Creationism can not be called "Science", or its supporters "Scientists," they are philosophers and theologians. If on the other hand you insist they are "scientists", then you can not reasonably expect to cry "theism" every time a key aspect of your theory is mentioned.

WE've been there, discussed that. You avoid the question: age of the universe. There you go dragging God into a simple scientific discussion. Haven't I predicted you would always do this??

So Joe which is it going to be? Are you going to define a model for the "Non specific entity and method responsible for universal creation" (here after to referred in shorthand as "God", the recognised term for such a being in common parlance), or are all your "Real (creationist) Sceintists" also theologists? Do you wish to have the cake or have eaten it?

Moving on...

Billions of years? Yes, I have very good proof of that Joe. Background radiation from the Big Bang, is the most interesting, but frankly, the boring proof is in the form of light. We can observe light from stars that have been travelling for hundreds of millions of years. We know it took hundreds more to create those stars (we have observed stars being born) and we have observed the effects of stars that have had time to not only form, but live and die. We know, from the constant nature of light in a vaccuume, that the minimum age of the universe is several hundred million years, and we have reasonable evidence to suggest that the universe was old when the stars expelled those photons.

On the other hand you have "evidence" the universe is six thousand years old based upon a text the providence of which can not be proven or reasonably assessed. Theories that support this age are based on a selective bias, only picking the evidence that supports the claim rather than looking at the whole of the evidence. The worst offender is "C-Decay". A theory that both attempts to prove, and be proven by the age of the universe in the bible. The speed of light must change because the universe appears older than the bible allows, and because the universe appears older than the bible allows the speed of light must change". Of course, the speed of light is under no obligation to do any such thing based on the words of a book. The speed of light is also, through providence of being a very useful tool, studied intently across the world. An example I like to give is the lazer we bounce off the moon on a regular basis to prove man went there. We know the speed of light. We know the possition of the moon, and the pattern of its orbit. We know that the reflecting plates on the moon bounce the lazer back to the point of origin. Should the speed of light be changing, we would see the results as the moon drifting further away as the light takes longer to return. Yet it does not. Lazer labs across the world, using these tools to measure distance or time, have no noticed no shift in calibration. We have not noticed the results of spectrographic testing of materials lose accuracy or shift away. It would appear, that bar gravitational anomolies that distort the path of light, or refraction through materials like air, the speed of light C in a vacume is indeed a constant.

So in short, should the Universe not be billions of years old, we know with certainty that it is hundreds of millions years old, and not thousands. That we can see stars more than six thousand light years away, and know that another galaxy is further away still (on the simple principle, it is behind them)we can consider it proven that the universe is, in your terms "old". Certainly old enough to contradict the six thousand year cap given by Creationists of the Biblical Literal bent.

You have not proved billions of years. You have simply observed that radiation bounced off the moon takes n-seconds etc. You have given no proof that light or any radiation has remained perfectly steady over time. Therefore, you have no authority to claim that is a fact.

Go here, and actually read the information before shooting off your mouth:
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch06a.htm

hereisjoe

23rd January 2011, 08:00 PM

Yes, why would the opinions of a Palaentologist be at all relevent to a discussion of evolution? And, erm, I am struggling to find where poor Dinwar stated the age of the universe was irrelevent to biogenesis. Only to evolution. Which to be fair is an entirely true statement. Evolution is only concerned with the frequency at which allele of species change.

What was that you said about "twisting" and "wordgames" again Joe?

All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion I opened away back when, at Skeptoid (which I carried here). Do you want to start from scratch? Do you actually understand a question when it is plainly asked of you?

hereisjoe

23rd January 2011, 08:02 PM

Tomtomkent

23rd January 2011, 10:35 PM

No evidence that light remained constant? Ah, no Joe. What we have here is an observable constant, with no reaon to believe it has ever acted differently. We observe light, we we observe it to be a constant. Einstein rather cleverly defined the characteristics of the speed of light. It's constant in a vacume. So YOU have no evidence that it didn't.

Annnnnnnd you just lost the podium! Yay! Science works kids! The kid who thinks evidence AGAINST a direct claim that a simpler flagelum wouldnt work (except, oh look! They exist!) Is support of simpler flagulum being unable to exist (except, you know they exist OMG they exist ergo they can not exist! QED for creationism!) Now thinks that C-Decay maybe right as... Somebody thought of it with no evidence! Wow!

Never mind that if the speed of light was changing we could, you know, observe it... andyou would need a reason why it changed, or stopped changing. Oh well. Never mind Joe. C-decay is an unproven ******** idea, solets not assume the speed of light changes, lets go by actual evidence. It is constant. Ergo, the universe is old.

Tomtomkent

23rd January 2011, 10:38 PM

No evidence that light remained constant? Ah, no Joe. What we have here is an observable constant, with no reaon to believe it has ever acted differently. We observe light, we we observe it to be a constant. Einstein rather cleverly defined the characteristics of the speed of light. It's constant in a vacume. So YOU have no evidence that it didn't.

Annnnnnnd you just lost the podium! Yay! Science works kids! The kid who thinks evidence AGAINST a direct claim that a simpler flagelum wouldnt work (except, oh look! They exist!) Is support of simpler flagulum being unable to exist (except, you know they exist OMG they exist ergo they can not exist! QED for creationism!) Now thinks that C-Decay maybe right as... Somebody thought of it with no evidence! Wow!

Never mind that if the speed of light was changing we could, you know, observe it... andyou would need a reason why it changed, or stopped changing. Oh well. Never mind Joe. C-decay is an unproven idea, so lets not assume the speed of light changes, lets go by actual evidence. It is constant. Ergo, the universe is old.

Tomtomkent

23rd January 2011, 11:29 PM

Dinwar

24th January 2011, 12:14 PM

Of course you wouldn't expect to find talks of evolution/creation at your precious GSA meetings. They have an atheist agenda. I wouldn't expect to have debates over the validity of God at a Southern Baptist seminar either. Obviously, you're not interested in this discussion, period. I would think that your head-in-the-sand ostrich behavior would be boring, hmmm? You shouldn't make statements about the intent of organizations without at least some knowledge of those organizations. GSA's official stance is NOMA. Simply put they don't CARE about the atheism/theism debate. They care about good, high-quality science. I've mentioned several times that Creationists have PRESENTED TALKS AT THESE MEETINGS. They're usually horrible talks, consisting of overly word-heavy slides and the orator reading directly off said slides, but they exist none the less. And as for the paleontologists who deal with the talks, I've worked with a few. Again, they DO NOT CARE about religion. They care about the quality of the data and the quality of the research. And I've heard the rationale "It's not really that well-supported, but it will generate debate" used to justify inclusion of several talks (and as I've pointed out before, several highly respected peer-reviewed journals specifically seek out conflicting viewpoints, for the same reason).

This isn't me sticking my head in the sand. It's science geared up and ready for battle, while Creationism refuses to show up and declares victory!

Also, have you ever tried to get more than two or three geologists to agree on anything? I always tell my boss "If you ask three paleontologists you'll get four different opinions". And on the other things we agree on, certain members will ALWAYS take the opposing view, just to annoy everyone else. Just about the only thing we all agree on is that Creationism is bunk. Attributing the failure of Creationists to show up at GSA to a conspiracy within geology/paleontology is just dumb.

Anndddd...
You just lost the podium. I stopped taking you seriously when you stated you would reject anything I said on the grounds that I admitted the limitations of my own knowledge.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion I opened away back when, at Skeptoid (which I carried here). Do you want to start from scratch? Do you actually understand a question when it is plainly asked of you? Your question is inherently dishonest. You ostensibly want to discuss evolution--yet you insist on re-defining the term (it is a TECHNICAL TERM, and therefore your standard dictionary definition is NOT a sufficient definition) and reject the arguments of people who practice integrity and intellectual humility (ie, who admit their own limitations and abide by them). You reject and insult (and slander, through repeated unsupported accusations of wrongdoing) those who actually are experts in the field, and yet insist that we accept as valid half-baked and discredited arguments from non-experts (Velikovski, for instance). I'm sorry, but those are not traits of people interested in honest debate. And no, I'm not hurrling accusations at you just to ad homonim you to death--I'm demonstrating that this isn't an honest discussion, it's a farce.

Tomtomkent

25th January 2011, 03:49 AM

So to sumarise so far, the universe was created by an as yet undefined intelligence, from an as yet undefined place outside of existence, through an as yet undefined mechanism, from an as yet unidentified source of matter and energy six thousandyears ago. The universe was apparently designed to have the appearance that it has been expanding for billions of years, and although it appears as though the photons that have reached our earth have been travelling for millions of years they have only been travelling for six thousand years,despite no evidence that the speed of light is decreasing, through an as yet undefined medium. The background radiation that appears to be left over from a massive explosion billions of years ago is in fact a false reading. Further more coal and jet, not to mention oil and other fossil fuels can infact form over a few thousand years despite observable evidence to the contrary, and carbon dating is apparently innacurate on account of tests outside the operational paremeters (which itself apparently does not invalidate the test).

Sorry, but there are too many unknowns and undefined.saying "you can't prove otherwise" is not enough to give a reasonable expectation that something may have been. The speed of light is not changing, so why should we assume it has changedwith out good reason? We can observe the universe expanding and have no good reason to expect this pattern of expansion to have started mid flow, orfor the rate of expansion to have changed drastically to give the appearance of a much older age of the universe. But is the age of the universe enough to disprove evolution?

The fossil record still contains transitional species, and our bodies still contain evolutionary heirlooms. Assuming the universe is young this merely changes our understanding of the rate at which alele change. It does not make tangible evidence vanish in a puff of smoke as Joe seems to have assumed. A young universe would mean the theory is revised to fit new evidence, not that it is invalidated. That Joe has laboured under this misunderstanding for the entire discussion is somewhat indicative of the two state logic that underpins many Creationist arguments.

Dinwar

25th January 2011, 08:24 AM

And the rock record still contains angular unconformities, and crystalline rocks that took over a million years to cool, and obviously ancient faulting of crystalline rock (and sedimentary, but Joe would argue [without providing a shred of stratigraphic argument] that faulting in sedimentary rock is due to the Flood), and evidence of continent motion over the course of millions of years, and hot-spot volcanism showing plate motion over millions of years, and polar drift over the course of millions of years, and isotopic ratios showing radioactive decay over the course of millions of years, and active volcanism melting deposits that formed millions of years ago........

Tomtomkent

26th January 2011, 02:44 AM

And certainly not forgeting the cataclysmic ramifications if C were variable. If the speed of light weresuch that millions of light years could be crossed in meer thousands of years, one thousandth of the time set by a constant C, that would mean the energy released on day one, when hydrogen in stars became helium in that first nuclear reaction would be billions of times higher due to the increase in the square of C.

Then there is the question of what slowed the photons released by that first reaction. They were traveling at a speed (say 1000 C) and Newton makes it clear that with no other force acting on them they should continue at a constant velocity. But instead they slow to C just in time to reach Earth giving the illusion of an old universe. How? What force slows them, and why target only photons of light with out effecting anything else? Why do photons produced now travel at a constant speed, with out this mysterious force slowing them? What evidence can there be for this change of speed in light? I mean if joe makes a big deal that we cant observe evolution happening how can he intend to observe how fast light travelled six thousand years in the past? (Or is it the case that observational experiments arent the only way to gather evidence after all, in which case why berate "evolutionists" for using other methods to begin with? Would that not mean you have one standard for evidence you agree with but hold evidence you disagree with to another? A double standard? Surely not. Wait, what was that post Joe made about wanting to see an experiment to observe evolution? Did he ever do his own experiment to observe God? You know, to ensure a single standard? Guess not.)

Dinwar

26th January 2011, 09:37 AM

You know, now that you mention it there's a number of points where Joe demands experimental evidence from us, and a number of points where he simply accepts what people say when he wants to believe it. For example, flood geology--we HAVE run experiments (flume studies, for example) on what floods will do, geologically speeking. None produce angular unconformities, or overturn bedding, or produce flame structures, or any number of other sedimentary formations, yet Joe refuses to believe them. We also know that hydrology doesn't sort organisms the way Joe expects us to believe it does, and that fossils don't appear in the order Joe says they do--yet he ignores the experimental evidence in favor of his myths. Velikovski has pretty much been completely dismantled by actual scientists, yet Joe takes his untested claims as truth, ignoring the evidence against it.

The trend is clear: Anything that agrees with Joe is correct, whether or not it is supported. Anything Joe is against is wrong, whether or not it is supported.

Tomtomkent

28th January 2011, 02:38 AM

Unfortunately he has made his stance clear here and in skeptoid and refuses to acknowledge the double standard. But for all the claims that creationists are real scientists who follow an evidence trail, the standards for accepting or denouncing evidence are not the same. He does not use the same yard stick when looking at arguments for creationism as against. If he did a number of creationist "unasailable" statements would fall flat. Review some of the points already made by Joe; the big bang is something from nothing. Fine. But so is God creating a universe from nothing. By the same yardstick both should fail. As would C-decay. If conventional science can not prove C was a constant at yeaar dot, by the same standard a creationist can not travel back in time and prove it was not. The old favourote on AIG "take an amoeba and turn it into a donkey. I will wait." is easily answered by the same yard stick; "take a prayer book and create a donkey. I will wait." But the big flatulent elephant in the room is the cheap dodge that any mention of God can not be science. If so how can a Creationist be a scientist? If he is putting forward the idea that god created the universe as his model of creation -oh wait I cant use a real science term there as Joe got tetchy- as his model of "Stuff appearing", then that includes a creator. For the theory to be valid there has to be a description of the creator and the mechanism of creation. You can not slate one theory for apparently being ill defined if your own model is undefined. Clearly the same standard can not have been used if only one is flawed on grounds that are apt for both.

hereisjoe

28th January 2011, 10:54 AM

Gentlemen, spend a bit of time actually reading the scientific infoirmation at evolutionfacts.com, before shooting down other people's hypothesis and observations. This site contains approximately around one thousand pages of information in it (a small encyclopedia) and almost all of it is by creditable scientists, with some of the references even to mainstream evolutionists. Until you credit creation scientists with the ability to see and practice science, you are not even at the debate pudium, let alone capable of commenting fairly.

The byline of this site says "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way..." Why can't you see past your worldview for a moment in time and do that?

Dinwar

28th January 2011, 11:09 AM

Gentlemen, spend a bit of time actually reading the scientific infoirmation at evolutionfacts.com, before shooting down other people's hypothesis and observations. When you actually read the peer-reviewed literature I'll consider it. Until then you're merely displaying an obvious double standard.

Until you credit creation scientists with the ability to see and practice science, you are not even at the debate pudium, let alone capable of commenting fairly.

This is a laugh, coming from the guy who has accused the majority of scientists studying geology of fraud.

Tomtomkent

28th January 2011, 02:21 PM

If you want me to credit creationism as a science, then the solution is simple; put the science forwardsfor peer review in suitable channels, rather than niche outlets like AIG or other "evolution truth" sites. Have the presumed evidence of, to take one example, sedimentary structures being formed by noahs flood, critiqued and reviewed by those who are experts in sedimentary structures. Or at the very least have most the studies restaged so instead of making excuses for the confirmation bias, they counter it with a null hypothesis.

If you have to spend more time telling people your science is just as good as real science,rather than just operating to the conventions and standards of recognised methods, then sceptical alarm bells should be ringing. If you call pop science books "text books", with out checking if they are infact key texts for any recognised examboard or qualifications, then alarm bells should be chiming.

If you want to be recognised as scientists, then perhaps making a big fuss about "athiest" agendas and deliberate lies by the majority of your peers should be replaced by showing your work stands up on an on as objective and devoid of agenda, using evidence based rather than evidence selective methods.

In short, perhaps acting like scientists would be a big step for many creationists. There are those who have managed just this, even if their work was found to have huge holes in (Guish basing much of his work on a misquote of the laws of thermodynamics that assumed the open system of the earths seas tobe a closed system is a good example. He followed the right route but flaws in his method and conclusions were quickly established by peer review. The creationist community could have rethought based on the reviews,but have instead chosen to treat the papers as "evidence" with out correcting for the flaws.)

Dinwar

28th January 2011, 03:48 PM

This site contains approximately around one thousand pages of information in it (a small encyclopedia) and almost all of it is by creditable scientists, with some of the references even to mainstream evolutionists.I'd like to point this statement out as particularly problematic for your possition. The problem is, Creationists have a tendency to take what scientists say out of context--they cherry-pick our statements to make it seem like we have said things we did not actually say. I've heard many paleontologists complain about how Creationists will reference a paper they've written, and use the paper to argue the exact opposite point the paper actually was getting at! Pretty much exactly like what happened with you and the flagellum, in fact. So the statement "It even includes some evolutionist papers!" sets off a rather large number of alarm bells in the minds of any non-Creationists who have been participating in the Creationism/Evolution debate.

Another problem with this statement is that you commit what I half-jokingly call the Freshman Fallacy: You equate quantity with quality. One of the most important papers in science, the one defining the structure of DNA, was four pages long. Four pages. Science limits its authors to about that much--including figures (and really, those are the most important part of any paper) and references. Equally pertanent, I enjoy Terry Goodkind's books. I have thousands of pages of text, all about a fantasy world. My point is that merely saying you have a large volume of papers isn't providing us with any information--it's the quality, not the quantity, that bothers me.

Finally, sure, these are scientists--but is this their area of expertise? I'm a scientist, but people rightly ignore me when I start discussing black holes--it's not what I study, it's not even CLOSE to what I study, and therefore I do not have an informed opinion (I know a bit more than your average person by virtue of reading Dr. Hawkins' books, but not much). Similarly, an engineer (which are not scientists, by the way), a physicist, a mathematician, etc. do not have informed opinions on the subject of evolution. They don't study it, and therefore probably at best know the theory a little bit better than the average person. Unlike you, Joe, scientists take intellectual humility and intellectual honest VERY seriously, and are HIGHLY skeptical of people who make definitive statements outside of their area of expertise. In other words: I'm sure there are scientists who contributed to that website. That said, I seriously doubt that they know what they're talking about.

Craig4

29th January 2011, 10:39 PM

Tomtomkent

29th January 2011, 11:24 PM

Anybody else getting a little tired of the accusation that we need to be able to "see past our world view". There is a difference between understanding another world view and being able to call it "science". The Fortean Times has many issues where scientists of different disciplines discuss everything from the Mongolian Death Worm, Jesus as an astronaught, UFOs, ghosts, communicating with god, and crptozoology. But being written by a scientist does not make it science, and being published does not make it peer review. Joe himself stated that in the Skeptoid thread that creationism can not alter as a theory because god created the world. It is this inability to "get past the world view", that allows creationists to assume a god is out there, without defining it, who cancreat a universe in a way they cant or wont define (and ditto for the material). It allows for fossil and geology to be written off as "wrong" by virtue of not conforming to pre-existing worldview. So we could askif the pot is calling the kettle balck. Or we could suggest this is exactly why science has standards for papers to be written in an objective and manner where world views are put aside to prevent confirmation bias. We can look at Dr dawkins once again and point out that regardless of what he happens to believe, and regardless of ehat his pop science books for general consumers may say, his academic work is as a biologist, not an athiest. Just the same way that Einstein wrote his papers as a phycisist, not a devout jew. And, by the same token the "God Delusion" should not be considered a peer review study or paper. It contains a good summary of a lot of the science, and is a good read, but there are better Pop science summaries out there, and if you were going to base a study on the book you would be expected to back and read the studies Dawkins based his opinions on to see if those opinions and extrapolations are valid.

So we return to the same problem once again. If creationist science is up to standard, why is it published through their own outlets and not conventional peer review? Individual pieces of work would have merit regardless of religious belief if they could withstand scrutiny. And here we return to criticisms of the trends that are common to a lot of papers Joe points us to; confirmation bias, not following best practice, misrepresentation of established laws, treating opinion as fact, assumption of the existence of god, assumptionof an arbitary age of the universe, and so forth. They have been discussewd ad nauseum and dont need repeating.

Aepervius

30th January 2011, 12:08 AM

What I get from this thread is that creationist would not be satisfied unless they live million or billion of year and can see from their own eye evolution, and even then they are likely to reject it as accidental just like the citric acid metabolizing bacteria. But god-did-it takes only a few second and is acceptable without any evidence whatsoever.

Meh.

I am not sure why anybody is arguying with toroughly close minded creationist.

hereisjoe

30th January 2011, 04:43 AM

[QUOTE=Dinwar;6819324]I'd like to point this statement out as particularly problematic for your possition. ..Sure, these are scientists--but is this their area of expertise?

Indeed it is. You'd know that if you read any of it. I'm betting you were afraid to...

hereisjoe

30th January 2011, 04:44 AM

hereisjoe

30th January 2011, 04:48 AM

If you want to be recognised as scientists, then perhaps making a big fuss about "athiest" agendas and deliberate lies by the majority of your peers)

...and Blah Blah Blah...

So, truth is 'lies". And evolutionist lies are 'truth. Nice try.

hereisjoe

30th January 2011, 04:49 AM

...so much really good peer reviewed research

Now, there's an oxymoron for you.

hereisjoe

30th January 2011, 04:55 AM

Tom, you recently muttered something about 'background radiation' and the 'age' of your universe...

Wrap your neurons around this:

"The theory—Background radiation (also called microwave radiation), first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, best evidence that the Big Bang occurred. It is said to be the leftover remains, the last remnant, from the Big Bang explosion.

Scientists said that background radiation would prove the theory in four ways: (1) It would come from only one direction—the Big Bang source. (2) It would have the right radiational strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be a smooth radiation.

But we find that, if this is the best evidence that the theorists can produce for their speculation, it surely is weak.

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation comes from every direction instead of one. The Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang occurred. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. Its omnidirectionality tells where the background radiation is coming from: "Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space?

2 - The radiation does not fit the theory, for it is too weak. It should be far more powerful than it is. *Fred Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been much stronger.

3 - Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation. This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.

4 - The spectrum should be far hotter than it is. The heat emitted by the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The radiation should emit a 100oK black body radiation spectrum, which is far greater than the 2.73o K spectrum it now has.

5 - Background radiation is too smooth. The theory requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations") in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion. In recent years, some slight variations in smoothness have been detected, but this is still not enough to fit the theory.

"It seems difficult to believe that, whereas visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all scales, the invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," Science 167, p. 1203.

"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.]. A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.

6 - All of the above points (omnidirectionality, very slight amount of heat, general smoothness, with radiative fluctuations in strength) is what we would expect from radiational heat from the multiplied billions of stars throughout the universe. It would be understandable for all those stars to emit a slight amount of uniform, omnidirectional radiative heat. And we would expect the radiational heat emitted by the stars should, at great distances, show very slight fluctuations. Does not each one send forth both heat and occasional gigantic solar flares into space? If you do not believe stars emit heat into space, then you do not believe the sun keeps you warm."

Pretty good science, if you ask me. But then, maybe you know more about this than Sir Fred Hoyle, an evolutionist who, incidentally, correctly refuted modern evolution. And boy, was he peer reviewed!

Tomtomkent

30th January 2011, 08:03 AM

Now, there's an oxymoron for you.

And with that statement there is no longer any reason to "see past our world view". If good peer review science is an oxymoron, there is no reason to read what you think is "good" science, as there is no method by which to establish good practice.

Tomtomkent

30th January 2011, 08:04 AM

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6818990]If you want me to credit creationism as a science, then the solution is simple; put the science forwardsfor peer review in suitable channels, rather than niche outlets like AIG or other "evolution truth" sites.

Trouble is, Tom, you can't handle the truth.

Oh. So not that the science would not stand scrutiny then? So every peer review journal is tailored to what I can handle. Nice.

Tomtomkent

30th January 2011, 08:08 AM

...and Blah Blah Blah...

So, truth is 'lies". And evolutionist lies are 'truth. Nice try.

And here we go missing the point. The people who have dedicated their lives studying in a particular field are telling lies. About Evolution. (Even though i was using the aging of geographic features as an example, which, you know, is not part of the theory of evolution.) And because they tell "lies" they can not be trusted to debate the science in the established journals and conventions... Because Joe says so! How very nice of him.

Tomtomkent

30th January 2011, 09:03 AM

Unfortunately Hoyles work did not discredit the Big Bang. It simply disproved some of the theories people had had about the Big Bang, before they went and got the evidence. This is the whole point of the "evidence led" nature of science. People made a hypotheitical model based on how they thought the universe might look, ran the experiments, then made a theory based on the evidence.

Unlike a story in the bible, science can change as new evidence comes to light. Now, I am not going to assume I know better than Fred Hoyle. (Or accuse people of lying, because they can't handle the truth, or follow an agenda, or what ever. That seems to be your job Joe.) I will how ever assume that Prof Brian Cox, Prof. Stephen Hawkings, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson know what they are talking about.

Cosmic Background Radiation was measured as consistent with the then current BB theory in 1990, when ASA launched a probe called COBE. I am sure Joe already knew that the reason it did not have the "Black Body" spectrum at which photons are continually emitted and absorbed is because that is how Plank expected the radiaition to act soon after the BB. On the other hand, if you allow for a few million years, for Thomson Scattering to end, and the temperature to drop a few thousand Kelvin, you get Recombination. When the nuclei form into atoms and the universe starts to take shape. It is these atoms, recombined after nearly four hundred fousand years, that we can observe as a picture of the universe at its (relatively) young age. Sure, they DO indeed have the blackbody traits, but the expansion of the universe has Red Shifted them (or is Doppler wrong too Joe?) into the micowave end of the spectrum. (Guess who watched Astromony Live a few weeks back).

Now where the clever stuff came in was in 2001, when the BOOMERANG boys found that the predictions of the angle were out. Now what that did NOT mean was that the Big Bang had not happened, or that (the still as yet undefined) God done it. What it DID prove (if memory serves) was that the universe expanded over a single rotational plane. Now this was unexpected, but thoroughly interesting because we already know galaxies and solar systems tend to fall on a even plane. And before you gasp and say "but they were wrong" I remind you of how science works: Based on the evidence gathered, not looking for the evidence that supports an idea. I will also remind you it was a great time to watch stuff like the Sky at Night, as BOOMerANG was not the only balloon and surface based experiment out to prove this. There were a lot of studies being done. A new probe, called PlancK was launched in 2009, so expect some exxciting new data soon.

The current theory, for which evidence is being gathered to test, is that there was a period of exponential expansion called "inflation" driving apart areas that had been in equalibrium, giving the effect of a single equalised plane.

What we have here is Joe expecting me to bow down and say "Wait it didn't happen how we expected? BB must be WRONG!" When it is more a case of science happening to surprise us still. There is good evidence the Big Bang occurred, and there are the remnants, floating around in space, still holding a temperature a little under 3Kelvin after millions of years. Observing them we get a great picture of how the universe looked just a few hundred thousand years. Which alone is pretty solid evidence that the universe is not just six thousand years old. We have evidence that Joe has neglected to tell us about the Red Shift, lopping off an important part of the equation that gets in the way of his "world view", and most importantly, of dictating what can, and can not happen in nature. It is "too smooth". Nope, it was a surprisingly narrow field. But I don't think it cares if we think it is "too smooth" or "not smooth enough". That is (once again) opinion as fact, just as it was when he tried to dictate what was "too complex" to have evolved.

You might want to add these to the reading list, if you can avoid crying "agenda" or "lies": http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/map_bibliography.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608632

http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/19/1913n16/S0217732304014252.html (You might not like that one Joe. It's from a peer review journal. can't be "good", that would apparently be oximoronic).

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v96/i11/e111301

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1931MNRAS..91..483L

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948MNRAS.108..372H

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A%26A...343..439I

And a nice leymans one to round off on: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3311206.html?page=1&c=y

Tomtomkent

30th January 2011, 09:49 AM

What do you know, creationists can publish their work in peer review journals after all:
Gentry, Robert V. (14 June 1968). "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos". Science 160 (3833): 1228–1230. doi:10.1126/science.160.3833.1228. PMID 17818744. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/3833/1228.
Gentry, Robert V. (14 August 1970). "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Radioactivity?". Science 169 (3946): 670–673. doi:10.1126/science.169.3946.670. PMID 17791843. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/3946/670.
Gentry, Robert V. (5 April 1974). "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective". Science 184 (4132): 62–66. doi:10.1126/science.184.4132.62. PMID 17734632. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/184/4132/62.
Gentry, Robert V.; T. A. Cahill, R. G. Flocchini, N. R. Fletcher, H. C. Kaufmann, L. R. Medsker, and J. W. Nelson (1976). "Evidence for Primordial Superheavy Elements". Physical Review Letters 37 (1): 11–15. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.11. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.11.
Creation's tiny mystery. Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Associates, (1986) ISBN 0961675314

Of course, there is the slight problem that despite being a Seventh Day Adventist, and pretty much kick starting his own breed of Creationism, and working at an Adventist college, he has had a bit of a ruckus with fellow Creationists over the matter of giving creationism equal credence in science class.

That a fellow Geologist G Brent Darlymple called the challenge Gentry issued to the scientific community (to produce a fist sized lump of biotite holding granite) to be:

As far as I am concerned, Gentry's challenge is silly. … He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge

...is somewhat besides the point. The guy had his work published and scrutinised by his peers with equal dilligence and respect as any other proposal. Claims that there is an "agenda" or that calling the science in a periodical "good" is oxymoronic. Not to mention childish. People may disagree, and they may call the challenge silly, but the man? Of course not.

Good science allows a spectrum of views to be heard, as long as good method and good protocol is followed. The criticism is nothing to do with the mans religion, (I have no access to the court case against Cornell, so have no reason to assume either way on that matter) but because they disagreed with the theory and content of his papers. The disputes were over the way he came to his figures, or if Spacetime expanded or was static (he favoured static, which seems unlikely but if he ever gets any more evidence he is bound to write some more.)

If a man whose theories are not popular with creationists or geologists can get a fair hearing, why not the rest of the creationist writers?

Dinwar

30th January 2011, 10:16 AM

Indeed it is. You'd know that if you read any of it. I'm betting you were afraid to... No, I just choose to spend my time reading papers that actually deal with real science, rather than fantasy. Once I understand what actually exists, I'll look into your fairy tales.

Does not each one send forth both heat and occasional gigantic solar flares into space? If you do not believe stars emit heat into space, then you do not believe the sun keeps you warm."This quote makes me VERY skeptical about this source. This is not how scientific arguments are framed (not a surprise that you missed that, however)--this is rhetorical BS that would get a paper rejected in any serous publication.

And besides, even if background radiation is wrong, you've still got ALL of geology to contend with, from geomorphology to structural geology to sedimentology to paleontology to geochemistry.

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation comes from every direction instead of one. The Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang occurred. BS. Read up on what astronomers say about the theory--the theory assumes that the Big Bang happened at all points at the same time (in fact, it MADE all points and the concept of time)--and in fact a major problem with the theory (not devistating, but confusing) is that it was heterogeneous. Stabbing straw men is fun, but not really practical.

2 - The radiation does not fit the theory, for it is too weak. It should be far more powerful than it is. *Fred Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been much stronger.And numerous people disagree with him. Just because he has a conclusion you like doesn't mean he's right.

3 - Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation. This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory. I've read a number of books by physicists on this subject, and this is really the first time I've heard anyone argue that the Big Bang was producing black-body radiation. I've heard it argued that it should produce radiation similar to a black hole, but a black hole is not a black body.

5 - Background radiation is too smooth. Actually, it's the opposite--the Big Bang should have produced a perfectly uniform universe. The lumps in the universe (ie, matter and energy) are something that astronomers are trying to figure out.

Also, this contradicts the whole "The Big Bang should have occurred at a single point" argument.

"It seems difficult to believe that, whereas visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all scales, the invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," Science 167, p. 1203.

"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.]. A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.These illustrate why I have no interest in reading your website that "...includes work from actual scientists!" Creationists are masters at quote-mining and cherry-picking. You've pulled out quotes that support your idea, ignoring the massive amount of text produced in this field that is against your ideas. In geology and paleontology Creationists pull quotes out of papers and draw conclusions from them which directly contradict what the paper itself says, and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was happening here.

Good science allows a spectrum of views to be heard, as long as good method and good protocol is followed. Very true. As I've said before, Creationists have given talks at GSA--it's not that GSA has an agenda against them. It's just that Creationism was completely debunked well before C. Darwin's book, and the only way to hold to the theory, which Joe has demonstrated quite admirably, is to ignore most of the advancements of science in the past 200 years or so.

Tomtomkent

30th January 2011, 10:47 AM

Lets just remember there are people alive who can remember when Black Holes could not possibly exist, then who can remember that nothing could possibly escape a black hole. Superstring theory is an open ball park pulling in all directions and there was a time when Quantum Physics was a fringe idea for suggesting different rules apply for small things than big things. All have been accepted as possibilities for following the method. That Creationists claim they can't is a) unfair on the perfectly decent people I happen to disagree with, and b) unfair to those who feel that the best way to prove their theory is through the established methodology. Which, if we are honest, are the vast majority of creationists who don't happen to be YEC supporters.

hereisjoe

1st February 2011, 11:35 AM

Unfortunately Hoyles work did not discredit the Big Bang. It simply disproved some of the theories people had had about the Big Bang, before they went and got the evidence. ..Blah blah blah etc... The current theory, for which evidence is being gathered to test, is that there was a period of exponential expansion ... There is good evidence the Big Bang occurred, and there are the remnants, floating around in space

Sure, there are plenty of new theories.
Horizon recently aired a program about this stuff, bantering around lots if ideas.

But they are all just theories, not facts. So don't call them that.

Tomtomkent

1st February 2011, 12:08 PM

Sure, there are plenty of new theories.
Horizon recently aired a program about this stuff, bantering around lots if ideas.

But they are all just theories, not facts. So don't call them that.

The short answer:
Don't call them that? Er...OK...Read what you quoated again.
Joe, notice how you quoted me saying "The current theory, for which evidence is being gathered to test, is..." That's calling it a theory. Not fact. So please don't quote one thing, then claim it says another. If you want to dispute something I said, maybe quote that rather than editing it down to "blah blah blah". Otherwise you just end up looking silly.

The Long answer:
But what are the theories built on? Oh yes. Facts. You know, like the background radiation, red shifts, observable expansions and so forth. The theories are our best hypothosis of the HOW and WHY. That the universe is expanding and has been for several million years, is however a proven, and the evidences supporting it are facts. Those are observable facts of the "repeated proven data" data and not of the Creationist "The human eye is too complex to have evolved" variety where opinion can masquarade as fact. Back ground radiation? Observable. The pattern of expansion? Observable, just take a look at the map of it in several of the papers I linked to. Feel free to look at all the supporting data that has been collected in those works, and remember that anybody can use the internet to book time on the most powerful optical telescopes we have and get images to study themselves, and the data collected by radio scopes, the NASA probes (not to mention those of other agencies) can all be found with a little digging. You can dispute the theories, but you can not expect the evidence to be disputed.

In the coming years we can expect even more light to be shed on the creation of the material evidence when the moments after the Big Bang are recreated at CERN, and get to see how elementary particles acted in the seconds following that event. There is of course a possibility that they act in a way that completely disproves the idea of the BB, but hey, that is why I said "The current theory for which evidence is being gathered to test". Unlike creationism, real science can progress closer to the truth through the evidence that proves ideas wrong. Unlike YEC which has already made up its mind how we came into being and has no mechanism for handling conflicting evidence. No way to adapt.

AdinDraco

1st February 2011, 03:42 PM

Sure, there are plenty of new theories.
Horizon recently aired a program about this stuff, bantering around lots if ideas.

But they are all just theories, not facts. So don't call them that.

Tomtomkent explains it better, but here's my understanding: theories are not facts - facts are not theories and neither can graduate to the other. They are not the same thing.

Fact: Gravity
Theory: What we think gravity is, what causes it, how it works, the math etc etc etc

Fact: Evolution. Evolution - ie change over time - is a fact. It has been observed.
Theory: The theory of evolution that scientists are constantly refining, changing, arguing over etc are about the mechanisms etc.

So, for future reference, when I, personally, call evolution a fact I am no way talking about the Theory of Evolution - which is something else entirely.

Dinwar

1st February 2011, 03:50 PM

Joe, you labor under the misconception that scientists think they know everything. You should really attend a conferance or read a few papers by scientists; I think you'll be surprised.

ETA: I'll throw my hat in the ring as well:

Facts are observable phenomena. They are what is, irregardless of our interpretations. Crossbedding in a sandstone in a fact--it's easily observable, and does not depend on our interpretations. Changes in allel frequency may also be a fact--if we measure allel frequency in a population on multiple occassions over a period of time, any changes (presuming the tests comply with legitimate standards) will be facts. You can't dispute them, really, for the simple reason that they're self-evident; if you choose to, you can demonstrate facts for yourself (it is from this concept that the requirement of reproducibility for scientific data arises).

Theories are interpretations of facts. These can be right or wrong--continental drift is wrong, for example, but is a legitimate theory. These also need not be scientific--color theory and music theory and number theory are all legitimate theories. SCIENTIFIC theories are a subcategory of the more generic term "theory", and are differentiated from the rest by the fact that scientific theories require support by specific types of facts, notably those which are repeatable and objective. Further, a scientific theory cannot contradict known scientific facts (and ideally should contradict as few well-established scientific theories as possible).

Given these definitions, we can draw some conclusions about Creationism and evolution. For evolution, the concept generally consists of both the theory and the facts--the over-arching explination for WHY the facts exist, as well as the self-evident fact that organisms change over time (even you admit that, though you place arbitrary constraints on how it can happen and when). For Creationism, it is a theory, but it is NOT scientific; the theory is not supported by objective and repeatable data. I will give an example to show what I mean: You propose that a giant flood caused all of stratigraphy. However, no flood has ever since produced the types of formations seen in many places on Earth. One specific example is an angular unconformity. These floods range from annual floods of local streams, to the great deluges when the Meditaranian Sea refilled during climate changes. Thus Creationism neither explains facts, nor includes many relevant facts; Creationism also contradicts facts and well-established scientific theories.

There are other reasons to draw this conclusion as well. For example, the tactics employed by Creationists are those of political movements, not scientists. But that's the subject of another post.

hereisjoe

1st February 2011, 07:46 PM

It's just that Creationism was completely debunked well before C. Darwin's book, and the only way to hold to the theory, which Joe has demonstrated quite admirably, is to ignore most of the advancements of science in the past 200 years or so.

You ignore your own history:
To suggest that creationism was undone before Darwin is outright nonsense. The ideas of Charles Darwin were disproved long before he published his book. Geologists and naturalists such as Granville Penn, John Murray, George Bugg, William Rhind and George Fairholme clearly refuted the illogical conclusions of evolutionists of the day, mostly between 1780 and 1850. These gentlemen had the highest respect for their opponents, including Charles Lyell, who greatly influenced Darwin. They also had the respect of contemporaries such as Sutton, Chalmers, Sedgwick and Cuvier. They dispelled the nonsense of uniformitarianism and old-earth geology. Francis Bacon and Galilei were instrumental in establishing the foundations of the scientific method.

Dinwar

1st February 2011, 08:15 PM

Geologists and naturalists such as Granville Penn, John Murray, George Bugg, William Rhind and George Fairholme clearly refuted the illogical conclusions of evolutionists of the day, mostly between 1780 and 1850.This may be (I doubt it), but Hutton, Lyelle, Lamark, Linnaeus, Smith, Cuvier, and all the rest demonstrated that it IS true. :rolleyes:

I should also point out that just because someone respects you in science doesn't mean that they agree with you. You can respect someone's logical mind, their analytical nature, their attention to detail, the daring of their theories--and still think that their conclusions are a bunch of cow pies. Lyelle, for example, is clearly NOT a supporter of a young Earth. I actually have a copy of his Principles of Geology and read through it--it's more than obvious that the man believed in an old Earth. Care to refute his REASONS, rather than the people he respected?

hey dispelled the nonsense of uniformitarianism and old-earth geology.We don't use uniformitarianism anymore. We use neocatastraphism. This has been explained to you. Of course, you ignore everything ELSE about the subject that disagrees with you so ignoring me is hardly surprising.

Francis Bacon and Galilei were instrumental in establishing the foundations of the scientific method. Yes, they were. And then we realized that experimentation under controlled settings isn't always possible. Besides, by your logic you need to prove your god under experimental settings before we can believe in it; historic evidence won't work. Which means the Bible is out, along with all of Behe's arguments for ID. Care to tell me the experimental protocols for proving your god exists?

hereisjoe

1st February 2011, 08:22 PM

[QUOTE=hereisjoe;6823476]

Oh. So not that the science would not stand scrutiny then? So every peer review journal is tailored to what I can handle. Nice.

Obviously you did not read my earlier (twice) posted references to peer reviews, by two different researchers, in which the allegedly precious, all-important peer review process was found to present no more than 7 or 8 percent accuracy in the reviews. So what good are these reviews? just a lot of idle speculative chatter on the topics at hand. Get real. It's facts that matter to me, not somebody's opinion.

hereisjoe

1st February 2011, 08:27 PM

What do you know, creationists can publish their work in peer review journals after all:
Of course, there is the slight problem that despite being a Seventh Day Adventist, and pretty much kick starting his own breed of Creationism, and working at an Adventist college, he has had a bit of a ruckus with fellow Creationists over the matter of giving creationism equal credence in science class.

I have no concern with Adventists...

Good science allows a spectrum of views to be heard, as long as good method and good protocol is followed. The criticism is nothing to do with the mans religion...

Funny how you continue to ask me to 'prove how God was created etc" all the time...

If a man whose theories are not popular with creationists or geologists can get a fair hearing, why not the rest of the creationist writers?

Creationist writers do indeed get reviews all the time. You just may not like reading them.

hereisjoe

1st February 2011, 09:15 PM

The short answer:
Don't call them that? Er...OK...Read what you quoated again.
Joe, notice how you quoted me saying "The current theory, for which evidence is being gathered to test, is..." That's calling it a theory. Not fact. So please don't quote one thing, then claim it says another. If you want to dispute something I said, maybe quote that rather than editing it down to "blah blah blah". Otherwise you just end up looking silly.

The Long answer:
But what are the theories built on? Oh yes. Facts. You know, like the background radiation, red shifts, observable expansions and so forth. The theories are our best hypothosis of the HOW and WHY. That the universe is expanding and has been for several million years, is however a proven, and the evidences supporting it are facts. Those are observable facts of the "repeated proven data" data and not of the Creationist "The human eye is too complex to have evolved" variety where opinion can masquarade as fact. Back ground radiation? Observable. The pattern of expansion? Observable, just take a look at the map of it in several of the papers I linked to. Feel free to look at all the supporting data that has been collected in those works, and remember that anybody can use the internet to book time on the most powerful optical telescopes we have and get images to study themselves, and the data collected by radio scopes, the NASA probes (not to mention those of other agencies) can all be found with a little digging. You can dispute the theories, but you can not expect the evidence to be disputed.

In the coming years we can expect even more light to be shed on the creation of the material evidence when the moments after the Big Bang are recreated at CERN, and get to see how elementary particles acted in the seconds following that event. There is of course a possibility that they act in a way that completely disproves the idea of the BB, but hey, that is why I said "The current theory for which evidence is being gathered to test". Unlike creationism, real science can progress closer to the truth through the evidence that proves ideas wrong. Unlike YEC which has already made up its mind how we came into being and has no mechanism for handling conflicting evidence. No way to adapt.

There is no evidence (factual or otherwise) to show that the universe has been expanding "for millions of years". [Your above comment: " …That the universe is expanding and has been for several million years, is however a proven, and the evidences supporting it are facts.] There is no evidence of "millions of years", period. There is speculation, but no facts. Your earlier attempts to state that the speed of light is constant and always has been so, is unproven and again mere speculation. With that weak foundation, you have no authority to claim "millions of years" for anything. I'm wondering if you have seriously thought it through and contemplated what even a million years is, and what can happen or not happen in that huge piece of time..?

Tom, last summer, over at Skeptoid, you said:

"Joe, how on Earth is Evolution an unproven theory that has not advanced in 150
years? Truly? So, since 1860 we have not built upon the science of evolution,
nor used it to further science as a whole?

So you missed out on some of the little discoveries recently then. Things like
paeleontology, genetics, viral mutation, the DNA code, and all the wonders of
science that sprung from these?

To say Evolution is unproven is ridiculous. We have evidence. We have fossil
evidence, we have genetic evidence. We even have evidence of mutations that
offered no aid and were redundant, we have fossil records of how animals adapted
over the ages. We have evidence of how humanity evolved. Even before Darwin
there were folks who had observed recessive genes and the mechanics of
evolution.

Even in the decades following Darwin, scientists had observed a genetic mutation
in moths becoming predominant in the species, when soot coloured moths thrived
in soot blackened woodlands.
(August 16, 2010 9:11am)"

I can't help but include here a snippet from Wikipedia regarding the more generalized definition of controversy surrounding 'evolution":

The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe.[1] The dispute is between those who support a creationist view based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific consensus. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology.[2

My arguments from the very beginning has to do with origins. So, considering that many of you avoid the thrust of the argument by side-stepping it with phrases such as "irrelevant" and "what has origins of anything got to do with evolution?" is a fault on your part, not mine. I clearly state my belief. Biology is but a tiny spectrum of the world we live in.

Now, it is clear to all that you believe Evolution to be fully supported with factual evidence. Yet you cannot show origins of anything. You cannot explain how mutations in moths (which 'mutated back again, by the way) is evidence for species change. You harp on about good scientific principles yet cannot show any observable processes demonstrating biological evolution, let alone evolutionary changes in any other science. This is why I caution you to not call Evolution a proven thing or a fact. And don't harp on about fossils - they do not prove changes in any way. Unless you have a secret formula to show that, which you haven't given to the rest of us lesser beings.

hereisjoe

1st February 2011, 09:27 PM

This may be (I doubt it), but Hutton, Lyelle, Lamark, Linnaeus, Smith, Cuvier, and all the rest demonstrated that it IS true. :rolleyes:

I should also point out that just because someone respects you in science doesn't mean that they agree with you. You can respect someone's logical mind, their analytical nature, their attention to detail, the daring of their theories--and still think that their conclusions are a bunch of cow pies. Lyelle, for example, is clearly NOT a supporter of a young Earth. I actually have a copy of his Principles of Geology and read through it--it's more than obvious that the man believed in an old Earth. Care to refute his REASONS, rather than the people he respected?

We don't use uniformitarianism anymore. We use neocatastraphism. This has been explained to you. Of course, you ignore everything ELSE about the subject that disagrees with you so ignoring me is hardly surprising.

Yes, they were. And then we realized that experimentation under controlled settings isn't always possible. Besides, by your logic you need to prove your god under experimental settings before we can believe in it; historic evidence won't work. Which means the Bible is out, along with all of Behe's arguments for ID. Care to tell me the experimental protocols for proving your god exists?

I agree with your first point here. Actually, I was simply trying to point out that Murray, Penn et al respected their adversaries, even when they were often villified by them... They acknowledged a great debt of gratitude to Lyell for the information in geology he prsented, for example, and added to it themselves...

As for your irrelevant complaint of "prove your god under experimental settings before we can believe in it...", Gregory, this is stepping outside the bounds of observable science. Tom tried to call this binary treasoning; however, from the beginning, I asked for discussion in sciences alone to indicate a young earth theory. It seems that some people cannot (or will not) separate cause from affect. Such a thing is reasonable and possible. ie I accept gravity even though I don't understand it's cause fully...

"Care to tell me the experimental protocols for proving your god exists?"

Well, I don't suppose you'd accept a very astute observation made by a First Century 'philosopher' on how this 'protocol' could be approached...?

hereisjoe

1st February 2011, 09:32 PM

Tomtomkent explains it better, but here's my understanding: theories are not facts - facts are not theories and neither can graduate to the other. They are not the same thing.

Fact: Gravity
Theory: What we think gravity is, what causes it, how it works, the math etc etc etc

Fact: Evolution. Evolution - ie change over time - is a fact. It has been observed.
Theory: The theory of evolution that scientists are constantly refining, changing, arguing over etc are about the mechanisms etc.

So, for future reference, when I, personally, call evolution a fact I am no way talking about the Theory of Evolution - which is something else entirely.

Can you please present a clear example of Evolution happening? One which is a fact?

Tomtomkent

1st February 2011, 09:38 PM

Creationist writers do indeed get reviews all the time. You just may not like reading them.

Thankyou for completely agreeing with me. Even if that response is completely at odds and in the opposite direction of several previous answers you have given, which claim regular science has an athiest agenda, that peer review is a claim of authority, etc. And it doesn't explain why so many of the linch pins of YEC arent published in peer review journals.

AdinDraco

1st February 2011, 09:45 PM

Can you please present a clear example of Evolution happening? One which is a fact?

Evolution is change over time. Are you genetically identical to your parents, grandparents, distant ancestors? Where did all the breeds of dogs, cats, pidgeons come from? Mosquitoes in the london underground. The 20 year observance of that bacteria (at work - can't search for the name). The modern fruits that we eat didn't look like the way that they do thousands of years ago.

I am not talking about Darwin, natural selection etc etc. The Fact of Evolution - change over time - was well known before Darwin ever popped his head in. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the Fact of Evolution.

Tomtomkent

1st February 2011, 10:26 PM

Ah, the old double standard eh. You wont believe in evolution unless it is proven by experimental data. Yet asking you to apply the same standard to the existence of god (who is a major factor in Creationism) is "irrelevent". Strange. Why do creationists get a free pass on a thoroughly relevent entity to their theory, yet Evolution has to apparently prove factors like the genisis of life which IS irrelevant to the rate of change of alel of species? Hmmm. Apparently it is "stepping outside the bounds of observable science" to prove there is a god. And yet it is "real acience" to claim that THE VERY SAME GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE! Surely if it is outside the bounds of science to even ask about god that puts the entirity of Creationism outside the realms of science?

As for the "speculation" that the age of the universe is in "millions" of years and not thousands, once again; No it is not speculation. Even if the cosmic background radiation was debris left by suns and other gubbins and not reconstituted background radiation of the Big Bang (despite having gathered fairly exhaustive data on it) that would STILL put the age in the region of millions to billions of years instead of thousands. Bare in mind that we have been able to observe how other solar systems and galaxies act for some time now, and have good data for how they move (and how they have moved). We are gathering more knowledge all the time, with which can refine the data, but one of the things we can do is iliminate the impossible. We know that the speed of light IS a constant. We have good experimental data proving this. So we know that it has taken the light from light X years to pass from the star to us. We observe it again slightly later and the light is looking slightly redder to us, as it has shifted on the spectrum. The object we have observed has moved away from us a distance we can calculate with precision at a speed we can calculate with precision. If we do this a number of times each for a number of objects we can model the expansion. It's happening. Its observable. Joe is right to say that the backwards extrapolations are theories, but wrong to suggest that they are with out merit.

Here is the kicker for YEC believers though; because we have observed (and proven) how light acts and what a red shift (or blue shift) means we know not only how fast the universe is expanding, but how long it took each photon we see to travel to us. And in several cases that alone puts the age of the universe in Millions of years. But we can also look at how fast the various stars would have had to have been traveling if they DID leave the debris pattern of the cosmic background radiation map and get to where they are now in less than six thousand years. And the answer is pretty danged fast. Many magnitudes higher than the speed of light. Which is not possible under the rules by which the universe makes us play, and if you assume (with no good reason to do so) that the rules have changed, then it would have meant that the expansion happened in the form of energy and not matter... which pretty much confirms the big bang theory anyway and makes it impossible for that to be the debris of passing stars. So either it is debris from a big bang when we expected it, or evidence of a big bang when we didn't.

Craig4

2nd February 2011, 03:52 AM

Now, there's an oxymoron for you.

Only to you.

Craig4

2nd February 2011, 03:58 AM

Can you please present a clear example of Evolution happening? One which is a fact?

Easy, the whale fossils in the Indus Rive Valley and Egypt. They show a clear progression of whales evolving from land animals. We've got examples of changes to the bones of the inner ears that allowed the animals to dive. We've got fossils showing the progression of the fins from legs as animals gradually mutated over millions of years we see the later fossils losing their ankles making them better swimmers. It's everything Natural Selection predicts we'd find.

I know your opinion of this evidence but as it's based on nothing but your own personal incredulity it's nothing anyone need take seriously.

Your theory untested hypothesis predicts that we should see modern animals coexistent with now extinct animals. Care to produce a fossilized pre Cambrian bunny rabbit?

Dinwar

2nd February 2011, 08:02 AM

As for your irrelevant complaint of "prove your god under experimental settings before we can believe in it...", Gregory, this is stepping outside the bounds of observable science. Joe, I'm a geologist. If you don't have a mechanism, I'm forced by the ethics of my dicipline to reject your hypothesis. So this statements roughly translates into "My hypothesis is untennable." Thanks for playing.

It seems that some people cannot (or will not) separate cause from affect. That's because in science you don't get to postulate effects without defining the causes. That's the entire issue people had with Wegner. Everyone KNEW that the continents moved, and Wegner demonstrated it conclusively--but because his mechanism was completely irrational (continents plowing through oceanic crust) science necessarily had to reject his claims. Similarly, even if your evidence didn't amount to evasions, contradictions, and flat-out lies (which it does) we would have to reject your interpretations because you yourself admit that there is no rational explination. You can't demonstrate the mechanism. Tom is right--either prove your god exists, or you've got no theory.

Can you please present a clear example of Evolution happening? One which is a fact? Allel frequencies change through time. There have been laboratory tests of this, there hvae been observational tests (meaning testing specific gene frequencies in wild populations), there have been computational tests (meaning we've ran the statistical models)....There have been every kind of test science can come up with, and they all show allel frequency changing in populations over time. Thus, evolution is an observed fact. The fact that you arbitrarily muck with the definition does not change this.

If you want speciation, look at fruit flies in the Hawaiian Islands. As a new island arose, fruit flies would migrate to it and, thanks to the reduced genetic transfer between the new population and the old, would speciate. It's a remarkably well-documented genetic study of speciation. Or look at mollusk evolution for the past, oh, 250 million years. Oh! There's a type of crab in Japan that went from looking like a regular crab to looking like a samurai mask thanks to the Japanese practice of throwing back anything that looked like a samurai (this shows how predation can influence morphology; the same principles applie when anything else is the predator).

hereisjoe

5th February 2011, 03:37 AM

Evolution is change over time. Are you genetically identical to your parents, grandparents, distant ancestors? Where did all the breeds of dogs, cats, pidgeons come from? Mosquitoes in the london underground. The 20 year observance of that bacteria (at work - can't search for the name). The modern fruits that we eat didn't look like the way that they do thousands of years ago.

I am not talking about Darwin, natural selection etc etc. The Fact of Evolution - change over time - was well known before Darwin ever popped his head in. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the Fact of Evolution.

You haven't answered the question.
A clear example of it happening, not an example of an existing species.

Craig4

5th February 2011, 05:26 AM

You haven't answered the question.
A clear example of it happening, not an example of an existing species.

You have yet again confused your decision to be ignorant with evidence. A number of examples have been explained to you. Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud is not the same as there being no evidence.

AdinDraco

5th February 2011, 06:01 AM

You haven't answered the question.
A clear example of it happening, not an example of an existing species.

It's happening all around us, everywhere, right now. Are you genetically identical, in every way, to your parents?

It's very simple - did Labradors exist 5000 years ago? Where did they come from? Here you have CHANGE over TIME. I am not talking about the theory of evolution or Darwin or Natural Selection! We are seeing an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is a fact. This is different what what was. Now we have a *change* over *time* and need to explain it.

The Theory of Evolution is an oft-revised, debated over, refined, experimented-with idea to explain WHY things have changed.

There's your example of Evolution (ie change of time - yes I said it again) happening right now - the rise of antibiotic bacteria. Modern medicine is fighting this scourge with a base knowledge of Modern Biology that includes the Theory of Evolution which explains what is happening. Modern medicine and biology (and animal husbandry btw) depend on the fact of evolution.

Tomtomkent

5th February 2011, 12:38 PM

Or green mould slime (I think) that has not only shown some changes to the way a single celled organism bonds as a colony, but has, if some reports are to be believed, started moving around the forest looking for food. Not only is that a developing new species, but is something Creationists claim can never happen; single celled lifes grouping together to form an organism. The allele of a species changing. At a rate. Hey look, in a dictionary of science that is called evolution.

Now can somebody provide tangible, testible evidence for a god? Happening now?

Dinwar

5th February 2011, 11:43 PM

You haven't answered the question.
A clear example of it happening, not an example of an existing species. Not to get racism mixed into this, but I've always thought humans were a great example. There are clear morphological distinctions between several races which, given the obvious reduction in genetic exchange between populations, may have been an indication of the early stages of speciation. Now, these races don't correlate to what most people consider to be the races in humanity (there's more morphological diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined, for example), and I also want to point out that I'm saying nothing about intelligence, fitness, or anything else--all I'm saying is that it's possible that, had Europeans and Americans not interacted for a few more thousands of years, the American peoples could have become an entirely separate species from the Europeans. I doubt the Asian races would have so completely diverged (too much trade WAY too early on), but Australians may have.

Or we can look at plants. Every new hybred of plant amounts to a new species--or the concept of species (and even population) within plants looses all meaning. Take your pick.

Or different strains of influenza arising each year. Just about the only way to argue against that one is to argue that strains aren't species, and good luck defending that. You could also go with "Viruses aren't alive", but then you'd have to argue that something which can utilize very complex attack patterns isn't alive, which is difficult at best (not impossible, but hard).

I've heard very convincing arguments that we should consider dog breeds, or at least some of them, to be distinct species. A Great Dane and a Japanese Chin aren't going to have puppies, and most people use the biological species concept. From a morphospecies concept, yeah, they're COMPLETELY different, and have been for the past several hundred years. From a genetic perspective they're not, but then we don't have good criteria for evaluating this sort of data (ie, no genetic definition of species--taxonomy is still fairly subjective).

Really, if you can't find species undergoing speciation you haven't looked.

hereisjoe

6th February 2011, 05:27 PM

It's happening all around us, everywhere, right now. Are you genetically identical, in every way, to your parents?

It's very simple - did Labradors exist 5000 years ago? Where did they come from? Here you have CHANGE over TIME. I am not talking about the theory of evolution or Darwin or Natural Selection! We are seeing an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is a fact. This is different what what was. Now we have a *change* over *time* and need to explain it.

The Theory of Evolution is an oft-revised, debated over, refined, experimented-with idea to explain WHY things have changed.

There's your example of Evolution (ie change of time - yes I said it again) happening right now - the rise of antibiotic bacteria. Modern medicine is fighting this scourge with a base knowledge of Modern Biology that includes the Theory of Evolution which explains what is happening. Modern medicine and biology (and animal husbandry btw) depend on the fact of evolution.

You're not talking about the same 'theory' as I have been, over these past couple of years.

Actually, you are talking here about micro-evolution in general, and natural selection in particular. Nobody denies it is happening.
But... no new species coming out of it.

hereisjoe

6th February 2011, 05:29 PM

hereisjoe

6th February 2011, 05:36 PM

Not to get racism mixed into this, but I've always thought humans were a great example. There are clear morphological distinctions between several races which, given the obvious reduction in genetic exchange between populations, may have been an indication of the early stages of speciation. Now, these races don't correlate to what most people consider to be the races in humanity (there's more morphological diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined, for example), and I also want to point out that I'm saying nothing about intelligence, fitness, or anything else--all I'm saying is that it's possible that, had Europeans and Americans not interacted for a few more thousands of years, the American peoples could have become an entirely separate species from the Europeans. I doubt the Asian races would have so completely diverged (too much trade WAY too early on), but Australians may have.

Or we can look at plants. Every new hybred of plant amounts to a new species--or the concept of species (and even population) within plants looses all meaning. Take your pick.

Or different strains of influenza arising each year. Just about the only way to argue against that one is to argue that strains aren't species, and good luck defending that. You could also go with "Viruses aren't alive", but then you'd have to argue that something which can utilize very complex attack patterns isn't alive, which is difficult at best (not impossible, but hard).

I've heard very convincing arguments that we should consider dog breeds, or at least some of them, to be distinct species. A Great Dane and a Japanese Chin aren't going to have puppies, and most people use the biological species concept. From a morphospecies concept, yeah, they're COMPLETELY different, and have been for the past several hundred years. From a genetic perspective they're not, but then we don't have good criteria for evaluating this sort of data (ie, no genetic definition of species--taxonomy is still fairly subjective).

Really, if you can't find species undergoing speciation you haven't looked.

You're using the word 'species' very liberally here. True, these changes are indeed happening everywhere.

However, the debate I'm involved with is the theory of all species being derived from one (or several) parent species. Origins, remember?

As for dog breeds seeming to be separate, I suppose it is a physical difference between Great Danes and Japanese Chins that prevent them from interbreeding. It is also unlikely that a Japanese Sumo wrestler is going to father offspring from an African Pygmy, though they're both homo sapiens.

Species may not be distinctly defined even yet; however, no cross-over has been observed. That's my point.

AdinDraco

6th February 2011, 06:34 PM

You're not talking about the same 'theory' as I have been, over these past couple of years.

Actually, you are talking here about micro-evolution in general, and natural selection in particular. Nobody denies it is happening.
But... no new species coming out of it.

Ah, we're coming closer to the point that I've been trying to make. When we say evolution is a fact, we mean that change has occured over time which you have just acknowledged happens, so we finally agree that evolution is a fact. I only jumped in to try to make the distinction when you said something about it being a theory and not a fact (or something similar) when those are 2 very different things.

As for the whole new species thing - right now we have people, dogs, cats and whales. There was a time that we did not. So it is a Fact that new species have arisen - now comes the time to work out how.

Dinwar

6th February 2011, 09:57 PM

You're not talking about the same 'theory' as I have been, over these past couple of years.
That's right. He's talking about the actual theory of evolution. You, however, insist on concocting definitions out of thin air and then insisting we all accept them. For example, you refuse to accept the scientific definition of evolution, prefering instead to add any number of theories to it which do not have anything to do with it (for example, cosmology and astronomy).

However, the debate I'm involved with is the theory of all species being derived from one (or several) parent species. Origins, remember?

This is an example of what I'm talking about. Sure, one implication of the theory of evolution is that it's possible that every life form arose from a single common ancestor. Evidence supports this implication. However, that's NOT the theory of evolution.

As for dog breeds seeming to be separate, I suppose it is a physical difference between Great Danes and Japanese Chins that prevent them from interbreeding. It is also unlikely that a Japanese Sumo wrestler is going to father offspring from an African Pygmy, though they're both homo sapiens.
Yeah....see, the biological species concept is that a species consists of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. If a Great Dane and a Japanese Chin won't interbreed, by the biological definition they are different species. Liberal? Sure. I never siad it was a GOOD definition--there's no GOOD definition--just that it's A definition.

If you're curious about it, it's the "populations" thing that makes sumos and Pigmies the same speices.

Species may not be distinctly defined even yet; however, no cross-over has been observed. That's my point. Bull. By the biological species concept, no--but then, by the biological species concept you have to admit that Great Danes and Japanese Chins are different species. By the morphospecies concept they're all over--every hybred plant is one, every mixed breed mutt is one, etc. By the genetic species concept, again, hybreds in plants. There's also genetic exchanges between hosts and parasites that really messes with the whole "species" concept.

My point is, you need to educate yourself better before making statements like that. You'll find that you're very, very wrong.

ETA: It's still the same old green slime, Tom. Not a separate species at all, just a diversion of the parent species. Give me a call when it becomes something totally new, eh? Considerig you haven't stated what definition of species you're using, I'm going to go ahead and say that there's no data you'll accept, and that if Tom showed you the green slime changing from slime to a multi-cellular organism you'd simply say "It's still the same old green slime, just with a few modifications" (without, I should add, a hint of irony). Define your terms, please, and as they're jargon please limit yourself to the accepted definitions in the field in question. You'll find enough contention for the definition of all these terms within people who use actual evidence; no need to make up random ones.

Tomtomkent

6th February 2011, 11:04 PM

Well green slime showing signs of instinctive action that may be interpreted as intelligence http:/.tinyurl.com/45sh9 is old news then it is ratherembarassing for those who claimed there was no mechanism for single celled life to cobble together to make a multicelled life form. The whole "living together is not acting together" argument falls flat when a colony starts taking the shortest route through a maze to find food.

So at last Joe admits that all those times he said "evolution doesn't explain this..." he may not have been talkingabout evolution per se. Well yes. "That isn't the theory I have been talking about..." erm, isn'tthat what people had been trying to tell you? For example, on page one of this discussion when you say evolution doesn't explain features on the moon... or the whole discussion about "theory" or whale bones, and so forth. It has been said many times that when Joe talks about evolution not being a fact he includes aspects like biogenesis or the origins of everything that are seperate issues. People have been polite enough to explain his errors on this point, but even so he insists disproving one disproves everything else. But the thought experiment remains valid; if the age of the earth was proven to be 6k or less years does that invalidate observable speciation (assuming we stick to morphospecies, a big word for what in the common parlence most people know as species) or evolution? No. Does it invalidate fossil records? No. Genetic heirlooms? No. It just proves things happened. Faster than we expected, but the theory adapts to new data. Unfortunately that somewhat stretches the thought experiment because geology, cosmology, archeaology and paleaontology all point to a vastly older planet, and the theory of bio-origins has several repeatable experiments to find out when the chemistry of life first became viable, and the first. Chance keeps rolling back earlier to a point where amino acids may have started reacting all as soon as the earths surface was solid (or "soon" in geological epoch terms at least), and we have good evidence for observing how these first life forms may have developed by observing extremophile life blossom in deep sea volcanic vents.

Current theory has the mechanism and the materials. Creationists wont define theirs (the deity). The current theory of the origin of the universe is based on known phenonoma (a singularity) but creationists have yet to define the mechanism for their theory (again, a deity). Given a choice between the science of things we know about and know how to look for, or the science of something we can not even ask to be modeled for us (because then it's not science, whichsort of means by extension of Joes own argument that creationism is not science because, as he said himself, their origins is written in genesis andsays a god made the heavens and the earth) we have to discount the theory that can not even be modelled. If there is no viable definition of a creator, and no way to look for a creator, and good evidence no creator was required, we have no reason to assume there was a creator. And please no pap about seperating cause from effect, because sience is, in its purest form, the search for the cause of observable effects. We see the apple drop and we look for gravity, wr dont shrug and say "god wanted the apple on the floor".

Dinwar

7th February 2011, 02:02 PM

The whole "living together is not acting together" argument falls flat when a colony starts taking the shortest route through a maze to find food.
On a macroscopic scale the same thing can be seen in some bryozoan collonies. Individual lophophors acting together to transport a colony (imagine the trouble it'd have if each one acted independently!).

hereisjoe

11th February 2011, 05:12 PM

This is an example of what I'm talking about. Sure, one implication of the theory of evolution is that it's possible that every life form arose from a single common ancestor. Evidence supports this implication. However, that's NOT the theory of evolution.

"It's possible"? That's your final quip? After all you said about it being fact, not a theory.
Thanks but no thanks.
Hide your intellectual head in the sand - you don't know the argument you are in. And another word about your alleles and I'm out of here.
Next time you address a response to creation, think first about what it is you are responding about.

hereisjoe

11th February 2011, 05:15 PM

hereisjoe

11th February 2011, 05:33 PM

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6824013] The current theory, for which evidence is being gathered to test, is that there was a period of exponential expansion called "inflation" driving apart areas that had been in equalibrium, giving the effect of a single equalised plane.

What we have here is Joe expecting me to bow down and say "Wait it didn't happen how we expected? BB must be WRONG!" When it is more a case of science happening to surprise us still. There is good evidence the Big Bang occurred, and there are the remnants, floating around in space, still holding a temperature a little under 3Kelvin after millions of years. Observing them we get a great picture of how the universe looked just a few hundred thousand years. Which alone is pretty solid evidence that the universe is not just six thousand years old. We have evidence that Joe has neglected to tell us about the Red Shift, lopping off an important part of the equation that gets in the way of his "world view", and most importantly, of dictating what can, and can not happen in nature. It is "too smooth". Nope, it was a surprisingly narrow field. But I don't think it cares if we think it is "too smooth" or "not smooth enough". That is (once again) opinion as fact, just as it was when he tried to dictate what was "too complex" to have evolved.

QUOTE]

Way to go, Tom. Dodging the real question I posted by diverting your comments in another direction.

The examples I posted here regarding the evidence against the Big Bang theory was evidence against a singularity event. You would have spotted that if you were paying attention. However, since you almost always fail at looking at the actual argument presented, you fail in arguing, period.

Now... a theory of Big Bang using spontaneous various events..??? That's a thousandfold more zany than evidence of God's existence, and yet, here you are, presenting it!!!

Here's one of your own words back at you: codswallow!

Tomtomkent

12th February 2011, 12:01 AM

I fail in arguin period... er, because I pointed out there are more than one possible explanations for a known event and Joe, for some reason thinks thatmeans they ALL must have happened. Apparentlyshowing his"real question" was based on flawed information was "dodging" it. Er... sure Joe. You do realise that by your own standard you also fail at arguing period, by having no evidence what so ever for a Godof any kind?

There is evidence the Big Bang happened. There is more than one theory why. MORE EVIDENCE IS BEING GATHERED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. What exactly about that statement "fails"?

Tomtomkent

12th February 2011, 12:06 AM

"One of the most abundantly proven facts in history" is that God exists? Ok Joe. Where is this abundance of evidence? Go ahead and show me tangible, emperical data that proves there is a God. Go ahead and define what he is, where he is, how he made the universe and what from. Oh wait it requires "an open and honest mind" to understand it, and evolution is a "lie". Right. Well go ahead and post the evidence. I am sure if it is flawed I can be open and honest about those flaws. Or will that make me "dishonest"? And how does thatfit with me having "binary" logic. I have not claimed evolution or the BB are right because god is wrong, or that the Darwinian model is the only model for evolution. You just criticised me for postulating the broad spectrum of BB theories. Not to mention I pointed out the "halo" theory (a creationist theory) as a possible alternative despite flaws with the central conceit. Hardly comparable to the idea that if the universe is young God did it because "what else is there", as Joe stated repeatedly. My argument is not "if you are wrong this is right", if it were I would hardly be so persistent in asking for good evidence of God, your central conceit. Neither would I insist on seeing the evidence if I were "closed minded" or a "hyporcite".

Oh and implying I am "dishonest"? Well, apart from evolution being a "lie" pretty much accusing the vast majority of academic scientists of dishonesty, the vast majority of creationist literature I have read suffering from flawed process and confirmation bias, the deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples work and editing of laws such as thermodynamics, or petty statements that contradict each other (peer review is a claim to authority! Wait creationists are peer reviewed all the time!) Which taint the movement as a whole as represented by Joe, do we want to bring personal honesty into the equation again? Really? Because Joe has had a rather flexible grasp on honesty in the past, making a personal attack on Skeptoid, having the post pulled, tellinglies about what was in the post, accusing me of telling lies about him telling lies, accussing other members, directly or by implication, of lies, willfully misrepresenting the statements of others, while accusing me of twisting his words... this is where we want to talk about "open and honest minds"? Knock yourself out...

So if there is an abundance of evidence why did you claim it was going outside the realms of science to expect a model of what god is and how he may have created the universe? Surelyyou could have pointed towards one of the "most abundently proven" facts of history? It seems somewhat inconsistent here. Especially as you neglected to offer even a single example to support your claim.

Tomtomkent

12th February 2011, 02:00 AM

Dinwar

13th February 2011, 08:56 AM

"It's possible"? That's your final quip? After all you said about it being fact, not a theory.
Thanks but no thanks.
Hide your intellectual head in the sand - you don't know the argument you are in. And another word about your alleles and I'm out of here.
Next time you address a response to creation, think first about what it is you are responding about. If you're not going to bother reading what we type, we're not having an argument. You're simply shouting your views. Which is fine, but don't pretend to be debating.

There is a THEORY of evolution--meaning natural selection and all that--and there's a FACT of evolution--meaning that we can clearly see changes in allele frequency and morphology over time. The terminology can be confusing, and I'd normally give someone the benefit of the doubt for confusing them, but honestly at this point in the debate I can reasonably expect you to at least understand the terms being used. If you don't, frankly that's your problem.

As for the common ancestor thing, that's an IMPLICATION of the THEORY of evolution. It's not the FACT of evolution. We're very, very confident that all life has a common ancestor. There are many lines of evidence for this (not the least of which is the fact that we all use nearly the same genetic code; we'd expect organisms with different earliest ancestors to use different codes), but it remains a hypothesis for which science is gathering evidence.

The next time you bring up evolution, I expect you to actually discuss EVOLUTION, not whatever theory you've concocted out of scraps of pop-sci and demand we all hold to. Evolution says nothing about the age of the Earth, or the age of the universe, or the Big Bang, or abiogenesis, etc. Evolution is the change in allele frequency through time. Period. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the changes in allele frequency through time. Period. If you want to discuss evolution, those are the topics which by definition we must limit the discussion to. The rest are other theories--equally open for discussion, but separate none the less.

If a clear statement of the definition of the terms in this argument drives you away, I consider it no loss. You've been called out on equivocation a number of times, particularly concerning the definition of evolution. This is just one more datapoint.

Craig4

13th February 2011, 12:07 PM

One of the most abundantly proven facts of history is the existence of God.
Mind you, it requires an open and honest mind to understand this. Proof is everywhere around us.
You have allowed yourself to be blinded to logic and deductive reasoning. You have also allowed yourself to fall for the biggest Lie in the last 200 years.

So... proceed to prove to us your close-mindedness and hypocrisy.

The evidence would be what? You've asked to provide this before and you haven't. Please. Let's see it now.

Dinwar

13th February 2011, 02:23 PM

The evidence would be what? You've asked to provide this before and you haven't. Please. Let's see it now. And bear in mind that evidence you have to already believe in order to interpret properly is not, in fact, evidence. The logic is circular--you believe because you've seen, but you've only seen because you believe. I mean, any scientist trying to shift a paradigm needs to overcome the inertia of the academy; they need to present evidence so precise and accurate, and of such high quality, that it makes those who are most against them say "Yeah, there may be something to this".

As for "the biggest lie in the past 200 years", if you can blow the lid off it I'm sure Nature or Science would LOVE to publish your proofs. Of course, you'd have to stick with standard definitions, actually offer proof that's reasonable and testable, respond to harsh criticism, things like that--those journals make this forum look like a bunch of pushovers--but I'm sure you can handle that, right?

hereisjoe

13th February 2011, 03:41 PM

There is a THEORY of evolution--meaning natural selection and all that--and there's a FACT of evolution--meaning that we can clearly see changes in allele frequency and morphology over time. The terminology can be confusing,

It's your definitions that are confusing.

Changing allele frequency and morphology is not biological evolution. You obviously do not understand that simple fact. You merely change the definition to suite your purpose. Like I said already, you don't even know the basic and simple process of my argument. You most likely don't want to address it as you cannot answer it.

hereisjoe

13th February 2011, 03:44 PM

The logic is circular--you believe because you've seen, but you've only seen because you believe. I

This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anything I have posted. It's you are shifting paradigms.

I have never claimed that "I believe because I have seen and see because I believe." Where'd you get that tripe? >>>rhetorical question...

hereisjoe

13th February 2011, 03:47 PM

The evidence would be what? You've asked to provide this before and you haven't. Please. Let's see it now.

You can start with:

Romans 1:19-21

AdinDraco

13th February 2011, 04:01 PM

You can start with:

Romans 1:19-21

This isn't evidence. This is you going "oh yeah". Some book written by who knows who saying "hey, the evidence is obvious - you're just being a fool and refusing to see it" is not evidence.

Beyond the childishness of the passage itself - do we really need to derail off into a discussion of why the bible is useless here as evidence?

For those who want to check it out:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html

Craig4

13th February 2011, 04:58 PM

You can start with:

Romans 1:19-21

I don't believe in your fairy story. Try again.

Dinwar

13th February 2011, 05:05 PM

Changing allele frequency and morphology is not biological evolution.Bull. Changes in allele frequency is what makes new genetic species, and changes in morphology is what makes new morphospecies. Mutations are, in essence, changes in allele frequency (from X=0% to X>0% is a change). This is what evolution is. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant.

You merely change the definition to suite your purpose. No, MY definition has been consistent this entire time. *I* haven't added demands that evolution explain things outside of biology. *I* haven't equivocated at all. If you want the wikipedia definition, here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution):

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits.[1]

Like I said already, you don't even know the basic and simple process of my argument. You most likely don't want to address it as you cannot answer it. You've flat-out stated that you refuse to listen to anything I say because I'm using the real definition of evolution, not the ad-hock straw-man you've concoctend Frankenstein-style out of various shallowly understood theories. Oh, and clearly demonstrated numerous times you don't understand geology, even basic geology you can learn in a kitchen with a jar full of sand and water. And hydrology. And astronomy. And physics. And biology. And paleontology. Frankly, I've stopped taking you seriously a long time ago. It's not that I don't understand your argument, or are afraid to address it--you've already stated that I'm outside of this argument as far as you're concerned. I'm taking pot-shots at your argument because it's amusing.

Where'd you get that tripe?You can start with:

Romans 1:19-21 Gee, I wonder. :rolleyes: You can only use the Bible as evidence if you assume it's true. Given that the Bible contradicts many, many facts of geology and archeology (and pretty much everything else) the only way to accept the Bible as true is....to accept it as true before you look at the evidence, and then find evidence that it's true. Thanks, but I'll stick with the rocks.

Tomtomkent

13th February 2011, 09:55 PM

You can start with:

Romans 1:19-21

No, that is evidence that somebody said God exists. Not evidence of God.

Or by that standard we also believe in all gods of all religions, which leads to some interesting and obvious conflicts.

Oh wait, so needingan "open and honest mind" actually means "believing in the bible". Well the bible proves somebody believed in God enough to write it down, but has nothing to dowith being open and honest. I am sure the artistswho immortalised (punintended) the Book of the Dead considered their minds to be open and honest, and we can't discount one text because a realitve newcomer considers it a "false idol". What grounds do we have to believe a Bible based on a translation written to fit the political agenda of King James, based in turn on stories chosen to fit a much older agenda (we note how many differences there were in the Dead Sea Scrolls) that in terms of evidence are annectdotal and unvarifiable , is any more or less true than any old story? Or to. Consider it "proof" of the existence of God?

The answer unfortunately is none. But then I am sure you might have picked up on that last time you threw some biblical references around or tried to use the bible as evidence.

hereisjoe

19th February 2011, 06:46 AM

I don't believe in your fairy story. Try again.

You don't believe in the normal process of human logic. Don't bother trying again.

Dinwar

19th February 2011, 09:11 AM

You don't believe in the normal process of human logic. Don't bother trying again.That's funny, coming from a guy who refuses to follow standard definitions for jargon, refuses to admit evidence, and states that someone admitting he doesn't know a field of science makes him incapable of discussing an entirely unrelated (well, as much as sciences CAN be unrelated) field.

Oh, and it's been explained to you, slowly and often, that until you show that your pet book has some evidence backing it up it's irrelevant to this discussion. Yet you still insist that we accept it as evidence, on the basis that it says it's the word of your god and therefore MUST be true! All the while mocking others for not being logical.

hereisjoe

19th February 2011, 11:04 AM

That's funny, coming from a guy who refuses to follow standard definitions for jargon, refuses to admit evidence, and states that someone admitting he doesn't know a field of science makes him incapable of discussing an entirely unrelated (well, as much as sciences CAN be unrelated) field.

Oh, and it's been explained to you, slowly and often, that until you show that your pet book has some evidence backing it up it's irrelevant to this discussion. Yet you still insist that we accept it as evidence, on the basis that it says it's the word of your god and therefore MUST be true! All the while mocking others for not being logical.

The comment was directed to AdinDraco, not to you.

As for me asking for the Bible to validate itself re science, I have not asked that. You don't pay atytention, as usual. I asked for a clear observation of science around us to validate a young world, in every field of science, which science indeed does in spades, and hence infers a Creator. If you do not wish to address that argument, drop out. Your alleles do not interest me as they fail to demonstrate evolutionary species change.

hereisjoe

19th February 2011, 11:07 AM

Bull. Changes in allele frequency is what makes new genetic species, and changes in morphology is what makes new morphospecies. Mutations are, in essence, changes in allele frequency (from X=0% to X>0% is a change). This is what evolution is. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant.

No, MY definition has been consistent this entire time. *I* haven't added demands that evolution explain things outside of biology. *I* haven't equivocated at all. If you want the wikipedia definition, here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution):

You've flat-out stated that you refuse to listen to anything I say because I'm using the real definition of evolution, not the ad-hock straw-man you've concoctend Frankenstein-style out of various shallowly understood theories. Oh, and clearly demonstrated numerous times you don't understand geology, even basic geology you can learn in a kitchen with a jar full of sand and water. And hydrology. And astronomy. And physics. And biology. And paleontology. Frankly, I've stopped taking you seriously a long time ago. It's not that I don't understand your argument, or are afraid to address it--you've already stated that I'm outside of this argument as far as you're concerned. I'm taking pot-shots at your argument because it's amusing.

Gee, I wonder. :rolleyes: You can only use the Bible as evidence if you assume it's true. Given that the Bible contradicts many, many facts of geology and archeology (and pretty much everything else) the only way to accept the Bible as true is....to accept it as true before you look at the evidence, and then find evidence that it's true. Thanks, but I'll stick with the rocks.

Species change has never been observed, therefore your argument of allele changes falls apart before it even begins. you have no evidence. Allele change is mere micro-evolution. There's a difference, Mr Professional Scientist...

Dinwar

19th February 2011, 11:10 AM

hereisjoe

19th February 2011, 11:18 AM

You've flat-out stated that you refuse to listen to anything I say because I'm using the real definition of evolution, not the ad-hock straw-man you've concoctend Frankenstein-style out of various shallowly understood theories. Oh, and clearly demonstrated numerous times you don't understand geology, even basic geology you can learn in a kitchen with a jar full of sand and water. And hydrology. And astronomy. And physics. And biology. And paleontology. Frankly, I've stopped taking you seriously a long time ago. It's not that I don't understand your argument, or are afraid to address it--you've already stated that I'm outside of this argument as far as you're concerned. I'm taking pot-shots at your argument because it's amusing.

Gee, I wonder. :rolleyes: You can only use the Bible as evidence if you assume it's true. Given that the Bible contradicts many, many facts of geology and archeology (and pretty much everything else) the only way to accept the Bible as true is....to accept it as true before you look at the evidence, and then find evidence that it's true. Thanks, but I'll stick with the rocks.

I understand all of those sciences as well as any average layperson, and better than some do. Also, you're not amusing yourself here - you're irritated that somebody stands up to your arrogant taunts regarding what you believe is your territory and not mine. Yes, I said arrogant.

The Bible has never contradicted science. In fact, archeology and history has validated the biblical accounts at least as far back as Job. Archeology continues to support Old Testament stories. On the other hand, science cannot support life from non-life with any kind of evidence, and it never will.

I have never argued for evidence of a young earth within modern biology. That's your fantasy (thinking that I do).

hereisjoe

19th February 2011, 11:22 AM

At this point, Joe, I'm just going to call you a liar. Numerous examples of species change have been shown to you, both in the fossil record and in modern times. You can't claim ignorance at this point. You are lying.

You have done no such thing. I asked for reasons and demonstrations of why those alleged "species changes' are that, and have been given no answers. they do not exist. Two hundred "transition fossils" listed on Wikipedia, and not a single reason via explanation of why they nare such.

Germs becomming immune to something is not a species change. And I'm sick of hearing about whales with "ankles". I have other places to go to for laughs.

Careful with those accusations.

hereisjoe

19th February 2011, 11:34 AM

No, that is evidence that somebody said God exists. Not evidence of God.

Or by that standard we also believe in all gods of all religions, which leads to some interesting and obvious conflicts.

Oh wait, so needingan "open and honest mind" actually means "believing in the bible". Well the bible proves somebody believed in God enough to write it down, but has nothing to dowith being open and honest. I am sure the artistswho immortalised (punintended) the Book of the Dead considered their minds to be open and honest, and we can't discount one text because a realitve newcomer considers it a "false idol". What grounds do we have to believe a Bible based on a translation written to fit the political agenda of King James, based in turn on stories chosen to fit a much older agenda (we note how many differences there were in the Dead Sea Scrolls) that in terms of evidence are annectdotal and unvarifiable , is any more or less true than any old story? Or to. Consider it "proof" of the existence of God?

The answer unfortunately is none. But then I am sure you might have picked up on that last time you threw some biblical references around or tried to use the bible as evidence.

Tom, it doesn't matter whether you believe the apostle Paul to be a real person or not, or whether you accept that the Bible may contain some real history or not. I am not asking you to believe in it just like that. You have to be convinced by reason and logic etc to accept the bible for what it claims to be. If you won't, that's your loss, not mine. However, I am asking you to maintain an open mind in regards to the science around us all.

When I refer to Romans 1: 19-21, I am asking you to consider the words spoken, never mind who said them. What is said in that chapter is that mankind has no excuse to refuse seeing the world around them and the verifiable ways in which a creation is evident. It asks the reader to look at things. That is precisely what I have asked for throughout the last two years.

And as for the Bible "having nothing to do with being open and honest", I wonder where you got that notion. The New Testament is chock full of honesty requests and openness. So far, you have only cherry-picked Bible verses in the past in your feeble attempt to disprove my God, and it failed miserably. [And creationists are accused of cherry-picking words!!!] At least admit that you don't understand the book - don't trounce what you do not comprehend. Your unbelief doesn't make it invalid. I don't believe in life on Mars but it may actually exist. I really think that you don't understand the (theoretical, if you wish) concept of an almighty God. That blinds you to the possibilities there. If you're using only your five senses for the whole universe, you're missing a great deal.

Tomtomkent

19th February 2011, 01:04 PM

Dinwar

19th February 2011, 01:21 PM

You have done no such thing. I asked for reasons and demonstrations of why those alleged "species changes' are that, and have been given no answers. they do not exist. Two hundred "transition fossils" listed on Wikipedia, and not a single reason via explanation of why they nare such.
read the literature of paleontology. It's full of exactly this. And you're not dealing with lay people here, but with at least one bona-fide expert.

Careful with those accusations. You've accused the entire bloody field of geology of being frauds. You've called me irrelevant because I only profess knowledge of the fields I've studied (while you, conveniently, hold yourself to no such standards--you assume that your non-expertise in a bunch of fields trumps any scientist's expertise in one). Calling you out on your lies is hardly the worst accusation made.

You, Joe, are a liar and a hypocrite. You make false accusations based on no evidence, and only accept evidence that agrees with your a priori beliefs.

The Bible has never contradicted science. Bull. The Flood never happened, as any reasonable examination of the stratigraphic record will clearly demonstrate. Animals don't fall through the water column the way you propose. No tax was levied at the time Jesus was supposedly born, nor did it require people to go to the cities of their fathers (whatever THAT means). Bats aren't birds. Pi does not equal 3. It took substantially longer than 6 days to make the world. The timing of Genesis is completely flawed. Women aren't made out of ribs. There were no Jewish slaves in Egypt (they were mercenaries). Do I really need to go on? Of course, you'll reject this, because you're not an expert in any of this, and experts are limited to their field of expertise, which you'll use to poison the well whenever one disagrees with you.

If you're reading the Bible to learn science you're doing it wrong. The book doesn't even PRETEND to be scientifically accurate.

Also, you're not amusing yourself here - you're irritated that somebody stands up to your arrogant taunts regarding what you believe is your territory and not mine. Yes, I said arrogant.No, Joe. What I have is a well-earned pride in my knowledge. I actually took the time to understand how the world came to be, how life came to be, and the changes that have occurred since then. I've spent a very long time studying geology and paleontology. This is my field. And you demonstrably have no knowledge of it. You've admitted as much, You've also said that you're going to ignore what I say, because I'm intellectually humble enough to limit myself to claiming expertise in the fields I have studied (without, I will again add, holding yourself to the same standards). This is not an honest debate, and it's clear now that it never was--NOTHING can convince you that you're wrong. You're a True Believer. So I'm taking pot-shots at you for my own amusement. If it annoys you, cool. That makes it even more amusing.

Craig4

20th February 2011, 05:01 AM

You don't believe in the normal process of human logic. Don't bother trying again.

Great, find me a talking snake. It's only logical to you because you have no evidence to support the story. You hide behind some freakishly tortured logic because there's no evidence.

Craig4

20th February 2011, 05:03 AM

Tom, it doesn't matter whether you believe the apostle Paul to be a real person or not, or whether you accept that the Bible may contain some real history or not. I am not asking you to believe in it just like that. You have to be convinced by reason and logic etc to accept the bible for what it claims to be. If you won't, that's your loss, not mine. However, I am asking you to maintain an open mind in regards to the science around us all.

No, evidence is convincing. Reason and logic are not. Reason is suspect and logic is vulnerable to skewing. We have an open mind to science. You're ideas just aren't supported by science this is where you're forced to retreat to.

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 08:18 AM

No, evidence is convincing. Reason and logic are not. Reason is suspect and logic is vulnerable to skewing. We have an open mind to science. You're ideas just aren't supported by science this is where you're forced to retreat to.

Based on your above comment, I will hereby ignore it, as you are not appealing to my reasoning and logic to accept it.

[Hmmm... I wonder what bundle of fallacies Craig committed there..?]

Tomtomkent

20th February 2011, 08:24 AM

Based on your above comment, I will hereby ignore it, as you are not appealing to my reasoning and logic to accept it.

Why not, you have ignored every example of speciation, all evidence that your claims about geology being flawed, and any reason why the bible is not good evidence for a god, so ignoring something else wont hurt.

Perhaps you would be better served wondering which logical fallacies you fell into by claiming the existence of God was a proven "fact", accusing the vast majority of academics of telling lies, or claiming that evolution means ANYTHING other than "the change of allele over time".

Dinwar

20th February 2011, 08:27 AM

Not a single one. Aristotelian physics went out several hundred years ago because it was demonstrated that merely sitting around thinking about things doesn't actually provide accurate conclusions. Francis Bacon (among others) successfully demonstrated that experimentation is necessary in order to understand the way the world works. If it were me I'd say something like "Reason and logic are all well and good, but they have to be based on empirical knowledge, and the data demonstrate numerous errors in your pet book". But that's a stylistic difference; the end result is the same: There's literally tons of evidence for evolution, and the only evidence for Creationism you've been able to show is an edited and mistranslated book that includes as many errors as any other fairy tale.

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 08:50 AM

Why not, you have ignored every example of speciation, all evidence that your claims about geology being flawed, and any reason why the bible is not good evidence for a god, so ignoring something else wont hurt.

Perhaps you would be better served wondering which logical fallacies you fell into by claiming the existence of God was a proven "fact", accusing the vast majority of academics of telling lies, or claiming that evolution means ANYTHING other than "the change of allele over time".

Tom, here is a clear example by you of how you are not paying attention to why and where you post. This comment was directed specifically towards Craig and his comment above that, not to you. Please let Craig answer his own stuff.

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 08:55 AM

Tomtomkent

20th February 2011, 08:57 AM

Tom, here is a clear example by you of how you are not paying attention to why and where you post. This comment was directed specifically towards Craig and his comment above that, not to you. Please let Craig answer his own stuff.

Oh? I paid attention. I read a comment in an open forum and gave my opinion. Perhaps if it was intended to be a private message intended for one person you should have sent a private message. Instead you posted in a "forum" that means the same now as it did in Greece a few thousand years ago. Only the media has changed from an open place of discussion to a virtual place of discussion.

Tomtomkent

20th February 2011, 09:07 AM

Gregory, you have been duly reported to the moderators for your personal attacks above. In the meantime, my line of "friendly and lively debate" with you has hereby ended.

Did you remember to report yourself for casting accusations against (amongst others) Dinwar, and every scientist who believes in evolution for telling a "lie"? It seems odd that you see any of the above posts as a personal attack while the responses were to statements you made that can be construde no other way.

Dinwar

20th February 2011, 09:07 AM

Joe, you haven't been "friendly" since you accused all of geology of fraud. It's been obvious from the start that you had no interest in an honest debate--the fact that you presume to dictate how we can post is yet a further example of that.

You're right, it's time to end the "debate". You will refuse to believe anything that shows you to be wrong, insult whomever you please, and dictate terms to anyone who tries to debate with you, all the while claiming moral superiority. I've got better things to do with my time.

Tomtomkent

20th February 2011, 09:35 AM

When I refer to Romans 1: 19-21, I am asking you to consider the words spoken, never mind who said them. What is said in that chapter is that mankind has no excuse to refuse seeing the world around them and the verifiable ways in which a creation is evident. It asks the reader to look at things. That is precisely what I have asked for throughout the last two years.

Oh, so when asked to prove your statement that the existence of God was a proven fact of history, you instead offered a chapter from a book that says "Hey, you have no excuse for not seeing the world in the way we want to see it, and that creation happened." So not only does that NOT prove any useful answer to the question asked, it is also (as that post seemed to be arguing against) the opinion of somebody who believes in God and wrote it down. But it is also easy to prove wrong: We have every excuse not see the world that way (just because we are told to) because there is no evidence. There IS evidence for other ways to see the world (Hey, how about I find a book that says that? Then you HAVE to believe it right? if it's in a book?)

To sum it up as "it asks you look at things" is deliberately missing this bit of your own explanation out "mankind has no excuse to refuse seeing the world around them and the verifiable ways in which a creation is evident." So you not only want us to look at things, but to look at things in the frame of mind that we "already know what happened". That is not "Open and honest", that is "biased to your way of thinking".

You may not have noticed, but in those two years you mentioned, people HAVE been looking at your evidence. Unfortunately for you they did it with objective scrutiny rather than the confirmation bias you seem to have been hoping for.

Had you truly been interested in being "open and honest", you would not have attempted to dismiss out of hand, the evidence supplied in the form of fossil records, geology, genetic heirlooms, and so forth. Nor would you have misrepresented selected quotes cherry picked from sources to give the impression they agree with your claim (despite in most cases, the papers from which the quotes were taken-effectively your entire discussion on the Big Bang- reached entirely different conclusions.

You have made it very clear, on many occassions, that there are good reasons to doubt that you do indeed understand the methodology of science in general, or a number of the fields you have added to the discussion: The arguments over the word "theory", the refusal to differentiate between "evolution" and Darwins theory or abiogenesis, the ridiculous claim that evolution means something different in this thread because of the "discussion you are having", the claim that the Bible was peer reviewed (sure, which page does the peer review section start on, and when is issue two of the journal being published?), the claim that "evolution" does not explain the moon (or geology in general, cosmology in general, and any topic other than the change in allele of species), the way you thought AIG was following the process to confess to (rather than avoid) a bias, or the fact you want to discuss Creation by God with out allowing any discussion of the God, all cast a serious doubt on any claim you understand "science". It casts doubt that you understand when a "book" becomes a "textbook" or how research papers and studies are used. Sure, you can claim what ever you want about your back ground, go ahead. But that opens a new question: If you understand the process, and you understand the methodology, why are you refusing to use it, and posting arguments that push directly against it? Why use sources with a clear bias, or authors writing far outside their fields? Why claim several of the texts you recommend are "text books" when I can find no evidence of them being used as a text by any recognised qualification? Why not just use the methodology the right way to prove your "real science" with...real science?

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 11:11 AM

It seems odd that you see any of the above posts as a personal attack while the responses were to statements you made that can be construde no other way.

Let's see, Tom...
...what part of his comment "You, Joe, are a liar and a hypocrite. You make false accusations based on no evidence, and only accept evidence that agrees with your a priori beliefs..." do you not comprehend? You were previously 'injured' whan I pointed out your own posrted lies, which I apologized for. Personal accusations will not be tolerated by me. You can try to trash the idea of God, the Bible, or creation all you want, but not personal reputations.

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 11:14 AM

... the responses were to statements you made that can be construde no other way.

There is only one way for my statements to be taken: as they are written.

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 11:23 AM

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6897969]Oh, so when asked to prove your statement that the existence of God was a proven fact of history, you instead offered a chapter from a book that says "Hey, you have no excuse for not seeing the world in the way we want to see it, and that creation happened." QUOTE]

So now you are an expert in interpreting Romans 1 as well, Tom? Nowhere does Paul say that. What is asked is that the unbelievers in Rome in particular and the world at large observe the world around them, period. Thus, having looked closely and honestly, there is no excuse for denying a creation. Read a bit more in Romans, where we are all guilty of replacing the God of creation with the creatures and processes of creation itself. It isn't mind-boggling and it is all very rational. There is a verse in the Old Testament whereby God has asked us all to understand him (and consequently worship him) with our mind. Paul was asking us to use our minds as well as our five senses. Please do not insert things that have not been said in the text of scriptures.

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 12:00 PM

Oh, so when asked to prove your statement that the existence of God was a proven fact of history, you instead offered a chapter from a book that says "Hey, you have no excuse for not seeing the world in the way we want to see it, and that creation happened." So not only does that NOT prove any useful answer to the question asked, it is also (as that post seemed to be arguing against) the opinion of somebody who believes in God and wrote it down. But it is also easy to prove wrong: We have every excuse not see the world that way (just because we are told to) because there is no evidence. There IS evidence for other ways to see the world (Hey, how about I find a book that says that? Then you HAVE to believe it right? if it's in a book?)

To sum it up as "it asks you look at things" is deliberately missing this bit of your own explanation out "mankind has no excuse to refuse seeing the world around them and the verifiable ways in which a creation is evident." So you not only want us to look at things, but to look at things in the frame of mind that we "already know what happened". That is not "Open and honest", that is "biased to your way of thinking".

You may not have noticed, but in those two years you mentioned, people HAVE been looking at your evidence. Unfortunately for you they did it with objective scrutiny rather than the confirmation bias you seem to have been hoping for.

Had you truly been interested in being "open and honest", you would not have attempted to dismiss out of hand, the evidence supplied in the form of fossil records, geology, genetic heirlooms, and so forth. Nor would you have misrepresented selected quotes cherry picked from sources to give the impression they agree with your claim (despite in most cases, the papers from which the quotes were taken-effectively your entire discussion on the Big Bang- reached entirely different conclusions.

You have made it very clear, on many occassions, that there are good reasons to doubt that you do indeed understand the methodology of science in general, or a number of the fields you have added to the discussion: The arguments over the word "theory", the refusal to differentiate between "evolution" and Darwins theory or abiogenesis, the ridiculous claim that evolution means something different in this thread because of the "discussion you are having", the claim that the Bible was peer reviewed (sure, which page does the peer review section start on, and when is issue two of the journal being published?), the claim that "evolution" does not explain the moon (or geology in general, cosmology in general, and any topic other than the change in allele of species), the way you thought AIG was following the process to confess to (rather than avoid) a bias, or the fact you want to discuss Creation by God with out allowing any discussion of the God, all cast a serious doubt on any claim you understand "science". It casts doubt that you understand when a "book" becomes a "textbook" or how research papers and studies are used. Sure, you can claim what ever you want about your back ground, go ahead. But that opens a new question: If you understand the process, and you understand the methodology, why are you refusing to use it, and posting arguments that push directly against it? Why use sources with a clear bias, or authors writing far outside their fields? Why claim several of the texts you recommend are "text books" when I can find no evidence of them being used as a text by any recognised qualification? Why not just use the methodology the right way to prove your "real science" with...real science?

You are stepping very close to the edge of fantasy when you claim “ people HAVE been looking at your evidence. Unfortunately for you they did it with objective scrutiny rather than the confirmation bias you seem to have been hoping for.” This is simply not so. They have refused even to reply back on most of my posted sources. Take the 20-odd books I listed earlier here, all of them by evolutionist scientists in their respective fields, and others. To deny them credibility, Tom, is to put yourself above them all, thus displaying your own high bias. Do you really want to continue with that? Do you know, for example, what was the only complete reply to my reference to EvolutionFacts.com site was, Tom? A passing sentence about “and the way they thing a fossil is rapidly formed…!’ etc by Gregory. That’s looking at ‘my’ evidence?

“…the evidence supplied in the form of fossil records, geology, genetic heirlooms, and so forth…” is a good laugh, especially when legitimate geologists have successfully disproved this argument. Go and read Gary Parker’s “Creation Facts of Life”.

It is the evolutionists who attempt to promote something-from-nothing and the ascent/descent of species (whatever you name it) as science, who display a lack of knowledge of the methodology of science in general. Gregory has just accused me of calling all scientists (especially geologists) liars and frauds, when this is one of the biggest blanket judgments he can come up with in his toothless arguments. I have disputed the interpretations of the timelines and fossil record, not the entire veracity of those scientists. But no, I am the lie-tagging monster nonetheless. Evolutionists constantly and persistently deny that a creationist knows science or uses scientific evidence. They have, in other words, no courtesy or respect, because they have no respect for the idea of creation.

“..the Bible was peer reviewed (sure, which page does the peer review section start on, and when is issue two of the journal being published?)..” Again, ignorance on your part. I have never said that. I said it is peer-reviewed by Christian apologists everywhere, not within its pages.

“…authors writing far outside their fields? Can you explain what that even means, “outside their fields?” Might that include people such as Richard Dawkins, who is widely regarded as the foremost writer on modern evolutionary theory in general and biological evolution in particular? He has clearly admitted that biological evolution takes place and his best evidence (in his own opinion) is included in his last book. When I pointed that out, you denied that it was valid, that it was only an opinion. This was where you tread over the edge, tom, like you do when you try to say that ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ aren’t really valid as final consensus in anything. Shall I continue here..?

“… a text by any recognised qualification?..” And this ‘recognized’ qualification would be..??? Oh, yes, it would be something according to another of your definitions, not ours. And here I was, thinking that recognizing something, anything, was simple to look at it and see it for what it is.

“…the fact you want to discuss Creation by God with out allowing any discussion of the God, all cast a serious doubt on any claim you understand "science"…” This is another of your warped comments: to wit, I have constantly drawn the arguments back to science away from theology – you have constantly dragged it to “proof of God” and force me to reply. So, where does this fictional binary logic exist, exactly?

I have been studying science textbooks and commentary books and documentaries and magazines and newspaper columns etc etc for many decades now, tom, so do not accuse me of scientific ignorance. I have trod the road of ‘evolution’ in all its convoluted forms a very long time and even once came close to accepting its warped mixtures and deceptions.

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 12:07 PM

Oh? I paid attention. I read a comment in an open forum and gave my opinion. Perhaps if it was intended to be a private message intended for one person you should have sent a private message. Instead you posted in a "forum" that means the same now as it did in Greece a few thousand years ago. Only the media has changed from an open place of discussion to a virtual place of discussion.

No, Tom, this is not about an open forum per se, so much as it is about my address in that open forum to a particular person's comments. It wasn't you who said something like "Reason is suspect and logic is vulnerable to skewing..."; it was Craig. But if you're agreeing with this comment of his, of course you are subject to my reply as well...

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 12:11 PM

Perhaps you would be better served wondering which logical fallacies you fell into by claiming the existence of God was a proven "fact", accusing the vast majority of academics of telling lies, or claiming that evolution means ANYTHING other than "the change of allele over time".

Good grief! You just don't stop with your errors, do you? It was Gregory/Dinwar, not me, who wanted to stick with the alleles thing. I'm debating Origins, remember?

hereisjoe

20th February 2011, 12:17 PM

It isnt the bible that has nothing to do with being open and honest, it is your use of it as evidence. It absolutely matters how and why the bible was written, as it is something you have been claimed is evidence for the existence of god. If you want us to ignore the context and origin of the book, then you must also concede that the works of Michael Bond are thoroughly convincing evidence for talking bears.

So you refuse to accept the evidence offered for speciation, but expect us, for no good reason, to throw away all reasonable scrutiny to the evidence you propose. Somebody somewhen happened to write a nice bit of prose and you want us to take it as evidence for god? Nope, it is evidence that somebody wrote nice prose about their feelings on god. I preffer books about Paddington bear, so I hope you are willling to accept he is real based on the same standard. Your discussion here has fallen very far from the "science" you claim. Your last few posts have given up any claims onbeing evidence based science, despite your rather worrying impression that you are well versed in the principles, while remaining utterly oblivious of what words like"evidence" or "evolution" actually mean...

Tom, the line of reasoning and the examining of evidences has always, I repeat, always, been from an empirical base. But every time you or someone else determined that I was set to show how the universe carries plenty of evidence of not only a young world but a created world, you and many others immediately jumped down the throats of we creationists and say we had an unfair bias because we were (in the infamous phraseology of evolutionists) “claiming that God did it and that’s that’, and that this was not correct. The truth of the matter is, in every argument thread both here and over at Skeptoid, where I began, the science was always pointed out very clearly. No creationist, including myself, has ever claimed the Bible as the sole criteria for a science-based universe and the things going on within it. Nevertheless, there is truth to the claim that it sometimes points out good science and that it contains accurate history.

No, the Bible is not a science manual and never claimed to be one. Lets' get that clear. Evolutionists try to imply this, not creationists. Creationists, however, do clearly maintain that the universe we see around us is a created one, and the science we observe, in all the empirical ways, is an affect of that first cause. There is no conflict there, neither in reason nor in science. You, or I, can (theoretically) be a complete noodle-brain with no concept of first origins or monotheism and still be capable of recognizing our universe. I, for example, have no comprehension of the mechanics of God’s power, because I do not have his mind or knowledge. That too is not unreasonable. As for expecting you or anybody else to look at the possibility of the existence of God while also comprehending the workings of the universe around us, what is the conflict? I do not ask you to accept God without evidence, but I do ask you to observe the evidence that does point to a young earth, which in turn points to a recently past and which again points to creation, not some sort of evolution out of Nothing. There is no ‘binary logic’ here’ because there is no such thing as binary logic. There is only logic.

When I began over at Skeptoid, I asked for others there about the origins of everything, and to look at evidences that indicated a young world, and at the lack of verifiable evidence of evolutionary changes over immense periods of time giving us multiple species of life from an unknown base of non-life. A very simple request: look at what we have, what we can sense. Make thesis and conjectures and theories and speculations upon it all, but do not call it fact if it does not bear scrutiny or can be repeated or demonstrated conclusively. Do not call a possibility a fact. When I introduced the ideas and questions contained in Walter Brown’s book “In The Beginning”, I asked for any sensible rebukes to those questions. I got one reply, which turned out to be a second-hand quote from another source, which was full of faulty math. Later, the same quote was thrown at me. But I never received a single scientific rebukes on Brown’s ideas and theories and vary hard questions, all of which remain unanswered by evolutionists.

Other posts at Skeptoid received the same course and mean-spirited treatments as did mine. Re-read some of those Skeptoid posts again and pay attention to writers like Gary Webb (#10, # 35 and #65), Onus Ford and Mills Frellpirs ( both at #10), one of the most lucid and best posters there, and Greg Peters (# 65). They have stated these arguments even better than I could. Not to forget the strong anti-creationist bias which the host, Brian Dunning, exhibits here against us, and his support even for the most foul-mouthed of atheists/evolutionists (= read the unbelievable comments by one Neil Griffiths! (#10, ie March 26th, ). Dunning is on record for saying things like “Neil - No problem with foul language..”). But the abuse of Mr Griffiths continued just the same.

The same thing occurred with AnswersInGenesis, with EvolutionFacts.com, with numerous books by peer-reviewed evolutionary writer/scientists which I posted here. The same with legitimate scientists everywhere who dispute evolution in published journals and textbooks. You and the others have for the most part ignored all of this. Yet you request that I and other creationists accept point-blank a list of transitional fossils as being concrete evidence of species change, without explanations of exactly why they are provably transitional from one generation to the next etc.. You expect us to accept observed biological changes in a tiny select number of current species as being ‘evidence of evolution’. You expect us to accept the unproven ancient age of the universe (and the earth) because we cannot accept it as a fact when it is based on initial faulty assumptions in the first place. You require us all to accept only your model of the universe based only on your interpretation of physical evidences, even when there are other interpretations which fit the same evidence and do not contradict science. You and the others (notably Gregory) jump around with your cherry-picked definitions when you are presented with clear models of a created universe versus an evolved one. You summarily reject the huge problems you have associated with a First Cause.

In essence, the atheist mind and atheist reasoning (if it can be called that) has an immense problem: it has categorically rejected a creator God altogether, and has to deal with everything from an observed basis of our known sciences. This is fine in helping to explain what we can see (sense) but it is inadequate in determining the origins. The origin of the universe cannot be explained apart from God. It could not, cannot, and will not be explained by science. Science is what our Creator put in place to begin with. If you mess around with God and reject him from your life, you wind up with no explanations at all for Origins. Hatred of God and pushing aside the possibility of accounting to him is not a sound basis for any sort of arguments.

To summarize, I have from the very beginnings of my discussions, always tried to draw the topics into science itself to indicate young origins and a creator. If you are afraid of the points made by me and countless others (yes, even tens of thousands of scientists agree on this), then it is you who has the problem with how to read and interpret evidence, not us.

So, Tom, just how do you get something from nothing?

Tomtomkent

20th February 2011, 12:21 PM

Good grief! You just don't stop with your errors, do you? It was Gregory/Dinwar, not me, who wanted to stick with the alleles thing. I'm debating Origins, remember?

Yes, he wanted to stick with the correct definition. By wanting to use any other definition,regardless of what you are debating you are wrong. By wanting to use any other definition you clearly do not understand what the word means.

So if there is an "error" it is with you. It doesn't matter if you are debating origins or oranges, there is only one definition of evolution; change of allel over time. If you claim it means anything else (oh look, you have; repeatedly) then YOU ARE WRONG.

Tomtomkent

20th February 2011, 12:43 PM

What is said in that chapter is that mankind has no excuse to refuse seeing the world around them and the verifiable ways in which a creation is evident.

Oh look. I didn't have to be an expert. I was arguing against Joes description of the passage, not the passage itself. Crikey, that makes Joes criticism a nonsense as he himself stated we have "no excuse to refuse" to see the "verifiable ways in which creation is evident". So... from that was meant to be taken as written (but not in a way that meant we had no excuse not think how he wants us to?)hmmm... no. Lack of evidence remains a good excuse not to see the world that way. And a good reason.

Oh and the bible never claimed to be a science manual? From the man who said his theory was based on Genesis, and called it peer reviewed? So "nobody" claimed that (except you Joe it seems. Based on your own posts).

Oh look and you arent using binary logic, except you are still saying that proving onething wrong must make something else right. Wrong again. Proving there is a god, that he created the universe six thousand years ago proves creationism right. Not proving evolution wrong.

And how do we get something from nothing? We dont. I never claimed we did. If you actually bothereds to look at the evidence presented or even read posts you would know that the BB was not "something from nothing" it was matter from energy, probably from an exploding singularity, from "we dont know". But no matter how many times you repeat that ******** question "we dont know" was not "nothing." But tsk. I can't possibly offer an answer if im not an "expert" (unless i call myself a scientist and use a confirmation bias or agree with the bible? Funny how your standards come and go is it not?

Frankly, all this arguing, and you still havent shown where the existence of god was a proven fact, let alone an abundantly proven fact. Come back when you have some actual evidence, or stop throwing hissy fits when you are reminded that words have actual meaning (so you still whine because evolution doesnt cover most the stuff youargue against. Want to waffle on against first cause? Talk about abiogenesis, as it has nothing to do with evolution. No matter what you are debating. Idiot.) Or that if you want to prove the creator did anything you need to prove how, what from, and that he exists to do anything.

Tomtomkent

20th February 2011, 12:47 PM

No, Tom, this is not about an open forum per se, so much as it is about my address in that open forum to a particular person's comments. It wasn't you who said something like "Reason is suspect and logic is vulnerable to skewing..."; it was Craig. But if you're agreeing with this comment of his, of course you are subject to my reply as well...

So basically Joe posts something for all the world to read, then gets upset if anybody replies. In a forum. Dude really needs to discover private messages or stop trying to dictate who is allowed to talk about what.

Craig4

21st February 2011, 06:56 AM

Tom, here is a clear example by you of how you are not paying attention to why and where you post. This comment was directed specifically towards Craig and his comment above that, not to you. Please let Craig answer his own stuff.

You've retreated to a made up fake logic once confronted with a lack of evidence. Where science has the integrity to say "we don't know yet" you and yours pretend to know and parade around a silly little sound bite like "you can't get something from nothing".

Okay, let's apply your logic, where did this god thing come from? If you can't get something from nothing then using your logic a god thing had to come from something. What is it? Where did he/she/it come from?

Tomtomkent

21st February 2011, 07:08 AM

You've retreated to a made up fake logic once confronted with a lack of evidence. Where science has the integrity to say "we don't know yet" you and yours pretend to know and parade around a silly little sound bite like "you can't get something from nothing".

Okay, let's apply your logic, where did this god thing come from? If you can't get something from nothing then using your logic a god thing had to come from something. What is it? Where did he/she/it come from?

More than that, it existed before it had a universe to exist in, then created a universe. From nothing. So if the big bang can not be "something from nothing" (although that still is not what BB theories state) because that is "impossible" why is it not impossible forGod? Oh and "because he is a god" is not an answer, it is a lack of an answer. Worse it is a double standard, allowing God to pass with out scrutiny a test by which all other mechanisms must fail.

Oops. To explain that you might have to explain what a god is, and how one may be proven to have interacted with our universe. Sounds like an actual modle around which a viable hypothosis might be formed....

Dinwar

21st February 2011, 12:37 PM

Worse it is a double standard, allowing God to pass with out scrutiny a test by which all other mechanisms must fail.
It would be interesting to count up the total number of instances where Joe uses a double standard. Reporting me for insults while he feels free to accuse my profession of fraud (which means accusing me, personally, of fraud); requiring evidence for opposing theories but not for his; demanding we demonstrate completely irrational levels of expertise yet neither requiring such expertise of himself before speaking authoritatively on a subject nor requiring it of those who support him; demanding we read his favorite farie tales (including people who demonstrably didn't know what they were talking about) while refusing to read the published peer-reviewed literature; claiming that the Bible isn't intended as a scientific work yet referring to it whenever his views are challanged; I could go on. Obviously double standards don't greatly bother Joe.

And before I get reported again, I'm speaking to Joe's epitemological methodology, and am pointing out demonstrable facts of this conversation. It's relevant because someone who uses such obvious double standards isn't interested in honest debate, and thus debating with them is impossible.

Tomtomkent

21st February 2011, 12:58 PM

It would be interesting to count up the total number of instances where Joe uses a double standard. Reporting me for insults while he feels free to accuse my profession of fraud (which means accusing me, personally, of fraud); requiring evidence for opposing theories but not for his; demanding we demonstrate completely irrational levels of expertise yet neither requiring such expertise of himself before speaking authoritatively on a subject nor requiring it of those who support him; demanding we read his favorite farie tales (including people who demonstrably didn't know what they were talking about) while refusing to read the published peer-reviewed literature; claiming that the Bible isn't intended as a scientific work yet referring to it whenever his views are challanged; I could go on. Obviously double standards don't greatly bother Joe.

And before I get reported again, I'm speaking to Joe's epitemological methodology, and am pointing out demonstrable facts of this conversation. It's relevant because someone who uses such obvious double standards isn't interested in honest debate, and thus debating with them is impossible.

Which is a shame, as it constantly undermines his argument. If it has to be made by dishonest means, and changing the word "evolution" then it is not going to disprove anything, as the argument is tainted by a clear bias.

hereisjoe

23rd February 2011, 05:45 PM

Yes, he wanted to stick with the correct definition. By wanting to use any other definition,regardless of what you are debating you are wrong. By wanting to use any other definition you clearly do not understand what the word means.

So if there is an "error" it is with you. It doesn't matter if you are debating origins or oranges, there is only one definition of evolution; change of allel over time. If you claim it means anything else (oh look, you have; repeatedly) then YOU ARE WRONG.

Here is what Websters says (not to mention Cambridge, Oxford, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia America or various others, which all agree):

Definition: evolution

Part of Speech Definition
Noun 1. A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the evolution of Greek civilization".[Wordnet]
2. (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.[Wordnet]
3. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.[Websters]
4. A series of things unrolled or unfolded.[Websters]
5. The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute.[Websters]
6. The extraction of roots; -- the reverse of involution.[Websters]
7. A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet; any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.[Websters]
8. A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.[Websters]
9. That theory of generation which supposes the germ to preexist in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.[Websters]
10. That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophrs.[Websters].
Sources: WordNet 3.0 Copyright © 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

...

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not cut and paste lengthy tracts available elsewhere. Instead, post a short snippet and a link to the original source. Also, when you cut and paste snippets, be sure to attribute them to the original source

Want to try your fabricated ruse again, Tom?????

hereisjoe

23rd February 2011, 05:54 PM

More than that, it existed before it had a universe to exist in, then created a universe. From nothing. So if the big bang can not be "something from nothing" (although that still is not what BB theories state) because that is "impossible" why is it not impossible forGod? Oh and "because he is a god" is not an answer, it is a lack of an answer. Worse it is a double standard, allowing God to pass with out scrutiny a test by which all other mechanisms must fail.

Oops. To explain that you might have to explain what a god is, and how one may be proven to have interacted with our universe. Sounds like an actual modle around which a viable hypothosis might be formed....

I see.
So, to prove the house whwrw God Lives or the method he used for creation or the scientifically verifiable methods of hios power would do it for you? it sems that all of you ahev absiolutely no concept of how theology works. take a course in it. take a course in human reasoning while you're at it.

hereisjoe

23rd February 2011, 05:59 PM

It would be interesting to count up the total number of instances where Joe uses a double standard. Reporting me for insults while he feels free to accuse my profession of fraud (which means accusing me, personally, of fraud); requiring evidence for opposing theories but not for his; demanding we demonstrate completely irrational levels of expertise yet neither requiring such expertise of himself before speaking authoritatively on a subject nor requiring it of those who support him; demanding we read his favorite farie tales (including people who demonstrably didn't know what they were talking about) while refusing to read the published peer-reviewed literature; claiming that the Bible isn't intended as a scientific work yet referring to it whenever his views are challanged; I could go on. Obviously double standards don't greatly bother Joe.

And before I get reported again, I'm speaking to Joe's epitemological methodology, and am pointing out demonstrable facts of this conversation. It's relevant because someone who uses such obvious double standards isn't interested in honest debate, and thus debating with them is impossible.

All of this, from a "professional" who indulges in a fairy tale of his own (evolution) which doesn't even have fairies!

hereisjoe

23rd February 2011, 06:09 PM

Origins has always troubled people.
If we broke the argument down to the only two possibilities of Origins of everything (ie the Universe), we would have one or the other of :
1. natural, scientific explanation of one kind or the other, OR
2. a special once-only creation event.
There is a major problem with the first argument because no matter what scientific explanation you propose, you would still have to explain the cause behind that science. You cannot use infinite regression in science. There has to be a Cause for all causes. Something from Nothing doesn’t work, remember? So deductive reasoning would leave us with #2 = Creation.

But how, and by What or Whom?

Obviously, creation of Something From Nothing can only involve a power of authority beyond anything anything we know or can know. If we knew the process, we’d have to explain it and it’s origin, etc etc. Whatever scientific explanation you think you might have (various Big Bangs, Alternate Universes, Multiverses, Spontaneously Generated Universes etc), you wopuld need an explanation of those sources - how they came into being, why, where, by whom, by what, when etc. The W5 of origins, as it were. But…Something cannot come from Nothing, so this leaves us with:
God, the Creator.

There are at least four general arguments for the existence of God:
1. ontological argument
2. first cause argument
3. argument from design
4. moral argument
http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontological-argument.html

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not cut and paste lengthy tracts from elsewhere. Instead, just post a short snippet and cite the other source. Also, be sure to attribute your quotes to the original source.

Dinwar

23rd February 2011, 07:19 PM

Joe, your last post is directly copied and pasted from the following website:

http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontological-argument.html

This constitutes plagerism.

Tomtomkent

23rd February 2011, 10:11 PM

I see.
So, to prove the house whwrw God Lives or the method he used for creation or the scientifically verifiable methods of hios power would do it for you? it sems that all of you ahev absiolutely no concept of how theology works. take a course in it. take a course in human reasoning while you're at it.

Oh so now Creationism is not "real science" any more. It is "theology". Will you just make up your mind? Is Creationism "hard science" like you claimed before, in which case supply the model, or is it "theology" in which case say "whoops I can't disprove evolution as I am not using the scientific model, but expressing a personal belief."

Tomtomkent

23rd February 2011, 10:45 PM

Joe, your last post is directly copied and pasted from the following website:

http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontological-argument.html

This constitutes plagerism.

It also falls into several traps of flawed logic long before Rule 4 kicks in. The "there are only two possible" models (really? "Natural science" covers a whole lot of models. Even "big bang" covers a whole lot of models, so saying there are two is a bit of a clumsy agenda statement) or using the dreaded "something from nothing".

"Something from nothing" really does piss me off no end, as it makes a rather large assumption that there was "nothing" before (and possibly after) our universe. Why? We have no data, no scientist claims to have any data that there was "nothing" (how would you prove nothingness?). We have no reason to assume that the creation of our universe was in any way "special" or a "one off" event (which is key to Creationist arguments). Being the expert that he is in Universal Background Radiation Joe will no doubt be able to tell you that there is an overlap in the background pattern that has been suggested may be the result of previous universes expanding.

The plagarised post repeats the idea that we can not "have an infinite regression" and explain what is "behind the science". Clearly that is a false understanding of science. As i pointed out before we do not (yet…) know what was before the Big Bang. That is as far as the emperical data stretched. Deductive logic does not lead us to "creation" from here as "Joee's" post suggests. It leads to the statement "We don't know what was there before the Big bang, that is as far as the emperical evidence can lead." Not an infinite regression (wecan't suggest that, we have no evidence…), not "GOD" (we can't suggest that, we have no evidence...) not elemental chaos (we can't... oh feck it you have the idea).

So the entire piece is based on binary logic ("It can only be science OR GOD!) Which makes up a problem with science "you can't explain the cause" (oh, ok, so what is the "cause" behind gravity? None of that attractive force of bodies of mass nonsense, thats science I want a cause "behind" science) and then moves from an imaginary problem to "God must have done it!" Er, that is not science. Joe has posted no evidence for a god, no mechanism for a god to have created a universe.... Hey, wait a second. I just spotted a major flaw in Creationism. Who created God? You can't have an infinite regression can you? Where did God come from? He can't have just been there? And what is the cause behind God? Oh sure, he is an all powerfull omnipotent diety, but what was the cause behind the creation of god?

Well if Creationism doesnt work on those grounds either...

Dinwar

24th February 2011, 08:17 AM

You're right, Tom. There's a few other flaws in this--namely, here:

1. ontological argument
2. first cause argument
3. argument from design
4. moral argument

1) The ontological argument assumes that thinking makes things real. It says nothing about the real world.

2) The first cause argument is merely inserting "God" for "infinite regression", and without defining God it's just as worthless.

3) Design has been shown to be wrong inumerable times, by everyone from Eurasmus Darwin to Richard Dawkins to Watson & Crick to Cole et al.

4) Atheists are underrepresented in jails, indicating that this is completely false.

No, this isn't the entire line of reasoning--Thomas Aquinus' arguments were shown to be flawed hundreds of years ago, and there's no need to go into them now.

As for theology, I've never had a problem teaching Creationism in a theology class. It's when you try to teach it in SCIENCE classes that I get upset. Imagine if I tried to force religious institutions to waste their time teaching their students about systematics. I can come up with many reasons why they should do it, but it's still 100% irrelevant to the subject being taught. I've also always advocated teaching Creationism as part of the history of science. People believed it. They were convinced it was wrong. It's important to see how and why. And as far as theology goes, Joe's theology is pretty rudementary. My dad went to a seminary, and there were many priests that were friends of the family, so while my understanding of theology is through informal lectures it's still pretty good. And no serious theologian believes in Creationism.

Tomtomkent

24th February 2011, 11:54 AM

Regarding number 2) this will no doubt provoke the repeated claim that I "do not understand theology", which is a pointless statement; if Creation is theology it is neither science, history,or anything but theology. If creationism is a "real science", then an understanding of theology is not required (admirable perhaps, but worthless in a discussion out of the context of theology) because for anything to be a "real science" it is described in terms of science. If your science says there isa god, then define what a god is. If you want to berate others for not defining the cause behind science, then you should feel obliged to measure your own theory by the same standard. Explain how God created a universe, what from, where from, and where he himself came from (oh look, the infinite regression does still seem to apply).

That to me is a clear double standard; one theory is wrong because we dont know what came before, but another theory is fine because we apparently don't ask. Unfortunately, for this to be classed as a hypothosis, you have to expect to be asked, even if the answer will be "i have no data".

If Joe can't see that as a double standard then we can only assume he is not looking at his own posts from an objective stance.

archspoiler

25th February 2011, 10:06 AM

this has been a tremendously entertaining read. Having started on Skeptoid, and then following the argument here, I have to admit to wonderment at the stamina displayed by all, including Joe, in extending this "debate" for the original posts + 11 pages here. Given that a college class in Logic and Language could use this thread as a study guide for understanding Logical Fallacies, I would add that the benefit of the internet is that one can't actually hear people talking across each other. That having been said, thanks to all on the Skeptics side for hanging in there, and thanks to Joe for demonstrating how hard it is to argue with Creationists.

Tomtomkent

26th February 2011, 10:18 AM

So looking back on Skeptoid Joe answered the question of "who created god" and "where was he before there was a universe" by saying that is is the sort of question Dawkins would ask, or with a simple "he is god". Neither are answers. Nor are they good reasons not to answer.

If infinite regression can be applied to one theory, and Joe is not operating a double standard, it has to be applied to Creationism too.

On the other hand, if he wants to just say "There was nothing" before God, or "I don't know", he can not complain about science using the same answers.

If the Big Bang "was something from nothing", then sure, explain HOW God gets to appear from nothing. Don't say "He was god", say "He did this."

I am fully expecting Joe to repeat that I don't understand Theology. Guess what. I do understand theology, but I also recognise that if you want to call something "science" then it has to be science. Not theology. If you want the idea of a creator to be given equal credence, as science, to Evolution, Abiogenesis, geology, Physics, or any other field you don't hide behind theology, you lay down facts. If you want to claim something is an "abundantly proven" fact, you actually treat it as a fact, dont'f hide behind "theology" from conflicting evidence.

Joe, once and for all. What are you discussing here. There are only two viable answers, "science" or "theology". You can manage a one word answer right? Which is it? As be warned, as Theology is completely redundant to this discussion. we are not discussing what you may believe happened. We are discussing what you can prove.

Tomtomkent

26th February 2011, 10:33 AM

I love the sections of that post that "prove god" they read:
"If something is perfect, then it couldn’t possibly be better than it is; there can’t be anything better than perfection. This means that if a thing is perfect then it is impossible to imagine it being better than it is; there is nothing better than it is to imagine." Yes, note the word "if". With out any evidence, it remains an idea right? We have lots of abstract ideas that do not physically exist. Infinity for instance. The Tooth Fairy. Bugs Bunny. If Bugs Bunny existed he would have a Brooklyn accent. But knowing there is a Broooklyn, where people have an accent doesn't prove there is a cartoon rabbit outside my house. "If we were to think of God as not existing, though, then we would be able to imagine him being better than he is; we would be able to imagine him existing, and a God that exists is clearly better than a God that doesn’t. To think of God as not existing, then, is to think of God as being imperfect, because a God that doesn’t exist could be better than he is." Hang on, if we think of God not existing we don't think of him being anything. he doesn't exist. To think of him being better, worse, orangier, gayer, smarter, or dumber than he is, was, or would be, we have to think of him as something that is. Otherwise we only think of him as an abstract concept. That is not proof he exists. That is proof you can imagine an abstract. Bravo." As the idea that God doesn’t exist implies his imperfection, therefore, the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd, just as obviously false, as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. God’s non-existence is therefore impossible."

Oh, I must be confused? You see the idea of a "God" that does not exist does not imply it is imperfect. Or perfect. Or orange. It implies it doesn't exist. Lets look for the leap of logic here..."As the idea that God doesn’t exist implies his imperfection, therefore," Wait, you haven't stated why a god not existing makes it imperfect, but you still want to leap to.. "the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd," What? The idea of God not existing is absurd, because you think God is perfect? Despite just saying it is possible to think of him as being "more" godlike than he is, even though the abstract of God is a perfect being? Despite not actually having any reason to say the idea of god not existing is absurd other than personal preference, or indeed any reason why the existence of god is NOT absurd? Despite the whole shebang being based on a thought experiment that said "If we think God exists", then failing to set any meaningful paremeters? THAT is what the argument is built on. Wait, so the whole idea of god existing is simply based on people really liking the idea? This is the "most abundantly proven fact in history", and this, THIS is the explanation Joe gives to prove it? After his declaration that the classification of a fossil as transitional is "arbitary", he builds a case on the arbitary idea that an imperfect god must exist so a perfect one must?

Creationist 1: Let's start with a null hypothisis to prove our diety exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Creationist 2: Don't be absurd.

Dinwar

26th February 2011, 09:40 PM

My wife and I were once discussing the Ontological Argument. She'd never heard the term before so I explained it:

Me: Imagine the most delicious apple you can think of.
Her: Okay.
Me: Now imagine an apple even MORE delicious!
Her: Okay.
Me: Now, is something real more delicious than something imaginary?
Her: Sure, whatever.
Me: Therefore, there's a perfect Apple somewhere that's more delicious than anything you can imagine.
Her: So God is apple pie.
Me: Yeah, pretty much...

The flaw with the Ontological argument is a refusal to acknowledge the difference between the external world (reality) and the internal one (the mind). The OA assumes that the mind creates reality; without that assumption it falls apart completely (because a perfect counter-argument is "But my perfect thing was imaginary; it doesn't exist"). The issue is that the Primacy of Consciousness is demonstrably wrong.

As for one-word answers, I submit Joe's post in which he demanded we take any definition for the word "evolution" ever used by anyone as the Theory of Evolution. Joe's definitions are custom-made to give him as much wiggle-room as humanly possible. Thus, my expectation is that when it's convenient to discuss something as theology Joe will argue that it's theology, and when it's convenient to discuss something as science Joe will discuss it as science. After all, I'm sure someone, somewhere has included theological concepts in science (in fact, I know it; I'm not as ignorant of the history of science as Joe) and that someone, somewhere has included scientific concepts in theology (again, I know it; I'm not as ignorant of theology as Joe thinks us atheists).

Tomtomkent

27th February 2011, 12:31 AM

That is not just a problem that plagues Joe, it is conceit which many of the Creationist factiions suffer fromwhen they try to represent something as "science" while avoiding any questions. As has been said many times before, if this is a matter of faith, then that is fine. The world is a betterplace for having faiths of all creeds. However, if it is a matter of faith dressing it up as science is dishonest. As dishonest as representing evolution as a religion, because some proponents happen to voice athiest opinions in their pop science books (or as dishonest as representing those as text books, research papers, or their academic teachings).

If something wants to be "science" it has to be science alone, and partition itselffrom discussions of morality or theology. If you want to use a term, any term, mass, energy, god or gravity you have to be able to define it in the language of science. The definition of a god as an omnipotent perfect being of glory is a fine description in terms of faith, but not viable in science. That every time some creationists are asked to define god, or the act of creation, in terms of science they resort to stock answers about looking for effects not causes (funny how they don't accept that from BB theories) or playing a theology card, suggests they can not, or more likely will not be willing to compromise their faith by asking questions.

Again, in circles of faith or spirituality that is dandy, but invalidates the idea as a science. Most obviously because if you are unwilling to question any given principle you are unable to look on the matter objectively, unable to start with a null, unable to produce a proof of concept. In short you are unable to follow a scientific methodology.

Tomtomkent

1st March 2011, 07:54 AM

Further on the subject of the Ontological argument, the modern extractions seem to try and (mis)use the logical form of "necessity", by claiming that it is a necessity for an existent god to be more perfect than an imagined god, but that does not lead to the QED they claim, as I can find no argument that defines a god of any kind as necessery. Tsk.

BBC Knowledge magazine has a wonderful 16 page article on this and related issues to the quest to prove, or disprove the existence of a diety, throughly recommeneded reading.

hereisjoe

1st March 2011, 06:02 PM

Part 1 of 2
The creation/evolution controversy has raged on over the last 200 years. Of course, some of them try to claim that there is no controversy and that all of science supports their ridiculous stories, when in fact not a single piece of evidence is forthcoming from this camp. For the most part, the evolution side is composed of a minority of hardliners who are atheists. The creation side is composed of the majority of humanity. I believe the best way to resolve it is for each side to present its clear model of what they believe is the picture of our universe, and then to present the evidence they believe represents their worldview. My worldview is special creation.

My understanding of the general theory of evolution is this:
All living things have arisen by a naturalistic, mechanistic, evolutionary process from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inanimate world. All living things are interrelated. All living things are thought to have shared a common ancestor, estimated to have occurred from five to twenty million years ago. The relationship of an animal or plant with all other animals or plants is referred to as its phylogeny, and such relationships are portrayed in a phylogenetic tree.

One common definition:

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of successive generations. This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common.

• Evolution, a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage ("the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer")
Special creation is the world view presented by those who accept the Genesis account of the Bible (ch. 1-11). This view claims that the universe was created by an omnipotent God in six days. All of the life forms and details of the earth, for example, were in place by the seventh day. According to biblical genealogy, this creation took place about 6-10,000 years ago. After the disobedience of the first couple, the world was placed into a fallen or corrupted state, which continues to exist to this present day. All life was created in groups or ‘kinds’ and no new kinds have occurred since the act of creation. Life does not evolve from a simpler ancestral form into various kinds. Variation within a kind is observable; this preserves the species through natural selection, a process that evolutionists also claim. But it does not give rise to new species incompatible in any way with the parent group or kind.
There are a few variations of the creation model. One model states that evolution is real, but that it was created by God. This is old-earth creationism. Another model, the ‘gap’ theory, says that an eon or epoch exists between verse 1 and 2 of Genesis ch. 1. I do not hold to either of these variations. They clearly contradict the account of Genesis, and are mere attempts to accommodate the evolution theory in one way or another.
There are some clear expectations or predictions that can be determined from either of these models or world views.
Evolution preaches very slow changes over enormous periods of time. Where this time comes from, nobody knows. In order to accomplish its goal, these changes involve random mutations of genetic information by which one form of life evolves into another. Therefore, such changes should be observable – that is the nature of the scientific process. But aside from the small variations of traits within a kind or species, there are no observable changes. If we look at past history, we are looking at the geologic column and the fossil record of past life forms. There should be a buried record of these gradual changes in the shape of fossils. There should be a succession of transitional fossils, each intermediate to the preceding and following ones. There should be a clear indication of ancestors and descendants. There should be an unquestionable procedure for determining that these intermediate fossils are indeed interrelated. AEs play the fossil game to the hilt. Common ancestors are claimed everywhere, but not a single complete human fossil has ever been found to link us with other animals. In fact, very few complete fossils of any creature have been found, and the scarcity of fossils is rarely pointed out by AEs.
In the creation model, there should only be small variations within a species or kind, indicating different traits that reflect an adaptation of that kind to its environment and ecology. There would be no cross-over or transition of one species into another species. There should be fossils from each group or kind of life form. The fossil record should reflect each species as being fully developed, without transitions, excepting small variations as mentioned above. The fossil record or geologic column would show an ‘explosion’ of life forms all at once, followed by various extinctions. Corruption and death is the pattern here.

Both the evolution and the creation models agree on the natural adaptation or selection process. However, evolution insists that small variations lead to larger variations and that all species are related to a common ancient ancestor, and that life evolved from non-living materials and processes. Creation sees the changes via natural selection as restricted to that kind. This is known as microevolution versus macroevolution.

The evolutionist camp claims to have observed species change in action. Infamous cases involve Darwin’s finches, peppered moth, and certain varieties of germs and their inherited traits. These are not valid examples of evolution because finches are still finches, moths are still moths, and germs, no matter how many thousands of generations of change involved, are still the same germs. The creationist camp presents DNA information as being a barrier to progressive change outside of a species. There are many varieties of dogs, but dogs do not become something else. The evolutionist camp claims a fossil record of species change, but in no known group are there valid examples of transitional fossils. Their much ballyhooed tiktaalik, archeopteryx, and ‘whale ankles’ are nothing but fossils of fully formed, existing creatures. Evolutionists claim a large variety of ‘vestigial’ organs as evidence of change. However, these organs are anything but vestigial – all of them have been refuted – they have real purposes. In short, the fossil record reflects the creationist model, not the evolutionist model in nature.
Alleged transition fossils are in no way transitional. In order to be accepted as such, even in the most liberal sense, they would be preceded and followed by many varieties, showing the changes, and these varieties proven to be related beyond a doubt. Such proof is not evident anywhere. Mere claims that they represent transitions between kinds simply don’t hold up under any sort of scientific scrutiny. Once again, the evolution model isn’t even a good theory, let alone remotely resembling any kind of ‘fact’.
The enormous time spans (or deep geologic time) required by evolution theory does not exist either. The evolutionist tries to get around this by claiming dating methods that also do not hold up to any scrutiny. Carbon-14 is one of them. With a half-life of around 5700 years, the carbon 14 isotope is still detectable in specimens which evolutionists claim are many millions of years old, such as coal and diamonds. Many specimens of fossils are found embedded in sediments that are many millions of years older than the claimed evolutionist timeline. Alleged horse fossils are found in an inverted manner in the sacred evolutionist geologic column; i.e. cloven and single-hoofed artefacts in opposing order in various geographic locations. If evolution is true, and it obeys a uniformitarian model, then all dating models should reflect this. If it follows some other model, then it should have ample evidence as well. None of this is apparent in any history.
Experiments with the speed of light have indicated a slowing down of atomic processes. Both geological and cosmological processes indicate a much younger universe than the evolutionist camps claim. This is evident in almost every scientific field. Deep time does not exist. AEs have no concept of even a million years and what could happen in such an expanse of time.
Erosion is a huge factor in geology; no model of erosion even remotely substantiates a millions-of-years or billions-of-years scientific model. Unless the evolutionist camp can conclusively prove that decay rates and processes are exactly the same now as back then, the case for millions of years is bunk. Stars and galaxies, for example, are very far distant to us only if those rates are the same now as they always were. Simple mathematics can demonstrate this truth. The myth of millions of years of history is as much a lie as the evolution theory that claims it.
There is also the DNA and the cellular barriers. A cursory look at the complex structure of even the most basic of bacterial cells shows us that there is no way in which a simple cell can function if even one singular portion of that cell’s structure is removed. Change one gene and the entire structure falls and fails. DNA coding and the extremely complex system of information exchange within the cell rules out any possibility of progression of one species or ‘kind’ into another. Creation specifies an established order for life and it cannot and will not be violated, in spite of the ludicrous claims of the AEs.

Tomtomkent

1st March 2011, 10:30 PM

Finches are still finches, moths are still moths... Just because they changed colour does not mean theyevolved. But hang on, the colour of a species is an inherited trait which has changed. So it isn't evolution despite being with in the definition you wrote a few paragraphs before?

Oh look, "evolution" is only supported "by a few hardliners". Based on which studies there Joe? Those hardliners are "athiests", yes because that matters how? Creationists "accept genesis", so thats better or worse? Exactly how does a persons religious belief become relevantto the evidence, unless,asis the case of creationism, belief and faith are required due to a lack of evidence for the key conceit of the theory. Like a god.

"With a half life of 5700 years..." yes so a substance made ENTIRELY of carbon still has detectable traces of an isotope of carbon which halves every six thousand years. As you dont think coal or diamonds would be found in places with high carbon content do you, being made from the stuff.crikey, if you did the math backwards you might find there USED TO BE MORE carbon 14 on them millions of years ago, A LOT MORE! Enough to help with the massive geological pressures that would crush carbon into dense forms like coal or diamonds.

"Experiments with the speed of light indicate a slowing of the atomic process", baloney, no good evidence has been found for c-deay, and if you want to try and prove that go ahead and post links.

Oh and all the same usual arguments apply; evolutionnot needing millions of years (you keep muddling it with abiogenesis), basic geology answering many ofyour points, basic cosmology andphysics having vast swathes of evidence against the "slowing of atomic processes", the erosion nonsense ignoring schoolboy stuff like when and how continents formed, and so forth.

Tomtomkent

1st March 2011, 11:32 PM

Oh and the nonsense about "Remove any part of a cell", all I can say is, thankfully that isnothow evolutionor abiogenesis claims to have worked (although we should note there are functiong cells which by Joes description should implode. Cells with no nuclei being the most obvious). Surely a more apt description for the theories he is trying to disprove is not "remove a part" but "slightly alter the structure so a part is replaced with something subtly different". Creationists often fall into a linear argument that assumes part A is replaced with part B in consecutive generations because although that is how neither evolution or abiogenesis claim to haveworked it is far more convenient to argue against.

In reality part B would develope over many generations and if you are lucky part A will atrophy at the same time or after. We canobserve, rather simply, that not all cells are the same (well, duh) and many do not have features and parts others have developed, and ifthey do there are considerable differences andvariations in cell walls, nuclei, etc. Stepping back an evolutionary rung or three does not show a flagella that cannot function with out a tail, it shows something like flagella, that has other functions that will eventually atrophy as the tail developes. At the same time other cells will have other fluctations of the genetic code that are less helpful and die into history.

This is why we have genetic heirlooms that creationists fail to address. Apparently gods perfect image of us includes an appendix which is only useful if we become grazing animals, the remnants of a tail bone and other traits that no longer serve any viable function.

Tomtomkent

2nd March 2011, 01:59 AM

"Nothing but fossils of fully formed existing species" so which part of this do we tackle first? That a species will not be "fully formed" or that it "exists". A worthless observation, yes, a species (and i hope we all note that the term species here is fluid, a "dog" can not become something else, despite other canine species being entirely different from each other they are "just dogs" yet somehow also "foxes" and "wolves", these are clearly speciated seperately, and in the same text, not) is fully formed, with the right number of arms and limbs and lungs. We know this because it was alive. Yet hold on, whales with ankles? Now we know there was a species of land based whale with feet, and that current whales have a genetic heirloom in the remnants of an ankle, but this is not a transition because they are both "fully formed". Er, in what way does this negate the idea that a species may have evolved over time? That inherited traits change?

Joe is arguing against an idea that is not in fact part of evolution; that some species are somehow not fully formed. He also seems not to have read up on geology (as he still bases his arguments on inverted strata which has been discussed at length) and has certainly not bothered to look into exactly how transitional fossils are identified and how many there are.

Frankly he has repeated the same arguments with no evidence, no sources, and no new information. Repeating the same flaws is not proving them.

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 10:50 AM

Stepping back an evolutionary rung or three does not show a flagella that cannot function with out a tail, it shows something like flagella, that has other functions that will eventually atrophy as the tail developes. At the same time other cells will have other fluctations of the genetic code that are less helpful and die into history.

This is why we have genetic heirlooms that creationists fail to address. Apparently gods perfect image of us includes an appendix which is only useful if we become grazing animals, the remnants of a tail bone and other traits that no longer serve any viable function.

"Something like flagella..." Typical atheist/evolutionist illogic. It's still another flagella, not the same species. There are no links between species ever observed. Do your homework before illustrating your ignorance to us here!

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 10:54 AM

... an appendix which is only useful if we become grazing animals, the remnants of a tail bone and other traits that no longer serve any viable function.

Such ignorance ... how to address this stupidity???

There's no such thing as a "useless vestigial organ" in humans. If you researched this topic, you would have found that all 'vestigials' have been found to have ueful functions, including the much-maligned appendix. And, there is no such thing as a human tail bone. That's an evolutionist invention, just like the whale 'ankles' and other fantasies. Call them what you will, in your ignorance of bilogy, they all have very specific uses in every animal.

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6931648]Finches are still finches, moths are still moths... Just because they changed colour does not mean theyevolved. But hang on, the colour of a species is an inherited trait which has changed. So it isn't evolution despite being with in the definition you wrote a few paragraphs before?

The definition of evolution posted above is not mine, it is from a popular dictionary. It also describes microevolution (variation within a species). Like I said before, Tom, you just don't pay attention, do you?

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 11:00 AM

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6931648] "With a half life of 5700 years..." yes so a substance made ENTIRELY of carbon still has detectable traces of an isotope of carbon which halves every six thousand years. As you dont think coal or diamonds would be found in places with high carbon content do you, being made from the stuff.crikey, if you did the math backwards you might find there USED TO BE MORE carbon 14 on them millions of years ago, A LOT MORE! Enough to help with the massive geological pressures that would crush carbon into dense forms like coal or diamonds.

As usual, you entirely miss the simple point of the argument. Of course diamonds and coal are made of carbon (duh!) but if diamonds are many millions of years old (even billions) then the detectable amount of C 14 in it would be undetectable. Yet it isn't. Duh.

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 11:08 AM

"Yet hold on, whales with ankles? Now we know there was a species of land based whale with feet, and that current whales have a genetic heirloom in the remnants of an ankle, but this is not a transition because they are both "fully formed". Er, in what way does this negate the idea that a species may have evolved over time? That inherited traits change?

Joe is arguing against an idea that is not in fact part of evolution; that some species are somehow not fully formed. He also seems not to have read up on geology (as he still bases his arguments on inverted strata which has been discussed at length) and has certainly not bothered to look into exactly how transitional fossils are identified and how many there are.

Frankly he has repeated the same arguments with no evidence, no sources, and no new information. Repeating the same flaws is not proving them.

OK, show me a video of the walking whale, and how it's direct descendent is now a swiming whale. that might convinve me. Until then, call it a theory (aleit a wacky one) but not a fact, which it isn't.

My argument is in no way the argument you try to portray it. You simply do not pay attention to the information being posted or the idea being expressed. Instead, you warp in into something crooked. "No evidence, no sources, no new information?" Gimme a break, this is what your posts consist of, not mine. You ignore all sources the moment you perceive they come from a creationist. Go educate yourself, for the love of science!

Bram Kaandorp

2nd March 2011, 11:11 AM

Such ignorance ... how to address this stupidity???

There's no such thing as a "useless vestigial organ" in humans. If you researched this topic, you would have found that all 'vestigials' have been found to have ueful functions, including the much-maligned appendix. And, there is no such thing as a human tail bone. That's an evolutionist invention, just like the whale 'ankles' and other fantasies. Call them what you will, in your ignorance of bilogy, they all have very specific uses in every animal.

Is this what observation brought you to? Or was there no observing involved?

The human tail-bone is just that. If it wasn't, then how do you explain people who are born with a more progressively developed appendage where we have that tail-bone?

And how do you explain that in some bird species, the newly hatched still have rudimentary claws? (look it up, I wouldn't want it any other way).

Cheers

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 11:12 AM

Tomtomkent

2nd March 2011, 11:18 AM

OK, show me a video of the walking whale, and how it's direct descendent is now a swiming whale. that might convinve me. Until then, call it a theory (aleit a wacky one) but not a fact, which it isn't.

Show me a god. Show me he created the universe... People already showed you how the different whales are related. People have already shown you how fossils are described as "trassitional", just scroll back up and find it, as I can't be bothered to repeat information that has already been shown to be supported by an overwhelming mountain of evidence.

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 11:20 AM

Is this what observation brought you to? Or was there no observing involved?

The human tail-bone is just that. If it wasn't, then how do you explain people who are born with a more progressively developed appendage where we have that tail-bone?

And how do you explain that in some bird species, the newly hatched still have rudimentary claws? (look it up, I wouldn't want it any other way).

Cheers

This is what modern science has led to. Of at least 80 vistigial organs over the last century or so, practically all have been discounted as 'vestigial. The appendix, for example, is now known to be involved in specific infection control in our bodies.

As for your fairy-tale tailbone, it's you and your compadres who call it that, not in-the-know doctors, surgeons, and biologists. It is no such thing, anymore that a whale has 'feet' or 'ankles. Your biased imaginagion is getting the better of you. Humans grow into humans, nothing else. I have actually observed this process, by the way.

http://www.creationists.org/vestigial-organs-not-proof-of-evolution.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html

Tomtomkent

2nd March 2011, 11:28 AM

I've asked at least a dozen times for a reasonable and believable example of why a transitional fossil is a transitional fossil. No replies, but a few vague site references where alleged tr-fossils are shown, No explanations, tho.

Also, nothing in the library about how they are transitional, just the usual evolution BS about the 'fact' that they are. Nothing so far on numeroue websites, journals, and bilogical and geological data bases.

Oh wait, a YouTube video, is there? Show me that one, please!

No answers were given, except for a long list of links including several books on the subject (free to read on the internet to boot in the case of the list i put in the Skeptoid thread) as well as lists of examples of transitional fossils to illustrate the point. But lets assume Joe just could not be bothered to actually read real evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zA5f_6I19s

Now basically this is going to be abit of a read, but just about everything you ever need to read on the subject of fossils is on this list:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2451.1992.tb00459.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00846.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1521-1878(200012)22:12%3C1142::AID-BIES12%3E3.0.CO;2-7/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1991.tb01468.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.950190510/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gj.1275/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00910.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00546.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1997.tb00450.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2005.00510.x/abstract

Now not all of those reference transitional fossils, but they do highlight a lot of the weaknesses in the assumption that these paeleontologists have no idea what they are talking about, and illustrate that the dating of fossils are from arbitary as creationists (and yes as Joe) suggests.

heres a good introduction, but for some reason Joe said he would only read it on condition i (re)read creationist books. I did: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GDiSPUnbyq0C&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=richard+fortey+transitional+fossil&source=bl&ots=aKFD6wjJxd&sig=Izg80BpnsXnoR2lN53BuiJ4stdE&hl=en&ei=7ZhuTceoLIrRhAeu8MAz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

But hey, lets see what athiests have to say:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevolution/a/TransitionalFossilsEvolution.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/FossilRecordEvolution.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/tp/EvolutionEvidenceScience.htm

A related story: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_3_175/ai_n31347661/

And illustrations of how we put them together:
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

some more good examples:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/

a little on whales:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

And some more stuff to get your teeth into:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4448410

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/11/6241.full

Not directly related to transitional fossils, but interesting reading for those who want to look further:
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/21/12386.full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1991.tb01468.x/abstract

hereisjoe

2nd March 2011, 11:32 AM

Creation-Evolution controversy Part 2

With only a few exceptions, it is impossible to discuss these matters with any sort of resolution with those particular atheist/evolutionists, whom I’ll hereafter call AEs. They will throw a ton of evasive tactics at you, deny facts left and right, change forums, introduce false definitions, and generally commit every fallacy of logic in the books, all in order to confront truth with their concocted myths. The accusations they toss at creationists are in fact the very ones they themselves are most guilty of.

I have quoted in full at least five separate sources for a wide-ranging definition of Evolution, but the AEs have refuted them as being invalid. This gives you an indication of their alleged ‘scientific’ knowledge and debating skills. The first thing you get from them when you challenge their false theories is “there are tons of evidences for evolution”. When you ask what it is, they quote their infamously vague fossil records and dim examples of microevolution. I have observed this trivial attempt by them coming from the foremost proponents of their pet theories. When faced with the opportunity to name a process by which life could rise out of non-life, they are stumped. When asked to illustrate any process by which the universe started, they are dumbfounded.

There are hundreds and hundreds of questions which are brought up against the alleged deep-age of the universe which, each in their own, defuse any possibility of an ancient world. Yet the stubborn and wilfully ignorant AE will cling to outlandish and unprovable theories and hypothesis rather than admit there are any such problems. I have listed sources from every discipline and angle of real science to substantiate the huge number of impossibilities surrounding evolutionary theories. Yet the AEs practice the game of ‘ignore it”, “twist it around”, “challenge the facts”, attack the character of the arguer rather than addressing the argument itself, and commit just plain and simple declarations of their own false evidences. This is denial mode at full throttle.

Please refer again to my post for (example) Feb. 20th/11 at 3:17 PM. Re-read this one. But then, listen up, readers, here is what one chap told me onsite at JREF: “…So if there is an "error" it is with you. It doesn't matter if you are debating origins or oranges, there is only one definition of evolution; change of allel over time. If you claim it means anything else (oh look, you have; repeatedly) then YOU ARE WRONG."

Wow! Even my quotes from those 5 world-renowned dictionaries regarding acceptable definitions of the word doesn’t dissuade this guy! Where do you go from here?!!!

A favourite tactic by the AEs is to ask for empirical proof of God. They want to know (like the little children that a lot of them are) for a description of the place God lives in, his appearance, and who created him. I don’t know where to begin in pointing out the stack of fallacies this sort of thing entails. One is the physical realm, the other is the spiritual/metaphysical realm, and the two do not mix. To require human sensory input (sight, sound, taste, touch, taste etc - which give us the immediate picture of the world around us) – as an aid in illustrating something beyond the capacity of outward senses (intuition, morality, logic, God) is not practical. On top of this, consider that the AEs cannot provide many proofs, via the senses, of their own theories, yet demand them from the creationists. When they are not forthcoming, they accuse their opponent of illogical reasoning or ‘binary logic’, whatever that might be. Let me see … perhaps it’s something to do with the idea that AEs can use the supposed logic which backs their transitional fossils examples while they deny the evidence of actual science which supports a young earth. There seem to be two logics at work here: the ‘logic’ of the pseudoscience of evolutionary changes versus the observable science of the world around us. This where the denial mode divides the two worlds.
There are a few exceptions to this process of the AE’s denial of the real world around them. Many modern evolutionists have themselves given up on the general theory and many of them have turned towards the possibility (at least) of a form of special creation. I have listed some of these well-known scientists, and their works, but the AEs, ever the deniers of truths, have labelled them as being ‘irrelevant’ or ‘outside their fields’ etc. It is indeed a strange situation where not only do all of the world’s cultures contain a clear creation model, but many of the believers in evolution have thrown out the Something-From-Nothing theories and are poking around for some new kind of scientific First Origin grand theory. Such a theory will of course still require a Beginning, and this unavoidable piece of irrefutable logic throws the AEs into fits of mind-bending spite and further denial. Here’s an example from one AE here who illogically states in part: “…you would know that the BB was not "something from nothing" it was matter from energy, probably from an exploding singularity…”

Where do these fallacies end??? If it’s ‘matter from energy’, as he asserts, where does this theoretical matter come from? See what I mean? Witness the illogical ‘logic’ of the typical AE mind. This poster then immediately jumps into a request for ‘proof of God via observable fact’, in spite of my reference to normal human observances in the natural world everywhere! What to do?!
In his cruise through Stupidity, this guy then says “…So basically Joe posts something for all the world to read, then gets upset if anybody replies. In a forum. Dude really needs to discover private messages or stop trying to dictate who is allowed to talk about what.”

So…I have ‘dictated’ who is allowed to talk. Another feeble attempt by this poster to say something I never said. It is typical of an AE. What I actually said was something specifically addressed to another post by someone else entirely, and not specifically meant for him. However, dear reader, you will notice if you cruise through some of the strings herein, that there is usually a ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 of aggression by the AEs against any and all creationist’s posts. This is explainable by virtue of the fact that Skeptoid and JREF are unarguably atheist sites. We are attacked on all sides by vociferous forces and fact-deniers of every stripe. They show their desperation in this format.
It is the concept of atheism which is behind all modern ideas of evolution. Atheism means throwing out God, which in itself is a stupidity of enormous implications. The AE cannot explain the past or the future. They cannot explain a meaning for life beyond tooth and claw. They cannot claim real science because it is the theists who are the bedrock of all of science. This tiny neighbourhood of belligerent, arrogant and deceiving misanthropic philosophers have overruled our world of reason and they must be exposed and overturned if we are to maintain truth and integrity in our universe.
I will no longer be posting here at the JREF (an ‘educational foundation’ which fails to educate on this topic), nor will I be returning to see these futile threads. As one wise verse in the Bible itself warns, “Do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they turn and tear you to pieces.” Not to defame the poor pig, but so many AEs are like that: swallow the tidbits of falsehoods but turn away from the tide of truths, and then gore the truth-tellers with the fables which have deluded them.

One last thought; the controllers of this website have not only declined to police the character assassinations against creationists like me, they have decided to apply a “volume content” rule which restricts the amount of posted materials in strings like this. This itself violates logic. When JREF says something like “Do not cut and paste lengthy tracts available elsewhere. Instead, post a short snippet and a link to the original source. Also, when you cut and paste snippets, be sure to attribute them to the original source”…

They are really saying they don’t want extensive postings which refute their beliefs, which are atheist. I observed this paranoid policy at Skeptoid, where certain podcasts were terminated for no reason (I listed these Skeptoid sources above) but nevertheless the site has plenty of room to continue with other strings – apparently Mr Dunning doesn’t like evolutionary debate which enters into truths, as he terminated all debates on that subject.
Also, the JREF site posts commentaries and book reviews which far outstretch anything in length which I have posted. Their hypocrisy shows in its full colors here. Nevertheless, I refer you all to the website of http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontological-argument.html
So much for fairness. The same seems to happen here at JREF, as James Randi is an atheist who won’t tolerate true debates on subjects he disagrees with. The pattern of discontinued creation/evolution threads on these sites proves this. Goodbye, JREF; you bulldogs of untruth.

Tomtomkent

2nd March 2011, 12:18 PM

The most famous example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/66w3755838876571/

archspoiler

2nd March 2011, 12:46 PM

Joe: "I will no longer be posting here at the JREF (an ‘educational foundation’ which fails to educate on this topic), nor will I be returning to see these futile threads."

I'm sad to see the entertainment go, but that last 2-post thesis was a masterpiece of logical fallacy and cognitive dissonance.

Tomtomkent

2nd March 2011, 01:13 PM

Oh the irony of "part two" is painfull! Like little children people like me want emperical evidence of God. Well yes. Because Creationism states God Created the Universe. So Evolution (for which there is evidence) is "just a theory" and Creationism is "REAL SCIENCE" that is based on the existence of something that is in a "Spiritual Realm" that is "Beyond Science". Well if you want to believe that then fine, but it means CREATIONISM CAN NOT BE SCIENCE.

Now to the irony, the guy who doesn't do double standards complaining there is no observable evidence for the BB (apart from background radiation recorded from multiple sources and mapped to show the expansion of the universe) arguing against people asking for evidence of God. So everybody else has to give evidence but not God? See the irony? Joe doesn't. But then Joe thinks "we have no evidence of what was there before" means "nothing". Here is the thing: Science doesn't even pretend the Big Bang was Creation. It was just the dawn of the universe we happen to live in. We can't say any more than that, as it is as far as the evidence goes.

Of course, the truly hilarious part is Joe seems to think that us "AE" folks haven't realised he is pulling the same trick that he accuses us of. What was there before the Big Bang? Where did it come from? What caused it? He screams, while dictating that nobody is allowed to ask; Where did God come from? Where was he before there was a universe to exist in? What did he create the universe out of?

The key difference being, that Science (the real kind that does not care if you are Christian, Athiest, jedi, or Satanist, as long as you follow the methodology and take an objective stance that negates your prejudice) ENCOURAGES

IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM GOD DID ANYTHING AS A FACT OF SCIENCE IT REQUIRES PROVING THERE IS A GOD. Asking for evidence of this is not a fallacy, it is not "childish" it is giving the theory the same scrutiny as any other theory. Lets look at the plagarised post Joe did a while ago. The one which stated "Science does not allow for infinite regression". Surely even the most stubborn headed "REAL SCIENTIST" like Joe must be rubbing his head and saying "Well sure. I am allowed to suggest there is an infinite regression to the Big Bang theory because there must have been something before. But ask who created God? THAT IS NOT ALLOWED!" Er, why?

Apparently binary logic does not exist, yet Joes whole argument is: "Evolution is wrong because Creationism is right, and Creationism is right because evolution is wrong!" Well if that is not an assumption that there is onlyt two states and if one is wrong the other is right, then I'm not sure what else it can be described at. As has been discussed at length (wow, saying THAT a lot tonight) this is not the case. It is perfectly possible for evolution to be proven wrong with out Creationism being proven right. Proving the earth is young WOULD NOT DISPROVE EVOLUTION. It would just disprove the only definition of evolution Joe allows himself to listen to.

Oh, and that brings us to the hilarious irony of Joe complaining about "False definitions"! The man who complained, at length that he would not tolerate any talk of evolution being "change of alelle over time", and who on the first few pages of this discussion complains that evolution can not explain features of the MOON or OTHER PLANETS. Lets say that slowly. The man who argued evolution must be wrong with twenty five points NEARLY HALF OF WHICH WERE MATTERS OF GEOLOGY, COSMOLOGY, OR SCIENCES OTHER THAN BIOLOGY, has complained about "FALSE DEFINITIONS".

And boom! We are back to me again. Because apparently telling Joe he was wrong for saying "The Big Bang was something from nothing" and pointing out it is "matter from energy" was silly. Well, big news Joe, that is exactly what the BB was. We don't know where the energy came from, the most likely explanation as discussed at length (AGAIN!) is an exploding singularity. But we don't know.

Now, science can only gather evidence back to the point a few milliseconds after the Big Bang. So it says "We don't know". That is NOT (as Joe has repeatedly seemed to think) the same as saying "nothing". Joe WHEN YOU SAY THE BIG BANG WAS SOMETHING FROM NOTHING YOU ARE WRONG. But Joe has a question: "If it’s ‘matter from energy’, as he asserts, where does this theoretical matter come from?" From the energy Joe. That is why I said "matter FROM energy". You know, e=(MC)squared? Never heard of that? Mass becoming energy, energy being mass? Where did the energy come from? Probably an exploding singularity.

The truly hilarious aspect is that Joe has missed much of the point that has been made against him: He dismisses BB theory precisely because there is a limit to the evidence. He reads "we do not have evidence" or "we can not yet describe" as "nothing". In the plagaurised post "he" described it as "eternal regression", what ever there was before we have to ask "well yeah, but where did THAT come from". You may now wonder if he asks that of "AE" science, then why are we "childish" of asking the same of God. "Where did the energy come from", "where did the singularity come from" and so forth which Scientists HAVE to answer are the same as "where did God come from" and "where was he before he had a universe to live in" and "what did he make the universe out of".

Apparently Joe is unable to tell difference between Counterintuitive and Illogical, but lets give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him once more to look at his own statements: Why is it "childish" to ask THE SAME QUESTIONS of one theory and not the other? Why can you happily apply the infinite regression to one theory but not the other?

Science (as Joe seems to have missed) is happy to ask "was there anything before" as it is happy to ask "is there anything smaller". It has not, and can not, limit itself in that way. If there is a means of looking before the BB then science will. Believe me, science would love to know if that singularity exploded. It would love to know if there was something there before.

If we want to consider God as the creator, we need evidence that there is at least evidence of a need for god, or even for a possibility of god. There is none. Even when evidence is offered to him he simply refuses to accept it. We are talking about a man who considers the vast majority of geologists to be "liars". His entire theory is built upon the existence of a being that can not be proven in any way, and that we have no reason to assume exists outside of personal belief: We have no after effects, no trace remains, no lingering remnants. We do for the Big Bang.

Assume for a second that Joe is right and it is a case of only being One or Other. On One hand we have the theory that the universe was created by a phenomona, the evidence of which still lingers in space, and matches models describes and predicted by human ken. On the other the universe was created by a being we have no evidence for, in a manner we have no evidence for, from a substance we are not allowed to ask about, from a place we are not allowed to ask about. That does not "bring order" to creation. It raises several even bigger questions from the "illogical" idea he argues against.

But of course it is not one or the other. We have only discussed two possible (from many) descriptions of the zero moment. Yet pointing that out has been portrayed by "Im not binary me honest guv" Joe. There apparently should only be two answers the right and wrong ones.

*sigh*

Tomtomkent

2nd March 2011, 01:15 PM

" I observed this paranoid policy at Skeptoid, where certain podcasts were terminated for no reason (I listed these Skeptoid sources above) but nevertheless the site has plenty of room to continue with other strings – apparently Mr Dunning doesn’t like evolutionary debate which enters into truths, as he terminated all debates on that subject." That would be the thread closed after Joe made a personal attack, lied about it, lied about the lie, then refused to engage in productive conversation and resorted to running in conversational circles.

Maybe that had something to do with it closing?

Bram Kaandorp

2nd March 2011, 01:27 PM

This is what modern science has led to. Of at least 80 vistigial organs over the last century or so, practically all have been discounted as 'vestigial. The appendix, for example, is now known to be involved in specific infection control in our bodies.

As for your fairy-tale tailbone, it's you and your compadres who call it that, not in-the-know doctors, surgeons, and biologists. It is no such thing, anymore that a whale has 'feet' or 'ankles. Your biased imaginagion is getting the better of you. Humans grow into humans, nothing else. I have actually observed this process, by the way.

http://www.creationists.org/vestigial-organs-not-proof-of-evolution.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html

I do not call it a tail-bone in common conversation, I simply refer to it in such a manner, because I don't know the English word for it.

That, and I do think that it is a residual part of a tail-that-was. As soon as you can point out that it has no relation to a tail (such as with images showing the difference between our bones and those of modern apes/monkeys), I might consider it.

Just a personal thing: If you (that is creationists) want science to give equal credence to creationism, why don't you return the favour, and keep evolution in mind as an equal idea?

Just a thought.

Dinwar

2nd March 2011, 05:08 PM

Arguing with Joe about biology is impossible. The guy doesn't consider knowledge to be a necessary component of his arguments, but considers anything less than omnicience to be a fatal flaw in any opposing argument. It's impossible to argue with a person like that.

As for your fairy-tale tailbone, it's you and your compadres who call it that, not in-the-know doctors, surgeons, and biologists.Perfect example. I've heard many, many doctors and biologists (never spoke with a surgeon about it) call the coxis a tailbone. It's obviously leftover from when we had a tail--there are still people born with tails, for crying out load!

It is no such thing, anymore that a whale has 'feet' or 'ankles. Your biased imaginagion is getting the better of you. He then responds with flat-out lies (the whale thing has been shown to be wrong several times in this thread, so he cannot claim ignorance) and insults.

Tomtomkent

2nd March 2011, 09:50 PM

Yes, I did like the "biased imagination" gag. Apparently it completely missed Joe that to accept creationism we have to imagine a need for a divine being for which there can be no evidence, the universal constant to be in flux despite numerous experiments to have proven otherwise (it still takes light the same time to go from here to the moon and back) for which he claims experiments have "proven" evidence with out actually supporting the statement, imagine the third law of thermodynamics missed out some words, imagine an arbitary six thousand year to existence, imagine acap on what is "too complex" for random chance, and imagine that evolution was a strictly linear process. Wait i forgot we also have to imagine that nobody ever answered the transitional fossil thing MANY TIMES OVER, or that the meaning of the word "evolution" changes when you talk about origins, or that the existence of god has proven abundently, or that YEC is the "majority" view, which assumes that anybody who is christian is also YEC. They are not. We also have to imagine "textbook" has a new meaning, that a large portion of geologist, biologists and paleaontologists (not to mention archeaologists, phycisists and scientists in general, are devout athiests who are willingly telling lies. You know what, as a Humanist I did find it insulting that Joe persistently labled me an athiest or evolutionist, but we also have to imagine that religion some how hasa baring on objective science.

We also have to imagine that species can walk around "not fully formed" and even when the defining trait of a species is not there it is still that species. So even when we roll back generations to see a flagella-like single celled organism with none of the traits to classify it as a flagella that is not "something like" a flagella it IS a flagella, er, it just cant be classified as one yet. Wow, ok...

So a coxix being a tail bone is too imaginative? Imagine that.